First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Pre-Destination
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
(starts the slow clap, its kinda pathetic that Youaredumb doesn't spend half as much time writing his responses as trying to poke holes in a good 4 paragraph response, take it seriously or don't bother participating)
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08 , edited 6/23/08

jmartinez83 wrote:

(Last response to the ignorance of YouAreDumb). God does not choose arbitrarily.
Illogical given that all men are totally depraved. If all men are equally unworthy any choice among them must be arbitrary in nature. TULIP you know. If you do not hold to this doctrine then we are discussing different theological systems.



. Second, I said Greg Bahnsen, not W.L. Craig. I don't accept Craig's Classical approach to apologetics, albeit I like some of the stuff he writes concerning philosophy and whatnot. The fact that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology proves to me that you see no connection with Covenant Theology and predestination. Read more. It will help your ignorance on the subject.


No understanding? Bah I have read several books on the subject and understand it fine. Your statement above leads me to question your ability to take theological theories to their logical conclusion.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08

cryolyger wrote:

(starts the slow clap, its kinda pathetic that Youaredumb doesn't spend half as much time writing his responses as trying to poke holes in a good 4 paragraph response, take it seriously or don't bother participating)


I am afraid that is all I had to do to tear holes in his response., Deal with it.
Moderator
14744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

(starts the slow clap, its kinda pathetic that Youaredumb doesn't spend half as much time writing his responses as trying to poke holes in a good 4 paragraph response, take it seriously or don't bother participating)


I am afraid that is all I had to do to tear holes in his response., Deal with it.



Dumb this thread and forum is not for attacts on others. To all this thread is for disc. and informing about the subject "Pre-Destination". Please do not go off topic.

youaredumb do not make me have to Deal with YOU
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/23/08
Ok, I am going to have to concur with Rat on this one. He'll make you into one of his test subjects if we get out of line. And an argument must be properly defended 2 lines of words does not an arguement make. try throwing in some research or quotes, as I was once told by a teacher of mine, no one will take you seriously if your the only one who thinks like you do.

In any regard my NKJV is my companion. I can not fathom reading with out it. As for the NIV, i have no quarrels with it, but it leaves me dry. ESV and NKJV are my recommendations. emphasis on the ESV.

If we may, can we speak on the covenants themselves for a moment, there are 2 if I am not mistaken, the New Testament, and the Old. Elaboration I think is needed.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08 , edited 6/23/08

cryolyger wrote:

Ok, I am going to have to concur with Rat on this one. He'll make you into one of his test subjects if we get out of line. And an argument must be properly defended 2 lines of words does not an arguement make. try throwing in some research or quotes, as I was once told by a teacher of mine, no one will take you seriously if your the only one who thinks like you do.

In any regard my NKJV is my companion. I can not fathom reading with out it. As for the NIV, i have no quarrels with it, but it leaves me dry. ESV and NKJV are my recommendations. emphasis on the ESV.
I like the KJV, but the most accurate AFAIK is the NIV.




If we may, can we speak on the covenants themselves for a moment, there are 2 if I am not mistaken, the New Testament, and the Old. Elaboration I think is needed.


Then I will clarify the only real argument I made here, which is that the selection of who to save must be an arbitrary one in a Calvinist interpretation of the bible. Let us start with TULIP, which is meant to refer the the five points of Calvinism.

The following is from Wiki as I am to lazy to explain them.


Total depravity

Main article: Total depravity

The doctrine of total depravity (also called "total inability") asserts that, as a consequence of the fall of humanity into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)


[edit] Unconditional election

Main article: Unconditional election

The doctrine of unconditional election asserts that God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone.

The doctrine of unconditional election is sometimes made to stand for all Reformed doctrine, sometimes even by its adherents, as the chief article of Reformed Christianity. However, according to the doctrinal statements of these churches, it is not a balanced view to single out this doctrine to stand on its own as representative of all that is taught. Unconditional election, and its corollary in the doctrine of predestination are never properly taught, according to Calvinists, except as an assurance to those who seek forgiveness and salvation through Christ, that their faith is not in vain, because God is able to bring to completion all whom He intends to save. Nevertheless, non-Calvinists object that these doctrines discourage the world from seeking salvation.

[edit] Limited atonement

Main article: Limited atonement

Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", the doctrine of limited atonement is the teaching that Jesus' substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. The doctrine is driven by the concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the Calvinistic understanding of the nature of the atonement. Namely, Calvinists view the atonement as a penal substitution (that is, Jesus was punished in the place of sinners), and since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for some people's sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were atoned for must necessarily be saved.

Moreover, since in this scheme God knows precisely who the elect are and since only the elect will be saved, there is no requirement that Christ atone for sins in general, only for those of the elect. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power (in other words, God could have elected everyone and used it to atone for them all), but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all.

[edit] Irresistible grace

Main article: Irresistible grace

The doctrine of irresistible grace (also called "efficacious grace") asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith.

The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.

[edit] Perseverance of the saints



Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints is also known as "eternal security." The word saints is used in the Biblical sense to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint). The doctrine asserts that, since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.

This doctrine is slightly different from the Free Grace or "once saved, always saved" view advocated by some evangelicals in which, despite apostasy or unrepentant and habitual sin, the individual is truly saved if they accepted Christ at any point in the past; in traditional Calvinist teaching, apostasy by such a person may prove that they were never saved.


For the purposes of my argument the point that matters is point one Total Depravity. My claim is not that all people are equally good and bad. The issue here is that all humans are unworthy of gods graces because they are sinners. No one deserves to enter into heaven. No one. Since everyone falls short of the grace of god there is no way that one person can be more deserving of such grace through Jesus Christ. One may object here and claim that god saved those who were the least sinful, yet this is not a good objection since regardless of what actions they are still burdened with original sin, thus they are still unworthy of being saved. No person is more or less worthy-god is perfection and less than perfect is less than perfect.

if we accept that this is so how did god choose who to send to heaven? The only logical answer is that he choose who would be saved and damned in a arbitrary fashion as I stated. This all relates the fall theology as well. Adam and Eve are the cause of the depravity of man because of original sin.

Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08

digs wrote:

I believe that God desires everyone to be saved. God knows who will be saved, and He works out a plan and will for their life, but we are still supposed to evangelize. God wants all the people in creation to be saved.


I have to refute this just because its so illogical.

Firstly, some starting assumptions about God.

God's Foreknowledge

1. As a being, God is incapable of error.
2. If God makes a prediction that X will happen and there is a possibility that X won't happen then there is a possibility that God could be wrong.
3. From (1) and (2): It is not possible that God could be wrong.
4. God must have infallible foreknowledge.

God's Desire

For the Bible believing Christian, the following is axiomatic:

Quote:
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
Quite simply, God wants everyone to come to salvation and know truth. However, he knows infallibly that this won't happen.

God is Omnipresent

This means that God is everywhere and anywhere. As such, complete separation from God is an actual impossibility. On top of this, God is the ground of being which means that his presence is necessary for something to be able to exist or go on existing. To exist is to be dependent upon God in some way.

The Dilemma

Firstly ....

1. God knows infallibly that people would prefer to not exist than exist eternally in a place of perpetual torment.
2. To exist requires the on going presence of God to ground that existence. Therefore, if God forces someone to go on existing then he is forcing them to exist in a situation where they are dependent upon him.
3. The only way that God could give those who reject him what they want would be to take them out of existence.

The argument usually stops there but there is a further problem. God could achieve his ultimate desire (to see everyone saved) if he simply didn't create those that he infallibly knows will reject him. This way he would avoid the need to see them tortured or avoid the need to take them out of existence (depending upon which view you take)!

Now, the logician might protest, "If the person never exists to reject God, how can God infallibly know in advance that they will reject him?" However, this is not the argument being made! The argument is rather like this.

1. If God thought someone would accept him if he created them but they then go on to reject him when he actually did then God would have been proved wrong.
2. It is impossible for God to be wrong.
3. God must have an infallible knowledge of what a person would choose if he created them.
4. If God creates someone knowing that they will ultimately choose him (even if they reject him initially or at some point in their lives) then he has achieved his aim without violating human free will.
5. if God fails to create someone because he knows that they would reject him should he do so then he has not violated free will because it is not possible to violate the free will of someone who doesn't exist. Also, not creating them in the first place seems better than creating them only knowing that you will have to destroy them.
6. From (3), (4) and (5): God could create a universe where everyone was free to reject him yet would also ultimately choose him in complete accordance with the initial desire expressed in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and without violating free will.

Thus, knowing God's ultimate aim, even the concept of annihilation (softer though it is than perpetual torment) still makes little sense in that God must still be creating people that he knows in advance that he will have to destroy and whom he knows will never give him what he desires.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08 , edited 6/23/08

cryolyger wrote:

I do not believe God can be held accountable to our standards. To compare Him to a mere mortal is insulting. I question only what I lack faith in, I am distressed that so many shall have to fall, however I find it hard to believe you think some people do not deserve hell. It is not my place to say whom, but the general idea everyone is good?. Man will always fall short of their potential.


I missed this before so I will respond now. Why is god exempt from moral scrutiny? The Christian who is also a moral objectivist will argue that terms such as "good" and "evil" have no meaning and make no sense without an appeal to an independent (objective) standard. The argument goes something like this ...

1. Hitler was Evil but Mother Theresa was good!!
2. (Theist argument): Calling Hitler evil and Mother Theresa good entails appeal to a higher standard that is independent of Hitler's Mother Theresa's and your own.
3. Therefore God.

This is the essence of moral objectivism. The construction of the above reasoning can be summarised as follows.

1. Person A states that B is better than C.
2. The theistic moral objectivist points out that saying that B is better than C entails appeal to a higher standard (Z) against which both are measured.
3. Z = God.

However 3 begs the question. The whole argument only works if God is good and we can establish a basis for calling him good. We can only say that rebellion against God is evil by first establishing that he is good. On what basis do we determine this? The issue is, we can't use moral objectivitsm to do it!!

1. I (A) state that God (Z) is good but Satan (B) is evil.
2. Moral objectivism dictates that I cannot say (1) without appealing to a standard that is independent of God's(Z), Satan's(B) and my own(A).
3. Such a standard does not exist.
4. I cannot use moral objectivism to claim (1).

So even the moral objectivist abandons moral objectivism every time they call God good because they are no long appealing to an independent objective standard. So what is the basis for determining that God is good?

This is a classic case of the God concept suffering the very problem that it was postulated to solve.

God is not different from you or when it comes to moral judgments my friend. To claim otherwise it is to assert that his power etc is grounds for his exemption. Does might make right in your world view? In terms of this discussion gods morality can not be asserted. It must be established to start with in my opinion. Vague appeals to god being fundemtally different just will not cut it and never have.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/23/08

"For the purposes of my argument the point that matters is point one Total Depravity. My claim is not that all people are equally good and bad. The issue here is that all humans are unworthy of gods graces because they are sinners. No one deserves to enter into heaven. No one. Since everyone falls short of the grace of god there is no way that one person can be more deserving of such grace through Jesus Christ. One may object here and claim that god saved those who were the least sinful, yet this is not a good objection since regardless of what actions they are still burdened with original sin, thus they are still unworthy of being saved. No person is more or less worthy-god is perfection and less than perfect is less than perfect."

You have the idea, NO man is on par with God, or close to what He expects of us, perfection. Thus we are saved by, wait for it, GRACE alone.

And just because 1 man is evil does not make the next man. So back to morality even the ones who try for perfection, will fall short for we are sinners and His blood is the only thing that can cleanse our wickedness.

But I would like to thank Youaredumb for his advocacy, without an opposition it wouldn't be as much fun, and thanks for applying yourself, respect for an opposing argument only comes from 2 participating. So thank you for stepping up to the plate I suppose.

"also a moral objectivist will argue that terms such as "good" and "evil" have no meaning and make no sense without an appeal to an independent (objective) standard. The argument goes something like this ...

1. Hitler was Evil but Mother Theresa was good!!
2. (Theist argument): Calling Hitler evil and Mother Theresa good entails appeal to a higher standard that is independent of Hitler's Mother Theresa's and your own.
3. Therefore God.

This is the essence of moral objectivism. The construction of the above reasoning can be summarised as follows.

1. Person A states that B is better than C.
2. The theistic moral objectivist points out that saying that B is better than C entails appeal to a higher standard (Z) against which both are measured.
3. Z = God.

However 3 begs the question. The whole argument only works if God is good and we can establish a basis for calling him good. We can only say that rebellion against God is evil by first establishing that he is good. On what basis do we determine this? The issue is, we can't use moral objectivitsm to do it!!

1. I (A) state that God (Z) is good but Satan (B) is evil.
2. Moral objectivism dictates that I cannot say (1) without appealing to a standard that is independent of God's(Z), Satan's(B) and my own(A).
3. Such a standard does not exist.
4. I cannot use moral objectivism to claim (1).

So even the moral objectivist abandons moral objectivism every time they call God good because they are no long appealing to an independent objective standard. So what is the basis for determining that God is good?

This is a classic case of the God concept suffering the very problem that it was postulated to solve.

God is not different from you or when it comes to moral judgments my friend. To claim otherwise it is to assert that his power etc is grounds for his exemption. Does might make right in your world view? In terms of this discussion gods morality can not be asserted. It must be established to start with in my opinion. Vague appeals to god being fundemtally different just will not cut it and never have."

why is His power no exempt, I do not believe independent actions can dictate a man's character, or for that matter God's. Let's goto your first point, Hitler is evil mother Theresa is good, now they are both going to hell regardless if they are not saved by Christ. Now just because our morals are a branch of Godliness does not make them Godly, rather let me explain it this way, it is morally wrong to leave an injured person in critical condition, however if I did, I could not be held accountable for not going to his aid. I appologize for my analogy, my head isn't right with this cold, but what I am trying to imply is morals does not coincide with law.
Moderator
14744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08
Guys your going off again. 1st warring
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/23/08 , edited 6/24/08
I rewrote this to clarify some major key points

God does not choose arbitrarily. And I will later show in another response on the nature of the covenants which will further illustrate that God's decree is teleological. The Trinity here plays a vital role, so I will be showing Calvin himself on the Trinity (our Bible study at Grace Presbyterian are doing Calvin's Institutes every sabbath night). If you guys want to read him yourself, the chapter is 13 in Book 1. There are about 29 sections though, if I'm correct. I would suggest the Battles translation over the Beveridge. I will be focusing on Sec. 18 specifically. I think this will mesh well with my next blog, the one I stated earlier.


Second, I said Greg Bahnsen, not W.L. Craig. I don't accept Craig's Classical approach to apologetics, albeit I like some of the stuff he writes concerning philosophy and whatnot. The fact that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology proves to me that you see no connection with Covenant Theology and predestination. Read more. It will help your ignorance on the subject.

What I mean here is that I hold to a Presuppositional approach to apologetics. I'm not going to debate the issue here, but there is ample resources on monergism.com and cmfnow.com on the subject.



A Brief Outline of Covenant Theology and Predestination
Essentially, there are three covenants, which I stated earlier:
C of Redemption
C of Works
C of Grace


Again, this is only an outline.


All of each covenant is found throughout the Bible. The very act of covenant presupposes a good God, for God did not have to make covenant with man since he [Adam] broke God's law (I say law in lower case because it wasn't until Moses entered the scene that Law [or Decalogue the Ten Commandments] came into actuation); God's law was simple and singular: don't eat of the tree. Then came the Adamic covenant. It was by sheer grace that God made other covenants to restore this relationship--starting with Adam in post fall. Hence, God provided more than enough proof to man why and how he man ought to act in the world.[2] Why covenant? I believe, as well as other theologians like John Frame, Bahnsen, and others who follow the Reformed model for theology, that God made covenant(s) in order to communicate with man. That in itself was graceful. So then, here we see God's covenant dealing with Moses (the Mosaic covenant) as an act of grace (covenant of grace). And what was the foundation for choosing this people? God's electing grace! Aha! There's predestination! But we have to be careful with theological terms since we have to distinguish between election, decree, predestination, reprobation, etc. For instance, F. Turretin, in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, writes that the cause of God's decree was not Christ, and he's right. The cause is God's decree, not the action of sending Christ down, since Christ was too elect to suffer for the sins of his people (which is also under the heading of covenant of redemption, which also proves that this covenant is not arbitrary, but rather teleological). So we see that each term has its specific theological significance. And since this is only a response, I hope that my paper on Lordship and Authority will better supply more evidence to this post.


I rewrote parts in here. Please read it.


I will deal with:
Authority
Epistemology
God's involvement in the world
and Predestination

I will be posting this soon. Look out for it.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08

jmartinez83 wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:

(Last response to the ignorance of YouAreDumb). God does not choose arbitrarily.
Illogical given that all men are totally depraved. If all men are equally unworthy any choice among them must be arbitrary in nature. TULIP you know. If you do not hold to this doctrine then we are discussing different theological systems.



. Second, I said Greg Bahnsen, not W.L. Craig. I don't accept Craig's Classical approach to apologetics, albeit I like some of the stuff he writes concerning philosophy and whatnot. The fact that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology proves to me that you see no connection with Covenant Theology and predestination. Read more. It will help your ignorance on the subject.


No understanding? Bah I have read several books on the subject and understand it fine. Your statement above leads me to question your ability to take theological theories to their logical conclusion.


Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. TULIP is not Calvinism per se. Maybe some history could straighten you out. During the 17th (1610) century a man who is dubbed Jacob Arminius had taught a doctrine near the Netherlands which caused his followers to "remonstrate", hence the Remonstrants, against the churches that had taught Calvinism as a system of thought. They, the Remonstrants, chose themselves five things of which they thought the churches of the Netherlands were wrong, with the exception of 26 delegates who came from different provinces (8 to be exact). The counsel didn't officially propound this until 1618-19. As a preamble, though not explicitly stated, it stated, "[A] judgment, in which both the true view, agreeing with God's Word, concerning the aforesaid five points of doctrine is explained, and the false view, disagreeing with God's Word, is rejected."[1]
Yes, it is my understanding that the 5 points were things with which they disagreed and most of those called themselves Calvinist held to.





First, total or radical depravity...then on and on goes the argument. This was later to be known as the Canons of Dordrecht. So to say TULIP is Calvinism is radically wrong. Does TULIP some knowledge of Calvinism? Sure, it contains Calvinism but is not the system of Calvinism.

That is patently false. Nearly 100% of modern Calvinist hold to TULIP. Calvinism is not just something created per say by John Calvin. Most of those hold to the label Calvinist hold John Jewel, Cranmer etc is equalo regard to Calvin himself. You are seeking yo distort the issue regardless, as you have not said if you hold to TULIP. Let us forget the historical questions. I wish to know what your stance on TULIP is, and if you hold yo TULIP how election is not arbitrary in nature. You claimed it was not so support your assertion or withdraw it. End.





A Brief Outline of Covenant Theology and Predestination
Essentially, there are three covenants, which I stated earlier:
C of Redemption
C of Works
C of Grace

All of each covenant is found throughout the Bible. The very act of covenant presupposes a good God, for God did not have to make covenant with man since he [Adam] broke the Adamic covenant. It was by sheer grace that God made other covenants to restore this relationship. Hence, God provided more than enough proof to man why and how he [man] ought to act in the world.[2] Why covenant? I believe, as well as other theologians like John Frame, Bahnsen, and others who follow the Reformed model for theology, that God made covenant in order to communicate with man. That in itself was graceful. So then, here we see God's covenant dealing with Moses (the Mosaic covenant) as an act of grace (covenant of grace). And what was the foundation for choosing this people? God's Decree! Aha! There's predestination! But we have to be careful with theological terms since we have to distinguish between Election, Decree, Predestination, Reprobation, etc. For instance, F. Turretin, in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, writes that the cause of God's decree was not Christ, and he's right. The cause is God's decree, not the action of sending Christ down, since Christ was too elect to suffer for the sins of his people (which is also under the heading of covenant of redemption, which also proves that this covenant is not arbitrary).

It does not prove this. That is a non sequitur. It is god who changes the heart of a man to save him. If you agree with that statement his shimy sallying is useless. You must address why some people where chosen and not others-clearly god could have saved everyone of he desired, since he himself is the cause of salvation. I wish to know how you think god choose who to elect. Answer that and we will go from there.




Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/23/08

cryolyger wrote:


"For the purposes of my argument the point that matters is point one Total Depravity. My claim is not that all people are equally good and bad. The issue here is that all humans are unworthy of gods graces because they are sinners. No one deserves to enter into heaven. No one. Since everyone falls short of the grace of god there is no way that one person can be more deserving of such grace through Jesus Christ. One may object here and claim that god saved those who were the least sinful, yet this is not a good objection since regardless of what actions they are still burdened with original sin, thus they are still unworthy of being saved. No person is more or less worthy-god is perfection and less than perfect is less than perfect."

You have the idea, NO man is on par with God, or close to what He expects of us, perfection. Thus we are saved by, wait for it, GRACE alone.

And just because 1 man is evil does not make the next man. So back to morality even the ones who try for perfection, will fall short for we are sinners and His blood is the only thing that can cleanse our wickedness.

But I would like to thank Youaredumb for his advocacy, without an opposition it wouldn't be as much fun, and thanks for applying yourself, respect for an opposing argument only comes from 2 participating. So thank you for stepping up to the plate I suppose.

"also a moral objectivist will argue that terms such as "good" and "evil" have no meaning and make no sense without an appeal to an independent (objective) standard. The argument goes something like this ...

1. Hitler was Evil but Mother Theresa was good!!
2. (Theist argument): Calling Hitler evil and Mother Theresa good entails appeal to a higher standard that is independent of Hitler's Mother Theresa's and your own.
3. Therefore God.

This is the essence of moral objectivism. The construction of the above reasoning can be summarised as follows.

1. Person A states that B is better than C.
2. The theistic moral objectivist points out that saying that B is better than C entails appeal to a higher standard (Z) against which both are measured.
3. Z = God.

However 3 begs the question. The whole argument only works if God is good and we can establish a basis for calling him good. We can only say that rebellion against God is evil by first establishing that he is good. On what basis do we determine this? The issue is, we can't use moral objectivitsm to do it!!

1. I (A) state that God (Z) is good but Satan (B) is evil.
2. Moral objectivism dictates that I cannot say (1) without appealing to a standard that is independent of God's(Z), Satan's(B) and my own(A).
3. Such a standard does not exist.
4. I cannot use moral objectivism to claim (1).

So even the moral objectivist abandons moral objectivism every time they call God good because they are no long appealing to an independent objective standard. So what is the basis for determining that God is good?

This is a classic case of the God concept suffering the very problem that it was postulated to solve.

God is not different from you or when it comes to moral judgments my friend. To claim otherwise it is to assert that his power etc is grounds for his exemption. Does might make right in your world view? In terms of this discussion gods morality can not be asserted. It must be established to start with in my opinion. Vague appeals to god being fundemtally different just will not cut it and never have."

why is His power no exempt, I do not believe independent actions can dictate a man's character, or for that matter God's. Let's goto your first point, Hitler is evil mother Theresa is good, now they are both going to hell regardless if they are not saved by Christ. Now just because our morals are a branch of Godliness does not make them Godly, rather let me explain it this way, it is morally wrong to leave an injured person in critical condition, however if I did, I could not be held accountable for not going to his aid. I appologize for my analogy, my head isn't right with this cold, but what I am trying to imply is morals does not coincide with law.


I am afraid your argument is incoherent. Wait until you feel better if you are sick. That is not the best time to debate.
Moderator
5694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/23/08 , edited 6/23/08
hehe I see you all have now met YouAreDumb...i missed you buddy! seriously!...

Let's keep in mind that this is a Christian group and all views and comments are to be respected. And try not to rant for too long because that's not the point of having this group. Thanks...Ruki.

I'm going to stay out of this for now because I'm interested to see where it will end up but please don't make me interfere on a mod level.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/23/08 , edited 6/23/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:

(Last response to the ignorance of YouAreDumb). God does not choose arbitrarily.
Illogical given that all men are totally depraved. If all men are equally unworthy any choice among them must be arbitrary in nature. TULIP you know. If you do not hold to this doctrine then we are discussing different theological systems.



. Second, I said Greg Bahnsen, not W.L. Craig. I don't accept Craig's Classical approach to apologetics, albeit I like some of the stuff he writes concerning philosophy and whatnot. The fact that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology proves to me that you see no connection with Covenant Theology and predestination. Read more. It will help your ignorance on the subject.


No understanding? Bah I have read several books on the subject and understand it fine. Your statement above leads me to question your ability to take theological theories to their logical conclusion.


Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. TULIP is not Calvinism per se. Maybe some history could straighten you out. During the 17th (1610) century a man who is dubbed Jacob Arminius had taught a doctrine near the Netherlands which caused his followers to "remonstrate", hence the Remonstrants, against the churches that had taught Calvinism as a system of thought. They, the Remonstrants, chose themselves five things of which they thought the churches of the Netherlands were wrong, with the exception of 26 delegates who came from different provinces (8 to be exact). The counsel didn't officially propound this until 1618-19. As a preamble, though not explicitly stated, it stated, "[A] judgment, in which both the true view, agreeing with God's Word, concerning the aforesaid five points of doctrine is explained, and the false view, disagreeing with God's Word, is rejected."[1]
Yes, it is my understanding that the 5 points were things with which they disagreed and most of those called themselves Calvinist held to.





First, total or radical depravity...then on and on goes the argument. This was later to be known as the Canons of Dordrecht. So to say TULIP is Calvinism is radically wrong. Does TULIP some knowledge of Calvinism? Sure, it contains Calvinism but is not the system of Calvinism.

That is patently false. Nearly 100% of modern Calvinist hold to TULIP. Calvinism is not just something created per say by John Calvin. Most of those hold to the label Calvinist hold John Jewel, Cranmer etc is equalo regard to Calvin himself. You are seeking yo distort the issue regardless, as you have not said if you hold to TULIP. Let us forget the historical questions. I wish to know what your stance on TULIP is, and if you hold yo TULIP how election is not arbitrary in nature. You claimed it was not so support your assertion or withdraw it. End.





A Brief Outline of Covenant Theology and Predestination
Essentially, there are three covenants, which I stated earlier:
C of Redemption
C of Works
C of Grace

All of each covenant is found throughout the Bible. The very act of covenant presupposes a good God, for God did not have to make covenant with man since he [Adam] broke the Adamic covenant. It was by sheer grace that God made other covenants to restore this relationship. Hence, God provided more than enough proof to man why and how he [man] ought to act in the world.[2] Why covenant? I believe, as well as other theologians like John Frame, Bahnsen, and others who follow the Reformed model for theology, that God made covenant in order to communicate with man. That in itself was graceful. So then, here we see God's covenant dealing with Moses (the Mosaic covenant) as an act of grace (covenant of grace). And what was the foundation for choosing this people? God's Decree! Aha! There's predestination! But we have to be careful with theological terms since we have to distinguish between Election, Decree, Predestination, Reprobation, etc. For instance, F. Turretin, in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, writes that the cause of God's decree was not Christ, and he's right. The cause is God's decree, not the action of sending Christ down, since Christ was too elect to suffer for the sins of his people (which is also under the heading of covenant of redemption, which also proves that this covenant is not arbitrary).

It does not prove this. That is a non sequitur. It is god who changes the heart of a man to save him. If you agree with that statement his shimy sallying is useless. You must address why some people where chosen and not others-clearly god could have saved everyone of he desired, since he himself is the cause of salvation. I wish to know how you think god choose who to elect. Answer that and we will go from there.


I'm not going to even bother with this post. It is grossly misinformed as to the topic of Reformed Theology and church history. In order to understand the Reformed theology of Calvin, it follows--as you are well bound to say--that it is important to look at the historical data. So no, we won't disregard history just because of your whim. Why should I obey your whim over against the desire to inform the people of this forum? I am giving them the Reformed response to predestination, not what the Remonstrants complained about. Yes I agree with TULIP because it CONTAINS Calvinism. But I still dare say that it is NOT the SYSTEM of Calvinism per se . The system is Covenant Theology with a Reformed epistemology, a doctrine of Lordship[1], and I believe that the addendum of apologetics (making Presuppositional apologetics the official method) should be added; but then again, that it only my opinion.

[1] See John M. Frame, "A Series of Lordship." I personally love this work. It contains most of what he learned from Dr. Cornelius Van Til and some other theologians. I think his credentials are more than able to posit any and all views concerning theology. He was at Westminster Theological Seminary when Dr. Gordon Clark and Dr. John Murray lectured there. Dr. Frame was an alumnus of Princeton (A.B.) and Westminster Theological Seminaries (B.D.) and Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil.). He also got his D.D. at Belhaven College. He is professor of Systematic Theology and philosophy currently at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.