ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Rolf Ernst]

Knight--your post #840: You make a good point. I was a little careless in my speech there. It IS somewhat vague. Let me clarify:

God's decrees are His eternal purposes, according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He has foreordained WHATSOEVER comes to pass.

That includes all the free will actions of His creatures. That does NOT include their evil intents in those actions. Jesus said, "from within, from out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts..." He decreed our free will. We are accountable for the use we make of it, AND for the motivations of our hearts. A proverb comes to mind here--"keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life."

God, knowing from eternity what each creature would choose to do with his/her free will, foreordained those ACTS (ensuring thereby our free will) with the EXCEPTION that, as governor, He had the right to restrain His creatures from every act which they would have done of their free will which God was not pleased to ordain; and THOSE acts can be defined as those through which God was not pleased to manifest His glory. yet He did so in such a manner that the creature felt no restraint upon himself, just as Abimilech, of his own free will, chose not to touch Sarah. He asserted that to God, and God Himself acknowledged that Abimilech had acted in the integrity of his heart; and at the same time, He let Abimilech know that He had been watching over him and had restrained him. Therefore, the predestination (or decees) of God and man's free will are NOT contradictory, but complementary.

I personally believe that God is so kind to us that His restraints are upon us much more often than His giving us up to walk in our own ways. Too often, we fail to realize that and begin to think that we in ourselves are more--much more--than we really are. We are too much like Abimilech. No one has yet any complaint against any of those times wherein God's restraint was upon us for our benefit. In those times, the bank account of our self-respect prospers.

Our problems come when, in judgement, He gives us up to walk in our own ways. We are free will creatures and accountable to Him for our actions AND MOTIVATIONS. God is also volitional and, like us, He acts with His own purposes. In every event and every way, in every motivation, He is holy, just, and good. The fact that the creature's motivation in what takes place is evil does NOT make God guilty of the creature's motivation. The creature's motivation is his own, and God's motivation is also His own--holy, just, and good.

I have gotten caught up in my own thoughts more than in directly answering you question, but I hope I have in the process covered your question. If not, I will try again. Thanks, Knight, for your sincerity.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Can the wicked do anything other than what the Lord specifically orchestrates or ordains?

I don't care for the word orchestrates, because I don't see it in either the Scripture or historical theology, but the answer to the question is, no. No, the wicked cannot do anything other than, because God predestined only those things through which He was pleased to manifest His glory.

Man's free will was secured by God's decree. It was a part of His making man in His own image, and God. knowing in advance--

first, what the creature would do of his own free will and

secondly, what He would be pleased to manifest His glory through,

and thirdly, those events which He Himself had purposed from everlasting apart from the things originating from the creature's free will.

In accord with these three, God did preordain, decree, or predestinate for His own glory those EVENTS--events which fit these circumstances--(1) the creature's free will, (2) His own purpose to manifest His will through them, and (3) those events which He Himself purposed apart from what man in his own free will would purpose.

I think this is a more direct answer to your question above, Knight. after considering my first response to it, I decided it looked a little bit like a waffle, which I did not intend.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

I have gotten caught up in my own thoughts more than in directly answering you question, but I hope I have in the process covered your question. If not, I will try again. Thanks, Knight, for your sincerity.

Thanks Rolf.

I appreciate your sincereity as well!

With all due respect it seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it to.

I will never be able to accept a theology that is self defeating and self contradictory the way yours is. It's strange to me that you do not feel awkward typing the following two ideas one right after the other....

He has foreordained WHATSOEVER comes to pass.

and....

That does NOT include their evil intents in those actions.

But hey! That's just me!

Maybe you could give a whack at my question and I would love a YES or NO answer. You could always explain your YES or NO answer if you like.

Can the wicked do anything other than what God specifically orchestrates or ordains?

Thanks in advance for your direct answer.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Whoa... Rolf you posted your answer before I reposted my last post!!!

That was strange!

:chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Can the wicked do anything other than what the Lord specifically orchestrates or ordains?

I don't care for the word orchestrates, because I don't see it in either the Scripture or historical theology, but the answer to the question is, no. No, the wicked cannot do anything other than, because God predestined only those things through which He was pleased to manifest His glory.

Man's free will was secured by God's decree. It was a part of His making man in His own image, and God. knowing in advance--

first, what the creature would do of his own free will and

secondly, what He would be pleased to manifest His glory through,

and thirdly, those events which He Himself had purposed from everlasting apart from the things originating from the creature's free will.

In accord with these three, God did preordain, decree, or predestinate for His own glory those EVENTS--events which fit these circumstances--(1) the creature's free will, (2) His own purpose to manifest His will through them, and (3) those events which He Himself purposed apart from what man in his own free will would purpose.

I think this is a more direct answer to your question above, Knight. after considering my first response to it, I decided it looked a little bit like a waffle, which I did not intend.

Rolf thanks for the direct answer.

And that answer was "NO".

In other words... you believe that....

The wicked cannot do anything other than what God specifically orchestrates or ordains.

Yet you still try to infuse "freewill" into your theology. Why? Why even bother? Your theology would be much more logical and consistent if you simply dumped the whole "freewill" concept.

Because IF.... man cannot do anything other than what God specifically orchestrates or ordains.

THEN... man has no freedom to do anything other than what God specifically orchestrates or ordains.

Which of course means that man has no freewill.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Not true, friend, because God's decree from everlasting INCLUDED those acts which He knew men, of their own choosing (or free will), would do.

God, in His decree, was CAREFUL TO MAINTAIN MAN'S FREE WILL BECAUSE IT WAS AN ASPECT OF OUR BEING MADE IN HIS IMAGE.

If He had not given consideration to what men, in their free will, would do THEN your charge would be true, and we would not be made in God's image in respect of free will. We would not be fully volitional. But He DID take man's free will acts into consideration in His decree. Man cannot complain that he had no choice when God from eternity had already DECREED the power of man's will to act in regard to what his choices would be in the future. The fact that God acted in advance of them by decreeing them, thus SECURING man's free will did not--could not have-- at the same time deprived man of free will.

Unless, in your definition of free will, man must have not merely the power of free will, but ALSO the power to surprise God by them, or an ability to do something in some dark corner God could not know about. But man's free will does not secure these even between himself and his fellow man. But I don't believe anyone would expect these to be an aspect of free will.

Neither does free will necessarily bring with it the right to be sucessful in what is willed. I am sure that everyone of us who is or has been married knows what that means. If anyone is not clear on what I mean by that, just ask the little lady at your elbow. I am sure she can help. Righto? But if yours can't help, just ask MINE. She can make it veeerry clear.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Not true, friend, because God's decree from everlasting INCLUDED those acts which He knew men, of their own choosing (or free will), would do.

That isn't freewill!

Your definition of freewill is like....

Well like....

Hmmm.... :think:

anti-freewill!!!

It's like the opposite of freewill. It seems to me you cannot grasp the concept of freedom and what that actually means.

IF... man can ONLY do what God specifically ordains THEN.. man can ONLY do the will of God and therefore has no freewill.

 

[Lion]

1Way said;

I think your contextual development is pretty clear, but the specific words are not so much. You know how people are, let a Calvinist see a KJV traditional rendering of "God" doing "evil", and they think that God actually does (wickedness) evil.

and

To say that good can come from bad without qualification risks being in error. Good can come from evil only if you respond rightly against it. (agreed?) Let us do evil that good may come of it, making inclusive evil directly producing good, is a slanderous condemnable idea (Ro 3:8), not that you were intending to say that. So I may not be substantially correcting your statements, but hopeful this is clarifying. I've been working on Jim over this issue.

Thanks, 1Way. You are right, of course, I do have to be careful with my words or the wrong meaning may be applied.

Thanks for clarifying
:thumb:

 

[Lion]

Rolf said:

Second, the writer of 1 Chor. merely shows a different perspective of EVERYTHING that took place. As is true in other Scriptures, God is acting through an agent of His will, so both 2 Sam. 24 and 1 Chr.21 are true without contradiction. 2 Sam shows the origin, the true source of the judgment, and 1 Chor. shows the means by which God chose to work. Satan did what God purposed for him to do

No, Rolf, here, as in many places, God depicts the event so that it will be kept from corruption. The Bible uses numerous such techniques. It is like a computer programmer that makes cross programs incase there is an error crops up in the main program. This God can allow His message to stay true, even though it is being passed down by damaged copiers.

And even though I agree that this is a difficult verse for our side, perhaps the most difficult verse in the Bible, it still has to be taken in context with the rest of the Bible, which clearly shows a God that works with love and passion and sometimes anger, in time, with His free will creation.

Some would argue that unlike your theology which states that God must direct everything, thus being completely disproved if even one instance of free will can be shown, our theology states that God allows free will, but sometimes intervenes in free choices, so that one apparent aberration would not cause it to collapse as does yours. However, I do not fully accept this stance, since I know that God does not author true evil, and would not do that even once. The important thing to remember is that in these instances we must look for what is evil and not just what we might think is evil at the time. For instance, God sending a lying spirit to delude His enemies. Some think that action would be evil, but clearly it is not since He is befuddling a truly evil enemy for the purpose of good. Although this would be a silly way to do things if He was physically making everything happen Himself. Why all the subterfuge? Just move this guy there and that guy there, and forget all the silly lying about things?

Also, as I stated in the earlier post, the Jews tended to state that God since God allowed all things that happen, to happen, that His name would be used in connection with the example at hand. Such as when it rained, they might say God made it rain. While this is true in one sense, it is not truly correct since God did not physically make the molecules react by, at that moment, maneuvering them around, He did start the process in motion, and so, in effect they can say God did it.

The same may be true here, where God allowed David to make the count, even though it was against His wishes since David was attributing his success and future chances against possible opponents by the numbers of His army rather than attributing it to God, so in that sense they can say it was God that moved David, even though it was actually Satan. Then God has it stated specifically in the Chronicles verse, for clarification, that it was Satan himself and not God that moved David to sin. That is God’s cross-reference check system that keeps things in the Bible straight.

You brought up the Job incident, and here again I would like to point out that nowhere does it state that it was God’s idea or will that Job sin. Here, it is Satan that makes the challenge to God, and God, being confidant in his servant allows (that word you Calvinists don’t like) Satan to do his will, except for the taking of Job’s life. God had placed a hedge of protection around Job because of His love for Him and helped Him to prosper. There was no responsibility for God to do this and Job had no right to demand this of God and so God has the right to take away His hedge whenever He wants and for whatever reason He deems. But no where does the Bible even intimate that God made or willed Satan to do evil to Job, and in fact it isn’t until Job starts to agree that it might be God that is at blame for what is happening to him that God gets angry and comes down and corrects him.

If God had really set all this to happen from before the world began, what a silly way to do it. Tell them they can’t, then make them do it, then punish them for doing what God made them do and had designed them to do from before they were born?

Our God is not silly.

 

[Lion]

Rolf said;

Not true, friend, because God's decree from everlasting INCLUDED those acts which He knew men, of their own choosing (or free will), would do.

God, in His decree, was CAREFUL TO MAINTAIN MAN'S FREE WILL BECAUSE IT WAS AN ASPECT OF OUR BEING MADE IN HIS IMAGE.

Oh, so is everything God does already preordained too? I mean since everything being preordained for us is part of our make-up is it part of God’s as well?

And when did God do this? Was it just before or after He made time? And who preordained Him to preordain things?

ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!:bang:

I’m so confused!:dizzy:

(Now I see why this thread is named as it is)
(I do feel better after that scream though- I highly recommend it)

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Lion

Rolf said;
Oh, so is everything God does already preordained too? I mean since everything being preordained for us is part of our make-up is it part of God’s as well?

And when did God do this? Was it just before or after He made time? And who preordained Him to preordain things?

ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!:bang:

I’m so confused!:dizzy:

(Now I see why this thread is named as it is)
(I do feel better after that scream though- I highly recommend it)

:bang: ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!:bang:


Ahh, much better. :up:

 

[1Way]

I'm reminded of the first Matrix movie, with that evil Agent Smith interrogating Morpheous (paraphrased).

• You've had your time. Now our time, is, your time. -- Agent Smith

Agent Smith was an interesting character, especially in the interrogation scene with the captured Morpheous. "I've had a revelation ..." (i.e. Christian zealot)

God's in an eternal now, He can never change, nothing can ever change, everything must happen according to one unalterable destiny. So lets think for a minuet how this should play out in eternity.

• So the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan

errrrrr, stop this never ending no time to do nothing contradictory nonsense. There's no time to "plan" anything, it's all just a pre-scripted deal. But as Lion stated, then who first "wrote" the script(!?!) if there is no time to do anything? And thus their God is stuck in a changeless void, frozen and incapable of even planning anything. He can only be played in time like a prescripted movie, hopefully the projector doesn't break because the fixed unchangeable film can not do anything to fix anything.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by 1Way

So the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the ......

:freak: :doh: :help: :dizzy: :hammer:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by 1Way

I'm reminded of the first Matrix movie, with that evil Agent Smith interrogating Morpheous (paraphrased).

• You've had your time. Now our time, is, your time. -- Agent Smith

Agent Smith was an interesting character, especially in the interrogation scene with the captured Morpheous. "I've had a revelation ..." (i.e. Christian zealot)

God's in an eternal now, He can never change, nothing can ever change, everything must happen according to one unalterable destiny. So lets think for a minuet how this should play out in eternity.

• So the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan was in the plan

errrrrr, stop this never ending no time to do nothing contradictory nonsense. There's no time to "plan" anything, it's all just a pre-scripted deal. But as Lion stated, then who first "wrote" the script(!?!) if there is no time to do anything? And thus their God is stuck in a changeless void, frozen and incapable of even planning anything. He can only be played in time like a prescripted movie, hopefully the projector doesn't break because the fixed unchangeable film can not do anything to fix anything.

Brilliant!!! :thumb:

 

[Yorzhik]

Jim asked: And where did He say He would leave them the way He said He would?

Yorzhik cites Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Are you suggesting that God violated Ge 8:22 whenever He wrought a miracle?

Excellent point. But, no, it isn't the same. When God wrought a miracle, he did it out in the open because He was interacting with humans – not secretly manipulating them. I realize this is a fine point, so we need to get to the foundation of your claim. The point you are making, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that God, if He loved all men, would manipulate His creation to create the most favorable environment for men to come to Him in love. Now, this doesn't work if He is open about his miracles - announcing who is doing them and why – because then that puts Himself as an interloper, not a manipulator. And putting Himself as one of the players creates a reaction to Him, not to the situation He would create. And as we see repeatedly in scripture, miracles result in a rejection of God.

Let me ask you: Do you agree with 1Way when he says the following:

Logical impossibility of contradicting your own will: No matter what, you will always act according to your own will, there is no other alternative. If you say your will is to do "A", but then you try to thwart your own will and do something "non-A" instead, that very response was an act of your own will, so you can NEVER escape the reality that you always act in accordance to your own will, even if you conflict with another aspect of your own will. [emphasis added]

That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Just because we are not free from ourselves, doesn't mean we are not free from God.

Are we free from each other?

I realize that you’re going to claim that you didn’t mean what I’m about to say, but I need you to clarify it anyway: Does every miracle go against the rule you cited in Ge 8:22 or not? If not, please explain.

Yes. Good point, but I explained above.

God is obligated? By whom?

By Himself. God is not Just because, by definition, everything God does is Just. God is Just because He actively follows the "rules of justice".

The best thing for God to do to save the most people is to let the consequences of their actions be evident.

That doesn’t help the innocent people who die and plunge into hell at the hands of evil men. Are you saying it was better for innocent men, women and children to die in the WTCs than it would be for them to live?

No, it doesn't help those innocent people except that they are moved to the next stage in life. How God deals with them, I'm not sure. But it helps the innocent and guilty people that view the evil acts of those evil men during this stage in life. As for the guilty ones, they were already warned.

No, the best way to save the most people is let them experience the consequences of their actions.

How can a dead person get saved?

Well, if they were innocent, then God handles that situation from His side of the fence. Exactly how that works, I don't know. I don't think God tells us. As for the guilty ones, they've already been warned.

Many more would not be saved if God did not allow us to experience the consequences of our actions.

I’m not suggesting that God prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions.

By your next sentence, didn't you really mean to say, "I’m not suggesting that God prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions if we are innocent."

I’m suggesting that He intervene secretly whenever innocent people, who may later believe, are about to be killed by evil men. That would not require God to prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions.

If you are innocent, it would. Right?

It would prolong the lives of people, thereby giving them further opportunity to believe in Him.

Prolonging lives creates conditions that are favorable to loving God? Are you sure about that? Also, what of the damage they might do to their own and other's possible relationship with God if they live?

So decrees the mighty Hilston.

Let me ask you, do you intend for this to turn hostile, or should I read that statement as levity?

I went too far. Usually when a person simply restates their premise as an answer, it invites ridicule. But you also included a little more information than your premise, so I was out of line.

God disagrees with you if He really is God and not just a big super human.

He is a big super human. He is also much more. Or you could say, we are a small image of God, and God is much more.

What if what He has written in His Word is misunderstood by you? Is that at all possible?

Yes. You would answer "yes" to the same question, correct?

The very idea of God “thinking” and “knowing” and “seeing” are figures of speech called anthropopathisms. They’re unavoidable because the infinite God is communicating to finite creatures, and finite creatures understand best in finite terms. Thus, the infinite must employ figures of speech to convey His thoughts and actions (and to even speak of God's "actions" and "thoughts" is figurative as well).

Can God do an "action" at all? Or "think" at all? And beyond that, can God "feel" at all?

So Hilston claims without support.

Is that really what you think, or do you just like going around poking people with a stick to see what they'll do? As much as I disagree with your views, Yorzhik, I would never say anything so naive, ignorant and stupid as “So Hilston claims without support.” You ask me to respond to your post, which I'm happy to do, yet I have to put up with that kind of puerile tripe.

I agree. My statement goes too far. However, I expect that you treat "stating one's premise" as an answer with the same unfriendly treatment. You're statement was more than just your premise, so that is why I agree that it is uncalled for.

Consider the rationale here. I believe God knows the future exhaustively, not because He wanted the answers to the test in advance, but because He cannot help but know everything. Yorzhik views this as something God has chosen to do (to know the future exhaustively). Why? Because Hilston's God is a big wuss and doesn't want to take the risk of not knowing the future. So He cheats by peeking. Have you ever considered that it’s not a failure, but an essential attribute of being the Creator. Can an author write a book and not know how it is going to turn out and everything in between? Of course not. It is impossible. So it is with God and His creation. He doesn't "choose" to know the future. He simply cannot help it. It is intrinsic in who He is as Creator.

That is how I would view it as well if God didn't state the opposite in scripture. I'll stick with the bible, and you can stick with your author analogy.

Another thing, sometimes when God says something will come to pass, it doesn't. If God says something about what will happen, isn't that, by definition, a prophecy?

For example?

Jonah.

”And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.”

You said yourself that “God is very smart, and thus a very good predictor.” You also said, “... as creator of all things, He's very good at knowing how the things He created work.” You boasted, “Even *I* can predict some things with great certainty without knowing the future exhaustively.” Yet you suggest by this verse that God did not know Abraham feared God until he offered up Isaac. Even *I*, someone who is "without support" for his beliefs," can read Genesis and know that Abraham feared God long before the offering of Isaac occurred. So despite God being very smart and a good predictor, the you say He nonetheless did not know that Abraham feared Him? By your own words, Yorzhik, you are greater than your own God!. The idea is absurd, even based on your own statements. So maybe this would be a good time ponder this as a figure of speech.

You based a statement on a faulty assumption about half way through your quote. The faulty assumption is that since I said God is a great predictor and very smart, that He would have known exactly what Abraham was going to do long before the last moment. However, being a great predictor does not mean "able to predict exhaustively perfect", and very smart does not mean "to know every action exhaustively". If that were true then machines (under the conditions of working as intended with data that is not in error) could be considered smart. So how much did God know, even being a very good predictor and very smart? I wouldn't be able to draw the line. I would have to ask God. Lucky for us, God simply told us.

Now, the reason I cannot consider it a figure of speech is because I cannot replace the "now I know" with anything other than "I have always known". And that is outside the rules of understanding figures.

So this is an anthropopathism?

Absolutely! And a great one!

Thanks for clearing that up. The definition of an anthropopathism is: "Attribution of human feelings to things not human, such as inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena." I'm curious if you feel that God has no feelings, or why they would be different than human feelings. It just seems that an "anthropopathism" could never be applied to God in the same way that it can never be applied to a human. Perhaps you can explain that, or at least make it more clear.

You have a strange view of historical record. Figures of speech are used constantly in historical documentation.

You are correct. I shouldn't have used the fact that this was a historical record as a reason that the phrase in question was not a figure. Although recording of events do not require figures, they do use them. So let's move on with the explanation of your figure:

The event was a test. God knew Abraham and fully knew that Abraham would pass the test. What God knew is not the point; the point is twofold: Abraham had to realize his own justification before God, and God would then acknowledge and publicize (document) Abraham's faith. There are different senses of justification for each believer taught in scripture. There is the justification of God's decrees concerning a man within the Godhead. There is justification of a man before God by the blood of Christ alone. There is justication of a man before himself by faith (i.e. how one knows one is saved, that one is justified before God, and has a righteous standing before God). And there is justification of a man before others by works. This test of Abraham accomplished the latter two, (1) because Abraham saw his own faith, thereby recognizing his own righteous standing before God, and (2) because God documented (via Moses) the event for posterity, thereby justifying him by works before others. This is what Romans 4 is teaching. Abraham was justified by works, and could glory in his works, but not before God (v. 2). By faith, Abraham saw himself as justified (v. 3). This is what it means when Paul says it was "counted" to him (Abraham) as righteousness. That is, it was "told" to him, or "accounted" to him that he had a righteous standing before God. The anthropopathism used by God denoted these facts by a rich figure.

When you get to your point at the end of this quote, "The anthropopathism used by God denoted these facts by a rich figure." You lose all connection with Romans 4, which was support worth considering for what you where saying about the event. There is nothing in Romans 4 which makes a comment about your claim that "now I know" is an anthropopathism. We'll have to investigate this further.

Yorzhik writes:So, Hilston says, "Now I know" does not mean "Now I know". Fair enough - figures mean other than what is actually written. Until Hilson tells us what it means, the only thing we can know about the meaning of this phrase is that it cannot mean "I have always known". That is the only meaning (at this point) that we can rule out as a possible meaning.

The phrase is an anthropopathic way of acknowledging Abraham's standing before God as righteous.

I'd disagree, but that's just my claim against this one.

Yorzhik writes:So, Hilston, please tell us the meaning of this linguistic figure. When you are done, we should be able to replace the phrase "Now I know" with what you relate to us.

Sure, I can say it much better than God.

Perhaps not better than God, but you'd have to admit, the translator said it better than you.

Here is a figure in the bible:
Num 11:23 And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.

So, the question is, does God have hands that can shorten, and how does that affect Israel? It is because God is not talking about His hand, but His ability. So we can replace the words "waxed short" with "ability weakened" and you will get the same meaning. Not as good as God can say it, but it is good enough to demonstrate the figure.

One more note on figures. One thing we know the figure does not mean, before we try and figure out what it does mean, is that it cannot mean the opposite of what was literally said. Therefore, the figure cannot mean "God's hand has grown longer".

So let's try again, what does the figure "now I know" really mean? And you don't have to say it better than God.

Let me ask you this: Do you think God really did not know where Adam was in Gen 3 when He said, "Adam, where are thou?"? Do you think God really did not know whether or not Adam had eaten from the tree when He asked, "Have you eaten of the tree that I commanded you that you should not eat?" Perhaps you could please improve upon God's words so we can replace these words with what you relate to "us."

I cannot improve on them. I wasn't asking you to do such a thing, why do you ask me to? But I can tell you what was meant when God asked where Adam was and when He asked if Adam had done something he wasn't supposed to do. It simply isn't a figure, but another convention of communication. When God was asking these questions, it was closer to sarcasm. I use the same convention on my little children frequently because I want them to think about what is taking place.

Can you find an example that is a figure?

Yorzhik writes:I trust my dad, and he doesn't decree every case without exception.

Do you trust your dad for your salvation? Do you trust your dad to secure your future with him in eternity?

I'd trust my dad to save me, or do what he could to save me if I were in dire peril. He saves on one level (or could), and God on another level, a much higher level.

Yorzhik writes: Are you saying I shouldn't trust God, who is perfect, without exhaustive forknowledge, but I can trust my dad, who not only cannot see very far into the future, but he is sinful as well?

No, I'm saying, on your view, you shouldn't trust God for your salvation or for your sempiternal future. There is no assurance, no confidence. Sure, God will do the best He can, just as He has always done. But look at the disasters of history that God couldn't do anything about because He's hogtied by the bully freewills of men. He has said in His word that He knows the end from the beginning, but according to the OV, He is often surprised and His plans are thwarted. Specifically what, Yorzhik, do you trust Him for? Give me specifics: "I trust God to __________(insert action here)_______." "I trust that God will __________(insert action here)_________."

"I trust God to take me to heaven when I die, or at the end of this age, whichever comes first."

And there is no assurance… why? Because God does not know the future exhaustively?

I'm sure you've heard of the chess master analogy, correct? For anyone that hasn't heard it, it goes like this:

God is like a chess master that has solved the game of chess. He doesn't need to know what moves His opponent might make, He might even be surprised by some of the moves the opponent makes, but that can never change the fact that since God has solved the game, His will must be done in the end.

So, could you be confident that the chess master that has solved the game will win? He doesn't know the future exhaustively.

 

[Yorzhik]

was in the plan was in the plan...

Yeah, I'm still waiting to get in a good discussion about God being a useless cog in his own machine.

In the same vain, I asked my Dad (a CV'er)... "if God had changed how He made the world in the beginning, since we both agree that He is the author and first cause, couldn't He have avoided evil by doing it a different way? Doesn't God hate evil enough to avoid it?" I never did get an answer.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

First let me say again that I appreciate your patience with me in waiting for this post. I’ve had some issues going on that have limited the time I’ve had available to spend writing posts. Thanks for not giving me too hard a time about being so slow to respond to your post.
Before I begin, here’s a few quotes of some things that you have said which I think communicate the central issue of our current disagreement and upon which I would therefore like to focus my remarks.

Originally posted by Z Man

And this is where I believe you are making a grave error my friend! We must not interpret scripture with our logic! It just won't do!

You are putting the cart before the horse, interpreting Scripture 'deductively' instead of 'inductively'.

You won't accept Scripture for what it says nor will you base your doctrine upon it, but rather, you read Scripture and use your doctrine, built upon your logic, to interpret it. You got it totally backwards!

Yes, I read your post, but no where did you even prove your point through Scripture. The best you can do is constantly state how 'illogical' and 'contradictory' my beliefs are.

I think the answer to this question goes beyond our logic and reasoning.

You're right; just because my belief does seem illogical does not matter to me whatsoever. I do not care what one 'thinks', or how someone 'feels' about my particular theology, including myself. In other words, I believe that it doesn't matter how my belief may be 'percieved' to be, or how it may 'feel' wrong or right; it doesn't matter to me what human emotions and logic tell us. To me, what matters most is the TRUTH of God's Holy Word. That is what I believe, no matter how 'illogical' humans may percieve it to be.

Okay, that’s plenty of that. There’s more but I trust everyone gets the point.

My initial response to this notion that logic doesn’t matter is to ask “How do you know that?” A question that cannot be answered without contradicting the premise that logic doesn’t matter in the pursuit of any, including theological truth.

This inability to formulate a coherent answer without using sound logic is the central point. It is proof that your position is untenable and must be rejected. It is totally self contradictory and therefore self refuting. Logic is the foundation upon which all truth must be laid because no truth can be established without the use of logic.

One might object that this subordinates the Bible to logic. Well, if you chose to bring up such an objection, my response would be, “By what logic do you make such an objection?” You see, logic always emerges. No matter how hard you try to evade logic, it always comes back to pummel you into the ground. It is relentless and inescapable. Indeed, truth is defined by logic. You cannot say, “Logic does not apply to God.”, without using logic to make that statement and so you contradict yourself by saying it. Logic is utterly unavoidable.

I can hear your objections already. You would say that truth is defined by God not logic. Jesus said “I am the truth…”. And I of course do not disagree that God is truth, but how can we know that Jesus was not lying without the application of logic? This statement of Christ’s is falsifiable. If it could be shown that Jesus ever told a lie then we would know that He is not truth as He claimed to be. The fact that He has not lied, along with dozens of other pieces of evidence, substantiate His truth claim. Do you see my point? Even the truth that God is truth is itself a logical statement and if it weren’t it would be false. Logic itself isn’t what makes it the truth. Reality is true even if no one ever applies logic to it. But if something can be shown to be illogical then it will have been shown to be untrue as well.

You have said that one must use inductive logic rather than deductive logic in order to be comfortable with Calvinist doctrines and so I will trust that you agree that logic (in some form) is required in the pursuit of truth and so I will not attempt to establish that any further. The issue now is about the law of non-contradiction and whether it applies to both forms of logic which of course it does. In fact the law of non-contradiction applies to all forms of logic.

The law of non-contradiction simply states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time in the same context. Either one is true and the other false, or they are both false. Both cannot be true simultaneously. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, "The law of non-contradiction is false," he would have a problem. Without the law of non-contradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false. So we can't call it false without assuming that it is true.

Some, especially those involved in eastern religions deny this simple truth. Rather than holding to the western idea of an ‘either, or’ logic, they embrace a ‘both, and’ logic and they have very elaborate lines of thought that lead them to conclude that a ‘both, and’ form of logic is a superior means of determining truth. They flatly reject any western criticism of their religious beliefs that are based upon an ‘either, or’ form of argument. They say that the ‘both, and’ form of logic is the only way in which their system can be understood. You seem to be making this same claim about predestination and free will. Your argument in a nutshell is that the issue of predestination and free will is not an ‘either, or’ proposition but rather it is a “both, and” sort of an idea. And you insist that the ‘either, or’ logic is invalid. And there in lies a major problem with the ‘both, and’ logic. Those who hold to it must insist that one use either the ‘both, and’ logic or nothing at all. You see, the ‘either, or’ logic always emerges. The harder you try to fight against it, the more it beats you up! Even the Hindu looks in both directions before crossing the street, because he intuitively knows that it is either the bus or him, not both him and the bus.

So since the Calvinist doctrine of predestination contradicts the doctrine of free will we are forced to conclude that both cannot be true. Either one is true and the other false or they are both false.

You say that they must both be true because the Bible teaches both but that is not so. You believe that holding to both is the only way to take the Bible for what it says but this is not so. There is no passage in the Bible that demands that we believe God to be in meticulous control of every event that has or will ever happen. There is no passage that requires that we believe that God predestined every action before time began. There is no such passage! I take the Bible very literally, not woodenly so, but more so than most and I am not logically forced to conclude anything that resembles the Calvinist doctrine of predestination by simply reading the Bible and taking it for what it seems to be saying. This cannot be said in any respect, with regard to the issue of whether or not we have a free will. There are entire books of the Bible that simply make no sense if we do not have a free will. This point is not even in dispute which is why the Calvinist commonly attempts to come up with fancy ways to allow the two doctrines to coexist.

Therefore, if we have two contradictory doctrines, one that might be preferable to some but is not logically demanded by the text of Scripture and another that may not be as desirable for whatever reason but is logically demanded, then since both cannot be true by virtue of their contradictory natures, we are constrained by both reason and by conscience to hold to that which is required by the text regardless of the damage done to one’s preferred doctrines.

Well, I could go on and on about this but I think that this is quite enough for now. I look forward to your response.

God bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Wow... Clete, great stuff.

Hey, I can make this a subscriber POTD! I think I will :first:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete is "da man".

 

[Clete]

Thanks you guys!

Yorzhik, your response to Hilston is brilliant! Now I don't feel so badly about him ignoring me. I guess Jim and I have some sort of communcation barrier that I haven't figured out yet so you're doing way better than I could anyway! Keep up the good work!

Resting in Him,
Clete