ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Knight

Was there something about my explanation you didn't understand?

Crediting death and sin to Adam is fundamental to the gospel.

Of course. We all know that because of Adam, sin entered the hearts of men. But, do you blame Adam everytime you sin?

But in this case.... like I said... I was only restating the "original sin" thing to show I didn't think that the woman gave herself cancer the way Z Man claimed I had.

Who gave the woman cancer?

 

[Hilston]

Please try again.

Please try again.

God_is_truth writes:

you are partly right in your answer. but ignoring what they may stand for, just in this example, who would you hold responsible for the crime? bob or joe?

Is Bob's son a minor? Or an adult?

God_is_truth writes:

have i ever chosen something i didn't want to? good grief yes! i may have wanted to wear my blue shirt with a hole in it to chruch when i was a kid but my parents would have made my choose another one.

Why didn't you disobey them?

God_is_truth writes:

... so, i would have had to choose to wear a shirt i didn't want to wear. i chose something i didn't want to choose. i had to choose it.

Not at all. You could have disobeyed. You had an option to obey or not. You chose the option that you wanted, which was obedience.

Do you have any real examples of choosing an option you did not want to choose?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Z Man

Of course. We all know that because of Adam, sin entered the hearts of men. But, do you blame Adam everytime you sin?

No. Do you blame God?

Who gave the woman cancer?

Uh... Dr. Suess?

I know, I know... you think God gave her cancer to show His glory. It was like God was just sitting around twiddling His thumbs saying to Himself.... "Hmmmm what should I do today.... hmmm... well..... I know! I think I will give Shirley McDoogle Leukemia!"

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Knight

No. Do you blame God?

Of course not. I blame myself.

Uh... Dr. Suess?

I know, I know... you think God gave her cancer to show His glory. It was like God was just sitting around twiddling His thumbs saying to Himself.... "Hmmmm what should I do today.... hmmm... well..... I know! I think I will give Shirley McDoogle Leukemia!"

You didn't answer my question: Who gave the woman cancer?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Z Man

Of course not. I blame myself.

Why?

Didn't God predetermine each one of your sins long in advance?

Aren't your sins all part of God's plans?

Why blame yourself for perfectly fulfilling God's will?

You didn't answer my question: Who gave the woman cancer?

Nobody! No one gave the woman cancer!

Now that I have answered, lets see if you have the guts to answer....

Who gave the woman cancer?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Knight

Why?

Didn't God predetermine each one of your sins long in advance?

Aren't your sins all part of God's plans?

Why blame yourself for perfectly fulfilling God's will?

That is an almost perfect word for word reading of Romans 9:19! My answer is, of course, the same one Paul gave in v.20:

I am nothing but a mere man; who am I to criticize and question God's sovereignty? He holds me accountable, thus I am to blame for my own sins. Yet, He is still absolutely sovereign. He does as He pleases, and there is nothing I can do to stop Him or judge Him.

Nobody! No one gave the woman cancer!

So it just came out of nowhere? LOL! Ok Knight, I think you lost it here... That is definitly not a rational answer. You can do better than that.

Or are you afraid to answer the question? I think you are, because you said

Now that I have answered, lets see if you have the guts to answer....

Why would you say "if you have the guts to answer"? Are you assuming that since you gave the most incredible, un-rational answer that really isn't an answer, that you somehow "proved" you weren't afraid to answer? Why did you feel like if you didn't answer, it meant that you were afraid? And why do you feel that if I don't, I'm afraid?

Who gave the woman cancer?

I already answered this question. I have no problem with the fact that it was God who gave it to her. He does things like that all the time in Scripture. He murdered all of Egypts firstborn, He plagued them, He afflicted the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness after their escape, He put Job through a life of hell, He blinded Zach, and Paul, and He put His own Son up for sacrifice. What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by KnightPOTD :first:

This is the first indication that his position has flopped. He resorts to nominating a fellow open theist a POTD. Pathetic. :down:

 

[boogerhead]

Originally posted by Knight

Yea your right... I am hard headed and you are not.

Is this the best you can do?

yeah i guess so...i'm not much of a fighter...and i won't lose sleep at night because you don't agree with me...i just encourage you to have an open mind...if i offended you earlier i apologize...i was responding in a smug tone as that with which you took with me beforehand...

Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes; But Jehovah weigheth the hearts."

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

And what I was trying to show you was that Paul said it wasn't. People told him the same thing: "It's impossible for God to hold us accountable if it was His will. Why does He still find fault?" But Paul's reply shows that truely we are held responsible, and yet, God is absolutely soveriegn at the same time. It's not imossible; it's Scripturally sound.

Paul was no idiot. he understood what justice was. and to say that finding a person guilty for what they were forced to do is justice, is ridiculous. i like to give Paul a little more credit than that.

furthermore, scripture is never going to tell us something that is logically impossible. it's never going to say that a square both has no corners and 4 corners at the same time, in the same relationship. God uses logic and he's not going to tell us contradictory things. so if our theology makes us logically contradict ourselves in the scriptures, it's wrong. plain as that.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Hilston,

Is Bob's son a minor? Or an adult?

in this scenario, Bob was God and Joe is man. Bob forces Joe to do something just as the calvinist position states that God forces (predestines) man to do everything.

Why didn't you disobey them?

cause i was forced to wear the clothes they wanted me to. it was futile to resist. i really really wanted to wear the clothes i wanted to, but they made me wear other ones.

Not at all. You could have disobeyed. You had an option to obey or not. You chose the option that you wanted, which was obedience.

no, if i had said "no" then they would have sat me down, grabbed the clothes out of the closet and put them on me. i decided that i'd rather put them on myself. but that didn't change the fact that i didn't want to wear them.

Do you have any real examples of choosing an option you did not want to choose?

sure. someone else holds my hand and makes me grab an item i did not want to grab.

but frankly, you have to want something a little bit to choose it (except in the case above) or else you wouldn't want it. but just because you chose it, doesn't mean it was what you really wanted to choose or what you wanted to choose most of all.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Paul was no idiot. he understood what justice was. and to say that finding a person guilty for what they were forced to do is justice, is ridiculous. i like to give Paul a little more credit than that.

Sooooo... what are you saying? That Romans 9:18-20 is wrong? Or, that Paul didn't write that? I'm confused...

furthermore, scripture is never going to tell us something that is logically impossible. it's never going to say that a square both has no corners and 4 corners at the same time, in the same relationship. God uses logic and he's not going to tell us contradictory things. so if our theology makes us logically contradict ourselves in the scriptures, it's wrong. plain as that.

What about the Trinity? How bout the incarnation of God? How bout creating the universe through spoken words? How can God part the Red Sea, raise people from the dead, do this and that, that to us, seem way beyond logic?

Basing Scripture on logic is the most dangerous and stupid things we could ever do. Scripture goes way beyond our limited "logic". The Scripture clearly teaches us that we are responisble for our actions, and yet, God is absolutely sovereign. It's a mystery, like the Trinity. But just because you can't comprehend it logically doesn't mean the Bible is all of sudden wrong...

 

[Big Finn]

God loving Himself is far from being selfish; in fact, it's the very thing we find our joy in - His glory.

Zman,

No one, at least not me, disputes that a person must love themselves to be able to love someone else. That, however, is not what you said. You said God is infatuated with Himself. Need I copy and paste it here to remind you?

There is a vast amount of difference between a love for yourself that allows you to love others, and being infatuated with yourself. The first is positive, the second self-destructive and sinful. The first allows a person to share, care about others, and return love. The second makes it impossible to share, care about others, or return love.

Are you backing away from your claim that God is self-infatuated? Is that what you are doing? I would think that changing your mind would be a wise choice to make.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Big Finn

Zman,

No one, at least not me, disputes that a person must love themselves to be able to love someone else. That, however, is not what you said. You said God is infatuated with Himself. Need I copy and paste it here to remind you?

There is a vast amount of difference between a love for yourself that allows you to love others, and being infatuated with yourself. The first is positive, the second self-destructive and sinful. The first allows a person to share, care about others, and return love. The second makes it impossible to share, care about others, or return love.

Are you backing away from your claim that God is self-infatuated? Is that what you are doing? I would think that changing your mind would be a wise choice to make.

Ok buddy, I don't think you're giving me enough credit here. Obviously, you don't know me that well, or else you would know that in no way am I attributing evil or sin to God's personality. I didn't mean "infatuated" the way you have interpreted it to be.

Did you read the post I had posted that was from John Piper's book, "Desiring God"? It was right after my last post to you - well, a couple of posts down from that one anyways. If not, please take time to read it, and you will definitly understand my views on God's love for Himself.

He's in the business of self-exalting Himself, not man.

 

[Hilston]

Howdy Clete ...

Howdy Clete ...

Hi Clete,

I'm very sorry. I missed your post #56 completely.

Clete P writes:

Where the heck have you been? TOL is way less exciting without Hilston! Great to see you're back!

I've been ridiculously busy. I've lurked from time to time, and resisted the urge to jump in. A new friend was telling me about some of her TOL travels, asking my opinion of some debates she has had. Talking with her about TOL tempted me to lurk again, and then I got bit by the bug. Thanks for your kind words. It's great to see you again, too.

Clete writes:

The short answer is that if people could not do evil they could not do good either.

But I'm not suggesting that God disallow evil or prevent evil completely. Neither am I saying anything about God messing with men's wills or taking away their "genuine freedom." I stipulated all that in the course of discussion. Based on my exchange with Knight, I've further limited God's actions to only secretly affecting the outcomes only most heinously evil events that prematurely end the lives of innocents, and all for the sake of giving them further opportunities to believe in Him.

So if I may ask the question again:

Surely God could see what was transpiring as the 9/11 terrorists prepared to kill thousands of people. God could also see all the yet-unsaved people who were about to plunge into hell forever if He didn't do something to prevent their deaths at the hands of evil men. Would it have been against your theology for God to have figured out some surreptitious, non-miraculous way to prevent the terrorists from getting on those plane? If yes, why? If no, why wouldn't God do everything He could to postpone the unsaved people from going to hell at that time?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Freak

This is the first indication that his position has flopped. He resorts to nominating a fellow open theist a POTD. Pathetic. :down:

I vote the posts that I like Freak! Emphasis on "I".

Ya get it?

That's why its MY POTD and not yours!

Maybe you ought to just mind your own business.

 

[Hilston]

"You have to want something a little bit ..."

"You have to want something a little bit ..."

God_Is_Truth writes:

In this scenario, Bob was God and Joe is man. Bob forces Joe to do something just as the calvinist position states that God forces (predestines) man to do everything.

I'm a Calvinist*, and that's not what Calvinism espouses, i.e. that predestination is forcing men to act against their will. I don't want to be a big meanie, but no one wants to debate someone who mischaracterizes their opponent's position. If you want to ask a question or present a scenario that actually represent the facts of Calvinist claims, I will happily do my best to address them.

Jim wrote: "You could have disobeyed. You had an option to obey or not. You chose the option that you wanted, which was obedience."

God is truth writes:

no, if i had said "no" then they would have sat me down, grabbed the clothes out of the closet and put them on me.

You could have put on the clothes you wanted and run away. There are several options you did not choose. Why? Why didn't you choose to disobey? At the very least you would have maximized your defiance. Instead, out of all those options, you chose the option you wanted, which was to obey (albeit begrudgingly).

God is truth writes:

i decided that i'd rather put them on myself.

So you admit that you did what you wanted to do. Your choices were: (1) Obey, or (2) Disobey. You chose (1), which is exactly what you wanted.

God is truth writes:

but that didn't change the fact that i didn't want to wear them.

But you DID want to wear them in lieu of the consequences of disobeying. You chose one option over another, you chose the one you preferred. You wanted to wear those clothes rather than face the consequences of not wearing them.

Jim asked: "Do you have any real examples of choosing an option you did not want to choose?"

God_is_truth writes:

sure. someone else holds my hand and makes me grab an item i did not want to grab.

But that wasn't your choice. I'm talking about your choosing of an option you did not want to choose. Not someone literally forcing your hand.

God is truth writes:

but frankly, you have to want something a little bit to choose it (except in the case above) or else you wouldn't want it.

Exactly.

God is truth writes:

but just because you chose it, doesn't mean it was what you really wanted to choose or what you wanted to choose most of all.

Of course. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all decisions being based on your preference in the given circumstance. You never ever choose what you do not want to choose (even under duress).

*Note: This should be clarified, especially given explicit statements I've made throughout this thread. My view of the atonement may be characterized as Calvinistic. I should not have said "I am a Calvinist." I should rather have said, "I have a Calvinistic view of the atonement, and I can address these false claims about Calvinism." [Added by Hilston, 08/05/04]

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Z Man
I already answered this question. I have no problem with the fact that it was God who gave it to her.

Uhg. :down:

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: God may cause cancer. Errrrrrrrr God does cause cancer. :down:

He does things like that all the time in Scripture.

No He doesn't... you are wrong and I am here to defend God's name.

He murdered all of Egypts firstborn, He plagued them,

This was a punishment. God warned the Egyptians and had they repented God would not have punished them.

He afflicted the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness after their escape,

Again... this was for their disobedience. They could have avoided this punishment.

It's as if you think God just randomly decided to torment these folks for no reason!

That's just plain bizarre.

He put Job through a life of hell,

Tell me Z Man I am curious... what specifically do you think GOD did to Job?

He blinded Zach, and Paul, and He put His own Son up for sacrifice. What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?

Oh my...... That's is just plain sick!!!! :vomit:

Forget sin.

Forget what Adam did in the garden.

Forget genetic breakdown.

It's God!!!

The cancer giver! :up: (NOT)

And now.....
Very possibly the dumbest statement ever posted at TOL:
"What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?" - Z Man

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Knight


No He doesn't... you are wrong and I am here to defend God's name.

:up:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Sooooo... what are you saying? That Romans 9:18-20 is wrong? Or, that Paul didn't write that? I'm confused...

i'm saying that your interpretation of Romans 9:18-20 is wrong.

What about the Trinity? How bout the incarnation of God? How bout creating the universe through spoken words? How can God part the Red Sea, raise people from the dead, do this and that, that to us, seem way beyond logic?

Basing Scripture on logic is the most dangerous and stupid things we could ever do. Scripture goes way beyond our limited "logic". The Scripture clearly teaches us that we are responisble for our actions, and yet, God is absolutely sovereign. It's a mystery, like the Trinity. But just because you can't comprehend it logically doesn't mean the Bible is all of sudden wrong...

there is a world of difference between not being able to understand something and having something be logically contradictory.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Hilston,

i'll agree that you have to "want" to choose something in the sense that there is some form of motivation there by which you choose that thing. but that doesn't make it the only thing you want, or does it make it the thing you want the most. my biggest want may be to wear outfit "a" because i find it to be the best looking. but i may choose not to wear it one day because my parents asked nicely if i would wear something they like. so, i put my biggest want on hold so as to please my parents.