Results 321 - 340 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62528 | ||
A Different View Point 2 ........................................... Now let’s look at your second point. You said, “The POSSIBILITY of imperfection would exist because the final outcome would bear the mark of imperfect creatures. “ ........................................... I am not clear on your reasoning here. You seem to be saying that allowing humans to have any impact in the universe contrary to the will of God could cause the possibility of an imperfect final outcome. Please allow me to repeat another analogy that I shared previously on this forum. It is possible for a being to allow limited freedom within a system while still being in control of the final outcome. For instance, in our town their is a store where everything costs 1 dollar. Now a parent could go to that store and lay a dollar bill on the counter and then tell their kid to go pick out any on thing in the store and the money on the counter will pay for it. The kid then actually does have freedom to choose whatever they want, but the parent’s “prophecy” will still come true when they bring it up to be paid for and the dollar bill is already there. This is an example of a time when a subject can be given both the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make a choice while at the same time some future things will not change. ........................................... Once again, I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to convince you that Calvinism is wrong. My purpose is to show you that Arminianism COULD be correct without taking away the fact that God is in supreme control. So in the analogy, a Calvinist would say that the child would only choose something in the store that the parent DIDN”T like unless the parent changed the child’s heart (in which case they would only choose something in the store that the parent DID like). An Arminian would say that the child would be ABLE to choose EITHER one, but that the parent would give the child a hint that they would like the child to choose one specific thing. My point is that either one of these views COULD be correct, and the final outcome would still be the same. Regardless of what choice is made, or even if there is a real choice being made, the parents “prophecy” is perfectly correct. |
||||||
322 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62529 | ||
A Different View Point 3 ........................................... Now let’s look at your second point. You said, “God's Creation is the work of an omniscient Being. Therefore, His Plan was known unto Him from all eternity. In order for it to be perfect it must by necissity be entirely His work alone.” ........................................... I am also unclear on your logic here. You seem to be saying that God knows everything, and for the universe to be perfect it must consist of only God’s work. I agree with your premise; God is omniscient. However, how do you reach your conclusion based on that? I don’t see the logical connection there. Perhaps if you explained this thought more, I’d understand it better. ........................................... P.S. Personal note: I have noticed that your posts here on the forum have been more gentle and kind, and I hope that others here will see that as well. Keep up the good work. |
||||||
323 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62547 | ||
Clarification ....................................... Dear John, I guess I missed your discussion with EdB about my analogy (although I saw your discussion of his analogy). I’d like to read what you wrote there; could you give me a post number to go to. Anyway, on to what you wrote here. It seems that you feel like my analogy is an inaccurate representation of the Calvinist perspective. Feel free to give more reasons why (my feelings won’t be hurt in the slightest), but I disagree with the reasons you gave. ....................................... You said that “Tom and Jerry (unregenerate man) are wicked rebels and not innocent children.” However, I never said in the analogy that Tom and Jerry were innocent children. All I said was that they were born with a condition (missing legs) that they could not change themselves. This goes right along with the definition you and I already agreed to, of the Calvinist viewpoint. That definition began, “God unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass.” ....................................... Your second reason was that “God is not their father in the sense of having a familial relationship with Him. The father that Tom and Jerry serve is Satan.” However, the analogy does not go into whether the interpersonal relationships between the parent and Tom and Jerry are familial or not. All I said was that the parent created Tom and Jerry a certain way (without any legs). This is true according to Calvinist perspective. As you said in an earlier post, God created everything. ....................................... Your also said that “It was not their legs but their hearts that have been corrupted.” Obviously the problem is with not with the legs, the heart, or any other specific part of the body, but rather with the attitude which one has towards God. Let’s not quibble over body parts :) ....................................... Your third reason was that “It was the sin of Adam that brought the curse of moral deformity upon our 2 rebels. Nevertheless, The Father is blameless.” However, once again going to our definition of Calvinism that we both agreed to: “God unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass.” And in a previous post we also agreed that God is omniscient. Therefore, according to the Calvinist viewpoint, God knew before He created Adam that if He created him the way He intended, then Adam WOULD sin. Thus, when God chose to create Adam that way anyway, He was in effect creating a universe that WOULD be full of people who were unable to choose to love God (unless God changed their hearts). This is accurately represented in the analogy by the parent who knows ahead of time that the genetic engineering they do WILL cause children in the future to be born without legs or the ability to walk (unless the parent gives them artificial ones). ....................................... I have tried to clarify why I still believe this analogy is an accurate one. Please let me know if you have any other reasons why you believe it is not. Otherwise, I’d like to know what your answers to the questions at the end of the analogy are. I also look forward to hearing your responses to my other posts (Different View 2 and 3). |
||||||
324 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62622 | ||
Continued Clarification ........................................... Dear John, You said that it was implied (although not stated) in my analogy that the children were innocent. Feel free to change the first sentance of the analogy to: “Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry, who were consistently disobedient.” I did not intend for the children to be seen as perfect and apologise for any confusion on that point. ........................................... You said that neither child wants legs or ice cream. However, in the Calvinist perspective, the reason for this lack of desire is due to the way that God set up the universe. After all, you agreed that God created “a universe that WOULD be full of people who were unable to choose to love God (unless God changed their hearts)." That once again fits with the analogy that the parent genetically engineered Tom and Jerry’s condition. ........................................... You complained that the parent’s decision to make them without legs was arbitrary, when it was Adam’s fall that caused it. However, according to Calvinist perspective God’s choosing to create the universe in the way that He did (which led to Adam’s fall, and Tom and Jerry’s leglessness) WAS arbitrary. There are many posts on this forum where people defending Calvinism, state that God’s actions are arbitrary (defined: depending on individual descretion) and completely independent from any exterior influence. You, yourself have previously stated that God’s actions were just “founded on His good pleasure”. I think this part of the analogy very accurately describes the Calvinist perspective. ........................................... OK, so once again I have pointed out why the analogy is an accurate reflection of the Calvinist view of scripture. in fact, you have even admited that it is “accurate in a technical sense”. Then you complain that it makes God appear to be different from what we both know that He is: “JUST, MERCIFULL, HOLY, ALL KNOWING, ALLPOWERFUL ,LOVE PERSONIFIED and PERFECT IN ALL HIS WAYS”. You say that it makes him “come across as a monster.” I agree that this would be the first conclusion that someone would come to when examining the Calvinist perspective. However, in fairness to what you believe, let’s just assume that there is some explanation for why this first conclusion is wrong. I am fine with that. Once again, I don’t have a problem with you believing that the perspective is right. I am just asking with this analogy if the choices that Tom and Jerry make are REALLY MADE FREELY. Do they REALLY have the ABILITY to CHOOSE? ........................................... Finally, I just wanted to remind you that there are two other points that I made a yesturday, that I am still looking forward to reading your thoughts on. After all, my original question was not about whether Calvinist perspective really believes in free choice, but rather, whether Arminian perspective really believes in a sovereign God. As far as I’m concerned, this free choice part of the thread is more of a side issue. ........................................... Also, I noticed that the Lockman Foundation is discouraging divisive posts based on denominational differences. I want to thank you for your continued participation in this thread which I still think has the potential to eventually lead to at least some consensus on one of these issues, and bring unity instead of divisiveness. I find that very exciting, and am glad to be able to discuss this with another person who can very rationally look at the issue from as much of an objective viewpoint as possible. Keep up the good work. |
||||||
325 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62633 | ||
Personal Note ............................................. Dear John, I hope you had fun at grandparent’s day. It is a great blessing to have both kids and grandkids. I hope that someday, I’ll be able to join you in that club. I also see our conversation as an attempt for both of us (and potentially many others who read this) to gain understanding. Hopefully, out of it will come not only a clearer picture of what each of us believe differently, but more importantly what things we can both believe in agreement regardless of our respective viewpoints. I also agree with you in my hope that God will help us both to remain open to learn from this conversation. God bless! |
||||||
326 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62824 | ||
Can we table this? .......................................... Dear John, This is an interesting question, and opens up yet another can of worms into this whole thought process. How about if we wait until we have some sort of conclusion to our current questions before we delve into this new one? .......................................... P.S. Thank you for your thorough response to my second point. I will try to post my thoughts a little later today. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for your response to my most recent clarification of my first point (post #62622). Also, I am still waiting for your response to my third point, made many days ago (post #62529). |
||||||
327 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62833 | ||
A Different View ......................................... Dear John, Thanks for clarifying your statement about why you believe that “allowing humans to have any impact in the universe contrary to the will of God would inevitably cause an imperfect final outcome”. I will try to do justice to your very thorough rationale. ......................................... You said that, “Perfection can be acheived only if all things involved are under the perfect control of the one who desires to reach that goal: Perfect in conception, design execution and fulfillment. The introduction of random, unpredictable or uncontrolable elements would result in a slight imperfection at best and at worst, chaos.” However, this is not logically correct. Have you ever played a game called NIM? It is a simple game played with 11 toothpicks. Each player alternates turns, taking away either 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks (whatever they choose). The player who takes away the last toothpick loses the game. Therefore the “perfect goal” is to not get stuck with the last toothpick. Now imagine you and I are playing a game of NIM, and I get to take the first turn. I take away 2 toothpicks, therfore 9 are left. Now you are completely FREE and ABLE to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks each turn until the end of the game, but the “perfect goal” is assured. Even though I am not in “perfect control” of your decisions, I will win this game no matter what you choose. ......................................... Now as for the “flaws” you found in the dollar store analogy. You said that for the analogy to work, we must assume that the parent, the child, and the clerk all desire the same end result. Thus causing problems if the child did not want to choose anything. First of all, I’ve never met a child who when given the option of having any one thing in a dollar store (loaded with toys), would decide they wanted nothing. However, this question is moot to begin with. The child has to pick something or they are not allowed to leave the store. Both Calvinists and Arminians would agree that God has set up the universe so that every person HAS to choose either to love God or reject Him. Not choosing is not an option in either viewpoint. ......................................... Then you say that the child would only be able to pick something bad like a machine gun. However, that point is also moot. Calvinist would agree, Arminians would disagree, but whether the child was only able to choose a machine gun or not, the point remains that when he checks out, it will still cost a dollar, and the parent’s final outcome will happen. ......................................... Finally, you end with a long quote from John Calvin. It seems in this quote that he is saying that God takes the decisions made by people who are enemies of God, and uses them to accomplish God’s own good purpose. Much like the verse where Joseph says to his brothers that though “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen 50:20). I don’t have a problem with that, and in fact, it even supports the point that I am trying to make. It shows that God could allow humans to have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose either way on an issue, and yet still control circumstances regardless of their choice to bring about God’s own final outcome. Thus God remains sovereign. |
||||||
328 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62837 | ||
Don’t give up so soon ................................................. Dear John, We’ve had such a good discussion so far on these issues, I was dissapointed to read your last post. I couldn’t find any response to any of my clarifications as to why the Tom and Jerry analogy was an accurate representation of the Calvinist viewpoint. I also couldn’t find that you had answered whether or not Tom or Jerry’s choice was truly FREE. Basically, I couldn’t find anything relating to our thread at all. ................................................. Instead, I found statements that “God created all things” (OK), Adam and Eve “had the liberty (FREEDOM) to do good but also posessed the ABILITY as well” (OK), “God was not taken aback” by the fall of mankind (OK), and God was not forced to “go to Plan B” (OK). These are all fine statements, but both Calvinists and Arminians agree on them. So I don’t see how they relate to why Calvinists think that the Arminian viewpoint negates God’s sovereignity. ................................................. Then I found the statement, “You and I are way out of our depth. I for one am very leary of bringing God Almighty before the Court Of Human Reason. We must rely on that which has been revealed in Scripture and shun mere conjecture. “ You then went on to say that if it was in the Bible then you would believe it, but it’s not, so you don’t. That sounds great, but I believe it to be a “cop out” in this case. The Bible says that we should “reason together” (Isa 1:18), and it is not bringing God before the court of reason for two believers to discuss together how to make sense of some ideas in scripture which are widely recognized as being a bit tricky to understand :) And as for whether it’s in the Bible or not, both perspectives seem to be in the Bible. That is why there have been so many Christians throughout the centuries who have interpreted it both ways. ................................................. Please don’t take this post as an insult. In fact, the reason that I was dissapointed by your last post, is because I have come to expect good things out of you. Your other posts have been excellent for staying on topic, and making consistent progress as we explore these issues together. I hope to encourage you to keep up the good work of the former posts, and avoid posts in the future that just “push the mystery button” and say, well we can’t fully understand God, so why try? |
||||||
329 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62854 | ||
You make a good point ................................................. Dear John, Part of any truly good discussion is not only sharing what you think, and listening to what the other person thinks, but also being willing to admit when you are wrong. In your last post, you pointed out an error that I had made. I had said that everyone agrees that all humans have to choose to love God or reject Him. That statement was wrong. It is an oversimplification of the situation. You are correct that there are some exceptions to the general rule (ie. babies that die before birth, tribes that never hear the gospel, the people who lived and died before Christ’s sacrifice for us). You are also correct that there are different beliefs about these abnormal situations. I was wrong on that point. ................................................. That being said, rather than getting side tracked on these unusual situations (which are talked about in other threads on this forum), I would request that we focus our discussion to talk about the vast majority of people in the world today, who have been born, have reached an age that they can make rational decisions, and have been exposed to Christianity to at least some degree. I would like to talk about people like you, me, and anyone else who would read this thread. Would it be possible for God to allow us to have the ABILITY and the FREEDOM to choose to love or reject Him, yet still remain sovereign? |
||||||
330 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62857 | ||
What about the rest ................................................. Dear John, I’m still curious about your thoughts on my overall point that God could allow choice within a framework while still being in control of the final outcome. What did you think of the NIM game example? What did you think of my interpretation that John Calvin was actually agreeing with me in the quote that you shared? |
||||||
331 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62859 | ||
One thing at a time ................................................. Dear John, In you last post, you felt that I had tied your hands behind your back by asking you to answer my question within an analogy that I made up. However, if the analogy accurately reflects the Calvinist viewpoint, then it shouldn’t matter whether I make up the analogy or you do. And unless you have thought of another reason why the analogy doesn’t fit, then I’d appreciate if you would answer the question. After we finish talking about this analogy, I’d be glad to talk about a second one that you make up, but let’s just do one at time. So are the choices that Tom and Jerry make TRULY FREE? |
||||||
332 | 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. |
||||||
333 | 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. |
||||||
334 | 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. |
||||||
335 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62933 | ||
Perhaps we’re at an impass .............................................. Dear John, .............................................. Tom and Jerry’s lack of legs may have been a direct result of the sin of Adam. But the sin of Adam was a direct result of God creating the universe in a way that He knew would lead to Adam’s sin. Please remember that you have already agreed in a previous post that God knowingly created a universe that WOULD be full of people who were unable to choose to love God (unless God changed their hearts). Thus Tom and Jerry’s lack of legs MUST BE BY DESIGN according to your own belief system. Therefore, the hat is straight again :) .............................................. If you are truly determined to never agree to use this analogy despite my efforts to show that it accurately reflects your belief system, then perhaps we are at an impass here after all. I regret that it is the case, however, I did commit to discussing some analogy of your own making, dealing with this issue, and will follow through with that commitment. I will try to remain open to your perspective and learn from what you present. For the sake of organization, perhaps you could add your analogy as a response to post #62527. |
||||||
336 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62937 | ||
Clarification .............................................. Dear John, I obviously need to clarify a couple of points here. First of all, I did not say that I agreed with Calvin that God is in absolute control of all things. My actual quote was that “God could allow humans to have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose either way on an issue, and yet still control circumstances regardless of their choice to bring about God’s own final outcome.” There is an important distinction. I am saying that God does NOT control a person’s choices, but rather controls the overall situation so that regardless of their choice, God’s plan is accomplished. .............................................. As for the NIM game example, you said that because you can’t win the game that you don’t really have any choice. That is false. Just because you can’t choose to win doesn’t mean that you can’t make other choices. Within the rules of the game, you have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3, toothpicks each turn. This is a real choice. You can really remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks. The reality of that choice is not negated by the fact that any of your choices will not effect the outcome of the game. .............................................. Similarly, Arminians believe that God allows individuals to be ABLE to choose whether to love God or reject Him. However, regardless of what any one individual chooses, the overall plan of God will be accomplished. We know the end of the book. God wins the game. Heaven will be full of people who chose to love God. Hell will be full of people who chose to reject God. Everyone will be where they deserve to be, and God will be glorified. This is the perfect ending of the universe, and God is still sovereign. He is still in absolute control of the final outcome even though within the game we each can make our own choice. |
||||||
337 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62944 | ||
The road goes 3 ways ................................................... Dear John, You said in your last post that “It is not my intention to sidetrack our main discourse, But sometimes the quickst route is the longest way about.” Unfortunately, I perceive your question about what God’s ultimate goal for the universe is, to be just that, a sidetrack. Therefore, I see three ways we could proceed on this specific part of the thread (POINT ALPHA): ................................................... Option 1. You decide that the Tom and Jerry analogy is sufficient for describing the Calvinist viewpoint of the human perspective and then explain how Jerry is making a REAL choice to not walk to the ice cream store if he doesn’t have any legs. ................................................... Option 2. You decide that you are unwilling to use the Tom and Jerry analogy for whatever reason, and therefore present your own alternative analogy, and we discuss it instead. ................................................... Option 3. You give a very clear explanation as to why in the world I should go down this side road about God’s ultimate goal for the universe. This explanation should include exactly how this relates back to the point we are talking about (whether Tom or Jerry are making a real choice). This explanation should also include why I should be redundant by discussing this subject again, when my thoughts on that exact question are already documented on another thread of this forum. (search for post #13788) |
||||||
338 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62947 | ||
Clarification continued ................................................... Dear John, Yes, we all SAY that everyone chooses freely. However, the point is that Arminians believe that everyone has the ABILITY to choose either way, and Calvinists don’t. This is not a breakthrough, we’ve been over that ground already. Let’s keep moving forward, not backward. My point there, was that Calvin was saying that God could use any circumstance to bring about His overall plan. This supports my proposal that God could allow people to have the ABILITY to choose either direction on an issue and yet God would still be sovereign. Anyway, what is your response to the rest of my post? ................................................... “As for the NIM game example, you said that because you can’t win the game that you don’t really have any choice. That is false. Just because you can’t choose to win doesn’t mean that you can’t make other choices. Within the rules of the game, you have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3, toothpicks each turn. This is a real choice. You can really remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks. The reality of that choice is not negated by the fact that any of your choices will not effect the outcome of the game. .............................................. Similarly, Arminians believe that God allows individuals to be ABLE to choose whether to love God or reject Him. However, regardless of what any one individual chooses, the overall plan of God will be accomplished. We know the end of the book. God wins the game. Heaven will be full of people who chose to love God. Hell will be full of people who chose to reject God. Everyone will be where they deserve to be, and God will be glorified. This is the perfect ending of the universe, and God is still sovereign. He is still in absolute control of the final outcome even though within the game we each can make our own choice.” |
||||||
339 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62960 | ||
Clarification .............................................. Dear John, Are you trying to be evasive and dodge resonding to the point that I make in my posts, or do you just happen to be ignoring them and continuing to suggest sidelines? We’re not talking about what people deserve. That is a whole other issue within the Calvinism and Arminian debate. Let’s not go there. Please stay on topic and respond to the points that I made in my post. .............................................. “As for the NIM game example, you said that because you can’t win the game that you don’t really have any choice. That is false. Just because you can’t choose to win doesn’t mean that you can’t make other choices. Within the rules of the game, you have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3, toothpicks each turn. This is a real choice. You can really remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks. The reality of that choice is not negated by the fact that any of your choices will not effect the outcome of the game. .............................................. Similarly, Arminians believe that God allows individuals to be ABLE to choose whether to love God or reject Him. However, regardless of what any one individual chooses, the overall plan of God will be accomplished. We know the end of the book. God wins the game. Heaven will be full of people who chose to love God. Hell will be full of people who chose to reject God. Everyone will be where they deserve to be, and God will be glorified. This is the perfect ending of the universe, and God is still sovereign. He is still in absolute control of the final outcome even though within the game we each can make our own choice.” |
||||||
340 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 66347 | ||
Final response to this thread ............................................. Dear John, As you know this thread is being shut down by the authorities who control this site. They have requested that this be the last post made to the thread. I regret this decision, as it means that any future consensus that we are able to come to on this issue will be missed by anyone who has read this far. However, we have both decided to abide by their decision in this matter. .................................................................... I was glad that you decided to respond to the analogy. Basically you said that a boy with no legs actually has a choice whether to walk to the store or not. You said that he had “liberty” or was free, but just lacked the “ability”. I suppose we just have a different definition of freedom. According to my thinking if a person does not have the ability to do something, then they are not “free” to do it. For instance, you are not “free” to fly like a bird by flapping your arms, because it is impossible. I don’t understand what the word “freedom” means to you if it is impossible. .................................................................... Your answer to the second question was similar. You said that a boy whose desire is determined by someone else to be irresistably drawn to ice cream has the liberty to not go. How can he have the liberty to not go if the desire is irresistable? And how can it be “liberty” if the desire is put upon the boy by someone else? Once again, you seem to have some alternative meaning for the word “liberty”. .................................................................... Finally, you asked me a question about whether a person could ever choose something contrary to their strongest desire. I would say that the answer is no. I agree with you that a person must act based on their strongest desires. In fact, that is why I think that if a person’s desires are determined by someone else, then they are not truly “free” or “able” to make their own choices. .................................................................... Let me just finish by thanking you for your participation in this thread. It has been an enjoyable discussion, and I think that we will continue it through email. Hopefully, we will end up at consensus, but regardless, you have conducted yourself with reason and calmness on a subject that can easily cause dissention. If anyone has been reading this thread and would like to discuss these issues further, please contact either John Reformed or myself at our email addresses listed in our personal profiles on this website. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [24] >> |