Is Harbaugh a mature Christian?

[NCRAVEN]

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If, as Calvinism states, you play NO PART including the decision to follow Christ, then that would sure be a fine excuse. "Well God, you didn't pick me."

There are even more compelling Scriptures for Calvinism but I think the "Elect" that Calvinism leans on as well as the predetermination implied in other places really refers to God's foreknowledge of those that would seek the light as opposed to those who would not.

There is a third option called Molinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism. God knows what people's choices would be in all circumstances under any conditions.

Yeah, that's kinda my challenge with it as well.

I'm kinda with Rev, I think Calvin got most of it right, I just can't get all the way there.

[Harley-Ravenson]

WOW, got some deep thinking Theologians on this board, love it!

I have fallen into the pit of trying to sort out God's choice and our choice, etc etc.....

I truly believe it is a mystery, and beyond our ability to fully understand and see as God sees.

I had a brilliant theologian named Sam Storms, who happens to be a Calvinist, once tell me that our confusion on the matter is never an excuse for disobedience. In other words, pray for the Lord of the harvest to send our laborers, and preach the gospel to all men as Paul modeled.

Between Romans 9 and Romans 11 in my Bible where it seems to teach both truths, I wrote the sentence "God is Sovereign, but our choices really matter"

God is in control of the BIGGER picture, but we are responsible and make real choices that matter and are rewarded.

As for this board, my heart is that someone will see God more clearly somehow through these simple interactions.

Many Christians try to influence the lost by saying

"I'm right - you're wrong and I would love to tell you about it"

I believe a much more loving and humble approach is "tell me about the God you don't believe in, I probably don't believe in THAT God either"

Peace to all!
Great comments

[Greg]

WOW, got some deep thinking Theologians on this board, love it!

I have fallen into the pit of trying to sort out God's choice and our choice, etc etc.....

I truly believe it is a mystery, and beyond our ability to fully understand and see as God sees.

I had a brilliant theologian named Sam Storms, who happens to be a Calvinist, once tell me that our confusion on the matter is never an excuse for disobedience. In other words, pray for the Lord of the harvest to send our laborers, and preach the gospel to all men as Paul modeled.

Between Romans 9 and Romans 11 in my Bible where it seems to teach both truths, I wrote the sentence "God is Sovereign, but our choices really matter"

God is in control of the BIGGER picture, but we are responsible and make real choices that matter and are rewarded.

As for this board, my heart is that someone will see God more clearly somehow through these simple interactions.

Many Christians try to influence the lost by saying

"I'm right - you're wrong and I would love to tell you about it"

I believe a much more loving and humble approach is "tell me about the God you don't believe in, I probably don't believe in THAT God either"

Peace to all!
Great comments

Good take.

[darb72]

“In this mateere, and greet disputisoun, and hath been of an hundred thousand men. But I ne kan nat bulte it to the bren, as kan the hooly doctour Augustyn, or Boece, or the Bisshop Bradwardyn, wheither that Goddes worthy forwityng, streyneth me nedely for to doon a thyng, "Nedely" clepe I symple necessitee, or elles, if free choys be graunted me, to do that same thyng, or do it noght." (Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales 3238-3247)

"In this matter of great disputation, and has been of a hundred thousand men. But I cannot choose between the strong and weak arguments, as can the holy doctor Augustine, or Botheius, or the Bishop Bradwardy, whether God's worthy foreknowledge constrains me to necessarily do a thing, 'Need' I call simple necessity, or else if free choice be granted me, to do that same thing, or do it not." (Darb72, rough translation of lines 3238-3247 of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales)

Foreknowledge does not indicate causation is the central argument of Botheius, and one Chaucer expands upon in the story of Chauntecler. As a medievalist, this is a discussion I have at least once a year, and tend to side with Botheius. A toddler is going to pick chocolate every time if offered a choice between that or broccoli. Knowing the outcome of this decision does not mean we influenced it one way or the other. It's somewhat akin to Molinism which Greg linked to.

The problem arises because we're trying to explain God's perception through human understanding. For us, time is linear; tomorrow is the future, yesterday is the past. God necessarily exists outside of time so our past, present, and future is all the present to Him. "When we’ve been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise, than when we’d first begun" (Amazing Grace).

[Laxdad24]

Gentlemen…I must say …THIS is interesting reading. While I’m Not religious ( as most of you know) but presented this way makes for a nice , informative read.

Well Done ….please carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Greg]

“In this mateere, and greet disputisoun, and hath been of an hundred thousand men. But I ne kan nat bulte it to the bren, as kan the hooly doctour Augustyn, or Boece, or the Bisshop Bradwardyn, wheither that Goddes worthy forwityng, streyneth me nedely for to doon a thyng, "Nedely" clepe I symple necessitee, or elles, if free choys be graunted me, to do that same thyng, or do it noght." (Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales 3238-3247)

"In this matter of great disputation, and has been of a hundred thousand men. But I cannot choose between the strong and weak arguments, as can the holy doctor Augustine, or Botheius, or the Bishop Bradwardy, whether God's worthy foreknowledge constrains me to necessarily do a thing, 'Need' I call simple necessity, or else if free choice be granted me, to do that same thing, or do it not." (Darb72, rough translation of lines 3238-3247 of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales)

Foreknowledge does not indicate causation is the central argument of Botheius, and one Chaucer expands upon in the story of Chauntecler. As a medievalist, this is a discussion I have at least once a year, and tend to side with Botheius. A toddler is going to pick chocolate every time if offered a choice between that or broccoli. Knowing the outcome of this decision does not mean we influenced it one way or the other. It's somewhat akin to Molinism which Greg linked to.

The problem arises because we're trying to explain God's perception through human understanding. For us, time is linear; tomorrow is the future, yesterday is the past. God necessarily exists outside of time so our past, present, and future is all the present to Him. "When we’ve been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise, than when we’d first begun" (Amazing Grace).

Indeed God's (or anybody else's) foreknowledge does not preclude our freewill. We are still freely choosing even if someone outside time knows exactly the choice we make in time.

This whole thing, whether God exists or not, would be a massive waste of time of we don't have free will.

Oddly, it is the materialist/atheist, who often calls themselves "freethinkers", who are the ones stuck with predestination. If your mind is wholly contained in your brain, if your materialist brain is all there is to consciousness, then there is no such thing as free will. Your brain is already wired up and any choices or decisions made, any thoughts that occur, are simply electrochemical reactions to stimuli which itself was preordained at the moment of the Big Bang.

If my Christianity is a delusion please leave me in it because that is a depressing existence with zero meaning or purpose. Whatever joy or love or anything good that comes from our existence as meat machines vanishes once those electrochemical reactions end. And it all will end with the supernova of our sun and eventually the heat death of the universe.

[darb72]

Indeed God's (or anybody else's) foreknowledge does not preclude our freewill. We are still freely choosing even if someone outside time knows exactly the choice we make in time.

This whole thing, whether God exists or not, would be a massive waste of time of we don't have free will.

Oddly, it is the materialist/atheist, who often calls themselves "freethinkers", who are the ones stuck with predestination. If your mind is wholly contained in your brain, if your materialist brain is all there is to consciousness, then there is no such thing as free will. Your brain is already wired up and any choices or decisions made, any thoughts that occur, are simply electrochemical reactions to stimuli which itself was preordained at the moment of the Big Bang.

If my Christianity is a delusion please leave me in it because that is a depressing existence with zero meaning or purpose. Whatever joy or love or anything good that comes from our existence as meat machines vanishes once those electrochemical reactions end. And it all will end with the supernova of our sun and eventually the heat death of the universe.

John Duns Scotus argued, quite successfully in my opinion, that free will is comprised of two distinct parts: affectio commodi and affectio iustitiae. The first, affectio commodi is 'affection for the advantageous' and is irrelevant when considering morality. Morality is tantamount for free will, according to Scotus. God commands that we go forth and multiply so we're not being moral for procreating with our spouse. It feels good and it's advantageous to spread our genes and have someone cut the grass. Your point about meat machines is quite salient, which is why I chose procreation as an example of affectio commodi; having children is either a response to natural urges, or the result of an edict handed down from the Supreme Creator of the Universe. Either way, not really choosing. The argument could be made that not having children is free will, but even then it's either advantageous be it for a career or some other reason, or because you're physically incapable. With the former, not having children is a benefit and the other it's just not an option.

Morality comes from 'affectio iustitiae', or affection for justice. A stranger sacrificing themselves for a busload of children has not done something advantageous for themselves, but has made the moral choice to do something right. This is the distinction for Scotus.