Yorzhik.... 
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Rolf Ernst
New member
Z Man--your post #1278: That is a real joy to read. It demonstrates the REALITY of where you are at now in your Christian life and in your doctrinal view. It is not a small thing, it is not at all insignifigant that you say that your conversion to your present doctrinal view led you to read the Bible differently; namely, now you read it to see "what it says about the world in general, and about God."
Please realize how precious that is. I want to make sure that the impact of the truth you spoke is fully realized by you. It probably is already, but just in case--You see how your aligning your thought processes into conformity with that doctrine altered the way you looked upon the world and the bible? Notice, friend, so that your rejoicing may be full. It turned you away from a focus on self to an outward focus on the world in general, and especially brought you to a focus on God Himself. How great that is!
The focus on the world in general because you had a new knowledge
about God's work IN the WHOLE world. And the new focus on God Himself because you had come to realize what everything is really all about--HIM! How excellent THAT is--because we are taught that "He has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and Godliness THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM."
It was true in the past, it is true now, and shall forever be true--as the psalmist said to God: "Those who know your name will put their trust in you." It is no wonder, therefore, that Jesus said, "You shall be witnesses unto me."
Lift high the banner of our sovereign Lord! Let His name be fully known, and He will dispel the darkness of every false doctrine!
Please realize how precious that is. I want to make sure that the impact of the truth you spoke is fully realized by you. It probably is already, but just in case--You see how your aligning your thought processes into conformity with that doctrine altered the way you looked upon the world and the bible? Notice, friend, so that your rejoicing may be full. It turned you away from a focus on self to an outward focus on the world in general, and especially brought you to a focus on God Himself. How great that is!
The focus on the world in general because you had a new knowledge
about God's work IN the WHOLE world. And the new focus on God Himself because you had come to realize what everything is really all about--HIM! How excellent THAT is--because we are taught that "He has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and Godliness THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM."
It was true in the past, it is true now, and shall forever be true--as the psalmist said to God: "Those who know your name will put their trust in you." It is no wonder, therefore, that Jesus said, "You shall be witnesses unto me."
Lift high the banner of our sovereign Lord! Let His name be fully known, and He will dispel the darkness of every false doctrine!
Z Man
New member
Thanks for the encouragement! :thumb:
It is amazing that my reading of Scripture turned from 'all about me' to 'all about God'. To expound a little (thanks to your post for causing me to see it clearer!), I use to read Scripture with the intent of finding out how I could live a good, Christian life. I so much wanted to please God in everything I did; I wanted to be perfect! I mean, I still do, but my intent for desiring to be perfect then was so that I could find favor in God's eyes and 'keep' my salvation.
That has changed now. I don't read Scripture anymore trying to find out how I can live my life so that I could maintain God's love. I now read the Scripture to see more of God and how He expresses Himself throughout history. I wanna know more about God and who He is, and what He does and is doing and will do. I wanna know more about His purpose, and more about why He saved me; what purpose He has for me in this world. I wanna know what I can do in this world for my Savior. I wanna see God glorified.
And that mindset radically changed my lifestyle; not only my view on God and the world, but also the view I had of myself. I'm no longer worried about 'finding favor' in God's eyes, or trying to be 'glorious' and 'religious' enough as to keep my salvation. Now I'm eager to see God's glory displayed not only in the reading of Scripture, but also through my life as I live day to day in this present world. No longer do I read Scripture, shaping and conforming it to my thoughts of who God was, but now I read Scripture and shape and conform my thoughts and my life according to the TRUTH within thier Holy pages.
God_Is_Truth
New member
:up:
Rolf Ernst
New member
And how it sets us toward pleasing Him when we know that His highest purpose for us is to conform us to the image of Christ. knowing that and being grateful that He chose us in Christ, we get a sense of what Paul meant when he said, "I press toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
Zman, I have watched you struggle without letup on this forum for pure doctrine. Now I feel like I know you. Godspeed, brother. Thanks for being here with us.
Zman, I have watched you struggle without letup on this forum for pure doctrine. Now I feel like I know you. Godspeed, brother. Thanks for being here with us.
I'm through trying to explain this to Open Theists. I've never met an Open Theist who can admit to grasping the concept of compatibilism. I can grasp the Open Theist's view, explain it, and refute it. The Open Theist can't even get to step 1 with compatibilism. It is evidence to me (and whether anyone else sees this is irrelevant to me) that the Open Theist realizes how devasting an understanding of compatibilism is, and simply refuses to acknowledge it. I have higher hopes for you, Yorzhik, as you've demonstrated on several occasions an openness to consider, or at least to understand, opposing views. That's a heckuvalot more than I can say for your compadres. For them, ignorance and disingenuousness is a badge of honor and a sure POTD.
Hilston wrote:
That description applies to God's control of men's wants.[/quote]
First of all, the idea of God "being upset" is an anthropopathism. God is not subject to the whims of man. He is not affected by anything outside of Himself in the same way that man is. God reacts (another anthropopathism) and relates to man in a way that is incomprehensible. We can only catch glimpses of God's character in the kind of language used in scripture. So God is never "upset with men's actions" as we might see other men react to other men's actions. Second, God has a right to do whatever He wants and answers to no one. If God chooses to condemn men for doing actions that He Himself decreed, who are we to complain? If you don't like it and wish to lodge a complaint, then you put yourself in the shoes of Job and Job's friends and Adam and everyone else who dared to question God's prerogative. That, to me, is Open Theism in a nutshell: "Question God's prerogative/come up with a humanistic explanation that makes God's actions more palatable."
See what I mean?
Hilston previously wrote:
That's right where the Open Theist cataract precludes their ability to think rationally. If a "want" is controlled, it is still a "want." Don't you see that?
The word "responsibility" doesn't apply to God. He does what He wants with impunity because He answers to, is responsible to, no one and nothing.
Wrong. God can decree actions, desires, decisions and even sin, and arbitrarily hold men responsible for those actions. He is God. He is to be feared. This is one of those things that make Him most fearsome.
Hilston previously wrote:
Do you actually believe God could be held guilty for wrongdoing? How? By whom?
Um ... yes it does! This is what kills me. You actually put into the hands of men the right to question God?!?!? OMG!!!!!!!
Hilston previously wrote:
Judas was in the plan of salvation from the foundation of the world, Yorzhik, at which point the angels would NOT have found Judas' name written in the Book of Life.
Please explain it to me.
Yorzhik previously wrote: "So was Judas mentioned by name? or could it have been anyone that did the same things that Judas did?"
Hilston replied: Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning some heretofore unknown person, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
I guess you're right. It doesn't mention Judas by name. I suppose it could've been anybody.
No, a prophecy in the Psalms that was alluded to in Acts, which identified the individual named Judas. It could not have been anyone. Acts informs us that it was Judas specifically that David prophecied about. Just as Deu 18:18 refers to a specific man named Jesus. "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
Ps 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.
Ps 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Those definitions are fine. I like the fact that you have two versions of righteousness: One before men (justification before men) and one before God (justification before God).
Why not now?
Hilston previously wrote: Can you think of anyplace where Paul asked why God found fault with man if His will cannot be resisted? But of course, according to the Open Theists, somehow God responded with, "No, you're wrong, my will CAN be resisted."
Ro 9:19
Yes.
Last edited:
Shame on your Jim; you know better than this! I fully understand it and can actually argue it better than most Calvinists can but that doesn't mean it makes any sense! The simple fact is that if God absolutely knows what you are going to do because He has already seen the future unfolded before Him then you do not have any ability to do otherwise and your freedom is an illusion. But your position doesn't even go this far, you completely reject the Arminian view of divine exhaustive foreknowledge in favor of Augustine's predeterminism that teaches that God forordained every event of history before any of it happened. A view which is utterly incompatible with any sort of freewill at all including compatiblism!
I don't care how well you dress it up compatibilism is nothing more than rhetorical slight of hand. It does not resolve any of the logical implications that go along with the loss of one's freedom to choose to do or to do otherwise.
Why isn't it a figure of speech when the Bible says that the Lord is "the same yesterday, and today, and forever", or when it says that He is "faithful and just"? In other words, how do you distinguish between verses that are figures and those that express truth about God without figure?
Why can't the verses you call anthropopathisms be giving us information about what God is really like, and how do you know that they are not doing so? Where did you get this information about what God is really like so as to make the determination that these verses over here are figurative and those over there are not? Please tell us so that we can see it for ourselves, Jim?
And don't think for a minute that I'm kidding either! I want to know the source of this knowledge that let's you know that these passages are all figures of speech. Please don't forget that your Presuppositionalism demands doctrine that is "truly sola Scriptura", so an appeal to anything but the Bible itself for such knowledge just simply won't do. So what Biblical data do you have, that we have all missed, that demands that these, and thousands of other passages throughout the Bible, are figures of speech (apparently meaningless one's at that)?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
I must've missed it. Prove it or give me a link.
Are you really free? Name one decision or choice you made that was completely unconstrained. Prove me wrong by giving just one example of totally free choice you've ever made.
There you go. That paragraph disqualifies you from saying anything about compatibilism because you do. Not. Under. Stand. It. Apparently, you never have, so all your boasting about being such a smart former Calvinist notwithstanding, you're still clueless.
Prove that you're free.
They are. All descriptions of God are anthropopathic or anthropomorphic.
Because God is incomprehensible. We can only acquire brief and limited glimpses of Him.
I don't know what He is really like. No one does.
The source is scripture.
I'm not convinced that you know what sola scriptura means.
:freak:
Only Open Theists think that figures of speech are meaningless. That is how thick and impregnable their skulls are. The laughable thing is Open Deists use figures all the time, but they claim that their figures of speech are intelligible. But when the Bible uses them, they're not intelligible. This is typical Open Doofuss rationale: Autonomous man is the judge. Autonomous man determines truth. God and His Word need to just sit down, shut up,and get in line while autonomous man eats the forbidden fruit, assessing his Creator and deciding whether or not He is worthy of worship.
God_Is_Truth
New member
i can give you one. there is a path at my college and as you walk along it, you come to a fork. neither way is faster, they both take you to the same place (at least in terms of where i was going) and neither way is more appealing than the other. whenever i come to the fork, i don't think about any benefits or unbenefits of each path. i just choose which one i will walk on. it's based on nothing at all, just my choice.
The appeal doesn't need to be intrinsic or even conscious. You might choose according to which one has more people on it, or which one is more shady, or which one you took the previous day. It can be the simple appeal of taking a different or same path as the one previously taken.
The fact that you don't keep walking straight between the two paths proves otherwise. Many of our choices are influenced by forces we do not consciously acknowledge. This is one example. Your choice is constrained, even by the boundaries of the path on which you walk. Even if you should one day decide to walk straight down the middle, you can refer back to this dialogue, which may very well have had something to do with it.
God_Is_Truth
New member
no, i took all that into consideration in my example. both paths were empty and i hadn't taken the path in a while.
how are you defining free? are you saying we have to be able to manipulate every aspect of our environment before our decision can be free? to me, free is about one being able to make the decision just because one decides to. it's not forced by the evironment, genetics or God. can we be influenced? certainly. but i still think it's free up the point where something else decides for us.
You were constrained by your reaction to the fact that you hadn't taken the path in a while. You were constrained by the path itself. Even if a gun is held to your head and you were threatened with, "Take the left path or die," you still have a choice, and that choice is constrained.
That would be one way to have a free and unconstrained choice.
All decisions are influenced, constrained, and moved by pressures to one extent or another. No decisions are completely free. A biblical view of freedom is recognizing that none of our choices are truly free, but that we also have the experience of choosing within those constraining parameters. There is no such thing as unconstrained free will, therefore, the word "free" must be qualified.
God_Is_Truth
New member
i had not taken EITHER path in a while.
i would disagree with that definition of free then as it would lead to no one ever making a free decision.
it's not so much about being free IN what you choose, it's being free TO choose what you decide to. to make a free choice i don't have to have an infinite amount of options before me, i just have to be able to choose myself which of those options i will choose. it's about not having something else decide what i will choose.
for my choice of option A to be free, it cannot have been decided that i would choose A by anyone else than me. there may be reasons, influences and persuasions that led me to choose A, but they in and of themselves do not force me to choose A. in the end i am the one who chooses A and it is a choice made by me alone.
If you were able to record your thoughts and inventory all of the factors present when you made your decision, you would find something, perhaps several things, that worked together to move your decision.
What's wrong with that? I recognize that none of my decisions are free, and I can function just fine.
Don't you mean, "it's being free to decide what you choose to"? It's a tautology.
No one else makes your decision for you. That's not the point. The point is that none of your choices are free.
Why not? You still make the decision, don't you? You still choose what you want, don't you?
Of course. I'm not arguing that our decisions are forced. We choose what we want to choose, every single time. But we don't choose the influences, reasons and persuasions that lead to those decisions.
That's true. But that doesn't mean your choice wasn't purposefully and deliberately and infallibly influenced.
God_Is_Truth
New member
not in this case. i stood at the fork in the road for 5 minutes trying to think of a reason to go one path over the other. i couldn't find out. in the end, i just up and chose one, i don't even recall which one.
because that's not how most people understand free will.
it's being free to decide period. it means nothing else makes the decision for me.
what makes a choice free then?
because if something else determines that i will choose something, then i am not the determining factor and thus am not the one really making the choice. i am merely acting out what has been chosen for me.
but while they influence us, they do not actually choose for us what we choose. they are all factors taken into account that assist us in our decision.
what does it mean for a choice to be "purposefully and deliberatelly and infallibly influenced" ?
You contradict yourself by describing a deliberative, albeit unconclusive procedure.
The first error in that sentence is assuming that reality is determined by "how most people understand" something. Are you able to comprehend the idea that all of our choices are constrained? I'm not asking you to agree, but can you comprehend it conceptually?
Who are you conversing with? Have I ever said that something makes decisions for us? Have I ever said such a thing? Once again, the Open Theist cataract rears its ugly head. You people are so obsessed with your irrational doctrine that you end up having a conversation with yourselves. It's no wonder you knuckleheads cannot grasp total depravity or impassibility or immutability or compatibilism. You're a bunch of solipsists having arguments with opponents of your own creation.
Hilston wrote: "The point is that none of your choices are free."
Total lack of constraint upon the decision. But there is no such thing in the created universe.
Hilston wrote: "Why not? You still make the decision, don't you? You still choose what you want, don't you?"
This is what I mean. Most Open Theists have not adequately reflected on the nature of their own choices. Our choices are manipulated all the time by forces outside of our control. Some of our choices are predominantly genetically influenced. But that fact doesn't preclude our choosing. Only the Open Theist denies this because he realizes how devastating it is to his God-denigrating theology.
Of course.
Every choice has a purpose, even your choice of path, which is deliberately predetermined and infallibly comes to pass in strict and unwavering accordance with God's decrees.
God_Is_Truth
New member
but none of what i did contributed to my decision, so how do i contradict myself?
i didn't mean to convey that just because something is held by many people than it is true.
as for your question, i must ask what you mean by "contstrained". do you mean influened? or something else.
i was just clarifying my position.
and how do you define constraint?
i don't think i deny it at all. i've said all along that we are influenced, persuaded and drawn to make certain choices.
when you say "deliberately predetermined" is that in reference to the purpose of the choice or the choice itself?
You don't know that. You cannot stand there for 5 minutes contemplating a decision and then have that decision be completely uninfluenced by prior deliberation.
Then will you admit the human perception of freedom does not determine its reality?
Limited, influenced, driven, drawn.
You previously wrote: "because if something else determines that i will choose something, then i am not the determining factor and thus am not the one really making the choice. i am merely acting out what has been chosen for me."
By saying that, you deny your own responsibility for choices you make, even though they were predetermined.
Both. There is nothing that happens that isn't predetermined.