|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 20, 2007 18:10:36 GMT -5
This is a topic that I have addressed repeatedly for some time. It's a topic of interest to me recently, having read Pelagius and the debate which he engaged in with the wily (and not altogether honourable) Augustine. More recently I have started to read about the Roman Catholic perspective of Luther throughout the centuries and the kinds of polemic they have employed against him.
It surprises me that not more people are actively considering this issue of doctrine. As to whether human beings are given the freedom of choice, one can (like all Arminians) point to a great many passages in scripture that speak of choosing and acting apparently of our own volition. But, those who uphold the absolute Sovereignty of God and interpret that to mean that he has not allowed any human choice but that all things are predestinated, can also point to many passages that support their position.
Spurgeon once said that it is like two threads in the scripture, running parallel from Genesis to Revelation, meeting only in the clear reality of eternity. Yet Spurgeon cast his hat on the Calvinistic side of the fence, embracing fully the concept of predestination.
The concept of finding a middle path - a "compromise between two uncompromising positions" is not new either. The moderate road has been forged and trodden, firstly by the Jesuits (and in fact, this was a formulation they themselves developed), and in these times by philosophers and apologists principally engaged against atheists - such as the magnificiant William Lane Craig, many of whose philosophical writings I digested in college, even though some of them were much too deeply layered for me to really comprehend.
I speak of Molonism - "middle knowledge". God planned to give man free choices about their lives, but he already possessed the "middle knowledge" of what choices each of us would make. He looked down the long funnel of time, and saw how each of us would choose before we were created, and he built a world, and decreed his words, and sent his prophets that confirmed and connected all those choices.
My personal convicton is that most people in the Fellowship are functional Arminians or functional Molonists. I know that I was a Molonist - holding to the viewpoint entirely, even though I never was taught the concept; I just naturally arrived at that conclusion as a teenager as the answer that would preserve free will and also uphold God's Lordship. Predestination is not so widely held. It is a fearsome doctrine.
I see so much truth in all viewpoints, that I find it hard to synthesise them. So what do we do? Do we simply lie still and accept that we cannot have the answers? But how does a man do this when he thirsts to know the answer, and to arrive at the truth of the matter?
Do we simply trust God? But how can we trust a God whom we do not understand, or of whose character and mind we have not fully explored? I speak in rhetoric for a purpose.
It is such a serious matter which has driven so much of my literary output in the past seven years.
|
|
|
Post by K on Sept 20, 2007 19:17:21 GMT -5
If I know not the works and power of God, I know not God Himself; and if I know not God, I cannot worship, praise, give Him thanks, serve him; being ignorant how much I ought to attribute to myself, and how much to God. We ought therefore to distinguish, with the greatest clearness, between God's power and our own power, between God's work and our own work; if we would live piously.
|
|
Loving the questions
Guest
|
Post by Loving the questions on Sept 20, 2007 19:57:04 GMT -5
The poet Rainer Maria Rilke put it this way: "Be patient with all that is unresolved in your heart, and try to love the questions themselves. Do not seek for the answers that cannot be given, for you wouldn’t be able to live with them, and the point is to live everything. Live the questions now, and perhaps without knowing it, you will live along someday into the answers."
|
|
|
Post by S on Sept 20, 2007 20:08:44 GMT -5
And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Barbs on Sept 20, 2007 20:14:32 GMT -5
Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God
Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
|
|
|
Post by amazed on Sept 20, 2007 20:18:54 GMT -5
Not to get off topic but how do you have time to be a teacher, do in-depth studies and be on at least two boards? Though I do not agree with you on many topics, I do admire you and those like you. Thank you for your hard work on TMBII!
|
|
|
Post by Elwood on Sept 20, 2007 20:24:35 GMT -5
God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.
For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Crow on Sept 20, 2007 20:38:34 GMT -5
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
In accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.
And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Sept 21, 2007 0:48:04 GMT -5
Some of the quotations or thoughts here reminded me of gospel meetings when the workers used to ask questions before or after the meeting. I know this isn't directly related to the subject GIT posted, but it is related to some of the replies. One of the questions they used to ask? What's the middle verse of the Bible? (118 Psalm, 8th verse)...."It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man." M.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Sept 22, 2007 20:46:50 GMT -5
GIT,
I think the discussion about free will vs. God's sovereignty is incomplete in itself, and can come to no absolute conclusion that makes complete sense without considering the difference between salvation and reward and the calling of overcomers vs the "just saved". Further, I believe we have to look at the possibility that "hell" (hades) is simply a place of rest in the grave and not an eternal torment in the "lake of fire" and the possibility that God will save everyone at some time in the ages to come.
In the process we have to look at the true meaning of "eternity" , "whole world", and "end of the world".
So, it would really take a BOOK-length discussion to cover it, in my opinion.
Best! Edy
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Sept 22, 2007 20:54:11 GMT -5
[those who uphold the absolute Sovereignty of God and interpret that to mean that he has not allowed any human choice but that all things are predestinated, can also point to many passages that support their position.]
I do think he is Sovereign. I also know that I do have free choice for my life. I also think that being a christian for most of my life has been similar to gravity holding the earth. The beliefs instilled into me from my early yrs shaped my thinking and who I am. The descisons I make each day do the same. Even when Ive made painful mistakes in my life.
Middle knowledge?? From my understanding He has All knowledge. He knows our hearts before we think, He knows the Begining from the End. He did give us free choice. He does know All. He also answers prayer and hears us when we ask. He also guides us and if we keep close to him he can guide us out of harms way. When we become isolated clinging to the Rock and floundering. He is still there. He is still speaking today. Since creation. His words do not return to him void. If he speaks through the mouth of a prophet to someones life 'today' that creative word or rhema word does its own work providing we are obedient to it.
[Do we simply trust God?] Absolutley.
[But how can we trust a God whom we do not understand, or of whose character and mind we have not fully explored? I speak in rhetoric for a purpose.]
Do you understand your friends? Do you understand how they think because they think differently to you? No. You accept the way they think and agree to be different. Its easier to understand the Godhead when you become friends. He is our father. He looks upon as his children. The only difference between the way he looks at me to my own earthly Dad and {I think I have the best Dad in the world} is that this Father created me and is sovereign. He will not deny me what I ask just as my own Dad would not. So if you seek knowledge of Him? Find Him the person. He isnt the harsh God towards his children. Rememebr the story of the prodigal son. He didnt judge him, he embraced him.Forgave him. Thats the sort of God he is. Loving/caring/warm/forgiving. We do not realise how much he loves us. More importantly we do not know how much He loves His son. When we are born again. Our lives come inside the love between the Father and Son. ITs perfect because His love is perfect. The Holy Spirit places us there. That is why we are never left alone even if we feel it we are NEVER left alone by them.We cannot live our lives on our feelings. We must find him its vital for our future. Once we find Him our conscience is never again shaken regarding his love or our salvation. Doesnt matter what anyone says. I truly believe in the last days christians will need this more than anything else. Unshakable assurance in their God.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Sept 23, 2007 22:02:46 GMT -5
When Israel turned to other gods and peoples, God several times compared that to harlotry. God divorced Israel, and for Israel's unfaithfulness, God had every lawful right to stone (kill) his people. A kinder solution would have been to "put her out", that is, leave Israel destitute and without hope. Instead, God did the kindest thing possible, and wrote a bill of divorcement.
God's hope has always been that Israel would return of their own free will, and he sent his Son, who we find weeping over the harlot Israel. But one could say that this act of divorce established Israel's free will.
Thanks to Jesse for setting me on this line of thought.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 25, 2007 7:44:36 GMT -5
I've been doing extensive reading on this issue. I've got to say there are some really bizarre perspectives out there on the net. So far I've just been jotting down some notes for a longer essay.
If predestination is absolute, the logical conclusion – when the concept is projected to its ultimate climax – is that God is responsible for evil. As the nucleus of all that is; as the cause of creation; as the energy of existence; as the shaper of all beings (whether angel, or devil, or demon, or man), the inescapable epilogue is that God is the author of sin. If he is the author of sin he cannot be good. If he is not good, all of his commandments and decrees are not necessarily perfect, righteous or beneficial to the souls and needs of man; and if this is so, then the Christian religion has no more validity than that of any heathen superstition (indeed less, for its great claims are undone by its internal logic).
Many Calvinist writers (B.B. Warfield) and some Arminian writers when justifying their position on predestination over and against “the other side”, appear to remove themselves from the concept of predestination, and move into a discussion on God’s omniscience. Thus the issue of the sovereignty of God – his control over the facets of existence – descends into a dissertation on omniscience. At first glimpse, omniscience would appear to be the raw basis for this debate; the very stuff of argument, but neither Calvinist nor Arminian, or indeed full-blown Pelagians or Hyper-Calvinists dispute God’s absolute and total omniscience. It is important to remain mindful of this.
Predestination and indeed, other elements of Calvinism make no sense in the light of the commandments. If man cannot keep the commandments, then the commandments are impossibilities against which all men are universally condemned – condemned not due to the moral content of the commandments, nor yet condemned due to the inability residing in man himself, but condemned due to commandments being beyond the functional capacity of fallen man’s strength, mind, will and heart. Pelagius pointed out that God does not set man impossibilities, and call them commands. The commandments structure man’s moral duties and acceptable spiritual condition – and dead man must be capable of keeping at least some aspects of the commandments, because the Pharisees were able to do so – but Calvinism seems to get it wrong when it assumes man cannot keep the commandments at all, as opposed to the Arminian point-of-view in which man cannot perfectly keep the commandments because he is sinful. This is a weak point.
(Possible counterarguments: Paul’s explanation of the law bringing condemnation and guilt; and Paul’s statement that the law functioned as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Paul’s statements would appear to contradict the “free will” argument, which suggests that this argument does not work and needs to be abandoned and, at the same time, the entire theology on this point revised. The above point must be in error. But consider general scriptural injunctions – do these points work in terms of New Testament commands which are many thousands of times more rigorous than in the Old?)
Calvinists say that they have assurance of salvation whereas the Arminian does not. The Calvinist is actually in grave error on this point, and has no more assurance than the Arminian.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Sept 26, 2007 7:10:53 GMT -5
It surprises me that not more people are actively considering this issue of doctrine. As to whether human beings are given the freedom of choice, one can (like all Arminians) point to a great many passages in scripture that speak of choosing and acting apparently of our own volition. But, those who uphold the absolute Sovereignty of God and interpret that to mean that he has not allowed any human choice but that all things are predestinated, can also point to many passages that support their position. Spurgeon once said that it is like two threads in the scripture, running parallel from Genesis to Revelation, meeting only in the clear reality of eternity. Yet Spurgeon cast his hat on the Calvinistic side of the fence, embracing fully the concept of predestination. This from a friend of mine: Here’s something that’s helped me in coming to grips with the conundrum between our free-will choice and God's sovereign election, in regard to our salvation.
Generally this issue divides Christians into one camp or the other (Calvinism vs Arminianism). I've always felt that aspects of both are presented in scripture, so a whole or complete understanding of the truth (almost certainly beyond any human mind) must encompass both (which seems humanly impossible, the two appear mutually exclusive).
If we picture a gateway into heaven (imaginary of course) - on one side, the side we enter from this earth, is written above the gateway "Enter all who would come" (our choice). On the other side, looking back from the eternal perspective for all those who have passed through the gateway, is the writing above the gate "God's elect. Chosen in Him from before the foundation of the earth".
It's obviously an imperfect analogy but maybe helpful in getting us thinking that both ways of looking at our salvation can coexist and differences depend on our perspective, either from the view of earth-bound humanity or God's heavenly perspective. It will be much more complex of course, but I found it helpful nevertheless.
The truth of God's election is found in Romans 8:29-30 and in ch's 9 & 10.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Sept 27, 2007 21:18:47 GMT -5
I'm fascinated by the direction this thread has taken. With apologies in advance for whom I may offend, this is foolishness to still try to solve the question of free will in a theological manner, isn't it? I realize I took my stab at a biblical answer earlier in the thread, but of course, it was merely a feel-good exercise.
Science solved this question long ago,with the help of Sir Isaac Newton. Then we solved it again, getting a different answer, with the study of quantum theory. When we begin to better understand the link between mind and matter, we may swing back to predestination. But the point is, science is zeroing in on the real answer to this question, so the idle speculation of theology can take a back seat now, or move on to other unanswerables, thank you very much.
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Sept 28, 2007 9:30:28 GMT -5
Do you suppose there may come a time when we gain a full enough understanding of both religion and science, that they won't be in conflict with each other, and could actually compliment one another?
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Sept 28, 2007 10:47:14 GMT -5
Do you suppose there may come a time when we gain a full enough understanding of both religion and science, that they won't be in conflict with each other, and could actually compliment one another? I definitely do! I see more and more compromise on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by jh62 on Sept 28, 2007 10:51:21 GMT -5
I think that time may come also. However, I think it would mean radical changes in both science and religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2007 11:42:00 GMT -5
If God indeed exists in the past present and future, simultaneously, thinking of this and outside the box, develops a much more complex picture, yet simpler too, of the concept of God's foreknowledge, "predestination" and man's free will. With such an existence, the knowledge of the future and "outcomes" of the present produce a different concept of predestination than human minds perceive unless they think outside the box of their own existence.
With mankind, it is impossible to foreknow anything without predestination of it, but with God the foreknowledge comes before predestination, leaving mankind's freewill intact. This has answered many questions regarding this topic that have arisen in my mind.
Dennis
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Sept 28, 2007 11:58:59 GMT -5
Thank you, Dennis.
Time for us flows only in a forward direction, but that is very likely because we are trapped in the entropy of a matter-based world. In other words, if we can perceive of a true spirit world coinciding with the three dimensions we are trapped within, then time could move as easily backwards as forwards for such beings, and could perhaps be travelled as easily as we can take steps in one direction or another.
Both distance and speed of time are determined by the world we are trapped in. God (as we tend to perceive Him) truly IS outside both time and space looking in.
Moreover, the Bible gives hints that the past is as flexible as the future to God. He could raise up children of Abraham of the stones.
I see it not so much as "foreknowledge" that God possesses, but rather shaping/molding over the entire axis of time...past and future. This has exciting and far-reaching ramifications.
|
|
|
Post by where on Sept 28, 2007 15:19:23 GMT -5
It is such a serious matter which has driven so much of my literary output in the past seven years. ROFLMAO!!! Literary output?? Where?? LOL Anyone can join a message board and fill it up with reams and reams of narrow-mindedness, as demonstrated by yourself. But to see you elevate your own ramblings to the status of "literary output" is rather entertaining. Delusions of self-grandeur, no less.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 28, 2007 17:59:21 GMT -5
ROFLMAO!!! Literary output?? Where?? LOL Anyone can join a message board and fill it up with reams and reams of narrow-mindedness, as demonstrated by yourself. [/i]
I was not referring to my writings on the internet, but my theological papers, including those written under the supervision and tutoring of my Professor of Theology. I have published numerous apologetics writings all over the internet. I might also include the corpus of my other private writings, including the textbooks I have written and actually issue to real live students, my string of research papers on different fields of Education which I produced for my postgraduate degree under real live professors.
But to see you elevate your own ramblings to the status of "literary output" is rather entertaining. Delusions of self-grandeur, no less.
I find it amusing that so many participants on this board glom onto certain words which they are convinced means one thing, and one thing only. They then totally misinterpret what others are writing due to the limits of their vocabulary, and then spend a significant portion of their time Rolling-Around-On-The-Floor-Laughing when the egg is, in fact, on them.
Literature - and literary - (in the sense of the term as I am using it) simply means "formal writing". As in, "The professor told his students to consult the research literature in their textbooks".
No one who spent significant time in academia would make such an elementary mistake, which of course, suggests the anonymous author is not acquainted with literature in the sense of "classic writing" either. Ignorance condemning knowledge - I see this all too frequently among the exes.
|
|
|
Post by On Free Will on Sept 28, 2007 18:13:31 GMT -5
It seems a bit unfair to my relatives to be murdered in order to provide an opportunity for free will for Germans, but even putting that aside, how does free will account for cancer? Is it an opportunity of free will for tumors? I don't need to argue here that the evil in the world proves that the universe is not designed, but only that there are no signs of benevolence that might have shown the hand of a designer. But in fact the perception that God cannot be benevolent is very old. Plays by Aeschylus and Euripides make a quite explicit statement that the gods are selfish and cruel, though they expect better behavior from humans. God in the Old Testament tells us to bash the heads of infidels and demands of us that we be willing to sacrifice our children's lives at His orders, and the God of traditional Christianity and Islam damns us for eternity if we do not worship him in the right manner. Is this a nice way to behave? I know, I know, we are not supposed to judge God according to human standards, but you see the problem here: If we are not yet convinced of His existence, and are looking for signs of His benevolence, then what other standards can we use?
-- Steven Weinberg, "A Designer Universe?" ††
|
|
|
Post by Not Impressed on Sept 28, 2007 20:34:03 GMT -5
ROFLMAO!!! Literary output?? Where?? LOL Anyone can join a message board and fill it up with reams and reams of narrow-mindedness, as demonstrated by yourself. [/i] I was not referring to my writings on the internet, but my theological papers, including those written under the supervision and tutoring of my Professor of Theology. I have published numerous apologetics writings all over the internet. I might also include the corpus of my other private writings, including the textbooks I have written and actually issue to real live students, my string of research papers on different fields of Education which I produced for my postgraduate degree under real live professors. But to see you elevate your own ramblings to the status of "literary output" is rather entertaining. Delusions of self-grandeur, no less.I find it amusing that so many participants on this board glom onto certain words which they are convinced means one thing, and one thing only. They then totally misinterpret what others are writing due to the limits of their vocabulary, and then spend a significant portion of their time Rolling-Around-On-The-Floor-Laughing when the egg is, in fact, on them. Literature - and literary - (in the sense of the term as I am using it) simply means "formal writing". As in, " The professor told his students to consult the research literature in their textbooks". No one who spent significant time in academia would make such an elementary mistake, which of course, suggests the anonymous author is not acquainted with literature in the sense of "classic writing" either. Ignorance condemning knowledge - I see this all too frequently among the exes.[/quote] What an egotistical a** !! I've been reading your posts all over this board, and I think I can see why you spend so much time here. You come here to talk down to others, to use your "superior intellect" to give those exes a good eloquent lashing, all the while patting yourself on the back for being so much smarter than they are. You're a real big fish in the little bitty pond of 2X2ism. I'm sure your arguments would be a real hoot among others who have dedicated their lives to academia, however, as you have probably noticed, this board is not dedicated to discussion among academics. These are just real people who have discovered that they gave themselves wholly to a belief system that has turned out to be a complete sham. When they find this forum, they are surprised and relieved to find others that have had the same experiences...but wait....there's GIT, and bert, lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce! In my never-to-be-humble opinion, you deserve no respect here.
|
|
|
Post by the theme of GIT on Sept 28, 2007 20:57:37 GMT -5
This is GIT's theme:
"I'm smarter than you.
You are a dummy.
How dare you question anything I write.
I do not err.
You are doomed to hell since you are not a 2x2.
Praise the workers, for in them and their church is my faith...not Jesus Christ."
|
|
|
Post by Bluenoser on Sept 28, 2007 21:15:13 GMT -5
I have asked myself what his motive is in being on this site. If it is to bring some exes back into the fold or make his fellowship appealing to outsiders such as myself...it seems to not be working. If anything...quite the contrary. I do not think, however, that he is representative of the people that I have met in the F&W . I also think that negative comments and attention towards him will in some way be like positive reinforcement and cause him to feel even more justified in his perceived persecution.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Sept 28, 2007 21:26:14 GMT -5
I think that perhaps GIT is just a man who is very, VERY devoted to his beliefs. Is there anything wrong with that? Nothing at all, and it's actually a quality I admire. THere is something, however, to be said for the way we put things forth to others. I doubt most here would find 2x2 religion (as it is so called here) appealing anyway, but even if they would...I doubt GIT's method of putting his point across would encourage anyone to look into it, if they were interested. I'm not meaning to be unkind at all GIT, I think you know that. I just think you are as radical from your direction is Brad is from the ex point of view. It comes across as arrogant rather than devoted, even though I realize that's not what you're trying to portray. (arrogance)
Mich
|
|
|
Post by Not Impressed on Sept 28, 2007 21:31:22 GMT -5
You're right Bluenoser. I just couldn't help myself. After following the link to all of his posts, and reading until I became nauseated, I just had to say something in reaction to his astounding arrogance. BTW, doesn't that particular quality seem odd in someone who is professing? I have met a lot of the F&W, and don't recall EVER meeting anyone like GIT.
|
|