Who makes the choice?

Dizerner

Well-known member
The problem is that, even if we were all totally able, we still wouldn't want to. Then what?

God decreed me to believe in autonomous choice.

Any advice?

Just sit around hoping he decreed me to believe the wrong thing for awhile?

In all seriousness here's my defense of why I reject determinism:

 

Theo1689

Well-known member
God decreed me to believe in autonomous choice.

Any advice?

Sure.
Stop rejecting sola Scriptura.

Just sit around hoping he decreed me to believe the wrong thing for awhile?

If you can't find "autonomous choice" in the Bible, then there's a REALLY good chance that God didn't "decree you" that idea.

In all seriousness here's my defense of why I reject determinism:


Well, I skimmed through that, and didn't see ANY Bible quotations, just rationalization.
And that is enough for me to reject it. It presents nothing but unfounded assumptions and self-serving conclusions.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Sure.
Stop rejecting sola Scriptura.

Are you suggesting I can resist the decree of God? That seems very inconsistent of you to not disagree with my assessment of the decree and then tell me I can do the opposite of the decree. I'd imagine you'd want to "meta" your comment and say you are commanded to speak as if the decree might happen for me, even though you don't know if it will. Yet you will end up telling me to do something you know very well I may not be able to do, and somehow you think that is intelligible and honest... the objection here is not commanding someone to do something they cannot, but insinuating that they can.

If you can't find "autonomous choice" in the Bible, then there's a REALLY good chance that God didn't "decree you" that idea.

Are you suggesting anything that happens can go against the decree of God? I don't know how else to interpret your statement. That seems very inconsistent with Calvinist theology. If I "can't find" this in the Bible, but I think I can, the only reason under determinism is that God himself decreed me to find whatever I find. I can't fight the decree of God. Your "reasoning" may be a "means" to and end, but it is not truly "why" I will change my mind... I'm set one way or the other under this theology.

And arguing about specific verbiage is an inaccurate way to communicate. We don't have to go through the whole "Trinity" is not in the Bible thing again. Ideas are not only contained in technical jargon, and specifically not Scripture. Autonomous choice is all throughout the Bible in very vivid and clear terms, but is "read out" by the commitment that determinism must be imposed on what is said, no matter what.

Well, I skimmed through that, and didn't see ANY Bible quotations, just rationalization.

And yet if I give Bible quotations the objection comes "You just mindlessly paste Bible verses."

If I exegete a Bible passage the biased claim comes "You only eisegete Bible verses," as if claiming any ideas contrary as "eisegesis" just gives you an automatic doctrinal "I win" card. It doesn't... my exegesis of Genesis 20 has gone unrefuted except for "rationalization" and "eisegesis" imposed upon a clear dual potential indicated in the text. I explain why it's imposed on the text in previous posts, instead of just claiming it is.

And then the Calvinist uses tons of the same kind of philosophical ideas to extrapolate what the Bible means, but somehow acts like they can avoid the same accusation they levy. Just one easy small example is how one has to use extensive "rationalization" to make the word "if" not mean two potentials.

This game is being rigged so that one cannot win even when one makes a valid point. You know how they say "the house always wins"? Well, it always "wins" because it's not playing fair. One can just constantly rig the definitions and keep moving the requirements based on the response, like shuffling balls under cups.

And that is enough for me to reject it. It presents nothing but unfounded assumptions and self-serving conclusions.

You give no valid reason that I can see to believe your bald assertion. That seems extremely unconvincing because it looks unfounded and self-serving.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
The problem is that, even if we were all totally able, we still wouldn't want to. Then what?
So then there is a two prong inability, capacity and desire? My viewpoint has always been that even if, of our own accord, were able to understand, desire and say we choose to follow, that it still wouldn't accomplish anything unless God has the same desire and will for reconciliation with us. As the offended party, God is the only one with the power to reconcile. Our abilities and desires are meaningless and without effect if God doesn't want to reconcile. It is all God and all grace!

Doug
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Are you suggesting I can resist the decree of God?

I am suggesting that if you received something that you THINK is "the decree of God", and if you can't find it in the Bible, then (1) it is NOT "the decree of God", and (2) you REJECT "sola Scriptura".

Your "decree of God" is no different than the Mormons' "burning in the bosom".
There's nothing authentic to it.

That seems very inconsistent of you to not disagree with my assessment of the decree and then tell me I can do the opposite of the decree.

Not at all.

And yet if I give Bible quotations the objection comes "You just mindlessly paste Bible verses."

<sigh>
If you're simply going to misrepresent and put arguments in my mouth I never claimed, then I can just block you now, since you would be a complete waste of my time.

And then the Calvinist uses tons of the same kind of philosophical ideas to extrapolate what the Bible means, but somehow acts like they can avoid the same accusation they levy. Just one easy small example is how one has to use extensive "rationalization" to make the word "if" not mean two potentials.

<sigh>
More edit per mod rationalization by you.

This game is being rigged so that one cannot win even when one makes a valid point.

You're ASSUMING you've made "a valid point".
If your "decree" is true, then sola Scriptura is false.
This forum is for A's and C's who ACCEPT sola Scriptura, so if you reject it, you need to take your arguments elsewhere.

You give no valid reason that I can see to believe your bald assertion. That seems extremely unconvincing because it looks unfounded and self-serving.

So you reject "sola Scriptura".
Got it.
Good bye.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ken Hamrick

Active member
So then there is a two prong inability, capacity and desire? My viewpoint has always been that even if, of our own accord, were able to understand, desire and say we choose to follow, that it still wouldn't accomplish anything unless God has the same desire and will for reconciliation with us. As the offended party, God is the only one with the power to reconcile. Our abilities and desires are meaningless and without effect if God doesn't want to reconcile. It is all God and all grace!

Doug
Any time unwillingness is spoken of in terms of inability it can only be figuratively. Calvinists err when they think of such terms as literal. Here's a defining question: is the sinner unable no matter how much he might want to, or would he be able if he wholly wanted to? The Bible's affirmations that men cannot come to Christ unless they're drawn by the Father, for example, presuppose that they will not want to come to Him otherwise. Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that men cannot come to Christ no matter how much they might want to. Just as the inability consists only in the will, so also the drawing has its effect on the will. Another defining question is this: is the sinner unable to want to come to Christ? While it is often explicitly denied, this is too often implied by those who want the inability to be literal--they imply that the sinner is unable to want to come to Christ. But this inability to be willing obliterates the very meaning of will--it folds the meaning of will upon itself as if one could not be willing to be willing. Scripture knows no inability to be willing. One is either willing or one is not--and as Andrew Fuller said, "If I am not willing, therein lies my fault." If one is not willing, then one is unable to come to Christ; but the fault is one's own, since one ought to have been willing. No man will come to Christ unless the Father draws him... That drawing will inevitably bring one to be willing, and only the willing are able. Without this drawing, no one would be willing, and so no one would be able to come to Christ.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Any time unwillingness is spoken of in terms of inability it can only be figuratively. Calvinists err when they think of such terms as literal. Here's a defining question: is the sinner unable no matter how much he might want to, or would he be able if he wholly wanted to? The Bible's affirmations that men cannot come to Christ unless they're drawn by the Father, for example, presuppose that they will not want to come to Him otherwise. Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that men cannot come to Christ no matter how much they might want to. Just as the inability consists only in the will, so also the drawing has its effect on the will. Another defining question is this: is the sinner unable to want to come to Christ? While it is often explicitly denied, this is too often implied by those who want the inability to be literal--they imply that the sinner is unable to want to come to Christ. But this inability to be willing obliterates the very meaning of will--it folds the meaning of will upon itself as if one could not be willing to be willing. Scripture knows no inability to be willing. One is either willing or one is not--and as Andrew Fuller said, "If I am not willing, therein lies my fault." If one is not willing, then one is unable to come to Christ; but the fault is one's own, since one ought to have been willing. No man will come to Christ unless the Father draws him... That drawing will inevitably bring one to be willing, and only the willing are able. Without this drawing, no one would be willing, and so no one would be able to come to Christ.
Like I said, God is the only one with the power to reconcile the relationship, because he is the offended party! An adulterous husband cannot reconcile simply because he's sorry and wants to save the marriage, the wife must graciously be willing to let him return.


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
I am suggesting that if you received something that you THINK is "the decree of God", and if you can't find it in the Bible, then (1) it is NOT "the decree of God", and (2) you REJECT "sola Scriptura".
A) God has decreed all things, whatsoever comes to pass!

B) Dizerner is against determinism!

C) Therefore, God determined that Dizerner to be against determinism!


Doug
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
A) God has decreed all things, whatsoever comes to pass!

B) Dizerner is against determinism!

C) Therefore, God determined that Dizerner to be against determinism!


Doug

Yes, he's misunderstanding.

I'm saying what I believe is decreed, I'm not saying what I believe is true.

If what I believe is decreed, then nothing he says and nothing I do will change the decree...
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Like I said, God is the only one with the power to reconcile the relationship, because he is the offended party! An adulterous husband cannot reconcile simply because he's sorry and wants to save the marriage, the wife must graciously be willing to let him return.


Doug
I don't think we're communicating...
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
And by that, you prove Calvinism true!:

1Cor. 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

That's not how proof works.

You didn't even address the objections...

Declaring something true with no justification is exactly what you condemn in others.

Somehow the "house" has "won" again.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
God decreed me to believe in autonomous choice.

Any advice?

Just sit around hoping he decreed me to believe the wrong thing for awhile?

In all seriousness here's my defense of why I reject determinism:

Maybe God decreed that you would encounter a reasonable argument and change your mind. Maybe not. What difference does that make? You're responsible for what you do and for what you believe. And if you end ultimately in error, blaming God's decree will avail you nothing.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member

Synergy

Active member
continued :

This brings us to the question of foreknowledge. Arminians will claim that foreknowledge refers to God foreknowing the faith of the elect. If that is the case, then God’s electing us is no longer based on the “good purpose of his will,” but rather on our being able to choose Him, despite our fallen condition which, according to Romans 8:7 is hostile to God and incapable of doing so. The Arminian view of foreknowledge also contradicts the clear teaching of the passages mentioned above in support of unconditional election (Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9:16). This view essentially robs God of His sovereignty and places the responsibility for salvation squarely on the shoulders of creatures who are wholly incapable of saving themselves.

In conclusion, the weight of the logical evidence and the weight of the biblical evidence supports the monergistic view of salvation—God is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). He who began a good work in us will perfect it on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6). Monergism not only has a profound impact on how one views salvation, but on evangelism as well. If salvation is solely based on God’s saving grace, then there is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to Him (Ephesians 2:8-9). In addition, if God actually saves people, then our evangelistic efforts must bear fruit because God has promised to save the elect. Monergism equals greater glory to God!got?

hope this helps !!!
Synergism, which, in its simplest form, argues that the human will cooperates with God's grace (for example: repenting and being granted repentance) in order to be regenerated. Monergism vehemently opposes that view. The only way repentance can be forced to conform to the norms of Monergism is if God repents for you. Synergism recognizes that impossibility and stands for the truth.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
The only way repentance can be forced to conform to the norms of Monergism is if God repents for you. Synergism recognizes that impossibility and stands for the truth.

But I don't like the way it sounds when you phrase it that way, so I demand you add layers of multi-orbed compatibilistic compelxity so I can create confusion between the primary decree and secondary causes such that it kinda sounds like God is somehow not really doing it!

And you are misrepresenting me if you state the obvious logical conclusions of what I believe instead of my own convoluted unclear version of it!

Come have fun in the Cavlinist hall of smoke and mirrors my friend.
 

Synergy

Active member
But I don't like the way it sounds when you phrase it that way, so I demand you add layers of multi-orbed compatibilistic compelxity so I can create confusion between the primary decree and secondary causes such that it kinda sounds like God is somehow not really doing it!

And you are misrepresenting me if you state the obvious logical conclusions of what I believe instead of my own convoluted unclear version of it!

Come have fun in the Cavlinist hall of smoke and mirrors my friend.
I'm sure that we will be the recipients of much more Reformist/Calvinist smoke and mirrors in the not too distant future.
 
Top