The Elect

[TomL]

To repeat myself: The subjunctive mode given in the negative designates purpose—not implication that the negative is actually possible.

John 12:40 (ESV) — 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”

iva (lest) conjunction of adverbial purpose

it makes no sense purposing to prevent something which is not possible

especially when it is God who is purposing

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'd say when Calvinism actually denies man has free will they're actually taking away from the glory of God. For God to receive glory that means a positive appreciation about his character comes his way. That really and truly doesn't come from what you believe. How could it really?

Absolutely. Singular/Forced Praise has no meaning to God.

That is why Jesus said these "rocks will cry out". It is why Jesus told "his own" that He could raise up someone just like Abraham from rocks.

That isn't what God wants. Yet, that is exactly what Calvinism teaches.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Are you changing the goalposts here? What does this statement have to do with what we were talking about?

I was responding to civic relative to your comments. It is my assessment of the "self serving double talk" found in the WCF.

 

[praise_yeshua]

How do you get that? BTW, you probably should back off of the scorn, and just debate.

I used the word "hubris" only because I read from a Calvinist today on this forum. Calvinists don't have an exclusive to using such words.

 

[TomL]

I'd say when Calvinism actually denies man has free will they're actually taking away from the glory of God. For God to receive glory that means a positive appreciation about his character comes his way. That really and truly doesn't come from what you believe. How could it really?

Yes, it seems according to their theology God must effectually cause men to appreciate and love him.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, it seems according to their theology God must effectually cause men to appreciate and love him.

Exactly. Which is why I've been saying they've fashioned a theology wherein Grace is required for them.

 

[makesends]

John 12:40 (ESV) — 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”

iva (lest) conjunction of adverbial purpose

it makes no sense purposing to prevent something which is not possible

especially when it is God who is purposing

It designates HOW God does to them what they do themselves. Read the whole thing. Stop taking verses out of context.

 

[makesends]

I was responding to civic relative to your comments. It is my assessment of the "self serving double talk" found in the WCF.

Ok, my bad.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It designates HOW God does to them what they do themselves. Read the whole thing. Stop taking verses out of context.

You know you believe that reprobation is preordained and not a result of a secondary cause.

 

[makesends]

Exactly. Which is why I've been saying they've fashioned a theology wherein Grace is required for them.

What's wrong with that? The Bible shows it. In effect, you are saying they have fashioned a theology that agrees with Scripture.

 

[makesends]

You know you believe that reprobation is preordained and not a result of a secondary cause.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What's wrong with that? The Bible shows it. In effect, you are saying they have fashioned a theology that agrees with Scripture.

Then Calvinists should stop denying it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Elaborate?

Preordination of any causal event had no meaningful context relative to secondary cause. Sure, there may be many things that are "chain reaction" relative to primary cause but there is only power in primary cause.

Which makes such arguments from secondary cause powerless and thus irrelevant to lasting purpose.

 

[TomL]

It designates HOW God does to them what they do themselves. Read the whole thing. Stop taking verses out of context.

Sorry that is doublespeak

John 12:40 (ESV) — 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”

iva is still a conjunction of adverbial purpose


Isaiah 6:8–10 (ESV) — 8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.” 9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “ ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

 

[makesends]

I'd say when Calvinism actually denies man has free will they're actually taking away from the glory of God. For God to receive glory that means a positive appreciation about his character comes his way. That really and truly doesn't come from what you believe. How could it really?

Does Calvinism deny free will? Define it carefully, and you can see that you imply libertarian free will —(not simply free will)— a will that operates independently of causation, which is an illogical construction.

 

[TomL]

Does Calvinism deny free will? Define it carefully, and you can see that you imply libertarian free will —(not simply free will)— a will that operates independently of causation, which is an illogical construction.

Calvinism has will that is determined not free

 

[makesends]

Elaborate?

Been there. Done that. You didn't listen.

Preordination of any causal event had no meaningful context relative to secondary cause. Sure, there may be many things that are "chain reaction" relative to primary cause but there is only power in primary cause.

Which makes such arguments from secondary cause powerless and thus irrelevant to lasting purpose.

Preordination means that God intended that "whatsoever cometh to pass" comes to pass. This is logically implied within the meaning of omniscient "first cause", at least, though there are also other ways it is logically derived. Your notion of un-specific power is not characteristic of God, as though he simply throws a blanket of love over his creation.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

no it does not that the caricature made by calvinists/monergists. I know God saved me by His grace, mercy. But God did not believe for me or cause me to believe. God opened my mind/heart to hear the gospel and I ( not God making me ) responded in faith. I placed my trust, hope, faith, belief in Him. God did not do that for me nor does God make me obey Him. That is my choice/decision to walk in His ways, obey Him etc.....

God moves first, He is the first cause, He draws, convicts and man must either accept or reject that call. We do the receiving/believing. Grace precedes life, faith always. Man must believe then life is given, not before. Faith comes before life.

hope this helps !!!

Then God must share the Glory with you, since believing on your own steam was the hinge and turning point of your salvation.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Calvinism has will that is determined not free

You free-willers keep saying this as if it pertains to EVERYTHING, not salvation. I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm pretty darn sure that Calvinists would say God didn't force me to wear socks today like a robot or a puppet.

 

[makesends]

Calvinism has will that is determined not free

And so, you have your definition of free. Calvinism, as I understand it, does claim that the will is free to do as it pleases, and that it always does according to whatever inclinations it has, even if only for that moment of decision. That, and that the will is limited by its human inability to do things like flying, or being altogether pure as God is pure, and limited by its inclinations.

But, that the will is caused to do as it does is hardly debatable, in spite of your protests to the contrary. You yourself said, "Sure, there may be many things that are "chain reaction" relative to primary cause." If there is a causal 'chain-reaction' that results in specific facts, those specific facts are caused. It is sophistry to say otherwise.