Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62914 | ||
You make a good point .............................................. Dear John, You have made another good point here in your last post. You said that the analogy is missing the sacrifice of the parent. Therefore, I will make another ammendment to the analogy to reflect that very important aspect of the Calvinist perspective (which the Arminians would agree with, I might add). This newest version of the analogy is thus: .............................................. Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry, who are consistently disobedient. The parent, through genetic engineering, caused both of their children to be born without any legs. Then when they were both 10 years old, the parent had his own two legs amputated to make a set of artificial legs for Tom so that Tom could walk. But the parent did not get any legs for Jerry. Then one day the parent (whose legs miraculously grew back) decides to go for a walk to the ice cream store. The parent invites both children to walk with them, but says it is their choice. Tom can’t pass up the opportunity for ice cream, and gladly accepts. Jerry however doesn’t have any legs, and so he doesn’t have the ability to go. The question is, “Does Jerry really have a choice to walk to the store if he has been born without any legs?” For that matter, “If the ice cream is truly irresistable, then does Tom have a real choice either? .............................................. The rest of your post basically said that Tom and Jerry are both terrible people who DESERVE to be legless. But that is irrelevant to the question. Whether they DESERVE to be legless or not, the point is that only one of them is given legs. Whether humans DESERVE to be ABLE to choose to love God or not is not the point. The point is that in the Calvinist perspective only a select group of humans ARE ABLE to choose to love God. My question is NOT whether they get what they deserve. My question is whether their choice is TRULY FREE, since it is determined by the ABILITIES that God gave them. .............................................. P.S. I’m still waiting for your response to my post #62857. |
||||||
2 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | John Reformed | 62915 | ||
Sir Pent, It is not my desire to make things dificult for you, however I find your latest revison to be (I'm sorry to say) unacceptable. It is just not an analogy that any Reformed person would devise! It is founded on certain premises which I (as a calvinist) must reject out of hand. God does not act as a parent to all people. He is not our father until we are adopted following our justification. In the case of the twins His role is that of a righteouss Potentate dealing with wicked rebels. I realize that you have put much thought into the T and J analogy and I regret having to reject it. But in all fairness, how can you expect me to defend my view of God's sovereignty from an analogy that I disagree with in the first place? You have asked me to point out areas in which I find difficulty. I find the whole analogy, top to bottom, to be your conception of what I believe and I keep on telling you: No, I don't believe what you think I believe. And you say I must believe it because it is what calvinists believe. We are going round and round and getting nowhere. Why will you not permit me to offer my analogy? I have told you why I find your's unacceptable. So let's move on. Your Friend, John |
||||||
3 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62921 | ||
Now hold on a minute :) .............................................. Dear John, .............................................. Don’t worry about making things difficult for me. My Mom always taught me that “anything worth doing, was worth doing well”, and “the most important things in life, don’t come easy”. Now in your last post, you made a general statement that I have been saying that you must believe my analogy because “it is what Calvinists believe”. I feel that is an unfair and inaccurate description of the points that I have been making. I have not been backing up my analogy with generic ideas that I think Calvinists believe. Rather, I have been backing up my analogy with specific quotes from you, John Reformed, about what you believe. I have quoted from a definition of Calvinism that you agreed to, and I have quoted from multiple posts that you have made on this forum. I am not putting words in your mouth, I am just repeating what you have already said. .............................................. Please try to see this from my perspective. It appears to me that I have presented an analogy which represents the calvinist viewpoint fairly and accurately. Then you point out why it is inaccurate and unfair. I respond to each of your objections with direct quotes from you, yourself. Then when it appears you have run out of reasons why the analogy is inaccurate, you switch the discussion to claiming that I shouldn’t come up with the analogy to begin with. This is probably not your intent, but I hope that you can see that it naturally comes across that way. .............................................. Now you did mention one more objection in your last post as to why the analogy is inaccurate. You said that God is not the Father of all people. I would disagree, but that is not relevant to our discussion, therefore, let’s use your idea. Feel free to change the word “parent” in the analogy to “scientist”. After all, the point is just that they are a person who creates both Tom and Jerry without any legs. In your post, you also said we weren’t getting anywhere. It seems to me that we are making good progress. We have ammended the analogy on several occasions to make it even more accurately reflect your beliefs. This is another reason why I don’t want to start all over with a new analogy that you make up. I’ll be happy to do that later, but let’s finish this one first. |
||||||
4 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | John Reformed | 62925 | ||
Dear Sir Pent, You wrote: "You said that God is not the Father of all people. I would disagree, but that is not relevant to our discussion," To the contrary: It is of the utmost importance! The primary actor in the analogy is God. Therefore, He must be represented by a fitting characterization. A father I have found to be unsuitable for reasons previously stated. A scientist also is a flawed and weak picture of the Almighty. I will accept a righteouss King or judge. How else can sovereignty be portrayed? Offhand nothing else comes to mind. Any thing short of what I have suggested will not work. God is not a father who offers goodies to fallen man (regardless of how some evangelists mis-represent the gospel). He comes as a King demanding their sumission to His will, which is to obey the gospel. Repent and believe! Mark 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." and: Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, Neither is God involved in an experiment. He is engaged in the fulfillment of His Eternal Plan. He has no need to discover anything for He has ordained all things that come to pass in accordance with His own decree. Jer 5:22 'Do you not fear Me?' declares the LORD. 'Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. Do you not yet understand the reasons for my refusal? God must be represented as He is. If I accept anything less I am placed in a box trying to defend the indefensible. Eph 3:20,21 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. John |
||||||
5 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62932 | ||
Clarification continued ........................................... Dear John, It seems that you are a bit confused here, which I take some responsibility for. This thread has actually branched into two related but distinct and seperate discussions. The first discussion includes the Tom and Jerry analogy and deals with whether a person could accurately be described as having a FREE CHOICE within the Calvinist viewpoint. Let’s call that POINT ALPHA. The second discussion includes the Dollar Store analogy, the NIM game analogy, and your John Calvin quote. This second discussion deals with whether God could still be sovereign if He (as Arminians believe) allowed people to have both the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to love God or reject Him. Let’s call that POINT OMEGA. ........................................... Here in this last post you are saying that you have this big problem with the parent / scientist in the Tom and Jerry analogy because it doesn’t do justice to God’s sovereignity. The reason why I said that this is not relevant to our discussion is because I was referring to only POINT ALPHA. Since that is the part of the thread which we are currently adding posts to, I thought that it was obvious, however, I see now that you were confused. So to clarify, it doesn’t matter to POINT ALPHA what the parent / scientist is like in the Tom and Jerry analogy. All that really matters is that one boy has legs and the other doesn’t. The question is about Tom and Jerry. Do they really have a choice to walk to the ice cream store? Please remember that this part of the thread is only about FREE CHOICE, NOT about the SOVEREIGNITY of God. ........................................... P.S. I am still very interested in continuing our discussion on POINT OMEGA, which was the original intent of this thread, but I am still waiting on you resonse to my most recent post on the subject #62857. |
||||||