"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[_tartanarmy]

OK Jug, But don't forget to praise your Father in heaven for giving you the intellectual ability and discernment to refuse to believe.
You see when you refuse to believe you have just made a choice and that is known as free will.

Calvinists, I have a question for you. Does God condemn sin yet also cause humans to sin and then punish humans for sinning?
For example God strongly condemns the act of homosexuality but does He cause men to have sex with men?

Calvinists, I have a question for you. Does God condemn sin yet also cause humans to sin and then punish humans for sinning?
For example God strongly condemns the act of homosexuality but does He cause men to have sex with men?

Jug, whats up with this, any answer or shall we declare it to be a mystery?

Steve7150,
The problem is, you asked a very logical question. Calvinists don't have a logical answer. Thats why Jugulum squirmed his way out of answering.

Robin

I have to interject at this moment in this strange discussion.
I am still waiting for a response, but perhaps Steve G is busy, that’s ok.
But what transpired after that is a wee bit strange.

We have the Parable of the Prodigal Son given as proof positive for what?
God’s grace and mercy and forgiveness?, well, maybe.
Libertarian free will? Yep, that’s the main reason it is quoted.

Now, Jug attempts a reasonable response, even reminding you guys what your teacher Mr Gregg himself points out about parables. Is anyone taking this advice? Nope, not here, and not with this parable.

This parable is about free will, and it is a proof text to demolish Calvinistic thought.

Does anyone here know what a parable is? Has anyone studied the purpose of Parables?
Is anyone here aware of the right use and bad use of a parable? I don’t seem to be getting that in this thread.

Then the conversation changes mid thought to a rather defensive few questions about God’s decrees, and an asking of whether God ordains sin, blah blah blah, which then leads to the charge by Non Calvinists that Calvinists cannot provide answers to these stunning assertions about God’s decrees.

Man, why don’t some of you Non Calvinists simply say you have little idea about what Calvinists believe about His decrees, for you certainly do not seem to interact with what we say about it, nor do you even seem remotely aware that your own views about foreknowledge does not escape you from whatever charge you lay at the foot of the Calvinist.

1/ Either everything comes to pass by Divine ordination with purpose behind it, including the Fall, sin and evil
for the outworking of all things to His glory and the good of all that love Him
or
2/ There is no purpose, rhyme nor reason for much that happens in time. God gets involved here and there, but pretty much, because of his “great gift of free will” leaves much of the universe to happen just as He foreknew it.
In the end it somehow all works out for His glory, but NOT because He meticulously ordained it to, but rather because God rolled the dice at the start, and it all just happened the way He intended, and He rubber stamped it.

This thread needs someone to bring it back to a focus somehow, or rabbit trails will defeat any meaningful interaction. Either we go down the decrees track, or we come back to the Parable, or maybe we start a new thread and make the title, “Does libertarian freedom exist in scripture?” I am sure the Parables will surface yet again there.

Mark

[Guest]

2/ There is no purpose, rhyme nor reason for much that happens in time. God gets involved here and there, but pretty much, because of his “great gift of free will” leaves much of the universe to happen just as He foreknew it.
In the end it somehow all works out for His glory, but NOT because He meticulously ordained it to, but rather because God rolled the dice at the start, and it all just happened the way He intended, and He rubber stamped it. [emphasis added]

Er...I would interject here. That doesn't look like a fair representation of any non-Calvinist view I've seen. At the least, you would have to change the bold part of the last sentence somewhat. They believe God acts to make sure things happen the way He intended. They believe He intervenes to bring about at least His large-scale will. It's not that things just "happen" to turn out the way He wanted.

[_tartanarmy]

I am dealing with logical implications, but by all means you can continue here to provide answers for the Non Calvinists. Perhaps get into the whole Decree thing, as that is what many have a hard time with it seems.

How do the Non Calvinists here explain how everything comes to pass?

Mark

[_tartanarmy]

They believe God acts to make sure things happen the way He intended.

Ok, what does that look like written down?

Mark

[Guest]

I am dealing with logical implications, but by all means you can continue here to provide answers for the Non Calvinists. Perhaps get into the whole Decree thing, as that is what many have a hard time with it seems.

I'm not so much interested in providing answers for anyone, as I am in avoiding false dilemmas. And I have trouble understanding why anyone would think "God decides how each detail will occur" vs "God leaves everything up to chance and doesn't do anything" are the only possibilities.

However, the point you were making was "There is no purpose, rhyme nor reason for much that happens in time," so if you just want to focus on that, fine.

[Guest]

Regarding the Analogy of Faith (Quoted from The Living Oracles):

ANALOGY OF FAITH, Analogian tes pisteos, analogian tes pisteos, literally, the analogy of faith. This phrase, indeed the word analogia, occurs but once in the Christian Scriptures. We have in the same connexion, the phrase metron tes pisteos, metron tes pisteos, the measure or portion of faith, Rom. xii. 3, 6. This phrase also occurs but once, and naturally means the portion of belief, or of the truth believed, which the speaker is supposed to possess. Let him not transcend his knowledge of the truth, but speak in accordance with his own consciousness of what he understands and believes. But "the analogy of faith," or proportion of faith, is not so easily decided. Analogy, in the classic import of the term, means resemblance, or in accordance with something. The analogy of faith, in speculative theology, means, "according to the scope or system of revealed truth," which is so arbitrary, that every one's own system is his analogy of faith. Yet the Apostle might mean, Let him interpret, preach, or speak, according to the general scope of the ancient revelations. But there is a meaning more in accordance with the context, which we prefer, which is well expressed by Professor Stuart:--"Let not the Prophets exceed what is entrusted to them. Let them keep within the bounds of their reason and consciousness, and not like the heathen (manteis) rave, or speak they know not what." To this agree the interpretations of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Calvin, Flat, Tholuck, and many others, says Mr. Stuart. To these I will add Locke, Dr. G. Campbell, and Whitby, who learnedly contend that analogia here imports proportion, measure, rate, and is the same with "measure of faith," verse 3. The analogy of faith, in popular import, is every one's own creed; but the proportion of faith is every one's measure of knowledge of the Christian religion.

As Dr. G Campbell well observed, with every sect, "the analogy of faith is their system alone". The followers of Luther, Calvin, or Arminius will say "test our doctrines by scripture" and then say "you must explain it according to our doctrine or you can not teach in our church". And so it goes, around in a circle. The Pharisees searched the scriptures (in vain) as much as we do but because of their own analogy of faith and rejected the Messiah.

Sort of like the gentleman who ordered Paul to be bound and then inquired as to what Paul had done. So we tend to "bind" scripture.

Sorry we are off subject here, but I do not want to start another post; we have enough to discuss.

[_tartanarmy]

So what exactly are you saying Homer? Do you reject "Analogy of faith" or are you not understanding what is meant by it?

Mark

[_tartanarmy]

You are quoting from Alexander Campbell, The Living Oracles, Fourth Edition (1835) the man who hated creeds and started the Church of Christ (Restoration movement)

A man who wanted no part of organised Christianity and sought to purify it by denouncing creeds , confessions, analogy of faith etc

Is this where you are coming from Homer?

Mark

[_tartanarmy]

Are you part of the "Church of Christ?"
Just wondering.

Mark

[Guest]

You are quoting from Alexander Campbell, The Living Oracles, Fourth Edition (1835) the man who hated creeds and started the Church of Christ (Restoration movement)

A man who wanted no part of organised Christianity and sought to purify it by denouncing creeds , confessions, analogy of faith etc

Is this where you are coming from Homer?

Mark

Mark,
Are you not killing the messenger (Alexander Campbell) instead of adressing the message? I have seen you do this a number of times now, usually with open theists. It is as if you refuse to engage their arguments because you disagree with their theolagy, or how they come to understand the scripture.

Whether Alexander Campbell was friendly to Christianity is not the point.

Thank you,
Robin