Yes, Virginia, There Really is a Middle View

Carbon

Well-known member
I can't have innumerable options, let's avoid hyperbole here.



Agreed.



I didn't end up exactly where God planned for me to be

Neither did Adam.

Neither did Christ.

God does not plan "sin," as he is not a sinner and does not participate or encourage or enforce any sin, God REDEEMS sin.



Just by the story alone, man's free will was not violated, but God's holiness was violated when God planned for sin.

Here's a more realistic story:

God puts a man in a garden, and there's two trees in the path. God says "Whatever you do don't choose the bad tree as you will suffer forever," and man does it anyway. God says, "I love you so much I will suffer for you and make a way for you to be saved."

Holiness not violated—God did not plan sin. Free will not violated—God did not plan sin.

Or my own story.

God puts a man in a specific life situation and the man wants to do things his own way and pursue his own desires and run after the illusions of sin. God says "If you do that you will hurt yourself and me and suffer tremendously, but I will still love you and take you back when you come to your senses." The man is stupid and hurts himself horribly, but eventually realizes how stupid and evil he was and comes back to God. He reaches in his pocket and pulls out the paper... "I told you if you rebelled you'd suffer, but I'd love you anyway." Nothing about "I wanted you to sin and planned for you to sin." That's hogwash.

No more "Jesus dying was the biggest sin of all," and "what you meant for evil God meant for good." Jesus dying wasn't a sin, and God using evil actions is not God wanting evil actions.

It just doesn't pan out.

God doesn't do evil things, and I will never support tarnishing his holiness like that.
It’s amazing how you do diligently defend mans free will.
So many Arminians tell me that God loves everyone in the world and would not violate their free will.
Considering that, and your stories above, I find it amazing that the god you describe loves everyone so much that at judgement, He would rather cast people that he loves so much into hell for eternity other then violate their free will.

I would think that those who are cast into hell would rather god violated their free will. They would be thinking, if he really loved us as much as everyone said, he wouldn’t do this to us.

that free will stuff is wrong in so many ways
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It’s amazing how you do diligently defend mans free will.
So many Arminians tell me that God loves everyone in the world and would not violate their free will.
Considering that, and your stories above, I find it amazing that the god you describe loves everyone so much that at judgement, He would rather cast people that he loves so much into hell for eternity other then violate their free will.

I would think that those who are cast into hell would rather god violated their free will. They would be thinking, if he really loved us as much as everyone said, he wouldn’t do this to us.

Again (since Arminians love "analogies", rather than Scripture:

"A family decides to vacation at the Grand Canyon. They decide to camp on the top edge of the canyon, where the guard rail is unfortunately missing. The adult daughter, who happens to be blind, is walking towards the canyon edge, and is in danger of falling to hear death. Her father sees here, and yells a warning, "Laura, turn around, or you'll fall off the edge!" The daughter replied, "I don't believe you, daddy!", and continues walking to the edge. The father thinks, "I love my daughter, but her free will is more important, so I won't interfere. She's made her choice." And her daughter falls to her death."

Is that a "loving" father?

Of course not.

I would throw David Hunt's book title right back in his face, "What love is THAT?!"
 
G

guest1

Guest
When I look back at some of the books I have read, I say WOW!
But, I’m also glad I did. Make sense?
I think it was the cult explosion and the seduction of Christianity that I owned. They are probably in a box in my garage .
 
G

guest1

Guest
I have and enjoy, “the kingdom of the cults”
By, Walter Martin

you familiar with him?
Excellent . I’m friends with Robert Bowman who was on staff with him early on at CRI pre hank days. He was here for a while on the old forum . He took Martin’s JW material to another level with his own books. Great stuff. I’ve mostly dealt with JWs and other unitarian cult groups. Theo1689 is great with Mormons
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Excellent . I’m friends with Robert Bowman who was on staff with him early on at CRI pre hank days. He was here for a while on the old forum . He took Martin’s JW material to another level with his own books. Great stuff. I’ve mostly dealt with JWs and other unitarian cult groups. Theo1689 is great with Mormons
Awesome!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I have and enjoy, “the kingdom of the cults”
By, Walter Martin

I'm FB friends with his daughter, probably because we have mutual friends who evangelize Mormons (including two co-pastors and their wives).

She just recently wrote a book about her father, and Hank Hanegraaf.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I'm FB friends with his daughter, probably because we have mutual friends who evangelize Mormons (including two co-pastors and their wives).

She just recently wrote a book about her father, and Hank Hanegraaf.
That’s awesome Theo, sounds pretty exciting!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
God says it is, so it is.

24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes (Pro 1:24-26 NKJ)

Where does any of that say God "loved" those He "called and .... refused"?

But anyway, thank you for summarily dismissing my analogy, which means that any analogy given by non-Calvinists can just as validly be summarily dismissed.

Gotta love those double standards! :)
 

Carbon

Well-known member
One of Calvinism's errors is taking what is literal and treating it as a figure, analogy or metaphor. Spiritual death is a literal condition, and not an analogy to an inanimate body in a grave. Spiritual death is not about being inanimate--it's about being separated from God. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." And a spirit without God is dead. There is also the condition of being "dead in sins," in which you are not only spiritually separated from God, but also a dead man walking, as it were, regarding the coming judgment. But neither way of expressing the condition of spiritual death contains within its meaning the idea of being inanimate.
Another one who is judging Calvinism who does not understand Calvinism.
Calvinists tend to object that the Bible says that sinners are deaf and blind, like dead bodies in a way.
They do? Since when?
And in every case, it was God alone who decided whether to bring to bear enough gracious influences (internal and external) to bring that man to genuine, repentant faith in Christ
God does not need to deal with man as men deal with each other. As men by different ways seek to persuade a man to be willing to repent.

People have the gospel preached to them all the time, and scripture teaches this is not sufficient to convert people into believers. Scripture teaches faith is a gift, For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, Eph 2.

The gospel must be accompanied by God's almighty power to cause man to believe. 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might Eph 1.

20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13.

, or to not bring to bear that level of influences that He knew would have resulted in successful conversion. It is all according to God's eternal plan, which has as its ultimate goal the glorification of Himself.
Your thoughts on God's plan is different then God's plan in His word.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Now before you claim Heb 13:21 is God working with the sinner to persuade him to repent and believe, ......

20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13.

My understanding is Paul is teaching of the three parts required in the work of sanctification.
equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

The first is the framing of the new man in the Spirit, which is absolutely a work of God.

Second, the practice of this gift by the regenerate man, doing God's will by virtue of this gift.


Third, God's perpetual assistance to stir up this gift. Causing it to increase and bring forth true fruit.

This is all so the perfection of the work belongs to God, not man. Through Jesus working in the elect by His Spirit.
 

His clay

Well-known member
i read the interlinear at scripture4all…

it’s simple to see in genesis 1 as an example…

that eden had no toil sweat death illness..
all of nature obeyed Him…

and that adams fall meant we got barred
— in reality we were, not just subjectively…


God said to eat of it was death…
which is not a mental state but also cosmological. and adam ate…

many features of the world He created do not match this one, which was a big battle of science at the end of the medieval… but many conflated the worlds. His for example is not geocentric, does not evolve etc. There was a raqia… etc.
Where in Genesis 1-3 do you get the idea of multiple worlds? Certainly, we can agree that prefallen creation and fallen creation are different, but this does not demonstrate that there are multiple worlds. After all, God cursed Adam, Eve, the serpent, and creation (see the later portion of ch3). No positive assertion is ever made of multiple worlds, and thusly your best argument would be from silence. Why would an angelic guard be needed if the tree of life was on a different world?

Raqia is often misunderstood as entailing a hard structure (firmament)(canopy theory, etc); rather, the term is referring to an expanse based off the idea of raqia dealing with the spreading of metal, rather than the metal itself. It is a conflation of the object of the action with the verb.
 

His clay

Well-known member
the dimensional veil between this world and the other world is actually related to that separation you mention.
Once again, the passage does speak of an expanse. It does not mention more than one world, and it certainly doesn't mention a dimensional veil. Why would an angelic guard be needed if the tree of life was on a different world? Did you notice that erets is always in the singular? Badal is what is translated "separate."

I've watched plenty of Star Trek when I was younger, but that is not where we should get our theology of cosmology from . . . or from imaginative leaps built from arguments from silence.
 

His clay

Well-known member
i disagree on your interpretation.
that does not bother me that you see it another way.
What interpretation? That erets is always in the singualar is objective fact. Badal's translation is objective fact. Expanse as a good translation is objective fact. The fact that it makes no sense to guard a tree that is on another world from people who can't get there is objective fact. It is objective fact that your argument is based upon no positive textual evidence. Please don't use the postmodern rhetoric of interpretation, when all that you have in this case is pure unadulterated subjective baseless opinion. It doesn't bother me that you have a different interpretation, but don't call the objective reality you have chosen to ignore an interpretation.
 

His clay

Well-known member
It's just the word itself isn't used, the idea is constantly used.

Notice this quote from Ken's latest post:



God "preferred" to refuse divine interference and allow some to be lost.

It doesn't matter that you don't use the word "victim" or "victimization," the principle and idea is that God does not intervene to do more to save all people or give equal grace to all people.

And if you forced me to do the work, I could come up with similar quotes from you.

Yet you unfairly and unjustly accuse me of being "unrepresentative" of your view or "any that [you've] read."

I've read for and listened to literally hundreds of hours dealing with Calvinism, and if you sort and sift the ideas down, this is the one single major issue that motivates and prompts the ideas, why God seems unfair concerning grace. Sure it can obfuscated by sophistry and doublespeak, but that's always it.

It's just the word itself isn't used, the idea is constantly used.

Notice this quote from Ken's latest post:



God "preferred" to refuse divine interference and allow some to be lost.

It doesn't matter that you don't use the word "victim" or "victimization," the principle and idea is that God does not intervene to do more to save all people or give equal grace to all people.

And if you forced me to do the work, I could come up with similar quotes from you.

Yet you unfairly and unjustly accuse me of being "unrepresentative" of your view or "any that [you've] read."

I've read for and listened to literally hundreds of hours dealing with Calvinism, and if you sort and sift the ideas down, this is the one single major issue that motivates and prompts the ideas, why God seems unfair concerning grace. Sure it can obfuscated by sophistry and doublespeak, but that's always it.

Yes, those are Ken's words, but they are seeking to describe TibiasDad's position (clearly not a Calvinist). Did you notice the part where he said, "So then, you're saying . . ." ?

Do people deserve equal grace?

Edited to add: I'm not sure why my post is double quoting you???

Edited to add: What do you mean by victimization then? Let's just scrap the term and get at the point of the word. What do you mean when you use the term, and how does the meaning correspond to Calvinism? I ask these questions because I don't want our discussion to get hung up over a simple term.
 
Last edited:

His clay

Well-known member
Yes, those are Ken's words, but they are seeking to describe TibiasDad's position (clearly not a Calvinist). Did you notice the part where he said, "So then, you're saying . . ." ?

Do people deserve equal grace?

Edited to add: I'm not sure why my post is double quoting you???

Edited to add: What do you mean by victimization then? Let's just scrap the term and get at the point of the word. What do you mean when you use the term, and how does the meaning correspond to Calvinism? I ask these questions because I don't want our discussion to get hung up over a simple term.
I'm responding to myself here. I've placed in bold what I am responding to.

Dizerner has already stated, in post #217, "the principle and idea is that God does not intervene to do more to save all people or give equal grace to all people." This may appear as an argument from a Calvinist to an Arminian because the Arminian has claimed to have a superior grounding in God's love. The Calvinist responds asking why God's didn't do more or give equal grace to all people. This is called a reductio ad absurdum argument. The Arminian is claiming the superior position, that God is more loving in their view. The Calvinist responds taking the love idea from the Arminian and asks the Arminian to deal with reality. Namely, what about those who have not heard? They obviously have not had the grace given of the gospel that others have received. Usually, it is the Arminian (or non-Calvinist if you prefer) who says that God showing grace for some and not others (the Calvinist view) is morally wrong for God. But again, Ken has put forward the argument that some die without hearing the gospel. How is this not some receiving more grace than others? The point is that the objection fails.

Changing focus for the moment, the Armininian (or non-C if you prefer) typically responds that God does not wish to violate the creature's autonomy. God doesn't want forced, robotic people. Hence, the "more" that the Calvinist is pushing for is not possible. I'm responding to the words, "to do more to save all people." Then the Calvinist puts forward the issue that some level of force is good at times, like during a drug addiction intervention. And the Calvinist may ask how people can be more loving than God. Again, this is an argument that takes the high position--God's love is better represented in the A or non-C view--and exposes it for not being nearly as loving as it purports to be.

Dizerner, am I getting closer to the issue that you are wanting to addressed? I am trying to follow your point, and I've already sought to correct myself in light of trying to better understand your point. I hope that you can see that I'm trying to deal with the issue you are seeking to raise (even if we disagree on the use of a term).
 
Top