• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

A God who is unable to to get what He desires to get, is nothing but impotent and no God at all.

If by “no indication” you mean no explicit “I, God, submit my will to the will of man” statement, then you are correct, but then again, there is “no indication” that “I, God, have foreordained to save a certain number of people and passed over the rest”!

You hold a standard of proof that your own theology can not stand against!

Doug
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

I don't have the numbers but I do have explicit text that does say Gods mercy and compassion is not dependent on man, but on God.
There are vessels made for destruction.

Stop thinking that there is therefore injustice with God.
 
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Arminian theology believes this too! That’s why works are a useless commodity; only God has the prerogative of mercy, which is and act of undeserved and unnecessary kindness, ie, Grace.

Doug
 
Arminian theology believes this too! That’s why works are a useless commodity; only God has the prerogative of mercy, which is and act of undeserved and unnecessary kindness, ie, Grace.

Doug
On whom? All people or the elect? Or those who choose?
 
On all who believe!


Doug
Only those on whom God will have mercy and compassion will believe.

You see, it says it is not by the human will that God has mercy. It is despite it.
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
 
An Omnipotent God cannot, not achieve/get what He desires.
God is not limited by the human will, and in scripture there is no indication that God limits Himself because of the human will and therefore limits His own desires.

If God is limited in what He can do, to achieve His end goal, then He is stripped of His Omnipotence.
I am not talking about, not being able to lie, or create a rock that cannot be lifted etc. I am talking about God limiting Himself and submitting to the human will.
How do you know it is not God's desire to give man free will? If He desires free will worship, He will do all in His power to ensure it occurs, without forcing His will on man. If you look at the Early Church Fathers, those who were connected closely to the Early Church. You will see they believed in the free will of man, not determinism.

Irenaeus (120-202 AD) in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38 shows clearly that it is man's free will choice to choose or reject God.

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” (Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:7) God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

But not only that, the Bible also supports the notion of free agency, that God regretted making man because man chose evil over good.


Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

  • You can not regret making something that you planned
  • It shows that man indeed has free agency, and is able to go against God's will
 
  • You can not regret making something that you planned
  • It shows that man indeed has free agency, and is able to go against God's will
God can regret making something that God planned. God is not like you; his "regret" and his "planned" are not like yours. But you might want to take a look at the different translations, there.

"Free agency", if it is a real thing, does not mean ability to act outside of God's decree.

God's decree is not a forcing. It is God creating, and what comes to pass is God's means of accomplishing what he has decreed.
 
God can regret making something that God planned. God is not like you; his "regret" and his "planned" are not like yours. But you might want to take a look at the different translations, there.

God made man in His own image with a mind. His regret is definitely the same as ours, what you said is just a sidestep of scripture.

"Free agency", if it is a real thing, does not mean ability to act outside of God's decree.

God's decree is not a forcing. It is God creating, and what comes to pass is God's means of accomplishing what he has decreed.

Why are you so sure there is this decree? God gave Adam and Eve "choice" hence the tree. Today He is still giving us choices. God's plan can wrap around free will.

I am a Computer Programmer and have studied Artificial Intelligence, there is a form of branching AI, that can determine the outcome of a free will system. Although there are many outcomes, constraints can be placed on it, i.e. stories written, to make certain things fixed, so that chaos does not enter the system. According to David (Psa 139:16) God has written down much of our story, this would prevent chaos, and enable God to "decree" certain things ahead of time. This plan could have been created before creation even existed. But the plan could still allow us choices. Thus God's regret in Genesis.
 
God made man in His own image with a mind. His regret is definitely the same as ours, what you said is just a sidestep of scripture.
What makes you think being made "in the image of God" is a reference to the mind?

And no. Languages have a way of misleading when translated. Even other language speakers do not mean the same thing by what is translated "regret" that you mean by it; there are always other implications from what English uses. And if them, certainly the concept is different to omniscient God, from what you think of it.

Furthermore, God is necessarily Omnipotent First Cause, we are not. Many things are implied by that fact, to include that all the things we assess (or categorize) as individual attributes are not separate in him. And what is implied by that is that his "regret" (even if that is the best translation) is not separate from his purpose, and probably would more accurately be conceived of (by us) as "pain", or the like.
Why are you so sure there is this decree? God gave Adam and Eve "choice" hence the tree. Today He is still giving us choices. God's plan can wrap around free will.
I'm not arguing against free will. I'm arguing against a version of it that claims self-determinism, independence from causation and therefore independence from God.

God's decree is a name given to one of the "two wills of God" we see in scripture —his revealed will and his hidden will. His hidden will becomes revealed sequentially by what happens causally, whether of "natural progression" or of God directly causing. You seem to want to claim free will is outside all that. Yet even you want to say (if I remember correctly) that God caused us to have this will independent of him. That is self-contradictory.
I am a Computer Programmer and have studied Artificial Intelligence, there is a form of branching AI, that can determine the outcome of a free will system. Although there are many outcomes, constraints can be placed on it, i.e. stories written, to make certain things fixed, so that chaos does not enter the system. According to David (Psa 139:16) God has written down much of our story, this would prevent chaos, and enable God to "decree" certain things ahead of time. This plan could have been created before creation even existed. But the plan could still allow us choices. Thus God's regret in Genesis.
Yet, that branching is digital, absolutely CAUSED, and if we are honest, absolutely predictable, if we were able to know every state change. (Truth is, even analog is absolutely caused, but digital more obviously.) 'Chaos', like 'chance' and 'random', only indicates that we don't have the mind that can assess all the chains of causation in a matter. It only means, "I don't know."

There is no uncaused free will.
 
What makes you think being made "in the image of God" is a reference to the mind?

And no. Languages have a way of misleading when translated. Even other language speakers do not mean the same thing by what is translated "regret" that you mean by it; there are always other implications from what English uses. And if them, certainly the concept is different to omniscient God, from what you think of it.

Furthermore, God is necessarily Omnipotent First Cause, we are not. Many things are implied by that fact, to include that all the things we assess (or categorize) as individual attributes are not separate in him. And what is implied by that is that his "regret" (even if that is the best translation) is not separate from his purpose, and probably would more accurately be conceived of (by us) as "pain", or the like.

I'm not arguing against free will. I'm arguing against a version of it that claims self-determinism, independence from causation and therefore independence from God.

God's decree is a name given to one of the "two wills of God" we see in scripture —his revealed will and his hidden will. His hidden will becomes revealed sequentially by what happens causally, whether of "natural progression" or of God directly causing. You seem to want to claim free will is outside all that. Yet even you want to say (if I remember correctly) that God caused us to have this will independent of him. That is self-contradictory.

Yet, that branching is digital, absolutely CAUSED, and if we are honest, absolutely predictable, if we were able to know every state change. (Truth is, even analog is absolutely caused, but digital more obviously.) 'Chaos', like 'chance' and 'random', only indicates that we don't have the mind that can assess all the chains of causation in a matter. It only means, "I don't know."

There is no uncaused free will.
Why then did God put the tree in the garden? It is obviously so man could either choose to obey or disobey God. If God just wanted to chuck Adam and Eve out of the garden, why not just do it, why would he associate blame to them? Your version of God is twisted. It gives man blame for things that he is not guilty of.

Justin Martyr (110-165) - First Apology

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.
 
How do you know it is not God's desire to give man free will?
Man in the flesh can choose anything he wants.
He cannot choose by the will to become born again.

Jesus said so!
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

So no, God did not choose to use human free will, nor the will of the flesh to save those who somehow freely choose Him before He reveals Himself to that person.

Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
 
Why then did God put the tree in the garden? It is obviously so man could either choose to obey or disobey God. If God just wanted to chuck Adam and Eve out of the garden, why not just do it, why would he associate blame to them? Your version of God is twisted. It gives man blame for things that he is not guilty of.

Justin Martyr (110-165) - First Apology

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.
Yes, God put the tree in the garden so man could choose obedience or disobedience. Where did I say otherwise? And man chose disobedience, just as God intended from the beginning. You have a world, where God must resort to plan B, then plan B part 2, then plan B part 2b, etc. It's plain silly. God does not fly by the seat of his pants in an atmosphere of reality he did not create. Life does not happen TO him. HE is life.

Justin Martyr is not speaking against Calvinism. He is talking against fatalism. Not the same thing. You really do not get that the only true good and true ability in us is God himself.
 
Justin Martyr is not speaking against Calvinism. He is talking against fatalism. Not the same thing. You really do not get that the only true good and true ability in us is God himself.
You need to study the Early Church Fathers, if you do that you will see they plainly disagree with Calvinism.
 
You need to study the Early Church Fathers, if you do that you will see they plainly disagree with Calvinism.
I expect you mean, Calvinism disagrees with them? Calvinism, as such, did not exist then.

But the theology of the Bible is the source of Calvinism, in a large sense. I came to what I believe by Scripture, not by Calvinism, but lo and behold, Calvinism and Reformed Theology very much resemble what I came to believe.

But, I really don't care very much what the ECF's wrote. There is much of scripture that speaks from an apparent human temporal POV, and does so without error or deceit. That doesn't mean that the human temporal POV is the way to go, nor, certainly, that God must see only from that POV. It only means that he is much more gentle with us than we deserve, and that if we do well, and are obedient, and our hearts increasingly come to know him better, that it is more important than getting our theology right —which is something none of us will complete in this life.
 
I am talking about God limiting Himself and submitting to the human will.
Which wouldn't have any effect on His OMNIPOTENCE, but would be a feature of it.

After all God has allowed satan to be "the prince of the power of the air", and the "god of this world" - (Adam's realm of authority before he SINNED, and gave it all to satan).

Don't Limit GOD with nothing more than your own "theology".
 
God and Zeus have many different attributes, if they have one or more things in common, then that does not mean that there is no difference.
Zeus has no attributes at all. They have nothing in common. God is the One true living God. Zeus is nothing but a figment of the imagination.
 
Which wouldn't have any effect on His OMNIPOTENCE, but would be a feature of it.
Of course it would.
A God who has no control is no God at all.
After all God has allowed satan to be "the prince of the power of the air", and the "god of this world" - (Adam's realm of authority before he SINNED, and gave it all to satan).
God allowing Satan within limits to do something is not negating His omnipotence in any way or means.
Don't Limit GOD with nothing more than your own "theology".
I am not the one trying to limit God. In fact, I have been doing the opposite.

Take a good hard look at how you and some others have been trying to limit God to keep self, and free will the sovereign power over God.

It is your theology that is limiting God. My theology places no limits on God but glorifies Him alone.
 
God allowing Satan within limits to do something is not negating His omnipotence in any way or means.
Exactly like God allowing US within limits to do something is non negating His Omnipotence in any way or means.
 
Exactly like God allowing US within limits to do something is non negating His Omnipotence in any way or means.
If the "allowing" implies non-causation, then it does negate omnipotence. They are mutually exclusive.
 
Back
Top