The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Herskerstad]

If you are to speak like that at least get the words right. Me buy bread? I don't think so. I bought bread.

But in classical fashion you make a statement without really addressing beyond you finding it erroneous. You now have a chance to demonstrate.

You're conflating free will with self determination.

Not even in the same ballpark as what I was bringing up in said post.

The two core aspects I brought up in said post would be God doing things like removing the sanity of others, removing various common graces, hardening the hearts, ect. Things that by any account will have an impact on man's will and render it less than sovereign to their individual experience. If circumstantial freedom is a general tenement of free will theology, then that's entirely relevant to address. Second aspect has to do with those whom God ends in a direct fashion. I assume we can both say he is justified to take any life at any time? If not, declare, but in a universe where mankind by their free will could conform to God, yet find themselves ended by God in direct actions. Be it say among the various ways in the old testament he has disposed of various tribes. If the hypothesis stand that among their ranks would be people that would be doomed as they stand at least when God ends their life, then that is a de-facto reprobation of said individual by the removal of their life. If such were to be the case, then where is their fairness given that they at least by a molinistic standpoint could seek it later, but where cut off by the almighty himself?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

the predestined here referring to Christianity as a whole, I.e from the beginning of time, it was predestined that people would find salvation from the cross. Christians were predestined for salvation, but people weren't predestined to become Christians.

as for the spirit of humanity, it amazes me how you reformed despise humanity so much to the point that all you see religion is as an escape from it. By robbing humans of free will you rob humans of any divine purpose.

While the category of the elect stands as a whole, yes, but he also foreknew and predestined them to which call, justification and glorification follows. This is closely followed up by Romans 9's. The hardened heart of Pharaoh's predestined purpose, God's mercy on those whom he will and hardens those whom he wants to harden. The potter and the clay. Jacob being loved and Eisau being hated. Not by works, but by the call. That man cannot put a charge against God's justice. List goes on.

Knowing the future and making your plan on what you see, is different than dictating the future against the will of the individual. Romans clearly is speaking of the former, not the latter. "For those God foreknew. he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters." He foreknew of their choices, and made his plan around their choices, he did not dictate their choices for them. Now addressing your examples:

Did God predestined Pharaoh's heart to be hardened or did he know Pharaoh would harden his heart, and pace around it? Clearly the later as we see in 1st Samuel 6:6

"Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did?..." Pharaoh hardened his own heart, because of the actions of the Lord. The way a child sets their heart against their parent when punished. God did not suspend his free will and parade Pharaoh about like a puppet master.

As for Esau and Jacob. God hated Esau and loved Jacob true enough, but why? Was it because God had decided that Esau sucked from the beginning of time? In what way is that Just? No, God hated Esau because Esau turned his face from the Lord. By being first born his birthright was to be lifted up as Patriarch and to dwell in the abode of the lord. And yet he sold this right to Jacob, for a bowl of stew. 2 Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” 33 Jacob said, “Swear to me first.”[d] So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright. Esau set his face against the Lord. The Lord foresaw this and thus lifted up Jacob. But God did not preordain that Esau would despise his birthright. God did not seize control of Esau and make Esau reject him.

Now I agree, man can only come to God if Called. The problem for you is, All of humanity is called.

" 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life 16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."


21 He said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. 23 Let anyone with ears to hear listen!”


"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

It's impossible to simply dilute God's election as some kind of category that is only authorized by man's free willed acceptance and may fail and still remain on a biblical footing.

I don't dilute God's election, I reject your concept of it entirely. Now as shown there have been people who were chosen: There are some who have been chosen. Lets look at one:

"30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[d] will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her."


Mary was chosen by God to bear the Light of the World, but she still had the ability to reject. She still had the free will to deny the God's plan. However, does this mean the plan of the Lord was ever in doubt? Nay, for Mary would never have found favor with the Lord if she was one to deny the Lord. God for saw, and then predestined. A good analogy is like Back to the Future 2, where Biff knew all the scores of sports games for the next 30 years. "all you have to do is bet on the winner, and you'll never lose" In this way God never violated free will, he circumvented it. " and what he foreknew he predestined."

And then we move on to your next argument which makes a few fundamental errors which, to be frank, you should have learned by now. Reformed does not see religion as an escape from being human. If someone converted from hard-line atheist into full blown Shinto-practitioner, he'd no more have escaped his bondage of sin than if he had done nothing at all. That we see God rescuing mankind from sin is another thing, to which point, yes, we very much see the Spirit of God as something that regenerates and changes us. We do not see ourselves as the authors or partial architects to our salvation, God very much took care of that on the cross.

You've once again missed the point. To deny humanity's free will, is to deny what it means to be human, what sets us apart from all creation. To cite the Muslim Philospher Ali Shari'ati: When God's will does not take human choice and will into account, then humankind is not responsible. And when humans have no responsibility, they are not insan (Insan is a conscious creature, that is, the only creature in all of nature who has attained self consciousness, which I define as "perceiving one's quality and nature, perceiving the quality and the nature of the universe, and perceiving one's relationship with the universe." In layman's terms: if we are unable to chose God for ourselves, we are not responsible if we do not., and if we are not responsible, then we are no better than animals. If we are not responsible, then we are not accountable, and if we are not accountable then we are innocent. If we are innocent, and God condemns us, then he is not Just, nor Godly, for as it is written: " Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-- the LORD detests them both." - Proverbs 17:15

Should such be countered, a few questions naturally come up.
Apart from God, can mankind do good?

Yes they can.
3 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

As Paul points out, one not need to believe in God to do God's good works. The secular humanist who volunteers their time to bring relief to the needy, because it weighs on their conscience, are they not doing the Lords work, opposed to the Pious Christian who does nothing?

Can two people given equally of the Holy Spirit end up to which one is condemned and another glorified?

That's a bit more of a complicated answer, but not really pertinent to election, but more perseverance of saints. As we see in Acts 2: 38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.’

One must first make the choice to turn to Christ before they receive the holy spirit. So two may be equally vested in the holy spirit, but can one fail and the other succeed? Absolutely:

12 And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But anyone who endures to the end will be saved.

One falls, the other doesn't.

Can a hardened heart on it's own merit find God?

Well what is a hardened heart: acording to Strong's hebrew lexicon "chazaq" the word from which hardened is transliterated from has many meanings: to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore.


So can a heart that's resolutely opposed to God find God on it's own? Theoretically yes, as one hardened themselves against God in the first place, so they can soften their heart again.

[Constantinopolis]

Also... my condolences and prayers go to the victims of the attacks in Paris.

Avec les Saints donne le repos, ô Christ, aux âmes de tes serviteurs, là où il n'y a ni douleur, ni tristesse, ni souffrance, mais la vie éternelle. Gloire au Père, et au Fils, et au Saint-Esprit, maintenant et toujours et dans les siècles des siècles.

Le Christ est ressuscité des morts, par sa mort il a vaincu la mort, et à ceux dans les tombeaux il a donné la vie!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You're conflating free will with self determination.

Not even in the same ballpark as what I was bringing up in said post.

The two core aspects I brought up in said post would be God doing things like removing the sanity of others, removing various common graces, hardening the hearts, ect. Things that by any account will have an impact on man's will and render it less than sovereign to their individual experience. If circumstantial freedom is a general tenement of free will theology, then that's entirely relevant to address.

Giving someone a swift kick in the ass, is not the same as violating free will. For instance, Saul of Tarsus. God did not, "force him" i.e God did not move Paul around like a puppet master moves a puppet. He compelled Saul to repent, by striking him blind. Saul was still perfectly capable of resisting, and living his life as a blind man, should he have willed to.

Second aspect has to do with those whom God ends in a direct fashion. I assume we can both say he is justified to take any life at any time?

No I would not. For while God may be sovereign, he is also bound by his own will.
"One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous
are both alike an abomination to the Lord."

Or a better example would be Abraham:
23 Then Abraham came near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?’

God, by his own will, has not the volition to do what is unjust.

If not, declare, but in a universe where mankind by their free will could conform to God, yet find themselves ended by God in direct actions. Be it say among the various ways in the old testament he has disposed of various tribes. If the hypothesis stand that among their ranks would be people that would be doomed as they stand at least when God ends their life, then that is a de-facto reprobation of said individual by the removal of their life. If such were to be the case, then where is their fairness given that they at least by a molinistic standpoint could seek it later, but where cut off by the almighty himself?

Violating ones right of self determination, is not the same as violating their free will. Ending the guilty violates their right to self determination, which isn't a guaranteed right in any fashion. Violating their free will would be if God made their choices for them. So I again contend you are conflating free will, with self determination.

[Mishpat and Tzedek]

Synod of Dort: God predestines some to damnation from birth; nothing they can do will change this.

Isn't this the logical corollary and outcome of predestination reasoning? It is all an assault upon free will.

As for me, I side with the Wife of Bath.

It doesn't say that. Maybe you should read it?

Canons of Dordt, Chapter 1, Article 5:

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in humanity. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: “It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ” (Phil. 1:29).

All the time the canons of Dordt make it very very clear that people get condemned because of their unbelief and the cause of their unbelief is in themselves. Somebody like Gomarus (the opponent of Arminius) actually explicitly argues for free choice. But human nature is so corrupted by sin, that without God's grace, they will choose against Him out of their own free will. God isn't forcing them to not believe, they choose themselves not to believe.

Again, Canons of Dordt, Chapter 1, Article 15:

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election—those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decree:
to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish those who have been left in their own ways and under God’s just judgment, not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice.
And this is the decree of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

So the Canons of Dordt teach that God has the right to condemn everybody for their sin. Humanity has rebelled against God and God isn't obliged to save anyone. Salvation is a free undeserved gift of God given to some people. If anyone has their free will violated, it's the elect whose will for evil is turned to good, not the reprobate.

Canons of Dordt, chapter 3/4, Article 11

Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in the elect, or works true conversion in them, God not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, God also penetrates into the inmost being, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. God infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant. God activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.

On another note

Predestination as an insult to the spirit of humanity.

I'm sorry, but I don't remember for sure, but are you Roman-Catholic? If so, I'd happily advice you to read Augustine on the state of humanity, or the canons of the Council of Orange, or Gregory of Rimini etc. If you aren't, I'm just making a general point here about how this train of thought isn't just in the reformed tradition and what I'm saying here isn't necessarily addressed to you!

Council of Orange, Canon 1

If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

And when it comes to how people are converted from this woeful state, this papal approved council says:

Council of Orange, Canon 5

If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

The Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith.... Sounds an awful lot like Dordt doesn't it?

[Luminesa]

Also... my condolences and prayers go to the victims of the attacks in Paris.

Avec les Saints donne le repos, ô Christ, aux âmes de tes serviteurs, là où il n'y a ni douleur, ni tristesse, ni souffrance, mais la vie éternelle. Gloire au Père, et au Fils, et au Saint-Esprit, maintenant et toujours et dans les siècles des siècles.

Le Christ est ressuscité des morts, par sa mort il a vaincu la mort, et à ceux dans les tombeaux il a donné la vie!

Same. It's so terrible. So many people dead...it's insane...

Everyone pray for these people in the coming days, and pray for peace everywhere.
Pray that one day all this evil shall cease:

St. Michael the Archangel
Defend us in battle
Be our protection against the wickedness
And snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly prayer,
And do thou, oh Prince of the Heavenly Host
By the divine power of God
Cast into Hell
Satan and all the evil spirits
Who prowl about the world, seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

[Luminesa]

Aquinas was never for predestination. Or for "once saved always saved".
Literally the first line of Article 6 says that predestination is not a sure bet.

My opinion: Is salvation a gift of God? Absolutely. But gifts can be lost. Or broken. Or stolen.

I got a bracelet from a friend for my birthday. It broke.
I got shoes from my mom for Christmas. They fell apart.

Salvation is a special gift one must defend and take care of all their life. People
take care of their houses because they are precious to them. We must defend our souls
because they are precious to us.

I'm sorry, but you didn't read Aquinas properly. It's not a problem. You made a very common misunderstanding. Aquinas writes in a particular form that is employed by scholastic theologians and it seems you misunderstood it. He first gives several possible opinions, then he gives his own opinion and then he refutes the possible opinions that he mentioned earlier. It's kind of difficult to read it if you're not used to it. But these scholastic texts are very analytical giving several arguments for all the different options. You can see throughout the summa that this is how Aquinas writes (and in fact this is the scholastic method; they all write like that). He asks a question, then he gives possible objections, then he gives his own opinion and then he provides counter-arguments for the objections that he raised before. But if you read through this it's really beyond dispute that Aquinas himself argues for predestination.

So in article 6, the question he poses is 'whether predestination is certain', first he raises three possible objections to predestination being certain, then he gives his own opinion and then he replies to the three objections, arguing for his own opinion. If you read the parts after the objections, which begin with "on the contrary" and "I answer that", it's very clear that Aquinas himself affirms the belief that predestination is certain.

So I think you read the first objection and thought it was Aquinas his own opinion, but there he is actually just giving some possible arguments against the idea that predestination is certain, which he later refutes in the "reply to objection" paragraphs. To be honest, some of his replies here are a bit awkward to me and I don't understand everything he is getting at, but if you recognize the form that Aquinas writes in, it's actually very obvious that he argues for the idea that predestination is infallible in its effect and that in this chapter he is arguing for predestination is general.

Haha, whoops! I haven't read Aquinas in a while, so I forgot about how to read his stuff in the Summa! My bad!

So I found an article which cleared things up for me immensely:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/05/predestination-john-calvin-vs-thomas-aquinas/

Aquinas's idea of predestination was very different from Calvin's view of predestination, the one we are all more familiar with. I'll read it later-otherwise I'll get a headache from all the genius-but yeah. Aquinas's beliefs are definitely in line with the Church's beliefs on predestination.

[Living Stones]

It's really not

To first comment of one's own safety after others are attacked suggests to me a lack consideration for others. I mean, that's where your mind goes? Really?

Not to mention it raises the question of why the Lord would make Gim safe, but not those that were killed or injured. Did the French deserve it? Or is the truth here that God had nothing to do with the fact Gim wasn't attacked?

"His sun He does cause to rise on evil and good, and He does send rain on righteous and unrighteous." - Mat. 5:45

[The Untied Federation of Russia]

Pray for Paris. RIP to all victims during the attack may God be with you.

[Gim]

Pray for Paris. RIP to all victims during the attack may God be with you.

Now, do we blame Abraham for sleeping with a concubine, and then having her bear a child named, "Ishmael", who is the speculated ancestor of the Islamic prophet?

[Luminesa]

Pray for Paris. RIP to all victims during the attack may God be with you.

Now, do we blame Abraham for sleeping with a concubine, and then having her bear a child named, "Ishmael", who is the speculated ancestor of the Islamic prophet?

Wait...what?

[Gim]

Now, do we blame Abraham for sleeping with a concubine, and then having her bear a child named, "Ishmael", who is the speculated ancestor of the Islamic prophet?

Wait...what?

Here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_in_Islam

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Wait...what?

Here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_in_Islam

No we don't. Just stop.

[Gim]

Here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_in_Islam

No we don't. Just stop.

Uh....where's your evidence, if not your reasoning, again? Stop lying.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No we don't. Just stop.

Uh....where's your evidence, if not your reasoning, again? Stop lying.

No, stop your islamaphobic bullshit on this thread.

[Uxupox]

Why are we blaming Abraham?

[Gim]

Uh....where's your evidence, if not your reasoning, again? Stop lying.

No, stop your islamaphobic bullshit on this thread.

Well, if you can't express your idea without using a swear word, that's a personal issue.
Next time, learn how to express your ideas more politely.

[Conscentia]

No we don't. Just stop.

Uh....where's your evidence, if not your reasoning, again? Stop lying.

I can't see where Tarsonis Survivors lied there.

[Grave_n_idle]

Pray for Paris. RIP to all victims during the attack may God be with you.

Now, do we blame Abraham for sleeping with a concubine, and then having her bear a child named, "Ishmael", who is the speculated ancestor of the Islamic prophet?

If we're looking for someone to blame, shouldn't the people with the guns and the bombs be the people? Shouldn't organisations like ISIS be the ones to blame?

Isn't it a nonsense to blame someone who may or may not have lived several thousand years ago, for something that happened yesterday?

[Gim]

Now, do we blame Abraham for sleeping with a concubine, and then having her bear a child named, "Ishmael", who is the speculated ancestor of the Islamic prophet?

If we're looking for someone to blame, shouldn't the people with the guns and the bombs be the people? Shouldn't organisations like ISIS be the ones to blame?

Isn't it a nonsense to blame someone who may or may not have lived several thousand years ago, for something that happened yesterday?

Okay, now I see. Much better reasoning than Tarsonis. That makes sense.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No, stop your islamaphobic bullshit on this thread.

Well, if you can't express your idea without using a swear word, that's a personal issue.
Next time, learn how to express your ideas more politely.

No.

[Gim]

Well, if you can't express your idea without using a swear word, that's a personal issue.
Next time, learn how to express your ideas more politely.

No.

[Diopolis]

Pray for Paris. RIP to all victims during the attack may God be with you.

Now, do we blame Abraham for sleeping with a concubine, and then having her bear a child named, "Ishmael", who is the speculated ancestor of the Islamic prophet?

While Abraham sleeping with Hagar was irresponsible, that doesn't make him responsible for Islam.

[Gim]

Now, do we blame Abraham for sleeping with a concubine, and then having her bear a child named, "Ishmael", who is the speculated ancestor of the Islamic prophet?

While Abraham sleeping with Hagar was irresponsible, that doesn't make him responsible for Islam.

Okay. Well understood. Thank you for your polite answer.

I think the blame should be on rather towards the modern Islamic extremist leader. I won't go further, since this is not the thread to talk about ISIS.

[Nordengrund]

While Abraham sleeping with Hagar was irresponsible, that doesn't make him responsible for Islam.

Okay. Well understood. Thank you for your polite answer.

I think the blame should be on rather towards the modern Islamic extremist leader. I won't go further, since this is not the thread to talk about ISIS.

I blame sin.