Reprobates

[KulturedKaveman]

Here’s a good resource to understand the reprobate and predestination:



As he puts it - “you’re writing your story in the book of life, just God knows what you’re going to put in there.”

The criticism I always get is “then why wouldn’t a loving God stop you?” Exactly - loving. To love what the almighty loves and shun what he shuns it has to be voluntary. Forcing someone to do your will isn't love. It’s slavery. God doesn’t need slaves, he made the heavens and earth and all things seen and unseen through his word. He doesn’t need us.

On top of that the reprobate implies monergism which slams into the the council of Chalcedon. I know predestination, single or double, makes everything make sense but are you going to go with angry French lawyer or the 4th Ecumenical Council?

The Jay Dyer (orthodox) vs Redeemed Zoomer (Calvinist) debate is another good resource.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

On top of that the reprobate implies monergism which slams into the the council of Chalcedon. I know predestination, single or double, makes everything make sense but are you going to go with angry French lawyer or the 4th Ecumenical Council?

The Jay Dyer (orthodox) vs Redeemed Zoomer (Calvinist) debate is another good resource.

The fact that Dyer thinks monergism is the same thing as mono-energism reveals that's he's a grifter who's bluffing his way through it as he goes along.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

The fact that Dyer thinks monergism is the same thing as mono-energism reveals that's he's a grifter who's bluffing his way through it as he goes along.

assuming you’ve seen it?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

assuming you’ve seen it?

Yeah, I watched it. That's the same video where he equivocates monergism with mono-energism. He also tried to argue that desire, of any kind, in itself is sinful. RZ is a good guy but didn't know what he was getting into. Dyer comes up with it so much as he goes a long that even his discord bots don't know what he's talking about.

Forcing someone to do your will isn't love. It’s slavery. God doesn’t need slaves, he made the heavens and earth and all things seen and unseen through his word.

As much as I hear this argument, I've never seen it in Scripture anywhere. Why is God not allowed to change our hearts so that we desire Him instead of sin (which is a promise of the New Covenant)? The fact is the saints are referred to as God's slaves, both in the Old and New Testaments. That word "slave" doesn't appeal to our 21st century, western palate but it is Scriptural.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

Yeah, I watched it. That's the same video where he equivocates monergism with mono-energism. He also tried to argue that desire, of any kind, in itself is sinful. RZ is a good guy but didn't know what he was getting into. Dyer comes up with it so much as he goes a long that even his discord bots don't know what he's talking about.


As much as I hear this argument, I've never seen it in Scripture anywhere. Why is God not allowed to change our hearts so that we desire Him instead of sin (which is a promise of the New Covenant)? The fact is the saints are referred to as God's slaves, both in the Old and New Testaments. That word "slave" doesn't appeal to our 21st century, western palate but it is Scriptural.

Slavery worked a bit different back then. The word was “servus.” Slave comes from a collection of Eastern European ethnic groups that like the sauce.

A servus could be a guy or gal in chains in a mine, galley, gladiator school, field etc. there were also voluntary slaves / bondsmen. Half the Empire at the time the gospels were written were slaves.

A good chunk, possibly half the slaves, were there of their own accord. You see they didn’t have banking in the classical era. That doesn’t come till the Middle Ages. You didn’t go and qualify for a mortgage or boat loan. You would make a covenant with a wealthy land owner or trader. The idea was if you served him for 25 years (most common) as a “servus” you would get your land or boat. It was basically a more draconian form of employment for many. However the other half of slaves were chattel slaves. The Romans distinguished between the two but we don’t today.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Slavery worked a bit different back then. The word was “servus.” Slave comes from a collection of Eastern European ethnic groups that like the sauce.

A servus could be a guy or gal in chains in a mine, galley, gladiator school, field etc. there were also voluntary slaves / bondsmen. Half the Empire at the time the gospels were written were slaves.

A good chunk, possibly half the slaves, were there of their own accord. You see they didn’t have banking in the classical era. That doesn’t come till the Middle Ages. You didn’t go and qualify for a mortgage or boat loan. You would make a covenant with a wealthy land owner or trader. The idea was if you served him for 25 years (most common) as a “servus” you would get your land or boat. It was basically a more draconian form of employment for many. However the other half of slaves were chattel slaves. The Romans distinguished between the two but we don’t today.

Sure, the real word behind slave is duolos, but the underlying meaning can be as you described, either a bondservant or chattel slave. Nevertheless, man is a slave. He is not free to do as he wills. He cannot do good when he is evil (Jeremiah 13:23). He cannot submit himself to the Law of God (Romans 8:7). He cannot come to the Son unless it be granted to him by the Father (John 6:44). He must be set free from his slavery to sin.

You've said it yourself: reprobation implies monergism. Well, the Bible teaches reprobation, so what is implied? But you say it can't be true. Why not? Because according to Jay Dyer, it goes against the Council of Chalcedon, despite the fact that what Chalcedon condemned was mono-energism, which is totally different from monergism.

There is no dichotomy between Calvin and Chalcedon. I will call out "Protestants" who try to pin election and reprobation on Calvin, despite the fact that Luther preached both and had at least three times as much to say on the topic than Calvin did. Even in his time, Calvin wasn't known for his views on predestination, those were something all the Reformers held in common, he was known for his views on the sacraments.

 

[fortyfive]

Sovereignty of God:
God will not, man cannot.

Autonomy of Man:
Man will not, God cannot.

The Scriptures describe God as being autonomous and sovereign over His creation, which includes us. We do not allow God to do anything. If you're holding onto the unbiblical notion of man's autonomy, it will cause you to filter out all the Scriptures that say "man cannot believe" and reinterpret them as "man will not believe." Now both of those statements are true, but the first too often gets tossed out in favor of the latter because it doesn't appeal to human sense. Man cannot and will not believe without the Grace of God.

Not does God ever learn anything about us. He knows everything we would do when He created us. He doesn't need to "look down the corridors of time" to find out if we were going to be more righteous than the next person. He is the potter, we are the clay.

In the Bible, we can see that God regrets creating man, making Saul king, and other instances, where He waited for human decisions or God Himself changed His mind due to circumstances.

Does it mean then, that God is not so omnipotent or omniscient? Absolutely not. He is everything He said about Himself.

Then, does it mean, God knew these things but pretended He did not know and then He pretended to regret them? Absurd idea.

Then what? I believe the answer is the third option and that is the existence of free will.
God created us, and heavenly beings with limited, but still free will.

The fact, that we humans screw everything is actually a confirmation of it. We must have the freedom to act crazy, otherwise, we wouldn't.
The programmed robot cannot act outside of the program.

We were made in His own image, and He possesses free will.

If you could create your child, would you make a robot who would act strictly predictably his whole life, or a living being with a unique unpredictable personality and risk that things could turn out differently than planned?

Giving us free will doesn't stripe God of His omnipotence. He made us this way intentionally, in His wisdom and that means it is the best design.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

In the Bible, we can see that God regrets creating man, making Saul king, and other instances, where He waited for human decisions or God Himself changed His mind due to circumstances.

Does it mean then, that God is not so omnipotent or omniscient? Absolutely not. He is everything He said about Himself.

Are you an open theist? Because the doctrine of immutability is standard fare for orthodox Christianity, God does not change. He does not regret in the same sense that you and I regret, He doesn't make mistakes. Even in 1 Samuel 15, God is said to not be like a man that He should regret or lie, after He removes the kingdom from Saul. God is not omniscient in open theism. If He learns things, then He doesn't know everything by definition. His prophecies of the future are relegated into guesses.

Then, does it mean, God knew these things but pretended He did not know and then He pretended to regret them? Absurd idea.

There's a better alternative: to recognize it as analogical language. God transcends His creation, and thus, is beyond our understanding. This analogical language is given for our benefit so that we may understand God. You run into this issue with the Trinity. The Trinity is absolutely unique, there is nothing else like it, so any analogy used to describe it will fall apart and lead you into heresy if taken too far.

Then what? I believe the answer is the third option and that is the existence of free will.
God created us, and heavenly beings with limited, but still free will.

What is the will free to do? Is it free from sin? Is it free to falsify God's foreknowledge? Is it free to submit itself to the Law of God? You say the will is limited, but still free. Which is it? Or is it free in the areas where it is given freedom but limited where the Bible says it is limited?

The fact, that we humans screw everything is actually a confirmation of it. We must have the freedom to act crazy, otherwise, we wouldn't.
The programmed robot cannot act outside of the program.

Jesus describes our ability to sin as slavery, not freedom. I acknowledge that when you sin you are doing so out of your own will. I do not grant that you can will to do good without God, for there is no good apart from God.

We were made in His own image, and He possesses free will.

Being made in His image does not mean we possess all of His infinite qualities. God, as the Sovereign, is free to do as He pleases, and He does do as He pleases. We have a will, but we are not autonomous. We have knowledge, but we are not omniscient. We have energy, but we are not omnipotent. On top of that, we are fallen. We are born outside of Eden, as it were. We need to be conformed to the image of His Son.

If you could create your child, would you make a robot who would act strictly predictably his whole life, or a living being with a unique unpredictable personality and risk that things could turn out differently than planned?

Notice how you are starting with what man would do. God did not create us to learn anything about us, He is glorifying Himself in His creation.
Moreover, even if libertarian free will were true, salvation still would not depend on the will of man, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16).

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[fortyfive]

Are you an open theist? Because the doctrine of immutability is standard fare for orthodox Christianity, God does not change. He does not regret in the same sense that you and I regret, He doesn't make mistakes. Even in 1 Samuel 15, God is said to not be like a man that He should regret or lie, after He removes the kingdom from Saul. God is not omniscient in open theism. If He learns things, then He doesn't know everything by definition. His prophecies of the future are relegated into guesses.


There's a better alternative: to recognize it as analogical language. God transcends His creation, and thus, is beyond our understanding. This analogical language is given for our benefit so that we may understand God. You run into this issue with the Trinity. The Trinity is absolutely unique, there is nothing else like it, so any analogy used to describe it will fall apart and lead you into heresy if taken too far.


What is the will free to do? Is it free from sin? Is it free to falsify God's foreknowledge? Is it free to submit itself to the Law of God? You say the will is limited, but still free. Which is it? Or is it free in the areas where it is given freedom but limited where the Bible says it is limited?


Jesus describes our ability to sin as slavery, not freedom. I acknowledge that when you sin you are doing so out of your own will. I do not grant that you can will to do good without God, for there is no good apart from God.


Being made in His image does not mean we possess all of His infinite qualities. God, as the Sovereign, is free to do as He pleases, and He does do as He pleases. We have a will, but we are not autonomous. We have knowledge, but we are not omniscient. We have energy, but we are not omnipotent. On top of that, we are fallen. We are born outside of Eden, as it were. We need to be conformed to the image of His Son.


Notice how you are starting with what man would do. God did not create us to learn anything about us, He is glorifying Himself in His creation.
Moreover, even if libertarian free will were true, salvation still would not depend on the will of man, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16).

You know probably as well as I do the fact, that anyone can extract any single verse from the Bible and use it for supporting his view.
Whole denominations are based on their specific understanding and belief of parts of the Bible.
If I make an effort, I will find verses that will contradict everything you said and support everything I said.
That's the core of every endless religious debate.

But I'm not interested in this, because, I'm not defending any denominational doctrine or my personal view.
My understanding is, that I know almost nothing about God and my earthly fellows are equally clueless.
We are just a bunch of kindergarten kids pridefully boasting that we figured it out.

Our only luck is, that God is good, otherwise we would be screwed beyond hope.

Then, frankly, I don't have answers to your arguments because I'm not even sure about mine.

What I believe is this: God made His Word plain and simple for me to understand it and benefit from it, and there is a chance that when I start digging deeper, then my tiny brain will be rewarded with a little more understanding of a bigger picture, but overall I will remain ignorant of most things.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What I believe is this: God made His Word plain and simple for me to understand it and benefit from it, and there is a chance that when I start digging deeper, then my tiny brain will be rewarded with a little more understanding of a bigger picture, but overall I will remain ignorant of most things.

I agree that the Bible is plain and simple to understand. That's why I reject libertarian free will. It's a humanistic, extra-Biblical concept that confounds the Scriptures.

Moreover, the championing of free will is a satanic endeavor. The Satanist motto: do as thou wilt.

The reason that the "free will" strands of Christianity inevitably liberalize and give in to the culture is because they make all the same assumptions about human nature that Satanists, atheists, and hedonists do.

 

[Wutang]

I agree that the Bible is plain and simple to understand. That's why I reject libertarian free will. It's a humanistic, extra-Biblical concept that confounds the Scriptures.

Moreover, the championing of free will is a satanic endeavor. The Satanist motto: do as thou wilt.

The reason that the "free will" strands of Christianity inevitably liberalize and give in to the culture is because they make all the same assumptions about human nature that Satanists, atheists, and hedonists do.

From what I see it's usually atheistic materialists that speak against free will. If you believe everything is just atoms bumping into each other and that neurons in your brain are just a more complex version of that then it's difficult to square any sort of free will into it. Atheistic intellectuals have always been attracted to the idea but in modern times it's Sam Harris that's really done a lot of propagate this viewpoint with the general public. He went on a big campaign back about a decade ago to try and disprove free-will and lots of New Atheist types followed suit.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

From what I see it's usually atheistic materialists that speak against free will. If you believe everything is just atoms bumping into each other and that neurons in your brain are just a more complex version of that then it's difficult to square any sort of free will into it. Atheistic intellectuals have always been attracted to the idea but in modern times it's Sam Harris that's really done a lot of propagate this viewpoint with the general public. He went on a big campaign back about a decade ago to try and disprove free-will and lots of New Atheist types followed suit.

Go tell an atheist that he doesn't have the freedom to act against God's Providence and report back on the response you get. Even people who call themselves Christians can't accept this Biblical truth, how much less an atheist?

Atheistic determinism is rooted in their observation of natural law. The problem for them is that because they deny God, they are ultimately the ones who have to assign meaning to the universe, they become God.


Here is a video that compares the differences in the Christian approach. Knowledgeable atheists recognize that free will, human autonomy, is the greatest evidence against God. Should they become determinists when they observe that the universe itself is deterministic, they are left with the question: who determined the universe? The answer, of course, is God.

I would recommend watching the full debate between White and Silverman. It's one of the greatest I've seen.


This tag-team debate is also worth your time.

 

[Wutang]

What I think an atheist would say would be that they don't have freedom to act against their own pre-determined minds. My impression from reading a lot of these atheist materialist types is that they do believe in "Providence" (though they would never use that word and be aghast at anyone who would) but instead of thinking that God is in behind it they would say it's a careless, non-sentiment deterministic universe that is causing their every thought and action. Now I think a lot of these people are pretty inconsistent when it comes to drawing out the consequences of such a world view and that they don't behave in a way that is consistent with what they say they believe, but that does seem to be an accurate description of what they think about how the universe functions.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What I think an atheist would say would be that they don't have freedom to act against their own pre-determined minds.

Or in other words, people can't act against their own nature. Very true.

My impression from reading a lot of these atheist materialist types is that they do believe in "Providence" (though they would never use that word and be aghast at anyone who would) but instead of thinking that God is in behind it they would say it's a careless, non-sentiment deterministic universe that is causing their every thought and action.

And there is the inconsistency. They themselves are part of the deterministic universe, but since there is no Sovereign God to hold them accountable, they rise up to take His place.

Now I think a lot of these people are pretty inconsistent when it comes to drawing out the consequences of such a world view and that they don't behave in a way that is consistent with what they say they believe, but that does seem to be an accurate description of what they think about how the universe functions.

At it's core, the materialist worldview is chaotic. There is no purpose that holds it together. If there is no greater purpose, then it's up to you to create purpose.

This is why I draw the distinction between God's Sovereignty and Man's Autonomy. You either worship the one true God or you are an idolater, there is no in-between. It is better to serve in heaven than to rule in hell.

 

[fortyfive]

I agree that the Bible is plain and simple to understand. That's why I reject libertarian free will. It's a humanistic, extra-Biblical concept that confounds the Scriptures.

Moreover, the championing of free will is a satanic endeavor. The Satanist motto: do as thou wilt.

The reason that the "free will" strands of Christianity inevitably liberalize and give in to the culture is because they make all the same assumptions about human nature that Satanists, atheists, and hedonists do.

Then your view is that everything is predestined to the smallest detail and our choices are actually not ours, therefore no free will whatsoever?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Then your view is that everything is predestined to the smallest detail and our choices are actually not ours, therefore no free will whatsoever?

No. I believe that you exercise your will everyday, but I recognize that there are certain parameters on your will that are not within your capability to transcend. For example, by the power of your will you cannot stop sinning. Nor by the power of your will can you do things that are pleasing to God. Your will does not transcend your nature. We need a new nature, we need to be born again. And after having been born again, we are free to do those things that are pleasing to God.

 

[fortyfive]

No. I believe that you exercise your will everyday, but I recognize that there are certain parameters on your will that are not within your capability to transcend. For example, by the power of your will you cannot stop sinning. Nor by the power of your will can you do things that are pleasing to God. Your will does not transcend your nature. We need a new nature, we need to be born again. And after having been born again, we are free to do those things that are pleasing to God.

But here you are talking about two distinct things. One is the sole existence of free will (we can make choices) and the other is the capacity of our will, which is very limited. I have the same view on both.

I think we are like kids on the playground with their father watching them.
He gives his kids certain autonomy, they can play as they want in a designated place, and he knows to a large extent what kids will do on the playground. But he has the authority and ability to change time, place, and everything else.
But he lets kids play because he loves them. And when they return love to him too, he knows it is sincere from their will, not because he was programming them to do it.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

But here you are talking about two distinct things. One is the sole existence of free will (we can make choices) and the other is the capacity of our will, which is very limited. I have the same view on both.

We haven't taken the time to define our terms so it causes us to talk past each other. What you call free will (we make choices), I accept. You also seem to accept that free will is very limited, and I accept that as well. I don't use the term "free" because it implies autonomy on man's part, which is untenable. So God does not need to program us to sin, we sin willfully. He does need to "change our programming" if we are to willfully do what is good. Thus, the New Covenant, John 3, Ezekiel 36, etc.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

I think the most biblical take on this would be the story of Jonah. God calls Jonah to do a very specific task. Jonah b**ches out and tries to go live as a beach bum in what is modern day Spain. God however puts a whale in the way and gives Jonah some time to think about what he’s doing. He eventually does the right thing and goes to Nineveh and calls the Assyrians to penance. They hear him out and atone for their crimes.

God puts stumbling blocks in our life because he has middle knowledge. He knows every contingent outcome. For example, I’m starting to believe my own suffering was to prevent a Jewish Kaveman. He could’ve “irresistible graced” Jonah and and Jonah never would have gotten eaten by the whale. He also could’ve irresistible graced the Assyrians, but he didn’t. The point is God’s energies interact through humans. The concept of the reprobate, though it solves logical issues, removes the human from the equation. And I don’t believe this, but some say it’s a hop skip and a jump from removing the human, to denying the incarnation.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

God puts stumbling blocks in our life because he has middle knowledge. He knows every contingent outcome.

"Middle knowledge" = God knows everything that would happen depending on x contingency.

It's a huge downgrade from perfect foreknowledge, God knows everything that will happen, regardless of any contingency.

He could’ve “irresistible graced” Jonah and and Jonah never would have gotten eaten by the whale.

The whole story would've never happened if God respected Jonah's free will to not be a prophet. Him sending the whale is an example of His irresistible grace.