Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

We cannot hold God in our formulas and systems.

But you can rely upon God's promises. And if you believe God's word, then you can know with assurance whether or not you are saved. It does not depend upon you. Since it depends solely upon God, why do you have doubts about your salvation? Because you don't feel worthy? If it depended upon our feeling worthy, then none of us would be saved.

The thing is, WE ARE NOT WORTHY! AND NOTHING WE DO WILL EVER MAKE US WORTHY.

ME: You want us to "step beyond our points" into what?

YOU: The Transcendent.

Ahhh... Now I see where you're coming from.

"Transcendent philosophical traditions reveal that true power is sourced within, is ever-renewable through the grace of God, and is activated through human dedication to whole-centered rather than self-centered goals." -- from "The Healing of America" by Marianne Williamson

W-h-a-t d-o y-o-u d-e-f-e-n-d?

Oh! Duh. Please realise I'm used to seeing D-fendr as my name. So it read to me like, "Of what are you a Sam." My apologies.

I suppose I'd have to say I try to defend others from harm. I think we should try to do this, don't you agree?

These words ("Christ paid for your sins") sound nice, it's a nice courtroom and legal analogy. I've read the formulas, I actually have, but, honestly, I think the theology is just not for some.

If you cannot say whether or not Christ paid the price for your sins, then I assume you do not call yourself a Christian.

Because if you do call yourself a Christian, you've just made clear what Harley fears.

Deconstruction into gnostic oblivion.

Now I see where you're coming from.

Nope, sorry, wrong description. "Transcendent" as in transcending time, space, matter, reason/logic. Think of it more like transcendent God, as we believe God is in Judaism and Christianity.

Deconstruction into gnostic oblivion.

No, I'm quite orthodox. Is the word "transcendent" so foreign to your ears that it causes you to leap to gnosticism?

The term is used, and misused, in a lot of ways, but it's quite common in Christianity also. That it's not used in Calvinism helps reinforce what I was saying. If it's not there anywhere, is God wholly contained in matter, time, space and reason?

Of course not. God transcends.

Are you essentially asking me where I think I will be when I pass this existence?

So what's a good, just, and loving God supposed to do to ensure that His elect will wind up in heaven with Him? Well, since I do believe that God is utterly and fully in control, and knowing that we could not pay for our sins, I think that He decided to pay for those sins Himself, using the only means that would also satisfy His justice.

If that is the answer, than why doesn't God's infinite sacrifice work for everyone? If God desires that all men be saved, and if Christ died for the sin of the WORLD, then there must be another factor involved in determining who goes to heaven/hell - a factor that God allows to exist. This, we call free will of men. It is a secondary cause - as only God can be the first mover. But since God has given His creation the ability to utilize rational thought and make free will decisions, God necessarily allows man to exist in a world that is not perfect, one that "defies" God's Will that all men be saved. THIS is God's choice, a graduated order of creation.

I don't think Christ went through the whole ordeal for no reason, except that it was absolutely necessary to save us. What other reason could there be for Him to go through the worst thing we could imagine?

For love. God wasn't required to do any such thing as die. He could have merely came down, waved His hand, and said "all men are forgiven". WHY does God "have" to die?? Who is forcing God to die on the cross but love?

And yes, I am saying that God not only ordains that sin happen, but also that it was His will that sin exist on this earth.

Strictly speaking, I disagree. It is God's will that man be free - THIS is God's will. He didn't give us Commandments for the express purpose of their being broken and disobeyed! God's strict will is that men OBEY Him and turn to Him - but their is a caveat - man must do it freely (of course, God guides us, but not force us). It is NOT God's "Will" that sin exists - He makes goodness come from it, but it is illogical that God desires sin to exist for its own sake. It is a side effect of man's free will.

I believe God is sovereign and in full control, and I cannot make sense of any idea that God's sovereignty is satisfied by God partially releasing His control to humans.

God doesn't give up control because we have free will! He already knows how we will act in every situation - thus, He is not surprised or taken aback by anything we do. To believe that God releases control is to place God into time, awaiting humans to make decisions, or forcing them to make the decisions He wants them to make! Why would God have to "force" anything, since He sees what we will do already.

Calvinists believe that man has free will

That's rhetoric. A Calvinist does not believe in freedom of choice. An unregenerated man can ONLY choose evil, while the regenerated man can ONLY choose good, according to Harley. This is not free will, this is a bound will. In any case, both men above can do good or evil in a given situation - that much should be readily apparent in real life.

I recognize that you said that man's free will does not impede God, but then you also say that God's plan takes into account man's actions. You further say that God foresaw what we would do to Christ, but, in effect, fortunately, God loved us anyway.

That is my belief - that God sees our free will decisions and responses to His initiatives.

First, that God did not take into account our decisions in the making of His plan. Second, that God did. Wouldn't you agree that these would be two mutually exclusive plans, i.e., that both cannot possibly be true? We don't make decisions like God does, so they have to be different, right? That's why I keep hopping on my hobby horse that God isn't dependent on man, even partially, for His plan. If God uses our decisions, THEN NECESSARILY, He planned differently than He otherwise would have.

For the most part, it appears that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. But God's foreknowledge of our actions doesn't make God dependent on man - He is able to plan accordingly, simultaneously, to enable man to make what is a free will choice for him, done the way God desires. Remember, God doesn't work on a linear time line. Everything is done in one moment for Him. At the same time, He sees what we will do in a given situation - while HE provides the impetus and circumstances that will enable us to CHOOSE what He desires in a given situation. Thus, He is not dependent on our actions.

We both agree that God created satan, that satan is evil, but God is not the author of evil, right?

God did not create an evil being. Remember in Genesis, after God had completed creation, He said it was "very good". We presume that the angels had not yet fallen. It was their free will choice to NOT follow God - which God foresaw but not desire or ordain. IF God created an evil being, then God IS the author of evil, correct?

God has no duty to the universe to stop satan's evil, even though He could stop it at any time with a snap of His fingers.

It is His will that evil exists, despite that He did not create it or desires its existence. God is pure holiness. He does not desire the existence of evil - accept in that it enable man to retain free will. If evil was not possible because God did away with it, then man would not have free will - without free will, there is no love.

In God's plan He withholds or withdraws grace from some and then they are left only to their sin nature, meaning they will sin. God ordained that, but He did not author the sin itself. That was done by man, even if he had no independent ability to avoid it.

God withholds grace not knowing what a man will do with grace given Him makes God just? Is God randomly choosing the elect? And while you say that God ordained evil - and claim that God did not author sin - I find as completely contradictory. When someone ordains something, they are creating it, authoring it. The moment you say "God ordained sin", you are saying that God authored sin. You can't have it both ways. Either God does NOT ordain sin, man does, or God DOES ordain sin, and He is responsible for man's sinning.

Perhaps a human example would be a classic "entrapment" scenario, whereby an undercover cop poses as a bum in the alley and leaves a $50 bill laying on his chest. He appears to be sleeping. When someone comes along and tries to steal it, who "caused" the crime? In this loose analogy, the cop was "ordaining", but the thief was the author of the sin (evil). Of course God's powers erase all doubt of the outcome.

Who caused the crime? The man stealing the money. No one "forced" the man to take it, no matter the circumstance of "entrapment". The cop was NOT ordaining anything, he ALLOWED it. There is a difference between actively creating something or forcing something or necessitating something, AND allowing it. NO ONE forced that man to take the money off the man's chest! Thus, with God. NO ONE forces man to sin - we do it ourselves. Thus, God does NOT ordain sin or necessitates it. To say this would to make God the author of sin.

But you tell me that God takes into account man's actions. If God actually plans differently than He otherwise would have, because of man, then that necessitates a change based on foreknowledge.

That is all speculation, I suppose. Who can say what sort of options move around in the mind of God or how He plans things such as that? We can say, though, that God foresees what we will do at the same time as He "plans", since there is no past or future with God.

This foreknowledge of man necessitates that God do something He would not have done but for the foreknowledge

Is God's will bound by His foreknowledge???

As for the football game, YES, you would have caused the outcome of the game by knowing the score, IF you made the game, AND you owned the game, AND you made and owned all the players of the game, AND YOU WERE IN ABSOLUTE AND FULL CONTROL OF EVERY ASPECT OF THAT GAME from before the sport itself was even invented. :)

God has given man the ability of being secondary causes. Yes, God gave us the ability to sit in a chair, but does that mean we cannot cause ourselves to sit down? God gave all mobile creatures the ability of self-motion. God keeps us in existence and has given us particular powers and abilities which do NOT imply that God is not necessary. We are created this way to further glorify God. When a man chooses to walk, He is doing God's will by fulfilling the use of his legs. When man does a morally good deed, He is fulfilling his purpose, to come into a loving relationship with the Father through love.

When God withdraws or withholds, He knows there is only one result that is possible. Left to our own devices, there is only wickedness.

And why would God withhold grace from us, knowing full well we need it to be saved - UNLESS we reject it? To say God purposely withholds grace from an unelect people who might have followed Him otherwise makes God a just God? That is the thinking of Jonah and his attitude towards the Ninevites...God does not withhold Himself from anyone whom He foresees would come to repentance due to His graces given them. He is a just and merciful God who deeply desires our love.

God uses, or "ordains" that wickedness, with full knowledge of the result.

REPEAT after me: "God allows", "God allows". Foreseeing is not causing something. To ordain is to cause wickedness. I don't recognize God being the cause of evil as a Christian teaching.

If God ALWAYS just leaves us alone when we rebel, as you seem to suggest in saying there is no connection to God's ordaining, then how do you explain that all the evil prophesied in the Bible just happened to come true?

God naturally saw that man would sin by following his own will, rather than God's will. God foresaw that man would turn away, despite God's trying to grace man.

If I'm reading you right, then this supports my concern from earlier, that you believe that God looked down the corridor, saw whatever evil man decided to commit, and then fashioned history around that. That is not the kind of free will I believe in.

God sees man's evil AND fashions history in that one moment of eternity. There is no order of action in God. It all occurs at once.

Does God ordain anything?

Yes, God ordains His elect. I personally believe that God foresees who will respond to His gifts at the same time that He ordains them - but this is a type of Molinism that is acceptable within Catholic theology. Regardless of HOW God decides, He certainly DOES predestine the elect and ordains that they be saved without losing any. Sadly for us, we don't know who is on that list right now!!

The idea that God wished to delegate some of that control, on purpose, to creatures as sinful as us makes me think He really isn't in control.

Who named the animals in the Garden? Who was given the command to be fruitful and multiply (to create)? Who was made in the image and likeness of God? Yes, God is in control in that He has already seen our choice.

Without God being in full control, man would have destroyed himself in his own wickedness.

Men DO destroy themselves as a result of their wickedness, spiritually speaking. When God does not abide in man, He is spiritually dead, but this doesn't mean that the man is beyond any possibility of doing a morally good deed. We should distinguish between doing a good deed and doing a pleasing deed in God's eyes. Only one with faith can do the latter. That person is spiritually alive, the former is spiritually dead. The spiritual definitions of death, though, do not necessarily transfer over to the physical world. Yes, God is in control because He has seen the end of the world already. We have to realize that God's foresight is accurate and it is simulataneous in that there is no past or future with God.

Regards

Are you essentially asking me where I think I will be when I pass this existence?

No, I'm asking you if you feel worthy of your salvation?

I'm asking you if you feel worthy of your salvation?

I'm sorry this just does not compute. I can't get there from here. Is this that important to you? I'm really trying hard to translate, but I'm not able to right now. I can try again later. My apologies.

Roman Catholics love Barth.

Barth? Is this one of the Simpson family?

…know God by trancendence and by immanence

I'm not sure which you find error with: the immanent or transcendent?

thanks for your reply.

I'd be interested if you could offer anything about the meaning of the word "glory."

Honor, praise, adoration?

Ok, I'm trying again: Do I "feel worthy of… salvation?"

I'm going to assume that by "salvation" you mean "reward in/with Heaven." Please correct me if this is a false assumption.

If I'm understanding you, then I don't know what "worthy" means in this case. As I said, this is up to God and God only. If I knew His measure of "worthiness" I would be God. God can have with Him whomever He wishes for whatever purpose He sees or for no purpose I can possibly fathom. To go further is to become God.

If I know anything, I know that I'm not God.

And as I've said also, focusing on this, reward if you will, or God's choice of me or someone else, is not helpful to me. It separates me from God, evokes prodigal jealousy, places conditions on Him and calls for my bringing to bear promises and the like. I can't imagine telling God, "but you promised!"

I see this promise, this election, this assured salvation used too often as a stick for one human against another. One theology against another. A competitive, prideful, possesive thing. This use is not a skillful use of theology. Theology is not for this purpose. Scripture is not for this purpose.

We have what God wishes us to have. We will be where God wishes us to be. My faith and my limited experience of the Divine is: this is always for the good. This is The Good. And The True. And The Beautiful.

Isn't this marvelous? Isn't it awesome? Isn't it enough?

Whether the word is "blameless", "righteous", "godly", or "perfect", it cannot mean "sinless" in this context

In this context? The context, FK, which you left out, is in the last sentence that says abstaining from everything evil. In that context, Job is described as sinneless.

Is that a no?

I suppose I'd have to say I try to defend others from harm.

What kind of harm do you try to defend others from?

Is God knowable to you? If so, how? Or is He simply a puzzle to you?

And if He's a puzzle to you and He's unknowable, how do you live your life and by what guidelines if not those given by a coherent Creator?

We have what God wishes us to have.

Does He wish for you to have salvation?

Was Christ's death on the cross only a wish?

5,000 -- Good night, all.