# How would you respond?



## Romans922 (Mar 22, 2007)

A Non-Christian said this, how would you respond to him in a loving, caring manner, giving the Biblical apologetic in response?
_

Here, in a nutshell, is the problem with the idea that God is in control of everything, or to blame for everything, or behind everything. Whatever phrase you want to use.

If this is so, it means that God has already chosen who will "choose" him and be saved, and those that will not "choose" him and go to hell. If, as in this situation, we do not have any control over our own outcome, then there can be no criterion by which to choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. This means that it has to be chosen arbitrarily. To use what I believe is Calvin's own imagery, God is holding everyone in his hands over the fires of hell and letting some slip through his fingers. The idea that God is arbitrary runs completely counter to the idea that God is entirely purposeful and deliberate. 

Free will is what gives life, and this world, purpose. Otherwise, we are just unknowing cogs in a machine, unknowing players in a twisted, cosmic, tragic comedy.

Determinism, or whatever phrase you prefer to use, makes God arbitrary and life meaningless. _


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 22, 2007)

Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law. 

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? 


1Cr 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 
1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 
1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 

Then I'd take him to Job 39 and 40 as well.



All you can do is respond with scripture. He is trying to reason like a philosopher about things that an unregenerate man can never know.


----------



## satz (Mar 22, 2007)

Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

I think that would be the biblical answer. How to present it in a loving manner is a tough one. Somethings are just hard to hear no matter how gracious we may attempt to be.


----------



## lv1nothr (Mar 22, 2007)

With scripture indeed...these verses came right to mind! 

Romans 9:14 - 23 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 

As I've heard my Pastor say: *HE is God and you are NOT*!!!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 22, 2007)

lv1nothr said:


> As I've heard my Pastor say: *HE is God and you are NOT*!!!



Kind of like a lyric from one of Alan Aguire's tunes,"God is right! And you're Wrong!"


----------



## Chris (Mar 22, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Free will is what gives life, and this world, purpose. Otherwise, we are just unknowing cogs in a machine, unknowing players in a twisted, cosmic, tragic comedy.
> 
> Determinism, or whatever phrase you prefer to use, makes God arbitrary and life meaningless. [/I]



The best response would be to utterly ignore his rant, present the Gospel to him, and expect him to either be converted or not. No need to chase rabbits on someone else's terms. 

God chose His elect based on a divine purpose - namely, to conform us to the image of His Son, and in doing so, to get great glory for Himself. Others He chose to justly condemn to Hell for their sin - and in doing so, to get great glory for Himself. 


God isn't letting some slip through His fingers, as your friend says. God is, instead, showing His great love and mercy by not letting ALL fall justly into Hell. 

Your friend, in a nutshell, has a heathen view of God. There is no need in arguing with him, and no fruit in trying to engage him in a meaningful way, as he is a natural man, incapable of understanding the things of God. What little he understand, he hates. 

Don't fall into the trap of feeling obligated to answer his every question. Instead, pray for him.


----------



## puritan lad (Mar 22, 2007)

_"Determinism, or whatever phrase you prefer to use, makes God arbitrary and life meaningless."_

Quite the contrary. Nothing can have meaning unless it is part of God's preordained plan. I can't imagine ever having to go through a tragedy or trial of any sort, and then having to appeal to a god who is some sort of an omniscient chess player. I would rather take confidence in the One who "works all things to the counsel of His will", thus able to guarantee that He will work it for good.


----------



## puritan628 (Mar 22, 2007)

*Free Will or Predestination (both?)*



Romans922 said:


> A Non-Christian said this, how would you respond to him in a loving, caring manner, giving the Biblical apologetic in response?
> _
> 
> If this is so, it means that God has already chosen who will "choose" him and be saved, and those that will not "choose" him and go to hell. If, as in this situation, we do not have any control over our own outcome, then there can be no criterion by which to choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. This means that it has to be chosen arbitrarily. To use what I believe is Calvin's own imagery, God is holding everyone in his hands over the fires of hell and letting some slip through his fingers. The idea that God is arbitrary runs completely counter to the idea that God is entirely purposeful and deliberate.
> ...



As cited in _The [Westminster] Shorter Catechism for Study Classes, Vol. I_, the doctrine of unconditional election teaches that (1) God has chosen, out of the total number of lost men, a certain portion to be saved; (2) God does not choose these persons because of anything good in them; (3) God has chosen these people to be saved through Jesus Christ alone; and (4) this unconditional election was made from all eternity.

Therefore, it is not arbitrary, except by man's perception, a perception that is inherited with man's depravity. God IS purposeful and deliberate, but since we cannot read others' hearts, we cannot know who has been chosen and who has not. Never-the-less, we must make our own calling and election sure by being obedient to the precepts of God, responding to His call, and encouraging others to do the same.

God is not holding everyone in his hands over a fire and letting some slip through His fingers. On the contrary . . . the damned were never in His hands in the first place. It was decided "from eternity."

The reason some are saved and not others is not because of anything within the person themselves. It is purely God's choice, and as someone else mentioned, the secret things belong to God.

"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." WCF III.1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 22, 2007)

Before you worry about presentation, you need to analyze the faults in the argumentation. Then, you can (depending on the situation) in a friendly but firm fashion point out how his assumptions destroy his own confidence.

Here're his (non-)arguments:
1) (if) God is in control of everything
2) (nothing)
----------
3) therefore, God has already chosen men heaven/hell 

Is this an enthymeme? How much of the biblical God does he grant for the sake of argument? But I will agree that the _calvinist-biblical_ God IS in control of everything, including the ultimate destiny of men. Note the prejudicial use of "quotes" around the word "choose" as executed by men. He is denying the issue before he gets anywhere--the issue that men make true, responsible choices, AND that God is absolutely in control.

Next premise: "...as in this situation..."
1) (if) we do not have any control over our own *outcome* (emphasis mine)
(where is the _argument_ for this premise from the above sylogism?)
2) (nothing)
----------
3) therefore, there is no criteria by which [God] chooses who goes where.

Huh? How does this follow? 
Christian theology 101. God's not "choosing" hell for humanity beyond his just _*sentence*_ (and punishment) for their evil. Men are all universally choosing hell (not because it's great, but) because *hell is preferable to them to eternity with God, whom they hate*. News flash: We are ALL headed to hell (to start with) because
#1, we DO SINS, and deserve it. Everyone is in the same boat. And when a man starts objecting that he isn't _AS BAD_ as someone else, then we want to know what the Bible says about what God accepts, which is PERFECTION ONLY. (This is why I want to know how much of the Christian God he's willing to grant, not just the "absolute sovereignty" part.)

#2, we do sins because we ARE SINNERS, and so we deserve hell just for that. It's our nature to sin and hate God. We all come into the world hating God, and God doesn't accept grudging obedience (when it might happen) either. He considers that sinful.
So, condemned by action, then back of that by nature, back of that...

#3, we are sinners because ADAM CONDEMNED US. God damned the whole human race because our representative fell in Paradise. And then Adam generated us, so he brought us into the world to face hell--"thanks Adam?"--No, by coming in the world, we actually have an opportunity we otherwise wouldn't have, presented to us to "choose life", that is believe in a new perfect representative, Christ, and have a different destiny.

On the Christian view, the human race' existence is preferable to God to no humans or only one or two of us. And rather than our being born unable to sin (or all of us good, only with the possibility of falling as did Adam), it was preferable to God that we be generated by our parents as corrupt, with the possibility to become uncorrupted. Now, if that is objected to as "unfair", then once again, we are back NOT to a philosophical problem, but a moral problem he has with the whole Christian concept of God, man, creation, etc. The whole enchilada. God built representation into the universe he chose to create, and who are we to question that? God put into the world the need for salvation and pure, unalloyed dependence on him, and who are we to question that?

Now, the fact that God pardons some for Jesus sake--this is the only way ANY of us goes to heaven. How is this choice of God's (isn't he free? the MOST free of all?) robbing men of their choice? Weren't they free to continue rejecting him? How _horrible_ (!) that God's "free choice" of some men to give them _another choice_--one they inevitably clutch for in salvation--means they are no longer "willing" to choose damnation.

See, this guy thinks that only as a man chooses God, does God then have some "objective criteria" for choosing the man. So, man is sovereign. And he also can choose contrary to his will and inclinations. God (were he to exist) is bound to the standard of "fairness" that this guy subscribes to. God isn't allowed to have an internal, subjective choice, one that is not predicated upon any man "doing anything good or bad, so that his own purpose in election might stand."


Related: sounds like he's conflating Edward's sermonic imagery of man above the flames (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) and Reformed (Calvin) predestination taught systematically and doctrinally. Not that Edward's imagery is off, but that whole sermon is geared toward the INDIVIDUAL, and not to God's attitude toward man COLLECTIVELY. Collectively, the picture is rather that all men are running away from God on the broad road leading to hell for his wrath is coming behind them all, hell being as far as they can get. And God overtakes men as he chooses, and rescues this one and that one--quite a few actually. They are enabled to see the sacrifice of Christ as one given by this "angry God" for them, and so turn from destruction back to God.

But this choice of their's isn't a "criteria" for God's salvation. It is a result of it. It may seem arbitrary to us, but then if it were about us, then we'd be properly proud of our "good choice." But God means to do away with our pride, and humble us, and make us see our dependence. All the independent, proud, self-sufficient ones are heading off willingly (though perhaps not happily) to hell.

Guys like this one are really objecting to the MORALITY of sovereignty. As far as he's concerned, if God doesn't choose one doughnut out of the cabinet because of the superior quality of the doughnut over the others, or some other feature, or because the doughnut first chose him, then God is morally suspect. He's apparently not allowed to choose "glazed" over "frosted" in one case, and "frosted" over "filled" in another case, and all for his own internal motives. He's too "eclectic" for us, too "random" or "arbitrary" for us to dicipher his "criteria". And so instead of accepting that God's choices are MORAL by definition, and he has a right to choose, and the right to NOT TELL US his reasons, then some of us feel free to accuse him of not meeting our "criteria" for making moral choices.

Further analysis:
1)[if] God is arbitrary at all [of course we are denying this premise to begin with]
2) (nothing)
----------
3) God cannot be *entirley* purposeful and deliberate
(Or I guess the writer could reverse his (only) premise and conclusion)
1) (if) God is entirely purposeful and deliberate
2) (nothing)
----------
3) God cannot be arbitrary at all (what he claims our position has made God to be)

Now we are going to agree with this statement. We deny that God is arbitrary *at all*. But that's not the same as stating that God is _without nature_, especially when it is his nature to be purposeful; nor is it the same as stating that he must conform to an OUTSIDE standard of fairness, one that he measures us up against to first determine if he will give us eternal life. He himself is the standard, and that standard is perfection. And NOBODY measures up. No one but Christ.

This writer says that basically, man's free will is the ultimate sovereign. I am responsible (and you, and you, and you, and...) for giving "life, and this world, purpose." Wow. Pretty heady stuff. So if I decide this world is purposeless, then I guess it is? If I decide people around me are purposeless, does that give me freedom to push them out of my way? No? But you said I'm the one who gives life purpose! Am I sovereign or not? Is it some sort of aggregate free will? Whatever MOST of us decide at any given time? Or MOST of us in a certain time and _arbitrarily_ bounded place?

This is nothing more than a recipie for humanistic sovereignty. Ultimately our wills are all in conflict. We all surrender a portion of it, or else all of it to someone else, and sometimes there is one man who rules as Sovereign for a while--until he dies. Meanwhile, we try to get along in our families and clans by compromise. Is COMPROMISE the source of purpose? Or is God ultimately SOVEREIGN, and his purpose executed means that men's purposes fail, unless they buy in to his? God is able to RULE even our free actions to make them serve his purpose: "You INTENDED it for evil, but God INTENDED it for good."

Actually, libertarian free will makes choices (since men can supposedly choose contrary to their wills and inclinations) arbitrary and meaningless. How can anyone be held to account? "That bad choice? That was just the result of me choosing against my will. I didn't want to do it. Don't you dare try and hold me responsible." In that world, there's no way to tell the difference between an act done in accord with the nature and will, and one done against it.


----------



## Dagmire (Mar 22, 2007)

I always think of Isaiah chapter five when I hear that sort of thing.



> Isa 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
> Isa 5:2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
> Isa 5:3 *And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
> Isa 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?*
> ...




I love that God outright challenges man to come up with a solution to his own wickedness and to judge that God has not done everything.


The problem with people trying to reason against God like that is that they trust only in what they know. They then want us to step into their land of darkness and argue from their perspective, which is an impossible task. Their lack of understanding makes them think that we don't have answers, when the truth is that the answers are beyond them. If they have ears to hear, then they will hear.


We trust in what is beyond us. We trust in what God knows. I have known God and his character is unblemished. It always angers me when people call him wicked.


Also, this may be a bit abstract, but it's something I think about sometimes. The Lord is an ordered God. He is not given to randomness or arbitraries. Look at the physical world he has created. It runs under a definite set of laws that make sense. Look how much trouble it has been for us to grasp and understand these laws. How much more difficult is it to grasp and understand the order of the things which we cannot see?

I suppose it's a sort of spiritual and moral physics that I'm speaking of. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's the nature of the world. I do not think it is unreasonable to think of spiritual and moral matters in the same way. It's the nature of God. We commit sinful action and it is an action _against_ God, to which he responds. Because of the nature of God, which is good and holy, the reaction that sin gets is wrath and destruction. But then there is the love of God. Mankind acts as a whole against God and he reacts by punishing his son instead of us. Then that love which God acts upon us causes us to love him in response. We love him because he first loved us.


Anyway, that was a bit of a rant, but hopefully it makes some sense.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 22, 2007)

The argument for free-will makes everybody a god vying for the top position. Who will reign in this universe? Who will (ultimately) triumph? Not a universe I want to be in since the outcome is uncertain and (with the history of humanity clearly telling us about the horror of anarchy) potentially destructive.


----------



## Bandguy (Mar 22, 2007)

Chris said:


> The best response would be to utterly ignore his rant, present the Gospel to him, and expect him to either be converted or not. No need to chase rabbits on someone else's terms.
> 
> God chose His elect based on a divine purpose - namely, to conform us to the image of His Son, and in doing so, to get great glory for Himself. Others He chose to justly condemn to Hell for their sin - and in doing so, to get great glory for Himself.
> 
> ...


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 26, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> All you can do is respond with scripture. He is trying to reason like a philosopher about things that an unregenerate man can never know.


Well, that sums up what I was about to write! It should be no surprise that an unregenerate man holds these views.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 26, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> _
> 
> Here, in a nutshell, is the problem with the idea that God is in control of everything, or to blame for everything, or behind everything. Whatever phrase you want to use.
> 
> If this is so, it means that God has already chosen who will "choose" him and be saved, and those that will not "choose" him and go to hell. If, as in this situation, we do not have any control over our own outcome, then there can be no criterion by which to choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell._


_

Not true. That's an assumption that your friend is making. The scriptures tell us there is a definite purpose (i.e.- Romans 9) for God choosing some for honor and some for dishonor. The scriptures just never tell US what that purpose is. 

All we do know is that God does nothing purposelessly. So we apply Deut. 29:29 here and quietly rest in His Sovereignty, knowing that He truly does know best what to do.

At the end of it all, God's elect will rejoice at the mercy of God in choosing some for salvation and also in His choosing to reject others and display His wrath and power. Just as there is nothing in the person that makes God choose them one way or the other for salvation, likewise, there is nothing 'worse' in any particular non-elect person that causes God does not choose them. What exactly is the determining criteria ? Don't know. Might not ever know. But we know it's not arbitrary because God is not arbitrary.

Far from meaningless, God's Sovereignty and His purpose of having His name be glorified gives ultimate purpose to life. Life isn't about 'us'. That's another mistake your friend is making in assuming. He's thinking in worldly categories, not Biblical ones.

Further, does your friend believe in the omniscience of God ?

If so, he's in the same boat as those whom he criticizes. If God knows that in creating a world with people with libertarian free will, millions of them will use it to go to hell, then He's indirectly responsible and in control of it and we come to the same question (and problem) that he has with the Calvinist._


----------

