Awww, Shucks!

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

No, according to Calvinism.

And NO according to Arminianism. Libby is trying to make an argument that equally applies to both Calvinism and Arminianism. Some LDS scholars realize this issue and have tried to get around it by saying that God is not all knowing.

BTW Libby and I have already had this discussion

Originally Posted by Libby

Perhaps God's knowledge is dynamic rather than static..constantly interactive and moving. He is a living, dynamic en***y (e-n-t-i-t-y is censored??), not a stone wall on which all knowledge is written. That's man's concept, but not likely the reality of it.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a.../Foreknowledge

. . . If God knew from all eternity exactly what any of us would do at any given time, then it is difficult to claim we have agency in any legitimate sense. As Blake Ostler put it:

. . .It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free.

Do you agree with the above quote that if God is all knowing (omniscient) then you don't have free will? (BTW apparently this is the view of Daniel Peterson as noted by a poster on another board via direct communication)

[Libby]

Daniel Peterson and other LDS may very well believe that, because I don't think they believe that God is omniscient. But, I do...and I also believe that we have the ability to choose God, when he draws us.

Libby is trying to make an argument that equally applies to both Calvinism and Arminianism.

NO, actually, that would be YOU. I have stated often that I believe the two are very different.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Daniel Peterson and other LDS may very well believe that, because I don't think they believe that God is omniscient. But, I do...and I also believe that we have the ability to choose God, when he draws us.

Both the Arminians and the Calvinists teach that we have a choice to accept or reject Christ. You have tried to make up an argument to dispute the Calvinist claim that a person has a choice but in doing so you didn't realize that it equally applies to the Arminian perspective. That is the whole reason Dan Peterson and other LDS scholars claim that God is not omniscient in order to get around this issue.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

NO, actually, that would be YOU.

No it is you that is making that argument--which BTW equally applies to both sides. You are trying to argue that a person doesn't have a choice. I have always maintained that from both the Arminian and the Calvinist position we all have a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him and that we are all held responsible for that choice.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

No it is you that is making that argument--which BTW equally applies to both sides. You are trying to argue that a person doesn't have a choice. I have always maintained that from both the Arminian and the Calvinist position we all have a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him and that we are all held responsible for that choice.

Billy, please show me where I have EVER made the argument that we don't have a choice! That's just an outright misstatement of what I have been saying.

I have always maintained that from both the Arminian and the Calvinist position we all have a choice to either accept Christ or to reject him

If you believe that, good for you. But, I certainly wouldn't call you a Calvinist, if you do, genuinely, hold that belief. Because, Calvinists believe in total depravity and that the unregenerated have no ability to choose God.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Billy, please show me where I have EVER made the argument that we don't have a choice! That's just an outright misstatement of what I have been saying.

Don't you even remember what you have been posting over the last day or so?

Originally Posted by Libby

If he has a total inability to choose God, he does NOT have a choice to choose him.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

If you believe that, good for you. But, I certainly wouldn't call you a Calvinist, if you do, genuinely, hold that belief.

Calvinists teach that everyone has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for that choice and this is what the Bible teaches. Calvinist also say that those who are not elect will not choose him because of their nature.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Calvinists teach that everyone has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for that choice and this is what the Bible teaches. Calvinist also say that those who are not elect will not choose him because of their nature.

They don't say "will not", Billy....they say, "cannot".

Total Depravity (the "T" in TULIP) - "...is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered."

"Utterly UNABLE", Billy. Does that sound, to you, like everyone has a choice? Anyone and everyone CAN choose God, if they wish?? Nope, Calvinists most definitely do not believe that. Heck, I'm attending a Reformed Church...I KNOW that is not what they believe.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

They don't say "will not", Billy....they say, "cannot".

Total Depravity (the "T" in TULIP) - "...is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered."

"Utterly UNABLE", Billy. Does that sound, to you, like everyone has a choice? Anyone and everyone CAN choose God, if they wish?? Nope, Calvinists most definitely do not believe that. Heck, I'm attending a Reformed Church...I KNOW that is not what they believe.

And an unelect Arminian "is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God". Libby you are trying to condemn one side with your argument but you seem to be i-gnorant of the fact that both positions can be criticized by using the same argument.

[Billyray]

Libby where in the Bible does it say that the basis for God electing certain individuals is based on God looking forward in time and seeing their faith? (BTW Romans 8 never makes this claim).

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

And an unelect Arminian "is utterly UNABLE to choose to follow God". Libby you are trying to condemn one side with your argument but you seem to be i-gnorant of the fact that both positions can be criticized by using the same argument.

That's not true. Anyone is free and ABLE to make the choice. Some don't choose God, but they are "able" to, if they wish. Not so for the Calvinist position, where the belief is in "total depravity".

If Arminianism and Calvinism were that similar, you wouldn't see so many vigorous debates between the two.

You're the one who is trying to make them appear similar. I think you really don't like or believe the Calvinist position on this. I don't blame you. I don't like it, either.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

That's not true. Anyone is free and ABLE to make the choice. Some don't choose God, but they are "able" to, if they wish. Not so for the Calvinist position, where the belief is in "total depravity".

And not so for the Arminian who is unelect to be able to choose God. Libby why are you having such a hard time understanding that your argument equally applies to the Arminian position?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I think you really don't like or believe the Calvinist position on this. I don't blame you. I don't like it, either.

And I don't think you really like the Arminian position either because with that postion you also have the same problem of not really being able to choose one way or the other, rather this is fixed at birth. You seem more comfortable with the LDS position such as Dan Peterson's position that God is not omniscient, which then will allow "free agency".

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

And not so for the Arminian who is unelect to be able to choose God. Libby why are you having such a hard time understanding that your argument equally applies to the Arminian position?

No problem at all. No, an "unelect" will not choose God, but at least he/she was ABLE to, when the choice was presented. In the Calvinist scenario, there was no choice, because the person was completely UNABLE to choose God.

And, no, I totally reject the LDS view, on the issue of salvation. I believe God is Spirit and completely omniscient.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

No, an "unelect" will not choose God, but at least he/she was ABLE to, when the choice was presented.

But that choice was presented to him well after he was born. So now are you changing positions and telling me that an "unelect" individual can accept God?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I believe God is Spirit and completely omniscient.

But then you must also agree that from either the Arminian OR the Calvinist position people like you will attempt to make an argument that neither position allows an individual a real choice.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But that choice was presented to him well after he was born. So now are you changing positions and telling me that an "unelect" individual can accept God?

I don't think you're really understanding the argument, Billy.

Arminians believe that God knows whether or not we will choose him, but they most definitely believe that the choice is given to us.

You are thinking in linear terms of time and space. God doesn't dwell in time and space. He is outside of it, in an ever present NOW. For Him, there is not past or future, just now. It's something we humans don't really comprehend.

The whole point is that from an Arminian view we DO have the ability to freely choose God or not. He KNOWS which decision we will make.

From a Calvinist point of view, man is so totally depraved he CANNOT choose God. God actually does the choosing and decides who will come to him and by default, who will not. In other words, he doesn't just KNOW...he also does the choosing.

How you are scrabbling those two vastly different points is beyond me.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I don't think you're really understanding the argument, Billy.

I don't think you understand that both positions can be seen by others as not having a real choice. This goes for both the Arminian and the Calvinist position and that is the exact reason why some LDS scholars are now saying that God is not omniscient.

Originally Posted by Libby

Arminians believe that God knows whether or not we will choose him, but they most definitely believe that the choice is given to us.

How can a person have a real choice if that choice is set in stone BEFORE that person is even born.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

From a Calvinist point of view, man is so totally depraved he CANNOT choose God.

From a Reformed point of view, which is consistent with the Bible, all mankind makes a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for their choices. To the person making the choice it is a real choice based on exactly what he or she wanted. But equally true is that those who are not elect will not choose to follow Christ.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Libby where in the Bible does it say that the basis for God electing certain individuals is based on God looking forward in time and seeing their faith? (BTW Romans 8 never makes this claim).

Bump for Libby

[Billyray]

http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu//pub...226456-8-2.pdf

'. . .Suppose that God has always believed that I will rob a 7–Eleven at a certain time t. My refraining from robbing the 7–Eleven at time t certainly entails that God has not always believed that I will rob at t. Because God has always believed that I will rob the 7–Eleven at t, I cannot have the power to refrain from robbing, since this power would entail power to change God’s past beliefs. No person has the power to alter the past. Yet to be free with respect to whether I rob, I must have power to refrain from robbing the 7–Eleven at t. It follows that either God does not have foreknowledge or I am not free. . ."

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I don't think you understand that both positions can be seen by others as not having a real choice. This goes for both the Arminian and the Calvinist position and that is the exact reason why some LDS scholars are now saying that God is not omniscient.

How can a person have a real choice if that choice is set in stone BEFORE that person is even born.

Because it isn't set in stone. God doesn't dwell in "time". That's a very important aspect of this discussion.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray
Libby where in the Bible does it say that the basis for God electing certain individuals is based on God looking forward in time and seeing their faith? (BTW Romans 8 never makes this claim).

I think it is implied all throughout the Bible, starting with Genesis and Adam & Eve. They had the ability to disobey, even way back then. If we didn't have free will, we would have never gotten into the situation we're in now.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Because it isn't set in stone. God doesn't dwell in "time". That's a very important aspect of this discussion.

Sure it is set in stone Libby. If God is all knowing and he knows exactly what you will do before you are even born then your entire life is planned out for every detail of your life. Certainly someone live yourself could say that you really don't have any choices.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I think it is implied all throughout the Bible, starting with Genesis and Adam & Eve. They had the ability to disobey, even way back then. If we didn't have free will, we would have never gotten into the situation we're in now.

You see you have no Biblical verses to support your position but if feels right to you so you ***ert it to be true.