Vance Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) In other words I believe God has created man in such a way that he has the ability to make real choices and yet not have these real choices diminish his sovereignty. How does this work? - God has not revealed how. Is it true? - I believe God has revealed it to be true.That is a statement that I can almost fully agree with. Perhaps if I reworded it.I believe that God does not infringe on the agency of man to chose how he will act/react. But the consequences of those actions can be said to be within God's sovereignty over His creations.In other words, men may choose to do evil. Say for example, men may choose to murder others. But the (eternal) punishment for those murders is beyond man's ability to affect. Edited July 25, 2012 by Vance
djholmess Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 My "first ascertain"???You mean my statement " Either we have it (agency) or we don't."?That is an "assumption"?Agency is just like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not. How is this an assumptionPlus we also have the issue of the law of witnesses. It requires TWO or more witnesses to establish doctrine (see Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1). You have only provide a single verse from Paul which you claim establishes your doctrine. And unfortunately for you, we have Peter who claims that Paul's witness can be easy to misunderstand.So, with that said, can you provide another witness besides PaulYes, it does seem that that is the situation. But I would like to see you provide a second witness. After all, we want this discussion to be Biblically compliantIf you have had a chance to read my most recent posts you may understand my answer to this now but to repeat. Your assumption is that agency is what you think it is. Your idea of total free agency is indeed contradictory to the idea of God being sovereign over all choices and actions. However, you so far have only assumed that your defination is right-you have not show any Biblical verses that define man's agency as totally free from any altering action on Gods behalf.With regard to the second thing I quoted I am a little surprised. Is it a common LDS view to think this rule of having two witnesses applies to scripture or is it just yours? (I have never heard anyone say anything like that before). Anyone what to weigh in with their understanding?
djholmess Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) ClarificationI want to make a clarifying point; one that I have made a couple of times in different posts but I get the feeling not everyone has read it.When Calvinists say that God is in total sovereign control over mans decisions this DOES NOT mean that God EVER forces anyone to make a decision/choice against their will. However this does mean that man never makes a choice that is against then 'hidden' will of God-against his eternal plan that he is working out in the world. Edited July 25, 2012 by djholmess
ERayR Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 If you have had a chance to read my most recent posts you may understand my answer to this now but to repeat. Your assumption is that agency is what you think it is. Your idea of total free agency is indeed contradictory to the idea of God being sovereign over all choices and actions. However, you so far have only assumed that your defination is right-you have not show any Biblical verses that define man's agency as totally free from any altering action on Gods behalf.I think you misunderstand . God has chosen to give man their agency.
djholmess Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 I think you misunderstand . God has chosen to give man their agency.Define your defination of agency?
JDave Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 djholmess,The main problem I see with your position is that if a person chooses to follow God that choice is actually a gift from God -- the person did not, in any real way, take an action that affected their salvation. However if a person chooses to not follow God, that choice is not a gift from God but rather the person is making a decision to reject that gift -- this 2nd person did, in a real way, take an action that affected their salvation (albeit adversely).I see a unresolvable contradiction that man is culpable for actions to reject God, but not responsible for actions to accept God. 3
KevinG Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 DJ I think you need to understand more about the LDS teaching of agency. (Note it is not "free")http://www.lds.org/study/topics/agency?lang=eng Here is a brief explanation with links to more detailed teachings: http://www.lds.org/study/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng
CASteinman Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 If you mean some fo the things God has revealed about how he wants his people to live e.g. 'do not commit murder' then in this sense yes, people resist Gods revealed will that man should not murder all the time.So then, God is not fully Sovereign over this matter.I wonder what other matters He might not fully control.
CASteinman Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 do not see them as contradictory but rather mysterious when it comes to exactly how they both work.Oh yeah. It is definitely a mystery. And in this case the mystery is highlighted by contradiction and paradox. Sort of makes it stand out like a sore thumb.
djholmess Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 djholmess,The main problem I see with your position is that if a person chooses to follow God that choice is actually a gift from God -- the person did not, in any real way, take an action that affected their salvation. However if a person chooses to not follow God, that choice is not a gift from God but rather the person is making a decision to reject that gift -- this 2nd person did, in a real way, take an action that affected their salvation (albeit adversely).I see a unresolvable contradiction that man is culpable for actions to reject God, but not responsible for actions to accept God.Why is this a contradiction? If (as I believe it is) the Biblical presentation of man is that in his natural fallen state he loves sin so much that it is morally impossible for him to chose God, how else can he ever chose God but by God granting him faith?
Vance Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) If you have had a chance to read my most recent posts you may understand my answer to this now but to repeat.I don't read every post in a thread. I read ALL of your responses to me and a few of the other posts. That is just the way it is. Your assumption is that agency is what you think it is.Perhaps you could communicate back to me what you think my "assumption" is. Your idea of total free agency is indeed contradictory to the idea of God being sovereign over all choices and actions.It is rather apparent that you are misunderstanding what I think agency is. Have you noticed that I say "agency" not "free agency" or "total free agency" in my posts? However, you so far have only assumed that your defination is right- . . .I am not convinced that you have correctly understood what my definition is. . . . you have not show any Biblical verses that define man's agency as totally free from any altering action on Gods behalf.Nor have I defined it as such. Therein lies the problem. With regard to the second thing I quoted I am a little surprised. Is it a common LDS view to think this rule of having two witnesses applies to scripture or is it just yours?It is not just mine. Read the verses that I provided. It is a BIBLICAL principle. (I have never heard anyone say anything like that before). Anyone what to weigh in with their understanding?Well, in addition to the verses I provided you could also check out these verses.John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.Can I take it that Paul is your only "witness"? Edited July 25, 2012 by Vance
Vance Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Why is this a contradiction?Basically, you seem to be claiming that men/man is incapable of "choosing" good, but can only "choose" evil. This seems contradictory to reason and scripture. If (as I believe it is) the Biblical presentation of man is that in his natural fallen state he loves sin so much that it is morally impossible for him to chose God, how else can he ever chose God but by God granting him faith?So, you seem to be saying that men/man can only "choose" evil, that "choosing" good is outside of his purview.If evil is the only option available, what kind of "choice"/agency is really available?Could you provide some verses that clearly and plainly show that evil is the only "choice" available? Edited July 25, 2012 by Vance
Vance Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) These verses seem to contradict your position.Proverbs 1:24 ¶ Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; 25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; 27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. 28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: 29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord: 30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. 31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. 32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. 33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.So, the Lord condemns them for not choosing something that was unavailable to them?That doesn't sound very just. Edited July 25, 2012 by Vance
wenglund Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) When Calvinists say that God is in total sovereign control over mans decisions this DOES NOT mean that God EVER forces anyone to make a decision/choice against their will. However this does mean that man never makes a choice that is against the 'hidden' will of God-against his eternal plan that he is working out in the world.I mostly agree.To my mind, by virtue of our finite natures there can't be "total agency" because we are unavoidably limited by how few choices, the type of choices, and the consequence available to us. As mortals, we don't have the agency to choose to literally defy the laws of physics nor do we get to choose to become godly through doing evil or nothing. If a person decides against getting a college education, to an extent that precludes him from pursuing certain careers. By our choosing to go north, that precludes us from also heading south. I don't have the choice of using my bare arm to throw a baseball at the speed of light nor can I choose to memorize and recall all the books in the library, or to dialogue at this moment with my deceased father, etc., etc.To some extent, God has the power over these limitations and may manipulate them in a way that impacts (limits or expands) our agency and the choices we make--not unlike when a parent impacts the agency of a child by limiting the choices offered to the child (you can either do your homework now or do the dishes, which do you choose?)However, I believe that while God has the power to impose his will and limit our agency, that for the most part he chooses to limit such overt impositions to exceptional cases and for his purpose on a macro rather than I micro level.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund 1
JDave Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Why is this a contradiction? If (as I believe it is) the Biblical presentation of man is that in his natural fallen state he loves sin so much that it is morally impossible for him to chose God, how else can he ever chose God but by God granting him faith?I like Vance's answer.I would also point out that LDS don't have any problem with God granting faith and grace. If you want to say that no good action is possible without God providing some basis for good action, that is reasonable. But unless mankind is capable and responsible for their reaction to that grace, whether it is to accept it or reject it, it remains an unresolved contradiction. It is by grace we are saved, but we are responsible for taking action to proactively accept that grace. We should expect God to move within us, and we love God because He first loved us. This is all true and beautiful. I find it hard to reconcile with my own experience that my decision to believe in God and follow Him was thrust upon me without me able to make a real choice in the matter that affected my salvation. 2
Calm Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) In other words I believe God has created man in such a way that he has the ability to make real choices and yet not have these real choices diminish his sovereignty. How does this work? - God has not revealed how. Is it true? - I believe God has revealed it to be true. LDS would see it working by God's allowing man to have his agency without God imposing his Will upon man for that choice as not diminishing God's sovereignty because it is God's Will not to impose his Will. God teaches us His Will, but does not turn our will into his, instead we are the ones who lay our will at his feet and ask him to let our wills become his.He could do it without us asking, but does not so that man can have a full expression of his own will (or as full as it can be given the limitations that Wade talked about). God's Plan is not about having a certain set of actions and reactions occurring at certain times and places over the eons culminating in the Final Judgment. God's Plan is for the purpose of bringing to past the eternal life and immortality of mankind, add into that God's concept for man: "Man is that he might have joy" and there is no way that men through exercising their agency can frustrate God's plan, rather that exercise of moral agency, of accountability, of making choices of what brings us happiness and what does not, that is an ultimate necessity of God's Plan, a Plan He wills to exist by putting aside his Will just as Christ did and letting men dictate for themselves what they want while he teaches them what those choices will bring for them and then provides the gifts they will accept from him.Which brings God more glory---men turning to him freely out of love that was created in their hearts by their recognition of all that God has done for them and will do for them or men turning to God in love because God has placed that love in their hearts and they cannot resist it, could not hate him even if they tried? In my view the first relationship glorifies God much, much more as it shows how much he is willing to give us, even his suffering at our hands, in order that we may have much, much more to share with him when we are ready and prepared through his labouring with us in love and justice and mercy. Edited July 25, 2012 by calmoriah 1
djholmess Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 So then, God is not fully Sovereign over this matter.I wonder what other matters He might not fully control.Again you misunderstand what a Calvinist talks about when he talks about the sovereignity of God. Whilst man can resist Gods revealed will they cannot resist His eternal decree whereby he has already determined everything that will ever happen- even the choices that men make to resist his revealed will.
djholmess Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 It is not just mine. Read the verses that I provided. It is a BIBLICAL principle.Well, in addition to the verses I provided you could also check out these verses.John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.Can I take it that Paul is your only "witness"?None of these verses comes even close to addressing the topic of understanding teachings from SCRIPTURE. They are addressing men giving testimony to other men. You are taking them WAY out of context.Can you quote me or link me to anyone who has ever understood these verses to be talking about the nessecary of having two different authors of Scripture teach the same thing before it is acceptable?
CASteinman Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Again you misunderstand what a Calvinist talks about when he talks about the sovereignity of God. Whilst man can resist Gods revealed will they cannot resist His eternal decree whereby he has already determined everything that will ever happen- even the choices that men make to resist his revealed will.So they can resist but they can't resist. That is what is called a contradiction.
Calm Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Whilst man can resist Gods revealed will they cannot resist His eternal decree whereby he has already determined everything that will ever happen- even the choices that men make to resist his revealed will.So men are self moving chess pieces on God's game board, so to speak? A game he mapped out how it would play before he started playing it?
ERayR Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Define your defination of agency?the ability to act for ones self interest.
KevinG Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Wasn't this thread once about the Latter-day Saints understanding of Grace and Works (note I refuse to use the term versus)? I am less concerned about the Saints comprehending fully the view of a Calvanist than I am concerned about how critics like to play word games with the Saints to claim they don't believe in the grace of Christ. 1
ERayR Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 However I do not define free will in those terms and so do not see them as contradictory but rather mysterious when it comes to exactly how they both work.The old mysteries thing riding to the rescue.
ERayR Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 So they can resist but they can't resist. That is what is called a contradiction.Would that be the irresistible vs. immovable conundrum?
Recommended Posts