Please move the discussion of tongues to the other thread dealing with that topic.
I'm surprised you did not say it was cursing.
ehtrg[jg[iejboiejboeb Random things, like contingencies, have an element of uncertainty until they move from possibility to actuality. Since God knows reality as it is, EDF is wrong (or do you think God made me do this rather than the self-determination He created us withiogjoijhgh]hn] prkn ]prnkrponk0p??!).
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")
ehtrg[jg[iejboiejboeb Random things, like contingencies, have an element of uncertainty until they move from possibility to actuality. Since God knows reality as it is, EDF is wrong (or do you think God made me do this rather than the self-determination He created us withiogjoijhgh]hn] prkn ]prnkrponk0p??!).
God orchestrated the circumstances around you such that you would want to do what you just did. I am sure you believe that you were choosing according to what you most wanted to do at the time, too. Did it hurt? Did you feel constrained? Welcome to the liberty of spontaneity and compatibilism.
God orchestrated the circumstances around you such that you would want to do what you just did. I am sure you believe that you were choosing according to what you most wanted to do at the time, too. Did it hurt? Did you feel constrained? Welcome to the liberty of spontaneity and compatibilism.
Is it me, or is the view dumb?
Why would God micromanage my nonsense? Why would He get me to type anti-Calvinism if it is false? He is the God of truth. I did not want to type that combo. I do want to type what I am now typing, but this is RANDOM, not orchestrateditg9hg9-4hgj j 4tbtjotbtbotbj
Why can't you accept that God has given man a measure of self-determination? I can pick my nose or chose an apple or orange without some bizarre compatibilistic explanation or eternal decree or divine orchestration?
You are not as smart as you think.
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")
Why would God micromanage my nonsense? Why would He get me to type anti-Calvinism if it is false? He is the God of truth. I did not want to type that combo. I do want to type what I am now typing, but this is RANDOM, not orchestrateditg9hg9-4hgj j 4tbtjotbtbotbj
Why can't you accept that God has given man a measure of self-determination? I can pick my nose or chose an apple or orange without some bizarre compatibilistic explanation or eternal decree or divine orchestration?
You are not as smart as you think.
How smart did he say he was? And "It is just you." pFhthttttt!
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Why would God micromanage my nonsense? Why would He get me to type anti-Calvinism if it is false? He is the God of truth. I did not want to type that combo. I do want to type what I am now typing, but this is RANDOM, not orchestrateditg9hg9-4hgj j 4tbtjotbtbotbj
Why can't you accept that God has given man a measure of self-determination? I can pick my nose or chose an apple or orange without some bizarre compatibilistic explanation or eternal decree or divine orchestration?
Oh, it's definitely you.
I don't know why God permits you to do as you do. That is His business.
Maybe God wants to expose you for the stiff-necked person you are when you deny His sovereignty.
Maybe God wants others to see that your notions of His being only a "big picture" God flies in the face of the teaching of the Scriptures of the God "who works all things"; that there is nothing that happens, including little things like making grass grow, that is outside of His purview and His purposes.
Slogan/motto:
I find it interesting that ALL of those who support abortion are already born - Ronald Reagan
Reputation:
December 26th, 2007, 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lon
What? Like 1Samuel 15? Tell me you have something much more compelling, please. God breathed a heavy sigh, not 'repent,' not 'changed His mind.' Num 23:19 God is consistent, not given to whims. 1Sa 15:29 The caricature of a God made of stone does not complete the Calvinist picture. God is consistent and He says of Himself "I change not." This means, while relational, He is absolutely perfect and consistent Heb 13:8 in the way He deals with us, regardless of our inconsistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
Will not vs cannot. In some cases, God will not change His mind no matter what (wisdom). In other cases (Hezekiah, for e.g.), He does change His mind in response to believing prayer.
God has sovereignly chosen reciprocal love relationships and has given us a say-so. He has the ultimate say, but He values relationship more than Dictatorship.
Godrulz,
While you have the ability to distinguish between 'will not' vs. 'cannot' you should review the following:
Premise 1a: Free will is defined as having the ability to do or do otherwise purely by an act of that will.
Premise 2a: If a future action is known by whatever means then I cannot do otherwise or else it could not be said to have been known.
Conclusion A: If the future is known, by whatever means, then I do not have free will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godrulz
Rob agrees that omniscience is knowing everything knowable.
Keep in mind that Rob also agrees that everything knowable is not currently known by man. In fact, Rob would concede(and even support the idea) that God knows things which are impossible for man to know. For instance, how to bring a material universe into existence with no material to work with or how to create or destroy energy.
Slogan/motto:
I find it interesting that ALL of those who support abortion are already born - Ronald Reagan
Reputation:
December 26th, 2007, 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVO
I appreciate dialoguing with you Are we able to come to a consensus? While I do not agree with Molinism and have my reservations about it. I am bound by the judgement of The Church on this issue, who has prohibited Thomists and Molinists from condemning or accusing each other. So, I neither condemn Molinism nor it's adherents and respect it as being within the bound of orthodoxy. So we are free to agree to disagree as is said and still think of each other as Catholics in good standing.
Evo
I'm certainly able to come to consensus since I don't see any point in 'straining over a gnat' to distinguish the two views. It's the Molinists and Thomists which insist it is more than a matter of perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoken
Not when it comes to the issue of the intrinsic vs extrinsic nature of efficacious grace. God either determines or is determined. The issue surrounding scientia media is that it introduces a passivity in God that is inconsistent with his pure actuality.
Synergism. What is the official stance of the Church? Monergism or Synergism?
Quote:
If he is determined by how person X will act in a given set of circumstances then not only does the good in person X (his consent to grace) does not comes from Him, but the very movement of the person by which it consents would have to be autonomous and independent of him.
This is true if we ignore the fact that creation exists and continues to do so through His actions. Person X acts according to person X's God given nature in a given set of circumstances(decreed to exist by God); then X's consent to grace does indeed come from Him and not autonomously and independently from Our Lord.
In other words, God's seperately decreed acts......
.....work synergistically to produce a greater outcome! It isn't man's actions at all, but God's which produce this greater outcome.
On the other hand, when God's enemies mar the materials then this greater outcome is thwarted(I should say allowed or decreed to be thwarted) to the detriment of the man, but toward the overall good of all mankind. Again, even the destruction of the synergistic attempt performs to the greater glory of God's work.
This renders the following false:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evo
Thus, God would be dependent for his knowledge and action on the creature which is contrary to him being both immutable and the unmoved mover, to whom all creaturely movement must fall back to as it's first cause, as St. Thomas affirms. The power of God's grace is also diluted in this view, because as Molina maintains, a person with less grace can eventually perform more good than one with much more grace than the other. So the good in this case does not really comes from God's grace but from the person, who can carry the salutary act without any further help from God, as in the previous example I gave.
What I'm saying is that synergism exists within monergism. If Thomists and Calvinists wish to focus on monergism soley, then it makes sense to view the world from a predestinate point of view; but this avoids the complexity and subtlety which is apparent within creation.
Quote:
Here I think we need to clarify some things to avoid misunderstandings. Both Thomists and Molinists admit the following two distinctions in God's knowledge:
1) Knowledge of simple intelligence by which God knows all that is merely possible.
2) Knowledge of vision by which God knows all things actual.
Molinists add a third type of knowledge which they call scientia media (because it stands between the above two types) by which they claim God knows hypothetical facts that may never become actual but would if certain conditions obtain. So it is not quite accurate to say that Thomists see God's knowledge in general as a result of his decrees because the particular order of things, the creation he actualized is a product of his knowledge. Thomist and Molinists both affirm this. The question around middle knowledge is concerned with the medium by which God knows the free actions of rational creatures. Molinists try to establish God's infallible foreknowledge of this by recourse to scientia media, Thomists consider the above two types of knowledge sufficient to account for this and seek to establish God's infallible foreknowledge by recourse to the divine predetermining decrees and physical premotion, which I explained in a previous post.
I believe Molinists would agree that those two type of knowledge are sufficient, and that scientia media is in fact unnecessary. Scientia media, however, does allow us a method for discussing the area which bridges possibility and actuality within God's knowledge.
Possibility------->(Scientia Media or Choice)-------->Actuality
This is where the Molinist makes the same human error. These events did not occur linearly! For God: actuality, the decision, and possibility occured simultaneously. So it is correct to say, "God foreknows because what He decrees"; and, it's just as correct to say, "God decrees because of what He foreknows."
Quote:
The question now becomes: why of two men being granted this grace to the amount needed to generate a positive response one performs the salutary act and the other doesn't?
The answer is: The Grace provided is not coercive in nature, so the salutary act is completely free while the Grace provided remains sufficient to its purpose. This balance is hard to describe and theodicy remains a problem in all views. My personal belief is that the law retains the power to convict the natural man. The first man you speak of is less damaged by his environment than the second even if outwardly it might appear otherwise. God provides special graces to some such as Saul and Abram, in order to perform a 'special' work in them for the entire human race. The application of grace is according to God's desire alone. Wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
The Molinist view would need to admit that the man had some good above the other man that did not come from God and that this good lead him to carry the salutary act. The faculty of making the choice comes from God, that is granted, as he created our nature. But the question is about the choice that is actually made. It is certain that we cannot blame the failure to perform the salutary act on God, it is only the creature that it to blame. However, when the salutary act is done, we cannot credit the creature that did it, but God, because the actual response, which is a good, comes from Him. This is why the Scripture says: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me." (Osee 13:9).
I would answer theodicy just as you would. God gives His gifts according to God's own desire. Is this just?
Quote:
Not to diverge too much into the issue of predestination (we can if you want to discuss more about it) but I will just point out that the unconditional reprobation of the Thomists differs from the positive reprobation of the Hyper-Calvinists.
Just as AMR will affirm. Positive reprobation is being rejected by most Christians. The problem only occurs when synergism is rejected as invalid. I think I explained my position on this above.
This is turning into a pretty good dialogue. It's nice not getting the one line responses from the 'ots' in response to hours of work. Thanks.
God is Eternal, without Beginning or End -
December 26th, 2007, 11:52 AM
It is essential in discussing God's eternal nature to first and foremost recognize that He exceeds our logical parameters to apprehend. 1Samuel 15:29
God is not only incredibly smart (understatement of the decade). He is completely beyond our imaginings and it is only His revelation of Himself that gives us any kind of handle to objectively know Him at all. John 1:18
God has never had a beginning nor will He have an end. Ps. 90:2
Because God has never had a beginning, we say He is 'timeless.'
(without any kind of meaningful time progression or sequence).
It is very important to not gloss over an eternal non-beginning and examine this truth even though for us, it will reach into a logical absurdity that we cannot contemplate meaningfully.
Let's step through to the unknown and unknowable for a moment:
God never had a beginning. Every aspect of our lives, but God has had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. We have a beginning. There is nothing in our perception that hasn't had a beginning except for God.
Man comprehends time duration. We understand progression as incremental but God cannot be subject to the same for several reasons. 1) God never had a beginning. You and I cannot possibly comprehend that because we think in incremental stages and are constrained to sequence. 2) We can only move forward and have no comprehension nor appropriate language to express a nonbeginning. There is no time sequence that can express eternity past. Even the word 'past' here is a logical constraint to a nonbeginning and it is inaccurate. We cannot fathom a nonbeginning eternal past in any logical manner and cannot adequately express the truth in any complete logical sense. This is very important: There is no place or point that would give forward progress or sequence to God's eternal existence. He cannot experience sequence as we do because His existence has no beginning point in which to validate sequence. 3) There is no sequence to God's eternal existence because sequence must have a starting point, a beginning.
Man's language reveals he is finite. We all have a beginning. We are created beings that are temporal. Our logic therefore is stuck in temporal terms (we are time constrained). Our understanding is time constrained. Our expressions are all constrained to sequence of events with a beginning and an end. God has neither therefore cannot be constrained to either beginning or end. Ps. 90:2
Our framework for marking events and sequence will end:
Rev 22:5
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
God's eternal past is a foreshadow of eternity to come where marks of measurement we know now will be cease being significant. Time will lose meaning into eternal knowledge and will no longer carry significant weight in our thought process. Sequence and duration will simply be eternal. Emphasis will be upon quality and relationship rather than quantity and clocks.
God is outside of our logical framework.
God is eternal in the past and future (without measurement)
Time and sequences is a measurement.
God is timeless because He is outside of duration and all measures.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Even in the eternal triune relations of the Godhead, there was endless time/duration/sequence/succession. J.R. Lucas in his definitive 'A treatise on time and space' rightly concludes that timelessness is incoherent and that a personal being who acts, thinks, and feels must experience endless time.
Time is not created nor is it a thing. The Hebraic view is that God is from everlasting to everlasting. The Platonic Greek view is that God is 'eternal now' simultaneity, uncritically accepted by Augustine and others.
(click search inside for contents; I would commend Wolterstorff's view)
This topic was not an issue for much of church history, so do not be dogmatic until you understand the main views that claim biblical and philosophical support.
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")
Even in the eternal triune...blah blah blah deleted
Not only won't you extend the courtesy of a quote to whom you are replying (Lon), but you won't even read and respond directly to his thoughtful post. Instead you paste you usual reply whenever you see the word 'eternity' used. You frequently claim it is childish to ignore others. Yet you think 'ignore' merely means not seeing one's post on the screen. Do you not see that it is you who truly ignores?
God’s creatures can do what they want, but what they want is determined by God in advance because God is working within the person to direct choices according to His plan.
The quote above says that God works within the person to make sure they do what God wants them to do.
2. God works within the actual person so that they do what God wants them to do.
3. People choose what they want...but what they want was determined by God in advance.
4. Man has the ability to decide.
but
5. Adam could not have done differently.
Man has the ability to decide but what they decide to do is a result of God orchestrating everything so that the person chooses that which God determined them to choose. Each person is responsible for whatever they choose to do because they are the ones who chose to do it.
I don't know what point you are making, other than restarting something that has been well worn in this (read from the linked post forward) thread. Nothing in what you have cobbled together is contradictory--other than your own misunderstanding of what I said.
That Adam could not do otherwise does not rob Adam of his self-determination. When Adam decided to take a bite, he did so of his own volition. Yes, he really, really, wanted to do as he did. That the circumstances were such that he could nothing other than what he was inclined to do, is the essence of compatibilism. You want Adam to have the ability "to do otherwise", to have libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference. No such freedom exists on this earth as long as God is our sovereign ruler.
Rather than pick at snippets of what I write (and persons wonder why I have to be so precise ), why not spend time reviewing the posts in the thread linked above and formulating some responses in that thread using the full measure of the discussion by all parties therein?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Are we able to come to a consensus? While I do not agree with Molinism and have my reservations about it. I am bound by the judgement of The Church on this issue, who has prohibited Thomists and Molinists from condemning or accusing each other. So, I neither condemn Molinism nor it's adherents and respect it as being within the bound of orthodoxy. So we are free to agree to disagree as is said and still think of each other as Catholics in good standing. 
Linear Mode
