ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

KJV Isa 43:19 - Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.

RSV Isa 43:19 - Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.​

:think: Somebody must be obfuscating in the above verse. :doh:

 

[Philetus]

Isaiah 48:6 - 7
You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you.
They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.'​

I can't believe the kind of questions we must ask in response to Calvinism ... but why not ...

Can God make a new creature?

 

[Lon]

Lonster,

Would you please learn how to properly use the quote feature? It isn't that hard. Don't be lazy!

It would be kewl if I could hit a button for auto quote. Sorry, forgot this as a peeve of yours (and probably will again in the future so appreciate the reminders).

Why do you put the word new in quotes? And how it is possible that you completely missed the point about Beethoven? Let me try again.

As AMR stated, I also see 'new' as a temporal value. And I said to Knight, God is infinite, even our language is finite especially in consideration of explaining God's transcendence, infinite qualities.

Music was not new to Beethoven when he wrote the Moonlight Sonata but the Moonlight Sonata was! The Moonlight Sonata hadn't existed before he wrote it and thus it was new to God too! Music was not new and the concept of songs wasn't new either but that PARTICULAR song was!

Sorry I didn't get that idea across. Again, everything we do that we haven't done before is new specifically because we are not infinite. We only have a small take on most things. I've had a few art classes, so have seen most artist works and can usually tell who made the painting. But I have not seen all art made so anything I see would be 'new.' God sees everything. Considering that every breath, stroke of a pen on a music staff etc. comes at His enablement it proceeds out of Him as the source (again with the exception of sin).

The point is that there is more than one way to use the word new and you are intentionally (??? You know me better than that (don't you?)using it in a quite different way than Knight and I are and you are therefore making a category error in your reasoning. Just because God planned for how He would respond to sin doesn't mean that when Lucifer fell, it wasn't new. It was new in that it had never happened before and it DID NOT originate in nor proceed from God. While the concept of sin was known to God in that He understood that His creatures had the ability to reject Him, the actual sin itself didn't exist until it happened and thus was new, by definition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

We are in agreement on all but 'new.' Again, this is temporal explaining atemporal. Finite explaining infinite. We just don't have the verb tense or words to describe God adequately in regards to this. Our logic very much follows our ability to articulate, and is also necessarily finite as we are. So 'new' (for emphasis btw, alone in text the quotes are to emphasize it for definition) is a finite temporal definition so is incapable of defining infinite. As I try to summarize, I'm saying 'new' is a temporal word.

 

[Lon]

Isaiah 48:6 - 7
You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you.
They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.'​

I can't believe the kind of questions we must ask in response to Calvinism ... but why not ...

Can God make a new creature?

Same question I believe, new to us, yes. I might be able to get this idea across for acceptance at least temporally. If I have a building supply yard with all materials and all combinations known, and you come and buy some metals for a building project, melt them down, and create a new alloy, it is new to you, not me. I already know every possibility of alloy combination (I didn't patent anything nor gave you directions knowing you'd create what was needed on your own).

So, because I've given you creative power, by not giving you a specific direction for making the alloy, yes, it is new to you, but not to me. I know what all my materials can be combined to make, I've got them all and have combined them all.

All our resources are from God, and are sustained by Him. Nothing exists without Him. Our brains are chemically sustained by His power. The essence has proceeded from Him. There is no material, thought, or anything but sin that doesn't proceed from Him. "By Him all things have their being and hold together."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Evoken's TULIP Response to AMR – Part 3 (Conclusion)

Evoken's TULIP Response to AMR – Part 3 (Conclusion)

This is my final reply to Evoken’s response to my original TULIP post. See below for the links to follow this thread. Evoken has posted thoughtful and informative responses to my other responses here and here.

Notes:
1. My original TULIP post is here
2. Evoken’s reply is located here
3. See here for Part 1 of my response to Evoken’s cogent observations
4. See here for Part 2 of my response to Evoken’s cogent observations

(On Irresistable Grace)

As stated above, grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51), so while God does extends grace to all men, not all accept this gift. However, it is also clear that those whom the Father calls come to the Son (John 6:45). This does not mean that man cannot oppose its execution to a certain degree, but it does mean that his opposition will not prevail. Neither does it mean that God in the execution of His decree overpowers the human will in a manner which is inconsistent with man's free agency. It does mean, however, that God can and does exert such an influence on the human spirit as to make it willing, Ps. 110:3; Phil. 2:13.

Evoken,

We are nearly in agreement here. I agree that God’s bestowal of grace is not coercive on His elect. And yes, the elect can and do resist the call of God to righteousness, but only for a time, for God has willed in His decree the elect, and while God does not always get what He wants, God always gets what He willed. I’ve seen the metaphor (which I do not care for) of God “wooing” the elect used to describe this process. Where we part in our agreement is your assumption that God’s grace is extended to all men, yet not all men accept this gift of grace. I assume that the “grace” you are referring to is the saving grace of God. I have described the distinction between common and saving grace inPart 1of my response. And inPart 2I defended my position that Christ’s atonement cannot be meant for all persons, instead it is limited only to God’s elect.

Let’s explore the concept of grace more fully now.

The word "grace" is not always used in the same sense in Scripture, but has a variety of meanings. In the Old Testament we have the word chen (adj. chanun), from the root chanan. The noun may denote gracefulness or beauty, see Prov. 22:11; 31:30, but most generally means favor or good-will. The Old Testament repeatedly speaks of finding favor in the eyes of God or of man. The favor so found carries with it the bestowal of favors or blessings. This means that grace is not an abstract quality, but is an active, working principle, manifesting itself in beneficent acts, see Gen. 6:8; 19:19; 33:15; Ex. 33:12; 34:9; I Sam. 1:18; 27:5; Esth. 2:7.

The fundamental idea is that the blessings graciously bestowed are freely given, and not in consideration of any claim or merit. The New Testament word charis, from chairein, “to rejoice,” denotes first of all a pleasant external appearance, “loveliness,” “agreeableness,” “acceptableness,” and has some such meaning in Luke 4:22; Col. 4:6. A more prominent meaning of the word, however, is favor or good-will, see Luke 1:30; 2:40,52; Acts 2:47; 7:46; 24:27; 25:9. The word may denote the kindness or beneficence of our Lord, II Cor. 8:9, or the favor manifested or bestowed by God, II Cor. 9:8 (referring to material blessings); I Pet. 5:10. Moreover, the word is expressive of the emotion awakened in the heart of the recipient of such favor, and thus acquires the meaning “gratitude” or “thankfulness,” see Luke 4:22; I Cor. 10:30; 15:57; II Cor. 2:14; 8:16; I Tim. 1:12.

In most of the passages, however, in which the word charis is used in the New Testament, the word signifies the unmerited operation of God in the heart of man, effected through the agency of the Holy Spirit. While we sometimes speak of grace as an inherent quality, it is in reality the active communication of divine blessings by the inworking of the Holy Spirit, out of the fullness of Him who is “full of grace and truth,” see Rom. 3:24; 5:2,15, 17,20; 6:1; I Cor. 1:4; II Cor. 6:1; 8:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:5,8; 3:7; I Pet. 3:7; 5:12.

Our discussion of the grace of God in connection with the work of redemption, i.e., God’s regenerating, efficacious, salvific, grace, (whew!) requires several distinctions, which should be kept in our minds.

a. First, grace is an attribute of God, one of the divine perfections. Regenerating grace is God's free, sovereign, undeserved favor or love to man, in his state of sin and guilt, which manifests itself in the forgiveness of sin and deliverance from its penalty. Grace is connected with the mercy of God as distinguished from His justice. This is redemptive grace in the most fundamental sense of the word. This grace is the ultimate cause of God's elective purpose, of the sinner's justification, and of his spiritual renewal; and the prolific source of all spiritual and eternal blessings.

b. Second, the term “grace” is used as a designation of the objective provision which God made in Christ for the salvation of man. Christ as the Mediator is the living embodiment of the grace of God. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us . . . full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14). Paul has this appearance of Christ in mind, when he says: “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” (Tit. 2:11). But the term is applied not only to what Christ is, but also to what He merited for sinners. When the apostle speaks repeatedly in the closing salutations of his Epistles of “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Paul has in mind the grace of which Christ is the meritorious cause. John says: “The law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,” see John 1:17, cf. also Eph. 2:7.

c. Third, the word “grace” is used to designate the favor of God as it is manifested in the application of the work of redemption by the Holy Spirit. It is applied to the pardon which we receive in justification, a pardon freely given by God, see Rom. 3:24; 5:2,21; Tit. 3:15. But in addition to that “grace” is also a comprehensive name for all the gifts of the grace of God, the blessings of salvation, and the spiritual graces which are wrought in the hearts and lives of believers through the operation of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:23; 18:27; Rom. 5:17; I Cor. 15:10; II Cor. 9:14; Eph. 4:7; Jas. 4:5,6; I Pet. 3:7). Also, there are clear indications of the fact that “grace” is not a mere passive quality, but also an active force, a power, something that labors, see I Cor. 15:10; II Cor. 12:9; II Tim. 2:1. In this sense of the word it is something like a synonym for the Holy Spirit, so that there is little difference between "full of the Holy Spirit" and "full of grace and power" in Acts 6:5, 8. The Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of grace” in Heb. 10:29. It is especially in connection with the teachings of Scripture respecting the application of the grace of God to the sinner by the Holy Spirit, that the doctrine of grace was developed in the Church.

God distributes His blessings through common grace to all persons in a free and sovereign manner, and not in consideration of any inherent merit of them; that all persons owe all the blessings of life to a beneficent, forbearing, and longsuffering God; and especially that all the blessings of the work of salvation, through regenerating grace, are freely given of God, and are in no way determined by supposed merits of any person. This is clearly expressed by Paul: “For by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory,” (Eph. 2:8,9). Paul strongly emphasizes the fact that salvation is not by works, see Rom. 3:20-28; 4:16; Gal. 2:16.

That being said, a distinction must be made between efficacious and sufficient grace. The first secures the man who receives it and ensures his salvation, or simply ensures that he does some salutary act. The second simply empowers the person who receives it to do some salutary act, or to persevere in a state of grace. The first is not dependent upon man, but on God alone, as a consequence, since God's will cannot fail, it cannot be resisted. The second is born out of a cooperation between man and God and man can resist it and ultimately reject it and fall into sin. A good illustration of how sufficient grace operates in man is in the instance where St. Peter begins to walk in water but then falls and start to drown once he doubts (Matthew 14:29-31). If only efficacious grace were operative, then in this case, St. Peter would not even doubt, but would walk over the water without sinking an inch.

So, we can say that while God does gives efficacious grace to some, he gives sufficient grace to all (Titus 2:11). This is also presupposed by the fact that the atonement made salvation possible for all men, but is made actual only by some.

I am not sure I can follow the term “sufficient grace”. I believe we are talking about what I have described in part “c.” above. If so, I understand the idea of our grieving the Holy Spirit through some of our sinful actions. What I would want as clarification from you is whether or not you see this “sufficient grace” as operative in only the regenerated, which I think you do from your comments above. In that case, I would agree with you.

(On Perseverance of the Saints)

To this, I would reply again with both instances of St. Peter in which he not only doubts (Matthew 14:29-31) but explicitly denies Jesus Christ (Mark 14:66-70). Also, St. Paul is well aware that even after being "born-again" he could fall away (Corinthians 9:27). There are several more parts on Scripture that shown that a person can fall away after being "born-again" (2 Peter 2:20-21, 2 Peter 3:17, Romans 11:22, Galatians 5:1-4).

This is why there is the whole concept of forgiveness, repentance and penance. In fact, the "Our Father" presupposes that man can fall to sin but that he can be restored again when it says "Forgive us our trespasses...". If that were not the case, then it doesn't really makes sense to pray to God asking for forgiveness.

We are going to strongly differ on this topic. Calvinists do not see perseverance as dependent on the uncertain obedience of man. We believe that those who have been regenerated and effectually called by God to a state of grace can never completely fall from that state and thus fail to attain to eternal salvation. That is not to say that God’s regenerated elect may sometimes be overcome by evil and fall into sin. We believe that the life of regeneration and the habits that develop out of it in the way of sanctification can never entirely disappear.

Calvinists do not consider the perseverance of the saints as being a disposition or activity of the believer, though we certainly believe that man cooperates in his perseverance just as he does in sanctification. We even stress the fact that the believer would fall away, if he were left to himself. Strictly speaking, it is not man but God who perseveres. Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.

I believe the Scriptures are clear on this issue. John 10:27-29 we read: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." Paul comforts the believing Philippians with the words: "Being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ," (Phil. 1:6). In II Thess. 3:3, Paul says: "But the Lord is faithful, who shall establish you, and guard you from the evil one." In II Tim. 1:12 Paul sounds a note of rejoicing: "For I know Him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard that which I have committed unto Him against that day." And in 4:18 of the same Epistle Paul glories in the fact that the Lord will deliver him from every evil work and will save him unto His heavenly kingdom.

If God has elected some to salvation, it is an election unto an end, that is, unto salvation. Election does not mean that if the elect do their duty, they might be saved. In the covenant of redemption God gave His people to His Son as the reward for Christ’s obedience and suffering. God does not go back on His promises and Christ’s elect cannot be separated from Him (Rom. 8:38,39). The elect are justified by the perfect and efficacious price paid by Christ’s atonement, therefore it is impossible that these so justified could again fall under condemnation. Christ makes constant intercession for those who are given Him of the Father, and His intercessory prayer for His people is always efficacious, (see John 11:42; Heb. 7:25). The Scriptures tell us that the believer is already in this life in possession of salvation and eternal life, (see John 3:36; 5:24; 6:54).

You cite Peter’s denial of Christ, yet this is not an indication that Peter was falling away from his salvation, rather Peter was falling into sin. We also find in the Scriptures that Christ had interceded for Peter, and as discussed above Christ’s intercessory prayers for all of His elect is always efficacious.

Let’s look at the verses you cited. We must be careful not to select from a few verses to formulate a doctrine when there exist many others that appear directly contradictory. This should be a sign that we have not properly interpreted things.

The verse, 1 Cor. 9:27, cannot refer to the saved being lost, firstly because of the body of evidence from other Scriptures (see above) that this is not the case. Therefore there must be another interpretation. The verse properly translated (ESV) reads: “But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” In effect, Paul is saying, "I let go of my liberty in order that I might win people to Jesus. Why? Because I'm in a race for a prize that will affect who I am and what I do in the ages to come. Therefore, even though I am free to do all things, I can be disqualified if I don't keep my flesh under control, if I cause another to stumble." In view of the larger body of Scriptures, there are only two possible interpretations of the term “disqualified”.

One, which I believe is appropriate, is that Paul is not teaching that a person who was ever saved could be disqualified, but simply that one who failed to exercise self-discipline had never been really saved in the first place. Thinking of the false teachers and how they indulged every passion and appetite, Paul sets forth the general principle that if a person does not keep his body in subjection, this is proof that he never really was born again; and although he might preach to others, he himself will be disqualified.

The second interpretation is that Paul is not speaking here of salvation at all but of service. Paul is not suggesting that he might ever be lost, but that he might not stand the test as far as his service was concerned and might be rejected for the prize. This interpretation exactly fits the meaning of the word disqualified and the athletic context. Paul recognizes the awful possibility that, having preached to others, he himself might be put on the shelf by the Lord as no longer usable by Him.

The verses you cite from 2 Pe 2 refer to false teachers, apostates. Particularly, verse 20 asserts only that false teachers who have for a time escaped from worldly corruption through knowing Christ (here "knowing" is as even the demons "know" Christ) and then turn away from the light of the Christian faith are worse off than they were before knowing Christ. It uses no terminology affirming that they were Christians in reality (e.g., "sons of God," "children," "born again," "regenerate," "redeemed"). The New Testament makes a distinction between those who are in the churches and those who are regenerate (cf. 2 Cor 13:5; 2 Tim 2:18-19; 1 John 3:7-8; 2:19: "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.... but their going showed that none of them belonged to us"). So when Peter says, "They are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning," The reference is to a lost apostate.

In 2 Pe 3:17 the context is not falling away from salvation but that believers must be constantly on guard against the peril of error. The knowledge that there will always be false teachers who corrupt and imitate the truth should keep us alert. It is easy for the unsuspecting to be swept off their feet by the error of the wicked and to lose their spiritual balance. The noun sterigmos ("secure position”, NIV) occurs only here in the NT, but the related verb and adjective are important in Peter's life (cf. Luke 22:32 of Jesus' command to Peter) and also in this letter (cf. 2:14; 3:16).

Romans 11:22 is not speaking about individual believers. In the parable of the olive tree, we see two great contrasting facets of God's character—His goodness and His severity. His severity is manifest in the removal of Israel from the favored-nation status. His goodness is seen in His turning to the Gentiles with the gospel (see Acts 13:46; Acts 18:6). But that goodness must not be taken for granted. The Gentiles too could be cut off if they do not maintain that relative openness which the Savior found during His earthly ministry (Mat. 8:10; Luke 7:9).

It must be kept in mind that Paul is not speaking of the church or of individual believers. He is speaking about the Gentiles as such. Nothing can ever separate the Body of Christ from the Head, and nothing can separate a believer from the love of God, but the Gentile peoples can be removed from their present position of special privilege.

Finally, Gal. 5:1-4 is treating the issue of legalism versus grace. That even the ethical life must begin by recognizing that the foundation of God's dealings with men is grace through faith rather than legalism. "Do you wish to lead a holy life?" Paul is asking. "Then begin with the principles of faith and shun legalism." Holiness will never come as the result of someone insisting on adherence to either man-made or even God-made regulations. What does "You have fallen away from grace" mean in verse 4? Some have incorrectly taken it as teaching that salvation can be lost. Consequently, though this is the only place in Scripture where the phrase occurs, the statement has assumed an importance far beyond Paul's use of it and in a way entirely out of keeping with his context. The phrase does not mean that if a Christian sins, he falls from grace and thereby loses his salvation. There is a sense in which to sin is to fall into grace, if one is repentant. But to fall from grace, as seen by this context, is to fall into legalism. Or to put it another way, to choose legalism is to relinquish grace as the principle by which one desires to be related to God. The article with "grace" distinguishes it as that specific grace of God in Christ that Paul has already stated to be the core of the gospel. Christ must be everything or nothing to a man; no limited trust or divided allegiance is acceptable to Him. The man who is justified by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is a Christian; the man who seeks to be justified by the works of the law is not.

 

[Clete]

Lonster,

Your entire position is based on the premise that God exists outside of time.

Do you have any Biblical argument at all that would support that premise?

 

[Evoken]

Do you have any Biblical argument at all that would support that premise?

The Bible tells us that we can determine God's atributes thru the things that are made (Romans 1:20). So, an explicit biblical "argument" for God being outside of time is not absolutely necessary.


Evo

 

[Delmar]

The Bible tells us that we can determine God's atributes thru the things that are made (Romans 1:20). So, an explicit biblical "argument" for God being outside of time is not absolutely necessary.


Evo

How is it "clearly seen" through through the things that are made, that God does not do things in sequential order?

 

[themuzicman]

OK, part 2. (Sorry I didn't do this last night.. too much going on...)

The problem of evil is on that all theologies must answer, if the posit that God is omnibenevolent.

The problem is simply stated: If God is all good, then how can evil exist. The underlying argument is that if God was good and omnipotent, then He would prevent evil from happening.

And this certainly is something that is problematic.

However, OVT has an answer.

First, we must establish that God does not violate His own Word. If God declares something, then He will not violate it.

Second, we must establish that creation and the nature of creation is established by God's spoken Word. "And God said: Let there be light. And there was light." Thus, God will not destroy light, because He created is by His own Word.

This is also true of man. Now, if man is created with libertarian free will by God's declaration, then God is not going to violate man's free will. This doesn't mean that God has no influence in the world or cannot persuade men to act in particular ways, but it does mean that the actions men do, they determine out of their own free will.

I like to say that people are "uncaused causers." This isn't to say that our existence wasn't caused. Certainly it was. But our will acts without being caused by anything but itself. (And be sure to keep the distinction between 'influence' and 'cause.' One attempts to get the uncaused will to do something, the other causes the will to act in a particular manner.)

Thus, as a result of desiring to enter into a true relationship with mankind, to have a people to Himself, as we see in Ephesians 1:4, God creates the human race and declares that they have free will.

God now knows that evil is possible, because mankind could reject God, but evil is not certain, and can only be caused by mankind deliberately rejecting God's simple command NOT to eat from the TKGE.

Thus, given that God has engaged in a perfect love relationship with Adam and Eve, and that He has instructed them clearly with consequence regarding the TKGE, there ought to be no expectation by God that they will eat from the tree.

However, they do.

Now, given the circumstance where God desires relationship, creates the circumstances necessary for that relationship, and clearly gives His creation the instructions for keeping that relationship and avoiding death, and then man rejects God's commands, is God responsible for evil?

No. God would not violate His own Word in creation by preventing Adam and Eve from acting freely to reject Him, and thus the burden for the presence of evil in the world falls squarely and solely only the shoulders of mankind.

As for ongoing evil, God is also just, and the just consequence of mankind's evil, the results of that evil are visited upon mankind itself, such that God is not obligated in any way (and is held in check by His own just nature) to prevent the evil of mankind from being poured out upon mankind.

Granted that the results of evil tend to be very acute, rather than general, and we need to avoid saying that an individual was raped or killed because they specifically did something wrong, but none can say that they don't deserve the consequence of sin, because all sin, and all cause evil to occur.

God acts graciously to make propitiation for our sins, and commands us to provide relief for others who suffer the consequence of sin, even as God acts to relieve that suffering for those who call upon Him. But God is under no obligation to do so, unlike mankind, who is ultimately responsible for the suffering that we (collectively) cause.

Thus problem of the existence of evil and the ongoing suffering as a result of evil is squarely placed upon the shoulders of men, and our benevolent God is simply not responsible for the evil in His creation.

Muz

 

[dale]

Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion.

There ya go! "Adam sinning by his own free will" Apparently Adam had a FREE will, whereas we today do not. At least that was what I thought you were saying in post #86 when you said, "So are we free? Do we have free will? If God exercises providential control over all events are we in any sense free?"

So, maybe the question should be: Was God exercising providential control over all events before the fall? If so, then by your definition, Adam did not have a FREE will.

Which is it? Was God exercising providential control over all events before the fall? Or, did Adam have a free will?

When God predestines people to salvation God is predestinating people to be saved whom He knows really need to be saved.

What do you mean "people to be saved whom He knows really need to be saved"? Don't all people need to be saved?

To be perfectly clear, God knew before the Fall that there would be a Fall and God took action to redeem some, His elect.

Only some? The rest, who are not able to come to Him without Him drawing them, are left to eternal torment?

God ordained the Fall in the sense that he chose to allow it, but not in the sense that God chose to coerce it.

Whether He allowed it or coerced it seems somewhat inconsequential when you're talking about The Almighty. Either way it was under His providential control. But then again, I suppose that depends on if you believe God was exercising providential control over all events before the fall.

God's predestinating grace is gracious precisely because He chooses to save people whom He knows in advance will be spiritually dead.

Gracious for some. But, aren't all people spiritually dead? Does He not love me as much as He loves you?

Before the fall, Adam was free--more free than we have ever been. Adam was created with God's grace in a state of positive holiness, and was also immortal in the sense that he was not subject to the law of death. But Adam was only at the beginning of his existence and did not yet possess the highest privileges that were in store for mankind. Adam was not yet raised above the possibility of erring, sinning, and dying. He was not yet in possession of the highest degree of holiness, nor did he enjoy life in all its fulness. The image of God in the man Adam was still limited by the possibility of man's sinning against God, changing from good to evil, and becoming subject to the power of death. The promise of life in the covenant of works was a promise of the removal of all the limitations of life to which Adam was still subject, and of the raising of his life to the highest degree of perfection. When Paul says in Rom. 7:10 that the commandment was unto life, he means life in the fullest sense of the word. The principle of the covenant of works was: the man that does these things shall live thereby; and this principle is reiterated time and again in Scripture, Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11,13,20; Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12. The great question that had to be settled by Adam was, whether man would obey God implicitly or follow the guidance of his own judgment.It was a test of pure obedience. Adam had to show his willingness to submit his will to the will of his God with implicit obedience.

Adam could sin or choose to not sin. Adam, who had absolutely no claim on God, and who could only establish a claim by meeting the condition of the covenant of works, cut himself loose from God and acted as if he possesed certain rights as over against God. The idea that the command of God was really an infringement on the rights of man seems to have been already present in the mind of Eve when, in answer to the question of Satan, she added the words, "Neither shall you touch it," (Gen. 3:3). Eve evidently wanted to stress the fact that God's command had been unreasonable.
Adam disobeyed and chose to sin...which was what he willfully and with full foreknowledge that his actions were contrary to what God had personally told him.

Adam's willful disobedience threw all of his progeny into a state of sin, breaking the covenant of works that God had established with Him--said progeny now being unable to not sin. The lost therefore can only choose to their own inclinations, being inclined to sin less or to sin more. This is unlike the regenerate, who can choose to sin or not to sin, but again, both choices made according to their own inclinations. Only now, the regenerate can be inclined towards God's purposes and righteousness, and hence enjoy a freedom the lost can never claim, a freedom to be the kind of creature God expects them to be.

A freedom to be the kind of creature God expects them to be? "So are we free? Do we have free will? If God exercises providential control over all events are we in any sense free?"

 

[Delmar]

Rape, molestation, etc., pale by comparison to the crucifixion of Christ. Are you denying that God ordained His Son's atonement for our sins? Then why deny other "minor" evils (that is, when compared to our Lord's death) are under God's providential control? You are applying an egalitarian humanistic rationale to how you would like God to act. God is transcendent, beyond our full understanding. That does not mean we cannot know some things about God as He has revealed them to us. We know that all things work towards God's purposes for good. If sin is "senseless" then God is not in control and we are all doomed. Even sin works towards the purposes of God. Do you believe that some sinful acts serve no useful purpose in this world? That there is some sin that God sees no purpose in?

That we cannot fully understand God's sovereignty versus God's clear admonishment that He is sovereign and that we are responsible for our sins does not give us warrant to re-define God in our own image.

For more see here.

AMR
You might want to check out this thread http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1474143&posted=1#post1474143

 

[Evoken]

How is it "clearly seen" through through the things that are made, that God does not do things in sequential order?

Let’s take it slowly. What you are asking is a corollary of God being outside of time, which is the question we are dealing with first. Now, we know from science that time along with space (matter/energy) had a beginning (big bang). We also know that the universe (time/matter/energy) will have an end (heath/cold death) due to the continued expansion of the universe. By the consensus of modern science we conclude to the fact that an eternal universe (which entails an infinite regress or series of events) and infact, passing any infinite series of events is an impossibility.

Do you disagree with any of the above?


Evo

 

[Delmar]

Let’s take it slowly. What you are asking is a corollary of God being outside of time, which is the question we are dealing with first. Now, we know from science that time along with space (matter/energy) had a beginning (big bang).

I agree that the physical universe had a beginning. I also believe that there were events happening, in sequence, before the physical universe was created.

We also know that the universe (time/matter/energy) will have an end (heath/cold death) due to the continued expansion of the universe. By the consensus of modern science we conclude to the fact that an eternal universe (which entails an infinite regress or series of events) and infact, passing any infinite series of events is an impossibility.

Do you disagree with any of the above?


Evo

Assuming that we will continue to exsist as spiritual beings beyond the existence of the physical universe, I see no reason to believe that we will not continue to experience events, in sequential order.

 

[Philetus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philetus View Post

Isaiah 48:6 - 7
You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you.
They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.'

I can't believe the kind of questions we must ask in response to Calvinism ... but why not ...

Can God make a new creature?

​

Same question I believe, new to us, yes. I might be able to get this idea across for acceptance at least temporally. If I have a building supply yard with all materials and all combinations known, and you come and buy some metals for a building project, melt them down, and create a new alloy, it is new to you, not me. I already know every possibility of alloy combination (I didn't patent anything nor gave you directions knowing you'd create what was needed on your own).

So, because I've given you creative power, by not giving you a specific direction for making the alloy, yes, it is new to you, but not to me. I know what all my materials can be combined to make, I've got them all and have combined them all.

All our resources are from God, and are sustained by Him. Nothing exists without Him. Our brains are chemically sustained by His power. The essence has proceeded from Him. There is no material, thought, or anything but sin that doesn't proceed from Him. "By Him all things have their being and hold together."

What does your illustration have to do with reality? I don’t want to make an alloy … I want to make a new house; a house that didn’t previously exist. And half way through the building process I DECIDE to move a wall, now it really is a new house, different than the one I originally designed (imagined/ envisioned). I didn’t intend to create a new universe … I just wanted to build a new house. You guys can complicate the hell out of the simplest things. “And on the 98th day God looked upon the house that Philetus had made and saw that (except for that one wall) it was good.”


So, then can God make a new creation? You know … a new heaven and new earth?
Could Jesus possibly be preparing (now in the process) a place for our eternal existence?


Verses that seem to be awkward for the settled view are ignored or dismissed as either not meaning what they say or so far beyond our understanding that we just have to defer to our own inability to understand. The God who makes every quark in the universe ‘jump’ from here to there can’t come up with anything new or innovative with out becoming imperfect or be seen as incomplete in His original meticulous design for the universe? Give me a break. Can’t your unmoved mover move himself?

Calvinists have claimed their own limited knowledge of God to justify not answering so many simple straight forward questions so often on this thread that I’m surprised they haven’t listed omniobfuscation as a divine attribute.

 

[Nang]

Can God make a new creature?

​

Sure.

He made me new when He regenerated me to new life in Christ. Of course, God knew before the foundation of the world, He would make me new in Christ.

And physically speaking, "new" creatures are born every day. A "new" calf dropped yesterday; never seen before . . .by me. However, that new calf was forever in the mind of God; preordained to exist at the right moment of time.

So, then can God make a new creation? You know … a new heaven and new earth?
Could Jesus possibly be preparing (now in the process) a place for our eternal existence?

Sure, and He is. The Bible says so. This "new" heaven and earth are already designed and waiting to replace this "old" heaven and earth.

Of course, none of this is "new" to God. The new heavens and new earth are His Kingdom, that will eventually be made manifest to the sons of God. It will be "new" to us, but not new to God.

Nang

 

[Delmar]

Sure.

He made me new when He regenerated me to new life in Christ. Of course, God knew before the foundation of the world, He would make me new in Christ.

And physically speaking, "new" creatures are born every day. A "new" calf dropped yesterday; never seen before . . .by me. However, that new calf was forever in the mind of God; preordained to exist at the right moment of time.









Sure, and He is. The Bible says so. This "new" heaven and earth are already designed and waiting to replace this "old" heaven and earth.

Of course, none of this is "new" to God. The new heavens and new earth are His Kingdom, that will eventually be made manifest to the sons of God. It will be "new" to us, but not new to God.

Nang

"outside of time" the word "before" has no meaning!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So, maybe the question should be: Was God exercising providential control over all events before the fall? If so, then by your definition, Adam did not have a FREE will.

Did you read the earlier reference I pointed you too or not, sir? Your “free” will and my “free” will are not the same. I suspect your “free” will is the libertarian notion of free will, which is given no warrant in the Scriptures. Free will, to me, is the ability to choose the thing you are most inclined to choose at the moment. Moreover, as a regenerated Christian, my free will includes my ability to choose to do spiritual good things or to not choose to do spiritually good things and to therefore sin, again depending upon my greatest inclinations. The unregenerate are not at liberty to ever choose to do spiritually good things, for they are always inclined to not seek God’s favor. Hence, by my definition, previously cited in a link I pointed you towards for review, Adam possessed the free will as I have defined such and God is always exercising His providential control over His creation.

What do you mean "people to be saved whom He knows really need to be saved"? Don't all people need to be saved?

God desires (wants) all men to repent (His perceptive will), yet God only elects some through His sovereign (decretive) will. What God wants He often does not get, what God decrees He always will achieve.

Only some? The rest, who are not able to come to Him without Him drawing them, are left to eternal torment?

Why not? None deserve God’s grace or mercy, for all men are spiritually and completely dead in their sin. God quickens those whom He has chosen through the counsel of His own sovereign and perfect will without any consideration of their actions before He so chose them (the elect). Grace is getting what you don't deserve; Mercy is not getting what you do deserve.

Whether He allowed it or coerced it seems somewhat inconsequential when you're talking about The Almighty. Either way it was under His providential control. But then again, I suppose that depends on if you believe God was exercising providential control over all events before the fall.

See above. God simply withheld that undeserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen, which grace He was under no obligation to bestow. In respect to himself, Adam might have stood had he so chosen; but in respect to God it was certain that he would fall. He acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty.

Gracious for some. But, aren't all people spiritually dead? Does He not love me as much as He loves you?

God loves His elect and passes by others who are left in their own sins.

A freedom to be the kind of creature God expects them to be? "So are we free? Do we have free will? If God exercises providential control over all events are we in any sense free?"

Please review above. Your notions of freedom, in effect to be autonomous from God, are not biblically supported. In fact, such freedom as you presuppose was the very first sin.

 

[themuzicman]

God desires (wants) all men to repent (His perceptive will), yet God only elects some through His sovereign (decretive) will. What God wants He often does not get, what God decrees He always will achieve.

1) God decrees who will be saved, apart from the actions of men
2) God desires for all to be saved
3) Not all are saved.
4) Therefore, God decrees something other that what He desires?

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How is it "clearly seen" through through the things that are made, that God does not do things in sequential order?

Time, or more accurately time and space, is an attribute of the universe. You have agreed that the universe was created. Acording to you, if time is an attribute of God, He shares attributes with the created universe. If time is an attribute of God, he cannot extend beyond the boundaries of the known universe, because by definition, time is an attribute of existing matter in space.

Is God a material? Since the rate of time is related to gravitation and mass (see any physics text), how much does He weigh and what is His density so God can know what time it is? Also, from physics, time flows at different rates at different locations, so, is God younger at some places than He is at others, or does God "fall behind" His actions in time in some places than others?

Therefore, either God is an aspect of the physical universe, pantheism, or we are an aspect of God, panentheism, or God though beyond the created contours of the mere physicality of the creation, can and does work within time and space and is not subject to time or space, which is traditional Christian theism. In which camp do you belong?

 

[Nang]

"outside of time" the word "before" has no meaning!

Is that where you live and breathe and post? Outside of time?

Or are you here with us, in time, able to comprehend the temporal meaning of "before?"