BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 1 thru 3)

[Delmar]

I gave you a clear and coherent answer. It is not my fault you don't accept it.
Are you saying that the Bible contradicts itself and is therefore unreliable. You therefore reserve the right to "correct" it because of your superior logic

You did answer clearly. I took Clete's response as a prediction that I would not get such an answer from Zman and defcon.

 

[Z Man]

Is predestination causal ? yes or no ?

Yes.

Charles Spurgeon, the London pastor from 100 years ago, once said,

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes – that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens – that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence – the fall of . . . leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.​

When Spurgeon was challenged that this is nothing but fatalism and stoicism, he replied,

What is fate? Fate is this – Whatever is, must be. But there is a difference between that and Providence. Providence says, Whatever God ordains, must be; but the wisdom of God never ordains anything without a purpose. Everything in this world is working for some great end. Fate does not say that. . . . There is all the difference between fate and Providence that there is between a man with good eyes and a blind man.​

 

[Z Man]

deardelmar,

You'll never get coherent answers to those questions from Calvinists.

I'm sure I won't be telling you anything you don't already know but for the sake of conversation let me just point out that Z Man and others here are not lying when they say that they do not believe that God makes people reject Him. It's very true that they believe that people reject God on their own. However, it is also very true that they believe that everything that happens anywhere in reality, whether physical or spiritual, happens by the decree of God and that if it has not been decreed to happen, it will not happen.

Now, we in the open view camp see the logical contradiction and acknowledge that it indicates an error somewhere; that both positions cannot be true at the same time because they are mutually exclusive. But the point here is that the Calvinist DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. What the Calvinist does is accept both positions as equally true in spite of what they call "the apparent" contradiction. They do this constantly with much of their theology. So much so, in fact, that they created a whole category of beliefs and conjured up the theological term "antinomy" so things that fall into this category can have a name.

Calvinists love antinomy. They literally believe that it requires a higher degree of spirituality; a greater spiritual maturity to accept antinomy in one's theology. They believe that if one rejects antinomy as irrational it is proof of fleshliness and spiritual childishness. In fact, it is so prevalent that it surprises me that Dr. Lamerson hasn't already brought this up in BR X and I will be shocked beyond words if it doesn't come up at all (I haven't read all of Bob's latest post so I'm assuming that Bob hasn't brought it up himself yet).

At any rate, the Calvinist affinity for logical contradiction... uh, I mean antinomy, leads them to endless self-contradiction and confusion. This is the primary reason that we in the open view camp get accused of lying and of attacking straw men all the time. It's because we logically analyze one position, say their understanding of sovereignty for example, and attack that idea based on what logical conclusion would be dictated based on that premise (i.e. that God is responsible for sin). The discussion breaks down because we forget that they too reject that logical conclusion while clinging tightly to the premise in spite of the demands of what they call "man's logic". That’s antinomy in action.

In short they have circled the wagons round about them and created a very tight circle of reasoning that cannot be falsified in the mind of the ardent Calvinist.

Oh! How I wish that simply pointing out the fact that their theology is unfalsifiable (which militates against Biblical principle) was sufficient to convince them to reject it but unfortunately that too is simply another antinomy that presents itself only via "man's logic". In most cases, it truly is a lost cause. There are, of course, exceptions though, and that's what keeps these discussions worth having. Perhaps one or two here and there will read these pages and be convinced.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,

God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.​

This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

What this means is that we must learn that God wills things in two different senses. The Bible demands this by the way it speaks of God's will in different ways. Edwards uses the terms "will of decree" and "will of command." Edwards explains:

[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature's happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a things as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things.​

- John Piper

Antinomy, as you describe it Clete, is a Biblical fact.

 

[Clete]

I gave you a clear and coherent answer. It is not my fault you don't accept it.

You gave a clear answer but it was not coherent (i.e. logical) as you have now admitted.

Are you saying that the Bible contradicts itself and is therefore unreliable. You therefore reserve the right to "correct" it because of your superior logic.

No I am not saying the Bible is contradictory, I am saying that your interpretation of it is. It is your theology that is contradictory, not the Bible itself; they are not the same thing.

Right. we reject your willingness to change the truth into a lie because of your supposedly superior logic.

When you present information in this manner, knowing that it is false, that's called lying. You need to repent. And speaking of repenting, have you ever posted any specifics concerning the other day when you said that I was a liar and that lying must just be part of my character? Please show me where I lied or else admit that you cannot.

Further, "my logic" is not superior, nor is it "my logic". Logic is logic. I am either being logical or I am being incoherent. My logic is either sound or it is not; there is no such thing as "superior logic". The logic I use is the same logic you use only I follow the rules of logic and you intentionally do not (i.e. antinomy), which makes your position incoherent by definition.

That is right. we give difference to the Word. It is not the scriptures that are contradictory, it is just that our understanding of them that is faulty. We trust God to give understanding in due course.But not you! You would prefer to tell God that he made a mistake and that His logic is faulty.

You mean deference, right? And I am not saying that God’s use of logic is faulty, I am saying yours is. You think the two are the same thing but they are not. God is not the one being irrational, you are.

I'm so glad you said this though because it proves my point perfectly. You have cut off all avenues that might possibly prove you wrong. Your theology cannot be falsified by any rational means. You might not find that troubling but you should because the consequence of your theology being unfalsifiable is that your theology cannot be confirmed by any rational means either and thus it is, by definition, irrational. I can't prove you wrong by showing you where your theology contradicts the Bible because you are completely comfortable to live with the blatant contradiction and to help keep it from sticking in your throat on the way down you remove the term contradiction and replace with the word antinomy and then accuse me of saying that I teach that the Bible contradicts itself! It's completely circular and irrational.

Your theology is irrational; it's just as simple as that. You cannot prove that it is any more valuable or true than Astrology, Evolution, global warming, Chiropractic back popping, or any number of other unfalsifiable theories and belief systems.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Zman; I realize this thread is exploding, but I am interested in your response to post #757
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=840737&postcount=757

Thanks.

 

[Clete]

Antinomy, as you describe it Clete, is a Biblical fact.

Thank you for conceding the debate. :BRAVO:

Next topic!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,

God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.​

This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

What this means is that we must learn that God wills things in two different senses. The Bible demands this by the way it speaks of God's will in different ways. Edwards uses the terms "will of decree" and "will of command." Edwards explains:

[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature's happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a things as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things.​

- John Piper

Antinomy, as you describe it Clete, is a Biblical fact.

I think where you and i differ is that the ordaining was from the foundation of the world but God in his perfect foreknowledge saw the choices of men yet future and allowed those choices to stand so as not to violate His on word by making the choice for men. The objection to that by the OVers is that man could make a different choice.. To that I say no. man made the choice and there is no proof that can be otherwise. That is why Bob's arguments are so ridiculous.

 

[Z Man]

Thank you for conceding the debate. :BRAVO:

Next topic!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

All you've done so far is ramble a bunch a jargon; "I disagree with this, and I disagree with that". But you know what Clete? I don't care what you agree or disagree with. I've presented Biblical evidence supporting my beliefs. Can you refute them?

If not, then you've conceded the debate.

 

[Clete]

Clete,

All you've done so far is ramble a bunch a jargon; "I disagree with this, and I disagree with that". But you know what Clete? I don't care what you agree or disagree with.

When have I said that "I disagree with this and I disagree with that"?
Are just making this stuff up as you go or what?

I've presented Biblical evidence supporting my beliefs. Can you refute them?
If not, then you've conceded the debate.

:bang:

What part of my last two posts were you not able to follow Z Man? You even conceded that irrationallity (i.e. antinomy) as I described it is "a Biblical fact". So tell me how I am supposed to refute it if what I'm arguing against is, by your own admition, unfalsifiable and therefore irrational?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete,

All you've done so far is ramble a bunch a jargon; "I disagree with this, and I disagree with that". But you know what Clete? I don't care what you agree or disagree with. I've presented Biblical evidence supporting my beliefs. Can you refute them?

If not, then you've conceded the debate.

Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid?

 

[Rimi]

Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid?

God foreordained it. Give the guy a break.

 

[elected4ever]

God foreordained it. Give the guy a break.

Ephesians 1:4 *According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 ]Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,[/b]---------------11 *In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:Romans 8:29 *¶For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 *Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Clete]

e4e,

Are you going to ever show us where I lied? Or will you continue to ignore my request for such specifics as you continue to ignore the fact that the point you are attempting to make by posting the above verses has been refuted a dozen times?

 

[elected4ever]

The open view is just so much hot air used for the soul purpose of prop up the ego of man.so man can say, "me too." The foreknowledge of God and the divine choosing of His own plan (ordaining) = predestination. The only question is whither the predestination of God's plan is causal or not. The open view is not even in the the area of being Biblical.

 

[drbrumley]

The open view is just so much hot air used for the soul purpose of prop up the ego of man.so man can say, "me too." The foreknowledge of God and the divine choosing of His own plan (ordaining) = predestination. The only question is whither the predestination of God's plan is causal or not. The open view is not even in the the area of being Biblical.

Yep, just keep your eyes closed.

 

[elected4ever]

e4e,

Are you going to ever show us where I lied? Or will you continue to ignore my request for such specifics as you continue to ignore the fact that the point you are attempting to make by posting the above verses has been refuted a dozen times?

This post in and of itself is a lie and therefore a lie. You have not refuted anything but just give excuses of why you are unwilling to submit to the foreknowledge and the ordination (God's sovereign will to choose as he will) concerning his plan for man. As you can see I don't have to search very far.

 

[elected4ever]

Yep, just keep your eyes closed.

You choose to keep your understanding darkened. You cannot seem to understand that god is not a man that he should think like a man.Romans 9:19 *Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 *Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 *Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

[Clete]

This post in and of itself is a lie and therefore a lie. You have not refuted anything but just give excuses of why you are unwilling to submit to the foreknowledge and the ordination (God's sovereign will to choose as he will) concerning his plan for man. As you can see I don't have to search very far.

It has been refuted and you know it. I have personally refuted it at least a dozen times myself in many different ways and from every conceivable direction.

But I want to know if you can provide specifics about where I lied last week when you said that lying must just be part of my character. Where was the lie that you were reacting to then? Were you simply frustrated at my ability to prove my point and so threw the accusation out there to make yourself feel better or what? I would realy like to have a specific answer or an admition from you that no such specific answer is possible because you made it up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

It has been refuted and you know it. I have personally refuted it at least a dozen times myself in many different ways and from every conceivable direction.

But I want to know if you can provide specifics about where I lied last week when you said that lying must just be part of my character. Where was the lie that you were reacting to then? Were you simply frustrated at my ability to prove my point and so threw the accusation out there to make yourself feel better or what? I would realy like to have a specific answer or an admition from you that no such specific answer is possible because you made it up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You have never shown that what I have said is untrue. You have made some demeaning remarks and said that ov states this or that, which is far from a rebuttal. You have never shown that z-man was in error ether. You have objected to what was said but never a factual rebuttal. You just can't say I win and expect to win.

 

[Clete]

Is that your way of saying that there is no specific lie that you can point too that I made last week when you made you false accusation?