>>18750858
Not all Protestants are Calvinists. Try again?

I’m a Protestant and that makes the most sense to me. The Calvinist view makes it all seem pointless.

>>18751039
It makes more sense when you view it in historical context as a reaction to indulgences. Under Calvinist theology buying one is truly pointless.

>>18750862
>>18751039
I don’t think you are really Protestants. Erasmus’ opponent was not named Calvin. If you aren’t a monergist, how are you a Protestant? You agree with Rome.
>>18751054
The Reformation was a reaction not to indulgences in particular (which was only its occasion) but to the entire Romanist construal of salvation, of which indulgences were only a small part. Buying an indulgence is only truly pointless if you are saved entirely by grace from start to finish, being justified not by righteousness which is within you but by the righteousness Jesus practiced in your place. The doctrine of free will is really incompatible with this doctrine of grace. If it is by man’s will, it is not by God’s grace (Rom. 9:16, 11:6); if you have free will to accept or reject salvation, it is about your goodness, your willing, your doing, it is all on your shoulders. This Semi-Pelagianism stands condemned by two clear biblical teachings: first, man’s will is completely enslaved to sin, his natural goodness lost in the fall, and he is utterly contemptible. Second, his salvation is entirely of God’s grace, to God’s glory, against what man deserved and raising the corpse from the dead.

>>18751129
>I don’t think you are really Protestants. Erasmus’ opponent was not named Calvin. If you aren’t a monergist, how are you a Protestant? You agree with Rome.
What happened to your brain to make it so worthless?

>>18751229
God bless you.

>>18751231
Non-responsive. The question was what happened to your brain. Try again?

>>18751129
>first, man’s will is completely enslaved to sin, his natural goodness lost in the fall, and he is utterly contemptible
Chapter and verse?

>>18752376
Romans 8:6-8, Genesis 6:11-12, John 8:34 among others

>>18751129
James says that a faith without works is dead, like a body without a spirit. I find it odd to suggest that the will of man's will has no agency when God himself, in Matthew 23, lamented that he wanted to bring Jerusalem into his fold, but they were not willing
>>18752453
>To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Sounds like we're given a choice what to set our minds on.

>>18752520
“What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7) Even the capacity to choose is received.

>>18752541
I, as probably any other Christian would, affirm that salvation is a gift that man is not entitled to, but why this insistence that it's not also conditional on choosing to have true faith in Jesus's lordship? The gift is that all one needs to do is have true faith (which is specified as a faith that will produce good fruit) for eternal life. The access to this method is in and of itself a gift. The requirement of trust in and submission to the Lord is not man working his way to eternal life, as it does still not make salvation something God is obligated to give. Being able to participate in this method is the privilege, or gift, that man has been given.

>>18752758
The condition is real, but God alone generates its fulfillment. I believe that to merely say God's gift “makes salvation possible” while the human choice supplies what is missing to determine whether that possibility becomes actual, is too weak. The willing comes from God too. Philippians 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” No part of faith is self generated in any sense.

>>18752791
Search for "repent" in Scripture. How can you reconcile any of those commands with the idea that God has not given man any agency?
>The willing comes from God too.
I agree. God wills all to be saved, but men have been allowed the ability to oppose that will. Man choosing to submit to his creator's commandments is what makes the reconciliation between them beautiful.

>>18752453
New rule: If you cite multiple verses, and don't include the text, we can reject your argument out of hand because of the high likelihood of gish gallop. Try again?

>>18750862
>Not all Protestants are Calvinists
You say that as if Lutherans didn't act like Calvinists 90% of the time.

salvation is by belief in Jesus' name nothing more and nothing less as John is the only gospel that tells one how to receive christ and says "believe in his name" .. you dont have to lift as much your little finger to be saved

File: Reformation.jpg (49 KB, 700x501)

49 KB JPG

>>18752520
>James says that a faith without works is dead, like a body without a spirit
I consider it doubtful that any Romanist who cites James 2 has read the entire chapter, let alone the whole book. Rome just doesn’t teach you how to read the bible (or even to do so). These people see James 2:24 and John 6:53 quoted so many times out of context, without even thinking to check the context, and are so captured by their ignorance that they think Romanism is “clearly taught” by the bible.

James is talking about justification before men, not before God. What Paul described is like the actual issue of a verdict in the courtroom, while James speaks of something more like its public announcement of it, which follows necessarily from the former as its cause, but which is distinct from it and on which the verdict of acquittal is not contingent. If you do actually read the entire chapter you will see him talking entirely about relationships between men, and not at all about the means of obtaining peace with God (which is what Paul treats of when he teaches justification is by faith alone). The difference between dead and living faith consists not in the presence or absence of works, which are only their proofs, but in the substance of the faith itself, while this living faith alone obtains the grace of justification even before it has produced good works (Romans 4:5). And it justifies not as a virtue nor as leading to virtue (for if man were judged according to his own virtues, even the greatest faith which is found among men would be woefully insufficient) but only as it is the divine instrument created in the heart of man whereby he apprehends the imputation of the righteousness of Christ by which alone he is properly justified before God. Therefore we maintain that a man is justified by faith, and by faith ALONE.
(1/3)

>>18752520
>I find it odd to suggest that the will of man's will has no agency when God himself, in Matthew 23, lamented that he wanted to bring Jerusalem into his fold, but they were not willing
Man has agency, as to choose between one action and another, but not ability to choose what is morally good. Indeed, the natural man may well do what externally is good, such as jumping onto train tracks to pull someone to safety, and this we call civil good, but properly as it is a moral action before the sight of God he cannot do what is required of him by the law because his will is not rightly ordered towards the glory of God and the good of his neighbor, so it is impossible for the unregenerate to do anything morally righteous such as to exercise faith in Christ, and even their best deeds are contemptible sins.

Our Lord said nothing of those whom He sought to draw being unwilling, but their leaders: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather *your children* together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you did not want it.” That is, He often sent preachers to her to call her to repentance, but the leaders of the city put them to death and prevented them from discharging their ministry. This indeed was a choice, and it was utterly wicked, but it is of no consequence the theory that a man can frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit upon his heart to raise him to spiritual life; where in the passage did He even address the subject?
(2/3)

>>18752520
>Sounds like we're given a choice what to set our minds on.
The words immediately following this are: “because the mind set on the flesh is at enmity toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God.” So no, it sounds like the precise opposite. This is a textbook example of circular reasoning and it’s very helpful because it’s incredibly typical of how synergists misuse the bible. This verse says that there are those whose minds are set on the flesh, who receive death, and there are those whose minds are set on the Spirit, who receive life. Through what open gate did the free will of man invade this text? Synergists often cite passages which say that there are wicked men and righteous men and claim that this is proof of free will, as if the mere existence of these groups is the same thing as free will, but this is to beg the very question at issue. The question is whether the wicked and righteous are distinguished because of free will or because of predestination, of which as especially in this place the bible’s answer is unambiguously the latter.
(3/3)

>>18752758
>affirm that salvation is a gift that man is not entitled to, but why this insistence that it's not also conditional on choosing to have true faith in Jesus's lordship?
Because this is a contradiction, since if man fulfills the condition to which a promise of eternal life is attached then to receive this reward is not a gift but that which he deserves due to his merits, which God would be unjust to refuse (Romans 4:4). Now historically there has been disagreement as to whether the word “condition” should be used to describe the relation of faith to the covenant of grace, but even among those who use it their meaning is not at all the same as prevails among synergists; it is absolutely not a “condition” in the sense of being something which man must satisfy in order to receive a promised reward, but only inasmuch as it is that quality whereby they have interest in the covenant of grace, the blessings of which are entirely unmerited.
>The gift is that all one needs to do is have true faith
This means that the gift is not that one has salvation, and that Jesus did not die to save anybody, but that the gift is that they are given the opportunity to save themselves, and Jesus merely died to enable men to save themselves. This is contrary to the entire thrust of the New Testament, as well as many particular scriptures, especially those which teach that faith itself is the gift of God purchased by the blood of Christ (e.g. Ephesians 2:8, Philippians 1:29).
>The requirement of trust in and submission to the Lord is not man working his way to eternal life, as it does still not make salvation something God is obligated to give.
It is, and it does. My boss is under no obligation to hire me, but once we are covenanted and I perform the agreed work if he refuses give me the agreed reward he is guilty of a crime.

>>18753124
>you dont have to lift as much your little finger to be saved
That would be a contradiction to all the men who use His name in vain.

File: predestined for this chuckle.jpg (412 KB, 688x418)

412 KB JPG

>God is the Unmoved Mover
>EXCEPT when it comes to how we move

>>18753257
He chose to move himself to give us life and free will.

>>18753350
Can you stop moving

>>18752955
A command establishes what a person is called to do, it does not establish that the person is the ultimate causal source of doing it.
> I agree
Seems not, because when I bring in Philippians 2:13 (“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”), it’s not just that God wills good for us. It’s that even the actuality of our willing is God-generated. Again: *our own willing* is also the action of God, is what the scripture says.

It hurts the ego to not feel like it’s contributing to its salvation, but it’s true.

>>18751129
>if you have free will to accept or reject salvation, it is about your goodness, your willing, your doing, it is all on your shoulders.
This is a sweeping assertion on your part. The point is that we can only work the good insofar as we are recipients of God's grace. Yet even within that grace, we retain the ability to reject. Thus, the good can only come from God, and is therefore entirely to God's glory, whereas the sin is from man. The only choice in this sense is a negative one, since everything else remains a function of grace, not of man. Even the choice to remain is itself secondary and contingent upon the continual offer of grace in the first place.

Calvinists err in that they assume every choice must be binary (if I can choose to reject of my own volition, then I must be able to choose to accept of my own volition). But it is not so. A man may swim downstream of a river, but it is the current and endpoint of the river that determine his movement primarily and ultimately.

>>18753455
>The only choice in this sense is a negative one, since everything else remains a function of grace, not of man. Even the choice to remain is itself secondary and contingent upon the continual offer of grace in the first place.
This is a weird rhetorical strategy among modern synergists where they attempt to pretend that there is literally no difference between their doctrine and monergism whatsoever, even though it is readily apparent this is untrue. Necessarily, as a truth by definition, in the synergist system the will of man must provide what is lacking in the grace of God, precisely because its efficacy is made to be contingent upon their co-operation without which it is of no effect. While if you really had so high a view of grace you would have to believe it is impossible for God to fail to save anyone to whom it is given, because it would require nothing else besides itself to do so. As Augustine said, “The grace of God does not find worthy Christians, it creates them”.
>Calvinists err in that they assume every choice must be binary (if I can choose to reject of my own volition, then I must be able to choose to accept of my own volition)
This is not assumption, and these are not distinct propositions. If the burden is places upon me so that I have the power to frustrate the grace of God by choosing to reject it, then my not choosing to do this is in and of itself the active choice to accept it. Thus these propositions are identical, that I may choose to reject salvation, and I must choose to accept it. Again, the burden is placed upon man to satisfy the condition, and what distinguishes the lost from the saved is not only the grace and good pleasure of God but also their superiority which led them to make the right choices over against the wicked, giving to them the right to boast.

>>18753559
>precisely because its efficacy is made to be contingent upon their co-operation without which it is of no effect
Co-operation implies that they are working towards salvation alongside God, which is not what is being claimed. There is no positive operation aside from God. "Lack of resistance" is not operative in itself.
>“The grace of God does not find worthy Christians, it creates them”
Grace is given to man by God; it is not taken down from heaven by man. And in this, it is the motion of grace that is operative.
>then my not choosing to do this is in and of itself the active choice to accept it.
Well, no, because your ability to accept is contingent upon the offer of grace itself. You cannot accept or maintain grace without grace.

I'm afraid the rest of what you have posted is supposition, and, to be honest, a bit of a word salad.

>>18753559
Based. Suffice it to say that even the occurrence of human refusal occurs within God’s undivided sovereign act.

>>18753578
Coming here and engaging in a form of theological one-upmanship by simply saying "based" risks reducing the faith to little more than a debate over which football club is best.

I get that there's probably a Calvinist/redeemedzoomer discord that likes to raid /his/ for whatever reason, but these petty attempts at consensus stacking do no-one any favours.

>>18753595
I was just supporting his post after you called it word salad. I don’t think it’s a complicated debate, or a team sport. I would simply urge you to open your eyes to the fact that God alone ultimately acts in salvation, as in everything else. Our choice therefore isn’t in the driver’s seat. “For in Him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) Furthermore, that’s a burden no finite creature can bear. Stay faithful; don’t fall for the illusion that anyone other than God is at work.

>>18753652
>Stay faithful
Wish I could, but I apparently have no agency in that.

>>18753652
>Our choice therefore isn’t in the driver’s seat.
You haven't actually taken the time to read and understand what I have written if you think this is what I am saying. I've argued with you before about what I believe is your misapprehension surrounding the first cause. I have no desire to go round in circles.

>>18753572
>There is no positive operation aside from God. "Lack of resistance" is not operative in itself.
Yes it is, because they must choose to not reject the gospel.
>Grace is given to man by God; it is not taken down from heaven by man. And in this, it is the motion of grace that is operative.
This does not address the point.
>because your ability to accept is contingent upon the offer of grace itself
That goes without saying, because if there was no “offer” there would be nothing to accept or co-operate with. The problem is that while your boss had no obligation to give you a job, he does have an obligation to pay you once you have performed it. Grace and merit are absolutely opposed and cannot co-exist (Romans 11:6)
>I'm afraid the rest of what you have posted is supposition, and, to be honest, a bit of a word salad.
I’m afraid that’s not an argument.
>>18753657
Do you have more faith in your own striving than in God’s grace? If I am to rely on something to keep me to God, I would have it be anything but the operation of my own will.

>>18753662
A negative formulation like “God generates the good, but I independently author its rejection” as the other poster said just reformulates the onus of salvation staying on man. What ultimately generates the negative choice in your view? If the answer is ultimately “man alone,” independence from God has returned through the back door.

>>18753657
You’re still responsible for your choice(s).

>>18753665
>>18753670
A lack in itself has no operative power until something positive acts upon it; at which point, any power it does possess is by and from that positive. 100% of the operation is from God, therefore 100% of the glory is to God - this is precisely why someone like Luther could claim to be a believer in Monergism whilst affirming (in accordance with scripture) that grace is resistible. Calvinists and Thomists who try to get around this just end up arguing semantics in an effort to defend their traditions.

>Yes it is, because they must choose to not reject the gospel.
They choose this as a function of the light of the Gospel, not of themselves.

>>18753676
This weird rhetorical strategy (which is all it is) fundamentally does not work, because grace is supposed to be given to all men in equal measure, which means the reason why some are damned and others are saved must be some virtue located in them.
>A lack in itself has no operative power until something positive acts upon it
But what we are talking about is not a “lack”, but the active decision to accept and receive the grace of God.
>this is precisely why someone like Luther could claim to be a believer in Monergism whilst affirming (in accordance with scripture) that grace is resistible.
Firstly, there is absolutely no scripture which presents the saving grace of God as something which man can resist and reject, this is something which comes from the dreams of philosophers. Second, this has more to do with later Lutheran theology than Luther himself. Finally, it is and always has been utterly incoherent and self-contradictory to affirm at the same time that God’s grace requires no co-operation from man and that man may frustrate and defeat it by the operation of his will. This the Lutherans do not deny or even defend, but they excuse this contradiction as a “mystery” and falsely accuse any who criticize it of being rationalists. But Luther said “unless I am convinced by sacred scripture *or by evident reason*”.
>They choose this as a function of the light of the Gospel, not of themselves.
Then why do not all who hear the gospel choose this? What causes one to turn aside, and another to believe in Christ? Either grace is efficacious to everyone to whom it is given, or it is efficacious only by virtue of the operation of man’s will. Synergists believe that all men would be saved if only they were willing, while Calvinists believe all men would be saved if only God was willing.

>>18753186
I am not a Roman Catholic, or even Orthodox. I'm an Anabaptist, and many of us dislike monergism and predestinationism more than we dislike Romanism. While I agree with the majority of your post in the sense that man does not necessarily need to have any works for justification, it will, as you stated, become a natural proof of faith. In all cases excluding deathbed conversions, one who believes will have good works. To suggest that the Epistle of James is merely a self-help guide on how to socialize instead of an instruction in righteousness seems to be a contempt for Scripture. We are even given an example of the Binding of Isaac as an event that justified Abraham:
>Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is worthless? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and by works faith was brought to completion.
How is this in any way describing justifying oneself before man and not before God?
>Therefore we maintain that a man is justified by faith, and by faith ALONE.
The only time "by faith alone" is in the canon is when "not" is placed before it in James 2:24:
NRSVue, NASB, and ESV all offer this same exact translation:
>You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
KJV
>Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

>>18753684
>Firstly, there is absolutely no scripture which presents the saving grace of God as something which man can resist and reject
The plain word of scripture refers to the resistibility of God's purpose many times. It warns believers of the same.
>or it is efficacious only by virtue of the operation of man’s will
*lack of creaturely will in relation to the things of God.

I do not believe, for a second, that you believe a lack of human willing, or of the primacy of that willing, is in itself a genuine operation. You are clinging to this notion in order to defend the traditions you have inherited from John Calvin.

Your argument is essentially to state and restate, "a negative is actually a positive!" over and over. No. An absence of action, of ego, is not in itself an action or a form of ego.

The rest of your post is either just restatement or a Gish gallop.

>>18753685
>it will, as you stated, become a natural proof of faith. In all cases excluding deathbed conversions, one who believes will have good works
I do not disagree at all, but this is consequent and not causal of justification.
>To suggest that the Epistle of James is merely a self-help guide on how to socialize instead of an instruction in righteousness
That is a strawman fallacy. It is an instruction in righteousness, but not before God, not justifying righteousness.
>How is this in any way describing justifying oneself before man and not before God?
This is answered by the entire context which is excluded by your quotation. This discussion builds upon what he said earlier (verses 1-13) about how we are to show mercy to our brethren, and not act wickedly. In verses 14-20, he explicitly frames the issue as being of how we behave publicly and what proof we give of our faith, “Show me your faith apart from works”, he says. In verse 19 he shows that the kind of faith he speaks of is not trust in the merciful promises of God for Christ’s sake (which is what Paul speaks of), but only a bare assent to the facts of the gospel, for demons have no faith that Christ will save them. Indeed, the one who has this kind of faith will not be saved, not because they did not have works, but because of the deficiency of the faith itself. Furthermore, James is in the genre of wisdom literature. The overall purpose of the epistle is to instruct us in living our lives, not in attaining peace with God. Now, I agree that God is the one justifying here, but it is not in His courtroom. This was the reason for the analogy I gave before. Whereas forensic justification is made on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, and they are accepted by God for that reason alone, He justifies them in the sight of men by their good works, declaring to mankind that He accepts them as righteous. Hence he says that the scripture was fulfilled, that is, proven or vindicated.
(cont.)

>>18753684
The book of Concord affirms the resistibility of grace.

>>18753711
>James is referring to a different form of justification
Reams of text aside, you haven't actually shown this.

>>18753685
>The only time "by faith alone" is in the canon is when "not" is placed before it in James 2:24
That is false, because Paul says Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” When he excludes everything besides faith, he shows that he means man is justified by faith alone, and to translate this verse this way would be faithful and true albeit non-literal.

>>18753706
>The plain word of scripture refers to the resistibility of God's purpose many times. It warns believers of the same.
I absolutely deny that any scripture either plainly or ambiguously teaches that God’s purposes can be frustrated, or that His saving grace can fail. God is utterly sovereign and in control of all things (Psalm 33:9-11), and what He intends to happen does happen in all cases. As Augustine said in reference to 1 Timothy 2:4, “We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed anything to be done which was not done.” Nor is there one word that God’s sovereign grace could be frustrated by any man. Now, it does indeed warn man against sin, and especially the believer against apostasy, but this is nothing to the cause. The commands of God inform us not of what His intention is, but what our duty is. Second, God had reason for both the elect and the reprobate to issue these warnings: for the elect, they hold him back from conceit, lead him to draw ever more to the font of grace, and to work out his salvation with fear and trembling. For the reprobate, it serves to hold him accountable and condemn his guilt in the day that he falls away.
>*lack of creaturely will in relation to the things of God.
Again, this is a distinction without a difference.
>a lack of human willing
Again, there is no lack, as if man did nothing; I think it is you who denies he has any agency. But you posit a positive choice to not reject grace, which is a real operation of the will.
>The rest of your post is either just restatement or a Gish gallop.
I accept your concession.

>>18753715
Argument from pigheadedness fallacy.
>>18753712
Luther did not write the Book of Concord.

>>18753720
>repetition and restatement of confessional creeds without elucidation
About what I have come to expect from you. You know, instead of haughtily regurgitating the words of Calvin in every second thread, you could just invest in a bot. The end result would be about the same.

>>18753726
I quoted nothing from Calvin, fool, nor is your dismissal an answer to anything. Insofar as I have repeated myself, I have only repeated that which is entirely unrefuted.

Creeds and confessions are authoritative because they represent the word of God. It is a tradition, but not the tradition of men; it is the sacred tradition of the apostles.

>>18753723
But he did affirm the universality of the atonement.

>>18753728
You're affirming Calvin's teachings, pedant.

>>18753728
>I repeat myself because I think I am right
very healthy

>>18753732
I can’t say if he did or he didn’t, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion we’re having right now. Amyraut affirmed the universality of atonement, and denied that it was possible for any man to reject saving grace.

>>18753735
I repeat myself because I am unanswered. Your argument is “I’m right”, and you’re complaining that I refuse to grant this. You’re very bad at this.

>>18753741
That's a mischaracterisation of what I have stated, and your petulance only serves to highlight the poverty of your arguments. Why are you still trying to engage me? Why are you so desperate to sling mud? It's obvious you have no real willingness to enter into a discussion and are only here to endlessly restate Calvin's views.

>>18753676
> A lack in itself has no operative power
A “lack” in this case is not a rhetorical void but is someone living, breathing, walking around in their unbelief. Even that unbelief is dependent on God.

>>18753749
Only in the sense that God permits it.

>>18753759
Nonsense.

>>18753759
God sustains, creates, engenders disbelief too. There is no private causal region in creation where God isn’t actively creative or where creatures self-originate choices.

>>18753924
You're repeating yourself again. You don't discuss; you don't engage; you don't demonstrate. You just repeat your Thomistic suppositions over and over.

>>18753676
>>18753749
Ironically true "Hell" is supposed to be the lack of God instead of whatever people think hell is.

>>18753930
Sorry, I don’t mean to bore you. I just genuinely don’t understand how your ontology works theistically. Regions outside of God’s active authorship? What is the minimal amount that God could cause a configuration, in your view?

File: free will.gif (1.65 MB, 601x800)

1.65 MB GIF

>>18753759
God shooting dice with his creation aka free will is theologically pointless.

>>18754683
God is powerful and knowledgeable enough to establish His will irrespective of human willing, so this post is not only blasphemous - it's redundant. He does not need to destroy genuine human agency in order to establish His will.

>>18754693
He doesn't need to destroy it because he programmed it. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing then everything that happens is by design.

>>18753934
It is like how KJVonlyists ask: "Couldn't God perfectly preserve Scripture verbatim?" Could? Absolutely. Did? Evidently not.

The same can be said about agency. Could God deprive man of all agency? Yes. Does he? Apparently not. The issue with Calvinism and its views on omnipotence is that it thinks "can" for every possible scenario always means "does". If salvation is a gift, why can't will and agency also be?

If the Calvinist viewpoint is correct then why does God lie about people having a choice?
>I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him, for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

If the Calvinist viewpoint is correct then why does God bother telling people the benefits and consequences of listening to and obeying his commandments?
>Everyone, then, who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!

What is the point of any of these warnings and admonishments if God's perfect will is going to happen no matter what any of us decide to ever do?

>All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Why even have training in righteousness if we have no agency?

>>18754704
The idea that an omniscient God cannot create a genuinely free being is a human supposition based upon limited human experience of temporality.

>>18754718
Define genuinely free.

File: Romans 9.jpg (84 KB, 566x602)

84 KB JPG

>>18754716
You ask a lot of questions for a clay pot.

>>18754716
I never deny that humans choose, obey, disobey, learn, or respond to warnings. Primary and secondary causation are not competitors. I deny that any act originates independently of God. No configuration is partially outside divine authorship. No creature contributes an independently generated remainder.
> It is like how KJVonlyists ask: "Couldn't God perfectly preserve Scripture verbatim?" Could? Absolutely. Did? Evidently not.
It’s not really like that. It’s more like common sense: can something genuinely unfold outside of providence? God is the cause, period. Of this. Of now. Of every unfolding. Creation can’t peel away into a second causal stream outside of what God is doing. There is no actuality that doesn’t depend on God. Isn’t that modest?

Your argument assumes that if God authors a choice, it cannot genuinely be a choice. But that's what is undemonstrated.

>>18754725
Thanks for citing Romans, as chapter 11 affirms we can make choices that have impacts on our fates
>But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted among the others to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember: you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off on account of unbelief, but you stand on account of belief. So do not become arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you, if you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And even those of Israel, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

>>18754874
Of course we have choice. Just not an independently self-originating choice. And Paul anticipates your objection to divine authorship when he says this (not saying you are going to hell, but it’s relevant):

Romans 9:19
“Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

>>18754882

Romans 9:22
"What if God, choosing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction;"

The fact that God is longsuffering towards sinners indicates that He does not condemn them for sins He has actively made them commit. One cannot be described as being longsuffering towards someone whom they are making perform the very acts that are causing them to suffer.

And this makes sense in terms of the wider context. Pharaoh hardened his own heart multiple times. He was not merely a puppet.

>>18754923
Your argument is that God cannot patiently endure evil He actively authors. But at the Cross, God knowingly wills the event through which sinful human beings crucify Christ. Acts 2:23 says Christ was delivered up according to God’s definite plan and foreknowledge, yet crucified by wicked human hands. In other words: God ordained the event—humans committed the evil, and Christ endured it. No contradiction. From this we see that divine sovereignty, human culpability, and divine longsuffering coexist in the very centre of Christianity. These cannot be mutually exclusive.

Genesis 50:20
“But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.”

Proverbs 16:4
“The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”

Proverbs 16:9
“A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.”

Proverbs 21:1
“The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.”

Isaiah 45:7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Amos 3:6
“Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Lamentations 3:38
“Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?”

The clear teaching of the Bible is that God's sovereign purpose and human culpability coexist in the same event.

>>18754982
None of that says that God is the active cause or worker of sin itself in men though. God can ordain matters without actually making human-beings sin. They sin of their own volition, and God works even that sin to His advantage through His omniscience. God creates disaster and hardship, but He does not force man to sin by them.

Proverbs 16:4
"The Lord works out everything to its proper end— even the wicked for a day of disaster."

Amos 3:6
"When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?"

James 1:13-14
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed."

>>18755016
> None of that says that God is the active cause or worker of sin itself in men though
Isaiah 10:5–6
“O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.”

So evil men are an instrument in the hand of God. Plus, how do you mistake Amos 3:6?! It literally says God “does” the evil.

Not “as evil” mind you. God is only good. That’s why He can’t be called the tempter. Causing an evil act to occur is distinct from tempting someone to commit it. So God can have *caused* men to crucify Christ without having *tempted* them to do so, and that’s exact what happened. Even sin doesn’t escape God’s all-encompassing Act.

Your ontology still violates Acts 2:23 because your view is that God lets men chaotically do what they will, and then *reacts* to them, as if reacting to a second power. But there is no second power. That’s what the Bible makes clear, and what the cross reveals. The cross—the world’s worst evil—was eternally *willed by God* to be. Not caused by a second power.

And ultimately, your view posits something basically and obviously impossible: some real power or actuality in the world which not caused by God. But God is the cause of all. Hence the contradiction to basic monotheism. Revelation 11 even calls God the “Lord of the Earth.” Not Satan mind you. Not some demiurge. God. He never stopped reigning.

>>18755048
>Isaiah 10:5–6
This doesn't say that God actively causes Assyrians to be evil; it simply says that He shall use them as a rod of anger. A police department can use a criminal for the purpose of justice without first making that criminal a criminal.
>Plus, how do you mistake Amos 3:6
Read the translation I provided. God punishes men with disaster, but He does not actively cause them to sin.
>Your ontology still violates Acts 2:23 because your view is that God lets men chaotically do what they will, and then *reacts* to them, as if reacting to a second power. But there is no second power.
This is your assumption. Whereas I recognise the plain and open language of the Bible shows that God's action is both predictive and responsive, as well as decretal and prescriptive. Unlike you, I see no reason to assume this is purely metaphorical.

How this all works out in relation to an eternal being relating with temporal creatures is a divine mystery, but I believe it is a mystery we are called to embrace.

>And ultimately, your view posits something basically and obviously impossible
Or man truly is the efficient cause of sin within man, with Satan as the catalyst. You say this is impossible, but your perspective is limited.

I refuse to hold God directly responsible for man's sin.

>>18755072
> This doesn't say that God actively causes Assyrians to be evil; it simply says that He shall use them as a rod of anger.
Are you sure? “The rod of my anger” is about as intentional as language gets. Again you are positing a reactive God, as if He is simply the most powerful agent in a field of rival agents, rather than the ground of being itself. Do you believe God is ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Being Itself) or not? That means God is the support. What does it mean for God to be the support/ground of existence of evil acts? It means even evil acts depend on Him for their actuality and potency.
> Unlike you, I see no reason to assume this is purely metaphorical.
It’s not metaphorical. God truly relates to what He has made.
> I refuse to hold God directly responsible for man's sin.
I don’t either. I hold:
-God can author sin without intending it as such
-Man can be authored for evil without having independently generated it and still be responsible for it
-The horror of the cross was wholly caused and willed by God, without remainder (“not my will, but Thine”)
-God alone is the cause of X, no exception—one world, one sovereign ruler, one simple Act, which we are called to witness
-Primary and secondary causation don’t compete for space, but are different levels of viewing the same mystery
-There is no rival causal throne that God is forced by circumstance to contend with
Clean.
The reason I could never go back to your view is that I think it is an actual mystical veil. If we suppose that the created world we witness is the result of a plural mix of inputs, then the activity of the Author disappears from sight, because we’d be no longer dealing with God’s creation, we’d be dealing with God’s creation + other chaotic inputs, and it becomes a sorting exercise . Are we supposed to see God’s sovereignty only in the smile of children and in nice things, or everywhere? I would argue that the message of the cross is the former.

*the latter

>>18755107
The message of the cross is that God's will triumphs in spite of all man's sin. Or, to put it another way, the smile of the child outshines all the complexities and atrocities of Satan. God can create and sustain a man's being without being the direct cause of that man's sinning.

I feel in your efforts to understand God's action logically, you have come dangerously close to making God Himself the direct practitioner of sin. "Pure act", to me, comes across as philosophy more than anything else.

>>18755121
> The message of the cross is that God's will triumphs in spite of all man's sin.
Ok, and was that message cobbled together as a reaction to bad circumstance, or is it an eternal message and an eternal act? If it’s the latter, then God is working with the negatives to make better pictures, so to speak. Like any good photographer or artist.
> God can create and sustain a man's being without being the direct cause of that man's sinning.
Indeed. That’s approaching my position. It’s useful to distinguish the conventional level from the ultimate level. Conventionally man of course authors sin. I am not an occasionalist. Men are real causal loci with real responsibility and causal power. Ultimately, God remains the only potency.
> I feel in your efforts to understand God's action logically, you have come dangerously close to making God Himself the direct practitioner of sin. "Pure act", to me, comes across as philosophy more than anything else.
I get that. Effectively you are doing a theodicy to protect God’s purity. There’s no other reason to slice up the Act in the way you are doing. But I didn’t come to it through reason, logic, or philosophy though. I came to it through a mystical experience of Deuteronomy 4:35: “To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is none else beside Him.” Take that with a grain of salt. But seeing God act through the whole is a tremendous thing, and someone would have to get me to violate my conscience to deny that God authored X. I don’t believe in rival thrones—God is One, without a second. It’s Jesus’ most important commandment. And again, if you don’t believe this then the whole Act becomes veiled, because suddenly you are forced to parse “from God vs. not from God.”

>>18755134
>Ok, and was that message cobbled together as a reaction to bad circumstance, or is it an eternal message and an eternal act?
It is, in a sense, *both* a response and an eternal message and act.
>if you don’t believe this then the whole Act becomes veiled, because suddenly you are forced to parse “from God vs. not from God.
I think attempting to pry apart and appraise the beliefs of another in this way is unwise.

>>18755016
>of their own volition
it's funny how christians accuse atheists of believing in a universe that came from nothing when they believe in a god that creates everything except their will which comes from... nowhere apparently

volition ex nihilo

>>18755139
> It is, in a sense, *both* a response and an eternal message and act
And how would God have ever planned to deliver this message without authoring the evil that He ordained Himself to shine through?
>I think attempting to pry apart and appraise the beliefs of another in this way is unwise.
It’s true though. Your position forces one’s attention to shift from the unity of the divine Act to sorting creation into divine and supposedly self-originating contributions. But if we believe in God, and we believe that nothing self-originates, that nothing comes from nothing, then we also believe the latter category is completely impossible. Nothing self-originates, nothing at all. Self-origination is impossible. And so nothing needs to be carved out as an independent causal remainder to protect God’s clean image. The distinction between good and evil remains, but it is not a division of causal sourcehood. At the end of the day, it’s simply not required to outsource evil onto a rival in order to protect moral distinctions or launder divine goodness, so why do it?

>>18755145
Exactly

God causing everything is also why God can be all-forgiving. He sees and understands the exact conditions behind every evil act, every supervillain story. T

To understand is to forgive all.

>>18755151
>He sees and understands
and creates...

>>18755150
>And how would God have ever planned to deliver this message without authoring the evil that He ordained Himself to shine through?
The planning and perceiving cannot be talked about sequentially because God is eternal. This really does come down to the fact that you are insisting upon a single act because you, as a man, cannot get your head around anything else.
>>18755145
Do you think an all powerful God is somehow incapable of creating a creature with genuine agency? Does it matter if you yourself, a creature, cannot outline the boundaries of that agency in scientific terms?

>>18755154
Yes: sees, understands, generates, permits, sustains, creates, then “longsuffers” His work. Clean sight Anon.

>>18755160
define genuine agency

>>18755171
In this instance, it would be the ability to resist the grace that God offers of their own volition.

>>18755174
you'd still need a cause for the creature to resist

>>18755176
You keep saying this. Try to understand: God has the power to create creatures that can make substantive decisions, even if the precise mechanisms of that are unknown to us. You continually assume that God's eternality *must* mean that His action, and all action, must therefore be one action - but this is an assumption, so far as you are showing me.

And we keep going around in circles because you seem content to simply paraphrase your initial claim over and over.

>>18755160
So you maintain what that other Anon said? Volition ex nihilo? Does volition come from a magical spark inside the soul then? Or does it simply arise dependently based on conditions that it didn’t self-originate?
>This really does come down to the fact that you are insisting upon a single act because you, as a man, cannot get your head around anything else.
One undivided Act is the more profound seeing I would argue. Anyone can imagine God selecting from a pre-existing modal inventory of what to create, and deciding based on criteria like “because I am perfectly good, I will not be the direct cause of evil.” That’s easy to imagine because that’s how humans operate. Anyone can similarly imagine God as the most powerful agent in a field of rival human agents—reacting, negotiating, strategizing. That’s how the fallen mind (no offense) envisions God by default. It’s way more profound and less intuitive to notice one divine actuality, without any external selector, external constraint, or independent author. Then God is really One.

Btw, I would add one more thing. “God authored this whole exile” is the repeat message of the prophets—Isaiah and Jeremiah especially. Isaiah 10: God authors Assyria’s conquest, then judges Assyria. Jeremiah 25: God raises Babylon as His instrument, then judges Babylon. And again, Joseph gives perhaps the clearest formulation: human beings intend evil, but God intends the same evil event for good. That’s not reaction—that’s authorship. The recurring prophetic pattern is: God authors the judgment, the exile, the reversal, and the restoration. One sovereign arc.

>>18755177
There is nothing preventing God from causing a universe in which everyone freely choose the good and accept salvation
God didn't cause such a universe

>>18755177
but there is a mechanism isn't it? otherwise it would be random behavior
and if there's a mechanism it's deterministic behavior and each individual acts according to their own configuration which is set in place by god, therefore god is the factor that makes each person choose what they choose
you can't escape this conclusion just because the exact mechanism is unknown

>>18755180
>So you maintain what that other Anon said? Volition ex nihilo?
I reject the framing of the debate.
>Does volition come from a magical spark inside the soul then?
I do not presume to know the form.
>Btw, I would add one more thing. “God authored this whole exile” is the repeat message of the prophets
Again, God establishing His purpose irrespective of human frailty and/or willing does not necessitate Him being the active cause of sin in men.
>>18755186
This is another philosophical assumption.
>but there is a mechanism isn't it?
There is nothing to suggest that that mechanism is tantamount to puppetry, no.
>and if there's a mechanism it's deterministic behavior
Not in the case of a sufficiently sophisticated mechanism.

If you're not going to provide additional insight or offer a novel rebuttal, I can't continue with this. As I say, you are essentially just repeating yourself at this point.

>>18755205
>There is nothing to suggest that that mechanism is tantamount to puppetry, no.
my assumption is that it's more like a wind-up toy
>Not in the case of a sufficiently sophisticated mechanism
so you'd say its undeterministic?
if that's the case is there even any reason for god to judge the merit of random choice? he might as well just give us infinite time and wait until each person inevitably randomly chooses to accept him
then it's game over

>>18755215
This post is incoherent.

>>18755219
read it again if you must, it's a simple binary scenario

>>18755177
That’s actually a different Anon. But if you say that agency is
>the ability to resist the grace that God offers of their own volition
then you have to explain where that volition comes from. Is it ex nihilo?

It’s clearly not ex nihilo. That’s why it’s a mistake to think that grace waits upon an independently authored human yes. Grace doesn’t “wait,” grace acts. Grace is not God offering to act if man completes the circuit—grace is God completing the circuit Himself, generating the yes Himself.

Ezekiel 36:27
“I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.”

>>18755220
>if man's actions aren't the product of absolute determinism then they must be random
False dichotomy.

>>18755225
what's the alternative?

>>18755222

Ezekiel 36:27
"And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."
The fact that God can move people to keep His commands isn't in question.
>That’s why it’s a mistake to think that grace waits upon an independently authored human yes.
It doesn't wait. The yes is itself ultimately a function of the indwelling. Yet the NT repeatedly affirms that man must nevertheless remain vigilant, lest his faith be scuppered. We must retain the power to reject, even when within grace.
>ex nihilo
If there is an efficient cause of sin, I believe it is of man. You say this is impossible. I point out your creaturely understanding is limited.

>>18755236
>It doesn't wait. The yes is itself ultimately a function of the indwelling.
So in your view, grace does not determine its own reception. God supplies grace, but the creature retains the decisive power to reject it. That forces grace into the waiting position rather than the acting position. By pitting primary and secondary causality against each other, you make man the decisive completion of the circuit.
>Yet the NT repeatedly affirms that man must nevertheless remain vigilant, lest his faith be scuppered. We must retain the power to reject, even when within grace.
The hidden leap is “must remain vigilant” therefore “must possess independent causal power to reject.” That doesn’t follow. Vigilance, perseverance, temptation, and apostasy are all actual configurations engendered by God. The New Testament's warnings themselves are instruments through which God generates vigilance. The commands establish human responsibility, not independent sourcehood.
>If there is an efficient cause of sin, I believe it is of man.
Primary vs. secondary causation. Not in competition. Man can be the efficient cause of sin. But if God ultimately causes the actuality of it, then man is not an *independent* efficient cause, even though he acts. His sinning *depends* on God too. That’s the whole reason why God is called long-suffering in the first place — because grace *sustains* evil. It causes the sun to rise on the righteous as well as on the unrighteous, etc.

>>18755236
>If there is an efficient cause of sin, I believe it is of man. You say this is impossible. I point out your creaturely understanding is limited.
Let’s see what your view actually entails. Take it to the limit. Creation becomes a joint production between God and countless creaturely generators. God generates the creature, its faculties, its circumstances, and its continued existence. But at the decisive moment, the creature supposedly contributes something God does not generate: the actuality of willing. Multiply this across billions of creatures and every moment of history. You now have one divine generator plus billions of subordinate generators contributing causal actuality of their own. The absurdity is that God supposedly creates and sustains the whole of reality while not ultimately generating everything actual within it. History itself would be out of His hands.

N.b. Secondary causation is not itself absurd. Aquinas accepts it without granting creatures independent existence. My objection targets the stronger claim, that (sinful) willing contains an uncaused-by-God remainder. That would make creation causally partitioned rather than wholly dependent on the One. That is what I find theologically incoherent rather than merely unattractive.

>>18755246
>So in your view, grace does not determine its own reception.
It determines the mode of its own reception: all who do not resist grace shall prosper on account of grace.
>That forces grace into the waiting position
No. It simply means that grace may be rejected after its arrival. There is no waiting.
>By pitting primary and secondary causality against each other...
They're only pitted against one another in the instant that man ceases to surrender and begins acting of himself in isolation.
>...you make man the decisive completion of the circuit.
Man does not contribute substantively to the power of the current or its effects in any way. And his ability to reject is itself only an aspect of the agency that God Himself has endowed him with.
>The hidden leap is “must remain vigilant” therefore “must possess independent causal power to reject.”
You're attempting to spin out a semantic distinction in an effort to defend your suppositions around what you call pure act.
>But if God ultimately causes the actuality of it...
Of course God both creates and sustains man, and in this way sin only happens in the real as a "result" of this sustenance, but that's not the whole of what you are claiming.

>>18755253
>History itself would be out of His hands.
This seems to all come down to the fact that you want to place limits on God's omnipotence because you cannot handle or perceive how it could possibly work. Strictly speaking, sin is a willed absence; it's not a substance of itself.

File: 1758964545832.gif (1.26 MB, 640x478)

1.26 MB GIF

>>18755225
>>18755229

>>18755260
>using God’s omnipotence as a reason to carve out a magical causal space where He doesn’t operate

>>18755257
> Of course God both creates and sustains man, and in this way sin only happens in the real as a "result" of this sustenance, but that's not the whole of what you are claiming.
I’m just claiming there is no independence in sin. Grace sustains sin too, and grace causes the turn, from beginning to end. It’s not a substance waiting for man to accept or reject, it’s the continuous gift of actuality itself.

If I can’t argue it intellectually, look also at the fruits of this view (now you will see why I’m not a Calvinist): forgiveness, humility, compassion, mercy, nonjudgment, freedom from pride, surrender, gratitude, love of enemies, release of resentment, and freedom from boasting … everything Jesus taught. Why? Because God is One. That means nobody is their own ultimate generator. No one self-creates their will. No one self-originates their volition ex nihilo. This collapses the courtroom.

1 Corinthians 4:7
“What hast thou that thou didst not receive?”

>>18755266
You seem to be saying that if God hasn't made us into puppets, then He doesn't have everything in hand. God operates everywhere. His sovereignty is total. Your interpretation of that operation and that sovereignty is what I take issue with.
>>18755262
I've repeatedly stated that the alternative is man having real agency; and I have already outlined what's meant by that. I'm not going to answer every post that asks me to repeat myself ad nauseam.

File: a13.jpg (39 KB, 600x366)

39 KB JPG

>>18755281
the problem is that your outline was "an unknown mechanism operates according to an uncertain middle-ground option between determinism and randomness so that the primum movens of creation isn't responsible for said mechanism and its subsequent operations" which might as well be magic like the other anon said

>>18755287
You seem to want me to outline the exact nature and dimensions of human liberty. And, when I naturally point out that the exact interplay between man and God in relation to faith and volition is mysterious, you accuse me of wizardry. I reject the accusation ipso facto.

>>18755281
>God operates everywhere. His sovereignty is total.
Yeah true, good. If you want to ask who the ultimate operator is in any given situation, it’s God. Always and everywhere.
>Your interpretation of that operation and that sovereignty is what I take issue with.
Why? I haven’t denied real agency or secondary causation. I have just proclaimed that these rest on primary causation without any carveout for a self-generated remainder.

>>18755278
I appreciate that you have your own interpretation and that this has brought you peace. I would caution that many, many people throughout history have come to their own interpretations of scripture - some esoteric, some exoteric - and have likewise experienced peace.

When reading scripture, I ask that you look first to the plain and open meaning of the text rather than rushing to preconceived notions surrounding this idea of first act. Even if this meaning seems contradictory at times, try to rest in the mystery.

File: IMG_3428.png (102 KB, 860x1171)

102 KB PNG

>>18755297
>When reading scripture, I ask that you look first to the plain and open meaning of the text

>>18755297
>Even if this meaning seems contradictory at times, try to rest in the mystery.
There is no contradiction between primary causation and secondary willing. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. Sheeesh. Nice chatting tho. God be with you (only some of the time ;)).

>>18755298
God creating and sustaining all things does not mean that creatures lack free will. We've covered this, anon.

You seem to be one of those people who lights upon certain phrases or words and then immediately rushes to certain, fixed conclusions as a result.

>>18755303
May the Lord bless and keep you.

>>18755304
I’m just saying the most consistent message of the Bible is “YHWH is One.” Ergo, you can’t veer into error if you constantly answer “what caused X?” with “God.”

Psalm 16:8
“I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.”

>>18755289
i only ask the exact interplay because you're proposing a concept of agency you not only can't demonstrate you can't even begin to define
how can man be free to decide his own fate irrespective of god's design? your answer is that he just is, not because reasoning leads to that conclusion but because your worldview requires it

>>18755309
>how can man be free to decide his own fate
He isn't. God establishes His plans irrespective of human willing and/or action, but He still asks man to take part.

Deuteronomy 30:19
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

>>18755319
john 6 has the simplest explanation i've read so far
he preaches to a bunch of people knowing who's gonna accept the teachings and who's gonna reject them
they make their choices but the choices are still part of the script god wrote for them

>>18755329

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned from the Father cometh unto Me.

He still recalls the value and importance of human agency. It is not simply a matter of calling. Man themselves must also listen and learn if they are to be passed on.

>>18755336
yes but those who listen only do so because they were enabled by god in the first place
the distinction between primary and secondary causation that the other anon posted is actually a good explanation that doesn't require exegetical sleights of hand

>>18755348
>because they were enabled by god in the first place
Nobody denies this or the notion of primary and secondary causation. I think you have misunderstood what that other anon means by pure act. He thinks that God is the active cause of all sin and that man has zero real agency.

>>18755356
no i understood what he said and i agree that the bible teaches that
this real agency that can somehow resist god is a buzzword, it doesn't explain anything, people resort to it because the idea of god being the ultimate cause of sin bothers them

>>18755356
Ok I’m still lurking and that’s distinctly not what I said. I refute only independent agency, not “real” agency. I believe God alone ultimately acts, and—thereby—creatures truly act at the same time. Two different layers, primary and secondary, in no way in tension or competition with each other. In this way you can harmonize the Bible’s proclamation of God’s unity and sovereignty with “choose life” and see why they don’t contradict. Real agency, total dependence, no creature acting ex se, hence no room for boasting or final condemnation. It’s extremely close to what you say, except you seem to be clinging to a mysterious in-between zone where man needs to self-originate autonomous actuality apart from God in order to be held accountable. But real agency is fully compatible with one simple and undivided divine Act.

>>18755361
If you wish to believe that God is directly responsible for all sin, I cannot stop you. I cannot fathom how a thinking, feeling Christian could think so.

>>18755369
every causal chain must necessarily go back to god, does that contradict the bible?

>>18755374
You're repeating yourself. This part of the discussion has been had already.

>>18755375
it has but you couldn't defend your side of it

>>18755379
This is childish. I'm not engaging with someone who appears to have some kind of neurotic fixation with getting me to reply.

>>18755374
No, it doesn’t contradict the Bible.

Isaiah 45:7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Amos 3:6
“Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Lamentations 3:37–38
“Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?”

Job 2:10
“What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”

Ecclesiastes 7:14
“In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other.”

Isaiah 54:16
“Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.”

Isaiah 63:17
“O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?”

1 Samuel 16:14
“But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.”

1 Samuel 18:10
“And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house.”

1 Kings 22:23
“Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.”

Ezekiel 14:9
“And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.”

2 Thessalonians 2:11
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”

Deuteronomy 32:39
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.”

1 Samuel 2:6
“The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.”

Jeremiah 18:11
“Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you.”

Jeremiah 32:42
“For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.”

Micah 2:3
“Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil.”

2 Samuel 12:11
“Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house.”

2 Samuel 16:10
“Let him curse, because the LORD hath said unto him, Curse David.”

1 Kings 12:15
“Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD.”

Judges 9:23
“Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem.”

>>18755382
you're taking it personally when i'm just making an observation
you never supported the claim that man resists god of his own volition, you just said it's mysterious

>>18755385
>>18755388
The fact that you're now resorting to citing reams of scripture without exegesis tells me everything I need to know. You're obviously upset. You feel threatened because I haven't accepted your ideas as Gospel. You need to take a break from this site and revaluate.

This isn't how useful discussions are had.

>>18755385
>>18755388
and it's so weird because you have to make man capable of creating something god can't create to suggest that sin comes from man

>>18755391
>you're taking it personally
I'm not taking it personally. I simply recognise that saying, "nuh uh, your answer wasn't good enough for me" is effectively a useless contribution on your part. How would you like me to respond to that?

>>18755399
The fact that God doesn't sin and doesn't want to sin does not mean He's incapable of it.

>>18755400
sorry but "it's mysterious lol just trust me bro" is a nonanswer

>>18755403
but the creator of sin is ultimately god

>>18755396
I’m not upset and I don’t feel threatened. I’m just wondering, look at those passages. How can you reconcile your view with the plain meaning of scripture? Literally every time someone sins, it says the ultimate cause is God, without denying agency and responsibility. This is the pattern from Genesis to the prophets to the cross to Paul talking about hell.

The mystery is found in the fact that no creature ontologically closes into a separate source. All of the creature’s causal relations are constituted and dependent God. So thereby you can have real life—real agency, real responsibility—all caused by God. (Shocking, I know.)

>>18755410
It doesn't literally say that. It says that God creates hardship and disaster as punishment. And often times when people themselves are hardened, they're hardened as a direct result of their own sins or, if they are in a high position, the sins of their forefathers - it is a judicial hardening.

>>18755404
It's not a non-answer. You simply think that because you can't conceive of a result of God's omnipotence in your creaturely mind, it must not exist.
>God can't create free individuals because things would get too complex
...is basically the substance of your rejection; and it's myopic.

>>18755426
we actually discussed that, your concept of free individual would be the source of his own volition which would essentially create multiple other creators as >>18755253
pointed out

>>18755428
>create multiple other creators
Misleading wording, but, yeah, your argument is essentially that you cannot fathom the idea of subordinate agents so therefore they must not exist. It's a remarkable claim to make. "I can't imagine God doing this, so He must not have done it."

>>18755421
Let’s grant what you’re saying. Suppose that man independently originates his own evil apart from God’s Act, in a mysterious liminal causal region of space time where God’s causal power doesn’t fully reach in or penetrate. Does it not entail that, instead of seeing God acting through the entire field, your consciousness has to keep searching for that seam where divine authorship ends and creaturely authorship begins?

>>18755430
i don't have to imagine when your argument is "I can't explain how God is doing this, so He must have done it"
you gotta reject causality altogether to espouse that idea, and you in fact did that in >>18755205 when you appealed to an unfathomably sophisticated mechanism, because committing to randomness is worse than following determinism to its logical conclusion

>>18755433
>>18755434
Listening to you is a bit like listening to someone explain why their carrots must always be kept separate from their peas.

>>18755437
Lol why?
>two different anons btw

>>18755437
you could've just said you didn't have an answer from the beginning

Goat herders 2000 years ago
>write a bunch of contradictory and vague bullshit
Incels 2000 years after
>arguing as if it was quantum mechanics

>>18755444
i'm arguing as if it's classical mechanics

>>18755451
Really? I’m arguing as if it’s one unitary evolution under one generator and one operator.

>>18755456
yeah i'm a college dropout newtonian physics is all i got

>>18755458
Kek