Foreknowledge Doesn’t Require Predestination

CERTAINTY VERSUS NECESSITY 

An event can be certainly known without necessarily being determined by the one who certainly knows. To suggest otherwise is a modal fallacy which conflates certainty with necessity. (William Lane Craig explains more here.) 

You and I may know for a certainty that I posted this very article at Soteriology101.com on September 17, 2017, but only one of us determined to do that. Knowledge of the event does not necessarily have a causal link to the determination of that event. 

But what about events known in the future by an omnipotent Creator? Are all events that God foreknows only foreknown because He Himself has determined them to come to pass, as many Calvinistic scholars imply in their argumentation? I do not believe so. Allow me to explain why. 

Consider this passage as just one of many examples:

“David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” Then David said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O Lord, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition.” -‭‭1 Samuel‬ ‭23:9-13‬ ‭ESV‬‬

The passage above proves that God foreknew of an expedition that did NOT come to pass, therefore demonstrating that exhaustive divine foreknowledge of all things does not equal exhaustive divine predetermination of all things. 

A Calvinist may rebut by saying, “But God also foreknew David would ask these questions and leave the city after being told Saul was coming.” 

I would respond by saying, “so what?” The fact is that God foreknew an event that did not come to pass. That is all that is needed to establish that foreknowledge doesn’t necessitate determinism. Plus, the point of our contention is not over whether or not God foreknew of David’s questions and his response, the real contention is over whether the knowledge itself necessitated or determined David’s choices. There is nothing logically or biblically to suggest that it did. After all, God foreknew of Saul’s expedition and that never came to pass. 

Biblical translator for Logos Bible Software and Phd in ancient near east languages, Dr. Michael S Heiser, teaches more on this point for those who are interested: CLICK HERE.

203 thoughts on “Foreknowledge Doesn’t Require Predestination

  1. Thank you for bringing up this subject Leighton… though I think you have opened up an opportunity for many to face a question that will expose, imo, their lack of logic in their understanding of omniscience and foreknowledge! 😉 How was certainty created in God’s mind of a future event before creation? And a related question, If God’s knowledge of a future event is certain, doesn’t His certainty guarantee the necessity of that event taking place, even if God didn’t create that certainty of it in His own mind before creation? Thanks.

    1. Leighton brings up a helpful distinction between necessity versus certainty. Brian Wagner then introduces his false open theism beliefs thereby undermining what Leighton presents. We could invent a fallacy and refer to it as the Brian Wagner ignorance fallacy. The fallacy goes like this: you ask a question that the other person cannot answer, then since they cannot answer the question you wrongfully and illogically conclude that their position is wrong. It does not logically follow that since I cannot answer a question that that must mean my position is wrong. Note Wagner’s question: How was certainty created in God’s mind of a future event before creation?

      The ordinary and majority position among christians whether they are calvinists or non-calvinists is that the nature of God’s omniscience includes the reality that He knows all events including future events before thy occur (i.e. God has foreknowledge of future events). Note Wagner asks a HOW question: and that is just it, we affirm that God is omniscienct and has foreknowledge based upon scriptures that properly interpreted present this fact. But we do not know HOW God knows what He knows. We really do not know how it works. We affirm that He has this kind of knowledge but we do not know how it works in God’s mind. This is not troubling because no human person fully knows and understands the mind of God. Wagner is asking us how precisely does this work in God’s mind. And we cannot answer this question. Wagner then assumes that since we cannot answer this question, therefore we must be wrong that God is omniscient and foreknows all future events. I have said before that we do not even know how God knows present events let alone future events. God has no sense organs, so He does not see events as we do God has no brain or central nervous system. He does not need to rely on the testimony of others. And yet He knows all things. HOW? We do not know and I would submit that we cannot know as it is completely beyond us just as God is beyond us in many ways.

      If Wagner wants to speculate about how God knows he is free to do so, as is anyone else as long as they realize they are in the realm of speculation and opinion not fact. The facts we are given are those in scripture when properly interpreted. Those things we can know as facts. To quote Clint Eastwood’s “dirty Harry” character: ” a man’s got to know his limitations.”

      1. I appreciate the principle taught by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury – experts on resolving problems and conflicts.
        Attack the problem – rather than the person.

      2. Thank you Robert for showing me I should have been more precise in my questions. I was not looking for and explanation of how God’s mind works… though He adequately describes in Scriptures that He has made and continues to make determinations… which means His thoughts about the future are not settled on one competed future already.

        I was more interested in observing how determinists and compatibilists think that before creation God could logically have a certainty about a completed future created in His mind if He was not the creator of that certainty. Was humanity’s history an eternal part of His nature? Did it exist uncreated by God somehow but observed by Him? Did something else created that certain future in God’s mind?

    2. brianwagner writes, “How was certainty created in God’s mind of a future event before creation?”

      God creates certainty in those things that He brings about. For example, God created the universe, the components of the universe, man and woman, etc. Under your system, God knew these not just as possibilities – we agree that God knows all possibilities – but as certainties because He was able to decide to do those things ahead of time. So, the extent to which God actively determines events is the source of certainty in those events. The disagreement you voice is with the timing of God’s decisions related to each event.

      Then, “And a related question, If God’s knowledge of a future event is certain, doesn’t His certainty guarantee the necessity of that event taking place, even if God didn’t create that certainty of it in His own mind before creation?”

      Yes. The distinction Dr. Flowers makes is that God’s knowledge of future events does not make them necessary. – God’s knowledge is not the cause of an event. Of course, God’s knowledge of what He will do is a knowledge of the causes and the determiners of events. In a deterministic world, prior events are the causes of events and God, being sovereign, is the final arbiter of all events.

    3. Hi Brian,

      I wanted to point out a couple things. Historically, Calvinists have never affirmed that God’s foreknowledge consists only of that which is contingently actual. That would be silly. First, it suggests that God would have no prior knowledge of possibilities. However, the Reformers located God’s exhaustive knowledge of possibilities (e.g. counterfactuals, worlds, etc.) in His natural knowledge. In fact, this isn’t even distinguishable along Reformed lines alone. The Medievals, like Aquinas, made the same type of careful distinctions. Second, to think of God’s natural knowledge (containing His foreknowledge) as something that is posterior to actual, or free, knowledge is absolutely absurd. No one has done that insofar as I’m aware.

      I would have to conclude, on that basis, that your article either addresses some strange minority contemporary position within Calvinistic Christianity, or it misunderstands an orthodox and Reformed view of the knowledge of God and thus would be addressing a straw man.

      1. Welcome Joshua, You are correct that Calvinists would never affirm God’s foreknowledge as being contingently actual. I’m sorry if you think I gave the impression that they did. Maybe you could point to the sentence I gave that led to that opinion so that I can fix it. I think I was just asking questions for greater understanding. The Calvinist arrives at foreknowledge from God making an eternal determination of all things that will happen. How any determination (within His supposed Natural Knowledge) can be made so that Foreknowledge results in His free knowledge and both His natural knowledge and foreknowledge still be called eternal and immutable is illogical to me?

        The Arminian arrives at settled foreknowledge by God somehow being shown (presumably in His natural knowledge) a scenario He likes and chooses, again producing foreknowledge that is also declared to be eternal and immutable by them. Who creates the scenario for God to see and choose is illogical to me, for no one else is around before creation except God.

        The Molinist, plays in the middle of these two… but all three end up with a settled foreknowledge in God’s mind before creation. Right?

      2. Brian,

        Here is what led me to believe you were implying such:

        “Are all events that God foreknows only foreknown because He Himself has determined them to come to pass, as many Calvinistic scholars imply in their argumentation?”

        God’s foreknowledge does not rest upon His free knowledge, nor do the majority of Calvinists I know suggest such things (if they even know the categories in the first place).

        You also say:

        “The Calvinist arrives at foreknowledge from God making an eternal determination of all things that will happen.”

        Well, not exactly.

        “How any determination (within His supposed Natural Knowledge) can be made so that Foreknowledge results in His free knowledge and both His natural knowledge and foreknowledge still be called eternal and immutable is illogical to me?”

        Foreknowledge does not *result* in that which becomes actual. God’s eternal decree is made notwithstanding foreknown events and all possible contingencies. I think you’re failing to make a distinction between God’s decree and God’s knowledge. Here is some help:

        I. 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.
        II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions (WCF, 3.1, 2)

        And from another Reformed Confession:

        1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
        ( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
        2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
        ( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 ) (LBCF, 1689, 3.1, 2)

      3. Thank you, Joshua, for your response. I was assuming you held to foreknowledge as a result of God’s determination(s) based on His natural knowledge, and that foreknowledge becomes what is known as a part of His free knowledge. If not, please explain. Either way, I was asking how both His natural knowledge and foreknowledge could be eternal and immutable when a definite sequence is not only implied and but dogmatically defended as one before the other with a decree in-between?

        I have always understood the reformed position, especially from Charnock that foreknowledge is indeed the result of God’s decree, and that foreknowledge is not a part of His natural knowledge.

        The WCF is no help or authority to me. Like doctrinal statements throughout human history, they say things that are often contradictory to themselves and especially to Scripture. For example in these two statements that you shared, “ordain” doesn’t mean “author”, though every detail was written out in God’s mind as to how it would certainly happen before any other will of any other creature would be created to exercise itself in a so-called “free” way. That is too much contradiction with itself and the meaning of words for me to swallow.
        I did do a review of this exact section of the WCF on my academia.edu page if you’re interested.

        https://www.academia.edu/30599019/Individual_Election_Before_Creation_-_A_Doubtful_Thing It always surprises me how doctrinal statements, even in my own circles, throw in Scripture references that hardly support what the doctrinal statement purports is truth, or do not support at all with any references the most important premises in the statement. So much for Sola Scriptura.

        The Calvinist should have the decency to admit that even the idea of “ordain” should be identified as an anthropomorphic expression, for everything to them was eternally immutably set in God’s mind. So then there was never a moment when something was known to Him as “unordained” and then became known to Him as “ordained” because of a so-called free-will choice that never was made.

      4. brianwagner writing to Joshua, “The Calvinist should have the decency to admit that even the idea of “ordain” should be identified as an anthropomorphic expression,…”

        Is there any reference to God that is not anthropomorphic? As the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite, it can only refer to the infinite using finite concepts that it understands, thus anthropomorphic, not necessarily, “…for everything to them was eternally immutably set in God’s mind.” (Whatever that means in describing God.)

        Then, “So then there was never a moment when something was known to Him as “unordained” and then became known to Him as “ordained” because of a so-called free-will choice that never was made.”

        This may mean that we cannot separate that which is known by God from that which is decreed – that which God decrees, He knows and that which He knows, He decrees (Oh no! I’m sounding like Geisler).

      5. If every man is a liar… I wouldn’t want to say every word in Scripture about God is anthropomorphic! Is every word about God in determinist literature anthropomorphic? So if the one contradicts the other… hmmm. And why should one even care to discuss the nature of God if nothing true can be said or known about it?

      6. brianwagner writes, “I wouldn’t want to say every word in Scripture about God is anthropomorphic!”

        …about God…. Why not? Saying man is a liar describes man, not God.

        Then, ‘Is every word about God in determinist literature anthropomorphic?”

        I tend to think so. How else can humans describe God other than in human terms? Do you have specific examples – I can always allow exceptions to the rule.

        Then, “So if the one contradicts the other… hmmm.”

        Key word being, “if.” Regardless, the focus is on that which we read about God in the Scriptures.

        Then, “why should one even care to discuss the nature of God if nothing true can be said or known about it?”

        We discuss the nature of God because we are to meditate on and learn from everything in the Scriptures and the Scriptures are truth, but “…we see through a glass, darkly;…”

      7. “I was assuming you held to foreknowledge as a result of God’s determination(s) based on His natural knowledge, and that foreknowledge becomes what is known as a part of His free knowledge.”

        What must be understood, so that we do not talk past one another, is that God’s knowledge occurs in a single act such that there is no progression or sequential steps therein (that is the orthodox position). Thus, no ectypal aspect of God’s knowledge *becomes* anything.

        “I was asking how both His natural knowledge and foreknowledge could be eternal and immutable when a definite sequence is not only implied and but dogmatically defended as one before the other with a decree in-between?”

        (1) Because we are talking about logical, not chronological, processions. (2) Because the distinctions and processions we speak of in God’s knowledge are not real. This is apophatically said, “God is not composed of parts.”

        “I have always understood the reformed position, especially from Charnock that foreknowledge is indeed the result of God’s decree, and that foreknowledge is not a part of His natural knowledge.”

        I think you have us confused. We say that the certainty of God’s free knowledge is based upon His decree. Perhaps that’s what you were thinking of? I mean, if we take foreknowledge in the strict etymological sense (knowledge before, or prior knowledge), then it can be said to be located in God’s natural knowledge since His natural knowledge is said to logically precede free knowledge. If we take it to mean God’s exhaustive knowledge of all future actuals, then it would be located in His free knowledge. However, these distinctions are not real since His knowledge occurs in a single act, ala. Geerhardus Vos.

        “The WCF is no help or authority to me.”

        Well, that’s beside the point since I was using it didactically. And you’re using Medieval categories, like the Reformers so often did, so I didn’t think you’d mind the quotation.

        “It always surprises me how doctrinal statements, even in my own circles, throw in Scripture references that hardly support what the doctrinal statement purports is truth, or do not support at all with any references the most important premises in the statement. So much for Sola Scriptura.”

        You do realize the Westminster divines were literally forced to input proof texts don’t you? I mean, the king wouldn’t have it any other way. That said, I’ve not found them to be especially inaccurate unless you overcommit to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, which is rationalist behavior, not Christian.

        “The Calvinist should have the decency to admit that even the idea of “ordain” should be identified as an anthropomorphic expression, for everything to them was eternally immutably set in God’s mind. So then there was never a moment when something was known to Him as “unordained” and then became known to Him as “ordained” because of a so-called free-will choice that never was made.”

        I couldn’t agree more with this! 🙂 Best thing you’ve written so far. Properly speaking, God’s knowledge never sequentially moved from A to B. That would be preposterous to imagine from a Biblical, theological, and philosophical standpoint. Rather, His revelation is covenantal, that is, God “lisps” to His creatures in a way we can understand.

      8. Thank you Joshua responding in a way that shows clearly where we differ.

        I reject that God’s reality is not sequential. I reject that His knowledge does not change in respect to decisions He has made before creation, and continues to make since. I reject that the biblical truth is not rationally based and that everything about God’s nature is analogical or anthropomorphic. I reject these things because of Sola Scriptura… and that the inspiration if it is not God “lisping”.

      9. //I reject that God’s reality is not sequential. I reject that His knowledge does not change in respect to decisions He has made before creation, and continues to make since. I reject that the biblical truth is not rationally based and that everything about God’s nature is analogical or anthropomorphic. I reject these things because of Sola Scriptura… and that the inspiration if it is not God “lisping”.//

        So, God is moveable, or changeable. His knowledge changes (contrary to what the Bible says (Num. 23:19). We can know things quantitatively and qualitatively like God (this is the rationalism I’m talking about), humans are basically God at this point. You’d find more fellowship with Mormonism than you would with Christianity on this point. You reject these things because… sola scriptura (even though you think God’s knowledge is mutable and that God’s revelation is preceded by creaturely rationale). I think you *say* you’re sola scriptura (because that’s an attractive position for your audience), but you’re really not… I think you need a higher view of God, and a lower view of His creatures (I’m reminding myself as I remind you).

      10. Joshua… One person of the Godhead “became flesh”, made in the likeness of men”, forever, and the other members didn’t. If that does not fit the defintion of “change”, then we are at an impasse to discuss things logically. Blessings.

      11. //Joshua… One person of the Godhead “became flesh”, made in the likeness of men”, forever, and the other members didn’t. If that does not fit the defintion of “change”, then we are at an impasse to discuss things logically. Blessings.//

        Again, you’re missing important distinctions made by the historical church as a result of the biblical data. The Son never changed with respect to His divine nature….

      12. Joshua, the historic RC denomination with its false sacramental gospel is no authority to run to for definitions. The Son took on, “became”, flesh, while also retaining ownership of His divine attributes, though lasting aside the use of some of them while in earth. The rest of the members of the Godhead did not do that!

        That is therefore a significant change in the nature and experience of the Godhead. One member has and does things the others don’t. To deny this change is to demonstrate a illogical loyalty to the word immutability.

        We say God is omnipotent… but we know that word cannot be defined to include that God has the power or ability to lie. We say He is omnipresent… but we know He does not exist in illogical “places” that do not exist like the past or the future. He is immutable in His character, in His truth, justice, and love… but we see that He is free and able to respond in unique ways in relationship to man.

        The Scripture defines these ideas for us… not man’s philosophy that then dogmatically attributes to itself the clarity of definition and says the Scriptures are only analogical or anthropomorphic.

      13. “Joshua, the historic RC denomination with its false sacramental gospel is no authority to run to for definitions. The Son took on, “became”, flesh, while also retaining ownership of His divine attributes, though lasting aside the use of some of them while in earth. The rest of the members of the Godhead did not do that!”

        You’re committing the genetic fallacy. It does not follow that all Roman Catholic theologians are wrong about everything because they’re Roman Catholics.

        Again, you’re missing the distinction of ontological/economic Trinitarian language (Scripture itself gives us this) and you’ve departed from orthodoxy. Moreover, you’re not understanding the taxis of the Godhead either. Circumincession (perichoresis) matters.

      14. Sorry, Joshua… Not a genetic fallacy… just pointing out your fallacy of appealing to an untrustworthy authority. If I pointed to the JW’s because they believe in a literal day creation or future earthly kingdom, would that hold water with you? The 300 bishops at Nicea professed a sacramental gospel, supposedly, according to Augustine. If they could not get the gospel right, they should not be looked to for authority on defining orthodoxy.

        And your opinion, without evidence, that I’m – “missing the distinction of ontological/economic Trinitarian language …departed from orthodoxy…. not understanding the taxis of the Godhead either… [nor understanding that] Circumincession (perichoresis) matters” just seems to be a false appeal to scholarly jargon to make your opinion sound correct to others reading our conversation.

        The Scripture evidence and reasoning I presented about the Godhead experiencing real change is sound. Others can read our conversation and make their own determinations. Thank you for the conversation. Take the last word in this thread, unless you have a question for me to clarify something I said from Scripture. Blessings.

      15. //Sorry, Joshua… Not a genetic fallacy… just pointing out your fallacy of appealing to an untrustworthy authority. If I pointed to the JW’s because they believe in a literal day creation or future earthly kingdom, would that hold water with you? The 300 bishops at Nicea professed a sacramental gospel, supposedly, according to Augustine. If they could not get the gospel right, they should not be looked to for authority on defining orthodoxy.//

        Yes, it’s a genetic fallacy. Why do you keep looking like you have no idea what you’re talking about? Appealing to a historical source and an appeal to authority are two different things. Are you always this good at being sloppy?

        If JWs laid a doctrinal foundation that all contemporary Christians believe then yes. That would certainly “hold water,” and would demand attention from any intellectually honest person.

        You keep saying “sacramental” gospel. If you believe the Lord’s Supper and Baptism have been instituted by Jesus Christ, YOU believe in a sacramental gospel as well, in some sense. If you don’t believe that, you’re not a Christian. Do you also think the Nicene fathers were Roman Catholics? If so, you have no business writing anything about them… because you’re ignorant.

      16. I probably should not respond but should assume that your questions were rhetorical, not seeking an answer because you are already convinced of one for each. 🙂

        But the fact that you said clearly that the early RC councils “laid a doctrinal foundation that all contemporary Christians believe” proves that you indeed were making an appeal to those sources as an authority. This contemporary Christian sees no such doctrinal foundation laid by them, but only by the apostles of Jesus in their Scriptures.

        And I will say that the Nicene “Fathers” all did believe, it appears, in the doctrine of sacramental baptismal regeneration. That is a false gospel. And since they saw their authority for their denominational doctrinal decisions as coming from the pontificus maximus – Roman emperor – to define the catholic church… then indeed their denomination was RC in 325AD.

    4. Brian, I hope its ok for me to make a gentle suggestion concerning your dialogs with rhutchin.
      You both use the word “god” in your posts back and forth to one another.
      At some points it is obvious you mean “Calvin’s god” and not the god of scripture.
      rhutchin of course always wants to paint Calvin’s god as the god of scripture.

      This creates a point of confusion and conflation that is very subtle but since its there it makes your posts back and forth to each other lose some of the logical coherence and potency that they actually have for other SOT101 readers.
      And I believe this clearly does not work in your favor.

      In my dialog with Calvinists I am always careful to delineate between god and “Calvin’s god”.
      I am convinced this allows the SOT101 reader to get a clearer understanding of what I’m communicating.
      I always want them to clearly know I clearly discern – theirs is “Calvin’s god”

      1. Br.D. I have thought about when it should be appropriate to use god instead of God when in discussion of theology with others. At this point, even though I believe Roger is misrepresenting the God of Scripture, I believe he believes he is fairly representing Him, much like a RC thinks he does in his polemics. So, for now I feel the most comfortable making that presumption that we are both talking about the same being enough not to conclude two different gods are in view.

      2. Understood! :-]

        You may also consider “Calvin’s imaginary god” – if you feel playful! 😀

      3. br.d writes, ” I hope its ok for me to make a gentle suggestion concerning your dialogs with rhutchin.”

        Brian writes well, ably argues points using Scripture, and is straightforward in his criticism. I don’t see a problem in either one of us understanding the other.

      4. rhutchin
        Brian writes well, ably argues points using Scripture, and is straightforward in his criticism. I don’t see a problem in either one of us understanding the other.

        br.d
        I always get a kick out of the high percentage of the time you completely miss the point.
        But my comments to Brian were not meant for you anyway – since I understand your tactics. 🙂

  2. Very excellent Dr. Flowers!!!

    Dr. Heiser also has a Youtube video on predestination

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsB4vNlyfI

    Heiser’s conclusion is that of A.W. Tozer – namely that God is big enough and wonderful enough to provide GENUINE alternative possibilities to his creatures – and his love is powerful enough to endow his creatures with the power to freely determine those alternatives – without determining what the creature will determine.
    And thus god does not have to create creatures in the image of a robot.

  3. What you’ve missed is that God told David part of the truth, Saul’s intent, which caused David to respond as God had foreknown, and predetermined. God did not lie to David. David asked for the truth, and Davud got the truth.

    1. I don’t see this as being consistent with the text.
      The text indicates god revealed a future contingent event: namely what Saul and his men would do – and not just Saul’s intent.
      Additionally, it makes little sense to interpret the text as David asking god for Saul’s intent – since Saul’s intent is fully known to David.
      What David is asking for are specific details concerning the future – else he would not have resorted to the priest and the ephod.

      The business of god withholding truth from people is a dangerous road to go down.
      What is entailed in that appeal is that it has god deceiving people with illusions.

      For example, god deceiving Adam into believing his obedience was a logical possibility when god knew that it wasn’t.
      Only what god decrees at the foundation of the world – can come to pass – and god obviously did not decree Adam’s obedience come to pass – else it would do so as Adam’s fate.

      One can argue that god decree Adam free to obey or disobey.
      But that argument, in fact, is a good example of deceiving people with half-truths.

      For in the determinism scheme god **MUST** have decreed Adam’s disobedience come to pass – else it could not come to pass.
      And god could not have decreed Adam’s obedience come to pass – else it would have.

      God **HAD** to make a decree concerning one of those two events – else neither could come to pass.
      It logically follows then that god **MUST** have decreed Adam’s disobedience come to pass.

      Then to say god decreed Adam free to obey is to say god decreed for Adam to be deceived by the illusion that his obedience could come to pass. Calvin would call this the -quote “secret predestination of god”.
      But that again displays its character as a system reliant upon half-truths.

      When one is sworn in to testify as a witness – one promises to tell the “Truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
      That is apparently not something that exists within Calvinism.

    2. Welcome Mark! How do you know that the knowledge of Saul’s intent “caused” David to pray to God to confirm that knowledge? Couldn’t that knowledge of Saul’s intent have just presented to David the free choice either to pray for confirmation as he did or to make his own decision as to what to do without praying?

  4. Admin writes, “The fact is that God foreknew an event that did not come to pass. That is all that is needed to establish that foreknowledge doesn’t necessitate determinism. ”

    God foreknows all events that do come to pass and God foreknows all events that could come to pass but do not. God has an omniscient knowledge of that which comes to pass and that which does not come to pass. In the cited example, God knew that the men of Keilah would surrender David to Saul given the opportunity to do so. Even Dr. Flowers could have predicted that had he been there. The example proves than that God knows the hearts of men and that David was not a dummy.

    Then, “Plus, the point of our contention is not over whether or not God foreknew of David’s questions and his response, the real contention is over whether the knowledge itself necessitated or determined David’s choices. There is nothing logically or biblically to suggest that it did.”

    Once God told David what would happen if he stayed in Keilah, David then leaves. It seems to me that the information God gave to David actually did determine – people do make decisions based on the information available to them.

    Then, “God foreknew of Saul’s expedition and that never came to pass.”

    Should we think that God was ignorant of the final outcome in this situation?

    Here is the Calvinist position. God is omniscient and knows every event that will occur in the future. God’s omniscient knowledge makes all events certain but not necessary as Craig argues. Once God creates the universes, events cannot occur in any other way than as God knows them – Beginning at Genesis 1, history plays out according to God’s omniscient knowledge. However, God is omnipotent. Thus, God has the final say as to what occurs. Therefore, all events are determined by God because they must go through the filter of God’s omnipotence. Some events are caused directly by God (e.g., Noah’s flood) and some indirectly through secondary means (e.g., the stoning of Stephen). Isaiah 10 describes how God can use secondary means.

    So, a sovereign God who is omniscient and omnipotent necessarily determines all things. Even under Brian’s future whatever scheme, God still determines all things (because everything filters through Him) even if He does not decide all things in eternity past.

    1. rhutchin writes:
      Even Dr. Flowers could have predicted that had he been there.
      The example proves than that God knows the hearts of men and that David was not a dummy.

      This is childish logic!!
      If Dr. Flowers, having been there, could have predicted the future of what would happen in Keilah, then David (who knew Saul personally) could have predicted it.

      In such case David wouldn’t have bothered to ask god – and scripture wouldn’t have reported it as the example it is.

    2. rhutchin writes
      “Here is the Calvinist position. God is omniscient and knows every event that will occur in the future.
      God’s omniscient knowledge makes all events certain but not necessary as Craig argues.”

      Here we go again playing the “omniscience” red herring AS-IF “omniscience” were causally relevant – which it isn’t.

      Dr. Flowers already anticipates the Calvinists move in this example.
      1) God caused (via predestination) David to ask about the future
      2) God knew he was going to cause (via predestination) David to leave Keilah
      3) God spoke faleshoods to David – misleading him to believe an illusion – that it was logically possible for him to stay – when god knew it was not – because he had secretly predestined the opposite.
      4) Thus god deceived David into believing he was making an indeterministic decision – when in fact he was just operating robotically.

  5. Admin writes, “Are all events that God foreknows only foreknown because He Himself has determined them to come to pass, as many Calvinistic scholars imply in their argumentation?”

    Ernest Strauss had an interesting take on this on another issue. It is that we cannot logically separate that which God knows from that which God decrees – for God to know X is for God to decree X; they are the same. If God knows X, then necessarily God has also decreed X. This seems like Geisler’s argument about God knowingly determining and determitively knowing all things (in Chosen But Free)

    Your issue seems to be whether God causes X to come to pass if He decrees/knows X could come to pass – Can God know conditionally. In the cited passage, David says, “…Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account.” Whether Saul would have destroyed the city to get David is unknown, but David thought it and the people of Keilah thought it. God knew that the people of Keilah would have given up David to save the city. Apparently, the people were telling David a different story – and why wouldn’t they; David was in their city and could easily have destroyed the city if he thought the people were against him. Had David remained in the city, Saul would have come and the people would have turned on David and given him to Saul. David then freely and wisely made the decision to leave.

    However, you err in your argument: “The fact is that God foreknew an event that did not come to pass. That is all that is needed to establish that foreknowledge doesn’t necessitate determinism.” God did not foreknow an event as coming to pass but as one that could come to pass under certain circumstances – Had David stayed in the city, Saul would have responded by coming to the city and would have threatened to destroy the city unless the people gave up David whereupon the people would have given up David. David’s decision to leave undercut all the conditions that would have prevailed had he remained in the city.

    You are asking this passage of Scripture to prove more than it is able. That God foreknew an event that event did not come to pass only proves that God had not determined that event to occur. God’s foreknowledge of these events was accurate, and that which transpired was exactly as known to God.

  6. Br.D, you brought up Fischer and Ury very good authors on negotiating. You seemed to be suggesting that I was engaging in the ad hominem fallacy (i.e. atttack the person instead of their argument). I think you misunderstood my post. I was attacking an argument (the argument Wagner has repeatedly made, i.e. if we don’t know how God knows if we do not explain that, explain how his foreknowledge works that must mean that God is not capable of foreknowledge of all future events).

    Perhaps an analogy may make it clearer for you Br.D. Say that I have a Porshe a very fast car, but I don’t understand how the engine of my porshe works. So I assert that my Porshe is fast. Someone else comes along and asks HOW does your porshe supposedly go so fast? Since I don’t know how the porse engine works, I cannot answer that HOW question. This other person then suggests since you don’t know how it works, the porshe may not really be fast. This person is engaging in a logical fallacy, I may not know or understand or be capable of explaining HOW the porshe goes fast: but I may be perfectly rational in affirming that the car ***is*** fast. Similarly, I may not know or understand or be capable of explaining HOW is capable of foreknowledge of all future events. My “attacking” the other person’s argument that since I do not know how the porshe is fast it then follows that the porshe is not fast, is not at all an ad hominem argument.

    1. Hi Robert.
      I’m glad I don’t (as a policy) post my full name online – because its obvious it would become a target for someone.

  7. One of the things this topic should highlight to the SOT101 reader – is that Calvinists historically reach for any possible word or term with which they can use in an equivocation.

    In the English language, a “Double entendre” is a way of framing select words within a sentence – in such a way that the sentence can be understood in two different ways – because the selected word can have two meanings. But this is usually done for humor, where there is not intent to deceive.

    An Equivocation on the other hand, follows the same sentence model, also using a select word/term that can have two meanings. However this is most often a strategic use of ambiguous language designed to trick the recipient via camouflaged language.

    The word “certain” can refer to “epistemic” certainty. As in god knows for certain that 2 x 2 = 4.

    It can also mean: “inevitable”, “inescapable”, “irresistible”, “unavoidable”. “doomed”, “compulsory”,”unalterable”, and “unpreventable”.

    The reader will recognize, all of these words carry a strong reference FATE.

    A trick that would allow one to avoid using the word FATE – would be to simply replace it with the word CERTAIN.
    In this way one evades the recognition of FATALISM within one’s argument – by camouflaging it behind a different word.

    Now the serpent was most subtle beast in the field. And the serpent says…………..
    Genesis 3:1

  8. Let [FCDD] = “first-conceived/decreed/determined”
    Let [ACNC] = “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition”

    1) God foreknows events certain to come to pass, caused by his operation of [FCDD] action, which functions as the direct/indirect [ACNC] of those events coming to pass.
    2) God foreknows events certain to come to pass, with NO [FCDD] [ACNC] operation on his part.

    The Calvinist, remaining true to Theological Determinism, must affirm statement 1, and reject statement 2.

    However, the Calvinist faces logical entailments from his stance, which make Calvinism contain unbiblical or unethical components – and present the God of Calvinism as equally good/evil (i.e., undifferentiated good/evil).

    And compounding that problem, the preponderance of strategies which Calvinism evolves to deal with these logical/ethical conundrums, consistently resolve to some form of dishonesty, in which attempts are made to masquerade or obfuscate its entailments. And this dishonesty, is always manifest, in some form of beguiling double-talk.

    The issue revolves around Calvinism’s logical entailments, of God as evil/good.

    The discerning Christian is advised to look for Calvinism’s beguiling double-talk having the following patterns.
    1) Explicitly affirming statement 1, and then later Implicitly denying statement 1 for evil events.
    2) Explicitly rejecting statement 2, and then later Implicitly affirming statement 2 for evil events.
    3) The use of euphemistic language to camouflage/obfuscate the system’s evil conceptions.
    4) The use of euphemistic language to camouflage/obfuscate God’s necessary causal and concurrent role in evil events – painting a picture in which God is totally absent (Implicit denial of statement 1).
    5) An appeal to secondary causes – to camouflage/obfuscate God’s necessary causal and concurrent role within a causal-chain – necessary to bring about an evil event. (Implicit denial of statement 1).
    6) A highly evolved arsenal, of equivocal words and terms, specifically designed to mislead unsuspecting people into false conclusions, by manufactured facades, so that denials of statement 1 can masquerade as assertions, and affirmations of statement 2 can masquerade as denials – or the reverse.
    7) The strategical use of loaded-language, in which biblical/philosophical words and terms, which do not explicitly imply determinism, are loaded with deterministic meanings. These words and terms, with their loaded meanings are then strategically deployed in ad-hoc fashion – facilitating the affirmation of determinism in one argument and the denial of it in the next. The Calvinist can strategically switch back and forth between these two strategies while the unsuspecting recipient is totally unaware of being tricked within a web of double-talk.
    8) Masquerading predestined-human-choice as un-predestined, in order to blame the human for a choice, which can only come to pass as one single unique inevitable/unavoidable predestined choice.
    9) Masquerading “Particular” divine benevolence as “Universal”. (see What love is this?)
    10) Masquerading a deity within scripture, AS-IF he speaks (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), when it logically follows, he does not.

    It is an old joke: “God decided to make man in his image, and John Calvin decided to return the favor”

    When we understand that a man’s image of god will inherently reflect the characteristics of the man. And when we understand beguiling double-talk as an inherent characteristic of Calvinism. Then we can fully expect to find the image of the deity having that same characteristic. And in fact we do.

    1. br.d writes, “2) God foreknows events certain to come to pass, with NO [FCDD] [ACNC] operation on his part.
      The Calvinist, remaining true to Theological Determinism, must…reject statement 2.”

      As God is the creator of all things, sustains all things, and works all things after the counsel of His will, nothing can occur that has NO [FCDD] [ACNC] operation on his part. To affirm (2) – NO [FCDD] [ACNC] operation – is to deny God.

      1. br.d writes:
        Let [FCDD] = “first-conceived/decreed/determined”
        Let [ACNC] = “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition”

        1) God foreknows events certain to come to pass, caused by his operation of [FCDD] action, which functions as the direct/indirect [ACNC] of those events coming to pass.
        2) God foreknows events certain to come to pass, with NO [FCDD] [ACNC] operation on his part.
        The Calvinist, remaining true to Theological Determinism, must…reject statement 2.”

        rhutchin responds:
        Nothing can occur that has NO [FCDD] [ACNC] operation on God’s part.
        To affirm statement (2) …….is to deny God.

        Lets see how rhutchin’s assertion plays out through logical entailment:

        Adam’s disobedience occurred [FCDD] – “first-conceived/decreed/determined” by God.
        Adam’s disobedience occurred with God as the direct/indirect [ACNC] – “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition”
        Adam’s disobedience could not have occurred without these.
        Because nothing can occur without them, Adam’s choice is not the “necessary condition” for Adam’s disobedience – God’s [FCDD] and [ACNC] are.

        All evil occurs [FCDD] – “first-conceived/decreed/determined” by God.
        All evil occurs with God as the [ACNC] – “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition”
        No evil can occur without [FCDD] – “first-conceived/decreed/determined” by God.
        No evil can occur without God as the direct/indirect [ACNC] – “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition”

      2. br.d writes, “Adam’s disobedience occurred with God as the direct/indirect [ACNC] – “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition”
        Adam’s disobedience could not have occurred without these.”

        Sure. If God had not created Adam…

        Then, “Because nothing can occur without them, Adam’s choice is not the “necessary condition” for Adam’s disobedience – God’s [FCDD] and [ACNC] are.”

        Adam’s choice was a necessary condition. Had Adam not chosen to eat the fruit,…

        Then, “All evil occurs [FCDD] – “first-conceived/decreed/determined” by God.”

        The term, “evil,” is an adjective describing disobedience to God. Without God saying, “Thou shalt not…” nothing could be called evil.

        Then, “All evil occurs with God as the [ACNC] – “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition””

        A proof of this statement is necessary – if more is meant than that God creates man and gives man commands to obey..

  9. br.d writes, “Adam’s disobedience occurred with God as the direct/indirect [ACNC] – “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition”
    Adam’s disobedience could not have occurred without these.”

    rutching responds:
    Sure. If God had not created Adam…

    Here we have double-talk strategy #5 as listed above

    Then, “Because nothing can occur without them, Adam’s choice is not the “necessary condition” for Adam’s disobedience – God’s [FCDD] and [ACNC] are.”

    rutchin writes:
    Adam’s choice was a necessary condition. Had Adam not chosen to eat the fruit,…

    Here we have double-talk strategy #1 and #8 as listed above.
    Additionally this statement is false.
    Adam’s choice is the “sufficient condition” and not the “necessary condition”.
    Hence double-talk strategy #1

    Then, “All evil occurs [FCDD] – “first-conceived/decreed/determined” by God.”

    The term, “evil,” is an adjective describing disobedience to God. Without God saying, “Thou shalt not…” nothing could be called evil.

    irrelevant red herring

    Then, “All evil occurs with God as the [ACNC] – “antecedent-cause and necessary-condition””

    rhutchin writes:
    A proof of this statement is necessary – if more is meant than that God creates man and gives man commands to obey..

    However, rhutchin prior to this writes:
    **NOTHING** can occur that has NO [FCDD] [ACNC] operation on God’s part.
    So here we have another good example of double-talk strategy #1 as listed above.

    Great examples thanks rhutchin! 🙂

  10. Reading in Ezekiel 4 today for my through the Bible….

    12 Prepare and eat this food as you would barley cakes. While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread.” 13 Then the Lord said, “This is how Israel will eat defiled bread in the Gentile lands to which I will banish them!”

    14 Then I said, “O Sovereign Lord, must I be defiled by using human dung? For I have never been defiled before. From the time I was a child until now I have never eaten any animal that died of sickness or was killed by other animals. I have never eaten any meat forbidden by the law.”

    15 “All right,” the Lord said. “You may bake your bread with cow dung instead of human dung.”

    Is this God negotiating with man and changing His mind?

    Answer from Calvinists will no doubt start with….”What is says is not really what this passage is saying…”

    1. Here’s what I read in my devotions this morning! –

      Exod 33:5 For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You [are] a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do to you.’”

      I don’t remember seeing it before my reading it this morning. It certainly is God clearly saying that His knowledge of a future decision is unsettled until He sees what man will do first! It confirms that not all was predetermined before creation and that God’s foreknowledge of the future is partly settled and partly to be settled by His free will decisions yet to be made.

      1. brianwagner writes, “It certainly is God clearly saying that His knowledge of a future decision is unsettled until He sees what man will do first!”

        No, it isn’t. This is no different than God giving the law to Israel and telling them that obedience results in blessing and disobedience results in curses. Doesn’t God then tell Israel that they will certainly disobey Him? All it clearly yells us is that God clearly specifies the behavior He wants form us and then tells us the consequences. By this God proves so that even we know what to expect. There is nothing here to suggest that God does not know what will happen – even as God knew Judas would betray Jesus and Peter would deny Him three times; even telling them to their face what they would do.

      2. So why did God not predict Israel’s reaction in this case as speak it out like He did about Peter’s denials? Why did He say “And I will know what to do to you? A couple popular translations even translate “know” as “decide” (NIV, HCSB).

      3. brianwagner writes, “So why did God not predict Israel’s reaction…”

        Guess He didn’t want to. To argue that God could have done it this way or that way is a poor argument. It proves nothing other than to show that speculation runs rampant. Our basic attitude toward the Scriptures is that “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of [believers] is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25)

      4. Concealing a matter is not deception! God spoke clearly that He would know (decide) what to do after seeing their response to His warning. I will take Him at His Word!

      5. brianwagner writes, “God spoke clearly that He would know (decide) what to do after seeing their response to His warning.’”

        God said, “Now therefore, take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do to you.’” The NET Bible explains it thus, “The form is the cohortative with a vav (ו) following the imperative; it therefore expresses the purpose or result: “strip off…that I may know.” The call to remove the ornaments must have been perceived as a call to show true repentance for what had happened. If they repented, then God would know how to deal with them.”

        We do not have to understand that God does not already know what He will do. We know that obedience brings blessing and disobedience brings curses. Even Israel knows this. Thus, Israel is quick to obey so as to receive blessing. We might, by analogy, liken this to a sting operation wherein the police set before a criminal two options to take – break the law or obey the law. The punishment/reward is known; it is but for the criminal to decide which option to take that the police then know the manner in which they will respond. So, God already knows how He will respond. The real issue is whether God already knows how Israel will respond before the challenge. As God knows the thoughts of a person even before the person thinks the thoughts, there is no reason to think God does not know the outcome even as He gives the challenge.

      6. In response to scripture in which God essentially says “Do X and then I will know what to do with you.”

        rhutchin writes:
        We do not have to understand that God does not already know what He will do.

        This is Calvinism talk in response to the psychological problems they face with their doctrine.
        Calvinists experience cognitive dissonance due to the contradictions scripture presents with their philosophy.
        To minimize this cognitive dissonance Calvinism teaches various instructions on HOW TO THINK.
        And a good percentage of that instruction is DOUBLE-THINK. 🙂

      7. Haha… you were doing ok, Roger, right up until the last sentence. God doesn’t know thoughts that don’t exist. Does He know there are two moons circling the earth?

        Of course in a determinist’s world God authored the script of what everyone has to think before they think it. God certainly knew the choices He gave them to think about, and all the possible thoughts they could think, and He watched as they thought about them. And He could have even put thoughts directly into their head even making them think one way or another.

        But the verse clearly lets us know He was letting Israel know that they had to make up their own mind and then He would know what to do… judge or bless… but even within those two predetermined choices their where probably still more determinations of possible kinds of blessings or judgment still to be made.

      8. brianwagner writes, “God doesn’t know thoughts that don’t exist.”

        I thought (Hee Hee!) that we had established that God knows all future possibilities and this would include potential thoughts that a person might have in different situations. The disagreement was whether God knew the actual thought that would manifest at any point in time. In this case, the choices are limited – take off the ornaments and not. We know from Psalm 33 that, “The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation.” Paul says that God works all things after the counsel of His will. We can conclude that this extends to the very thoughts that enter a person’s mind. God hardened Pharaoh certainly affecting certain thoughts that would not have prevailed otherwise. God is said to embolden people to action or put fear into their heart. So, God is an active player in controlling and manipulating the circumstances in which a person finds himself as well as how he will react – whether in fear or strength or submission or rebellion. It is not beyond God’s power to so limit the thoughts that enter a person’s mind that only one thought prevails. In Genesis 6, the thoughts of men were only evil continuously and never good. God could have opened the hearts of the people to think good things. Neither of us can demonstrate that God does or does not know the thoughts of people before they exist in the person’s mind. On this, you seem to agree stating “Of course in a determinist’s world…”

        Then, “…but even within those two predetermined choices their where probably still more determinations of possible kinds of blessings or judgment still to be made.”

        The key descriptor being “probably.” So, one can speculate.

      9. Glad you agreed with me that God knows all possible thoughts and that He could give thoughts. But the Calvinist wants to extend the meaning of certain verses to prove determinism for all things, which cannot be proven from those verses (talk about speculation)… but they then must overturn the clear meaning of verses like Ex 33:5… where no speculating is possible. God clearly stated in that verse that His decision was still to be made… thus not eternally immutably predetermined .

      10. brianwagner writes, “So why did God not predict Israel’s reaction…”

        rhutchin
        I Guess He didn’t want to.

        Conclusion – in the Calvinist interpretation/understanding of scripture god speaks with a forked-tongue.
        And that is why Calvinists language has the same reputation.

      11. Thanks Brian,
        This verse would imply that God allows for future events to be contingent events, and that the contingency hinges upon what free will decisions (in a libertarian sense – in that they are can do otherwise) of his creatures. In this case, the future is not certain.

        And there are various positions on what that implies concerning divine foreknowledge. The Calvinist response asserts that god induces an illusion into the creature who is thus deceived with the false perception that the decision is “up to” the him/her. The Okhamist/Molinist response is that per a “backtracking counterfactual” god has perfect foreknowledge of future contingent events that he does not determine the outcome of. And with middleknowledge knows things he allows the creature to determine. And if I understand the open response, it will be that many future contingent events do not have truth-value to foreknow.

      12. That sums up the two views accurately… except the open view… at least my open view 😉… says tgere us a truth value for future contingents… it is the truth that they are contingents… and it is the truth they are not decided or certain.

        That truth value changes once one contingent for a possible future event becomes certain or determined and the other contingents for that event then become known truly as counterfactuals.

        The Molinist wants truth value for counterfactuals resulting from “freewill” decisions in a completed world chosen in God’s mind before creation… but it is contradictory to believe a freewill decision can be known as certain before that will is even created… to make that future decision certain before that “freewill” is even created logically requires determinism of some kind.

      13. The Molinist wants truth value for counterfactuals resulting from “freewill” decisions in a completed world chosen in God’s mind before creation… but it is contradictory to believe a freewill decision can be known as certain before that will is even created… to make that future decision certain before that “freewill” is even created logically requires determinism of some kind.

        Hi Brian,
        I understand the contradiction to that proposition, but I don’t see that proposition enunciated or logically entailed in Molinism – unless I ‘m missing something. From what I understand, in Molinism, middleknowledge is “hypothetical” knowledge. Which would appear to have the same characteristics you just enunciated – that counterfactuals are not certain (where “certain” implys the closed-ness of the future) because a “hypothetical” does not exist as real, it cannot be certain.

      14. Actually it may be true that Molinists do see some counterfactuals as having truth-value.

        Take the proposition:
        If the calendar indicates January 1st 2018 br.d will jump up and touch the moon.

        This would be normally be considered false – since it has the preponderance of impossibility.
        But preponderance of possibility/impossibility isn’t the same thing as absolute true/false

        Can you give an example of how the Molinist asserts a counterfactual as having an absolute truth-value?
        Thanks in advance :-]

      15. Br.D. my limited understanding of Molinism is that once the most perfect future was logically chosen by God to bring it into existence… (could He have done otherwise… because the Molinist understanding of the word “perfect” is in agreement with Calvinism?)…they believe all counterfactuals are set in God’s mind as true counterfactuals… though supposedly (and illogically imo) they could have happened in a less perfect world that God didn’t choose. To the Molinist their truth value as a counterfactual is eternally set before creation.

        Counterfactuals in Molinism, imo, masquerade as once-upon-a-time having been true possibilities, but I argue that logically they never were true possibilities if God was locked into choosing a “perfect” world defined as having a completed future forever. Only open theism postulates the word “perfect” includes unsettled possibilities as true in God’s mind whose truth value can change from being a possibility to a factual event or to a counterfactual event in His mind.

      16. Br.D. my limited understanding of Molinism is that once the most perfect future was logically chosen by God to bring it into existence

        Thanks Brian – but does that statement logically imply or entail that the future is (using Calvinist jargon) “rendered certain” where creatures are robbed of the ability to “do otherwise”? If Molinism is correct – in its assertion that “do otherwise” is not an illusion induced into creatures by god, but actually exists as real – then it follows that future events can be genuinely contingent upon the creature. And choices and desires in that case are “up to” the creature.

        I do however knowledge that Molinism has god determining circumstances in which he places people – not allowing people to determine those circumstances. And the Molinist (like the Calvinist) appeals to the “best possible world” argument to make that more palatable.

        But the difference between Molinism and Calvinism is – in Calvinism “do otherwise” is a god induced illusion. Consequently, a vital characteristic of Libertarian Free Will (namely “do otherwise”) is a god induced illusion, which consequences that part of creaturely responsibility predicated upon “do otherwise” is also an illusion.

        But those consequences do not follow from Molinism.
        So even though creatures cannot determine their circumstances, they and not god are the “determiner” of their own choices and desires. Thus their choices and desires are “up to” them. Where in Calvinism, god is the sole determining “determiner” in the universe, and thus choices and desires are not “up to” the creature – but up to god.

        Does that make sense?

      17. From your question, BrD, I’m assuming that if I can find a quote from a Molinist like Craig where he admits the choice of the “perfect” world “rendered certain” and immutable the knowledge of all future free choices (so-called “free” imo since no will was yet created before the certainty of each choice of that will was attained) that you would then see the contradiction in Molinism. Am I right?

      18. I haven’t found yet the exact words “rendered certain in God’s mind before creation” used by Craig, but having read some more of his stuff this morning from his site, I am convinced that is what he believes.

        Two links that I read that helped confirm my opinion of his Molinism are – https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/does-god-really-know-what-ill-do-in-the-future/ and https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/molinism-and-infallibility/

        And the more I read, the more I was convinced that he denies determinism, in one breath, but then affirms all the features of it in his explanation of Molinism in other places. For he will not change his view of omniscience which for him must include a certainty of knowledge of a completed future forever. He may not believe that God “rendered it certain” before creation… but it was “rendered certain” somehow in God’s mind and His foreknowledge is immutable from that point on because He chose a completed world to create.

        In fact… he even admits that God did not actually “choose” between possible words, for no such possible worlds actually exist in God’s mind from Craig’s perspective… but that is only an idea from the perspective of human logic he uses to explain Molinism, is how I read him.

      19. Interesting!

        I see two statements (1) and (2) which seem to acknowledged counterfactuals as having truth-value, but not as “certain” (where “certain” means the closed-ness of the future).

        1) I would say that there are these true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom – that is to say, *TRUE* hypothetical statements in the subjunctive mood about how we would freely choose if we were in a set of circumstances. If those types of propositions are true or false then as an omniscient being God must know them.

        2)
        “If someone insists, But how is God omniscient? …..God just is essentially that way. He has just essentially the properties omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection, eternity, and so forth. So I don’t see any reason to think that it is logically impossible for God to have an innate knowledge of these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which would give him knowledge of how anyone would freely choose in any set of circumstances.”

        In Craig’s book “The Only Wise God – compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom” Craig writes:
        “We have seen that both the past and the future are unchangeable, but that the past is causally closed.
        Whereas the future is causally open.”

        The fact is, because we are free [in the libertarian sense – to do otherwise] and God is omniscient, we do have the power to act in a different way, and were we to act in a different way, **The Past Would Have Been Different** – in that God’s beliefs would have been different.

        This statement from his book is traditionally attributed to William of Ockham and called “Backtracking Counterfactuals”. And both Dr. Craig and Dr. Plantinga embrace them as logical sound against the “closed-ness of the future” – as well as relying upon the hypothetical nature of middleknowledge.

      20. BrD I still think you may still be missing the point. If Craig were asked if God’s omniscience of the future in this world that He actualized was complete and unchangeable in His mind before He actualized it… Craig would say yes. Craig just wants to believe that God actualized a world with free choices being made since knowledge of counterfactuals now exist in God’s mind (ie. what could have happened if He had actualized another world with free choices being made in it).

        You seem to me to give the impression that you want to believe God’s omniscience is becoming more complete concerning the future because somehow middle knowledge is still being exercised… But it is not still being exercised. It was exercised only once… before creation.

        You do agree that Craig believes the future forever is already complete in God’s mind, don’t you?

      21. BrD I still think you may still be missing the point. If Craig were asked if God’s omniscience of the future in this world that He actualized was complete and unchangeable in His mind before He actualized it… Craig would say yes.

        On the question of Dr. Craig asserting that the future is “complete”.
        Yes, I believe his statement that I provided did use that terminology – both the past and the future are unchangeable, and God’s “essential” omniscience is such that he knows all future events – even future contingent events such as creaturely choices that are made having a libertarian form of freedom in which “do otherwise” exists as real.

        But he also states that that does not (as in determinism) “render certain” future free events as they would be if god determined them.
        Now we understand from Calvinism, that a person can attempt to evade something logically entailed in their system.
        So perhaps it is your observation that the “closedness of the future” is logically entailed in his thinking while he doesn’t?

        He clearly rejects the Determinist/Fatalist notion of the “closedness of the future” in his writings.
        If you’re analysis is that his system logically entails the “closedness of the future” I think you’ll have to show that to be the case.

        I certainly won’t say that Craig and Plantinga (who both hold the same position) can be mistaken and the “closedness of the future” is logically entailed in their system – and for some reason they don’t get it. But since we have two internationally recognized Christian Philosophers who have both made major contributions to this subject – I would be inclined to the probability they’ve scrutinized their position well.

      22. BrD. What’s the difference between the future being “complete” / “unchangeable” and “closedness of the future”. You affirm the first for Craig but deny the later. But I am not seeing the difference in meaning. Thx ahead if time.

      23. BrD.
        What’s the difference between the future being “complete” / “unchangeable” and “closedness of the future”. You affirm the first for Craig but deny the later. But I am not seeing the difference in meaning. Thx ahead if time.

        These are two things that are distinguished as different specifically by Craig, and I would assume also by Plantinga.

        To me, “closedness of the future” infers things occurring as inevitable + unavoidable, (as in determinism) and inevitable + unavoidable + necessary (as in fatalism). The opposite would be “openness of the future” for events such as the future free choices of creatures (in a libertarian sense in which “do otherwise” exists as real).

        I will attempt to put it into language that I would anticipate Craig would say:
        1) if Jones decides at 3PM on the 4th of July 2020 to mow his lawn, then god right now (or for the Boethian – “timelessly”) via divine omniscience knows the proposition “Jones mows his lawn at 3PM on the 4th of July 2020”.

        2) if Jones decides at 3PM on the 4th of July 2020 to NOT mow his lawn, then god right now (or for the Boethian – “timelessly”) via divine omniscience knows the proposition “Jones does NOT mow his lawn at 3PM on the 4th of July 2020”.

        3) Either way, Jones is the one who determines whether he will mow his law at 3PM on the 4th of July 2020 and god leaves this decision open to Jones and does not determine it for him. This then would be an example where the “closedness of the future” does not exist.

        4) Now it is the case that if (1) is true, then (2) will be false and vice-versa. Since only one can be true, then which ever one is true, god right now (or for the Boethian – “timelessly”) will know it as true.

        5) If (1) is true, then it is unchangeable and complete

        6) if (2) is true, then it is unchangeable and complete

        7) Whatever is true, (1) or (2), god will also know it is unchangeable and complete – even though he does not determine which one is true – but leaves it open for Jones to decide. So it is “open” in the sense that god does not determine what Jones will determine.

      24. But BrD, God knew at 2:59 which decision would be made at 3pm. It was complete and unchangeable at 2:59. The retreat to “timeless” is no retreat unless you make timeless mean “after” and not “before”. I am amazed that you are not seeing what I am seeing… as I am sure you are probably amazed that I am not seeing what you are seeing.

        But it sounds like you want to believe the future is open and that omniscience is dependent on man’s free decisions, but you want also to believe that such is what Craig is teaching. I think clarity of Craig’s view for you will only happen if you get a chance to pose your views to him. If you want to hold on to your views, which seem very similar to mine, your loyalty to Craig will fade as you see what he really is teaching, imo.

        I thought the quotes I provided from him were clear enough. The world chosen before creation in God’s mind, according to Molinism is completed and unchangeable… therefore the future is indeed closed in the sense that God’s foreknowledge of it will never change for all the free choices were already played out completely in His mind including all His choices and man’s before that world was actualized. That is why it is completed and unchangeable and closed in His mind… though being played out in our created realm.

      25. But BrD, God knew at 2:59 which decision would be made at 3pm. It was complete and unchangeable at 2:59.

        Yes this is what I stated in (5) and (6)

        Brian:
        The retreat to “timeless” is no retreat unless you make timeless mean “after” and not “before”. I am amazed that you are not seeing what I am seeing… as I am sure you are probably amazed that I am not seeing what you are seeing.

        This was actually not my retreat – I was hoping you would get that understanding when I wrote it as (or for the Boethian – “timelessly”)
        I agree with you the Boethian solution fails – but I was attempting to write the statement as it would be stated in a standard article by a Christian Philosopher.

        Brian:
        But it sounds like you want to believe the future is open and that omniscience is dependent on man’s free decisions, but you want also to believe that such is what Craig is teaching.

        yes that is correct – that is the way I understand it.

        Brian”
        I think clarity of Craig’s view for you will only happen if you get a chance to pose your views to him. If you want to hold on to your views, which seem very similar to mine, your loyalty to Craig will fade as you see what he really is teaching, imo.

        Well I guess my representation of what Dr. Craig and Plantinga write could be perceived as loyalty.
        And since I’m human and subject to those frailties it might be the case.
        But at this time, my perception of the issue is to see if there are any holes in their arguments – and/or refer to any Christian Philosopher who has the ability to clearly show where their logic is fails. But so far that doesn’t seem to be the case.
        And if I might “very gently” state, I’m a little disappointed at some of the “open” writers – especially Boyd.
        I read his contribution to “Four Views on Divine Providence” and I wasn’t very impressed with the soundness of his logic.
        To me, their writings seem to be heavy on claims and very light on logical evidence.
        That being said – I must also say I have a strong inclination to the “open” writers appeals to scripture.
        I agree that Calvinists force many square blocks of scripture through the round hole of determinism.
        Where the “open” believer takes these scriptures at face value – the Calvinist can’t.

        Brian:
        I thought the quotes I provided from him were clear enough. The world chosen before creation in God’s mind, according to Molinism is completed and unchangeable… therefore the future is indeed closed in the sense that God’s foreknowledge of it will never change for all the free choices were already played out completely in His mind including all His choices and man’s before that world was actualized. That is why it is completed and unchangeable and closed in His mind… though being played out in our created realm.

        “God’s foreknowledge of it will never change”?
        Perhaps this is the focal point of difference between us on our interpretation of backtracking counterfactuals?
        Where I perceive backtracking counterfactuals as not changing God’s foreknowledge – you seem to perceive they would.

      26. ‘In Craig’s book “The Only Wise God – compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom” Craig writes:
        “We have seen that both the past and the future are unchangeable, but that the past is causally closed.
        Whereas the future is causally open.””

        The context for Craig’s remark in limited to foreknowledge – the future is not caused by God’s foreknowledge. Had Craig expanded context to encompass all actions, then he would not have said that the future is causally open or even open – this because “both the past and the future are unchangeable.”

      27. rhutchin‘
        In Craig’s book “The Only Wise God – compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom” Craig writes:
        “We have seen that both the past and the future are unchangeable, but that the past is causally closed.
        Whereas the future is causally open.””

        The context for Craig’s remark in limited to foreknowledge – the future is not caused by God’s foreknowledge.

        br.d
        Yes and your constant reference to omniscience is in fact simply an appeal to foreknowledge.
        The future not being caused by foreknowledge is elementary school and irrelevant and Dr. Craig is savvy enough to know that.

        rhutchin
        Had Craig expanded context to encompass ALL ACTIONS, then he would not have said that the future is causally open or even open – this because “both the past and the future are unchangeable.”

        br.d
        Again this is a Calvinist auto-magically assuming himself to be more intelligent and philosophically savvy than an internationally recognized Christian Philosopher who is said to have made a major contribution to this subject.
        Dr. Craig should have said [insert Calvinist statement here]
        This is consistent for you – and its easy to see you simply would like (in this case Dr. Craig) to say what you want them to say.

        If you have the ability to show where Dr. Craig’s logic fails – then publish a peer review article showing it. 😉

      28. br.d writes, “The future not being caused by foreknowledge is elementary school and irrelevant and Dr. Craig is savvy enough to know that.”

        I think you now understand the context for Craig’s quote, “the future is causally open.

        Then, “…this is a Calvinist auto-magically assuming himself to be more intelligent and philosophically savvy than an internationally recognized Christian Philosopher…”

        Just taking Craig at his word.

      29. br.d writes, “The future not being caused by foreknowledge is elementary school and irrelevant and Dr. Craig is savvy enough to know that.”

        rhutchin
        I think you now understand the context for Craig’s quote, “the future is causally open.

        br.d
        Understood it all along. :-]

        …this is a Calvinist auto-magically assuming himself to be more intelligent and philosophically savvy than an internationally recognized Christian Philosopher…”

        rhutchin
        Just taking Craig at his word.

        br.d
        And I suspect coming to a conclusion which Dr. Craig would not disagree with – but which you would like to say he does.
        That would be consistent for you. 😀

    2. FOH writes, “Answer from Calvinists will no doubt start with….”What is says is not really what this passage is saying…””

      Nope. Calvinists accept the Scriptures for what they say. Disagreements are over definitions and context. This example is similar to God telling Abraham that He was going to destroy Sodom and having Abraham bargain with Him or with Moses over Israel or with Gideon over the fleece. Are we to think that God does not know the minds of people and the things they think? These are all examples to us that we might also appeal to God on certain issues. It also says, that God wants a relationship with us (incredible as that may seem) and that we should “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” (Philippians 4). No one doubts what the Bible says. The issue is always the application to us today although some use such verses to minimize God.

    3. yes, that is true.
      The Calvinist is follows the Platonic doctrine of divine immutability.

      -quote:
      “In Republic II (381b-c), Plato argued for the full DDI. (Doctrine of Divine Immutability)
      He asserted that a god is “the… best possible” in virtue and beauty.”

      Plotinus (204-270 AD) – the father of NeoPlatonism re-framed Plato’s doctrines into a religion.
      Augustine fell in love with the doctrines of Plotinus and synchronized them into Catholic doctrines.
      Calvin fell in love with Augustine – carried forward Augustine’s Gnostic-NeoPlatonic-Catholic framework info protestant doctrine.

      Any scripture which states that god repented or changed his mind must be interpreted to conform to the Platonic notion.
      These scriptures cannot be taken at face value – and hence require a special PRIEST to interpret them for you.

      1. br.d writes, “The Calvinist is follows the Platonic doctrine of divine immutability.”

        This is a false statement. The Scriptures clearly make this point and Calvinism relies on the Scriptures for their doctrine. That pagans can also figure this out which shows how obvious God is even to pagans.

        Then, “Any scripture which states that god repented or changed his mind must be interpreted to conform to the Platonic notion.”

        The Scriptures are clear here too – God is not a man that He should repent meaning that God does not repent for the reasons a man would: because of bad decisions, wrong behavior, disobedience, etc.

        Then, “These scriptures cannot be taken at face value – and hence require a special PRIEST to interpret them for you.”

        Not according to Calvinism – sola scriptura. Of course, God appoints apostles, teachers, etc. to help the believe to grow. “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (I Corinthians 11)

      2. br.d writes, “The Calvinist is follows the Platonic doctrine of divine immutability.”

        rhutchin:
        This is a false statement. The Scriptures clearly make this point and Calvinism relies on the Scriptures for their doctrine.

        br.d
        Calvinism is such a rich world of self-ingratiating Easy Make-Disbelieve-isms:
        All historical academic materials on Augustine agree:
        1) Augustine could not read the Greek manuscripts of scripture and was reliant upon a corrupt translation.
        2) Augustine’s doctrines were permeated with the doctrines of Plotinus – who re-formed the doctrines of Plato into a religion.
        3) The doctrine of divine immutability is first found in Plato’s Republic II 300 years before Christ.

  11. Additional information on Theological Determinism:

    Very roughly Determinism is the claim that everything that happens is determined by antecedent conditions together with the natural laws. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Ted Honderich

    Theological determinism is a form of determinism which states that all events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by *A GOD*, or that they are destined to occur given its omniscience. – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Leigh Vicens

    Theological determinism exists in a number of religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
    It is also supported by proponents of Classical pantheism such as the Stoics and Baruch Spinoza.

    IN STOIC THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM – THERE CAN BE MULTIPLE GOD’S
    It is better to praise the GODS than to praise the conquests of Philip or Alexander – Seneca (NQ 3.5).
    The Stoics were members of a school of Hellenistic philosophy that flourished throughout the Roman and Greek world.
    The Stoics existed roughly from 300 B.C. to 200-300 A.D.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

    The Stoics believed that the governing part of each human soul, the “hegemonikon”, is a fragment of the divine logos.
    The Stoic Epictetus who believed the determining THEOS was Zeus has Zeus saying “I have given you a part of myself, the power of impulse and repulsion, of desire and avoidance. In a word, the power of using impressions.” – (Epictetus, Discourses 1.17.27, trans. Dobbin 1998, 36)

    The Stoic Seneca believed the determining THEOS was Jupiter saying “Jupiter can be referred to by many names: fate, the cause of causes (causa causarum), providence, nature, universe.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Seneca

    As a mater of fact, Swingli refers to Seneca as a example of predestination and divine providence. -quote “The most significant impact from which Seneca found in Zwingli’s all-encompassing doctrine of providence, of which predestination is a subcategory. Nothing, Swingli insists is done without the immediate care and power of the deity. – Encyclopedia of Protestantism Volume 4 – Hans J. Hillerbrand

    Here is what is obvious:
    1) Theological Determinism is a variant of Determinism with the single distinction that a THEOS is the determiner.
    2) Theological Determinism appears 300 years before Christ
    3) The conundrums concerning human free will within Theological Determinism appear also 300 years before Christ
    4) Theological Determinists can have one or more determining THEOS – who may be Zeus, Jupiter, or Yahweh
    5) Theological Determinists just like their non-Theological cousins have always attempted to escape its logical entailments because those entailments are inherent in Determinism.

    1. A correction:

      1) Theological Determinism is a variant of Determinism with the single distinction that a THEOS (rather than physics or randomness) controls those antecedents sighted within the general thesis of Determinism.

      Epictetus can take comfort that Zeus predestines all things rather than physics or randomness.
      Seneca can take comfort that Jupiter predestines all things rather than physics or randomness.
      Calvinists can take comfort that Yahweh predestines all things rather than physics or randomness.

      But their all in the same belief boat together – riding down the river of Determinism – subject to its logical currents. 😀

      1. BrD… would your agree that divine certainty of a future event confirms the necessity of that event taking place even if God in your thinking did not previously determine that event to take place in the future? If so… how did that certainty come about in God’s mind before creation for yhat event and every future event… even the events known as choices made by a human will.

        Craig wants to believe that such truth or certainty exists in God apart from His will. In other words He didn’t will to create that truth or certainty… it just somehow exists in His mind apart from His will. But Molinism also wants to propose some kind of choice by God to actualize a certain world where all His and man’s free choices are already made certain in His mind.

        Read again the last part carefully of the second article I linked. In my thinking, if Molinism has God’s will deciding on which world to make then God’s will is responsible for creating the certainty and truth of every thing that will be in that world. And if certain then necessary and if necessary then no free will choice events… but only theoretically for that human will would have chosen differently if God actualized a different world… but only differently one specific choice.

      2. brianwagner to br.d writes, “And if certain then necessary and if necessary then no free will choice events… but only theoretically for that human will would have chosen differently if God actualized a different world… but only differently one specific choice.”

        The problem, as always, is defining the term, “free will.” If freedom of will exists where the choices people make reside within themselves – the fruit of the flesh is X but the fruit of the spirit is Y, etc., then the certainty imposed by God’s omniscience says only that the person will certainly and necessarily choose as he wills – thus, he has freedom of will. In this, the person can choose otherwise but will not choose against himself. The problem that those who seek the magical Libertarian Free Will is that it cannot be said to be exercised universally but only in a very few instances and even that is hard to demonstrate.

        Certainly, a salvation decision could not be described as an LFW decision because there are forces that act to determine one’s decision – as the parable of the Sower and the Seed indicate with the difference in the soils being the determining factor. Elsewhere, we see that Satan blinds those headed for destruction. In John 6, Jesus says, “No one can come to me…” reiterated by Paul in Romans 8. Thus, those who are not saved are determined so by factors outside their control.

      3. If “will not choose” exists then “can choose” does not exist except in a your speculation… which activity usually does not sit well with you Roger. 😎

        And libertarian freewill is not hard to demonstrate as already shown in Ex 33:5… and supported by a word study in Scripture on the word “freewill”. The soils in the Sower’s parable are not determinative as seen in Jesus’ interpretation in Luke 8:12 that even the hard heart could still get saved.

      4. brianwagner writes, “If “will not choose” exists then “can choose” does not exist except in a your speculation… ”

        No. Not when it occurs within the person. It means that integrity overrides temptation to steal or lie, etc. A person “can choose” between X or ~X or between X and Y. An internal set of values may rule out X. We know that God cannot lie (or sin). God still has a freedom of will. There is no speculation here. Even you have things that you could do but will not do because of your integrity – this is all part of your your freedom of will.

        Then, “And libertarian freewill is not hard to demonstrate as already shown in Ex 33:5… and supported by a word study in Scripture on the word “freewill”.

        That makes it the same “free will” espoused by the Calvinists – they decide/give freely; not under compulsion. Is it any different than that?

        Then, “The soils in the Sower’s parable are not determinative as seen in Jesus’ interpretation in Luke 8:12 that even the hard heart could still get saved. ”

        Obviously, the elements of a parable are constructed by Jesus to make a point. Thus, it is Jesus who determines the parable. Jesus does not explain how the soils come about – only that they represent spiritual realities. Luke 8 suggests that a person could be saved if only Satan did not steal the word from their heart. Then, Paul says that Satan blinds those who are perishing (i.e., who are in sin).. So, the person who perishes cannot take action on his sin because of Satan’s actions – he perished because he chose to sin but Satan determines that he can do nothing about his sin..

      5. I’m not sure how, Roger, you continue to feel comfortable trying to defend what you must see, I’m assuming, is illogical, and then you try to ignore Scripture’s clear teaching as well.

        This would be my last thoughts for this thread, for I don’t want to encourage your motivation in defence of the contradictions sand weaknesses of Calvinism more than this.

        God cannot lie. Having the ability to communicate and having a will with a level of freedom consistent with His nature does not mean He freely expresses the truth… No… He cannot lie and He cannot freely choose not to lie. A person however given the light of Christ to enable them the opportunity of faith is able to freely choose to believe or not.

        It’s easy for you to declare that the Calvinist says that his free will is not under compulsion… but the premise of determinism and its meaning requires me to believe there is only compulsion and no freedom. The primary cause, God, has in their view made certain that either personally or through secondary causes another one’s will chooses only what was predetermined by the divine will. That’s compulsion.

        Jesus made the clear point that the hard soil could be saved if the seed stayed… and that is why we pray for hard hearts when they hear the Word… that the evil one will not take the seed… but that the Word can have the opportunity to do its work dividing thoughts and intents and giving further opportunity for influence of the Word to change that hard soil into good soil as the person humbles themselves and seeks further understanding.

      6. brianwagner writes, “God cannot lie. Having the ability to communicate and having a will with a level of freedom consistent with His nature does not mean He freely expresses the truth… No… He cannot lie and He cannot freely choose not to lie.”

        Yet, God does freely express the truth – doesn’t He? God is not a man, so God cannot be tempted to lie nor does the thought of lying arise from His heart (metaphorically speaking). So, God cannot really choose not to lie, because that option never presents itself in God’s mind. It would seem then that God never really “chooses” to express truth, so we would not say that God “freely” expresses truth even though God is certainly free to express the truth – God expresses truth because His nature is to express truth and only truth.

        Then, “A person however given the light of Christ to enable them the opportunity of faith is able to freely choose to believe or not.”

        If it is true that a person has been “given the light of Christ to enable them the opportunity of faith,” and it is true that he “is able to freely choose to believe or not,” then that person will always freely choose to believe. If not, then he could not have been given the light of Christ or he was not enabled. In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul says that Satan blinds those who are perishing “that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” The inference here is that seeing the light of the gospel leads to salvation.

        Then, “It’s easy for you to declare that the Calvinist says that his free will is not under compulsion… but the premise of determinism and its meaning requires me to believe there is only compulsion and no freedom.”

        The distinction made by the Calvinist is whether the compulsion comes from outside the person or from within. A person who has no faith is compelled to satisfy his fleshly desires because that is who he is. While compelled, we say that he does so freely. The evil heart of a man produces evil fruit – freely so. So, your point, “there is only compulsion and no freedom,” is true only because you require a person to be free from himself if he is to exercise true freedom of choice. However, no one is free from himself – so freedom of will cannot exist under the conditions you impose. The lengths that you, or any non-Calvinist, must go to establish freedom of will end up showing that the free will you seek cannot possibly exist meaning that the Calvinist has accurately understood the freedom that people have in the world God created.

        Then, “The primary cause, God, has in their view made certain that either personally or through secondary causes another one’s will chooses only what was predetermined by the divine will. That’s compulsion.”

        Predetermined – but caused, in some cases, through secondary means. The primary secondary means compelling a person to sin is his sinful nature and corrupt heart. He cannot escape who he is. OK, let’s agree that this is compulsion and there is no “true” free will. Under those conditions, can anyone ever express “true” free will?? I don’t see how, and I don’t think you, or any non-Calvinist can show how any other situation could exist such that a person could express “true” free will.

      7. brianwagner writes, “Eph 1:18 – I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened.”

        Great verse! Let’s look at context, “In Christ, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,…having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you,…I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of His calling,…”

        Those of whom Paul prays to be enlightened are believers – for a specific outcome: that they would come to know the “hope” of their calling. Your prior argument involved the enlightening of unbelievers to bring them to salvation. I see no help for your philosophy in Ephesians 1.

      8. LOL!! Not at you, but at me. I always appeal for wisdom, personally, based on James (as we all do). Nonetheless, I appreciate your intervention on my behalf and God’s encouragement to us to do so for others.

      9. BrD… would your agree that divine certainty of a future event confirms the necessity of that event taking place even if God in your thinking did not previously determine that event to take place in the future?

        No I wouldn’t.
        As you know – Calvinist language is deceptive partly with a high use of selective terms that can be used equivocally.
        One of those terms is “certain”.

        There is “epistemic” certainty. For example god is certain that 2 x 3 = 6.
        Calvinsts use the term “certain” as a euphamism to mean “inevitable” and “unavoidable”.
        In other words they exchange the word “fate” with “certain” – giving “certain” the meaning “fate”.

        To your question, I would agree that divine “epistemic” certainty of a future event confirms the nothing more than divine knowledge.
        Creature free (libertarian) events are still open.
        But that does not entail that god cannot know what they will be.

        Brian
        If so… how did that certainty come about in God’s mind before creation for yhat event and every future event… even the events known as choices made by a human will.

        Are you getting the “backtracking counterfactuals”?
        It seems like you’re not taking that into consideration?

        Brian:
        Craig wants to believe that such truth or certainty exists in God apart from His will. In other words He didn’t will to create that truth or certainty… it just somehow exists in His mind apart from His will. But Molinism also wants to propose some kind of choice by God to actualize a certain world where all His and man’s free choices are already made certain in His mind.

        I still think the “backtracking counterfactuals” does not make this necessary.
        Are you sure you’ve given them consideration?

        Brian:
        Read again the last part carefully of the second article I linked. In my thinking, if Molinism has God’s will deciding on which world to make then God’s will is responsible for creating the certainty and truth of every thing that will be in that world.

        Boy Briian – I’m not sure how you come to that. Is it not possible for god to determine circumstances without determining creaturely choices?

        Brian:
        And if certain then necessary and if necessary then no free will choice events… but only theoretically for that human will would have chosen differently if God actualized a different world… but only differently one specific choice.

        The term “necessary” in this context is problematic – because in Theological Fatalism all things are “”inevitable” and “unavoidable” OF NECESSITY where in Theological Determinism all things are simply “inevitable” and “unavoidable”

        If you still feel I’m missing something, perhaps you can provide the specific sentence that you wanted me to re-read.
        But in the mean time, could you please consider “backtracking counterfactuals” and how that plays a role?

      10. BrD… I’m not seeing “backtracking counterfactuals” as something Craig believes is essential to Molinism. Here is his description of how God came up with this competed world including the counterfactual components of it in His mind before creation. I don’t see any changes being possible in His foreknowledge from that point onward… so my next choice is not freely made in my thinking for I’m only theoretically able to do something else but God’s foreknowledge (if Calv or Armin or Molin is true) confirms i will indeed only do one certain thing. How it was made certain in God’s mind before creation, they all differ… but it was made certain… and that to me is the same result as determinism.

        Here’s what Craig said –
        <<What this objection fails to appreciate is that parallel to the logical sequence in God's knowledge–natural knowledge, middle knowledge, free knowledge–there is a logical sequence in the instantiation of the actual world as well. In the first logical moment of God's natural knowledge, all broadly logically necessary states of affairs already obtain. In the second logical moment of God's middle knowledge the actual world is even more fully instantiated than at the first moment. For now all those states of affairs corresponding to true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom obtain. For example, the state of affairs If Peter were in C, he would deny Jesus three times obtains. Then comes logically the divine decree to create, and God freely actualizes all remaining states of affairs of the actual world. In the third logical moment, God possesses free knowledge of the actual world, which is exemplified in all its fullness (tenselessly speaking). Only at this point can the actual world as such be said to obtain.

        And

        <<If God's beliefs are merely inerrant in the actual world, then that inerrancy warrants a special resolution of vagueness; if God is essentially omniscient, then no special resolution is required to justify backtracking counterfactuals, since no worlds exist in which God errs, so that the standard resolution suffices.
        From – https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-omniscience/hasker-on-divine-knowledge/

      11. Hi Brian,
        I should read this article closer and get myself thoroughly acquainted with it.

        But I do notice this about FOOTNOTE 37 where it is used for this statement”

        It is precisely to such backtracking counterfactuals that the defender of divine foreknowledge of future contingents appeals in rebutting theological fatalism, and he is careful to offer justification for their appropriateness there.

        I believe FOOTNOTE 37 is where Craig provides the delineation that the “defender of divine foreknowledge of future contingents” must be aware of to properly appeal to backtracking counterfactuals.

        In another place (I can’t remember where right now) I remember Craig saying that Molina embraced Ockham’s backtracking counterfactuals and also developed the theory of middleknowledge. Alvin Plantinga appeals to backtracking counterfactuals in his published work “On Ockham’s way out” – where Plantinga critiques Jonathon Edwards and shows where his arguments fail.

      12. The appeal to btcf is only to combat fatalism, since they do not accept the authority of Scripture. But I believe the quote I provided from Craig shows that he actually does not believe in their use to support middle knowledge.

      13. I’ll look into this!
        Yes I agree btcf are specifically a way to logically counter Theological Fatalism.

      14. br.d writes, (1) “Calvinists use the term “certain” as a euphamism to mean “inevitable” and “unavoidable”.
        (1) In other words they exchange the word “fate” with “certain” – giving “certain” the meaning “fate”.”

        The three terms, “certain,” “inevitable.” and “unavoidable” are synonyms and are used to define each other such that they mean the same thing. So, Calvinists cannot be faulted as you say in (1).

        Fate is a term used to explain events occurring in the absence of God – the explanation for the events is not attributed to God. Calvinists make God the basis for the certainty of events and not fate. There is no exchanging of certain for fate in Calvinism. At least, I have not run across it.

      15. So rhutchins argument
        “Fate is a term used to explain events occurring in the absence of God”

        br.d
        This is yet another one of your elementary school errors in logic.

        Calvinists come in two stripes:
        1) Theological Determinism
        2) Theological Fatalism.

        What delineates Theological Fatalism from Natural Fatalism is the “determiner”.

        However, just as Theological Determinism is Determinism – so Theological Fatalism is Fatalism.
        Obviously Theological Fatalism is not Natural Fatalism.

      16. br.d responding to brianwagner writes, “Are you getting the “backtracking counterfactuals”?
        It seems like you’re not taking that into consideration?”

        The idea of “backtracking counterfactuals” is a little game people like Craig play in an attempt to explain how Molinism takes free will into account. It is where a person in the present explains free will by saying something like, “If John had done A, then God would have known that as truth, but if John had done ~A, God would have known that as truth.” They conveniently omit the part about God creating one unique universe. It goes something like this, “God considers all the possible worlds He could create. If John does A today, then God would have created that world in Genesis 1; if John does B today, then God would have created that world.” It is slight of hand to avoid the clear implications of Molinism that Brian has understood and pointed out. Br.d has no response to Brian’s points because there are none, so he resorts to a little slight of hand to explain how Molinism works to protect free will. Unfortunately, the appeal to “backtracking counterfactuals” is pretty lame.

      17. br.d responding to brianwagner writes, “Are you getting the “backtracking counterfactuals”?
        It seems like you’re not taking that into consideration?”

        rhutchin
        The idea of “backtracking counterfactuals” is A LITTLE GAME PEOPLE LIKE Craig [Dr. William Lane Craig] play in an attempt to explain how Molinism takes free will into account.

        br.d
        rhutchin if it weren’t’ so obvious your “wizard of oz” posturing is just exactly that – people might take you seriously!
        But since you don’t have the slightest understanding of what your talking about no one is worried. 😀

    2. br.d writes, ‘1) Theological Determinism is a variant of Determinism with the single distinction that a THEOS is the determiner.”

      You finally got it.

      Then, “2) Theological Determinism appears 300 years before Christ”

      Outside the Scriptures. It appears in the Scriptures beginning in Genesis 1.

      1. br.d
        Theological Determinism appears 300 years before Christ”

        rhutchin
        Outside the Scriptures. It appears in the Scriptures beginning in Genesis 1.

        William Lane Craig – Four Views on Divine Providence
        It needs to be kept in mind that Universal, Divine Causal Determinism is an INTERPRETATION of Scripture, an interpretation that some Reformed divines themselves regard as irreconcilable with other clear teachings of Scripture.

        Nonetheless, the Theological Determinist, is saddled with Determinism – whether he is an Epicurean a Stoic, or a Calvinist – he is saddled with the same characteristic incoherent logic, sophisms, and an author of evil deity who speaks with forked-tongue.

  12. br.d writes,
    (1) “Calvinists use the term “certain” as a euphamism to mean “inevitable” and “unavoidable”.
    (1) In other words they exchange the word “fate” with “certain” – giving “certain” the meaning “fate”.”

    rhutchin:
    The three terms, “certain,” “inevitable.” and “unavoidable” are synonyms and are used to define each other such that they mean the same thing. So, Calvinists cannot be faulted as you say in (1).

    br.d
    Irrelevant red-herring
    1) There is a reason Calvinists avoid the words “inevitable” and “unavoidable” like the plague – they reveal a harshness of meaning that the Calvinist seeks to evade. Trying to make determinism masquerade as in-determinism. This is what a “euphemism” is.

    2) The word “certain” is used equivocally by Calvinists where they use it in statements to mean both “epistemic” certainty as well as “inevitability” and “unavailability”.

    A good example is where rhutchin quotes William Lane Craig’s use of the word “certain” where Craig means “epistemic” certainty and not “unavoidable” – “inevitable” but rhutchin interprets it as such.

  13. I messed that up!

    br.d
    And I suspect coming to a conclusion which Dr. Craig would not agree with – but which you would like to say he does.
    That would be consistent for you. 😀

    Typing too fast for my own good. :-]

    1. Thanks for the question James –

      1Sam 23:11-13 NKJV “Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as Your servant has heard? O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will deliver [you.] So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go. Then it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah; so he halted the expedition.”

      There are similar verses that point to possibilities (that sound like predictions) not yet set for future activities that then go unheeded. Jonah’s warning of 40 days till the destruction of Nineveh was similar. Hezekiah’s soon coming death. And there are verses confirming possibilities that had existed for past events that went unfulfilled like God having expected good fruit from Israel, Is 5:1-4 and Jesus saying He could have called for 10 legions of angels (Matt 26:53). Also, there is Jesus’ call to His disciples to pray that their flight from the future fall of Jerusalem would not be in winter or on the Sabbath, which confirms that though the fall was already set to happen, the date for it happening was not set (Matt 24:20).

      The wording in 1Sam 23:11-13 would be a little easier to swallow so that God would not be seen as sounding deceptive or mistaken if the Hebrew imperfect would be translated “He is coming down” instead of “He will come down”. We talk that way about plans that are committed to before one leaves on the journey, without meaning those plans will not change on any account. “I am going to the store” or even “I will go to the store tomorrow” does not mean there may not be conditions involved that will cause a change. The king of Nineveh understood that the prophecy – “40 days and Nineveh will be overthrown” had the underlying motivation for it being made known to the whole city that perhaps it was to bring about repentance and a delay or cancellation of the judgment.

  14. William Lane Craig, addresses the Calvinist conflation of “Certainty” with “Necessity”. “Certainty” in an epistemic term where “necessity” (in this case modal necessity) is a model term. Philosophers understand that assertions often raise semantic disputes which masquerade as logical disputes.

    There is the children story, for example of the bear in the woods, in a dispute with two birds over which creature was the fastest in the woods. The birds assert they are by virtue of their ability to fly. The bear seeking only to win the argument claims he can also fly.
    He climbs on a tall rock and jump flapping his paws as he falls.
    He claims that as evidence he can “fly”.

    In the story, the birds were not smart enough to realize the bear’s argument was based upon an ad-hoc definition of the word “fly”.
    If the birds had been smarter, they would have recognized, the bear took the meaning of the word “fly” and applied it to the word “fall”.

    Similarly, the Calvinist can appear to evade the fallacious appeal to the word “necessity” – and thereby appear to avoid the logical fallacy Dr. Craig points out.

    Like the bear, he transfers the meaning of the word “necessity” to the word “Certainty” in order to appear to evade the fallacy

    As Dr. Linda Zagzebski points out in her analysis of Theological Determinism – the Calvinist argument (“Foreknowledge = Fore ordination”) doesn’t require a THEOS. It only requires an entity that can theoretically have perfect knowledge of a given future event.

    If a computer could predict with infallible accuracy what a Calvinist was going to do on July 4th next year – would the Calvinist say the computer immutably determined what he does on July 4th next year?

    One of the best-known Ockhamist Molinist answers – that omniscience does not logically require determinism – is made by Alvin Plantinga (1986), who defined the accidentally necessary in terms of lack of counterfactual power.

    For someone, Jones, to have counterfactual power over God’s past beliefs, the following must be true:

    It was within Jones’ power at t2 to do something such that if he did it, God would not have held the belief he in fact held at t1.

    Plantinga argued that counterfactual power over God’s past beliefs about human free choices is coherent and if it occurs, these beliefs are not accidentally necessary; they do not have the kind of necessity of the past which determinists allege.

    1. Nice try, BrD (aka Craig)… but though certainty does not equal necessity, it can not exist without it. Something made the decision at T2 necessary as only one outcome so that it was known as that one outcome as certain at T1. T1 doesn’t wait until T2 happens to know that outcome… that is illogical, because it goes against logical sequence. Since T1 knows the outcome of T2 then T2’s outcome was made necessary by something that existed before T1… at T0, otherwise T2’s outcome is only known as made up of possibilities that are impossible to know as certain.

    2. br.d writes, “As Dr. Linda Zagzebski points out in her analysis of Theological Determinism – the Calvinist argument (“Foreknowledge = Fore ordination”) doesn’t require a THEOS.”

      If there is no THEOS, then it is not Theological Determinism. By the modifier, “Theological,” THEOS is introduced into determinism. If you remove “Theological” (i.e., no God), then she is correct, “the Calvinist argument (“Foreknowledge = Fore ordination”) doesn’t require a THEOS.” The only problem is that the Calvinist Argument includes God.

      Then, “If a computer could predict with infallible accuracy what a Calvinist was going to do on July 4th next year – would the Calvinist say the computer immutably determined what he does on July 4th next year?”

      No. A computer in not a THEOS. The Scriptures introduce us to God, who communicates to people through His prophets from which the Scriptures are derived and in those Scriptures, God describes Himself as immutable. A computer does not of the things God does.

      Then, “that omniscience does not logically require determinism”

      This is the point William Craig makes – Omniscience is not the cause of that which is known.

      Then, “Plantinga argued that counterfactual power over God’s past beliefs about human free choices is coherent and if it occurs,…”

      Key phrase, “if it occurs.” Does Plantinga then claim that it does occur? I suspect he does not. He is just making a logical argument (as philosophers are prone to do) without regard to its truth value.

  15. Hey, everyone! I’m just now reading this forum, and I nearly fell out of my chair when I read RHutchin’s post on November 3, 2017:

    “God hardened Pharaoh certainly affecting certain thoughts that would not have prevailed otherwise. God is said to embolden people to action or put fear into their heart. So, God is an active player in controlling and manipulating the circumstances in which a person finds himself as well as how he will react—whether in fear or strength or submission or rebellion. It is not beyond God’s power to so limit the thoughts that enter a person’s mind that only one thought prevails.”

    Here RHutchin shamelessly says that God forces people to sin; if it weren’t for God, Pharaoh’s sinful thoughts “would not have prevailed.” God is “controlling and manipulating” people to make them engage in “rebellion.” (Incidentally, there is no such thing as rebellion against God if God is making you do it!)

    The notion of God “controlling and manipulating” people to sin is nothing short of blasphemy. Maybe RHutchin should go to calvinistcorner.com and debate Matt Slick, who insists that God never forces people to sin. Of course, like RHutchin, Matt Slick tends to contradict himself. 😉

    1. LS8 writes, “Here RHutchin shamelessly says that God forces people to sin;…”

      This is wrong. People are born without faith and with a sin nature, Lacking faith, people cannot please God and cannot do good. Because of their sin nature, “…even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,…” People sin because it is their nature to sin. people do not sin as much as they desire because God restrains them in their sin. God can do this is direct ways – preventing the Jews from stoning Christ – or secondary means – peer pressure or the physical presence of police in society. God knows the thoughts of a person even before they arise in his mind. God has the power to block sinful thoughts if He wills. In hardening Pharaoh, God did not have to force him to do anything – God only had to remove the restraints on him to sin and let Pharaoh do what came naturally to him.

      Then, “The notion of God “controlling and manipulating” people to sin is nothing short of blasphemy.”

      Take a look at Lamentations. Here is an example. Jeremiah gives glory to God in this passage.

      Lamentations 3
      1 I am the man who has seen affliction Because of the rod of God’s wrath.
      2 He has driven me and made me walk In darkness and not in light.
      3 Surely against me He has turned His hand Repeatedly all the day.
      4 He has caused my flesh and my skin to waste away, He has broken my bones.
      5 He has besieged and encompassed me with bitterness and hardship.
      6 In dark places He has made me dwell, Like those who have long been dead.
      7 He has walled me in so that I cannot go out; He has made my chain heavy.
      8 Even when I cry out and call for help, He shuts out my prayer.
      9 He has blocked my ways with hewn stone; He has made my paths crooked.
      10 He is to me like a bear lying in wait, Like a lion in secret places.
      11 He has turned aside my ways and torn me to pieces; He has made me desolate.
      12 He bent His bow And set me as a target for the arrow.
      13 He made the arrows of His quiver To enter into my inward parts.
      14 I have become a laughingstock to all my people, Their mocking song all the day.
      15 He has filled me with bitterness, He has made me drunk with wormwood.
      16 And He has broken my teeth with gravel; He has made me cower in the dust.
      17 And my soul has been rejected from peace; I have forgotten happiness.

      1. Lampstand
        Then, “The notion of God “CONTROLLING AND MANIPULATING PEOPLE TO SIN is nothing short of blasphemy.”

        rhtuchin
        This is WRONG…etc

        br.d
        The discerning Christian will take note that rhutchin never says “This is FALSE”
        What he says is “This is WRONG”

        What is WRONG: It doesn’t conform to Calvinism’s double-speak talking points – even if it is LOGICALLY TRUE.

        The sole reliance is upon talking-points strategically designed to masquerade determinism.
        Making it APPEAR as IN-determinism.

        Dr. William James:
        -quote:
        Compatibilism is a QUAGMIRE OF EVASION. The Compatibilists strategy relies upon stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. They make a pretense of restoring the caged bird to liberty with one hand, while with the other they anxiously tie a string to its leg to make sure it can’t get beyond determinism’s grasp.

        Immanuel_Kant:
        -quote:
        Compatibilism is a WRETCHED SUBTERFUGE with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved lives problems with PETTY WORD-JUGGLERY.

        Dr. William Lane Craig:
        In Calvinism – God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, PRETENDING they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and PRETENDING they merit praise or blame.

        Understanding Calvinism is simple:
        A Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking-points. :-]

      2. RHutchin writes, “In hardening Pharaoh, God did not have to force him to do anything – God only had to remove the restraints on him to sin and let Pharaoh do what came naturally to him.”

        The idea that Pharaoh sinned because God did not restrain him contradicts your earlier post. Remember, you said, “God hardened Pharaoh certainly affecting certain thoughts that would not have prevailed otherwise.” This means that, if left to himself, Pharaoh wouldn’t have sinned, but God stepped in to ensure certain thoughts prevailed “that would not have prevailed otherwise.” You can say you misspoke, or you can continue defending the blasphemous idea that God forces people to sin.

        RHutchin: “Take a look at Lamentations. Here is an example.”

        An example of what? Of God forcing people to sin? The text says nothing of the sort!

      3. Ah yes – Calvinism’s silly “Not Restrain” argument.
        Calvin’s god renders-certain X will infallibly happen and then makes a -quote “active decision to not restrain” the very thing he rendered-certain.

        This argument proves that Calvin’s god is not omniscient.
        Part of Divine Omniscience is stated as KNOWING THE TRUTH VALUE OF EVERY PROPOSITION.

        Calvin’s god is not smart enough to know that when something is “rendered certain” to infallibly come to pas – its a logical impossibility for it to be restrained from coming to pass.

        Since Calvin’s god is not smart enough to know that – he flunks his 10th grade class on omniscience. :-]

      4. LS8 writes, “The idea that Pharaoh sinned because God did not restrain him contradicts your earlier post. ”

        No, No, No. We are speaking in context of Calvinism. Under Calvinism, Adam sins resulting in the corruption of the human nature – it is now a sin nature – with all people now being born with a sin nature. It is the person’s sin nature that causes the heart and will of the person to desire to sin and then will to sin. So, Paul, in Galatians 5, writes, “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,…” and in Genesis 6, we read, “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” While Pharaoh was totally depraved, he was not as evil as he could be only because God was continually restraining him thereby keeping him in check. God was willing for Pharaoh to be only so evil and not more. When God wanted to harden Pharaoh, He need only loosen the restraints on him. Without God’s restraint, Pharaoh would be entertaining all sorts of evil that would otherwise have been hidden away in his sin nature.

        I had written, “Take a look at Lamentations. Here is an example.”
        LS8 responded, “An example of what? Of God forcing people to sin? The text says nothing of the sort!”

        They are things that happen when God is not restraining sin. Jeremiah describes God doing these things even though God is working through secondary means to bring the things about. Look at what Jeremiah says about God,

        – God has driven me and made me walk In darkness and not in light.
        – God has besieged and encompassed me with bitterness and hardship.
        – God shuts out my prayer.
        – God has filled me with bitterness, He has made me drunk with wormwood.

        Because of Israel’s sin, God had removed His protection over it thereby allowing the surrounding nations to come in and plunder Israel – yet Jeremiah attributes all that happens to Israel to God.

      5. rhutchin
        Under Calvinism, Adam sins resulting in the corruption of the human nature…etc

        br.d
        Too funny! This is where the Calvinist magician turns his god into a magical disappearing rabbit!

        Prior to this – Calvin’s god is at the foundation of the world (before Adam is born) “rendered-certain” EVERY PART of Adam’s sin.

        But then PRESTO! Calvinism’s magical rabbit disappears!

        Just like Bill Clinton says: “I didn’t have X with that woman”
        The Calvinist says: “Under Calvinism Adam sins, resulting in the corruption of the human nature”

        rhutchin
        Because of Israel’s sin, God had removed His protection over it thereby allowing the surrounding nations to come in and plunder Israel….etc

        br.d
        This one is even more hilarious!

        These examples show that Calvin’s god is not intelligent enough to qualify as omniscient.
        He doesn’t have enough intelligence to know – he is the one who renders-certain EVERY PART of what Adam and Israel are and do.

        When the universe was handing out intelligence he said: “No thanks – I’m gonna to be Calvin’s god – so I won’t need it”

        I still say God gave mankind Calvinism – as a form of entertainment. :-]

    2. Great catch LampStand.

      You will find rhutchin contradict himself all over the place.
      Take this statement for example:

      ““God hardened Pharaoh certainly affecting certain thoughts that WOULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED OTHERWISE”.

      In Christian Philosophy this is stated as “CANNOT DO OTHERWISE”
      And is classified a logical consequence of Theological Determinism.

      Generally stated like this:
      Where the THEOS determines the creature do [A] – the creature CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than [A]

      So you can see rhutchin – in this statement – quite naturally affirms this.
      And yet in other posts he will deny the very same thing.

      Calvinist arguments always take the form of asserting [A] one minute – and then denying [A] the next.
      This shows there is little to no focus on ascertaining truth.
      But rather solely focused on winning whatever argument one is currently engaged in.
      Or at least give the appearance of winning! :-]

      Its all about protecting the sacred image.

      Remember the priests of the statue of Dagon – which fell before the Ark of the Covenant?
      They came in each morning – picked it up off the ground – cleaned and polished it – and stood it back up next to the Ark.

      That’s what men have to do when a sacred image is man-made.
      It requires constant maintenance.

      Calvinists like to boast the theology is all about sovereignty.
      But the truth is – without all of their WORKS – Calvinism would disappear.

      The irony here is that Calvinism is actually a system of WORKS – while claiming the opposite.

  16. RHutchin writes, “Under Calvinism, Adam sins resulting in the corruption of the human nature…”

    And why did Adam sin? Earlier, you wrote, “God is an active player in controlling and manipulating the circumstances in which a person finds himself as well as how he will react—whether in fear or strength or submission or rebellion.” So, did God “control and manipulate” Adam to respond with “rebellion”? Did God create Adam with a nature inclined toward sin and call this evil “very good” (Genesis 1:31), only to “loosen the restraints” when He wanted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit?

    RHutchin: “Because of Israel’s sin, God had removed His protection over it thereby allowing the surrounding nations to come in and plunder Israel – yet Jeremiah attributes all that happens to Israel to God.”

    You conveniently left out the part where, according to Calvinism, God “controlled and manipulated” Israel to sin in the first place. Like I said before, there can be no such thing as rebellion against God if God is making you do it. Remember, Calvin called God the author of sin and denied that God merely permits sin.

    1. LampStand
      [in Calvinism] there can be no such thing as rebellion against God

      br.d
      Totally true statement!

      Children exhibit a psychological phenomenon called “The Familiar Friend”

      Psychologists tell us that these imaginary friends fill a void in the child’s mind. The child has a need for imaginary friends to be real in order to minimize cognitive dissonance.

      Calvinists have a number of imaginary friends.

      – Man in rebellion against Calvin’s god
      – Alternatives to what Calvin’s god decrees do come to pass
      – Man’s nature being/doing OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god decreed it to be/do
      – Adam in the garden, having the liberty to obey or not obey
      – Calvin’s god making a decision to restrain or not-restrain things coming to pass

      I think the Calvinist’s internal confidence in their own salvation is the most troublesome of all
      Since Calvin teaches a -quote “LARGE MIXTURE” of them have been ordained to a FALSE SALVATION experience.
      This “uncertainty” aspect of Calvin’s doctrine produces a WORKS base salvation – they obviously can’t acknowledge.

    2. LS8 asks, “And why did Adam sin?”

      The Scriptures do not tell us – Paul tells us that Adam was not deceived. However, we know that Eden was not the paradise that God originally created. Satan, with evil intent, had entered the garden, deceived Eve and Eve had eaten the fruit. Now Eve offers the fruit to Adam. Who knows what was going through Adam’s mind at that point.

      Then, “Earlier, you wrote, “God is an active player in controlling and manipulating the circumstances in which a person finds himself as well as how he will react—whether in fear or strength or submission or rebellion.” So, did God “control and manipulate” Adam to respond with “rebellion”? ”

      It was God who removed His protection over Ada/Eve that allowed an evil Satan to enter the garden. It was God who stood by as Satan deceived Eve and did not stop Eve from eating the fruit. It was God who then stood by and did nothing to prevent Adam taking the fruit from Eve and eating it. God was in control of the situation and could have intervened to keep Satan out of the garden, prevent Eve eating the fruit, and then stopping Adam before he could eat. Satan manipulated Eve but only because God did nothing to prevent it – so God is credited with that manipulation. Eve then manipulated Adam and God is credited for that because He could have stopped it and did not.

      Then, “Did God create Adam with a nature inclined toward sin and call this evil “very good” (Genesis 1:31), only to “loosen the restraints” when He wanted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit?”

      No. God created Adam as a human and not God. Adam was not omniscient and did not have perfect wisdom. Adam was not born with a sin nature. Adam was not born with a brain full of knowledge and experience – he began learning from the point he opened his eyes. Neither Adam nor Eve had ever been lied to and would not necessarily have known a lie when they heard it. They were easy targets for Satan. God loosened the restraints on Satan giving Satan the ability to tempt Eve.

      If you can figure out why Adam chose to eat the fruit, let everyone else know.

      1. Lampstand asks, “And why did Adam sin?”

        rhutchin
        The Scriptures do not tell us –…etc

        br.d
        But Calvin’s doctrines is VERY specific and it does tell us why Adam sinned:

        John Calvin
        -quote :
        By the predestination of God Adam fell – nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.

        Thus we have the following:
        1) Absolutely NOTHING (tangible or actual) has existence without an EXPRESS and SPECIFIC decree from Calvin’s god.
        2) Whatever does not exist – is not accessible to any created being – including Adam.
        3) Calvin’s god COULD NOT have decreed Adam’s obedience (as an actual event) to exist – because it didn’t exist.
        4) Calvin’s god HAD TO decree Adam’s disobedience (as an actual event) to exist – because it is did exist.

        CONCLUSION:
        Obedience was not accessible to Adam (as an actual event) because Calvin’s god did not decree it to exist.
        As Calvin asserts – his god MUST HAVE EXPRESSLY and SPECIFICALLY decreed Adam’s disobedience – because that is what existed (as an actual event).

        rhutchin:
        It was God who removed His protection over Ada/Eve that allowed an evil Satan to enter the garden

        br.d
        This is a superfluous red herring – since Calvin’s god (before Adam and Eve existed) “rendered-certain” Adam and Eve’s disobedience.
        Whether or not he removed any protections is a MODAL IRRELEVANCE – since it could NOT nullify events infallibly rendered-certain to come to pass.

        rhutchin
        God loosened the restraints on Satan giving Satan the ability to tempt Eve.

        br.d
        Same as the above – also superfluous.
        Whether or not Calvin’s god loosened any restraints cannot nullify what Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) infallibly rendered-certain Satan be or do.

        In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the creature CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god decrees the creature be/do.
        Whether or not Calvin’s god makes that easy or difficult for the creature is tangential and therefore superfluous.

      2. RHutchin: “Satan, with evil intent, had entered the garden, deceived Eve and Eve had eaten the fruit.”

        OK, so I guess the question now is, did God create Satan with a nature inclined toward evil and call it “very good” (Genesis 1:31), only to “loosen the restraints” when He wanted Satan to deceive Eve? According to your position, the answer must be yes, because you wrote, “God loosened the restraints on Satan giving Satan the ability to tempt Eve.” Why did Satan need to be restrained if God didn’t create him with an evil nature? And if God created Satan with an evil nature, how can God not be blameworthy for the existence of evil (every war, murder, rape, and kidnapping in human history)? Moreover, how can we trust God’s definition of “good” if He called Satan’s evil nature “very good” (Genesis 1:31)? Calvinism inevitably leads to blasphemous conclusions about God’s character.

      3. You’ve asked some good questions – and I already know how rhutchin is going to answer! :-]

        In Calvinism everything happens within a causal chain.
        Domino 1 pushes over Domino 2, which pushes over Domino 3 etc.
        Calvin’s god is the point 1 in that chain – – he is the CAUSAL ANTECEDENT .

        Your questions are seeking to follow that chain back up to its source – and rhutchin will say anything to keep from going there.

        RH
        “the nature of Domino 1 caused Domino 1 to fall”

        questioner: What caused that nature?

        RH
        “The condition caused that nature”

        questioner: What caused that condition?

        RH:
        The characteristic caused that condition

        questioner: What caused that condition?

        And you get the point
        He will go round and round endlessly.
        But you will NEVER get him to follow the chain back to point #1.
        All of his double-think collapses if he does. :-]

      4. LS8 writes, “I guess the question now is, did God create Satan with a nature inclined toward evil and call it “very good” (Genesis 1:31), only to “loosen the restraints” when He wanted Satan to deceive Eve?”

        We know that Satan was already evil when he entered the garden else he would not have tempted Eve. We also know that Satan could not enter the garden without God giving him the ability to do so (following Job 1). Thus, God had to loosen His restraint on Satan – remove His protection of Adam/Eve – so that Satan could enter the garden. Once in the garden, an evil Satan tempted Eve.

        Then, “Why did Satan need to be restrained if God didn’t create him with an evil nature? ”

        The restraint would only apply to Satan being excluded from the garden – not to any evil Satan wanted to do.

        Then, “if God created Satan with an evil nature,”

        We have no reason to think that God created Satan with an evil nature. There are two great mysteries in Genesis – (1) How Satan turned from good to evil, and (2) How Adam could choose to eat the fruit. No one has answers to that. We only know that Satan had to be evil in order to tempt Eve and we know that Adam ate the fruit. We also know that Satan could not enter the garden to tempt Eve if God did not open the gate for him to do so, and we know that God observed all that happened and did not act to protect Eve from Satan’s deception nor did God act to prevent Adam from eating the fruit. God gave Satan, Eve and dam the freedom to choose what they would do and they acted freely without God forcing them to do anything.

      5. See what I told you LampStand!

        With rhutchin – Satan caused Satan caused Satan caused Satan
        And
        Man caused man caused man caused man caused man.

        The Calvinist will NEVER allow himself to trace Calvinism’s causal chain of sin and evil back to its point 1.
        As soon as he does – his double-speak collapses into a pile of moomoo :-]

  17. RHutchin: “We have no reason to think that God created Satan with an evil nature.”

    If we stick to the Bible, you are correct. However, you have argued elsewhere that individuals with free will are bound to make the most rational decision. Thus, in your theology, the only way Satan could have made the (irrational) decision to rebel against God is if he was created not with free will but with a nature inclined toward evil. Consequently, you have the problem of God creating Satan with an evil nature and calling it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The only way to escape this blasphemous conclusion is to admit that free will does not guarantee rational decisions.

    1. LS8 writes, “Thus, in your theology, the only way Satan could have made the (irrational) decision to rebel against God is if he was created not with free will but with a nature inclined toward evil. Consequently, you have the problem of God creating Satan with an evil nature and calling it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The only way to escape this blasphemous conclusion is to admit that free will does not guarantee rational decisions.”

      I don’t see why your conclusion is correct. We have good reason to think that Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will and without a sin nature. This is based on God’s declaration of His creation that it was “very good.” Even you seem to agree with that. So, why do Satan and Adam purposely rebel against God – completely irrational decisions? No one has come up with a good explanation.

      Then, “However, you have argued elsewhere that individuals with free will are bound to make the most rational decision.”

      The distinction here is that rational decisions are made on the basis of information and experience. Thus, one rational decision based on certain info and experience can differ from another, but opposite, rational decision based on a different set of info and experience. Only God’s decisions are immutable because His decisions always reflect perfect knowledge and perfect wisdom. It is possible for a human to make aa rational decision based on imperfect knowledge that is irrational when perfect knowledge is considered.

      1. rhutchin
        why do Satan and Adam purposely rebel against God – completely irrational decisions? No one has come up with a good explanation.

        br.d
        However, Calvin came up with a double-think explanation. But you’re right – its not a good explanation – mostly because its based on reading scripture through the lens of the doctrines of Plotinus (see Augustine’s Gnostic NeoPlatonism).

        Calvin’s explanation:
        Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world rendered-certain what Satan would be and do IN EVERY PART.
        Same thing for Adam and every other creature.

        This is why Lampstand (using rational reasoning) states ““Thus, in your theology, the only way Satan could have made the (irrational) decision to rebel against God is if he was created with a nature inclined toward evil”

        Jonathon Edwards confirms this by stating “God’s glory would be very dim – ye could not shine forth at all – without the glory of evil.” Thus Edwards reveals Calvin’s derivative of Gnostic/NeoPlatonic doctrine – which today is loosely known as “yin-yang”.

        Rhutchin:
        [Calvin’s god’s] decisions are immutable because His decisions always reflect perfect knowledge and perfect wisdom.

        br.d
        Ye right! That’s why he renders-certain X to infallibly come to pass – and then later in the course of time makes an active decision to not restrain X AS-IF it weren’t rendered-certain. He’s apparently not omniscient enough to know what the terms “immutable” and “infallible” mean!

        Perhaps Calvin’s god is simply obeying Calvin’s fickle instructions.
        He determines everything in every part – but then goes about his office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part.
        Like the Calvinist – he believes everything is true AS-IF false.

        So much for perfect wisdom
        To funny! :-]

      2. RHutchin: “We have good reason to think that Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will and without a sin nature….So, why do Satan and Adam purposely rebel against God—completely irrational decisions?”

        Thank you for admitting that free will does not guarantee rational decisions.

      3. LS8 writes, “Thank you for admitting that free will does not guarantee rational decisions.”

        When considered by those outside. The person making the decision sees himself making a perfectly rational decision. Each view reflects a different perspective based on different information and different experience – the “walk in my shoes” perspective.

        But, you make a good point. When people make irrational decisions, it points to a lack of free will or a limited free will. Calvinists recognize that the sin nature has a dramatic impact on the person’s “free” will preventing the person from doing good.

  18. I hate to say this, but RHutchin’s responses call to mind the tactics of Jehovah’s Witnesses. When challenged about the Watchtower’s false prophecies, JWs wholeheartedly agree that false prophets are condemned in the Bible. They then redefine their false prophecies as “bad guesses” that have brought them to greater enlightenment. Utterly abandoning logic, they seek to affirm the Bible’s teaching without sacrificing their unbiblical system.

    RHutchin writes, “When people make irrational decisions, it points to a lack of free will or a limited free will.” Yet he also maintains that “Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will and without a sin nature.” So, if irrational decisions reflect “a lack of free will,” how can it be said that Satan had free will when he irrationally rebelled against God? According to Calvinism, Satan must have been created with an evil nature, otherwise he would never have acted irrationally. Thus, Calvinism implies that God created Satan with an evil nature and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Utter blasphemy!

    Like the JWs, RHutchin seeks to protect his unbiblical beliefs without openly denying the Bible. He therefore employs a rescuing device: “It is possible for a human to make a rational decision based on imperfect knowledge that is irrational when perfect knowledge is considered.” Is he suggesting that Satan and Adam were somehow too ignorant to realize that rebelling against God was irrational? Given their direct knowledge of God’s power and commands, this position is untenable.

    1. LampStand
      RHutchin writes, “When people make irrational decisions, it points to A LACK OF FREE WILL or a LIMITED FREE WILL.” Yet he also maintains that “Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will and without a sin nature.”

      So, if irrational decisions reflect “A LACK OF FREE WILL,” how can it be said that Satan had free will when he irrationally rebelled against God? According to Calvinism, Satan must have been created with an evil nature, otherwise he would never have acted irrationally. Thus, Calvinism implies that God created Satan with an evil nature and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

      br.d
      Excellent analysis LampStand
      You’ll notice that rhutchin in his word-craft, will often present a MAJOR IMPRESSION – (Lack of free will) but careful to give himself an escape route – (or limited free will)”.

      In either case however:
      The LOGICAL CONCLUSION is as we’ve been stating it consistently – and which rhutchin consistently rejects is:

      In Calvinism the ONLY FREEDOM the creature has – is the freedom to be/do whatever Calvin’s god renders-certain he be/do.
      Nothing more – nothing less.

      The Calvinists task is to word-smith that LIMITED FREEDOM – to make it APPEAR as LIBERTARIAN as possible.

      As Dr. Alvin Plantinga notes:
      “He wants to assert that man in a jail cell is AS-FREE as he would be if he were outside of the jail cell.
      Which is so utterly irrational I won’t bother to address it”.

      1. br.d writes, “As Dr. Alvin Plantinga notes:
        “[The Calvinist] wants to assert that man in a jail cell is AS-FREE as he would be if he were outside of the jail cell.
        Which is so utterly irrational I won’t bother to address it”.

        I think Plantinga is in error. The Calvinist would say that a person is free to act within the limitations imposed by the jail cell. The Calvinist would agree with Plantinga that the statement he wrote is utterly irrational – which is why no Calvinist should say it. So, there is no need to address it.

      2. br.d
        “As Dr. Alvin Plantinga notes:
        “[The Calvinist] wants to assert that man in a jail cell is AS-FREE as he would be if he were outside of the jail cell.
        Which is so utterly irrational I won’t bother to address it”.

        rhutchin
        I think Plantinga is in error…..The Calvinist would say…..etc

        br.d
        This response is for the SOT101 reader – since the Calvinist cannot discern between sophism and logic.

        Its well understood a Calvinist IS FORCED think everyone else in in error – duh!
        His favorite line is: “The Calvinist would say”.

        Bill Clinton would say “I didn’t have X with that woman”
        Lance Armstrong would say “I didn’t use performance enhancing drugs”

        Calvinists similarly have their own library of double-speak.

        For example:
        “ALL things are determined in every part AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”

        Dr. Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Peter Van Inwagen – (whom you are brain is forced to think are in error) understand the difference between semantic arguments (i.e., sophistry) and logic.

        So much for what Calvinists say! :-]

    2. LS8 writes, “RHutchin writes, “When people make irrational decisions, it points to a lack of free will or a limited free will.” Yet he also maintains that “Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will and without a sin nature.” So, if irrational decisions reflect “a lack of free will,” how can it be said that Satan had free will when he irrationally rebelled against God?”

      You identify the problem of Satan and Adam. Neither was created with a sin nature. Each made a decision to disobey God – and that is an irrational decision. How could that happen? Both Calvinist and non-Calvinist agree on the facts and the contradiction that exists – both agree that Satan and Adam were not created with sin natures and then both disobeyed God – neither has an explanation. You obviously recognize the contradiction and you have no solution to the dilemma (else you could easily have offered it).

      Then, “He therefore employs a rescuing device: “It is possible for a human to make a rational decision based on imperfect knowledge that is irrational when perfect knowledge is considered.”

      That means that only a person with perfect knowledge can have free will – it is impossible to have free will where a person lacks perfect knowledge. To me, only God has free will – no one else can have free will. If you accept that definition of “free will.” then I think we would be closer to resolving the issue with Satan and Adam by recognizing that neither had free will.

      Then, “Is he suggesting that Satan and Adam were somehow too ignorant to realize that rebelling against God was irrational?”

      Not simply too ignorant. Other factors would have to come into play – and I don’t know what they would be although I suspect that people have been speculating about those factors.

      1. rhutchin
        Both Calvinist and non-Calvinist agree on the facts and the contradiction that exists – both agree that Satan and Adam were not created with sin natures and then both disobeyed God – neither has an explanation

        br.d
        FALSE – this statement is dishonesty by omission.
        Calvinism’s claims itself the superior Theology because it claims to always have THE ONLY EXPLANATION.

        John Calvin
        -quotes:

        AS-IF God had not determined what HE WILLED THE CONDITION of the chief of his creatures to be.” (institutes)

        “before men are born their lot is assigned ” (commentary Romans)

        “NOTHING happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed” (institutes)

        “A difference arises on the part of many, who SUPPOSE Adam to have been so LEFT TO HIS OWN FREE WILL, that God would not have him fall.

        “It offends the ears of some, when it is said God WILLED this fall; but what else…….BUT HIS WILL?” “(commentary on Genesis 3)

        “When he uses the term permission, he means that THE WILL OF GOD is the supreme and PRIMARY CAUSE of everything”, (institutes)

        “The devil and all the ungodly are REINED BY GOD, so that they CANNOT CONCEIVE, PLAN OR CARRY OUT any crime, unless God ….INDEED COMMANDS IT.” (institutes)

        “THEY ARE NOT ONLY IN BONDAGE TO HIM BUT ARE ***FORCED*** TO SERVE HIM” (Institutes)

        How many Calvinists does it take to spin a web of lies? :-]

      2. br.d writes, “FALSE – this statement is dishonesty by omission.”

        Then provide an explanation. You make a feeble attempt by quoting Calvin only affirming that it was God’s will that Adam sin. That does not explain why Adam sinned.

        Of course, you do not provide a non-Calvinist explanation for Adam sinning. Is it because there is none or you just don’t know?

      3. br.d
        “FALSE – this statement is dishonesty by omission.”

        rhutchin
        Then provide an explanation. You make a feeble attempt by quoting Calvin only affirming that it was God’s will that Adam sin. That does not explain why Adam sinned.

        br.d
        You’re mind is locked – you can’t see Calvin’s explanation in Calvin’s quotes because you don’t’ want to.
        Nothing new here – move along – move along. :-]

  19. RHutchin: “Neither was created with a sin nature. Each made a decision to disobey God – and that is an irrational decision. How could that happen? Both Calvinist and non-Calvinist agree on the facts and the contradiction that exists…”

    Actually, we don’t agree. 😊 I disagree that free will guarantees rational decisions, and at first you conceded my point. You admitted that “Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will” and acknowledged that they made irrational decisions. Thus, you agreed that free will does not guarantee rational decisions. If we can (consistently) agree on this, there is no contradiction with Adam and Satan having free will and making irrational decisions. Calvinism forces the contradiction into existence!

    RHutchin: “That means that only a person with perfect knowledge can have free will – it is impossible to have free will where a person lacks perfect knowledge.”

    Here you are begging the question. To reach the conclusion that free will requires perfect knowledge, you presuppose that individuals with free will are bound to make rational decisions. This, of course, is the very claim I am challenging. If it is true that people with free will can make irrational decisions (and you previously admitted that it is), there is no reason to think free will requires perfect knowledge.

    RHutchin: “If you accept that definition of ‘free will,’ then I think we would be closer to resolving the issue with Satan and Adam by recognizing that neither had free will.”

    What happened to your claim that “Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will”? Now you’re saying they didn’t have free will? I ask again, will the real RHutchin please stand up? 😉

    1. rhutchin
      November 20, 2018 12:02 am
      “If you accept that definition of ‘free will,’ then I think we would be closer to resolving the issue with Satan and Adam by recognizing that NEITHER HAD FREE WILL.”

      rhutchin
      April 21, 2018 at 7:41 pm
      This is wrong. CALVINISTS SAY THAT ADAM HAD LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

      LampStand
      What happened to your claim that “Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will”? Now you’re saying they didn’t have free will? I ask again, will the real RHutchin please stand up? :-]

      1. When it comes to the term “Free Will” the Calvinist knows – in his system – creatures are ONLY free do be/do what Calvin’s god renders-certain they be/do – Nothing more – Nothing less.

        But they will ALWAYS masquerade their “Free Will” to make it APPEAR as LIBERTARIAN as possible.
        If they don’t Christians will discern Calvinism as UN-Biblical.

        That’s also why rhutchin will say “Calvinists say Adam had LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL”
        And also say “LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL has never been defined”

        Calvinists live in a world of double-speak. :-]

      2. br.d writes, “When it comes to the term “Free Will” the Calvinist knows – in his system – creatures are ONLY free do be/do what Calvin’s god renders-certain they be/do – Nothing more – Nothing less.”

        Translation: Calvinists say that people are free to pursue their sinful desires.

        Then, “But they will ALWAYS masquerade their “Free Will” to make it APPEAR as LIBERTARIAN as possible.”

        Actually, Calvinists deny that anyone can have Libertarian Free Will because of their sin nature. People with sin natures are only free to pursue their sinful desires.

        Then, “That’s also why rhutchin will say “Calvinists say Adam had LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL”

        This because Adam did not have a sin nature.

        Then, “And also say “LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL has never been defined”

        Good opportunity to provide a definition – but apparently unable to do so.

      3. br.d
        “When it comes to the term “Free Will” the Calvinist knows – in his system – creatures are ONLY free do be/do what Calvin’s god renders-certain they be/do – Nothing more – Nothing less.”

        rhutchin
        Translation: Calvinists say that people are free to pursue their sinful desires.

        br.d
        Translation – Calvinism’s blatant dishonesty through omission.
        Jesus without fail – speaks the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth.
        This fact alone differentiates Calvinism from Christ.

        br.d
        They will ALWAYS masquerade their “Free Will” to make it APPEAR as LIBERTARIAN as possible.”

        rhutchin
        November 10, 2018 at 10:20 am
        Actually, Calvinists deny that anyone can have Libertarian Free Will because of their sin nature.

        rhutchin
        April 21, 2018 at 7:41 pm
        This is wrong. CALVINISTS SAY THAT ADAM HAD LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

        br.d
        Thanks rhutchin – another good example – Calvinism’s double-speak in full force!
        The SOT101 reader should be able to clearly see what the Calvinist brain is unable to.

        rhutchin
        Good opportunity to provide a definition – but apparently unable to do so.

        br.d
        Libertarian free will may not be 100% defined any more than the size of the universe is 100% defined.

        However, Christian philosophers all agree – Libertarian free will DOES NOT EXIST in the world of DETERMINISM any more than sound can exist in a pure vacuum. Since Calvinism’s foundational core is Universal Divine Casual Determinism – Libertarian Free will is mutually excluded.

        Christian Philosophers do define some aspects of Libertarian free will which DO NOT EXIST in determinism.
        – The ability/power to DO OTHERWISE than what one was determined (by an external mind) to do.
        – A garden with forked path which are TRUE and not FALSE in which one IN-DETERMINISTICALLY can choose which path to take.
        – A commonly agreed upon definition for the term “permission” – which term Calvinism deceptively manipulates.

        Those aspects of free will are the very aspects which Calvinism seeks to masquerade as existing within its system.
        They do this by throwing out the term “free will” knowing how it will be commonly understood – and carefully omitting their meaning.

        So Calvinism relies on dishonest language tricks
        What else is new! :-]

      4. br.d writes, “Libertarian free will may not be 100% defined any more than the size of the universe is 100% defined.”

        LOL!!! Gotta love it.

      5. br.d “Libertarian free will may not be 100% defined any more than the size of the universe is 100% defined.”

        rhutchin
        LOL!!! Gotta love it.

        br.d
        Glad you loved it.
        Whatever that’s worth. :-]

      6. br.d. writes, “This is wrong. CALVINISTS SAY THAT ADAM HAD LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL.”

        Here libertarian free will is a free will unencumbered by a sin nature. To say that Adam did not have free will ties free will to information so that only one with perfect knowledge can have free will – because Adam is not God, he cannot have free will as only God can have free will. However, Adam can have Libertarian Free Will which ties free will to the sin nature and not to information.

      7. rhutchin
        April 21, 2018 at 7:41 pm
        This is wrong. CALVINISTS SAY THAT ADAM HAD LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

        rhutchin
        Here libertarian free will is a free will unencumbered by a sin nature.

        br.d
        For the SOT101 reader – because the Calvinist is unable to discern true from false

        Calvinist definitions for words, terms, and phrases are ALWAYS AMORPHOUS.
        Calvinism’s weakness is self-contradiction – and its strong suite is shape-shifting words.
        Its all a part of their language of double-speak.

        Logical Analysis:
        In Calvinism the only way “a sin nature” can exist is if Calvin’s god renders-certain its existence.
        If it doesn’t exist – then Calvin’s god didn’t decree it into existence.
        If Calvin’s god doesn’t decree it into existence – then it WILL NOT exist.
        And whatever does not exist is not accessible to Adam.

        Thus Calvin’s explanation (which many Calvinists are to dishonest to acknowledge):

        – Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVED – then DECREED – then RENDERED-CERTAIN Adam’s sin nature.
        – Per Calvin’s doctrine – that is what existed for Adam – nothing more than what was rendered-certain – and nothing less.

        Unless you want to argue Adam had the power to render-certain things into existence all by himself.

        Now (the Calvinist self-righteously argued) your doctrine makes man more sovereign than god!
        And he will next turn right around and contradict himself in his next breath.

        So what else is new!
        That is the nature of the beast. :-]

    2. LS8 writes, “I disagree that free will guarantees rational decisions, and at first you conceded my point.”

      Then, how does free will get to an irrational decision. I said it has to do with the information the person has but you didn’t seem to like that. How do you account for free will making an irrational decision? Can you explain how it happens?

      Then, “What happened to your claim that “Satan, as well as Adam/Eve, was created with free will”? Now you’re saying they didn’t have free will?”

      It means that we need a definition of free will. Do you have a definition of free will? I think you definition might make free will a relative concept. One is free relative to their situation, perhaps.

  20. RHutchin: “Then, how does free will get to an irrational decision? I said it has to do with the information the person has but you didn’t seem to like that.”

    Your point about information only helps my argument. Consider this: When people hear the gospel and reject it, do they have enough information to know they should accept it? Your position would suggest the answer is yes, and thus the only reason for their irrationality is “a lack of free will.” Now, ask yourself, when Adam and Satan rebelled, did they have enough information to know better? Of course they did! In fact, they had more knowledge of God than modern people; God spoke His commands to Adam directly. Given your stance that free will (plus information) guarantees rational decisions and the fact that Adam had enough information to choose rationally, you must conclude that Adam was utterly incapable of doing what God wanted, just as you think Adam’s descendants are utterly incapable of accepting the gospel. As long as you insist that irrational decisions require “a lack of free will,” your theology places the blame for evil at God’s feet (whether you acknowledge it or not).

    RHutchin: “How do you account for free will making an irrational decision?”

    If free will is simply the genuine ability to choose between options (including irrational ones), then Adam was both capable of choosing correctly and capable of choosing incorrectly. He chose the latter, and it had nothing to do with God pre-programming that event. We can speculate about Adam’s reasons for eating the fruit (curiosity, a desire to please Eve, etc.), but my point is this: If Adam could choose incorrectly while possessing the genuine ability to choose correctly, surely people can reject the gospel while possessing the genuine ability to accept it. Remember, God put everyone in their respective positions in the hope that all would seek Him (Acts 17:27).

    RHutchin: “Do you have a definition of free will? I think your definition might make free will a relative concept.”

    With all due respect, you are the one who has trouble defining things. First you say Adam and Satan had free will, but then you say they didn’t, and to cover up this contradiction, you invoke two kinds of free will—one for people and one for God.

    1. Your (break it down into logical steps) dialog with the Calvinist helps me to realize something.

      I suspect Calvinists are taught that it is morally wrong to acknowledge UNCOMPLIMENTARY TRUTH about Calvinism
      It is expected of them that they will evade – obfuscate etc – even to the point of outright lying – as part of their moral duty.

      Duty – “supposedly” to God
      But actually nothing more than “duty” to a theology.

      Uding logic – you’ll get a Calvinist just so far down the path of TRUTH.
      As he gets closer to TRUTH he’ll become internally TERRIFIED – and go into his “greased pig” mode.

    2. LS8 writes, “When people hear the gospel and reject it, do they have enough information to know they should accept it? Your position would suggest the answer is yes, and thus the only reason for their irrationality is “a lack of free will.”

      That is correct – lack of will or desire. It is necessary that God regenerate the person and give the person faith (or just faith from the non-Calvinist perspective).

      Then, “Given your stance that free will (plus information) guarantees rational decisions and the fact that Adam had enough information to choose rationally, you must conclude that Adam was utterly incapable of doing what God wanted, just as you think Adam’s descendants are utterly incapable of accepting the gospel.”

      It is not just “information.” Today, even atheists know the gospel and reject it. They have enough information to make a rational decision – and in any other situation, they would easily make a rational decision. In this one case, they do not. The reason, given by Paul, is that they are enemies of God. We can conclude that they are enslaved to sin and do not possess a free will.

      Then, “As long as you insist that irrational decisions require “a lack of free will,” your theology places the blame for evil at God’s feet (whether you acknowledge it or not).”

      I don’t see a problem with that. God ordains all things, even the evil that people do – this a consequence of God being omnipotent and therefore, the final arbiter of anything that happens. As both Augustine and Calvin explained, both man and God can will the same outcome (e.g., the death of Christ) but man wills the event for his evil purposes while God wills the event for His righteous purposes – e.g., Romans 8; “God causes all things (even the evil acts of men) to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”

    3. LS8 writes, “If Adam could choose incorrectly while possessing the genuine ability to choose correctly, surely people can reject the gospel while possessing the genuine ability to accept it. Remember, God put everyone in their respective positions in the hope that all would seek Him (Acts 17:27).”

      Adam had two advantages over people after he ate the fruit. He was still spiritually alive and he still had faith. Both were lost when Adam ate the fruit. However, I don’t think we can imagine what was going through Adam’s head as he stood there with Eve, hand outstretched, offering him the fruit. I suspect one might write a book about it – I suspect he stood there dumbfounded and confused, at the least.

      In Acts 17, Paul writes, ““The God who made the world and all things in it, …made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist,…” Here, Paul speaks of the nations seeking God which it appears that they do, but distort that which may be known about God as Paul later explains in Romans 1.

      1. RHutchin: “In Acts 17…Paul speaks of the nations seeking God which it appears that they do, but distort that which may be known about God as Paul later explains in Romans 1.”

        It’s nice to hear your latest interpretation of this passage, but in our last dialogue, you conceded my point by writing, “God wants all people to find Him.” If God wants all people to find Him, it cannot be that He deliberately makes it impossible for most people to find Him. Only if everyone has a genuine capacity to accept the gospel can God honestly say He wants all people to find Him.

      2. LS8 writes, “It’s nice to hear your latest interpretation of this passage, but in our last dialogue, you conceded my point by writing, “God wants all people to find Him.”

        Did I define “all people” as meaning Jews and gentiles? That’s the position I have taken. Did you mean that leading to my conceding your point?

        Then, “If God wants all people to find Him, it cannot be that He deliberately makes it impossible for most people to find Him.”

        It is the sin nature – the flesh as Paul addresses in Romans 8 that makes it impossible for ALL people to find Him.

        Then, “Only if everyone has a genuine capacity to accept the gospel can God honestly say He wants all people to find Him.”

        Because everyone does not have a genuine capacity to accept the gospel – great numbers of people in the world never even hear the gospel – God can honestly say He wants all people to find Him when we understand “all people” to mean Jew and gentile. In John 6, Christ says, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me…”” God is giving Christ a great number of people comprised of both Jews and gentiles.

      3. RHutchin: “Did I define ‘all people’ as meaning Jews and Gentiles?’ That’s the position I have taken.”

        Your full quote is, “No, God wants all people to find Him, but He will not intervene to help everyone to find Him.” You obviously meant “all people in existence” when you wrote “everyone,” so it is fair to conclude you meant “all people in existence” when you wrote, “God wants all people to find Him.” Thus, it seems you admitted that God wants all people in existence to find Him (not just all kinds of people 😉).

        RHutchin: “God can honestly say He wants all people to find Him when we understand “all people” to mean Jew and gentile.”

        With all due respect, your Jew/Gentile explanation makes it difficult to discern your exact meaning. Are you saying “all people” means “no one but the elect”? If so, please say it plainly.

      4. LS8 writes, “Your full quote is, “No, God wants all people to find Him, but He will not intervene to help everyone to find Him.”

        OK. However, the full quote provides a necessary context. “God wants all people to find Him” but that “He will not intervene to help everyone to find Him,” That context does not meet your requirement, “Only if everyone has a genuine capacity to accept the gospel can God honestly say He wants all people to find Him.” When I say that “God wants all people to find Him,” it is because God commands all people to repent and believe the gospel, yet recognizes that no one has a genuine capacity to accept the gospel without help from God. So, sinful people have the “free will” to decide whether to accept the gospel, but according to John 6, “No one can come to Christ unless God draw him.”

      5. The command is God helping and drawing! Any reader would think that. God is revealing His will to the unbeliever. It does not contradict some supposed secret will imposed upon theology by determinists.

        Obedience of faith in the gospel.

        Romans 16:25-26 NKJV — Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—

        1 Peter 4:17 NKJV — For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

        But If God commands man to fly to Hawaii, he is free to ask God how… and God is gracious to provide him a plane and to offer him a ticket to get on board… and of his own free will he can trust God’s offer, trust the plane, and “fly” to Hawaii, fulfilling God’s command. Or he could freely refuse. Right?

      6. brianwagner writes, “The command is God helping and drawing! Any reader would think that. God is revealing His will to the unbeliever. It does not contradict some supposed secret will imposed upon theology by determinists.”

        I think you are talking about the non-Calvinist position that God provides the lost the opportunity to accept the gospel and this includes “helping and drawing” (whatever that means). The supposed opportunity is not equal from one person to the next. For example, there are people who can live their whole lives and never come into contact with the gospel. Then, there are people who only hear, at best, a distorted version of the gospel (think of the Muslim communities). So, God seems to be an unequal opportunity to people to accept the gospel. Of course, if God ensured an equal opportunity to each and every person, then the result would be that all would accept the gospel or all would reject the gospel. However, let’s grant that people do have the opportunity to accept the gospel and some actually take advantage of that opportunity and accept the gospel. That still leaves some people who reject the gospel and it is these that Calvinism addresses.

        Then, “But If God commands man to fly to Hawaii, he is free to ask God how… and God is gracious to provide him a plane and to offer him a ticket to get on board… and of his own free will he can trust God’s offer, trust the plane, and “fly” to Hawaii, fulfilling God’s command. Or he could freely refuse. Right?”

        And if a person refuses, God can always take him aside and have a heart to heart talk resulting in the person getting on the plane.

      7. Romans 11:32 NKJV — For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

        Praise the Lord for His sufficient mercy to give everyone a resistible opportunity so that they can seek and find a true convenant love through faith freely and humbly offered.

        Acts 17:26-27 NKJV — “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

      8. That they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

        I love that verse!!!

      9. Me too…Br.D… though the word “grope” is a Calvinistic biased interpretation, imo… whereas “touch” is more inline with its generic meaning and is the same word used by Jesus when He invited doubting Thomas to “touch” His resurrected body.

      10. brianwagner writes, “Praise the Lord for His sufficient mercy to give everyone a resistible opportunity so that they can seek and find a true convenant love through faith freely and humbly offered.”

        But not an equal opportunity so some opportunities are more resistible than others. I bet God favors some over others – probably His elect.

      11. brianwagner writes, “Rom 2:11 NKJV – For there is no partiality with God.”

        Yeah. That’s why God picked Israel but not the gentiles. Of course, that is not the context of Romans 2:11. Then, we come to Romans 9, “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” and then, “God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

      12. Indeed… paying for all, inviting all, and accepting all who freely trust Him, because He has never planned for any to perish but that all would have that opportunity for repentance. Praise His Name.

        Rom 2:4 NKJV – 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

        I hope not!

      13. brianwagner writes, “He has never planned for any to perish but that all would have that opportunity for repentance.”

        Jesus planned for some to perish. He spoke of the wide and narrow gates; the sheep and goats; and those who say “Lord, Lord…” Certainly, God knew that people given the opportunity to repent would reject salvation. Jeremiah told the people not to go down to Egypt but to stay in Israel and they told him that he was lying to them. When God speaks, people don’t always listen – God knows this. People do despise the richness of God’s goodness.

      14. Roger – “Jesus planned for some to perish.”
        Peter – “… not planning any should perish”
        I’m going with Peter!

        2 Peter 3:9 NKJV — The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

        The identity of “any should perish” in 2Pet 3:9 is indeed interesting. It is certainly linked with the “all” of the last phrase… which clearly includes unsaved who have not yet come to repentance.

        But the choice has to be made whether this “any” points back to the personal pronoun “you”/”us” (manuscripts differ) or to the other word, identical to it in Greek, and usually translated “some”, that is, to those who are questioning Christ’s return, the mockers of verses 3-5.

        The personal pronoun choice would point to the readers of this epistle as the “you”/”us”… who are assumed by Peter to already be professing salvation (though some may not have made that “sure” yet, 1:10). But that interpretive choice goes against the last phrase – “come to repentance” – unless you broaden the meaning of the “us”/”you” to theologically mean all eternally immutably elect, not just the readers of this verse, but those not reading and not yet born again, even not yet born. That to me seems like an eisegetical choice, reading one’s theology into the verse.

        Choosing to link the “any” with the “some”, not only has the fact of it being the same word in its favor, but also that those “mockers” do indeed need to come to repentance, more than one would expect any of the readers would need to. Even the “us”/”you” can easily be viewed as pronouns of general reference, meaning all mankind, and also linked that way to the “any” and “all” of the last two clauses.

        For Peter’s context is about God delaying Christ’s return out of His longsuffering nature… tied to providing more opportunities of repentance. And the divine “willing”/planning is present tense… clearly rejecting any made in the past, all encompassing, decree and completed divine will/plan before creation. God is still planning ways and opportunities for people to come to repentance.

        And He never has and never will plan damnation for someone without first giving them an opportunity to come to repentance. Praise His Name!

        2 Peter 3:15 NKJV — and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
        Romans 2:4 NKJV — Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

        ************************

        NT authors are like normal pastors… when addressing their congregations, they use the general terms “brethren” or “beloved” based on the assumption of everyone’s profession… but then they always address the congregation somewhere to make sure they are in the faith. (See 2Cor 13:5, Heb 4:1-2) Peter does that here in 2Pet 1:10.

        NT writers also use the personal pronoun “we” or “you” as general reference, like we do today, when we make statements in which the message is not directly referring to something true about ourselves (like Heb 10:26), or even about the audience, like here in 2Peter 3:9. See also Rom 8:13.

        The word “any” in “any should perish” is the same indefinite pronoun as “some” in “some count slackness” making it very likely that the same unsaved group is meant in both. And that “all should come to repentance” would normally refer to those living that had not yet come to repentance, which would exclude the “all” from just meaning those already saved, if the “you” earlier is supposed to mean those already saved.

        And doesn’t that sound like reading into the text to you? … “not willing that any of us (elect but not yet born) should perish (which is impossible in determinism) but that all (elect but not yet born) will come to repentance (which they’re predestined for anyway)…

        That certainly sounds like reading one’s theology into the text to me.

      15. brianwagner writes, “Roger – “Jesus planned for some to perish.”
        Peter – “… not planning any should perish”
        I’m going with Peter!”

        So, Peter was speaking of Universalism? If not, then doesn’t Peter agree with me?

        A nice analysis. Someone has been studying Greek from one who is really jealous. The verse is contested and no one has landed a knockout punch. The answer, say some, seems to be to water down the meaning of “not willing” to mimic 1 Timothy 2, “…who desires all men to be saved…” Just shows that people should not play with the negative if they intend to be wishy-washy. It could be that Peter used the negative to drive home a point – Christ is not returning until all whom God has given Him have come to Him.

      16. rhutchin
        Jesus planned for some to perish. He spoke of the wide and narrow gates; the sheep and goats; and those who say “Lord, Lord…” Certainly, God knew that people given the opportunity to repent would reject salvation. Jeremiah told the people not to go down to Egypt but to stay in Israel and they told him that he was lying to them. When God speaks, people don’t always listen – God knows this. People do despise the richness of God’s goodness.

        br.d
        I can count around 3 or 4 instances of double-speak in this statement. :-]

        To understand Calvinism is pretty simple:
        A Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking-points.

        That we no longer be children – tossed to and fro – by the cunning craftiness of ἀνθρώπων (men) Ephesians 4:14
        Surely in vain the net is spread in the SIGHT of any bird. Proverbs 1:17

      17. RHutchin: “When I say that ‘God wants all people to find Him,’ it is because God commands all people to repent and believe the gospel, yet recognizes that no one has a genuine capacity to accept the gospel without help from God.”

        You’re getting close to the truth by admitting God wants all people in existence to find Him. Now, if God wants all people in existence to find Him, it follows that God makes it possible for them to find Him. Otherwise, you have the following:

        1. God wants all people in existence to find Him.

        2. Calvinism says God deliberately makes it impossible for most people to find Him.

        3. Therefore, according to Calvinism, God is lying when He says He wants all people in existence to find Him.

        By the way, in admitting that God wants all people in existence to find Him, you’ve contradicted yourself again. 😊 In our last exchange, you wrote, “Your first premise – God wants all people (every individual to ever live) to seek Him and find Him – is wrong according to Calvinism.”

      18. LS8 writes, “You’re getting close to the truth by admitting God wants all people in existence to find Him. ”

        Let’s be specific – God commands all people to submit to Christ. He then leaves them free to decide what they will do. God provides people the opportunity to accept the gospel but not everyone has the same opportunity. Some never hear the gospel and are among those described in Romans 1. Some encounter persecution or get caught up in the world. Some are what we call “good soil” and are a fertile field for the gospel. So, “wants” in the above statement must be taken in a weak sense.

        Then, “Now, if God wants all people in existence to find Him, it follows that God makes it possible for them to find Him.”

        Yet, it is obvious that God does not do this. Many people live their lives and never hear the gospel. Jesus said in John 6, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,…” If God gives everyone to Christ, then we have universalism (which would by fine for both of us). However, Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven;…Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you;” These are people in the church. How many more never darken the door of a church? Nothing in the Scriptures leads us to conclude that “God makes it possible for them to find Him.”

        Then, “2. Calvinism says God deliberately makes it impossible for most people to find Him.”

        That’s right as Jesus stated in John 6, “No one can come to Me,…” God deliberately made it impossible for anyone to come to Jesus without His help. God gives all people a sin nature that they have when they are born. Paul describes that sin nature as the “flesh” and says this in Romans 8, “those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh,…For the mind set on the flesh is death,…because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” The Calvinists got it right on this point.

        Then, “3. Therefore, according to Calvinism, God is lying when He says He wants all people in existence to find Him.”

        That means that your definition of “wants” is different than God’s. God’s thoughts are not your thoughts.

      19. RHutchin: “God provides people the opportunity to accept the gospel but not everyone has the same opportunity….So, ‘wants’ in the above statement must be taken in a weak sense.”

        I would like to summarize your self-contradictions on this topic. Under the article “No One Seeks God?” you said the following:

        RHutchin (on October 2): “No, God wants all people to find Him, but He will not intervene to help everyone to find Him.”

        RHutchin (on October 5): “Your first premise – God wants all people (every individual to ever live) to seek Him and find Him – is wrong according to Calvinism.”

        So, which is it? Does God want all people to find Him, or is that wrong according to Calvinism? Now it appears you’re saying God “wants” every individual to find Him, but only in a weak sense. That still contradicts your assertion that God doesn’t want every individual to find Him. Moreover, it still makes God a liar; you’re accusing Him of saying He wants one thing while secretly conspiring to make the opposite come to pass.

        RHutchin: “That means that your definition of ‘wants’ is different than God’s. God’s thoughts are not your thoughts.”

        This is a textbook example of circular reasoning. You presuppose that your self-contradicting portrait of God is accurate and then accuse me of arguing with God’s definitions because I argue with yours. (Jehovah’s Witnesses do this all the time.)

        With all these nonsensical definitions, you’re going to need to rewrite the dictionary!

        Want (when applied to the non-elect)—To desire something in such a way that you deliberately make sure that thing doesn’t happen. In other words, the opposite of “want.”

        Love (when applied to the non-elect)—To plot the eternal torment of people before they are born and taunt them with a deliberately useless gospel call. In other words, the opposite of “love.”

        Law of non-contradiction—Who needs it? 😉

      20. RHutchin: “That means that your definition of ‘wants’ is different than God’s. God’s thoughts are not your thoughts.”

        br.d
        We all discovered long ago – the BIG TOOL in Calvinism’s tool-box is manipulating word definitions.

        Remember Bill Clinton’s famous statement:
        “That depends on what your definition of IS is.

        THIS PICTURE ILLUSTRATES WHAT CALVINISM DOES WITH WORD DEFINITIONS:
        https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3BBcGcW5RjsMBjpWOatMLOuu9Po9etnY5uto9CispbOeEJS-dqA

      21. LS8 writes, “So, which is it? Does God want all people to find Him, or is that wrong according to Calvinism?”

        Two different things here:
        1. God wants all people to find Him
        2. God wants all people to seek Him and find Him.

        No one seeks God per Romans 3. A person will seek God only after God regenerates them. Unless God regenerates each and every person, God does not want any but His elect to seek Him even though Paul says that God wants (weak sense) all people to find Him.

        Then, “it still makes God a liar; you’re accusing Him of saying He wants one thing while secretly conspiring to make the opposite come to pass.”

        No conspiracy. Per Romans 1, God provides evidence for people to know Him ( indicating that He wants people to both seek/find Him). What is the outcome? “…even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God,…”

        Then, “You presuppose that your self-contradicting portrait of God is accurate and then accuse me of arguing with God’s definitions because I argue with yours.”

        You can resolve this easily by providing your definition of “wants” and showing that it agrees with the definition of “wants” used in Timothy. For some reason, you were unable to take that approach.

  21. I pointed out that Calvinism inevitably places the blame for evil at God’s feet, and RHutchin responded, “I don’t see a problem with that.” In an effort to soften this blasphemous statement, he then appealed to Romans 8:28. However, this verse only says God causes all things (including evil events) to work together for the good of His people; it does not say God causes the evil events! The Bible portrays God overcoming evil caused by others, but Calvin taught that God is the author of evil. According to Calvinism, God does not simply permit evil events; He causes them. I certainly see a problem with that.

    I wonder how RHutchin would dialogue with atheists like Richard Dawkins. Would he give a hearty “Amen!” to skeptics who say God causes all the evil in the world?

    1. I wonder how RHutchin would dialogue with atheists like Richard Dawkins. Would he give a hearty “Amen!” to skeptics who say God causes all the evil in the world?

      A course in Calvinism:
      1001 easy lessons in self-contradictions.
      And the lost ancient secret of how to make double-speak your mental normalcy. :-]

    2. LS8 writes, “According to Calvinism, God does not simply permit evil events; He causes them.”

      As God is sovereign, necessarily God is the ultimate cause of evil events. For example, Satan cannot enter the garden to tempt Eve so long as God protects the garden. Once God removes His protection over Adam and Eve – knowing that this would result in the temptation of Eve, her decision to eat the fruit, and she would offer the fruit to Adam – then Satan enters the garden and the rest is history. God did not cause Satan to enter the garden nor to tempt Eve. Yet, Satan acts with freedom only because God had chosen not to stop him. It is in the context of God’s sovereignty that Calvin says that God causes evil events. Job testified that all that happened to him was the work of God; David does the same in the Psalms. Even believers today understand that bad things happen to them and while God could have protected them from such, He chose not to do so and that He is working even evil events for His good purposes.

      Then, “Would he give a hearty “Amen!” to skeptics who say God causes all the evil in the world?”

      If skeptics will acknowledge that God exists and rules over all things, then Calvinists can say God causes all the evil in the world – understanding that context matters. I doubt that there is a skeptic who will admit that God exists and rules over all things without the crossing of his fingers

      1. rhutchin
        As God is sovereign, necessarily God is the ultimate cause of evil events. For example, Satan cannot enter the garden to tempt Eve so long as God protects the garden.

        br.d
        Thank you rhutchin – this is a good example of the dishonest language of half-truths.

        In Calvinism –
        Satan enters the garden ONLY after Calvin’s god renders-certain Satan do so.
        Satan communicates to to Eve ONLY after Calvin’s god renders-certain Satan do so.
        Eve believes Satan ONLY after Calvin’s god renders-certain Eve do so.
        Adam and Eve sin ONLY after Calvin’s god renders-certain they do so.

        In Calvinism the creature is ONLY free to be/do whatever Calvin’s god renders-certain they be/do.
        Nothing more – nothing less

        Any Calvinist who asserts there is creaturely freedom beyond that in Calvinism is deceiving you.

      2. RHutchin: “God did not cause Satan to enter the garden nor to tempt Eve. Yet, Satan acts with freedom only because God had chosen not to stop him. It is in the context of God’s sovereignty that Calvin says God causes evil events.”

        Here you commit the equivocation fallacy (you change the meaning of “cause” to “permit”). Though you say God causes evil events, you only give examples of God permitting evil events (God permitted Satan to tempt Eve, torment Job, etc.). However, Calvin denied that God merely permits evil. In fact, he specifically contrasted God’s permission of evil with his teaching that God causes evil. Thus, your “soft” definition of God causing evil does not agree with Calvinism.

        RHutchin: “If skeptics will acknowledge that God exists and rules over all things, then Calvinists can say God causes all the evil in the world—understanding that context matters.”

        In other words, you agree with the skeptic that God causes all the evil in the world. So much for theodicy!

      3. LS8 writes, “Here you commit the equivocation fallacy (you change the meaning of “cause” to “permit”).”

        Actually, I recognize that God “causes” events by being active or passive. God is active in destroying Sodom – He caused that destruction. God is passive by decreeing not to prevent the Jews stoning Stephen – thus, God caused that death. In both cases, God causes the outcome because God is sovereign and exercises control over both situations.

        Then, “Though you say God causes evil events, you only give examples of God permitting evil events (God permitted Satan to tempt Eve, torment Job, etc.).”

        “Permit” is a word introduced by non-Calvinists to which Calvin objected saying nothing happens by “bare permission.” What Calvin meant is that God is actively involved in every event that occurs and it is God’s decision/decree to exercise His power that determines the final outcome – God is the final arbiter of all that occurs. When God decides not to exercise His power to prevent the stoning of Stephan, God is not just “permitting” the Jews to stone Stephen, God is expressing His will that the Jews stone Stephen. I think I understand Calvin and that I agree with his assessment.

        Then, ‘In other words, you agree with the skeptic that God causes all the evil in the world.”

        Because God is sovereign, it is true necessarily that God is the final arbiter of all that happens meaning that God causes all the evil in the world.

        Even skeptics can see that a sovereign God necessarily causes all things.

      4. LS8 writes, “Here you commit the equivocation fallacy (you change the meaning of “cause” to “permit”).”

        rhutchin
        Actually, I recognize that God “causes” events by being active or passive. God is active in destroying Sodom – He caused that destruction. God is passive by decreeing not to prevent the Jews stoning Stephen

        br.d
        Not surprising – the most critical element just happens to be missing from this picture.
        Calvin’s god rendered-certain every stone and every blow – for each unique participant in every part – for the murder of Stephen.
        And of course he rendered-certain Stephen be murdered.
        That would be an ACTIVE decree.

        Then Calvin’s god decreed himself absolved of his decree to have Stephen murdered.
        He did that by decreeing not to prevent what he rendered-certain.
        And that could be called a PASSIVE decree

        But of course the process of absolving himself from his first decree would have to be an ACTIVE event.
        So what we end up with is an ACTIVE-PASSIVE.

        Additionally – n the process of that “non prevention” decree – he had to make-believe that something UNPREVENTABLE (i.e. Stephens murder) had the possibility of being prevented – as part of his decree to not prevent it.

        So apparently Calvin’s god thinks that something that is UNPREVENTABLE can be prevented.
        That he can make an active decision to prevent or not prevent what he makes UNPREVENTABLE.
        And that of course is a logical falsehood

        So Calvin’s god fails the test of divine omniscience in which one must know the truth value of every proposition :-]

      5. RHutchin: “God is active in destroying Sodom – He caused that destruction. God is passive by decreeing not to prevent the Jews stoning Stephen – thus, God caused that death.”

        Here is the fallacy of equivocation again. You can say that God permitting Stephen’s murder equals God causing it, but this is simply an arbitrary assertion to protect your (blasphemous) belief that God causes evil. In no way, shape, or form is God’s active destruction of Sodom comparable to God permitting the Jews to stone Stephen. The former is God causing justice; the latter is God permitting evil.

        Imagine if I were to call myself a Calvinist but continue denying TULIP. Would it be honest for me to say, “Some Calvinists believe TULIP, and others don’t. So it’s still true that I’m a Calvinist.”? Of course not! All I have done is arbitrarily redefine “Calvinist” to include my beliefs. But this is no different than saying, “Sometimes God causes things, and other times He permits things. But it’s still true that God causes everything.”

        Once again, Calvin taught that God causes evil, not that He permits evil. It is nonsensical for you to redefine “cause” as “permits” and then say you agree with Calvin.

        RHutchin: “When God decides not to exercise His power to prevent the stoning of Stephan, God is not just ‘permitting’ the Jews to stone Stephen, God is expressing His will that the Jews stone Stephen.”

        I almost fell out of my chair when I read that! Do you realize what you are saying?

        God is not just permitting the Holocaust, God is expressing His will that six million Jews be wiped out.

        God is not just permitting 9/11, He is expressing His will that terrorists fly planes into the Twin Towers.

        God is not just permitting every rape in history, God is expressing His will that those victims be raped.

        Or, how about this one? God is not just permitting Satan to rebel in the beginning, God is expressing His will that Satan rebel (it’s not rebellion if God wants him to do it!).

        Try preaching that to the skeptics! When they ask why God allows children to die of cancer, say God was expressing His will that those children die. Say God wanted every tragedy in human history. Then, when they predictably refuse to worship that God, say, “Well, I guess God didn’t force-feed them irresistible grace. He must not want them to be saved! It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with me preaching a blasphemous message…”

      6. LS8 writes, “Here is the fallacy of equivocation again. You can say that God permitting Stephen’s murder equals God causing it, but this is simply an arbitrary assertion to protect your (blasphemous) belief that God causes evil.”

        Not so. God is omnipotent- thus sovereign. If God wants something to happen, He makes it happen. If God wants people to be free to sin, they will sin. It is God who is in control of all that happens and God is necessarily, the final arbiter of all that happens. Because of this, we can say that God “causes” (or ordains) everything that happens. I am not equivocating – you don’t want to accept my definition. You make a distinction between “cause” and :permit” but there is no real distinction. People sin only because God gives them yield to their desires to sin. Those desires were ordained by God when each person was born with a sin nature. If God does not restrain people, they sin.

        Then, “God is not just permitting every rape in history, God is expressing His will that those victims be raped.”

        That’s right. Is not God present at every rape that occurs? Is not God aware of every detail of the rape? Doesn’t God know the thoughts and feelings of both the rapist and his victim? Doesn’t God have the power to stop the rape. The only way a rape can occur is for God to declare that it should occur.

        So, you don’t like what I am saying. What’s your explanation? I bet you don’t have one. You can complain about God being sovereign but you cannot argue against God being sovereign.

      7. LS8 writes, “Here is the fallacy of equivocation again. You can say that God permitting Stephen’s murder equals God causing it, but this is simply an arbitrary assertion to protect your (blasphemous) belief that God causes evil.”

        rhutchin
        Not so.

        br.d
        No matter how transparent they are – no matter if everyone sees through them – the Calvinist will never give up trusting those double-speak talking-points. He can’t live without them. :-]

      8. RHutchin: “I am not equivocating – you don’t want to accept my definition. You make a distinction between ’cause’ and ‘permit’ but there is no real distinction.”

        Tell that to Calvin! He recognized a distinction when he specifically denied that God permits evil, teaching instead that God causes evil. If only you had been alive in Calvin’s day, you could have set him straight. 😉

        RHutchin: “So, you don’t like what I am saying. What’s your explanation? I bet you don’t have one. You can complain about God being sovereign but you cannot argue against God being sovereign.”

        Circular reasoning again! You assume your definition of “sovereign” is the only possible definition and then claim that I’m complaining about God being sovereign. In actuality, I’m exposing the blasphemous implications of your theology in the hopes that you will repent and stop giving unbelievers a strawman of God to reject.

        As to your question, there are several reasons why God allows (not causes) evil. Sometimes He permits tragedies to make people think about death and hopefully seek Him. Sometimes He permits tragedies to discipline His children. In a broad sense, tragedies occur simply because the world is fallen. God’s will is not being done on earth as it is done in heaven, and it is our fault. We dare not dismiss the problem by saying, “My theology says God causes everything, so if evil happens, God must want it to happen!” I’m genuinely praying that you recognize the blasphemy of this position.

      9. LS8 writes, “Tell that to Calvin! He recognized a distinction when he specifically denied that God permits evil, teaching instead that God causes evil. ”

        I think that is because “permit” can be viewed as passive indifference. When Calvin says that God causes evil, he meant that God is sovereign and the final arbiter of all that happens – no person can do evil without God first decreeing that they should do evil. God gives Satan leave to harass Job; Job rightly says that God had done this to him. David also attributed his hardship to God. All evil takes place in front of God who has the power to stop it at any point. For God to refuse to stop evil means that He makes a willful decision that the evil acts are to happen.

        Then, “You assume your definition of “sovereign” is the only possible definition”

        You complain about my definition, but you are unable to offer an alternative definition. What is your issue? Again, you complain but do not argue against.

        Then, “Sometimes He permits tragedies to make people think about death and hopefully seek Him.”

        So, God “permits” tragedies that he could prevent because He has a righteous purpose for doing so. That is exactly what the Calvinist says. Then, you turn around and say that God doesn’t want it to happen. At least, the Calvinist recognizes that where God has a righteous purpose for evil, He wants that evil to occur. If God did not want evil to occur, He could easily prevent that evil. God “permits” evil because it serves His purpose.

        I’m sure the young girl who is raped will be comforted by your explanation that God “permitted” it when He could have stopped it. I think your distinction between permit and cause would be lost on her.

      10. rhutchin
        Calvin says that God causes evil, he meant that God is sovereign and the final arbiter of all that happens – no person can do evil without God first decreeing that they should do evil.

        br.d
        But of course “final arbiter of” and “should do” is deceptive language in Calvinism.

        Since Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN – what persons are and what persons do
        As Calvin says “in every part”…….nothing more – nothing less.

        Any Calvinist who attempts to paint a cosmetic picture of creaturely freedom beyond that is deceiving you.

      11. RHutchin: “You complain about my definition, but you are unable to offer an alternative definition. What is your issue?”

        My issue is that your definition contradicts the Bible. Over and over in Scripture we read that God does not cause evil. For example, God rebuked the Israelites because they “burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart” (Jeremiah 7:31). But Calvinism says, “You’re wrong, God! You secretly wanted those children to burn before time began. In fact, You caused the Israelites to burn them.” (By the way, in your theology, I’m only arguing with you because God caused me to do it. Take it up with Him! 😉)

        God is sovereign, but that doesn’t mean creation always does what He wants. It simply means that, no matter how much creation rebels, everyone will end up glorifying the Lord. No one can choose whether they will glorify God in the end, but they can choose how they will glorify Him—either by suffering His holy wrath or by enjoying His mercy in heaven.

        RHutchin: “So, God ‘permits’ tragedies that he could prevent because He has a righteous purpose for doing so. That is exactly what the Calvinist says.”

        Actually (as you keep reminding me), the Calvinist says God causes tragedies. You can keep insisting there is no distinction between “cause” and “permit,” but repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

        RHutchin: “Then, you turn around and say that God doesn’t want it to happen. At least, the Calvinist recognizes that where God has a righteous purpose for evil, He wants that evil to occur.”

        Take it up with Jesus. Regarding divorce, He told the Pharisees, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). They argued that divorce was allowed under Moses, and Jesus answered, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). In other words, God permitted divorce even though He did not want it. Are you going to argue with Jesus and say God actually wanted divorce, that He caused it to happen? God explicitly says He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).

        Jesus taught us to pray, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). He didn’t teach us that God’s will is already being done on earth as it is in heaven!

        RHutchin: “I’m sure the young girl who is raped will be comforted by your explanation that God ‘permitted’ it when He could have stopped it. I think your distinction between permit and cause would be lost on her.”

        I would not presume to know the specific reasons for each evil God permits, but that does not give me cause to say, “God caused every evil in history.” Would you say God caused the rape? Like the Calvinist who famously insisted that God killed his son, would you tell the rape victim, “God raped you?” Would you further tell her that evil exists because, in the beginning, God caused Satan to turn evil? I sincerely pray that you will recognize and stop this blasphemy.

      12. LS8 writes, “God rebuked the Israelites because they “burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart” (Jeremiah 7:31). But Calvinism says, “You’re wrong, God! You secretly wanted those children to burn before time began. In fact, You caused the Israelites to burn them.””

        At the same time, God had the power to stop the Israelitss from doing this and He did not. Is it what people “say” or what people “do” that shows what they want? So it is with God. That which God does reveals His will. IF God does not step in to stop Israelites, then we can conclude that it was God’s will for this to happen. While a Calvinist might say that God caused this; you would say that God permitted it. Regardless, God’s actions were the expression of His will and I don’t see a difference between “cause” and “permit.”

        Then, “God is sovereign, but that doesn’t mean creation always does what He wants. It simply means that, no matter how much creation rebels, everyone will end up glorifying the Lord.”

        Creation does not do what God commands – God’s law respecting how God says people ought to behave. We recognize that God gives people freedom to disobey Him. However, in the end God’s actions – to prevent or not prevent sin – identify His will/wants. That which God does glorifies Him.

        Then, ‘You can keep insisting there is no distinction between “cause” and “permit,” but repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.”

        Fine. Explain the difference that you see between the two terms.

        Then, “In other words, God permitted divorce even though He did not want it. Are you going to argue with Jesus and say God actually wanted divorce, that He caused it to happen? God explicitly says He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).”

        God hardens hearts and God softens hearts. Jeremiah said, “I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself; Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.” Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.” Proverbs 19, “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails.” Proverbs 16, “The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.”

        So, how does God “permit” that which He does not want? You can only be speaking of the law where even Calvinists say that God gives people freedom to disobey Him. The final outcome is always that which God wants – else God would bring about a different outcome.

      13. LampStand
        Can you give me the hyperlink where this quote from rhutchin is located? Thanks!

        RHutchin: “So, God ‘permits’ tragedies that he could prevent because He has a righteous purpose for doing so. That is exactly what the Calvinist says.”

      14. RHutchin: “God’s actions were the expression of His will and I don’t see a difference between ‘cause’ and ‘permit.’”

        You used to. Earlier in this chain, you wrote, “God did not cause Satan to enter the garden nor to tempt Eve” (see your post on November 19, 2018 at 12:12 PM). This contradicts your blasphemous claim that “God causes all the evil in the world.”

        RHutchin: “At the same time, God had the power to stop the Israelites from doing this and He did not. Is it what people ‘say’ or what people ‘do’ that shows what they want? So it is with God.”

        There is so much blasphemy in these three sentences I don’t know where to start! You are saying that God is a liar and a hypocrite, just like sinful humans who contradict their words with their actions. At least you’ve finally admitted that Calvinism forces us to conclude that God is a liar. If you recall from our last exchange, I wrote, “Any theology that calls God a liar cannot be true.” Back then, you said, “I agree.” (It’s not the first time you’ve contradicted yourself.)

        I urge you to consider the implications of your beliefs. If God was lying in Jeremiah 7:31, what basis do we have to determine the verses where He wasn’t lying? I’m sure you will point to your interpretation of Calvinism’s proof-texts, but that is a self-defeating argument because if God is a liar, you have no basis to believe anything in the Bible—not even your go-to passages.

        Moreover, by calling God a liar, Calvinism necessarily implies that we can’t know anything at all. Think about it. If God is untrustworthy, what basis do we have to think He made our minds to be trustworthy? How can you trust your mind to draw the right conclusions about anything? I’m sure you will reply that you trust God above your mind, but you just called God a liar, so if you trust a liar, I’m afraid your trust is misplaced.

        By interpreting select Bible passages to conclude that God is a liar, you have driven yourself to the self-refuting conclusion that knowledge is impossible. Even worse, you continually impugn God’s character by saying He causes all evil. Since my posts seemingly have no effect besides provoking you to blaspheme, this will be my last reply in this chain. Before you respond, I ask that you honestly think through the implications of what you believe.

      15. LS8 writes, “Earlier in this chain, you wrote, “God did not cause Satan to enter the garden nor to tempt Eve” (see your post on November 19, 2018 at 12:12 PM). This contradicts your blasphemous claim that “God causes all the evil in the world.””

        That means that we have two definitions of the word “cause.” Cause can mean:

        1. To compel one to act by force (God does not cause or force Satan to enter the garden.)
        2. To command (will; decree) that an action proceed where the action cannot proceed without the command. (God commands that people be free to carry out evil acts without interference from Him.)

        I don’t see how you can say that God does not exercise full control over people and the actions they take, even evil actions.

        Then, rhutchin wrote, “At the same time, God had the power to stop the Israelites from doing this and He did not. Is it what people ‘say’ or what people ‘do’ that shows what they want? So it is with God.”
        LS8 responded, “You are saying that God is a liar and a hypocrite,…”

        How do I make God a liar or a hypocrite. God is omnipotent – God had the power to stop the Israelites from doing this and He did not. Are you disagreeing on this point?? I don’t see how you could, so I don’t understand what has gotten you so upset.

        Then, “I urge you to consider the implications of your beliefs. If God was lying in Jeremiah 7:31, what basis do we have to determine the verses where He wasn’t lying? ”

        Jeremiah 7:31 says, “they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.”

        We both know that God knew what was going on. We also know that God could have exercised His power to prevent all this. In addition, we know that God did not command that the Israelites do these things, but that God watched them do these things without stopping them. Why would my beliefs mean that God was lying in this verse.

        Then, “Moreover, by calling God a liar, Calvinism necessarily implies that we can’t know anything at all.”

        You need to explain how you think Calvinism makes God a liar. I don’t understand your argument.

      16. rhutchin
        LS8 writes, “Earlier in this chain, you wrote,
        “God did not cause Satan to enter the garden nor to tempt Eve”
        (see your post on November 19, 2018 at 12:12 PM).

        John Calvin:
        The will of God is the chief and principal **CAUSE** of **ALL** things

        Men do **NOTHING** save at the secret *INSTIGATION* of god.

        [they can do nothing] unless he worked in their hearts to ***MAKE*** them will before they acted.

        men can deliberately do nothing unless He [Calvin’s god] **INSPIRE** it

    3. LS8 writes, “So, which is it? Does God want all people to find Him, or is that wrong according to Calvinism?”

      Two different things here:
      1. God wants all people to find Him
      2. God wants all people to seek Him and find Him.

      br.d
      LAMPSTAND
      The Calvinist equivocates with **EVERY** possible word he can.

      In this instance he can equivocate with the word ALL
      In his usage – he can shift back and forth between the meaning “ALL without distinction” vs. “ALL without exception”

      The Calvinist will use the word ALL in a deceptive manner.
      By switching back and forth between these two meanings – knowing that his recipient isn’t aware he’s shifting the meaning.

      The Calvinist is a REAL SNAKE when it comes to leading people around in circles with word games.

      1. br.d,

        RHutchin’s quote “So, God ‘permits’ tragedies that he could prevent because He has a righteous purpose for doing so. That is exactly what the Calvinist says” is located in his post on November 21 under this article.

      2. You hit the bulls-eye LampStand!!

        rhutchin
        November 21, 2018 at 6:59 am
        God “permits” tragedies that he could prevent because He has a righteous purpose for doing so.
        That is exactly what the Calvinist says.

        rhutchin
        November 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm
        You make a distinction between “cause” and “permit” but there is no *REAL* distinction.

        Here is a parable:
        An automotive company mass produces a car.
        It is discovered the “hood assembly” is defective
        At 50mph it may flip up and smash the windshield causing deaths.

        The company goes into damage control mode.
        They change the name “hood assembly” to “engine compartment top plate”

        A customer walks into the dealership – the salesperson showing him this car.
        Customer:
        Wait isn’t this the car with the “hood assembly” that crashes into the windshield?

        Salesman:
        We adamantly refute that statement!!!

        What is the company refuting in this case?
        This car doesn’t have a “hood assembly” it has an “engine compartment top plate”
        Therefore they can ***SAY*** the “hood assembly” is not defective because the car doesn’t have one.

        Hence the pattern we see in rhutchin’s statement
        You make a distinction between “hood assembly” and “engine compartment top pate” but there is no *REAL* distinction.

        This is **ALWAYS** the game rhutchin is playing when he says “That is exactly what the Calvinist says”
        These are nothing more than dishonest word games.

        Elements of Calvinist doctrine are like car assembly parts.
        They’ve all be given ad-hoc names and labels.
        So that the Calvinist can play dishonest word games with them.

        This is why we observe the Calvinist POSITIONS himself with the authority to DEFINE ALL TERMS.
        As long as he can define all terms – he can manipulate their definitions.

        The most critical thing then is the Calvinist’s ability to hide the manipulation game.
        And in this case – you’ve discovered it.

        Well done LampStand!! :-]

  22. rhutchin
    November 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm
    I am not equivocating – you don’t want to accept *MY* definition.
    You make a distinction between “cause” and “permit” but there is no *REAL* distinction.

    br.d
    Calvin’s god rendered-certain Adam’s choice – as that choice which would have existence.
    He thereby CAUSED it to be the only choice that would exist for Adam.
    This is the distinction in which the Calvinist says: Calvin’s god PERMITS Adam’s choice.

    Just remember in Calvinism: -quote “there is no *REAL* distinction” between “cause” and “permit”

    CONCLUSION:
    In Calvinism many terms are AMOURPHOUS

    Amorphus: From the Greek “morphe” = without form, shapeless, unstable.

    In other words – Calvinism’s language is UNTRUSTWORTHY

Leave a Reply