What You Meant For Evil, God Meant For Good.

by Leighton Flowers

I just recorded a debate over the question, “Does God Predestine All Things that Come to Pass” for Premier Radio’s “Unbelieveable?” podcast hosted by Justin Brierley. My theological opponent was once again our Calvinistic friend, Chris Date, most well known for his work on Rethinking Hell. I was told the podcast will be available in the next week or so. Upon hearing about this news, my good friend Dr. Johnathan Pritchett, of Trinity Seminary, said something like,

“I’m glad you’re having this debate on Unbelievable because your last discussion went so long it was like eternal conscious torment!” lol

Chris Date and I have sparred on the topic of determinism a few times and though we both tend to be a bit long winded, I find him to be an intelligent, thoughtful and articulate brother who defends his position as well as an indefensible position can be defended. 😉

First, let’s be clear about what Chris is advocating for in this discussion, because sometimes I think the main points of contention can get buried under a lot of philosophical and theological jargon that can confuse those who are not familiar with this discussion. Chris is a self-proclaimed “theistic determinist,” which he describes as affirming,

“God predetermines everything that takes place in time, including all desires, decisions, and actions of human agents.”

That means that when a man is prideful or lustful, that God predetermined that pride and lust. In fact, on Chris’s view God predetermines all evil desires and actions of all his creatures at all times and in all places.

Chris believes that God decides what man will decide in every instance (not just regarding salvation, but everything). So that means that Chris’s decision to affirm determinism was itself determined by God and my decision to reject determinism was likewise determined by God. And the decision of every audience member listening to that discussion, as to whether or not they accept determinism, has likewise already been decided by God (not merely known in advance and permitted, mind you, that is not Chris’s position).

On determinism, your decisions are determined by factors that are beyond your control (i.e. God’s eternal and unchangeable decree). On the other hand, Provisionists, like myself, believe you are the cause of your own choices.  We would say that the cause of a choice is the chooser. The cause of a determination is the determiner. There is no determinative cause beyond the agent himself for his morally accountable choices on our view, while on Chris’s view, God’s decree is the decisive cause of all things.

Those of you familiar with my podcast and the typical conversations I have had with other Calvinists will likely not hear anything new in this debate. Most of the same talking points are regurgitated from both sides and due to the time restraints much of the commentary just touches the surface of the arguments. You should still listen to it though, just use double speed so you don’t get too bored.

Genesis 50

I did want to develop one particular point that was raised in the discussion regarding the selling of Joseph by his brothers (Genesis 50). This is a classic proof text used by Compatibilists to establish their deterministic worldview. They will argue that if the brothers intended the sale of Joseph, an evil event, and God also intended this same event, then that proves God predetermined an evil event. And if God predetermined one evil event, for which men are still culpable, then indeterminists, like myself, have no moral grounds to object to their claim that God predetermines all things while still holding mankind justly responsible for their actions.[1]

There are a number of problems with this argument, some of which I touch on in the debate but did not have the time to fully develop. I would like to focus on two of those points here:

  1. Proof that God intends an evil event to happen does not prove that God determines all evil events that happen.
  2. Proof that God intends an evil event to happen does not prove that God determines the motive or desire of all the parties involved in that event.

Chris actually addresses these points in a rebuttal of Roger Olson as seen recorded in his book:

Olson suggests that these [events like Joseph being sold] are all exceptions to the rule, and that even in such exceptions God merely knows how to get people to freely do what he wants them to do. “God may,” he offers, “and no doubt sometimes does bring about some event by placing people in circumstances where he knows what they will freely do because he needs them to do that for his plan to be fulfilled.” But the latter constitutes nothing more than one plausible account of the mechanics of divine providence and foreordination. If God wills to bring about some event, knows infallibly under what conditions free creatures will bring it about, and presents them with such conditions, then he has chosen beforehand to sovereignly ensure that an event takes place by the hands of free creatures. This simply is divine foreordination; God is the primary cause and free agents are the secondary ones.[2]

When Olson says “freely” he obviously means libertarian freedom, something Chris elsewhere denies, but in this instance Chris seems to concede this is one “plausible account of the mechanics of divine providence.” This pleases me because it demonstrates that Chris affirms that libertarian free will is plausible, and it does not require God being the determiner of men’s prideful evil intentions. Also, this explanation perfectly fits the police sting analogy that I offered in our discussion, which goes something like this:

Appealing to God’s sovereign work to ensure the redemption of sin so as to prove that God sovereignly works to bring about all the sin that was redeemed is an absurd, self-defeating argument. It would be tantamount to arguing that because a police department set up a sting operation to catch a notorious drug dealer, that the police department is responsible for every single intention and action of all drug dealer at all times. Proof that the police department worked in secretive ways to hide their identities, use evil intentions, and work out the circumstances in such a way that the drug dealer would do what they wanted him to do (sell drugs) at that particular moment in time does not suggest that the police are in anyway responsible for all that drug dealer has done or ever will do. We celebrate and reward the actions of this police department because they are working to stop the drug activity, not because they are secretly causing all of it so as to stop some of it. Teaching that God brings about all sin based on how He brought about Calvary is like teaching that the police officer brings about every drug deal based on how he brought about one sting operation.

In a sting operation the police know with some level of certainty that if drug dealers are put in the right circumstance that they will sell drugs, thus the police work to ensure those conditions so that the criminals will freely choose to sell drugs at a pre-appointed time and location where they will be caught. The police are working to ensure this event will take place by the hands of willing (libertarianly free) criminals.[3]

So, let us apply this same standard to the Genesis 50 account. If God wishes to bring about the sale of Joseph, and He knows with certainty under what conditions the brothers will freely act to sale him, and ensures a way to put them within those conditions, then (based on the concession above) I think Chris and I would agree that God is ensuring that event takes place by the hands of the libertarianly free brothers. Chris admitted that this is “simply divine foreordination; God is the primary cause and free agents are the secondary ones.” And notice, libertarian free will is still fully enact under Chris’s concession and God is never established as being the determiner of the pride which motivated the brothers to commit this crime. Clearly Chris need not maintain his meticulous view of divine determinism in order to explain how God might bring about these types of events.

Consider that Joseph’s brother’s original intent was to kill Joseph, not merely sell him. Now, from where did that intention originate? According to the text it was jealousy and pride. Well, where does this pride find its origin? Is it God’s decree?

This is the root of our disagreement!

From where do evil intentions come? What is the origin? What is the cause of pride, lust and moral evil?

1 John 2:16 says, “The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.”

So, the Scriptures say pride comes not from the Father, yet determinists would have us believe God decisively and unchangeably determines the pride and lust of every creature at all times and in all places? As demonstrated, this is not a necessary conclusion from this text or any other.

We say sinful intentions originate in (or “come from”) the creature, not God or His “sovereign decree.” Whereas the determinist seems to say that “whatsoever comes to pass” has its origin in the decree of God.


[1] Chris attempted to focus the attention on a nuanced grammatic point within the original language that I considered irrelevant to our point of contention given that we both agree that God intended the same evil event (the sale of Joseph). Inexplicably, Chris continued to insist that my particular interpretation would not work grammatically despite my concession on that point. The point of contention I wished to focus on is that God did not predetermined the brother’s pride, which was the motive of their crime. This point demonstrates that God may intend that an evil event come to pass without causing men’s evil character, motivations or desires in the process, thus leaving their culpability for the crime fully intact.

[2] Does God Predetermine the Eternal Destiny of Every Individual Human Being?

[3] By “libertarianly free” I simply mean that the choice is not determined by factors beyond the moral agent’s control.  The cause of the choice is the chooser.

497 thoughts on “What You Meant For Evil, God Meant For Good.

  1. I truly believe that both sides are trying to make this topic into some kind of doctrine, when I don’t see that at all. This is not discussing a default action of God for general circumstances. This is for THIS situation alone. Now, many refuse to acknowledge that the story of JOSEPH is prophesy of Jesus. What took place in the life of JOSEPH is that potter/clay thing for the purpose of, how you say? Shadow or type? And what is the story here portraying, regarding the topic? It’s really quite simple. The BRETHREN of JOSEPH is portrayed as the Jews. Joseph himself, of course, is portrayed as Jesus. Now, what did the Jews intend for evil for Jesus? And what did God mean for good regarding what the Jews did to Jesus? That’s it. Whatever that answer is, is what this is about. Therefore, it’s not a doctrine of predestination, or anything of the sort. God directed the life of JOSEPH for the purpose of an image of the life of Jesus, and what the Jews would do to him… crucify… the pit. If Jesus didn’t die, no ones sins would be forgiven. I believe that reform folks on both sides are chasing a wild goose, reading something into this that just isn’t there.

  2. In addition to my last comment, the purpose of the potter/clay thing is only only only for the purpose of showing God’s power… Not for the purpose of a doctrine called predestination. The pharaoh was raised up for showing God’s power… Not as an example of predestination. Not as a general purpose . And, it’s purpose of that… prophesy. Egypt is portrayed (shadow/type) as SIN. Moses is portrayed (shadow/type) of Jesus… the REDEEMER, rescuing is from the BONDAGE of sin, and therefore, the Pharaoh is portrayed as…THE DEVIL defeated. So. . This doctrine of predestination is bogus.

  3. Thank you Dr. Flowers.
    If I understand that Chris considers himself a “Theistic Determinist” and by that he means EXHAUSTIVE determinism.

    AND at the same time he accepts Libertarian freedom – it appears Chris hasn’t thought that through very well – for the two positions are mutually exclusive.

    If EXHAUSTIVE determinism is true then libertarian free will is false
    And vis-versa

    But we do see about 99% of Calvinists halting between two opinions on this issue – so not sure if one more example would surprise me.

    But COOL that you were on “Unbelievable!
    They did a chat with NT Write and James White also.
    And they may have done one also with William Lane Craig and Paul Helms.

  4. I have no problem with the idea that God is explaining that in this instance Genesis 50 (alone) He acted in a certain way.

    I have made this claim before concerning Jeremiah and David. Two times it talks about “calling them/ knitting them in the womb.”

    There is no need to say that this is the “establishment of doctrine” (i.e. the Calvinistic “God determines all men’s steps before time”). That is just outrunning the passage. It says it—ABOUT Jeremiah and David.

    If anything, this is proof AGAINST determinism in the sense that God is showing a special situation…. He called them (specially) in the womb. I mean, what else makes it special….. if it is the same for everybody?

    For instance:

    Jeremiah says what God says about him: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart….”

    And we say: (Yawn) ….. “Ho hum…. that’s true for all of us, so, uh, so what Jerry?”

    1. So then your point is that God does not know us before we’re born? I guess that whole Ephesians opener means Just paul or something then?

  5. Pastor Flowers writes, “On determinism, your decisions are determined by factors that are beyond your control (i.e. God’s eternal and unchangeable decree). On the other hand, Provisionists, like myself, believe you are the cause of your own choices. We would say that the cause of a choice is the chooser. The cause of a determination is the determiner.”

    Pastor Flowers ignores a topic of utmost importance in this debate – How did Adam’s disobedience affect his descendants? Calvinism’s answer is that there are two key ways Adam’s disobedience impacted his descendants: (1) people are born spiritually dead and (2) people are born without faith. Spiritual deadness is resolved by regeneration through the new birth and faith is conveyed to people through the hearing of the gospel. God determined this outcome saying to Adam, “…from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Adam ate and died and his descendants inherited his deadness. Dr. Flowers disagrees on this point because it is the foundation for a person’s inability to freely choose salvation that Dr. Flowers opposes in his philosophy of salvation.. Why not admit the obvious – Calvinists say that God has determined that people be born in a lost condition (spiritually dead and without faith) and need to be saved and then deal with the Calvinist explanation of God’s role in the salvation of a person involving issues of election, predestination, equal ultimacy, etc. .

    1. Rhutchin,

      People are NOT BORN SPIRITUALLY DEAD.

      Romans 7 tells you that before you KNOW good and evil, you are ALIVE. Once you get KNOWLEDGE, THEN you die a spiritual death. It’s NO DIFFERENT from Adam and Eve.

      We die a NATURAL death due to what Adam did.

      Finally, this topic is NOT about salvation at all.

      All faith is, if you dissect Hebrews 11:1, is…KNOWING THAT YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR.

      Again, OUR sequence of events are NO DIFFERENT than that of Adam and Eve. We are born spiritually alive, UNTIL WE GET KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, and when that day comes to each of us, that is our DEATH DATE.

      Born AGAIN is RESUMING, or, resurrecting from THAT spiritual death.

      LIFE COMES FIRST, THEN DEATH.

      Ed Chapman

      1. Ed,
        If Calvinists were correct that man is that dead at birth, then all miscarriages, still births, newborns, and small children who die would instantly be condemned.

        You can easily find “real” Calvinists who believe that, but most of them wiggle around and talk themselves out of that (cuz…. yuk, ghastly!)

        No wonder they baptize them right away!!

      2. FOH,
        Which is why they had to invent a doctrine specifically for that purpose. You can’t be dead, unless you first lived. Otherwise, death makes no sense. When you first get a guilty conscience, that is when people spiritually die. That is why the law is taught… to give you a guilty conscience. Call the law, if you will, the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Abraham played flippy flop with his sister, and Isaac was the product of incest. That’s a huge no no in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. Did God scold Abraham for that? No. Abraham had no clue, and God never told him, either. Yet, all Have sinned. Now see Romans 5:13, within the same chapter that Rhutchin is trying to discuss. We all die a natural death, but, as you note, and I agree, not all die a spiritual death…Babies don’t spiritually die, yet they die a natural death. Life begins at conception, not birth, so, still born was alive in the womb at conception… until they died naturally in the womb. But… they never spiritually died. Romans 7 discusses spiritual death. Romans 5 discusses natural death. Calvinists references of what David said has nothing to do with this at all, as this is explained in Romans 5 and 7.

      3. chapmaned24 writes, ‘When you first get a guilty conscience, that is when people spiritually die. ”

        So, if a person never has a guilty conscience, he never dies spiritually and never needs salvation?

      4. Rhutchin states, so, if a person never has a guilty conscience, he never dies spiritually and never needs salvation?

        This is a second response…
        Romans 2:14-16 discusses that the law of God is written in our hearts, long before any knowledge of the law of Moses. We already naturally know not to steal, or lie, etc. Babies have no concept of that. In time, they will. But to say that babies get a guilty conscience is insane. People like you refuse to see that it is a sin to be naked, all because God put Adam and Eve in the garden that way. But the guilt that they had was that they were naked. God asked, WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED? God never told them. Just like God never told Abraham that it’s a sin to sleep with your sister. He had no guilt about that. And Isaac was inbred, the promised seed. INBRED. INCEST. LEVITICUS CHAPTERS 18 AND 20. A SIN…And God didn’t even tell Abraham. Sin was not imputed to Abraham, cuz he didn’t know. Romans 5:13 and and and and Romans 4. Ignorance is bliss. No one is held to account for what they don’t have KNOWLEDGE (name of tree) of. And Abraham was considered righteous because he believed God… not because God regenerated him. The children of Israel are in need of regeneration. No Gentile.

      5. Rhutchin asks why babies die a natural death.

        My response… cuz Adam did not eat of the tree of life. Not because he ate of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Remember, Adam still would never die a natural death of he would have eaten of the tree of life after eating of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Babies would never die, if Adam would have, which means that we would all be spiritually dead, but live forever. That is the only way to be born dead. Summary… No one would never die if Adam ate of the tree of life, regardless of eating of the other tree or not. That’s why God blocked access to that tree.

      6. chapmaned24 writes, “No one would never die if Adam ate of the tree of life, regardless of eating of the other tree or not. That’s why God blocked access to that tree. ”

        Why were Adam’s descendants also denied entry into the garden given that they had done nothing wrong? Seems like only Adam and Eve were justifiably restricted from reentering the garden.

      7. rhutchin,

        You had asked:
        “Why were Adam’s descendants also denied entry into the garden given that they had done nothing wrong? Seems like only Adam and Eve were justifiably restricted from reentering the garden.”

        My response:

        I had NO IDEA that they tried to go back where someone would tell them “NO”. I never read that anywhere.

        In order to be denied entry, don’t ya first have to go there, maybe show an ID Card at the gate? Then, and only then can a SENTRY deny you entry. Who was guarding the garden to ensure no one entered? Was there a wall or a fence? Signs that said, “Authorized Personnel Only”?

        I’m being sarcastic for a reason. I have no idea why you would ask such a question. What’s your point? The parents were kicked out. Do you really think that Adam and Eve didn’t convey this to their children that they were NOT ALLOWED to go there? Come on, dude.

        Sin/Salvation, blah blah blah has nothing to do with the conversation of getting back to the garden.

        Do you really think that the garden was SUPPOSED TO BE their PERMANENT HOME for ETERNITY? I sure hope not. Do you really think that the EARTH is big enough to support ALL HUMANS that would ever be born, past, present, and future, who would never die?

        Where would you put everyone? In 10,000 story buildings? Everyone naked? If God was NEVER BORN, and our universe did not exist, then God’s DOMICILE is OUTSIDE of this realm, and the REAL Garden is NOT THIS EARTH, just as the topic of “CHILDREN OF FLESH vs. THE CHILDREN OF PROMISE.

        This is NOT OUR HOME. This was always meant to be temporary.

        2 Corinthians 4:18
        While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

        Ed Chapman

      8. FOH writes, ‘If Calvinists were correct that man is that dead at birth, then all miscarriages, still births, newborns, and small children who die would instantly be condemned.”

        Not really. Romans 9 still rules where God says, “…it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring…[God] says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden….even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” That is why parents pray to God for their children. Did you not pray for the salvation of your children even before they were born?

      9. chapmaned24 writes, “Topic of Romans 9 is the Jews, not the generic person.”

        the topic of Romans 9 is the “children of promise” and not the Jew. This is obvious from v6-8, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;…it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Later, Paul refers to the children of promise taken from among the Jews as the remnant, “In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.”

        We identify the topic of Romans 9 as “…the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Then, “For this is a word of promise:” followed by two examples Isaac and Jacob. It is the concept that “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants,” that Paul then addresses the objections, (1) “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?” and (2) “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”” Paul then expands the “children of promise to include gentiles, “…even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”

        How did you conclude that the Jew was the topic of Romans 9 given v6-8?

      10. rhutchin

        You had said, “They are not all Israel who are descendant from Israel.”

        My response:

        THIS IS WHERE CALVINISTS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY READ!

        First of all, the topic of this is NOT JUST IN ROMANS 9. It CONTINUES thru chapter 11, and therefore, you must use your, how you say, Exegesis?, throughout the whole story. If you just stop at “They are not all Israel who are the descendants from Israel”, then you will conclude exactly what you state.

        We all know that the “CHILDREN OF PROMISE” is thru JESUS, the promised SEED, not Isaac, the promised seed.

        Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

        Galatians 3:16 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.

        We KNOW THIS.

        My point has been, from the very beginning, that ALL THESE ISRAEL OF THE FLESH WILL BE “CONVERTED” TO BE CHILDREN OF PROMISE. ALL OF THEM.

        ALL OF THEM.

        Paul is giving the distinction of the DIFFERENCE between flesh (descendants of Israel), and spirit (the descendants of JESUS).

        NEXT, Paul discusses the ole MERCY clause that the ISRAEL OF THE FLESH receive.

        The REMNANT that you discuss, is those who are converted during their LIFETIME. I think you call that REGENERATION. Jews are the ONLY ONES who get regenerated. And why? Because God blinded them from the very beginning as a chosen people so that they would crucify Jesus. Gentiles are NOT IN THE CATEGORY OF NEEDING REGENERATION.

        The remaining will be unblinded after they die, and/or after the fullness of the Gentiles come in. For they will see the ONE THEY PIERCED. And they will mourn. And they will comforted. And they will get MERCY.

        This is no different than Joseph and his brothers.

        What does MERCY MEAN? It means that they will NOT GET WHAT THEY DESERVE.

        WHY did Paul get mercy? Because of his IGNORANCE. These Jews are no different than Paul is.

        God did not blind you or me. If you can’t see, it’s due to Satan, as scripture states, that Satan blinds people. God blinded the Jews.

        And God will unblind them. Future history is NOT FINISHED YET, and therefore, the Jews who are NOT REMNANT will be saved later.

        I stand by my comment that Romans 9 is NOT ABOUT GENTILES AT ALL, but Jews only.

        They will be the children of promise, altho they are not now, except for the remnant. The rest are in a slumber, and God will wake them up. WHEN?

        Romans 11:25-27
        25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

        26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

        27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

        NOTE THE WORD “WHEN” IN VERSE 27. Also NOTE: They will be unblinded AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles COME IN.

        I stand by my previous comment. Romans 9 isn’t about you, or me, or any Gentile at all. Just the Jews.

        You gotta ask yourself, without Calvin influence, WHY DID PAUL GET MERCY? Paul answers it plainly when he states that it was due to his ignorance, and then you gotta ask yourself, without Calvin influence, HOW IS THE JEWS ANY DIFFERENT THAN PAUL WAS?

        Romans 11:30-32
        30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

        31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

        32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

        1 Timothy 1:13
        Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

        Ed Chapman

      11. rhutchin citing Romans 9, wrote, ““They are not all Israel who are descendant from Israel.”
        chapmaned24 responded, “THIS IS WHERE CALVINISTS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY READ!”

        LOL!!! Then Ed completely ignores, and refuses to deal with, the verses in Romans 9 that I cited except he does make some general statements without context.

      12. rhutchin,

        You had said:
        “Ed completely ignores, and refuses to deal with, the verses in Romans 9 that I cited except he does make some general statements without context.”

        Wrong…I put context into it by FINISHING THE STORY thru chapter 11. I didn’t ignore anything.

        The Jews is the context of Romans 9-11, not Gentiles. I did not ignore your CALVINIST FAMOUS VERSE that Not all Israel is of Israel.

        I told you from the git go the following:
        “We all know that the “CHILDREN OF PROMISE” is thru JESUS, the promised SEED, not Isaac, the promised seed.

        Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

        Galatians 3:16 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.

        We KNOW THIS. ”

        Therefore, I didn’t ignore anything. All I did was to FINISH THE STORY putting context into it PROVING that this has nothing to do with Gentiles at all, but the Jews. And I don’t care how many times the word Gentile is mentioned. It is giving a contrast between Jew and Gentile, showing that the Jew will be saved JUST LIKE THE GENTILES ARE SAVED, and WHEN? After all the Gentiles be come in, as chapter 11 states.

        Your Calvinism has some strange beliefs.

        Ed Chapman

      13. chapmaned24 writes, “The Jews is the context of Romans 9-11, not Gentiles. I did not ignore your CALVINIST FAMOUS VERSE that Not all Israel is of Israel.
        I told you from the git go the following:
        “We all know that the “CHILDREN OF PROMISE” is thru JESUS, the promised SEED, not Isaac, the promised seed.”

        This adds nothing to the exegesis of Romans 9 (I think you know this). Let’s look at Romans 9 again:

        6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
        7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “Through Isaac shall thy descendants be called.”
        8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
        9 For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

        This says the children of promise (the Jews) are through Isaac and then through Jacob. You just go off doing your thing without regard to the context of Romans 9. You didn’t finish the story; you just started telling another story.

        Deal with Romans 9.

      14. rhutchin,

        You had said:
        “This adds nothing to the exegesis of Romans 9 (I think you know this). Let’s look at Romans 9 again:

        6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
        7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “Through Isaac shall thy descendants be called.”
        8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
        9 For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

        This says the children of promise (the Jews) are through Isaac and then through Jacob. You just go off doing your thing without regard to the context of Romans 9. You didn’t finish the story; you just started telling another story.

        Deal with Romans 9.”

        My response:

        First of all, you can’t deal with ROMANS 9 WITHOUT ROMANS 10 AND ROMANS 11. But, you neglect your own reference in verses 7-8, which states…NEITHER ARE THEY CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY ARE ABRAHAMS SEED, THAT IS, IT IS NOT THE CHILDREN OF ………THE KEY WORD IS COMING UP….”FLESH”…..THAT WAS THE KEY WORD….WHO ARE CHILDREN OF GOD, BUT THE CHILDREN OF…NEXT KEY WORD…PROMISE…THAT WAS THE SECOND KEY WORD…

        THEREFORE, I REST MY CASE BY BRINGING UP GALATIANS THAT JESUS IS THE PROMISED SEED, NOT ISAAC, BECAUSE ISAAC WAS THAT FIRST KEY WORD….FLESH.

        JESUS IS THE PROMISED SEED. WE ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM.

        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.

        Galatians 3:7
        Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

        So, for the 3rd time, I stand by my ORIGINAL statement about Romans 9-11, that it is discussing the Jews, NOT THE GENTILES, for the Jews will be saved at the point AFTER ALL THE ALLOTTED GENTILES COME IN, and they will be saved by MERCY because they do things in IGNORANCE, no different than Paul, and God is not a respector of persons. The Jews are blinded by God, and so was Paul, until God unblinded him, and gave him mercy.

        You deal with Romans 9:7-8! Then, when you are at it, finish the story thru chapter 11.

        Ed Chapman

      15. chapmaned24 writes, “First of all, you can’t deal with ROMANS 9 WITHOUT ROMANS 10 AND ROMANS 11.”

        Actually, you cannot deal with Romans 10-11 without first dealing with Romans 9.

        Then, “THEREFORE, I REST MY CASE BY BRINGING UP GALATIANS THAT JESUS IS THE PROMISED SEED, NOT ISAAC, BECAUSE ISAAC WAS THAT FIRST KEY WORD….FLESH.
        JESUS IS THE PROMISED SEED. WE ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM.”

        As Paul explains, “seed,” is singular and refers to Christ. In Romans 9, “children” is plural and refers to the Israelites that are saved by God with Issac and Jacob being examples along with the remnant in Romans 11.

        You skip to Galatians to avoid the obvious argument Paul makes in Romans 9.

        Then, “So, for the 3rd time, I stand by my ORIGINAL statement about Romans 9-11, that it is discussing the Jews, NOT THE GENTILES,…”

        You do this by ignoring Paul’s argument in Romans 9 and pursuing Paul’s argument in Galatians. Two different arguments made for two different purposes. An all too typical non-Calvinist approach.

      16. Abraham had 2 sons…i have to go to Galatians, because it’s the same. It confirms. Not all Abraham’s descendents are the children… plural… of the promise… Ishmael is not the seed of promise, and he is a descendent of Abraham. Ishmael does not inherited the promises all because he is not considered the promised seed. But he is a descendent.

        So, for the fourth time I’m standing by my statement that Romans 9 thru 11 is a topic of the Jews only that God will save them by mercy when he unblinds them after the fullness of the Gentiles come in, as chapter 11 states, just like Paul did, and why? Because of ignorance, just like Paul said of himself.

      17. chapmaned24 writes, “I’m standing by my statement that Romans 9 thru 11 is a topic of the Jews ”

        I’ll go with Paul’s argument in Romans 9 that deals with “children of promise.” I can see why you, and others, want to avoid that.

      18. So will I go by that same that you said, that Ishmael, Abraham’s first son, and Ishmael’s descendents are not the children of promise.

      19. chapmaned24 writes, “Abraham’s first son, and Ishmael’s descendents are not the children of promise. ”

        Neither is Esau. This supports Paul’s point that they are not all Israel (children of promise) who are descendant from Israel. This raises the objections of v14 and v19.

      20. rhutchin,

        NOTE: My previous comment said Isaac was of the FLESH. CORRECTION…ISMAEL was of the flesh. ISMAEL DOES NOT INHERIT THE PROMISES. ISMAEL DOES NOT GET THE PROMISED LAND.

        REMEMBER: ABRAHAM HAD 2 SONS. ONE OF FLESH, ISMAEL, ONE OF PROMISE, ISAAC.

        Key words in Romans 9:7-8 is
        1. FLESH
        2. PROMISE

        Isaac was the PROMISED SEED for the descendants of Abraham. Ismael, the first born, he was born of the FLESH, and he is NOT CONSIDERED a descendant of ABRAHAM.

        Galatians 4:22-31
        22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

        23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the FLESH; but he of the freewoman was by PROMISE.

        24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

        25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

        26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

        27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

        ************************************28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.*************************************

        29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

        30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

        31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

        And Galatians 3 tells us that Jesus is THE REAL PROMISED SEED. So…what is the REAL PROMISED LAND?

        Ed Chapman

      21. chapmaned24 writes, “And Galatians 3 tells us that Jesus is THE REAL PROMISED SEED.”

        And as you note, believers are the children of promise – the argument Paul makes in Romans 9. Romans 9 is not about the seed (Christ) but about the children of promise (believers). Stick with the context of Romans 9 until you understand Paul’s argument there; then you can go to Galatians 4 and understand “And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.”

      22. Romans 9 is not about Gentile people. At all. You do not put Romans 9 into context, not me. All Paul is discussing is two words in Romans 9:7-8, flesh, vs. Promise. That Isaac is three promise, and Ishmael isn’t. That Ishmael doesn’t inherit the promise, the children of isaac does.

        Ishmael is the subject of not all descendents of Abraham are of Abraham. Ishmael, and Ismael’s descendents do not inherit the promised land. Arabs do not inherit the physical land of Israel, Canaan, Palestine, or whatever you wish to call that small piece of real estate.

      23. chapmaned24 writes, “Romans 9 is not about Gentile people. At all.”

        Romans 9
        23 And [God] did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
        24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

        Paul disagrees with you.

        Then, “All Paul is discussing is two words in Romans 9:7-8, flesh, vs. Promise. ”

        Romans 9
        8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

        A clear statement followed by the objections to this in v14 “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?,” and v19 ‘You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

      24. Romans 9-7-8 is not discussing Jesus or believers. It’s discussing Isaac vs. Ishmael, the seed of Abraham, Isaac being the child of promise, whose children receive the promised land, instead of the first born, the child of the flesh, Ishmael. His statement is an explanation of the word promise vs. Flesh, using Isaac and Ishmael, the seeds plural of Abraham. The seeds of promise get the promised land. The seeds of the flesh get nothing. Deuteronomy, Moses tells us that the Jews are blind from the git go. God unblinds a remnant. But the rest will be given mercy. Mercy. Mercy. Paul was given mercy mercy mercy. He is no different than they are. God is not a respector of persons. Mercy. And why? Due to their ignorance. What do you not understand? Romans 9:7-8 is not discussing believers. It’s only discussing heirs to the promise. Ishmael is not the heir of anything. Now go to Galatians. Non believers do not inherit eternal life. Just like Ishmael does not inherit Israel, the nation of. All descendents of Abraham thru Isaac will be saved. Mercy due to ignorance thru blindness. Just like Joseph gave his brothers mercy. I can’t say this any plainer than this.

      25. chapmaned24 writes, ‘Romans 9-7-8 is not discussing Jesus or believers.”

        Romans 9 builds from Paul’s statement, “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;” Paul then distinguishes between Israel in the flesh and the children of promise. v9-13 provide two examples to make Paul’s point – Isaac and Jacob were chosen.. Then Paul addresses objections to the idea that God chooses the “children of promise.” Obviously, we disagree on this but a plain reading of Romans 9 makes my point. You keep going off on tangents.

      26. Let me clarify Romans 9, rhutchin… Romans 9 is about the Jews getting mercy, just like Paul did, so when he is discussing not the natural, he’s discussing the Jews being converted, based on getting mercy that they don’t deserve under the law. The law of Moses doesn’t is proof of sin, which is a death sentence. So, like I said, Romans 9 is about the Jews that will concert based on mercy given when unblinded, no different than what Paul got. This is not discussing Gentile believers or Gentile unbelievers. Just the Jews.

    2. Calvinists make big (unbiblical) presuppositions that “spiritually dead” means incapable (although the “dead” son in Luke 15 quite capably “came to his senses”), and that man cannot have faith (although Christ tells people all the time they have faith….as does the long list of names in Hebrews 11).

      I have never found a Calvinist who can apply those shaky presuppositions to one of the literally-millions of scenarios similar to the one below:

      Your teenager brings a non-believing friend (say, 15 years old) to Youth Group. That person continues to come to Bible studies, asking great questions for years. At the age of 27, and after years of faithful attendance at Bible studies, camps, retreats, and church services, that person publically professes Christ and is baptized.

      What was that person doing for 12 years (while reading the Bible, looking for answers, asking questions)? Was he “seeking”? Was he incapable? Dead in sin…. but seeking?

      If your answer is “Yes he was seeking” —then it follows that he had to have been (according to Calvinism) regenerated (since otherwise he is a God-hating, non-seeker). So, regenerated for 12 years before professing Christ.

      If your answer is “No he was not seeking” (since unregenerate people cannot seek— and he was only regenerated right before his profession of Christ)….. then what was he doing for 12 years?

      Perhaps he was being “persuaded” (Paul’s word), “reasoned with” (Paul’s word), “convinced” (Paul word), “proved to” (Paul’s word).

      But that just means a Calvinist mocks Scripture since you don’t do those things to “dead man”. And a “regenerated, then instantly irresistibly drawn” man needs none of those things. Silly Paul to say such things!

      1. I really wish that Calvinists would realize that the word regeneration is directed at the blind Jews only. It’s not directed at any Gentile at all. And since the blind Jew Paul was unblinded, and given mercy due to ignorance, and since God is not a respector of persons, then those Jews who are blind, will be regenerated, just like Paul, and it’s due to their ignorance cuz they are blinded by God. As Jesus told the Pharisees, since they claim to see, then they remain in their sins. Jesus came to heal the blind. That has a spiritual meaning… for the Jews… Not just that Jesus healed a few blind men. The devil blinds others, such as the Calvinists. So, the devil is in the reform churches. As Mark Levine would say… “yes I said it! ” Satan is in the reform churches.

    3. rhutchin
      Pastor Flowers ignores a topic of utmost importance in this debate – How did Adam’s disobedience affect his descendants?

      br.d
      Not ignored at all – totally accounted for – as it comes under the heading of “Caused by factors beyond (Adam et all’s) control”.

      rhutchin:
      Why not admit the obvious?

      br.d
      Because deflecting to superfluous red herrings may be obvious – but not the HEART of the matter
      And that is where Dr Flowers (being a rational thinker) has his focus.

      We can understand the Calvinist – in order to evade the HEART of the matter – focuses on domino 3 effects domino 4 etc.
      Dr. Flowers article focuses on the CAUSE/ORIGIN/SOURCE and CONTROLLER of every element and effect within the chain.

      1. Calvinism’s distortion of Genesis grounds their entire false system. Let’s take a look a few of the facts, and perhaps expose some of Calvinism’s distortions along the way.

        God is wholly good, and without sin. The creatures he made were also without sin, but, being made in his image, they retained the free choice to at any time reject God and introduce sin and rebellion into the created world. Which is exactly what Adam and Eve did.

        I’m not going to run through all of the games and rhetoric used by Calvinists (read through these threads if you are interested) but the enormous, really insurmountable, problem Calvinism’s Determinism creates is that it leaves no one but God to blame for sin and evil. If he determined all things, as in Calvinism’s irresistible decrees, there is no explanation for evil other than that it arose from the very heart and determination of God.

        But let’s leave the land of fairy tales and get back to the real story. Adam freely chose to disobey God – a choice that only God, his Creator, could have made possible, but by no means desired or determined. Note that this Creator had warned his creatures that disobedience comes with a huge price – as in death. And this curse, the entrance of death into a world in which it was not formerly present, is the curse that Adam ‘brought’ to all creation and all future men.

        Paul teaches through many of his letters that with sin came the fear of death, which is what separated men from God. They knew they were sinners, and under this curse of death. Paul explains it thusly in Hebrews 2:14-15: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.”

        Once Jesus atoned for sin, and removed its accompanying fear of death, men were once again free to approach their Creator, trusting in his promise to forgive their sin and release them from the curse of death.

        This most vital understanding of sin, curse and death has been so distorted and twisted by Calvinistic theology that even most non-Calvinists have been infected with its poisonous error.

        Scripture in no way, ever, suggests that Adam’s sin effected some sort of change in man’s genetic makeup, so that he now had ‘sin’ engrafted upon his soul like a heritable physical trait. God did not, nor could he ever, curse man with an inability to desire, seek and love that which is good, true, and lovely. What an unthinkable accusation with which Calvinism so readily smears our good and perfect God.
        Any thinking person can readily grasp the difference between creating man with the freedom to rebel and make bad choices and cursing him with the inability to do anything else.

        I cry foul on the entire Total Depravity charade, which has a mere mortal, named Adam, casting a curse upon the entire human race that would lead to their entire annihilation. Actually, forget about me calling foul, let’s here what God has to say:

        “The word of the Lord came to me again: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.

        “If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right— if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of impurity, does not oppress any one, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, does not lend at interest or take any increase, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between man and man, walks in my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances[a]—he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord God.

        “If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood,[b] who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

        “But if this man begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, and fears, and does not do likewise, who does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife, does not wrong any one, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, withholds his hand from iniquity,[c] takes no interest or increase, observes my ordinances, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.

        “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

        “But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

        “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?

        “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.[d] Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord God; so turn, and live.”” (Ezekiel 18)

      2. Right on TS00
        -quote
        Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions.

        br,d
        All of that either being totally irrational or totally dishonest – if Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism is true)

        For it would be the case that Calvin’s god:
        1) Knew that he had RENDERED-CERTAIN the opposite
        2) And as such – knew that he would not permit Adam and Israel to do what he commanded
        3) And as such – Knew that he was communicating falsehoods
        4) And as such – nothing stated by god within scripture can be trusted.

        Thus Calvin’s god shows himself to be irrational, unethical, and dishonest – according to Biblical standards.

      3. “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.”

        Note that within Exekiel 18 lies this little gem, which casts all of Calvinism’s false hopes upon the rocks. All of the ‘God doesn’t see your sin’ shenanigans, which allows men to sin and believe themselves ‘accepted’ by God is exposed for the lie that it is. Ezekiel 18 not only destroys Total Depravity, it also annihilates the precious Once Saved Always Saved that has led so many astray.

        God does indeed look upon our actions, and will hold us accountable for them. We cannot ‘earn’ our salvation, but simply claiming to ‘believe’ in Jesus and then continuing in wickedness is not going to make the cut. To rehabilitate a Calvinist notion, Jesus’ work was indeed an effectual work – he intends to not only ‘save’ but to reform (small ‘r’) sinners. That’s right small ‘r’ reform means to re-form, or make new, not to inculcate with man-made doctrine.

      4. TS00 writes, “Note that within Exekiel 18 lies this little gem, which casts all of Calvinism’s false hopes upon the rocks….Ezekiel 18 not only destroys Total Depravity, it also annihilates the precious Once Saved Always Saved that has led so many astray.”

        No, it established Calvinism because Calvinism says that God must save a person if a person is to be saved and then God must preserve the person if the person is to persevere to the end. It is because of TD that God must personally intervene to save a person, and it is “Once Saved Always Saved” that requires that God personally intervene to protect His elect and preserve them to the end.

      5. br.d writes, “Thus Calvin’s god shows himself to be irrational, unethical, and dishonest – according to Biblical standards.”

        No, it shows that God gave, by decree, people the freedom to choose how to act even knowing the actions they would take.

      6. br.d
        Thus Calvin’s god shows himself to be irrational, unethical, and dishonest – according to Biblical standards.”

        rhutchin
        No, it shows that God gave, by decree, people the freedom to choose how to act even knowing the actions they would take.

        br.d
        This is deceptive language

        The creature is NOT free to be/do what is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN
        And Calvin’s god knows that to the TRUE – at the foundation of the word millennia before people exist.

        A Calvinist trying to paint a picture of divine knowledge via observation is a beguiler in your garden.

      7. br.d writes, “The creature is NOT free to be/do what is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        Free if those actions accord with his desires and he is not coerced to act contrary to his desires. Man is free to choose between that which he desires and that which he does not desire but always chooses that which he desires. Remove God from the equation and make man autonomous and you get the same outcome.

      8. br.d
        The creature is NOT free to be/do what is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN

        rhutchin
        Free if those actions accord with his desires and he is not coerced to act contrary to his desires.

        br.d
        This is serpent language
        In Theological Determinism man is NOT free and NOT permitted to have desires otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN

        rhutchin
        Man is free to choose between that which he desires

        br.d
        FALSE

        Peter Van Inwagen
        -quote:
        “Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future”.

        Choosing between two possible options would require libertarian free will
        Which requires ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES
        Which don’t exist in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism)

        rhutchin
        Remove God from the equation and make man AUTONOMOUS and you get the same outcome.

        br.d
        FALSE
        Man being AUTONOMOUS and Determinism are mutually exclusive – where one is TRUE the other is FALSE.
        Where determinism does not exist ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES do exist.

        No adult in his right mind would make such a silly childish claim! :-]

      9. ” Man is free to choose between that which he desires and that which he does not desire but always chooses that which he desires.”

        Nonsense doublespeak translation:

        Man will do exactly what God irresistibly ordained him to do (before he ever came into existence), because God also ordained what man will ‘desire’ and thus ‘choose’ to do.

        Some free ‘choice’. You are free to at whatever you wish, as long as you wish for spinach. 😉

      10. TS00
        Some free ‘choice’. You are free to at whatever you wish, as long as you wish for spinach. 😉

        br.d
        Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking-pattern is pretty hilarious

        Absolutely nothing you think/do/desire is within your control
        But you go about your office *AS-IF* everything is

        True *AS-IF* false
        False *AS-IF* true

        That thinking-pattern is the only way Calvinists can maintain normalcy
        And it is the thinking-pattern they project onto the authors of scripture

        Their brains have been RE-formed to think irrationally :-]

      11. TS00 writes, “Nonsense doublespeak translation:
        Man will do exactly what God irresistibly ordained him to do (before he ever came into existence), because God also ordained what man will ‘desire’ and thus ‘choose’ to do.”

        God ordained that man do as he desired. Adam desired to eat the fruit, so he ate. God ordaining that outcome did not cause Adam to desire or eat. Cain desired to murder Abel. God ordaining that outcome did not cause Cain to desire or murder.

        God created man in His image and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” That enabled man to have his own unique set of desires framed by the information available to him, his understanding of that information, and the wisdom he possessed. As we read in 1 John 2, “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.” It is the world that frames a person’s desires and not God. That God ordained all this does not remove man’s responsibility or accountability to God for his actions.

        So, the Psalmist petitions God in Psalm 119, “Make me understand the way of Thy precepts, So I will meditate on Thy wonders…. Give me understanding, that I may observe Thy law, And keep it with all my heart…Thy hands made me and fashioned me; Give me understanding, that I may learn Thy commandments.” Thus, also, James exhorts, “…if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

      12. Thus, also, James exhorts, “…if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

        There he goes again, throwing out verses that are the antithesis of Calvinism as if they prove it true. The same God who promises to generously give wisdom to all who ask, also promises to generously give life to all who seek it.

        But of course, to Calvinists, those are simply clever, nonsense words, as God already foreordained who would be given the ‘ability’ to desire wisdom or life.

        “All who want candy, come and get it” the evil man sneers at the helpless children whose legs he broke. Thus Calvin’s god offers wisdom and life to those whom he did not choose, did not die for and did not provide forgiveness and eternal life for; because he knows they are deaf and dumb and he can cruelly jeer at them all he wants.

      13. TS00 writes, “Thus Calvin’s god offers wisdom and life to those whom he did not choose, did not die for and did not provide forgiveness and eternal life for; because he knows they are deaf and dumb”

        Those same people were made in God’s image and have the ability to make rational decisions. While they have no desire for Christ and are spiritually dead, it is still rational to seek salvation. To reject salvation is to make an irrational decision. Given a choice between nothing and something, people always rationally choose something – except when it comes to salvation. Those who reject salvation have no excuse.

      14. Rhutchin writes:
        “Those same people were made in God’s image and have the ability to make rational decisions. While they have no desire for Christ and are spiritually dead, it is still rational to seek salvation. To reject salvation is to make an irrational decision. Given a choice between nothing and something, people always rationally choose something – except when it comes to salvation. Those who reject salvation have no excuse.”

        ‘To reject salvation is to make an irrational decision.’

        Nonsense. What would be irrational – not to mention impossible – would be for someone to accept a salvation that was never offered to them. Being ‘Totally Depraved’ – incapable of understanding or desiring God – is not the half of it. Remember Calvinism’s Tulip? The ‘L’ stands for ‘Limited Atonement’, which means that Christ did not die for all, but only a select few. It would be irrational to ‘seek salvation’ when it does not exist, and for the vast majority of sinners under Calvinism, salvation is not even a possibility.

        I would like to hear the local Calvinist explain just how a reprobate sinner might make the ‘rational decision’ to ‘seek salvation’ and exactly how it would be accomplished. That would be very interesting. And of course, if it cannot be done, then lost sinners have every excuse, and will stand undaunted at the Judgment and challenge the justice of a god who foreordained them to sin and hell without a chance of escape.

        Calvinism is a horrid offense to the gospel, and its defenders are forced to practice nonsense and doublespeak as they attempt to shield their false god from just accusations of being partial, unloving and cruel.

      15. TS00 writes, ‘I would like to hear the local Calvinist explain just how a reprobate sinner might make the ‘rational decision’ to ‘seek salvation’”

        That’s the point. Calvinism says that people behave irrationally with respect to the things of God and this is part of their depravity. In no other area of life will we find these people acting with this same irrationality, The irrationality is purposeful given their hatred for God.

      16. rhutchin
        Those same people were made in God’s image and have the ability to make rational decisions

        br.d
        “so called” Rational decisions!
        *AS-IF* they can have one single decision that isn’t RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside their control!
        What a joke! :-]

      17. ‘Hear’, God says to sinners, but of course they cannot.
        ‘Come’, God says to sinners, but of course they cannot.
        ‘Turn’, God says to sinners, but of course they cannot.
        ‘Live’, God says to sinners, but of course they cannot.

        Who can help them, who can rescue them from sin and death? God alone, who (under Calvinism) refuses to do so.

      18. 1 Corinthians 10:13 does not apply to the Calvinist.
        He has NO escape from his sin – since there is NO escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN

      19. br.d writes, “He has NO escape from his sin – since there is NO escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        1 Corinthians 10:13
        No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.

        This is a true statement because it has already been ordained by God.

      20. God made a way to escape, that does not mean that we use the escape. Christians still sin, proving that Christians failed to use the escape that God… how you say? Ordained? Instead of ordained, he provided. I am not a fan of religious speak. Ordained? Lol.

      21. br.d
        The Calvinist has NO escape from his sin – since there is NO escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        rhutchin
        1 Corinthians 10:13
        No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.

        This is a true statement because it has already been ordained by God.

        br.d
        Exactly – all of the Calvinist’s sin is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and he has no escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.

      22. br.d writes, “Exactly – all of the Calvinist’s sin is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and he has no escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.”

        Except where God has rendered certain that escape.

      23. br.d
        Exactly – all of the Calvinist’s sin is RENDERED-CERTAIN – and the Calvinist has no escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.”

        rhutchin
        Except where God has rendered certain that escape.

        br.d
        FALSE
        Calvin’s god CANNOT make something both TRUE and FALSE at the same time.

        If Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN “not-sin” then “not-sin” is what exists
        In such case there is nothing to escape .

        Except for a FALSE PRESENTATION of sin never RENDERED-CERTAIN and therefore sin that never existed.

        Try as you might – you can’t escape TRUE LOGIC :-]

      24. br.d writes, “Try as you might – you can’t escape TRUE LOGIC ”

        Now, if you could only explain your TRUE LOGIC so that it makes sense! So far, you only make personal claims.

      25. br.d
        Try as you might – you can’t escape TRUE LOGIC ”

        rhutchin
        Now, if you could only explain your TRUE LOGIC so that it makes sense! So far, you only make personal claims.

        br.d
        I understand your dilemma.
        In order to maintain a sense of normalcy and retain a semblance of coherence with scripture the Calvinist is taught to
        -quote
        “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”

        This resolves to *AS-IF* think patterns
        True *AS-IF* False
        False *AS-IF* True

        Ravi Zacharias explains this as a byproduct of trying to hold to determinism.
        Stephen Hawkins agrees – the determinist must live *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE
        .
        You’ll never be able to connect with TRUE LOGIC with that as your mental handicap.

      26. TS00 writes, “Who can help them, who can rescue them from sin and death? God alone, who (under Calvinism) refuses to do so.”

        Spoken like a true Universalist. What exactly is your complaint? You rail against something in which you do not believe and that you are convinced is not true. What can the imaginary and false accomplish?

      27. rhutchin
        God ordained that man do as he desired.

        br.d
        This is beguiler language
        In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all creaturely desires are outside of man’s control – RENDERED-CERTAIN by Calvin’s god.
        Man is NOT free and NOT permitted to desire otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        Man has no say in the matter

        Just as Eve was beguiled by cunning words
        Any Calvinist trying to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler.

      28. In Calvinism it follows:
        If it comes to pass – then Calvin’s god did not permit it to be/do otherwise – it was RENDERED-CERTAIN

        Thus:
        – Lucifer was not permitted to refrain from beguiling.
        – Adam was not permitted to refrain from eating the fruit.
        – Cain was not permitted to refrain from killing Abel.
        – Joseph’s brothers were not permitted to refrain from hurting Joseph.
        – Judas was not permitted to refrain from betraying Jesus.

        Thus:
        If it comes to pass that Calvinists try to portray otherwise
        Then it logically follows – Calvin’s god does not permit them to refrain from beguiling.
        Just like Lucifer in the garden – the circle starts all over.

      29. br.d writes, “Thus:
        – Lucifer was not permitted to refrain from beguiling….”

        In other words, Satan could beguile if that is what he desired to do, even as Adam choose to eat, Cain choose to murder Abel, etc. God rendered certain the ability of people to express their desires in their behavior; people were not coerced to do that which they did not want.

      30. br.d writes, “Thus:
        Lucifer was not permitted to refrain from beguiling….”

        rhutchin
        In other words, Satan could beguile if that is what he desired to do, even as Adam choose to eat, Cain choose to murder Abel, etc. God rendered certain the ability of people to express their desires in their behavior; people were not coerced to do that which they did not want.

        br.d
        Let [X] = think/be/do/desire/choose/wish/want/feel/nature/inclination/etc

        In other words Lucifer/Adam etc – was NOT free and NOT permitted to refrain from [X]

        The same freedom robots have :-]

      31. br.d writes, “In other words Lucifer/Adam etc – was NOT free and NOT permitted to refrain from [X]”

        Because no one can overcome his desires. God merely took the person’s desires and ordained them.

      32. br.d
        br.d
        Let [X] = think/be/do/desire/choose/wish/want/feel/nature/inclination/etc

        In other words Lucifer/Adam etc – was NOT free and NOT permitted to refrain from [X] which is RENDERED-CERTAIN

        rhutchin
        Because no one can overcome his desires.

        br.d
        Your too late – desires are already included in [X]

        rhutchin
        God merely took the person’s desires and ordained them.

        br.d
        Any Calvinist who attempts to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler

        Here is an excellent example:
        1) The language in this statement is strategically crafted to INFER divine knowledge via observation
        2) Notice how the term “ordained” is used instead of RENDERED-CERTAIN before the person was born.

        Just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning words.
        Thanks rhutchin for another great example

      33. br.d
        ‘Your too late – desires are already included in [X]”

        rhutchin
        So, God ordained that they do as they desired.

        br.d
        No one here is fooled by those deceptive statements

      34. TS00 writes, “The creatures [God] made were also without sin, but, being made in his image, they retained the free choice to at any time reject God and introduce sin and rebellion into the created world. Which is exactly what Adam and Eve did.”

        Adam and Eve were made in God’s image but were not perfect – they had limited knowledge, limited understanding and limited wisdom. They were able to gather info, increase in understanding of their environment, and make better and wiser decisions – founded on God’s commands. However, it was not until Satan entered the garden that things went downhill and Satan could only enter the garden because God decreed that he be free to enter the garden. Once Satan entered the garden, he introduced bad information and bad decisions resulted. God knew this would happen and it was His plan else He would not have done it.

        Then, “,,,the enormous, really insurmountable, problem Calvinism’s Determinism creates is that it leaves no one but God to blame for sin and evil.”

        “…blame…”? God certainly set up the scenario that let to sin. However, Adam made a free choice to eat the fruit – knowing that God had commanded him not to eat. Adam is rightly to be blamed for sin and evil as God did not force, or encourage, Adam to eat the fruit. God determined that Adam would eat the fruit because He knew what was happening, if only through observation, but had decreed to give Adam freedom to act without interference from Him. Like Adam, people exercise free will to their destruction.

        Then, “Adam freely chose to disobey God – a choice that only God, his Creator, could have made possible, but by no means desired or determined.”

        Had God not desired that outcome, He would have intervened to prevent it. God’s desired that Adam be free to act as he desired. As God knew what was happening means that God determined the outcome by His inaction.

        Then, “Once Jesus atoned for sin, and removed its accompanying fear of death, men were once again free to approach their Creator, trusting in his promise to forgive their sin and release them from the curse of death.”

        As you say, “…men were once again free…,” you agree with the Calvinist who say that men were enslaved to sin and not free. How God conveyed this freedom to men is contested. Had all people been freed seek forgiveness by whatever means imagined, then all would be saved as that decision was a no-brainer. It is to explain why people confronted with their sin and eternal destruction would choose to reject salvation is that which Calvinism explains.

      35. If I told my children not to play with matches, and them I find out that they disobeyed me, when I get a call from the fire department that my children were killed in a house fire, then you would conclude that they deserved what they got for their disobedience.

        But what you fail to recognize, is the reason that I didn’t want them to play with matches is because I didn’t want them to be killed in a fire, or get burnt.

        What’s my point?

        God told Adam not to eat of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil because he didn’t want Adam to get knowledge of good and evil. He didn’t want Adam to be as smart as gods. He’d rather have them ignorant of their nakedness than to know that they were naked. God did ask them, WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED? They had no clue.

        As long as you have no clue about your nakedness, then you are sin free.

        You concentrate on the disobedience, i concentrate on the consequence instead.

        Ed Chapman

      36. chapmaned24 writes, “But what you fail to recognize, is the reason that I didn’t want them to play with matches is because I didn’t want them to be killed in a fire, or get burnt.”

        Yet, you opened the door to your house giving freedom to Satan to go in and tempt them to play with the matches resulting in the fire and their destruction. So, why did you open the door to Satan knowing the end result?

      37. rhutchin,

        So, what are you saying? That Adam and Eve had free will to obey Satan?

        Or that since God doesn’t want to be accused of tempting man of evil, God is colonel Jessup, Satan is lieutenant Kendrick, and God ordered lieutenant Kendrick to give Adam and Eve a code red?

        Or is Satan out to seek, kill, and destroy, while God is out to seek, save, and heal?

        What was the reason for sacrifices? What was it’s sole purpose?

        If sin separates man from God, how does God come back to the relationship?what does a sacrifice do? Who brings the sacrifice? Isn’t that sacrifice a work of man? If sin separates man from God, God isn’t coming back at all, if man doesn’t produce a sacrifice.

        But God killed the first living creature, didn’t he? Why?

      38. chapmaned24 asks, “So, what are you saying? That Adam and Eve had free will to obey Satan?”

        Yep.

        Then, “Or that since God doesn’t want to be accused of tempting man of evil, God is colonel Jessup, Satan is lieutenant Kendrick, and God ordered lieutenant Kendrick to give Adam and Eve a code red? ”

        Nope. Satan is subordinate to God and does his thing under God’s restraint. Much like Assyria in Isaiah 10, “I send Assyria against a godless nation )Israel) And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy, And to cut off many nations.” Satan’s purpose is to destroy and is always being restrained by God; he cannot destroy unless God loosens His restraints.

        Then, “If sin separates man from God, how does God come back to the relationship?”

        God does not have to come back; He never left. Man has to come to God and does this through the sacrifices. Thus, Jesus says, ““Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” Also, Isiah 66, “…declares the LORD. “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”

        I gather that you are not contesting my earlier comments since you are moving on to other issues.

      39. chapmaned24
        “So, what are you saying? That Adam and Eve had free will to obey Satan?”

        rhutchin
        Yep.

        br.d
        FALSE
        Free will to obey Calvin’s god – NOTHING more – NOTHING less
        Adam and Eve did EXACTLY what Calvin’s god willed them to do

        Disobedience to his PRESCRIBED will – was obedience to his SECRET will.
        Thus Adam and Eve were in perfect obedience to the divine will.

        Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture otherwise is working as a beguiler in your garden

      40. br.d writes, “FALSE
        Free will to obey Calvin’s god – NOTHING more – NOTHING less
        Adam and Eve did EXACTLY what Calvin’s god willed them to do”

        Free to do as they desired without being prevented by God. They did exactly what God willed them to do even as God willed Joseph’s brothers to do. God did not have to initiate the evil actions but needed only to restrain those actions to accomplish His purposes and will.

      41. You contradicted yourself here based on three answer you gave me. My question asked if they had free will to obey Satan. That’s not free will. Free will to obey Satan means that they had free will to disregard Satan. It’s not one sided. You make it one sided. And that is stupid, cuz it is a contradiction of what I asked.

      42. chapmaned24 writes, ‘My question asked if they had free will to obey Satan. That’s not free will. Free will to obey Satan means that they had free will to disregard Satan.”

        Free will is freedom to do as one desires, If one desires to obey Satan, he can do so; if one desires to disregard Satan, he can do so. One is not compelled by Satan to obey Satan or by God to disregard Satan – he does as he desires. That God is omniscient and knows beforehand what a person desires and will choose to do does not change this.

      43. rhutchin
        Free will is freedom to do as one desires, If one desires to obey Satan, he can do so;

        br.d
        The THEOS determines every creature desire/neurological impulse etc
        Creatures are NOT free NOT permitted to be/do/desire/function otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN
        The creature has no say in the matter

        Same mode of freedom a robot has
        Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture of creature autonomy or divine knowledge via observation is a beguiler

      44. br.d
        FALSE
        Free will to obey Calvin’s god – NOTHING more – NOTHING less
        Adam and Eve did EXACTLY what Calvin’s god willed them to do”

        rhutchin
        Free to do as they DESIRED without being prevented by God.

        br.d
        This is serpent language
        Since it is the case in Calvinism they are NOT free and NOT permitted to DESIRE otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN

        rhutchin
        They did exactly what God willed them to do

        br.d
        BING!

        rhutchin
        even as God willed Joseph’s brothers to do.

        br.d
        BING!

        rhutchin
        God did not have to INITIATE the evil actions

        br.d
        FALSE

        John Calvin
        -quote
        “The hand of God rules the interior affections….they [man] can do nothing unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE* them will before they acted”

        Additionally:
        Calvin’s god needed to FIRST CONCEIVE them in his mind – and then RENDER-CERTAIN them in his will.
        Thus they have their SOURCE/ORIGIN in the mind of Calvin’s god.

        Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy – or divine omniscience via observation – is functioning as a beguiler.

        See WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY IN CALVINISM
        https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/21/why-divine-permission-establishes-free-will/#comment-34483

      45. I not only have contention with what you have previously said, but this, too. I just have not taken the time to respond. Calvinists frustrate me to no end. You said here that God doesn’t have to come back. That’s stupid. insane. An idiotic statement. You said that man has to come to God, and does this thru sacrifices. Good answer. But, your God doesn’t have to come back, while my God asks, where are you? Come back to me. I love you!
        I even love Esau, too.

        So you believe that God loves those in hell?

      46. chapmaned24 writes, “You said here that God doesn’t have to come back. That’s stupid. insane. An idiotic statement. You said that man has to come to God, and does this thru sacrifices. Good answer. But, your God doesn’t have to come back, while my God asks, where are you? Come back to me. I love you!”

        God’s declaring, “where are you? Come back to me. I love you!” requires that man “Come back to me.” That was the consequence of Adam’s sin. God could exhort man to obey Him as He did through His prophets and man could refuse as Israel did in Jeremiah 42, “But it came about, as soon as Jeremiah whom the LORD their God had sent, had finished telling all the people all the words of the LORD their God…that Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the arrogant men said to Jeremiah, “You are telling a lie! The LORD our God has not sent you to say, ‘You are not to enter Egypt to reside there’;”

        However, eventually, God did have to “come back” in order to save His elect. Thus, Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,…” So, I agree on that point.

      47. ALSO, to use the book of JOB to convince me that Satan is limited in what he can do, that is insane, too. The situation with JOB was unique, as an already follower of God, job was. A test of his faith. That’s the story of JOB. The situation with JOB is not a norm for the average person, especially for those who are not followers of God to begin with. To use job as the guideline, that’s wrong.

      48. chapmaned24 writes, “ALSO, to use the book of JOB to convince me that Satan is limited in what he can do, that is insane, too.”

        Absent the book of Job, we know that God is sovereign and Satan is subordinate to God and is limited to the extent that God limits him.

      49. RHUTCHIN
        APRIL 10, 2019 AT 3:08 PM
        Satan is SUBORDINATE to God and is LIMITED to the extent that God LIMITS him.

        br,d
        Notice the deceptive semantics
        Here the terms SUBORDINATE and LIMIT are designed to INFER a degree of creaturely autonomy

        John Calvin’s quote on the devil
        -quote
        Can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what [he] has conceived, nor…..move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He permits (i.e. RENDERS-CERTAIN), nay, unless in so far as He COMMANDS; ….[the devil is] …FORCED to do Him service.” Institutes I, 17, 11.

        Any Calvinist trying to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler

      50. rhutchin,

        You always play the sovereign card. What you fail to realize, is that Satan has free reign on earth. He’s the king of this world. He’s the god of this world. He can do as he pleases. All God does, is intervene to keep Satan from obtaining his objective regarding prophesy. Satan is sovereign, too. There is a real battle between God and Satan. And it has nothing to do with sovereignty. Prayer is needed to keep Satan from believers. Sovereign or not, God does not interfere with Satan’s kingdom. Satan is not limited. He is not subordinate. The story of JOB is no different than the song, THE DEVIL WENT DOWN TO GEORGIA. It was a bet. A bet with conditions, but that does not mean that Satan is limited. It’s like making a bet on a football game, and the condition is a 6 point spread. Satan has the free will opportunity to not agree to the terms, and back out. But Satan took the bet, cuz he thought he’d win the bet. When he lost, he bowed out. Sovereignty had nothing to do with it.

      51. There is an old story about a bear in a debate with birds in the forest.

        The birds argued since they could fly – they were faster than the bear.
        The bear – not wanting to lose the argument – climbed on a rock and jumped off – and has he was falling waived his arms.
        There – he said – I have proven that I can fly.

        The birds did not realize he was playing a beguiling word game.

        That is exactly how rhutchin ALWAYS argues.
        He plays shell games with words.

      52. chapmaned24 writes, ‘What you fail to realize, is that Satan has free reign on earth…. He can do as he pleases.”

        Satan can only do that which is consistent with God’s purposes.

        Then, “All God does, is intervene to keep Satan from obtaining his objective regarding prophesy.”

        Just prophecy?? I guess prophecy includes all the promises God made.

        Then, “Satan is sovereign, too.”

        Either God is sovereign or Satan is sovereign. They cannot both be sovereign. My money’s on God.

        Then, “There is a real battle between God and Satan.”

        No, there is no battle between God and Satan. God wins hands down and always gets His way. There is a battle between man and Satan.

      53. rhutchin,

        You say either God is sovereign, or Satan is sovereign.

        My response… both are sovereign. each is sovereign with their own kingdom. That’s funny you try to use money as your example. It’s used by you in a twisted way. Here is the right way. Both are sovereign, you cannot serve God and Satan at the same time. You either serve one, or the other.

        No there is a battle between God and Satan. It’s unfortunate that you have no idea what the battle is. Satan has already been judged. He knows his time is short. He already knows this. He already knows he is gonna lose. So that’s not the battle. That’s the end of the war that you are discussing. The battle is, is that Satan wants to take as many people down with him as he can, and God wants to take everyone with him. Satan will take people with him. And God mourns the loss. He isn’t celebrating the souls in hell. God loves his creation… All of them.

        Your Calvinism stinks to high heaven. Gross. Icky.

        Ed Chapman

      54. You say that Satan can only do that which is consistent with God’s purposes.

        Not true. Satan knew prophesy regarding prophecy of Jesus being of the tribe of Judah. Satan didn’t want that prophesy to come true. So, Onan spilled his seed. That was under the influence of Satan. So, God killed him. We have a saying in the navy. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Satan thought he had won. But, God had the widow play a prostitute, and Judah sleeps with what he thought was a prostitute. She gets pregnant. Hence God wins. The daughter in law had the father in laws child, and the blood line continues. That’s prophesy that Satan tried to thwart. And God had to intervene. So Satan is not limited. He’s just not that smart.

      55. We also know that Satan did everything he could to make sure that Jesus and Moses wasn’t born. His plan failed, not because of God’s sovereignty. This is a game a chess between two kings. God has a kingdom, and Satan has a kingdom.

      56. rhutchin
        So, why did you open the door to Satan knowing the end result?

        br.d
        John Calvin’s quote on the devil
        -quote
        Can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what [he] has conceived, nor…..move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He permits (i.e. RENDERS-CERTAIN), nay, unless in so far as He COMMANDS; ….[the devil is] …FORCED to do Him service.” Institutes I, 17, 11.

      57. br.d writes, ” John Calvin’s quote on the devil
        -quote
        Can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what [he] has conceived, nor…..move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He permits (i.e. RENDERS-CERTAIN), nay, unless in so far as He COMMANDS; ….[the devil is] …FORCED to do Him service.” Institutes I, 17, 11.”

        This illustrated by the Assyrians in Isaiah 10.

      58. br.d
        John Calvin’s quote on the devil
        -quote
        Can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what [he] has conceived, nor…..move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as He permits (i.e. RENDERS-CERTAIN), nay, unless in so far as He COMMANDS; ….[the devil is] …FORCED to do Him service.” Institutes I, 17, 11.”

        rhutchin
        This illustrated by the Assyrians in Isaiah 10.

        br.d
        Thank you for showing us what Calvinism does to scripture :-]

      59. rhutchin
        Adam and Eve…. founded on God’s commands.

        br.d
        Which Calvin’s god deceptively communicated knowing he RENDERED-CERTAIN the opposite and thus not permit them to obey.

        rhutchin
        It was not until Satan entered the garden that things went downhill and Satan could only enter the garden because God decreed that he be free to enter the garden.

        br.d
        The creature is ONLY free and permitted to be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN
        Satan – Adam – Even (et all) were NOT free and NOT permitted to do otherwise than what came to pass (i.e. RENDERED-CERTAIN)

        rhutchin
        Had God not desired that outcome, He would have intervened to prevent it

        br.d
        Calvin’s god CANNOT intervene to prevent what is RENDERED-CERTAIN without falsifying divine omniscience.
        And what is not RENDERED-CERTAIN will not come to pass anyway.
        So Calvin’s god intervening to prevent events is nothing more than a choreographed puppet show.

        rhutchin
        Calvinist who say that men were enslaved to sin and not free

        br.d
        See answer above – NOT free and NOT permitted to do otherwise than RENDERED-CERTAIN

        rhutchin
        It is to explain why people confronted with their sin and eternal destruction would choose to reject salvation is that which Calvinism explains.

        br.d
        Totally easy in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism).

        1) Every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
        2) There is no escape – no freedom – and not permitted to be/do otherwise

        Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy is working as a deceiver

      60. br,d writes, “Which Calvin’s god deceptively communicated knowing he RENDERED-CERTAIN the opposite and thus not permit them to obey.”

        Rendered certain as God is omniscient. Not permitted by Adam’s desires and God’s decree not to negate those desires.

        Then, “The creature is ONLY free and permitted to be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN”

        Free and permitted by his desires and God’s decree not to negate those desires – thereby rendered free but necessary.

        Then, “Calvin’s god CANNOT intervene to prevent what is RENDERED-CERTAIN without falsifying divine omniscience.”

        As God had decreed after the counsel of His will, so not necessity to later prevent as there would be no purpose in doing so.

        Then, “1) Every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.

        Rendered certain by man’s desires and God’s decree not to negate those desires.

        Then, “2) There is no escape – no freedom – and not permitted to be/do otherwise”

        Still free as man acts according to his desires and is not coerced to do so.

      61. br,d
        “Which Calvin’s god deceptively communicated knowing he RENDERED-CERTAIN the opposite and thus not permit them to obey.”

        rhutchin
        Rendered certain as God is omniscient. Not permitted by Adam’s desires and God’s decree not to negate those desires.

        br.d
        This is serpent language
        Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world knew he did not permit Adam’s desire to obey.
        Calvin’s god CANNOT negate what he RENDERS-CERTAIN

        The creature is ONLY free and permitted to be/do what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN

        rhutchin
        Free and permitted by his desires and God’s decree not to negate those desires – thereby rendered free but necessary.

        br.d
        This is serpent language
        The creatures every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN – which obviously includes desires
        Again Calvin’s god CANNOT negate what he RENDERS-CERTAIN

        Calvin’s god CANNOT intervene to prevent what is RENDERED-CERTAIN without falsifying divine omniscience.

        rhutchin
        As God had decreed after the counsel of His will, so not necessity to later prevent as there would be no purpose in doing so.

        br.d
        Since that which is RENDERED-CERTAIN CANNOT be prevented – and that which is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN will not come to pass – the only other option is Calvin’s god choreographing FALSE PRESENTATION of himself preventing something.
        In other words – a choreographed puppet show.

        rhutchin
        Rendered certain by man’s desires and God’s decree not to negate those desires.

        br.d
        FALSE!
        Man does not have the power to RENDER-CERTAIN anything – only Calvin’s god can do that.

        2) There is no escape – no freedom – and not permitted to be/do otherwise”

        rhutchin
        Still free as man acts according to his desires and is not coerced to do so.

        br.d
        This is serpent language
        Every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN – obviously including desires
        Since man is NOT permitted and NOT free to do otherwise – coercion is a superfluous red herring.

        Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy – or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler.

      62. br.d writes, “Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world knew he did not permit Adam’s desire to obey.’

        Recognizing that Adam had no desire to obey given the circumstances he faced.

        Then, “Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy – or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler.”

        No Calvinist ascribes creaturely autonomy to man nor God’s gaining of divine knowledge by observation (by a learning activity).

        Calvinism recognizes that God made man in His image and having done that “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” As a living being made in the image of God, man was a self-determining creature – he could express his desires freely without being compelled by external forces. Thus, Adam could choose to eat the fruit if that was his desire, Cain could choose to murder Abel if that was his desire, Joseph’s brother’s could choose to sell their brother if that was their desire and do so without being compelled by outside forces to act (the puppet on a string analogy).

      63. br.d
        Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world knew he did not permit Adam’s desire to obey.

        rhutchin
        Recognizing that Adam had no desire to obey given the circumstances he faced.

        br.d
        Recognizing Calvin’s god did not permit Adam to have any desire/nature/etc other than what Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN
        Recognizing Calvin’s god did not permit Adam to be in control of his desires/nature/etc

        Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy – or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler.

        rhutchin
        No Calvinist ascribes creaturely autonomy to man nor God’s gaining of divine knowledge by observation (by a learning activity).

        br.d
        *AS-IF* that were true! – Too funny! :-]

        rhutchin
        God, man was a self-determining creature

        br.d
        Notice here how the term “self-determining’ infers autonomy.
        *AS-IF* the “self” wasn’t determined by factors outside its control – Too funny! :-]

        rhutchin
        he could express his desires freely without being compelled by external forces.

        br.d
        So Calvin’s god’s decree has not force.
        Or perhaps it is a force that forces without forcing. :-]

        rhutchin
        Thus, Adam could choose to eat the fruit if that was his desire,

        br.d
        Let [X] = think/be/do/desire/choose/wish/want/feel/nature/inclination/etc

        All [X] are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Adam’s control
        Adam has no say about an [X] or any part of [X]

        rhutchin
        Cain could choose to murder Abel if that was his desire, Joseph’s brother’s could choose to sell their brother if that was their desire and do so without being compelled by outside forces to act (the puppet on a string analogy).

        br,d
        All [X] are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Cain’s control
        Cain has no say about an [X] or any part of [X]

        A robot is also not compelled by forces to act :-]

      64. Rhutchin reminds me of a brother-in-law who was wont to tease and torment my children when they were small. Due to deep insecurity, he took pleasure in getting the best of childlike naiveté.

        Fast forward twenty-some years, and I could picture him playing this game with bluetooth, wireless speakers. He would attempt to convince the small child that the Bose speakers were completely autonomous, playing whatever music they desired whenever they wished. ‘Look, there are no wires, no controls. I have no way of controlling these speakers, they simply play when and what they desire.’

        Such is the ‘magic’ of rhutchin’s god, who uses no visible wires, strings or control boxes to direct men, yet somehow ordains, controls and brings about whatsoever actions he desires. Bluetooth or no, Calvin’s god calls all the shots, and the Bose men will only play what they are directed to play.

      65. TS00
        Bluetooth or no, Calvin’s god calls all the shots, and the Bose men will only play what they are directed to play.

        br.d
        So TRUE! :-]

        rhutchin has nothing but beguiling word tricks to rely on.
        The serpent beguiled Eve with cunning words.

        Calvin’s god must have RENDERED-CERTAIN both the serpent and Calvinists as vessels of beguiling language.
        There but for the grace of God go I!

      66. TS00 writes, “Such is the ‘magic’ of rhutchin’s god, who uses no visible wires, strings or control boxes to direct men, yet somehow ordains, controls and brings about whatsoever actions he desires. ”

        No magic to it. God is both omniscient and omnipotent. There is nothing unknown to God (even if just in present time) and nothing that He cannot affect to any purpose He wants to bring about whatsoever actions He wants. To deny that is to deny God.

      67. br.d writes, “Recognizing Calvin’s god did not permit Adam to be in control of his desires/nature/etc”

        Actually, it was because Adam was in control of his desires that he ate the fruit. Had God not ordained that Adam be in control and free to express his desires, it would be a different situation now.

      68. br.d
        Recognizing Calvin’s god did not permit Adam to be in control of his desires/nature/etc”

        rhutchin
        Actually, it was because Adam was in control of his desires that he ate the fruit.

        br.d
        FALSE
        Let [X] = think/be/do/desire/choose/wish/want/feel/nature/inclination/etc

        All [X] are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Adam’s control
        Adam has no say about any [X] or any part of [X]

      69. I’m not sure why we engage with rhutchin, as he does no even uphold the Calvinist theology. He repeatedly denies the T by asserting that man should seek God and choose salvation, he ignores the L and claims that any man can make the ‘rational’ decision to seek God, and so on. He is inconsistent with Calvinism, and with his own arguments. Not sure it makes sense to address him as one who is sincere.

      70. TS00
        Not sure it makes sense to address him as one who is sincere.

        br.d
        Oh I definitely know there is no sincerity there.
        His one and only strategy is to craft deceptive language tricks.

        I do see newcomers engage with him – assuming they will be met with honesty and sincerity
        That is what one would expect from a professing Christian.
        They go back and forth with him for a while – until they discover he’s couches every statement behind deceptive language tricks.

        Playing shell games with words seems to be the only tool in his toolbox.

        If you feel my posts seem to be granting him a pretense of sincerity – please let me know what you’re seeing – because I would want to modulate that.

        Thanks TS00!

      71. br.d writes, “His one and only strategy is to craft deceptive language tricks.”

        One of many claim you make but never support with any evidence other than further claims.

      72. br.d
        His one and only strategy is to craft deceptive language tricks.”

        rhutchin
        One of many claim you make but never support with any evidence other than further claims.

        br.d
        You provide all the evidence – and I thank you! :-]

      73. TS00 writes, ‘He repeatedly denies the T by asserting that man should seek God and choose salvation,”

        As a matter of rational thinking, all should seek God as that would be a rational action. A mark of TD is that people do not think rationally having been deceived by Satan and thrown their lot in with him – totally depraved people live in darkness and walk “according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,…”

      74. rhutchin
        As a matter of rational thinking, all should seek God

        br.d
        In Calvinism this is FALSE as it would require libertarian functionality

        William Lane Craig explains:
        In Determinism one does not accept or reject by rational affirmation, because one is wholly determined by causal factors outside himself to accept or reject. Determinism could be true; but it could never be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

        Tim Stratton – Free Thinking Ministries
        -quote
        Libertarian freedom is the ability to genuinely choose between a range of options, each of which is consistent with one’s nature.
        If exhaustive determinism is true, then you possesses no epistemic ability to assess or evaluate….something else is governing all your thoughts — not you!
        Therefore if Libertarian Free Will does not exist, then no one possesses the ability to engage in the process of rationality.

      75. rhutchin – “As a matter of rational thinking, all should seek God.”
        br.d – “In Calvinism this is FALSE as it would require libertarian functionality”

        You quote Craig on “Determinism” but the issue here is “Theological Determinism” as expressed in Calvinism where internal factors – personal desires – come into play. Jonathan Edwards dealt with internal desires in free will. Craig seems to be talking about something else.

        You quote Stratton to say, “Libertarian freedom is the ability to genuinely choose between a range of options, each of which is consistent with one’s nature.”

        What does he mean by “genuinely”? What is he trying to avoid by using that term?

        Then you quote Stratton saying “If exhaustive determinism is true, then you possesses no epistemic ability to assess or evaluate….something else is governing all your thoughts — not you!.”

        What does he mean by “exhaustive”? What is he trying to avoid by using that term? Who/what does Stratton see as the “.something else is governing all your thoughts — not you!.”

      76. “What does he mean by “genuinely”? What is he trying to avoid by using that term?”
        “What does he mean by “exhaustive”? What is he trying to avoid by using that term?”

        Very funny questions by one who is a master at the semantic games these terms point to. The Calvinist is known for using a biblical word or theological term, but changing its definition into something quite different than common usage allows.

        Thus, Calvinists blithely assert that ‘God loves all men’, as if deliberately damning men with no chance of escape could qualify as ‘love’ in any rational person’s book. Or they love to insist that men have the ‘freedom to choose’ what God has preordained for them to think, say and do long before they were ever born. This goes all the way back to the Divines (sounds like a 70’s group), who boldly asserted that God meticulously controlled ‘whatsoever comes to pass’ and yet is NOT responsible for bringing evil to pass – the two propositions are antithetical, and cannot both be true.

        This sort of doubletalk, or making nonsense of the meaning of words is what leads non-Calvinists to add words like ‘genuine’, ‘true’, ‘meaningful’, etc., knowing that Calvinists will employ terms which they have co-opted, often granting them the exact opposite of their original meaning.

        Frankly, this blog would not exist if Calvinists said what they meant and meant what they said.

        This, by the way, is literally the oldest trick in the book, as playing semantic games with God’s own words is the trick Satan used to deceive Adam in the garden.

      77. You hit the bulls-eye again TS00!

        Calvinists spend a whole lot of time trifling over words.
        That alone becomes a red-flag for the discerning Christian – that something is wrong.

        Hath god said?

      78. TS00 writes, “The Calvinist is known for using a biblical word or theological term, but changing its definition into something quite different than common usage allows.”

        Then you should understand my desire to see how the terms are defined.

        Then, “Calvinists blithely assert that ‘God loves all men’,”

        But Calvinist clearly define “all men” to be Jews and gentiles and not each and every individual. If one keeps that in mind, then the Calvinist positions are easily understood

        Then, ‘as if deliberately damning men with no chance of escape could qualify as ‘love’ in any rational person’s book.”

        Even some non-Calvinists believe this – at least those who hold that God is omniscient.

        Then, “this blog would not exist if Calvinists said what they meant and meant what they said.

        Actually, it exists precisely because Calvinists say what they mean and mean what they say. Dr. Flowers takes positions contrary to the Calvinist, so he understands them.

      79. rhutchin
        You quote Craig on “Determinism” but the issue here is “Theological Determinism”

        br.d
        Dr. Craig’s quote is specifically directed at Universal Divine causal determinism (aka Calvinism)

        I understand your need to escape determinism’s grasp – but you cannot escape it.

        The silly argument about desires simply attempts to escape the fact that creaturely desires are also determined by factors outside of the creature’s control – the creature has no say in what is desired. Just like all neurological impulses desires ORIGINATE with the THEOS and are somehow superimposed upon the creature.

        rhutchin
        Jonathan Edwards dealt with internal desires in free will. Craig seems to be talking about something else.

        br.d
        FALSE – your simply trying to escape the logical consequences
        Desires – being RENDERED-CERTAIN – are also brought about by factors beyond the creatures control.
        You desperately need to paint a picture of the creature being the AUTHOR and CONTROLLER of his desires (i.e. a degree of autonomy) in order to avoid logical consequences.

        rhutchin
        You quote Stratton to say, “Libertarian freedom is the ability to genuinely choose between a range of options, each of which is consistent with one’s nature.” What does he mean by “genuinely”? What is he trying to avoid by using that term?

        br.d
        Remove the word “genuine” and the logic of the statement still stands.
        Without libertarian functionality – you don’t have the ability to choose between to alternative possibilities – because your choice is predetermined.

        Peter Van Inwagen
        -quote:
        “Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future”.

        rhutchin
        Then you quote Stratton ….What does he mean by “exhaustive”?

        br.d
        You don’t even know your own theology.
        Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things

        In Categorical logical the term ALL means “without exception”
        In this context the terms ALL, EXHAUSTIVE and UNIVERSAL are synonymous.

        In Christian Philosophical discourse both of these terms are used to describe Theological Determinism

        And again I understand your need to live *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part – as Calvin teaches.
        You need this in order to maintain a sense of normalcy and a coherence with scripture.
        And that is why your statements consistently “paint a picture” (i.e. INFER) of a degree of creaturely autonomy that doesn’t exist – and divine knowledge via observation.

        And therefore why your statements are observed as double-speak.

      80. br.d writes, ‘The silly argument about desires simply attempts to escape the fact that creaturely desires are also determined by factors outside of the creature’s control – the creature has no say in what is desired.”

        Not in the Calvinist system.

      81. br.d
        The silly argument about desires simply attempts to escape the fact that creaturely desires are also determined by factors outside of the creature’s control – the creature has no say in what is desired.”

        rhutchin
        Not in the Calvinist system.

        br.d
        We’ve gone through this before – it is a failure in Categorical logic.
        *ALL* [X] are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors beyond your control.
        Since desires comes under the Category of *ALL* – it logically follows that desires = [X]

        Now I understand your need for *AS-IF* thinking

        All things (which logically includes desires) are RENDERED-CERTAIN and thus determined by factors outside the creatures control.
        *AS-IF* they aren’t

        You’ll continue to be locked into *AS-IF* thinking as long as you cling to determinism.
        But as we all know – you are crippled by having to live *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part. (as Calvin teaches)
        Just like Atheists who embrace Natural determinism – also do.

      82. br.d
        ‘You’ll continue to be locked into *AS-IF* thinking as long as you cling to determinism.”

        rhutchin
        Not me.

        br.d
        You can’t see it – that makes sense.
        I knew a girl whose husband was beating her and she refused to believe it.
        Not that uncommon – that the mind works that way. :-]

      83. br.d writes, ‘Let [X] = think/be/do/desire/choose/wish/want/feel/nature/inclination/etc
        All [X] are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Adam’s control
        Adam has no say about any [X] or any part of [X].

        Adam’s desires are within X and rendered certain by God. Adam’s desires are internal to him – that God rendered certain that Adam have desires ensures that they are his desires.

      84. br.d
        Let [X] = think/be/do/desire/choose/wish/want/feel/nature/inclination/etc

        All [X] are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Adam’s control
        Adam has no say about any [X] or any part of [X].

        rhutchin
        Adam’s desires are within X

        br.d
        FALSE
        [X] has already been established – see the above
        Try as you might to play word games – [X] cannot be within [X]

        rhutchin
        Adam’s desires are internal to him ….ensures that they are his desires

        br.d
        Superfluous red herring – since [X] is RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Adam’s control
        And Adam has no say about any [X] or any part of [X].

        Secondly [X] is FIRST-CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind before Adam exists.
        Making [X] obviously Calvin’s god’s desires

      85. br.d – “Let [X] = think/be/do/DESIRE/choose/wish/want/feel/nature/inclination/etc”
        rhutchin – “Adam’s desires are within X”
        br.d _ “FALSE
        [X] has already been established – see the above
        Try as you might to play word games – [X] cannot be within [X]”

        So, what did you mean by including “DESIRE” in your [X]?

        Then, “Superfluous red herring – since [X] is RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Adam’s control
        And Adam has no say about any [X] or any part of [X].”

        Sure he does. If [X] were not rendered certain, we would still get the same outcome (Adam would eat the fruit) aside from those actions specifically taken by God (kicking Adam out of the garden). Those things rendered certain by God include those actions taken by Adam – eating the fruit – that arise from Adam’s desires.

        Then, “Secondly [X] is FIRST-CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind before Adam exists.
        Making [X] obviously Calvin’s god’s desires”

        Under any system of theology, God first conceives of all things. Nothing can happen that catches God by surprise. Just because God has first conceived of an action does not mean that people cannot also have desires for those actions. God can conceive of a person having a desire for ice cream and a person can have a desire for ice cream. I don’t see a problem with God knowing what a person will desire. God knew what Cain desired and warned him. Cain still murdered Abel.

      86. rhutchin
        So, what did you mean by including “DESIRE” in your [X]?

        br.d
        In logical discourse when one states “Let [X] = “such and such” this does not mean “such and such” is WITHIN [X].
        It means that “such and such” = [X]
        Or vis-versa

        Therefore the following:
        Superfluous red herring – since [X] is RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside of Adam’s control
        And Adam has no say about any [X] or any part of [X].”

        rhutchin
        If [X] were not rendered certain, we would still get the same outcome

        br.d
        FALSE
        I have already shown this to you.

        Determinism and ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES are mutually exclusive – where one is true the other is false
        If Determinism does not exist – then ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES do exist.
        In Determinism there is only one single per-determined outcome

        Peter Van Inwagen explains:
        -quote:
        “Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future”.

        Therefore where Determinism does not exist – multiple physical possible futures do exist.
        So we are not limited to the same outcome.

        “Secondly [X] is FIRST-CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind before Adam exists.
        Making [X] obviously Calvin’s god’s desires”

        rhutchin
        Under any system of theology, God first conceives of all things.

        br.d
        Here the term “conceives” is at play and in different systems there are radical differences in meaning.
        It can mean AUTHORSHIP or it can mean EPISTEMIC functionality

        In Determinism – divine knowledge entails the THEOS being the SOURCE/ORIGIN of all things which come to pass.
        In this context “conception” entails AUTHORSHIP
        That is why Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of all evil.

        In IN-Determinism – divine knowledge allows for the THEOS to AUTHOR what he will – but does not necessarily entail AUTHORSHIP of All things. In this context “conception” can entail epistemic functionality without AUTHORSHIP.

      87. br.d writes, ‘If Determinism does not exist – then ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES do exist.
        In Determinism there is only one single per-determined outcome”

        Doesn’t matter. The outcome is still the same in either case (assuming you actually mean Theological determinism where God is the determiner).

        Then, “In Determinism – divine knowledge entails the THEOS being the SOURCE/ORIGIN of all things which come to pass.”

        No. Divine knowledge only allows God to know what is to happen. Omnipotence entails God being the source of that which comes to pass either directly or through secondary means. For example, God determined (was the source/origin) that Stephen would be stoned to death through means of the Jews. God determined the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus through direct involvement.

      88. br.d
        If Determinism does not exist – then ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES do exist.
        In Determinism there is only one single pre-determined outcome
        So the opposite -as you indicated – where the THEOS does not exist – and Autonomy does exist – if logically follows one single outcome is not a given.

        rhutchin
        Doesn’t matter. The outcome is still the same in either case (assuming you actually mean Theological determinism where God is the determiner).

        br.d
        FALSE
        You’ve confused yourself – your two conditions are (1) Where Theological Determinism is true vs. (2) where the THEOS does not exist and where creaturely AUTONOMY does exist.
        And in (1) ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES don’t exist- while in (2) they do exist – and therefore one single outcome is FALSE.

        Also
        “In Determinism – divine knowledge entails the THEOS being the SOURCE/ORIGIN of all things which come to pass.”

        rhutchin
        No. Divine knowledge only allows God to know what is to happen. ….etc

        br.d
        That would only be consistent where divine knowledge is via observation
        Which does not apply to Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism)

        Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES (i.e. is the AUTHOR of) all that comes to pass.
        Therefore all things CONCEIVED/AUTHORED have their SOURCE/ORIGIN in the mind of the Calvin’s god.

        Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god knows things that don’t ORIGINATE in his mind – and he thus learns about them! :-]
        Calvin specifically states that Calvin’s god decrees/determinations are -quote “SOLELY WITHIN HIMSELF”

      89. br.d writes, “If Determinism does not exist – then ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES do exist.
        In Determinism there is only one single pre-determined outcome
        So the opposite -as you indicated – where the THEOS does not exist – and Autonomy does exist – if logically follows one single outcome is not a given.”

        Doesn’t matter. The outcome is the same under either situation alternate possibilities or not.

        Then, ‘That would only be consistent where divine knowledge is via observation”

        Nope. It is true regardless how the knowledge is obtained. Knowledge does not change even if the methods of obtaining that knowledge do.

        Then, “Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES (i.e. is the AUTHOR of) all that comes to pass.
        Therefore all things CONCEIVED/AUTHORED have their SOURCE/ORIGIN in the mind of the Calvin’s god.”

        In other words, God is omniscient.

      90. br.d
        If Determinism does not exist – then ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES do exist.
        In Determinism there is only one single pre-determined outcome
        So the opposite -as you indicated – where the THEOS does not exist – and Autonomy does exist – if logically follows one single outcome is not a given.”

        rhutchin
        Doesn’t matter. The outcome is the same under either situation alternate possibilities or not.

        br.d
        And you say I pull stuff out of my imagination! :-]
        Try a little logic sometime.

        Also
        “In Determinism – divine knowledge entails the THEOS being the SOURCE/ORIGIN of all things which come to pass.”

        rhutchin
        No. Divine knowledge only allows God to know what is to happen. ….etc

        br.d
        That would only be consistent where divine knowledge is via observation”

        rhutchin
        Nope. It is true regardless how the knowledge is obtained. Knowledge does not change even if the methods of obtaining that knowledge do.

        br.d
        FALSE
        Divine knowledge by observation is knowledge about something that has is SOURCE/ORIGIN outside of the divine mind.
        Divine knowledge by AUTHORSHIP is knowledge of what the THEOS has CONCEIVES – as Calvin says “SOLELY WITHIN HIMSELF”

        Thus
        Calvin’s god FIRST-CONCEIVES (i.e. is the AUTHOR of) all that comes to pass.
        Therefore all things CONCEIVED/AUTHORED have their SOURCE/ORIGIN in the mind of the Calvin’s god.”

        rhutchin
        In other words, God is omniscient.

        br.d
        That the THEOS is the SOURCE/ORIGIN of what he CONCEIVES is a logical entailment of Theological Determinism.

        John Piper agrees:
        -quote
        Calvin states “God’s will is the cause of all things – therefore in Calvinism nothing ORIGINATES outside of his will.”

      91. rhutchin
        Knowledge does not change even if the methods of obtaining that knowledge do.

        br.d
        Superfluous to the point.
        No one is arguing that knowledge of [X] changes by virtue of the SOURCE/ORIGIN of [X].

        And in any case – since John Calvin states what is CONCEIVED is -quote “SOLELY WITHIN HIMSELF” and Piper states “therefore in Calvinism nothing ORIGINATES outside of his will.” – your going to have to do some fancy word juggling to evade the obvious.

        But we’re all used to the word juggling routines! :-]

  6. Rhutchin asks that of a person doesn’t spiritually die, if that person needs a saviour.

    My response… If you are not sick, do you need a doctor?

    Have you ever lost your keys?

    Did they start out already lost, or did you once have them in your possession before they became lost?

    Ed Chapman.

    1. chapmaned24 writes, ‘My response… If you are not sick, do you need a doctor?”

      If you don’t know that you are sick, do you need a doctor?

      1. rhutchin asks:

        If you don’t know that you are sick, do you need a doctor?

        Mark 2:17
        When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

        Who was righteous? I know, I know, you will say that there is NO ONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE.

        For those who concentrate on being obedient to the Law of Moses, there is NO ONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE, because they have NO TIME to even seek God, since they are TRYING to concentrate on the law, and under the law, there is no one righteous no not one.

        But, all who are under faith are righteous, YES, NOT JUST ONE. Abraham was righteous. He was not under the law.

        Under the law = No one righteous no not one.

        Under Faith = EVERYONE RIGHTEOUS YES, EVERYONE.

        Abraham didn’t need a doctor.

        Ed Chapman

  7. I love being able to read these articles & blog posts.
    I’m perplexed at the strong stance of those on the blog who stand so opposed to God’s provision for the cosmos🌌🌍 “the world” through Jesus Christ finished work on the cross… I’m curious why do we need God’s finished Word if calvinism is true? John 1:1 NASB — In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Wouldn’t you just get everything you need to know (irresistibly) and this would eliminate any reason for confusion & differences within His church. 1 Corinthians 14:33 NASB — for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
    When I think of Dr Flower’s at one point in his life fighting for this theological systematic I find hope in God’s Word;
    Philippians 3:15 NKJV — Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.
    So though I was spiritual dead before my kids were born as to pray for them as Rhutchin asked earlier through Jesus’ our mediator I’m able to now pray that my daughter and son in law would except Jesus into their hearts for that I Praise Him alone! There is indeed hope in Him

    1. Reggie asks ” I’m curious why do we need God’s finished Word if calvinism is true?”

      Calvinism takes the Scriptures as truth and then pulls out that truth and presents it in an easy, understandable manner. That this is true is evident in how it grates against the mind of man. Calvinism is true only because the Scriptures are true; without the Scriptures, there could be be no Calvinism, but there would be non-Calvinism.

      Then, “Wouldn’t you just get everything you need to know (irresistibly) and this would eliminate any reason for confusion & differences within His church. ”

      We could except God did not set it up that way. Jesus commanded, “Go into all the world…” Paul added, “How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” It is God who gives us understanding and wisdom – “if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” God ends His Scriptures saying, “Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”

      1. rhutchin,

        Have you gone out to all the world? If not, why do you disobey? Go out to all the world, as Jesus said. In addition, your last sentence confuses me, as the book being discussed is what book? The subject of that book is prophesy. That’s the word used. Prophesy. So are you preaching the book of revelation? in all the world? My point is, that Calvinists do not preach the truth, as evidenced by your use of your last sentence. Man made doctrines, invented due to not understanding what you read.

      2. EC writes, “your last sentence confuses me, as the book being discussed is what book? The subject of that book is prophesy.”

        The book is Revelation and God is the author. Revelation incorporates the rest of God’s Scriptures for it to be understood so that the “book” to which God refers in Revelation necessarily encompasses all of Scripture.

      3. rhutchin states:
        “Revelation incorporates the rest of God’s Scriptures for it to be understood so that the “book” to which God refers in Revelation necessarily encompasses all of Scripture.”

        My response:
        I’d stick with what it specifically states…which is:

        Revelation 22:7
        Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

        Revelation 22:18
        For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

        Revelation 22:19
        And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

        IT DOES NOT INCORPORATE OTHER BOOKS.

      4. “It is God who gives us understanding and wisdom – “if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.””

        How any Calvinist can quote that scripture without a deeply red face is beyond me. ‘Any’ who lack wisdom are encouraged to ask God ‘who gives to all men generously and without reproach’ and said wisdom ‘will be given him’. Can’t get any more opposite of Calvinism than that.

        I suspect Calvinists do that crazy little translation in their heads, which turn this verse into:
        “If any of the elect lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all chosen men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” Not what scripture says at all, but when you have a dogma to defend, you must take liberties.

      5. Sorry rhutchin what you say here;
        (Calvinism takes the Scriptures as truth and then pulls out that truth and presents it in an easy, understandable manner. That this is true is evident in how it grates against the mind of man.)
        This really is convoluted, because nothing about a systematic that causes a division is understandable nor easy. So are you implying my mind can’t grasp calvinism, because I don’t understand the things of the Spirit? If this as you say below isn’t true which I trust it is not;
        (Calvinism is true only because the Scriptures are true;)
        Could this be your security rather than the security we have in Christ..
        I wasn’t going to respond because the bloggers on here articulate themselves very well & I got off topic! But RHUTCHIN you should ask God in faith to confirm your belief system and trust in His leading not a systematic name… This is the only name that saves & we all will bow before Jesus Philippians 2:10-11 NASB — so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
        and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

        We are not called to eloquence, brilliance, or cleverness. We are called to preach the Gospel That is what a witness does a Witnesses simply state the facts of what they saw in what has accrued. The Greek word for witness is marturos—from which we get the word martyr. I’ve heard how we can’t hold Calvin’s life as a view of what calvinism is, but his life doesn’t reflect dying for the cause of Christ (martyr) but rather read; Why Servetus is a valid argument against Calvinism – SOTERIOLOGY 101
        https://soteriology101.com/2016/07/25/why-servetus-is-a-valid-argument-against-calvinism/

      6. Reggie:
        Well said.

        Have you not been informed by others on this site that most of what anyone says to RH has been said many times before. He just goes round in circles….. then blames you for not every stating a point (and calls you a name in process).

      7. Reggie asks, “So are you implying my mind can’t grasp calvinism,…”

        No. I think you understand Calvinism very well and don’t like what it says. You can rail against Calvinism but can you argue for an alternative?

        I said, “(Calvinism is true only because the Scriptures are true;)
        Reggie responded. “Could this be your security rather than the security we have in Christ.”

        The truth is my security blanket. It is the Scripture that is my security blanket and Calvinism res[ects the truth of the Scripture. If you think Calvinism misunderstands the Scriptures, you can always explain why that is so.

        Then, “Why Servetus is a valid argument against Calvinism”

        Servitus argues against Calvin; it has nothing to do with Calvinism. People who cannot argue against Calvinism always end up arguing against Calvin.

      8. Why do Calvinists always distance themselves from the MAN whose name is behind it? If you don’t like Calvin as it relates to Servitus, then why not choose a different “ist”, or “ism”? The CHARACTER of Calvin is extremely important here. You will know them by their fruit. The FRUIT of Calvin was ROTTEN, AND EVIL. The Character of Calvin was rotten and evil. This had nothing to do with PERSONALITY CONFLICT, as you minimize it to be. The Character of Calvin INFLUENCED his false teachings. After all, he was a DISGRUNTLED CATHOLIC, wanting preeminence, glory, etc. And YOU gave it to him.

        Ed Chapman

      9. FOH thank you I did not know this information but it still seems unfortunate. Maybe one day he will…

      10. Reggie writes, “FOH thank you I did not know this information…”

        Take FOH with a grain of salt. Read and learn for yourself.

      11. REGGIE
        I’m curious why do we need God’s finished Word if calvinism is true?

        br.d
        Because it is human nature – the greed for power – to want to belong to a SPECIAL PRIEST CLASS
        Who stand over your shoulder and tell you what every verse means.

        So you become dependent on them.

  8. As for Genesis 50, it is a big leap of assumption to take what little is said as meaning that God predetermined Joseph’s brothers’ actions. They brothers intended evil; God allowed them to go forward, rather, he intervened to prevent Joseph’s murder, causing Joseph to be sold into slavery instead, because had a plan to use Joseph in a spectacular manner.

    I don’t see how anyone could stake any grand claims that this story suggests that God predetermines the evil actions of men, when he not only did not predetermine that they should murder Joseph, but stepped in to prevent the murder from taking place.

    1. Did God HARDEN the heart of tree Pharaoh or not? The Pharaoh was gonna let the people go several times, but God didn’t want them to leave yet, cuz God still had more plagues to do. So to say that God didn’t direct the brothers, to me, that is a leap. God was telling a story thru the brothers of Joseph, a story of the Jews that would crucify Jesus. The pit that they threw Joseph in, is a shadow of the death of Jesus…And Joseph was exalted to save people, while Joseph toyed with his brothers for a while before finally REVEALING HIMSELF… Jesus will reveal himself to the Jews, by showing them the holes in his hands, and feet, and tell them the same as Joseph told his brothers. Did God blind the Jews so that they would crucify Jesus? Or is that too far fetched, too? A leap of assumption?

  9. I believe only to the prophecies of those legitimate prophets who were officially sent by God. Today those who claim to be prophets are mostly not reliable. They are fake. I don’t like the “shadow”, i.e. Joseph. I still prefer the real Jesus who ever existed from eternity past. He was never procreated by anybody else but a Creator instead.

    The betrayal made by Judas was evil, but God meant it for good. All of the evil that was done by the brothers to Joseph was evil, but God meant it for good. God can make use of them to accomplish His purpose.

    All those who keeps on arguing on the Reformed Beliefs always end up arguing against with Calvinism’s claims with Scripture passages.

  10. Ed writes: “The CHARACTER of Calvin is extremely important here. You will know them by their fruit. The FRUIT of Calvin was ROTTEN, AND EVIL. The Character of Calvin was rotten and evil.”

    ————- Here’s My Response ————–
    The Bible says that all men are sinners and that includes Ed Chapman. Calvin, was a sinner that has been saved by the Grace of God, – “Sola Gratia” .

    Romans 5:12, Paul says : “Wherefore as one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, [including Ed Chapman] for that all have sinned.”

    Rotteness of character and being evil is what Calvin’s believe for human agents [including Ed Chapman] as totally depraved to sin.
    Only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from our sins. No human being can wash away his own sins by himself. Without the shedding of the blood of Christ there is no forgiveness of sin.
    A truly saved person is still undergoing the process of Sanctification done by God to the believers. He will become absolutely perfect and sinless at the time of the second coming of Christ.

    1. jtleosala,

      Spare me with the all men are sinners routine, please.

      Let me tell you about SINNERS…Abraham played flippy flop with his sister, a sin detailed in Leviticus 18 and 20, and yet, God never disclosed this sin to Abraham, and Isaac is a product of INCEST, being INBRED. And Abraham was RIGHTEOUS, WHILE SINNING!

      I do NOT believe for one moment about your DEPRAVITY doctrine at all. WHY DO YOU STOP AT VERSE 12?

      Romans 5:13 (KJV)
      (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

      Romans 4:15
      Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

      Ed Chapman

      1. chapmaned24 writes, “I do NOT believe for one moment about your DEPRAVITY doctrine at all. WHY DO YOU STOP AT VERSE 12?
        Romans 5:13 (KJV)
        (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
        Romans 4:15
        Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

        Yet, prior to the law, people still died. In Genesis 6, prior to the law, we read, “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” On this basis, God judged the earth and brought the flood. Without the law, people are still wicked and incapable of entering heaven.

        The law reveals this wickedness; then, Galatians 3, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.”

        What does Paul tell us at the end of Romans 4, “Christ was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” Christ died for our sins and then was raised to make us righteous. Had Christ only died for our sins and not been raised, we would still be unable to enter heaven because we would still be unrighteous people who only have their sins forgiven.

      2. rhutchin,

        You had said:
        “Yet, prior to the law, people still died.”

        I could care less if people died. No one gets out of here alive. That wasn’t the point of Romans 4 and 5 put together. I could care less of the flood of Noah’s day. That’s NOT what Romans 4-5 is discussing.

        HALF OF THE BOOK OF ROMANS IS ABOUT ONE WORD…RIGHTEOUSNESS.

        Righteous people die. Unrighteous people die. Who cares? You? Everyone dies, regardless of sins, all because of Adam. Whoopti do! That’s all Romans 5 is telling you. But without KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, SIN IS NOT IMPUTED TO YOU.

        AND IT IS THAT, THAT YOU IGNORE. BUT I’M SUPPOSED TO CONSENTRATE ON PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE OF THE SIN BOOGY MAN? NO.

        Abraham was RIGHTEOUS regardless of his continual and habitual WICKED AND EVIL DEEDS THAT DID NOT CEASE UNTIL HIS SISTER WAS DEAD.

        Righteous people get to go to heaven, and ABRAHAM WAS RIGHTEOUS, so it negates out YOUR VERSION of “NO ONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE.

        If you read ALL OF ROMANS IN IT’S CONTEXT, THE WHOLE TOPIC IS ABOUT RIGHTEOUSNESS “IN THE LAW” AND RIGHTEOUSNESS “APART FROM THE LAW”.

        And Abraham did NOT have the SCHOOLMASTER TO BRING HIM TO CHRIST.

        So, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE WICKED DEEDS, ABRAHAM GOT TO GO TO HEAVEN.

        I can’t believe the Calvinist nonsense that you spew.

        All you are consentrated on is SIN, when I’m consentrated on RIGHTEOUSNESS. YES, OUTSIDE OF THE LAW, THERE IS RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR EVERYONE…AND IT’S YOUR OWN DOING, NOT GOD’S.

        NO ONE IS HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR WHAT THEY DON’T KNOW. NO ONE.

        Ed Chapman

      3. chapmaned24 writes, “So, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE WICKED DEEDS, ABRAHAM GOT TO GO TO HEAVEN.”

        According to Romans 4, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Abraham got into heaven by faith – a faith given to him by God as we learn in Ephesians 2.

      4. Wrong. That’s a fallacy to say that God is the one who… have Abraham faith, the sole reason for Abraham’s righteousness. Abraham believed God… That was the prerequisite to the righteousness that was accounted to Abraham. Believing is the faith. And the belief was not given. A promise was given. And Abraham believed it. The problem with Calvinism is that they think that God gives faith, when routes Ephesians does not say that. It states that God gives grace…THRU belief… That is, your faith, not a God given belief (faith). Again, Abraham sinned, and God didn’t inform Abraham to stop having sex with his sister… And no sin is imputed to anyone not knowing anything about their sin. I’m really frustrated with Calvinists that think that man is depraved. Man is not depraved.

      5. RHUTCHIN,

        CONTEXT OF HALF OF THE BOOK OF ROMANS IS DEALING WITH ONE WORD…RIGHTEOUSNESS.

        The CONTEXT of “NO ONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE”

        Those under the law of Moses are trying to WORK for RIGHTEOUSNESS…EARNING A WAGE. BUT NO ONE CAN…FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS NOT NATURAL DEATH, BUT SPIRITUAL DEATH.

        No one is righteous under the law, no not one.

        But under Romans 4, FAITH IS COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, REGARDLESS OF SINS.

        IN OTHER WORDS, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS THE EXCUSE…IGNORANCE OF SIN IS THE EXCUSE, IGNORANCE IS BLISS.

        NO KNOWLEDGE, NO SIN…ROMANS 5:13, AND ROMANS 4:15

        ARE WE UNDER THE LAW, TRYING TO EARN OUR WAY? SO WHY YOU CONCENTRATING ON SIN, WHEN YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW? DID ABRAHAM CONCENTRATE ON SIN? HE DIDN’T HAVE THE LAW, AND HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS SINNING.

        YOU WOULD THINK THAT IN ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT GOD HAD WITH ABRAHAM, THE DISCUSSION OF SIN WOULD HAVE COME UP AT LEAST ONCE, NUDGING ABRAHAM TO STOP HAVING SEX WITH HIS SISTER??????????????????????

        BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO, GOD PROMISED OLE BROTHER AND SISTER AND INBRED OFFSPRING AND PROMISED THAT INBRED A PIECE OF REAL ESTATE.

        SO MUCH FOR NO ONE RIGHTEOUS AND A BIG FLOOD TO WIPE OUT THE WICKED PEOPLE. SURE…THEY DIED IN A FLOOD…BUT TO SAY THAT THEIR WICKEDNESS KEPT THEM FROM HEAVEN….WRONG…ONLY IF THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WICKEDNESS, AND DIDN’T TURN FROM IT.

        NO KNOWLEDGE, NO SIN IS IMPUTED.

        YOU PROBABLY THINK THAT THE PHARAOH IS BURNING IN HELL, HUH? I DON’T. I BELIEVE HE IS WITH JESUS RIGHT NOW.

        ED CHAPMAN

      6. chapmaned24 writes, “YOU PROBABLY THINK THAT THE PHARAOH IS BURNING IN HELL, HUH? I DON’T. I BELIEVE HE IS WITH JESUS RIGHT NOW.”

        Along with all those who died in the flood and those who died in Sodom and the cities on the plain and all those who died before the law was given to Moses. Then, only Israelites who did not keep the law would be denied entry into heaven. Right?

      7. Time and time and time again, I keep reiterating that without knowledge of sin, no sin can be imputed to you. That includes that flood. So they died. Who doesn’t, captain obvious? But their spiritual destiny is not based on the sins, but by their knowledge of the sins.

      8. chapmaned24 writes, ‘But their spiritual destiny is not based on the sins, but by their knowledge of the sins. ”

        So, now you change course going from knowledge of law to knowledge of sin. Why is that?

      9. 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the law; Romans 3:20 For by the law is the knowledge of sin; Romans 5:13, 4:15, no law, no transgression.

      10. chapmaned24 writes, “I keep reiterating that without knowledge of sin, no sin can be imputed to you.”

        Let’s review:
        Romans 4:15 – “…where there is no law, neither is there violation.”
        Romans 5:13 – “…sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

        Ed maintains that a person must have a knowledge of the law in order for sin to be imputed to the person. Without knowledge of the law, the law does not exist. According to Ed, ignorance of the law excuses one from being judged by the law.
        I maintain that sin can be imputed to the person even if the person is ignorant of the law. The law exists even where the people have no knowledge of that law and sin is rightfully imputed to those who disobey the law.

        As an example, Genesis 6 reads, “Then 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.” If God describes the actions of the people as “wickedness” then God must have declared such actions to be wickedness because without God’s declaration of an act as wicked then the act is not wicked. God’s declaration of acts as wicked is the same as law. Obviously, God determined to kill the people doing wickedness through the flood. Were the people ignorant of God’s law and of the wickedness of their actions? 2 Peter 2 has, “[God] did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness,…” Given that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, we can reasonably infer that Noah preached about righteousness so that the people could easily know that their acts were not righteousness and were wicked, Did everyone have to know that their actions were wicked? Not really. They still died in the flood even if they were ignorant of the law. Even though the Mosaic law did not come until much later, because Noah was a preacher of righteousness, we know that a law existed because Noah preached it. The people did not have to have knowledge of that law in order to have their wickedness imputed to them as we read in Genesis 6.

    2. jtleosala,

      I don’t believe that Calvin was “saved”. God gives grace to the HUMBLE and resists the proud. To say that Calvin was HUMBLE is gonna be very hard to prove.

      Ed Chapman

      1. No man can hate, mock, oppress, torture and murder his brothers (not to mention women and children) and claim to be a child of God. The content of one’s theology is not going to buy one approval with God, nor bar him therefrom. He demands humble, trusting hearts that take him at his word and seek to be remade in the image of Jesus Christ, the humble, sacrificial servant of God. God desires sincere repentance, true faith that leads to the works he has prepared for us to do. Calvin was about as anti-Christlike as any human being can possibly be.

  11. Well, the Bible has declared that all humanity living on earth have sinned even if one will not accept that fact, it will remain unturned. The Non-Reformed side will always end up arguing against the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. If one assumes that he is righteous, then he does not need Christ’s Salvation offered to sinners. That’s fine…

    1. When you cut to the chase, the important issue is whether or not God has provided for the (potential) redemption of all humankind, or whether he limits his love, grace and offer of eternal life to a limited, predetermined number of individuals.

      The question that really matters is: “What is the gospel message?”

      The Reformed system asserts that the gospel declares that God only loved a few enough to offer a second chance at life; a limited, select number of all of the people he created. The details about how they perceive this as working out, really do not matter all that much, and are disagreed upon even among various Reformed thinkers.

      The other, most common interpretation of the gospel is that God so loved all mankind that he offered a second chance of life to all men, conditioned upon their willingness to trust him in such a way that they begin following after him and seeking to do as he desires, rather than continuing in sinful rebellion. Again, various theologians, denominations and believers will differ over how that all works out, but their common thread is their belief that salvation was legitimately provided and offered to every single human being ever created.

      What the vast majority of bible interpreters have seen as the message that this redemption is based upon a sincere faith and not conditioned upon perfect law-keeping, Reformed thinkers have interpreted the passages explaining this as suggesting that, while true, the secret, not clearly explained fact is that God only ever intended his salvation for some. Instead of seeing Paul explaining faith vs. works, they choose to see faith as a predetermined, unchosen state, irresistibly transferred to those few God has set his sights upon to save.

      Debating the peripherals is mostly a distraction.

      1. TS00 writes, “The other, most common interpretation of the gospel is that God so loved all mankind that he offered a second chance of life to all men, conditioned upon their willingness to trust him in such a way that they begin following after him and seeking to do as he desires, rather than continuing in sinful rebellion.”

        Let’s grant your position that there are people who willingly trust Christ. This leaves a number who are not willing to trust Christ. It is those who are still unwilling that are the subject of Calvinism and it is from among these unwilling that Calvinism says God chooses whom to save. The issue is whether any willingly trust Christ as you maintain.

      2. Rhutchin writes:
        “Let’s grant your position that there are people who willingly trust Christ. This leaves a number who are not willing to trust Christ. It is those who are still unwilling that are the subject of Calvinism and it is from among these unwilling that Calvinism says God chooses whom to save. The issue is whether any willingly trust Christ as you maintain.”

        This is a rather convoluted attempt to pretend as if Calvinism’s gospel is in line with, perhaps even complimentary to, the true gospel. Of course it is, as always, just a gimmick. An attempt to mask the unavoidable proposition of Calvinism, which is that God only loves, chooses and redeems from sin and death (saves) a select few, while deliberately creating all others for unavoidable destruction.

        Thus set forth, it does at least reveal why Total Depravity is so essential to Calvinism. The only way they can retain a figment of justice within their worldview is to assert that all men are unable – cleverly presented as unwilling – to trust in God and thereby be declared righteous.

        This, of course, is the whole essence of the gospel. Were men not able to hear and respond to God, to understand his declarations, warnings and appeals, none could be declared righteous. On this, nearly all agree, that man cannot obtain justification by merit, by perfect obedience. Salvation can only be worked by God.

        Both positions grant that man is enslaved to sin, and only God can provide redemption. Calvinism, sadly, portrays God as an angry, bloodthirsty monster who demands a blood sacrifice to slate his furious anger at sinful man. This ‘angry God’ image has been cleverly used to manipulate and control the masses through fear by the institutional church through the ages. I view it as an utterly false, man-made image in marked contrast to the genuine revelation of God of himself as a loving, gracious, merciful Father, abounding in goodness, patience, and longsuffering love.

        We will not arrive at a true picture of God and salvation until we cast off the old traditions of men, and begin to see God as Jesus presented him. Calvinism and all of its curses, wrath and blood sacrifices remains forever locked into the ancient pagan perspective which Jesus came to overthrow.

        Rather than being born under the curse of an angry God, who is only driven by a narcissistic desire for glory to spare a select few from his fierce wrath, scripture weaves the story of men being repeatedly seduced and deceived by empty promises and lies by the masterful deceiver. Man’s only hope is to trust in God and his ways, to forgo his self love and learn to live in humble service to God and others. Contrary to Calvinism’s ugly penal substitution or the similar divine satisfaction theories of atonement, I believe that Christ came to conquer sin and death, not to abate God’s wrath.

        I’m still in the process of throwing off the old programming, but I no longer buy the wrath, anger and fear that orthodox christianity has so long traded in. I no longer fear their bogey man god, but believe him to be a mythological creature crafted from twisted scriptures. If one could strip off the preening masks of haughty Calvinists, and get his view of god in street vernacular, I imagine it would sound something like this:

        “So you think God is a Mr. Nice Guy, eh, a real Mr. Rogers? Some lilly-livered coward, who comes crawling to men and begs them to love him, and cries when they say ‘no’. Well you don’t know nothing about the sovereign, omnipotent ruler of the universe. God is fierce and all-powerful, and your childish little songs will not stop him from chewing you up and spewing you out of his mouth. Even now, he holds you over the fiery pit, ready to drop you in, and you deserve it. He could destroy this planet with one blow of his fist, and he doesn’t have to answer to you or anyone. Unless he elected you, draws you and regenerates you, you are doomed, and ain’t nobody going to rescue you with their goody two shoes ‘God so loved the world’. He’ll love whoever he wants to love, and cast the rest into the pit of hell where they belong.”

        But of course, it sounds so much better couched in pious, grandiose terms.

      3. TS00 writes, “This is a rather convoluted attempt to pretend as if Calvinism’s gospel is in line with, perhaps even complimentary to, the true gospel.”

        In other words, Calvinism says that no one willingly accepts salvation through Christ and this because of man’s depravity.

        Then, ‘Contrary to Calvinism’s ugly penal substitution or the similar divine satisfaction theories of atonement, I believe that Christ came to conquer sin and death, not to abate God’s wrath.”

        This is TS00’s personal belief unsubstantiated by the Scriptures. The Scriptures clearly refer to Christ’s death as an atonement for sin and as a propitiation for sin. Both concepts point to abating God’s wrath.

        Then, ” I no longer fear their bogey man god, but believe him to be a mythological creature crafted from twisted scriptures.”

        LOL! I don’t think TS00 actually meant this – probably meaning to write, “nor,” instead of “but.” But, who really knows given his active imagination.

    2. jtleosala,

      Did Abraham ASSUME that he was righteous?

      Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23 all state the following:

      For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

      Why did God never inform Abraham of his wicked evil sins of sleeping with his sister? You would have thought that God would have mentioned it in passing at some point, don’t you? But no, God gives brother and sister an incest baby instead. Inbred Isaac.

      Ed Chapman

      1. chapmaned24 writes, ‘Why did God never inform Abraham of his wicked evil sins of sleeping with his sister? ”

        Why would being married to Sarah have been wrong? In Genesis 17, we read, “God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. And I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”

        Doesn’t sound like God saw a problem.

      2. chapmaned24 writes, ‘BECAUSE SHE WAS HIS SISTER, AND IT’S A SIN TO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR SISTER!
        LEVITICUS CHAPTERS 18 AND 20…”

        Abraham lived before Leviticus. Being married to a sister did not become sin until after Abraham. Have you not been arguing from Romans that sin is not imputed where there is no law? Yet, here you are imputing sin where there is no law. Are you just being contentious or do you have rational argument to put forth.

      3. Dude, Romans 5:13 again… before Leviticus, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no LEVITICUS. But God spoke to Abraham numerous times… sleeping with your sister was always a sin, as Romans 5:13 states. No, I’m not being contentious. You are hard headed. Your a Calvinist. I’m not. You can’t see what I see.

      4. chapmaned24 writes, “sleeping with your sister was always a sin”

        So, when Adam and Eve had children and the brothers married the sisters, that was sin?

      5. As I’ve said, you concentrate on sin, I concentrate on righteousness. And over half of Romans is aboutthat word, righteousness.

      6. I responded to this already… not sure why my comment didn’t show up… But Sarah was his sister and it was a sin, and Romans 5:13 tells us that sin was in the world before the law, but that sin is not imputed when there is no law, and God never informed Abraham what sin his sin was. You are right… God didn’t have a problem with Abraham’s sin… That’s my point. . My whole point.

  12. What you meant for evil, God meant for good : God has decided not to pick them all. To those who oppose — this is evil and will always find themselves protesting….. But how can they afford to go against the will of God? Christ has been crucified for the sake of the sheep, but God meant it for good.

  13. Luke 23:34 NASB — But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.
    I wonder why Jesus said this above and verse 33 in this reading below..
    https://odb.org/2019/04/02/unexplainable-love/

    Interesting that if we don’t believe what your saying we’re evil I know only God knows the heart. Test all things

    1. Reggie writes, “Interesting that if we don’t believe what your saying we’re evil I know only God knows the heart.”

      So Paul, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly….But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

      The “we” and “us” here are those who have been “justified by faith,” or believers. This does not apply to those who will not believe.

  14. So how do you know your elect and that your not just deceived?

    Ephesians 4:18 NASB — being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;

    Hebrews 4:12 NASB — For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

    Acts 15:8 NASB — “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;

    Romans 8:27 NASB — and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

    1 Corinthians 2:11 NASB — For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

  15. “What you meant for Evil, God Meant for Good” – This is realized through the ff.:

    1. The Israelites have been oppressed by the Pharaoh while in Egypt – this is evil, but God meant it for good.

    2. God prefers to love Jacob but rejected Esau before they were born – God meant this for good.

    3. The prophet Jonah disobeyed God’s command, God meant this for a good outcome to accomplish His purpose.

    4. Joseph has been thrown in prison while in Egypt, but God meant this for good.

    5. The thief hanging on the left was mocking Christ while crucified while the other thief on His right side acknowledge Christ. God meant this for good to showcase 2 types humanities’ responses to the gospel offer, i.e. belief and unbelief in Christ.

    1. JTLEOSALA,

      Nice try, but you fail. The PROPHET Jonah was about JESUS, three days and three nights.

      Joseph is a prophecy of Jesus. From the PIT to the Palace!

      The Pharaoh is prophecy of Satan, who kept us in bondage to sin, and Moses, uh, I mean Jesus rescued us from that bondage, and we are not FREE.

      You are the reason that I hate expository preaching.

      You don’t go deep enough for me. You think that Jonah was a bad man for not wanting to go to Nineveh. Tisk, Tisk. That’s not the spiritual story at all. Jonah had to go to that fish to prophesy about the experience of 3 days and 3 nights of Jesus.

  16. Ed writes : “Those under the law of Moses are trying to WORK for RIGHTEOUSNESS…EARNING A WAGE. BUT NO ONE CAN…FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS NOT NATURAL DEATH, BUT SPIRITUAL DEATH.”

    ———- My Response ———–

    Do you accept now Spiritual Death [Spiritually Dead Doctrine] as a consequence of sin, based on your post above?

    1. jteosala,

      You asked:
      “Do you accept now Spiritual Death [Spiritually Dead Doctrine] as a consequence of sin, based on your post above?”

      My response:

      What in God’s name were sacrifices for? Forgiveness of sins, was it not? Sin/Sacrifice, sin/sacrifice, sin/sacrifice, repeat, repeat, repeat.

      All Jesus is, is the LAST SACRIFICE NEEDED.

      Ed Chapman

    1. JTLEOSALA,

      The answer is within my question. What was the REASON for sacrifices?

      OK, so you want an answer? What is “spiritually dead?

      I’ll need an answer to that before I continue. We, on my side of the aisle, answer that as “separation from God”.

      When did God depart them, under the law?

      As long as they maintained sacrifices, God was with them. Even when they were taken away in Captivity to Babylon, they had the means to do sacrifices.

      They have NO MEANS to do sacrifices today, but they have the DAY OF ATONEMENT once per year where sins are atoned.

      Spiritually dead means that God DEPARTS you.

      Like I’ve said before, time and time and time again, God is with everyone before KNOWLEDGE of sin. Once you know, then God departs, and that day that God departs, that is your SPIRITUAL DEATH DATE.

      HOW DO YOU BRING GOD BACK? A SACRIFICE, UNTIL THE NEXT SIN, THEN ANOTHER SACRIFICE, THEN YOU SIN AGAIN, ANOTHER SACRIFICE, REPEAT REPEAT.

      SACRIFICES “COVER” SIN UNTIL JESUS COULD DIE ON THE CROSS.

      I think you have a difficult time, as a Calvinist, to even define “spiritually dead”. To us, it only means that God departs. But, as you notice, sacrifices RESTORES.

      And God didn’t depart them…UNTIL…There is NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM for them to do sacrifices.

      Sacrifices is a topic you Calvinists don’t discuss much.

      Where did Abraham go when he died? He was righteous.

      I don’t know if you have ever talked with any Jew, but they believe that EVERYONE GOES to SHEOL when they die.

      If you didn’t know, Sheol is in the HEART OF THE EARTH, or, as some would say, “HELL”…2 sides…gulf fixed…WHICH SIDE WAS ABRAHAM ON? THE SAME AS SAMUEL. We all know that Abraham could not leave that area until Jesus took away sins, THEN Jesus took Abraham, and Samuel, and many others with him to heaven.

      Ephesians 4:8
      Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive.

      SO…WHAT DOES SPIRITUALLY DEAD MEAN TO YOU?

      Ed Chapman

  17. 1. The original question is simply answerable by a Yes or No, unfortunately the opponent have said so many things that I don’t solicit.

    2. You said, Abraham is righteous, but you are wrong … and I object to that based on Romans 5:12-21. Abraham was also a sinner needing Christ as his savior.

    v.12 “Wherefore as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, [including Ed Chapman] for that all have sinned”.

    v. 14 “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them [this include Ed Chapman] that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

    v. 15 ” … for if through the offense of one many be dead…..” [that includes Ed Chapman and is dead spiritually]
    v. 17 “For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one …” [this includes Ed Chapman]
    v. 18 “Therefore as by the offense of one, judgement came upon ALL MEN [including Ed Chapman] to condemnation…”
    v. 19 “For as by one man’s disobedience MANY WERE MADE SINNERS …” [including Ed Chapman a sinner that he cannot deny]
    v. 21 “That as sin hath reigned unto death…” [Ed Chapman has been born dead Spiritually and is SIN infected. Ed’s sins remains dormant since at his mother’s conception and is activated sometime later after his birth]

    1. Jtleosala,

      Scripture states numerous times that Abraham was righteous. Why do you reject scripture. I showed you.

      All you are providing me in Romans 5 is that everyone dies a natural death due to sin. Really? No kidding? Thank you for informing me that nobody gets out of here alive. Note my sarcasm?!

      You skip right over verse 13, as if it’s meaningless. You skip right over chapter 4, as if it’s meaningless.

      Tell me, oh wise one. Where did Abraham go, due to his sins, when he died. Hell fire? Burning in hell for eternity, all because Jesus wasn’t around during his lifetime to die on a cross?

      Or, was his torture a purgatory?

      Or, so you believe in soul sleep, as the 7th Day Adventists do?

      Ed Chapman

      1. It won’t surprise me that Ed C. will soon believe in the existence of purgatory as the RC do. I don’t believe in “soul asleep”, but I think you might be cuddling that doctrine also to be loaded to your backpack.

        We cannot force ourselves to both agree on your readings of Romans 5 and 7.

        Can we just concentrate on the title topic [i.e.: “What you meant for evil, God meant for good”] of this thread and avoid discussing those that are not related?

    2. Jtleosala,

      Romans 5 is not discussing spiritual death. Romans 5 discusses natural death only.

      Romans 7, however, Romans 7 discusses spiritual death.

      In doing so, Romans 7 shows that you were spiritually alive before you get knowledge of sin. Once you know, you die a spiritual death.

      Not everyone dies a spiritual death.

      Everyone dies a natural death.

      Romans 5 = NATURAL DEATH ONLY

      ROMANS 7 = SPIRITUAL DEATH

      BUT, you wish to teach me that Romans 5 is about spiritual death.

      Not true, jt.

      Ed Chapman

    3. Activated? Don’tcha just love religious dogma words? No one is spiritually dead in the womb. No one. Your death date is when you get knowledge of sin…a guilt conscience. Romans 7, not Romans 5.

      1. Ed writes: “Activated? Don’tcha just love religious dogma words? No one is spiritually dead in the womb. No one. Your death date is when you get knowledge of sin…a guilt conscience. Romans 7, not Romans 5.”

        ——- My Response ——–

        Well, its up to you if you don’t believe that you were spiritually dead starting from your mother’s womb. That would be fine, but the truth about the matter will always remain.

  18. chapmaned24 writes, “Rhutchin asks why would being married to Sarah be wrong?…BECAUSE SHE WAS HIS SISTER, AND IT’S A SIN TO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR SISTER!”

    Ed maintains that the law applies to all people of all time regardless when God prescribes the law.
    I maintain that the law only applies once God prescribes the law and not before.

    So, before God commanded Adam not to eat of the one tree, Adam could have eaten of that tree without penalty. It was only after God said, “Do not eat…” that it was wrong for Adam to eat of it.

    Prior to Leviticus stating that it was wrong for a man to marry his sister, there was nothing wrong with a man marrying his sister. Thus Abraham could marry his sister and not sin. The sons of Adam/Eve could marry there sisters and not sin. It was only after God declared the law in Leviticus that marriage between siblings was forbidden.

    Ed thinks otherwise.

  19. Ed C. writes: “Once you know, you die a spiritual death.”

    “Not everyone dies a spiritual death”
    ——–Here;s My Response ———-

    1. Ed C. maintains that he did not die spiritually and that he was born righteous. He said, and I quote him : “Spare me with the all men are sinners routine, please.”. From his statement, we can therefore ask this question for further establishing a solid understanding about his claim.

    a. Who is that person who does not need God’s provision of Salvation through Jesus Christ? When you say, “Spare me will all men are sinners, are you saying you are righteous? – Yes or No? If No, then what do you mean by that? ______. Calvinists say that all men are sinners and yet God did not pick them all.

    b. Do you view Spiritually dead doctrine as evil? —- Yes or No?
    If your answer is Yes, then God meant it for good? Why? That person must be the fulfillment of the “type or shadow” [one of your favorite terms] of the thief hanging on the left side of the cross of Jesus Christ. There it goes the type or shadow of “UNBELIEF”.

    2. Ed C.’s claim that he is not a sinner is feeble and shaky because he also maintain that a person becomes spiritually dead once he became aware of the law. – double standard

  20. Ed C. writes : “We all know that Abraham could not leave that area until Jesus took away sins, THEN Jesus took Abraham, and Samuel, and many others with him to heaven.”

    ——– Here’s My Response ———
    Ed C. Contradicts himself. He said Abraham was righteous in his previous comments, he said : “Scripture states numerous times that Abraham was righteous. Why do you reject scripture. I showed you.” In his another statement I posted above he says that Abraham could not leave that area until Jesus took away sins…”

  21. Ed C. is wrong again by saying that Abraham and Samuel was taken into heaven. This could be just an effect of his active imagination because this is denied by scripture`that i quote below:

    Matthew 24:31-34 When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and the holy angels with him he shall sit upon the throne in His glory v. 31. And before Him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate them from one another as a shepherd divideth His sheep from the goats v. 32. And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left v. 33. Then the King say unto them on His right hand, come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

    The verse that i quote above will still happen in the future. How can Ed C. would dare to claim that Abraham was already brought to that place (heaven) when up to this time heaven is still vacant of People having glorified body, soul and spirit?

    Calvinists are correct to claim that God’s Kingdom (heaven) has been reserved already to the sheep (not to the goats) from the foundation of the world according to Matt. 24:34

  22. br.d
    Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world knew he did not permit Adam’s desire to obey.

    Any Calvinist who tries to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy – or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler.

    rhutchin
    Recognizing that Adam had no desire to obey given the circumstances he faced.

    br.d
    *AS-IF* Calvin’s god didn’t RENDER-CERTAIN Adam’s desire and circumstances – Too Funny! :-]

    This is a great example of beguiling language (i.e, reliant upon equivocation) = doublespeak

    1) The phrase: “Recognizing that Adam had no desire” is language designed to paint a picture of divine knowledge via observation.

    2) The phrase: “given the circumstances he faced” is language designed to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy

    Good example rhutchin – thanks! :-]

  23. br.d
    In Calvinism it follows:
    If it comes to pass – then Calvin’s god did not permit it to be/do otherwise – it was RENDERED-CERTAIN

    Thus:
    – Lucifer was not permitted to refrain from beguiling.
    – Adam was not permitted to refrain from eating the fruit.
    – Cain was not permitted to refrain from killing Abel.
    – Joseph’s brothers were not permitted to refrain from hurting Joseph.
    – Judas was not permitted to refrain from betraying Jesus.

    rhutchin
    n other words, Satan could beguile if that is what he desired to do, even as Adam choose to eat, Cain choose to murder Abel, etc. God rendered certain the ability of people to express their desires in their behavior; people were not coerced to do that which they did not want.

    br.d
    You tell the truth up to a point, but a lie of omission is still a lie.
    -Above quote by Captain Jean Luke Pecard cautioning Starfleet Cadet Wesley Crusher

    George Orwell
    -quote
    Lying by omission (exclusionary detailing) is still a disgusting lie.
    Honest people do not tell half-truths, omit facts, or fail to correct a misconception.

    Any Calvinist who attempts to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler

    1. br.d writes, “Any Calvinist who attempts to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler”

      That’s why no Calvinist attributes God’s knowledge to observation or ascribes any autonomy to any part of God’s creation.

      1. br.d
        Any Calvinist who attempts to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation is functioning as a beguiler”

        rhutchin
        That’s why no Calvinist attributes God’s knowledge to observation or ascribes any autonomy to any part of God’s creation.

        br.d
        Nice try but no cigar
        My statement didn’t say “attribute” it said “paint a picture”. :-]

      2. br.d writes, “My statement didn’t say “attribute” it said “paint a picture”.”

        OK, then explain the difference. What were you trying to say by “paint a picture”?

      3. br.d
        “My statement didn’t say “attribute” it said “paint a picture”.”

        rhutchin
        OK, then explain the difference. What were you trying to say by “paint a picture”?

        br.d
        “Paint a picture” enunciates the process of INFERENCE – what is called INFERENTIAL language.
        This is the language mode you use extensively – and is a common characteristic of Calvinist language.

        Here is an example sited by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – article on Theological Determinism
        -quote
        “Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”

        This is also known as double-speak.
        Which most of your exculpatory statements contain.

        Most of the time you are careful to make sure your statement is logically consistent with determinism.
        But you craft words strategically designed to maximize an INFERENCE of IN-determinism.

        However there are occasions when your statements can only logically affirm IN-determinism/Libertarian Freedom.
        I think those instances are brought about by Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern taught by Calvin.
        – Libertarian free will does not exist *AS-IF* it does.
        – Mere permission does not exist *AS-IF* it does
        – Divine knowledge via observation does not exist *AS-IF* it does.

        To retain a sense of normalcy and a coherence with scripture – the determinist requires the very things determinism eradicates.
        And the outward expression of double-mindedness is double-speak.

      4. br.d writes, “This is also known as double-speak.
        Which most of your exculpatory statements contain.”

        Seems like only a problem of definition to me and that can be dealt with easily by defining terms.

      5. br.d
        This is also known as double-speak.
        Which most of your exculpatory statements contain.”

        rhutchin
        Seems like only a problem of definition to me and that can be dealt with easily by defining terms.

        br.d
        Double-think is the condition of holding a proposition as both TRUE and FALSE at the same time – or holding it TRUE one minute and FALSE the next.

        For example
        1) The THEOS determines all things and in every part
        2) Go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE

        Double-speak is the outward expression of double-think.
        Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern – where we have (True *AS-IF* False) and (False *AS-IF* True) is that very condition.

        Sorry – you can’t escape that psychological consequence of holding to determinism.
        And that is why everyone here observes many of your statements as double-speak.

      6. br.d writes, “For example
        1) The THEOS determines all things and in every part
        2) Go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE”

        I don’t know of any Calvinist who does this.

      7. br.d
        For example
        1) The THEOS determines all things and in every part
        2) Go about your office *AS-IF* (1) is FALSE”

        rhutchin
        I don’t know of any Calvinist who does this.

        br.d
        Too funny! Look in the mirror, smile and say hello – welcome to Calvinism! :-]

  24. Dr. Flowers writes, “the Scriptures say pride comes not from the Father, yet determinists would have us believe God decisively and unchangeably determines the pride and lust of every creature at all times and in all places?”

    When Adam sinned, he became corrupted and as a consequence, his progeny were born corrupted. This corruption meant that people were born without faith (such faith could then be conveyed to them through the gospel) and they were unrighteous (righteousness could be imputed to them by means of Christ’s resurrection). God determined that this corruption would convey to Adam’s progeny if he ate the fruit by telling Adam, “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” By enforcing this penalty on Adam and then his progeny, God determined that the world would be the overriding influence on every person then born.

    We can see how God determines all things through the two points claimed by Dr. Flowers:

    1. Proof that God intends an evil event to happen does not prove that God determines all evil events that happen.
    2. Proof that God intends an evil event to happen does not prove that God determines the motive or desire of all the parties involved in that event.

    Regarding point 1, we know that God is omnipotent and able to prevent any event that might happen (Paul even says, “God works all things after the counsel of His will.) Thus, God must decree that he will not stop an evil event in order for it to occur. Necessarily, then, God determines all evil events – God is the final arbiter of all that happens by virtue of being omnipotent.

    Regarding point 2, a person’s evil motives and desires are framed by the corruption inherited from Adam and then brought forth by the world as explained in 1 John, ““The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.” Further, as Paul explains, people are born in the flesh and “the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

    One can escape his “flesh” condition by an infusion of the Spirit and this comes after one believes as Paul explained, “…after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.” and “all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.”

    Thus, God by omnipotence, is the determiner of all things and by His spirit delivers some from evil desires and motives.

    1. rhutchin
      When Adam sinned, he became corrupted and as a consequence, his progeny were born corrupted…..etc.

      br.d
      John Piper
      -quote
      “Calvin states “Gods will is the *CAUSE OF ALL* things” – therefore in Calvinism nothing *ORIGINATES* outside of his will.”

      Dr. Frank A James – 3rd President of Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando.
      -quote:
      Similarly, the Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli concluded that God is the “author, mover and instigator” of human sin.
      – From The Neglected Sources of the Reformation Doctrine of Predestination Ulrich Zwingli and Peter Martyr Vermigli”

      The Oxford Handbook on Free Will:
      -quote
      Aristotle succinctly put it this way: “When acting is *UP TO US*, so is NOT acting”. This *UP TO US-ness* entails that the *ORIGINS* or *SOURCES* of our actions are *IN US* and not in something else over which we have no control. Which is not the case with determinism where controlling factors are fate, God, the laws of nature, birth or upbringing, or other external persons.

      br.d
      In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god BRINGS *ALL* THINGS INTO EXISTENCE by immutable decree.
      On this scheme the creature is the SOURCE/ORIGINATOR of nothing.

      rhutchin
      We know that God is omnipotent and able to prevent any event that might happen …etc

      br.d
      Only by choreographed false presentations of divine prevention:

      That which is RENDERED-CERTAIN – by its very virtue of being immutable CANNOT be altered or prevented.
      That which is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN will not come to pass anyway.
      However Calvin’s god can produce FALSE PRESENTATIONS of prevention (i.e. a fictional choreographed show).

      rhutchin
      God is the final arbitor of what comes to pass

      br.d
      Calvin’s god is the *SOLE* ARBITER of what he RENDERS-CERTAIN.
      That man can be in any way – an ARBITER of what that which is *NOT UP TO* him – is Calvinist double-speak.

      rhutchin
      person’s evil motives and desires are framed by the corruption inherited from Adam….etc

      br.d
      The corruption of Adam was RENDERED-CERTAIN (i.e. framed) by Calvin’s god
      Adam had no say in the matter – and was not permitted to do otherwise.
      Where Calvin’s god does not permit man to do [X] any freedom to do [X] is simply freedom to do what can’t be done.
      Freedom is this case – is freedom to be/do what one cannot be/do.

      1. br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god BRINGS *ALL* THINGS INTO EXISTENCE by immutable decree.”

        Yes. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Thank you for affirming Genesis 1.

        br.d writes, “That which is RENDERED-CERTAIN – by its very virtue of being immutable CANNOT be altered or prevented.”

        Yes. “…God works all things after the counsel of His will,” We know that “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD, it will stand.” This is why you correctly state, “Calvin’s god is the *SOLE* ARBITER of what he RENDERS-CERTAIN. That man can be in any way – an ARBITER of what that which is *NOT UP TO* him ….” Thank you for affirming these things.

        br.d writes, “The corruption of Adam was RENDERED-CERTAIN (i.e. framed) by Calvin’s god”

        Yes. “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” So, God gave Satan free rein to enter the garden because Christ “was foreknown before the foundation of the world…” and the rest is history. Thank you for affirming the wisdom of God in His eternal plan.

      2. br.d, “In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god BRINGS *ALL* THINGS INTO EXISTENCE by immutable decree.”

        rhutchin
        Yes. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Thank you for affirming Genesis 1.

        br.d
        No problem – now a logical and unbiased mind can take this to its logical conclusion! :-]

        That which is RENDERED-CERTAIN – by its very virtue of being immutable CANNOT be altered or prevented.”

        rhutchin
        Many are the plans in a man’s heart,

        br.d
        Which – as you acknowledge above – are BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE by immutable decree
        – By factors outside of man’s control
        – And man has no say in the matter

        rhutchin
        But the counsel of the LORD, it will stand.”

        br.d
        This is deceptive language – designed to paint a picture of a degree of creaturely autonomy in which man’s plans can be otherwise than what Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN – which the author of the statement knows is FALSE.

        Any Calvinist who uses equivocal language to paint such a picture is functioning as a beguiler.

        rhutchin
        This is why you correctly state, “Calvin’s god is the *SOLE* ARBITER of what he RENDERS-CERTAIN. That man can be in any way – an ARBITER of what that which is *NOT UP TO* him ….” Thank you for affirming these things.

        br.d
        Thus the phrase FINAL ARBITER is deceptive language designed to paint a picture of a degree of creaturely autonomy whereby man is pictured as being in some way an ARBITER – and with Calvin’s god functions as a “so called” *FINAL* ARBITER.

        Thus the term *FINAL” in this statement is designed to mislead.

        br.d
        The corruption of Adam was RENDERED-CERTAIN (i.e. framed) by Calvin’s god”

        rhutchin
        Yes. “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely….etc

        br.d
        And Calvin’s god deceived Adam – leading Adam to believe he was PERMITTED to obey
        And Calvin’s god knew what he was leading Adam to believe was a FALSEHOOD

        rhutchin
        God gave Satan free rein to enter the garden….etc

        br.d
        This is deceptive language designed to paint a picture of a degree of creaturely autonomy.

        In Calvinism the creature is free *ONLY* to be and do what is RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
        The creature is NOT free and NOT permitted to do otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        So the term “free rein” in this context is misleading language.

        Dr. Bella Depaulo – The Many Faces of Lies
        -quote
        “We define deception as a deliberate attempt to mislead others. Falsehoods communicated by people who are mistaken or self-deceived are not lies, but for the deceived person they are literal truths.

        However, literal truths that are designed to mislead others are in fact lies.”
        -end quote

      3. br.d,

        Without the religious language that rhutchin brings in, Satan had free reign on earth when God kicked him out of heaven, for hell was created for him and his demons.

        God knew that man was WEEK, cuz he created us that way. It wasn’t that it was DECREED at all. God knew the outcome not because of some kind of omni wamni magic, but God knew that man was weak. Adam and Eve was gonna take the bait, and God didn’t have to intervene, or plan it out, or decree it, or mandate it, or ordain it, or will it, or render it, or design it, etc.

      4. Yes I agree Chapmaned24
        Your posts tend to concentrate on the validity of libertarian free will being consistent in the general narrative of scripture.
        Which I agree.

        rhutchin – as a determinist is caught between two contradicting poles.
        He wants to be true to determinism in order to remain true to Calvin and the guild.
        And yet the closer he gets to consistency the more obvious that Calvin’s god is the author/source/originator of all sin and evil.
        And Calvin’s god does not permit people to refrain from sins – because all sins are RENDERED-CERTAIN.

        And Calvin’s god does not provide a way of escape from sins as 1 Corinthians 10:13 states.
        The Calvinists way of making 1 Corinthians 10:13 is to manufacture the ILLUSION of an escape from sin that was not going to come to pass anyway.

        The Calvinist’s primary tool in the tool-box is to use deceptive language – designed to paint a picture of creaturely autonomy – and/or divine knowledge via observation.

        Calvinists learn to frame deceptive double-speak statements because that’s the only tool Calvinism has for retaining credibility within Christianity.

      5. chapmaned24 to br.d writes, “God didn’t have to intervene, or plan it out, or decree it, or mandate it, or ordain it, or will it, or render it, or design it, etc.”

        Yet, God could and He did.

      6. No, God didn’t. He set a trap. He baited. He put a chocolate candy bar on the kitchen table, and told him not to eat it. And Adam LOVED chocolate so much, that he couldn’t stand it any longer, and finally took a bite. And he said to himself, uh, oh. I’m in trouble!

        All God did was told him not to eat it. How hard is that, when you love chocolate? Many a fat people in the world that gave in to chocolate. Couldn’t resist.

      7. br.d writes, “That which is RENDERED-CERTAIN – by its very virtue of being immutable CANNOT be altered or prevented.””

        Yes. By this you affirm God’s omniscience. God knows the future perfectly making that future certain (but, as WL Craig shows, not necessary).

        Then, “Which – as you acknowledge above – are BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE by immutable decree
        – By factors outside of man’s control
        – And man has no say in the matter”

        Yes, by virtue of Adam’s sin, people are born unrighteous and without faith. The person had no say in this (nor in his country of birth, culture, economic level, educational opportunities, etc.) So many things are beyond the control of the person – it is no wonder that he needs God to save him.

        Then, “Any Calvinist who uses equivocal language to paint such a picture is functioning as a beguiler.”

        That is why Calvinism says that man is not autonomous. Anyone who says man is autonomous cannot be a Calvinist.

        Then, ‘Thus the phrase FINAL ARBITER is deceptive language designed to paint a picture of a degree of creaturely autonomy whereby man is pictured as being in some way an ARBITER …”

        Man is subordinate to God making God the final arbiter of his fate. However, people do pursue their desires among all other people, so they steal, kill, etc. to the extent that God decrees it, so, in the end, God is the final arbiter.

        Then, ‘And Calvin’s god deceived Adam – leading Adam to believe he was PERMITTED to obey
        And Calvin’s god knew what he was leading Adam to believe was a FALSEHOOD ”

        What God did not tell Adam was that He was giving Satan freedom to enter the garden leading to the temptation of Eve. God did not mislead Adam. God said, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely….” and that was true. That God did not explain the obstacles to obedience does not make it a falsehood. Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” That Jesus did not append a statement explaining the obstacles to doing this does not make it a falsehood.

        Then, “In Calvinism the creature is free *ONLY* to be and do what is RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world.
        The creature is NOT free and NOT permitted to do otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        So the term “free rein” in this context is misleading language.”

        Satan is under restraint as we see in Job. The Assyrians were restrained by God from invading Israel per Isaiah 10. God lessened those restraints resulting in Satan entering the garden and the Assyrians invading Israel. Even br.d could have foretold those actions, so we should not be surprised that God knew those outcomes and had rendered them certain by His decrees.

      8. br.d
        That which is RENDERED-CERTAIN – by its very virtue of being immutable CANNOT be altered or prevented.””

        rhutchin
        … as WL Craig shows, not necessary).

        br.d
        Superfluous red herring
        The fact that [X] CANNOT be altered or prevented – makes it the case that there is no such thing as Calvin’s god intervening to prevent [X]

        Rhutchin – references Adam desires

        br.d
        Which – as you acknowledge above – are BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE by immutable decree
        – By factors outside of man’s control
        – And man has no say in the matter”

        rhutchin
        Yes, by virtue of Adam’s sin….

        br.d
        This is just more deceptive language via goal-post moving.
        Whatever you attribute to Adam was – RENDERED-CERTAIN – (desires/sin/nature/inclination etc)

        What is omitted is that Adam was NOT Permitted any attribute (desires/sin/nature/inclination etc) otherwise
        – by factors outside of his control
        – and Adam has no say in the matter

        Thus a lie by omission is still a lie

        rhutchin
        So many things are beyond the control of the person – it is no wonder that he needs God to save him.

        br.d.
        This is deceptive language.
        In Calvinism there is no such thing as saving someone from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN

        Any Calvinist who uses equivocal language to paint such a picture is functioning as a beguiler.”

        rhutchin
        Anyone who says man is autonomous cannot be a Calvinist.

        br.d
        But that doesn’t prevent Calvinists from using deceptive equivocal language to “paint a picture” of a degree of autonomy – which all of your exculpatory statements are designed to do.

        rhutchin
        Man is subordinate to God making God the final arbiter of his fate.

        br.d
        This is deceptive language
        Man is *TOTALLY SUBJECTED* to what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        Here the term “subordinate” is used to INFER a degree of autonomy.

        rhutchin
        However, people do pursue their desires among all other people, so they steal, kill, etc. to the extent that God decrees it, so, in the end, God is the final arbiter.

        br.d
        This is deceptive language.
        Whatever desires people have are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors out of their control
        Any language that INFERS people CAN have desires otherwise is deceptive language.
        Thus any language which INFERS upon man the degree to function as an ARBITER is a Calvinist’s ILLUSION
        So again – using the term “FINAL” in this statement is deceptive language.

        rhutchin references Calvin’s god’s command to Adam
        br.d
        And Calvin’s god deceived Adam – leading Adam to believe he was PERMITTED to obey
        And Calvin’s god knew what he was leading Adam to believe was a FALSEHOOD ”

        rhutchin
        What God did not tell Adam was that He was giving Satan freedom to enter the garden

        br.d
        A lie by omission is still a lie
        What is omitted – the creature is NOT free and NOT permitted to do otherwise than what is RENDERED-CERTAIN
        Any language that INFERS creaturely freedom beyond that is deceptive language

        What Calvin’s god did was to lead Adam to believe he was permitted to obey
        And Calvin’s god knew he was leading Adam to believe a FALSEHOOD

        rhutchin
        God did not mislead Adam.

        br.d
        FALSE – as clearly shown above

        rhutchin
        That God did not explain the obstacles to obedience does not make it a falsehood. ..etc

        br.d
        FALSE
        Adam was led to believe that it was TRUE that he was permitted to obey
        And Calvin’s god knew that was FALSE

        rhutchin
        Satan is under restraint….

        br.d
        More deceptive language.
        A lie by omission is still a lie

        Here the phrase “under restraint” is strategically designed to INFER a degree of creaturely autonomy

        Dr. Bella Depaulo – The Many Faces of Lies
        -quote
        “We define deception as a deliberate attempt to mislead others. Falsehoods communicated by people who are mistaken or self-deceived are not lies, but for the deceived person they are literal truths.

        However, literal truths that are designed to mislead others are in fact lies.”
        -end quote

      9. br.d writes, “The fact that [X] CANNOT be altered or prevented – makes it the case that there is no such thing as Calvin’s god intervening to prevent [X]”

        The intervention was planned in eternity past and implemented in the course of time. God decreed to prevent the death of Peter in eternity past and intervened to bring that outcome about in the course of time.

        Then, “What is omitted is that Adam was NOT Permitted any attribute (desires/sin/nature/inclination etc) otherwise
        – by factors outside of his control
        – and Adam has no say in the matter”

        No desire was forced on Adam that was not his own.

        Then, “In Calvinism there is no such thing as saving someone from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        God saves His elect and this outcome was rendered certain in eternity past.

        Then, “But that doesn’t prevent Calvinists from using deceptive equivocal language to “paint a picture” of a degree of autonomy – which all of your exculpatory statements are designed to do.”

        This is a bold claim. How about an example of what you claim?

        Then, “Man is *TOTALLY SUBJECTED* to what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        Here the term “subordinate” is used to INFER a degree of autonomy.”

        Not autonomy with respect to God.

        Then, “Whatever desires people have are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors out of their control”

        A person’s desires arise from their nature, and are consistent with that nature. Certainly, a person has no control over the nature he inherited from Adam. So, why don’t the people rise up and complain to God about it?

        Then, “A lie by omission is still a lie”

        Given that God has withheld much from man, sounds like you are calling God a liar.

        Then, “Adam was led to believe that it was TRUE that he was permitted to obey
        And Calvin’s god knew that was FALSE”

        Adam was told that he was accountable for his actions. He knew what he was doing. You are accountable for your actions and you know what you are doing.

      10. br.d
        The fact that [X] CANNOT be altered or prevented – makes it the case that there is no such thing as Calvin’s god intervening to prevent [X]”

        rhutchin
        The intervention was planned in eternity past and implemented in the course of time.etc

        br.d
        FALSE
        There’s no such thing as a preventing something that isn’t going to come to pass.
        See: DOES CALVIN’S GOD *REALLY* INTERVENE TO PREVENT ANY EVENT [X]?
        https://soteriology101.com/2018/11/14/a-response-to-5-myths-about-calvinism/comment-page-2/#comment-32078

        br.d
        A lie by omission is still a lie
        What is omitted (consistently by rhutchin’s posts) is that Adam was NOT Permitted any attribute (desires/sin/nature/inclination etc) otherwise
        – by factors outside of his control
        – and Adam has no say in the matter”

        rhutchin
        No desire was forced on Adam that was not his own.

        br.d
        Whenever a Calvinist doesn’t have a logical answer they throw out a superfluous red-herring

        Also another logical fallacy:
        In Calvinism there is no such thing as saving someone from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        rhutchin
        God saves His elect and this outcome was rendered certain in eternity past.

        br.d
        Another superfluous red-herring
        The logic of my statement stands

        But that doesn’t prevent Calvinists from using deceptive equivocal language to “paint a picture” of a degree of autonomy – which all of your exculpatory statements are designed to do.”

        rhutchin
        This is a bold claim. How about an example of what you claim?

        br.d
        The silver lining here is that you provide the very best examples – and I thank you! :-]

        Man is *TOTALLY SUBJECTED* to what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        Here the term “subordinate” is used to INFER a degree of autonomy.

        rhutchin
        Not autonomy with respect to God.

        br.d
        You could easily use the phrase “TOTALLY SUBJECTED” which would be TRUE
        Instead you use the equivocal term “subordinate” which you use to INFER a degree of autonomy.

        Whatever attributes (nature/desires.inclination etc) people have are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors out of their control

        rhutchin
        A person’s desires arise from their nature…..etc

        br.d
        Shifting the goal-post is simply dishonest.
        *ALL* creaturely attributes which include anything you want to point to are RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors out of their control

        And
        A lie by omission is still a lie”

        rhutchin
        Given that God has withheld much from man, sounds like you are calling God a liar.

        br.d
        That statement was in response to your omission
        However it is clear that Calvin’s god consistently communicates what he knows to be FALSE

        Adam was led to believe that it was TRUE that he was permitted to obey
        And Calvin’s god knew that was FALSE”

        rhutchin
        Adam was told that he was accountable for his actions….etc.

        br.d
        This again shows when faced with a logical conclusion you can’t evade – the answer is to deflect with a superfluous red-herring.
        However, this deflection actually compounds how un-biblical Calvin’s god is.

        First Calvin’s god deceives Adam into believing it is TRUE that he is permitted to obey when Calvin’s god knows that is FALSE.
        Then on top of that he holds Adam accountable for something for which Adam has no control over and has no say about.

        And by reviewing your posts in this thread – it looks like what the Psalms 115:8 says.
        They that make them (false gods) become like unto them

        The deity that communicates with deceptive misleading language – its worshipers become like that deity.

      11. br.d: “The deity that communicates with deceptive misleading language – its worshipers become like that deity.”

        You hit the nail on the head with that one. Reminds me of the saying you have quoted, about Calvin returning the favor, and making a god in his own image . . . 😉

      12. Thank you TS00!

        Isn’t it ironic that the Calvinist is so compromised with having Calvinism as his second master – that he has zero discernment of the dishonesty in his own use of language!

        if anyone in real life communicated to him using the same types of deceptive equivocations – he would hate it.

      13. Thanks TS00 – I downloaded it.
        I think I read this years ago – and I forgot how many double-speak quotes there are from Calvinists in it!

      14. br.d writes, “There’s no such thing as a preventing something that isn’t going to come to pass.”

        An event does not come to pass because of God’s intervention. Had God not intervened, the event would have happened as there would have been nothing to stop it.

      15. Rhutchin writes:
        “An event does not come to pass because of God’s intervention. Had God not intervened, the event would have happened as there would have been nothing to stop it.”

        This is illogical and inconsistent with Calvinism, a system that allows no opportunity or possibility of man desiring or doing anything other than that which has been previously determined and decreed by God, as stated by Calvin in his Institutes:

        “They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and afterwards be punished for his blindness. They, therefore, evade this difficulty, by alleging that it happens only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge. That men, however, can effect nothing but by the secret will of God, and can deliberate upon nothing but what he has previously decreed, and determines by his secret direction, is proved by express and innumerable testimonies.”

        “If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not also dispose and fix them by his determination, there would be room to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight rendered them at all necessary. But, since he foresees future events only in consequence of his decree that they shall happen, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come to pass rather by ordination and decree.”

        “I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess plainly, with Augustine, ‘that the will of God is the necessity of things, and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass.’”

        “If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not also dispose and fix them by his determination, there would be room to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight rendered them at all necessary. But, since he foresees future events only in consequence of his decree that they shall happen, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come to pass rather by ordination and decree.”

        Countless other respected Calvinists emphasize that God determines every molecule, every impulse and whatsoever comes to pass. It is utterly impossible, under this theological system, to have uncontrolled molecules or impulses which God must rein in or prevent – all that exists comes from his own perfect ordination and decree. Man has no ability to create alternative potential realities which God must step in to prevent. Modern Calvinists often seeks to avoid this truth, and borrow from the concepts of foreknowledge, permission and prevention, which is not in their purview.

      16. TS00 writes, “This is illogical and inconsistent with Calvinism, a system that allows no opportunity or possibility of man desiring or doing anything other than that which has been previously determined and decreed by God, as stated by Calvin in his Institutes:”

        When Peter was in the courtyard, he denied Christ and God did nothing to prevent it. When Peter was taken prisoner, God sent an angel to release him from prison. Both events were decreed and determined by God, in the one case by the nature of Peter left unrestrained and the other by God’s angel. So it is with all events. God decrees all that happens. In some cases He has to intervene to bring about His desired result; in other cases, He doesn’t. Even if we don’t allow God to know the future, He still knows what He wants to do, so the outcome is the same.

      17. rhutchin,

        Your example about Peter is MISUSED, because it’s NOT ABOUT PETER. It’s about Jesus. Peter was already a follower of God (Jesus). So, this was a TEST of Peter.

        Let me say that again…PETER WAS ALREADY A GOD FOLLOWER. So you need to give me an example of your NORMAL EVERYDAY NON-CHRISTIAN WHO ISN’T A GOD FOLLOWER, OR, AS ROMANS 9 STATES, CLAY TO SHOW GOD’S POWER, as in, the Pharaoh.

        Satan did not want Jesus to get to that cross. And that is why Peter DEFENDED Jesus with his sword, too. Remember when Jesus said that IF HIS KINGDOM WAS OF THIS WORLD, THEN HIS FOLLOWERS WOULD FIGHT.

        John 18:36
        Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

        So, your mentioning of the other, regarding Peter, God intervened because Peter was an apostle to the Jews and HE HAD TO GO PREACH THE GOSPEL because he was a JEW FIRST, and an APOSTLE that needed to deliver the good news to the Jews.

      18. br.d
        “There’s no such thing as a preventing something that isn’t going to come to pass.”

        rhutchin
        An event does not come to pass because of God’s intervention. Had God not intervened, the event would have happened as there would have been nothing to stop it.

        br.d
        rhutchin – when you’re faced with a logical statement you can’t evade – you simply play shell games with terms.

        There’s no such thing as intervening an event that isn’t going to come to pass.
        Ditto for any other term you want to invent – (“prevent” “intervene” “change”, “alter” etc).

        See: DOES CALVIN’S GOD *REALLY* INTERVENE TO PREVENT ANY EVENT [X]?
        https://soteriology101.com/2018/11/14/a-response-to-5-myths-about-calvinism/comment-page-2/#comment-32078

      19. br.d writes, “There’s no such thing as intervening an event that isn’t going to come to pass.”

        Some events come about because of God’s intervention (e.g., flood of Noah, impregnation of Mary). Some things come to pass through non-intervention (e.g., David’s affair w/Bathsheba, the stoning of Stephen). All these events were foreknown by God because He had decreed them to happen.

        You may not like this, but you can’t argue against it (which is why, I think, you never appeal to Scripture to support the claims you make).

      20. br.d
        There’s no such thing as intervening an event that isn’t going to come to pass.

        rhutchin
        Some events come about because of God’s intervention (e.g., flood of Noah, impregnation of Mary). Some things come to pass through non-intervention (e.g., David’s affair w/Bathsheba, the stoning of Stephen).

        br.d
        Those events are recorded in scripture – and affirm IN-determinism – where most events are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN
        And where Theological Determinism’s constraints don’t exist.
        While you clearly like the idea of Theological Determinism – its obvious you require IN-determinism in order to be coherent with scripture.
        Unfortunate for you – that that doesn’t work in a rational world!

        rhutchin
        All these events were foreknown by God because He had decreed them to happen.

        br.d
        Exactly as Theological Determinism dictates.
        However – what you keep needing for your theory to be true is “mere” permission.
        Which doesn’t exist in Calvinism.

        Since “mere” permission doesn’t exist – you are limited to a *BINARY* condition.
        Events that are RENDERED-CERTAIN or Events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        That’s all you have.

        There is to 3rd option – such as events that MAY be or MAY NOT come to pass (which by the way is an echo of open theism).
        So you’re back to square one – where there are only 2 candidates for events.
        Events that are RENDERED-CERTAIN by virtue of being immutable cannot be prevented, altered, changed, etc.
        Events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN could be prevented – but are not going to come to pass anyway.
        And there is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that is not going to come to pass.

        However, that doesn’t prevent Calvin’s god from creating a FAKE PRESENTATION of a divine prevention.
        A FAKE Choreographed theater of himself *APPEARING* to prevent something NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – and therefore NOT going to come to pass anyway.

        rhutchin
        You may not like this, but you can’t argue against it (which is why, I think, you never appeal to Scripture to support the claims you make).

        br.d
        Actually the psychological condition you’re attributing to me is actually your situation.
        With IN-determinism divine prevention is logically coherent with scripture – while with Theological Determinism it is contradictory.

        That is the reason determinists like Richard Hawkings resolve that determinists must live AS-IF determinism is false.
        And that is the reason Calvin teaches to -quote “go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”.
        That is the psychological burden that comes with determinism.

        You want to perceive yourself as NOT following Calvin’s *AS-IF* thinking pattern.
        But 90% of your posts reveal a constant need for some form of Determinism *AS-IF* IN-determinism.
        That’s why so many of your posts are use language that INFERS some degree of creature autonomy – or they INFER divine knowledge via observation.

        You inwardly know that IN-determinism is contradictory to your belief system.
        And that’s why your statements are so reliant upon equivocal terms.
        You find yourself unable to embrace *PURE* Theological Determinism.

        These are the byproducts of Calvinism’s double-think psychology!
        I am so fortunate God gave me the grace to not to get ensnared in it
        There but for the grace of God go I!

      21. br.d writes, “Those events are recorded in scripture – and affirm IN-determinism – where most events are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        And I see them affirming Theological Determinism or God’s sovereign control over such events.

        Then, “However – what you keep needing for your theory to be true is “mere” permission.
        Which doesn’t exist in Calvinism.”

        No reason to have “mere” permission in Calvinism (given that you even have some idea what “mere” permission means).

        then, “Events that are RENDERED-CERTAIN by virtue of being immutable cannot be prevented, altered, changed, etc.
        Events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN could be prevented – but are not going to come to pass anyway.
        And there is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that is not going to come to pass.”

        Under omniscience, all is rendered certain including any acts by God to change circumstances as He wills (e.g, the impregnation of Mary). Thus, Mary’s impregnation could not “not come to pass,” for God had decreed it. Same with the salvation of God’s elect.

      22. br.d
        Those events are recorded in scripture – and affirm IN-determinism – where most events are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        rhutchin
        And I see them affirming Theological Determinism or God’s sovereign control over such events.

        br.d
        And I see the logical conundrum you are faced with! :-]

        However – what you keep needing for your theory to be true is “mere” permission.
        Which doesn’t exist in Calvinism.”

        rhutchin
        No reason to have “mere” permission in Calvinism (given that you even have some idea what “mere” permission means).

        br.d
        I did not say there was “mere” permission in Calvinism – I said “you meed it for your theory”
        And if you know what “mere” permission means then you know that Calvin’s god doesn’t “merely” permit [X].
        He RENDERS-CERTAIN [X]

        Events that are RENDERED-CERTAIN by virtue of being immutable cannot be prevented, altered, changed, etc.
        Events that are NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN could be prevented – but are not going to come to pass anyway.
        And there is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that is not going to come to pass.”

        rhutchin
        Under omniscience, all is rendered certain including any acts by God to change circumstances as He wills (e.g, the impregnation of Mary). Thus, Mary’s impregnation could not “not come to pass,” for God had decreed it. Same with the salvation of God’s elect.

        br.d
        Here is the logical conundrum – imposed upon you by Theological Determinism.

        Lets Say Calvin’s god wants to create an event that he will prevent from coming to pass.

        Can he RENDER-CERTAIN that that event come to pass – and then prevent it?
        No – because any event RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass – is immutable/unchangeable/unpreventable.

        So that leaves him to work with an event NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass.
        WOOPS! It just so happens that event isn’t going to come to pass anyway – so there is nothing to prevent.

        Now I did say however that Calvin’s god could create a FAKE PRESENTATION of a divine prevention.
        A choreographed theater show – where he interjects himself at a choreographed moment and *APPEARS* to prevent something.

        I leave it to you to try to figure out how something can be prevented that was never RENDERED-CERTAIN to come to pass.
        What you currently have now is make-believe magical thinking.

        However – divine prevention is fully viable in a world of IN-determinism.
        That’s why you need some form of “mere” permission to make our theory work.

      23. br.d writes, “And I see the logical conundrum you are faced with! ”

        Unfortunately, you are unable to explain that conundrum.

        Then, “And there is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that is not going to come to pass.””

        Except where an event is not going to come to pass without God’s intervention. How does Mary become impregnated except by God’s intervention?

        Then, “Lets Say Calvin’s god wants to create an event that he will prevent from coming to pass.”

        Why the need to create a strawman? God’ knows of a future that could occur without His intervention. God intervenes to prevent that world from coming to pass. So, we have Peter thrown into jail with death certain unless God takes action. God takes that action and Peter lives.

      24. “So, we have Peter thrown into jail with death certain unless God takes action. God takes that action and Peter lives.”

        Once again, utter nonsense, under the Calvinist system. Had God wanted Peter to not be thrown into jail with certain death, he should not have ordained those who threw him into jail to do so.

        Calvin’s god looks so utterly foolish, constantly ordaining what he does not wish to happen; ‘intervening’ to ‘prevent’ with one hand what he ordained and brought to pass with the other. Ah, funny Calvinism, always trying to have it both ways.

      25. TS00 writes, “Once again, utter nonsense, under the Calvinist system. Had God wanted Peter to not be thrown into jail with certain death, he should not have ordained those who threw him into jail to do so. ”

        So, obviously, God did want Peter to be thrown into jail to create, if nothing else, a teachable moment for Peter and for us. Certainly, God’s purposes for anything are clear to Him if not to us. Calvinists just admit the obvious – that God is sovereign and rules His creation.

      26. “So, we have Peter thrown into jail with death certain unless God takes action. God takes that action and Peter lives.”

        br.d
        Right on TS00!

        The question for me here is – did Calvin’s god “merely” permit Peter to be thrown in jail?
        No Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN Peter gets thrown in jail.
        Thus Peter getting thrown in jail can’t be prevented.

        Then what in fact is getting prevented?
        Perhaps rhutchin will say what was prevented was Peter REMAINING in jail.

        But he’s back to his logical conundrum again.
        If Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN Peter remain in jail then Peter remaining in jail is immutable/unchangeable
        The only way Calvin’s god can prevent Peter from remaining in jail is to NOT RENDER-CERTAIN Peter remain in jail.
        And since Peter remaining in jail is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – it won’t come to pass any way.

        So far rhutchin’s claim is nothing more than make-believe magical thinking.

      27. br.d writes, “Thus Peter getting thrown in jail can’t be prevented.”

        That is what God ordained. So, in viewing the past, we see all the things God ordained. The issue is to determine what God has ordained into the future. For instance, we know that God has ordained the salvation of His elect.

        Then, “But he’s back to his logical conundrum again.”

        Yet, you cannot explain what the logical conundrum is. You deal with a past event that is already certain – Peter was put in jail; Peter was released from jail by God. You need to deal with a future event whose certainty is unknown to you but known to God. What’s the magical thinking with past events??

      28. br.d
        Calvin’s God RENDERED-CERTAIN Peter gets thrown in jail
        Thus Peter getting thrown in jail can’t be prevented.”

        rhutchin
        That is what God ordained. So, in viewing the past, we see all the things God ordained.

        br.d
        Correct!
        Calvin’s god has foreknowledge – but man does not.
        However man does have “A posteriori” knowledge (knowledge after the fact)
        And man can think rationally
        Therefore man can conclude
        – Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN Peter be in jail
        – Thus Peter in Jail can’t be prevented

        rhutchin
        The issue is to determine what God has ordained into the future. For instance, we know that God has ordained the salvation of His elect.

        br.d
        A LOGICAL Calvinist knows he does not have foreknowledge – and what he can determine must be derived without it.
        And a LOGICAL Calvinist is taught that no man knows the SECRET counsel of Calvin’s god.
        So he doesn’t even know if he is elect or not – until (using “A posteriori” knowledge) he discovers himself in the lake of fire or not.

        So rhutchin is back to his logical conundrum again

        rhutchin
        Yet, you cannot explain what the logical conundrum is. ….What’s the magical thinking with past events??

        br.d
        Children are found to occasionally not want to acknowledge hard TRUTHS that come with life.
        So they adopt a state of “magical thinking” in order to avoid those TRUTHS they choose to make-believe fairy tales.

        There are hard TRUTHS imposed upon a person – who adopts Theological Determinism as a world-view.
        I will list a few of these again for you – but I’ve done this several times now.
        1) Events come in two possible categories
        – RENDERED-CERTAIN events
        – NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN events

        2) RENDERED-CERTAIN events – have the state of being immutable/unchangeable/unpreventable
        – Calvin’s god CANNOT intervene to prevent them
        – And the Calvinist CANNOT escape them

        3) NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN events – can be altered/changed/prevented – but they are not going to come to pass anyway.
        – Calvin’s god knows it is TRUE that they have no existence and are not going to come to pass.

        A Calvinist (like the child) may make-believe that RENDERED-CERTAIN events can be intervened/prevented etc.
        A Calvinist (like the child) may make-believe the NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN events have existence and are REAL

        But that Calvinist is using magical-thinking because he doesn’t want to acknowledge a hard TRUTH imposed by his doctrine.

      29. rhutchin – after my last statement here – I can see one question you might have.

        How is the Calvinist to know if the event he is faced with is a RENDERED-CERTAIN event?
        Answer: By being LOGICALLY faithful to his doctrine.

        For example:
        Here on one of these thread Ed Chapman4 makes a claim
        And jtleosala responds

        -quote “no need for me to argue if God has destined you for that claim”

        Now jtleosala knows how to apply LOGIC to his doctrine when it comes to Ed’s claim.

        Does jtleosala know how to apply that same LOGIC to when he himself sins
        “no need to argue as to whether or not Calvin’s god destined me to that sin – and as such I had no escape from it.”

        Notice here in this example that jtleosala did not have to have foreknowledge to come to that conclusion.
        He didn’t have to know anything about the future.
        He can simply use “A postiori” knowledge (knowledge by observation) and LOGICALLY conclude he had no escape from that sin.
        And by virtue of LOGICAL deduction he can recognize he has no escape from ANY sin he will ever commit in the future.

        Then if he is a critically minded Calvinist – he will notice that a TRUTH imposed by Theological Determinism result in contradicting 1st Corinthians 10:13

        Thus as William Lane Craig points out – we have a scripture which affirms IN-determinism – but is LOGICALLY contrary to determinism.

      30. br.d writes, ‘How is the Calvinist to know if the event he is faced with is a RENDERED-CERTAIN event?”

        It has been established that the Calvinist “knows” that God has ordained all events. The unanswered question is, What has God ordained? To this, the scriptures provide much information (e.g., the Book of Revelation).

        The rest of your comment is nonsense being a mishmash of mixing jtl’s comment with your personal opinion to accomplish nothing.

      31. br.d
        How is the Calvinist to know if the event he is faced with is a RENDERED-CERTAIN event?”

        rhutchin
        It has been established that the Calvinist “knows” that God has ordained all events.

        br.d
        Wonderful – then let that Calvinist be LOGICALLY faithful to that which he “knows”

        rhutchin
        The unanswered question is, What has God ordained?
        To this, the scriptures provide much information (e.g., the Book of Revelation).

        br.d
        Firstly:
        You display a consistent pattern of appealing to the word “ordain” instead of RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        And I think that is telling.

        Secondly:
        The Calvinist also has the dictates of Theological Determinism
        Which produce LOGICALLY REQUIRED answers for some questions about the future

        I’ll give you an example you should not have any cognitive dissonance with.

        – You know that Calvin’s god has created you (here on earth) as a human – and not as a frog
        – Therefore you know that what Calvin’s god has ordained for your future (here on earth) is that you will remain a human.
        If you can think rationally – then nothing should prevent you from deducing that as a LOGICAL conclusion.

        Ok now lets tackle an example you do have cognitive dissonance with:
        – You know that Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN everything that will come to pass (in the future) – and in every part.
        – You know that that which is RENDERED-CERTAIN is immutable/unchangeable
        – You know that Calvin’s god CANNOT alter/change/prevent/intervene in events he RENDERS-CERTAIN
        – You know that you have no escape from any future event because they are all RENDERED-CERTAIN
        – Therefore you know you have no escape from any of your sins which are all future events RENDERED-CERTAIN.

        rhutchin
        The rest of your comment is nonsense being a mishmash of mixing jtl’s comment with your personal opinion to accomplish nothing.

        br.d
        Everyone here already knows you rely on the fallacy argument of “personal opinion”
        Its an easy way for a person who uses magical-thinking to evade the TRUTH statements I posted on that point. :-]

        Calvinists have their own form of easy-believe-ism :-]

      32. br.d writes, ‘You display a consistent pattern of appealing to the word “ordain” instead of RENDERED-CERTAIN.”

        The term, “ordain,” is identified with Calvinism, and as you noted earlier, it means the same as your “rendered certain.” I don’t see an issue here.

        Then, “– You know that you have no escape from any future event because they are all RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        This is false. God has built in His actions taken on my behalf in response to my prayers. Thus, if I ask God for wisdom, God gives me wisdom and both the asking and the receiving were ordained (or rendered certain) by God before He created the world. So, when God says, “Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need,” I have absolute assurance that God will respond positively to my prayers. Should I not pray, then I receive nothing. All this, my actions and God’s responses have been ordained by God.

        You draw the false conclusion, “– Therefore you know you have no escape from any of your sins which are all future events RENDERED-CERTAIN.” while I have every right to conclude, “– Therefore you know you have a certain escape from any of your sins which are all future events RENDERED-CERTAIN as that escape was already ordained before you even sought it.”

        Then, ‘Everyone here already knows you rely on the fallacy argument of “personal opinion””

        Most, in not all, people here are clueless about what you are trying to argue. If not, they are welcome to help explain what it is you are trying to say by providing examples from the Scriptures to enhance your efforts. My guess – it won’t happen.

      33. br.d
        You display a consistent pattern of appealing to the word “ordain” instead of RENDERED-CERTAIN.”

        rhutchin
        The term, “ordain,” is identified with Calvinism, and as you noted earlier, it means the same as your “rendered certain.” I don’t see an issue here.

        br.d
        Anyone can see the term “ordain” lends itself to DISTANCING language – where RENDER-CERTAIN is hard and direct.

        You know that you have no escape from any future event because they are all RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        rhutchin
        This is false.

        br.d
        For the Nth time – you have an opportunity to show LOGICALLY how you can escape from what Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN you do. But instead repeat a mantra over and over – good luck with that.

        rhutchin
        God has built in His actions taken on my behalf in response to my prayers

        br.d
        Yeah right – after Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN your every neurological impulse.
        Which includes your prayers – then he responds to them *AS-IF* he didn’t RENDER-CERTAIN every one of them.

        John Calvin
        -quote “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”.
        What a hoot! :-]

        rhutchin
        God will respond positively to my prayers.

        br.d
        Yeah – right – when in Calvinism all man is given to know – is Calvin’s god’s *REVEALED* will – and not his *SECRET* will.
        But you know what Calvin’s god will do *AS-IF* you are different – knowing his *SECRET* will
        John Calvin
        -quote “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”.
        What a hoot! :-]

        rhutchin
        Thus, if I ask God for wisdom, God gives me wisdom

        br.d
        Nice magical thinking!

        The TRUTH is – there is absolutely nothing about Calvin’s god you can REALLY trust – accept that he does what he pleases.
        You can read the promises in scripture – but you don’t know if they apply to you or not.
        For all you know Calvin’s god has ordained you for the lake of fire.
        You might be one of the -quote LARGE MIXTURE to whom Calvin’s god holds salvation out to as a -quote “Scepter of greater condemnation”

        rhutchin
        events RENDERED-CERTAIN – the escape was already ordained before you even sought it.”

        br.d
        *AS-IF* any of that were LOGICAL rather than make-believe magical-thinking!

        If Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world RENDERS-CERTAIN you sin at 10AM tomorrow – then that event is CERTAIN.
        You’ll have a hard time trying to INVENT a way to escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.

        If Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world RENDERS-CERTAIN you not sin at 10AM tomorrow – then that will not come to pass.
        You’ll have a hard time trying to INVENT a way to say you escaped from something that was not going to come to pass.

        rhutchin
        Most, in not all, people here are clueless about what you are trying to argue

        br.d
        Actually I’ve exchanged comments back and forth with them about these topics and they fully understand – both the LOGIC and the make-believe magical thinking. So I won’t bring up what that shows about clueless! :-]

      34. It matters not how many times you, or I, or a thousand others show clear examples of the logical impossibility of so many of rhutchin’s assertions, he cannot, as you know, abandon them. He simply must create endless word salads in an attempt to pretend that one can embrace the meticulous Determinism of Calvinism and all of scripture.

        Of course it cannot be done. Meticulous determinism is antithetical to scripture, logic and meaningful living, as you have pointed out repeatedly. Who thinks for a moment that there is something meaningful behind an ‘answered prayer’ when God rendered irresistibly certain the problem, the prayer and the answer? Man is simply a role player, responding as he must to things over which he has absolutely no influence. Sure, it looks like robots can think and perform like autonomous beings, but that is mere illusion – they must do as they have been programmed to do, nothing more and nothing less.

        It is this realization that caused the vast majority of believers in the past to reject Calvinism. We mustn’t be surprised when they attempt to find a work-around by pretending that one can have their cake and eat it too. There are many who will simply take the word of influential celebrity teachers and celebrated, historical icons rather than think through the logic of the arguments. This is the only hope Calvinism has of gaining a hearing. Most who adopt it, don’t really adopt it, but the misleading AS-IF statements they have been assured are reliable. Of all the Calvinists I have ever known, few have truly held to the TULIP system, yet are utterly unaware that they cannot call themselves Calvinists or Reformed without all five planks.

      35. Totally TRUE – and thanks TS00!

        I think its time for me and rhutchin to end this thread.
        My approach to the topic is rational reasoning – while he is caught in an endless loop of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking.

        Good timing!
        Thanks!

      36. br.d writes, “You know that you have no escape from any future event because they are all RENDERED-CERTAIN””

        Even my escapes have been ordained by God as have His actions to ensure those escapes.

        Then, “For the Nth time – you have an opportunity to show LOGICALLY how you can escape from what Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN you do.”

        You argue against your imagination. I never said that I can escape that which God has ordained. I have maintained that I can escape where God has ordained that escape.

        Then, rhutchin wrote, “Thus, if I ask God for wisdom, God gives me wisdom”
        br.d responded, “Nice magical thinking!”

        The Calvinist stands by the Scripture, “if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

      37. rhutchin
        Even my escapes have been ordained by God as have His actions to ensure those escapes.

        br.d
        I won’t belabor this any further – since you’re lost in magical thinking.

        The event you “so called” escaped from – is either (1) a RENDERED-CERTAIN event which is immutable and therefore inescapable
        Or (2) it was NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN – and therefore not going to come to pass anyway

        rhutchin
        You argue against your imagination. I never said that I can escape that which God has ordained. I have maintained that I can escape where God has ordained that escape.

        br.d
        See answer above:
        If you choose (1) then you’ve escaped “so called” that which Calvin’s god has RENDERED-CERTAIN (i.e. ordained)
        if you choose (2) then you’ve escaped “so called” an event that is not going to come to pass anyway.

        Your option forces you to use magical-thinking.

        rhutchin
        The Calvinist stands by the Scripture,

        br.d
        And I thank the Lord I’m not stuck with the irrational illogical conundrums imposed on scripture by Theological Determinism.
        Where Calvin’s god creates events for the purpose of *APPEARING* to prevent them

        Divine intervention is quite LOGICAL within an IN-deterministic worldview.
        Because in IN-determinism many events are not RENDERED-CERTAIN and “mere” permission does exist
        So God can “merely” permit or “merely” prevent an event without making TRUE = FALSE.

        But like I said – I think its time to drop this thread.
        You are holding fast to your position – even though you can’t get past the LOGICAL conundrum of it.

      38. br.d writes, “But that Calvinist is using magical-thinking because he doesn’t want to acknowledge a hard TRUTH imposed by his doctrine.”

        Calvinism holds that God ordains all things (including His intervention in the affairs of men in the course of time) and all this was ordained before the creation of the world. Is there another hard truth you had in mind? I still don’t see your issue with this, and you have yet to explain what the conundrum is.

      39. br.d
        But that Calvinist is using magical-thinking because he doesn’t want to acknowledge a hard TRUTH imposed by his doctrine.”

        rhutchin
        Calvinism holds that God ordains all things

        br.d
        Here the word “ordains” is strategically used instead of “RENDERS-CERTAIN” all things which come to pass.
        Perhaps RENDERS-CERTAIN is just a little bit to hard a TRUTH for the Calvinist to acknowledge! :-]

        rhutchin
        (including His intervention in the affairs of men in the course of time)

        br.d
        Perhaps the hard TRUTHS that:
        (1) Calvin’s god CANNOT intervene to prevent that which he RENDERS-CERTAIN
        (2) The Calvinist has no escape from sin which comes to pass because Calvin’s god made it RENDERED-CERTAIN
        Are just a little bit to hard TRUTHS for the Calvinist to acknowledge! :-]

        rhutchin
        and all this was ordained before the creation of the world

        br.d
        Correct!

        rhutchin
        Is there another hard truth you had in mind?

        br.d
        *AS-IF* those hard TRUTHS which I’ve detailed – and which (so far) you haven’t CLEARLY acknowledged – aren’t staring at you.

        Now John Calvin’s solution for EVADING these hard TRUTHS is where he teaches
        -quote
        “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”

        This is Calvinism’s model of *AS-IF* thinking
        True *AS-IF* False
        False *AS-IF* True

        Which you assert you don’t follow
        But which any LOGICAL observer reading your posts can clearly see exhibited.

        Calvin recognized – in order to retain a state of psychological normalcy and coherence to the general narrative of scripture he must follow a thinking pattern of Determinism *AS-IF* IN-determinism.

        Perhaps for a Calvinist to recognize he follows Calvin’s *AS-IF* model of thinking – is to hard a TRUTH to acknowledge.
        If so – we will observe that Calvinist going about his office *AS-IF* he doesn’t! :-]

      40. br.d writes, ‘Perhaps the hard TRUTHS that:
        (1) Calvin’s god CANNOT intervene to prevent that which he RENDERS-CERTAIN”

        Given that those things God has ordained (i.e., rendered certain) reflect His perfect wisdom, there is no need for God to undo that which He has ordained. That which God has ordained include His interventions into the affairs of men (e.g., the impregnation of Mary, a point even you have not tried to deny).

        Then, “(2) The Calvinist has no escape from sin which comes to pass because Calvin’s god made it RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        However, the Calvinist does have an escape from those sins where God has ordained the escape and that escape is prceded by a request for help, also ordained by God.

        Your “as-if” argument is worthless having no purpose and accomplishing nothing.

      41. br.d
        Perhaps the hard TRUTHS that:
        (1) Calvin’s god CANNOT intervene to prevent that which he RENDERS-CERTAIN”

        rhutchin
        Given that those things God has ordained (i.e., rendered certain) reflect His perfect wisdom, there is no need for God to undo that which He has ordained.

        br.d
        Is that a hard TRUTH?
        I don’t think so
        But the fact that he CANNOT intervene to prevent that which he RENDERS-CERTAIN – is a hard TRUTH.

        rhutchin
        That which God has ordained include His interventions into the affairs of men (e.g., the impregnation of Mary, a point even you have not tried to deny).

        br.d
        Nice make-believe magical-thinking – but still no LOGIC

        1) RENDERED-CERTAIN events CANNOT be altered/prevented etc
        2) NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN events don’t come to pass anyway.

        However:
        Nothing to stop Calvin’s god from creating a choreographed FAKE PRESENTATION of divine intervention in which he interjects himself into an situation as a choreographed moment to create the *APPEARANCE* of preventing something.

        (2) The Calvinist has no escape from sin which comes to pass because Calvin’s god made it RENDERED-CERTAIN”

        rhutchin
        However, the Calvinist does have an escape from those sins where God has ordained the escape and that escape is prceded by a request for help, also ordained by God.

        br.d
        Nice make-believe magical-thinking – but still no LOGIC

        rhutchin
        Your “as-if” argument is worthless having no purpose and accomplishing nothing.

        br.d
        That’s because it reveals a great deal about Calvinist psychology! :-]

      42. br.d writes, ‘Nothing to stop Calvin’s god from creating a choreographed FAKE PRESENTATION of divine intervention in which he interjects himself into an situation as a choreographed moment to create the *APPEARANCE* of preventing something.”

        A good Calvinist example being God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son all the time knowing that He would not allow it.

        Then, rhutchin wrote, “However, the Calvinist does have an escape from those sins where God has ordained the escape and that escape is prceded by a request for help, also ordained by God.”
        br.d responded, “Nice make-believe magical-thinking – but still no LOGIC”

        The Scripture provides the strongest logic, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.” That is certain because God has ordained it.

      43. br.d
        Nothing to stop Calvin’s god from creating a choreographed FAKE PRESENTATION of divine intervention in which he interjects himself into an situation as a choreographed moment to create the *APPEARANCE* of preventing something.”

        rhutchin
        A good Calvinist example being God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son all the time knowing that He would not allow it.

        br.d
        Thank you for acknowledging that Calvinism turns the scripture into the FAKE PRESENTATION of a choreographed theater show.
        That is exactly the reason Christians see Calvinism a puppet show :-]

        rhutchin
        The Calvinist does have an escape from those sins where God has ordained the escape and that escape is prceded by a request for help, also ordained by God.”

        br.d
        So tell us about this event that the Calvinist escaped from. Was is a RENDERED-CERTAIN event – immutable and therefore inescapable – or was it a NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN event which wasn’t going to come to pass anyway

        Too funny! :-]
        Nice make-believe magical-thinking – but still no LOGIC

        rhutchin
        The Scripture provides the strongest logic,……..

        br.d
        As William Lane Craig points out – scripture affirms and is logically coherent in IN-determinism.
        But as the Calvinist shows – Theological Determinism turns scripture in to a FAKE PRESENTATION where everything is a choreographed puppet show.

        As William Lane Craig states it:
        Universal, divine determinism makes 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.

        Thank you rhutchin for providing the example! :-]

      44. Thought you might enjoy this passage from the Hodgson book I referred to earlier, painting the exact same picture, over a hundred and fifty years ago, as you do today of Calvinists using evasive, inconsistent language:

        “The reader will see the importance of the pains taken, in the first discourse, to identify Calvinism. I proved beyond dispute, that Calvinistic creeds, Catechisms, and other theological treatises, teach explicitly, that God has purposed, decreed, foreordained, whatsoever comes to pass; that in some way or other he brings to pass all events; that nothing will, or can, come to pass but what he has ordained; that none of his purposes can be defeated; that it cannot, with truth, be said of any event—it may or may not occur; and that all actual results, by whatever means obtained, are expressions of the design, or decree of God.

        Arminianism teaches on the contrary, that God has not ordained whatsoever comes to pass—that some things he has preordained; that other things he has not, but has, nevertheless, approved and commanded them, leaving it to the free agency of the creature to fulfil his requisitions; that other things, he not only has not foreordained, but, has condemned and prohibited them, and yet permits or suffers them to be, in preference to that violent interference with free agency which would be necessary to their forcible prevention.

        Dr. Fairchild tells us that “this distinction between a decree to effect and a decree to permit has been adopted by Predestinarian divines in all ages.”

        Yes, in all ages Predestinarian divines have been compelled to abandon and contradict their creed in the progress, and for the purpose, of its defence. But Calvin himself formally discards and protests against this distinction. He says respecting it:

        “A question of greater difficulty arises from other passages, where God is said to incline or draw according to his own pleasure, Satan himself and all the reprobate. For the carnal understanding scarcely comprehends how he, acting by their means, contracts no defilement from their criminality, and even in operations common to himself and them, is free from every fault, and yet righteously condemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence was invented the distinction between doing and permitting; because to many persons this has appeared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satan and all the impious are subject to the power and government of God, so that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and uses their crimes for the execution of his judgments. The modesty of those who are alarmed at the appearance of absurdity, might perhaps be excusable, if they did not attempt to vindicate the Divine justice by a pretence utterly destitute of any foundation in truth. They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and afterwards be punished for his blindness. They therefore evade the difficulty, by alleging that it happens only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge.”

        But Calvin protests in vain against resorting to this “evasion” and “subterfuge.” It is the only way in which the advocates of his doctrine can make a plausible show of argument when pressed with certain objections. Hence we find the Westminster divines employing it. They tell us in their Confession of Faith, that God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit the sin of our first parents. Lest, however, the faithful should fall into a serious mistake, another part assures them that the providence of God “extendeth itself to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, &c.”

        The nature of that “ordering and governing” is explained in the declaration that “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” But how learned men can talk of God’s permitting what he has eternally and unchangeably ordained, is a mystery to some of the unlearned. Is it necessary to tell us, gravely, that God permits to come to pass that which from all eternity he freely ordained shall come to pass? He permits men and angels to do what he has predetermined they shall do, and what they cannot avoid doing! Wonderful!!

        The apology for this gross misapplication of language, on the part of men whose learning is sometimes magnified almost into infallibility, is found in their distressing emergency. In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”

        Francis Hodgson, The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted, 1855 https://www.scribd.com/read/187429007/The-Calvinistic-Doctrine-of-Predestination-Examined-and-Refuted#

      45. Wonderful TS00!

        I loved his summation at the end!

        Francis Hodgson
        -quote
        “The apology for this gross MISAPPLICATION OF LANGUAGE…..is found in their DISTRESSING EMERGENCY.
        In no other way can they, with any PLAUSIBILITY, meet their opponents.”

        Calvin and his Theological Determinism has robbed Calvinists of “mere” permission, all creaturely autonomy, and divine knowledge via observation.

        The Calvinist instinctively realizes that creaturely-autonomy is directly proportionate to creaturely-responsibility.
        A cannot be responsible for whether the sun will shine or not because that is utterly out of his control.
        And that understanding is consistent within the general narrative of scripture.

        And Calvin’s Theological Determinism makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.

        So the Calvinist instinctively realizes that creaturely autonomy covers a multitude of sins.
        Without this covering – his god is exposed – as the AUTHOR OF EVIL

        This is what Francis Hodgson is sighting as the Calvinist’s DISTRESSING EMERGENCY.

        So what is the Calvinist to do?
        He crafts SEMANTIC MASQUERADES of “mere” permission, creaturely autonomy, and divine knowledge via observation – within his sentences. If he can’t have them in real life – he makes MANUFACTURED MASQUERADES of them using language.

        The Calvinist is like a woman who is barren
        She speaks AS-IF she is not – in order to MANUFACTURE in language what she lacks in real life.

        Calvinists use SEMANTICS to MANUFACTURE PLAUSIBILITY

      46. br.d writes, “And Calvin’s Theological Determinism makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.’

        This is a false claim that is br.d’s personal opinion. Calvin held that people are able to choose how they react to God, to Christ and to the preaching of the gospel. We see this in Romans 1, where people voluntarily reject the witness of creation. In 1 Corinthians 1, we see that people react to the gospel by calling it foolishness and these people are described as seeking wisdom. Even depraved people do not go about indiscriminately killing people or stealing with impunity – people make choices to behave themselves in societies that reward good behavior. It is clear that the Assyrians (Isaiah 10) encourages each other in bad behavior – “But rather it is its purpose to destroy, And to cut off many nations. For Assyria says, “Are not my princes all kings? “Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus?“As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?”

        Man has control over the evil he does and he exercises that control all the time depending on circumstances and reflecting the desires of his heart.

      47. rhutchin

        you had said:
        “Man has control over the evil he does and he exercises that control all the time depending on circumstances and reflecting the desires of his heart.”

        My response:

        But…you didn’t tell the whole story here, rhutchin. Man can only have evil desires because God decreed it, so it’s NOT THE FAULT OF MAN that he does these evil things, it’s God’s fault, so how can God be just, if God decreed man to do evil?

        But since you bring up the heart…

        Acts 8:37
        And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

        Romans 10:10
        For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

      48. chapmaned24 writes, ‘Man can only have evil desires because God decreed it, so it’s NOT THE FAULT OF MAN that he does these evil things, it’s God’s fault,…”

        To assign fault, let’s go back to the beginning. God said the Adam, ““From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Then, ‘When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” Because Adam ate the fruit, he incurred the penalty and that penalty was then inherited by his descendants. God did not override the corruption that Adam incurred. So, now people “walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” And they love to have it so. Until God changes them.

      49. br.d
        And Calvin’s Theological Determinism makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.’

        rhutchin
        This is a false claim that is br.d’s personal opinion. Calvin held that people are able to choose how they react to God

        br.d
        Besides the fallacy of appeal to opinion – that fallacious argument collapses like a tumbling pile of cards under LOGIC!

        Who (at the foundation of the world before man exists) authors/determines man’s every choice?
        Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “merely” permits man to choose anything at all.

        John Calvin
        -quote:
        The hand of God rules the interior affections….[they can do nothing] unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE THEM WILL* before they act.

        Calvinists don’t have “mere” permission – so they have to sneak it back in – which requires double-speak!
        To bad for them – they don’t have it for real! :-]

      50. br.d writes, ‘And Calvin’s Theological Determinism makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.’
        rhutchin responded, “This is a false claim that is br.d’s personal opinion. Calvin held that people are able to choose how they react to God
        br.d then says, “Besides the fallacy of appeal to opinion…”

        So, having been caught making a false claim about Calvin, br.d then argues, “Well, I wasn’t really talking about Calvin.”

        However, God’s sovereign control over the actions of man does not absolve man of responsibility. We see this in the case of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and in the crucifixion of Christ.

      51. br.d
        And Calvin’s Theological Determinism makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.’

        rhutchin
        This is a false claim that is br.d’s personal opinion. Calvin held that people are able to choose how they react to God

        br.d
        Besides the fallacy of appeal to opinion – that fallacious argument collapses like a tumbling pile of cards under LOGIC!

        Who (at the foundation of the world before man exists) authors/determines man’s every choice?
        Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god “merely” permits man to choose anything at all.

        rhutchin
        So, having been caught making a false claim about Calvin, br.d then argues, “Well, I wasn’t really talking about Calvin.”

        br.d
        This is either a display of ignorance or strategic dishonesty.
        You’ll have to show where I stated/argued I wasn’t making a statement about both Calvin as well as Theological Determinism

        1) I provided a quote from John Calvin to prove the point
        2) Who is it that specifically asserts – there is no such thing as “mere” permission accept John Calvin.
        3) I ended with the conclusion of Calvinist Double-Speak

        rhutchin
        However, God’s SOVEREIGN CONTROL over the actions of man does not absolve man of responsibility. We see this in the case of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 and in the crucifixion of Christ.

        br.d
        This is a consistent tactic – you think you can proof someone’s point wrong by deflecting to a superfluous red herring.

        Calvin’s god does not “MERELY” permit man to make *ANY choices – zero nadda – none!.
        All of man’s choices are RENDERED-CERTAIN at the foundation of the world before man exists.
        And therefore EVERYTHING – including choices are UTTERLY out of man’s control.

        This is what you call SOVEREIGN CONTROL
        Notice who is in CONTROL – the one who is SOVEREIGN – duh!

        So you unwittingly proved the original statement of this thread while thinking you were denying it
        Once again getting caught in Calvinism’s Double-think – what else is new! :-]

      52. br.d writes, ‘You’ll have to show where I stated/argued I wasn’t making a statement about both Calvin as well as Theological Determinism ”

        br.d’s original claim: “And Calvin’s Theological Determinism makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.’” We see that his issue is not “theological Determinism” but “Calvin’s Theological Determinism.” “Calvin’s Theological Determinism is known as “Calvinism” and has been refined to what is called “Reformed Theology.” So br.d either meant to make a point about Calvin or Calvinism or “Calvin’s Theological Determinism,” but not simply “Theological Determinism.”

        br.d makes three points:
        “1) I provided a quote from John Calvin to prove the point”

        br.d’s quote from Calvin, “The hand of God rules the interior affections….[they can do nothing] unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE THEM WILL* before they act.’

        To say that “The hand of God rules the interior affections” only says that God is sovereign.
        To say, “[they can do nothing] unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE THEM WILL* before they act.'” is something the Scriptures affirm. For example, ““For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.” This same statement applies to every event that occurs. This is no more that Ephesians 1, “God works all things after the counsel of His will…” This does not eliminate man’s responsibility or “makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.’” Man acts as God ordains and does so willingly and voluntarily while enjoying that which he does. Man is a willing participant in all that ordains for him to do. We see this in the example of he Assyrians in Isaiah 10, where we read, ‘I send Assyria against a godless nation (Israel) And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy, And to cut off many nations.”

        2) Who is it that specifically asserts – there is no such thing as “mere” permission accept John Calvin.

        This just means that God is involved in every decision make by people having a sovereign power to open or close doors even as He determined to do in eternity past. God is never an absentee landlord.

        3) I ended with the conclusion of Calvinist Double-Speak

        br.d said, “Calvinists don’t have “mere” permission – so they have to sneak it back in – which requires double-speak!”

        What that double-speak is, br.d does not state. He just makes the claim.

      53. br.d
        You’ll have to show where I stated/argued I wasn’t making a statement about both Calvin as well as Theological Determinism ”

        br.d’s original claim: “And Calvin’s Theological Determinism makes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING utterly out of man’s control.’”

        rhutchin
        We see that his issue is not “theological Determinism” but “Calvin’s Theological Determinism.”
        “Calvin’s Theological Determinism is known as “Calvinism” and has been refined to what is called “Reformed Theology.” So br.d either meant to make a point about Calvin or Calvinism or “Calvin’s Theological Determinism,” but not simply “Theological Determinism.”

        br.d
        Sigh! Clearly stated as -quote “Calvin’s Theological Determinism”

        rhutchin – br.d makes three points:
        “1) I provided a quote from John Calvin to prove the point”

        Calvin, “The hand of God rules the interior affections….[they can do nothing] unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE THEM WILL* before they act.’

        To say that “The hand of God rules the interior affections” only says that God is sovereign.
        To say, “[they can do nothing] unless he worked in their hearts to *MAKE THEM WILL* before they act.’” is something the Scriptures affirm.

        br.d
        Wonderful! you’re finally addressing evidence provided within posted points – rather than ignoring them and deflecting to superfluous red-herrings.

        Firstly:
        Your argument here is to assert that scripture teaches that Calvin’s god *MAKES* humans will everything they will.
        Thus you argue that scripture EXPLICITLY asserts man is *MADE* to will whatever he wills – by factors outside his control
        In pursuing this line of reasoning – you’re simply affirming my original statement.
        Therefore on Calvin – man is UTTERLY without control – when it comes to what Calvin’s god *MAKES* him will.

        Secondly:
        My point did not assert anything concerning what Calvin’s god holds man responsible for.
        So that is a superfluous red herring

        rhutchin
        Man acts as God ORDAINS and does so willingly and voluntarily while enjoying that which he does.

        br.d
        Its pretty consistent that Calvinists always deflect to equivocal terms.
        Here the word ORDAIN is used because it works to INFER “mere” permission concerning human attributes
        And thus the Calvinist can sneak “mere” permission back in hoping nobody observes the trick.

        Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN absolutely every human attribute – UTTERLY out of man’s control
        No matter what human attribute you seek to evade to – (nature/desire/inclination/will) etc.
        All of these are attributes – are *ALL* RENDERED-CERTAIN – every microsecond of man’s life – and in every part.
        Therefore man is UTTERLY without control over any human attribute.

        rhutchin
        Man is a willing PARTICIPANT in all that ordains for him to do.

        br.d
        This is a deceptive semantic argument – like the bear who waved his arms and argued it proved he could fly.

        In Calvin’s Theological Determinism – man’s every neurological impulse is RENDERED-CERTAIN by factors outside his control
        SOVEREIGN CONTROL is what you call it.
        And the Calvinist wants to label man as a PARTICIPANT in the process of SOVEREIGN CONTROL
        What a joke!

        Since this semantic argument is fallacious – follow up comments concerning Assyria also fail

        br.d
        2) Who is it that specifically asserts – there is no such thing as “mere” permission accept John Calvin.

        rhutchin
        This just means that God is involved in every decision make by people having a sovereign power to open or close doors even as He determined to do in eternity past. God is never an absentee landlord.

        br.d
        Again with another semantic argument – Calvin asserts [X] but he doesn’t mean [X]
        FALSE – it means in Calvin’s Theological Determinism there is no such thing as “mere” permission.

        This is another attempt to sneak “mere” permission back in – hoping people are not smart enough to see the ruse.
        In John Calvin’s Theological Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit man to have any control over anything!

        Calvinist Paul helms puts it this way:
        -quote
        “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.”

        But a Calvinist wants to call man a PARTICIPANT in that process!
        What a joke

        3) I ended with the conclusion of Calvinist Double-Speak
        br.d said, “Calvinists don’t have “mere” permission – so they have to sneak it back in – which requires double-speak!”

        rhutchin
        What that double-speak is, br.d does not state. He just makes the claim.

        br.d
        The fact that you can’t see it – proves nothing more than you can’t see it.
        Nothing new here. :-]

      54. Hodgson finds the same amusement we share in the thought of a god who predetermines (ordains) whatsover comes to pass either ‘permitting’ or ‘preventing’ those things which he has irresistibly predetermined must be. Utter nonsense, and yet the Calvinist must continue to embrace such subterfuge, as their unvarnished doctrines are too unpalatable for any right thinking person.

      55. You got that right!
        In a sense – I feel sorry for Calvinists – as their doctrines rob them of certain aspects of normalcy and Godly ethics.

        But the fact that they use dishonest language to fabricate what is missing from their system – is “Angel of light” methodology.

        And ends up revealing – they have two masters.
        In order to cleave to Calvin they invariably compromise Christ.
        In order to have both – they play “see no evil” and refuse all observations of their condition.

      56. TS00,

        Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
        Thomas Jefferson
        April 11, 1823

        Jefferson attacks Calvin, predestination

        DEAR SIR, — The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand’! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.

        ——————————————————

        What’s interesting about that letter, I had been following a couple different Southern Baptist blogs for a while, and I got banned cuz I was supporting patriotism on July 4 if July 4 falls on a Sunday. Me, being a veteran of the US Navy, KNOWS the FLAG RULES regarding the position of a US Flag IN CHURCH…Some of these Southern Baptists think that we WORSHIP THE FLAG, that it’s an IDOL. And to them, there will be NO US FLAG in any church. I took issue with that, of course, being a veteran. Ultimately, I was banned.

        And, some LEADERS, high up, can’t stand Thomas Jefferson, and others, thinking that they were DEISTS.

        The problem with the word DEIST, is that the founding fathers did not define, in their minds, that the word deist means “IMPERSONAL god, with a little g.

        Another quote of Thomas Jefferson…

        1816 January 9.
        (Jefferson to Charles Thomson).
        “I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. they have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature.

        —————————————————————————
        In a syllabus, Jefferson wrote:

        “II. Jews. I. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of Him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious. ”

        —————————————————————————
        To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus Washington, Apr. 21, 1803
        The Letters of Thomas Jefferson

        DEAR SIR,

        — In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing ofmy opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.

        ————————————————————————

        Note the above, where he states, “very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.”

        and

        “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed…”

        ————————————————————————–

        So, bottom line…his definition of deist was…THE BELIEF IN ONLY ONE GOD, not an impersonal one. Secondly, he proclaims to be Christian himself, even if his beliefs are a bit different than others, and third, he thought Calvin’s god, little g, was the devil himself.

        And it is THAT, Jefferson’s condemnation of Calvinism, that makes some Southern Baptists mad at Jefferson, and Patriotism on a Sunday!

        Ed Chapman

      57. rhutchin writes:
        “The Scripture provides the strongest logic, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.” That is certain because God has ordained it.”

        No one is questioning what scripture teaches. The problem is that what Calvinism teaches contradicts what scripture teaches. Rhutchin’s little trick of stating the Calvinist line, then affirming the scripture that contradicts it does not fool the thinking person. We see what scripture teaches, and we see how Calvinism is antithetical to that teaching – that’s why we are here.

      58. Thank you TS00!

        rhutchin – now this should serve as an example that your assumption that others here -quote “don’t have a clue”
        is you superimposing your own thinking onto others.

      59. Is it not correct to assert that, in reality, Calvinism allows only one type of event – that which is rendered certain? Isn’t that the crux of the issue, and one which Calvinists most seek to avoid with their misleading and inconsistent doubletalk?

        I believe that is what you are demonstrating, yet by giving non-events, which are not, were not and never were real, a category it appears to give rhutchin grounds for his illogical claims that non-events, which never arose in the mind of God, arise from the undetermined choices of men and are intervened with and prevented by God.

        This is utterly antithetical to Calvinism, placing rhutchin either in ignorance or disagreement with his own stated theological system; as it does the many compatibilists who attempt to fabricate the illusion of a false human autonomy (impossible under their system) in order to save their god from the just accusation of being the author of evil.

      60. Yes TS00!
        You have it exactly right!

        This is a mental condition that is forced onto the Calvinist because of Theological Determinism.
        Dr. Ravi Zacharias describes a presentation given by Richard Hawkings – (a staunch determinist) in which Hawkings is asked how he deals with the logical conundrums of determinism. Hawkings states he resolved that he must -quote “live AS-IF determinism is false”.

        John Calvin came to the same conclusion
        -quote
        “Go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”

        I call this Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking
        True *AS-IF* False
        False *AS-IF* True

        For example, rhutchin holds that Calvin’s god RENDERS-CERTAIN every event that comes to pass including every sin rhutchin will ever commit. And rhutch knows that he has no escape from what is RENDERED-CERTAIN.

        But scripture says there is an escape – so rhutchin has to INVENT one.
        In order to do that rhutchin needs to sneak back into his system some form of IN-determinism
        But he can’t allow himself to acknowledge he’s doing that.
        So he’s grasping at all sorts of straws to find a solution.
        But he ends up with all sorts of magical thinking to convince himself his conundrum doesn’t exist

      61. br.d
        And I see the logical conundrum you are faced with! ”

        rhutchin
        Unfortunately, you are unable to explain that conundrum.

        br.d
        I can lead the horse to water but I can’t make him drink :-]

        And there is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that is not going to come to pass.””

        rhutchin
        How does Mary become impregnated except by God’s intervention?

        br.d
        1) Either my statement above is TRUE or it is FALSE

        2)
        What you have is not a LOGICAL argument – you have a SEMANTIC argument
        Trying to force the term “intervention” to be applicable in a deterministic world.

        So what is the TRUE definition of the term “intervention”
        [X] is going to be TRUE – unless [X] is changed/altered and by that change [X] is made FALSE.
        This requires [X] to be mutable/changeable/alterable.

        In Calvinism what characteristic must [X] have to be mutable/changeable/alterable?
        Answer: [X] can only be NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN.

        WOOPS!
        It just so happens those [X] are not going to come to pass anyway.
        So having the TRUE definition of the term “intervention” – does that term apply?
        Well if you make-believe using magical thinking – you can force that meaning on the term “intervention”.
        But its not LOGICAL.

        Lets Say Calvin’s god wants to create an event that he will prevent from coming to pass.

        rhutchin
        Why the need to create a strawman?

        br.d
        You need to learn the difference between a “strawman” and a “thought experiment”

        rhutchin
        God’ knows of a future that could occur without His intervention.

        br.d
        Your back to square one with your logical conundrum!

        So lets say Calvin’s god knows he will create an [X] that will be TRUE without his intervention
        Thus with his intervention he will make [X] FALSE.

        How does [X] get to be TRUE in the first place?
        In Theological Determinism [X] CANNOT be TRUE unless it is RENDERED-CERTAIN to be TRUE.

        Sorry to say – Calvin’s god can’t RENDER-CERTAIN [X] to be TRUE and then RENDER-CERTAIN it to be FALSE. Because if its is *TRULY* RENDERED-CERTAIN – then it is immutable.

        So staying with the TRUE definition of “intervention” – it LOGICALLY follows this term does not apply.
        The only way you make it apply is with magical thinking.

        rhutchin
        So, we have Peter thrown into jail with death certain unless God takes action. God takes that action and Peter lives.

        br.d
        Yes – that is logically coherent in a world of IN-determinism.
        But to call this “intervention” – you are faced with a LOGICAL conundrum in a deterministic world.
        You don’t have “mere” permission available to you.
        You are thus limited to a BINARY situation.
        [X] is either RENDERED-CERTAIN or it is NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        You choice is limited to those two.

        Yours is a SEMANTIC argument in which you misapply the term “intervention”.
        Why do you need “intervention”?
        Because its coherent within the general narrative of scripture.
        And you need to claim Calvinism is Biblical.
        You are forced to play SEMANTIC shell games with terms – in order to get what you need.

        However, it is logically coherent to say that Calvin’s god creates a choreographed theater show where he interjects himself into a situation at a choreographed moment and *APPEARS* to prevent something.

        No LOGICAL conundrum there – you just don’t like that solution.
        So as I said earlier – the psychology you applied to be is actually your situation.

      62. br.d writes, “And there is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that is not going to come to pass.””

        There is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that God has ordained. God may ordain events through direct action or through secondary causes. There is no conundrum and you cannot explain how there could be.

        Then, “Trying to force the term “intervention” to be applicable in a deterministic world.”

        Again, statements that make no sense.

        Then, ‘In Calvinism what characteristic must [X] have to be mutable/changeable/alterable?
        Answer: [X] can only be NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN.”

        An event is only rendered certain when God ordains it. Prior to that time, it is a possible event and therefore mutable.

        then, “So having the TRUE definition of the term “intervention” – does that term apply?
        Well if you make-believe using magical thinking – you can force that meaning on the term “intervention”.
        But its not LOGICAL.”

        A bold claim – but unsupportable.

        Then, “You need to learn the difference between a “strawman” and a “thought experiment””

        And a strawman disguised as a thought experiment.

        Then, “So lets say Calvin’s god knows he will create an [X] that will be TRUE without his intervention
        Thus with his intervention he will make [X] FALSE.”

        If God knows that He will create an event, then He will not intervene to prevent that creation. Again with the strawman.

        Then, ‘In Theological Determinism [X] CANNOT be TRUE unless it is RENDERED-CERTAIN to be TRUE.”

        It can be possible prior to being rendered certain and is only rendered certain once God ordains it.

        Then, “So staying with the TRUE definition of “intervention” – it LOGICALLY follows this term does not apply.
        The only way you make it apply is with magical thinking.”

        Or by applying it to possible events prior to God ordaining such events.

        Then, “But to call this “intervention” – you are faced with a LOGICAL conundrum in a deterministic world.”

        A bold claim that you cannot support.

        If you don’t like the word “intervention” then pick a word that you will accept to describe God’s action to impregnate Mary. We can then use your term and say the same thing.

      63. br.d
        And there is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that is not going to come to pass.””

        rhutchin
        There is no such thing as preventing/intervening/altering/changing something that God has ordained.

        br.d
        Ordained and RENDERED-CERTAIN are essentially synonymous.

        rhutchin
        God may ordain events through direct action or through secondary causes.

        br.d
        No problem – but repeat after me 100 times so that it can sink into the brain:
        Everything that exists or comes to pass MUST BE RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN = no existence.

        rhutchin
        There is no conundrum and you cannot explain how there could be.

        br.d
        make-believe magical thinking is wonderful isn’t it! :-]

        Trying to force the term “intervention” to be applicable in a deterministic world.”

        rhutchin
        Again, statements that make no sense.

        br.d
        Try rational thinking some time. :-]

        In Calvinism what characteristic must [X] have to be mutable/changeable/alterable?
        Answer: [X] can only be NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN.”

        rhutchin
        An event is only rendered certain when God ordains it. Prior to that time, it is a possible event and therefore mutable.

        br.d
        No problem with that
        But while it is still in the state of being a “possible” event it is still a NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN event.
        And guess what!
        A NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN event doesn’t exist or come to pass – until its state is changed to being RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        So your back to square-one with a BINARY situation.

        So having the TRUE definition of the term “intervention” – does that term apply?
        Well if you make-believe using magical thinking – you can force that meaning on the term “intervention”.
        But its not LOGICAL.”

        rhutchin
        A bold claim – but unsupportable.

        br.d
        Try showing that through LOGIC. :-]

        You need to learn the difference between a “strawman” and a “thought experiment””

        rhutchin
        And a strawman disguised as a thought experiment.

        br.d
        You’ve asserted that Calvin’s god prevents events
        So that aspect of it can’t be a strawman for you.
        You’ve acknowledged that Calvin’s god brings all things into existence – thus creating all events.
        So that aspect of it can’t be a strawman for you.
        So what aspect of it makes it a strawman?

        br.d
        So lets say Calvin’s god knows he will create an [X] that will be TRUE without his intervention
        Thus with his intervention he will make [X] FALSE.”

        rhutchin
        If God knows that He will create an event, then He will not intervene to prevent that creation. Again with the strawman.

        br.d
        Remember – for me Calvin’s god is not the god of scripture – and he’s not rational or ethical.
        So the thought experiment is not a strawman to me – its simply a way to explore the topic.
        Can you prove your statement here using LOGIC?

        br.d
        In Theological Determinism [X] CANNOT be TRUE unless it is RENDERED-CERTAIN to be TRUE.”

        rhutchin
        It can be possible prior to being rendered certain and is only rendered certain once God ordains it.

        br.d
        No problem with that
        But while it is still in the state of being a “possible” event it is still a NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN event.
        And guess what!
        A NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN event doesn’t exist or come to pass – until its state is changed to being RENDERED-CERTAIN.

        Staying with the TRUE definition of “intervention” – it LOGICALLY follows this term does not apply.
        The only way you make it apply is with magical thinking.”

        rhutchin
        Or by applying it to possible events prior to God ordaining such events.

        br.d
        And guess what!
        A possible event is a NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN event.
        And a NOT RENDERED-CERTAIN event doesn’t exist or come to pass until its state is changed to being RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        So your back to square-one with a BINARY situation.

        To call this “intervention” – you are faced with a LOGICAL conundrum in a deterministic world.”

        rhutchin
        A bold claim that you cannot support.

        br.d
        You are too funny! :-]

        rhutchin
        If you don’t like the word “intervention” then pick a word that you will accept to describe God’s action to impregnate Mary.
        We can then use your term and say the same thing.

        br.d
        Ok – Calvin’s god RENDERED-CERTAIN Mary be impregnated.
        That is certainly coherent with Theological Determinism

      64. Why would God have to intervene in something that he already decreed? All he’s have to do is to SIT BACK AND WATCH the movie, while drinking a lemonade, and eating popcorn, and Jr. Mints.

      65. Exactly. And who ordained the events he intervened to prevent? Is man an autonomous creature who can chart his own course, unless God ‘steps in’ to prevent him? Not according to Calvinism.

      66. chapmaned24
        Why would God have to intervene in something that he already decreed? All he’s have to do is to SIT BACK AND WATCH the movie, while drinking a lemonade, and eating popcorn, and Jr. Mints.

        TS00
        Exactly. And who ordained the events he intervened to prevent? Is man an autonomous creature who can chart his own course, unless God ‘steps in’ to prevent him? Not according to Calvinism

        br.d
        Yes!
        This is one of those parts of Libertarian FreeWill (i.e. IN-determinism) that the Calvinist says he rejects as heresy. But then finds himself having to appeal the very thing he rejects – in order to argue Calvin’s god is not the author of sin/evil.

        A Calvinist is like a person who boasts that he rejects smoking – while taking an occasional puff every few minutes when needed – while telling himself he doesn’t do any such thing.

        That is rhutchin’s situation! :-]

      67. br.d writes, ‘This is one of those parts of Libertarian FreeWill…”

        Calvinists reject the idea that unregenerate man can choose good without first being regenerated. Calvinists affirm free will that is not coercive and reflects the person’s desires.

      68. br.d
        This is one of those parts of Libertarian FreeWill…”

        rhutchin
        Calvinists reject the idea that unregenerate man can choose good without first being regenerated. Calvinists affirm free will that is not coercive and reflects the person’s desires.

        br.d
        Not fully.
        Calvinists claim to reject Libertarian Free will
        But then they use equivocal language to subtly sneak it back into their system.

        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.

        That’s why Calvinists chose words like:
        “Permit” instead of RENDERED-CERTAIN.
        “Final” arbiter instead of “SOLE” arbiter
        “Subordinate” instead of “TOTAL SUBJECTION”

        All of these terms are designed to INFER a subtle degree of creaturely autonomy.
        The Calvinist intuitively knows – creature autonomy is directly proportional to creature accountability.

      69. br.d writes, “Not fully.
        Calvinists claim to reject Libertarian Free will”

        As I said, “Calvinists reject the idea that unregenerate man can choose good without first being regenerated.”

        Then, “But then they use equivocal language to subtly sneak it back into their system.”

        Equivocal?? As I said, “Calvinists affirm free will that is not coercive and reflects the person’s desires.”

        Then, “All of these terms are designed to INFER a subtle degree of creaturely autonomy.
        The Calvinist intuitively knows – creature autonomy is directly proportional to creature accountability.”

        Fortunately, you cannot explain why this claim should be true. Many claims you make that amount only to personal opinion.

      70. br.d
        Calvinists claim to reject Libertarian Free will”

        rhutchin
        As I said, “Calvinists reject the idea that unregenerate man can choose good without first being regenerated.”

        br.d
        As I said (see statement above)

        But then they use equivocal language to subtly sneak it back into their system.”

        rhutchin
        Equivocal?? As I said, “Calvinists affirm free will that is not coercive and reflects the person’s desires.”

        br.d
        We all know the statements you post rhutchin
        The silver linging is that I get to use your statements as wonderful examples – for Christians to learn how Calvinists craft statements ensuring they are using terms they can equivocate on – and thus INFER creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation.

        SOT101 readers are thankful for your participation in this process! :-]

        All of these terms are designed to INFER a subtle degree of creaturely autonomy.
        The Calvinist intuitively knows – creature autonomy is directly proportional to creature accountability.”

        rhutchin
        Fortunately, you cannot explain why this claim should be true. Many claims you make that amount only to personal opinion.

        br.d
        The your opinion fallacy:
        A logical fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that it is simply someones opinion.
        This is done because the person does not have LOGIC to make his case.

      71. br.d writes, “The silver linging is that I get to use your statements as wonderful examples – for Christians to learn how Calvinists craft statements ensuring they are using terms they can equivocate on – and thus INFER creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation.”

        But if you cannot explain your claims, there is no reason to think them true. If you cannot show your claims to be true, who will believe you?

        Then, “The your opinion fallacy:”

        So, br.d counters my “opinion fallacy” with his own “opinion fallacy.”

      72. br.d
        The silver lineing is that I get to use your statements as wonderful examples – for Christians to learn how Calvinists craft statements ensuring they are using terms they can equivocate on – and thus INFER creaturely autonomy or divine knowledge via observation.”

        rhutchin
        But if you cannot explain your claims, there is no reason to think them true. If you cannot show your claims to be true, who will believe you?

        br.d
        As I’ve consistently said – I’m happy to leave that up to the SOT101 readers – let the make up their own minds. :-]

        rhutchin
        Then, “The your opinion fallacy:”
        So, br.d counters my “opinion fallacy” with his own “opinion fallacy.”

        br.d
        So now pointing out an example of a classified fallacy equates to creating that very fallacy
        Good one rhutchin! :-]

      73. TS00 writes, “who ordained the events he intervened to prevent? Is man an autonomous creature who can chart his own course, unless God ‘steps in’ to prevent him? Not according to Calvinism.”

        So, God, before the creation, has a knowledge of the world that would exist without His intervention. So, all the events of Genesis 3 would play out. Adam would still have access to the tree of life and live forever, but God decreed to intervene and kicks Adam out of the garden. Then civilization is on a trajectory to destroy itself (the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually), so God decreed to intervenes to bring the flood. And so it goes. Man is free to sin until God intervenes to bring about a different outcome. God destroys Sodom. God chooses Abraham. Abraham has a son by the hand maid and God opens Sarah’s womb to have Isaac. And on we could go. Man is never autonomous but can only do that which God accepts and then God intervenes at certain times to get a course correction.

      74. Rhutchin writes:
        “So, God, before the creation, has a knowledge of the world that would exist without His intervention.”

        Once again, dead in the water. That no world, of any sort, would exist apart from God’s deterministic intervention, is unquestionably asserted by Calvinism. Whatsoever comes to pass was deterministically ordained, decreed and brought to pass by God’s sole, unchallengable and direct intervention.

      75. TS00 writes, “That no world, of any sort, would exist apart from God’s deterministic intervention, is unquestionably asserted by Calvinism. ”

        All people should assert this – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Nothing would exist, if God had not determined to intervene to create.

        Then, “Whatsoever comes to pass was deterministically ordained, decreed and brought to pass by God’s sole, unchallengable and direct intervention.”

        This by God’s omniscience. All who hold to God’s omniscience agree to this.

      76. Then rhutchin agrees, it is foolish – as he admits it is impossible – to say, as he did, ‘“So, God, before the creation, has a knowledge of the world that would exist without His intervention.” Can’t happen, isn’t possible. ‘All people should assert this’ (the opposite of what he actually asserted). It is always garbled, contradictory ‘trying to get out of a corner’ talk. But we are not supposed to notice that he said one thing, acknowledges its opposite when challenged, but never concedes that his concession leaves his former point, as I said, dead in the water. The denial of logic requires confusion as the last subterfuge.

      77. TS00 writes, ‘‘“So, God, before the creation, has a knowledge of the world that would exist without His intervention.” Can’t happen, isn’t possible. ”

        Pretty much all people, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, affirm that God knows all future possibilities. Even Brian concedes this.

        Then, “we are not supposed to notice that he said one thing, acknowledges its opposite when challenged, but never concedes that his concession leaves his former point, as I said, dead in the water.”

        It would help if you identified the things I said that apply here and explain how they apply. Just making claims like br.d accomplishes nothing.

      78. chapmaned24 writes, “Why would God have to intervene in something that he already decreed? All he’s have to do is to SIT BACK AND WATCH the movie,…”

        Because God’s actions (interventions) are written into the movie. Thus, God impregnates Mary as He had decreed to do – without God’s working in the course of time, Mary would not have been impregnated with the Christ.

      79. Ohhhhhhh, so God makes cameo appearances!! The part of God is played by God himself! George Burns was offered the part, but he’s kinda dead at the moment. Morgan Freeman turned down the part. Salary negotiations went sour. Lol.

        Ed Chapman

      80. rhutchin states:
        “Yes. “…God works all things after the counsel of His will,”

        I had no idea that God goes to THERAPY, for why does GOD NEED COUNSELING?

        Next…

        rhutchin states:
        “Yes. “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” So, God gave Satan free rein to enter the garden because Christ “was foreknown before the foundation of the world…” and the rest is history. Thank you for affirming the wisdom of God in His eternal plan.”

        rhutchin only consentrates on the disobedience of eating a particular tree, yet states NOTHING OF WHY GOD DIDN’T WANT HIM TO EAT OF THAT TREE, except to say, “you shall surely die”.

        WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THAT TREE THAT GOD DIDN’T WANT HIM TO EAT OF IT? WHY WOULD EATING OF THAT TREE MAKE HIM DIE? WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THAT TREE AGAIN?

        BOTTOM LINE, GOD WAS TELLING ADAM TO CONTINUE TO BE IGNORANT, FOR IN THE DAY THAT YOU GET KNOWLEDGE, YOU WILL DIE.

        DEATH COMES DUE TO KNOWLEDGE, NOT THE DISOBEDIENCE IN AND OF ITSELF. BUT CALVINISTS ONLY WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON THE DISOBEDIENCE PART, NOT UNDERLYING REASON. ADAMS EYES WERE OPENED, WHEN GOD WANTED THEM TO BE SHUT. ADAM GOT KNOWLEDGE, WHEN GOD WANTED ADAM IGNORANT. OH, BUT NO, LET’S JUST CONCENTRATE ON DISOBEDIENCE.

      81. chapmaned24 writes, “I had no idea that God goes to THERAPY, for why does GOD NEED COUNSELING?”

        LOL!!! This helps explain the strange things you conclude from the Scriptures.

    2. rhutchin states:
      “When Adam sinned, he became corrupted and as a consequence, his progeny were born corrupted. This corruption meant that people were born without faith (such faith could then be conveyed to them through the gospel) and they were unrighteous (righteousness could be imputed to them by means of Christ’s resurrection). God determined that this corruption would convey to Adam’s progeny if he ate the fruit by telling Adam, “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” By enforcing this penalty on Adam and then his progeny, God determined that the world would be the overriding influence on every person then born. ”

      Born without faith…hmmmmm. Born without faith?

      Righteousness could be imputed to them by means of Christ’s resurrection? Hmmmmmm.

      Abraham was righteous. Abraham had faith.

      Lot was righteous:

      2 Peter 2:7-8
      And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

      Oh, and guess who else was righteous? Abel. And who else, BEFORE the RESURRECTION of Christ?

      Hebrews 11:4
      By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

      Matthew 23:35
      That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

      Noah! Genesis 7:1

      Matthew 13:17
      For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

      Luke 1:5-6
      There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

      1. chapmaned24 writes, ‘Abraham was righteous. Abraham had faith.
        Lot was righteous:”

        Are you arguing that they were born with faith or were born righteous? Doesn’t seem like it to me. That Lot was righteous could only be by the grace of God. That Abraham had faith could only have been by the grace of God. Did you mean to argue otherwise? If yes, then make that argument.

      2. No one is born with faith, likewise, no one is born spiritually dead. No one is born with knowledge of good and evil. No one is born with teeth. No one is born clothed. No one is born with a college degree. Everyone is born righteous. None of it is based on grace.

        Grace is for those who have knowledge of good and evil, meaning that they know their sin, meaning that they died spiritually.

        Faith is nothing more than believing a promise. Hebrews 11:1 dissected to the lowest common denominator is… faith is knowing that you will get what you are waiting for, all because God made a promise, and you believe it.

        Everyone is born righteous. You lose it by knowing your sin, then you need mercy and grace and sins forgiven to be righteous again.

        But, you cannot disregard the ones from scripture that I provided, you cannot tell anyone that they were not righteous, you can’t change the fact that Abraham, Abel, Noah, and others were indeed righteous. You Calvinists don’t want to acknowledge that.

      3. chapmaned24 writes, “Grace is for those who have knowledge of good and evil, meaning that they know their sin, meaning that they died spiritually.”

        Grace is for those who are born unrighteous. No one is born righteous.

      4. rhutchin,

        I SAID, EVERYONE IS BORN RIGHTEOUS. You have to DO SOMETHING to become UNRIGHTEOUS. When babies die, they go to heaven, because they were RIGHTEOUS, they did not sin, they are sinless, they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.

        I said everyone is born righteous, and I meant it. I don’t really care what you have to say about it.

        Ezekiel 18:26
        When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

        THAT IS SPIRITUAL DEATH.

        Romans 7:9
        9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

        Again, that is spiritual death. NO ONE IS BORN SPIRITUALLY DEAD…THEY DIE A SPIRITUAL DEATH AT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.

        i QUOTE SCRIPTURE to you TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN, AND YOU AIN’T LIST’NEN.

        All you will do is quote THERE IS NO ONE RIGHTEOUS, NO NOT ONE! You have no idea what that even is saying, because you fail to KNOW THE CONTEXT. You don’t even want to know the context. You could care less the context. And you brag exegesis. Ha. Funny.

        Ed Chapman

      5. chapmaned24 writes, “I said everyone is born righteous, and I meant it. I don’t really care what you have to say about it.”

        If everyone is born righteous, then everyone is born with faith as it is impossible to please God without faith. Yet faith comes by hearing and this presupposes a time to hear and something to hear – all which occur after birth.

      6. How in God’s name do you come to that conclusion? Being righteous has nothing to do with faith at all. Being righteous has to do with no sin being imputed to you. Romans 4…all. The Jews, under the law, could EARN righteousness, if they obeyed all of the law perfectly. No faith required, as the law is not of faith. As it is, Jesus, who was under the law, is the only one righteous under the law, only because he did keep all of the law perfectly. But, some under the law had faith, and they were considered righteous based on faith apart from the law, even while under the law. So your answer isn’t completely right, because you have to factor in if they were under the law, or if they had knowledge of good and evil, and if it’s before they have knowledge of good and evil, then they are righteous, without faith, and why? Without knowledge, sin is dead, and you are alive and no sin is imputed. Romans 4 and 5 and 6 and 7. Those trying to obtain righteousness by obedience to the law, they will fail, and those people is the subject of, no one righteous, no not one.

        I say again, everyone is born righteous, no faith, with no sin imputed, until they, themselves, eat of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil… in other words, until someone, anyone, teaches them God’s laws, thru the teaching of three law of Moses, the knowledge of sin. Then they have sin imputed to them, and they are at that point, unrighteous, and spiritually die.

        As I’ve said before… we all die a natural death, but not everyone dies a spiritual death. Ya gotta have knowledge of good and evil for that to happen. Until then, you are righteous. Without faith in anything.

  25. Ed C., the righteousness mentioned about those characters you have mentioned does not mean that they are sinless. Instead it suggest that they have displayed a kind of life testimony on earth that are worthy emulating in the sight of God. That righteousness alone will not save them. If they were men that are sinless then Christ died for no purpose at all. God doesn’t offer grace to sinless people. Apart from Christ there is no Salvation among sinners.

    Acts 4:12 “Nor is there Salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”.

  26. Ed C. quoted this verse: “Romans 7:9
    9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

    The correct wordings is: “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died”.

    ———- My Response is reflected below ————
    1. Paul is the one speaking in that verse.

    2. How come that Paul have said he was already alive before the law was given to Moses, when he was not yet physically born alive during that time?

    3. He could have been referring this verse to his soul and spirit which is immortal and has been already existing ahead of his physical body.

    4. Example: Ed C’s body has been formed from the fertilized egg coming from his mother and the sperm coming from his father during sexual intercouse. Ed C’s soul and spirit has been existing ahead and had been infused by God to Ed C’s body during the union of the fertilized egg and sperm.The soul and spirit of human beings is beyond the capability of the parents to create during sexual intercourse.

    5. Ed C, therefore is a product of a sin infected parents procreated from the time of conception. Ed C. therefore is a sinner because he is just a product of sin infected parents. He is boasting that he was born righteous when he is not. This truth will remain forever even if he does not recognize this. For sure he has been destined by God for his spurious beliefs on self-righteousness thus no one can change his false claim.

    6. His soul and spirit becomes contaminated by SIN by the time it has been infused by God to Ed C’s body during conception from the womb.

    7. Ed C’s sin remains dormant while inside the womb and is activated later after his birth by the time he committed actual sins in the mind and in actual practices.

    8. Therefore Ed C. can never be a righteous person just like the Apostle Paul who declared that : ” For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not do, that I practice” – Romans 7:19

    1. jtl to Ed notes, “Ed C’s sin remains dormant while inside the womb and is activated later after his birth by the time he committed actual sins in the mind and in actual practices.”

      The key phrase is “sin revived” (or became alive). The same term is used only in the parable of the prodigal son where the father says, “…this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again;…” The sense in Romans 7 is that sin was lying dormant but was revived by the law as jtl notes.

      1. rhutchin,

        Did ya ever see the movie called the Jazz Singer? Neil Diamonds father tore his shirt, declaring his son, Neil Diamond, dead to him, even tho he was quite alive. At the concert, he reconciled with his son, he was alive again.

        I don’t know why you have a problem with Romans 7, as Paul is indicating that before he knew the law, he was alive, and sin was dead.

        There is a time in everyone’s life when they don’t know the law. You don’t begin your existence knowing the law. It has to bee taught to you, so until then, sin is dead.

        Dormant or not, sin is not imputed when it’s dormant. Romans 4.

        Romans 5:13…

    2. Jtle… I’m not understanding your question in 2. “How come that Paul have said he was already alive before the law was given to Moses, when he was not yet physically born alive during that time?”

      “without the law” doesn’t mean “before the law” Someone can be without something in their life even though that something already exists. Paul is probably talking about not being confronted by the law of Moses in his life and causing sin to revive.

      See Alford’s discussion of this fitting the age of accountability when the conscience is mature enough to be confronted by God’s law and the dormant sin nature revives and spiritual death happens. Infants who die before that moment, die in innocency.

      1. brianwagner,

        Exactly!

        NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL (Name of the tree)

        Deuteronomy 1:39
        Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

        That was DURING the law, meaning as a child, they don’t know, as no one has taught them, and until they do, they are not held to account, so, “age of accountability” is when they finally know.

      2. brianwagner,

        Also…Righteousness in the law vs. Righteousness apart from the law.

        Deuteronomy 6:25 (WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS…SEE Titus 3:5 below)
        And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

        Notice the word, “OUR”, and “DO”(WORKS), and, of course, “RIGHTEOUSNESS”.

        Romans 3:21
        But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

        Romans 3:22
        Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ…

        Romans 4:3
        For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

        Romans 4:5
        But to him that worketh not(DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW), but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

        TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO OBTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS

        Romans 9:31 (See Deuteronomy 6:25 above)
        But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

        Romans 10:3 (IGNORANT OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS as noted in Romans 3:21-22 above)
        For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

        Galatians 2:21
        I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

        Galatians 3:21
        Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

        And finally,

        Philippians 3:9
        And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

        BUT…

        Titus 3:5
        Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

        In Titus 3:5, WHO IS “WE”? Gentiles have NEVER done WORKS of Righteousness. Gentiles were NEVER under the law!. And there is that word, “regeneration”. This is why I have concluded that THIS VERSE is about the AUTHOR of Titus, Paul, a Jew. Jews under the law. I conclude that Jews under the law are the “WE”. We know that Titus himself was a Gentile, but Titus was never under the law of Moses, so he would be excluded from “WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE”.

        Just something to ponder regarding the word “regeneration”, and to WHOM it pertains to, Jew only, or Jew and Gentile.

        Ed Chapman

      3. brianwagner writes, “…the age of accountability when the conscience is mature enough to be confronted by God’s law and the dormant sin nature revives and spiritual death happens. Infants who die before that moment, die in innocency.”

        I think the most that could be claimed for children is that they occupy a neutral position having done neither good nor evil (or having no knowledge of what is good or evil). This does not mean that they have faith and could freely choose to do that which is pleasing to God. As salvation requires faith, we might consider that God gives faith to all children thereby applying Ephesians 2 to the children, “…[children] are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that [children] should walk in them.” This outcome being rendered certain as br.d says.

      4. Roger, Faith without knowledge of good or evil is a fantasy and cannot be given to a infant in the womb or expressed by a infant in the womb or outside of it without knowledge.

      5. brianwagner writes, “Faith without knowledge of good or evil is a fantasy and cannot be given to a infant in the womb or expressed by a infant in the womb or outside of it without knowledge.”

        Agreed. Without faith there is no salvation. Knowledge of good and evil only leads to obedience to the law and never salvation.

      6. So Roger you agree an infant can’t have/express faith for salvation since they can’t have the knowledge that is necessary to believe in… Great!

      7. brianwagner writes, “you agree an infant can’t have/express faith for salvation since the can’t have the necessary knowledge to believe in… Great!”

        That means that the pathway to salvation is the same for babies and adults – God chooses whom He will save.

      8. rhutchin,

        Again, babies are not lost. They don’t need saved. They are righteous. Faith has nothing to do with it. Righteousness does. They are righteous without knowledge of good and evil.

        They don’t need mercy or grace.

        Your car keys don’t start out being lost.

        No one is born spiritually dead.

        Everyone dies a natural death. Not everyone dies a spiritual death.

        Ed Chapman

      9. chapmaned24 writes, “Again, babies are not lost. They don’t need saved. They are righteous….They are righteous without knowledge of good and evil. ”

        In Romans 9, we read:

        10 …there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
        11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls,…

        This is part of Paul’s argument that only the children of promise are saved per v8, “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” It is clear that Esau is used here as an illustration of one who was not a child of promise. So, given your claim that Esau was righteous when born, we can conclude that God preserved Esau’s life until he could sin and become reprobate and thereby be judged. So, God only allows elect babies to die, while preserving the lives of the non-elect babies to ensure their reprobation and judgment. That’s an interesting concept.

      10. Exactly, Roger… and He chooses those that express faith. Thx for affirming “chooses” and not the deterministic “chosen”. You are agreeing with the truth more and more in what you’re writing!

        Babies need to grow up and express their faith in Jesus before they are born again.

      11. Brian Wagner,

        You had said:
        “He chooses those that express faith. Thx for affirming “chooses” and not the deterministic “chosen”. You are agreeing with the truth more and more in what you’re writing!

        Babies need to grow up and express their faith in Jesus before they are born again. ”

        My response:

        Why do they need to be born again, Brian? They aren’t lost yet. They didn’t spiritually die yet. When they get knowledge of good and evil, that is their spiritual death date, and that is the day that they NEED to be born again…

        But then, we have a conundrum. What about all those who never had an opportunity to put faith in Jesus? Say like, 3000 years ago? I’m speaking of Jews under the law, long before Jesus came on the scene.

        NO ONE, as an individual, is chosen for salvation. NO ONE. Second, babies are not in need of being born again, for they never died spiritually to begin with. Babies are still WITH GOD, until they get knowledge of good and evil, and by then, they are no longer babies. If you take the example of the Jews, it’s probably, what, age 13 before they even have a clue what good and evil is? What age is the TORAH taught to them? Bar mitzvah, is that what they call that age? 13?

        So, from baby to 13, they are righteous. No matter what sins that they may have done, they are still righteous, not needing faith, grace, born again, mercy, etc. God never left them, and they never spiritually died.

        The word, “chosen”, only applies to the Jews, as a GROUP of people (plural), not an individual, and even then, it’s still not in the context of salvation. It’s only in the context of SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS, as Jesus stated. I don’t read Ephesians as you guys do, as I put everything after the “TO BE” as the subject of CHOSEN.

        And what about those who are NOT JEWS? How do they get knowledge of good and evil if there is no law to tell them? Romans 2:14-16 tells us the answer to that.

        I don’t understand why people say that babies NEED TO BE SAVED, when they are not in need of being saved, as they are not lost, God is walking in the garden with them until they get knowledge.

        The same procedure that Adam and Even had, is the same procedure for everyone. Innocent until knowledge.

        Now, I am thinking….I’m thinking that everyone here thinks that the ONLY SIN that Adam and Eve did, was to disobey God by eating of that tree. Am I right?

        Why would they try to cover their genitals if that, disobeying God’s command to not eat of that tree, was the ONLY SIN? I’ve had some people in the reform world disregard that point about covering their genitals, telling me that God put them in the garden naked, so it can’t be a sin to be naked.

        Yet, it was indeed a sin for Abraham to play flippy flop with his sister, according to Leviticus 18, and 20, but God didn’t tell him anything about how wicked that was, altho, Leviticus indeed does, and even gave an inbred child to the incestuous couple, called, the Promised seed, Isaac. In other words, God did not give Abraham any KNOWLEDGE of SIN about that incestuous lifestyle that he gave to MOSES.

        God didn’t tell Adam and Eve about being naked in the garden, either, yet…they covered their nakedness, and God asked them, “WHO WHO WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?”

        That would be like God asking Abraham, “WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE COMMITTING INCEST?”

        Do you see what I’m getting at with the word KNOWLEDGE? The NAME OF THAT TREE is for all of us, in the same manner as Adam and Eve. We all begin INNOCENT, until knowledge. NO NEED for babies to be saved, until that knowledge date, which is their spiritual death date. Then they are in need at THAT POINT of being born, AGAIN, A SPIRITUAL “RESURRECTION” FROM THE DEAD.

        But, for some reason, reformers think that everyone is born dead?

        You see, the same has to be said of BOTH JEWS, AND GENTILES, Before Jesus came on the scene, and after Jesus left the earth.

        The one word in common for all…righteousness. Righteousness in the law, and righteousness apart from the law. Jews are under the law, Gentiles are not. No one is righteous in the law, no not one. Those Gentile babies who grew up, who have no clue who Jesus is, before, or after he walked the earth, HOW CAN THEY PUT THEIR FAITH IN JESUS? They can’t. So do they go to hell? Doesn’t Romans 2:14-16 answer that? I think it does. Or, is it this mysterious grace/mercy thing that no one can come to an agreement on, especially the legalist baptists that think that no one gets to heaven unless immersed in water first.

        Ed Chapman

      12. Watch you crude language Ed. And I didn’t say babies needed salvation… but after they “grow up” they need to express faith.

      13. brain,

        What did I say that offended you? Immersion? lol.

        You had said,
        “after they “grow up” they need to express faith.”

        But you didn’t explain WHY they need to express faith. What happened in their life that they need to express faith? Sin? Or is it something else? Say like, KNOWLEDGE of good and evil in order to ACKNOWLEDGE or KNOW their sin? Sin has no power if you don’t know what it is.

        And, the rest of what I said still is applicable, i.e. Jew/Gentile, before/after Jesus walked the earth, etc. I know the talking points of Baptists and Calvinists about immersion, so I didn’t say it out of offending, but needed to make a point.

        Ed Chapman

      14. Ed… just don’t use crude language to make your points of you want your posts to remain for others to read. Thx.

      15. brian,

        I don’t see what I said that was crude. That’s like saying that you can’t read Leviticus, due to the crude language.

        No wonder Adam KNEW his wife, huh? Gotcha!

        Ed Chapman

      16. brianwagner writes, “Thx for affirming “chooses” and not the deterministic “chosen”. ”

        I use them interchangeably. That which God has chosen (He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world) in eternity past, He brings about (chooses – did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith) in the course of time. I keep forgetting how this confuses you. Sorry.

      17. rhutchin,

        I really wish Calvinists would finish the sentence in Ephesians. If they did, they would see that no one was chosen in him before the foundation of the world. What he chose was that God’s followers would be holy and blameless.

        Ed Chapman

      18. chapmaned24 writes, ‘What he chose was that God’s followers would be holy and blameless. ”

        This God did before the foundation of the world. God chose His elect before he brought them to salvation and His purpose was to make them holy.

      19. What’s confusing also Roger is that you don’t realize that “did not God choose” is past tense. If you want to find an example of “chooses” meaning “has chosen” you’ll have to find another example. 😉

      20. brianwagner writes, ‘you don’t realize that “did not God choose” is past tense. If you want to find an example of “chooses” meaning “has chosen” you’ll have to find another example.”

        Yes. The phrase, “did not God choose,” parallels, “God chose us,” James and Paul had the same people in mind – Gd’s elect. However, we see that God operates in the course of time regarding His elect for God “opened [Lydia’s] heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” We are to pray, “that God may open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ,’ Paul reports to the church in Antioch how “they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.” so, it seems obvious to me that God made decisions in the past as “He chose,” and ow God is active in bringing to salvation that He chose.

      21. And I’m guessing you see then, Roger, how that what you just said does not mean He chooses after creation. Thx for the confirmation that you understood how you misrepresented your view by using the present tense “chooses”.

        Though that of course is my view… and people like Lydia who are seeking and listening to the gospel, when they believe God does choose to open their heart and give them the new birth, adding them to the Chosen one, becoming one of His elect through faith. Praise the Name of Jesus! Thx for the conversation. Take the last word in this thread between us if you wish. Blessings.

      22. brianwagner writes, “people like Lydia who are seeking and listening to the gospel, when they believe God does choose to open their heart”

        In Lydia’s case, God opened her heart prior to her believing, thereby enabling Lydia to respond (or believe) in that which Paul was preaching..

      23. Lydia’s case is just like Cornelius, whom Peter clearly said had his heart purified through faith. (Acts 15:9) Both were listening with understanding faith because both were seeking to believe the truth before their regeneration experience.

        The regeneration/salvation experience caused Lydia to follow Paul’s instructions to be baptized. Praise the Name of Jesus Christ for His wonderful salvation.

      24. brianwagner,

        The word, “regeneration” is only mentioned twice in all of scripture. And I see it as only pertaining to the Jews, for it is God who blinded the Jews, so that they would kill Jesus, because that was the mission of Jesus, to die on a cross, and he couldn’t get to that cross unless the Jews did not see him as Messiah.

        So, Paul was unblinded (regenerated), and he got mercy DUE TO HIS IGNORANCE, and no other reason. How is the rest of the Jews any different than Paul is?

        Jesus came to heal the blind (and he wasn’t talking about those PHYSICALLY BLIND), altho he did heal a few blind men.

        But when the Pharisees asked Jesus if they were blind, Jesus responds with, “Since you claim to see, your sins remain”.

        What does that tell you about those Jews who DON’T CLAIM to see? Their sins DO NOT remain, RIGHT?

        In other words, how do you reformers conclude that EVERYONE is in need of “regeneration”, when it is a word only used twice, and both times, it has to do with the Jews?

        Ed Chapman

      25. Being born again is regeneration is being born of God. The first epistle of John is all about Jews and Gentiles… all mankind… being able to know if they have everlasting life by testing to see if they have been born of God. Regeneration is not just for Jews.

      26. brianwagner,

        You had said,
        “Being born again is regeneration is being born of God. The first epistle of John is all about Jews and Gentiles… all mankind… being able to know if the have everlasting life by testing to see if they have been born of God. Regeneration is not just for Jews.”

        I don’t see any hint that regeneration is related to “born again”.

        Here is what I see, which I just posted to jt, giving a DIFFERENT TAKE on the Jews, vs. the Gentiles.

        Jews:
        Deuteronomy 29:4
        Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

        Romans 11:8
        (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

      27. brianwagner,

        My previous comment was not finished yet, but I accidently submitted it. To be included with that is…

        Romans 15 is about the Gentiles:

        Romans 15:21
        But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

        We see, they don’t. We understand, they don’t.

        God blinded the Jews, Satan blinds the Gentiles who refuse to believe. Satan didn’t blind the Jews, God did.

        2 Corinthians 4:4
        The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They can’t see the light of the good news that makes Christ’s glory clear. Christ is the likeness of God.

      28. brianwagner writes, “Lydia’s case is just like Cornelius,…”

        This is how Acts tells Lydia’s story. We read, “And a certain woman named Lydia…a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”

        In the case of Cornelius, it was the preaching of the gospel by Peter that was the vehicle for faith to be given thereby purifying. Lydia was also listening to Paul preach the gospel. We are told that God opened her heart without which we conclude that she would not have responded. Otherwise, why does God tell us that He opened Lydia’s heart to respond. Extrapolating back to Cornelius, we would conclude that God also opened Cornelius’ heart resulting in his response to the things spoken by Peter.

        Your statement that, “Both were listening with understanding faith because both were seeking to believe the truth before their regeneration experience. ” Is not substantiated by the accounts in Acts.

      29. There is no hearing without understanding in saving faith, and the saving grace of regeneration must go through that faith, for there is no saving grace that isn’t through faith.

        Lydia was listening/undetstanding/believing when the Lord opened her heart/gave the saving grace of regeneration through that faith. And she responded by getting baptized. That’s how Luke knew God had saved her. Luke wasn’t teaching theology…but history.

      30. brianwagner writes, “Lydia was listening/understanding/believing when the Lord opened her heart…”

        Lydia was “listening.” She was neither understanding nor believing and therefore, could not respond to what she was hearing. God’s opening of her heart gave her the ability to respond (a response that required undetstanding/believing). Otherwise, you have the situation where a person is listening/understanding/believing the gospel yet does not respond to the gospel and that conclusion is not tenable.

      31. Rejecting what one understands is always tenable, except in a deterministic reality, which does not exist and is contradictory to the teaching of God’s Word.

      32. brianwagner writes, ‘Rejecting what one understands is always tenable,”

        Not without cause. One may understand the consequences of sin and thereby reject sin in order to escape the consequences. One does not understand the gospel and reject it – what cause/motive would account for this?

      33. God will reveal each cause and motive for each one’s rejection of the gospel/or light leading to the gospel that they understood. They will be judged on the basis of that… not on the basis of their being reprobated eternally, immutably based on nothing they’ve done or on anything they were predestined to do without fail.

        Such justice and mercy in our wonderful God is so clear to see… one wonders truly what are the causes and motives for rejecting His clear teaching about it that is understood… but still rejected. But God knows why… and the person themselves does also.

      34. Brian,

        Romans 2:14-16 King James Version (KJV)

        14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

        15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

        16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

        Those who have no clue who God or Jesus is…They are judged by their conscience, from the law written in their heart already there, and they are already doing BY NATURE the things contained in the written code, the law. Paul calls this GOSPEL.

        Ed Chapman

      35. chapmaned24 writes, “Those who have no clue who God or Jesus is…They are judged by their conscience, from the law written in their heart already there, and they are already doing BY NATURE the things contained in the written code, the law. Paul calls this GOSPEL.”

        This explains how God could judge people between Adam and Moses and why the people of Noah’s day and in Sodom were excluded rightfully from heaven.

      36. rhutchin,

        You had said:
        “chapmaned24 writes, “Those who have no clue who God or Jesus is…They are judged by their conscience, from the law written in their heart already there, and they are already doing BY NATURE the things contained in the written code, the law. Paul calls this GOSPEL.”

        This explains how God could judge people between Adam and Moses and why the people of Noah’s day and in Sodom were excluded rightfully from heaven.”

        My response:

        Excluded from heaven?

        Are you aware of a place called Abaham’s BOSOM?

        The Jews call this SHEOL. They believe that

      37. rhutchin,

        Now, the people of Sodom, sure, you have a point for sure, and are probably 110 percent correct…but the flood? Don’t be so sure of yourself on that one.

        Jude 1:7
        Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

        Ed Chapman

      38. rhutchin,

        For some reason, I don’t see my response, but here is a summary of it, if it shows up later…Remember, God and Abraham had a negotiation about RIGHTEOUS people. If there are BY DEFAULT, no one righteous, no not one, why would Abraham negotiate with God regarding righteous people? Obviously, there were SUCH A THING as righteous people…JUST NOT IN SODOM AND GOHMORRHA.

        Jude 1:7
        Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

      39. rhutchin,

        If this is a double post, SORRY…

        rhutchin,

        You had said:
        “chapmaned24 writes, “Those who have no clue who God or Jesus is…They are judged by their conscience, from the law written in their heart already there, and they are already doing BY NATURE the things contained in the written code, the law. Paul calls this GOSPEL.”

        This explains how God could judge people between Adam and Moses and why the people of Noah’s day and in Sodom were excluded rightfully from heaven.”

        My response:
        Excluded from Heaven?

        How so? The PLACE OF THE DEAD at that time was a place called Abrahams Bosom, so NO ONE went to heaven until Jesus died on the cross and he took captivity captive.

        The Jews believe that everyone goes to SHEOL when they die, a TEMPORARY abode.

        Who was there? We know that Samuel was there. We know that Abraham was there.

        1 Peter 3:18-20 King James Version (KJV)

        18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

        19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

        20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

        Now, reformers might think that the people from Adam to Moses went to hell FIRE as a DEFAULT, but I sure don’t. As a matter of fact, Peter describes this above. Those spirits are those who died in the flood, and that prison is Abraham’s bosom, Sheol, the temporary abode.

        As a matter of fact, I believe that the Pharaoh is in heaven with Jesus right now.

        But based on what you are saying, Samuel is burning in hell, as is Abraham, because Abraham came before Moses.

        Now, cults will deny that Samuel was there, cuz they think that Samuel was an EVIL SPIRIT. Some deny that Abraham spoke to a rich man that wanted a drink of water. I don’t.

        Ed Chapman

      40. brianwagner writes, “God will reveal each cause and motive for each one’s rejection of the gospel/or light leading to the gospel that they understood.”

        Originally you wrote, “Lydia was listening/understanding/believing…” yet she could not respond to Paul’s preaching until God opened her heart. I challenged that and you bumped it down to “Rejecting what one understands is always tenable,” I then challenged this asking what would motivate a person to reject a gospel he understands. You then punted to God for obvious reasons.

        Then, “They will be judged on the basis of that… not on the basis of their being reprobated eternally, immutably based on nothing they’ve done or on anything they were predestined to do without fail.”

        Whether judged in eternity past or in the course of time, the facts are the same and the judgment is no different. We are talking about the same people being judged for the same reasons and receiving the same judgment.

      41. You misunderstood, Roger. Lydia was responding positively. I’m not sure where you got the idea of me saying she “couldn’t respond”… unless you were just reiterating your view. God honored His Word and gave her a new heart (opened her heart) and she responded further to His leading and got baptized. We both agree the new birth makes possible new responses not before possible.

        Praise the Name of our merciful Lord Jesus that He gives the opportunity to all to seek and recieve that new birth… but not irresistibly for any.

      42. brianwagner writes, ‘Lydia was responding positively. I’m not sure where you got the idea of me saying she “couldn’t respond”…”

        The text reads, “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” Given the grammatical relationship between “…”the Lord opened her heart…” and “…to respond…” we naturally conclude that without the opening of her heart, Lydia would not, and could not, have responded. If you can argue otherwise, please do.

        We also note the distinction here where Lydia is described as a “worshiper of God” where Timothy’s mother is, earlier, described as a “believer.” (16:1) The term used to describe Lydia is also used of “devout” people who are not believers. We read a few verses earlier about the incident where Paul has a vision of the man from Macedonia calling Paul to come to Macedonia. We conclude that this is virgin territory where Paul has not visited so Christ has not been preached. Thus, Lydia has a knowledge of the OT God as taught by the Jews and not of Christ. As Paul speaks of Christ, God opens Lydia’s heart to respond, and we are told that Lydia does respond to Paul’s message. Absent God’s work on her heart, Lydia would not have responded.

        We seem to agree that God’s work on Lydia’s heart was the new birth or regeneration. You must argue that Lydia had a faith that was not able to produce a believing response to support your philosophy.

      43. Faith doesn’t cause the new birth or the responses after it…but it must be present so that the cause, the new birth, the saving grace can go through it. Praise the Lord Jesus for His wonderful salvation!

      44. brianwagner writes, “Faith doesn’t cause the new birth or the responses after it…but it must be present so that the cause, the new birth, the saving grace can go through it.”

        Well, at least you have faith and the new birth pre-salvation. So, what does that have to do with our understanding of Lydia?

      45. The new birth is salvation… It is the righteous life of Christ… and being immediately made a child of God! Praise His Name!

      46. brianwagner,

        A couple of things regarding Lydia.

        1. Worshipper of God.
        2. Opened heart.

        To me, these are clues, unrelated, of course, to Cornelius.

        The word, Lydia, is only mentioned twice, both of which are Acts 16.

        The first thing that I thought of is…I THINK SHE’S A JEW. This is why God had to open her heart, and I am, of course, speaking from a NON-REFORM mindset.

        And how is it that I can tell? A couple of ways.

        Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles…however…

        No matter what town Paul went to, his first visit was ALWAYS to the Jews. Once they rejected, then he moved on to the Gentiles. That is what his habit always was.

        It was a Sabbath Day that Paul met up with Lydia. That would be the day that Paul would be talking to the Jews about Jesus. This was not the Christian Sabbath, but the Jewish Saturday Sabbath.

        He had just arrived in that area a few days before, so the next Sabbath would be THAT PARTICULAR DAY that Paul met Lydia.

        I think Lydia was a Jewish woman, not a Gentile woman. And why is that important? Due to my constant declaration that only the Jews need regeneration, thereby, actually agreeing with you regarding her needing regenerated. Not because that is a by default for every believer, but because she was a Jew. This is why her heart had to be opened, and Cornelius didn’t need a heart to be opened.

        Ed Chapman

      47. brianwagner writes, “The new birth is salvation…”

        So, a person must be saved in order for them to be able to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. Yet, Jesus preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” That would suggest that an awareness of (i.e., seeing) the kingdom of heaven is a necessary part of salvation – as it is the basis for repentance – and not something consequent to salvation. The Calvinist says a person must be born again before they can express repentance. You seem to be saying that a person must be saved before he can express repentance. At least, you have the new birth prior to repentance (even if I think you falsely identify the new birth as salvation)..

      48. Saying “seeing the kingdom” or “entering the kingdom” is the beginning or main part of salvation is incorrect. That is after one becomes a child of God in the new birth which is salvation. Giving them *the right* to see and enter the Kingdom which is one of the many blessings of salvation.

        And exercising faith in Christ gives *the right* to become a child of God, born of His Spirit.

        Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for His wonderful salvation!