Facile

"Matthew Johnson" wrote in message
news:143.35.14.05.422370000@srcbs.org...
>
>
> In article <143.07.06.05.624614000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >> True. But if you did accept it, as Gary and many lurkers do, then it
> >> IS a contradiction. Besides: we _know_ you don't accept it. What we
> >> don't understand is why you think this is a good idea.
> >>
> >
> >Because Scripture says that God is absolutely sovereign.
>
> Really? I cannot find the words "absolutely sovereign" in there. And even
if I
> could, I would have to differ with your interpretation of the word
'sovereign'.
> You seem ignorant of the different between 'sovereign' and 'tyrant' or
'despot'.
>
> > Therefore, we
> >have to try to find another basis for man's responsibility.
>
> No, that does not follow. Not, at least, if you understand the difference
> between 'sovereign' and 'despot'.

The Calvinist does not understand the difference. For the God
that they believe is a malvaloent tyrant.

All of God's attributes are equally ultimate. One does not "overcome"
all the others. God wills lovingly, justly, righteously.

God's will did not override His knowledge, nor vice versa.

God knowingly determined all that happens, and determinately knew
all that happens. For this reason, that God cannot be put into the
Calvinist box, that all of God's attrubutes are equally ultimate,
the inane Calvinist arguments about the sub, supra, sup, etc. lapsarian
views are all wrong.

snip

> >> An axiom very pleasing to Calvinist's and those Lutherans who fell
> >> under the dark spell of Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will". But an
> >> irrelevant one, since God did NOT want to make a guilty freedomless
> >> man. Such a 'man' could NOT have been called "created in the image and
> >> likeness of God".
> >>
>
> >Why not?
>
> I already answered that question, in the same post where I quoted Sermon
41 of
> Macarius the Great. Haven't you read it yet?
>
> > First, one could argue that the Fall destroyed freedom,
>
> You could, if you were Manichean and not Christian.

> > if it existed in the first place.
>
> Of course it existed. Even Calvin did not deny that Adam had free will.
>
> >Second, one could argue that God Himself
> >doesn't have free will, since He cannot transcend His own nature.

God was free in eternity to create to not create.

> But that, Bob, would be a radical denial of the Trinity. For one of the
> implications of Trinity is that God is NOT determined by His own nature.
Of
> _course_ he can 'transcend' it, although it is not clear what you really
mean by
> that.
>
> >> >> Another is that God is GOOD.
> >> >
> >> >That's not an internal contradiction, but rather something
> >> >which conflicts with your own (external) definition of
> >> >"good".
> >>
> >> It is not "Gary's definition", it is the Bible's. Nor is it
> >> 'external'. It is what God reveals about Himself (Mt 5:44-48).
> >
> >The issue is not "is God good" but rather "what is good".

God has told us in Scripture what is good. And what He has
told us is that Calvinism is bad, very bad. God is concerned with
such things as just scales, etc. So just think what He thinks of
a system which makes evil good.

> >We claim that
> >it is good for a sovereign God to declare man to be responsible by fiat.

This puts God's will above His nature. That is, God can will evil
in your system and there by it is good. This is false. God wills
according to His nature. For example God cannot will to lie.

> And you claim so wrongly. As Gary has heatedly pointed out, you have no
> Scriptural basis for this claim, so you conjure up highly imaginative
> misreadings of Scripture to make it _look_ like you do have Scriptural
basis.
>
> Not to mention, you come up with one weak excuse after another for
ignoring all
> the Scriptural basis Augustine explained (in De Gratia & Libero Arbitrio)
for
> believing the OPPOSITE of what you believe: we _do_ have free will, the
very
> _existence_ of divine commandments IS the primary Scriptural basis.
>
> But Gary learned to see through your smoke and mirrors. So did I. And if
this is
> the best you can do as a 'rebuttal', many among the lurkers will soon
learn to
> see through your smoke and mirrors too.

It may not be the best he can do, or the best that can be done, but no
matter,
a false thesis cannot be proved by anyone. And all of the distinctive
doctrines
of Calvinism are false. Each one can be proved by Scripture to be false, as
has already been shown.

> >> >And yet, you said almost the same thing. Something like
> >> >"God is the ultimate cause but not the immediate cause."
> >>
> >> No, what Gary said was what St. Augustine and St. Basil said: God is
> >> not the cause of any evil, not even that sinners are lost. Sinners
> >> have themselves as the cause of that.

Bob and Loren need to learn about "causes." In one sense God
is the cause of everything, for He sustains all things. But while we
will with the good gift of free will that God has given us, it is ourselves
who abuse this good gift. Thus we are the determiner of the evil
we do.

> >Yet God permitted them the capacity to sin and thereby become damned.
>
> So? God's permission is NOT causation. That was St. Basil's point.

Why can't the Calvinist understand this simple point? Why can't they
see that allowing their teenage child to go out on a date, before teaching
them how to behave, thus permitting them to misbehave, is not the same
as causing them to misbehave?

We had a picture before, presented by Bart, I think, where he likened
"my" God to a God who allows His children to walk in front of an oncomming
bus. He cannot see the difference between this God allowing for sin, and
his God pushing the child in front of the oncoming bus! Well, most of us
can see a very large difference.

> >Why can't they use the excuse "why did you make me like this?"

I would add, that under Calvinism that could use this excuse! For indeed
the Calvinist God made them such that they had to sin! But under the
true doctrine, these choose to sin who could have chosen not to sin
(with the help of God.)

> Because He did _not_ "make them like this". Remember your own beloved Rom
9
> passage: the vessels predestined to glory are prepared for glory by God,
but
> those "fitted for destruction" are 'fitted' by themselves.
>
> Similarly, the everlasting punishment of Mt ch. 25 was prepared NOT for
men, but
> for the devil and his angels. But men who refuse to follow Christ will
fall into
> it anyway. But since it was prepared for the devils, not for men, do not
blame
> God for this.
>
> You should have noticed, Bob. The fact that this same theme recurs in
these two
> passages (and more) should have clued you in: there is no excuse for
Calvin's
> double-predestination.
>
> >> To quote the latter directly:
> >>
> >> First, let it be fixed in our minds that as we are the creations of
> >> the good God and remain in His power, Who arranges all things
> >> concerning us, both big and small, we can suffer nothing without
> >> the will of God. And if we do suffer something, it is not harmful,
> >> or it is not such that anything better could be planned for us. For
> >> although even death is from God, death is not an evil, unless the
> >> death of a sinner, which is the transit to punishment. BUT AGAIN,
> >> GOD IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE PUNISHMENTS IN HELL, BUT WE OURSELVES
> >> ARE. BECAUSE THE CAUSE AND ROOT OF SIN DEPENDS ON OUR FREEDOM. If
> >> we would refrain from evil, we could avoid suffering anything poor;
> >> but because we are taken captive into sin by the love of pleasures,
> >> can we imagine a better proof that we are ourselves the cause of
> >> our woes?
> >>
> >> See how much more sensible is the thought of the great Cappadocian, St.
Basil
> >> the Great!
> >
> >It may appeal to human sensibility,

Calvinism appeals to human snobery. It appeals to human (I was chosen
you were not!) But it does not appeal to Scripture, for Scripture
contradicts
it.

> No, it does not. "Human sensibility" wants to deny our responsibility. But
the
> saint left NO room for that. Yet Reform 'theology' lets this denial sneak
back
> in through the back door.
>
> > but it's logically incoherent. On
> >the one hand, "God arrages _all things_ concerning us" yet "we are the
> >cause of our woes".
>
> There is nothing "logically incoherent" here. If there were, you should be
able
> to say more than just "logically incoherent". You should be able to show
using
> symbolic logic, where the contradiction is, or where the gap in the logic
is.
> But if you were to actually try this, you would discover that the "logical
> incoherence" is in your OWN thinking: perhaps you are confusing 'arrange'
with
> 'cause'.

It would seem that the Calvinist cannot differentiate between "ordain" and
cause. God can ordain that many things happen which are not according
to His will. God can ordain that man have free will to choose to be damned.

> Or perhaps you need to see the rest of the sermon. Time to brush up on
your
> Russian and look at the website I gave you;)
>
> Did you forget already? It is http://pagez.ru/lsn/0082.php.

Thanks, Matthew, very interesting.

Gary

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Facile

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

English

Adjective

Italian

Etymology

Adjective

Related terms

Search

Navigation