[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You two are talking about different aspects of “God’s will”. Fletch is talking about God’s secret, providential, decreeing, governing will as us reformers would call it. That is to say God’s will in the maintenance of creation and the unfolding of history, especially in the lives of human beings.
Christopher is talking about God’s revealed commanding will in relation to His moral law, as in, thou shalt or thou shalt not along with maybe His wish for how He would like someone’;s life to be lived. (Career, marriage, ministry etc)
Where people WILL NOT concede ignorance of finitude is where and when those two are not the same. Yes, that is absolutely the case. God decrees that which He forbids, once again, by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone.
If that is not the case then God’s governing will is CONTINGENT upon what he sees or even foresees in the wills of entities external to himself. In other words, autonomous man, who is, if this is were possible, actually MORE sovereign than God Himself who decides based on man. Unthinkable self exalted insolence. Not to mention that the only possible truly objective source of the pragmatic certainty under which every human being(and the rest of creation) is inextricably living, has just been sacrificed on the idolatrous altar of finite created man. Finite SINFUL created man. Nay, NAY a thousand times NAY!!!
[/quote]
This still doesn’t do it for me, Tirib. I can’t see how you can say that certain things occur, “by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone,” while you refuse to allow the equally comprehensible notion that God could just as easily decree that humans alone are given the opportunity to choose good or evil. Either notion is either paradoxical or, if not, ludicrous.
Indeed, I would say that, when taking the entire Bible and the biblical “story” as a whole, your version is a lot more pointy square to circle. Certainly this assumption of our lack of any will that is not God’s will did not exist in the first 1500 or so years of Christian thought.
Granted, I am NOT suggesting that God’s ultimate will can be thwarted. But that individual possession of human will IS part of that ultimate will.
Not that it’s your job to do so, but you still have not convinced me otherwise. [/quote]
I think Cortes hit the nail on the head - both the belief in two divine wills and the belief that God allows human beings a measure of freedom result in paradox. Arminians and Calvinists alike have to resort to EISegesis to account for these paradoxes - Arminians assume (without direct exegetical foundation) that the apostles would share their belief that “love must be free, or it isn’t love.” Calvinists likewise assume (without explicit exegetical warrant) that God’s sovereignty can only be maintained through a direct determination of everything, including all human choices. The Arminian position is not better simply because it jibes with our (potentially) limited sense of fairness; the Calvinist position is not better simply because of its pious-sounding defenses (“upholding the sovereignty of God!”). In the end, both views have to rely on certain assumptions about the meaning of words (namely, sovereignty and love), and both views are forced into paradox. The Arminian says, “we need to be free to love God, so God grants us freedom, yet somehow God remains in control.” The Calvinist says, “God needs to determine all events to be sovereign, so God determines individual salvation or damnation, yet despite the fact that (based on God’s own revelation of what constitutes ‘love’ in his Word) such determination SEEMs malevolent, God’s choice is somehow ultimately loving.” Thus, at a fundamental level, both views lack explanatory force.
