Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
Of course, as well as, Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.
And many other like verses. This has never been questioned. What is it you are arguing for? Is it creation, ex nihilo
? There is nothing in any verse of Scripture that says God created the material world or universe out of nothing. Do you believe nothing existed before this material universe? Do you believe God is "nothing?" What do you suppose this means, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...." (Acts 17:28)? And this, "and he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col. 1:17)?
Now this verse plainly says the worlds were made of something: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Heb. 11:3) It does not say, "things which are seen are made of nothing," it says, "things which are seen are made of things which do not appear," that is, things which are invisible, or "not seen."
Now the, "not seen," is not "nothing" or this verse would mean our faith was in nothing:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Now I explained all of this in an earlier post which I referred you to. I do not believe you are being entirely sincere in this. What difference does it make if the material world is made out of the eternal unseen supernatural existense? That does not damage to the nature of God, since all things spring from Him, including that very supernatural world this world is made from.
Ex nihilo is not taught in Scripture, it is a pagan idea. Why do you want to defend it?
Hank
Contingency is what Aquinas called it.
The Koran is a good example of a book that is considered completely sufficient and which therefore leads the likes of bin Laden to kill innocents.
The Bible does not contain everything that you need to know unless you are allowed to use you intellect to discover what it means in conjunction with revelation.
But Divine guidance is necessary. That guidance was not guaranteed to anyone outside of the Apostles and they passed it on. That is called the teaching authority of the Church. Think ofthe Bible as a Divine Constitution. Can anyone just stand up and interpret it? No! But we should not reduce God's Word to a set of books that can be missinterpreted by every person to their own whim.
So when we say that God created everything from nothing we can site scriptures which refer to the void before creation. But we can also state catagorically that only God is the Creator and therefore He made everything from nothing. Otherwise someone else would have to get the credit.
I see I have given you a wrong impression, which is my fault for attempting to discuss something quite complex as thought it could be expressed with a few off-hand comments.
I did not mean to imply that everything that is in the supernatural realm, such as angels, fallen or faithful, were necessarily eternal in the sense of co-existing with their creator from eternity to eternity. I also did not mean to imply that eternal things cannot change their state, which they surely can, as Satan exemplifies. Nevertheless, change cannot mean the same thing in the superantural world as it does in the temporal world, because change in the temporal world always requires, "time," which cannot be the case where "time" does not have meaning, which it does not in the eternal unseen.
Maybe this will be a better approach to the subject. In that realm we call the supernatural realm of God and angels, we might properly say, all things spring from God and have their origin in Him. I do not believe the word "create" is correct with regard to supernatural beings or events, however. The reason we think that way, is because we tend to think of the eternal realms in the same we think about the temporal realm, but in the eternal realm, things do not have beginnings and ends in time, but it is impossible for us to imagine beginnings and ends in any other way, because we are temporal beings.
With regard to the natural world, the world of matter, space, and time, it is correct to say all was created by God, because in this realm, things begin in time. I believe that is exactly what the Bible teaches, as well. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," does not mean, by heaven, the supernatural realm, but the very same we mean when we point to the stars and refer to them as the heavens.
The problem with the ex nihilo is that the concept of, "nothing," is meaningless. Nothing is zero, non-existense, total void. But God fills all-in-all, and wherever God is, there cannot be 'nothing' because God is something.
Let me say it this way. There is no existense independent of God, but God cannot be if there is no existense, and because God is, existense is, and that existense that must be because God is, is eternal, because God is eternal.
Hank
You might want to explain how something can be "before" something where there is no time. If the above is your premise, it is mistaken. "Time" and "space" are not things, but parameters or qualities, by which the material (spatial/temproal) world is measured. Time is a relational quality, the relationship between events. Space is nothing more than the measure of the relationship of material entities to one another in terms of direction and distance.
What God created is the material universe of entities and events which have those spacial/temporal qualities that are the province of the physical sciences.
Since there can never be nothing, because God is something, to say anything is done "out of nothing" is an absurdity that Aquinas fell for.
So when we say that God created everything from nothing we can site scriptures which refer to the void before creation.
Please do provide the Scripture you believe describes or names a "void," before creation. Remember, a void means a place where there is nothing. Ask yourself, is God nothing? Is there anyplace where there is not God. If there is not any place where God is not, and God is something, there can be no void.
Hank
Divine guidance is promised to all those who are children of God, and none needs to depend on the teaching or instruction of others, no matter who they claim to be.
Jas. 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Just thought you ought to have God's perspective on these issues, since men and churches usually have their own agenda, which is seldom the same as God's.
Hank
My big trouble is my commnand of the language because of the Dyslexia. I can speak on things a lot easier. But I am working on the written word.
When I was a child around 10-11 I would wonder about the beganning of existence.
The Lord tells us there is no beganning nor end. I guess in the scheme of eternal, that is true. Spirits are eternal!
Unfortunately, the purpose of this thread wasn't to discuss what we're now discussing. We kinda got off on a tangent and I'm hoping to return to the issue at hand, which is the relationship between God's sovereignty and omniscience and man's will.
If you accept the idea that man has some choice (and by 'choice' I mean the ability to decide between alternatives, not just the ability to do what 'he wants') then we have no disagreement!
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will.
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God.
Between WHAT alternatives? Does man have the ability to decide between choosing and rejecting Christ? Yes. Does he have a cognitive ability to deny God's election? No. The reason we do disagree is because the relationship you see between the two is the exact opposite of what I see. You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around.
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will.
Your statement is not consistent. The first half you make God sovereign, but in the second you relegate Him to a prophetic role. What it should read is either "We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He wills" or "We agree that God is in partial control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will."
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God.
I agree. Man is condemned by His own sinfulness, his own choice to reject God.
I actually came up with an interesting way to look at the relationship we're debating. I think I can actually better explain it using program logic, so if I get a chance I'll try to post the "source code" for the operation of redemption :)
You do not see a contradiction in what you said?
You state man has a 'choice' in accepting or rejecting Christ but, according to you, the 'choice' has already been made for Him by God!
Do you see the frustration that myself and 'Hank' have over this misuse of language?
Does he have a cognitive ability to deny God's election? No.
What do you mean by 'cognitive' ability?
Either the choice can be made or it is not a choice!
The reason we do disagree is because the relationship you see between the two is the exact opposite of what I see.
Yes, I see a choice being made, which means choosing between alternatives, for or against Christ.
You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around.
Well, then what you are saying is not a choice, at least by man!
We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will. Your statement is not consistent. The first half you make God sovereign, but in the second you relegate Him to a prophetic role.
Not at all. I know that God is able to handle free will decisions and factor them into His Plan.
God can be sovereign both directly and indirectly. God is still in total control, but is allowing that which He would not prefer to happen, happen.
Sin is an example of this, unless you are going to state that God wants you to sin?
What it should read is either "We agree that God is in total control, that all events will take place as He wills" or "We agree that God is in partial control, that all events will take place as He has stated they will."
Depends on what you mean 'control'.
God is not responsible for the evil actions of either man or angel.
Thus, God does not make them do those evil acts which He deplores (Pr.6), but because He has given some limited freedom He allows those acts to happen and brings about good despite the acts.
He allows those acts because, if man were not free to reject God, they would not be free to accept God, an act that God takes pleasure in (Abraham, David, Moses, Paul).
Love demands a free response on the part of the both parties, and God gets pleasure out of being loved as well as loving. (Rev.4:11)
God after all, is Love (1Jn.4:9)
That man is responsible for sin and his own damnation, not God. I agree. Man is condemned by His own sinfulness, his own choice to reject God.
But you just said above that man does not have a choice to accept God, but he does have a 'choice' to reject Him?
This is the Calvinist redefinition of 'choice' that it consists of doing what one wants to do and not actually having a choice between alternatives (which is the normal usage of the term)
I actually came up with an interesting way to look at the relationship we're debating. I think I can actually better explain it using program logic, so if I get a chance I'll try to post the "source code" for the operation of redemption :)
Thank you. I will take a look at it, although I am not much good with computers. My former Pastor also used 'program' logic to show how God factored in free will to His Plan.
There is no contradiction. A paradox maybe, but no contradiction. Man's choice was not made for him. There are two separate choices in this equation: God's and man's. That God's choice does necessarily affect man's choice does not mean He makes the choice for him.
By cognitive ability, I mean that man has no knowledge of God's elective choice. The choice man is responsible for it whether or not to accept Christ, NOT whether or not to go along with God's elective choice. It's not like God chooses you and then tells you about it and you have to decide whether or not to go along with it. And even if it were, you still have to account for what leads to that decision which Arminians have not. It goes right back to the "secret ingredient" in man that causes him to choose or reject Christ.
Yes, I see a choice being made, which means choosing between alternatives, for or against Christ.
>>You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around.
Well, then what you are saying is not a choice, at least by man!
Notice I said 'proceeding from' not 'made by.' There is a distinct difference. In both Arminianism and Calvinism man has responsibility for his choice, and it is a valid choice...a choice as you said between two alternatives: accepting Christ or rejecting Him. That choice must proceed from something however...unless you maintain that it's random, in which case it is morally neutral and cannot therefore be justly condemnable. Man chooses based on desire, unless you believe that there is something within a man that would potentially compel him to choose against his desire (which in turn begs the questions "What is it?" and "Who put it there?"). If man's desire, as a result of the fall, is to sin and reject Christ, something must occur for him to change that...otherwise he's choosing against his desire without any rational motivation.
So clearly there is some means of external intervention (ie-"prevenient grace"). The question is this: what does that grace do to man's desire? If it brings it to a neutral place, how can man make any decision at all? If it takes it from desiring against to desiring for Christ, then that creates a problem for the Arminians who believe that prevenient grace is universally applied. Either some then choose against that desire (which as stated begs other questions that must be answered), or all choose Christ and are saved. Obviously the latter is not scripturally viable. I maintain that you cannot come to an answer for the questions raised by the former that does not leave God as the determining factor is who is saved and who is not.
But you just said above that man does not have a choice to accept God, but he does have a 'choice' to reject Him? This is the Calvinist redefinition of 'choice' that it consists of doing what one wants to do and not actually having a choice between alternatives (which is the normal usage of the term)
No, that's not what I said. You are falsely assuming that man makes his salvific choice in a vacuum, which is not the case. As the article at the beginning of this thread points out, choice is not made in a vacuum. There is a matter of influence, a matter of desire.
Just for the record, a paradox is a contradiction. In fact, there can be no paradoxes. If you think you have found one, you have made a mistake.
Hank
If God unconditionarly elected one and left the other one not elected, the choice has been made for him.
That is not a paradox, that is simple human language.
God's choice doesn't 'influence' man's choice, (according to Calvinism) it is the choice.
By cognitive ability, I mean that man has no knowledge of God's elective choice. The choice man is responsible for it whether or not to accept Christ, NOT whether or not to go along with God's elective choice. It's not like God chooses you and then tells you about it and you have to decide whether or not to go along with it. And even if it were, you still have to account for what leads to that decision which Arminians have not. It goes right back to the "secret ingredient" in man that causes him to choose or reject Christ.
The issue is not wheather man 'knows' about the choice, the issue is what does the Bible say of it!
The Bible clearly states that God wants all men saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9) and it is man who is rejecting God, not God rejecting man.
It is the preconceived philosophial view of the nature of God's sovereignity (that God would not allow man to resist His will)that forces Calvinism to avoid the statements of clear scripture that speak of God's love and desire for all men to be saved.
Yes, I see a choice being made, which means choosing between alternatives, for or against Christ. >>You see God's election proceeding from man's choice, I see it the other way around. Well, then what you are saying is not a choice, at least by man! Notice I said 'proceeding from' not 'made by.' There is a distinct difference.
Well, we set that issue aside. The fact is that man is not making the 'choice' and the 'choice' is only being revealed through him.
That is not a 'choice' by man, but only the seen choice of God.
In both Arminianism and Calvinism man has responsibility for his choice, and it is a valid choice...a choice as you said between two alternatives: accepting Christ or rejecting Him.
Well, here is responsiblity without any ability to decide.
How can one be responsible for that which he is not responsible for!
That choice must proceed from something however...unless you maintain that it's random, in which case it is morally neutral and cannot therefore be justly condemnable.
Now, how did you jump to the issue of it being 'random'?
God foresaw the free choices men would make and factored those choices (choosing between alternatives) and that is why 'man is without excuse'
Romans 1 clearly states that man had the knowledge of God and rejected it.
Man chooses based on desire, unless you believe that there is something within a man that would potentially compel him to choose against his desire (which in turn begs the questions "What is it?" and "Who put it there?").
God placed that 'desire' in man to understand and seek God.
Thus, while man is spiritually dead, he still has a conscience and the glory of God is evident in nature.
Thus, God is seeking man and if man responds to that seeking, God will give him the light of the Gospel (Psa.119:30)
See, what you are starting with is a man in the Fallen state.
How did man get into that state?
Adam had free will and was perfect so what happened?
What happened (according to Calvinism) is that God wanted Adam to fall to put man into a condemned state so that He could save some and condemn the rest.
Thus, according to Calvinism, it is God who is responsible for the state that man is in and not man, and this for 'God's glory'.
It is very nice circuclar reasoning, starting with a philosophical premise of God's Sovereignity, that God cannot handle free will,but must Decree everything from His own directive will.
Calvinists want to put up alot of 'dust' hoping that one does not trace the source back to its origins, but when does, it is God who is responsible for the very thing that He is stating in Scripture that He hates, sin and evil.
Thus, you will use selective proof-texts and ignore clear scripture that contradicts those texts.
Then, as the final defense, it is the secret will and the unknowable God, not the God of the Bible.
So clearly there is some means of external intervention (ie-"prevenient grace"). The question is this: what does that grace do to man's desire? If it brings it to a neutral place, how can man make any decision at all?
Because man has a will and that will can make a decision with the light shown it.
If it takes it from desiring against to desiring for Christ, then that creates a problem for the Arminians who believe that prevenient grace is universally applied.
Why should it?
The Arminians simply state that one can resist that desire as one can any desire.
If an alternative desire is created, then one has a decision between responding to that desire or going back to the old desire.
We make that decision everytime we sin.(Rom.7)
Either some then choose against that desire (which as stated begs other questions that must be answered), or all choose Christ and are saved.
That is exactly what does happen! So how does that 'beg' the question?
The 'will' makes a decision against two desires. Now, because one may make an irrational decision (and choose against Christ) should be not suprise to us, since we do the same when we sin!
Obviously the latter is not scripturally viable.
Oh, no, it is the only viable answer, since it fits scripture, which states that God desires all men to be saved, and it is man that is rejecting God, not God rejecting man (with a pre-eternal uncontitional election)
I maintain that you cannot come to an answer for the questions raised by the former that does not leave God as the determining factor is who is saved and who is not.
I maintain that your argument is not logical but rhetorical.
It does not start with God's revealed attributes, but starts with a preconceived notion of God and then fits certain proof texts to fit that notion of both God and man.
When you push Calvinism to its logical premise, you have an unknown God who is not revealed in Scripture, but contradicts Himself in Scripture.
Calvinism makes Christiantiy all 'smoke and mirrors' and is thus mysticism.
Here is a letter by a former Calvinist in David's Hunts' Berean Call that you might find interesting,
I have read your book, What Love Is This? and enjoyed it very much. I am saddened to see so many write with such disrespect...I was a Calvinist....I thought, 'How can anyone be so stupid as not believe the true doctrines of the Reformed faith? It is so logical; it is so scriptural. 'I was quick to point out people's errors in doctrine'....Ater graduation, a friend challanged me regarding the interpetation of John. 3:16....As I started to open my mouth to give the standard 'clear' interpretation, I stopped. I saw something that I hadn't seen before....I told my friend' give me three days and I'll come and answer you'....For three days I wrestled with the 'standard' interpretation and the plain, normal reading of Scripture....I found that many of the 'standard' Calvinistic interpretations were not according to the plain, normal reading of the text, but understood with special definitions, and lengthy cross references and arguments. Taking Scripture in its plain, normal sense simply could not explain the Calvinistic interpetation....I am no longer a Calvinist. No longer do I want to understand and interpret the Bible using special manmade definitions of words to force peculiar interpetations' (Berean Call-Feb,2003)
Calvinism rejects the basic rules of Biblical interpetation that clear scripture interpret obscure scripture and that scripture cannot contradict scripture.
Thus, when a Calvinist does interpet scripture correctly (see Spurgeon 1Tim.2;4, Calvin,2Pet.3:9) he must resolve the contradiction by appealing to a 'secret will' that explains away what the scripture is clearly teaching.
Thus, you have a faith based on a philosophial premise and not a Biblical one
But you just said above that man does not have a choice to accept God, but he does have a 'choice' to reject Him? This is the Calvinist redefinition of 'choice' that it consists of doing what one wants to do and not actually having a choice between alternatives (which is the normal usage of the term) No, that's not what I said. You are falsely assuming that man makes his salvific choice in a vacuum, which is not the case.
No, the issue was wheather man had a choice (alternatives to choose from) and that Calvinism uses 'double-talk' in its explanation.
With all due respect, you have shown that is exactly what Calvinism does.
You maintain that because you cannot understand how man can make this choice, that it is really God who making the choice for man, but it appeals it is man's choice, so we will consider it as such! LOL!
As the article at the beginning of this thread points out, choice is not made in a vacuum. There is a matter of influence, a matter of desire.
Exactly right, and God has given man a desire for Him, that even with the fall has not been totally removed.
Spiritual death constitutes the fact that man's desire in the flesh is away from God, and hides from God, but the Bible clearly states that God will seek man (as He did with the spirtually dead Adam, who still could talk with God, as he did with the spiritually dead Cain who could talk with God, as He did with Pharoah,(Gen.20) who talked with God)
Your concept of 'spiritual death' is made to fit your preconceived notion of God's sovereignity, and is not scriptural.
God seeks man and God in His omnipotence and wisdom has no problem in giving even spiritually dead men a decision to make.
That is based on clear scripture, not the imagination of the Father of the most mystical system in existance, Roman Catholicism, Augustine, the father also of Calvinism.
I hope the tone of my reponse was respectful and I apologize in advance if I said anything personally offensive.
Just for the record, you better grab your dictionary, Hank.
par·a·dox
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion. ----------------------------------------------------------- Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Well, I won't say it didn't make my blood boil, but it was at least civil ;)
I will respond tomorrow as I have some work to do tonight (RedHat 8, here I come!)
Just for the record, you better grab your dictionary, Hank
Interestingly, I almost captured that same page and quoted it to you.
If a paradox is not a contradiction, then what is it. The whole point of apparent paradoxes are, they seem, or some people are able to believe that two things can be true, which, if true, would contradict each other. That is always what it means. If things only "seem" like contradictions, they are not truly paradoxical. To think they are is just a mistake.
In truth, there can be no contradictions, and no true "paradox," where paradox means, two propositions which are both true and contradict each other.
Most people confuse irony with paradox.
Hank
Jeez, people.... :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.