|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 23, 2005 14:38:45 GMT -5
I bit big E LOL
Ok
Is your point here that these guys made decisions on their own? Therefore, they have free will? Help me out brotha!
BTW someone told me u were white..I thought u were black? It dosen't really matter, I was just curious.
* ok now back to our regularly scheduled program*
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 23, 2005 15:38:54 GMT -5
 **coyly**I didn't make a point, it was completely hypotheticaly**coyly** LOL. But that observation is a nice place to begin. And yeah, I am white. It's kind of funny that over the years on this here internet, more people have asked that same thing. Funny how cats be talking about that..."yo eternal white"...."WORD!?" haha. I made a comment the other day at sphereofhiphop that a lot of times at the church, I meet people on the phone, and then when they finaly meet me in person you can see them trying to figure things out, like their whole world has flipped around. I guess the same is true of the internet  I just got my first digital camera, and I should start putting some pics up with my student minsitries page we're creating. I'll drop a link when its ready. peace. |
|
|
|
Post by quietstorm on Sept 23, 2005 16:07:17 GMT -5
For the longest time I thought you were black too eternal until my freind (covenantminded) told me she saw a pic of you. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Sept 23, 2005 16:20:44 GMT -5
i was black
just kidding, just a little preterist joke...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Sept 26, 2005 11:29:20 GMT -5
ha ha...hilarious. Yo Eternal I thought you were Chinese dogg! LOL
DoX
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 26, 2005 18:32:07 GMT -5
LoL @ this thread being about my race!  |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 26, 2005 19:06:23 GMT -5
LOL
Ok eternal
Why do u think those who are calvanists don't believe in free will?
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 26, 2005 20:31:02 GMT -5
LOL Ok eternal Why do u think those who are calvanists don't believe in free will? I know. Calvinists believe that people are free to do exactly what God has scripted for them. |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 26, 2005 20:51:05 GMT -5
btw... Here is some pics for those who have been dying to confirm the whiteness of eternal... shaun-hilby.magix.net/Just click "my friends" and I put two pics up from my new camera. Full screen that bad boy to see all the beauty of me! |
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Sept 26, 2005 21:09:51 GMT -5
"Why do u think those who are calvanists don't believe in free will? "
Because true calvinists don't believe in free will....lol...."not everyone can say to me...Calvin...Calvin...have we not carried this out to its full logical end?" haha...you have your Gordon Clark type Calvinists who affirmed logic and then you have your vantillian, bavinck 'calvinists' who have tossed logic to the side.
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 27, 2005 2:40:20 GMT -5
what?? We don't?
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 27, 2005 2:41:45 GMT -5
LOL Ok eternal Why do u think those who are calvanists don't believe in free will? I know. Calvinists believe that people are free to do exactly what God has scripted for them. And what is that? We do what we want, and we always choose sin. I don't believe God "scripts" us to sin! That isn't my view. |
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Sept 27, 2005 8:06:07 GMT -5
I know. Calvinists believe that people are free to do exactly what God has scripted for them. And what is that? We do what we want, and we always choose sin. I don't believe God "scripts" us to sin! That isn't my view. And it isn't any real calvinist view either. Our will is free to do according to our nature, sin. |
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Sept 27, 2005 9:35:27 GMT -5
Rick/answer,
saying that we 'freely' do what our nature dictates seems unneccesary to me...why throw 'free' in the mix? you're just confusing people. 'free', as it is commonly used among those who teach 'free will', is defined as being free from any constraints. But then you turn around and use 'free' as being constrained by our nature....okkaayy...so we're not free. you're either free or you're not.
secondly, i'm curious to know how you guys respond to this:
1 Kings 22:20-23 20 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' 22 And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.' 23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you."
If that is not God 'scripting' sin, i don't know what is. DO you honestly think that these prophets had a snowball's chance in hades of doing anything contrary to the clear, expressed wishes of God Himself (you shall succeed) or is that just crystal ball talk?
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Sept 27, 2005 9:46:26 GMT -5
Rick/answer, saying that we 'freely' do what our nature dictates seems unneccesary to me...why throw 'free' in the mix? you're just confusing people. 'free', as it is commonly used among those who teach 'free will', is defined as being free from any constraints. But then you turn around and use 'free' as being constrained by our nature....okkaayy...so we're not free. you're either free or you're not. secondly, i'm curious to know how you guys respond to this: 1 Kings 22:20-23 20 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' 22 And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.' 23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you." If that is not God 'scripting' sin, i don't know what is. DO you honestly think that these prophets had a snowball's chance in hades of doing anything contrary to the clear, expressed wishes of God Himself (you shall succeed) or is that just crystal ball talk? I will definetly answer that but for the moment Neb are you suggesting that God IS the author of sin? |
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Sept 27, 2005 11:56:55 GMT -5
Yes...and after you respond to I kings 22, you can then explain to me what Scriptures (Scriptures mind you, im not interested in any nonsense from van til or bavinck) that pose a problem with saying the God is the author (creator) of sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Sept 27, 2005 14:16:18 GMT -5
Yes...and after you respond to I kings 22 Pretty simple. Who was the spirit that came before the Lord? Satan of course. It was Satan that enticed them to lie. The passage says the the Lord did it because He gave permission for Satan to do so, just like He did with Job. Serious? James 1:13-1513When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Com'on Neb think about it, regardless of Vantil or Bavinck. |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 27, 2005 16:44:41 GMT -5
lol @ the evolution of this thread. It went from a joke remark in another thread, to its own thread, to being a revelation of eternal's race, to an in house calvinist debate! haha. You never know what to expect at the theology cafe. |
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Sept 27, 2005 22:46:15 GMT -5
First, the passage doesn’t say anything about satan. The word is ruach. (spirit) Now, ultimately, this does not matter to the question at hand, other than to demonstrate that you are reading things into the text that don’t exist…it especially doesn’t warrant your words of “Satan of course”. Now, maybe I’ve missed something further along or in a parallel text, but Chron. doesn’t mention ‘satan’ either.
Second, it looks like you avoided the question about God ‘scripting’ sin to occur. How were the prophets ‘free’ after God commanded an evil spirit to go and SUCCEED? Could those prophets had done otherwise? I think not. So where is the ‘freedom’ in that?
Third, I have thought about James, quite a bit actually. I’m currently teaching a series in James, of which I have spent around 10 weeks in the first chapter. In fact, I taught 1.22-25 about an hour ago on Paltalk to around 20 other heretics. James, in that particular text, is not addressing the issue of God as creator of sin. That has nothing at all to do with his concern in the first 12 verses. He is writing to ‘brothers’ during a time of eschatological fulfillment, in which they were being ‘tested’ in order to bring out the genuineness of their ‘faith’, which would result in them being ‘made perfect and complete’ at the soon coming of Christ. (5.8) Therefore, they were not to view their difficulties as some sort of cruelty from God, for they were on the very path to the promised inheritance. It’s a literary throwback to the wilderness wanderings. (and if you think im reading too much into that, see my series where I build that, as well as Peter Davids’ commentary.) James is warning them not to whine and fuss just as their parents did when things got tough. All James is saying there is, “Don’t view this time of trial, persecution, etc., as some sort of evil from God, because you are on the very path to the inheritance.” To ‘blame God’ or accuse Him of bringing evil on them was pure insanity, just as it was stupid for Israel to whine about water and food and accuse God of bringing them out into the desert to die right after God miraculously saved them from the Egyptians and put them on the very path to a land flowing with milk and honey. God had been nothing BUT good to them; and so it was to James’ audience. If a person failed that test, it wasn’t because God was doing evil to them in the sense of dragging them out to die in the desert, but because they did not fully believe the promise of the Gospel. Being ‘lured’ and ‘enticed’ in this context was to forsake the Gospel. And again, if you have a problem with that analysis, see my series and read where I have noted the various comments by commentators that the main focus is their response to the Gospel.
Also, 'preterists' are not the only ones seeing this. Obviously not a preterist, Cheung makes a similar point.
Reformation Ministries International
Vincent Cheung
"Among the many fallacious replies is the appeal to James 1:13.4 Using this verse to deny that God is the author of sin is one of the worst misapplications of cripture, and because this error is very popular and influential, it has caused much damage and generated an unnecessary burden for those who would defend the faith.
Consider the context. James is discussing the practical outworking of the Christian's faith in his letter, and so he often stresses the Christian's direct responsibility, and from the Christian's immediate perspective. James is pointing out what the Christian should consider and address in his struggles as a Christian – he is not dealing with metaphysics.
In other words, he is addressing his topics from the standpoint of a Christian relative to his immediate considerations and responsibilities, and not relative to broad metaphysical principles.
However, when we are discussing divine sovereignty vs. human freedom, cause and effect, etc., we are indeed dealing with metaphysics. Of course, the conclusions reached on this level carry necessary implications for practical living, and what the Bible teaches about metaphysics and practical living are completely consistent with each other. Nevertheless, it is true that as long as the discussion remains on the metaphysical level, the reference point is different, so that one must be careful not to invalidly infer a
metaphysical principle from a verse of practical instruction.
With this in mind, read the passage again. It does not affirm or deny whether God is the author of sin – it does not address the topic at all, but its concerns are completely different. It just tells you that God is not the tempter, which is altogether different from saying that God is not the author of sin."
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Sept 27, 2005 23:20:57 GMT -5
I make a distinction between "free will" in our regular decisions. And free will in salvation. I chose what I wore this morning, God did not. However, when it comes to salvation, God choose me, not the other way around.  |
|
