Who makes the choice?

Ken Hamrick

Active member
When we talk past each other, likely the problem involves the Logical Fallacy of making Category Mistakes. Sometimes the problem is that one person is avoiding on purpose or wants to control the narrative. Doug is not like this, so maybe clarifying the Categories would help...
Doug's attitude is always exemplary.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
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.

Thank you for at least being a tiny bit honest about determinism for once.

And 100 points for parroting Calvinistic talking points! Woo. Yay for language of responsibility with no actual autonomy!

Now realize you are implying I do something I may not even be able to do, and how dishonest and insincere that is.

Then profit!

Thank God he is actually sincere and honest in Scripture nowhere being duplicitous about his intentions or hiding secret decrees up his sleeves.

What rubbish theology, the only way people could be convinced of something so convoluted and disingenuous is the devil.
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
When we talk past each other, likely the problem involves the Logical Fallacy of making Category Mistakes. Sometimes the problem is that one person is avoiding on purpose or wants to control the narrative. Doug is not like this, so maybe clarifying the Categories would help...
I am simply exploring the scope of the change in the nature of the physical laws of the cosmos. He says that the laws are not changed completely, but overridden to some degree or another. If the orbital path of earth around the sun wasn’t changed, then seasonal changes would necessitate death of some type. And scripture doesn’t say Eve would start to have pain in childbirth, but that the pain would be multiplied, implying that pain would have been present in this world prior to the fall.

Doug
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
And scripture doesn’t say Eve would start to have pain in childbirth, but that the pain would be multiplied, implying that pain would have been present in this world prior to the fall.

Increase is more accurate than multiply, as multiply in English has the connotation of using what's already there.

Suffering pre-fall would seem to dissociate it from the consequences of sin.

Generally, indicating number or increase in quantity, rāvāh is also employed to mean "that which is singular or extraordinary." Solomon's wisdom "excelled" (1 Ki. 4:30) when contrasted with other men of knowledge. The verb occurs over 220 times, 60 in the Qal stem and 160 in the Hiphil (causative active). Demonstrating its wide range of meaning, the NIV translates rāvāh with over eighty different words or phrases, the most common being "increase," "many," "numerous" and "multiply."​
Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary - Pe-Resh.​
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I am simply exploring the scope of the change in the nature of the physical laws of the cosmos. He says that the laws are not changed completely, but overridden to some degree or another. If the orbital path of earth around the sun wasn’t changed, then seasonal changes would necessitate death of some type. And scripture doesn’t say Eve would start to have pain in childbirth, but that the pain would be multiplied, implying that pain would have been present in this world prior to the fall.

Doug
I haven't thought much about that, but I've wondered if the decrease in life spans could be in-part due to Microbes changing over Time. Some Bacteria is good for digestion, but some Bacteria is bad for the Digestive System. In the Beginning, God said the Creation was Good; imagine how much better life would be if every Microbe made us healthier and healthier...

I don't know if this helps your conversation with him or not. Like I said, zeroing in on what people want to talk about can take several Volley's before a point is scored...
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
I am simply exploring the scope of the change in the nature of the physical laws of the cosmos. He says that the laws are not changed completely, but overridden to some degree or another. If the orbital path of earth around the sun wasn’t changed, then seasonal changes would necessitate death of some type. And scripture doesn’t say Eve would start to have pain in childbirth, but that the pain would be multiplied, implying that pain would have been present in this world prior to the fall.

Doug
You're speaking of the wrong the wrong post, Doug. Try here: https://forums.carm.org/threads/who-makes-the-choice.5196/page-2#post-359195
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
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.
If a father lays out a red shirt and blue pants for his son to wear, and say this is what I want will you to wear today, who’s responsible for what he has on?

Doug
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
If a father lays out a red shirt and blue pants for his son to wear, and say this is what I want will you to wear today, who’s responsible for what he has on?

Doug
But if all men, while in the loins of Adam, rebelliously sinned without any sinful nature to blame, then they have forever lost the ground from which to blame God or complain of unfairness.

Back later...
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
But if all men, while in the loins of Adam, rebelliously sinned without any sinful nature to blame, then they have forever lost the ground from which to blame God or complain of unfairness.

Back later...
But if God decrees that Adam must sin/wear a red shirt and blue pants, then all mankind will necessarily too; not because we choose to, but b cause God chose that we must wear a red shirt and blue pants/sin/do XYZ.

Doug
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
If a father lays out a red shirt and blue pants for his son to wear, and say this is what I want will you to wear today, who’s responsible for what he has on?

Doug

If that's what the son put on, then BOTH are responsible.

You see, this is what's wrong with the bankruptcy that is Arminianism. They prefer to argue "rationalization" rather than from Scripture.

Your analogy is necessarily flawed, since God is not a man, and you ASSUME man's "ability" is the same as the child's ability to choose clothing, but you like the analogy anyway because you think it supports your view.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
But if God decrees that Adam must sin/wear a red shirt and blue pants, then all mankind will necessarily too; not because we choose to, but b cause God chose that we must wear a red shirt and blue pants/sin/do XYZ.

Doug

The flaw in your unBiblical rationalization is that it is NOT an "either/or".
It IS "because we choose to", just as much as it's because God chose.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
If that's what the son put on, then BOTH are responsible.

You see, this is what's wrong with the bankruptcy that is Arminianism. They prefer to argue "rationalization" rather than from Scripture.

Your analogy is necessarily flawed, since God is not a man, and you ASSUME man's "ability" is the same as the child's ability to choose clothing, but you like the analogy anyway because you think it supports your view.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
@TibiasDad

So now you're pulling a "Seth", and wasting CARM resources by quoting my post, without making any kind of response? That's not a good look....
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
If that's what the son put on, then BOTH are responsible.

Not if he had no other option! When the Father made the choice from eternity past, and it could be no other way. Whoever makes the choice certain is responsible for the outcome, not necessarily the one who makes it real and actual!
You see, this is what's wrong with the bankruptcy that is Arminianism. They prefer to argue "rationalization" rather than from Scripture.
Says he who quoted no scripture either!


Your analogy is necessarily flawed, since God is not a man, and you ASSUME man's "ability" is the same as the child's ability to choose clothing, but you like the analogy anyway because you think it supports your view.
You sir, are flawed, because I did not specify an age, nor does this necessarily imply a child. You read that into the meaning, not me! If my father told me he would not take no for an answer and he wanted me to wear or do something that I would not want to do, it would be his doing that I wore it, not mine. I'm 61 years old, and if asked why I'm wearing something such as I am, I would say because this is my father's decision. No matter how you cut it, God's decree is the certainty factor in the process, for man could do or desire nothing else! All analogies fall short, but this one is not about age, it is about absolute authority. A father is, and should be, the final and ultimate authority, regardless of the ages involved! That's how I was raised, and how my father and his father were raised!


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
@TibiasDad

So now you're pulling a "Seth", and wasting CARM resources by quoting my post, without making any kind of response? That's not a good look....
I accidentally hit post, then was trying to edited it and got called away, and my 30 minute editing time expired. But thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt! May the Lord bless you as you have blessed me.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Not if he had no other option!

Thank you for sharing your personal OPINION.
And putting a "!" at the end of it, I guess FORCES me to agree with you, right?
(Not.)

"Choice" is an act of the WILL.
It doesn't depend on "other options".

If you disagree, then you need to provide an authority more credible than "cuz I said so".

Says he who quoted no scripture either!

I'm not presenting a position, I'm simply refuting yours.
It's hypocritical to not offer Scripture yourself, but criticize me for not using Scripture when I'm simply refuting your (non-Scriptural) claims.

You sir, are flawed,

Personal attack duly noted.

because I did not specify an age, nor does this necessarily imply a child. You read that into the meaning, not me!

I made no comment specifying the "age" of the person.
Why are you misrepresenting me?

I'm a couple of years from retirement, yet I am still my father's "child".

If my father told me he would not take no for an answer and he wanted me to wear or do something that I would not want to do, it would be his doing that I wore it, not mine. I'm 61 years old, and if asked why I'm wearing something such as I am, I would say because this is my father's decision.

This is precisely why rationalizations always lead to heresies.
If the ONLY reason you wore the clothes your father "made" you wear them, then you are NO LONGER presenting a BIBLICAL position.

Someone who comes to Christ does so WILLINGLY, therefore it is his CHOICE.
Period.

No matter how you cut it, God's decree is the certainty factor in the process, for man could do or desire nothing else!

EXACTLY!
So he "desired" to wear the clothes, therefore it WAS his "choice"!
Thank you for refuting yourself!

All analogies fall short, but this one is not about age, it is about absolute authority.

Then stop MAKING it about "age".
That is YOUR red herring, not mine.

A father is, and should be, the final and ultimate authority, regardless of the ages involved! That's how I was raised, and how my father and his father were raised!

Yet YOU claim that that doesn't work with God, God is not the final authority in your false theology, man and his imaginary "free will" are the final authority.
 
Top