Free Will

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

FROM THE EPISTEMOLOGY THREAD:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< I don’t have the time or interest to get into a broader religious discussion, >>>[/quote]The key to EVERYTHING. Every discussion you have ever had or ever will, inded every thought you have or ever will think is grounded right here.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< but a few things I’d be interested in your answer on, as they relate to politics (and the application of the philosophy you are espousing). >>>[/quote]OK[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< 1. The Founding generation were a bunch of Calvinists. >>>[/quote]I would say the majority of the faithful Christians of the founding generation were a bunch of Calvinists. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< The nation (and by extension, the Constitution) was founded by these folks, and said Founding reflects (or should reflect) the philosophy/spirituality of these people. >>>[/quote]It did. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< The Catholic Church is evil, >>>[/quote]It is.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< and the followers of said Church are co-opted by this evil, false religion, etc. >>>[/quote]I think you mean damned. Not in every case as I have repeatedly stated. The God I know is THAT merciful. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< But the Constitution permits Catholics to practice their religion. The Constitution also permits a Catholic to serve as President. >>>[/quote]Yep. It also “permits” her own enemies like Barack Obama to serve as well if the citizenry were to elect them. They didn’t believe either would happen.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< So, the Founding “Calvinists” made a mistake in the Constitution they enacted, right? They must have? >>>[/quote]There are those who would say this. I don’t think I agree. I tend to believe that the Westminster divines overstepped their biblical grounds a bit here too. There is no direct prescription for civil government in the New Testament. The reformers were going to their flaming deaths tied to a Catholic stake and there was some ungodly response from the protestant side in the form of theological enforcement at the government level. This is not a dead simple issue and yours is a good question. One you asked me before, a long time ago. If the true church were to ever grow strong enough she would reproduce herself through the ranks of a freely elected representative republican government. We were the closest ever, but even at out very best the United States never achieved anything like that level of pervasive godliness.

Salvation cannot be legislated any more than personal morality can. Should heretical religious practice be illegal? That’s your real question. Yes, is the ultimate answer, but a nation wherein that could be biblically achieved would be one with the very least need already. Same with legislating sex and family.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< 2. If free-will doesn’t exist, and you say it does not, >>>[/quote]I said free will in the conventional autonomous sense assumed the world over does not exist. Man does have a free will. But not as free as God’s. Each man is absolutely free to choose precisely what God has absolutely decreed that he freely choose and I haven’t the first flickering clue how that works. The reason is because He’s God and I ain’t. I just know that’s what He says. Not one quark or neutrino in all the universe dare twitch in defiance of His ALL mighty ALL governing invincible will.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< then by extension, you would not support punishing someone who commits a crime. Is this true? If not, why not?[/quote]Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you are waaaay behind with this one. In the 10th chapter of Isaiah for instance God specifically states that the king of Assyria is NOT considering invading Israel. He says that HE will put it on the king’s heart to do as judgement upon Israel and when the king does it HE will severely punish the king for so doing and not glorifying God in the victory. As an example of the sovereign prerogative accorded to God alone.

Most people today think that the cross of Christ was to fix the fall of Adam. Absolutely false. The fall of Adam was decreed so there could be the glory of the cross of Christ. People have no idea who or what God is anymore, even in the pews of our churches. Men are responsible for both their sins against heaven and their crimes against earth and WILL be justly judged for the former and SHOULD be for the latter.

Maybe you’re a Catholic after all. I don’t remember all the details now, but there were a few things you said along the way that were not consistent with Rome which seemed to indicate to me that you weren’t though I could have misunderstood. You seem to be someone who would take church dogma seriously if you were. Could be wrong about that too.
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter three section 1:
CHAPTER III.
Of God’s Eternal Decree.

[quote]I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[/quote]Yep, that’s what the bible most definitely says is the truth. Nope, I have no idea how. I DO however know that this and the God who is it’s author, alone provide an epistemological foundation for 2+2 in fact equaling 4.

362

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The key to EVERYTHING. Every discussion you have ever had or ever will, inded every thought you have or ever will think is grounded right here.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.

Who? The Founding Fathers? They didn’t believe what would happen - that a non-Calvinist might get elected to office, even though they ratified a Constitution that expressly says no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States…?

Despite the fact that this clause was enacted as a colonial response to the Test Acts, which did, in fact, exclude Catholics?

Don’t simply argue what you want to be the case - back it up. Calvinist revisionism won’t do.

Good, then answer it directly - why would this solid bloc of Calvinist Founders permit a mechanism by which evil and heretical people (and by extension, the Church itself) would rule over Calvinists?

They can draft any Constitution they like, and you’ve said they were driven by Calvinist theology and principles (and no other). Well, why would a Calvinist nation erect a government that permitted someone to wield power over them that was unquestionably evil?

George Washington - whom all the electors unanimously voted as the first President - wasn’t a Calvisnist. John Adams - the runner-up to Washington, and the next President - was no Calvisnist and even spoke critically of Calvinists in letters. Thomas Jefferson was no Calvinist.

So, from the outset, your theory - “the Founding generation, being a bunch of Calvinists, didn’t ‘believe the nation would elect’ non-Calvinists” - is refuted by the elections of the first three presidents. These so-called “Calvinist” Founders elected non-Calvinist presidents.

Your story doesn’t add up.

A restriction on Catholics being in government is not “legislating salvation”, so this is a non-sequitur. A restriction of Catholics would simply be a common sense restriction, like an age provision, to protect a Calvinist nation from being dictated to by an evil Church through the authority of government.

But the so-called “Calvinist” Founders didn’t do any of that, in clear violation of their own principles.

So, what is your explanation?

Setting aside the incoherence of some of this, should the Constitution restrict the religious practices of Catholics? Would you be for a constitutional amendment making illegal Catholic religious practices? Yes or no?

Non-responsive answer. I am not interested in boilerplate evasion - just answer the question.

[quote]Most people today think that the cross of Christ was to fix the fall of Adam. Absolutely false. The fall of Adam was decreed so there could be the glory of the cross of Christ. People have no idea who or what God is anymore, even in the pews of our churches. Men are responsible for both their sins against heaven and their crimes against earth and WILL be justly judged for the former and SHOULD be for the latter.[/quote][

See, here is the problem - you just talk about what you want to talk about. I ask why, if free will doesn’t exist, a person should be criminally punished. Just answer it.

You simply want to preach some issue you have discovered or think is interesting and avoid the issues raised. Well, try it on someone else. You wanted a debate, you got one. Now debate.

I’m not Catholic, but this is irrelevant for purposes of the questions I posed to you.

I don’t care about the Westminster Confession, I don’t care about the “2+2=4” bromide. I care about how you back the claims you’ve made. You haven’t. You’ve just responded with boilerplate proselytization.

363

Well, prohibitions against Catholicism did exist for a time. Sort of off, on, off at times. Fortunately for us, things changed and we even managed to sign the Declaration, Articles, and the Constitution. The Carrols, and Fitzsimmons, represented.

Edit: Just a bit of trivia. As for the topic, I know I have free will because I don’t receive a bill for it.

364

Prescriptions for civil government are not found in the New Testament as I said. They are therefore not dogmatically binding as long as they fall into guidelines of biblical social norms generally. Theological mandate by political enforcement has never been advanced by me as a goal. Nor has it been declared by me as part of the founding intent of this nation.

That there were a large percentage of Calvinists among those living at the time is not debatable. That the forty four members of the first convention publicly identified themselves with reformed communions is also not debatable. What IS debatable is their actual conversion. I suspect some were and some weren’t. The point is my belief system was completely mainstream to them and the social consequences of “divine providence” were counted on for the health of this society going forward though the government was not itself “calvinistic”. There’s no such thing really. Having a born again president, while ideal, is not necessary in a society immersed in Christian values and abounding in men under their influence and willing to uphold them at least publicly, converted or not, as that one was. That’s why I told Mufasa that my not liking Romney as a politician was NOT related to his Mormonism.

No, I would not favor making Catholicism illegal in America. Could there be a nation, or a world where the preponderance of the citizens were true Christians and agreed that the law of the gospel was the law of the land? Of course. That would be the ideal society in my view, but it would be the effect of the move of God. Not the cause of that ideal society.

You are completely missing the role of epistemology in your life. What I told you about the cross and the fall IS my answer on free will and punishment AND is directly related to epistemology. So was the quote from the confession. No, there is no such thing as any will but God’s that is ultimately free. Yes, people should be punished for their crimes. Yes, that and only that makes sense. IF I can get you to discuss foundational thought with us? You might see that. “no it isn’t” is no answer either.

The 2+2-4 bromide is at the heart of every word you just typed. That’s the debate I was looking for with you. You have swatted it away as an inconsequential aside. It IS the key to absolutely everything as this latest offering of yours loudly attests. I urge you to reconsider. Also, you’re the one taking the hostile stance here. My respect for your most ample abilities is what motivates me to want to engage you. The history thing is a good strategy on your part btw.

This was supposed to be short for now (that’s why no point by point editing). I have to be somewhere.

365

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< I know I have free will because I don’t receive a bill for it.[/quote]TA DUM CCCSHHHH!!(cymbal sound of some kind) Very cute lol.

366

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[text] [/quote]

I had a feeling that a debate on these issues would be a waste, and I was right. You’re not interested in addressing the issues raised. Instead of answers, you provide verbose deflections of the issues to be addressed.

Case in point? I raised questions related to Calvinism and the Founding, etc. in your “epistemology” thread. You supplied an answer in this thread, so as to not have the “epistemology” thread distracted by other topics (which is fine). I start trying to get answers to clear inconsistencies in some of your claims, and you start providing me with non-responsive tracts of boilerplate preaching and then start referring to “epistemology” as the answer. Well, I thought that is why we changed threads? To discuss something different?

So, here I am trying to find out why the “Calvinist” Founders permitted themselves to be ruled by an evil Church - which makes zero sense, as you have described it - and the answer I get is “epistemology is the key to EVERYTHING!!!”.

I get it - you have a newfound obsession, and you don’t want to talk about anything but this obsession, which you think provides a ready-made counter-argument to everything. This reminds me of when Lifticus discovered “all the answers” in anarchism, and no matter what the thread or the topic, he tried to divert the discussion into his new favorite thing to talk about, regardless of its relevance.

As for me, I’m not interested in being converted. Either a person can discuss theology, etc. in the context of politics, or they can’t. Based on your responses, you appear to fall into the latter.

367

But I answered your questions. Nobody was going to rule anybody no matter who was elected back then. The form of government didn’t allow it There wasn’t a Catholic president until JFK anyway, if he even counts. I have said repeatedly that I would vote for Alan Keyes, a Catholic, in a heartbeat. I will vote for Mitt Romney, if forced as well. The church of England (Anglican) was very Calvinistic back then. The 39 articles and the book of common prayer still are though not taken seriously any more. Theologically speaking there was much agreement there. The colonists did not like the church forcing adherence on the citizens of England though and thus did not make religious affiliation a litmus test here either.

That doesn’t mean that that system of thought was not very prevalent and highly influential in society. Are you denying that? What is it that you asked that I did not answer? The whole first half of my post was about how my beliefs work out in government. Like you asked. I would never ignore you, but I do have to work legs and do some other stuff for a while. I might even watch a hockey game tonight. Seen 2 periods all year of my beloved Red Wings.

368
369

And little brother Forbes links to the website of the man most used by the Lord on this earth to convince me both of the doctrines of grace AND Van Til’s epistemology. I first heard in my life of Dr. Van Til from Jim White. Who was not Dr. White yet then. It was his prompting that got me to read Calvin’s institutes the first time too.