IS GOD PERMITTING AND/OR RESTRAINING HIS OWN DECREES?
Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wishes.”
In reference to this passage, Dr. John Piper, a notable Calvinistic pastor and author writes,
“What is apparent here is that God has the right and the power to restrain the sins of secular rulers. When he does, it is his will to do it. And when he does not, it is his will not to. Which is to say that sometimes God wills that their sins be restrained and sometimes he wills that they increase more than if he restrained them.” – John Piper
This is a common teaching among Calvinistic pastors and apologists. But, if God has indeed “brought all things to pass by His unchangeable decree,” as Calvinists often teach, then what is it in the heart of this ruler that God is restraining if not His own “unchangeable decree?” In other words, hasn’t God merely restrained the very intention He unchangeably decreed?
Suppose the ruler, referenced in Proverbs 21, wanted to harm his servant and God restrained him from this heinously evil intention. From where did this evil intention originate? Didn’t God “sovereignly bring about” the evil desire of this ruler to harm his servant by the same “sovereign control” that He restrained the ruler from acting upon that desire? How is God not merely restraining His own determinations in a world where there are no autonomously free creatures?
Affirming God’s power and ability to permit and/or overrule the will of morally accountable creatures does not prove that God sovereignly brings to pass every intention and desire of their will. It reveals the self-evident truth that there is a will outside His own that must be overruled and/or permitted.
Just because I have the physical ability to force my child to eat her lunch or restrain her from eating her lunch does not prove that I use that ability every time my child eats or refrains from eating. And choosing not to use my physical ability to force or restrain my child does not prove I am weak and incapable of doing so. It only proves that I can do as I please with regard to my child. It does not prove that I am pleased to physically control my child’s every move.
Moreover, if my daughter doesn’t have a will distinctly separate from my own, then what am I restraining when I physically keep her from eating? There is nothing to restrain or compel if there is not an autonomous will with which to contend.
So too, affirming God’s ability to restrain and/or permit man’s will to do what God decides does not negate the concept of man’s contra-causal free will, but in fact confirms it. For what is there for God to restrain or permit outside His own will if man’s will is not autonomously free from His own? It is nonsensical to suggest God is restraining a will that He has already been meticulously controlling. What decision is there for God to make regarding restraining and/or permitting moral choices of men if God is the one determining the will of every man at all times?
Sovereignty must be understood as God’s ability to do whatsoever He is pleased to do (Ps. 115:3), even if He is pleased to give the world over to man’s dominion (Ps. 115:16).
What we can be certain of is this, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.” (1 John 2:16, emphasis added)
How can John Piper say on the one hand that “God unchangeably decrees all things, including the lust and pride of men,” <link> while on the other hand affirming the clear truth of this passage, which is that these things are NOT from the Father?
A clear distinction must be made in the idea of God actively purposing evil and His actively using creaturely evil for His good purposes. The former impugns his Holiness while the latter highlights His redemptive sovereignty and ultimate glory as the Holy, perfect, sinless Creator.
OBJECTION ANTICIPATED
What’s the difference in determining sin and merely permitting it?
Thanks Leighton.
It is because they believe He has 2 or 3 or 4 wills. He wants things that He doesnt really want. But notice…. as I have… that in most (all?) of Piper’s articles on how God wills evil, he can’t help but slip the “allow” word in there. It’s just too hard to flat out say it and he ends up sliding toward …. allow.
I’ve spoken of the sermon in which my Calvinist pastor calmly stated that ‘What we mean by sovereignty is that God simply allows evil to happen’. I had to hold myself to my seat, while inside I was jumping up and down screaming, ‘How can you possibly say that? You, who know and understand Calvinism far better than me, know darn well that is not what Calvinistic sovereignty asserts.’ Okay, so maybe plenty of them ‘say’ it, but it can never be true. And certainly Calvin clearly asserted that it could not possibly be true. He scoffed at men who hid the ugly truth about God by speaking of bare permission of evil, rather than boldly proclaiming the full repulsive story of his choosing and ordaining it. Oh, and don’t forget the part where he punishes the evildoer for doing the evil he ordained him to do.
As Dr. Flowers points out, one cannot both determine whatsoever comes to pass and still have something to restrain. The two are antithetical – if God determines all things, he is not sometimes ‘allowing’ what he determined and sometimes ‘restraining’ what he determined! And yet, like all the people who sat calmly in my church, heads nodding, Calvinists listen to such nonsense and act like it makes perfect sense.
In a deterministic world, in which all things come to pass by the distinct decree of God, there can be nothing for God to restrain. If God wants sin to occur, he will ordain it. If he does not want sin to occur, he will not ordain it. The only possibility of God ever restraining anything demands that something must be about to come into being apart from God’s determining decree. Or is God schizophrenic, wrestling with himself. ‘I ordained this to come to pass’. ‘No, I don’t want that to come to pass, so I am going to restrain it.
This ridiculous situation arises from another antithetical claim of Calvinism, which is the compatibilist claim that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, but man freely chooses his own (determined) actions. It is only in this bizarre and impossible construct of Calvinism that one finds the God who ordains whatsoever comes to pass ‘allowing’ evil to be freely chosen against his will, remaining sovereignly in control of all things while not being the author of that evil that he determined, but did not will, man to do. Other times he restrains men from freely choosing evil, against his will, which seems to be a needless extra step for a God who decrees all things. If God didn’t decree a man to choose evil, he wouldn’t need to restrain him. Create absurdity, and you can only expect absurd ramifications.
Dr. Flowers writes, “What’s the difference in determining sin and merely permitting it?” Then “…the Calvinist is appealing to something all Traditionalists deny (i.e. if God knows something and does not prevent it [when He has the power to do so] then it is the same as Him determining it). Then, “Affirming God’s power and ability to permit and/or overrule the will of morally accountable creatures does not prove that God sovereignly brings to pass every intention and desire of their will. It reveals the self-evident truth that there is a will outside His own that must be overruled and/or permitted.”
God has a will and man has a will. Determinism says that God is sovereign so that man’s will is subordinate to God’s will. Where man’s will and God’s will clash, God’s will prevails. From Job, we see that Satan cannot act as he wills without asking God’s permission; in giving permission, God exercises His sovereign power to determine what will be done. So, it is with all His creatures – none can act without God’s permission. The will of man is opposed to God – thus, Dr. Flowers is correct to say, “…there is a will outside His own that must be overruled and/or permitted.” God decides whether a person will be free to pursue his willful actions or will be restrained from doing such. We have the examples the NT where the Jews were given freedom to stone Stephen but Herod was restrained from killing Peter. In each case, it was God’s decision what would happen and God’s decision determined the outcome – this does not require that God know the future but only act as present events play out.
Dr. Flowers says that, “”…the Calvinist is appealing to something all Traditionalists deny (i.e. if God knows something and does not prevent it [when He has the power to do so] then it is the same as Him determining it). Why they deny this escapes me. What do they aver instead – that man acts without God’s permission?
I don’t see a difference in determining sin and merely permitting it. If God “permits” sin then He has “determined” that it should occur.
rhutchin
January 22, 2019 at 7:26 am
God has a will and man has a will. Determinism says that God is sovereign so that man’s will is subordinate to God’s will.
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the idea that man has a will which is not (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s’ god – is nothing more than a deceptive ILLUSION.
Rhutchin
Where man’s will and God’s will clash, God’s will prevails.
br.d
See answer above – this statement is nothing more than a Calvinist’s deceptive ILLUSION
Rhutchin
January 22, 2019 at 7:26 am
If God “permits” sin then He has “determined” that it should occur.
br.d
This statement confirms what I have been stating all along about PERMISSION in Calvinism.
The only events which Calvin’s god permits are those which he (at the foundation of the world) RENDERS-CERTAIN.
And rhutchin confirms this again (below)
rhutchin
November 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm
You make a distinction between “cause” and “permit” but there is no *REAL* distinction.
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) this is correct.
The ONLY events having divine permission are those events Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the word) CAUSES.
Nothing more – nothing less.
Events which are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world – have a status of being POSSIBLE but not ACTUAL. Therefore they DO NOT come to pass anyway.
Calvinists MAKE-BELIEVE events NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – will come to pass – in order to *APPEAR* scriptural.
rhutchin states:
” From Job, we see that Satan cannot act as he wills without asking God’s permission; in giving permission, God exercises His sovereign power to determine what will be done. ”
My response:
What did Satan request permission to do? He didn’t request TO DO anything. He only asked God to remove the hedge.
What I read is that God ACCEPTED Satan’s bet! It was a CONTEST between God and Satan, testing Job’s faith. And, as in ANY BET, there are rules.
What were the rules? A restriction to NOT KILL JOB.
What was the objective of the bet? To see if Job would curse God.
The Devil Went Down to Georgia he was looking for a soul to steal!
It was a bet only. Job bet that Job would curse God without God’s protection. God accepted the bet, and told Satan not to kill Job.
So, I don’t see that Satan needs God’s permission to do ANYTHING, and, I don’t see that God is using any perceived sovereignty in any of it. There was NO DETERMINED outcome. No pre-determined outcome. Pre-determined outcomes are ONLY IN WCW Wresting!
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “He didn’t request TO DO anything. He only asked God to remove the hedge.”
LOL!!! As if Satan did not have anything in mind once the hedge was removed. Why else would God restrict what Satan could do.
Ya, lol to what you say. There was only one restriction. Don’t kill Job. There was not multiple restrictions. And Satan never asked to kill him. God did not tell him that it is already decreed that he can’t kill him.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
Why else would God restrict what Satan could do.
br.d
There goes Calvin’s god restricting himself again.
At the foundation of the world he RENDERED-CERTAIN what he will have Satan do at time [T] – making it INFALLIBLE.
But Calvinists also need to MAKE BELIEVE he can restrict that which he has made INFALLIBLE.
Not at all LOGICAL – but it works great as a Calvinist ILLUSION! :-]
TS00,
The reason they have to twist themselves in knots, only sprinkling the word “allow” is because of their definition of the word “sovereignty”. For them it means all that happens is what God has planned/ ordained/ decreed/ willed/ desired to happen —- or, ipso facto He is no longer Sovereign…. He would “no longer be God.”
Of course this is a Greek, self-imposed definition. Once they have brought this definition TO Scripture, they have no choice but (a) to talk in circles about “allowing” meaning “decreeing/ ordaining” and (b) to ignore thousands of passages that say “I did not want you to” “If you had only…” “I planned to X but you…..” “I was expecting…. but you gave….”
ALL of these passages have to be poo-pooed, dismissed, or linguistically-gymnastically explained by determinist-Calvinists.
We have to ask them why God would put so many “misleading” passages in the Bible then? ….passages that we need help from professional clergy to understand “correctly”.
TS00 writes, “For [the Calvinists] it means all that happens is what God has planned/ ordained/ decreed/ willed/ desired to happen —- or, ipso facto He is no longer Sovereign…. He would “no longer be God.”
Can you explain how it is not as the Calvinists says?
CALVINISTS DON’T DEAL WITH FALSE VS. TRUE – THEIRS IS A WORLD OF APPEARANCES AND ILLUSIONS
John Piper
Quote:
“What is *APPARENT* here is that God has the right and the power to RESTRAIN the sins of secular rulers.
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s god RESTRAINING an event is nothing more than a deceptive ILLUSION.
Look here to see how this is *LOGICALLY* TRUE:
https://soteriology101.com/2018/11/14/a-response-to-5-myths-about-calvinism/comment-page-2/#comment-32078
Understanding Calvinism is fairly easy:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
br.d writes, “Look here to see how this is *LOGICALLY* TRUE:”
The link does not do as claimed.
I can follow the link easily – something wrong with your browser?
Unless you are saying the argument does not do as claimed.
If so you will have to show LOGICALLY that it it does not do as claimed.
And that – as usual – will be nothing more than deceptive word games on your part.
br.d writes, “Unless you are saying the argument does not do as claimed.”
Yep.
Then the ball is in your court.
Your burden is then to show LOGICALLY that is the case.
This ought to be enjoyable to watch :-]
br.d writes, “Your burden is then to show LOGICALLY that is the case.”
My burden – because you don’t like something and can’t argue against it, it is my burden? What exactly is my burden then?
br.d
“Your burden is then to show LOGICALLY that is the case.”
rhutchin
My burden – because you don’t like something and can’t argue against it, it is my burden? What exactly is my burden then?
br.d
Now you make a claim that I – quote “can’t argue against it”
I suggest you start with doing a little research:
First I suggest you learn how to tell the difference between a claim and a LOGICAL argument.
Then learn how a LOGICAL argument is made.
Then learn about how a LOGICAL argument is shown to be false.
When you learn these things – you’ll be able to discern what burdens are entailed within the processes of LOGICAL discourse.
I can function as your teacher in LOGIC – but I will not do your home-work for you.
br.d writes, “I can function as your teacher in LOGIC – but I will not do your home-work for you.”
So, you have no idea what burden you have placed on me to explain. I kinda thought you were blowing smoke.
rhutchin
I kinda thought you were blowing smoke.
br.d
Another instance of reverse attribution – how easily predicable. : -]
This is a test
What I find strange in all this discussion, is that the MAIN topic, really, if we want to dissect it properly, has to do with SIN.
I disagree with all of it, on BOTH SIDES here.
What I keep proposing, on MANY different blog posts, is the word PROPHESY, not SIN.
EVERY CARNAL STORY from Genesis to Deuteronomy is a SPIRITUAL “journey” map to the FUTURE, or to simplify that, it can be said in one word…PROPHECY of future events.
God gives us a glimpse of prophecy in the CARNAL STORY of an actual event.
Those actual events is what God “manipulates” in people in order for God to SHOW those of us who are WILLING to put on our spiritual lenses, can see quite clearly, which is why we can CLEARY SAY that either a) Prophesy fulfilled, or b) prophesy not yet fulfilled.
People in the Baptist world uses expository preaching as their main way of teaching, and usually, it’s the SOLE means of teaching. Therefore, it concludes that the ONLY way to see prophesy is when it is CLEARLY, without the spiritual lenses, EXPLICITLY stated.
There are a few religions, claiming to be Christian, who state that Jesus is NOT GOD, all because Jesus never EXPLICITLY states, “I am God”.
But, why is the CONSTANT among Baptists, Calvinists moreso, why is the conversation ALWAYS regarding SIN, or Righteousness in the topic of FREE WILL?
In my studies, this free will topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH SIN, nothting to do with salvation, nothing to do with righteousness, but has everything to do with prophesy.
God had to manipulate the lives of people, CHOSEN people, in order to tell a story of a future event, and we are to see that future event in those lives, to clearly see prophesy.
I’ve said it before, that I believe that the Pharaoh, who chased Moses and drowned, is in heaven WITH JESUS, thanking Jesus for USING HIM to tell a story.
What was the story? Well, according to expository only folks, that the Pharaoh was a bad man, evil to the core, that refused to LET MY PEOPLE GO, blah, blah, and a couple more blah, blah’s, and let’s not forget blah, blah, too!
What’s the REAL story that God is trying to tell us by USING the Pharaoh’s LIFE?
Moses is Jesus, and the Pharaoh is SIN. The expository people will tell me that I am insane to even think that. I just shake my head, asking myself, WHY CAN’T THEY SEE WHAT I SEE?
A woman getting raped has NOTHING TO DO with God ordaining it, UNLESS it has something to do with prophecy, and I’m quite certain that it doesn’t. Prophecy is located in “THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS AND THE PSALMS”.
Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Was Jonah a PROPHET? Notice the word “all” in Luke 24:27. What did Jonah prophesy about Jesus? Do the EXPOSITORY preachers tell you? Jonah is a SHORT BOOK. It’s part of the Bible that is called “PROPHETS”, and Jesus clearly states that he is the one that fulfils what is written in the PROPHETS. Not only that, but the TORAH (NOT THE OLD TESTAMENT), AND the Psalms.
What do the expository folks tell ya what Jonah was all about? What a bad man that he was because he didn’t want to go to Nineveh!
Well, God manipulated him NOT to want to go, and why? Because his being swallowed by a fish for X amount of days and X amount of nights was to be PROPHECY of Jesus, and Jonah’s experience was to be prophesy of HELL for Jesus, describing carnal things that have BIGGER SPIRITUAL meaning about hell.
None of that has ANYTHING TO DO with SIN or salvation, but it is a story about Jesus in prophesy.
I give examples of not only Jonah, but of Joseph, and Moses/Pharaoh, and Abraham, and David, etc. Those lives, and many more, were manipulated to show prophesy, and unfortunately, the Calvinists use that as examples that God ordains sin for his glory, and that we have limited amount of free will.
Well, I’m not buy their story. I’m sticking to mine.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed – hope you are well this new year! :-]
You make an interesting statement regarding prophesy – but its unclear how it applies.
The primary difference between Calvinist theology and non-Calvinist theology is Theological Determinism.
Now prophesy is the “outward expression” or “declaration” (if you will) of future events.
In Theological Determinism – *ALL* future events are CAUSED by a divine antecedent.
They are RENDERED-CERTAIN – at the foundation of the world – being CAUSED by the THEOS.
Prophecy in this case would be the THEOS “declaring” what he has RENDERED-CERTAIN come to pass.
And declaring that that event will come to pass at a given time or within window of time.
So prophecy does play a role in the overall picture.
If, for example, God writes a declaration on a tablet of stone stating: “Adam will disobey” – then God has used himself as the vessel who gives the prophecy. And by virtue of the fact that God cannot be wrong – that event cannot not come to pass.
But as you know – there is such a thing as a false prophecy.
A false prophecy is one which does not come to pass.
God himself cannot be the vessel (“declarer” if you will) of false prophecies because that would entail God being wrong.
So in my mind – whether there is prophecy or not – doesn’t appear to play a primary or determinative role in discussions between Calvinists and Non-Calvinists.
So its hard to see how prophecy becomes a central issue.
Unless you can make that understandable?
And I’m open to that.
ur frnd,
br.d :-]
I already did, when I mentioned 2 verses in the gospel with Jesus own words when he stated that all things about him had to come true that is written in Moses, the prophets, and the psalms. Then I took you back to the prophets citing Jonah. That short book is a prophecy of Jesus. But do the expository people declare that? No. The life of Jonah was used by God, so that Jonah did not want to be obedient to God. That fish was the reason. God was telling a story about the death of Jesus by the actions of Jonah. The purpose of the book of Jonah, a prophet, was about Jesus, not about Nineveh, not about consequences for not being obedient to God, but about Jesus alone. It’s not about prophesy concerning an individual, either, i.e., thus saith the Lord… prophesy is much more obscured than that. Example… The son of David is the one to build the temple of God. That is a prophesy of JESUS, the son of God building his church. It’s not explicit as a thus saith the Lord. But it’s prophecy of Jesus.
Regarding Adam… God didn’t have to decree anything. It’s natural, in the flesh, to disobey. 1 Cor 15 shows that the natural man came first, not the spiritual man. Besides, I have yet to find anything that God told him about anything called a tree of life and telling him to eat of it. Put a candy bar in your child’s bedroom. Tell that child not to eat it. Don’t be surprised if in the morning that you find the candy wrapper in the trash. But don’t tell him of the reward for eating spinach, and don’t tell him anything about spinach to begin with. The odds of Adam complying are slim to none. But that’s not what’s important about that story. What’s important was what Adam got as a result of that disobedience. What he got was the name of that tree. Knowledge of good and evil. He didn’t have that KNOWLEDGE before. That knowledge told him what his sins were. Separation from God resulted. God provided a way to continue that relationship called… sacrifice, hence another prophecy of Jesus. God killed the lamb of God. The very first creature to shed blood was not human, but an animal. Sacrifices were introduced, showing prophecy of Jesus, without anything being explicit . That’s what I’m talking about. I’m not discussing individuals, sin, salvation, righteousness, or determinism. I’m not discussing the outcome of the Superbowl. Has God decreed that? No. Peter, in his epistle, discusses prophecy, in that it can’t be of private interpretation. Prophecy, not scripture. Although prophecy is in scripture. What that means is that prophecy is about Jesus, not you, not me, not anyone, hence the word private. The Catholics use that as a means to say that only the Pope can interpret scripture. But that’s not the meaning of the passage at all.
Ed Chapman
Lots of interesting thoughts. You and I don’t always arrive at the same conclusions – who does? – but I appreciate many of the insights you share. The more we interact with others, who are honest and genuine in their interactions – despite all of us being imperfect in our understanding – the more we can open our minds to other possibilities than the lines we’ve always colored in. I used to have the goal of ‘learning all of the answers’. I now see that as unrealistic, and aim for chipping off, a little here, a little there, the wrong thinking that has been impressed upon me. Alas, my complete and perfect understanding must await a fully renewed and ‘glorified’ mind.
TS00,
Thank you. This is why I’m non-denomination. I think that God has shown that most denominations have something to contribute, but what do we end up doing? Calling other denominations heretics for even voicing our opinions. Calvinism, however, I think we have valid reasons to argue against it. It’s the most cruel unloving belief system that creates victims of violence, and tells the victim that God decreed what they got, and that it’s their fault, that God did it for his glory, so, the victim got what they deserved… all the while, the perp gets away with his evil deeds cuz he is only doing what God decreed. That Calvin was mentally insane.
Ok, I think I see where you’re thinking is here.
Firstly, it seems to me – when you say prophecy – in a large number of your examples – what you are actually referencing is what is typically called “types and shadows”. For example, the business of Pharaoh, the blood on the doorpost etc. There are a ton of types and shadows in the tabernacle in the wilderness. Cain and Able, Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, the children of Israel being under bondage to their enemies….etc.
These are all types and shadows of good things to come – which of course is summed up in Jesus.
I like to say that God took a painting of his beloved son and broke it into a million pieces – and scattered it throughout the Old Testament as a testimony of all of the things Jesus is.
So in that regard, I heartily agree with on you how a million things in the OT are prophetic glimpses of the most precious gift God gave to mankind – in his beloved son Jesus.
That being said – I’m sure you will agree – there are other aspect of scripture that speak of different things other than how they function as types and shadows of Christ. Take for example, the exhortations in the NT which point to OT characters, such as Lot’s wife, the sin of Balaam. etc.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Right?
Right! But what I will say, is that the NT scriptures explicitly states, giving us a huge hint to go back to, what you call, OT scriptures, and re-read it. I must stress that Genesis is NOT OT. OT is Exodus 20 thru end of the last do or don’t in Leviticus. Instead of the use of the word, OT, it’s the first 5 books, the Tora, otherwise known as, PENTETEUCH. But, like I also mentioned, as Jesus stated, it’s not just there. Prophecy is also in ALL the PROPHETS and the psalms. THE TANAKH (TNK), meaning, the law (Tora), the Prophets, and the writings. When you say, TYPE OR SHADOW, you know as well as I, that the ONLY type or shadow that many will see, are only those that are EXPLICITLY explained in the NT. Example: We inherit the promises made to Abraham. That’s plural. What were those promises? One of those was the promised seed. Galatians tells us that the promised seed is Jesus. Genesis doesn’t say anything about anyone named Jesus as being the promised seed. Genesis explicitly states that Isaac is the promised seed. But what else is promised to Abraham? We inherit whatever that is. Can you tell me?
Ed Chapman
Solid article, but you don’t need “contra-causal free will,” or ontologically free will. You just need teleologically free will. Under the interference patterns caused by chaos under determinism, things can emerge and be teleologically original, even though the system is ontologically deterministic.
(1) Let’s say that God loves physical consistency except on rare occasion of intervention.
(2) Let’s say that God loves a huge pile of pots and pans.
(3) Let’s say that God knocks over that pile in just the right way so that the resultant mess has features he loves.
From here, we can say:
(A) The system is deterministic, but it is not the case that God was meticulously micromanaging everything about it.
(B) The noise was loud, but that doesn’t mean God loved the loud noise, nor that it sounded to him like a beautiful symphony.
(C) He loved certain features about the resultant mess, but that doesn’t mean he loved all of them.
In other words, fact (A) and the chaotic nature of the thought experiment means that all sorts of things can result deterministically, but that DOESN’T mean that God loved each detail about them.
This is the function of chaos under determinism. It generates freedom. And we observe a universe that is awash in chaos, more than enough to supply creation with a huge amount of teleological freedom under determinism.
Hi Stanrock
Nice to see you again! :-]
Interesting post.
Generally ontology is considered a branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. So ontology may encompass as a sub-focus, questions regarding CAUSE and effect. What kind of entity can be classified as a CAUSE, and what kind of entity can be classified as an effect.
Teleology however, is a focus on the purpose, which an event serves – and so is a distinctively different focus than the CAUSE of event(s).
So if the intent is to argue that a focus on what CAUSES events within the scheme of Theological Determinism is trivial – then I don’t think that case is clear. And certainly current Philosophers – Plantinga, Craig, Van Inwagen, and a hose of others currently contributing to these conversations – would easily disagree with that assessment.
Additionally (at least as I can understand at this point), the term “teleological freedom” needs to be less ambiguous.
Within the scheme of Theological Determinism – a creature is ONLY free to be/do whatever the THEOS determines the creature be/do. So “teleological” freedom within this scheme would appear to be an amorphous red herring.
The Teleological issue (i.e. the purpose of which the THEOS had in mind) for CAUSING event [X] doesn’t negate the fact that the THEOS is the CAUSE of event [X].
And in Theological Determinism (per John Calvin) the idea that the THEOS does not “meticulously micromanage everything” – (and everything about it) is rejected.
Per Calvin’s terminology: EVERYTHING without exception is determined – AND everything is determined IN EVERY PART.
Now to the issue of what the THEOS loves or doesn’t love.
I can certainly agree that a THEOS may CAUSE event [X] – the antecedent CAUSE of [Y] and [Z]… etc.
And it is reasonable to understand that the THEOS is not obligated to love any of these events.
But again – whether or not the THEOS loves or does not love any event which the THEOS CAUSES – would appear to be superfluous – because it does not negate the fact that the THEOS is the CAUSE of every event – and every aspect of every event.
So making the case that the THEOS does not “meticulously micromanage everything” within Theological Determinism is not going to be easy to make. Especially to a Calvinist audience – as you can see below.
John Calvin:
“Men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God)
Calvinist R. C. Sproul:
“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God”.
Calvinist Paul Helm:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God).
Blessings and good to see you Stanrock! :-]
Glad you jumped in br.d, before I opened my big mouth, as you are far more knowledgeable in this realm. Nice to see you back.
I would agree that, under classical Calvinistic Determinism, meticulous control of all things is indicated. Otherwise, you are left with classical non-Calvinism, which grants a sovereign God overseeing a creation to which he has granted a great deal of autonomy, i.e. limited permission to choose their own destiny. God’s knowledge, power and ability to do as he wills is not in question by any side of the discussion of Divine Determinism; merely the degree to which God intervenes in the affairs of men.
Both sides agree that God is the sole Creator of all created matter, without whose determination nothing would even exist. Nor is it denied by any that he alone decided how much, if any, autonomy his inferior creation would be granted. Once again, the contention, which really ought by this time to be clearly understood and honestly debated, is how much control God exercises over the thoughts and actions of men. Meticulous control has always been the framework under which Reformed Theology was built. Other viewpoints may differ in their view of how much, and in what manner, God interjects his will into his creation. But the great divide between Calvinism and all others is the Determinism inherent to their structure. Anything else is simply a distraction from the genuine difference in theories of how an omnipotent God oversees his dependent, inferior creation.
Great post TS00!
I heartily agree!
Any man who proposes to a woman after having served her magic potient – which CONTROLS her mind such as to guarantee she finds him irresistible – is manifesting a demonic spirit – and not the spirit of Christ.
I agree with A.W. Tozer – any god who is so controlling that he has to FIRST CONCEIVE and RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse every one of his creatures will ever have through out their life – is not a TRULY Sovereign god.
Even a depraved man can control the actions of puppets.
And even a depraved man can program the thoughts/choices/actions of robots – can do the same.
TS00 writes, “Otherwise, you are left with classical non-Calvinism, which grants a sovereign God overseeing a creation to which he has granted a great deal of autonomy, i.e. limited permission to choose their own destiny.”
“…he has granted a great deal of autonomy, i.e. limited permission to choose their own destiny.” This is determines as it is God who grants people the ability to choose their own destiny. We see this with Adam/Eve in the garden, Pharaoh, Israel, etc.
Then, “…God’s knowledge, power and ability to do as he wills is not in question by any side of the discussion of Divine Determinism; merely the degree to which God intervenes in the affairs of men.”
Meaning that God has the right to express His will in the way He intervenes.
None of this negates God’s sovereignty or oversight over everything including every atom or thought of the mind.
Then, “Meticulous control has always been the framework under which Reformed Theology was built.”
Meticulous control does not negate the above.
Rh writes:
“Meticulous control does not negate the above.”
A demonstration of the problem with many Calvinists. The gentleman does not understand what ‘meticulous control’ means. If it can mean ‘non-meticulous’ control, as described beforehand, as well as meticulous control – it’s antithesis – then one can, as the gentleman so often does, hold completely opposing, contradictory viewpoints with equanimity.
TS00,
God meticulously controls everything. Everything that happens is exactly what God wants to happen [insert Will #1].
But…. He doesn’t really “control” it. Some things He doesnt really “want” to happen [insert Will #2].
He only intervenes when He wants… and “not intervening” is His way of “meticulously controlling” it [foggy way of putting Will #3?].
Ya see! I got it now!
Do I have it guys?
Maybe it makes sense to you, but I’m still scratching my head. I have to see examples, and I can’t come up with any that make sense. Best I can see it we have:
God is the omnipotent sovereign, who creates, controls and meticulously determines whatsoever will ever come to pass in my creation. Nothing, absolutely nothing can occur unless God, personally, decides, wills and decrees that it should.
The explanation for rape, genocide and all evil is because God determines to not intervene, and allow these terrible evils, of which he is not to be mistaken as the author, to occur. Evil is, nonetheless, utterly opposite to his good will and nature, as God can never do evil.
How does this make any sense? How could evil possibility have arisen if the first premise is true? And if God desired evil to exist, for whatever reason, how could he call it ‘sin’? Is not sin, by definition, refusing to obey the known commands of God? How can a Sovereign God, whose will always is done, who alone determines whatsoever comes to pass, be disobeyed by creatures who infallibly do as they have been ordained to do in eternity past?
The Calvinist is left making endless illogical, antithetical assertions, inventing multiple, contradictory wills and looking like a hapless court jester with his entertaining inanities. He has to explain why his ‘good’ God is big ‘S’ Sovereign over all things (as per Calvinist definition) yet is not solely responsible for whatever evil comes to pass under his Sovereign reign. He must explain how the Sovereign God can hold accountable for their actions those who only, irresistibly do what God has Sovereignly ordained they must do, before they were even born. If he manages to do that satisfactorily, he must explain how obeying whichever one of God’s multiple wills man is following is ‘sin’. How is it man’s fault that God has opposing, contradictory wills? Maybe God should have worked out that little problem with his therapist before he set out to create the universe?
Please overlook editing errors. Too quick to push ‘Post Comment’.
So, do Calvinists wait, with baited breath, to see how their Sovereign God overcomes his ‘sin’ will with his ‘Good’ will? Sorry, I don’t see the ‘glory’ in one of God’s wills overcoming another of God’s wills. So, God can juggle. big deal. Nor, in the end, can I see any possible way of claiming that man is responsible for his actions if he is denied a free moral choice. Unless man can freely, knowingly say to his Maker , “No, I will not do as you command” and do other than what God desires, without being manipulated, limited or controlled by unseen, secretive means to do as God wants him to do anyway, he cannot be justly condemned and punished for anything he does.
TSOO
God meticulously controls everything. Everything that happens is exactly what God wants to happen [insert Will #1].
But…. He doesn’t really “control” it. Some things He doesnt really “want” to happen [insert Will #2].
He only intervenes when He wants… and “not intervening” is His way of “meticulously controlling” it [foggy way of putting Will #3?].
Ya see! I got it now!
Do I have it guys?
br.d
Good one! Yes!
Calvin’s god does what he doesn’t do – and always doesn’t do what he does do!
It all makes perfect sense to a Calvinist. :-]
TS00 writes, “The gentleman does not understand what ‘meticulous control’ means.”
God is sovereign and in control of His creation. His control is meticulous giving attention to every detail of His creation at all times for nothing escapes God’s eyes. In the exercise of His sovereignty God may initiate events (e.g., the flood of Noah, the impregnation of Mary), restrain people in there actions (preventing Peter being killed), or give people free rein to do evil (e.g., the stoning of Stephen; judgment of Israel by Assyria). In every event, God chooses what He will do and God always has the final say.
So, how do you understand “meticulous control”?
rhutchin
So, how do you understand “meticulous control”?
br.d
Calvinist R. C. Sproul:
“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God”.
Calvinist Paul Helm:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God).
br.d writes, “Calvinist R. C. Sproul:
“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God”.
Calvinist Paul Helm:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God).”
A sovereign God necessarily exercises meticulous control over His creation. What is your point?
rhutchin
God has the right to express His will in the way He INTERVENES.
br.d
INTERVENES WHAT?
There are two categories of events
1) Events which he (at the foundation of the world) RENDERS-CERTAIN come to pass. These are events that (at the foundation of the world) he KNOWS and BELIEVES will come to pass – exactly as he has RENDERED-CERTAIN.
2) Events which he has *NOT* RENDERED-CERTAIN.
These are events – that are not going to come to pass anyway – because – per Calvin – only those events which *ARE* RENDERED-CERTAIN will come to pass.
Therefore – the only events Calvin’s god *CAN* INTERVENE to prevent – are events that are not going to come to pass anyway.
But the Calvinist needs to MAKE-BELIEVE some events are not RENDERED-CERTAIN – so that Calvin’s god an INTERVENE to prevent them!
What a joke! :-]
Is it possible that Rhutchin genuinely does not grasp the basic principles of logic? Without question, many are deceived into adopting Calvinism due to not recognizing or thinking through its logically impossible assertions. One friend of mine freely admits he does not understand logic, but insists that it doesn’t matter, because ‘God cannot be held to man’s logic’. This is simply a lack of understanding of what logic is, and how it helps us to arrive at reasonably trustworthy judgments as to what is true and what is false. Certainly God is beyond our understanding, and not limited by human limitations, but to assert that he is outside of the boundaries of logic is to assert that we can never reason about statements and claims which he makes. If God superseded logic, it would be impossible to attempt to know anything concerning him, and Paul was wasting his time in reasoning with unbelievers.
It cannot be logically asserted that any mortal man controls all future events, as mortal humans have no such demonstrable or reasonably alleged power. It is not illogical to assert that a Sovereign, omnipotent God can control all future events, based on his eternal existence and power to bring all things into existence. It is, however, illogical to assert that God both does and does not control all things, in the same manner at the same time. That is not logically possible, for God or anyone, no matter how limitless the power involved.
All too often, people believe that logic can be dismissed in the case of God by appeals to ‘power’, but this simply is not so. Scripture, while frequently demonstrating God’s ability to suspend natural laws, never demonstrates God suspending the rules of logic. Logic is not a human system to which God is bound, but the trust and application of the consistency that God has demonstrated throughout his creation and all of his interactions with men.
I’m no expert by any means; but the more I learn about logical fallacies, the more I understand how and why Calvinism misses the mark.
TS00
Is it possible that Rhutchin genuinely does not grasp the basic principles of logic? One [Calvinist] friend of mine freely admits he does not understand logic, but insists that it doesn’t matter, because ‘God cannot be held to man’s logic’.
br.d
Actually Calvinists have their own logic – the same way they have their own exegesis.
And their logic – just as their exegesis is no less a product of man than anyone else’s. Unfortunately, Calvinists are taught to rely upon intellectually dishonesty. Of-course they don’t recognize it. And you can clearly see that with rhutchin – who continuously attributes argument strategies to others which he himself is engaged in. And how he needs to perceive himself as higher-than-thow in everything, including logic.
Calvinists won’t recognize the intellectual dishonesty they rely on because if they did – they would be obligated before Christ to repent from it. Then if they chose not to repent – they would interpret their unrepentant state as a possible sign that God had not elected them. And things would go downhill for them very fast after that. So they simply maintain voluntary blindness concerning it – and don’t allow themselves to recognize it.
If they give up intellectual dishonesty they loose the benefit they calculate they derive from it.
The scripture says “If any man say he is without sin he deceives himself and the truth is not in him”. So obviously no Calvinist is going to assert that he is without sin. What they do instead is to perceive themselves as having LESS sin than others. Less sin – less blindness – less bias – less mans’ logic – etc -etc etc.
Their position on both logic and exegesis is that theirs is more divine than others. And even if they don’t EXPLICITLY state it that way – their boasting statements clearly presuppose it.
The reason Calvinists are week on Logic is that it doesn’t work for them. In social interactions and communications we people rely upon mutually agreed upon standards which all participants subject themselves to – in order to minimize deceptive practices within exchanges.
Language can be easily manipulated because standards concerning it are not strictly enforced within common communications. Logic on the other hand has extremely rigid standards which have evolved over time – and those standards allow the logician to discern truth from falsehood. Jesus was VERY LOGICAL!
Calvinists will always resort to language tricks first and foremost as their primary tool because equivocations and half-truths are so easy to get away with.
Logic on the other hand – has very rigid standards Calvinists must comply with if they want to participate in logical discourse. They don’t like adhering to those standards because doing show reveals how irrational their belief system is.
Manipulating language – and manipulating the language of scripture is their strong suit.
And they find they can win most of the time – when they are in discussions with people who can’t discern language tricks.
One law of Logic is the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be true and false at the same time. This for a determinist is a hard pill to swallow. And you will notice if you look for it – that the vast majority of their arguments are attempts to get around this law.
For example – Lets say Calvin’s god decrees a father rape and murder his 10 year old daughter on January 2019 at exactly 12 noon. That decree is immutable – which means it cannot be changed. That means that human CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god has decreed he do. But scripture holds man accountable for his own sin – so the Calvinist has to at least APPEAR biblical. So what is he to do? He MAKES-BELIEVE that the human can somehow negate Calvin’s god’s decree. But the Calvinist knows at some level in his mind that that is against his own doctrine.
John Calvin understood this dilemma. And he resorted to teaching Calvinists that certain thoughts are taboo.
He also teaches what I call *AS-IF* thinking.
The disciple is to
1) Believe that Calvin’s god determines everything in every part – and thus everything occurs infallibly outside of our will.
2) The Calvinist is to go about his day thinking that (1) above is somehow not true
This breaches the law of non-contradiction.
And Calvinists are forced to continuously halt between these two opinions.
That’s why they don’t like logic.
So many good points here; with which I am all too intimately familiar. I have essentially given up discussing the topic with the closest Calvinists in my life. Even though they repeatedly think, speak and live in ways that reveal that they do not believe what their professed theology asserts (much like Piper), there are too many reasons that make them unwilling to confront and deal with these contradictions. So, in order to eliminate the cognitive dissonance, many simply refuse to think about the things that their minds tell them ‘make no sense’. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have never been able to do that for long. My mind won’t let me rest, compelling me to look closer, ask more questions or try and find the kinks in the chain.
I must leave others in God’s hands. I know how difficult it is to allow God to expose and tear down our most cherished idols. I’ve clung to my share, and probably will only with reluctance surrender others Despite what Calvinists assert, I also believe that God never compels us to do anything against our will. And if it’s our particular community’s, or society’s golden calves at stake, it is so hard to let them go. It matters little how much information and reason stare us in the face; if the world were really flat, and we all knew it, very few of us would be brave enough to shout ‘the science is wearing no clothes’. The pressure is just too great to preserve our positions, status, community and personal relationships.
Wonderfully stated TSOO!!
And I think your words convey a heart that honors Christ.
Its my privilege to know you :-]
Thanks for kind words. The regard is mutual, and you have added much to my education.
br.d writes, “So obviously no Calvinist is going to assert that he is without sin. What they do instead is to perceive themselves as having LESS sin than others.”
This is blatantly false – but it is the way you argue. Calvinists, like all other believers, see themselves as forgiven.
br.d
“So obviously no Calvinist is going to assert that he is without sin. What they do instead is to perceive themselves as having LESS sin than others.”
rhutchin
This is blatantly false – but it is the way you argue. Calvinists, like all other believers, see themselves as forgiven.
br.d
People make proclamations – presenting an *IMAGE* with which they want to be perceived.
The truth is manifest by their behavior.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open
Luke 8:17
And every tree brings forth fruit after its own kind.
TS00 writes, “It is, however, illogical to assert that God both does and does not control all things, in the same manner at the same time. That is not logically possible, for God or anyone, no matter how limitless the power involved. ”
That is why the Calvinist asserts that does control all things. Good point.
rhutchin
That is why the Calvinist asserts that does control all things. Good point.
br.d
FALSE
They assert Calvin’s god controls all things – as well as its negation (does NOT control all things).
John Calvin
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
br.d writes, “FALSE
[Calvinists] assert Calvin’s god controls all things – as well as its negation (does NOT control all things).”
Yes. That is a false statement.
br.d
Calvinists assert Calvin’s god controls all things – as well as its negation (does NOT control all things).”
rhutchin
Yes. That is a false statement.
br.d
Too funny!
Making believe again! :-]
John Calvin
-quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Obviously “go about your office” entails the act of THINKING
In this case that nothing is determined in any part.
That then is a characteristic of Calvinist THINKING..
And the outward expression of a Calvinist’s THINKING is a Calvinist’s assertion. :-]
br.d writes, “Therefore – the only events Calvin’s god *CAN* INTERVENE to prevent – are events that are not going to come to pass anyway.”
Therefore – the only events Calvin’s god *CAN* INTERVENE to prevent – are events that are not going to come to pass anyway because of His failure to intervene. God did not intervene to prevent the Jews stoning Stephen; God did intervene to prevent the death of Peter.
br.d
“Therefore – the only events Calvin’s god *CAN* INTERVENE to prevent – are events that are not going to come to pass anyway.”
rhutchin
Therefore – the only events Calvin’s god *CAN* INTERVENE to prevent – are events that are not going to come to pass anyway because of His failure to intervene
br.d
Thank you rhutchin – for an excellent example of the fallacy of circular reasoning. :-]
Calvin’s god is limited to creating events having one of two statuses.
1) RENDERED-CERTAIN:
These are events he knows and believes will come to pass exactly as he decreed they would – and in every part.
2) NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN
These are events he knows and believes are not going to come to pass – because he decreed them as such.
Therefore if Calvin’s god is smart enough to know that he established an event as – not going to come to pass.
Then he should be smart enough to know – there is nothing to intervene.
Unless Calvin’s god happens to be a graven image created by an irrational Calvinist.
That god is guaranteed to be irrational :-]
br.d writes, ‘Therefore if Calvin’s god is smart enough to know that he established an event as – not going to come to pass.
Then he should be smart enough to know – there is nothing to intervene.”
OK. What’s your point?
br.d
‘Therefore if Calvin’s god is smart enough to know that he established an event as – not going to come to pass.
Then he should be smart enough to know – there is nothing to intervene.”
rhutchin
OK. What’s your point?
br.d
Sorry if that goes over your head. :-]
Are you trying to suggest that God could not intervene to prevent non-events which he never ordained to exist? Or are you daring to question from whence come these non-events, which the God who ordains whatsoever comes to pass did not ordain and does not wish to happen, thus chooses to step in to intervene with? Who are you to argue with God, O man? If God has nothing better to do than prevent non-events caused by non-existent powers, how’s a mere worm like you going to stop him? What else is going to do, with everything settled in eternity past, whistle Dixie? 😉
Yes you hit it on bulls-eye TS00!
Don’t you just love how Calvinists MAKE-BELIEVE Calvin’s god intervenes to prevent things he decreed would never come to pass!
Calvinist double-think is just too funny! 😀
br.d writes, ‘Don’t you just love how Calvinists MAKE-BELIEVE Calvin’s god intervenes to prevent things he decreed would never come to pass!”
Poor br.d. Did not God intervene to prevent Joseph divorcing Mary? Was it not God who intervened to prevent the death of Peter? Did not God intervene to put a stop to Saul’s rampage against the Jewish believers. It’s not make-believe – God has been active in affecting His will in the world from the beginning.
br.d
‘Don’t you just love how Calvinists MAKE-BELIEVE Calvin’s god intervenes to prevent things he decreed would never come to pass!”
rhutchin
Poor br.d. Did not God intervene to prevent Joseph divorcing Mary?
br.d
I never make the mistake of conflating Theological Determinism with scripture.
If I did – I would be in the situation Calvinists are in – treating scripture as Calvinist double-speak.
William Lane Craig agrees:
-quote:
“Universal Divine Causal Determinism turns reality into a farce. On the Deterministic view, the whole world becomes a vain and empty spectacle.
There are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return.
The whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself” – end quote
I have imagined a Screwtape Letters sort of parody of a day in the life of Calvin’s God, as his hapless personal secretary tries to explain why there is nothing on his daily agenda – just like every other day since the creation was completed. Can’t step in and respond to heartfelt prayers – ah, ah, ah, can’t mess with what was forever settled in the heavens. Can’t intervene to stop horrible crimes, wars or tragedies – as they would not be hitting the scene had he not decreed them into existence. Since God is utterly perfect, in being and doings, what is there to change, improve or prevent – ever? But it’s not easy bein’ the angel that has to tell a bored and frustrated God that there isn’t really anything to do but make puffy animal clouds and design new snowflakes – for another thousand years or so.
TS00
But it’s not easy bein’ the angel that has to tell a bored and frustrated God that there isn’t really anything to do
br.d
Good one! :-]
Well if its Calvin’s god – he could spend his time choreographing the worlds biggest fiction show.
In Act one – he deceives Adam – by withholding the truth that he had already RENDERED-CERTAIN Adam disobey.
While commanding Adam to do the opposite.
AS-IF puny little Adam had the power to reverse something RENDERED-CERTAIN by supernatural decree.
In Act two – he deceives Israel – telling them to choose life – after having RENDERED-CERTAIN the opposite.
Second verse – same as the first.
And in the final scene – he gets the ultimate pleasure – throwing thousands of souls into a lake of fire and watching them burn.
The angels get to watch the hole show at Doctrines of Grace theater.
TS00 writes, ‘there is nothing on [God’s] daily agenda – just like every other day since the creation was completed.”
Under Calvinism there is plenty. God continually upholds the the universe and all that is in it. The laws of physics and chemistry always operate because God maintains them. God must keep evil and sin in check else the world would soon degenerate into chaos. Plenty for God to do.
br.d quoting Craig, “There are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return. ”
Why not? God could easily have determined situations where free agents responded to His love. Nothing is impossible for God.
br.d
– quoting William Lane Craig, “[In Theological Determinism] There are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return. ”
rhutchin
Why not? God could easily have determined situations where free agents responded to His love. Nothing is impossible for God.
br.d
If you were a Bible student you would know better than to say “nothing is impossible with God”.
Hebrews 6:18 says “It is impossible for God to lie”
It is impossible for the God of scripture to be wrong.
It is impossible for the God of scripture to know and believe [X] as TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
The God of scripture is constrained by his own nature, character, and perfection.
Dr. Craig is making a statement that is LOGICALLY CONSISTENT with Theological Determinism.
The Calvinist thinks he gains an advantage by embracing Theological Determinism – but he doesn’t like its consequences.
Where it is LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with scripture – and IN-determinism is LOGICALLY CONSISTENT – with scripture – the Calvinist needs IN-determinism. And IN-determinism cannot exist within a world of Determinism any more than particles exist in a perfect vacuum.
Therefore as a determinist – the only way the Calvinist can have IN-determinism – is to manufacture a FACADE of it.
-quote
“Universal Divine Causal Determinism turns reality into a farce. On the Deterministic view, the whole world becomes a vain and empty spectacle…….the whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself”
He’ll never get it, friend. Whenever inconsistency presents, the Calvinist waves it off with, ‘Nothing is impossible for God.’ As you rightly stated, of course many things are impossible for God, including anything that is inconsistent with his nature, or with logical possibility. But since all of Calvinism is inconsistent with God’s nature, as well as logical possibility, they must constantly punt to ‘Nothing is impossible for God’ as if that solves all of their problems.
That’s exactly right TS00!!
Calvin’s don’t live a world of TRUE vs FALSE
They live in a world where ILLUSIONS are embraced as real.
That’s why they’re language has evolved a large library of deceptive word games.
I feel sorry for them.
br.d writes, “The Calvinist thinks he gains an advantage by embracing Theological Determinism – but he doesn’t like its consequences.”
Actually, the Calvinist incorporates self-eterminism as subordinate within Theological Determinism. All things are not caused by factors outside the will of the person but all things are under God’s control.
Craig writes, ‘This presents a real problem not just for the Calvinist, but for the naturalist. For insofar as naturalism implies that all our thoughts and actions are determined by natural causes outside ourselves, free will is an illusion. But we cannot escape this illusion and so must go on making choices as though we had free will, even though we don’t. Naturalism is thus an unliveable worldview.” Craig denies that Calvinism can subscribe to self-determined actions. RC Sproul writes, “But “determined” here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one’s internal motivation or desire. In shorthand the law is this: Our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination, which is the essence of freedom.” Sproul, R. C.. Chosen by God (p. 40). Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.. Kindle Edition. So, Craig has to restrain Calvinism to be something it is not in order to argue against it. However, Craig is almost correct to say, “There are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return.” The reason for this is not determinism but original sin – the corruption that resulted from Adam’s sin. Remove the effects of original sin through regeneration and God does indeed win through His love.
br.d
The Calvinist thinks he gains an advantage by embracing Theological Determinism – but he doesn’t like its consequences.”
rhutchin
Actually, the Calvinist incorporates self-determinism as subordinate within Theological Determinism
br.d
And excellent example of the Calvinist trying to fabricate a FACADE of IN-determinism.
The word “self” in the Greek is: “Auto”
And the Greek word for “Determine” in this case is: “nomos
So we have “Automonos” – which in evolves to our current English today as the word: AUTONOMY
And AUTONOMY is non-existent in Theological Determinism.
AUTONOMY doesn’t exist within Theological Determinism any more than particles exist within a perfect vacuum.
“Self-Determinism” is predicated on the presupposition that the SELF (not the THEOS) is the TRUE DETERMINER.
And in Theological Determinism the TRUE DETERMINER is the THEOS.
By virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a persons’ brain – EVERYTHING that processes within a person is nothing more than the DETERMINATION of the THEOS.
Self-Determinism in Calvinism is nothing more than an ILLUSION
br.d writes, ““Self-Determinism” is predicated on the presupposition that the SELF (not the THEOS) is the TRUE DETERMINER.
And in Theological Determinism the TRUE DETERMINER is the THEOS.”
As a person has a will that is subordinate to God’s will, so a person determines what he will do subordinate to God’s will. Where that which a person determines to do clashes with that which God has determined that he do, then God prevails. Where there is no clash, the person does as he has determined to do. In the account of Joseph and his brothers, their determination to kill Joseph was thwarted by God while their determination to sell Joseph was not. The brothers determined to sell Joseph and God, as the final arbiter of all that happens, gave them freedom to carry out their plan..
br.d
“Self-Determinism” is predicated on the presupposition that the SELF (not the THEOS) is the TRUE DETERMINER.
And in Theological Determinism the TRUE DETERMINER is the THEOS.”
rhutchin
As a person has a will that is subordinate to God’s will, so a person determines what he will do subordinate to God’s will.
Where that which a person determines to do clashes with that which God has determined that he do, then God prevails.
br.d
FALSE
The word “subordinate” here is simply designed to MASQUERADE a FACADE of IN-determinism.
In Theological Determinism – the THEOS determines ****ALL***** things with out exception.
Take [X] and subtract *ALL* from it
Now what do you have left?
ZERO!
That is what is left over for the creature to determine.
Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever occur in a person’s brain.
In that scheme the idea of a person’s will clashing with Calvin’s god’s will is nothing more than a Calvinist ILLUSION.
John Calvin:
“Men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God)
Calvinist Paul Helm:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but EVERY TWIST AND TURN OF EACH OF THESE is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God).
Understanding Calvinism is fairly easy:
A Calvinist is a determinism – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
br.d writes, “FALSE
The word “subordinate” here is simply designed to MASQUERADE a FACADE of IN-determinism.
In Theological Determinism – the THEOS determines ****ALL***** things with out exception.”
“Subordinate” means that one is subject tot he control of another. Man’s will is subordinate to God’s will as God is the final arbiter of all things and can act to prevent anything man seeks to do. The example is Joseph and his brothers. The brothers first sought to kill Joseph but God said not; they then sought to sell Joseph and this God was pleased to happen as it fit His plans. God, as final arbiter, determined the outcome.
Then, “Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever occur in a person’s brain.”
Thus, rendering certain the thoughts of a person that originate from his sin nature.
Then, “In that scheme the idea of a person’s will clashing with Calvin’s god’s will is nothing more than a Calvinist ILLUSION.”
Not an illusion as reflected in the example of Joseph and his brothers.
rhutchin
“Subordinate” means that one is subject tot he control of another. Man’s will is subordinate to God’s will as God is the final arbiter of all things and can act to prevent anything man seeks to do.
br.d
Nice try – but this is you trying to fabricate a FACADE
In Theological Determinism it follows:
Man can *ONLY* “seek” what Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world FIRST-CONCEIVES – and then RENDERS-CERTAIN.
Your still trying to wrap Theological Determinism in the sheep’s-skin of IN-determinism
rhutchin
The example is Joseph and his brothers. The brothers first sought to kill Joseph but God said not
br.d
More FACADES
In Calvinism the idea that man can have a thought without Calvin’s god RENDERING-CERTAIN that thought before man exists – is an ILLUSION
Joseph’s brothers could not have even had the thought in their minds to kill Joseph unless Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) FIRST-CONCEIVED they have that thought and then RENDERED-CERTAIN they have that thought.
rhutchin
God, as final arbiter, determined the outcome.
br.d
The term “arbiter” is defined as having “The power of judgement”
Calvin’s god is **ONLY** “arbiter” of ANYTHING that comes to pass.
This is a Calvinist’s desperate attempt at MASQUERADING Theological Determinism as something it isn’t (i.e., IN-determinism)
rhutchin
Thus, rendering certain the thoughts of a person that originate from his sin nature.
br.d
FALSE
John Calvin
-quote
“Men can deliberately do nothing unless He [Calvin’s god] inspire it.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God)
Everything that comes to pass ORIGINATES in the mind of Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world)
Therefore:
In Calvinism the idea of a person’s will clashing with Calvin’s god’s will is nothing more than a Calvinist ILLUSION.”
rhutchin
Not an illusion as reflected in the example of Joseph and his brothers.
br.d
BUT *IS* an ILLUSION as reflected in the doctrines of John Calvin.
That’s why I never conflate Theological Determinism with scripture which predominantly affirms the opposite.
While your busy fabricating things – why don’t you make a paper space-ship.
Climb into it and explore Jupiter
I’m sure that won’t be an ILLUSION for you either! :-]
rhutchin
RC Sproul writes, “But “determined” here does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to one’s internal motivation or desire.
br.d
Sproul is fallaciously appealing to Natural Determinism – which Theological Determinism by its very essence denies.
In Natural Determinism – things are determined by nature.
In Theological Determinism *ALL* things ***WITHOUT EXCEPTION*** are determined by a THEOS.
Simple math clears this up completely.
If you have 100 items
And the THEOS determines *ALL* of them without exception.
Then how many are left over for anything or anyone else to determine?
Zero!
And that means there is Zero for man to determine also.
Therefore Theological Determinism by its very essence – is a denial of any other form of Determinism.
Sproul should be smart enough not fall into such a fallacious appeal.
This is the tactic that leaves me goin’ “I can’t believe you just did that!”
Not content to simply ignore how scripture contradicts their deterministic system, they actually have the nerve to quote the contradictory verses and pretend as if they are in harmony with Calvinism. I honestly sometimes wonder if they are trying to gaslight logical thinking people into utter madness.
TS00
Not content to simply ignore how scripture contradicts their deterministic system, they actually have the nerve to quote the contradictory verses and pretend as if they are in harmony with Calvinism.
br.d
Yes I agree!
I’ve come to believe their minds are so ensnared in that double-think brief system – they actually see it in scripture.
For them the authors of scripture are double-minded just like they are.
If Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world RENDERED-CERTAIN that Joseph would not reject Marry.
And Calvin’s god is TRULY Omniscient
Then at the foundation of the world he knows and believes – when the time comes – Joseph will in fact not reject Mary.
Therefore if Calvin’s god is TRULY Omniscient – then he knows and believes there is nothing to intervene to prevent.
Unless perhaps Calvin’s god wants to choreograph a FAKE presentation of himself intervening to prevent something.
This is why William Lane Craig points out:
“In Theological Determinism the whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself”
br.d writes:
“Therefore if Calvin’s god is TRULY Omniscient – then he knows and believes there is nothing to intervene to prevent.
Unless perhaps Calvin’s god wants to choreograph a FAKE presentation of himself intervening to prevent something.”
There’s the rub. The only way this ‘pretense’ makes any sense is if God is trying to make it look like those who he intends to hang are actually responsible for bringing to pass all the horrific evil this world has ever seen – rather than him, the God who ordained and brings into being ‘whatsoever comes to pass’.
What an awful god they have fabricated; and I pity the poor folk who simply don’t understand it all.
TS00
What an awful god they have fabricated; and I pity the poor folk who simply don’t understand it all.
br.d
Yes I totally agree – its very sad to know a person can be so easily ensnared into irrational thinking.
Dr. Erich Fromm – a Social Psychologist – studied the writings and biographies of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and later followers of Calvin. He was interested in a certain aspect of their psychology.
Parts of his research he wrote in a book titled “Escape from freedom”
Interesting title don’t you think?
Some Calvinist writings displayed what he called a “psychology of dread”.
And others displayed a “psychology of uncertainty”
Here are some excerpts:
Within the psychological effects of Calvin’s doctrine, as it was with Luther’s, fundamental doubts result in a person’s quest for absolute certainty; but though the doctrine of predestination gave such certainty. The doubt forever remained in the background of the believer’s mind, and had to be silenced again and again by an overgrowing, emphasis, that the religious community to which one belonged, represented that part of mankind which had been chosen by God.
Why God chooses one and condemns the other is a secret into which man must not try to delve. God does so because it pleased him to show his unlimited power.
In Calvin’s conceptions of his god – in spite of all his attempts to preserve some nebulous idea of divine justice and love, it has all the features of a tyrant, without any quality of certain or predictable love or justice
In blatant contradiction to the language of the New Testament, Calvin denies the supreme role of divine love, and says “For what the Schoolmen advance concerning the priority of charity to faith and hope, is a mere reverie of a distempered imagination.
One possible way to escape this unbearable state of uncertainty and a paralyzing feeling of one’s own insignificance, is the very trait which became so prominent in Calvinism: the development of a hyper activity and striving for productivity.
Activity in this sense assumes a compulsory quality: the individual has to be active in order to subdue underlying feelings of doubt and powerlessness.
This kind of effort and activity works to manufacture an artificial sense of confidence and conciliation.
However, human effort in Calvinist doctrine has yet another psychological meaning. The fact that one did not tire in that unceasing effort, and the one succeeded in one’s moral as well as secular work, functions as a more or less distinct sign of being one of the chosen ones.
The irrationality of such compulsive effort is that the activity is not meant to create a desired end, but merely served to function as an indicator – of one’s predestined fate.
br.d writes, “Therefore if Calvin’s god is TRULY Omniscient – then he knows and believes there is nothing to intervene to prevent.”
The execution of God’s plan is an integral part of His omniscience. Of course, Joseph is not going to refuse Him, not Paul, nor anyone else. “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.”
br.d
“Therefore if Calvin’s god is TRULY Omniscient – then he knows and believes there is nothing to intervene to prevent.”
rhutchin
The execution of God’s plan is an integral part of His omniscience
br.d
What is LOGICALLY FALSE with my statement?
Calvin’s god cannot alter what he (at the foundation of the world) created as RENDERED-CERTAIN.
These are events he (at the foundation of the world) knows and believes will come to pass exactly as he decreed them.
If anything intervenes to prevent them – then omniscience fails – because Calvin’s god in such case would have (at the foundation of the world) known and believed something that was wrong.
This eliminates all events that are RENDERED-CERTAIN as candidates for events that can be intervened to prevent.
Even Calvin’s god can’t prevent them.
The only events you have left – are those NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And per Calvin’s doctrine those events are not going to come to pass anyway – because Calvin’s god did not create them with the status of being RENDERED-CERTAIN.
The Calvinist wants to embrace Theological Determinism – but then he bumps up against its consequences.
In order to align with scripture he needs the very IN-determinism that he adamantly rejects.
The only way he can accomplish this is with double-think.
rhutchin wrote, “The execution of God’s plan is an integral part of His omniscience.”
br.d responded, “What is LOGICALLY FALSE with my statement?
Calvin’s god cannot alter what he (at the foundation of the world) created as RENDERED-CERTAIN.”
br.d cannot explain how it is logically false. God’s omniscience encompasses all things including His actions. So God’s impregnation of Mary is part of His omniscience. Certainly God will not alter what He rendered certain, but He could have rendered something else certain had He wanted. God could have intervened to prevent the stoning of Stephen had He wanted but He did not.
Then, ‘In order to align with scripture he needs the very IN-determinism that he adamantly rejects.”
I don’t see why this is true, and you don’t seem able to explain why you think it must be true.
rhutchin
God’s omniscience encompasses all things including His actions. ….Certainly God will not alter what He rendered certain,
br.d
Correction:
Calvin’s god **CANNOT** alter what he has RENDERED-CERTAIN.
rhutchin
but He could have rendered something else certain had He wanted.
br.d
Totally Irrelevant red herring
rhutchin
God could have intervened to prevent the stoning of Stephen had He wanted but He did not.
br.d
If Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Stephen’s stoning exactly as it occurs – then at the foundation of the world Calvin’s god knows and believes Stephen’s stoning exactly as it occurs.
If then anything alters in any way Stephen’s stoning from occurring as such – then what Calvin’s god knows and believes (at the foundation of the world) is false. And Omniscience fails.
Therefore it follows – Calvin’s god in such case **CANNOT** intervene to prevent Stephen’s stoning – without compromising omniscience.
This rules out any events that are RENDERED-CERTAIN as events which can be intervened to prevent.
The only events which Calvin’s god can intervene to prevent – are events which are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And those events are not going to come to pass anyway.
This is another example of what I’ve stated before
‘In order to align with scripture the Calvinist needs the very IN-determinism that he adamantly rejects.”
rhutchin
I don’t see why this is true, and you don’t seem able to explain why you think it must be true.
br.d
Of course you don’t see it – if you did all of those Calvinist ILLUSIONS might come crashing down. :-]
Like I stated before:
By virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a person’s brain – for the Calvinist to want to call that “Intervening” in a person’s decisions is exactly what Dr. Lane Craig says it is – a farce.
rhutchin
God’s omniscience encompasses all things including His actions. ….Certainly God will not alter what He rendered certain,
**Here, is Calvinism stated properly. God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. It cannot be altered, as br.d proceeds to assert.
br.d
Correction:
Calvin’s god **CANNOT** alter what he has RENDERED-CERTAIN.
rhutchin
but He could have rendered something else certain had He wanted.
br.d
Totally Irrelevant red herring
**This is where rhutchin attempts to pull a fast one. If Stephen was stoned – and he was – that means that, under Calvinism, mind you – God ordained and rendered it certain. Rhutchin earlier acknowledges that ‘God will not alter what He rendered certain, and yet now tries to slither out of that necessity and sneak in a Calvinistic impossibility:
rhutchin
God could have intervened to prevent the stoning of Stephen had He wanted but He did not.
**As both parties agreed, God could NOT have intervened to prevent the stoning of Stephen, if it was rendered certain. Thus, rhutchin must either give up the claim that God ordains and renders certain whatsoever comes to pass in eternity past, as Calvinism asserts, or he must give up the false notion that God can intervene in affairs which he has determined in eternity pass, which is EVERYTHING, according to Calvinism.
God ordains, unchangably whatsoever comes to pass; nor can anything possibly come to pass unless God has previously ordained it to be so.
Since nothing can possibly occur unless God has unchangably ordained it, for God to have something with which to ‘intervene’ or ‘prevent’ he would first have to ordain it to be about to come to pass, and then intervene to prevent it from coming to pass.
This would entail God first ordaining a ‘possibility’, that is not going to come to pass in order to prevent it from coming to pass.
In other words, nonsense.
TS00
This would entail God first ordaining a ‘possibility’, that is not going to come to pass in order to prevent it from coming to pass.
In other words, nonsense.
br.d
Well said!
Oh the spider webs Calvinists have to manufacture in order to make Theological Determinism LOOK LIKE IN-determinism :-]
TS00 writes, “Since nothing can possibly occur unless God has unchangably ordained it, for God to have something with which to ‘intervene’ or ‘prevent’ he would first have to ordain it to be about to come to pass, and then intervene to prevent it from coming to pass.”
Which only means that God ordains His actions together with man’s actions (including his thoughts) and ordains both.
rhutchin
Which only means that God ordains His actions together with man’s actions (including his thoughts) and ordains both.
br.d
Calvin’s god can (at the foundation of the world) can ordain anything about himself he wants to.
He can ordain himself to jump up and down and act like a frog at midnight on January 1st 2019 – if that what he wants.
But once that is RENDERED-CERTAIN he **CANNOT** intervene to prevent it without compromising omniscience.
That leaves only events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN as candidates for intervention or alteration.
And per Calvin’s doctrine – events NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN are NOT going to come to pass anyway.
But you prefer ILLUSIONS as your reality :-]
br.d writes:
“Calvin’s god can (at the foundation of the world) can ordain anything about himself he wants to.
He can ordain himself to jump up and down and act like a frog at midnight on January 1st 2019 – if that what he wants.
But once that is RENDERED-CERTAIN he **CANNOT** intervene to prevent it without compromising omniscience.
That leaves only events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN as candidates for intervention or alteration.
And per Calvin’s doctrine – events NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN are NOT going to come to pass anyway.”
Let’s say it is Rhutchin who was ordained to ‘jump up and down and act like a frog at midnight on January 1st 2019’. You and rh both agree that, once rendered certain, this decree cannot be changed, prevented or intervened with. Good so far.
But “God could have rendered a different outcome certain had He wanted”, responds rh. Indeed, God could have ordained that rh would kiss a beautiful girl and shout ‘Happy New Year!’, or that he would be sleeping soundly in his bed. However, as you point out, that has nothing to do with whether or not God can prevent or intervene anything if he has previously ordained everything. He cannot.
Cornered. Rh concedes. Hardly.
Well, says rh, changing tactics, this “only means that God ordains His actions together with man’s actions (including his thoughts) and ordains both.” Which is simply an attempt to use a lot of words and pretend as if they actually mean something.
It matters not the slightest what ‘means’ God uses to bring about the ‘whatsoever’ which comes to pass (which is everything). He can plant thoughts in man’s brain, or in some fashion create a brain that is pre-programmed with all of the hardware and software to produced the desired, long ago ordained results. Or He might engage any mystical, secretive means of which we are unaware. IT DOESN’T MATTER!
The Theos, under Calvinism, determines all things. Always. Period. Ordained them in eternity past. Irresistibly. Unchangably. Which part of this doesn’t rh understand?
There is nothing now with which God can intervene or prevent. Nothing exists, nothing has or can come into being unless he himself ordained it into existence. All that’s left, in an attempt to disguise God’s cruelty and injustice, is a fake, deliberately deceptive appearance of an ability to do something other than what was predetermined long before anyone was born. This is what Calvinists try to pass off as ‘man’s ability to choose’. This ability to ‘choose according to one’s desires’ is indeed an illusion, as if any man can possibly desire and choose something other than what God has already ordained to come to pass. At best, a man might be deceived into thinking he freely chooses his own actions, and can do as he desires, but it is never so under Calvinistic Theistic Determinism.
The possibly of choosing anything, EVER, other than what has been pre-programmed, is a deception, a fake, an utter unreality or, as br.d calls it, an illusion. There is no such ability to make a genuine free choice – all has and ever will come to pass EXACTLY as the Theos determined, long, long ago. There is no choice, no sin, nor responsibility for one’s actions that demands death. There exists, under Calvinism, only Calvin’s horrible decree and thousands of Calvinists trying to explain it away.
These pitiable, double-talking, deluded men are desperately trying to believe their cruel, deceptive God is just in sovereignly ordaining WHATSOEVER exists, but punishing helpless, obedient men whose every thought word and action, even their very existence, has been ordained, decreed and irresistibly brought to pass just as God – and God alone – has chosen.
TS00 writes, “However, as you point out, that has nothing to do with whether or not God can prevent or intervene anything if he has previously ordained everything. He cannot.”
After God ordains X; there is no reason for God to change what is to happen. Prior to God ordaining X, God can decide to intervene in any event and having made that decision, the event is ordained.
Then, ‘He can plant thoughts in man’s brain, or in some fashion create a brain that is pre-programmed with all of the hardware and software to produced the desired, long ago ordained results.”
Or God can create man with a nature that generates thoughts without any action by God (other than to sustain the life of the man).
Then, “The Theos, under Calvinism, determines all things. Always. Period. Ordained them in eternity past. Irresistibly. Unchangably. Which part of this doesn’t rh understand?”
We both agree on this. You seem to have a problem with God using the choices of men as the means to accomplish that which He has ordained. We have the example of Joseph and his brothers or the Assyrians of Isaiah 10.
Then, “There is nothing now with which God can intervene or prevent. Nothing exists, nothing has or can come into being unless he himself ordained it into existence.”
Correct. God made His decisions on all things and they stand – God will not learn anything new that might precipitate a different outcome.
Then, “This ability to ‘choose according to one’s desires’ is indeed an illusion,”
However, people do end up making choices that reflect their desires. So, what’s the issue?
Then, “The possibly of choosing anything, EVER, other than what has been pre-programmed, is a deception, a fake, an utter unreality or, as br.d calls it, an illusion. ”
So, a person has been programmed to choose according to his desires. What else might serve as the basis for his choices?
rhutchin
Or God can create man with a nature that generates thoughts without any action by God (other than to sustain the life of the man).
br.d
In theological Determinism this is FALSE
John Calvin:
“Men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God)
The hand of God rules the interior affections…THEY CAN DO NOTHING unless he worked in their hearts to **MAKE** them will before they acted.
Loraine Boettner
-quote:
[If we attribute to man as having the ability to be] A FIRST CAUSE, and ***ORIGINAL SPRING*** of action…..we have as many semi-gods as we have free wills…..we cannot allow this independence to man”
rhutchin
However, people do end up making choices that reflect their desires. So, what’s the issue?
br.d
In Calvinism – man is *ONLY* free to desire what Calvin’s god programs him to desire – nothing more – nothing less.
A Calvinist is a DECEPTION ARTIST who attempts to paint a picture of autonomy beyond that.
Calvinist Paul Helm:
“Not only is every atom and molecule, EVERY THOUGHT AND DESIRE, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each of these is UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD”. (The Providence of God).
Well said TS00!
I especially like this statement:
He can plant thoughts in man’s brain, or in some fashion create a brain that is pre-programmed with all of the hardware and software to produce the desired, long ago ordained results. Or He might engage any mystical, secretive means of which we are unaware.
IT DOESN’T MATTER!
Calvin’s god pre-programming all of the hardware and sofware to produce the desired outcome.
Fits perfectly! :-]
br.d writes, “But once that is RENDERED-CERTAIN he **CANNOT** intervene to prevent it without compromising omniscience.
That leaves only events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN as candidates for intervention or alteration.”
Except that God has rendered certain His intervention in certain events. Again, we have the example of Joseph and his brothers that you cannot refute and obviously, have made no effort to do so.
br.d
“But once that is RENDERED-CERTAIN he **CANNOT** intervene to prevent it without compromising omniscience.
That leaves only events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN as candidates for intervention or alteration.”
rhutchin
Except that God has rendered certain His intervention in certain events.
br.d
There is nothing to prevent Calvin’s god from adding “interactions” between himself and the creature – as part of what he RENDERS-CERTAIN come to pass.
Just like a puppeteer can add “interactions” between himself and the puppets as a part of his puppet show.
But by virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god *MUST* FIRST-CONCEIVE and RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a person’s brain – trying to paint that process as “intervening” in that person’s decisions is DECEPTIVE language.
Calvinists who try to paint that picture are simply operating as DECEPTION ARTISTS.
Calvin’s god is doing nothing more than “interacting” with those neurological impulses he “choreographed” to exist within that person’s brain. He is essentially “interacting” with himself.
Painting that process as “intervention” is a DECEIVER attempting to MASQUERADE the creature having autonomy that doesn’t exist.
William Lane Craig agrees:
-quote
God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame.
br.d writes, ‘But by virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god *MUST* FIRST-CONCEIVE and RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a person’s brain – trying to paint that process as “intervening” in that person’s decisions is DECEPTIVE language. ”
Certainly, God has conceived all things and nothing will happen that He did not first conceive. The neurological impulses that take shape in the person’s mind arise from the person himself facilitated by his unique nature.
br.d
‘But by virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god *MUST* FIRST-CONCEIVE and RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a person’s brain – trying to paint that process as “intervening” in that person’s decisions is DECEPTIVE language. ”
rhutchin
Certainly, God has conceived all things and nothing will happen that He did not first conceive. The neurological impulses that take shape in the person’s mind arise from the person himself facilitated by his unique nature.
br.d
FALSE
This is another failed attempt at semantic word games by presenting one equivocal term after another.
The word “arise” is derived from the Old English “arisan” – which mean “having a beginning”, “coming into being”, SPRING FROM, ORIGINATE”.
In Calvinism – each and every neurological impulse that Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN – have their beginning at the foundation of the world – they SPRING FROM, and ORIGINATE in and from the mind of Calvin’s god.
Calvinists do not know the mechanism Calvin’s god uses to transmit them – from his mind – or actuate them in a person’s mind.
In Calvinism *ALL* things have their being at the foundation of the world where man does not exist to ORIGINATE anything.
To the man – these things occur inevitably and unavoidably – predetermined – pre-programmed – predestined.
The man does not have a say in the matter.
He cannot countervail what is fated by supernatural decree.
What thoughts/choices/desires/actions Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN for each man – no mortal man can resist.
Loraine Boettner
-quote:
[If we attribute to man as having the ability to be] A *FIRST CAUSE*, and ***ORIGINAL SPRING*** of action…..we have as many semi-gods as we have free wills…..we cannot allow this independence to man”
William Lane Craig agrees:
-quote
[In Calvinism] they [humans] are mere INSTRUMENTS by means of which God acts to produce some effect, much like a man using a stick to move a stone. Of course, secondary causes retain all their properties and powers as INTERMEDIATE causes…..just as a stick retains its properties and powers which make it suitable for the purposes of the one who uses it…… But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere INSTRUMENTAL causes, for they HAVE NO POWER TO INITIATIVE ACTION. -end quote
There’s no use, is there? But you know that. Rh cannot acknowledge the truth that any ‘choice’ that man appears to make is merely a controlled means by which God’s predetermined decrees are rendered. Making God the sole cause of whatsoever comes to pass – as Calvinism asserts – including all evil and sin, which Calvinism attempts to deny. The Calvinist knows that if he gives up this charade he will be forced to acknowledge the god Calvin has manufactured is cruel and unjust, determining sin and evil, then punishing, as it were, the unresisting ‘stick’ in his hand for hitting the dog, at his irresistible command. So, the games must continue, the pretense of ‘not getting’ what you mean, and stringing together, as you pointed out, equivocal words in hopes of confusing people. They have no other options but to play these games, or admit their error.
TS00,
Yes. It was the name calling and “pretending” like we had never defined something. Killed me: Brian gave 4-5 explanations of John 6:44 and it was always, “why dont one of you say what you mean.” I dont respond anymore. But you have a lot to say about passages and ideas, just dont jump on the merry-go-round.
I suggest displaying the thousands of passages that the Bible gives us that show the way God created His world.
TS00
I suggest displaying the thousands of passages that the Bible gives us that show the way God created His world.
br.d
Yes the scripture is consistently IN-deterministic in its language and mindset.
I am told there are 23,145 verses in the entire Bible.
Calvinists take 40+ verses that can be used to affirm Theological Determinism
And force those verses to over-rule the remaining 23 thousand that convey the opposite.
And then when they want to excuse Calvin’s god from being the author of evil
The only verses they have – are the very verses they normally over-rule.
br.d,
What you said here is a gem:
“And then when they want to excuse Calvin’s god from being the author of evil
The only verses they have – are the very verses they normally over-rule. ”
This happens over and over. We show on paper how dastardly (certainly not “good”) such a plan would be that God would purposely, before creation, think of a plan where He —purposely— created for damnation the vast majority of those created in His image, and then would “pretend” that He loves them and would tell us that Christ died for them “in some way, just not the same way,” —- and their response is “God is good.”
What? That’s the point! You cannot pooh-pooh us and calls us “universalists” one minute because we say “God is good” and then when we point out all the non-good elements of such a dastardly plan, use that same verse. Such hypocrisy!
FOH
What? That’s the point! You cannot pooh-pooh us and calls us “universalists” one minute because we say “God is good” and then when we point out all the non-good elements of such a dastardly plan, use that same verse. Such hypocrisy!
br.d
Yes you nailed it FOH.
I’ve always said
“In all of protestant Christianity – Calvinists consistently win the prize of being the most subtle beast in the field”
See Genesis 3:1
TS00 writes, “Rh cannot acknowledge the truth that any ‘choice’ that man appears to make is merely a controlled means by which God’s predetermined decrees are rendered.”
I can do that. The Assyrians in Isaiah 10 illustrate this – right?
TS00
“Rh cannot acknowledge the truth that any ‘choice’ that man *APPEARS* to make is merely a controlled means by which God’s predetermined decrees are rendered.”
rhutchin
I can do that. The Assyrians in Isaiah 10 illustrate this – right?
br.d
The key word for the Calvinist is *APPEARS*
Man *APPEARS* to be in control of his own destiny.
Man *APPEARS* to have a form of free-will
There *APPEARS* to be a forked path in the garden.
And man *APPEARS* to have two options which both exist – from which to choose.
Its all about making Theological Determinism *APPEAR* like the very thing it eradicates – (IN-determinism)
Calvinism is a world of APPEARANCES and ILLUSIONS
Which they are taught to embrace reality.
br.d writes, “Man *APPEARS* to be in control of his own destiny.
Man *APPEARS* to have a form of free-will”
That’s fine. Now apply your thinking to the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and tell us what you get.
br.d
In Calvnism “Man *APPEARS* to be in control of his own destiny.
Man *APPEARS* to have a form of free-will”
rhutchin
That’s fine. Now apply your thinking to the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and tell us what you get.
br.d
Silly bird!
Its not MY thinking – its Calvinist thinking.
Unless you want to argue that in Calvinism – man is in control of his own destiny.
How easy it is for a Calvinist to assert the very statements – he accuses others – of robbing god of sovereignty.
br.d writes, “Its not MY thinking – its Calvinist thinking.”
That’s your claim. How about explaining what makes your claim true.
br.d
“Its not MY thinking – its Calvinist thinking.”
rhutchin
That’s your claim. How about explaining what makes your claim true.
br.d
I can see this is going to devolve into your “you can’t explain it” tail-chasing routine.
Since there are things you ask for – knowing full well that your asking is nothing but pretense
wisdom dictates – its better to let you provide those things all by yourself.
That way when you do – your pretense will be visible – and you’ll look silly trying to wiggle out of it.
br.d writes, “Since there are things you ask for – knowing full well that your asking is nothing but pretense
wisdom dictates – its better to let you provide those things all by yourself.
That way when you do – your pretense will be visible – and you’ll look silly trying to wiggle out of it.”
In other words, you cannot substantiate your claim.
TS00
So, the games must continue, the pretense of ‘not getting’ what you mean, and stringing together, as you pointed out, equivocal words in hopes of confusing people. They have no other options but to play these games, or admit their error.
br.d
Yes – you have it exactly right TS00
Calvinists have a very large library of slippery words they use to manipulate the unsuspecting.
If one slippery word doesn’t work – they’ll pull out another one – and another one – and another one.
I feel sorry for them – they’re patriotism to a man so blinds them – they can’t discern that as dishonesty.
And how that dishonesty is like a mark on their forehead which differentiates them from Christ.
They navigate from one subtle dishonest word to another gambling that most Christians won’t discern it.
But once a person is alerted to the game – one will start to look for it – and find it always at play.
One of them here is a Calvinist pastor – who says its not dishonest for a Calvinist to tell a non-believer God loves them desiring their salvation, because: -quote “Non-Elect were not misled because the legitimate offer of the gospel was not intended for them.”
One has to be blinded to not see that type of blatant dishonesty – as void of Jesus Christ.
br.d writes, ‘Calvinists have a very large library of slippery words they use to manipulate the unsuspecting.”
That’s your basic argument. When you start arguing the Scriptures with the Calvinists, we will see that you know what you are talking about. Calvinists always seem to win the war on Scripture.
br.d
‘Calvinists have a very large library of slippery words they use to manipulate the unsuspecting.”
rhutchin
That’s your basic argument. When you start arguing the Scriptures with the Calvinists, we will see that you know what you are talking about. Calvinists always seem to win the war on Scripture.
br.d
Winning a war is a PERFECT description of what drives Calvinists.
Unfortunately – when one uses dishonest means – to win an earthly war – one separates himself from Christ.
On the issue of scripture
Since manipulating language is Calvinism’s strong suit
It makes perfect sense that Calvinists would find manipulating scripture as a primary tool in their toolbox.
The standards which govern the use of language are loose enough to allow for a library of word gaming strategies.
However, the standards that govern LOGIC on the other hand are very rigid.
They allow for one to discern falsehoods.
That’s why Calvinists always evade TRUTH STANDARDS when it comes to LOGIC.
And that’s why Calvinists rely on arguing from scripture – its all to easy to manipulate.
br.d writes, “On the issue of scripture
Since manipulating language is Calvinism’s strong suit
It makes perfect sense that Calvinists would find manipulating scripture as a primary tool in their toolbox.”
br.d still cannot argue from the Scriptures. Still no evidence that he knows what he is talking about.
br.d,
Can I suggest that you do what TS00 will likely start doing….. not take the bait. The ole “never uses Scripture” or “never says what he means”. It just clutters up our mailboxes to see all these merry-go-round circles.
Just post your good stuff from Scripture, or interesting ideas from Craig and Plantinga….. but then dont take the bait when the one-liners are shot across the bow. In the long run it makes it all that much harder for young people looking for answers to find them in all the round-n-round. Which might even be what the purpose of the circles is all about.
FOH to br.d writes, “Just post your good stuff from Scripture,…”
I’ll settle for that.
rhutchin
I’ll settle for that
br.d
Sad to say – I think we already know what you’ve settle for. 🙁
FOH to br.d writes, “Just post your good stuff from Scripture,…” I’ll settle for that.
rhutchin: “I’ll settle for that”
br.d “Sad to say – I think we already know what you’ve settle for.”
Yeah, the good stuff. But br.d doesn’t have any good stuff. Guess, we continue to get the bad stuff.
Yup I totally agree
When rhutchin went into his “poor br.d can’t do X” routine – I just back off and let him chase his own tail :-]
br.d writes to FOH, “When rhutchin went into his “poor br.d can’t do X” routine – I just back off and let him chase his own tail ”
Poor br.d – unable to argue from the Scriptures.
rhutchin
br.d still cannot argue from the Scriptures. Still no evidence that he knows what he is talking about.
br.d
Now you’ve gone into your tail-chasing mode once again.
I leave you to play that game all by yourself.
But it is funny to watch a puppy chase his tail :-]
br.d writes, “Now you’ve gone into your tail-chasing mode once again.”
br.d still cannot argue from the Scriptures. Still no evidence that he knows what he is talking about. He does resort to his “tail-chasing mode” retort. Typical br.d.
br.d writes, ‘In Calvinism – each and every neurological impulse that Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN – have their beginning at the foundation of the world – they SPRING FROM, and ORIGINATE in and from the mind of Calvin’s god.”
They originate in the mind of the person.
br.d
In Calvinism – each and every neurological impulse that Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN – have their beginning at the foundation of the world – they SPRING FROM, and ORIGINATE in and from the mind of Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
They originate in the mind of the person.
br.d
Yeh right – you just keep on telling yourself that
*AS-IF* that person existed when Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVED them.
*AS-IF* that person has the power to bring them into existence all by himself.
Funny how a Calvinist will accuse others of exalting man – ascribing to man aspects of sovereignty – robbing them from god.
Then the Calvinist could care less – when he does that very thing. :-]
rhutchin: They originate in the mind of the person.
br.d responded, ”
Yeh right – you just keep on telling yourself that.”
“The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” (Proverbs 16)
I will.
rhutchin: They originate in the mind of the person.
br.d
Yeh right – you just keep on telling yourself that.”
rhutchin
“The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” (Proverbs 16)
br.d
Thank you for quoting a verse that affirms IN-determinism.
Notice how that verse does not affirm Calvin’s god who FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN man’s plans.
Every time you quote one of those verses – you unwittingly strengthen the Non-Calvinist position. :-]
br.d writes, “Thank you for quoting a verse that affirms IN-determinism.”
So you claim. How about explaining what makes your claim true.
rhutchin
“The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” (Proverbs 16)
br.d
“Thank you for quoting a verse that affirms IN-determinism.”
rhutchin
So you claim. How about explaining what makes your claim true.
br.d
First lets make sure we re-affirm definitions.
Theological Determinism:
Theological Determinism is a form of pre-determinism which states that *ALL* events without exception are pre-ordained, or/and predestined to happen, by a THEOS. Events which are predestined occur inevitably and unavoidabley. They are fated to occur.
Now in addition to that Theological Determinism (ala Calvinism) states that *ALL* things are FIRST-CONCEIVED and then RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world – by Calvin’s god.
This would obviously include every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a man’s brain.
Now IN-determinism states that *ALL* events which come to pass are *NOT* pre-determined, predestined, etc.
So now lets look at the verse you quoted:
“The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” (Proverbs 16)
Now you can tell me where this verse EXPLICITLY states a THEOS at the foundation of the world FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN – that mans plans and steps.
I’m sure you’re indoctrinated to see EXACTLY THAT in every verse of the Bible.
But you’ll have to contort both of your legs 3 times around your head to make that work for me.
br.d,
It’s even simpler than that!
The verse (quoted by a Cavinist as a proof text no less!!) says that “man plans his ways.” When? When does the Lord direct? After man has planned and when man is stepping!
Why doesnt it ever say the Lord plans man’s ways? Nope. Man does. The Lord guides. Great!
Look at the first 3 verses of the chapter:
1 To humans belong the plans of the heart,
but from the Lord comes the proper answer of the tongue.
2 All a person’s ways seem pure to them,
but motives are weighed by the Lord.
3 Commit to the Lord whatever you do,
and he will establish your plans.
—————
He even says “to humans belong the plans of the heart”—- When is the Lord mentioned? “answers of the tongue.” (after!)
A “person’s” ways (he is making his ways)….THEN the Lord weighs his motives (the Lord does not put the motives or the ways in there).
Commit to the Lord …..and then….. the Lord will establish.
br.d., Let’s post Scripture like this. Remember it was the Calvinist who (by accident) brought us to this passage….which seems to indicate that man originates some things and God stands by (not being the originator of that thing).
Thanks FOH!
Great post!
I’ve watched Brian lay out grammatical outlines of verses to rhutchin to show how the Calvinist brain tortures scripture.
And rhutchin’s response is to simply chase off into a thousand rabbit holes.
You could put a verse that says THIS IS A CIRCLE in front of a Calvinist
And if he needs it to affirm his doctrine – his brain will read it as THIS IS A SQUARE. :-]
br.d writes, ‘The verse (quoted by a Cavinist as a proof text no less!!) says that “man plans his ways.” When? When does the Lord direct? After man has planned and when man is stepping!”
This does not affirm indeterminism as it does not address the basis for a person to make his plans. The Calvinist denies indeterminism saying that a plan plans according to desires and motives – a man’s plans are self determined. The verse affirms God’s sovereignty over man and man’s subordination to God. It neither says, nor implies anything about the neurological impulses at work in the man’s brain.
Again, you cannot substantiate your claim, “Thank you for quoting a verse that affirms IN-determinism.”
rhutchin
The Calvinist denies indeterminism saying that a plan plans according to desires and motives – a man’s plans are self determined.
br.d
This statement is a nice example of Calvinist sophism
Let [X] = *ALL* things which come to pass
Theological Determinism dictates that a THEOS determined (past tense) *ALL* [X] at the foundation of the world before man exists.
Now after *ALL* [X] have been determined before man exists.
How may [X] are there left over – for man to determine?
You do the math! :-]
br.d writes, “Now after *ALL* [X] have been determined before man exists.
How may [X] are there left over – for man to determine?”
God makes certain the self-determined actions of people. Self-determined but still subordinate to God.
br.d
“Now after *ALL* [X] have been determined before man exists.
How may [X] are there left over – for man to determine?”
rhutchin
God makes certain the self-determined actions of people.
br.d
In Theological Determinism – man is NOT the determiner of his determinations – Calvin’s god is.
I would leave it at that – but we have some really good examples of Calvinism’s deceptive language in your statement.
Firstly:
The words “makes certain” are used as replacement words for “determines”.
They strategically hide the fact that Calvin’s god is the determiner of ALL aspects of man – in EVERY part.
They seek to hide the fact that man is NOT the determiner of his determinations – Calvin’s god is.
Secondly – we have the term “self-determine”:
This is also designed to be deceptive – because it works to paint a picture of AUTONOMY which doesn’t exist.
The English word “Self” is derived from the Greek “Auto”.
The English word “determine” here is used to paint a picture of “governed”
And the Greek word for “self-governed” is “Autonomos” – which in English is AUTONOMY.
So this term is strategically used to make man *APPEAR* to have a measure of AUTONOMY he does not have.
rhutchin
but still subordinate to God.
br.d
Here we have the term “subordinate” – this term is also deceptive.
A much more TRUTHFUL term would be “subjected”.
The word “subordinate” again is designed to make man *APPEAR* to have a form of freedom he does not have in Theological Determinism.
Man is *ONLY* free to be/do whatever Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man be/do – nothing more – nothing less.
Fourthly:
The word “determine” as it applies to Theological Determinism has a different meaning when applied to the THEOS than when applied to man.
When Calvin’s god determines [X] – he brings that [X] into existence.
Man does not have the power to bring anything into existence.
A more TRUTHFUL term for man would be “resolutions”.
ALL of man’s “resolutions” are PRE-determined before man exists – by Calvin’s god.
So the Calvinist uses the word “determines” in reference to man – in order to make man *APPEAR* to have determining power that he does not have.
Thank you rhutchin for providing those good examples. :-]
br.d writes, ‘In Theological Determinism – man is NOT the determiner of his determinations – Calvin’s god is.”
Then Calvinism is not Theological determinism.
br.d
‘In Theological Determinism – man is NOT the determiner of his determinations – Calvin’s god is.”
rhutchin
Then Calvinism is not Theological determinism.
br.d
In order to show that as true – you’ll have to show how man can be/do anything without Calvin’s god determining it before the man exists.
Especially since you’ve already acknowledged that Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into man’s brain.
Good luck in your attempts at arguing something as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time! :-]
br.d writes, “In order to show that as true – you’ll have to show how man can be/do anything without Calvin’s god determining it before the man exists.”
Theological Determinism says that God determines by coercing the outcomes He determines. Calvinism says that God determines outcomes without coercing the outcomes He determines.
rhutchin
Theological Determinism says that God determines by coercing the outcomes He determines.
br.d
rhutchin – sometimes you remind me of the “banana man” in the old Captain Kangaroo show.
He was a clown who could pull out a never-ending string of bananas from his jacket pocket.
What you pull out are a never-ending string of imaginative assertions.
Which I can only assume you auto-magically believe are true immediately after your mind thinks them. :-]
If your assertion here were true – Calvinist Neil Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC would reject it.
But here he affirms Theological Determinism as consistent within Calvinism.
-quote
It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism…..
Take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold
And here is a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – on Jonathon Edwards
-quote
Jonathon Edwards “Freedom of the Will” defends Theological Determinism.
I hardly doubt Edwards holds to a THEOS who determines by coercing outcomes.
Lets see if you can provide an academic quote
br.d writes, “I hardly doubt Edwards holds to a THEOS who determines by coercing outcomes.”
I’ll go with Edwards. God determines events but does not coerce the events He has determined.
Oooops, thought i was addressing br.d and not FOH.
br.d writes, “Theological Determinism:
Theological Determinism is a form of pre-determinism which states that *ALL* events without exception are pre-ordained, or/and predestined to happen, by a THEOS. Events which are predestined occur inevitably and unavoidabley. They are fated to occur.”
With the means by which events come about governed by the Theos but not initiated by the Theos.
Then, ‘Now in addition to that Theological Determinism (ala Calvinism) states that *ALL* things are FIRST-CONCEIVED and then RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world – by Calvin’s god.”
In other words, God is sovereign and rules and overrules His creation but does not initiate each and every event. Consistent with Proverbs 16, “The mind of man plans his way,…” but being subordinate to God, “But the LORD directs his steps.”
Then, “Now IN-determinism states that *ALL* events which come to pass are *NOT* pre-determined, predestined, etc.”
What does that mean? Does it mean that people make all their decisions free of bias or motive?
Then, “Now you can tell me where this verse EXPLICITLY states a THEOS at the foundation of the world FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN – that mans plans and steps.”
It doesn’t. The verse affirms God’s sovereignty over the man and man’s subordination to God’s rule.
The verse does not affirm indeterminism which was your claim. You cannot substantiate your claim.
br.d writes, “Theological Determinism:
Theological Determinism is a form of pre-determinism which states that *ALL* events without exception are pre-ordained, or/and predestined to happen, by a THEOS. Events which are predestined occur inevitably and unavoidably. They are fated to occur.”
rhutchin
With the means by which events come about governed by the Theos but not initiated by the Theos.
br.d
It means exactly what the statement says it means
Trying to reword it to make it *APPEAR* IN-determinstic is dishonest.
‘Now in addition to that Theological Determinism (ala Calvinism) states that *ALL* things are FIRST-CONCEIVED and then RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world – by Calvin’s god.”
rhutchin
In other words, God is sovereign and rules and overrules His creation but does not initiate each and every event. Consistent with Proverbs 16, “The mind of man plans his way,…” but being subordinate to God, “But the LORD directs his steps.”
br.d
It means EXACTLY what the statement says it means.
Trying to reword it to make it *APPEAR* IN-determinstic is dishonest.
“Now IN-determinism states that *ALL* events which come to pass are *NOT* pre-determined, predestined, etc.”
rhutchin
What does that mean? Does it mean that people make all their decisions free of bias or motive?
br.d
It means exactly what is stated.
A THEOS at the foundation of the world does NOT pre-determine/predestine a ALL things.
Now you can tell me where this verse EXPLICITLY states a THEOS at the foundation of the world FIRST-CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN – that mans plans and steps.”
rhutchin
rhutchin
It doesn’t.
br.d
Thank you for providing a verse that affirms IN-determinism!
rhutchin
The verse affirms God’s sovereignty over the man and man’s subordination to God’s rule.
The verse does not affirm indeterminism which was your claim. You cannot substantiate your claim.
br.d
In LOGIC FALSE is the LOGICAL negation (in mathematical terms the reciprocal) of TRUE
Where you don’t have FALSE – by logical implication you have TRUE
Where you don’t have TRUE – by logical implication you have FALSE
A statement that does not EXPLICITLY assert FALSE – by logical implication affirms TRUE
Take this statement for example: It is TRUE that rhutchin is a frog.
If this statement does not EXPLICITLY assert a premise as TRUE – then by logical implication it is FALSE – rhutchin is not a frog.
A statement that does not EXPLICITLY assert TRUE does not have to EXPLICITLY assert FALSE in order for FALSE to become the logical implication.
Theological Determinism and IN-determinism by definition have the same relationship as TRUE vs FALSE.
Theological Determinism mutually excludes IN-determinism
As long a statement does not EXPLICITLY assert Theological Determinism it affirms the opposite the same exact way that not EXPLICITLY stating FALSE affirms TRUE.
Therefore – I thank you for providing a verse that affirms IN-determinism. :-]
br.d writes, “It means exactly what the statement says it means
Trying to reword it to make it *APPEAR* IN-determinstic is dishonest.”
Self-determination n the Calvinist view and still subordinate to God.
br.d writes, “It means exactly what the statement says it means
Trying to reword it to make it *APPEAR* IN-determinstic is dishonest.”
rhutchin
Self-determination n the Calvinist view and still subordinate to God.
br.d
Like I’ve said – Calvinism is 90% hiding TRUTH – by camouflaging it behind a library of beguiling terms.
And apparently Calvinists are not very good at simple subtraction.
Let [X] = ALL events which will ever come to pass
In Theological Determinism a THEOS determined ALL [X] before man exists.
Since Calvin’s god determined (past tense) ALL [X] before man exists
How many [X] does that leave left over for man to determine?
If you one do simple math – one should be able to figure that out. :-]
br.d writes, “Therefore it follows – Calvin’s god in such case **CANNOT** intervene to prevent Stephen’s stoning – without compromising omniscience.”
Only after having rendered the event certain. God could have rendered a different outcome certain had He wanted. As that which God renders certain is in accord with His perfect wisdom, there is no reason for God to then change what He has rendered certain.
br.d
“Therefore it follows – Calvin’s god in such case **CANNOT** intervene to prevent Stephen’s stoning – without compromising omniscience.”
rhutchin
Only after having rendered the event certain.
br.d
Exactly! That’s why I said “in such case”
Here you’re just reiterating my statement
rhutchin
God could have rendered a different outcome certain had He wanted.
br.d
Totally irrelevant to the point.
My statement is a TRUTH statement about Theological Determinism.
Whatever Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN he **CANNOT** intervene to prevent – with out compromising omniscience.
Because if it does not come to pass as he (at the foundation of the world) knows and believes
Then what he knew and believed (at the foundation of the world) was false.
br.d writes, “My statement is a TRUTH statement about Theological Determinism.
Whatever Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN he **CANNOT** intervene to prevent – with out compromising omniscience.”
This just means that God’s decrees render decreed events certain. After decreeing X, there is no reason for God to change His decision.
br.d
“My statement is a TRUTH statement about Theological Determinism.
Whatever Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN he **CANNOT** intervene to prevent – with out compromising omniscience.”
rhutchin
This just means that God’s decrees render decreed events certain. After decreeing X, there is no reason for God to change His decision.
br.d
This statement reveals how Calvinism is 90% semantics!
Cosmetic language – paint the face – hide the unpalatable.
Whether there is a reason or not for Calvin’s god to change [X] is irrelevant.
The value of this TRUTH STATEMENT is that it gives us the ability to discern when Calvinists attempt to FABRICATE falsehoods.
Fallaciously painting Calvin’s god as intervening to prevent events he in fact **CANNOT** intervene to prevent.
TS00 writes, “they actually have the nerve to quote the contradictory verses and pretend as if they are in harmony with Calvinism.”
How about offering some examples of this.
TS00
“they [Calvinists] actually have the nerve to quote the contradictory verses and pretend as if they are in harmony with Calvinism.”
rhutchin
How about offering some examples of this.
br.d
You provided the example. :-]
The instances you sited in scripture are LOGICALLY CONSISTENT with IN-determinism.
But by virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god would have to FIRST CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into Joseph brain – trying to call that process “intervening” with Joseph’s decisions – is exactly what Dr. William Lane Craig calls it – a farce.
br.d writes, “But by virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god would have to FIRST CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into Joseph brain – trying to call that process “intervening” with Joseph’s decisions – is exactly what Dr. William Lane Craig calls it – a farce.”
While God has conceived the thoughts a person might have. and does so before a person conceives them, He does not plant those thoughts in the person’s mind – He does not have to do so as man is perfectly able to conceive his thoughts without God’s help.
br.d
“But by virtue of the fact that Calvin’s god would have to FIRST CONCEIVE and then RENDER-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into Joseph brain – trying to call that process “intervening” with Joseph’s decisions – is exactly what Dr. William Lane Craig calls it – a farce.”
rhutchin
While God has conceived the thoughts a person might have. and does so before a person conceives them, He does not plant those thoughts in the person’s mind
br.d
And you say I make stuff up! :-]
Where is your evidence to prove Calvin’s god does not implant thoughts into people’s brains?
You have no idea how Calvin’s god transmits neurological impulses into a persons brain.
And Calvin is smart enough to not venture imaginations.
All you know is what Calvin’s doctrine dictates.
That Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a person’s brain.
And besides that – the means Calvin’s god uses is an irrelevant red-herring.
The fact that neurological impulses do not originate from the person – (due to the fact that they originate before the person exists) is all that is necessary to establish WHO is the TRUE DETERMINER within Theological Determinism.
All you’re doing here is attempting to dress up Theological Determinism to make it look like IN-determinism.
I feel sorry for you.
You rejected IN-determinism and bought a bottle of Theological Determinism – but you want it to taste like IN-determinism. :-]
br.d. writes:
“All you know is what Calvin’s doctrine dictates.
That Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES and then RENDERS-CERTAIN every neurological impulse that will ever enter into a person’s brain.
And besides that – the means Calvin’s god uses is an irrelevant red-herring.The fact that neurological impulses do not originate from the person – (due to the fact that they originate before the person exists) is all that is necessary to establish WHO is the TRUE DETERMINER within Theological Determinism.”
That’s really the crux of the matter. All attempts to imagine some sort of freedom to choose what one desires is simply that – vain imagining – if those desires have been preconceived and rendered certain by God.
The Calvinist attempts to borrow the concept of foreknowledge, along with the help of cooperative philosophers who assert that ‘to foreknow’ with certainty is ‘to determine’. I will admit that I cannot easily wrap my mind around how God can foreknow what is not yet, without ‘setting it in stone’. The best I can do is to imagine God as a being outside of the constraints of time, thus yesterday, today and tomorrow are all on the same screen for him. And yet, having created time and its limitations for mortals, God interacts with those mortals on the basis of our reality, allowing for our limitations. He allows us the opportunity to live a real life in real time, not allowing his knowledge of what we will do interfere with our opportunity to make what are – in our time frame – real choices yet to be made.
Many Calvinists today are persuaded that this is all that Calvinism asserts, but it is not so. Determinism is foreign to the way the early church fathers viewed reality, creating an entirely new element of control by God of ‘whatsoever comes to pass’. Formerly, men believed that God certainly foreknew all that would come to pass, but without having interfered to render men’s thoughts, words and actions certain in some foreordained, inescapable manner. The Calvinist who denies these distinctions, which are the essence of the difference between Calvinism and all other christian theology, is either ignorant or dishonest.
Predetermination is not equivalent to foreknowledge, and revered Calvinist thinkers make this extremely clear. What Calvinism could never avoid with their determinism – much as they sought to pretend otherwise – was making God the source and author of evil. Try as they might, whether by hemming and hawing, making groundless assertions, or borrowing non-Calvinist definitions, they simply cannot escape this unfortunate corollary of ordaining ‘whatsoever comes to pass’. But it is pretty much always the reason for the deception, double-speak and gobbledy gook talk – they are simply trying to deny, hide or ignore the unthinkable assertion, which few will tolerate, that God himself ordains and brings into existence the horrible evil and suffering that we all so hate.
Great post TS00!
All very true!
And you are not alone in your position. Peter Van Inwagen holds to the same position you do. When he reads scripture he doesn’t see Theological Determinism. And yet he understands the same philosophical issues you conveyed. But because scripture paints a picture of IN-determinism – and because that is what he experiences in his life – and because people who do embrace Theological Determinism (Calvinists and Muslims) spend so much of their time trying to manufacture FAKE presentations of IN-determinism into their theology – he concludes Theological Determinism as a fallacious belief system.
br.d writes, “Where is your evidence to prove Calvin’s god does not implant thoughts into people’s brains?
You have no idea how Calvin’s god transmits neurological impulses into a persons brain.
And Calvin is smart enough to not venture imaginations.”
It is an area where the Bible is silent. However, we are told the following:
“…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.” (Genesis 6:5)
“The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, “There is no God.”” (Psalm 10)
““The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17)
“The LORD knows the thoughts of man, That they are a mere breath.” (Psalm 94)
“They devise injustices, saying, “We are ready with a well-conceived plot”; For the inward thought and the heart of a man are deep.” (Psalm 64)
““I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts, A people who continually provoke Me to My face,…” (Isaiah 65)
We can conclude that a perosn’s thoughts are his own derived from a corrupt nature that God does not have to encourage. yet God knows the thoughts of a person and may limit what the person is able to act upon.
br.d
“Where is your evidence to prove Calvin’s god does not implant thoughts into people’s brains?
You have no idea how Calvin’s god transmits neurological impulses into a persons brain.
And Calvin is smart enough to not venture imaginations.”
rhutchin
It is an area where the Bible is silent. However, we are told the following:…… scriptures quoted
We can conclude that a perosn’s thoughts are his own derived from a corrupt nature that God does not have to encourage. yet God knows the thoughts of a person and may limit what the person is able to act upon.
br.d
First rule – never conflate Theological Determinism with scripture.
Secondly:
Every one of those verses affirms IN-determinism – and does NOT affirm Theological Determinism.
So by quoting them you did nothing more than affirm IN-determinism.
IN-determinism is to Theological Determinism as TRUE is to FALSE – they are mutually excluded.
Either the THEOS determines *ALL* things without exception is TRUE or it is FALSE.
You can’t have both.
So those verses affirm my argument and not yours. :-]
br.d writes, “Every one of those verses affirms IN-determinism – and does NOT affirm Theological Determinism.”
As to many of your claims, you cannot explain how this is so – it’s no more than your personal opinion.
br.d
Every one of those verses affirms IN-determinism – and does NOT affirm Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
As to many of your claims, you cannot explain how this is so – it’s no more than your personal opinion.
br.d
You make claims – I build LOGICALLY sequential arguments and provide TRUTH statements about Calvinism.
So far – your attempts at LOGIC are quite crippled due to your need to make FALSE = TRUE.
But I’m happy to let SOT101 readers review your posted verses and judge for themselves if they don’t affirm IN-determinism
And that that was the very reason you quoted those particular verses. :-]
Just read John 10 today in our family devotions.
I was intrigued by (10:19) “The Jews who heard these words were again divided. 20 Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
21 But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”
———-
It appears that some were starting to be “reasoned with” but the miracles Jesus did.
Later Jesus adds,
“25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me….”
So He states that He was giving the the works/miracles as a testimony/ witness to what he was saying. Again that is used in persuading and reasoning with someone. Of course a “dead man” does not need testimony. And the “elect” of Calvinism dont need it either since they are going to be “irresistibly graced”. So why does Jesus even say He is giving proof?
He says it because they could have and should have believed in Him.
What He says they do not believe is that He is the Jewish Messiah. Of course those who follow Him will believe what He tells them. But He is not giving this as a qualifier.
His sheep believe Him when He says…… I am coming again, ….but it isn’t believing this that causes you to become a sheep!
His sheep believe Him when He says …..I have overcome the world
His sheep believe Him when He says….For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light
His sheep believe Him when He says ….The greatest among you shall be your servant
His sheep believe Him when He says …. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you
The sheep believe what Christ teaches. The ones who are His followers (sheep) do not.
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, [about being the Messiah] but you do not believe.”
All He is saying is “but you do not believe [what I told you about being the Messiah] because you are not my sheep. My sheep believe it.
FOH writes, “So why does Jesus even say He is giving proof?
He says it because they could have and should have believed in Him.”
A rational person would exercise a free will to believe; an irrational person with the will compromised by sin will not believe.
rhuthcin
A rational person would exercise a free will to believe; an irrational person with the will compromised by sin will not believe.
br.d
This is a classic example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking.
Here the Calvinist MAKES-BELIEVE a person can be/do something other than what Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the word) RENDERED-CERTAIN that person be/do. *AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t determine everything in every part.
To understand a Calvinist is fairly straightforward:
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
br.d writes, “Here the Calvinist MAKES-BELIEVE a person can be/do something other than what Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the word) RENDERED-CERTAIN that person be/do. *AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t determine everything in every part.”
Take the blinders off. I merely assume the prior condition of a free will. That God can decree the outcome does not negate free will unless the decreed outcome is coerced against the will of the person – denying the presupposition of free will. So long as the decree is in line with the desires of the person providing a concurrence between the decree and the free will choice, then free will is not negated.
br.d
“Here the Calvinist MAKES-BELIEVE a person can be/do something other than what Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the word) RENDERED-CERTAIN that person be/do. *AS-IF* Calvin’s god doesn’t determine everything in every part.”
rhutchin
Take the blinders off. I merely assume the prior condition of a free will. That God can decree the outcome does not negate free
br.d
Unfortunate for the Calvinist – to be totally reliant upon embracing deceptive half-truths.
In Theological Determinism – (aka Calvinism) the creature is *ONLY* free to be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN the creature be/do. Nothing more – nothing less.
Calvinist are taught to MAKE-BELIEVE they have a freedom beyond that.
So it is the Calvinist has the blinders on. :-]
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism – (aka Calvinism) the creature is *ONLY* free to be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN the creature be/do. Nothing more – nothing less.”
So, how does this negate the freedom of the individual?
br.d
“In Theological Determinism – (aka Calvinism) the creature is *ONLY* free to be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN the creature be/do. Nothing more – nothing less.”
rhutchin
So, how does this negate the freedom of the individual?
br.d
Again you ask a question – when the answer is already in the post.
Here is the rest of my statement:
Calvinist are taught to MAKE-BELIEVE they have a freedom beyond that.
br.d writes, “Calvinist are taught to MAKE-BELIEVE they have a freedom beyond that.”
Not that I am aware. I think you made this one up, also.
br.d
“Calvinist are taught to MAKE-BELIEVE they have a freedom beyond that.”
rhutchin
Not that I am aware. I think you made this one up, also.
br.d
I understand your situation – so I’m not surprised.
And I’m happy to let SOT101 readers – review your posts and jtleosala’s posts and see if they don’t easily recognize my statement above is true.
A little follow-up on my point about John 10.
Imagine when Jesus says “I am coming again.”
Some guys say to Him, “Tell us really, are you coming again?”
Jesus says to them “I told you but you dont believe me cuz you aren’t my sheep.”
That’s true, right? But He is not saying believing that makes you His sheep, or that there is something about “electing” my sheep.
Nope. He is just saying you do not believe what I told you cuz you are not my followers/ sheep.
He even says several times statements like, “I have shown you many good works from the Father,” reminding them that they could have just believed these testimonials and become His sheep. No doubt some of those who saw the miracles (and previously did not believe) started to believe in Him.
There were “not His sheep” before ….but now they are!
FOH writes, “There were “not His sheep” before ….but now they are!”
They were always His sheep. “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.”
rhutchin
They were always His sheep. “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.”
br.d
But according to Calvin – the Calvinist cannot know who (in particular) the TRUE SHEEP are
Since as Calvin teaches – the TRUE SHEEP are an INVISIBLE CHURCH.
Additionally Calvin teaches – Calvin’s god -quote “Holds out salvation as a savor of greater condemnation” to certain Calvinists.
Therefore:
No Calvinist knows whether or not Jesus died for him or not.
No Calvinist knows if Jesus is his TRUE shepherd or not.
No Calvinist knows if he is a TRUE SHEEP or a vessel of wrath.
No Calvinist knows if the promises of God are meant for him or not.
No Calvinist knows if he is totally depraved or not.
br.d writes, “But according to Calvin – the Calvinist cannot know who (in particular) the TRUE SHEEP are
Since as Calvin teaches – the TRUE SHEEP are an INVISIBLE CHURCH.”
What has that to do with anything?
br.d
“But according to Calvin – the Calvinist cannot know who (in particular) the TRUE SHEEP are
Since as Calvin teaches – the TRUE SHEEP are an INVISIBLE CHURCH.”
rhutchin
What has that to do with anything?
br.d
Why ask a question concerning a post – when the answer to that question is already in the post.
Therefore:
No Calvinist knows whether or not Jesus died for him or not.
No Calvinist knows if Jesus is his TRUE shepherd or not.
No Calvinist knows if he is a TRUE SHEEP or a vessel of wrath.
No Calvinist knows if the promises of God are meant for him or not.
No Calvinist knows if he is totally depraved or not.
Leighton… the foundational issue is not God’s so-called “permitting” us to sin as you rightly point out. That word is thrown in to make God appear without culpability for sin. But “permission” truly, as you point out, contradicts the idea of decreeing any action of any other’s will to happen immutably before their will is even created.
Decreeing the fall of a “free will” (e.g. Adam) to happen only one way at one specific moment is a contradiction of logic. The Molinist and Arminian must face the same contradiction for certain knowledge of such a “fall of a ‘freewill’ to happen only one way at one specific moment”. It too is impossible and a contradiction for something or someone has to predestine the event so it can thus become known as certain.
Only God existed before creation to predestine events, so that they could then be known by Him as certain. They didn’t make themselves into predestined immutable events to be somehow observed then by God as a passive observer.
If predestined… then not logically accomplished by a LFW, and if not accomplished bya LFW, then never a LFW choice.
One has to ask if “perfect” knowledge can include knowledge of all possibilities. This requires knowledge of existing uncertainties (“I haven’t decided yet”) in those choices if a freewill is to exist. If God has freewill… does He know possibilities of various good choices yet to be made by Him… thus having knowledge of existing uncertainties between those possibilities?
brianwagner writes, “Decreeing the fall of a “free will” (e.g. Adam) to happen only one way at one specific moment is a contradiction of logic.”
Why is that? God created Adam and Eve. He then created a garden in which they would live. He then removed His protection giving Satan freedom to enter the garden. God was present during all the events of the garden leading to Adam eating the fruit. Could it have happened any other way – absent God intervening to change the dialog?
Then, ” If God has freewill… does He know possibilities of various good choices yet to be made by Him… thus having knowledge of existing uncertainties between those possibilities?”
As there is no additional information to be gotten, God’s choices are evident being the product of His perfect wisdom. What you have is God purposely deciding not to make a choice until a certain time – but for what purpose?
Tell’s self, “Don’t rise to the bait. You know it will only lead to more deliberately irrational statements which are purposefully illogical and antithetical, leading the sane person into crying ‘You’ve got to be kidding!’ Perhaps the goal is to incite never-ending, traumatic angst. Don’t rise to the bait.’
Decreeing a future event to occur one way makes a LFW choice impossible, for there must be two choices to freely choose between as possible up until the moment that will chooses for that event. A previous decree takes away one of those choices.
Brian,
You know that…..and I know that…. and logic teaches that…. and the Bible appears to confirm that, but …
They are a bit handicapped by their self-imposed definition of “sovereignty”. Once they bring to the table their Greek understanding of what deity must mean…and sovereignty must mean… then there is no limit to the gymnastics that must be performed to make that definition fit.
It really is as simple as you say.
A pre-established, immutable, will “necessarily” means that the lesser objects have no free will at all. At all. This is one of the ideas that caused me to re-examine my Calvinism (that, and the daily reading of long passages of Scripture).
FOH writes, “They are a bit handicapped by their self-imposed definition of “sovereignty”. ”
Of course, you could be handicapped by not being able to define “free will.”
rhutchin
Of course, you could be handicapped by not being able to define “free will.”
br.d
I think you’re in the same boat on that one :-]
More precisely in your definition of “free” – which most of the time is strategically presented to masquerade as something it isn’t.
br.d writes, “More precisely in your definition of “free” – which most of the time is strategically presented to masquerade as something it isn’t.”
So, what about my definition of “free” “is strategically presented to masquerade as something it isn’t” ?
br.d
“More precisely in your definition of “free” – which most of the time is strategically presented to masquerade as something it isn’t.”
rhutchin
So, what about my definition of “free” “is strategically presented to masquerade as something it isn’t” ?
br.d
This is where wisdom has shown me – it is better to let you provide the example – which after it comes from you – you’ll have a hard time trying to deny.
But I’ll give you a hint
Its all about making “free” within determinism masquerade as “free” within IN-determinism.
I’ll wait and let you provide the next example – which I know you will have to do. :-]
br.d writes, “This is where wisdom has shown me – it is better to let you provide the example – which after it comes from you – you’ll have a hard time trying to deny.”
Any chance you can explain what you are talking about?
brianwagner
Decreeing a future event to occur one way makes a LFW choice impossible, for there must be two choices to freely choose between as possible up until the moment that will chooses for that event. A previous decree takes away one of those choices.
br.d
Well Said!!
In Theological Determinism – there is no such thing as a forked path in the garden.
And Calvinists *IF* they could speak the truth – the whole truth – and nothing but the truth – would acknowledge this.
Unfortunately for them – in order to defend Calvinism – they cannot – so they do not.
There but for the grace of God go I! :-]
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism – there is no such thing as a forked path in the garden.”
That is wrong. Forked paths exist – which way to go is determined by one’s motives and biases.
br.d
“In Theological Determinism – there is no such thing as a forked path in the garden.”
rhutchin
That is wrong. Forked paths exist – which way to go is determined by one’s motives and biases.
br.d
FALSE
Motives and biases are also PREDETERMINED before the creature exists
The creature does not exist at the time motives and biases are PREDETERMINED.
Therefore the creature has NO COUNTERVAILING CHOICE in the matter.
The creature has only ONE PATH available – that path which is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
My statement above is well acknowledged within Christian Philosophy
Calvinists simply need an *ILLUSION* of choice that doesn’t exist for the creature within their belief system – in order to APPEAR biblical.
This post explains further:
https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/21/why-divine-permission-establishes-free-will/#comment-33887
brianwagner writes, “A previous decree takes away one of those choices.”
A previous decree makes the outcome certain. It does not take away from the choices available prior to the event unless the decree is to be affected through coercive means to force the decreed result. God can decree that Adam eat the fruit – a result that could only be different if God helped Adam to resist eating the fruit. Otherwise, Adam is faced with the choice of eating/not eating the fruit where eating the fruit is the preferred (and highly biased) choice based on the circumstances (contrived by God as a test). As a professor, you have classes that you teach. You can always choose to neglect your students as you are not coerced to teach – except for the possibility of being fired if you don’t teach, but that just biases the decision you make, so that even someone who is not God could foretell that future. Someone could hold a gun to your head and decree that you teach (or die), but this just focuses your attention on the decision before you – it doesn’t eliminate your choices.
rhutchin
A previous decree makes the outcome certain. It does not take away from the choices available prior to the event unless the decree is to be affected through coercive means to force the decreed result.
br.d
FALSE – (and the LOGIC for this is simple)
1) The content of every decree has exactly ONE and ONLY ONE truth-value – its either TRUE of FALSE (it can’t be both)
2) The decree establishes what choice will have EXISTENCE
3) Whatever does not EXIST is not available to the creature
4) The choice which the decree establishes MUST be either YEA or NAY (i,e,TRUE or FALSE)
5) If the decree establishes the choice as YEA – then NAY is negated – will not have EXISTENCE – and is thus not available
6) If the decree establishes the choice as NAY – then YEA is negated – will not have EXISTENCE – and is thus not available
br.d writes, “FALSE – (and the LOGIC for this is simple)
1) The content of every decree has exactly ONE and ONLY ONE truth-value – its either TRUE of FALSE (it can’t be both)
2) The decree establishes what choice will have EXISTENCE
3) Whatever does not EXIST is not available to the creature
4) The choice which the decree establishes MUST be either YEA or NAY (i,e,TRUE or FALSE)
5) If the decree establishes the choice as YEA – then NAY is negated – will not have EXISTENCE – and is thus not available
6) If the decree establishes the choice as NAY – then YEA is negated – will not have EXISTENCE – and is thus not available”
Your points (5) and (6) are false. You should have written tham as:
5) If the decree establishes the choice as YEA – then NAY will not be chosen
6) If the decree establishes the choice as NAY – then YEA will not be chosen
br.d writes, “FALSE – (and the LOGIC for this is simple)
1) The content of every decree has exactly ONE and ONLY ONE truth-value – its either TRUE of FALSE (it can’t be both)
2) The decree establishes what choice will have EXISTENCE
3) Whatever does not EXIST is not available to the creature
4) The choice which the decree establishes MUST be either YEA or NAY (i,e,TRUE or FALSE)
5) If the decree establishes the choice as YEA – then NAY is negated – will not have EXISTENCE – and is thus not available
6) If the decree establishes the choice as NAY – then YEA is negated – will not have EXISTENCE – and is thus not available”
rhutchin
Your points (5) and (6) are false. You should have written tham as:
5) If the decree establishes the choice as YEA – then NAY will not be chosen
6) If the decree establishes the choice as NAY – then YEA will not be chosen
br.d
This is very typical for you rhutchin
You claim something is FALSE and then affirm it as TRUE :-]
In order to show (5) and (6) are FALSE – you will have to show:
1) How YEA being established instead of NAY does not negate NAY
2) How NAY being established instead of YEA does not negate YEA
3) How something that does not EXIST can be available to the creature.
br.d writes, “3) How something that does not EXIST can be available to the creature.”
The outcome does not exist because it does not come to fruition – an alternative is chosen. What is your point?
br.d
3) How something that does not EXIST can be available to the creature.”
rhutchin
The outcome does not exist because it does not come to fruition – an alternative is chosen. What is your point?
br.d
FALSE
Per decree (at the foundation of the world) it never had EXISTENCE – and never will have EXISTENCE
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) knows and believes it never had and will never have EXISTENCE.
Whatever does not EXIST is not available to come to fruition.
Except in the Calvinist’s mind – because he needs to MAKE-BELIEVE it is and can. :-]
I should add one more statement to this
br.d
FALSE
Per decree (at the foundation of the world) it never had EXISTENCE – and never will have EXISTENCE
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) knows and believes it never had and will never have EXISTENCE.
Whatever does not EXIST is not available to come to fruition.
Whatever does not EXIST is not available for the creature to choose.
Except in the Calvinist’s mind – because he needs to MAKE-BELIEVE it is and can. :-]
Nice try Roger in trying to make decreeing of a outcome sound like it’s not coercive… and does not violate freewill, but confirms it still exists to cause a different outcome. I’m not buying. Sorry! 😊
brianwagner writes, “…trying to make decreeing of a outcome sound like it’s not coercive… and does not violate freewill,…”
So, how is it coercive?
EdChapman
what else is promised to Abraham? We inherit whatever that is. Can you tell me?
br.d
I think Paul and John lay that out very well:
“that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height. And to know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge. And that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.”
Beloved – it does not yet appear what we shall be – but we know – when He shall appear we shall be like him – for we shall see Him as He is.
I also think Paul, Peter, and others in the NT church – by the things that God did in their lives – give us glimpses of our inheritance.
But I’m wondering if you may have something more specific in mind?
br. d
Yes, I do have something specific in mind.
1. Promised Seed
2. Promised Land
Again, Galatians mentions promised seed as Jesus. Yet, if you read in Genesis, you will not find anything about Jesus being the promised seed.
Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
According to Genesis, Isaac, and the children of Isaac is the promised seed.
Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 4:28
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
So you need to go back to Genesis and re-read about the promised seed, and place Isaac as a “shadow or type” of Jesus, and the children of Isaac as a “shadow or type” of Christians.
But, what about the PROMISED LAND? We inherit the PROMISED LAND. What is it in Genesis? What is it as a “TYPE OR SHADOW”?
I’m gonna give you a hint.
A Christian life is summed up with the EXAMPLE of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL wandering in the desert. The “biblical” definition of Israel is “Wrestles with God and prevails”. Jacob wrestled with God, and prevailed, and God changed his name to Israel.
Egypt is BONDAGE TO SIN. We become Christian, and STILL WANT TO GO BACK TO SIN (Egypt). We are wandering in the desert, struggling with God. Eventually, we die, and that is the example of CROSSING THE JORDAN RIVER.
We enter into the PROMISED LAND.
Heaven is the promised land. Tthe physical land of Israel is THE “type or shadow” of heaven, eternal life.
Hebrews 11:9
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
1 John 2:25
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
Now, if you listen to the EXPOSITORY only preachers, the Promised Land is ONLY the physical land of Israel, and they don’t see the physical land of Israel as a TYPE OR SHADOW of ANYTHING at all.
Here is another TYPE OR SHADOW OF JESUS that is Isaac that many don’t see, either:
Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Why was Abraham (shadow of God, the Father) so eager to offer up his only “begotten” son, Isaac (shadow of Jesus)? Because he knew that even if he crucified his only begotten son, that God would raise him from the dead (shadow of the resurrection of Jesus) in order to fulfil his promises, because Abraham BELIEVED God’s promises…that’s how much faith in God that Abraham had. Tons of faith.
So, there are tons of “types or shadows” that many haven’t even delved into in the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh), The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.
Ed Chapman
Thank you Leighton for using His Word how can they not see what is there in Psalm 115:16🤔that really is key, because it seems some bloggers want to puff themselves up in the guise of giving our God honor! It doesn’t honor God to determine every action of His Creation it’s a heart condition! Not one out of His control to change obviously in whomever humbly seeks Him… Keeping our eyes on the living breathing Word of God & trusting Jesus above your humanistic/deterministic concept of God matters. So to all the incredibly “smart” bloggers please remember you yourself are finite and we always will be… only God is infinite & He gave me the freedom to seek Him Praise Him!! not your own wisdom.
2 Chronicles16:9 NKJV
“For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. In this you have done foolishly; therefore from now on you shall have wars.
John 4:23 NASB — “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
”Hebrews 11:6 NASB — And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
chapmaned24
So, there are tons of “types or shadows” that many haven’t even delved into in the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh), The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.
Thanks Ed.
I think when you reference the promised land – I think you might find N.T. Wright has some comments on the promised land you might like.
God cannot bestow a level of Freedom to man that is equal or will supercede the Giver, otherwise man can no longer be controlled or tamed by God.
Conclusion :
1. Man’s freedom in the Bible is limited, not absolute. It is not compatible with the dictionary meaning of freedom.
2. Man’s freedom becomes corrupted during the fall. It becomes the best friend of SIN that is present among humans. It will always influence man’s decisions so that this so called freedom is not absolutely free to decide on his own.
3. God can still override man’s freedom anytime God may wish to do it. God the Father prunes and discipline the branches without asking permission from them.
4. God can terminate man’s life without asking permission from humans if they like it. Man becomes helpless by the time God terminates human lives.
This appears to be mere speculation and opinion, with no basis in scripture or reality. And your initial claim is a doozy – where in the world does one get the idea that God’s goal is to control or tame people? He most certainly could have made a tame, completely compliant people, with absolutely no propensity to sin, had his overriding goal been control. Authoritarian, hierarchical institutional churches, yes, desire nothing more than tame, controllable people. God, not so much.
jtleosala
God cannot bestow a level of Freedom to man that is EQUAL or will supercede the Giver,
br.d
Who says so? Is this “mans logic”?
jtleosala
otherwise man can no longer be controlled or tamed by God.
br.d
How is it not double-minded for a Theological Determinist (aka Calvinist) to call man “tamed” by Calvin’s god?
When according to Calvinism – man’s every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN millennia before the man is born.
Does the engineer who decrees the robot’s program “TAME” the robot?
When every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN outside of the man’s control – there is nothing to tame.
Understanding Calvinism is fairly straightforward:
A Calvinist is a determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
HOW CALVINISTS EVADE DRINKING THE HORRIBLE DECREE
There once was a Calvinist – who purchased a bottle of Theological Determinism from the theology store.
While proudly carrying his bottle out, he noticed the large numbers of Christians walking out carrying bottles of IN-determinism.
He pointed the finger of accusation at their bottles calling it “Liquid Heresy”, a “Man-Made” product that dishonored the sovereign god. Theological Determinism is the only orthodox drink! – he asserted. Theological Determinism is the only Holy Spirit inspired drink designed by God!
Some of them listened to his boasting and the harsh judgmental claims he made. Some just ignored him. A few smiled and said “wait until you actually drink what you’ve bought”.
At home, the other Christians curled up in their comfort chairs with their Bibles, and happily sipped the sweet honey taste of IN-determinism. It fit perfectly with scripture.
When the Calvinist got home with his bottle – he looked at it with glee believing it would have much more depth – for it was advertised as having a “Fully Orbed” flavor.
His first taste however soured in his mouth. He tried again – with the same result. Yeeeeeeuuu!
And again – and again. But each taste was just as sour as the last one – Yuuuuuk!.
I do confess he said – holding up the bottle – THE DECREE IS HORRIBLE!
He now understood his dilemma. He had boasted greatly about his bottle of Theological Determinism, claiming it was the only true drink. Unfortunately, the taste of it was hardly palatable. What was he to do?
AH! he had a cleaver idea! One after another – he snuck over to his Christian neighbors homes, stealing IN-determinism out of their bottles and pouring into his.
This way he could continue to proudly carry his bottle, boasting it as the only true theology. Yes – he could continue making bold accusations, calling their IN-determinism a heretical product.
But secretly he had filled his bottle with IN-determinism – in order to make it palatable.
Now! He said I’ll have the best of both worlds! Stolen bread is indeed sweet!
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.
John Calvin
-quote
Decretum quidem horribile, fateor – “I do confess the decree is horrible!”
Cheers! To the sweetest, life-giving water which leaves men to thirst no more!
br.d writes, “HOW CALVINISTS EVADE DRINKING THE HORRIBLE DECREE”
LOL!!! br.d has such an active imagination.
br.d
“HOW CALVINISTS EVADE DRINKING THE HORRIBLE DECREE”
rhutchin
LOL!!! br.d has such an active imagination.
br.d
Parables have their purpose. :-]
rhutchin
January 25, 2019 at 9:46 am
God did not intervene to prevent the Jews stoning Stephen…..
Br.d
How dare those men who stoned Stephen – do the very thing Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world FIRST-CONCEIVED and then RENDER-CERTAIN they infallibly do!
But isn’t it interesting
If Calvin’s’ god had intervened to prevent himself from FIRST-CONCEIVING and RENDERING-CERTAIN that event – it would have never come to pass.
Since a quadrillion times a quadrillion evils events do come to pass on a daily basis – it must be the case that Calvin’s god doesn’t intervene to prevent himself from FIRST-CONCEIVING and RENDERING-CERTAIN very much!
He certainly doesn’t intervene to prevent himself from FIRST-CONCEIVING and RENDERING-CERTAIN a whole lot of evil.
He must ****REALLY**** like evil events. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Since a quadrillion times a quadrillion evils events do come to pass on a daily basis – it must be the case that Calvin’s god doesn’t intervene to prevent himself from FIRST-CONCEIVING and RENDERING-CERTAIN very much!”
God has conceived all that could happen – there is nothing new that God does not already know. Those events that God renders certain, out of all that God has conceived, reflect the counsel of His will,
br.d
Since a quadrillion times a quadrillion evils events do come to pass on a daily basis – it must be the case that Calvin’s god doesn’t intervene to prevent himself from FIRST-CONCEIVING and RENDERING-CERTAIN very much!”
rhutchin
God has conceived all that COULD happen – there is nothing new that God does not already know. Those events that God renders certain, out of all that God has conceived, reflect the counsel of His will,
br.d
Calvinist’s just love to camouflage TRUTH by crafting statements which are totally irrelevant to the major point.
Notice how this statement is designed to paint the picture that Calvin’s god does NOT FIRST-CONCEIVE or RENDER-CERTAIN evil events.
It logically follows:
If Calvin’s god is MORAL – then he knows that everyone reaps what they sow – including himself.
If Calvin’s god is RATIONAL – then he knows that what he CONCEIVES in his mind ORIGINATES in his mind.
He does not learn by observation those things that ORIGINATE in his mind.
If he intervened to prevent his MIND from CONCEIVING an evil – then that evil would not have its ORIGIN in his mind.
If he intervened to prevent his DESIRE for an evil – then he wouldn’t contemplate RENDERING-CERTAIN that evil.
If he intervened to prevent his WILL from RENDERING-CERTAIN an evil – then that evil would never exist.
Concerning the creation of evil – Calvin’s god simply needs to exercise a little self restraint. :-]
The fact that a quadrillion times a quadrillion evils exist on a daily basis reveals – Calvin’s god DESIRES all of those evils.
As John Calvin says “For his good pleasure”
DISCERNING CALVINIST FALSEHOODS – USING THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION
The square of opposition is a classic tool used in logic, which allows one to ascertain assertions, which are falsehoods. This is done when a pair of statements (i.e., propositions) is argued together as both being true at the same time.
The square of opposition divides all statements into 4 categories – classified as “Categorical” statements. So this tool allows us to ascertain when a pair of propositions resolve to being a categorical falsehood.
The 4 statements (i.e., propositions) are listed below in their classic form
1) ALL [S] ARE [P]
2) NO [S] ARE [P]
3) SOME [S] ARE [P]
4) SOME [S] ARE NOT [P]
As already stated – this tool allows us to discern a categorical falsehood when a pair of these statements are argued as both being true at the same time.
Lets look at how this works:
Statement (1) “ALL [S] ARE [P]” and statement (2) “NO [S] ARE [P]” are logically contrary – so asserting these as both true at the same time would be committing a categorical falsehood.
Statement (3) “SOME [S] ARE [P]” and statement (4) “SOME [S] ARE NOT [P]” are logically contrary – so asserting these as both true at the same time would be committing a categorical falsehood.
Statement (1) “ALL [S] ARE [P]” and statement (4) “SOME [S] ARE NOT [P]” are logical contradictions – so asserting these as both true at the same time would be committing a categorical falsehood.
Statement (3) “SOME [S] ARE [P]” and statement (2) “NO [S] ARE [P]” are logical contradictions – so asserting these as both true at the same time would be committing a categorical falsehood.
So lets apply this tool to a Calvinist statement, which asserts a pair of these as both true.
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
We can see that A above is categorical statement (1) and B is categorical statement (4). Since this is the case, this argument is a categorical falsehood.
Now it may be that the Calvinist will be aware that this falsehood will be easily recognized. So he may choose to alter the wording of statement B with the hopes of disguising the contradiction.
B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man
Even though statement B has now been reworded – it logically resolves to the same thing. So we can see that this rewording is designed to camouflage the contradiction. But we can also see through the disguise.
However, there is an instance in which the Calvinist may not be committing a categorical falsehood here. And that would be the instance in which the term “determined” is being presented as having two different meanings. Where “determined” in statement A has a different meaning than “determined” in statement B. Here is how we would recognize this as equivocation.
When a THEOS “determines” [X] he brings [X] into existence. Man however doesn’t’ have the power to bring anything into existence. He can only work with what is available. Whatever is available, is whatever the THEOS brings into existence. And whatever does not exist is not available. So the term “determine” as it applies to man cannot have the same meaning as “determine” as it applies to the THEOS.
So if the Calvinist is presenting the word “determine” knowing that he is applying two different meanings – then he is not committing a categorical falsehood. But rather, he is committing a falsehood of equivocation.
This, unfortunately for the Calvinist, is an even worse falsehood to commit, for the fallacy of equivocation when done deliberately is a manifestation of dishonesty. So if the Calvinist, even at some minute level, is aware he is subtly applying two different meanings for “determine”, then he is moving in a volitional act of dishonesty.
Either way, the argument is a falsehood. It is either a categorical falsehood, or a falsehood by equivocation.
A correction – I just noticed Statement (3) is not a full blown contrary – it is classified as a sub-contrary.
For our purposes we can simply omit it from the discussion – as it doesn’t apply anyway.
br.d writes, “So lets apply this tool to a Calvinist statement, which asserts a pair of these as both true.
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
…
B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
This should be:
A’: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man,
There is a concurrence with that which God determines and man self-determines. By “self-determines,” we mean that man expresses his desires and motives freely and without being coerced.
br.d, “So lets apply this tool to a Calvinist statement, which asserts a pair of these as both true.
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
or its equivalent:
B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
rhutchin
This should be:
A’: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man,
br.d
FALSE
Your not getting it – the tool applies to a PAIR of statements which are contradictions.
All you’ve done here is omit one of the statements
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
So now you fail in one of two ways
You either deny that Calvin’s god determines all things at the foundation of the world. – which is a falsehood for you to deny
Or you put that statement back and you have the pair constituting a falsehood.
rhutchin
There is a concurrence with that which God determines and man self-determines. By “self-determines,” we mean that man expresses his desires and motives freely and without being coerced.
There is a concurrence with that which God determines and man self-determines. By “self-determines,” we mean that man expresses his desires and motives freely and without being coerced.
br.d
So now you bring up another term “concurrence” – you certainly do have *FULL* library of evasive terms.
There is no way that man can “concurrently” determine something that was determined at a point when man doesn’t exist.
And there is no way Calvin’s god can NOT determine (at the foundation of the world) man’s determinations before man exists.
So this argument has as its strategy to present an ILLUSION embraced as real.
Additionally – you use Calvinism’s fallacious appeal to NATURAL Determinism
Which has the same relationship to Theological Determinism as IN-determinism does.
If Theological Determinism is TRUE – then by its very essence – its reciprocal or negation NATURAL determinism – is false
Your still back with Calvin’s god is the determiner of man’s determinations – and man has no say in what those determinations will be.
They are all fated – predestined – predetermined – and occur unavoidably and irresistibly.
Man CANNOT be/do OTHERWISE than what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
So your back to the points in my article on the square of opposition.
You either have a categorical falsehood or a falsehood via equivocation
You get to choose your poison. :-]
BTW:
William Lane Craig agrees with my statements concerning divine concurrence.
-quote
According to Molina’s view God is not morally responsible [for a person’s choices] because He does not *DIRECTLY WILL* the person’s choice. He does not *MOVE THEIR WILLS* to sin [as is the case with the Reformed view]…..
The difference between the Molinist view and Reformed view is that in the Reformed view God *CAUSES* the person’s will to chose one way or the other.
This is how Molina’s view has the advantage in that it doesn’t entail God as the author of sin. While God concurs with the person’s will in producing the effect, God does not *MOVE* the person’s will to sin.
By contrast in the Reformed view, God *CAUSES* the person to sin by *MOVING* his will to choose evil, which makes the allegation that God is the author of sin difficult to deny. So the Molinist doctrine of simultaneous concurrence enjoys the considerable advantage of not making god the author of sin. -end quote
Even if we remove the references to Calvin’s god MOVING a person’s will – we still have Calvin’s god CAUSING the person’s determinations to be what they will be – and establishing those as fated – inevitable, unavoidable, and the person (who does not exist when these things are determined) not having any say in the matter.
This it follows – in Theological Determinism – man is NOT the determiner of his determinations – Calvin’s god is.
br.d writes, “The difference between the Molinist view and Reformed view is that in the Reformed view God *CAUSES* the person’s will to chose one way or the other. ”
No. The difference between the Molinist and Calvinist views is that the Molinist view is a pre-creation view and the Calvinist view is a post-creation view. That world which God chooses to create pre-creation is that world actualized post-creation. Molinism ascribes to God the power to choose to create any world He wants. Calvinism then describes the world God created. In creating the world, God determines all that will happen and is thereby is said to be the cause of all that happens. Molinism does not take a position on God causing all things because it does not speak to the world actually created by God.
br.d
William Lane Craig
-quote “The difference between the Molinist view and Reformed view is that in the Reformed view God *CAUSES* the person’s will to chose one way or the other. ”
rhutchin
No. The difference between…..etc
br.d
You’ll have to take that up with William Lane Craig – and I doubt’ you’ll fair very well since he’s rational. :-]
I suspect that the vast majority of Calvinists actually believe in Molinism . . . but don’t know it. Compatibilism has been proposed as allowing the Calvinist to hold two, contradictory truths at the same time, which is simply not possible. Personally, I’m willing to question the orthodox teaching on the Trinity as well, but it is not a logical contradiction, as it proposes the one and the three are not in the same manner at the same time. Compatibilism, on the other hand, suggests maintaining two directly antithetical truths and simply ignoring the impossibility of both being true in the same way at the same time. Calvinism attempts to claim:
A) God predetermines whatsoever comes to pass unchangeably.
B) Men have the freedom to choose their own actions and full responsibility for their own actions.
Both cannot be true. If one’s actions have been inescapably predetermined, in any manner whatsoever, one cannot be held responsible for said actions, which were actually, secretly, determined by another, irresistible power. It doesn’t matter if the individuals ‘think’ or ‘believe’ their choices are real, or if they strongly desire to do those things they have been irresistibly created and ordained to do. If they do not have the genuine ability to choose freely between doing A and not doing A, they cannot be held responsible for doing A. They have no choice, however much they are deceived into believing they do. It really is that simple.
TS00
Calvinists – hold to
A) God predetermines whatsoever comes to pass unchangeably.
B) Men have the freedom to choose their own actions and full responsibility for their own actions.
br.d
Very true TS00!
The way Calvinists get around the contradiction with a pair of positions like that is to deflect or deny in some way shape or form – (A).
Of course that’s the very strategy rhutchin is currently taking.
If a non-Calvinist does that – the Calvinist will accuse him of robing Calvin’s god of some measure of sovereignty.
Two minutes after accusing someone of that – he does that very thing – and doesn’t even think or blink.
Its all a part of their mental conditioning – use any argument that works no matter how delusional, irrational, or dishonest.
One thing and one thing only is important – *APPEARING* to win.
Otherwise – what profit is it to be the SELECTED ELECTED – it it doesn’t make you *APPEAR* superior! :-]
I tend to think the real draw is the ability to put it all on God. Takes away all personal responsibility, guilt or need to grow in sanctification. Sure, it would be ‘better’ to grow in wisdom and maturity, but, in the end, it’s no big deal . . . ’cause it’s all God. That, in my opinion, is the (false) assurance that so many are unwilling to surrender by admitting that God calls us to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’. Easily misconstrued, as Calvinists hasten to do, but the main point is God calls us to take life seriously, not to just coast along with our Jesus robe to hide all our sin. When our goal becomes aligned with God’ goal, we too will long to become more like Christ rather than to coast along on our fire insurance.
Yes I can see how that would be true for some Calvinists.
But don’t you see Calvinists making god in their own image alot?
I think its ironic how for example they can boast about their gig being “god honoring”
When what I see is alot of them simply making a god in their own image.
Take Calvin’s instructions to his fold to -quote “go about your office as if Calvin’s god doesn’t determine anything in any part”
It seems to me – that becomes a graven image they create in their minds – and I see it in their descriptions.
They spend half of their time dictating what god does and doesn’t do.
In order to make the image work for them.
TS00 writes, “If one’s actions have been inescapably predetermined, in any manner whatsoever, one cannot be held responsible for said actions, which were actually, secretly, determined by another, irresistible power….If they do not have the genuine ability to choose freely between doing A and not doing A, they cannot be held responsible for doing A.”
Explain why this is true using the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 as an example.
TS00 writes, “If one’s actions have been inescapably predetermined, in any manner whatsoever, one cannot be held responsible for said actions, which were actually, secretly, determined by another, irresistible power….If they do not have the genuine ability to choose freely between doing A and not doing A, they cannot be held responsible for doing A.”
rhutchin
Explain why this is true using the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 as an example.
br.d
If we’re talking about Theological Determinism – it would be better to use robots as an example :-]
br.d writes, ‘If we’re talking about Theological Determinism – it would be better to use robots as an example :-]”
If you want to call the Assyrians robots, that’s fine. But you are stalling. Perhaps TS00 can do better.
br.d
‘If we’re talking about Theological Determinism – it would be better to use robots as an example :-]”
rhutchin
If you want to call the Assyrians robots, that’s fine. But you are stalling. Perhaps TS00 can do better.
br.d
A robot today currently has a fraction of the functionality of the human brain.
Therefore the human brain can FUNCTION as a robot’s.
So if we’re talking about Theological Determinism – the Assyrians don’t have to be robots in order for Calvin’s god to design them such that they’er every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN before they were born.
Now isn’t that convenient!
That happens to be just exactly the way Calvin’s god design’s humans in Theological Determinism!
It wasn’t too difficult to connect those dots :-]
br.d writes, “So if we’re talking about Theological Determinism – the Assyrians don’t have to be robots in order for Calvin’s god to design them such that they’er every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN before they were born.”
Still stalling.
br.d
“So if we’re talking about Theological Determinism – the Assyrians don’t have to be robots in order for Calvin’s god to design them such that they’re every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN before they were born.”
rhutchin
Still stalling.
br.d
Well – since we’re talking about an entity that is designed such that its every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN before it exists – the we can see that both humans and robots qualify for that FUNCTIONALITY.
So we can see how the parameters which TS00 stated apply:
– One’s actions have been inescapably and secretly predetermined
– And by another whose power is irresistible
– They do not have the genuine ability to choose freely between doing A and NOT A
So since in Theological Determinism – that would be the case with the Assyrians as well as with robots
It all works out to the same end-game for Calvin’s god.
He gets to RENDER-CERTAIN everything that comes to pass
And they get to be/do whatever he RENDERS-CERTAIN they be/do.
I should think you’d be happy with that – since it doesn’t compromise Calvin’s god’s sovereignty.
Isn’t Calvin’s god manifesting his sovereignty. that all that’s important to Calvinists?
Otherwise – one would have a “man-centered” theology – right?
br.d writes, “Well – since we’re talking about an entity that is designed such that its every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN before it exists – the we can see that both humans and robots qualify for that FUNCTIONALITY.
Doesn’t make them the same.
Then, ‘So since in Theological Determinism – that would be the case with the Assyrians as well as with robots”
Not what the Scripture says. I guess it depends on your definition of “Theological Determinism.”
br.d
“Well – since we’re talking about an entity that is designed such that its every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN before it exists – the we can see that both humans and robots qualify for that FUNCTIONALITY.
rhutchin
Doesn’t make them the same.
br.d
In your statement here the word “them” is ambiguous – so I’ll have to fill in the details.
The FUNCTIONALITY is the same.
To be/do ONLY what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN one be/do – requires only that one be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN one be/do.
Since a robot easily fulfills that requirement – and since the robots neurological FUNCTIONAL capabilities is a tiny fraction of that of a human – then it follows a human can easily fulfill that FUNCTIONALLY.
‘So since in Theological Determinism – that [functionality] would be the case with the Assyrians as well as with robots”
rhutchin
Not what the Scripture says. I guess it depends on your definition of “Theological Determinism.”
br.d
Not what scripture says?
That could be evidence that Theological Determinism (ala Calvinism) is not affirmed by scripture.
If your wondering about the definition of Theological Determinism and whether your definition matches it – here is the definition of Theological Determinism as defined by academia.
Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Theological determinism is the view that God determines every event that occurs in the history of the world.
If your definition deviates from the definition defined by academia it would be good for you to say so.
br.d writes, ‘‘So since in Theological Determinism – that [functionality] would be the case with the Assyrians as well as with robots””
Still doesn’t make them the same. Both Assyrians and robots walk – So??
Then, ‘Theological determinism is the view that God determines every event that occurs in the history of the world.”
Now, we are back to your definition of “determine.” What is your definition?
br.d
‘‘So since in Theological Determinism – that [functionality] would be the case with the Assyrians as well as with robots””
rhutchin
Still doesn’t make them the same. Both Assyrians and robots walk – So??
br.d
They don’t have to be ONTOLOGICALLY the same in order to be/do whatever Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN they be/do.
All that is required is that he designs them to be/do whatever he RENDERS-CERTAIN they be/do.
If your wondering about the definition of Theological Determinism and whether your definition matches it – here is the definition of Theological Determinism as defined by academia.
Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Theological determinism is the view that God determines every event that occurs in the history of the world.
If your definition deviates from the definition defined by academia it would be good for you to say so.
rhutchin
Now, we are back to your definition of “determine.” What is your definition?
br.d
I’m happy to go with the definition universally accepted by academia and Christian Philosophy
Here is one from John Samuel Feinberg’s (who is considered a classic Reformed Theologian) – from his book “No One Like Him” in which he defends Theological Determinism.
“it is the unconditional decree…based on nothing outside of God that moves him to choose one thing or another”
I think that enunciation of a definition falls in line with what is standardly agreed upon.
I provided a definition from a Reformed source – to make it easier to see if yours deviates from it.
So now its your turn to accept or reject it.
What say you?
So the fact that you call it “my” definition reveals your definition deviates from it.
br.d writes, “All that is required is that he designs them to be/do whatever he RENDERS-CERTAIN they be/do.”
S, then we need to know what you mean by “…designs…” Does “design” include self-determination?
Then, ‘Theological Determinism. – “it is the unconditional decree…based on nothing outside of God that moves him to choose one thing or another”
So now its your turn to accept or reject it.”
I agree as this says that God’s unconditional decree is based on the counsel of His will and reflects His perfect wisdom. It makes God the final arbiter of all that happens – man’s actions are subordinate to God’s decrees. So, what is your problem with Calvinism?
br,d
“it is the unconditional decree…based on nothing outside of God that moves him to choose one thing or another”
I provided a definition from a Reformed source – to make it easier to see if yours deviates from it.
So now its your turn to accept or reject it.
What say you?
rhutchin
I agree as this says that God’s unconditional decree is based on the counsel of His will and reflects His perfect wisdom…..etc
br.d
Ok then – if that was your concern about statement A – the first statement within the pair in the article on the square of opposition
Here is is below again
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
Then you either agree with this statement or you reject it.
What say you?
br.d writes, “A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]”
Yes. God had already made His choices regarding all things that were to happen. So, what’s the issue with Calvinism on this?
br.d
“A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]”
rhutchin
Yes. God had already made His choices regarding all things that were to happen. So, what’s the issue with Calvinism on this?
br.d
Fine – then I was correct in recognizing that both statements (as provided in the article on the square of oppositions) are at play.
br.d writes, “then I was correct in recognizing that both statements (as provided in the article on the square of oppositions) are at play.”
Given that we have dealt with the first statement – “A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]” – it is in play; meaning that we both agree that it is true. We agree that “determine” means God has made His choices – ““it is the unconditional decree…based on nothing outside of God that moves him to choose one thing or another””
None of the other statements apply.
br.d
“then I was correct in recognizing that both statements (as provided in the article on the square of oppositions) are at play.”
rhutchin
Given that we have dealt with the first statement – “A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]” – it is in play; meaning that we both agree that it is true. We agree that “determine” means God has made His choices – ““it is the unconditional decree…based on nothing outside of God that moves him to choose one thing or another””
None of the other statements apply.
br.d
Fine – what I knew all along is correct – you assert that statement A is TRUE
So then do you assert that statement B is also TRUE
What say you?
br.d writes, “So then do you assert that statement B is also TRUE
What say you?”
Nope.
We have;
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
I think this applies to Brian but not to the Calvinist.
br.d
“So then do you assert that statement B is also TRUE
What say you?”
rhutchin
Nope.
We have;
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
br.d
So then we follow along with the rest of the article:
-quote
We can see that A above is categorical statement (1) and B is categorical statement (4). Since this is the case, this argument is a categorical falsehood.
Now it may be that the Calvinist will be aware that this falsehood will be easily recognized. So he may choose to alter the wording of statement B with the hopes of disguising the contradiction.
B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man.
Even though statement B has now been reworded – it logically resolves to the same thing. So we can see that this rewording is designed to camouflage the contradiction. But we can also see through the disguise.
However, there is an instance in which the Calvinist may not be committing a categorical falsehood here.
-end quote
So now we follow the rest of the article – which addressed the issue of an falsehood by equivocation.
And whether or not the Calvinist commits this falsehood out of ignorance or dishonesty.
br.d writes, “B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man.
Even though statement B has now been reworded – it logically resolves to the same thing. So we can see that this rewording is designed to camouflage the contradiction. But we can also see through the disguise.”
I did not reword B. I made a subpoint to A.
Rhutchin writes:
“So, what exactly has God done other than to decree that I choose that option that I would choose even if He were not involved? I don’t see why I did not determine, or decide, what I would do.”
Not that br.d needs my help, but note, once again the stating of the logically impossible or nonsensical as if it were indeed possible and made sense.
If a choice of action exists, then more than one action is possible. God could either determine all things, as per Theological Determinism, or he could offer men a free moral choice, as per non-Determinism. What theological system is rhutchin creating, in which God foresees man’s choices then renders them certain? What would be the possible explanation for God needing to ‘determine’ the choices any man would freely make? It is just another attempt to hide the unpalatable nature of a Deterministic Theology be wrapping it in layers of confusing, nonsensical steps in hopes of, somehow, justifying Calvin’s God’s sordid authorship of evil while unjustly ‘passing the buck’ to the patsy who is forced to bear the punishment for carrying out God’s sovereign, omnipotent predetermined will.
TS00 writes, “If a choice of action exists, then more than one action is possible. God could either determine all things, as per Theological Determinism, or he could offer men a free moral choice, as per non-Determinism.”
If God “offers,” then He determined to offer. If man has “free moral choice,” then God determined that man would have free moral choice. This is determinism.
rhutchin
If God “offers,” then He determined to offer. If man has “free moral choice,” then God determined that man would have free moral choice. This is determinism.
br.d
This statement is way to misleading to be TRUSTWORTHY or considered an honest statement.
In Theological Determinism the creature is *ONLY* free to be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN he be/do.
Nothing more – nothing less.
Any Calvinist who uses language to paint a picture of “free” or “free choice” beyond that is using deceptive language.
rhutchin writes:
“TS00 writes, “If a choice of action exists, then more than one action is possible. God could either determine all things, as per Theological Determinism, or he could offer men a free moral choice, as per non-Determinism.”
If God “offers,” then He determined to offer. If man has “free moral choice,” then God determined that man would have free moral choice. This is determinism.”
More like deception.
What he is essentially saying is that God determined all things by determining not to determine all things, which takes the nonsensical to a whole new level. Sure, non-Calvinists would grant that God determined not to determine all things – that’s what we’ve been saying all along. But no honest Calvinist would try to pretend that is what is meant by Calvinistic ‘Determinism’, which would eliminate their disagreement with non-deterministic believers. Rhutchin’s just playin’ games again, hoping onlookers will be too confused to try and make sense of his nonsense.
TS00
More like deception.
What he is essentially saying is that God determined all things by determining not to determine all things, which takes the nonsensical to a whole new level.
br.d
AWESOME CATCH TSOO!
Yes – this is exactly the game rhutchin is always playing –
Determinism hiding under the sheep’s clothing of IN-Determinism.
That is rhutchin 100%
TS00
No honest Calvinist would try to pretend that is what is meant by Calvinistic ‘Determinism’, which would eliminate their disagreement with non-deterministic believers.
br.d
Wonderful! And the key word you hit here for me is HONEST.
I’ve come to the solid conclusion from years of observation that honesty and Calvinism are like oil and water.
TS00
Rhutchin’s just playin’ games again, hoping onlookers will be too confused to try and make sense of his nonsense.
br.d
BINGO!!! Bulls-eye!
Wonderful post!
br.d
“B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man.
Even though statement B has now been reworded – it logically resolves to the same thing. So we can see that this rewording is designed to camouflage the contradiction. But we can also see through the disguise.”
rhutchin
I did not reword B. I made a subpoint to A.
br.d
It doesn’t matter if you (in particular) reworded B or not.
What matters is that the statement – which you called “subpoint to A” – LOGICALLY EQUATES to Statement B
For example:
B: SOME [of the consumed liquor bottles] ARE NOT [consumed by rhutchin]
Logically equates to
B: SOME [of the consumed liquor bottles] ARE [consumed by someone other than rhutchin]”
Hence –
B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
Logically equates to
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
Unless – the falsehood committed is that of equivocation (on the term determine).
In that case – the issue would be whether it was done out of ignorance or dishonesty
br.d writes, ‘Hence –
B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
Logically equates to
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]”
Wrong. Man and God are not equals. Man is subordinate to God. “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” God has given man the freedom to pursue good or evil. That which man determines to do is subject to God’s rule. It is only when God has determined the same that man can act.
br.d writes, ‘Hence –
B: SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
Logically equates to
B: SOME [things] ARE NOT [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]”
rhutchin
Wrong. Man and God are not equals. Man is subordinate to God.
br.d
You’ll have to take that up with the square of opposition.
Its obvious you’ve just gone into your greased pig mode.
I’ll let you play that game by yourself :-]
Also – you don’t actually have concurrence here at all.
What you ave is COINCIDENCE
Calvin’s god’s choice just happens to be the same choice that rhutchin would have made – were Calvin’s god to not exist.
Calvin’s god does not concur with the choice of a creature *AS-IF* Calvin’s god put any weight in the creature’s choice
Calvin’s god’s choices are made SOLELY withing himself
He makes his choice irregardless and TOTALLY INDIFFERENT of the creature.
If you were a TRUE Calvinist you would know this.
This suggests an interesting point. If God simply ‘ordains’ what man would choose anyway, there would be no point in God ordaining anything. But you and I both know, as Dan Gracely wrote in his book, ‘Calvinism: A Closer Look’ that the Calvinist simply rides the rocking horse back and forth, claiming one truth, then leaning back and insisting its antithetical opposite is also true. He must. He is attempting to believe in two, impossibly contradictory realities. The mind cannot tolerate such cognitive dissonance, thus will either compartmentalize or dissociate.
It is very healing, and mind renewing to let go of the inconsistency and cruelty of Calvinism and embrace a healthy, wholesome, loving, gracious, merciful view of God.
TS99 writes, ‘Dan Gracely wrote in his book, ‘Calvinism: A Closer Look’ that the Calvinist simply rides the rocking horse back and forth, claiming one truth, then leaning back and insisting its antithetical opposite is also true. He must. He is attempting to believe in two, impossibly contradictory realities.”
Gracely has a problem with God being sovereign and man having free will – he calls these contradictory. He does not explain what makes them contradictory. He writes that Calvinist refer to God as “absolutely sovereign” as if that is different than just sovereign. I haven’t found where he defines what he believes “sovereign” means. He writes like a person with a grudge and provides tortured arguments to support his position.
Look at his analysis of Romans 9:22 and the alleged middle voice (a person acting). Here is the context.
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
v21 says, “the potter makes one lump for this and one lump for that. v24 says, “God prepared one lump as a vessel of mercy.” So, how do we read v23 – Did God prepare them, or the person prepare himself, for destruction? The translators take this to be God prepared the person for destruction consistent with God having made one lump for this or that and God having prepared one for mercy. Gracely ignores all this in pursuit of the holy frail of free will.
Gracely is an angry man with an agenda and seems to have disappeared from the scene soon after writing the book. He had an interview on some program where he offered his email address for people to write to him – the email address does not work.
rhutchin
Gracely has a problem with God being sovereign and man having free will
Gracely is an angry man with an agenda
br.d
Fallacy of Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”)
This is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.
Who would have suspected this fallacy would be committed by a Calvinist! :-]
br.d writes, “This is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.”
My impression of Gracely’s attitude ( being angry) did not enter into any argument i made about the points he makes in his book. This, you know from my comments. So, why do you even say this??
rhutchin
Gracely has a problem with God being sovereign and man having free will
Gracely is an angry man with an agenda
br.d writes, “This is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.”
rhutchin
My impression of Gracely’s attitude ( being angry) did not enter into any argument i made about the points he makes in his book. This, you know from my comments. So, why do you even say this??
br.d
You can figure it out for yourself – there’s really no need for me to lead people by the hand on these things. :-]
br.d writes, “You can figure it out for yourself – there’s really no need for me to lead people by the hand on these things. ”
In other words, there was no point to it.
TS00
ex-Calvinist Dan Gracely wrote in his book, ‘Calvinism: A Closer Look’ that the Calvinist simply rides the rocking horse back and forth, claiming one truth, then leaning back and insisting its antithetical opposite is also true
br.d
Yes!
This is excactly rhutchin’s situation.
There are a few times where he goes FULL BLOWN sovereignty – like “It is necessary for Calvin’s god to determine all things”
But here at SOT101 – most of the time – he’s on the alternate side of the rocking horse – denying TRUE Calvinism – by trying to paint a NON-Calvinist mask over its face.
Funny you should mention the Calvinist Rocking Horse!
I was just thinking that – more than likely from this current dialog with rhutchin :-]
br.d writes, ‘There are a few times where he goes FULL BLOWN sovereignty – like “It is necessary for Calvin’s god to determine all things””
The distinction I have made is that God’s determinations are not coercive which is the Calvinist position as far as I know.
br.d writes, ‘There are a few times where he goes FULL BLOWN sovereignty – like “It is necessary for Calvin’s god to determine all things””
rhutchin
The distinction I have made is that God’s determinations are not coercive which is the Calvinist position as far as I know.
br.d
This is then another example of the problematic language.
The word ALL is defined as “without exception, every, entire, the whole quantity”
It is an indicator of percentage.
As in a total of 100 items – equates to 100%
It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not those items are pink rabbits, orange frogs, or coercive. :-]
br.d writes, ‘This is then another example of the problematic language.
The word ALL is defined as “without exception, every, entire, the whole quantity””
Is there a point that you are trying to make?
br.d writes, ‘He makes his choice irregardless and TOTALLY INDIFFERENT of the creature.”
This does not mean that God is not aware of the creature or cannot have a purpose for the creature.
br.d
He makes his choice irregardless and TOTALLY INDIFFERENT of the creature.”
rhutchin
This does not mean that God is not aware of the creature or cannot have a purpose for the creature.
br.d
Obviously – but that’s an irrelevant red hearing anyway.
Additionally as stated – rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice would be a choice driven-by and founded-on total depravity.
And Calvin’s god would not concur with total depravity.
Divine concurrence (with that which is totally depraved) lowers Calvin’s god to the level of the creature.
Which is anathema in Calvinism.
Therefore what you REALLY have is COINCIDENCE and not concurrence in this case.
br.d writes, “Additionally as stated – rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice would be a choice driven-by and founded-on total depravity.”
Of course. Choice does not require that a person be God to make choices.
Then, “And Calvin’s god would not concur with total depravity.”
Sure He would. As Jesus said, “No one can come to me.”
Then, “Divine concurrence (with that which is totally depraved) lowers Calvin’s god to the level of the creature.
Which is anathema in Calvinism.’
Another unsupported claim.
Then, “Therefore what you REALLY have is COINCIDENCE and not concurrence in this case.”
That’s fine.
br.d
“Additionally as stated – rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice would be a choice driven-by and founded-on total depravity.”
rhutchin
Of course. Choice does not require that a person be God to make choices.
br.d
And Calvin’s god would not concur with total depravity.”
rhutchin
Sure He would. As Jesus said, “No one can come to me.”
br.d
Hmmm – I see then – its your position that Calvin’s god concurs with evil.
I won’t bother to argue with that.
br.d
“Divine concurrence (with that which is totally depraved) lowers Calvin’s god to the level of the creature.
Which is anathema in Calvinism.’
rhutchin
Another unsupported claim.
br.d
So you say “yea” that Calvin’s god concurs with total depravity.
I’ll make note of this and wait for the “nay” on this – which is bound to come sooner or later. :-]
br.d
Therefore what you REALLY have is COINCIDENCE and not concurrence in this case.”
rhutchin
That’s fine.
br.d
So you say “yea” tho COINCIDENCE in this case instead of concurrence
I’ll record this one as well.
If history repeats itself – there will be a “nay” to this one also sooner or later.
Also,
So in this case your appeal to the Molinist/Arminian position of simultaneous concurrence – which is contrary to the Reformed/Thomistic position of divine concurrence has now been dropped.
I guess that means you’re back to the contrary position – the Reformed/Thomistic position?
br.d writes, ‘Hmmm – I see then – its your position that Calvin’s god concurs with evil.
I won’t bother to argue with that.”
Of course not; you can’t. You know that God was present observing all that happened when Cain murdered Abel. God had decreed not to prevent that murder. You can’t argue against that.
Then, “So you say “yea” tho COINCIDENCE in this case instead of concurrence I’ll record this one as well.
If history repeats itself – there will be a “nay” to this one also sooner or later. ”
Definition of coincidence: a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection:
What is your point?
br.d
‘Hmmm – I see then – its your position that Calvin’s god concurs with evil.
I won’t bother to argue with that.”
rhutchin
Of course not; you can’t…etc
br.d
Sure I can – I just won’t bother.
br.d
Therefore what you REALLY have is COINCIDENCE and not concurrence in this case.”
rhutchin
That’s fine.
br.d
So you say “yea” to COINCIDENCE in this case instead of concurrence I’ll record this one as well.
If history repeats itself – there will be a “nay” to this one also sooner or later. ”
Also,
So in this case your appeal to the Molinist/Arminian position of simultaneous concurrence – which is contrary to the Reformed/Thomistic position of divine concurrence has now been dropped.
I guess that means you’re back to the contrary position – the Reformed/Thomistic position?
rhutchin
Definition of coincidence: a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection:
What is your point?
br.d
No problem – just another “yea nay” example you provided.
The SOT101 reader gets the point. :-]
br.d writes, “Sure I can – I just won’t bother.”
Just another way of saying that you cannot.
Then, ‘So you say “yea” to COINCIDENCE in this case instead of concurrence I’ll record this one as well.”
As “coincidence is defined in terms of “concurrence” what is your point?
br.d
“Sure I can – I just won’t bother.”
rhutchin
Just another way of saying that you cannot.
br.d
And you say I make claims! :-]
‘So you say “yea” to COINCIDENCE in this case instead of concurrence I’ll record this one as well.”
rhutchin
As “coincidence is defined in terms of “concurrence” what is your point?
br.d
Here you’ll have to show LOGICALLY how IN THIS CASE coincidence can be defined in terms of concurrence.
Coincidence is easy in to see in this case – since
– Were Calvin’s god to exist he would be the one to determine (i.e.RENDER-CERTAIN) rhutchin’s self-determination will be “yea” and not “nay”.
AND
– Were Calvin’s god to NOT exist – rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT self-determination could be “yea”
So these two things could be confidential.
Now you will have to LOGICALLY show how that coincidence can be defined in terms of concurrence
br.d writes, ‘Now you will have to LOGICALLY show how that coincidence can be defined in terms of concurrence”
MW Dictionary – “the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection.”
Dictionary.com – “a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance:”
Oxford – “A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.”
Wikipedia – “A coincidence is a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another. ”
Collins – “A coincidence is when two or more similar or related events occur at the same time by chance and without any planning. “
br.d
‘Now you will have to LOGICALLY show how that coincidence can be defined in terms of concurrence”
rhutchin
MW Dictionary – “the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection.”
Dictionary.com – “a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance:”
Oxford – “A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.”
Wikipedia – “A coincidence is a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another. ”
Collins – “A coincidence is when two or more similar or related events occur at the same time by chance and without any planning. “
br.d
AH – very funny!
A concurrence of COINCIDENTAL EVENTS THAT HAPPEN TO OCCUR BY CHANCE
Not a concurrence of intelligence – as in an agreement, or planning between two parties!
I get it!
Nothing of any significance there.
Especially when Calvin asserts that nothing happens by chance in Theological Determinism. :-]
br.d writes, “Especially when Calvin asserts that nothing happens by chance in Theological Determinism. ”
Meaning that God “works all things after the counsel of His will” thereby voiding anything happening by chance. Thus, where man sees “a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another,” we know that all causal connections run through God.
br.d
“Especially when Calvin asserts that nothing happens by chance in Theological Determinism. ”
rhutchin
Meaning that God “works all things after the counsel of His will” thereby voiding anything happening by chance. Thus, where man sees “a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another,” we know that all causal connections run through God.
br.d
As a reflection of Theological Determinism – you could say it that way.
My concern for not misleading people – would prohibit me from using such vague language:
In Theological Determinism (ala Calvin) the THEOS determines *ALL* things which will come to pass
Which includes the creature’s every neurological impulse, inclination, nature, determination, etc.
And the creature, does not have A PRIORI knowledge of what things are fated to come to pass.
However, accordingly, the creature does have A POSTERIORI knowledge – of what the THEOS determined (RENDERED-CERTAIN)
By simply observing those things that do come to pass.
Therefore
Whatever the creature observes concerning himself (in every part) – was exactly what that creature was determined to be/do and observe about himself.
And every one of those determinations was sealed (i.e. concluded) before that creature was born.
br.d writes, ‘Whatever the creature observes concerning himself (in every part) – was exactly what that creature was determined to be/do and observe about himself.”
Yes. The amazing thing is that those things God determined the creature to do are the sames things the creature would freely choose to do absent God’s determination. God does not coerce the creature to act contrary to its wants and desires.
br.d
‘Whatever the creature observes concerning himself (in every part) – was exactly what that creature was determined to be/do and observe about himself.”
rhutchin
Yes. The amazing thing is that those things God determined the creature to do are the sames things the creature would freely choose to do absent God’s determination.
br.d
That’s an interesting claim
Please provide EXPLICIT evidence that uncontroversially shows that to be true.
br.d
‘Whatever the creature observes concerning himself (in every part) – was exactly what that creature was determined to be/do and observe about himself.”
rhutchin
Yes. The amazing thing is that those things God determined the creature to do are the sames things the creature would freely choose to do absent God’s determination.
br.d
That’s an interesting claim
Please provide EXPLICIT evidence that uncontroversially shows that to be true.
Of course, this utterly contradicts the concept of Total Depravity, which asserts that the individual not only does not, but cannot do what God desires. It also, as I mentioned before, eliminates the necessity for God to ordain anything, since men would choose to do as he wishes even without his ‘determinations’. What a coincidence!
TS00
Of course, this utterly contradicts the concept of Total Depravity, which asserts that the individual not only does not, but cannot do what God desires. It also, as I mentioned before, eliminates the necessity for God to ordain anything, since men would choose to do as he wishes even without his ‘determinations’. What a coincidence!
br.d
Exactly right TS00!
We will eventually see how this assertion contradicts Calvin’s “irresistible” doctrine.
If Calvin’s god determines people to be/do *ONLY* that which they already be/do without Calvin’s god causing anything – then all of this business of Calvin’s god having to make things “irresistible” in order to move people in a direction they would not otherwise go – becomes a FAKE presentation.
And the self-contradicting illusions of so-called “intervening to prevent” are also FAKE presentations.
This latest imaginative grasping at straws confirms – the Calvinist mind is conditioned to engage in *AS-IF* thinking.
Where Calvin’s god determines ALL things *AS-IF* he doesn’t.
Taught by John Calvin’s as: “go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”
Calvin’s theology leads a person’s mind into a universe of Double-Think.
A clear indicator that a deity is a graven image projected out of someone’s imagination
Is when that person’s imagination manifests certain forms of Double-Think
And the resulting image of the deity – just happens to exactly conform to every aspect of that Double-Think!
For example – Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN Cain will kill Able
And then communicates to Cain *AS-IF* he didn’t
What we have is Calvin’s god obeying Calvin’s command
He goes about his office communicating AS-IF nothing is determined in any part. :-]
TS00 writes, “Of course, this utterly contradicts the concept of Total Depravity, which asserts that the individual not only does not, but cannot do what God desires.”
What is the contradiction??
Then, “It also, as I mentioned before, eliminates the necessity for God to ordain anything, since men would choose to do as he wishes even without his ‘determinations’.”
It is God who ordains his conception in the womb and then sustains him till the day God ordained for his death. It is God who ordains the corrupted nature be inherited from Adam. As Romans 9 says, “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?” Even the wicked serve God’s purposes; we see this in the Assyrians of Isaiah 10.
rhutchin
It is God who ordains his conception in the womb and then sustains him till the day God ordained for his death.
br.d
Here we have a nice example of Calvinism’s strategically ambiguous and equivocal language.
Notice how this statement could be easily be stated by an Arminian, Molinist, or Open Theist.
A robot engineer can be said to “ordain” his conception of the robot – including that robot’s disposal.
As William Lane Craig says concerning Calvinists:
-quote
“Sadly but consistently Calvinists fail to enunciate the radical distinctions inherent in their belief system”
More like:
“Sadly but consistently Calvinists *EVADE LIKE THE PLAGUE* the radical distinctions inherent in their belief system”
rhutchin
It is God who ordains the corrupted nature be inherited from Adam.
br.d
It is the robot engineer who “ordains” the robot’s programing and all causal events inherited from it
In Theological Determinism:
Whatever happens with any man including Adam – ( right down to every neurological impulse.) is exactly what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN. Man is powerless to escape what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN.
br.d writes, ‘It is the robot engineer who “ordains” the robot’s programing and all causal events inherited from it”
Yet, the robot engineer did not “breathe into his robot’s nostrils the breath of life; and the robot became a living being.”
br.d
‘It is the robot engineer who “ordains” the robot’s programing and all causal events inherited from it”
rhutchin
Yet, the robot engineer did not “breathe into his robot’s nostrils the breath of life; and the robot became a living being.”
br.d
That’s the robot engineer’s prerogative
Since he is omnipotent – he can create any biological robot he wishes to create – that’s totally up to him.
br.d writes, “That’s the robot engineer’s prerogative Since he is omnipotent – he can create any biological robot he wishes to create – that’s totally up to him.”
Agreed. It is God’s prerogative to breathe life into the biological robot. In this case, God breathed life into Adam.
” the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground (a biological robot), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
br.d writes, ‘Please provide EXPLICIT evidence that uncontroversially shows that to be true.”
1. God determined that Joe buy a car in eternity past.
2. God does not force Joe to buy a car.
3. Joe buys a car because he needs wheels to go to work..
4. God’s determination did not directly cause Joe to buy a car.
5. Absent God’s determination, Joe still needs wheels to get to work so he buys a car.
rhutchin
The amazing thing is that those things God determined the creature to do are the sames things the creature would freely choose to do absent God’s determination.
br.d
That’s an interesting claim
Please provide EXPLICIT evidence that uncontroversially shows that to be true.
rhutchin
1. God determined that Joe buy a car in eternity past.
2. God does not force Joe to buy a car.
3. Joe buys a car because he needs wheels to go to work..
4. God’s determination did not directly cause Joe to buy a car.
5. Absent God’s determination, Joe still needs wheels to get to work so he buys a car.
br.d
Sorry! This is not EXPLICIT evidence – unquestionably proving the claim – this is an argument.
You still are required to provide EXPLICIT evidence – that unquestionably proves the actual claim.
But in the mean time lets analyze the argument:
1. God determined that Joe buy a car in eternity past.
Answer:
This statement works as a presupposition – and first step towards the remaining points (2-5)
Unfortunately, the language of this statement is so vague and ambiguous – it evades addressing the actual claim.
It could be interpreted to mean Calvin’s god determined what Joe’s free choice would be without Joe determining anything at all.
If so – it proves the actual claim is false at step (1).
The rest of the points simply proceed from there – with the repeated claim that Calvin’s god determines a creatures choice while somehow magically not forcing that choice – without any logical argument to show how that can be the case.
However!
What we have here is a display of an irrational deity.
Here we have a god who determines something to exist – which (per the original claim) already exists.
In order to claim that he doesn’t force something to exist which already exists.
SOT101 readers must decide whether this reflects a being with perfect knowledge and perfect morality.
So you are still required to provide EXPLICIT and unquestionable evidence that the claim is true.
Otherwise – we can chalk it up to what Paul would call a “Tinkling Cymbal”.
Step by step you expose how irrational and self-defeating rh’s claims are. But don’t expect him to ever admit it.
TS00
Step by step you expose how irrational and self-defeating rh’s claims are. But don’t expect him to ever admit it.
br.d
Yes – it turns out all of those irrational claims have their source in nothing more than double-think talking points.
It is the nature of talking points – after they get reinforced enough times – the Calvinist simply embraces them without thinking.
And Calvin teaches his disciples its taboo to question them.
So when you boil down the theology – that’s really all they have.
They functionally assume John Calvin has authority over and above the NT authors.
Because Calvin tells them what the NT authors mean by what they write – even if the NT authors could have never even conceived what Calvin insists they mean.
The Calvinist simply assumes Calvin operates in the authority to do so.
And this is why we see so many Calvinists assuming to speak with authority.
Also rhutchin – you should look up the meaning of the word tautology.
The word tautology was used by the ancient Greeks to describe a claim that was asserted to be true merely by virtue of making the same claim over and over again – often by using different wording or presentation.
Circular arguments and/or tautologies are an illogical way to argue because they do not bring any new information into the discussion. Rather, they argue what has already been claimed, and do not back it up with anything.
br.d writes, “1. God determined that Joe buy a car in eternity past.
Answer: This statement works as a presupposition…”
The presupposition is that God is omniscient and determined all things at Genesis 1.
br.d
1. God determined that Joe buy a car in eternity past.
Answer: This statement works as a presupposition…”
rhutchin
The presupposition is that God is omniscient and determined all things at Genesis 1.
br.d
You’re still producing nothing but tautologies here:
See this post to understand
https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/21/why-divine-permission-establishes-free-will/#comment-34414
Your still required to provide EXPLICIT evidence that unquestionably shows what you claimed.
Here is your claim:
-quote
The amazing thing is that those things God determined the creature to do are the sames things the creature would freely choose to do absent God’s determination.
If your going to appeal to omniscience – then try to show EXPLICIT evidence that proves that Calvin’s god knows what the creature will determine (absent his determination) will be the exact same thing Calvin’s’ god’s determines.
hutchin
Theological Determinism says that God determines by coercing the outcomes He determines.
br.d
rhutchin – sometimes you remind me of the “banana man” in the old Captain Kangaroo show.
He was a clown who could pull out a never-ending string of bananas from his jacket pocket.
What you pull out are a never-ending string of imaginative assertions.
Which I can only assume you auto-magically believe are true immediately after your mind thinks them. :-]
If your assertion here were true – Calvinist Neil Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC would reject it.
But here he affirms Theological Determinism as consistent within Calvinism.
-quote
It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism…..
Take it for granted as something on which the vast majority of Calvinists uphold
And here is a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – on Jonathon Edwards
-quote
Jonathon Edwards “Freedom of the Will” defends Theological Determinism.
I hardly doubt Edwards holds to a THEOS who determines by coercing outcomes.
Lets see if you can provide an academic quote
rhutchin
I’ll go with Edwards. God determines events but does not coerce the events He has determined.
br.d
Yes – I knew you would have to eventually have to concede to that.
To make irrational statements is human
I suspect you made that self-contradicting statement (top of this post) without thinking it through. :-]
br.d writes, “I suspect you made that self-contradicting statement (top of this post) without thinking it through. :-]”
Actually, I wasn’t certain where you came down on coercion. Good to know that determinism does not involve coercion (although Sproul says it does).
br.d
“I suspect you made that self-contradicting statement (top of this post) without thinking it through. :-]”
rhutchin
Actually, I wasn’t certain where you came down on coercion. Good to know that determinism does not involve coercion (although Sproul says it does).
br.d
FALSE
Your statement makes no reference to what br.d comes down on.
Its a straight and simple assertion concerning Theological determinism
Here it is – in case you forgot – but I won’t hold it over your head – since that statement is just a drop in the bucket :-]
rhutchin
January 31, 2019 at 7:33 am
Theological Determinism says that God determines by coercing the outcomes He determines.
br.d writes, ‘FALSE
Your statement makes no reference to what br.d comes down on.
Its a straight and simple assertion concerning Theological determinism”
Your earlier response suggests otherwise – “What you pull out are a never-ending string of imaginative assertions.”
br.d
FALSE
Your statement makes no reference to what br.d comes down on.
Its a straight and simple assertion concerning Theological determinism
Here it is – in case you forgot – but I won’t hold it over your head – since that statement is just a drop in the bucket :-]
rhutchin
January 31, 2019 at 7:33 am
Theological Determinism says that God determines by coercing the outcomes He determines.
rhutchin
Your earlier response suggests otherwise – “What you pull out are a never-ending string of imaginative assertions.”
br.d
FALSE
That response – it was made AFTER your statement.
Its obvious – you’re now in greased pig mode.
No sense me wasting my time chasing after that :-]
br.d writes, “br.d
FALSE Your not getting it – the tool applies to a PAIR of statements which are contradictions.”
Exactly. You created a contradiction to make your argument work.
br.d writes, “br.d
FALSE Your not getting it – the tool applies to a PAIR of statements which are contradictions.”
rhutchin
Exactly. You created a contradiction to make your argument work.
br.d
FALSE
As I’ve said –
If you refuse to acknowledge the first statement in that pair – that Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines *ALL* things which come to pass – then that denial is an automatic falsehood on your part.
I’m not surprised! :-]
br.d writes, “If you refuse to acknowledge the first statement in that pair – that Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines *ALL* things which come to pass – then that denial is an automatic falsehood on your part.”
That’s your claim.
br.d
If you refuse to acknowledge the first statement in that pair – that Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines *ALL* things which come to pass – then that denial is an automatic falsehood on your part.”
rhutchin
That’s your claim.
br.d
In LOGICAL discourse you have:
– A claim
– Sequential deductive arguments
– A post-argument conclusion
– And over-arching universally-embraced rules of logic.
Sometimes when a person is faced with a conclusion that is unpalatable to him – he simply chooses to call that conclusion a claim.
That’s his way of being able to evade the truth value of that conclusion.
Either that – or he doesn’t know the difference between a claim and a post-argument conclusion.
You for example, will frequently respond to a post I’ve made which contains all of the above – and you will extract the conclusion out of the post – ignore the argument – and tell yourself what I posted was an unproven claim.
Its clear – that is one of the methods you choose to deal with a conclusion that you find unpalatable.
But you’re intellectual honesty is not my responsibility – so I accept your responses for what they are.
br.d writes, ‘You for example, will frequently respond to a post I’ve made which contains all of the above – and you will extract the conclusion out of the post – ignore the argument – and tell yourself what I posted was an unproven claim.”
No. It’s because your arguments depend on terms that you do not define making your arguments bogus.
rhutchin
No. It’s because your arguments depend on terms that you do not define making your arguments bogus.
br.d
So in that previous article on the square of opposition – what terms were undefined?
br.d writes, ‘So in that previous article on the square of opposition – what terms were undefined?”
“…determines…”
br.d
‘So in that previous article on the square of opposition – what terms were undefined?”
rhutchin
“…determines…”
br.d
And in what statement or statements was that term undefined?
br.d writes, “So in that previous article on the square of opposition – what terms were undefined?”
“If you refuse to acknowledge the first statement in that pair – that Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines *ALL* things which come to pass – then that denial is an automatic falsehood on your part.”
br.d
“So in that previous article on the square of opposition – what terms were undefined?”
rhutchin
“If you refuse to acknowledge the first statement in that pair – that Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines *ALL* things which come to pass – then that denial is an automatic falsehood on your part.”
br.d
So lets look at the statement as it exactly is in the article.
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
Is it your position that the word “determined” in this statement is undefined?
br.d writes, “Is it your position that the word “determined” in this statement is undefined?”
Undefined by you. It is defined elsewhere.
br.d
So lets look at the statement as it exactly is in the article.
A: ALL [things] ARE [determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world]
Is it your position that the word “determined” in this statement is undefined?
rhutchin
Undefined by you. It is defined elsewhere.
br.d
Ok – here is a statement from John Calvin’s institutes – using the same exact word “determined”
God having “determined” to create man in his own image.
Is it your position that the word “determined” in this statement by Calvin is undefined?
rhutchin wrote, “Undefined by you. It is defined elsewhere.”
br.d responds, “Ok – here is a statement from John Calvin’s institutes…”
Why the stalling? We just need your definition of “determines.”
Then, “God having “determined” to create man in his own image.
Is it your position that the word “determined” in this statement by Calvin is undefined?”
I am sure Calvin could define the word. However, we want your definition. How long are you going to stall?
Relevant passage from today’s Torah portion with commentary below:
Exodus 21:12-13 (JPS Tanakh 1917): “12He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death. 13And if a man lie not in wait, but God cause it to come to hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee.” (The place to flee of course refers to the yet to be established cities of refuge).
From the JPS Torah Commentary: Shemot (Exodus) regarding verse 13: “an act of God: The theological assumption is that the death of the victim occurred by the intervention of Providence; thus, the manslayer was the unwitting agent.”
Tandt,
Tell us how that relates.
If the man was “lying in wait” God is therefore not the source and the man is no longer the unwitting agent?
br.d
‘In Theological Determinism – man is NOT the determiner of his determinations – Calvin’s god is.”
rhutchin
Then Calvinism is not Theological determinism.
br.d
Lets examine this using LOGIC.
Jesus teaches – let your yea be yea – and your nay be nay – for anything else comes of evil.
Now let us say that exactly 5 minutes from now rhutchin will make determination [yea].
Now back at the foundation of the world, Calvin’s god knows that rhutchin will make determination [yea] five minutes from now.
But on Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) Calvin’s does not simply look into the future and observe rhutchin making determination [yea] – and from that observation know that determination [yea] will come to pass.
On the contrary, Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world, FIRST-CONCIEVES the possibility of what rhutchin’s determination will be. He knows it could be determination [yea] – and/or it could be determination [nay].
So rhutchin’s determination [yea] vs rhutchin’s determination [nay] are CONCIEVED as possibilities by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world. And Calvin’s god then determines which of these will come to pass.
If Calvin’s god determines – rhutchin’s determination will be determination [yea] – then Calvin’s god grants EXISTENCE to determination [yea]. And vise-versa.
Now if Calvin’s god is rational, then he knows he cannot grant EXISTENCE to determination [yea] – and to determination [nay] making them both EXIST (i.e., come to pass) at the same time – because one of these logically cancels out the other. So if Calvin’s god is rational then knows he can only grant EXISTENCE to one of these.
The one that he does NOT grant EXISTENCE to therefore will not have EXISTENCE. And whatever does not have EXISTENCE is not available to the creature.
So Calvin’s god grants only one of these to have EXISTENCE. And the one Calvin’s god grants EXISTENCE to – is the determination that will be available for rhutchin to have.
Now we first stated that five minutes from now rhutchin will have determination [yea]. So by that we can logically deduce that determination [yea] – is the determination which was granted EXISTENCE by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world. And in reformed terminology – this is called Calvin’s god RENDERING-CERTAIN determination [yea].
So in this case – at the foundation of the world – it is RENDERED-CERTAIN that:
– Determination [yea] is granted EXISTENCE to be available to rhuthin
– Determination [nay] is NOT granted EXISTENCE to be available to rhutchin
– Five minutes from now rhutchin’s determination will be determination [yea]
So we can logically conclude that rhutchin is not the determiner of what determination he will make – Calvin’s god is.
Silly br.d. When backed into a logical corner, all the Calvinist has to do is pull out handy dandy prooftext XYZ and assert that the official, Calvinist interpretation of said prooftext is the only possible meaning, thus, case closed. Cause ‘God’ says . . . and who are you to argue with God, O man?
Establish this ‘Tradition’ through a controlling tyrant who uses carrots and sticks; produce talented thought leaders who cleverly dispense the official narrative; marginalize, bully, discredit, mock, threaten and, when all else fails, torture or murder your dissenters, and you have yourself a historical, orthodox Religion. Congratulations!
TS00 writes, “Silly br.d. When backed into a logical corner, all the Calvinist has to do is pull out handy dandy prooftext XYZ and assert that the official, Calvinist interpretation of said prooftext is the only possible meaning, thus, case closed.”
Did you have a verse in mind or are just in an ad hominem mood.
Wonderfully stated TS00!!
Most excellent – and most true. :-]
Look around – the same tactics can produce any desired Official Narrative.
“Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off, for truth has fallen in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter. Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.” (Isaiah 59:14-15)
Note who becomes the prey when Truth is fallen in the public squares – those who seek to defend and do what is just and true. And yet many who claim to read this book are ‘shocked, shocked’ that the Enemies of Truth always appear to ‘triumph’ in this world. Almost as if a power so strong and so evil is at work that, if possible, even the very elect could be deceived.
Wow TS00 – thank you for quoting Isaiah 59:14-15!!
I love that!
Doesn’t that apply to both Calvinism and liberalism!!
Of course, one doesn’t have to ponder such things if one believes that whatsoever comes to pass must be God’s will, right? Fight for truth, defend the powerless, condemn oppression and injustice? Nah, it was all predetermined by God. Might means right. Only what God ordains can be, so why worry our little heads about the evils in the world? We have more important things to worry about, like the regulative principles of worship!
TS00 writes, “Of course, one doesn’t have to ponder such things if one believes that whatsoever comes to pass must be God’s will, right?”
Given that God is omnipotent and can affect any outcome He wants, doesn’t the buck stop with Him?
rhutchin writes:
“Given that God is omnipotent and can affect any outcome He wants, doesn’t the buck stop with Him?” without even making an attempt to deny that he need not bother to “Fight for truth, defend the powerless, condemn oppression and injustice? Nah, it was all predetermined by God. Might means right. Only what God ordains can be, so why worry our little heads about the evils in the world?”
And this is why there are those who assert that Calvinistic Determinism was the doorway to all of the supposedly justifiable wars, oppression and endless pillaging and abuse of people and nations – all done under the banner of ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’, a.k.a, Calvin’s ‘the end justifies the means’ theory of ‘to God be the glory’. Of course powers that be didn’t intend to grab lands, resources and eliminate national autonomy – they simply wanted to ‘save the world’ and deliver those heathen from their darkness; not to mention their gold, oil, rubber, etc.!
Yessiree, every single evildoer in the world, according to Calvinism, should be able to rightly stand before their Maker and judge and plead ‘Not guilty; doesn’t the buck stop with you? What did I ever do that was not predetermined by You, O God, from eternity past? To you, and you alone, belongs all the glory of my rape, murder and pillaging, which you ‘determined’ to bring to pass. Amen.’
TS00 writes, “Given that God is omnipotent and can affect any outcome He wants, doesn’t the buck stop with Him?” without even making an attempt to deny that he need not bother to “Fight for truth, defend the powerless, condemn oppression and injustice? Nah, it was all predetermined by God. ‘
You did not answer the question. Given that God is omnipotent and can affect any outcome He wants, doesn’t the buck stop with Him?
I thought my answer was implicit.
Since I believe – as well rhutchin knows – that God has granted to men free moral choice, the freedom to reject and resist his will, then no, one cannot lay ‘the buck’ at God’s feet when men abuse their God-given freedom of choice to do evil. God allowed the passing of his ‘buck’ when he gave to men the freedom of choice, along with the responsibility (the buck) for the results of the actions they choose.
This is, of course, the reason for all that scripture proclaims, the laying out of terms and concepts concerning sin, atonement, grace, forgiveness, etc. This is the entire point of all of God’s warnings, admonitions, prophets, etc., to urge men to turn from wickedness and avoid the punishment that continued evildoing would ensure to them. This is the point of Jesus giving his life that men could be forgiven and offered a second chance.
He could, of course, have said, ‘You chose, you loose’. Instead, he offered men a second chance, and urged them, once again, to choose wisely, to choose grace, to choose to turn from waywardness, rebellion and evildoing. Man owns the buck, not once, but twice, and he is without excuse.
TS00 writes, “God has granted to men free moral choice, the freedom to reject and resist his will, then no, one cannot lay ‘the buck’ at God’s feet when men abuse their God-given freedom of choice to do evil.”
Yet, despite granting people the freedom to choose, God still intervened in several cases – using a dream to protect Sarah, later Mary, conversion of Saul, etc. Given that God did intervene in the free choices of people in several cases, He could have done so in all cases. God could prevent all sin if he chose to do so, so it is His choice not to do so. Effectively, the buck does stop with Him. Doesn’t it – given that he always has the final say?
TS00
“God has granted to men free moral choice, the freedom to reject and resist his will, then no, one cannot lay ‘the buck’ at God’s feet when men abuse their God-given freedom of choice to do evil.”
rhutchin
Yet, despite granting people the freedom to choose, God still intervened
br.d
TS00 adopts IN-determinism – and asserts what is logically coherent with it.
You on the other hand – CLAIM to adopt Theological Determinism.
But your Theological Determinism is a hybrid which includes TS00’s IN-determinism
Theological Determinism NEGATES IN-determinism the same way FALSE negates TRUE
Secondly:
As I’ve shown – the only event which Calvin’s god can intervene to prevent are events which are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN
And these are events which are NOT going to come to pass anyway.
Calvin’s god needs to focus his energies on intervening to prevent himself from FIRST-CONCEIVING and then RENDERING-CERTAIN events he does not want to come to pass.
Then he wouldn’t have to fret over intervening to prevent events he CANNOT intervene to prevent. :-]
But I know – as a Calvinist you need to MAKE-BELIEVE his AUTHORSHIP of *ALL* events is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.
rhutchin,
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times…and rhutchin still don’t get it…
First, rhutchin states:
“Yet, despite granting people the freedom to choose, God still intervened in several cases – using a dream to protect Sarah, later Mary, conversion of Saul, etc. Given that God did intervene in the free choices of people in several cases, He could have done so in all cases. God could prevent all sin if he chose to do so, so it is His choice not to do so. Effectively, the buck does stop with Him. Doesn’t it – given that he always has the final say?”
My response for the thousanth and oneth (if that’s even a word):
PROPHESY! This none of this has anything to do with SIN OR SALVATION.
God PROMISED a SEED to Abraham…and as you SHOULD know, by Galatians 3:16, Jesus is that PROMISED SEED. But bringing it back to Isaac, Isaac is the promised seed.
Jesus comes to us thru that promised seed, hence PROPHESY.
That is why God intervened, for the sake of Prophesy being fulfilled about JESUS. God intervened in the case of Sarah and Mary for the purpose of FULFILLING prophesy. Not to SAVE THEIR SOULS from anything.
Paul, or Saul, whichever, is a JEW. And the Jews are a totally different story. Saul was ALREADY a follower of God. God REVEALED himself to Saul.
Saul asks, “Who are you LORD? LORD…LORD…LORD…LORD. That is a key word. There is ONLY ONE LORD. And Saul knew it. Who are you LORD?
And Jesus responds, I am Jesus!
Joseph revealed himself to his brothers. Jesus revealed himself to Saul. Joseph’s brothers had no clue that it was Joseph. Until….Until when? Until he REVEALED HIMSELF.
How did Joseph reveal himself? By showing his brothers his JUNK IN THE TRUNK…CIRCUMCISION.
How will Jesus show himself to the REST of the Jews (other than Paul)…his hands and his feet (proving that he was crucified in the cross.
THEN they will be convinced in their own mind.
Paul was convinced in his OWN MIND. God did NOT INTERVENE to SAVE Saul, God revealed to Saul who he was, and he was convinced in his own mind. God did not GIVE HIM FAITH. He believed on his own accord.
You keep saying that God intervenes in EVERYONE’S CASE TO SAVE THEM…INDIVIDUALLY.
NO. God intervenes in order to make sure that PROPHECY OF JESUS comes true when SATAN tries to thwart God’s plans. Not to SAVE someone.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You may consider the possibility that rhutchin’s mind has been conditioned to ignore anything that doesn’t fit a COMPLIMENTARY narrative for Calvinism.
Even when that information come directly from statements made by John Calvin himself – those statements must be REFORMED in the Calvinist’s mind – because the mind is conditioned only to accept information that provides a COMPLIMENTARY reflection on Calvinism.
rhutchin
You did not answer the question. Given that God is omnipotent and can affect any outcome He wants, doesn’t the buck stop with Him?
br.d
You need to clarify what you mean by “effect any outcome”
In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES every outcome
Using term “effect” in this case is to equivocal to be TRUSTWORTHY.
br.d writes, “You need to clarify what you mean by “effect any outcome””
Actually, i’s “affect.” Regardless, to “affect any outcome,” refers to God’s ability, by virtue of He omnipotence, to affect any change He wants in the affairs of people (to execute any action to prevent or sustain any outcome)..
Then, ‘In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES every outcome”
Yes, and then God executes the decisions He made that He first conceived and thereby rendered certain.
br.d
“You need to clarify what you mean by “effect any outcome””
rhutchin
Actually, i’s “affect.” Regardless, to “affect any outcome,” refers to God’s ability, by virtue of He omnipotence, to affect any change He wants in the affairs of people (to execute any action to prevent or sustain any outcome)..
br.d
‘In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES every outcome”
rhutchin
Yes, and then God executes the decisions He made that He first conceived and thereby rendered certain.
br.d
FALSE – events are RENDERED-CERTAIN as soon as Calvin’s god establishes them as CERTAIN.
They are established as CERTAIN at the foundation of the world millennia before they are actualized.
The term “affect” is way too ambiguous to be TRUSTWORTHY
The more accurate term is PRODUCE
Since Calvin’s god AUTHORS and CAUSES EVERY outcome – then it is more truthful to say he PRODUCES EVERY outcome.
The term “affect” can imply that Calvin’s god is not the AUTHOR of EVERY outcome.
To use language that infers that is dishonest
Yes!
With a deity like Calvin’s god – whether he determines Lucifer or any other puppet – is simply a matter of which puppet he determines to use.
br.d writes, ‘So in this case – at the foundation of the world – it is RENDERED-CERTAIN that:
– Determination [yea] is granted EXISTENCE to be available to rhuthin
– Determination [nay] is NOT granted EXISTENCE to be available to rhutchin
– Five minutes from now rhutchin’s determination will be determination [yea]
So we can logically conclude that rhutchin is not the determiner of what determination he will make – Calvin’s god is.”
Coincidentally, [yea] is that choice I would make absent the existence of God and any involvement of God in my decision. So, the choice [nay] is irrelevant. as it is not an option I would consider. So, what exactly has God done other than to decree that I choose that option that I would choose even if He were not involved. I don’t see why I did not determine, or decide, what I would do.
br.d
‘So in this case – at the foundation of the world – it is RENDERED-CERTAIN that:
– Determination [yea] is granted EXISTENCE to be available to rhuthin
– Determination [nay] is NOT granted EXISTENCE to be available to rhutchin
– Five minutes from now rhutchin’s determination will be determination [yea]
So we can logically conclude that rhutchin is not the determiner of what determination he will make – Calvin’s god is.”
rhutchin
Coincidentally, [yea] is that choice I would make absent the existence of God …..etc
br.d
This argument is crafted with too much ambiguous language – and is therefore UNTRUSTWORTHY
Firstly your language in much of your statements is muddled – so one has to guess at what you are arguing
Your argument here appears to come in two phases – which I will attempt to decipher:
I will call your argument: “rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice”
IF
Calvin’s god did not exist = TRUE
AND
rhutchin did exist = TRUE
AND
rhutchin determines [yea] = TRUE
THEN
In this case
rhutchin is INDEPENDENT of Calvin’s god – and rhutchin (NOT Calvin’s god) determined that rhutchin will determine [yea]
CONCLUSION
Were Calvin’s god to exist – he would simply know rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice
And knowing that – Calvin’s god would simply concur with rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice – and decree it to come to pass.
Firstly,
What you have here is a Molinist/Arminian doctrine of simultaneous concurrence – which is rejected by Calvinism
So your Calvinism appears to have evolved into a hybrid form of Calvinism – which Calvin himself would harshly reject.
Secondly:
Your argument withholds from Calvin’s god the ability to Over-rule rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice.
This represents not only a hybrid form of Calvinism – but a RADICAL hybrid form of it.
If you were in Geneva – Calvin would have your tongue driven through with a red-hot iron for daring to withhold from Calvin’s god the ability to determine *ALL* things UNCONDITIONALLY and WITHIN HIMSELF – AND HIMSELF ALONE.
So far – your argument fails at being consistent with Calvinism
br.d writes, “What you have here is a Molinist/Arminian doctrine of simultaneous concurrence – which is rejected by Calvinism”
Molinism is not the same as Arminianism.
Then, “Your argument withholds from Calvin’s god the ability to Over-rule rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice.”
No. It addresses situations where God does not overrule independent choice.
Then, “So far – your argument fails at being consistent with Calvinism”
Another way of avoiding an answer.
So, what exactly has God done other than to decree that I choose that option that I would choose even if He were not involved? I don’t see why I did not determine, or decide, what I would do.
br.d
“What you have here is a Molinist/Arminian doctrine of simultaneous concurrence – which is rejected by Calvinism”
rhutchin
Molinism is not the same as Arminianism.
br.d
FALSE – as it pertains to the doctrine of simultaneous concurrence – which they both share and which Calvinism rejects.
See “Four Views on Divine Providence”
The Calvinist argument against the Molinist/Arminian view of simultaneous concurrence is stated as:
The idea that God does not ACT ON the human will to produce its effect – but rather acts ALONG WITH the human will to produce its effect is rejected as ontologically absurd.
br.d
Additionally your argument withholds from Calvin’s god the ability to Over-rule rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice.”
rhutchin
No. It addresses situations where God does not overrule independent choice.
br.d
So then it is HALF of a theory with one HALF missing
Your back to what William Lane Craig calls the Molinist/Arminian doctrine of simultaneous concurrence again.
And your appeal to concurrence appears to be getting very close to MERE PERMISSION which Calvin rejects.
William Lane Craig enunciates the difference between the Molinist/Arminian doctrine of concurrence.
-quote
In the Molinist/Arminian view, ….God does not move the agent’s will to sin. By contrast, in the Thomistic/ Reformed view, God CAUSES the agent to sin by MOVING HIS WILL to choose …..God moves people to choose…..and they CANNOT DO OTHERWISE.
Additionally “concurrence” and “author” are two radically different terms
John Calvin states this:
But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God ….PERMITS them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the AUTHOR of them.
To assert that Calvin’s god MERELY concurs with a creature’s choice is to compromise Calvin’s god being the AUTHOR of that choice.
br.d writes, “To assert that Calvin’s god MERELY concurs with a creature’s choice is to compromise Calvin’s god being the AUTHOR of that choice.”
By concurs, we look to Calvin, “Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust.”
Also, “Modest minds will always be satisfied with Augustine’s answer, “Since the Father delivered up the Son, Christ his own body, and Judas his Master, how in such a case is God just, and man guilty, but just because in the one act which they did, the reasons for which they did it are different?” (August. Ep. 48, ad Vincentium)
Calvin also wrote, “This is intimated by John in his Epistle, when he says that [Satan] “sinneth from the beginning,” (1Jn 3: 8) implying that he is the author, leader, and contriver of all malice and wickedness.”
br.d
“To assert that Calvin’s god MERELY concurs with a creature’s choice is to compromise Calvin’s god being the AUTHOR of that choice.”
rhutchin
By concurs, we look to Calvin, “Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust.”
br.d
irrelevant
This does not address the question of how/why Calvin’s god’s makes his determinations – it is totally dedicated to stating that Calvin’s god is not culpable for “secretly decreeing” a person to do something that is evil.
So this appeal fails
Additionally – you agreed to John Feinberg’s definition of “determine” which states (consistently with Calvin) :
“it is the UNCONDITIONAL decree…based on NOTHING OUTSIDE OF GOD that moves him to choose one thing or another”
Your theory ASSUMES that Calvin’s god’s choice would be in concurence with rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice – which would be based upon rhuthin’s CONDITION. And were Calvin’s god to concure with rhutchin – he would be making a determination based upon something OUTSIDE of himself.
Thirdly – rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice would be a totally depraved choice.
And your theory ASSUMES Calvin’s god would concur with total depravity.
CONCLUSION
Your arguments consistently show up as some Calvini-Molini-Armian-openTheist mixture.
br.d writes, ‘This does not address the question of how/why Calvin’s god’s makes his determinations…”
That’s not the issue. The issue is the relationship of God’s determinations to man’s determinations and whether this negates free will..
Then, ‘Your theory ASSUMES that Calvin’s god’s choice would be in concurence with rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice – which would be based upon rhuthin’s CONDITION.”
No. It assumes that God is sovereign making man subordinate to Him. Again Proverbs 16, “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” God does not force a person to do anything he does not want to do. God’s will always prevails.
Then, ‘Your arguments consistently show up as some Calvini-Molini-Armian-openTheist mixture.”
So, you claim. This just shows that you do not understand Molinism and apparently little about Arminianism. Kinda like your understanding of Calvinism.
br.d
This does not address the question of how/why Calvin’s god’s makes his determinations…”
rhutchin
That’s not the issue. The issue is the relationship of God’s determinations to man’s determinations and whether this negates free will..
br.d
FALSE
The question of How/Why is especially important – because in Theological Determinism – HOW Calvin’s god makes his determination is stated as “SOLELY WITHIN HIMSELF”.
br.
‘Your theory ASSUMES that Calvin’s god’s choice would be in concurrence with rhutchin’s INDEPENDENT choice – which would be based upon rhuthin’s CONDITION.”
rhutchin
No. It assumes that God is sovereign making man subordinate to Him. Again Proverbs 16, “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” God does not force a person to do anything he does not want to do. God’s will always prevails.
br.d
Here you simply show that you require appealing to equivocal terms – in this case the term “subordinate”
This term is equivocal because it can either work for or against your position.
A person who is functioning as a puppet is going to make determinations that are “subordinate” to the puppet master.
But this could mean the puppet master determines all of what the puppet can determine.
Or it can mean the puppet can determine things INDEPENDENT of the puppet master.
Therefore “subordinate” is an equivocal term.
It is a term which functions to masquerade Theological Determinism as IN-deterministic
br.d
‘Your arguments consistently show up as some Calvini-Molini-Armian-openTheist mixture.”
rhutchin
So, you claim. This just shows that you do not understand Molinism and apparently little about Arminianism. Kinda like your understanding of Calvinism.
br.d
What is obvious – is that you make room for a Molinist position which is logically contrary and thus a denial of Calvin’s position – and use it to address a weakness in the Calvinist position. Or you use an Arminian or Open Theist position in the same way.
You apparently don’t completely throw out the Calvinist position during this process.
You ignore it – AS-IF it didn’t exist – while you replace it with the logically contrary alternative position.
Then when you’re dealing with a different issue – you can return to the Calvinist position.
That strategy allows you to temporarily evade areas in Calvin’s system that contain weaknesses which the other system does not have – simply by masquerading a Molinist, Arminian, or Open Theist position as a Calvinist position.
Its nothing more than an argumentation strategy on you part.
Vincent Chung would call you a Calvinist who compromises TRUE Calvinism in order to APPEAR to win arguments.
br.d writes, ‘FALSE
The question of How/Why is especially important – because in Theological Determinism – HOW Calvin’s god makes his determination is stated as “SOLELY WITHIN HIMSELF”.
That’s a given. The question is then whether this negates man’s free will. If God and man both get what their will in any situation, has man’s will been negated?
Then, “A person who is functioning as a puppet is going to make determinations that are “subordinate” to the puppet master…
Therefore “subordinate” is an equivocal term.”
A person who is functioning as a puppet does not make determinations.
Then, ‘What is obvious – is that you make room for a Molinist position which is logically contrary and thus a denial of Calvin’s position – and use it to address a weakness in the Calvinist position.”
Molinism is a pre-creation theology. Calvinism is a post-creation theology. The theologies are mutually exclusive and neither is contrary to the other.
Then, ‘Or you use an Arminian or Open Theist position in the same way.”
The Arminian has man as the final arbiter of his salvation; Calvinism has God as the final arbiter of man’s salvation.
Open Theism denies God’s perfect knowledge of the future; Calvinism affirms God’s perfect knowledge of the future.
Neither addresses a weakness in the Calvinist system but introduce their own weaknesses.
Nothing you say negates my point – “This just shows that you do not understand Molinism and apparently little about Arminianism. Kinda like your understanding of Calvinism.”
br.d
‘FALSE
The question of How/Why is especially important – because in Theological Determinism – HOW Calvin’s god makes his determination is stated as “SOLELY WITHIN HIMSELF”.
rhutchin
That’s a given. The question is then whether this negates man’s free will. If God and man both get what their will in any situation, has man’s will been negated?
br.d
More precisely – the question is whether or not Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines every determination the creature will ever have. Since he determines every neurological impulse the creature will ever have – the it LOGICALLY follows he determines every determination the creature will ever have.
On your equivocal term “subordinate”
“A person who is functioning as a puppet is going to make determinations that are “subordinate” to the puppet master…
Therefore “subordinate” is an equivocal term.”
rhutchin
A person who is functioning as a puppet does not make determinations.
br.d
And you say that I make claims!
Your LOGICAL argument here is zero
Here you are required to show USING LOGIC how a person who can made determinations – while functioning as a puppet – does not make determinations.
Good luck on that one! :-]
What is obvious – is that you make room for a Molinist position which is logically contrary and thus a denial of Calvin’s position – and use it to address a weakness in the Calvinist position.”
rhutchin
Molinism is a pre-creation theology. Calvinism is a post-creation theology. The theologies are mutually exclusive and neither is contrary to the other.
br.d
You definitely need to take an introductory course in elementary logic
In LOGIC and probability theory, two things are “mutually exclusive” or disjoint if they cannot both exist/occur at the same time.
In LOGIC “contrary” is defined as the relationship between two propositions in which they cannot both be true at the same time.
Theological Determinism and IN-determinism are both “mutually exclusive” and “contrary” they cannot both exist or be true at the same time.
Therefore since the classic Reformed/Thomistic view of divine concurrence is predicated on Theological Determinism – it is both “mutually exclusive” and “contrary” to the Molinist/Arminian view of simultaneous concurrence.
William Lane Craig – describes the difference
-quote
In the Molinist/Arminian view, secondary free agents are capable of willing one thing or another without being caused to do so by God.
In the Reformed/Thomistic view God causally determines everything that happens…thus he causes the secondary agent’s will to choose one way or the other. Your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined…and your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined….for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control.
rhutchin
The Arminian has man as the final arbiter of his salvation; Calvinism has God as the final arbiter of man’s salvation.
Open Theism denies God’s perfect knowledge of the future; Calvinism affirms God’s perfect knowledge of the future.
Neither addresses a weakness in the Calvinist system but introduce their own weaknesses.
br.d
These are again all nothing but claims – or more likely nothing more than talking-points.
Its obvious there are aspects of Theological Determinism you find unpalatable.
That is quite natural
And that is the reason John Calvin instructs his disciples to DOUBLE-THINK.
-quote “go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in every part” – (when my doctrine tells you the opposite)
rhutchin
Nothing you say negates my point – “This just shows that you do not understand Molinism and apparently little about Arminianism. Kinda like your understanding of Calvinism.”
br.d
As has been shown clearly – you don’t REALLY make points – making points requires LOGIC – you’ve simply made unproven claims.
Like the banana man pulls out an endless string of bananas out of his pocket
You pull out an endless string of what Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth calls INSCRUTABLE MECHANISMS.
Your claims are nothing more than attempts to make Theological Determinism masquerade as IN-determinism
br.d writes, ‘More precisely – the question is whether or not Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines every determination the creature will ever have. Since he determines every neurological impulse the creature will ever have – the it LOGICALLY follows he determines every determination the creature will ever have.”
The unanswered question is whether this negates free will given that determinism is not coercive.
Then, ‘Here you are required to show USING LOGIC how a person who can made determinations – while functioning as a puppet – does not make determinations.”
A puppet is not coerced to act by the one controlling him and does not fight against that control. Does the puppet make determinations? No way to tell – one must assume it, as you do. That sets up a begging the question situation where your assumption (the puppet makes determinations) dictates your conclusion that those determinations mean something 9what they mean, you don’t say).
Then, “William Lane Craig – describes the difference
-quote
In the Molinist/Arminian view, secondary free agents are capable of willing one thing or another without being caused to do so by God.”
Of course, all this happen sin the mind of God who conceives whatever He wants and does it first. So, what does Craig mean by, “secondary free agents are capable of willing one thing or another without being caused to do so by God”? Probably the same thing that Calvinists mean in the real world, post creation. In each situation, “the causes the secondary agent’s will to choose one way or the other< " but not by coercing that outcome. Isaiah 10 illustrates this with the actions of the Assyrians who do they will of God and are rightly judged by God for doing so.
Then, 'These are again all nothing but claims – or more likely nothing more than talking-points."
Not disputed, even by you. Do you want to dispute what I said and offer your alternate explanation?
Then, "Your claims are nothing more than attempts to make Theological Determinism masquerade as IN-determinism"
So you claim – but without defining indeterminism which makes it a claim without substance..
br.d
‘More precisely – the question is whether or not Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) determines every determination the creature will ever have. Since he determines every neurological impulse the creature will ever have – the it LOGICALLY follows he determines every determination the creature will ever have.”
rhutchin
The unanswered question is whether this negates free will given that determinism is not coercive.
br.d
FALSE
One’s definition of the word “free” is not at focus here.
What is at focus here is whether or not *ALL* things which come to pass (which would obviously include creaturely determinations) are determined millennia before the creature exists by Calvin’s god.
And determined by an UNCONDITIONAL decree…based on NOTHING OUTSIDE HIMSELF that moves him to choose one thing or another” (per the Reformed definition provided by Calvinist John Feinberg – which you affirm)
This is either TRUE or FALSE
You appear to want your answer to this question to be yea and nay at the same time.
rhutchin
A puppet is not coerced to act by the one controlling him and does not fight against that control. Does the puppet make determinations? No way to tell ….etc
br.d
Here you subtly shifted the object.
The object is a PERSON who is functioning as a puppet.
You made the claim – now provide the evidence
Your burden is to show how a PERSON who can make determinations – does not do so just because that PERSON is functioning as a puppet.
Then, “William Lane Craig – describes the difference
-quote
In the Molinist/Arminian view, secondary free agents are capable of willing one thing or another without being caused to do so by God.”
rhutchin
Of course, all this happen sin the mind of God who conceives whatever He wants and DOES IT FIRST.
br.d
Your language here is too ambiguous to be TRUSTWORTHY – Calvin’s god DOES WHAT FIRST?
rhutchin
So, what does Craig mean by, “secondary free agents are capable of willing one thing or another without being caused to do so by God”? Probably the same thing that Calvinists mean in the real world, post creation
br.d
Since John Calvin asserts these two things:
A) All things are determined at the foundation of the world and in every part
B) Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part
What Calvinists say (or mean by what they say) is untrustworthy.
You for example recently asserted Theological Determinism = coercion
And then you flipped to the opposite position in order to align yourself with Edwards.
So what a Calvinist says is irrelevant.
What is relevant is what is LOGICALLY COHERENT.
Your appeal to the question of coercion is also an irrelevant red herring.
rhutchin
Do you want to dispute what I said and offer your alternate explanation?
br.d
When there is a LOGICAL argument to analyze – (whether coherent or not) I have and will continue to do so.
“Your claims are nothing more than attempts to make Theological Determinism masquerade as IN-determinism”
rhutchin
So you claim – but without defining indeterminism which makes it a claim without substance..
br.d
We’ve had this discussion before – and I provided a definition for IN-determinism.
Right now we are focused on the question of whether or not Calvin’s god (before the creature exists) determines every determination the creature will ever have – by an UNCONDITIONAL decree…based on NOTHING OUTSIDE HIMSELF that moves him to choose one thing or another”
What say you…..Yea? or Nay?
My form of Open Theism does not deny “God’s perfect knowledge of the future”, it affirms it. It would be like me saying – “Calvinism denies God’s perfect knowledge of the future because they believe He can only know it to be limited to and locked in to working out only one way to be called ‘perfect'”.
brianwagner writes, “My form of Open Theism does not deny “God’s perfect knowledge of the future”, it affirms it.”
Hmmmm. I think we have a failure to communicate.
Wouldn’t be the first time Roger… communication sent… but not received. 😉
rhutchin
Calvin also wrote, “This is intimated by John in his Epistle, when he says that [Satan] “sinneth from the beginning,” (1Jn 3: 8) implying that he is the AUTHOR, leader, and contriver of all malice and wickedness.”
br.d
-quote: “It is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the *AUTHOR* of them.” (Eternal Predestination of God, p.176).
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly….can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate…..unless in so far as He COMMANDS. They are not only bound by His fetters but are even *FORCED* to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11).
Since Calvin elsewhere makes EXPLICIT statements on his god’s AUTHORSHIP of Satan’s conceptions and actions – its obvious this is an attempt to IMPLY Calvin making a contradiction to what he EXPLICITLY asserts.
br.d writes, “Since Calvin elsewhere makes EXPLICIT statements on his god’s AUTHORSHIP of Satan’s conceptions and actions – its obvious this is an attempt to IMPLY Calvin making a contradiction to what he EXPLICITLY asserts.”
It says that Calvin saw God as sovereign who uses Satan as He used the Assyrains in Isaiah 10.
br.d
“Since Calvin elsewhere makes EXPLICIT statements on his god’s AUTHORSHIP of Satan’s conceptions and actions – its obvious this is an attempt to IMPLY Calvin making a contradiction to what he EXPLICITLY asserts.”
rhutchin
It says that Calvin saw God as sovereign who uses Satan as He used the Assyrains in Isaiah 10.
br.d
In that case – we can insert the Assyrians into Calvin’s quotes
quote: “It is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits [Assyrian evil thoughts and deeds], when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the *AUTHOR* of [Assyrian evil thoughts and deeds] ” (Eternal Predestination of God, p.176).
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly….
– can neither conceive any mischief, [concerning the Assyrian’s]
– nor plan what they have conceived, [concerning the Assyrian’s]
– nor how they may have planned, ….move a single finger to perpetrate [concerning the Assyrian’s]
unless in so far as He COMMANDS. [Satan and his host] are not only bound by His fetters but are even *FORCED* to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11).
br.d writes, “In that case – we can insert the Assyrians into Calvin’s quotes
quote: “It is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits…(anything)”
Meaning that God does not decree anything to happen that is not in accord with His eternal plan.
Then, ““The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly….
– can neither conceive any mischief, [concerning the Assyrian’s]”
Had they not conceived such, then they would not pursue such.
Then, “unless in so far as He COMMANDS. [Satan and his host] are not only bound by His fetters but are even *FORCED* to do Him service.””
Satan cannot pursue Job except God say he can do so. The Assyrians cannot pursue Israel except God say they can. Thereby they are forced to do God’s service.
br.d
“In that case – we can insert the Assyrians into Calvin’s quotes
Calvin quote:
“It is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits [Assyrian evil thoughts and deeds], when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the *AUTHOR* of [Assyrian evil thoughts and deeds] ” (Eternal Predestination of God, p.176).
rhutchin
Meaning that God does not decree anything to happen that is not in accord with His eternal plan.
br.d
Meaning that Calvin’s god’s eternal plan was to AUTHOR the [Assyrian evil thoughts and deeds]
Calvin quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly….
– can neither conceive any mischief, [concerning the Assyrian’s]
– nor plan what they have conceived, [concerning the Assyrian’s]
– nor how they may have planned, ….move a single finger to perpetrate [concerning the Assyrian’s]
rhutchin
Had they not conceived such, then they would not pursue such.
br.d
Had Calvin’s god not RENDERED-CERTAIN they conceive otherwise they would have conceived otherwise.
Calvin quote
“unless in so far as He COMMANDS. [Satan and his host] are not only bound by His fetters but are even *FORCED* to do Him service.””
rhutchin
Satan cannot pursue Job except God say he can do so. The Assyrians cannot pursue Israel except God say they can. Thereby they are forced to do God’s service.
br.d
Per Calvin – Satan cannot pursue Job (or anything) unless Calvin’s god -quote “COMMAND IT” and -quote “FORCE” Satan into service.
Massaging Calvin’s statements to make them paint a different picture than Calvin himself painted
must keep Calvinists *VERY* busy! :-]
A COMMAND OF JESUS – THE CALVINIST WILL DISOBEY
rhutchin
Had they not conceived such, then they would not pursue such.
br.d
Had Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN they conceive otherwise they would have conceived otherwise.
br.d
Jesus commands his disciples to “render to God that which is attributable to God – and to man that which is attributable to man”.
But Calvinists area constantly attributing to man – that which was RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god.
This is obviously a command from Jesus – the Calvinist refuses to obey.
The question then is –
are Calvinists RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god – to disobey his commands. :-]
br.d writes, “The question then is – are Calvinists RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god – to disobey his commands.”
Yes. Even Moses had that figured out: Deuteronomy 31
26 “Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you.
27 “For I know your rebellion and your stubbornness; behold, while I am still alive with you today, you have been rebellious against the LORD; how much more, then, after my death?
28 “Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to witness against them.
29 “For I know that after my death you will act corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands.”
br.d
The question then is – are Calvinists RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god – to disobey his commands.”
rhutchin
Yes. ……quoting scriptures INTERPRETED so as to affirm Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN his people disobey his commands.
br.d
Excellent response rhutchin!
That explains alot about why Calvinists think and speak the way they do :-]
br.d writes, “That explains alot about why Calvinists think and speak the way they do ”
Yes, the Scriptures always rule.
br.d
“That explains alot about why Calvinists think and speak the way they do ”
rhutchin
Yes, the Scriptures always rule.
br.d
But human interpretations do not rule – especially when those interpretations turn scripture into double-speak. :-]
br.d writes, “But human interpretations do not rule – especially when those interpretations turn scripture into double-speak.”
Which people are never really able to show how Calvinism does this – despite many claims of such. Even you never really get into the Calvinist interpretation of specific Scripture (I think, for obvious reasons – meaning that it is easier to make a claim than support the claim).
br.d
But human interpretations do not rule – especially when those interpretations turn scripture into double-speak.”
rhutchin
Which people are never really able to show how Calvinism does this
br.d
Of course this is from your perspective – and we can understand why.
But Calvinist double-speak is well understood here and by many others.
I provided quotes from 5 authors who have written books on Calvinism – and all of them used the term double-speak or doubletalk.
Showing it to a Calvinist…..one can lead a horse to water but one can’t make him drink.
As William Lane Craig states – that’s just an issue of Calvinist psychology.
rhutchin wrote, “Which people are never really able to show how Calvinism does this.”
br.d writes, “Of course this is from your perspective…”
But even here, you are unable to show how Calvinism does this. Certainly, one of the five authors you cited would have something you could present. Why don’t you present something – how hard is it to cut and paste??
rhutchin
“Which people are never really able to show how Calvinism does this.”
br.d
“Of course this is from your perspective…”
rhutchin
But even here, you are unable to show how Calvinism does this.
br,d
Show who?
Others here recognized it without question – and I’ve provided quotes from William Lane Craig, Dr. Jerry Walls, a number of web-sites – and quotations from 5 books all using the words “double-speak” or “double-talk”.
I’m not responsible to prove anything to any individual person.
All I need do is show how Calvinist language works – and provide professional insights which Dr. Bela Depaulo and William Lutz provide
People understand what Altruistic Dishonesty is and what Double-Speak is
And when they can connect the dots and recognize these within Calvinist language I’ve done my job as a good and faithful servant. :-]
br.d writes, “Others here recognized it without question – and I’ve provided quotes from William Lane Craig, Dr. Jerry Walls, a number of web-sites – and quotations from 5 books all using the words “double-speak” or “double-talk”.
I’m not responsible to prove anything to any individual person.
All I need do is show how Calvinist language works – and provide professional insights which Dr. Bela Depaulo and William Lutz provide”
In other words, a person can make any claim he wants against Calvinism without demonstrating that the claim is true. That is what I have observed also about non-Calvinist arguments.
br.d
Others here recognized it without question – and I’ve provided quotes from William Lane Craig, Dr. Jerry Walls, a number of web-sites – and quotations from 5 books all using the words “double-speak” or “double-talk”.
I’m not responsible to prove anything to any individual person.
All I need do is show how Calvinist language works – and provide professional insights which Dr. Bela Depaulo and William Lutz provide”
rhutchin
In other words, a person can make any claim he wants against Calvinism without demonstrating that the claim is true. That is what I have observed also about non-Calvinist arguments.
br.d
Now you’ve simply gone into your tail chasing mode again.
There are many participants here.
It would be a real cool gig to be positioned as the sole judge and arbitrator of all things demonstrated at SOT101
Fortunately for the rest of us – that is not the case.
rhutchin writes:
“In other words, a person can make any claim he wants against Calvinism without demonstrating that the claim is true. That is what I have observed also about non-Calvinist arguments.”
In other words, ‘I’ll keep ignoring sound logic, even when my inconsistencies are revealed point by point, and keep making my logically unsound and inconsistent arguments.’
You can’t blame him, because so many people refuse to do the critical thinking, and just rely on the prepackaged defense included in whatever ‘belief’ system they select off of the shelf. It’s just like the faith people put in modern medicine, taking whatever dangerous drugs their trusted doctor prescribes. When my now deceased mother-in-law was diagnosed with a severe form of dementia, she was prescribed a brand new drug. When I researched it, (as I am prone to do) reading the actual studies, the best it could offer was to maybe add about 5 days to the patient’s life. I kid you not. The cost was astronomical, and the list of side effects was so ghastly, no one would want to live through them anyway. (And yes, she suffered through most of them.) All of my in laws thought I was nuts to question the doctor.
TS00 writes, “You can’t blame him, because so many people refuse to do the critical thinking, and just rely on the prepackaged defense included in whatever ‘belief’ system they select off of the shelf.”
Yes, that seems to be the approach taken by the non-Calvinists.
Nice try. 😉
Good post TSOO!
Sorry to hear about your mother in law!
What I find ironic about Calvinists – is all of their finger pointing at others calling them “man-centered” for attributing powers to man which are only reserved for Calvin’s god.
But then when the logical implications of their assertions backfire on them and they need to defend their god against being the “author of evil” – suddenly they flip and the only answer they have is to give the very attributions to man they accuse others of giving..
And then after that – they never ever connect the dots!
Trying to explain or demonstrate something LOGICAL to a person who’s mind is in that condition is an act of futility. :-]
br.d. writes:
“And then after that – they never ever connect the dots!
Trying to explain or demonstrate something LOGICAL to a person who’s mind is in that condition is an act of futility. :-]”
This is a feature, not a bug. You, my friend, are limited by logical consistency and honesty. But those who have built their castles on clouds can simply add spire after imaginary spire. There is no limit to what one can imagine when all is fantasy.
it is funny!
William Lane Craig does a video taped presentation to groups and one has to do with aspects of Calvinism.
There are at least a 2 or 3 Calvinists in the audience and he gives people opportunities to express things.
There are a number of occasions where different individuals will take the microphone and happily recite some highly imaginative invention they’ve come up with to explain Calvinism.
Dr. Craig will carefully step-by-step go through those and explain how they are not logical.
But you know without question – those people aren’t accepting one single word he’s saying – no matter low obvious it is.
They’ll walk out of there making believe whatever their imagination comes up with is “of god”
And ignore everything else.
Oh yes, I know many such people. They simply refuse to take off the blinders and look objectively at the logic. Hey, if all these Big Dogs believe it, why would I ever question it? I’m not impressed by anybody’s Big Dogs. We have all been given the same sort of minds to examine the same evidence. Why do I need to rely on what someone else says?
TS00
Hey, if all these Big Dogs believe it, why would I ever question it? I’m not impressed by anybody’s Big Dogs. We have all been given the same sort of minds to examine the same evidence. Why do I need to rely on what someone else says?
br.d
This reminds me of the research done by Dr. Robert Cialdini – in his published work “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion”
He calls this “social proof”.
Its really about the respecting of persons.
People look up to “special ones” among themselves who are the raised up as the “cut above the rest”.
And whatever those “voices of influence” do and say – becomes what those people will follow.
So when the sacred Calvinist teacher uses double-speak to explain something – all the little devotees memorize and recite. :-]
br.d writes, “Massaging Calvin’s statements to make them paint a different picture than Calvin himself painted
must keep Calvinists *VERY* busy! ”
Not really. After Calvin, people have refined his system. For example, Jonathan Edwards dealt with the issue of free will in some depth and John Owen dealt with the issue of limited atonement. Calvin’s basic system remains in tact.
br.d
Massaging Calvin’s statements to make them paint a different picture than Calvin himself painted
must keep Calvinists *VERY* busy! ”
rhutchin
Not really. After Calvin, people have REFINED his system….etc
br.d
I know exactly what REFINED means in this context. :-]
rhutchin
February 7, 2019 at 1:55 pm
Do you want to dispute what I said and offer your alternate explanation?
br.d
First we need to work on your testimony – and get it to the point where its stable, reliable, and trustworthy.
Where it is yea yea or nay nay.
What we’ve had consistently instead has been yea nay yea nay
Additionally on your testimony, we need to work on your use of ambiguous and equivocal language.
This language mode is frequently used to hide that fact that one’s testimony is yea nay yea nay.
Once we get your testimony stable, reliable, and trustworthy – then we can move on to disputes.
br.d
January 31, 2019 at 5:31 am
‘In Theological Determinism – man is NOT the determiner of his determinations – Calvin’s god is.”
rhutchin
January 31, 2019 at 7:30 am
SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man
br.d
And how many of those [things] which are [self-determined] by man – did Calvin’s god NOT determine and RENDER-CERTAIN (in every part) – millennia before every man was born?
WAIT!
Let me guess the number!
How about 666
That could work as the number!
Now if I were James White – I might be inclined to call that a FULLY-ORBED number.
But WAIT!
Oh- No!
This means Calvin’s god is a slacker! :-]
rhutchin writes:
“SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
If that don’t beat all . . . rhutchin just negated all of his years of defending Calvinism in one little sentence. Imagine, man determining things . . . but of course he will try and yea and nay his way out of it, and insist that God somehow determines what man self-determines without being responsible for them. (Actually, he’ll probably try to work in the ol’ indeterminist ‘allow’ or ‘permit’, but you have laid that silliness to rest.) Poor fella; it must be annoying to constantly contradict oneself.
Yup!
rhutchin will cloak the whole thing in equivocal ambiguous “rocking horse” language
That allows him to infer “yea” and “nay” at the same time.
That’s the language strategy Calvinists use.
Like you’ve noted – its what ex Calvinist Daniel Gracely calls “The Calvinist Rocking Horse”
Its their love-hate relationship with their own theology.
rhutchin writes:“SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
TS00 responds, “If that don’t beat all . . . rhutchin just negated all of his years of defending Calvinism in one little sentence. Imagine, man determining things . . .”
Read Jonathan Edwards’ paper on free will. Nothing new under the sun.
Then, “…insist that God somehow determines what man self-determines without being responsible for them.”
God has the final say on all that happens. If God does not act to prevent any action of man, God determines the action.
Then, “it must be annoying to constantly contradict oneself.”
No contradiction here, and you don’t identify one.
rhutchin
“SOME [things] ARE [self-determined] by man”
TS00 responds, “If that don’t beat all . . . rhutchin just negated all of his years of defending Calvinism in one little sentence. Imagine, man determining things .
but of course he will try and yea and nay his way out of it
rhutchin
Read Jonathan Edwards’ paper on free will.
br.d
So what is the actual NUMBER of those “SOME [things] which are [self-determined] by man”
Which Calvin’s god didn’t determine and RENDER-CERTAIN before every man was born?
It will be nice to know HOW MANY of those “self-determinations” Calvin’s god didn’t determine and RENDER-CERTAIN?
Got a NUMBER for us? :-]
br.d writes, ‘It will be nice to know HOW MANY of those “self-determinations” Calvin’s god didn’t determine and RENDER-CERTAIN?
Got a NUMBER for us?”
Zero (0).
br.d
‘It will be nice to know HOW MANY of those “self-determinations” Calvin’s god didn’t determine and RENDER-CERTAIN?
Got a NUMBER for us?”
rhutchin
Zero (0).
br.d
Very good!
And did Calvin’s god RENDER-CERTAIN every one of those “self-determinations” at the foundation of the world – before any person’s exist?
yea or nay?
br.d writes, “And did Calvin’s god RENDER-CERTAIN every one of those “self-determinations” at the foundation of the world – before any person’s exist? ”
Of course, He did.
br.d
“And did Calvin’s god RENDER-CERTAIN every one of those “self-determinations” at the foundation of the world – before any person’s exist? ”
rhutchin
Of course, He did.
br.d
Very good!
Then does it logically follow – that those self-determinations which are RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass – are thereby granted EXISTENCE by Calvin’s god?
yea or nay?
br.d writes, ‘Then does it logically follow – that those self-determinations which are RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass – are thereby granted EXISTENCE by Calvin’s god?”
Yes.
br.d
‘Then does it logically follow – that those self-determinations which are RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass – are thereby granted EXISTENCE by Calvin’s god?”
rhutchin
Yes.
br.d
Very good!
Now let us label something Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN to have existence.
Let us call it event [X].
It logically follows that nothing can falsify or negate the existence which Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN to event [X].
yea or nay?
br.d writes, ‘It logically follows that nothing can falsify or negate the existence which Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN to event [X]. ”
Yes.
br.d
‘It logically follows that nothing can falsify or negate the existence which Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN to event [X]. ”
rhutchin
Yes.
br.d
Very good!
Now since we know that [X] and [NOT X] are contrary mutual exclusives – in that [NOT X] would falsify/negate [X]
Then it follows that where Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN the existence of [X]
He also by perfect knowledge knows (as a consequence) – he has RENDERED-CERTAIN [NOT X] will NOT exist.
yea or nay?
br.d writes, ‘Now since we know that [X] and [NOT X] are contrary mutual exclusives – in that [NOT X] would falsify/negate [X]
Then it follows that where Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN the existence of [X]
He also by perfect knowledge knows (as a consequence) – he has RENDERED-CERTAIN [NOT X] will NOT exist.”
Yes – that is what perfect foreknowledge tells us.
br.d
‘Now since we know that [X] and [NOT X] are contrary mutual exclusives – in that [NOT X] would falsify/negate [X]
Then it follows that where Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN the existence of [X]
He also by perfect knowledge knows (as a consequence) – he has RENDERED-CERTAIN [NOT X] will NOT exist.”
rhutchin
Yes – that is what perfect foreknowledge tells us.
br.d
Very good!
So we now have the status of [X] which has existence.
And we have the status of [NOT X] which does not have existence.
So let us say that [X] is Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”
And since [NOT X] is the contrary mutual exclusive of [X] – it would be Person-A’s decision to choose “no”
Then it logically follows that Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”.
And Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the NON existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “no” .
yea or nay?
br.d writes, ‘Then it logically follows that Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”.
And Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the NON existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “no” .”
Yes.
br.d
‘Then it logically follows that Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”.
And Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the NON existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “no” .”
rhutchin
Yes.
br.d
Very good!
So here is where we agree to so far:
That Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”
That Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the NON existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “no”
The it LOGICALLY follows that:
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “yes” have existence
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have existence
yea or nay?
I messed this one up!
I’ll redo this
br.d
‘Then it logically follows that Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”.
And Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN the NON existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “no” .”
rhutchin
Yes.
br.d
Very good!
So here is where we agree to so far:
That Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”
That Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the NON existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “no”
Then it LOGICALLY follows in this specific case:
Since nothing can have existence unless Calvin’s god RENDER-CERTAIN its existence
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have existence
yea or nay?
br.d writes, “Then it LOGICALLY follows in this specific case:
Since nothing can have existence unless Calvin’s god RENDER-CERTAIN its existence
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have existence
yea or nay?”
Yes. That outcome will never happen and God knew this in eternity past.
br.d
“Then it LOGICALLY follows in this specific case:
Since nothing can have existence unless Calvin’s god RENDER-CERTAIN its existence
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have existence
yea or nay?”
rhutchin
Yes. That outcome will never happen and God knew this in eternity past.
br.d
Very good!
Ok – lets look again at where we are
Person-A exists within a specific window of time
Person-A’s decision to choose “yes” was (at the foundation of the world) granted existence.
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have any granted existence.
Then it LOGICALLY follows:
Person-A’s decision to choose “no” did not exist within the window of time in which Person-A was granted existence.
yea or nay?
br.d writes, ‘Then it LOGICALLY follows:
Person-A’s decision to choose “no” did not exist within the window of time in which Person-A was granted existence.
yea or nay?”
No. The person had the decision to choose “yes.” This requires that the decision to choose “No,” be present else there was no option to choose “Yes.”
br.d writes, “So here is where we agree to so far:
That Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “yes”
That Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the NON existence of Person-A’s decision to choose “no”
The it LOGICALLY follows that:
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “yes” have existence
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have existence”
Yes.
The it LOGICALLY follows that:
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “yes” have existence
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have existence”
rhutchin
Yes.
br.d
This wouldn’t make sense at all – read the post where I corrected the wording above.
rhutchin
Read Jonathan Edwards’ paper on free will.
br.d
You may want to read Dr. Alvin Plantiga’s “On OckHam’s way out”
I’ll give you a snippet:
-quote:
First, no conjunctive proposition that contains (18) as a conjunct is (now, in 1986) strictly about the past. Thus Paul will mow his lawn in 1999 and Socrates was wise, while indeed a proposition about the past, is not strictly about the past. And second, hard facthood is closed under logical equivalence: any proposition equivalent (in the broadly logical sense) to a proposition strictly about the past is itself strictly about the past.”
But any proposition that entails (18) is equivalent, in the broadly logical sense, to a conjunctive proposition one conjunct of which is (18); hence each such proposition is equivalent to a proposition that is not a hard fact about the past, and is therefore itself not a hard fact about the past.
Thus the Edwardsian argument fails.
-end quote
br.d writes, “Thus the Edwardsian argument fails.”
What argument did Plantinga have in view?
He is engaging with Edwards argument on Theological Determinism and human free will
br.d writes, “He is engaging with Edwards argument on Theological Determinism and human free will”
Assuming Ockham’s argument that presumes hard and soft facts derived from a human perspective of the future. I guess you can get any conclusion you want with the right presumptions. Of course, that has nothing to do with TS00’s comment.
br.d
“He is engaging with Edwards argument on Theological Determinism and human free will”
rhutchin
Assuming…….(fill in anything here)…..I guess you can get any conclusion you want with the right presumptions.
br.d
A Calvinistic perspective! :-]
rhutchin
Of course, that has nothing to do with TS00’s comment.
br.d
No problem – I was responding to your suggestion about reading Edwards – whom you guess can get any conclusion he wants with the right presumptions.
br.d writes, “I was responding to your suggestion about reading Edwards – whom you guess can get any conclusion he wants with the right presumptions.”
The key presumption being that people make choices in line with their wants and desires.
br.d
“I was responding to your suggestion about reading Edwards – whom you guess can get any conclusion he wants with the right presumptions.”
rhutchin
The key presumption being that people make choices in line with their wants and desires.
br.d
That is exactly what the Atheist Natural Determinist attributes also.
In Natural Determinism the DETERMINER of a person’s choices and actions is that person’s wants/desires/inclinations.
It must be interesting for Calvinists to feel at home with Atheist Natural Determinists :-]
br.d writes, “That is exactly what the Atheist Natural Determinist attributes also.”
I guess they must be reading the Bible, also.
br.d
“That is exactly what the Atheist Natural Determinist attributes also.”
rhutchin
I guess they must be reading the Bible, also.
br.d
NAH – Nature is the DETERMINER for them
They don’t acknowledge a THEOS in the role of DETERMINER.
That’s why they are called Atheists
And acknowledging Nature instead of the THEOS in the role of the DETERMINER is something they have in common with Calvinists :-]
br.d writes, “NAH – Nature is the DETERMINER for them”
Yes, as Paul explains in Romans 1, “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, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
br.d
“NAH – Nature is the DETERMINER for them”
rhutchin
Yes, as Paul explains in Romans 1, “even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their
br.d
The answer is standing right there in front of your nose!
The NT authors do not embrace an Augustinian/NeoPlatonist/Gnostic doctrine of Theological Determinism.
Calvin however who does will later interpret Paul’s words to say:
– Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN they know god
– And RENDERED-CERTAIN they would not honor him as god
– And RENDERED-CERTAIN they would be futile in their imaginations.
Either Calvin’s interpretation makes the NT authors double-minded like he is
Or the NT authors are not Theological Determinists.
Since Calvinism can only be communicated with double-speak (as your posts clearly manifest)
And since I believe the Holy Spirit is not double-minded
Then LOGIC tells me the NT authors were not Augustinian/NeoPlatonist/Gnostic Theological Determinists. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Calvin however who does will later interpret Paul’s words to say:
– Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN they know god
– And RENDERED-CERTAIN they would not honor him as god
– And RENDERED-CERTAIN they would be futile in their imaginations.’
Meaning that God knew all this would happen and did not act to change the outcome when He had the power to do so.
br.d
Calvin however who does – will later interpret Paul’s words to say:
– Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN they know god
– And RENDERED-CERTAIN they would not honor him as god
– And RENDERED-CERTAIN they would be futile in their imaginations.’
rhutchin
Meaning that God knew all this would happen and did not act to change the outcome when He had the power to do so.
br,d
If Calvin’s god thinks he can RENDER-CERTAIN the outcome of something and then change it
then he fell slept through Calvinism class. :-]
br.d writes, ‘If Calvin’s god thinks he can RENDER-CERTAIN the outcome of something and then change it
then he fell slept through Calvinism class.”
It is rendered certain by God’s decision not to affect a different outcome.
br.d
‘If Calvin’s god thinks he can RENDER-CERTAIN the outcome of something and then change it
then he fell slept through Calvinism class.”
rhutchin
It is rendered certain by God’s decision not to affect a different outcome.
br.d
Calvin’s god sure has a lot of self inflicted wounds.
If he would stop being rash and exercise a little restraint and make intelligent decisions
Then he wouldn’t put himself in a position where after having RENDERED-CERTAIN an outcome
he would then be faced with a decision about not affecting it.
Even a human knows – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :-]
br.d writes, ‘If he would stop being rash and exercise a little restraint and make intelligent decisions
Then he wouldn’t put himself in a position where after having RENDERED-CERTAIN an outcome
he would then be faced with a decision about not affecting it. ”
Silly br.d! We know that God works all things after the counsel of His will, This means His decisions reflect His perfect wisdom. So, your concerns are misplaced.
br.d
‘If he would stop being rash and exercise a little restraint and make intelligent decisions
Then he wouldn’t put himself in a position where after having RENDERED-CERTAIN an outcome
he would then be faced with a decision about not affecting it.
Even humans know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
rhutchin
Silly br.d! We know that God works all things after the counsel of His will, This means His decisions reflect His perfect wisdom. So, your concerns are misplaced.
br.d
Silly rhutchin! – Some god’s make decisions reflecting human ideas – and can manifest as double-speak. :-]
br.d writes, “Some god’s make decisions reflecting human ideas – and can manifest as double-speak.”
More silliness. We are talking about the God of the Bible. You need to maintain focus.
br.d
“Some god’s make decisions reflecting human ideas – and can manifest as double-speak.”
rhutchin
More silliness. We are talking about the God of the Bible. You need to maintain focus.
br.d
FALSE
Since some god’s are reflections of human ideas – we are not always talking about the God of the Bible.
Especially when one’s rendition manifests double-speak.
You need to maintain a higher level of maturity. :-]
br.d writes, “Since some god’s are reflections of human ideas – we are not always talking about the God of the Bible.”
Yeah, so what is your issue with Calvinism? If you just say, “ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY,” or “DOUBLE-SPEAK,” without providing concrete examples, we will know that you are bluffing.
br.d
Since some god’s are reflections of human ideas – we are not always talking about the God of the Bible.”
rhutchin
Yeah, so what is your issue with Calvinism?
br.d
You haven’t been reading my posts and articles?
rhutchin
If you just say, “ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY,” or “DOUBLE-SPEAK,” without providing concrete examples, we will know that you are bluffing.
br.d
Its better to teach people how to fish than do their fishing for them.
They can take those insights and easily recognize how they apply to Calvinism – Altruistic dishonesty and double-speak.
br.d writes, “Its better to teach people how to fish than do their fishing for them.”
This from the person who just said, “You haven’t been reading my posts and articles? ”
You need only repeat that which you already said. I don’t think you will do this because you have only been making claims for which you cannot find support.
br.d
“Its better to teach people how to fish than do their fishing for them.”
rhutchin
This from the person who just said, “You haven’t been reading my posts and articles? ”
br.d
Exactly!
rhutchin
You need only repeat that which you already said. I don’t think you will do this because you have only been making claims for which you cannot find support.
br.d
Of course that is what you think.
I recognized a long time ago you have a distinct purpose here to promote and defend – not to be open minded.
I’m mature enough to recognize that.
br.d writes, “I recognized a long time ago you have a distinct purpose here to promote and defend – not to be open minded.’
I keep asking for evidence and you keep arguing that you don’t need to provide evidence. Hard to be open-minded about nothing.
br.d
“I recognized a long time ago you have a distinct purpose here to promote and defend – not to be open minded.’
rhutchin
I keep asking for evidence and you keep arguing that you don’t need to provide evidence. Hard to be open-minded about nothing.
br.d
As others have conveyed – you demand evidence – and then immediately say claim none was given.
You can continue chasing your tail on this if you want to.
I’ll stand back and watch.
br.d writes, “As others have conveyed – you demand evidence – and then immediately say claim none was given.
You can continue chasing your tail on this if you want to.
I’ll stand back and watch.”
While refusing to provide evidence.
br.d
Ok – lets look again at where we are
Person-A exists within a specific window of time
Person-A’s decision to choose “yes” was (at the foundation of the world) granted existence.
At no time does Person-A’s decision to choose “no” have any granted existence.
Then it LOGICALLY follows:
Person-A’s decision to choose “no” did not exist within the window of time in which Person-A was granted existence.
yea or nay?”
rhutchin
No. The person had the decision to choose “yes.” This requires that the decision to choose “No,” be present else there was no option to choose “Yes.”
br.d
This isn’t rational – for two reasons.
You agreed that Person-A’s decision to choose “nay” at no time had existence.
You are now required USING LOGIC to prove 2 things.
1) How Person-A’s decision to choose “no” can both exist and NOT exist at the same time.
2) What rule stipulates a person can’t make a decision to choose “yes” with no option to choose “no”.
br.d writes, “This isn’t rational – for two reasons.
You agreed that Person-A’s decision to choose “nay” at no time had existence.”
That is because his decision was to choose, “Yes.” So, there was not a decision to choose, “No.”
What was the second reason?
Then, “You are now required USING LOGIC to prove 2 things.
1) How Person-A’s decision to choose “no” can both exist and NOT exist at the same time.”
The decision exists if that decision is actualized; the decision does not exist if it is not actualized.
Then, “2) What rule stipulates a person can’t make a decision to choose “yes” with no option to choose “no”.”
No rule that I know. If a person is faced with a decision, for example, to eat, he may choose, Yes or No, to a particular beverage. The choice of “Yes” or “No,” seems natural. When you refer to “existence,” you are referring to the actual decision made. I don’t see your issue.
br.d
This isn’t rational – for two reasons.
You agreed that Person-A’s decision to choose “nay” at no time had existence.”
You are now required USING LOGIC to prove 2 things.
1) How Person-A’s decision to choose “no” can both exist and NOT exist at the same time.”
rhutchin
The decision exists if that decision is actualized; the decision does not exist if it is not actualized.
br.d
This statement is circular reasoning – (a tautology) your simply saying the same thing using different words.
Now you are saying
– It never had existence
AND
– It exists if come condition is met.
You still are required to show how a decision to say “no” can exist when Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it NOT ever have existence.
And “2) What rule stipulates a person can’t make a decision to choose “yes” with no option to choose “no”.”
rhutchin
No rule that I know. If a person is faced with a decision, for example, to eat, he may choose, Yes or No, to a particular beverage. The choice of “Yes” or “No,” seems natural. When you refer to “existence,” you are referring to the actual decision made. I don’t see your issue.
This is fallacious reasoning.
There are plenty of times in life people make decisions to do something when the mutually exclusive contrary choice is not available for them to choose. So this argument fails.
On the term existence – it is easily understood here.
We established that Calvin’s god grants existence to [X] and consequentially NO existence to that which is the mutual exclusive contrary of [X]
If Calvin’s god does not grant existence to something (even when that something is a choice) it simply did not and does not exist.
So your still faced with showing these 2 irrational claims:
br.d writes, “Now you are saying
– It never had existence
AND
– It exists if come condition is met.”
“It never had existence” because that decision was not made.
“It exists if come condition is met.” – The condition being that it was the decision that was made.
Then, ‘You still are required to show how a decision to say “no” can exist when Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it NOT ever have existence.”
A decision to say, No,” exists if that is the decision that is made; otherwise, it does not exist. Because God is omniscient, all decisions were rendered certain at Genesis 1, so that all “Yes,” and “No,” decisions were set in concrete. Only those decisions that are then made have existence; all those decisions not made have no existence.
Then, “There are plenty of times in life people make decisions to do something when the mutually exclusive contrary choice is not available for them to choose. So this argument fails.”
You can always have ignorance of available options so that certain decisions are not available. however, in the context of God rendering all decisions certain at Genesis 1, we are dealing with the actual decisions that are made. At least one contrary choice would also have been known but not selected. For example, Adam ate the fruit but the option to not eat the fruit was available to him (as he knew what God had said) even if it was not the most desirable option.
Then, “We established that Calvin’s god grants existence to [X] and consequentially NO existence to that which is the mutual exclusive contrary of [X]”
That just means that God knows the decision that is made and that not made – God knew that Adam would choose to eat the fruit and not chose not to eat the fruit.
br.d writes, “Now you are saying
– It never had existence
AND
– It exists if some condition is met.”
rhutchin
“It never had existence” because that decision was not made.
“It exists if come condition is met.” – The condition being that it was the decision that was made.
br.d
FALSE
If it was a decision that was made – then it was a decision that had to exist in order to be made
Since Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it never had any existence – then it is not available as a decision to be made.
A decision does not require more than one available option from which to decide upon.
Every adult faces these types of decisions.
Then, ‘You still are required to show how a decision to say “no” can exist when Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it NOT ever have existence.”
rhutchin
all decisions were rendered certain at Genesis 1, so that all “Yes,” and “No,” decisions were set in concrete.
br.d
Here you are contradicting what has been established.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be granted existence.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Person-A’s “nay” decision (which is the mutual exclusive contrary) to not have existence. Its just that simple.
rhutchin
Only those decisions that are then made have existence; all those decisions not made have no existence.
br.d
FALSE – this is a contradiction of what has been established.
“There are plenty of times in life people make decisions to do something when the mutually exclusive contrary choice is not available for them to choose. So this argument fails.”
rhutchin
You can always have ignorance of available options so that certain decisions are not available.
however, in the context of God rendering all decisions certain at Genesis 1, we are dealing with the actual decisions that are made.
At least one contrary choice would also have been known but not selected.
br.d
FALSE
The issue of ignorance of options is an irrelevant red herring.
You are still attempting to change what has been established
Here is what we have:
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be granted existence.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Person-A’s “nay” decision (which is the mutual exclusive contrary) to not have existence. Its just that simple.
“We established that Calvin’s god grants existence to [X] and consequentially NO existence to that which is the mutual exclusive contrary of [X]”
rhutchin
That just means that God knows the decision that is made and that not made –
br.d
FALSE
Something the did not or does not exist – is not available because it doesn’t exist.
It never existed because Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be the only decision that would have existence.
There are plenty of single choice decisions in life – while alternatives are simply not available for people to choose.
Its just that simple
Again – a decision requires only one option to be a decision.
So you still have 2 irrational claims you need to solve.
You don’t appear to have rational answers for either.
br.d writes, “If it was a decision that was made – then it was a decision that had to exist in order to be made.”
Yes, the decision was made; therefore it had to exist in order to be made.
Then, “Since Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it never had any existence – then it is not available as a decision to be made.”
By “never had any existence” is meant that the decision was not to be made. That a decision was not made does not negate its availability to be made. Adam had knowledge of God’s decree about the tree; that knowledge establishes availability.
Then, “A decision does not require more than one available option from which to decide upon.
Every adult faces these types of decisions.”
I suspect that every decision can be reduced to Yes or No on one option but probably a series of unique decision points..
Then, “Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be granted existence.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Person-A’s “nay” decision (which is the mutual exclusive contrary) to not have existence. Its just that simple.”
God rendered certain that one decision would be made to the exclusion of its alternative. The decision that was made then is said to exist; the alternative not chosen then does not exist by virtue of being rejected. What’s the contradiction??
Then, ‘this is a contradiction of what has been established.
“There are plenty of times in life people make decisions to do something when the mutually exclusive contrary choice is not available for them to choose. So this argument fails.”
That a decision exists or does not exist is determined by the choice made by the person[ it says nothing about the option not chosen not being available. Adam knew God’s command; it was available by virtue of his knowledge. He did not chose to obey so his obedience did not come into existence. You are conflating the decision a person makes between options with the consideration of the options. The options are available; the decision determines which option will exist in reality.
Then, “Something the did not or does not exist – is not available because it doesn’t exist.”
Give us a real-life example of this. I maintain that Adam had knowledge of God’s command making that option available. Adam’s decision not to choose that option means that it did not come into existence – was not actualized.
Then, “Again – a decision requires only one option to be a decision.”
Prior to eating the fruit, Adam was obedient to God’s command. In choosing to eat the fruit (the option that we care about) was a decision Adam made. What is your point?
Then, “So you still have 2 irrational claims you need to solve.”
What exactly are the two (2) irrational claims?
br.d
“If it was a decision that was made – then it was a decision that had to exist in order to be made.”
rhutchin
Yes, the decision was made; therefore it had to exist in order to be made.
br.d
But that is not what we’ve established here.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be granted existence.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Person-A’s “nay” decision (which is the mutual exclusive contrary) to not have existence. Its just that simple.”
Then, “Since Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it never had any existence – then it is not available as a decision to be made.”
rhutchin
By “never had any existence” is meant that the decision was not to be made. That a decision was not made does not negate its availability to be made.
br.d
No mention of Adam has been the premise of any of this thread.
You already have what has been established – can’t change that now.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be granted existence.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Person-A’s “nay” decision (which is the mutual exclusive contrary) to not have existence. Its just that simple.”
“A decision does not require more than one available option from which to decide upon.
Every adult faces these types of decisions.”
rhutchin
I suspect that every decision can be reduced to Yes or No on one option but probably a series of unique decision points..
br.d
Irrelevant red herring.
The simple fact is – many people are faced with single decisions which don’t have alternatives all the time.
As has been established – Calvin’s god did not grant existence to Person-A’s “nay” decision.
Supposedly Calvin god is sovereign – and is not obligated to bring anything into existence he doesn’t will to bring.
rhutchin
God rendered certain that one decision would be made to the exclusion of its alternative.
br.d
In this case that is FALSE
Here are the conditions:
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be granted existence.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Person-A’s “nay” decision (which is the mutual exclusive contrary) to not have existence. Its just that simple.”
The decision that was made then is said to exist; the alternative not chosen then does not exist by virtue of being rejected. What’s the contradiction??
Then, ‘this is a contradiction of what has been established.
“There are plenty of times in life people make decisions to do something when the mutually exclusive contrary choice is not available for them to choose. So this argument fails.”
rhutchin
That a decision exists or does not exist is determined by the choice made by the person
br.d
FALSE
People are not gods – they don’t have the power to bring things into existence – or to choose what will exist and what will not exist.
Only Calvin’s god has that power.
Something the did not or does not exist – is not available because it doesn’t exist.”
rhutchin
Give us a real-life example of this. I maintain that Adam….
br.d
Adam was never a part of this discussion – only Person-A
You don’t need a real example
You need to prove how something can exist and NOT exist at the same time.
“Again – a decision requires only one option to be a decision.”
rhutchin
Prior to eating the fruit, Adam was obedient to God’s command. In choosing to eat the fruit (the option that we care about) was a decision Adam made. What is your point?
br.d
Adam in not in this discussion – only Person-A
There is no Adam here.
So you still have 2 irrational claims you need to solve.”
But at this point you are going in circular reasoning.
So I think you’ve had your three strikes.
br.d writes, “Then, “Since Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it never had any existence – then it is not available as a decision to be made.””
This is the claim you must prove. An event that never exists is one that never actualizes. It can still be available. Adam knew God’s command not to eat. He certainly considered this command in deciding to eat. Thus, the command was available to him to consider. Thus, you must tie the non-existence of an event to the non-availability of the event to exist. You have not done this.
Then, “Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN that Person-A’s “yea” decision would be granted existence.
Calvin’s god (at the foundation of the world) RENDERED-CERTAIN Person-A’s “nay” decision (which is the mutual exclusive contrary) to not have existence. Its just that simple.””
This says nothing about availability. You arbitrarily decided that non-existence equals non-availability. You still need to tie the two together.
Then, ‘You need to prove how something can exist and NOT exist at the same time.”
I am not making that claim. I am saying that those event that will not exists were available prior to the decision that caused them to not exist. Adam’s knowledge of God’s command demonstrates this. You don’t seem to want to use examples that don’t support your claims.
br.d
“Then, “Since Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it never had any existence – then it is not available as a decision to be made.””
rhutchin
This is the claim you must prove.
br.d
Its a basic assertion of Calvinism
Your latest assertion is -quote “That a decision exists or does not exist is determined by the choice made by the person”
This assertion requires that the person is the determiner/arbiter of whether or not something will exist for them (namely a decision).
This assertion raises the person to a level of sovereignty and divine power – where the person has the power to grant existence to things.
If your assertion were stated by an Arminian – you would call it “man-centered” theology.
In Calvinism only Calvin’s god has the power to be the determiner/arbiter of whether something will have existence
So now you have a 3rd irrational thing to show.
How man has the power to bring things into existence.
Add to that the fact that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it will never have existence and you have a whopper.
rhutchin
An event that never exists is one that never actualizes. It CAN still be available.
br,d
What you cannot show – is how something can have “actualization” when that something did not and will not ever exist
And apparently you cannot show how man has the power to determine what things will have existence – especially when Calvinism stipulates that only Calvin’s god has that power.
rhutchin
You arbitrarily decided that non-existence equals non-availability. You still need to tie the two together.
br,d
This is a lost cause – if one actually thinks something that doesn’t exist can be available to a person.
Bottom line – in Calvinism Calvin’s god determines what will have existence and what will not have existence.
Man lives with whatever Calvin’s god makes exist – and that things existence is what determines whether or not its available.
br.d writes, “Its a basic assertion of Calvinism
Your latest assertion is -quote “That a decision exists or does not exist is determined by the choice made by the person”
This assertion requires that the person is the determiner/arbiter of whether or not something will exist for them (namely a decision).”
A determiner subordinate to God – thus not sovereign.
Then, “In Calvinism only Calvin’s god has the power to be the determiner/arbiter of whether something will have existence”
Meaning that God’s will is always done. However, God can use means to accomplish His will. For example, Adam voluntarily eats the fruit as determined by God.
Then, ‘How man has the power to bring things into existence.
Add to that the fact that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it will never have existence and you have a whopper.”
Given that man is subordinate to God, what is irrational about this?
Then, “What you cannot show – is how something can have “actualization” when that something did not and will not ever exist”
No, I need only show that it is available. This is shown in Adam who had knowledge of God’s command making that command available to him even though he chose not to obey.
Then, “This is a lost cause – if one actually thinks something that doesn’t exist can be available to a person.”
Not a lost cause as shown in the example of Adam’s knowledge of God’s command. Perhaps you will address this example.
br.d
“Its a basic assertion of Calvinism
Your latest assertion is -quote “That a decision exists or does not exist is determined by the choice made by the person”
This assertion requires that the person is the determiner/arbiter of whether or not something will exist for them (namely a decision).”
rhutchin
A determiner subordinate to God – thus not sovereign.
br,d
Obliviously sovereign enough to bring things into existence that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN never have existence.
Yea right! :-]
“In Calvinism only Calvin’s god has the power to be the determiner/arbiter of whether something will have existence”
rhutchin
Meaning that God’s will is always done. ..,,etc
br.d
You’ve asked for examples about how Calvinism needs things to be both true and false at the same time – exist and not exist at the same time. You always provide the best examples.
How man has the power to bring things into existence.
Add to that the fact that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN it will never have existence and you have a whopper.”
rhutchin
Given that man is subordinate to God, what is irrational about this?
br.d
Another good example of how in Calvinism TRUE=FALSE and NOT EXIST = EXIST
br.d
This is a lost cause – if one actually thinks something that doesn’t exist can be available to a person.”
rhutchin
Not a lost cause as shown in the example of Adam’s knowledge of God’s command. Perhaps you will address this example.
br,d
Perhaps you can show how a person (simply by having some kind of knowledge of Calvin’s god’s command)
(can for example – bring an animal into existence) which Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN will never have existence
Good luck with that one!
But you are just swimming in MAKE-BELIEVE at this point. :-]
rhutchin: Given that man is subordinate to God, what is irrational about this?
br.d: Another good example of how in Calvinism TRUE=FALSE and NOT EXIST = EXIST
Continuing inability to explain anything.
br.d
Another good example of how in Calvinism TRUE=FALSE and NOT EXIST = EXIST
rhutchin
Continuing inability to explain anything.
br.d
Yeah right! Man making something exist that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN would never have existence.
And we’re now back to the old “you can’t explain it” routine.
I’ll leave you and Harry Potter in your land of MAKE-BELIEVE now. :-]
br.d writes, ‘Yeah right! Man making something exist that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN would never have existence.
And we’re now back to the old “you can’t explain it” routine.”
Continuing refusal to explain anything.
br.d
‘Yeah right! Man making something exist that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN would never have existence.
And we’re now back to the old “you can’t explain it” routine.”
I’ll leave you and Harry Potter in your land of MAKE-BELIEVE now. :-]
rhutchin
Continuing refusal to explain anything.
br.d
I’ll leave you to MAKE-BELIEVE things which will never exist are available to you ( as you insist).
All of those square-circles and married-bachelors are totally available to you.
I’ll leave you to MAKE-BELIEVE man can make something exist – which Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN will never have existence – simply because man can -quote “know Calvin’s god’s commands”.(as you insist)
All too funny!
However – there is a very nice silver lining to this whole thread:
A reliance on the irrational – and MAKING-BELIEVE the irrational is NOT irrational
And then asserting that irrationality can’t explained – and one has over played his hand and revealed his cards.
So now everyone can see rhutchin’s “no one can explain or demonstrate it” gig for what it is.
So as I said:
I’ll leave you and Harry Potter in your land of MAKE-BELIEVE now.
You can explain it to yourself. :-]
Do you mean how your patient, point by point look at the logic behind the claims (or lack thereof) for weeks now, can somehow be called ‘not explaining’ it? As painful as it sometimes was (sorry!) you demonstrated the futility of trying to help someone see what they do not wish to see.
I used to do that with close friends, as I hoped to help them see what I had come to understand. You can take them point by point, get them to acknowledge the logic, and yet, in the end, they still cling to that which is now provably indefensible. ‘God is above man’s logic’ or any old excuse seems to work for them, because they really do not desire truth so much as they desire to defend their current beliefs.
I like to say I have no more corner on the truth than anyone else, but I am willing to admit it. I am willing to reconsider things I once was so certain of and listen to what people who view it differently have to say. Because I really want to understand what leads to a God-pleasing existence, not prove how ‘right’ I am. I view the process as giving up the idols I once worshipped, as many of our treasured ‘beliefs’ provide the justification for living the way we want to live.
For me, after the initial high of great promises, Reformed Theology effectively destroyed any real desire to become more like Christ, any niggling thought of taking seriously Jesus’ command to ‘take up your cross and follow me.’ In its place I found the pursuit of sound doctrine, superficial piety and arrogant humility – Pharisaism. I prefer to put my trust in the God of the non-elect tax collector, crying ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ No need to wonder if that mercy is for even me . . . it is.
Well said TS00,
I tried to ‘like” it but the website is bugging for me.
Thanks, the ‘Like’ feature is not working for me any longer either. I figured my settings were just messed up.
I hope you can figure out the bug. Seems like every update messes up my settings, and I’m no techie. Our tech providers seem more intent on tracking everything we say and do rather than making our experience more seamless. ;(
Totally wonderful post TS00!
I especially liked:
“Reformed Theology effectively destroyed any real desire to become more like Christ”
I have come to see (with all things averaged out) Reformed Theology does that and also effectively creates the very opposite.
It takes that which is unethical and irrational – and presents it as Christianity – by hiding it behind a cosmetic mask.
Wonderful post!!
Many on the Watchblogs have noticed that Reformed Theology all too often leads to abusive, potty-mouths like Wilson, Driscoll and MacDonald, who build empires based on a cult of personality and lead naive followers away from a truly humble walk with God. They wound and manipulate – and enrich themselves – as they push hierarchy and power over humble, sacrificial love. But they always hold up Piper as their token ‘nice guy’.
TS00, to Br.d, writes, “Do you mean how your patient, point by point look at the logic behind the claims (or lack thereof) for weeks now, can somehow be called ‘not explaining’ it?”
Not explaining in the sense of tying it all back to Calvinism to identify what Calvinism is actually saying that fits the argument being made.
br.d writes, “I’ll leave you to MAKE-BELIEVE things which will never exist are available to you ( as you insist).
All of those square-circles and married-bachelors are totally available to you….A reliance on the irrational – and MAKING-BELIEVE the irrational is NOT irrational And then asserting that irrationality can’t explained – and one has over played his hand and revealed his cards.”
Lot of huffing and puffing but still refusing to explain anything.
rhutchin
Lot of huffing and puffing but still refusing to explain anything.
br.d
I leave the huffing and puffing and Harry Potter make-believe bluffing to the Calvinists
I do rational reasoning. :-]
br.d writes, “I leave the huffing and puffing and Harry Potter make-believe bluffing to the Calvinists
I do rational reasoning.”
Still nothing.
br.d wrote this as a question:
He [Calvin’s god] gets to RENDER-CERTAIN everything that comes to pass
And they [creatures] get to be/do whatever he RENDERS-CERTAIN they be/do.
I should think you’d be happy with that – since it doesn’t compromise Calvin’s god’s sovereignty.
Isn’t Calvin’s god manifesting his sovereignty. that all that’s important to Calvinists?
Otherwise – one would have a “man-centered” theology – right?
————————————————————————————————————————————
br.d
It appears that Calvinist exculpatory arguments show themselves to be the exact same arguments the Non-Calvinist makes in enunciating why he rejects Calvinism.
So the Calvinist appears to have two modes:
1) Finger Pointing mode – boasting to be the defenders of unilateral unlimited sovereignty
2) Defense mode against author of evil entailments
When in finger-pointing mode – the accusation of a “man-centered theology” against the Non-Calvinist
When in defense mode – a reliance is upon “man-centered” attributions – he just a few minutes ago pointed the finger at.
Kinda looks like a double-minded man doesn’t it. :-]
WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY IN CALVINISM
Dr. Bela Depaulo – Social Psychologist
-quote
“Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a “target”. A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a “target”.
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties. Protecting the “target” allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the “target”, a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
WHAT IS CALVINIST DOUBLE-SPEAK
Dr. William Lutz – American linguist
–quote:
Double-speak is language designed to evade, to make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the unattractive appear attractive. Basically, it’s language that pretends to communicate certain things but really doesn’t. It’s language designed to mislead, while pretending not to.
Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through every day language that is not designed to mislead. Doublespeak takes advantage of the fact that normal every day language use is fundamentally cooperative.
Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite: to appear like honest communication while actually hiding incriminating facts. Double-speak is designed to appear to present an objective labeling of an event or topic, by presenting masquerades the recipient will find acceptable, while camouflaging the unacceptable behind cosmetic words.
br.d writes, “WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY IN CALVINISM…WHAT IS CALVINIST DOUBLE-SPEAK”
Bold claims but without support offered. So, either these gentlemen have no support for their claims, or br.d was embarrassed to provide that support.
Dr. Bella Depaulo is a woman. But Dr. William Lutz is a man.
The insights they provide are wonderfully sufficient and wonderfully illuminating.
All one need is an open mind and a familiarity with – and a discipline in scrutinizing these characteristics within Calvinist language.
Once one is familiar with the dark issues Calvinists are faced with – altruistic dishonesty and double-speak make perfect sense
br.d writes, “Once one is familiar with the dark issues Calvinists are faced with – altruistic dishonesty and double-speak make perfect sense”
Except that no one seems able to identify those “dark issues.”
A CALVINIST IS NOT WHAT HE THINKS – HE IS WHAT HE HIDES
1) Calvin’s god DECIDES man will choose disobedience
2) Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man’s choices do disobey
3) Man is powerless to alter what Calvin’s god’s DECIDES.
4) Man is powerless to be/do otherwise – than what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man be/do
These are TRUTH STATEMENTS the Calvinist can’t declare FALSE – without committing an observable lie.
And he doesn’t want to be caught committing an observable lie – for obvious reasons.
But he has also pledged allegiance to do everything in his power to hide any TRUTHS, which highlight dark issues and weaknesses of that to which he is utterly invested. That, which he has pledged to promote and defend.
So what is he to do?
He relies first and foremost on semantic trickeries.
Sophistry – ingenious inventions – strategic evasions – crafty deflections – 1000 red herrings – and a magicians hat – out of which he pulls an endless supply of amorphic and/or equivocal terms.
By these tools he creates inventions – which he strategically calls “explanations”.
All of which under sufficient scrutiny, eventually reveal themselves as intrinsically irrational.
He knows the act of demonstrating the irrationality of something which is irrational to an irrational person – is an act of futility.
So he uses this as a bulwark. And it becomes the mote which protects the castle.
From this fortification he can then claim Calvinism provides the best explanations.
But his strategy comes with its own curse:
Firstly: It uses scripture as a source of proof-texts to affirm that which is irrational – which is a tortured use of scripture.
Secondly: It uses language to promote and defend the unethical and irrational – evolving into a dishonest use of language.
Thirdly: It conceives of a divine creator – who creates things specifically designed to represent disdain for himself.
All of this makes for one significant reality – recognized as Calvinism’s shadow – and a shadow he cannot run from.
That Calvinism will forever be scrutinized.
With the primary concern that it embraces an alliance with both the irrational and the unethical.
And it conceives of a deity that does the same.
So very true, and thank your for taking the time to demonstrate it. Many want to ignore Calvinism’s shadow, to hold up the truth claims that sound so humble and godly, and ignore the horrible underbelly of Calvin’s ‘dreadful decree’.
To all who come to these pages, daring to hope that there is a better picture of God than what Calvinism offers, I assure you, with great joy and hope, that there is. The God of the oft-maligned simple sinner is exactly as undistorted scripture portrays him: full of love, mercy and grace to any who will (and all can) believe in what he offers in exchange for turning from wickedness and following him. Never allow the enemy of your soul to deceive you that this offer is not for you. The good news is, well and truly, for all men. Come, all who are weary and heavy laden, and he will give you rest.
Well said again. My comments are few these day since the site drops my name off every time….never saving my info
fromoverhere
My comments are few these day since the site drops my name off every time….never saving my info
br.d
Thanks for stating this FOH!
Can you describe what you’re seeing with the site?
br.d writes, “1) Calvin’s god DECIDES man will choose disobedience
2) Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man’s choices do disobey
3) Man is powerless to alter what Calvin’s god’s DECIDES.
4) Man is powerless to be/do otherwise – than what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man be/do
These are TRUTH STATEMENTS the Calvinist can’t declare FALSE – without committing an observable lie.”
Actually, half-truth statements, so let’s add context.
1) Calvin’s god DECIDES man will choose disobedience because He has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so.
2) Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man’s choices do disobey because He has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so.
3) Man is powerless to alter what Calvin’s god’s DECIDES because he is enslaved to sin and God has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so..
4) Man is powerless to be/do otherwise – than what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man be/do because he is enslaved to sin and God has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so..
rhutchin
Actually, half-truth statements, so let’s add context.
1) Calvin’s god DECIDES man will choose disobedience *BECAUSE* He has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so.
br.d
And in the first place DECIDE man’s condition as otherwise – but he didn’t now did he. :-]
rhutchin
2) Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man’s choices do disobey because He has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so.
br.d
And in the first place RENDER-CERTAIN man’s condition as otherwise – but he didn’t now did he. :-]
rhutchin
3) Man is powerless to alter what Calvin’s god’s DECIDES because he is enslaved to sin and God has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so.
br.d
And in the first place DECIDE man’s condition as otherwise – but he didn’t now did he. :-]
rhutchin
4) Man is powerless to be/do otherwise – than what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN man be/do because he is enslaved to sin and God has power to remove man’s slavery to sin and chooses not to do so..
br.d
And in the first place RENDER-CERTAIN man’s condition as otherwise – but he didn’t now did he. :-]
Thank you rhutchin! I knew you would be faithful to exemplify the point in my article!
-quote
These are TRUTH STATEMENTS the Calvinist can’t declare FALSE – without committing an observable lie.
And he doesn’t want to be caught committing an observable lie – for obvious reasons.
So what is he to do?
He relies upon semantic tricks.
This is a perfect lead-in to the article “WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY IN CALVINISM”
See here:
https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/21/why-divine-permission-establishes-free-will/#comment-34483
br.d writes, ‘And in the first place DECIDE man’s condition as otherwise – but he didn’t now did he.”
All tied to Adam’s sin and the punishment dentified with his sin.
br.d
And in the first place DECIDE man’s condition as otherwise – but he didn’t now did he.”
rhutchin
All tied to Adam’s sin and the punishment identified with his sin.
br.d
And in the first place DECIDE something otherwise for Adam – but he didn’t now did he. :-]
br.d writes, “And in the first place DECIDE something otherwise for Adam – but he didn’t now did he.”
God let Adam do what he wanted and did not stop him when He could have done so.
br.d
And in the first place DECIDE man’s condition as otherwise – but he didn’t now did he.”
rhutchin
All tied to Adam’s sin and the punishment dentified with his sin.
br.d
And in the first place DECIDE something otherwise for Adam – but he didn’t now did he.
Actually – I think you’ve chased your tail right back to (1)
1) Calvin’s god DECIDES man will choose disobedience
Ok – this is your cue to go into your tail chasing mode now
I get such a kick out of watching!! :-]
Observe how Calvinistic Determinism Undermines Christian Apologetics – On Youtube – by Dr. Flowers
I Just watched Dr. Flowers totally dissect and dismantle a number of James White’s fallacious strategies!
Way to go Dr. Flowers!!! :-]
See: youtube.com/watch?v=-4LtJeVa7Dg
Daily reading gets me to Mark 9.
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands. 45 If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one foot than to be thrown into hell with two feet. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It’s better to enter the Kingdom of God with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where the maggots never die and the fire never goes out.’
——
Anyone reading this text with an unbiased eye would think that man plays at a least a small part. I mean if gouging out your eye makes the difference between heaven and hell, it hardly sounds like (a) that decisions has been made before time began and (b) you have nothing to do with it.
FOH writes, “I mean if gouging out your eye makes the difference between heaven and hell,…”
Even Jesus knew that cutting off one’s arm or gouging out an eye still left many other parts of the body with which one would sin. That is why Paul instructed, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” I think that Jesus was making a point that escapes you.
This just in…..
In regard to the Luke 9 passage, Piper says it is all about how bad hell is. He never addresses the person’s responsibility.
MacArthur (“Calvinist” MacArthur) says this:
“And what our Lord is saying is that salvation and the Kingdom of God, mentioned in verse 47, which you want to enter, or life as it’s referred to in verse 43 and 44 which means eternal life, spiritual life, salvation on the positive side and escape from hell on the negative side is so important that you need to get rid of anything that is a barrier to that.”
—–
Don’t lose sight of that. YOU need to get rid of what is a barrier to eternal life.
Does that sound like monergism and determinism before time began? Nah….
Theologize like a Calvinist (it’s all the rage!) but preach like man needs to remove barriers to eternal life…. preaches Arminian MacArthur.
Calvinists say “Monergism for salvation and synergism for sanctification.”
Except when they dont.
Honest question, which you may not be able to answer openly: Do you think these guys are deceivers, or living a compartmentalized existence, walling off what they know and teach about Reformed Theology from what they actually live and believe. Are there any other alternatives?
I think I have been clear that these are honest guys who literally do not hear themselves.
Piper’s associate, Jon Bloom’s book sealed the deal for me (I have mentioned that on several post). It has 35 chapters of Bible stories requiring personal faith and then over and over he challenges the reader to have that faith.
They KNOW they are wedged comfortably in the nest of the all-the-rage YRR, and that no one will attack their bone fides. They are “card-carrying Calvinists.”
Then they just read the Bible and write whole books about man’s responsibility.
Logically some of these things (at least SOME of what they say) should discount Calvinism, pure and simple.
But when it does (and it does) they just say “compatibalism”. They say “They are both true! (wink wink) ….but Calvinism is truer!”
FOH writes, “Then [Calvinists] just read the Bible and write whole books about man’s responsibility.”
No. They accept Paul’s account in Romans 7 and understand that the Christian life is a war against the fleah.
rhutchin
No. They accept Paul’s account in Romans 7 and understand that the Christian life is a war against the fleah.
br.d
War against what Calvin’s god renders-certain the flesh be and do – in every part.
Not hard to figure out who is going to win that war!
Thank you rhutchin for a good example of how Calvinism turns scripture into double-speak
No sense in me providing double-speak examples a Calvinist will simply refuse to acknowledge.
When he provides perfect examples all by himself! :-]
If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass irresistibly, where are the grounds for any kind of ‘war’? It is simply impossible. It is only made possible in the minds of Calvinists by playing the game of ‘God ordains and man chooses what God ordained’.
TS00
If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass irresistibly, where are the grounds for any kind of ‘war’?
br.d
At the foundation of the world – everything is choreographed by Calvin’s god the divine all determining puppet master –
In the case of the Calvinist – the divine all determining puppet master can input thoughts into his brain
Giving him the illusion (as Calvin says) that nothing is determined in any part.by the divine all determining puppet master
So the Calvinist puppet can have the illusion of autonomy :-]
TS00 writes, “If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass irresistibly, where are the grounds for any kind of ‘war’? It is simply impossible…”
We read, “God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” In addition, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” God made man a self-determining being but subordinate to God’s will. So, we later 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.” It is from the evil intents of man’s heart that war arises. As a self-determining being Adam could choose to eat the fruit, Cain was able to kill his brother and Joseph’s brothers were able to sell Joseph into slavery. In such cases, God did not restrain His self-determining beings from engaging in the evil desires of their hearts. Thus, we have wars,
Even if you can somehow buy into ‘God ordains and man chooses what God ordained’, there is still no grounds for war, as man will ‘somehow’ always manage to choose what God ordained. No war necessary – it was all predestined long ago.
Yup – in Calvinism it follows the model of a boy playing with toy soldiers.
TS00 writes, “man will ‘somehow’ always manage to choose what God ordained.”
And God can ordain that people choose according to the evil intents of their hearts.
rhutchin
And God can ordain that people choose according to the evil intents of their hearts.
br.d
As the cart can pull the horse – and as the second domino can cause the first domino to fall! :-]
rhutchin writes:
“TS00 writes, “man will ‘somehow’ always manage to choose what God ordained.”
And God can ordain that people choose according to the evil intents of their hearts.”
I can think of nothing more sick and false than to make God the cause of man choosing evil. It is totally reprehensible and contrary to all that God has revealed about himself. This is why I have not one iota of room for Calvinism.
man will SOMEHOW always MANAGE to choose what God ordained
Isn’t that is a wonderful example of Calvinist double-speak!
Like a creature can SOMEHOW choose otherwise than what a THEOS renders-certain he choose.
I find it hilarious how an adult with a brain can spew out that kind of double-speak and have absolutely no discernment!
What a hoot!! :-]
br.d writes, “man will SOMEHOW always MANAGE to choose what God ordained
Isn’t that is a wonderful example of Calvinist double-speak!”
No. It just means that God is omniscient and knows the future perfectly forcing Brian to argue otherwise.
br.d writes, “man will SOMEHOW always MANAGE to choose what God ordained
Isn’t that is a wonderful example of Calvinist double-speak!”
*AS-IF* in Calvinism man can be/do SOMEHOW do otherwise than what Calvin’s god renders-certain man be/do
rhutchin
No. It just means that God is omniscient and knows the future perfectly forcing Brian to argue otherwise.
br.d
No one here is fooled by red-herring appeals to Omniscience
AS-IF Calvin’s god doesn’t know the future by virtue of having rendered it certain.
Your wasting your time with that double-talk trick.
FOH writes, “In regard to the Luke 9 passage,…”
I think you meant Mark 9.
Jesus is speaking of believers – at least He is teaching His disciples here, “And sitting down, He called the twelve and *said to them,… (v35)” One might certainly preach this to unbelievers causing them to laugh and turn away.
It just gets better ‘n better! MacArthur goes on to say..
Now please notice. You say, “Well, we’re talking about discipleship here.” Right. But please notice that not to do this doesn’t end up in you being a carnal Christian, some kind of second-class believer. Not to do this ends up with you being in hell. Okay? In hell, and that’s why hell is mentioned in verse 43 and verse 45, and verse 47 because hell is at stake here. The references to hell as the disastrous alternative indicate that these statements are calls to an initial, genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ that accompanies salvation. We’re talking about deliverance from eternal hell. Do this or go to hell.”
fromoverhere writes (quoting MacArthur):
“We’re talking about deliverance from eternal hell. Do this or go to hell.”
So, this is one of the things that really disturbed me after I had begun my second study of Calvinism. (I was too ignorant to get as much as I might have the first time.) How can a Calvinist EVER warn people about going to hell? It is simply preposterous. If they are going to hell, it is because God decided they would and there is not a, er, darn thing they can do about it. How is one to deliver himself from an eternal decree of the sovereign God?
To make matters worse, they would then proceed to sadly speak of how they mourned over those who were on their way to hell – usually with a little blurb for giving more money or bringing people to church. C’mon, how stupid do they think we are? All their talk of God’s glory, and how they champion his right and goodness to determine who to save and who to ‘pass over’, and now they want to claim sorrow for the ones God determined in eternity past would burn – with no hope of escaping their predetermined fate?
Once the spell was broken, I heard all of these inconsistencies, and was deeply troubled pondering whether or not my pastor – whom I had long loved and served alongside – was a liar and a deceiver. I knew he was too informed to not understand the doctrine, so the only other option to me seemed that he was being deceptive. After years of studying all of this, I now am more willing to grant that many factors contribute to people compartmentalizing their beliefs and never letting one meet the other.
TS00
Once the spell was broken….all of these inconsistencies
After years of studying all of this, I now am more willing to grant that many factors contribute to people compartmentalizing their beliefs and never letting one meet the other.
br.d
These were significant nuggets for me!
Calvinism is more than simply a theology – its a complete system of contradictory thinking.
Where a man’s treasure is – there will his heart be also.
There must be some powerful spell that can draw a person into a mental state where a foot-ball field of contradictions can stare him in the face – and his mind figures out a way to make-believe they don’t exist.
br.d writes:
“There must be some powerful spell that can draw a person into a mental state where a foot-ball field of contradictions can stare him in the face – and his mind figures out a way to make-believe they don’t exist.”
I think you are spot on – the spell is the doing of the masterful deceiver, one who is so much more clever, subtle and ill-intended than men are. As in every single thing God endowed the human with to give him sustenance, life and joy, Satan has very cleverly learned how to use all of our needs against us. There is nothing wrong with desiring fellowship and community – but it is twisted into a tool that leads to groupthink. There is nothing wrong with loving, and desiring to be loved – but it is corrupted into manipulation and narcissism.
I suspect there are many tools Satan uses to shape our minds and behavior, and sadly, wicked men have studied such things for many, many decades, purporting to seek the ‘betterment’ of the human race and bring peace and prosperity to all. Instead they seek power and control, and use it to enrich themselves and service their every sensual desire.
And the preacher boys, even if unwittingly, play right into his hand, teaching that sin is about too much alcohol, or swearing or not paying your tithe. In the meantime, they blithely overlook the suffering and oppression that so many face due to our centuries of embracing war and the Military Industrial Complex. We wouldn’t want to teach a social gospel, now would we? Well, personally, I see a lot more of the true gospel in the social gospel than the typical fundamentalist, legalist gospel. But that may just be me.
Great post!
I’ve said this for years about Calvinism….
Every demon in hell knows that he has to trick and seduce humans in order to gain ground in their lives.
And every successful deliverance ministry knows that a contract made with the enemy has to be recognized and repented of and volitionally broken by the human.
If the enemy can seduce the church with a doctrine that nullifies that critical aspect of the human will – then what you end up with is a church that has been spiritually neutered so that it can’t war against principalities and powers.
I highly suspect that is the very reason the doctrine crept into the church in the first place
The hits just keep coming…..
MacArthur tell for 82 mins the story of the “Seeking Father” (the rest of us know it as the Prodigal son) (find it on youtube) … and despite him saying that it was not the son “coming to his senses” in a “faraway land” …. because Romans 3:10 tells us no one can seek”…. he says about the Mark 9:43 passage…..
“That’s what he’s saying, language that sounds a lot like Jeremiah. Jeremiah 4:14, “Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts lodge within you?” How long are you going to go along and not deal with the wickedness that’s in you? Be saved. This is a call to salvation. Choose holiness or hell. Choose the eternal Kingdom of salvation, or the eternal punishment of hell. Because, you see, no real salvation comes unless there is a heart that SEEKS after righteousness. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for…what?…for righteousness,” the beatitude.”
——–
Oh well…. it’s like I say “You can’t be a Calvinist all the time. Not if you read the Bible.”
I am humored when I see people compartmentalize every passage of the Bible. Example: Any words spoken to the disciples (including Judas) “were for believers.”
That is obviously NOT how MacArthur sees the Mark 9 passage. My point (clouded by the ‘ol “that’s to believers” ruse) is simply that MacArthur (pretending to be a Calvinist) teaches clearly that the passage is to everyone…. and everyone must (and can) SEEK God…. and that ….
“This is a call to salvation. Choose holiness or hell. Choose the eternal Kingdom of salvation, or the eternal punishment of hell.”
No amount of shiny-object deflection from others can change his clear Arminian teaching.
fromoverhere writes:
“I am humored when I see people compartmentalize every passage of the Bible.”
In my opinion, that is the error of systematic theology. We can only guess how intentionally. The bible was never meant to be cut up into little slivers of factoids, and catechized (brainwashed) into not yet mature children. That is an extremely abusive, manipulative strategy.
When read as a whole, stories, psalms, letters, etc., it is far more likely that one might get closer to the actual intention of the authors. This is God’s revelation to the men he has created; it is like a series of letters a lover would write to reveal who he really is to his intended. To chop out a sentence here and a sentence there would undermine the whole attempt, and leave one with confusing, out of context words.
And no lover would read such letters so. Instead she would pore over them, again and again, searching for every clue as to his nature, his heart and his intentions. She would add each clue to the last, and seek to understand those things that didn’t make sense. But the institutional church has done its best to create a religion of creeds, doctrine and rules and bind all men to them, willingly or not. Calvinism and Catholicism – a mere hair span apart – are the worst at this. They have always sought to recreate the authoritarian, hierarchical, ceremonial religion that Jesus offered an alternative to.
Who said they are a mere hair span apart?
https://chnetwork.org/converts/
This site tells all the stories of good reformed (and other believers) that finally realize they should “Come Home” to the RCC.
Mary-worshiping Augustine is the hero of both!
FOH
No amount of shiny-object deflection from others can change his clear Arminian teaching.
br.d
Calvinism’s double-mindedness is a byproduct of trying to believe in determinism.
In one of the videos Dr. Flowers posted here of Dr. Ravi Zacharias – he relates a story of a presentation given by Stephen Hawking, which he attended.
Hawking a staunch determinist was asked what he concluded and how he resolved believing in determinism. He decided after looking at the mater for many years that he still believed.
But he then proceeded to shock his audience by stating that he had resolved his need to live AS-IF determinism were false.
This is exactly the double-think ditch Calvinists spend all of their time walking around in.
That’s why their always goes in circles.
FOH writes, “I am humored when I see people compartmentalize every passage of the Bible. Example: Any words spoken to the disciples (including Judas) “were for believers.””
That is the immediate context, is it not. One can, like MacArthur, extend this to all people. However, the burden to seek God does not carry with it the ability to seek God – at least, not until God grants that ability which we know He does for His elect.
rhutchin
the burden to seek God does not carry with it the ability to seek God – at least, not until God grants that ability which we know He does for His elect
br.d
At least not unless Calvin’s god PERMITS and thus MAKES AVAILABLE.
And no Calvinist can discern an elect Calvinist from a non-elect Calvinist.
Each one assumes he is
Each one must wait to find out what was PERMITTED and MADE AVAILABLE – good or evil.
rhutchin writes:
“However, the burden to seek God does not carry with it the ability to seek God – at least, not until God grants that ability which we know He does for His elect.”
Again, it is more than sick to assert that God requires and calls men to do that which he has deliberately rendered them unable to do. Such a thing is the very essence of a cruel and evil heart – how dare you accuse God of it?
TS00 writes, “Again, it is more than sick to assert that God requires and calls men to do that which he has deliberately rendered them unable to do. Such a thing is the very essence of a cruel and evil heart – how dare you accuse God of it?”
Yet, we read in John 6, that “No one can come to Christ except God grant and then draw him. Even Dr. Flowers has to change the singular, “him,” to the plural, “them,” (an eisegetical move) to argue against this. Even Brian has to add new text to argue that only those who believe after being drawn are raised by Jesus. FOH also rails against John 6 only because he cannot argue against it – but he sides with Brian.
TS00 writes, “Again, it is more than sick to assert that God requires and calls men to do that which he has deliberately rendered them unable to do. Such a thing is the very essence of a cruel and evil heart – how dare you accuse God of it?”
rhutchin
Yet, we read in John 6, that “No one can come to Christ except God grant and then draw him.
br.d
Don’t make the mistake of conflating Calvinism with scripture – and you won’t have is sick interpretation.
Minding my own business just reading through the Bible and I come to Leviticus 26. We see this kind of construction all over the Bible.
3 “If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, 4 I will send you the seasonal rains. The land will then yield its crops, and the trees of the field will produce their fruit.
6. “I will…”
9. “I will…”
11. “I will…”
12. “I will…”
14 “However, if you do not listen to me or obey all these commands,15 and if you break my covenant by rejecting my decrees, treating my regulations with contempt, and refusing to obey my commands, 16 I will punish you.
17 I will turn against you…
18 I will punish you
19 I will break your proud spirit …
————-
It is no mystery why the majority of the church moved away from the deterministic teaching of the main reformers (Calvin Luther, etc) ….continuing to reform. The church continued to reform and spin off movements: Anglican, Methodists, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Baptist(s), Church of Christ, Congregationalist, “Free Churches,” Brethren (many pre-dated the Reformers!), Anabaptists (pre-date Reformers!), Pentecostals, etc.
For the most part these groups seem to agree that God was serious when He said “If you do this…. I will bless….but if you do this…. I will not.”
If we are to take these hundreds and hundreds passages seriously and logically, we “necessarily” see their obedience as an option. And indeed sometimes they do obey and other times they don’t. Such is life.
Whether God knows what they will do (and de facto in “knowing it” He seals reality) is a discussion to be had with the Open Theology people (who tend to follow the idea of continual reform).
But God determining what they will do is completely outside the realm of normal exegesis. There are hundreds and hundreds of passages like this in many different kinds of construction (some of these where He makes it appear that He does not even know what they will do).
A person demonstrates his willingness to FORCE the Scriptures to take his position when he insists that God has determined / known everything…. and yet “misleads” us these hundreds of times “only appearing” to give choices. Real choices.
Determinist-Calvinist brothers can continue to force Scriptures to say what they think based on their definition of “sovereignty” and “omniscience” and their interpretation of “end from the beginning” “after the counsel of His will” etc. But the rest of the church goes merrily along thinking that: what we do matters, our choices matter, we can convince people, we can persuade people, we can reason with people (all words of Paul), and that our choices affect outcomes.
Just like God says in His word hundreds and hundreds of times.
FOH
“only APPEARING” to give choices.
br.d
Nice post FOH!
Calvinists spend 1% of their time EXPLICITLY asserting man has ZERO autonomy
And the rest of their time trying to fabricate FAKE autonomy – in order to APPEAR biblical.
Problem is – one cannot do that without being dishonest.
What a mess they’ve got themselves in!
FOH writes, “Whether God knows what they will do (and de facto in “knowing it” He seals reality) is a discussion to be had with the Open Theology people (who tend to follow the idea of continual reform).”
LOL!!! Gotta love it.
I cannot help but notice how many times the same 3-4 verses are repeated (“But what about the Assyrians in Isaiah 10?” “It says ‘God’s deliberate plan’ in Acts 2:23…”) as if God could not do these things without completely ordering every step and decision of every person throughout time.
What I mean is ….. we can easily accept these “proof texts” of Calvinism. They do not make God deterministic in all things.
But deteminists have no place, no room in their theology for the hundreds and hundreds of passages that show God giving man a real choice that will impact the future. For them….these cannot be real choices ….. since He has already orchestrated all things.
FOH
For them….these cannot be real choices ….. since He has already orchestrated all things.
br.d
Right on!
Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly only one physically possible future.
When one is walking through a garden and is confronted by a forked path.
In Calvinism – at that instant – only one direction is permitted.
That direction which was rendered-certain at the foundation of the world.
The other direction is NOT permitted.
Therefore the other direction is NOT available.
The Calvinist can convince himself the other direction is permitted and available – but he is simply lying to himself.
In Calvinism – Adam’s choice to obey was not permitted – and therefore not available.
br.d. writes:
“When one is walking through a garden and is confronted by a forked path.
In Calvinism – at that instant – only one direction is permitted.
That direction which was rendered-certain at the foundation of the world.
The other direction is NOT permitted.
Therefore the other direction is NOT available.
The Calvinist can convince himself the other direction is permitted and available – but he is simply lying to himself.
In Calvinism – Adam’s choice to obey was not permitted – and therefore not available.”
Excellent illustration. The Calvinist puts forward the illusion that since there exists two paths, a ‘choice’ is involved. If either path were truly available to the walker, then he indeed must make a choice which one to take. This is what we, as non-Calvinists, indeed assert.
What the Calvinist seeks to ignore, despite it being the supreme, unchallegeable, foundational doctrine of his theological system, is that, as God has determined which path MUST be taken, there is no real, meaningful choice. It matters not if there is one possible path or a dozen, if God has irresistibly determined which one you will take, you do not make a choice, even if you think you do.
That’s right TS00!
Calvinist like to use deceptive terms like “self-determined”
AS-IF Calvin’s god didn’t determine what a creatures “self-determinations” would be – making them NOT UP TO the creature.
Its so unfortunate and un-Christ-like for people to play deceptive games with words like “self” and “determine”.
Dishonesty for the sake of a theology – is a terrible snare to be captured in.
Reading along through the Bible and the NT section brings me to Mark 10.
46 Then they reached Jericho, and as Jesus and his disciples left town, a large crowd followed him. A blind beggar named Bartimaeus (son of Timaeus) was sitting beside the road. 47 When Bartimaeus heard that Jesus of Nazareth was nearby, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
48 “Be quiet!” many of the people yelled at him.
But he only shouted louder, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
49 When Jesus heard him, he stopped and said, “Tell him to come here.”
So they called the blind man. “Cheer up,” they said. “Come on, he’s calling you!” 50 Bartimaeus threw aside his coat, jumped up, and came to Jesus.
51 “What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked.
“My Rabbi,” the blind man said, “I want to see!”
52 And Jesus said to him, “Go, for your faith has healed you.” Instantly the man could see, and he followed Jesus down the road.
——-
A. First of all we see the man “seeking” Christ (which is supposed to be impossible for Calvinists). But he persists.
B. Jesus asks him what he wants. I guess someone could make the case that Christ irresistibly prompted the man to seek Him, and then acts like He doesnt know what the man wants….. but why? Why bring that awkwardness to the Bible? Why not just read it and accept it?
C. The man tells Him, and in return Jesus tells him that his faith has healed him. I suppose someone could try to make a case that it was given-irresistibly-faith, but again, why?
No one watching that scenario would understand for one second the Calvinist interpretation of this:
The man was too-dead” to even ask for help. But before time Christ decreed to give him irresistible faith. In real time, Christ acts like he never met the man and does not know what he wants. Then Christ tells him that “his” faith (that Christ, wink-wink, gave him) has healed him.
Kind of re-defines the whole easy-to-understand story, doesn’t it?
Excellent section there FOH!
Especially the place where Jesus asks the man what he wants.
There is nothing in scripture that infers that God renders-certain man’s every neurological impulse.
Certainly the general narrative of scripture paints the opposite picture.
As William Lane Craig says – Calvinism makes the Biblical narrative look farcical.
br.d writes, “As William Lane Craig says – Calvinism makes the Biblical narrative look farcical.”
Yet, Craig, in advocating Molinism, takes the same position that Calvinism does – the world that God chooses to create is determined fully.
br.d
“As William Lane Craig says – Calvinism makes the Biblical narrative look farcical.”
rhutchin
Yet, Craig, in advocating Molinism, takes the same position that Calvinism does…..
br.d
Not fooled by that one either
William Lane Craig
-quote
“Molina was an unrelenting libertarian about freedom”
That is why he says Calvinism makes the Biblical narrative look farcical.
But one needs to be able to discern logic to understand what he means.
And that’s why some Calvinists don’t it :-]
br.d writes, “William Lane Craig
-quote
“Molina was an unrelenting libertarian about freedom”
Under Molinism, God chooses the world He wants to create and the world God creates is a world where very event has been determined – as Calvinism describes it also.
br.d writes, “William Lane Craig
-quote
“Molina was an unrelenting libertarian about freedom”
rhutchin
Under Molinism, God chooses the world He wants to create and the world God creates is a world where very event has been determined – as Calvinism describes it also.
br.d
The difference between Molina and Calvin is the scope of things determined.
In Molina that scope is limited to possible worlds and circumstances into which people will be placed.
Where as in Calvin we have full blown Theological Determinism as enunciated by R.C. Sproul and Paul Helms
R.C. Sproul
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God.
Paul Helms
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the direct control of God
Molina interprets scripture as God creating a world in which libertarian freedom exists – where obey and disobey are both permitted (which Calvin qualifies as “mere” permission and calls it revolting).
Calvin interprets scripture as God creating a world in which libertarian freedom (the freedom to do otherwise) only exists as an illusion
And where only one single unique choice is permitted / made available – that choice which he rendered-certain.
Therefore in Calvinism creaturely functionality is reduced to puppet/robot functionality
People think/do only what Calvin’s god programs them to think/do
For William Lane Craig – scripture does not paint such a picture.
That is why he says Calvinism makes scripture farcical.
br.d writes, “Molina interprets scripture as God creating a world in which libertarian freedom exists…”
Only prior to its creation and in relation to all possible worlds. Once the world is created is is a fully determined world.
br.d
“Molina interprets scripture as God creating a world in which libertarian freedom exists…”
rhutchin
Only prior to its creation and in relation to all possible worlds. Once the world is created is is a fully determined world.
br.d
You’re information source is erroneous or you’re imagining what you want Molinism to be
Author Kirk R. Macgregor – Luis de Molina
quote:
“Molina drew on what contemporary philosophers today describe as a distinction between “strong” and “weak” actualization. An agent strongly actualizes an event if and only if the agent causally determines the event’s obtaining. In this case, the agent DIRECTLY causes the event and is therefore morally responsible for that event.
For example, suppose a teacher leaves his students alone without oversight during an exam in order to see which (if any) of his students would use that opportunity to cheat. The teacher does not “strongly” actualize the actions of his students – he only “strongly” actualizes the situation that he puts the students in.
Now suppose that in this situation, one of the students decides to cheat. This student has “strongly” actualized his own cheating – and therefore he is morally responsible for that cheating, but the teacher bears no moral responsibility for that student’s cheating.”
-end quote
Per Macgregor’s example – this teacher did not “strongly” actualize that students choice or actions.
The student was given (what Calvin would call “mere” permission) which Calvin rejects
The teacher did not determine – render-certain – what the student would do (Calvin would reject this)
The teacher only determined the situation he would put the class in. .
In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god “strongly” actualizes the students thoughts/choices/actions
Therefore William Lane Craig writes in “Four Views on Divine Providence”:
-quote:
“In Calvinism God knows what will happen because he makes it happen. Aware of the intentions of his will and his almighty power, God knows that all his purpose shall be accomplished. But this interpretation inevitably makes God the author of sin”
br.d writes, “You’re information source is erroneous or you’re imagining what you want Molinism to be
Author Kirk R. Macgregor – Luis de Molina…’
So what? The event occurs in the mind of God prior to creation. It occurs in one of the possible worlds that God could create. Molinism posits a middle knowledge between God’s Natural knowledge and God’s free knowledge. God’s free knowledge consists of the knwoledge of the world He decides to create. You are not saying anything substantive.
Then, “Therefore William Lane Craig writes in “Four Views on Divine Providence”:
-quote:
“In Calvinism God knows what will happen because he makes it happen. Aware of the intentions of his will and his almighty power, God knows that all his purpose shall be accomplished. But this interpretation inevitably makes God the author of sin”
Craig also says that God knows what will happen. He just says it’s a mystery how He knows – but he knows it’s not because God makes it happen. But then he subscribes to Molinism where God does make it happen by deciding what world to create. Again, you say nothing substantive.
br.d
“You’re information source is erroneous or you’re imagining what you want Molinism to be
Author Kirk R. Macgregor – Luis de Molina…’
So what? The event occurs in the mind of God prior to creation.
br.d
Firstly your language here “occurs in the mind of God” is to imprecise to be trustworthy.
Secondly again you’re information source is erroneous or you’re imagining what you want Molinism to be
If your statement is a reference to divine determinism of events – it is FALSE
Yes it is true that situations Molina’s god puts people in are determined prior to creation.
Yes Molina’s god knows these because they are rendered-certain by him by virtue of being determined..
However, decisions people make are not determined by Molinas god.
The knowledge he has of these events is theoretical only.
He only knows decisions people will make as theoretical knowledge.
Middle knowledge is theoretical knowledge.
Molina developed the idea of middleknowledge to differentiate from Calvin’s doctrine of foreknowlege = foreordination.
So what you are assuming is what Molina developed middle knowledge to reject.
So what I am stating is substantive
And what you are positing is erroneous.
rhutchin
Craig also says that God knows what will happen. He just says it’s a mystery how He knows
br.d
FALSE – again
Dr Craig refers to ancient reformed divines punting to mystery.
He never appeals to this himself – where do you come up with these things?
rhutchin
But then he subscribes to Molinism where God does make it happen by deciding what world to create.
Again, you say nothing substantive.
br.d
FALSE
It is you who are not saying anything substantive – because you forward your own personal misconceptions.
I provide quotes – you provide your own imaginations – and then call what I provide unsubstantial
You’re at least consistent. :-]
Here are a few more quotes – to drill home the fact that Monlina’s god does not determine human choices
:
William Lane Craig:
-quote
The [Dominican Determinist’s view ] obliterated human freedom by making counterfactual truths about creaturely choices a CONSEQUENCE of God’s decree. For in this view it is GOD WHO DETERMINES WHAT A PERSON WILL CHOOSE.
By contrast, the Molinists, by placing God’s hypothetical knowledge of creaturely decisions prior to the divine decree, made room for creaturely freedom by EXEMPTING counterfactual truths about CREATURELY CHOICES FROM GOD’S DECREE.
Thus, by employing his hypothetical knowledge, God can plan a world down to the last detail and yet do so WITHOUT ANNIHILATING CREATURELY FREEDOM, since God has already factored into the equation what people would [hypothetically] do freely under various circumstances. -end quote
Internet Encyclopedia – Middle knowledge
-quote:
Proponents of middle knowledge do not deny that God may influence a free choice or persuade an agent to act in a particular way, but such influence and persuasion CANNOT BE DETERMINATIVE if the action performed is to be free.
Middle knowledge requires freedom of a libertarian nature. That is, free creatures have the ability to choose between competing alternatives, and really could choose one or the other of the alternatives.” – end quote
Molinist Terry Hollifield – Free Thinking Ministries
-quote
Molinism rests upon two fundamental pillars to which all Molinists agree.
1- God eternally possesses middle knowledge.
2- Humans possess libertarian free will – the ability to think and/or act/do otherwise.
That should provide enough evidence to settle this silly issue.
br.d writes, ‘By contrast, the Molinists, by placing God’s hypothetical knowledge of creaturely decisions prior to the divine decree, made room for creaturely freedom by EXEMPTING counterfactual truths about CREATURELY CHOICES FROM GOD’S DECREE. ”
This is a claim made for Molinism but never proved. Regardless, Molinism still says that God ultimately makes a decision on what world to create (His divine decree) and the world then created is fully determined. It is this world that Calvinism describes based on what the Scriptures reveal about this world.
br.d
By contrast, the Molinists, by placing God’s hypothetical knowledge of creaturely decisions prior to the divine decree, made room for creaturely freedom by EXEMPTING counterfactual truths about CREATURELY CHOICES FROM GOD’S DECREE. ”
rhutchin
This is a claim made for Molinism but never proved.
br.d
Prove to who?
It would certainly be a nice gig to self-appoint yourself as the judge of everything now wouldn’t it!
But sorry – everyone here knows you fail repeatedly at simple logic.
So you simply end up judging yourself.
rhutchin
Regardless, Molinism still says that God ultimately makes a decision on what world to create (His divine decree) and the world then created is fully determined.
br.d
Thank you for providing an example of my previous assessment of your ability
Here you totally contradict your last statement.
I gave you quotes of “what Molinism says” and you called them claims.
And you want to manufacture your own version of “what Molinism says”.
So now I can provide another quote from a Molinist who knows why Calvinists make your claim.
Tim Stratton – Free thinking ministries
-quote
“One motive for many Calvinists who argue about Molinism is not to argue for Calvinistic soteriology, but rather to make a case for ExHAUSTIVE divine determinism (EDD)”
Tim Stratton gets it – Calvinists want everything including God to fit into their nice little tiny box! :-]
rhutchin: “This is a claim made for Molinism but never proved.”
br.d: “Prove to who?’
Prove to anyone. It’s just a claim; an opinion. Even you don’t offer a proof (i.e., a citation to one). It doesn’t exist.
br.d writes, “Thank you for providing an example of my previous assessment of your ability
Here you totally contradict your last statement.”
LOL!! Molinism is still a theology that deals with God’s consideration of all possible worlds that He could create. It is a pre-creation theology. Calvinism is a post-creation theology. It describes the world that Molinism says God chooses to create. Nothing you offer denies this.
rhutchin: “This is a claim made for Molinism but never proved.”
br.d: “Prove to who?’
rhutchin
Prove to anyone. It’s just a claim; an opinion. Even you don’t offer a proof (i.e., a citation to one). It doesn’t exist.
br.d
Sorry – Calvinism’s “so-called” proofs always collapse into self-contradicting double-speak.
So much for being the judge of proof :-]
br..r
Thank you for providing an example of my previous assessment of your ability
Here you totally contradict your last statement.”
rhutchin
LOL!! Molinism is still a theology that deals with God’s consideration of all possible worlds that He could create. It is a pre-creation theology. Calvinism is a post-creation theology. It describes the world that Molinism says God chooses to create. Nothing you offer denies this.
br.d
Silly bird!
No theology is limited to pre or post creation.
And Molinism also describes those things Molina’s god chose not to render-certain – (e.g. human choices)
He “merely” permits those to be “self-determined” by the person.
And that in no way compromises divine omniscience.
I get a kick out of all of this because its apparent to me that Molina out-Calvin’s Calvin :-]
br.d writes, “Sorry – Calvinism’s “so-called” proofs always collapse into self-contradicting double-speak.
So much for being the judge of proof :-] ”
br.d is unable to provide a proof of Molinist claims, so he deflects as is his custom.
Then, ‘No theology is limited to pre or post creation.”
LOL! Molinism still deals with God’s consideration of all possible worlds He could create and this obviously takes place pre-creation of any unique world. Calvinism deals with the world God chose to create and this obviously is post-creation.
br.d
Sorry – Calvinism’s “so-called” proofs always collapse into self-contradicting double-speak.
So much for being the judge of proof :-] ”
rhutchin
br.d is unable to provide a proof of Molinist claims, so he deflects as is his custom.
br.d
Sorry – you’re still claiming to be the arbiter/judge of proof – which is an empty hole to fall into.
rhutchin
LOL! Molinism still deals with God’s consideration of all possible worlds He could create and this obviously takes place pre-creation of any unique world. Calvinism deals with the world God chose to create and this obviously is post-creation.
br.d
Molina’s ideas and Calvin’s ideas – both deal with the THEOS’s pre as well as post creation activities and relationship to created things.
Obviously a major difference is that Molina’s god does something that Calvin rejects – “mere” permission concerning human choices.
Now in regard to different forms of proof – the Calvinists psychology is for me a form of proof revealing a difference in the viability of Molinism over Calvinism.
And William Lane Craig ( an internationally recognized logical thinker) obviously agrees.
And I believe Alvin Plantinga does also.
Calvinists (as you consistently reveal in your exculpatory posts) in the context of evil events are constantly trying to manufacture a FACADE of human autonomy – that Calvinism in fact rejects.
This is because John Calvin’s only solution to the conundrum of evil is to teach *AS-IF* thinking.
-quote
“go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
What ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely calls “Calvinism’s rocking horse” – is in fact Calvin’s double-speak.
Molina found a more eloquent solution.
Therefore Molina’s god doesn’t logically follow as bearing responsibility for creaturely evil like Calvin’s god does.
Now Tim Stratton from Free thinking ministries is also an ex-calvinist.
-quote
“One motive for many Calvinists who argue about Molinism is not to argue for Calvinistic soteriology, but rather to make a case for EXHAUSTIVE divine determinism (EDD)”.
So it becomes obvious that Calvinists do find Molina’s solution appealing enough to adopt it.
But you obviously don’t – at least not yet. :-]
br.d writes, “Sorry – you’re still claiming to be the arbiter/judge of proof – which is an empty hole to fall into.”
Still no proof. Just whining.
br.d writes, “Sorry – you’re still claiming to be the arbiter/judge of proof – which is an empty hole to fall into.”
rhutchin
Still no proof. Just whining.
br.d
No whining – just wisdom! :-]
Visiting friends and family today I ended up in two Sunday services. Both messages were taught by men who call themselves Calvinists. One has a doctorate under Sproul’s seminary.
The first one taught on the rich young ruler….declaring that Christ loved him and called him, but it was just too hard for him to turn from his love of status and money (decision was his).
The second one…..wow!! Luke 20. Parable of the Tenants. The owner sent one-two-three messengers expecting the people to respond. Then He send His son…..
13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’ ”
——-
Perhaps He says!? Perhaps!
From there he went to Isaiah 5 with images on the scree of a vineyard!
He put these words up…..
5:4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?
—-
He stressed that God did “all that He could” to help the vineyard, but it yielded unexpected bad grapes.
Two of the finest Arminian sermons I have heard in a long time!
Morale of the story?
No one really lives, teaches, and preaches like a Calvinist theolgizes!
Awesome post FOH!!
Isaiah 5:4
What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad?
Calvin’s god communicates the very opposite of what he in fact knows to be true.
FIRSTLY:
He knows he RENDERED-CERTAIN in every part – what his vineyard would do.
He knows he could have RENDERED-CERTAIN it DO OTHERWISE
He knows he did not RENDER-CERTAIN it DO OTHERWISE.
He knows it CANNOT DO OTHERWISE than what he knows it will do.
He knows these things are TRUE.
And yet he communicates AS-IF they are FALSE.
SECONDLY:
He knows he RENDERED-CERTAIN the grapes that the vineyard will yield.
He knows what grapes he’s going to see when he looks – are the grapes he RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Again – He knows these things are TRUE
And yet he communicates AS-IF they are FALSE
Jesus says “Let your communication be yea-yea or nay-nay – for anything else comes of evil”
But in Calvinism all to many things in scripture are interpreted as:
True AS-IF false
False AS-IF true
FOH writes, “He stressed that God did “all that He could” to help the vineyard, but it yielded unexpected bad grapes.
Two of the finest Arminian sermons I have heard in a long time! ”
And what happened in Luke 20 –
13 “And the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’
14 “But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, ‘This is the heir; let us kill him that the inheritance may be ours.’
15 “And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
Was anyone saved? No. That was a fine Arminian sermon.
And what happened in Luke 20 –
13 “And the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’
14 “But when the vine-growers saw him, they reasoned with one another, saying, ‘This is the heir; let us kill him that the inheritance may be ours.’
15 “And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
rhutchin
Was anyone saved? No. That was a fine Arminian sermon.
br.d
Since the context of this text has to do with SERVANT-SHIP rather than salvation – I would hope an Arminian would be smart enough not conflate the two.
But these versed do help us to observe Calvinist thinking patterns – forced onto the text by presupposition.
And the owner of the vineyard said…..*PERHAPS* they will respect my beloved son
But they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
In contrast to the representation of the text – Calvin’s god knows as TRUE:
-If he RENDERS-CERTAIN they respect his son – then they will do so inevitably, unavoidably, and irresistibly.
-If he RENDERS-CERTAIN they kill his son – then they will do inevitably, unavoidably and irresistibly.
Calvin states it this way:
-quote: “Man can do nothing unless he [Calvin’s god] INSPIRE it” and “He [Calvin’s god] MAKES them willing.
Calvin’s god knows these things are TRUE
And yet again he communicates AS-IF they are FALSE.
So here we have another example of Calvinism’s AS-IF communication mode.
All things which come to pass are RENDERED-CERTAIN in every part is TRUE – AS-IF it is FALSE
Calvinism’s communication model is thus:
True AS-IF False
False AS-IF True
But Jesus teaches:
Let your communication be yea yea or nay nay – for anything else comes of evil.
Thus a simple communication model reveals the difference between the follower of Christ and the follower of Calvin.
What I see, more and more, in the Calvinist is fear. They are so afraid of condemnation, they are willing to throw their grandmother, beloved child and God himself under the bus in exchange for an empty assurance. Where it has so often made me angry, I increasingly feel pity for those who have so little understanding of and faith in our good and loving God.
Their only hope, in their fearful minds, is if God has worked a done deal that they can in no way screw up. They do not dare take the responsibility of maintaining a living, growing relationship with a spiritual being – which is what God wants from us.
The whole substitutionary atonement theology is built upon anger and fear, which shows that it is not from God. No, I do not believe God is quaking in anger at man, or was unable to look upon his own beloved son upon the cross. All of this ancient thinking is fear-based, and speaks only of power, authority and control.
God is the supreme authority because he is God. He is good. He seeks the well-being of all of his creation. But I don’t think he has an ego problem, and seeks only his own glory. He does not need to seek glory – it all, naturally, belongs to him. He does not suffer from any insecurity. Will those who have falsely sought to grasp glory for themselves be someday cast down to their proper place? I believe so, but I simply do not think this is God’s driving agenda and reason behind his actions.
His true agenda is bringing all to perfection and completion. Like any loving parent, more than anything, God longs to see us become all that we were designed to be. Our excellence and beauty are no threat to God, but will only bring him all the more glory. When we understand that, we do not need to cling fearfully to a determinism that grants a false assurance, while eliminating all that makes us creatures in the image of our creator.
Hi TS00
Do you think the fear is a result of how in Calvinism the believer has no certainty of God’s intentions are for his eternal life?
br.d, I believe that the root of the problem is a misconception of God. That includes a very dark, ‘sinners in the hands of an angry God’ perception of an all-powerful, brutal, angry deity. Thus, they have constructed a system in which God can demonstrate his ‘good side’ by choosing a limited few to have mercy upon, and vent his venomous wrath on all others.
I have heard so many Calvinists, even upon rejecting most of the theology still clinging desperately to the OSAS of determinism, as they cannot conceive of a genuinely loving, merciful God who does not need or desire to visit his wrath upon any, but desires that all turn from wickedness and live. My own assurance comes in large part from passages like Rom 8:31-39. If God who would send his Son to suffer and die, what would he not do to redeem us? I do not fear God, because I am secure in his love for me, and I know that he has compassion for my ignorance and weakness. He is my loving and faithful Father, and it would require a deliberate decision and effort on my part to cut myself off from him.
Yes I see.
I find the OSAS part of their doctrine a totally ironic – because Calvin also taught that no human knows who is elect and who is not – because this is a divine secret. And he also taught that God purposefully deceives some Calvinists into believing they are saved – in order to give them a taste salvation so that their torment in the lake of fire will be magnified.
And according to Calvin there is a large mixture within the Calvinist fold who are in that deceived condition
And God will eventually -quote “strike them with greater blindness”.
What this produces is an internal sense of uncertainty about God’s intentions for one’s eternal fate.
Psychologists tell us that subconscious levels of dread and uncertainty are experienced as a form of pain.
And people subconsciously look for ways to evade or reduce it.
In the case of Calvinists – they examine each others behavior patterns looking for indicators of God’s secret will – good or evil.
If they start to experience doubts of the doctrine for example – they may interpret those doubts as a sign that God has predestined them for damnation.
This would naturally drive a person to try to maintain an emotional psychological state that would serve to indicate one is predestined for salvation. So maintaining that psychological state in order to assume OSAS turns into a form of works in order to sustain it.
I am pretty well persuaded that this is one of the things that drives Calvinists to be so obsessed with defending the doctrine.
Its as if their sense of salvation depends on them maintaining consistency
Which provides a sense of re-assurance that one is elect.
And this then becomes a form of works
But like you say – it is based on fear.
TSOO to br.d “I believe that the root of the problem is a misconception of God.”
Can we, at least, agree that God is omniscient, omnipotent ans all the other omni’s. No misconception there, right?
TSOO to br.d “I believe that the root of the problem is a misconception of God.”
rhutchin
Can we, at least, agree that God is omniscient, omnipotent ans all the other omni’s. No misconception there, right?
br.d
Please provide a quote from anyone here stating that God is not omniscient etc.
br.d writes, “Please provide a quote from anyone here stating that God is not omniscient etc.”
I’ll take that to be agreement from br.d So, does TS00 also agree?
br.d
“Please provide a quote from anyone here stating that God is not omniscient etc.”
rhutchin
I’ll take that to be agreement from br.d So, does TS00 also agree?
br.d
That no such quote exists is understood – therefore the question posed presents a false inference.
But that doesn’t prevent you from making an argument concerning omniscience.
However, be advised that William Lane Craig was in a debate with an Atheist – who asserted that with the doctrine of divine omniscience it logically follows that God is the author of evil.
And when that Atheist enunciated what he understood to be the doctrine of divine omniscience – William Lane Craig recognized what he was enunciating was omniscience coupled with the predisposition of Theological Determinism.
Dr. Craig was able to neutralize the Atheist’s attack simply by denouncing Theological Determinism.
This is a dance I have done too many times with rhutchin. I don’t see the point in wasting my time going through the same hoops again and again. I’m always happy to engage with people who have open minds and are willing to genuinely take stock of their current beliefs and compare them with those of others. rh does not fit that bill – he just likes to play games.
Yes I agree – he simply puts on being logical in order to draw someone into dialog.
There are times I think he needs someone to engage with him because it offers him credibility.
But yes I think at this point we all recognize that logical dialog only goes so far and eventually winds up in irrational tail chasing.
Like the time he argued that things are available to man – which never exists because Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN they don’t exist. No sense in following someone who is that irrational down a rabbit hole.
I think Reggie is new here – and I’ve seen sisters engage with rhutchin and after a few exchanges get run off from SOT101
And it burdens me to see that happen.
“I think Reggie is new here – and I’ve seen sisters engage with rhutchin and after a few exchanges get run off from SOT101
And it burdens me to see that happen.
———– My Response ———-
They cannot afford to engage and argue against scriptures with rhutchin, so God permitted them to give up…
br.d
“I think Reggie is new here – and I’ve seen sisters engage with rhutchin and after a few exchanges get run off from SOT101
And it burdens me to see that happen.
jtleosala
They cannot afford to engage and argue against scriptures with rhutchin, so God permitted them to give up…
br.d
FALSE
The issue has nothing to do with scripture – and everything to do with how sisters in particular are treated.
In fact – your post on this regard works as a good example – Calvinists know not the spirit they are of.
And besides that – when you use the word “permitted” you do so dishonestly.
Because by that word you secretly mean they were RENDERED-CERTAIN to give up.
Jesus commands: Let your communication be “yea yea” or “nay nay” for anything else comes of evil.
But Calvin’s disciples communicate using an equivocal language.
When they were rendered certain by God to give up as one of the commenters, then what is that to you if you can never afford to argue against the Divine intervention of God? Any show of symphaty even if sincere or politically motivated will not work.
jtleosala
When they were rendered certain by God to give up as one of the commenters, then what is that to you if you can never afford to argue against the Divine intervention of God? Any show of symphaty even if sincere or politically motivated will not work.
br.d
In this case – when rhutchin was RENDERED-CERTAIN to treat sisters in a manner in which sisters should not be treated – what is that to you – since you can’t contradict your theology.
Should I have sympathy to the Calvinist who has no escape for his sins – because in Calvinism every sin that comes to pass is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and there is no escape from that which is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Yes I have sympathy for you!
Because that is the spirit of Christ – and I know what spirit I am of. :-]
Unfortunate for those who don’t
br.d writes, ‘Should I have sympathy to the Calvinist who has no escape for his sins – because in Calvinism every sin that comes to pass is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and there is no escape from that which is RENDERED-CERTAIN.”
Should a person avail himself of the escape, he knows that such escape was rendered certain by God and he does not have to doubt the outcome.
br.d
Should I have sympathy to the Calvinist who has no escape for his sins – because in Calvinism every sin that comes to pass is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and there is no escape from that which is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Yes I have sympathy for you!
Because that is the spirit of Christ – and I know what spirit I am of. :-]
Unfortunate for those who don’t
rhutchin
Should a person avail himself of the escape, he knows that such escape was rendered certain by God and he does not have to doubt the outcome.
br.d
1) Any Calvinist sin RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world – is sin in which there is no escape
2) Any Calvinist sin NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – is Calvinist sin which will NEVER be brought into existence
A Calvinist who claims to avail himself of escaping from a sin that never existed – should have his brain checked.
But Calvinists making claims like that don’t surprise anyone! :-]
br.d writes, ‘A Calvinist who claims to avail himself of escaping from a sin that never existed – should have his brain checked.”
Yet, we are all tempted to sin and cannot escape such sin except through the escape provided by God. If we avail ourselves of God’s escape path, then that sin would not exist and would never have existed. That is encouragement to believers to always seek God’s path of escape when tempted to sin. So, Paul, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?”
br.d
‘A Calvinist who claims to avail himself of escaping from a sin that never existed – should have his brain checked.”
rhutchin
Yet, we are all tempted to sin and cannot escape such sin except through the escape provided by God. If we avail ourselves of God’s escape path, then that sin would not exist and would never have existed. That is encouragement to believers to always seek God’s path of escape when tempted to sin. So, Paul, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
br.d
Again – that scenario is logically coherent in an IN-deterministic world.
But you attempted to side-step the logical problems your faced with – points I made prior to my statement you re-posted.
1) If a Calvinist sin is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – then it never had existence – there’s nothing to escape.
Unless you can dream up a magical way for a Calvinist to be tempted by a sin that never has existence.
2)
The only way a Calvinist can know what is RENDERED-CERTAIN is via “a posteriori” knowledge (knowledge after the fact).
So if the Calvinist doesn’t sin – then “not sinning” was RENDERED-CERTAIN.
And that situation doesn’t qualify as an “escape” because technically a sin NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN never had existence anyway.
So again “technically speaking” one doesn’t escape from something that never existed.
However that doesn’t prevent Calvin’s god from creating a *SIMULATION*
In which he presents a Calvinist with a sin that *APPEARS* to exist
Which he has (unbeknownst to the Calvinist) RENDERED-CERTAIN the Calvinist not commit.
You chose to embrace Theological Determinism.
These are problems you must face.
So far your way of dealing with them is to sneak some subtle form of IN-determinism back into the system. How unfortunate. :-]
br.d writes, “1) If a Calvinist sin is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – then it never had existence – there’s nothing to escape.”
To people who face temptation, escape is reality. From God’s position, it’s a done deal.
Then, “Unless you can dream up a magical way for a Calvinist to be tempted by a sin that never has existence.”
Sin exists and temptation is real. That God knows the outcome does not lessen the existence or reality of sin to people.
Then, “And that situation doesn’t qualify as an “escape” because technically a sin NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN never had existence anyway.”
From God’s position, yes. The person experiences the temptation and avails himself o the escape – both are real to him regardless what you say.
Then, “However that doesn’t prevent Calvin’s god from creating a *SIMULATION*
In which he presents a Calvinist with a sin that *APPEARS* to exist
Which he has (unbeknownst to the Calvinist) RENDERED-CERTAIN the Calvinist not commit. ”
The sin actually exists, the temptation to sin is real, and the escape is taken. At the end, the person says with Paul, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.”
Then, “These are problems you must face.”
But you identify no problems. You look at sin from God’s perspective and ignore the perspective of the person who is not God.
br.d
1) If a Calvinist sin is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – then it never had existence – there’s nothing to escape.”
rhutchin
To people who face temptation, escape is reality. From God’s position, it’s a done deal.
Sin exists and temptation is real. That God knows the outcome does not lessen the existence or reality of sin to people.
From God’s position, [this qualifies as an escape] yes. The person experiences the temptation and avails himself of the escape – both are real to him regardless of what you say.
br.d
You may be getting a little warmer – but your language here is so fully equivocal that no clear LOGIC can be stated from it.
Lets examine this.
1) Calvin’s god knows if he RENDERS-CERTAIN the sin – there is no escape from it.
Therefore he is limited to a sin that is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN
2) Calvin’s god knows it was NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN and thus never brought into existence.
Therefore Calvin’s god knows its existence is FALSE
3) The Calvinist does not know the sin is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN and believes it is brought into existence.
What has come to pass here is the Calvinist is in deception – believing something to be TRUE – that is in fact FALSE.
Now everything that comes to pass is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Thus Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the Calvinist be deceived into believing the sin was real.
There you go!
You have Calvin’s god creating a FAKE PRESENTATION of providing and escape for something he knows is FALSE.
rhutchin
The sin actually exists, the temptation to sin is REAL, and the escape is taken.
br.d
Here you strategically appeal to the term REAL instead of using the word TRUE
Because this allows you to equivocate on the what REAL means.
Real to who?
Remember – in the scenario you’ve envisioned here – Calvin’s god knows that he didn’t RENDER-CERTAIN the sin.
Therefore he knows the TRUE that it never was brought into existence.
The Calvinist believes it does exist – and thus it comes to pass that the Calvinist is deceived.
Everything that comes to pass is RENDERED-CERTAIN
So what you have is Calvin’s god RENDERING-CERTAIN a Calvinist being deceived.
Once again – a FAKE PRESENTATION of something that doesn’t exist.
These are problems you must face
rhutchin
But you identify no problems. You look at sin from God’s perspective and ignore the perspective of the person who is not God.
br.d
Here you totally contradict yourself.
I did identify your problem – you have a FAKE PRESENTATION of an event – with a Calvinist who is RENDERED-CERTAIN to be deceived into believing he escaped a sin that didn’t exist.
Remember what is said about having ones brain checked! :-]
br.d writes, ‘What has come to pass here is the Calvinist is in deception – believing something to be TRUE – that is in fact FALSE.’
The temptation is true as is the sin; he does not sin having exercised the escape provided by God. Where is the deception?
Then, “Now everything that comes to pass is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
Thus Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the Calvinist be deceived into believing the sin was real.”
No, the sin was real as was the temptation to sin. The believer availed himself of the escape, so he did not sin. Just because people turn away from sin and refuse to sin does not negate the reality of sin.
Then, ‘You have Calvin’s god creating a FAKE PRESENTATION of providing and escape for something he knows is FALSE.”
But without the escape and the believer availing himself of the escape, the sin occurs. God, by His omniscience, knows the certainty of all future activities, but to the believer, all things are in flux making temptation and sin real even when he avails himself of the escape. Thus, in observing others sin, the believer says, “There but by the grace of God go I.”
br.d
What has come to pass here is the Calvinist is in deception – believing something to be TRUE – that is in fact FALSE.’
rhutchin
The temptation is true as is the sin; he does not sin having exercised the escape provided by God. Where is the deception?
br.d
Exercise your mind here
1) You’ve already acknowledged its NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – else there is no escape from it.
2) Calvin’s god knows what is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN is not brought into existence.
3) Thus Calvin’s god knows that to believe it exists is a FALSE belief
4) The Calvinist believes it is TRUE – and thus it has come to pass that the Calvinist is deceived.
5) All that comes to pass does so by being RENDERED-CERTAIN
6) Therefore Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN the Calvinist be deceived.
rhutchin
No, the sin was real as was the temptation to sin.
br.d
Again – you insist something without any LOGIC behind it.
1) Calvin’s god knows it was never brought into existence
2) And Calvin’s god knows that to believe it exists is a FALSE belief
But here we are – and it has come to pass that you call something “REAL” that Calvin’s god knows does not exist because it was never RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass.
Therefore according to your own doctrine – you were RENDERED-CERTAIN to have a FALSE belief in this dialog.
Now I can easily see your conundrum.
And anyone following the logic I’ve laid out in this thread should easily be able see it also.
rhutchin
The believer availed himself of the escape, so he did not sin.
br.d
You must be smart enough to know that Calvin’s god did NOT RENDER-CERTAIN that sin – else it would certainly come to pass.
You must be smart enough to know that that which is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN is not brought into existence.
You obviously believe that Calvin’s god has perfect knowledge – so he knows it doesn’t exist.
But here you are believing that it is -quote “REAL”
You must be smart enough to know that when you believe something to be TRUE that Calvin’s god knows if FALSE -then you have a FALSE belief.
The only reason you can’t connect these dots is because you don’t want to.
rhutchin
But without the escape and the believer availing himself of the escape, the sin occurs.
br.d
How can you make such a blatant contradiction!
A sin occurs that Calvin’s god did NOT RENDER-CERTAIN?
Come on rhutchin – there must be some part of you that can think rationally
rhutchin
God, by His omniscience, knows the certainty of all future activities
br.d
Correct!
rhutchin
but to the believer
br.d
Correct!
But when a Calvinist believes [X] is TRUE – while Calvin’s god knows [X] is FALSE – then the Calvinist is deceived.
rhutchin
all things are in flux making temptation and sin real even when he avails himself of the escape.
Thus, in observing others sin, the believer says, “There but by the grace of God go I.”
br.d
Do you notice your thinking pattern here?
You keep making the same claim over and over – while the irrationality of it all stares at you.
Here is how a LOGICAL Calvinist thinks:
1) He did not commit any sin within a certain time-window.
2) He thus concludes that Calvin’s god did not RENDER-CERTAIN he commit any sin within that time-window
or
1) He committed a sin within a certain time-window
2) He thus concludes that Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN he commit that sin
3) He also concludes that since it was RENDERED-CERTAIN he had no escape from it.