Slogan/motto:
". . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
Reputation:
June 14th, 2007, 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Consider the two propositions:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the good and evil moral acts of man.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
The question is not whether there is a problem here. It may very well be that we cannot answer the question of how God is able to determine a person's deeds without destroying that person's responsibility. Nevertheless, we see that God is able to do so as plainly asserted by the two propositions above. Yet whether or not we can comprehend this operation of the sovereign God upon mankind is not the question.
The sole question is whether or not the two propositions above concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are contradictory. I deny that they are. Moreover, they cannot possibly be contradictory, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects. The propositions would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But it does not.
I agree with this, for a very simplistic reason.
The first proposition has to do with an infinite Being, and the second proposition has to do with finite creatures.
Finite properties cannot contradict infinite attributes. Two separate truths.
The solution to reconciling finite with infinite, is submission.
The finite must submit all properties (including one's will) to the infinite.
Quote:
The first proposition asserts something about God -- God is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man.
The second proposition asserts something about man -- He is responsible for his moral acts.
Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible for his actions? If so, we have a contradiction. But it does not.
Those who think they have discovered a contradiction here simply take it for granted that to assert that God is sovereign over man’s acts is saying the same as that man is not responsible. However, it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man. Therefore there is no contradiction.
Of course, the two propositions would also be contradictory if the second proposition denied what is being affirmed in the first. In that case, sovereignty even over the acts of man would be both affirmed and denied to God. But again it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the two propositions--unless it can first be shown conclusively that to say that man is responsible is the same as declaring that God is not sovereign over his moral acts. And this has never been demonstrated, nor is it self-evident.
If the two propositions were truly contradictory they could not both be the object of the Christian’s faith. We could only conclude that either the one or the other were not true. Now therefore, since the two propositions involve no contradiction, and since both are clearly revealed in the Scriptures, we must accept both, whether or not we can combine them into one concept.
Indeed. If one or the other proposition is denied, or even neglected or ignored, theology tweaks, bends, twists, and becomes error.
Both truths must be upheld.
And I contend that Jesus Christ fulfilled my human responsibilities, under the Law, before God on my behalf; paying my debts of failure and sin, and imputing His righteousness to my account with God, so that I can finish out this life submitting my will to His will without fear; trusting in God's wisdom, not my own.
How often do we read people discussing the infinite wisdom of God? Not often. More often we read people trying to impress others with their puny treasures of finite knowledge . . .trying to "be like God," despite their inescapable creaturely limitations.
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." I Corinthians 1:25
God is wiser than me (what an understatement!), and I am only thankful that this finite being has been reconciled, through Christ, with the Sovereign, Infinite God.
I trust and hope He will always overrule my will by His Spirit, guiding me according to the wisdom and will of God; and thereby keeping me accountable in His sight.
"Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Romans 8:27
Slogan/motto:
DYNAMIC: God is active, plural, and caring in nature. FREE: God's future is open for freedom of action. THEISM: God is infinite, personal being; rational and moral
Reputation:
June 14th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Consider the two propositions:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the good and evil moral acts of man.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
The sole question is whether or not the two propositions above concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are contradictory. I deny that they are. Moreover, they cannot possibly be contradictory, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects.
They are contradictory because they say something about the same object, both statements say something about "acts", acts that are "moral" and are "mans".
The propositions would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But it does not.
1. God determines/is responsible for all mans moral and immoral acts.
2. Man is responsible for/determines all his own moral and immoral acts.
The first proposition asserts something about God -- God is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man. The second proposition asserts something about man -- He is responsible for his moral acts. Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible for his actions? If so, we have a contradiction. But it does not.
Why is man responsible for his own acts if it isn't because he, himself, determines them? Explain that to me, please.
Those who think they have discovered a contradiction here simply take it for granted that to assert that God is sovereign over man’s acts is saying the same as that man is not responsible.
Of course it is, and I think you know it!!!!
However, it must be pointed out that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man. Therefore there is no contradiction.
Man is responsible for all his moral and immoral acts, because God determines them.
This is what you are saying, and it really makes you look stupid.
--Dave
www.dynamicfreetheism.com
The only view of ultimate reality that provides
rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
The only view that proves the existence and explains
the nature of God.
Slogan/motto:
DYNAMIC: God is active, plural, and caring in nature. FREE: God's future is open for freedom of action. THEISM: God is infinite, personal being; rational and moral
Reputation:
June 14th, 2007, 08:40 PM
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
As Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge...
Posted by DFT_Dave
If God is timeless there is no "before" or "after", God would decree, know, and create in the same eternal moment, making our existence as eternal as God's is.
Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Sigh, such is the limitation of my finite language describing infinitudes. There is nothing implying some sequence of time passing in the above.
There is a "sequence of events" not a "sequence of time".
You are trying to find as much to fit your assumption of God's temporality, and then proclaim, "Aha, gotcha!"
Who said my assumption is about "God's temporality"? My assumption is that God does not do everything all at once and therefore he acts sequentially, and that would imply time, which is what is also implied when Strong says, "decree comes before foreknowledge".
As I said earlier, the comment by Strong, if he were making an honest statement would be, "Logically and chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge." But then, again, that is saying there is time in God and eternity.
Clete added, "Indeed, logical sequence is the very definition of chronology." Thanks Clete
Ignore my limitations with the English language; please remember that I do not believe God exists in time. He does not. He created time and can act in the time He created, but God remains outside of time in His existence and is not conditioned by it.
Time is not a created thing and it is not said that God created it, that is your assumption. A timeless God could not act in time and remain timeless--definitions mean nothing to you.
www.dynamicfreetheism.com
The only view of ultimate reality that provides
rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
The only view that proves the existence and explains
the nature of God.
Days and nights are one measure of time. This unique measure of time was created when the universe was made in the beginning of earth history.
Time is more fundamental than its measure. Whether we use sand, sun, watches, drops of water, etc. to measure time or not, time still marches on. Duration/sequence/succession predates creation in the eternal relations of the triune God. Since personal beings experience duration, God experiences an endless duration of time. The sun was a new way to measure duration, but it should not be confused with the creation of time itself (which is not a thing, but a concept of duration, even experienced by the eternal God who is from everlasting to everlasting, not timeless... Ps. 90:2; note the tensed expressions about God's reality Rev. 1:4).
Eternal now simultaneity is a specious philosophical concept not found in Scripture.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
I am noticing a disturbing lack of scriptural support in Mr. Religion's posts. One wonders what religion he is answering for.
Well, I could spend plenty of time filling my posts with the scriptural proofs, but fortunately, a very good starting point on such an endeavor already exists here. As I have stated in other posts, the link given wholly and completely described the tenets of what I believe. Please select any of the topics shown at this link to see the accompanying relevant scriptural citations. And if you will point me to anything similarly constructed for your doctrine, I would happily devote significant time to review it.
I think, in general, and as Clete notes in a subsequent post, we can dispense with lots of biblical citations when we assume that the audience is reasonably versed in the scriptures and are dealing with the presuppositions behind our interpretations of said verses. When the more gnarly issues arise, that is the time to draw upon scriptures to emphasize a point being made.
Well, I could spend plenty of time filling my posts with the scriptural proofs, but fortunately, a very good starting point on such an endeavor already exists here. As I have stated in other posts, the link given wholly and completely described the tenets of what I believe. Please select any of the topics shown at this link to see the accompanying relevant scriptural citations. And if you will point me to anything similarly constructed for your doctrine, I would happily devote significant time to review it.
I think, in general, and as Clete notes in a subsequent post, we can dispense with lots of biblical citations when we assume that the audience is reasonably versed in the scriptures and are dealing with the presuppositions behind our interpretations of said verses. When the more gnarly issues arise, that is the time to draw upon scriptures to emphasize a point being made.
Ah, but it is these presuppositions and interpretations that are frequently the source of the Calvinist's theological issues.
Muz
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Well, I could spend plenty of time filling my posts with the scriptural proofs, but fortunately, a very good starting point on such an endeavor already exists here. As I have stated in other posts, the link given wholly and completely described the tenets of what I believe. Please select any of the topics shown at this link to see the accompanying relevant scriptural citations. And if you will point me to anything similarly constructed for your doctrine, I would happily devote significant time to review it.
I think, in general, and as Clete notes in a subsequent post, we can dispense with lots of biblical citations when we assume that the audience is reasonably versed in the scriptures and are dealing with the presuppositions behind our interpretations of said verses. When the more gnarly issues arise, that is the time to draw upon scriptures to emphasize a point being made.
Ah, but it is these presuppositions and interpretations that are frequently the source of the Calvinist's theological issues.
There are no "issues" with the presupposition made by the Calvinist: that God is the presupposition and that nothing at all can be known by mankind unless one presupposes God exists. Just because you may disagree with the doctrines of divine timelessness, exhaustive knowledge and predestination, man's responsibility, total inability (depravity), and limited atonement, does not invalidate the fact that Calvinism holds together by these tenets and that there are no contradictions in its doctrine. I am regularly bemused by those that would claim they have discovered the new truth that purportedly invalidates two thousand years of beliefs and proper analysis by the greatest minds of the theological ages. These persons should take up their issues with the very first Calvinist, the Apostle Paul.
There are no "issues" with the presupposition made by the Calvinist: that God is the presupposition and that nothing at all can be known by mankind unless one presupposes God exists. Just because you may disagree with the doctrines of divine timelessness, exhaustive knowledge and predestination, man's responsibility, total inability (depravity), and limited atonement, does not invalidate the fact that Calvinism holds together by these tenets and that there are no contradictions in its doctrine. I am regularly bemused by those that would claim they have discovered the new truth that purportedly invalidates two thousand years of beliefs and proper analysis by the greatest minds of the theological ages. These persons should take up their issues with the very first Calvinist, the Apostle Paul.
I've often said that Calvinism is internally consistent, but does not rest on a solid biblical foundation.
There is no way that Paul could be a Calvinist, as he died 1500 years before Calvin wrote the institutes, and I'm pretty sure Paul was rolling over in his grave as parts were written.
Muz
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Slogan/motto:
Ephesians 3:9: "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:"
Reputation:
June 15th, 2007, 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
Paul was an Open Theist, not a Calvinist.
Yep, and Paul was an Acts 9 dispensationalist.
Peter was an Acts 2 dispensationalist!
Linear Mode
