This post is adapted from a brilliant social media discussion by Drew McLeod.
Is John 6 about Gentile Christians 2000 years after Jesus walked the Earth?
When Jesus says, “It is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (v. 39); are those that are given by the Father to Jesus you and me?
The context of the entire Gospel of John says “no”.
The Washington Post recently popularized the phrase “Democracy Dies in Darkness”
Well, Calvinism Dies in Context
To the claim that John 6:39 is about you and me, Drew answered:
What context is Drew talking about? Let’s look at John 17:12 first:
See the same language from John 6:39, “He has given me” = “you have given me”. John 17 is part of the biblical context of John 6’s use of those given and there is only one reason to ignore it: if you have an a priori concern that you are protecting…some theological baggage you need to come along.
Regarding, “I have guarded them…”, this could mean some spiritual sense in which Jesus is guarding our salvation, though I could think of several problems with that idea. Also Jesus says, “…and not one of them has been lost…” which could refer to us but then the clincher is “…except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” Jesus is talking about the original 11 Apostles.
Jesus has guarded them
None of them were lost except the one destined to be lost.
Let’s look at John 18: 8-9,
So, lost is not in some abstract, spiritual sense of salvation, but lost to the sword or prison before they could fulfill their mission. That’s the “losing” Jesus is talking about in John 6:39, and the Apostle John is telling you in John 18 that Jesus protected the Apostles from Roman violence/judgment to fulfill what Jesus said back in John 6. It’s right there. What mission? The mission Jesus just talked about in the high priestly prayer: to preach the Gospel. Follow me here…
You know what other passage is not about you? The first part of the High Priestly Prayer which is often used as an example of Calvinistic Election.
None of that is about you or me. How do I know? Remember, Calvinism Dies In Context, so all you have to do is keep reading. The very next sentence is:
That’s us. We believe in the “their word”, the word of the Apostles. We believe in the word of the given ones, among whose number we are not worthy to be counted. So, we cannot both be “those given” and the ones who believe in the word of “those given”.
I’ll let Drew give us a recap of how “those given” are described in John.
This is why James White wants to debate John 6 only if he can limit his opponent to John 6. If his opponent is allowed to go outside of John 6 and take in the whole context of the Scriptures, the Calvinist argument that John 6 is about us is a special pleading made in the face of every other time “those given” are spoken of in John.
Good questions, Drew. I hope one day there is a Calvinist scholar who will take up those questions and attempt to answer them clearly and sincerely.
Thanks Eric,
You were thinking the Calvinists cared about the context?
If you have ever listened to (or read) MacArthur’s messges through Hebrews you will hear him split many single verses three times (!!) … saying the first part is address to X, the second part to Y, and then he comes back to X. It is the gymnastics that he needs to prove his point.
But we all know that this is because he comes to the Scriptures with “how it must be” and then scaffolds together a partial verse from here and there to make that work.
He so often uses the phrase, “We know the author is not addressing believers here [the here being 6-10 words surrounded by words that he says ARE to the believers] because we know such-and-such is not true….” Of course this allows anyone to ignore what appears to be straightforward / clear teaching, because “they know” it can’t mean what it says!
We all do it to a certain degree, but Calvinist-determinists have perfected it.
FOH, I know very well what you’re referring to here. I went through a Bible study in a “MacArthur” Calvinist church and watched them to exactly as you describe. This was written to Jews that were Christians, this was written to Jews who weren’t Christians but only mildly interested, this was written to Jews who sort of confessed faith but really didn’t believe, it went on and on. At the time I thought, “where are they getting this from? How do they know all this? Where is this documented or stated by the writer?” I later figured out that they were just making it up because they had to in order for Hebrews to fit their Calvinism.
Hello mottwordpress and welcome
mottworpress
I later figured out that they were just MAKING IT UP …….
Excellent observation mottwordpress!
IMHO most of Calvinism can be best understood as MAKING IT UP :-]
Ha, I remember so often under the teaching of my former (Calvinist) pastor, having that exact thought: “Where is he getting this from?” They literally just make up whatever they need to confirm what they want to be true. I pray that FOH is wrong in stating that we all do this. May we come to the scripture desiring to learn what God wants to teach us, not to have our biases confirmed! It is my most earnest desire to surrender all of my biases, and be willing to accept what is true, despite how many idols it requires me to give up.
What Bible study was it?
Hello aspin33 and welcome
Thank the Lord – for SOT101!!! :-]
“Is John 6 about Gentile Christians 2000 years after Jesus walked the Earth? ”
YES! John 6:37 is to be read in context within John 6 and then harmonized with the rest of Scripture. We have:
John 6
37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
40 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
This agrees with John 17
1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2 “as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3*“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
The use of “all flesh” refers to both Jews and gentiles and recalls John 10, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”
Jesus speaks specifically of the disciples beginning in 17:11, ““I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.” Then, Jesus returns the context to “all flesh,” in v20, “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” When Jesus says “that they all” He refers to the disciples plus those who will believe in the future so that “Jesus should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.”
This same theme carries through John 6, where we read, “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”and “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” and ““As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.”
Gentile Christians 2000 years after Jesus walked the Earth can take comfort in the works of Jesus even as John sums up his purpose for writing his gospel when he write “truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Did you…did you get to that question and just stop reading the article? Or did you read it and ignore the evidence presented?
So Eric, can you refute what Rhutchin stated.
Hey Julio, that’s not how this works. I wrote an article adding commentary to an argument made by someone else. This argument provided biblical evidence for the thesis “John 6:39 is not about you”. Anyone can comment on anything not responding to that evidence or argument, but the onus is not on me to refute such tangents. I mean, Rhutchin quite literally ignored the argument from the article, skipping over the “have given” from John 17 presuming that’s you and me when the entire point of the article is that it’s obviously not. It’s fine that he disagrees but it’s not on me to repeat what I already said. I’m happy to respond to comments that are actual responses to the evidence of or the argument of the article.
Hello Julio and welcome.
Did rhutchin provide a LOGICAL response to the arguments within the article?
Or was his response a simple tautology?
Paul asks Timothy to bring him is parchments.
According to RH’s reasoning – that is to be taken in context with other scriptures – from which it follows: – Gentiles 2000 years later are to bring Paul his parchments.
In this case – Jesus refers to a “Them” – in whom he lost only one person.
So we are to conclude that one person among Gentiles 2000 years later is lost?
Or is the context understood as limited to the small group in which Jesus is speaking?
A typical Calvinist approach to scripture is called “Montage”
You look for some kind of key verse with which you WANT to prove a theological theory.
And then you cobble up other verses from anywhere you can find – to create the APPEARANCE of support.
Not a very respectful or scholarly way to handle scripture.
And besides that – we must not forget the TRUE “P” in the Calvinist TULIP
P ossibility of Election:
According to the underlying doctrine, an individual’s election is either infallibly/immutably true or infallibly/immutably false.
And it is a logical impossibility for something that is infallibly/immutably true to ever be false.
Therefore, the notion that something infallibly/immutably true needs to “Persevere” in order to keep itself from becoming false is no more rational than a married bachelor.
The idea of apostasy or falling away in this context is an illusion, and the typical resolve concerning an individual in that situation, is that he was never really elect in the first place.
And that individual’s perception of election and salvation as infallibly/immutably true, would have been a predestined illusion.
“P” Possibility of Election
Any human certainty of election in this lifetime is a predestined illusion. Each believer is promised only the possibility of election.
So in Calvinism – Gentiles 2000 years later – can conclude they have a higher chance of being created specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
Julio, this might help some… John 6, 37
John 6:37 speaks of the Father’s giving (present tense) to Christ. Therefore it would be calling Jesus a deceiver to suggest all had already been given to Christ, unless, of course, Jesus did not know the determinist doctrine very well.
If determinism was true, Jesus would have known it and He would have said – “All the Father already gave to me will come to me.” The context of John 6 clearly indicates what kind of people the Father was actively giving to the Son… They were those who were looking to the Son and believing in Him (6:40). There is nothing in this chapter about pre-creation decrees or individual election. The determinist forces those ideas into these verses because he wants to see them there.
The response of freewill is a condition that God sovereignly made part of the “giving” requirements to be met before the coming. No-one is given to Christ before creation. Remember the word “gives” in John 6:37 is present tense which clearly contradicts the determinist idea of some being eternally immutably given before creation.
The context points to drawing, looking at, being taught by, believing in, and other things in that are in the process and responses of whom the Father’s gives. Jesus is explaining these things to unbelievers because He wants them to keep seeking Him, but not just for food that perishes.
If you can’t see that Jesus is being used by the Father in this context to draw people to a decision to trust Jesus for everlasting food, everlasting life… I certainly can’t share the context any more clearly than Jesus has.
brianwagner writes, “John 6:37 speaks of the Father’s giving (present tense) to Christ.”
John 6:37 firmly establishes the sequence of events: God gives – the person comes -. Christ will not cast away. Jesus reinforce the last part in John 17: “Jesus should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.” By these verses, we have three parts of TULIP: God gives (unconditional election); the person comes (irresistible grace), Christ gives eternal life (perseverance/preservation).
That God “gives” tells us that God chose whom to give and this action occurred prior to the giving. Thus, Paul writes in Ephesians 1, “God chose us…” and 2 Thessalonians 2, “…God from the beginning chose you for salvation…”
Then, “Therefore it would be calling Jesus a deceiver to suggest all had already been given to Christ, unless, of course, Jesus did not know the determinist doctrine very well.”
God chose certain people for salvation and then God gives these people to Christ whereupon they come and Christ gives them eternal life. God chose in time past (with the “when” a point of disagreement) and in the course of time gives to Christ those He had previously chosen leading to their coming to Christ.
Then, ‘The context of John 6 clearly indicates what kind of people the Father was actively giving to the Son… They were those who were looking to the Son and believing in Him (6:40).”
This is the same argument made by Dr. Flowers. So, a person believes, God gives, and the person comes. So, what does “coming to Christ” mean in 6:37? John 6:44, says, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” Thus, Brian seems to have the person believing in Christ before God draws them to Christ. Yet, he says, “Jesus is being used by the Father in this context to draw people to a decision to trust Jesus.” So, I guess he has this order: God draws -> a person believes -> God gives -> the person comes.
Then, “There is nothing in this chapter about pre-creation decrees or individual election. The determinist forces those ideas into these verses because he wants to see them there.”
The Calvinist concludes that a decision to give or to draw was made prior to the giving and drawing. That decision occurred in eternity past because God has infinite understanding and this understanding doesn’t increase – if God gained new knowledge, His understanding would also increase.
brianwagner
[Per the Greek grammar of the text] John 6:37 speaks of the Father’s giving (present tense) to Christ.
rhutchin
John 6:37 firmly establishes the sequence of events: God gives – the person comes -. Christ will not cast away. Jesus reinforce the last part in John 17: “Jesus should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.” By these verses, we have three parts of TULIP: God gives (unconditional election); the person comes (irresistible grace), Christ gives eternal life (perseverance/preservation).
br.d
Which says nothing that disputes Brian’s point that the “giving” is grammatically structured as (present tense)
rhutchin
That God “gives” tells us that God chose whom to give and this action occurred prior to the giving.
br.d
But what did he choose?
rhutchin
Paul writes in Ephesians 1, “God chose us…
br.d
And all of the people of Israel were chosen to present free-will offerings to build the tabernacle.
And any person who chose not to do so – was free to not do so.
Nothing in Ephesians 1 stipulates that people are not permitted do DO OTHERWISE
The concept of determinism which LOGICALLY eradicates DO OTHERWISE is SUPERIMPOSED upon the text by the Calvinist.
So the Calvinistic philosophy of divine determinism is not affirmed here
rhutchin
” and 2 Thessalonians 2, “…God from the beginning chose you for salvation…”
br.d
Same answer as above
Again the Calvinistic philosophy of divine determinism is not affirmed by this verse either.
Brian
Therefore it would be calling Jesus a deceiver to suggest all had already been given to Christ, unless, of course, Jesus did not know the determinist doctrine very well.”
rhutchin
God chose certain people for salvation
br.d
Pure PRESUPPOSITION designed for no other reason than to affirm a theology.
rhutchin
and then God gives these people to Christ
br.d
More PRESUPPOSITION designed for no other reason than to affirm a theology.
rhutchin
whereupon they come and Christ gives them eternal life.
br.d
Same answer as above
And the Calvinist has absolutely know certainty that Calvin’s god didn’t design him specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
So much for being “given” to Christ! :-]
rhtuchin
God chose in time past (with the “when” a point of disagreement) and in the course of time gives to Christ those He had previously chosen leading to their coming to Christ.
br.d
More PRESUPPOSITION designed for no other reason than to affirm a theology.
Brian:
The context of John 6 clearly indicates what kind of people the Father was actively giving to the Son… They were those who were looking to the Son and believing in Him (6:40).
rhutchin
Thus, Brian seems to have the person believing in Christ before God draws them to Christ.
br.d
Pure SPECULATION without any knowledge – because no one knows how/when any drawing occurs.
Drawing could even start occurring at birth – and the Calvinist wouldn’t have a clue.
rhutchin
Yet, he says, “Jesus is being used by the Father in this context to draw people to a decision to trust Jesus.” So, I guess he has this order: God draws -> a person believes -> God gives -> the person comes.
br.d
And the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ – drawing someone to himself through that love and sacrifice – can’t possibly fit into the Calvinistic order of events – so the Calvinist mind must dismiss it out of hand.
Brian
There is nothing in this chapter about pre-creation decrees or individual election. The determinist forces those ideas into these verses because he wants to see them there.”
rhutchin
The Calvinist concludes that a decision to give or to draw was made prior to the giving and drawing.
br.d
To be more TRUTHFUL – the Calvinist concludes that Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – determines every molecular movement and impulse that will come to pass within every person’s brain.
And the Calvinist treats that philosophical concept as THE MOST SACRED TRUTH and therefore all scripture must affirm it.
rhutchin
That decision occurred in eternity past because God has infinite understanding and this understanding doesn’t increase – if God gained new knowledge, His understanding would also increase.
br.d
Then it follows that Calvin’s god has “infinite understanding” of the LIBERTARIAN FREE choices he makes (i.e. choices that are not determined by factors outside of his control).
If he can make LIBERTARIAN FREE choices and still have infinite understanding – then LIBERTARIAN FREE choices obviously don’t interfere or prohibit his infinite understanding.
rhutchin
By these verses, we have three parts of TULIP: God gives (unconditional election); the person comes (irresistible grace), Christ gives eternal life (perseverance/preservation).
br.d
NAH!
We just have Calvinism’s PRESUPPOSITION.
Now in regard to Calvinism’s TULIP – we also realize that it is nothing more than a COSMETIC REPRESENTATION.
The REAL “I” in the TULIP
“I” Irresistible Human Functionality
All human functionality, including morally significant functionality, is produced by impulses infallibly actualized within the human brain which occur as irresistible.
The REAL “U” in the TULIP
“U” Unconditional Destiny by Design:
Every aspect of man’s design and destiny is in total-abject-absolute unconditional subjection to an external divine and secret will. Nothing about man’s past, present, or future is ever up to man. And nothing about man’s design or destiny is conditioned upon anything having to do with man.
The REAL “P” in the TULIP
“P” Possibility of Election
Any human certainty of election in this lifetime is a predestined illusion. Each believer is promised only the possibility of election.
The Calvinist needs to keep God locked in and limited to knowing a future only working out one way. Unfortunately the Scripture clearly counters that idea and does not support a precreation choosing of individuals to be given to Christ later… not even in Eph 1:4.
They have to also lie to say there was actually a real choice made of individuals before creation. For there was not a knowledge in God’s mind, in their view, that changed from knowing all as unchosen and then knowing some as chosen by His will actually functioning in making a real choice of anyone to the exclusion of others.
It’s easier to believe the “us” used by Paul in Eph 1:4 to be in general reference with anachronistic use since no human existed before creation to be chosen. (2Thess 2:13 doesn’t say “before”, and the word “beginning” is used by Paul elsewhere to mean his gospel ministry).
The exercise of faith begins after the drawing of the Father begins and before the person comes and is born again into good soil like the parable of the sower clearly teaches.
brianwagner writes, “The Calvinist needs to keep God locked in and limited to knowing a future only working out one way.”
The Calvinist says that God’s decisions reflect His perfect wisdom and once made will not be changed. For God to change any decision he has made is to move from a decision reflecting perfect wisdom to a decision reflecting less than perfect wisdom. To the Calvinist, God never makes less than perfect decisions. Any decisions God made before creation were locked in at that time. Because God made all His decisions before creation, He was locked into a future only working out one way. God is able to make any, and all, decisions regarding His creation because He had an infinite understanding of His creation That understanding encompasses all future impacts of present e\actions. Before God created the universe, He had already decided that He would give Satan freedom to enter the garden to tempt Eve, and God understood the impacts of that decision – Eve would eat the fruit, offer the fruit to Adam, and Adam would eat also. God also had the ability to choose whom He would save out of the descendants of Adam and Eve even accounting for the flood of Noah.
Rgen, “there was not a knowledge in God’s mind, in their view, that changed from knowing all as unchosen and then knowing some as chosen by His will actually functioning in making a real choice of anyone to the exclusion of others. ”
That’s because we humans have a finite mind and cannot comprehend God’s infinite mind. God’s infinite understanding of His creation begot an omniscient knowledge of that creation especially considering that God understood how His interactions with His creation would play out. No one can explain how God’s knowledge arose as He always has had infinite understanding and therefore always has had an omniscient knowledge.
Then, ‘It’s easier to believe the “us” used by Paul in Eph 1:4 to be in general reference with anachronistic use…”
When Paul wrote in 1″4, “God chose us,” the natural way to understand him is to conclude that Paul was referring to himself plus those to whom he was writing, “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:” Paul tells his reader that God chose himself and them having also predestined them to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ. Could God know who would be born in His creation before He created? He knew that He would create Adam and Eve and He understood by infinite understanding the impacts of His action.
Then, “The exercise of faith begins after the drawing of the Father begins and before the person comes and is born again into good soil like the parable of the sower clearly teaches.”
God’s drawing of people to Christ involves giving them faith and this through the sowing of seed in the good soil, As the new birth is a work of the Holy Spirit also using the seed sown in good soil and also part of God’s drawing, we can conclude that both faith and the new birth arise from the seed and both precede the person coming to (or believing in) Christ).
rhutchin
The Calvinist says that God’s decisions reflect His perfect wisdom and once made will not be changed……
br.d
“perfect wisdom” or arbitrary will! :-]
“will not be changed” or immutable – which means “Cannot” be changed.
rhutchin
Any decisions God made before creation were locked in at that time….
This is what we love about Calvinists – they know EVERY DIVINE SECRET there is to know! :-]
rhutchin
He had already decided that He would give Satan freedom to enter the garden to tempt Eve,
br.d
INTERPRETATION
1) By making come to pass – every impulse within Satan’s brain, Eve’s brain, and Adam’s brain – he therefore
2) Gave Satan no other alternative – and no other possibility.
3) Gave Eve no other alternative – and no other possibility.
4) Gave Adam no other alternative – and no other possibility
And thus we have the TRUE T in the TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of nature – (including man’s nature) at any instance in time is T otally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
rhutchin
and God understood the impacts of that decision
br.d
This is what we love about Calvinists – they know EVERY DIVINE SECRET there is to know! :-]
rhutchin
That’s because we humans have a finite mind and cannot comprehend God’s infinite mind.
br.d
All except for Calvinists of course – cuz they know EVERY DIVINE SECRET! :-]
rhutchin
When Paul wrote in 1″4, “God chose us,” the natural way to understand him is to conclude …..etc
br.d
INTERPRETATION
First the person’s mind must be fully RE-FORMED – with Calvinism’s most SACRED doctrine – Universal Divine Causal Determinism
Once sufficiently programmed/indoctrinated – the mind will AUTO-MAGICALLY read every verse the “natural way”. :-]
rhutchin
God’s drawing of people to Christ involves giving them faith and this through the sowing of seed in the good soil, As the new birth is a work of the Holy Spirit also using the seed sown in good soil and also part of God’s drawing, we can conclude that both faith and the new birth arise from the seed and both precede the person coming to (or believing in) Christ).
br.d
This is what we love about Calvinists – they know EVERY DIVINE SECRET there is to know!
They even have extensive knowledge – of every time, every place, and every way Calvin’s god has gas! :-]
It’s very ironic when a Calvinist says – “we humans have a finite mind and cannot comprehend God’s infinite mind” – and then they proceed to describe dogmatically what God’s mind must be like in their idea of perfection even if it contradicts clear evidence in God’s own Word about how His mind functions. Very ironic indeed… and kinda sad.
This one reminds me of what Kevin Thompson – of Beyond the Fundamentals says:
-quote
Calvinism: The fixation on certainty of conclusions while being ignorant of sound epistemic processes – has led to the perpetuation of one of the dumbest sets of doctrines Christendom has ever seen. :-]
Eric writes, “did you get to that question and just stop reading the article? Or did you read it and ignore the evidence presented?”
The article begins, “The context of the entire Gospel of John says “no”. ” Only John 17 and 18 are addressed to any degree. The argument made is that certain verses in 17/18 refer specifically to the disciples. On that point, there is no disagreement. John 17/18 do have the apostles as their object. However, that does not mean that we then understand John 6 in that manner – at least not without evidence, for which there was none presented, We don’t even see an argument for doing this.
This claim is made, “John 17 is part of the biblical context of John 6’s use of those given and there is only one reason to ignore it: if you have an a priori concern that you are protecting…some theological baggage you need to come along. ” Yet, no supporting argument is made. It even ignores the first three verses of 17 where the term “all flesh” occurs and the importance of that term in opening the chapter.
The article says, “So, lost is not in some abstract, spiritual sense of salvation, but lost to the sword or prison before they could fulfill their mission. That’s the “losing” Jesus is talking about in John 6:39, and the Apostle John is telling you in John 18 that Jesus protected the Apostles from Roman violence/judgment to fulfill what Jesus said back in John 6.”
Fine. Now let’s see the argument for that claim.
John 6 is not unclear in what it says. The terms used – “all,’ “everyone,” “mo one,” anyone,” are generic and broad in scope. Those terms within the context they are used easily apply to believers from the first century until today and into the future. Are we to believe that these terms apply only to the disciples (or just the apostles)? If so, then the article needs to backtrack from 17/18 into 6 to explain how this is done.
The claims of the article is poorly argued (if at all), ignored obvious problems to the interpretation of the article (such as ignoring 17:1-3), and only presented an opinion – not an analysis. Did you read the article??
rhutchin
The claims of the article is poorly argued (if at all)
br.d
The article provides two primary observations:
– v12 I have kept THEM in your name…… I have guarded THEM…..not one of THEM is lost.
How in the world – this is construed as referring to Gentiles 2000 years later – is not only ignoring context – it is totally IRRATIONAL in Calvinism. But alas IRRATIONAL is the norm in Calvinism.
– v20: I do not ask for THESE ONLY. But for those who believe in me through THEIR word.
That is us! We believe in the “their word”, the word of the Apostles.
How that can be construed as poorly argued (if at all) – is simply another Calvinist tautology.
The Calvinist AUTO-MAGICALLY classifies anything that does not affirm his doctrine to be “poorly argued (if at all)”
Which is a total joke – when one realizes how INHERENTLY IRRATIONAL Calvinism is :-]
rhutchin
The terms used – “all,’ “everyone,” “mo one,” anyone,” are generic and broad in scope.
br.d
A term which the Calvinist historically seeks to limit.
Nothing new here – move along – move along! :-]
br.d writes, ‘The article provides two primary observations:
– v12 I have kept THEM in your name…… I have guarded THEM…..not one of THEM is lost.
How in the world – this is construed as referring to Gentiles 2000 years later…”
It doesn’t as both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree. There is not issue here.
Then, “– v20: I do not ask for THESE ONLY. But for those who believe in me through THEIR word.
That is us! We believe in the “their word”, the word of the Apostles. ”
Again, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree so no issue here either.
Then, “How that can be construed as poorly argued (if at all) – is simply another Calvinist tautology.”
That just shows that br.d doesn’t understand the argument of the article providing evidence that it is poorly argued. Perhaps br.d did not read the title of the article.
rhutchin
That just shows that br.d doesn’t understand the argument of the article providing evidence that it is poorly argued. Perhaps br.d did not read the title of the article.
br.d
Nah!
It just shows that br.d is able to understand the arguments in the article.
Perhaps RH doesn’t understand the arguments in the article because he only read the title
But the conclusions that infallibly come to pass within a Calvinist’s brain are not determined by rational reasoning anyway – they are determined by an external mind.
So no need to read arguments :-]
Hutch, “However, that does not mean that we then understand John 6 in that manner – at least not without evidence, for which there was none presented, We don’t even see an argument for doing this.”
So, the same nominal(?) phrase “those given” being used in John 17/18, and in John 6, is not evidence that it is part of the same context?
“Are we to believe that these terms apply only to the disciples (or just the apostles)? If so, then the article needs to backtrack from 17/18 into 6 to explain how this is done.”
We are talking about the phrase “those given” in John 6:39. You can insert other phrases but that doesn’t change the point. I showed you how this is done; Jesus says in John 6 he will not lose “those given” and then in John 18 Jesus protects the Apostles from Roman arrest specifically for the purpose of “not losing those given, as he had said”, so “losing” is about the sword, not salvation and “those given” are the Apostles. Tell me how I’m wrong about that.
If you want to assert that “those given” in John 6 are not the same “those given” in John 17/18, that’s fine, but I have biblical evidence for how I define who “those given” are in John 6 and you seem to just be asserting that it’s different than John 17/18 because the other words are used in John 6. And my only possible response to that argument is: Yes, and?
Eric writes, “So, the same nominal(?) phrase “those given” being used in John 17/18, and in John 6, is not evidence that it is part of the same context? ”
Not automatically. In John 17, we have–
“[God gave Christ] authority over all flesh, that Christ should give eternal life to as many as God gave Him.’ v2
““I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world.” v6
Are both these verses the same context? Are we to equate “all flesh” with “men…out of the world.”? Context says that “men…out of the world.” refers to the apostles as does John 18. Does context tell us that “all flesh” also refers to the apostles? 17:1-3 presents a broad truth with which Jesus opens His prayer to God – Jesus glorifies God and Himself in this opening.. Jesus then gets specific in v6, saying “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world.” We understand that Jesus is now referring to His apostles form the following verses.
There is still the issue of tying the apostles given to Christ with John 6:37. There is nothing that ties John 6 to the apostles as is evident in John 17/18/ If this is not true, what in John 6 would cause us to do so?
Then, “so “losing” is about the sword, not salvation and “those given” are the Apostles. Tell me how I’m wrong about that. ”
You are wrong because John 6 has nothing to do with the sword. John 6 is obviously about salvation. Jesus says, ““Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life,…” v27,and “I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe….” v36, ““This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” v39, and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.,” v47. John 6 uses the language of salvation. John17/18 (after 17:1-3) deals with the apostles as the context shows. You cannot take a common phrase our of different contexts and use it to negate the different contexts. If you want to do that, then make the argument for your hypothesis.
Then, “I have biblical evidence for how I define who “those given” are in John 6 and you seem to just be asserting that it’s different than John 17/18”
What evidence? The article makes the case for John17/18 dealing with the apostles to which all agree. That is non-controversial. The article makes no effort, nor does it provide evidence, that ties the apostles to John 6. In John 6, we do not see Jesus incorporating His disciples until v61. Before that, Jesus is dealing with the Jews who see Him but do not believe and murmur about the things He is saying. So, what evidence from John 6 are you talking about?
Hutch, “Are both these verses the same context? Are we to equate “all flesh” with “men…out of the world.”? Context says that “men…out of the world.” refers to the apostles as does John 18. Does context tell us that “all flesh” also refers to the apostles?”
No, because words mean things and “all flesh” means something different than “those given”. You are forced to force this comparison because you cannot have contextual correlation of phrases in the Gospel of John.
“There is still the issue of tying the apostles given to Christ with John 6:37.”
Things aren’t true just because you say them. “37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” fits just perfectly with “those given” being the Apostles. The Apostles were given, and they came, and Jesus did not send them away. How does that not fit?
“There is nothing that ties John 6 to the apostles as is evident in John 17/18”
Nothing, except that Jesus is using the exact same phrases and then the author alludes BACK to what He has said earlier as being fulfilled. Nothing at all.
“You are wrong because John 6 has nothing to do with the sword.”
I’m going to submit this to the Logical Fallacies Institute as a textbook example of the “begging the question” fallacy. You essentially just said “You’re wrong about John 6 because I’m right about John 6”.
“The article makes no effort, nor does it provide evidence, that ties the apostles to John 6…So, what evidence from John 6 are you talking about?”
This is fun game you’re playing. When I provide the evidence you go “But that’s not evidence because” so then, later, you can claim no one has given you evidence.
Eric writes, “No, because words mean things and “all flesh” means something different than “those given”. You are forced to force this comparison because you cannot have contextual correlation of phrases in the Gospel of John.”
You asked, ““So, the same nominal(?) phrase “those given” being used in John 17/18, and in John 6, is not evidence that it is part of the same context? ” Now you agree that “all flesh” in 17:2 does not refer to the apostles, Is there any reason we could not link “You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.” to those given by God to Christ in 6:37? Then, we have Christ drilling down into “as many as You have given Him.” to identify a smaller group, “the men whom You have given Me out of the world.” (the apostles).
Jesus ties “all flesh” to “those given” in the phrase, “You have given Christ authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.” This comparison is not forced. Those whom God gives to Cgrist are taken from all flesh (Jews and gentiles) What is forced is to restrict “as many as You have given Him,” in v2 to be only the apostles introduced beginning in v6 and then linking the apostles to 6:36 when nothing in John 6 points us to the apostles. That is the argument you need to support given the title of the article, “John 6 Is Not About You.”
Then, “Things aren’t true just because you say them. “37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” fits just perfectly with “those given” being the Apostles.”
The apostles fit as does everyone else. You still need to exclude everyone else but the apostles from 6:37. You have to show that ““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,” applies only to the apostles when the apostles are not even in view in John 6, if your claim is yo hold.
Then, “Nothing, except that Jesus is using the exact same phrases and then the author alludes BACK to what He has said earlier as being fulfilled. Nothing at all.”
Except the the contexts are different. 6:37 can be tied to “all flesh” in 17:2. All flesh would then include, as a subset, “”the men whom You have given Me out of the world.” You have provided no reason for the apostles to be the only ones given to Christ in John 6, when there is nothing to point us in that direction in John 6. All you can conclude by the similarity in phrases is that yhe apostles were included among all those given to Christ.
Then rhutchin: ““You are wrong because John 6 has nothing to do with the sword.”
Eric: “I’m going to submit this to the Logical Fallacies Institute as a textbook example of the “begging the question” fallacy. You essentially just said “You’re wrong about John 6 because I’m right about John 6”.
The article has, “So, lost is not in some abstract, spiritual sense of salvation, but lost to the sword or prison before they could fulfill their mission. That’s the “losing” Jesus is talking about in John 6:39,…”
John 6 deals specifically with people coming to, or believing, in Jesus. The ones who believe in Jesus are those given by God to Christ and then drawn by God to Christ. It is these whom Jesus says that He will raise up. In John 17/18, Jesus speaks of the apostles and not losing them during His ministry These are two different contexts.
Then, ‘When I provide the evidence you go “But that’s not evidence because ””
The only evidence is one phrase common to both John 6 and John 17/18. That commonalty only means that the aposyles are among those identified in John 6, not that they are the only ones in view. For that you need evidence.
BRIAN WRITES: “If you can’t see that Jesus is being used by the Father in this context to draw people to a decision to trust Jesus for everlasting food, everlasting life… I certainly can’t share the context any more clearly than Jesus has.”
MY REPLY: This seems to me to be the best view of the passage as far as I can tell. John 6:44-45 reads as follows:
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”
This would seem to suggest that the drawing can only be effected through the teaching that comes from God the Father. But only upon those who choose to hear and learn from Him are able to come to Christ. How would one be taught of God? Scripture is the first thing that comes to mind. But also, if I understand Brian’s point, all that Jesus spoke and did was of the Father. In other words, the Father was the very source of all that Jesus taught and did. Hence, in hearing and learning from Jesus, they were hearing and learning from the Father; in seeing Jesus, they were seeing the Father. And those who were taught of God, were those who truly heard and learned from Him; they came to Christ.
But on the other hand, I do find it difficult to agree with the article above!
Aidan writes, “This would seem to suggest that the drawing can only be effected through the teaching that comes from God the Father ”
That is true, but how do you tease the following out of 6:44ff, “But only upon those who choose to hear and learn from Him are able to come to Christ.” Are you saying that God is an ineffective teacher? If he is, then on what basis do some choose to hear and learn while others do not?
rhutchin
Are you saying that God is an ineffective teacher?
br.d
Here is wisdom:
It is critical to understand that Calvinists have INSIDER meanings for terms they use.
Here the term ineffective is a replacement word for NON CAUSAL
Thus the Calvinist asks:
“Are you saying that Calvin’s god does not CAUSE every molecular movement and impulse within your brain?”
So in Calvinism – Calvin’s god CAUSING molecular movements and impulses within a person’s brain is what constitutes “teaching”.
When you learn to recognize that Calvinists use English words – but speak a different language – it becomes easier to understand why Calvinists complain – their belief system is misunderstood.
Br.d writes: “So in Calvinism – Calvin’s god CAUSING molecular movements and impulse within a person’s brain is what constitutes “teaching”.”
MY REPLY: Then the Calvinist does not possess the ability to rationally infer or affirm what is true and what is not. All of his thoughts, his beliefs, and his perceptions are not his, but are determined by an outside agent. He has the false perception that they are his, but they are not. How can the Calvinist determine if his faith is true or not? He can’t, because the perception that he has the gift of faith is determined for him. But if every molecular movement and impulse within his brain are not his, but the input of another – then every impulse of faith within his brain are not his – but the input of another!
One has to ask the question:
In his worldview, ‘Can the Calvinist ever truly have faith, or just the illusion of faith’?
Excellent analysis Aidan!!
Lets say Billy and John are two adult men – who are participating in a neurological experiment.
Both of them have an electronic module on their head – which has probes which transmit signals to certain brain receptors.
Both of them are looking at a table which has 100 wooden blocks on it.
Some of the blocks are black, and some of the blocks are white.
The electronic module on Billy’s head transmits signals which make Billy’s mind perceive all of the blocks as white.
The electronic module on John’s head transmits signals which make John’s mind perceive all of the blocks as black.
Billy is convinced that John’s perceptions are FALSE and that his perceptions are TRUE.
John is convinced that Billy’s perceptions are FALSE and that his perceptions are TRUE.
Billy is a NATURAL Determinist – who believes that John’s FALSE perceptions are determined by NATURE
John is a Calvinist – who believes that Billy’s FALSE perceptions are determined by Calvin’s god.
How can Billy know that his perceptions are TRUE and John’s are FALSE?
He can’t
How can John know that his perceptions are TRUE and Billy’s are FALSE?
He can’t
Since the perceptions within both minds are under the control of external factors – neither of them know which perceptions within their brains are TRUE and which perceptions are FALSE.
So you are absolutely correct!
Calvin’s god determines every perception that will come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain.
He alone determines whether a perception is TRUE or FALSE
He predestines FALSE perceptions to come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain
And he predestines that Calvinist brain to perceive those FALSE perceptions as TRUE.
The human ability to discern TRUE from FALSE is predicated on one’s perception of what TRUE is and one’s perception of what FALSE is. And since the Calvinist perceptions are all determined by an external mind, that rules out the Calvinist ability to discern TRUE from FALSE for himself .
Welcome to Hotel Calvi-fornia
You can check-out any time you like
But you can never leave :-]
Excellent analogy Br.d; so easy to understand.
If you take away libertarian free will, this is the mess you end up with when pushed to it’s ultimate conclusion.
Yes – exactly!
That is why the Calvinist strategy is to steal the ATTRIBUTES of Libertarian Freedom – and claim them as attributes of determinism. So that he can then claim that Libertarian Freedom doesn’t exist for people.
The Calvinist cannot emotionally accept the fact that he does not have the ability to determine TRUE from FALSE.
Even though that would constitute a Libertarian choice – which he is supposed to reject.
However this emotional response – is not unique to Calvinism.
It is common to all people who believe in determinism.
Both the NATURAL determinist and the Theological Determinist
Richard Hawking – a world renowned believer of Natural Determinism states:
Because I don’t know what impulses have been determined to come to pass within my mind – I might as well live *AS-IF* nothing is determined – and *AS-IF* Libertarian freedom exists.
John Calvin makes the same statement – except he is not intellectually honest enough to state all of it.
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part.
rhutchin
then on what basis do some choose to hear and learn while others do not?
br.d
Here is wisdom:
In Calvinism – multiple options from which a human might choose exist ONLY as divinely predestined illusions.
Only one single “rendered-certain” option has existence.
If [A] is infallibly decreed to exist – at time [T]
Then no other alternative to [A] can have existence – at pain of falsifying that infallible decree
Therefore in Calvinism – the perception that multiple options exist during human choice-making – constitutes a FALSE perception. With that FALSE perception having been infallibly decreed also.
So in Calvinism – every instance of human choice-making comes with at least two FALSE perceptions
1) The FALSE perception that that choice is UP TO YOU to make.
2) The FALSE perception that multiple options exist from which to choose from.
Once you recognize this as the Calvinist’s world – then you recognize that Calvinists go about their daily lives – with FALSE perceptions constantly coming to pass within their brains.
Hundreds of FALSE perceptions – infallibly decreed to come to pass – by Calvin’s god.
And that is the Calvinists reality!!
YOU SAID: “Are you saying that God is an ineffective teacher? If he is, then on what basis do some choose to hear and learn while others do not?”
MY REPLY: Are you suggesting that if some do not freely choose, that makes God an ineffective teacher? On what basis do you suggest this?
Very smart question Aiadan!!
Now watch how the Calvinist has to make determinism APPEAR as indeterministic as possible
The only way a Calvinist can get someone to drink Calvinism’s poison – is to HIDE it within a NON-Calvinist drinking glass
He must HIDE his system’s underlying determinism – behind a mask
A mask consistently designed to APPEAR indeterministic.
And this is all done through subtle misleading word-games.
You are absolutely right Br.d. The presupposition was inherent in his question; it has determinism written all over it!
I totally agree!
I think once a person starts to recognize how Calvinist language is strategically designed to mislead – the whole gig is pretty much over.
You can say that again. Okay!
“I totally agree!
I think once a person starts to recognize how Calvinist language is strategically designed to mislead – the whole gig is pretty much over.”
Aidan writes, ‘Are you suggesting that if some do not freely choose, that makes God an ineffective teacher? On what basis do you suggest this?”
Actually, it is only if God is an effective teacher that a person has any freedom to choose salvation. A person who is not free to choose salvation does so because he has no faith meaning that God has not taught him so he has not heard God. All people start out the same – without faith and totally depraved. As you say, “This would seem to suggest that the drawing can only be effected through the teaching that comes from God the Father ” It is by God’s drawing of a person to Christ that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ. When a person rejects Christ, we know that he has not been drawn by God to Christ. So, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved (i.e., drawn by God to Christ) it is the power of God.”
Aidan,
I think you have an excellent understanding of how 90% of what rhutchin posts is DOUBLE-SPEAK.
So no need for me to comment on this example.
RHUTCHIN WRITES: “Are you saying that God is an ineffective teacher? If he is, then on what basis do some choose to hear and learn while others do not?”
MY REPLY: Are you suggesting that if some do not freely choose, that makes God an ineffective teacher? On what basis do you suggest this?
RHUTCHIN: “Actually, it is only if God is an effective teacher that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.”
TRANSLATION: Actually, it is only if God ever wanted to save him – that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.
RHUTCHIN: “A person who is not free to choose salvation does so because he has no faith meaning that God has not taught him so he has not heard God.”
TRANSLATION: A person is not free to choose salvation because God has not chosen him, period!
RHUTCHIN: “All people start out the same – without faith and totally depraved.”
TRANSLATION: All people start out the same – totally enslaved and totally depraved. (Calvinist false premise).
RHUTHCIN: “It is by God’s drawing of a person to Christ that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ.”
TRANSLATION: It is by God’s choosing only that person, that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ.
RHUTCHIN: “When a person rejects Christ, we know that he has not been drawn by God to Christ.”
TRANSLATION: When a person rejects Christ, we know that it’s because God never wanted him to be saved in the first place.
RHUTCHIN: “So, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved (i.e., drawn by God to Christ) it is the power of God.”
TRANSLATION: So, Paul tells us, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those whom God never wanted to save, but to us who are being saved (i.e., the special few that God only ever wanted to save) it is the power of God.”
SO YOU CAN SEE: That the issue was never about whether God is an effective teacher or not; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; and Hebrews 4:12
also makes that abundantly clear for truth lovers!
RHUTCHIN: “Actually, it is only if God is an effective teacher that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.”
Aidan TRANSLATION: “Actually, it is only if God ever wanted to save him – that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.”
Yes, God gets to choose whom He will teach when God knows that a person He teaches will be saved.
However, you are avoiding the issue i raised. Let’s grant that God’s teaching is not always effective in bringing a person to Christ. On what basis do you see one person choosing Christ and another person rejecting Christ when both are taught by God?
RHUTCHIN: “However, you are avoiding the issue i raised. Let’s grant that God’s teaching is not always effective in bringing a person to Christ. On what basis do you see one person choosing Christ and another person rejecting Christ when both are taught by God?”
MY REPLY: On the basis of CHOICE! Or should I say – libertarian free will. That’s the fundamental difference between me and you. You have come to this argument with the false presupposition that humans don’t have free choice. And if no person can choose it, then God must choose it for them. That principle has being coined as ‘Divine Causal Determinism’. But then you have a problem; not everyone is being saved? So Calvinists have come up with an answer to this problem under the guise of God’s Sovereign will, to say, ‘it is God’s will simply to save some and not others, and don’t you question His sovereign will’! So Calvinism has posited this answer in order to solve a conundrum that it created itself.
On the other hand, if man is not born totally depraved,(and he’s not); he is then free to choose between good and evil, and you are left with have no dilemma to explain why all are not saved. God desires all men everywhere to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. But God, having created us in His image, has given us free will. Therefore, on the basis that men freely choose to accept or reject the gospel of Christ, is the basis upon which they will be saved or not! No conundrum, just fact!
rhutchin
it is only if God is an effective teacher that a person has any freedom to choose salvation
br.d
Here the word effective is a replacement term for CAUSE
And freedom is limited to ONLY being and doing what one is CAUSED to be and do.
Thus in Calvinism it LOGICALLY follows:
1) Since Calvin’s god CAUSES the vast majority of neurological impulses to be sinful evil neurological impulses – in Calvinism – the vast majority of what Calvin’s god “teaches” is sinful and evil.
2) The ONLY freedom Calvin’s god PERMITS the vast majority of the time – is freedom to commit those sins and evils which Calvin’s god “teaches” people to commit.
RHUTCHIN: “Actually, it is only if God is an effective teacher that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: Actually, it is only if God ever wanted to save him – that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.”
Yes. God knows that it is His teaching the word that provides a person with faith that leads to salvation. You understand this will. Now, can you explain your position – that God’s teaching is not necessarily effective – Under your system, what is the basis for one person to accept Christ and another to reject Christ.
RHUTCHIN: “A person who is not free to choose salvation does so because he has no faith meaning that God has not taught him so he has not heard God.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: A person is not free to choose salvation because God has not chosen him, period!
And that is why a person does not have faith. At least, you seem to accept the idea that faith is necessary to salvation and without faith, no one can be saved.
RHUTCHIN: “All people start out the same – without faith and totally depraved.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: All people start out the same – totally enslaved and totally depraved.
Yes, all people start totally enslaved to sin. That situation does not change until a person is born again.
RHUTHCIN: “It is by God’s drawing of a person to Christ that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: It is by God’s choosing only that person, that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ.
At the very least, where God chooses to save a person, that person will be saved.
RHUTCHIN: “When a person rejects Christ, we know that he has not been drawn by God to Christ.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: When a person rejects Christ, we know that it’s because God never wanted him to be saved in the first place.
I know that, I don’t think you understand why this is so. The problem here is that an omnipotent God has the power to save whoever He wants and ultimately, a person is not saved because God never wanted him to be saved in the first place.
RHUTCHIN: “So, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved (i.e., drawn by God to Christ) it is the power of God.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: So, Paul tells us, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those whom God never wanted to save, but to us who are being saved (i.e., the special few that God only ever wanted to save) it is the power of God.”
Actually, Paul really wrote, ““the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved (i.e., drawn by God to Christ) it is the power of God.” Look it up.
Then, “SO YOU CAN SEE: That the issue was never about whether God is an effective teacher or not; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; and Hebrews 4:12 also makes that abundantly clear for truth lovers!”
As 2 Timothy says, “…that the man of God may be complete,…” God is the teacher in this instance also. Hebrews 4 states an universal truth, “the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” In the hands of the great teacher, “…it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”
RHUTCHIN: “Actually, it is only if God is an effective teacher that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: Actually, it is only if God ever wanted to save him – that a person has any freedom to choose salvation.”
Yes. God knows that it is His teaching the word that provides a person with faith that leads to salvation. You understand this will. Now, can you explain your position – that God’s teaching is not necessarily effective – Under your system, what is the basis for one person to accept Christ and another to reject Christ.
REPLY: I have answered my position in the previous comment.
RHUTCHIN: “A person who is not free to choose salvation does so because he has no faith meaning that God has not taught him so he has not heard God.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: A person is not free to choose salvation because God has not chosen him, period!
And that is why a person does not have faith. At least, you seem to accept the idea that faith is necessary to salvation and without faith, no one can be saved.
REPLY: A person does not have faith not because God has rejected him, but because he chooses to reject the gospel that God wants him to believe in.
RHUTCHIN: “All people start out the same – without faith and totally depraved.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: All people start out the same – totally enslaved and totally depraved.
Yes, all people start totally enslaved to sin. That situation does not change until a person is born again.
REPLY: That’s for you to prove!
RHUTHCIN: “It is by God’s drawing of a person to Christ that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: It is by God’s choosing only that person, that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ.
At the very least, where God chooses to save a person, that person will be saved.
REPLY: Only if that person wants to be saved can God save them.
RHUTCHIN: “When a person rejects Christ, we know that he has not been drawn by God to Christ.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: When a person rejects Christ, we know that it’s because God never wanted him to be saved in the first place.
I know that, I don’t think you understand why this is so. The problem here is that an omnipotent God has the power to save whoever He wants and ultimately, a person is not saved because God never wanted him to be saved in the first place.
REPLY: Why not? It’s His sovereign will right? Only one problem; it’s not found in the bible.
RHUTCHIN: “So, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved (i.e., drawn by God to Christ) it is the power of God.”
Aidan “TRANSLATION: So, Paul tells us, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those whom God never wanted to save, but to us who are being saved (i.e., the special few that God only ever wanted to save) it is the power of God.”
Actually, Paul really wrote, ““the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved (i.e., drawn by God to Christ) it is the power of God.” Look it up.
REPLY: Actually, Paul really wrote, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Look it up.
Then, “SO YOU CAN SEE: That the issue was never about whether God is an effective teacher or not; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; and Hebrews 4:12 also makes that abundantly clear for truth lovers!”
RHUTCHIN: As 2 Timothy says, “…that the man of God may be complete,…” God is the teacher in this instance also. Hebrews 4 states an universal truth, “the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” In the hands of the great teacher, “…it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”
REPLY: You are correct, “In the hands of the great teacher, “…it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”
But only if THEY choose to believe!
RHUTCHIN: “However, you are avoiding the issue i raised. Let’s grant that God’s teaching is not always effective in bringing a person to Christ. On what basis do you see one person choosing Christ and another person rejecting Christ when both are taught by God?”
Aiden: “On the basis of CHOICE! Or should I say – libertarian free will. ”
Let’s presume that you mean God gives both people faith and thereby both have libertarian free will to choose or reject Christ. On what basis do you see one person accepting Christ and another rejecting Christ? You continue to avoid providing a real answer (I don’t think you have one because no one else has one either.)
You mean, no one has the answer that you’d give. And if God gave them both faith, it would be faith in Christ, for that is the context! In other words, they both would have been given salvation.
Salvation is conditional, not unconditional!
Aidan writes, “if God gave them both faith, it would be faith in Christ, for that is the context! In other words, they both would have been given salvation.”
How true.
Then, “Salvation is conditional, not unconditional!”
Conditioned on God’s grace.
Therefore your original premise is erroneous!
Aidan writes, “Therefore your original premise is erroneous!’
What original premise is that?
Aidan writes, “Therefore your original premise is erroneous!’
RHUTCHIN: “What original premise is that?”
MY REPLY: The premise that in the New Testament a person can have faith in Christ and not yet be saved. Perhaps I should have said, ‘you seem to be contradicting yourself’. Notice in your next 3 statements that you say, ‘a person can have faith but not yet be saved or have Christ’.
YOU SAID: “A person who is not free to choose salvation does so because he has no faith”
THEN YOU SAID: “It is by God’s drawing of a person to Christ that the person gains faith and the freedom to choose Christ.”
THEN AGAIN: “Let’s presume that you mean God gives both people faith and thereby both have libertarian free will to choose or reject Christ.”
NOW THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION:
Aidan writes, “if God gave them both faith, it would be faith in Christ, for that is the context! In other words, they both would have been given salvation.”
RHUTCHIN: “How true.”
MY REPLY: Originally you kept indicating that, ‘a person who is given faith does not have Christ, or salvation, but must choose or reject Him’. I then indicated, ‘if God gives them faith, it is faith in Christ, for that is the context of faith in the New Testament; and therefore they ALREADY would have BE GIVEN Christ and salvation – thereby completely overturning your original 3 statements – and your reply is “How true?”
You will have to explain yourself! How can you acknowledge that they were given faith in Christ and yet insist, they were saved but unsaved at the same time? That they had Christ, but didn’t have Christ at the same time? That they could choose or reject Christ? Where does it teach that one who has come to faith in Christ is not justified by faith in Christ? Either he is or he isn’t!
RH
A person who is not free to choose salvation does so because he has no faith”
br.d
The Calvinist brain is not free to think RATIONALLY – because it has no RATIONAL brain-cells.
It is given NON-RATIONAL brain-cells as a special gift – along with the gift of faith. :-]
Aiden writes, “Originally you kept indicating that, ‘a person who is given faith does not have Christ, or salvation, but must choose or reject Him’…You will have to explain yourself! How can you acknowledge that they were given faith in Christ and yet insist, they were saved but unsaved at the same time?”
Ephesians 1 says, “In Christ you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed,…” We know from Romans 10 that, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Incorporating Romans into Ephesians we get, “In Christ you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation [and received faith]; in whom also, having believed,…” So, a person trusts in Christ after receiving faith. A person believes on the basis of faith. Thus, we also read in Romans 10, “with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
The conclusion here is that faith begets salvation – when a person receives faith, salvation necessarily follows.
Your position seems to be that a person can receive faith and still reject salvation. I don’t think you have figured out how that could happen.
RHUTCHIN: “The conclusion here is that faith begets salvation – when a person receives faith, salvation necessarily follows. Your position seems to be that a person can receive faith and still reject salvation.”
MY REPLY: No! But your position seems to be the contradiction that a person can receive faith and salvation, and yet still reject salvation before he receives it. You are right, I don’t think I have figured out how that could happen. You’ll have to explain that one more clearly to me.
RHUTCHIN: Ephesians 1 says, “In Christ you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed,…”
MY REPLY: Let’s incorporate (Galatians 3: 26-27) into the equation: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Now Ephesians 1:3-14 makes clear that every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places are to be found – in Christ. That means salvation and sonship can only be found – in Christ. But Galatians has just told us that this sonship is through faith in Christ, explaining that you are not – in Christ until you are baptized “into Christ”!
But what if you reject the idea that you need to be baptized into Christ to be in Christ; are you therefore outside of Christ, or are you “in Christ” where every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places exist? What saith Galatians 3:26-27?
A Calvinist is a person who has never been given the gift of RATIONAL thinking.
Since his thinking is IRRATIONAL – we can understand how – in his mind – he can reject a gift that was never given. 😛
Very clever🤣
Receiving the gift that was never given, ‘sher, isn’t that what Calvinism is all about’? But the gift is just an illusion!
Is the Calvinist *REALLY* the one who rejects a gift?
Or is it Calvin’s god who – by determining whatsoever comes to pass within the Calvinist’s brain – rejects a gift.
A piano is not the AUTHOR of the notes it was predestined to play.
And neither is the Calvinist.
And yet the Calvinist assumes AUTHORSHIP of things AUTHORED at the foundation of the world.
Can anyone spell DOUBLE-MINDED :-]
HOW THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY IS A RED-HERRING
Calvinism exposed! Excellent.
John 6:39 and 40 speak of the Given (the Apostles) and all other people who will come to faith, two groups
Hello Arthur and welcome
So then – on that reasoning – out of those two groups – Jesus declares only one person is lost :-]
rhutchin
Gentile Christians 2000 years after Jesus walked the Earth can take comfort in the works of Jesus…….
br.d
in Calvinism – not quite!
In Calvinism Gentile Christians 2000 years after Jesus – can take comfort in knowing that Calvin’s god -quote “INSTILLS INTO THEIR MINDS such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes pg 342)
And:
-quote
“illumines ONLY FOR A TIME TO PARTAKE OF IT then he ….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes)
In other words
The Calvinist has the wonderful comfort – of knowing that Calvin’s god designed him specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
As R.C. Sproul explains:
-quote
“Evil is good”
VERY COMFORTING! :-]
You’re cherry picking verses, skipping over what doesn’t suit you & putting verses you like together while adding in your theology to support your theology. For example. Yes He prays for everyone but first “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me;” then He prays for all who will believe through their word. Read the Bible, then the post, then respond. It’s better for everyone
Yes Jeremy, Jesus prays for everyone. Here’s my take. What Jesus meant by the words, “I pray not for the world,” is that these special requests in this immediate context were only for the 12 apostles. Later in the same prayer, He did indeed pray for the world.
John 17:20-23 NKJV — “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one…that the 👉world may believe👈 that You sent Me… and that the 👉world may know👈 that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.”
If someone doesn’t admit these words of Jesus sound like a request for the world to believe and to know good things, that someone is willfully ignorant, imo.
And what about Jesus’ prayer for the lost while He was suffering for their sins on the cross?
Luke 23:34 NKJV — Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”…
Excellent point, Brian! It’s amazing how we can read John 17 a thousand times without noticing what it is actually saying🧐.
First He prays for the Apostles:
Then “for those who will believe in Me through their word” = All Christians:
Then “that the world may believe” = The whole world:
It is an excellent illustration of the ‘having eyes but not seeing’ and ‘having ears but not hearing’ that scripture often speaks of. We have an amazing ability to only ‘see’ what we want to see and ‘hear’ what we want to hear, in scripture and the world around us, despite endless evidence to the contrary. It is the ability to be willfully blind to that which we prefer to not see. Yes, God designed us with this ‘ability’ to misuse our senses – and everything else He designed for good – but we dare not blame Him for our self-chosen blindness and deafness.
He has illustrated, proclaimed and demonstrated His infinite power, love and mercy so that all men are without excuse, but He has not prevented them from refusing to see and hear. The more His nature and works are proclaimed and denied, the more ‘blind’ and ‘deaf’ the rebellious become. In other words, even though men deliberately harden themselves, God can be said to be ‘hardening’ them by revealing or declaring who He is or what He has done.
Your words again TS00 are very insightful, and agree with almost all except for the last line. I see God’s hardening in not “revealing or declaring” any more directly to those self-hardened “who He is or what He has done.” I also see His hardening in sometimes sending a strong delusion to seal them in their self-hardening. I just can’t ever see the truth designed for freeing ever being used to harden.
I know the verses from 2Cor 2 that are usually pointed to, but I see the parallelism differently in those verses. 😉
(2Co 2:15-16 NKJV) For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one [we are] the aroma of death [leading] to death (εἰς θάνατον), and to the other the aroma of life [leading] to life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?
I think Paul is not using a chiastic construction ABBA but a parallel construction ABAB. The aroma of life is to attract all the lost… it is Good News… not Good/Bad News.
And Paul is talking about his ministry, not just the gospel. His ministry of the word is not just to the lost. He is a savor of death, as an example of dying to self, to believers. See 2 Corinthians 4:10-11 NKJV — always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are always delivered to death (εἰς θάνατον) for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.
Of course the rejection of the gospel is bad news. The rejection of any good news intended to save someone is bad news and should sadden all of us. Their rejection is the bad news, not the gospel. The gospel is always good news, intended for and to be announced to every person.
The judgment pronounced against them for their rejection of something that was intended to save them is also bad news. We grieve to hear such bad news of pronounced judgment, and with sorrow give a warning of it. That pronouncement of judgment is bad news, not the gospel. The gospel is always good news, intended for and to be announced to every person.
The gospel is only good news of God’s loving mercy intended for each and every person that He created in His image. It is not and never will be bad news, intrinsically, or in application to those who believe it.
Tsoo,
There are none so blind as those who don’t want to see!
“and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10).
Notice above, they perish not because God didn’t want them to be saved, but because they did not accept the love of the truth and so be saved.
It is because of this that God sends upon them a deluding influence to believe what is false:
“And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:11-12).
Great read! I really appreciate the context brought to John 6. Context should always be the biggest concern as we interpret God’s Word.
I only want to pick on one thing—please don’t quote the Washington Post. Even if it’s as innocuous as yours, they are a part of the democrat media complex which has amassed a disgusting amount of power and has indoctrinated Americans to reject the Bible and Biblical values. It’s important right now that we recognize there is a cultural and spiritual war in our country and on one side (the democrats) are those that seek to erase any trace of God in our society.
Sorry for the short political rant. I know it’s off topic, but I wasn’t the one who brought up the Washington Post 😉 Anyway, thank you again for a very good read on a passage that is so often abused.
Hello BW and welcome :-]
Hey BW, I appreciate the kind words. I quoted the Washington Post in a completely non-political way to relate the slogan to the article. Respectfully, I’m probably going to keep referencing things people have strong opinions about if I think it illustrates my point.
CALVINIST TACTICS EXPOSED
So did Judas have no free will? Could he only do what was commanded of him or decreed (to betray jesus). I’ve always pitied Judas because of this idea. Or rather did Judas do everything out of his free will and God simply predicted it or explained his choices in the bible?
If Judas was only a tool of evil, doesn’t he deserve Grace and Forgiveness also? Am just confused.
And i mean wouldn’t it make more sense to not allow Judas join the club if all he contributed was betrayal and Jesus was aware of this?
Sincerely,
me, an agnostic
P.S. i hope this is a resonable place to post this since this has to do with the 12 disciples.
Hello ESmith21 and welcome
Calvinism embraces a form of free will that is called “Compatibilism”.
It is a form of free will that is “Compatible” with one’s will being totally controlled by factors outside of one’s control.
Compatibilism entails Determinism.
And in Determinism every event that comes to pass, down to the slightest movement of a molecule, is CAUSED to happen by antecedent CAUSAL factors reaching back into the distant past.
For a person who believes in NATURAL Determinism – such as Stephen Hawking – the neurological impulses that came to pass within the brain of Judas Iscariot were all determined by antecedent factors which started at the big bang. And Judas Iscariot had no say in the matter of those CAUSAL factors.
For a person who believes in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – the neurological impulses that came to pass within the brain of Judas Iscariot were all first conceived and then decreed to infallibly come to pass – by Calvin’s god. And again Judas Iscariot had no say in the matter of those CAUSAL factors.
When you determine that your car will move forward and you put it in drive – your car is FREE to move forward, but it is NOT FREE to move backwards. When Calvin’s god infallibly decrees that you will commit a certain sin – just like your car – you are FREE to commit that sin – but you are NOT FREE to Do Otherwise.
Lets say we have an EVENT [X]
And EVENT [X] is decreed to infallibly exist at TIME_T.
By virtue of that infallible decree – no other alternative event can have existence – because its existence would falsify that infallible decree – which is logically impossible.
So for a Calvinist – every decision he makes is already made for him by an external mind.
And the perception in his mind that he has alternative options during decision making are predestined ILLUSIONS.
So in Calvinism, any notion that Judas Iscariot was free to NOT betray Jesus is an ILLUSION
Hope that helps you to understand what “free” means in Calvinism.
ESmith21 asks “So did Judas have no free will?”
Judas had desires thta were framed by his lack of faith. Because of this lack of faith Judas had a carnal mind and was that described in Romans 8, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” In other words, Judas was worldly and therefore, as 1 John 2, describes him, Judas was selfish, covetous, and prideful. Within the constraints of his nature, Judas had a free will – free to be selfish, covetous, and prideful. Of course, when it came time for Judas to betray Jesus, we read in Luke 22, “the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people. Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. And they were glad, and agreed to give him money.” Put into context by Jesus, we read this in John 13;17, “I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me…Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” So, in acting freely, Judas fulfills that which Scripture said he would do.
Then, “If Judas was only a tool of evil, doesn’t he deserve Grace and Forgiveness also? Am just confused.”
Perhaps a case could be made that Judas deserved mercy for betraying Jesus given that Satan entered him just prior to his betrayal. However, Judas was still a common ordinary sinner all his life and he certainly deserved justice for the totality his sins.
rhutchin
Judas had desires thta were framed by his lack of faith.
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
Calvin’s god decreed IRRESISTIBLE desires would come to pass – framed by IRRESISTIBLE lack of faith
All of which Calvin’s god supernaturally and infallibly decreed come to pass.
And which Judas (as a natural creature) was powerless to resist.
rhutchin
Judas was worldly …….etc
br.d
See answer as above
rhtuchin
Then Satan entered Judas,…..etc
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god decreed IRRESISTIBLE desires would come to pass within Satan.
All of which Calvin’s god supernaturally and infallibly decreed come to pass.
And which Satan (as a natural creature) was powerless to resist.
rhutchin
So, in acting freely, Judas fulfills that which Scripture said he would do.
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
In Calvinism the creature is ONLY FREE to be/do what Calvin’s god determines
But NOT FREE to be/do otherwise.
rhutchin
Perhaps a case could be made that Judas deserved mercy for betraying Jesus
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
The Calvinist is instructed by John Calvin to – quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
In this case – the Calvinist is to go about *AS-IF* people are free to be/do otherwise than what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees they be/do.
Since Calvin’s god MAKES every event come to pass – what he is actually responding too (with either mercy or wrath) – is not really a person – but his own decree.
rhutchin
But Judas was still a sinner all his life
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
Calvin’s god’s program for Judas what that he would be a sinner all his life.
rhutchin
and he certainly deserved justice for the totality his sins.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
In Calvinism creatures are to be held responsible for things Calvin’s god MAKES THEM IRRESISTIBLY do.
SUMMATION:
John Calvin
– quote
Hence they are merely instruments, INTO WHICH god CONSTANTLY INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
Thanks for the replys but you quite didn’t answer my question. Am basically asking if it was possible for Judas NOT to betray Jesus?
I mean the Son of God did say it was better for him not to be born, to me that sounds like God hates a man for simply fulfilling prophecy. Shouldn’t God and man be grateful to Judas? The poor man was never forgiven and was driven to kill himself. That doesn’t sound like love to me.
ESmith21
I Am basically asking if it was possible for Judas NOT to betray Jesus?
br.d
In Calvinism – NO
In Non-Calvinism – YES
In Calvinism the creature has no say in the matter of anything – because everything is determined before creatures are created.
And it is impossible for you to have a say in any matter – if you don’t yet exist.
In Non-Calvinism – there is Libertarian Freedom.
In Libertarian Freedom:
1) A person has multiple options from which to choose
2) All of those options exist as LOGICALLY and physically possible
3) The choice is not made for them by factors outside of their control – by an external mind for example.
So on the Non-Calvinist perspective – Judas was a person who made choices throughout his life – all of which led up to that one final choice. And a perfect being who has comprehensive and perfect knowledge of every intimate part of Judas – will know in advance what decisions Judas will make within any situation Judas finds himself.
So on that basis Judas would be free to NOT betray Jesus, and the decision to do so was not determined *FOR* Judas – but rather determined *BY* Judas.
Take a look at Dr. William Lane Craig’s answer to the question of Judas (see link below)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/does-god-cause-people-to-do-evil/
ESmith21 asks, “Am basically asking if it was possible for Judas NOT to betray Jesus?”
The Calvinist holds that God has an omniscient knowledge of all future events, so from God’s perspective of omniscience, it was not possible for Judas not to betray Jesus. As Jesus said in John 17, “none of them is lost except the son of perdition (Judas), that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” Judas still did what he desired to do and could receive justice for doing so.
So, Rhutchin, are you saying, as a principle, that God foreknows all things because He predetermines all things?
Aiden writes, “are you saying, as a principle, that God foreknows all things because He predetermines all things?”
As Paul said, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” – Sometimes directly and sometimes through intermediaries as Ephesians 2, “you once walked…according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,…” God knows that which He works (or determines). God works (or determines) all things, therefore God knows all things.
rhitchin
. God works (or determines) all things
br.d
When the word “determine” is not in the text – all it takes is a little presupposition to put it there :-]
Thanks Br.d, I too sent the same message. Obviously, we both noticed the same eisegesis!
RHUTHCIN: “As Paul said, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” “God knows that which He works (or determines). God works (or determines) all things, therefore God knows all things.”
MY REPLY: First of all, Ephesians 1:11 has a context, namely, Ephesians 1:3-14. You need to express verse 11 in that context first before you try to apply it outside of its context. Secondly: Paul clearly says, “..Him who WORKS all things according to the counsel of His will,” NOT… “Him who DETERMINES all things according to the counsel of His will,” LOOK IT UP!
Aidan writes, “Ephesians 1:11 has a context, namely, Ephesians 1:3-14. You need to express verse 11 in that context first before you try to apply it outside of its context.”
Ephesians 1:1 says, “God works all things…” It does not say, “…all these things…” So, we naturally read this to include all God’s works identified earlier, “God blessed us, …chose us…predestined us…etc.” By “…all things” God tells us that all things, not just His actions noted in v3-14, are founded on the counsel of His will.
Then, “Secondly: Paul clearly says, “..Him who WORKS all things according to the counsel of His will,” NOT… “Him who DETERMINES all things according to the counsel of His will,”
Paul tell us that God works all things, “according to the counsel of His will.” This means that God works all things for His purpose. Thus, Paul also wrote in Romans 8, “God works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” We know that the “counsel of His will,” draws from His infinite understanding so that God works all things to accomplish His will and purpose perfectly. Nothing happens in this world that does not have meaning to God in furthering His will and purpose.
Does then mean that God determines all things that that He works? I think it does. How could anything happen that God works according to His will to accomplish His purpose and do so perfectly if God did not also determine those works to happen. If God does not determine that which He works, what do you think is going on?
rhutchin
If God does not determine that which He works, what do you think is going on?
br.d
And so in Calvinism divine “works” are synonymous with Universal Divine Causal Determinism
Thus in Calvinism it follows:
Calvin’s god’s works – are manifest in ALL of what comes to pass
Thus ALL sin and ALL evil – are the works of Calvin’s god
The works of his hands
And the works of his mind.
Just as Calvinist R.C. Sproul describes it – in Calvinism
-quote
“Evil is good”
Br.D. Do you have a reference for the Sproul quote?
See – https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/mystery-iniquity/
Its on a youtube video in which he is doing question and answers.
He’s on a stage sitting in a chair – before an audience.
If I find the video on youtube – I’ll send you the link.
Notice how Sproul (consistent with all Calvinists attempts to HIDE the truth of their system) – uses the following phrases in regard to Calvin’s god.
– The existence of evil
– Prevent evil
– Allow evil
Notice how in this article and in other places – the Calvinist refuses to use the words DETERMINES or CAUSES in the context of evil.
He knows – that that subject leads like an infallible trail of bread-crumbs directly to Calvin’s god.
And he doesn’t want anyone to see the TRUTH about that.
He refuses to use the word CAUSE in the context of evil – for the same reason John Calvin refused to use the word “FATE” which in the old french of his day meant (“destiny”, “lot”, “doom”) – terms which make up the bulk of Calvin’s conceptions.
Calvin had no problem using those other terms to describe FATE.
He just refuses to use a word FATE because of its association with the Greek Moirai (the three goddesses of destiny) who for the Greek – determine whatsoever comes to pass.
The average dime-a-dozen Calvinist refuses to come to grips with the fact that his doctrine makes Calvin’s god the sole DETERMINER and CAUSE of all evil.
The “high-Calvinist” however, has no problem boldly asserting that Calvin’s god is the CAUSE of all evil – and that is in fact the PURE and TRUE representation of Calvin’s doctrine of divine sovereignty.
Most Calvinists however, are concerned about the negative impact that would produce on one’s attempts to sell the product.
The primary potential customer of Calvinism – as a product – is a born again Christian.
And the Calvinist knows the average Bible reader will reject a god who is the CAUSE of all evil.
That is why Calvinist language is designed to HIDE those aspects of the system.
And that is why Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language.
Meet Clotho – the mythological goddess of Fate.
She is the one of the Three Fates or Moirai.
She spins the thread of human life while the other two (Lachesis and Atropos) – draw out (Lachesis) and cut (Atropos) the thread of life.
Clotho is the one god who determinations whatsoever shall come to pass.
She determines the (who, what, when and where) of each person who will be born.
And she determines all things that will come to pass within their lives.
The religious person who believes in the INSTITUTES OF CLOTHO and her divine sovereignty – would say: “Clotho works all things for the good”.
And the word “works” in that context would be conceived as synonymous with the word “determines”.
RHUTCHIN: “Paul tell us that God works all things, “according to the counsel of His will.” This means that God works all things for His purpose. Thus, Paul also wrote in Romans 8, “God works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. Nothing happens in this world that does not have meaning to God in furthering His will and purpose.”
MY REPLY: Romans 8 28-30 which you quoted has a context. Paul says, ” all things work together for good”(Rom. 8:28). The elaboration in vv. 29-30 shows that this statement refers to the completion of God’s purpose for those who are His. Not that good is to be seen in everything that happens to them, but that the end will be good.
Paul does not teach unconditional foreordination and election in Romans 8. The persons “called according to His purpose” are identified with “those who love God” (v.28). God knew in advance the kind of persons He wanted as His people, and predetermined such people to be “conformed to the image of His Son,” etc. He then did all things necessary to bring them to that end.
Look at 1 Pet. 2:4-10 where God’s elect people are compared to stones that make up a spiritual building. A builder might know and determine (or select) in advance the kind of material that is to go into a building. But that does not mean he foreordained each individual stone as such.
Aodan writes, ‘Romans 8 28-30 which you quoted has a context. Paul says, ” all things work together for good”(Rom. 8:28). The elaboration in vv. 29-30 shows that this statement refers to the completion of God’s purpose for those who are His.”
The context for v28 is the immediately preceding v25-27, “we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us…the Holy Spirit makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” It is in this context that Paul then writes, “God works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” There is no limit on what God can do, so there is no area where the Holy Spirit is excluded from interceding for believers.
Then, “Not that good is to be seen in everything that happens to them, but that the end will be good.”
All agree to this. Not everything that happens to believers is good, but believers can be assured that God will work both good and bad things for His ultimate good.
Then, “Paul does not teach unconditional foreordination and election in Romans 8. The persons “called according to His purpose” are identified with “those who love God” (v.28)….He then did all things necessary to bring them to that end. ”
As Jesus said in John 6, “No one can come to Me,” necessitating that God draw the person to Christ and this drawing has parts that precede and then require the calling of the person according to God’s purpose. From Romans 8, we see that God foreknew and predestined before calling the person. As God foreknew and predestined believers before He called them, we certain;y understand that God had to choose those he then foreknew and predestined and this choosing is His election of such people to predestine, call, justify, glorify.
Then, “Look at 1 Pet. 2:4-10 where God’s elect people are compared to stones that make up a spiritual building. A builder might know and determine (or select) in advance the kind of material that is to go into a building. But that does not mean he foreordained each individual stone as such.”
The Scriptures are consistent from Genesis to the Revelation so we know that 1 Peter is consistent with Romans and both should be read with the other in view. In Romans, Paul expands and explains things not found in 1 Peter. In 1 Peter 2:10, we read, “you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, ” Thus, God foreknew and predestined them before they believed as Paul explains in Romans 8.
CALVINIST CONCEPTIONS OF GOOD AND EVIL
rhutchin
Not everything that happens to believers is [GOOD]
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Not everything that Calvin’s god conceives and Causes to come to pass is [GOOD]
rhutchin
but believers can be assured that God will work both good and bad things for His ultimate [GOOD].
br.d
INTERPRETATION
But Calvinists can be assured that whatever [EVIL] Calvin’s god conceives and Causes to infallibly come to pass – Calvin’s god will work for his ultimate [GOOD].
CONCLUSION:
All [Evil] which is ALL Conceived and Caused to come to pass by Calvin’s god – he works for his ultimate [GOOD]
EXAMPLE
The -quote HUGE PILE of Calvinists whom John Calvin talks about – who will wake up some day and find themselves in eternal torment in the lake of fire – can be assured that the [EVIL] which Calvin’s god DESIGNED for them – is for his ultimate [GOOD]
Rhutchin writes; “we certain;y understand that God had to choose those he then foreknew and predestined and this choosing is His election”
Hey, Rhutchin, don’t you know? ELECTION IS CHRISTOCENTRIC:
3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” (Ephesians 1:3-14)
ELECTION IS CHRISTOCENTRIC:
In Paul’s Ephesian doxology, as in certain other Scriptures, an essential aspect of election is explicit; the election is Christocentric. The first step toward a correct understanding of the Biblical doctrine of election is the recognition that the election of men is comprehended only- in Christ.
REALIZED ‘In Christ’ (v. 3!). In Him God chose us (v.4). In the Beloved He graced us (v. 6). In Him we have our redemption (v. 7), even as God purposed – in Him to sum up all things in the Christ (v. 10). In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, (v. 11). In Him you also trusted after you heard the gospel of your salvation (v. 13). In Him they were sealed by the Spirit (v. 13), the pledge of a larger hope (v. 14).
OUTSIDE OF CHRIST THERE IS NO ELECTION: One is chosen ‘in Christ’ – NOT ‘one is chosen (to be) in Christ’!
rhutchin
we certainly understand…….
br.d
What does the Calvinist function of “understanding” look like?
We know that the Calvinist brain does not have LIBERTARIAN FREE “understanding”.
Because LIBERTARIAN functionality does not exist for the Calvinist.
The functionality that exists for the Calvinist brain – is exclusively DETERMINED by an external mind.
Whatsoever comes to pass within the Calvinist brain – is exclusively DETERMINED by an external mind.
All PERCEPTIONS which come to pass within the Calvinist brain – are exclusively DETERMINED by an external mind.
All CONCLUSIONS which come to pass within the Calvinist brain – are exclusively DETERMINED by an external mind.
Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT the Calvinist brain to reach conclusions through RATIONAL LIBERTARIAN reasoning.
So a LIBERTARIAN form of “understanding” does not exist for the Calvinist.
What the Calvinist brain has – are PERCEPTIONS of reality – exclusively DETERMINED by an external mind.
Now Calvin’s god has “understanding” because Calvin’s god’s mind is LIBERTARIAN FREE.
Calvin god has “understanding” of every FALSE PERCEPTION he DETERMINES come to pass within the Calvinist brain.
But the Calvinist is NOT PERMITTED to have “understanding” of FALSE PERCEPTIONS in his brain – because these are infallibly decreed. And “understanding” that – would falsify the infallible decree – which is NOT PERMITTED.
CONCLUSION:
PERCEPTIONS exclusively DETERMINED by an external mind – is the only form of “understanding” available to a Calvinist. :-]
What if we rephrased his statement, “we certainly understand that God had to choose those he then foreknew and predestined and this choosing is His election”
ELECTION is defined as:- “the act of picking out, choosing”
SHORTEN his statement to:- ‘we certainly understand that God had to choose… and this choosing is His election”
BUT:- “Calvin’s god works (or determines) all things”
HENCE:- ‘we certainly understand that he had to choose – whatsoever comes to pass – and this choosing is His election’.
CONCLUSION: Election is Calvin’s god determining and choosing all things – whatsoever comes to pass – both good and evil. All the good or the evil that people do! All the evil that the Devil has done! Truly election is Calvin’s god, before the foundation of the world, determining the eternal destruction of the vast majority of the human race.
What a sweet-smelling aroma ELECTION must be!!
Aidan
CONCLUSION:
Election is:
1) Calvin’s god determining and choosing all things – whatsoever comes to pass – both good and evil….
2) All the good or the evil that people do!
3) All the evil that the Devil has done! T
Truly election is Calvin’s god, before the foundation of the world, determining the eternal destruction of the vast majority of the human race.
What a sweet-smelling aroma ELECTION must be!!
br.d
Wonderfully stated Aiden!!
So the vast majority of Calvinists who are DESIGNED for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure – can have assurance that what Calvin’s god determines for them is ULTIMATELY [GOOD]
So the SOT101 reader should be able to understand how Calvinism is a system of “Good-Evil”. :-]
And a system that makes:- (“Good-Evil and Evil-Good”)
So the Calvinist ends up calling evil good – and good evil.
While claiming not too.
Totally expected – since that’s the way DOUBLE-SPEAK works!! :-]
It truly does boil down to turning everything upside down.
Aidan writes, “CONCLUSION: Election is Calvin’s god determining and choosing all things – whatsoever comes to pass – both good and evil. All the good or the evil that people do! All the evil that the Devil has done! Truly election is Calvin’s god, before the foundation of the world, determining the eternal destruction of the vast majority of the human race.”
That’s basically it. Do we not both understand that God could save each and every person if He willed to do so, so that the reason lost sinners are not given to Christ is because God chose not to give them to Christ? What other explanation explains this result?
rhutchin
Do we not both understand that God could save each and every person if He willed to do so,
br.d
As – Dr. Jerry Walls explains.
Calvin’s deterministic god could have designed every human being to maximally love and serve him.
He could have infallibly decreed their every impulse to be good instead of infallibly decreeing their every impulse to be evil.
And under compatibilistic freedom – they would be and do everything -quote “most freely”.
But instead he choose to create the vast majority of the population of human beings – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
CALVINISM’S EXPLANATION:
He does it for pleasure.
As – Dr. Jerry Walls explains.
…instead he choose to create the vast majority of the population of human beings – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
CALVINISM’S EXPLANATION:
He does it for pleasure.
Calvinists cite Paul in Romans 9, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
rhutchin
Calvinists cite Paul in Romans 9…..
br.d
Right!
And in the process SUPERIMPOSING upon Paul’s writing – an IMAGE of a god who specifically creates and specifically designs the vast majority human beings – which he specifically creates for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
CALVINIST EXPLANATION:
For pleasure!
And of-course that population of human beings also includes what John Calvin calls a HUGE PILE of Calvinists.
Whom Calvin’s god holds out salvation to as a -quote Savor of condemnation
By – quote INSTILLING INTO THEIR MINDS a SENSE of goodness without the spirit of adoption.
Just so that that HUGE PILE of Calvinists – when they wake up in the lake of fire
Can have the blessed assurance – that Calvin’s god did to them – what is ultimately “Good”.
Calvinists are SO BLESSED! :-]
BR.D:
“As – Dr. Jerry Walls explains.
…instead he choose to create the vast majority of the population of human beings – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
CALVINISM’S EXPLANATION:
He does it for pleasure.”
RHUTCHIN:
Calvinists cite Paul in Romans 9, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
MY REPLY:
What a twisted view you have of God, and of what Romans 9 is teaching! It’s certainly not teaching that God has created the vast majority of human beings -for eternal torment in the lake of fire. Nor does it teach that He would do such a thing for His pleasure.
Ezekiel 18:23;- “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?”
Aidan writes, “Romans 9 is… certainly not teaching that God has created the vast majority of human beings -for eternal torment in the lake of fire. Nor does it teach that He would do such a thing for His pleasure.”
I agree. Go explain it to br.d.
Aidan
Romans 9 is… certainly not teaching that God has created the vast majority of human beings -for eternal torment in the lake of fire. Nor does it teach that He would do such a thing for His pleasure.”
rhutchin
I agree.
br.d
Well yes and no.
Remember – in Calvinism there are many things that are consistently both TRUE and FALSE.
TRUE one minute – FALSE the next.
Take just one of your many statements for example:
-statement 1
The decree has no beginning.
-statement 2
But we don’t know when the beginning was.
So on this example – it may be TRUE at one moment – that you agree.
But in a different moment – it will be FALSE that you agree.
And the reason Aidan posted his assessment – is that he recognized at a previous moment it was FALSE that you agree.
Aidan doesn’t have to explain to br.d – a phenomenon that is consistent with Calvinist thinking.
br.d continues to observe – the ever increasing number of things in Calvinism – that are TRUE one minute and FALSE the next.
Nothing necessary to explain there! :-]
BR.D:
“As – Dr. Jerry Walls explains.
…instead he choose to create the vast majority of the population of human beings – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
CALVINISM’S EXPLANATION:
He does it for pleasure.”
RHUTCHIN:
“Calvinists cite Paul in Romans 9, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?..”
AIDAN:
“Romans 9 is… certainly not teaching that God has created the vast majority of human beings -for eternal torment in the lake of fire. Nor does it teach that He would do such a thing for His pleasure.”
RHUTCHIN:
“I agree. Go explain it to br.d.”
AIDAN:
Then why did you cite Romans 9 in answer to br.d above?
Aidan writes, “Then why did you cite Romans 9 in answer to br.d above?”
Because Romans 9 does not say, “[God] choose to create the vast majority of the population of human beings – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.”
Dr. Walls made that up – it is his personal opinion – and br.d is promoting it.
rhutchin
Because Romans 9 does not say, “[God] choose to create the vast majority of the population of human beings – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.”
Dr. Walls made that up – it is his personal opinion – and br.d is promoting it.
br.d
So the error in thinking here is as follows:
What Romans 9 says – and what LOGICALLY follows with the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 are two different things.
Dr. Walls is a RATIONAL thinker who recognizes what LOGICALLY follows from the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9
The Potter (in Calvinism) is a god who designs the vast majority of the population of human beings – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
Some are pre-ordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation
And accordingly as each has been CREATED FOR ONE OF THESE ENDS, we [Calvinists] say he has been predestined to life or death.”
On this conception – John Calvin interprets the MANY and the FEW accordingly.
Calvin states the proportions as:
-quote
A FEW grains of wheat hidden under a PILE of chaff.
Calvin’s god designs the PILE of chaff – (i.e., the vast majority of the population of human beings) – as specific individuals created-specifically-for and designed-specifically-for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
So DUH!
Romans 9 does not EXPLICITLY make that statement.
But that statement does accurately represent the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9
br.d writes, “But that statement does accurately represent the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9”
Yet there is Revelation 5, that says, “Now when Jesus had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,…” and then Revelation 7. “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,…”
Some Calvinists see the phrase, “…every tribe and tongue and people and nation…” with “a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues…” to indicate that God will save many.
If Dr Walls took his opinion from Romans 9, then he had to extrapolate from Romans 9 as Romans 9 does not support his opinion. Regardless, Dr Walls did not take Revelation into account in forming his opinion and maybe Calvin was similarly negligent.
br.d
But that statement does accurately represent the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9
rhutchin
Yet there is Revelation 5, that says,……
br.d
DUH!
Is anyone surprised that the Calvinist forces EVERY verse in scripture through a single-hole potato-press
In order to make Calvinism’s sacred single french-fry!
What a hoot!! :-]
rhutchin
Some Calvinists see the phrase, “…every tribe and tongue…. to indicate that God will save many..
br.d
Well – the terms “MANY” and “FEW” are comparative in the context of each other.
So that Calvinist would be using the term “many” outside of that context.
We shouldn’t be surprised at that error in thinking.
BTW:
According to the doctrine – what a Calvinist’s brain will “see” is completely limited to what Calvin’s god determines his brain to “see”.
And that excludes the LIBERTARIAN function of discerning (i.e. determining) TRUE from FALSE on any matter!
So since the Calvinist brain can’t discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter – there really isn’t any sense in taking what a Calvinist will “see” seriously. :-]
rhutchin
Dr Walls took his opinion from Romans 9, then he had to extrapolate from Romans 9 as Romans 9 does not support his opinion. Regardless, Dr Walls did not take Revelation into account in forming his opinion and maybe Calvin was similarly negligent.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Dr. Walls didn’t force scripture through Calvinism’s single-hole potato-press
Therefore – IXNAY on Calvinism’s sacred french-fry. :-]
But br.d didn’t bring up Romans 9, YOU DID!
Well said Aidan!!
As the anti-America protestor wraps himself in the American flag – in order to hide what is underneath
So the Calvinist wraps himself in scripture – in order to hide what is underneath.
Pharisees?
I guess it would be a form of pharisaism – wouldn’t it?
Jesus speaks about it – using the example of “phylacteries”
They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long
Proudly pronouncing themselves as having in the “Chief” seat in the synagogue of theology.
I’m sure they’re not the only ones manifesting that characteristic
They just seem to have it in spades! :-]
Matt. 5:20
“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”
This chapter deals with the Pharisaical standard of righteousness which was a perversion of the law.
And in that section Jesus warns the people:
“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” (Matt. 5:37)
It seems that lesson needs to be taught today!
Aidan
It seems that lesson needs to be taught today!
br.d
Yes – point well taken!
Matt. 5:20
“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Righteousness that comes from faith always exceeds the righteousness of the pharisees. Without faith, no one can enter the kingdom of heaven.
rhutchin
Righteousness that comes from faith always exceeds the righteousness of the pharisees.
br.d
Too bad a Calvinist is not PERMITTED to know which righteousness Calvin’s god has given him as his personal gift.
Calvin’s god (who decrees all perceptions which come to pass within the pharisees brain) would infallibly decree the pharisee to perceive his righteousness as TRUE righteousness. Which would constitute an infallibly decreed FALSE perception – to be perceived as TRUE.
Calvin’s god (who decrees all perceptions which come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain) would infallibly decree the Calvinist to perceive his righteousness as TRUE righteousness. Which would constitute an infallibly decreed FALSE perception – to be perceived as TRUE.
Thus if follows:
Neither the pharisee or the Calvinist can KNOW which gift of righteousness Calvin’s god gave him.
That would appear to make the Calvinist and the Pharisee on the same footing wouldn’t it! :-]
So true.
br.d writes, “the Calvinist wraps himself in scripture – in order to hide what is underneath.”
Yes, the Scripture thereby becomes preeminent and that underneath nothing.
br.d
the Calvinist wraps himself in scripture – in order to hide what is underneath.”
rhutchin
Yes, the Scripture thereby becomes preeminent and that underneath nothing.
br.d
And the fact that he seeks to hide it – reveals otherwise!
For nothing is hidden that shall not be revealed. :-]
Aidan writes, “But br.d didn’t bring up Romans 9, YOU DID!”
That is because Romans 9 provides no support for Dr. Walls opinion. What we need is the Scripture Dr Walls relied upon for his opinion.
rhutchin
That is because Romans 9 provides no support for Dr. Walls opinion.
br.d
The Calvinist said – hoping no one would notice it was just his opinion! :-]
So then, why did you quote Romans 9 in response to br.d’s comment?
Aidan asks, “why did you quote Romans 9 in response to br.d’s comment?”
As an example of the Scripture providing no support for Dr. Walls opinion. If the Scripture does support Dr Walls opinion, then someone ought to provide those Scriptures.
Romans 9 seems to be a difficult enough chapter to interpret. How do you interpret the main thrust of that chapter? I would add that I see Romans 9-11 as a unit.
rhutchin
As an example of the Scripture providing no support for Dr. Walls opinion.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
It was my opinion of Dr. Walls opinion :-]
Aidan writes, “ELECTION IS CHRISTOCENTRIC…OUTSIDE OF CHRIST THERE IS NO ELECTION: One is chosen ‘in Christ’ – NOT ‘one is chosen (to be) in Christ’!”
Excellent observation – one to be shouted from the rooftops. Thst Christ is central to God’s plan is seen in Ephesians 1 – “God made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,…”
So, we can read of the centrality of Christ in Ephesians:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,]
4 just as He chose us [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,] in Chrisy…
5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,] in the Beloved.
7 [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,] In Christ we have redemption…
9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,]
11 [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,] In Christ also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
12 that we who first trusted in Christ [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,] should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted [according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,…according to the purpose of His will,…”,]…
Outside of Christ, there is nothing. God made Christ the centerpiece of His plan. Thus, Paul preached to the Greeks on Mars Hill, “God commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
So, Jacob is chosen and Esau is not, and the children of promise are chosen when the rest of Israel is not. God;s elect were chosen in Christ before they came to be in Christ and this according to God’s purpose and will.
AIDAN:
“ELECTION IS CHRISTOCENTRIC…OUTSIDE OF CHRIST THERE IS NO ELECTION: One is chosen ‘in Christ’ – NOT ‘one is chosen (to be) in Christ’!”
RHUTCHIN: “Excellent observation – one to be shouted from the rooftops.”
RHUTCHIN: “God’s elect were chosen in Christ before they came to be in Christ…”
AIDAN: “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,..” (Ephesians 1:4).
Question (a):
Which is correct, rhutchin, 1) or 2)?
If you choose 1) then 2) is incorrect; on the other hand, if you choose 2) then 1) is incorrect.
1) “God’s elect were chosen in Christ before they came to be in Christ”?
2) “God’s elect were chosen (to be) in Christ before they came to be in Christ”?
Question (b):
Is there a difference between 1) and 2) above?
If so, what is the difference in their meaning? If not, then why are they the same?
Aidan writes, “Question (a): Which is correct, rhutchin, 1) or 2)?
1) “God’s elect were chosen in Christ before they came to be in Christ”?
2) “God’s elect were chosen (to be) in Christ before they came to be in Christ”?”
I’ll take option 1. God’s elect were chosen in eternity past in Christ with Christ being the means to salvation and then were brought to Christ in the course of time.
But option 2 seems to work also. God’s elect were chosen to be in Christ in eternity past and then were brought to Christ in the course of time.
RHUTCHIN:
“I’ll take option 1. God’s elect were chosen in eternity past in Christ with Christ being the means to salvation and then were brought to Christ in the course of time.”
“But option 2 seems to work also. God’s elect were chosen to be in Christ in eternity past and then were brought to Christ in the course of time.”
MY REPLY:
Earlier I stated;
“OUTSIDE OF CHRIST THERE IS NO ELECTION: One is chosen ‘in Christ’ – NOT ‘one is chosen (to be) in Christ’!”
You replied:
“Excellent observation – one to be shouted from the rooftops.”
But now you say:
“God’s elect were chosen to be in Christ in eternity past and then were brought to Christ in the course of time.”
MY REPLY:
Care to explain how you completely contradicted yourself above? Tell me you don’t see the contradiction!
Aidan writes, “Care to explain how you completely contradicted yourself above? Tell me you don’t see the contradiction!'”
OK. I don’t see the contradiction.
Very convenient!
But, one minute you are agreeing that no one is chosen to be in Christ, and then the next minute affirm that God’s elect are indeed chosen to be in Christ.
Sher why on earth would anyone see a contradiction there.😏
Aydan writes, “But, one minute you are agreeing that no one is chosen to be in Christ, and then the next minute affirm that God’s elect are indeed chosen to be in Christ.
Sher why on earth would anyone see a contradiction there.”
The Scripture is Ephesians 1 where we read, “…God chose us in Him…” I think we agreed that this did not mean that God chose us to be in Christ. This because you wrote, ““OUTSIDE OF CHRIST THERE IS NO ELECTION: One is chosen ‘in Christ’ – NOT ‘one is chosen (to be) in Christ’!”” Given that this statement occurred after your citation of Ephesians 1, we can reasonably assume that you were referring back to Ephesians 1., v4.
In v5, we read, “having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself” We can take this to mean that God chose us to adoption. The adoption follows the choosing and it is the adoption that we understand that we are adopted to be in Christ. Thus we are chosen in Christ to be in Christ. A person is chosen in Christ but not chosen to be in Christ in v4 but we see that a person was ultimately chosen, through adoption, to be in Christ .
rhutchin
Thus we are chosen in Christ to be in Christ.
br.d
Thus – we exist within human bodies – in order to be chosen to exist within human bodies. :-]
RHUTCHIN:
“In v5, we read, “having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself”
Thus we are chosen in Christ to be in Christ. A person is chosen in Christ but not chosen to be in Christ in v4 but we see that a person was ultimately chosen, through adoption, to be in Christ .”
AIDAN:
The ASV gives a more literal rendering of Ephesians 1:5; it says “having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”
I think you are correct concerning v.4 when you say, “A person is chosen in Christ.” But, I don’t think you are correct concerning v.5.
If you notice, the adoption as sons is effected through Jesus Christ. The verse is not, “chosen, through adoption, to be in Christ” BUT foreordained “unto adoption THROUGH Jesus Christ.” CHRISTOCENTRIC Verse 5 is just another of the spiritual blessings to be found “in Christ” (v.3) and through Christ”(v.5).
Gal. 3:26:- “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”
Besides, it is redundant to say, “we are chosen in Christ to be in Christ.”
If one is “in Christ” he is “in Christ.”
rhutchin
God knows that which He works (or determines)
br.d
And for John Calvin – the term works is synonymous with the term determines
John Calvin
-quote
Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the…..WORKS of god.
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg176)
br.d,
“John Calvin
-quote
Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the…..WORKS of god.”
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg176)
Rhutchin
“God works (or determines) all things”
Aidan
Translation:
1) God works all things;
2) God determines all things;
3) All the unrighteous things that are done in the world, are the very WORKS of Calvin’s god!
CONCLUSION:
Calvin’s god is not the God of the bible!
(Psalms 45:6)
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
(Psalms 48:10)
According to Your name, O God,
So is Your praise to the ends of the earth;
Your right hand is full of righteousness.
(Psalms 33:5)
He loves righteousness and justice;
The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD
(Psalms 89:14)
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.
Well said!!
A.W. Tozer
-quote
If god rules his universe by his sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise freedom of choice?
And if he cannot exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct?
Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are DETERMINED by a behind-the-scenes god who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?
(The Knowledge of the Holy)
Incredible, isn’t it?
And they accuse us of reacting emotionally to all of this! Just another tactic to make us want to back off. I don’t see it as a reaction, but rather as a ‘purposeful contending for the truth’; but with the passion and feeling one ought to have when God’s name is being defamed and blasphemed! Let’s not be swayed by their game playing!
Aidan
Let’s not be swayed by their game playing!
br.d
Amen!!
A.W. Tozer-quote
If god rules his universe by his sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise freedom of choice?
And if he cannot exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct?
Same question noted by Paul in Romans 9 – “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
rhutchin
Same question noted by Paul in Romans 9 – “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
br.d
And that is why Calvinists pend 99% of their time manufacturing 1001 dishonest MASQUERADES of the free will which A.W. Tozer writes about. :-]
And it would also LOGICALLY follow:
That for the Calvinist – Paul would be classified as an IRRATIONAL “deliberating determinist”.
Someone who PERCEIVES himself as a deliberator.
Going about his office *AS-IF* nothing in any part within his brain – is determined by an external mind.
But as a determinist he assumes the very opposite.
That every PERCEPTION which comes to pass within his brain of TRUE vs FALSE is 100% determined by an external mind.
Who having determined 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – leaves ZERO% left over – for Paul to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
And thus for the Calvinist – Paul becomes a prime example of the IRRATIONAL deliberating determinist.
Who fulfills the words of Elijah who said: “How long will you halt between two opinions”
CONCLUSION:
The DOUBLE-MINDED Calvinist has simply created Paul – after the Calvinist’s “DOUBLE-MINDED” image. :-]
Many!!
rhutchin
The Calvinist holds that God has an omniscient knowledge of all future events, so from God’s perspective of omniscience, it was not possible for Judas not to betray Jesus.
br.d
Right – and you should be able to discern from the way this statement is worded – that Calvinist statements are designed to HIDE more than they reveal.
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god cannot have “knowledge” of what Judas will do – without DETERMINING what Judas will do.
So the “omniscient knowledge” spoken about in this case – is knowledge of what Calvin’s god DETERMINED would come to pass.
In Calvinism – the state of nature – at every microsecond in time is Totally Predestined at the foundation of the world.
And man – who does not exist at the foundation of the world – has no say in the matter of any determination.
Therefore man has no say in the matter of anything – including what he will be and do throughout his life.
The theology of the Calvinist and the Muslim are both as close to fatalism as a theology can get.
Calvin himself did not like using the word “fate” because he did not want to be associated with pagan fatalism.
So he simply didn’t use the word fate.
He used the word “lot” as a replacement word.
Calvin’s god determines every man’s LOT in life.
I dont know if you really got to the point of my question:
Am asking if Judas had the free will to NOT betray Jesus. Why would God say “it would be better for him if he had not been born.” (Mathew 26:24), if it was written in prophecy that such a man was needed for the task for Jesus’s death?
How is this fair for Judas? Judas can just say at Heaven gates: Well you yourself said it was better for me never to be born, i mean it was you who prophecied that i would betray your son.
(I get the whole no excuse stuff in the bible)
I don’t know, none of this really makes sense to me. Even from a provisionist and arminian stand point.
This also brings up other questions: did Hitler live out his purpose? (After WW2 Isreal was founded but am talking about his time on earth, he didnt set up this country but rather just made people feel bad) i mean lets say that he did. This means that to fulfill God’s purpose for the man, 6 million Jews were needed to die! Did God not have a another plan laid aside for Adolf Hitler to follow and he just freely decided not to follow?
Even bringing this up calls to question the mass destruction of the Canaanites while Joshua came into the lands.
To me this doesnt sound like a loving God, even from a provisionist stand point.
Sincerely,
An agnositc
P.S. idk if i am doing replys right. This website needs a forum lol
ESmith21
I dont know if you really got to the point of my question:….I Am asking if Judas had the free will to NOT betray Jesus.
br.d
I thought I did answer your question.
The Calvinist answer to that question is “Yes-No”
As I explained – Calvinism with its core foundation being Universal Divine Causal Determinism – incorporates “Compatibilist” freedom.
Which means – one is free to be and do what one is determined to be and do.
In Calvinism’s case – the determiner is a THEOS who – at the foundation of the world – determines what the state of nature will be at any instance in time.
On that system:
1) Adam was free do eat the forbidden fruit – and NOT free to NOT eat the forbidden fruit.
2) Adam eating the forbidden fruit was the only choice that was permitted by the THEOS – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree
3) No other alternative was made available to Adam
Same thing for Judas
Same thing for all Calvinists.
So if you are a Calvinist – and a sinful evil thought comes to pass in your mind – then you know that event was infallibly decreed to come to pass – and as a natural creature you are powerless to resist it, and you have no escape from it.
ESmith21
Why would God say “it would be better for him if he had not been born.” (Mathew 26:24), if it was written in prophecy that such a man was needed for the task for Jesus’s death?
br.d
Well that is a very intriguing question for a Calvinist *IF** that Calvinist were to tell the truth now isn’t it.
Because Calvinism starts with
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they are merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
John Calvin
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he INSPIRE it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
Since it is the case that Calvin’s god specifically created Judas to explicitly be and do what Calvin’s god DESIGNED Judas to be and do – then why would it be “better for him not to be born”?
Doesn’t make much sense in Calvinism does it!!
ESmith21
How is this fair for Judas? Judas can just say at Heaven gates: …….
br.d
In Calvinism – the definition of “fair” is the same definition for “good”
Whatever Calvin’s god does is “fair” and whatever he does is “good”
R.C. Sproul explains – where he states – in Calvinism “Evil is good”.
ESmith21
I don’t know, none of this really makes sense to me. Even from a provisionist and arminian stand point.
br.d
What do you see the provisionist and the Arminian standpoint to be?
That would help address that question.
Very good questions btw!
But if you ask a Calvinist those question – be prepared to get a lot of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
From my answers above – you should be able to understand why.
Thanks Br.D and others for the explaination of what calvinists believe. I already had an understanding of the Calvinist beliefs when i debated a Calvinist who was strangely consistent (God sends people to hell and such[strangly, i brought up this question and i didn’t even know what Calvinism was at the time or thought it was a big deal because to me it seemed to be absolutely radical])(this person would also call your ideas heresy without even doing research but claims they did.)
But that doesn’t matter lol
I want to know how Arminians and Provisionists reconcile Judas. Such as the prophecies. This to me makes no sense. Again the bible lists out exactly what would happen. So the decision for Judas to betray Jesus seems decreed to me. And if a provisionist would say: “well just him” or even “just the twelve,” seems a little to much for me. Again, the same arguement as with calvinism, Judas could just say he was decreed at the judgement seat.
Now i feel you all got a response that i am not smart enough to come up on my own or have some bibical knowledge to drop on me haha.
Also on a side note, can you explain to me why you say “Calvin’s god.” Do you think the calvinist god is different from the provisionist? To me this makes sense as one is controling and one is in control. One is cruel and decrees evil and one allows for man’s consquences from his actions. One is good and the other’s goodness is called into question.
Sorry about the late response,
Esmith21
P.S. i may have further questions to come!
(This is why Soteriology101 needs a forum) haha
Hi ESmith21,
Thank you for your kind words.
ESmith21
I want to know how Arminians and Provisionists reconcile Judas. Such as the prophecies. This to me makes no sense. Again the bible lists out exactly what would happen. So the decision for Judas to betray Jesus seems decreed to me. And if a provisionist would say: “well just him” or even “just the twelve,” seems a little to much for me. Again, the same arguement as with calvinism, Judas could just say he was decreed at the judgement seat.
br.d
I can’t speak directly as a provisionist or an Arminian because I don’t fall into those two camps.
And unfortunately, when asking an Arminian, I suspect you’ll get as many answers as there are Arminian’s you find to it.
But I am curious … can you outline what you think the Arminian or Provisionist position would be and why it would be problematic? I assume you see it as LOGICALLY problematic?
ESmith21
Also on a side note, can you explain to me why you say “Calvin’s god.” Do you think the calvinist god is different from the provisionist? To me this makes sense as one is controling and one is in control. One is cruel and decrees evil and one allows for man’s consquences from his actions. One is good and the other’s goodness is called into question.
br.d
Yes – as I’ve read pejorative statements by Calvinists throughout the years – I’ve learned not to be surprised to hear them say a non-Calvinist’s god is a false god. But I do often find they blister some when they bump into someone who has the same perception of theirs. However that is not my motivation. I simply see John Calvin – and his progeny – consistently revealing themselves as in the process of creating a deity out of their own personal image.
Take for example John Calvin’s instructions to his disciples -quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”. If one examines many Calvinist statements – one will find them describing details of a deity who actually follows that pattern.
For example, their conceptions of a god goes about seeking to prevent non-existent events. In other words, events that he knows have no possibility of ever coming to pass without his decreeing them into existence.
So you have a deity who curiously enough follows John Calvin’s instructions to his disciples – going about his office *AS-IF* some things are not determined in every part (by himself).
It becomes quite humerus to observe Calvinists explicating in-depth explanations of god’s every thought and motive. Describing in excruciating details exactly what god did at moment [X] and why he made the choices he made. *AS-IF* they were there as his side-kick at the foundation of the world while he established the infallible decrees of what will come to pass. And they are here now to provide moment-by-moment accounts.
Its a good thing we have Calvinists to give us all of that information – because otherwise we would be totally in the dark about all of those divine secrets! :-]
I read some of your statement again – where you say “it seemed decreed to me”.
Was it specifically the unique individual Judas – who was specifically decreed to betray Jesus?
Or is it more plausible to say that Jesus would be betrayed
And someone would have to inevitably play that role?
Here is a statement on this vain by William Lane Craig
Interested in whether you find it has the same problems you think Arminians have?
-quote
The objection arises that if God knows in advance everything that happens, every choice that you will ever make, then isn’t everything fated to occur? For example, if God knows in advance and predicts that Peter will deny Christ three times then when the time arrives isn’t Peter fated to deny Christ three times? Isn’t it necessary that Peter deny Christ three times? How could he do anything else since God knows and has predicted that he would do so and God cannot err. It would seem that if Peter could do anything else then God could be mistaken which is impossible. Doesn’t it follow from God’s complete foreknowledge of the future that fatalism is true? That everything that happens happens necessarily?
I think in the first place we want to break that equation between foreknowing something and foreordaining something. Those are not the same things. God knows in advance all of the choices that people will freely make, but that doesn’t mean that he determines those choices. In fact, quite the opposite. If we want to speak of determination, it is the choices that determine what God foreknows, not vice versa. It is not that because God foreknows you will do something that you do it, it is because you will do it that God foreknows it. If there is any determination going on here it is the event that determines what God foreknows, not that what God foreknows determines the event.
That hits the nail on the head – excellent!
ESmith21 writes, ‘the same arguement as with calvinism, Judas could just say he was decreed at the judgement seat.”
The better argument would be that Satan entered into hum and God did nothing to stop Satan with the result that Judas ended up betraying Jesus. Of course, another argument would be that God did not give him faith like He gave the other apostles and without faith, how could he do anything right. Then, God could reply, “Judas, my boy, I raised you for this purpose just like Pharaoh in the day of Moses.”
ESmith21
The same argument as with Calvinism, Judas could just say he was decreed at the judgement seat.
rhutchin
The better argument would be that Satan entered into the garden and God did nothing to stop Satan….
br.d
A great example of how not telling the WHOLE TRUTH is always better for Calvinists.
In this case – Satan controlled by an IRRESISTIBLE supernatural decree entered into the garden
and
Calvin’s god – COULD NOT stop his own infallible decree from being FALSE – so he -quote “did nothing to stop it”.
*AS-IF* an infallible decree could be FALSE.
Hey ESmith21
Did you notice how quickly Calvinists jump in to provide examples of what I describe.
In this case creating a deity after the Calvinist’s own image?
Here we have a deity who either:
1) Goes about his office seeking to stop events which he made infallible – from being infallible
*AS-IF* an infallible decree could be FALSE.
or
2) Goes about his office seeking to stop events which have no *REAL* existence, due to the absence of the infallible decree required to give them existence.
*AS-IF* the doctrine which stipulates an infallible decree is required to give events existence is FALSE.
In other words – a deity who follows John Calvin’s instructions:
Going about his office *AS-IF* some things are not determined in every part (by himself)
Perfect timing on that example – wouldn’t you say!! :-]
Thanks for sharing that quote by William Lane Craig! It put kinda what i was thinking a plausable explaination was.
Now what i was thinking a Provisionist or Arminian response would be “Well it was just Judas who was decreed. Not all of us!” I believe i heard Dr.Flowers say that only a select few are decreed. I don’t remember what video i heard it (or misheard). I hope i misheard it as he is the first theologian that makes logical sense to me and doesnt talk like hes “smarter then thou”.
But going to thus response would be unfair to the few decreed. They would be excluded from “without excuse” if they are decreed to hate God. If it was the opposite, i don’t know how that is fair.
But what makes most logical sense to me (for a provisionist response) would be “God didn’t command that such would happen but simply predicted it showing proof that He knows all.” The way i look at this is time travel (obviously this isnt how God works [he doesnt go into his time machine and travels all over like Bill and Ted]) for example. God is in every second of time (unchanging) so he knows what Judas will DECIDE ON HIS OWN to do. I don’t see how it would be hard for him to simply say “Someone will betray the messiah for # of money” to the old testament phophets. (Perhaps i am wrong here and i assume i am, but this is just my theory on a logical response)
Simply here, God is not deciding what Judas is doing. He is not even setting restrictions here or even decreeing anything. He is simply stating what is happening. Just like in that time traveling movie where the protaginist is told the future and either fulfills it or tries his/her best to change it and it still happens because well: time traveling rules and such.
Back to the seperation of gods. If Arminians (whom some calvinists call heretics) and Calvinists (would they be heretics to Arminians?) worship seperate gods, would it be fair to assume if the arminians or you are correct, that Calvinists would go to hell and vise versa or would god rather be forgiving in their confussion and accept them into his kingdom?
I heard of “solo cristo” but isnt the nature of god (whether he is soveriegn, evil, or good) transcend this idea. I mean i can believe “Jesus” robbed the poor and walked around in drag and you could believe in who Jesus really was. We both believe in “Jesus,” but they are completely different people. I dont understand how this would fit into the “solo cristo” idea,
Also i am curious: Br.D, where do you land in the soteriological debate and why?
(Sorry for any grammar mistakes in my post)
Sincerely and with much thanks,
Esmith21
Very nice post Esmith21!
I like your thinking – and appreciate your sincerity and honesty.
On Dr. Flowers making a statement to the effect that Judas’ actions would be decreed – I’ve never heard him make such a statement.
And I would be surprised to hear it from him as he doesn’t embrace Theological Determinism.
And I’m pretty certain he does embrace Libertarian Freedom – at least in a limited form.
I understand what you mean about how with an infallible and supernatural decree which no natural creature can resist – it does LOGICALLY follow that the natural creature should not be blamed for things that creature is irresistibly made do to.
Jesus said “Does the master commend his slave for doing the very thing the master commanded him to do? I think not!”
So Jesus does provide us with a model of ethics that he himself holds as a standard.
If a person cannot do otherwise than what they are commanded to do – then Jesus attributes what they do not to them them – but to the one who has command over them.
And in the case of Calvinism – there is no such thing as disobedience from infallible decrees.
The creature – for all intents and purposes nothing more than a slave to Calvin’s god who totally controls people like robots.
He simply does it with infallible decrees.
So I agree with your assessment on that score.
On the question of people creating gods after their own image – and whether or not one party should claim the other party as not saved etc – I personally don’t feel I would have the authority to make such a claim of another professing believer. So even though I do find Calvinists pointing the finger of judgement at non-Calvinists and treating them as unbelievers – that is not something I would feel comfortable doing myself.
On where I stand in these issues – I think I’m kind of a mixed creature. I’ve come to agree with Dr William Lane Craig, and Dr. Alvin Plantinga on what is classically called “Divine Middle Knowledge”. An example of that on the human scale would be a person who has become a billionaire from anticipating the stock market. Such a person does not really know how other people are going to behave with a divine form of knowledge. But they have enough knowledge that is accurate enough to be highly successful in knowing what choices people will make with their investments. The billionaire stock investor has knowledge that is so accurate that he makes billions of dollars from his knowledge. If a human can have that kind of highly accurate knowledge, then why can’t a divine being who is perfect have it also.
That is the idea behind “Middle Knowledge”. A divine being who has perfect knowledge would foreknow in advance any choice you or I would make in any circumstance – given that he knows every intimate internal detail about us. So with that knowledge he could always be certain of what choices we will make without determining what choices we will make for us.
An example of that form of knowledge is found in the story of David when he was fleeing from King Saul. He went into a city to find rest. But he was concerned that if Saul discovered him there, Saul would attack the city and he would be captured. So he inquired of the Lord. If Saul finds out I am here will he come down and attack the city? The Lord said yes king Saul will certainly do that. Ok, if Saul attacks the city will the people of the city hand me over to Saul? The Lord said yes the people of the city will certainly do that. But none of those things actually happened. So God had perfect knowledge of what people would certainly do without determining it.
I believe if God asks something of us – he provides whatever we need to responsibly respond to him. For example, he may heal a drug addict from his addiction in order to bring that person to salvation. Or he may deliver a demon worshiper from the grip of demonic possession in order to bring about that person’s salvation. But even then – he does not make our choices for us. He wants a bride who loves him for who he is – not because he makes them love him with some kind of supernatural love potent which supernaturally controls them such that they are not permitted to do otherwise..
I was going go respond to somthing now i dont remember my response and this exchange is so long that i dont have enough time in my everyday life to take to comprehend that. Haha lol
No problem ESmith21
I enjoyed the chat with you – and appreciated your gentle-manliness and sincerity.
The Lord who cares for us all – bless you and your family.
br.d
Aidan writes, “CONCLUSION: Election is Calvin’s god determining and choosing all things – whatsoever comes to pass – both good and evil. All the good or the evil that people do! All the evil that the Devil has done! Truly election is Calvin’s god, before the foundation of the world, determining the eternal destruction of the vast majority of the human race.”
RHUTCHIN:
“That’s basically it. Do we not both understand that God could save each and every person if He willed to do so, so that the reason lost sinners are not given to Christ is because God chose not to give them to Christ? What other explanation explains this result?”
MY REPLY:
They chose not to come to Christ in spite of the fact that God wanted them to believe and be baptized, to be saved (Mark 16:15-16)!
rhutchin
so that the reason lost sinners are not given to Christ is because God chose not to give them to Christ? What other explanation explains this result?”
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
The reason RESULT_X comes to pass, is because Calvin’s god choose RESULT_X to come to pass.
What other explanation explains RESULT_X for the Calvinist?
So now let us RESULT_X as our label for anything that comes to pass.
Let RESULT_X = Every HORRENDOUS EVIL that a Calvinist will do.
Let RESULT_X = Every FALSE PERCEPTION that exists in the Calvinist’s brain
What explanation explains RESULT_X for that Calvinist?
Intellectual Honesty tells us that whatever the explanation for “good” events is (for the Calvinist) must also be the same exact explanation for “evil” events.
And that explains why Calvinists are not Intellectually honest. :-]
CALVINISTIC ELECTION:
“Election is Calvin’s god determining and choosing all things – whatsoever comes to pass – both good and evil. All the good or the evil that people do! All the evil that the Devil has done! Truly election is Calvin’s god, before the foundation of the world, determining the eternal destruction of the vast majority of the human race.”
RHUTCHIN:
“That’s basically it. Do we not both understand that God could save each and every person if He willed to do so, so that the reason lost sinners are not given to Christ is because God chose not to give them to Christ? What other explanation explains this result?”
BR.D:
“Intellectual Honesty tells us that whatever the explanation for “good” events is (for the Calvinist) must also be the same exact explanation for “evil” events.”
MY REPLY:
But for the Calvinist, whatever event Calvin’s god chooses to come to pass – has to be “good,” because it’s for his glory!
DILEMMA:
And that explains why Calvinists are left with an Intellectually honest dilemma.
It’s the same dilemma the North Koreans face, if they dare speak the truth publicly!
But deep down, what a dilemma it must be!
Aidan writes, “But for the Calvinist, whatever event Calvin’s god chooses to come to pass – has to be “good,” because it’s for his glory!”
I think the Calvinist position is that God works all things for good and not that all things are good. God works all things, both good and evil, for His glory. Thus, Paul writes in Romans 9 of Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”
rhutchin
I think the Calvinist position is that God works all things for good and not that all things are good.
br.d
Jonathon Edwards – on EVIL as a part of divine glory.
-quote
It is proper (in other words “good”) that the shining forth of god’s glory be complete…..But the shining forth of god’s glory would be very imperfect both because the parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do…nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.”
In other words – for the Calvinist – EVIL is one of the -quote “parts of divine glory”.
And since divine glory is “good” – all of the parts of divine glory are also “good”.
In other words EVIL is “good”.
Additionally – Calvin’s god derives glory from AUTHORING EVIL.
And that makes AUTHORING of EVIL “good”.
If Calvin’s god determines and chooses all things – whatsoever comes to pass – both good and evil; All the good or the evil that people do; All the evil that the Devil has done; Before the foundation of the world, determining the eternal destruction of the the vast majority of the human race –
How is that good and to his eternal glory? How is the determiner of all that is evil in the world – good and glorious?
Aidan asks, “How is that good and to his eternal glory? How is the determiner of all that is evil in the world – good and glorious?”
Because God uses evil to bring about good – “God works all things (including evil things) together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” and “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
rhutchin
Because God uses evil to bring about good
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
Because Calvin’s god AUTHORS and CAUSES evil to bring about good
rhutchin
God works all things (including evil things) together for good to those who love God, ….
br.d
Remember – as rhutchin all ways tells us – in Calvinism the term works is a replacement word for DETERMINES
Hence Calvinism is classified as UNIVERSAL DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM
And “those who love Calvin’s god” – are those who are NOT PERMITTED to do otherwise – and no other alternative is made available.
They are given no LIBERTARIAN choice one way or the other.
Every human choice is made *FOR* each human – by an external mind.
An external mind who determines 100% of whatsoever human choice comes to pass
Leaving ZERO% left over for any human to determine.
Which brings us to the TRUE “T” in the TULIP
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
But in your world view, who was the instigator and author of all evil?
Aidan
But in your world view, who was the instigator and author of all evil?
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
We infer that god was the AUTHOR of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments.
But you’ll have to wait a long time to ever hear a Calvinist represent Calvinism with the INTELLECTUAL HONESTLY of John Calvin! :-]
Aidan writes, “in your world view, who was the instigator and author of all evil?”
It would have to be God as God had perfect understanding of His creation before He created and that perfect understanding gave Him an omniscient knowledge of all that was to happen in His creation – including all evil. By creating, God became the instigator and author of all that would happen in His creation including all evil. Nothing that happens is a surprise to God or something He did not know before He created.
rhutchin
By creating, God became the instigator and author of all evil
br.d
Hmmmmm – how to interpret this??
Lets make [X] = all sin and all evil
By Creating [X] Calvin’s god made himself the instigator and author of all of the [X] which he created.
Now that statement would be TRUTH-TELLING.
br.d writes, “Lets make [X] = all sin and all evil
By Creating [X] Calvin’s god made himself the instigator and author of all of the [X] which he created.
Now that statement would not be TRUTH-TELLING.”
God created man who would do sin and evil. God understood that this would result in His creation.
rhutchin
God created man who would do sin and evil. God understood that this would result in His creation.
br.d
AH! – Yet another example of how the Calvinist’s can’t tell the WHOLE-TRUTH
1) Calvin’s god has “certainty” and “understanding” of what man will do – simply be decreeing what man will do
2) Calvin’s god NOT PERMITTING man to do otherwise
3) Calvin’s god NOT making any alternative available to man.
So the question is – why did Calvin’s god decree Calvinist language to be a DECEPTIVE language?
br.d writes, “1) Calvin’s god has “certainty” and “understanding” of what man will do – simply be decreeing what man will do”
According to Ephesians1, “understanding” precedes God’s decree and is the basis for God’s decree as we read, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will…” The “counsel of His will? is derived from His perfect understanding and enables His works or decrees. God’s decrees are then known to Him making God omniscient, and they give certainty to all future events.
rhutchin
According to Ephesians1, “understanding” precedes God’s decree and is the basis for God’s decree…..
br.d
So according to that interpretation – Calvin’s god’s “understanding” is limited.
He decrees every specific sin and every specific evil to come to pass
And then afterwards does not have “understanding” of what he decreed.
br.d writes, “according to that interpretation – Calvin’s god’s “understanding” is limited.
He decrees every specific sin and every specific evil to come to pass
And then afterwards does not have “understanding” of what he decreed.”
God decrees everything. His decrees rely on His infinite understanding and rlect His perfect wisdom. God understands perfectly everything He decrees.
rhutchin
God understands perfectly everything He decrees.
br.d
Thus affirming my original statement.
How am I not surprised :-]
Calvin’s god specifically brings into existence – every specific sin and every specific evil – for his good pleasure.
He has “understanding” of his good pleasure
He has “understanding” of what he decrees for his good pleasure after he decrees it
He has “understanding” of what he will decree for his good pleasure before he decrees it.
Thus he has (prior and post) “understanding” of his good pleasure for which he decrees every sin and evil into existence.
Correction – that statement would be TRUTH-TELLING
Either foreknowledge of future events determines one’s actions, or one’s actions determine future events!
It’s either one or the other!
There is one more premise – which both Dr. Alvin Plantinga and Dr. William Lane Craig would enunciate.
Divine foreknowledge of a person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice – is determined by that person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice.
In other words – if the creature – using LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM chooses [X] – then a being with perfect foreknowledge – will foreknow that creature chose [X].
BR.D:
“Divine foreknowledge of a person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice – is determined by that person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice.
In other words – if the creature – using LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM chooses [X] – then a being with perfect foreknowledge – will foreknow that creature chose [X].”
AIDAN:
A perfectly logical premise; excellent.
Divine foreknowledge of a person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice – is determined by that person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice. Which means foreknowledge of man’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice determined the Divine response – NOT the Divine determined that all would sin and fall short of His glory!
“but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” (1 Peter 1:19-20).
Right on!!! :-]
As the wise man said in Braveheart;
They will never take away our FREEdommm!!!
br.d writes, ‘Divine foreknowledge of a person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice – is determined by that person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice.”
Thus the contrast between Calvinism and non-Calvinism. Calvinism says that God is inherently omniscience with His omniscient knowledge determined totally within Himself. Non-Calvinists say that God is not inherently omniscient but can become omniscient by learning things outside Himself. Since God is ever learning under the non-Calvinist system, God never becomes truly omniscient – God’s omniscience is limited to present and past events and does not extend to all future events.
br.d
Divine foreknowledge of a person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice – determined by that person’s LIBERTARIAN FREE choice.
rhutchin
Thus the contrast between Calvinism and non-Calvinism.
br.d
TRUE!
But now lets watch and see how the Calvinist will work to make his system APPEAR as INDETERMINISTIC as possible.
The Calvinist’s love-hate relationship with his own doctrine. :-]
rhutchin
Calvinism says that God is inherently omniscience with His omniscient knowledge determined totally within Himself.
br.d
With the caveat that (according to you) Calvin’s god lacks Omniscience as an “ESSENTIAL” attribute
“ESSENTIAL” means that there is never a point in which there is a lack of full and comprehensive knowledge of [X]
And (according to you) Calvin’s god lacks knowledge of what [X] in the future will be – prior to decreeing what [X] in the future will be
Therefore omniscience in Calvinism is a degraded version of the ORTHODOX standard definition of “ESSENTIAL Omniscience”
rhutchin
Non-Calvinists say that God is not inherently omniscient but can become omniscient by learning things outside Himself….
br.d
Well – Dr. William Lane Craig, and Dr. Alvin Plantinga (for example) reject Theological Determinism
Please provide a quote from either of them which EXPLICITLY states the wording you’ve asserted.
Otherwise – what we have here – is one more childish straw-man statement. :-]
Aidan writes, “Either foreknowledge of future events determines one’s actions, or one’s actions determine future events! ”
God’s foreknowledge of future events reflects His perfect understanding of all factors that produce future events. Foreknowledge does not determine any event. Events are determined by factors perfectly understood by God and subordinate to God’s control – thereby determined by God. It is the person’s actions that normally determine future actions as people respond to their circumstances as God perfectly understands they will (e.g., Adam eating the fruit, The Assyrians invading Israel). The exceptions are when God imposes Himself in His creation to determine events (e.g., the flood of Noah, confusion of languages at Babel, conversion of Saul of Tarsus) and without God’s direct involvement, these events would not have happened.
rhutchin
God’s foreknowledge of future events reflects His perfect understanding of all factors that produce future events
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge of what he will infallibly decree come to pass – reflects his perfect understanding of all the factors he will infallibly decree to come to pass – through which he will “render-certain” the production of all future events.
In other words – Calvin’s god – is to future events – as Mozart was to music
Calvin’s god first-conceives each note
Calvin’s god thus AUTHORS each note
Calvin’s god then makes an ARRANGEMENT of all notes
Calvin’s god thus becomes the CONCEIVER/AUTHOR/ARRANGER/PRODUCER of all things which come to pass.
Thus the impulses which come to pass within the Calvinist brain are simply notes which Calvin’s god CONCEIVES, AUTHORS, ARRANGES and PRODUCES.
And that explains why so many Calvinists are TOTALLY DEPRAVED and don’t know it! 😛
RHUTCHIN:
“Foreknowledge does not determine any event.”
AIDAN:
That’s right; foreknowledge of an event did not determine that event.
RHUTCHIN:
“Events are determined by factors perfectly understood by God and subordinate to God’s control – thereby determined by God.”
AIDAN:
In short, Rhutchin is saying that all events are determined by his god – thereby contradicting his first statement above!
RHUTCHIN:
“The exceptions are….”
AIDAN:
The exceptions are, there are no exceptions! As Rhutchin said above, “Events are … – thereby determined by (Calvin’s) god.”
rhutchin
“Events are determined by factors perfectly understood by God and subordinate to God’s control – thereby determined by God.”
br.d
Notice how the Calvinist constantly tries to make Determinism APPEAR as In-deterministic as possible.
*AS-IF* any event can come into existence
Without Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVING, AUTHORING, ARRANGING and PRODUCING it – for his good pleasure.
And thereby Determined completely and totally for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.
A Calvinist “understands” his own good pleasure.
And consequently – Calvin’s god – who is simply made after the image of the Calvinist – follows that model.
its no wonder then – the Calvinist will want to make his god APPEAR as IN-deterministic as possible. :-]
rhutchin
“Events are determined by factors perfectly understood by God and subordinate to God’s control – thereby determined by God.”
Br.d
“the Calvinist will want to make his god APPEAR as IN-deterministic as possible. :-]”
Aidan
Determinism from micro to macro!
Aidan
Determinism from micro to macro!
br.d
Yes!
Are you familiar with the Star Trek Next Generation series?
They had a computer controlled VIRTUAL REALITY room called the Holodeck.
Everything that comes to pass within the Holodeck is 100% determined by the computer.
Because computers are 100% determined entities.
Now a computer – is incapable of creating IN-DETERMINISTIC events – because a computer is fully determined.
But – the computer can create a SIMULATION of IN-DETERMINISTIC events
And make those SIMULATIONS APPEAR – real enough for the human brain to accept them as real.
A computer generated VIRTUAL REALITY of IN-DETERMINISTIC events.
So now take the Calvinist assertion that Calvin’s god prevents events from coming to pass.
Is the Calvinist’s divine prevention REAL?
Or is it a computer SIMULATION of divine prevention?
Lets think it through:
We know that no event can come into existence without Calvin’s god decreeing it into existence.
No decree = no event.
So any event that is going to come into existence for *REAL* has to be decreed to infallibly come to pass.
Now Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – believes that event will come to pass because he decreed it.
And if that event were prevented – then Calvin’s god’sbelief – at the foundation of the world – would be FALSE.
And Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – has Foreknowledge that it will come to pass – because he infallibly decreed it
And again – if that event were prevented – then Calvin’s god’s Foreknowledge would be FALSE
Consequently – there is no such thing as Calvin’s god preventing an event that is actually going to come to pass.
So then how does the Calvinist have divine prevention?
The only way he can have divine prevention – is to create a DETERMINISTIC SIMULATION of it.
What we see then – is Calvinists engineering what can only be SIMULATIONS of IN-DETERMINISTIC events.
In other words – the Calvinist has his own personal Holodeck! :-]
BR.D:
“Consequently – there is no such thing as Calvin’s god preventing an event that is actually going to come to pass.
So then how does the Calvinist have divine prevention?
The only way he can have divine prevention – is to create a DETERMINISTIC SIMULATION of it.
What we see then – is Calvinists engineering what can only be SIMULATIONS of IN-DETERMINISTIC events.
In other words – the Calvinist has his own personal Holodeck! :-]”
AIDAN:
So, if Calvin’s god had to prevent an event that is actually going to come to pass, it would not only deny his omniscience, but also his omnipotence and his sovereignty. In other words, his deity! So, nothing can actually be prevented from coming to pass – for that would be a denial of himself.
This reminds me so much of his ENUNCIATED will, and his SECRET will – so now we also have his DETERMINISTIC will and his SIMULATED divine prevention will. Okay! So now we know who invented FAKE-NEWS!
You’re right! We are all on the Holodeck of Calvin’s god-ship enterprise.
We could have some fun with this!
CALVIN’S GOD PREVENTS AN EVIL ARM WRESTLING MATCH
One day, Calvin’s god’s left arm insulted his right arm.
And his right arm got very angry and wanted revenge.
So his right arm challenged his left arm to a wrestling match.
Now it came to pass – that his right arm was just about to overpower his left arm.
Fortunately however, Calvin’s god stepped in at the very last moment and prevented the evil event from coming to pass.
WHEW!!!
Its a good thing Calvin’s god can prevent evil events from coming to pass!!! 😉
DIVINE PREVENTION IN CALVINISM
Yeah! Who said Calvin’s god DETERMINES everything?🙄
RHUTCHIN:: “Foreknowledge does not determine any event.”
AIDAN:: That’s right; foreknowledge of an event did not determine that event.
RHUTCHIN: :“Events are determined by factors perfectly understood by God and subordinate to God’s control – thereby determined by God.”
AIDAN:: “n short, Rhutchin is saying that all events are determined by his god – thereby contradicting his first statement above!
That God determines events (or works all things after the counsel of His will) does not mean that God determined those events by means of His foreknowledge of the events. There is no contradiction in my statements – at least, no contradiction that Aidan has explained.
RHUTCHIN: “The exceptions are when God imposes Himself in His creation to determine events …”
AIDAN: “The exceptions are, there are no exceptions! As Rhutchin said above, “Events are … – thereby determined by (Calvin’s) god.”
Normally, events are determined directly by people and indirectly by God. I then noted exceptions to this. I don’t know what Aidan is reading or what he is thinking as he doesn’y tell us.
rhutchin
The exceptions are when God imposes Himself in His creation to determine events
br.d
The deceptive strategy behind this language – is to try to paint Calvin’s god NOT imposing himself on his creation – which he does absolutely and exhaustively.
CONCEIVING, AUTHORING, ARRANGING, and PRODUCING every impulse that will ever be allowed to appear within your brain.
Thus we have the TRUE “I” in the TULIP
“I”rresistible Human Functionality:
According to the underlying doctrine, all things which come to pass – including all human neurological impulses – do so infallibly. It is a logical impossibility for any human to resist an impulse which comes to pass infallibly within the brain. Since all human functionality, including morally significant functionality, is the consequence of neurological impulses, choices, desires and decisions, it follows that all human functions are predestined to come to pass and are therefore utterly irresistible to humans. So, it would be more forthcoming, or truth-telling to state the “I” in the TULIP as irresistible human functionality.
“I” Irresistible Human Functionality
All human functionality, including morally significant functionality, is produced by impulses infallibly actualized within the human brain which occur as irresistible.
RHUTCHIN:
“That God determines events (or works all things after the counsel of His will) does not mean that God determined those events by means of His foreknowledge of the events.”
AIDAN:
Hey folks, notice that his quote above refers to ‘ALL THINGS’.
So, Calvin’s god does not determine ALL THINGS by his foreknowledge of the events! Okay, so Calvin’s god determines all things, but just not by means of foreknowledge. So, if not by means of foreknowledge; then, in the beginning, he just simply determined every event that would ever occur, and on that basis has foreknowledge of every event that will ever occur!
In other words, Calvin’s god has mapped out everything from the beginning, and thereby foreknows all things that will occur, because he has predetermined all things that will occur. Is that what you are saying? If so, then your next statement cannot be true:
RHUTCHIN: “The exceptions are when God imposes Himself in His creation to determine events …”
AIDAN:
If Calvin’s god has already determined all events that will ever occur – but not according to foreknowledge – then there is nothing left to determine. Therefore, my previous statement was correct in which I said, “there are no exceptions!”
And if Calvin’s god determined all things from the beginning, this means that no one else determined anything – for all things that occur, or will ever occur – were determined by him directly from the beginning! In other words, Calvin’s god truly left nothing else for anyone else to determine. Which means that your next statement was also untrue:
RHUTCHIN:
“Normally, events are determined directly by people and indirectly by God.”
AIDAN:
Since all events that occur were already determined by Calvin’s god, no event has been determined by anyone else – directly or indirectly for that matter!
Seems like your whole premise is falling apart!
Excellent Analysis Aidan!
The UNIVERSAL nature of determinism is one of key points of the Calvinist dishonest DOUBLE-SPEAK.
UNIVERSAL = Without exception – without exclusion – Without limitation – Exhaustive
DIVINE = : A THEOS
CAUSAL = The principle Cause and Effect
DETERMINISM = The philosophy Determinism
Calvinist Sovereignty is simply defined as Calvin’s god determining 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
The Calvinist SECRETLY hates Sovereignty for 4 primary reasons:
1) It LOGICALLY resolves to Calvin’s god as the CONCEIVER, AUTHOR, ARRANGER, PRODUCER of ALLevil.
2) It LOGICALLY resolves to the Calvinist brain having no capacity to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Because doing so requires the mind’s ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE.
And that would be a LIBERTARIAN function which determinism rules out
3) Since every perception that comes to pass within the Calvinist brain is the product of an external mind – the Calvinist has no ability to discern reality.
4) Calvinist sovereignty – means that the Calvinist has no CERTAINTY of whether or not he was designed as a VESSEL OF WRATH or a vessel of honor. If Calvin’s god designed him to be a VESSEL OF WRATH – then he is TOTALLY DEPRAVED – and he is a tool of Satan – and Christian’s should consider him as such.
Absolutely right, Br.d.
If Calvin’s god did not determine all events by foreknowledge, but yet, foreknows ALL things and truly determined ALL things, then LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL does not exist – for he determined EVERY event!
But on the other hand, if, under Calvinism, he did NOT determine ALL events, then LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL does exist!
CONCLUSION:
1). If Calvin’s god determines every single event – LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL does not exist!
2) If Calvin’s god has NOT determined every single event – LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL does exist!
But according to our Calvinist friend, Calvin’s god does sometimes have to step in to determine events!
RHUTCHIN: “The exceptions are when God imposes Himself in His creation to determine events …”
3). Therefore, since not every single event has already been determined – LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL exists!
And if LWF exists – then the ability to choose or reject Christ by LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL does exist – for not every single event has been determined.😅
Yes exactly!!!
But of course RH has compensated for that – by carefully crafting his statement in the form of a deceptive EQUIVOCATION.
As Dr. Jerry Walls states:
“If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”
Aidan writes, “So, Calvin’s god does not determine ALL THINGS by his foreknowledge of the events! Okay, so Calvin’s god determines all things, but just not by means of foreknowledge. ”
Yes. According to Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,.” It is the “counsel of His will” that is the means by which God determines all things. God then knows His works. As you then state, “So, if not by means of foreknowledge; then, in the beginning, he just simply determined every event that would ever occur, and on that basis has foreknowledge of every event that will ever occur!”
Then, “In other words, Calvin’s god has mapped out everything from the beginning, and thereby foreknows all things that will occur, because he has predetermined all things that will occur. Is that what you are saying?”
Yes. This possible because God has infinite understanding and this understanding extends to the impacts of any event on any succeeding event.
Then, “If so, then your next statement cannot be true:
RHUTCHIN: “The exceptions are when God imposes Himself in His creation to determine events …”
The exceptions – those things that God brings about directly rather than through secondary causes – are incorporated into the “all things” God works according to the counsel of His will. Nothing wrong with my statement unless you can explain what you are seeing.
Then, “If Calvin’s god has already determined all events that will ever occur – but not according to foreknowledge – then there is nothing left to determine. Therefore, my previous statement was correct in which I said, “there are no exceptions!””
You misunderstand what the context for the term, “exceptions,” These are not exceptions to what God has determined but exceptions to the manner in which events are brought to pass thereby differentiating between those things that God brings about directly rather than through secondary causes.
Then, “And if Calvin’s god determined all things from the beginning, this means that no one else determined anything – for all things that occur, or will ever occur – were determined by him directly from the beginning! In other words, ”
You err where you say, “…were determined by him directly…” God understood that Adam would eat the fruit under the events occurring in the garden. God did not directly force Adam to eat the fruit but perfectly understood that Adam would eat the fruit. God authored or caused all events simply by creating the universe as described in Genesis all the time knowing all that would come about because of His creation.
Then, “Calvin’s god truly left nothing else for anyone else to determine. Which means that your next statement was also untrue:
RHUTCHIN:: “Normally, events are determined directly by people and indirectly by God.”
God’s determination of all things when He created the universe, incorporated the individual actions of people so that they became determiners of the actions they took – e.g., Adam determined to eat the fruit; he was not forced by God to eat the fruit. However, God used Adam as a secondary cause (or determiner) to achieve God’s purpose for His creation.
Then, “Since all events that occur were already determined by Calvin’s god, no event has been determined by anyone else – directly or indirectly for that matter!
Seems like your whole premise is falling apart!”
Only if you can explain how you think that works. For example, maybe you can explain how you think God forced Adam to eat the fruit.
rhutchin
Yes. …..Ephesians 1, “God works all things …..
br.d
The Calvinist here treats the word works as a replacement word for determines
So in this case – Calvin’s god Determines according to the counsel of his will
rhutchin
means by which God determines ALL things
br.d
Here the word ALL is a replacement word for UNIVERSAL – which means without exception, without exclusion, EXHAUSTIVE.
rhutchin
God then knows His works.
br.d
In other words – foreknowledge is nothing more than knowledge of what is Determined
Which means – the possibility of Calvin’s god not imposing himself on everything is ZERO.
rhutchin
This possible because God has infinite understanding
br.d
Infinite understanding – of what he Determines people to be
Infinite understanding – of what he Determines people to do
Infinite understanding – Prior to, During, and After his Determination
”
rhutchin
The exceptions – those things that God brings about directly rather than through secondary causes
br.d
AH! Here is where the Calvinist seeks to ESCAPE his own doctrine.
Since Determinism is UNIVERSAL – without exception, without exclusion, EXHAUSTIVE – the Calvinistic MAKES-BELIEVE there are exceptions in order to ESCAPE the consequences of the doctrine.
rhutchin
You misunderstand what the context for the term, “exceptions,”
br.d
The primary reason for “misunderstanding” is Calvinism’s use of deceptive DOUBLE-SPEAK.
The Calvinist manufactures INSIDER definitions for words and terms
And these INSIDER definitions serve to strategically mislead OUTSIDERS who are unaware of the altered meanings of words.
rhutchin
These are not exceptions to….the manner in which events are brought to pass
br.d
Now lets review the wording of rhutchin’s original statement
-quote
“The exceptions are when God imposes Himself in His creation to determine events …”
This is what we mean when we say Calvinist language is full of deceptive EQUIVOCATION.
rhutchin
You err where you say, “…were determined by him directly…”
br.d
AH! Here is where the Calvinist seeks to ESCAPE Calvinistic sovereignty!
In order for the Calvinist to use secondary causes as as ESCAPE clause – he must somehow ESCAPE the fact that Calvin’s god’s infallible decree is a direct action upon ALL things both good and evil.
rhutchin
God understood that Adam would eat the fruit….
br.d
Because Calvin’s god “understand” what he Determines Prior, during, and after he determines it.
rhutchin
God did not directly force Adam to eat the fruit
br.d
Here the Calvinist relies TOTALLY on a human philosophy.
There is no verse in Calvin’s bible which states Calvin’s god does not FORCE people to do his will.
The Calvinist is MAKING THIS UP.
Additionally:
Calvin’s god DID NOT PERMIT Adam to refrain from eating the fruit
The mechanics of how Calvin’s god accomplishes that is by CONTROLLING Adam’s brain.
As Paul Helm’s states:
-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 (The Providence of God pg 22)
So this blows rhutchin’s argument – that Calvin’s god’s action is not DIRECT
rhutchin
God authored or caused all events simply by creating the universe
br.d
Here is where the Calvinist bears FALSE WITNESS
Calvin’s god specifically decrees every movement of every molecule.
And every event occurs INFALLIBLY which only Calvin’s god can do.
So there is no such things as Naturally Occurring events in Calvinism
rhutchin
Normally, events are determined directly by people and indirectly by God.
br.d
Here we have Calvinism’s deceptive DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Calvinism entails a CAUSAL chain of events coming to pass – the FIRST of which is Calvin’s god’s Determination.
100% of what is determined – is determined before creatures are created.
Leaving ZERO% left over – for people to determine.
rhutchin
God’s determination of all things when He created the universe, incorporated the individual actions of people so that they became determiners of the actions they took –
br.d
Notice the EQUIVOCAL nature of this statement.
Here incorporated the individual actions is used to paint a picture of Foreknowledge via observation.
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god looked into the future and saw Adam’s action and thereby incorporated the knowledge of Adam’s into his decree.
When the Westminster confession says
-quote
yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions
Calvin’s god DIRECTLY Determines EVERYTHING
rhutchin
Only if you can explain how you think that works…
br.d
Easy!
100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is determined at the foundation of the world – prior to creation.
ZERO% is left undetermined
Leaving ZERO% left over for people to determine.
The Calvinist brain cannot even handle simple math! :-]
br.d writes, “Intellectual Honesty tells us that whatever the explanation for “good” events is (for the Calvinist) must also be the same exact explanation for “evil” events.”
The Calvinist will say that “good” events come about by God’s direct involvement in human affairs and “evil” events come about when God is not directly involved in human affairs.
rhutchin
The Calvinist will say that “good” events come about by God’s direct involvement in human affairs.
And “evil” events come about when God is not directly involved in human affairs.
br.d
Yes – and this is one place where a lack of intellectual honesty is manifest.
Because Calvin’s god’s CAUSAL ROLE & ACTIONS within the CAUSAL-CHAIN of every event – is exactly the same in all cases.
1) AUTHORSHIP:
Both “good” events and “evil” events are equally FIRST CONCEIVED within Calvin’s god’s mind.
2) CREATED:
Both “good” events and “evil” events are equally RENDERED-CERTAIN to be infallibly created into existence.
3) CAUSATION:
Both “good” events and “evil” events are equally CAUSED by Calvin’s god.
4) IRRESISTIBLE:
Both “good” events and “evil” events are equally made IRRESISTIBLE to the creature.
Thus there is *REALLY* no such thing as a direct vs Indirect divine role in any event.
Dr. Bella Depaulo Social Scientist, in her book: The Hows and Whys of Lies – explains the Calvinist’s practice as ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY.
-quote
“Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’.
A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies.
And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a ‘target’.”
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties.
Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest.
For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
R.C. Sproul
– God sovereignly, providentially ordains ONLY what is good.
– God did freely and immutably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.
br.d
Evil as well as good comes to pass.
CONCLUSIONS:
Good is good.
Evil is good
br.d qyites, “R.C. Sproul
– God sovereignly, providentially ordains ONLY what is good.”
I don’t think this is correct. Do you have a citation?
yes – its a quote from his book “Does God Control Everything? ”
Sorry I don’t have the page number.
But I suspect you have that book?
If you paste that quote into google – you should see it pop up at a number of Calvinist sites
BrD… Here’s Sproul’s quote in context… near the end of chapter 4.
“I have to say that I have no idea why God allows evil to besmirch His universe. However, I know
that when God ordains anything, His purpose is altogether good. Does this mean I think that in the
final analysis evil really is good? No. I am saying it must be good that evil exists, because God
sovereignly, providentially ordains only what is good. In terms of His eternal purpose, God has
esteemed it good that evil should be allowed to happen in this world.”
Notice how the determinist must sneak in the word “allowed” as if someone or something else is responsible before creation for evil to seek permission from God to come into existence, and before creation God ordains to give that permission to that someone or something, so that after creation evil is now “allowed” by God to exist in every specific form, but not caused by Him.
Each evil event after creation is caused by that someone or something that God gave the permission to before creation. The determinist needs to answer who or what existed before creation that could “ask” such permission of God for Him to decide to “allow” all the specific evils after creation to be locked in to work out only one way.
It certainly could not be Satan or man seeking before creation to be “allowed” to create evil in all its specific future events. They didn’t exist before creation.
“..God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5). Darkness is equated with evil in (John 3:19). In eternity past all that exists is God; all there exists is light – darkness and evil are non-existent – Satan is non-existent!
That’s right, Brian: “The determinist needs to answer who or what existed before creation that could “ask” such permission of God!”
I likes it.🙃
Aidan writes, “That’s right, Brian: “The determinist needs to answer who or what existed before creation that could “ask” such permission of God!””
Why is that so? People who sin never ask God’s permission to sin, so why would anyone have to ask God for permission to sin before creation? Do you ever ask God for permission to sin? Yet God still allows you to sin, doesn’t He?
I think you’ve completely missed what was said here. How could anyone, or anything, have existed in eternity past to ask permission? Not even “evil” existed in eternity past to be given permission to wreak havoc after creation.
Aidan asks, “Not even “evil” existed in eternity past to be given permission to wreak havoc after creation.:
Evil is an adjective that God uses to describe actions that are against His will or people who disobey Him. God clearly understands what is evil and understood this before He created the universe. God had a perfect understanding of the evil actions that would come to pass in His creation including the circumstances and reasons for those evil actions.
rhutchin
Evil is an adjective that God uses to describe actions that are against His will
br.d
Here we have another example of the Calvinist who can’t tell the WHOLE TRUTH
1) Calvin’s god’s SECRET will is the AUTHOR and CAUSE of all things.
2) When Calvin’s god’s SECRET will is in opposition to his ENUNCIATED will – then his ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of his SECRET will
So when a Calvinist asserts Evil is against Calvin’s god’s will – that Calvinist is not telling the WHOLE-TRUTH
Just like Joe Bidden – who says “Antifa” is nothing but an idea.
I wonder if Joe Bidden is a Calvinist? :-]
br.d writes, “So when a Calvinist asserts Evil is against Calvin’s god’s will – that Calvinist is not telling the WHOLE-TRUTH”
At the same time, it is the truth – Evil is an action that is against God’s will. AS br.d notes, it is not the only truth.
br.d
So when a Calvinist asserts Evil is against Calvin’s god’s will – that Calvinist is not telling the WHOLE-TRUTH
rhutchin
At the same time, it is the truth….
AS br.d notes, it is not the only truth.
br.d
Dr. Depaulo in her book 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.”
Why a witness must tell the WHOLE-TRUTH
Sworn testimony is evidence given by a witness who has made a commitment to tell the truth. If the witness is later found to have lied whilst bound by the commitment, they can often be charged with the crime of perjury.
At minimum – when we find a person who consistently does not tell the WHOLE-TRUTH – we find a person who cannot be trusted.
br.d writes, “At minimum – …when we find a person who consistently does not tell the WHOLE-TRUTH – we find a person who cannot be trusted.”
Following br.d’s logic a math teacher who teaches only algebra and says nothing about calculus is a person who cannot be trusted. Similarly, a person who teaches the gospels and ignores Paul’s letters is a person who cannot be trusted. I’m not buying what br.d is selling.
br.d
At minimum – …when we find a person who consistently does not tell the WHOLE-TRUTH – we find a person who cannot be trusted.
rhutchin
Following br.d’s logic a math teacher who teaches only algebra and says nothing about calculus is a person who cannot be trusted
br.d
Sorry – that would be a NON-SEQUITUR
A math teacher on the witness stand – when asked a question about algebra – is not expected to tell the WHOLE-TRUTH about everything in the universe of mathematics.
And a wife who blames her children as the cause of her husband beating them bloody with a baseball bat – is not telling the WHOLE-TRUTH about her husband’s actions.
But just to encourage the Calvinist here – we should at least put a silver star on his homework assignment – for at least attempting to think a RATIONAL thought! 😛
Therefore, nobody and nothing was “allowed” permission BEFORE creation.
rhutchin
Do you ever ask God for permission to sin? Yet God still allows you to sin, doesn’t He?
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Does Calvin’s god ever infallibly decree that you IRRESISTIBLY ask him for permission to sin?
Yet Calvin’s god AUTHORS and CAUSES you to sin, doesn’t He?
Brian
Notice how the determinist must sneak in the word “allowed”
br.d
The way the Calvinist gets away with that is by EQUIVOCATING on the word “allow”
Calvinists simply use the word “allow” as a replacement word for the words AUTHOR and CAUSE
So Sproul is saying ” I have no idea why God AUTHORS and CAUSES evil to besmirch His universe.
The standard meaning for the word “allow” in John Calvin’s French and our English is NON-CAUSAL allowance.
John Calvin
-quote
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the AUTHOR of them. ( Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 176)
Author in the Old French of Calvin’s day: Auctor – meaning Originator, Creator, Instigator
John Calvin calls the idea of god “allowing” evil – to be “Otious” – which means REPULSIVE.
John Calvin
-quote
“It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but MERELY by His permission.”
This is where Calvinists get the term “MERE” permission.
John Calvin creates a distinction between CAUSAL permission – and NON-CAUSAL permission – by qualifying NON-CAUSAL permission as “MERE” permission.
“MERE” permission is exemplified when a private requests “Permission to speak freely sir” to his commanding officer.
In that case, the commanding officer does not AUTHOR the words the private will speak
And the commanding officer does not CAUSE the private to say what he says.
So that is NON-CAUSAL permission – which Calvin distinguishes as “MERE” permission.
But Calvin’s god both AUTHORS and CAUSES everything that comes to pass.
So when Sproul uses the word “allows” he is using what linguists call INSIDER LANGUAGE
It is language designed to mislead – OUTSIDERS – who don’t know the word “allow” has an INSIDER meaning for Calvinists.
Our friend RH – here at SOT101 – plays the same deceptive word games without blinking.
RH uses the word Interested as a replacement word for the words AUTHOR and CAUSE.
This is just another layer of spin – on the exact same deceptive word trick.
Here is how the deception works:
The Calvinist can say – what Calvin’s god has an interest in he AUTHORS and he CAUSES.
If Calvin’s god does not AUTHOR/CAUSE an sin or evil – it is because he is not interested in doing so.
So RH will say “MERE” permission is when Calvin’s god is disinterested in his people.
But you can see how the word disinterested in this case serves as just one more layer on the deceptive game of EQUIVOCATION.
The fact that Calvinists can use deceptive word tricks to mislead people – and do so without blinking – serves as a RED FLAG.
Take note of the times also RH will say “The Calvinist says….xyz”
Exactly! Its all about gaming words!!
Its all about what “The Calvinist says”
Calvinistic truth – is truth that is communicated through DECEPTIVE word games.
And that serves as a RED-FLAG that Calvinists have their own PRIVATE definition for “truth”.
Yep! We saw the same thing two years ago in the abortion referendum, here in Ireland. How men change the language when they want to be deceptive, and suppress both truth and conscience in pursuit of their cause! It’s so true what Jesus said:
“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”(John 3:19-21)
No one who is of the truth hides in the shadows of deception and lies!
brdmod writes, “Here is how the deception works:
The Calvinist can say – what Calvin’s god has an interest in he AUTHORS and he CAUSES.
If Calvin’s god does not AUTHOR/CAUSE an sin or evil – it is because he is not interested in doing so.”
I say that God has an interest in everything He authors and causes and God authors and causes everything that happens. The distinction is in how God authors and causes all things. God authors and causes Stephen to be stoned to death by the Jews by withholding faith from the Jews.
Then, “So RH will say “MERE” permission is when Calvin’s god is disinterested in his people.”
I use “mere” permission to apply where God is interested in an event but does not act directly to bring about the event. God is never disinterested in anything – a point Calvin stressed.
rhutchin
I say that God has an interest in everything He AUTHORS and CAUSES and God AUTHORS and CAUSES everything that happens.
br.d
Thus – it LOGICALLY follows that Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of all sin and evil!
Thank you rhutchin for saying that! :-]
rhutchin
The distinction is in how God authors and causes all things. God authors and causes Stephen to be stoned to death by the Jews by withholding faith from the Jews.
br.d
The deceptive trick here – is what is called a “distinction without a difference”.
Calvin’s god AUTHORS/CAUSES the people to IRRESISTIBLY stone Stephen by infallible decree.
Because it is impossible for a creature to RESIST an infallible decree.
So there is no REAL difference in Calvin’s god role in this event – from any other event he AUTHORS and CAUSES
rhutchin
I use MERE permission to apply where God is interested in an event but does not act directly to bring about the event.
br.d
Which of course is a Calvinistic DECEPTION.
Because no event can come to pass without Calvin’s god bringing that event into existence.
rhuthin
God is never disinterested in anything – a point Calvin stressed.
br.d
Thus we have Calvinism’s INSIDER meaning – for the word interested.
It LOGICALLY follows
Calvin’s god must have been interested in AUTHORING and CAUSING the children of Israel to throw their babies into the fire of Moloch.
Did NOT PERMIT them to do otherwise.
Did NOT make any alternative available to them.
In Calvinism’s INSIDER LANGUAGE – that is what it means – for Calvin’s god to be interested :-]
Very deceptive! So, br.d, they know that “allow” means AUTHOR and CAUSE, as in instigator. And they know the dilemma it would present if people really understood what they are saying – so they need to be sneaky and deceptive! But as Brian pointed out, even when you really think about the word “allow” in terms of eternity past; there was no one else there – there was no “private” to ask permission.
Hence, you are only left with one conclusion:
Calvin’s god CAUSED and INSTIGATED all that is evil in this world.
Yes!
That is a wonderful point Aidan!
LOGIC is so awesome!! :-]
EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Aidan and Brian – here is another very interesting point that I heard Dr. Tim Straton mention the other day.
Is there TRUE moral responsibility without RATIONAL ability?
For example – do we hold a person who is mentally handicapped morally responsible?
You will probably say – that depends upon the degree of the handicap.
Moral responsibility is inversely proportional to mental incapacity.
We don’t punish a baby for vomiting all over its mother – because the baby’s mind has not developed a degree of RATIONAL ability sufficient to be held morally responsible for that act.
We don’t hold an insane person morally responsible for the same reasons.
With diminished RATIONAL ability – comes diminished moral responsibility.
So Tim Straton’s point is
1) RATIONAL ability must be considered as a requirement for TRUE moral responsibility.
2) In Exhaustive Determinism – there is no such thing as human RATIONAL ability
Because every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain is AUTHORED and CAUSED by an external mind.
This therefore rightly locates moral responsibility – to the external mind who AUTHORED and CAUSED those impulses.
br.d writes, “We don’t hold an insane person morally responsible for the same reasons.”
Yet, a person without faith is morally insane – he can do no good – and is condemned by God to eternal destruction for his sin.
br.d
We don’t hold an insane person morally responsible for the same reasons.
rhutchin
Yet, a person without faith is morally insane
br.d
Well – knowing how much Calvinism is SUPPOSEDLY derived exclusively from scripture – and not from philosophy – I’ll be you have a verse that EXPLICITLY declares people who do not believe are morally insane.
Otherwise – what you have is one more IRRATIONAL philosophical rambling
Chapter and verse please! :-]
rhutchin
– he can do no good – and is condemned by God to eternal destruction for his sin.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Calvin’s god DESIGNED him for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for Calvin’s god good pleasure.
And just to putt a cherry on top of that Calvin’s god also infallibly decreed he would do no good.
And we all know – in Calvinism – all decrees are IRRESISTIBLE.
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they are merely INSTRUMENTS, into which God constantly INFUSES what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Sounds like some kind of energy is FORCED into the creature – in the form of an INFUSION doesn’t it
But I’m sure there are a few ad-hoc INVENTIONS a Calvinist can manufacture in short order!! :-]
br.d writes, “I’ll be you have a verse that EXPLICITLY declares people who do not believe are morally insane.”
1 Corinthians 1, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…” and “…we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,…”
Then, Romans 3, “As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God….They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one…There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
br.d
I’ll bet you have a verse that EXPLICITLY declares people who do not believe are morally insane.
rhutchin
1 Corinthians 1, “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…
br.d
So where does it EXPLICITLY declare these persons are morally insane?
rhutchin
we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,…”
br.d
So where does it EXPLICITLY declare these persons are morally insane?
rhutchin
Romans 3, “As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God….They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one…There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
br.d
Can anyone spell EISEGESIS
Talk about forcing scripture verses through a single-hole potato-masher!
We must have our sacred french-fry! :-]
brianwagner writes, ‘Notice how the determinist must sneak in the word “allowed”…”
By “allowed,” the Calvinist means ordained through secondary means rather than brought about directly by God. For example, God “allowed” the Romans to crucify Jesus or God “allowed” the Jews to stone Stephen. They are events that an omnipotent God could have not allowed or not ordained.
Then, “as if someone or something else is responsible before creation for evil …”
No. God has infinite understanding and naturally understood the impacts of His actions. God knew that creating Adam and Eve without infinite understanding and then prohibiting the eating of the fruit and then giving Satan access to the garden would lead to Eve eating the fruit and Adam also eating. Evil then results from a superior intellect (Satan) manipulating two inferior beings (Eve and then Adam) to get them to eat the fruit. Even Brian could have foreseen that outcome based on those initial conditions. .So God caused Adam to sin by creating Adam as He did and did this by allowing Adam to make his own decisions without first consulting God.
Then, “Each evil event after creation is caused by that someone or something that God gave the permission to before creation. ”
Yes. God gave Adam permission or freedom, to act on his own without consulting God. So, God does for all humanity. It doesn’t take a brainiac to foresee what will happen under those conditions. Of course, no one ever asks God’s “permission” to sin because they know that God is a party pooper. So God allows people to sin when He could easily force everyone to obey Him.
Then, “It certainly could not be Satan or man seeking before creation to be “allowed” to create evil in all its specific future events. They didn’t exist before creation.”
They did not exist until God created them. Satan certainly didn’t ask God for permission to tempt Eve; he just did it. Adam did not ask God for permission to eat the fruit; he just ate it. Even Brian could see how that was going to end up, so why couldn’t God also see it?
I continue to be saddened by the sight of willful ignorance and denial of the plain meaning of words. But it does appear there is at least some admission that God’s “permission” was tied to the false idea of His own immutable knowledge. It is as if He said to Himself somewhere in eternity past – “I have always known I will have to create specific beings that must sin, and that I will eventually decree to permit Myself to do it, since it’s impossible for me to change my mind on this… Oh well, I so decree to permit that evil in all its forms that were eternally immutably stuck in my mind that they must all happen one way.”
But this is not how the God of the Bible did it!
brianwagner writes, “as if He said to Himself somewhere in eternity past – “I have always known I will have to create beings that must sin, and that I will eventually decree to permit Myself to do it, since it’s impossible for me to change my mind on this… oh well, I so decree to permit that evil in all its forms that are eternally immutably stuck in my mind that the must happen one way.”
God did not create beings who must sin. He created beings and gave them a law and then removed His protection over them so that Satan could tempt them and understood that in doing this, they would sin. It is God’s infinite understanding that is the basis for His omniscience. God’s understanding has never increased or decreased, so His knowledge has never changed.
Dancing…dancing…”infinite understanding” equals “divine natural knowledge of all necessary truths” equals “Satan and Adam will sin specific ways” equals “Fate” for God is only really “permitting” what He is unable to change, for His mind is unable to think of any other real possibilities to choose between.
This is not what Scripture teaches.
brianwagner writes, ‘”infinite understanding” equals “divine natural knowledge of all necessary truths” equals “Satan and Adam will sin specific ways” equals “Fate” for God is only really “permitting” what He is unable to change, for His mind is unable to think of any other real possibilities to choose between.
This is not what Scripture teaches.”
No one disputes this. The dispute is whether God will change His mind for any purpose once He makes a decision. people, like Brian, are prone to make decisions and promise things that they later renege on but God never reneges on His decisions. Once God makes a decision, that decision stands.
rhutchin
Once God makes a decision, that decision stands.
br.d
Right!
Once Calvin’s god decides each and every individual within the Calvinist church – whom he specifically designs as VESSELS of WRATH – his decision stands.
And John Calvin tells us what Calvin’s god does to those Calvinists.
-quote
He INSTILLS INTO THEIR MINDS such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.(Institutes pg 342)
-quote
He also causes those whom he ILLUMINES ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he…….FORSAKES THEM AND STRIKES THEM with even greater blindness (Institutes vol 2)
A Calvinist admitting to Fate behind predestination of the first sin… Interesting!
But it’s sad he chooses to believe God is locked in and unable to create a reality where conditional elements exist with other free will creatures whom He makes. It’s easy to see from Scripture God is free to make conditional plans which He can change in multiple ways, since “perfect” to Him is not only one choice for every opportunity to glorify Himself.
Seems to me they are the ones who are limiting God’s sovereignty and power!🤔
Aidan writes, “Seems to me they are the ones who are limiting God’s sovereignty and power!”
How do you see that being the case? God is not less sovereign because He decrees to save Peter but not James. That God decided this course of action in eternity past doesn’t change anything. So, what are you talking about??
Calvinism limits God’s Sovereignty and power by suggesting that He cannot be in control if He allows men have LFW. When people say such things, they are the ones limiting God’s omnipotence!
RIGHT!
He allows himself to have Libertarian Free will without any detriment to himself or anything else.
And his exercise of LFW in no way impinges on or compromises any of his attributes.
So the reason Calvin’s god doesn’t grant this part of his Imago Dei (“image of god”)
Is simply because he chooses not to.
Which makes his reason for doing so a mystery.
A MESSAGE FOR THE CALVINIST!
Psalms 33:10 “The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.”
Man’s LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL is nothing He can’t handle!
God is the One who happily gave it to man; let us be thankful that we have it.
AIDAN: “A MESSAGE FOR THE CALVINIST!
Psalms 33:10 “The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.”
Man’s LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL is nothing He can’t handle!”
If that is all you mean by LFW, that is fine. That does not prevent God having a perfect understanding of the counsel of the nations and of the plans of the peoples before they formulate that counsel or those plans. God does not first learn of the plans of the people after they make those plans; God understood that the people would make their plans before they made them.
Of course, the Calvinists would conclude that counsel and planning reflect the person’s desires, so that a person’s desires determine the counsel they give and the plans they make. You call it LFW but cannot distinguish your LFW from the Calvinist compatibilist free will.
rhutchin
You call it LFW but cannot distinguish your LFW from the Calvinist compatibilist free will.
br.d
This is more of Calvinism’s REVERSE ATTRIBUTION
The Calvinist must rob attributes of Libertarian Freedom and claim them as attributes of compatibilist freedom
Then he can accuse others of not being able to distinguish the two from each other.
Two attributes of Libertarian Freedom which are eradicated by determinism/compatibilism include:
1) PAP Principle of Alternative Possibilities – or the ability to DO OTHERWISE
2) Multiple options which exist as physically possible from which to choose from during choice-making
And finally – the Calvinist – during choice-making must approach that event *AS-IF* he is the determiner of his choice.
So that he can blame himself for not choosing – what Calvin’s god did not make available for him to choose :-]
So a FUNCTIONAL difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilist freedom is:
– Libertarian Freedom entails RATIONAL thinking
– Compatibilist freedom rules out RATIONAL thinking
br.d writes, “So a FUNCTIONAL difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilist freedom is:
Libertarian Freedom entails RATIONAL thinking
Compatibilist freedom rules out RATIONAL thinking ”
The Calvinist says:
Faith entails rational thinking.
Lack of Faith entails irrational thinking.
br.d writes, “So a FUNCTIONAL difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilist freedom is:
Libertarian Freedom entails RATIONAL thinking
Compatibilist freedom rules out RATIONAL thinking ”
rhuthcin
The Calvinist says:
Faith entails rational thinking.
Lack of Faith entails irrational thinking.
br.d
Which means – what the Calvinist says is IRRATIONAL :-]
Lets see if you can answer this RATIONAL question:
Of all of the perceptions that currently exist in your current thinking – what percentage of them are FALSE perceptions?
br.d writes, “Two attributes of Libertarian Freedom which are eradicated by determinism/compatibilism include:
1) PAP Principle of Alternative Possibilities – or the ability to DO OTHERWISE
2) Multiple options which exist as physically possible from which to choose from during choice-making”
Under compatibilism, a person has the ability to do otherwise, but he does that which he desires. A person has the ability to jump off a building but his desire to live prevents him doing so. So, it seems that LFW can only operate when the options available are equally desirable (i.e., a person is indifferent to one outcome or another). The psalm to which Aidan referred speaks of the counsel of the nations and the plans of the people. For LFW to operate. counsel and plans would not reflect people’s desires but deal with issues to which the person is indifferent. Under determinism, there are few, if any, options to which a person is indifferent Most people prefer one outcome to another according to their desires and can explain the reason for their choice. That which Aidan calls LFW is no different than compatibilistic free will – at least, Aidan is not able to identify a difference. Neither can you.
Then, “And finally – the Calvinist – during choice-making must approach that event *AS-IF* he is the determiner of his choice.”
No, the Calvinist asks God to direct him to a decision that will be in God’s will. The last thing, a Calvinist, or any believer, wants is to let his desires run wild and be the determiner of his choice. That is a prescription for disaster.
br.d writes, “Two attributes of Libertarian Freedom which are eradicated by determinism/compatibilism include:
1) PAP Principle of Alternative Possibilities – or the ability to DO OTHERWISE
2) Multiple options which exist as physically possible from which to choose from during choice-making”
rhutchin
Under compatibilism, a person has the ability to do otherwise,
br.d
With the ILLUSION that the person is the determiner of what otherwise is.
What you are describing here is do otherwise in compatibilism
Which is not do otherwise in Libertarian freedom.
Calvin’s god has Libertarian freedom – in which he can decree [X]
Or he can use his Libertarian Freedom to do otherwise and decree [NOT X]
So Calvin’s god exercises a Libertarian Free do otherwise
While the person does not.
In the compatibilist form of do otherwise the person cannot do otherwise than what that person is infallibly decreed to do.
In the Libertarian form of do otherwise the person – made in the Imago Dei (“image of God”) has the Libertarian form of do otherwise
And the fact that John Calvin instructs the Calvinist to -quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part” tells us that the Calvinist mind is trained to accept an ILLUSION of Libertarian do otherwise
Sorry rhuthcin – no one is fooled by Calvinist ILLUSIONS accept the Calvinist! :-]
Also
The Calvinist – during choice-making must approach that event *AS-IF* he is the determiner of his choice.
rhutchin
No, the Calvinist asks God to direct him to a decision that will be in God’s will.
br.d
AH!
Another example of the Calvinist’s attempt to MASQUERADE determinism as IN-deterministic.
Calvin’s god directs a human – the same exact way a robot engineer directs the robot.
So far – we still have robotic functionality.
And robotic functionality is another difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilist freedom.
rhutchin
The last thing, a Calvinist, or any believer, wants is to let his desires run wild and be the determiner of his choice. That is a prescription for disaster.
br.d
So tell me rhutchin – since Calvin’s god determines 100% of every perception that will appear within your brain – how would you be able to discern one way or the other? :-]
br.d
And the fact that John Calvin instructs the Calvinist to -quote “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part” tells us that the Calvinist mind is trained to accept an ILLUSION of Libertarian do otherwise
Thus, you are robing an attribute of Libertarian freedom – and claiming to be an attribute of compatibilism.
In so doing – you are instructed by Calvin to believe a FALSEHOOD.
And you thus become a FALSE witness.
RHUTCHIN: “If that is all you mean by LFW, that is fine. That does not prevent God having a perfect understanding of the counsel of the nations and of the plans of the peoples before they formulate that counsel or those plans. God does not first learn of the plans of the people after they make those plans; God understood that the people would make their plans before they made them.”
AIDAN: You keep using the phrase “God having a perfect understanding”? Are you afraid to use the word “foreknowledge”? Also, Adam and Eve were not totally depraved under Calvinistic theology; why would they not have had LFW? After all, they were not DEAD like you think their offspring are when they come into the world, even though you cannot present scriptures which say precisely that!
AIDAN: “You keep using the phrase “God having a perfect understanding”? Are you afraid to use the word “foreknowledge”?”
In Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” The “counsel of His will” draws from His perfect understanding and thereby God’s works are determined. God’s works then become His foreknowledge. So, logically, understanding precedes foreknowledge
Then, “Also, Adam and Eve were not totally depraved under Calvinistic theology; why would they not have had LFW?”
They did but because they communed directly with God, they did not need faith. When Adam ate the fruit, he lost communion with God by being kicked out of the garden and LFW was lost. LFW is regained with faith, even for Adam.
Then, “After all, they were not DEAD like you think their offspring are when they come into the world, even though you cannot present scriptures which say precisely that!”
Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden and lost direct communion with God. They then had to operate by faith.
Aidan
Then, “Also, Adam and Eve were not totally depraved under Calvinistic theology; why would they not have had LFW?”
rhutchin
They did ………..
br.d
OH OH!!! rhutchin is telling a fib!!
Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) rules out Libertarian Freedom – because Calvin’s god determines ALL things before creation and ALL things without exception – including Adam are limited to compatibilistic freedom.
No such thing as Libertarian Freedom for Adam in Calvinism
Naughty naughty rhutchin!!! 😕
RHUTCHIN: In Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” The “counsel of His will” draws from His perfect understanding and thereby God’s works are determined. God’s works then become His foreknowledge. So, logically, understanding precedes foreknowledge”
AIDAN: Sorry, but perfect understanding from beginning to end = foreknowledge!
AIDAN: “Also, Adam and Eve were not totally depraved under Calvinistic theology; why would they not have had LFW?”
RHUTCHIN: “They did but because they communed directly with God,”
AIDAN: If this is a fib, can you explain why? But if Adam and Eve truly had LFW before they sinned, then nobody determined their sin – except themselves! And what about Calvinists concern over Divine Sovereignty in that scenario? So much to explain, Rh!
AIDAN: “Sorry, but perfect understanding from beginning to end = foreknowledge!”
OK/ You are entitled to an opinion.
Then, ‘if Adam and Eve truly had LFW before they sinned, then nobody determined their sin – except themselves! And what about Calvinists concern over Divine Sovereignty in that scenario? So much to explain, Rh!”
Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.That doesn’t mean that God did not know that they would eat the fruit before He created them. It also does not mean that God made them perfect and without deficiencies – He didn’t. Even you could have foreseen that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit.
I don’t see a Calvinist problem with God’s sovereignty regarding events in the garden/
AIDAN: “Sorry, but perfect understanding from beginning to end = foreknowledge!”
RHUTCHIN: “OK/ You are entitled to an opinion.”
AIDAN: Except it’s not an opinion but a fact.
AIDAN: “‘if Adam and Eve truly had LFW before they sinned, then nobody determined their sin – except themselves!”
RHUTCHIN: “Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.”
AIDAN: As I said, LFW!🙃
RHUTCHIN: “That doesn’t mean that God did not know that they would eat the fruit before He created them.”
AIDAN: As I said, FOREKNOWLEDGE!🙄
RHUTCHIN: “It also does not mean that God made them perfect and without deficiencies – He didn’t.”
AIDAN: Like what for example?
RHUTCHIN: “Even you could have foreseen that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit.”
AIDAN: Because Calvin’s god Determined whatsoever comes to pass? Yeah! Right!
RHUTCHIN: “I don’t see a Calvinist problem with God’s sovereignty regarding events in the garden/”
AIDAN: Not if Calvin’s god Determined whatsoever came to pass! Under that definition of LFW, why would ya?🤣
AIDAN: “Sorry, but perfect understanding from beginning to end = foreknowledge!”
RHUTCHIN: “OK/ You are entitled to an opinion.”
AIDAN: “Except it’s not an opinion but a fact.”
OK. Let’s see your argument demonstrating that fact. Absent that, you offer no more than an opinion.
RHUTCHIN: “Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.”
AIDAN: As I said, LFW!
Thus, the confusion. Compatibilist freedom says the same thing.
RHUTCHIN: “It also does not mean that God made them perfect and without deficiencies – He didn’t.”
AIDAN: Like what for example?
Seriously??? Neither Adam nor Eve had a perfect understanding of their environment nor were they omniscient nor did they have perfect knowledge. How else did you think Eve was so easily deceived or Adam convinced to eat the fruit.
RHUTCHIN: “Even you could have foreseen that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit.”
AIDAN: Because Calvin’s god Determined whatsoever comes to pass? Yeah! Right!
No, you could have seen it coming because Satan was a lot smarter than either Adam or Eve and A&E were naive and inexperienced. Obviously, God who had perfect understanding of the situation would easily know the outcome.
RHUTCHIN: “I don’t see a Calvinist problem with God’s sovereignty regarding events in the garden/”
AIDAN: Not if Calvin’s god Determined whatsoever came to pass! Under that definition of LFW, why would ya?
Look how God set up the table. The eight ball could not avoid going into the pocket.
rhutchin
Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.”
AIDAN
As I said, LFW!
rhutchin
Thus, the confusion. Compatibilist freedom says the same thing.
br.d
Not without Equivocating on the word determined.
In Calvinism – determined as it applies to Calvin’s god means CAUSED.
In Calvinism – determined as it applies to Adam means chose which choice was CAUSED by Calvin’s god.
Thus the math:
1) On Calvinism 100% of whatsoever comes to pass – is determined at the foundation of the world before creatures exist.
2) Leaving ZERO% left over that is Undetermined.
3) Leaving ZERO% left over for any creature to determine.
Unless you can figure out how to make [X] subtract 100% [X] – not equal [X] subract 100% [X]! :-]
RHUTCHIN: “OK. Let’s see your argument demonstrating that fact. Absent that, you offer no more than an opinion.”
AIDAN: Foreknowledge is simply defined as – Knowledge of something before it happens or exists. If one has perfect understanding of all things long before they happen or exist, then one must have “knowledge” of all things long before they happen or exist: hence, foreknowledge.
RHUTCHIN: “Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.”
AIDAN: As I said, LFW!
RHUTCHIN: “Thus, the confusion. Compatibilist freedom says the same thing.”
AIDAN: Well obviously YOU see a distinction; because you said that Adam had LFW before the fall! And then again, after the fall. Which means you don’t necessarily need to have faith in order to have LFW. Adam and Eve were neither sinless nor dead – hence, in Calvinist terms, they were truly free! Or were they?
RHUTCHIN: “Neither Adam nor Eve had a perfect understanding of their environment nor were they omniscient nor did they have perfect knowledge. How else did you think Eve was so easily deceived or Adam convinced to eat the fruit.”
AIDAN: Do the angels have a perfect understanding of all things? Are they omniscient? Do they have perfect knowledge? While some of them sinned and fell, it seems the rest have remained faithful and sinless! You don’t need to be omniscient to remain sinless – just trusting and obedient.
RHUTCHIN: “Look how God set up the table. The eight ball could not avoid going into the pocket.”
AIDAN: Predetermining whatever came to pass on the table.🥱
rhutchin
Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.That doesn’t mean that God did not know that they would eat the fruit before He created them.
br.d
rhutchin – what does the phrase “whatsoever comes to pass” mean to you?
I can tell you what it means to Calvinist Paul Helms
Helm’s insists that the phrase “Whatsoever comes to pass” within the Westminster Confession is a reference to ALL creation.
Not just creation that exists after Adam.
Thus Helm’s insists – the Westminster Confession rules out Libertarian Freedom ever existing for any creature – including Adam.
Secondaly:
You now totally contradicting all of your assertions that divine omniscience entails Determinism.
Libertarian Freedom cannot exist with Determinism – any more than oxygen can exist in a perfect vacuum.
As Darth Vader would say – Now you’re DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS is complete! :-]
Dr. James N. Anderson – of the Reformed Seminary North Carolina – on the existence of Libertarian Free will
-quote
The Westminster Confession’s statements about God’s attributes and God’s eternal decree imply theological determinism and thus rule out libertarian free will. And libertarianism, on standard definitions, entails that determinism is false.
Dr. Anderson goes on to insist that – Since libertarianism also entails that compatibilism is false, any Calvinist concept which allows for the existence of Libertarian freedom is internally inconsistent.
Dr.John M. Frame – Calvinist theologian
-quote
I agree that Reformed theology recognizes Adam’s choice as free, but only in a compatibilist sense.
(Systematic Theology An Introduction to Christian Belief – Chpt 35)
rhutchin
Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.That doesn’t mean that God did not know that they would eat the fruit before He created them.
Monergism.com
-quote
Libertarianism is inconsistent not only with God’s foreordination of all things, but even with his knowledge of future events.
Sorry rhutchin – you can’t have it both ways.
Calvinist scholars classify any Calvinist who accepts Libertarian Freedom existing for Adam as DEVIANT Calvinism.
I would say rhutchin has once again provided an example of my point.
When I stated that rhutchin’s strategy was to -quote “rob attributes of Libertarian Freedom and claim those attributes as belonging to Compatibilism” – I was definitely making an understatement.
In this case – by asserting that in Calvinism Adam had Libertarian freedom – rhutchin is attempting to rob the whole enchilada! :-]
I now have a nick-name for rhutchin.
I’m starting to see him as SOT101’s FANTASIA Calvinist!
The wildly creative aspect of the Gnostic-Calvinist imagination 😀
Ask him to flip a coin and tell ya what he thinks of his new nick-name.
Adam and Eve had a different kind of LFW! That’s precisely what Rhutchin is trying to say here, because that’s what Calvinists do all the time. They have two versions of everything to get them out of trouble – so they make it up as they go along. Rhutchin is to be commended by the Calvinists for his ingenuity here. 👍 (Not my thumb by the way)🤣
They make it up as they go along
BR.D:
“The Calvinist art of manufacturing an ad hoc invention on short notice!”😄👆
AIDAN: Would it be appropriate to add:- On the turn of a Dime?
Yes absolutely!! :-]
Aidan
Adam and Eve had a different kind of LFW!
br.d
Yes that does follow the mode of thinking doesn’t it!
Compatiblistic free will is just a different type of Libertarian Free will.
I was thinking the other day about how Calvinism evolved through Augustine’s Syncretism.
It makes sense that Calvinists would quite naturally seek to synchronize antithetical things.
Trying to synchronize TRUE and FALSE
Trying to synchronize Determinism and IN-determinism
Trying to synchronize Compatibilism and Libertarianism
Trying to synchronize their belief system with scripture
The Calvinist mind has to synchronize those things in order to retain a sense of normalcy and conectedness.
Otherwise he lives in a world that is so radically foreign, that no one would accept it.
Here’s what Rhutchin said the other day:
RHUTCHIN: “Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.That doesn’t mean that God did not know that they would eat the fruit before He created them. It also does not mean that God made them perfect and without deficiencies – He didn’t. Even you could have foreseen that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit.”
“I don’t see a Calvinist problem with God’s sovereignty regarding events in the garden.”
AIDAN: Rhutchin said that Adam and Eve had LFW in the garden and then said they “made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves” above. But notice how he goes on to qualify it in the sentences that followed; which I believe is a response to the criticism he got for saying that they had LFW in the first place.
He says: “That doesn’t mean that God did not know that they would eat the fruit before He created them.”
I suspect that statement is just couched language for DETERMINISM!
Then he says: “It also does not mean that God made them perfect and without deficiencies – He didn’t.”
I wonder if this is alluding to something about their – CREATED NATURE? More couched language for Determinism?
Finally he says to me: “Even you could have foreseen that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit.”
In other words – it was PREDESTINED to happen!
So that’s Rhutchin’s VERSION of Adam’s LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL – COMPATILISM masked as LFW!
No wonder he is able to say at the end: “I don’t see a Calvinist problem with God’s sovereignty regarding events in the garden.”
That’s because he is talking about COMPATILISM not LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL!!
Great analysis Aidan
You are totally right-on about the “couched’ language.
I don’t think RH allows himself the liberty of making a statement that isn’t in some form of “couched” language.
Always working to hide those aspects of his belief system he knows people will inherently reject.
Always working to masquerade the system as something it isn’t
Makes me ask the question – why would god choose to communicate truth which sets you free – using deceptive language!
BR.D: “Makes me ask the question – why would god choose to communicate truth which sets you free – using deceptive language!”
AIDAN: Makes one want to ask another question – If Calvinism has to resort to the language of deception – who is behind it really? For Jesus said, “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37).
Absolutely!!
Who ever is behind it – sure ain’t divine! :-]
AGREED!
rhutchin
Adam and Eve made decisions to eat the fruit that were determined by themselves.
br.d
Calvinist statements are always some form of EQUIVOCATION on one term or another.
In this case – the term determined is strategically used in a misleading manner
Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
He does not leave anything left over UN-determined.
This leaves ZERO% left over to be determined by anyone else.
So the sense in which RH is using the term determined has to be understood in the light of that fact.
Since 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is exclusively UP TO Calvin’s god
ZERO% of what Adam and Eve determined was UP TO Adam and Eve.
And that’s why we ALL should have been able to foresee what Adam and Eve would do!
Too funny!! 😀
Monergism.com quote
“Libertarianism is inconsistent not only with God’s foreordination of all things, but even with his knowledge of future events.”
Given that Dr, Flowers still claims to believe that God is omniscient with regard to all future events and Dr. Flowers believes that A&E exercised LFW, I concede the point to Dr. Flowers. I don’t see Dr. Flowers disagreeing with the statement I made and you quoted.
It is probably true that Dr, Flowers needs to rethink his position on God;s omniscience in light of his advocacy of LFW, but until her does, I’ll go with him on this. Adam and Eve had the ability to obey or disobey God to eat the fruit, even though God knew what they would choose to do. Whether we call this LFW or compatibilist free will makes no difference given Dr. Flowers’ position.
Monergism.com
-quote
“Libertarianism is inconsistent not only with God’s foreordination of all things, but even with his knowledge of future events.”
rhutchin
Given that Dr, Flowers [in his rejection of determinism] still claims to believe that God is omniscient with regard to all future events and Dr. Flowers believes that Adam &Eve exercised LFW, I concede the point to Dr. Flowers.
br.d
And Dr. Paul Helm’s, Dr. Neal Anderson, and Dr.John M. Frame recognize [in Calvinism’s core foundation of determinism] conceding Libertarian Freedom for Adam – as a Calvinist – is FALSE
Dr.John M. Frame – Calvinist theologian
-quote
I agree that Reformed theology recognizes Adam’s choice as free, but only in a compatibilist sense.
(Systematic Theology An Introduction to Christian Belief – Chpt 35)
Dr. James N. Anderson – of the Reformed Seminary North Carolina – on the existence of Libertarian Free will
-quote
The Westminster Confession’s statements about God’s attributes and God’s eternal decree imply theological determinism and thus rule out libertarian free will And libertarianism.
On standard definitions, entails that determinism is FALSE.
And therefore entails compatiblism is FALSE
OH OH!!! rhutchin is continuing to tell a BIG FIB!!
No such thing as Libertarian Freedom for Adam in Calvinism
This is just one more thing in Calvinism – that is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time for the Calvinist.
Naughty naughty rhutchin!!
A FALSE WITNESS of Calvinism!!! 😛
br.d writes, “And Dr. Paul Helm’s, Dr. Neal Anderson, and Dr.John M. Frame recognize [in Calvinism’s core foundation of determinism] that what you concede – as a Calvinist – as FALSE”
That’s because the decisions Eve and then Adam made reflected their desires, and those decisions were consistent with God having omniscient knowledge of the decisions before He created the universe. No one, not even Dr. Flowers, can explain a distinction between what they cal LFW and compatibilistic freedom in the case of Adam and Eve.
As long as Dr. Flowers confuses LFW with compatibilistic freedom, I will concede the point to him and let him ramble on.
rhutchin
Given that Dr, Flowers [in his rejection of determinism] still claims to believe that God is omniscient with regard to all future events and Dr. Flowers believes that Adam &Eve exercised LFW, I concede the point to Dr. Flowers.
br.d
And Dr. Paul Helm’s, Dr. Neal Anderson, and Dr.John M. Frame recognize [in Calvinism’s core foundation of determinism] that what you concede – as a Calvinist – as FALSE
rhutchin
That’s because the decisions Eve and then Adam made reflected their desires, and those decisions were consistent with God having omniscient knowledge of the decisions before He created the universe.
br.d
So now you concede the exact opposite – agreeing with Calvinists Paul Helm’s, Neal Anderson, and John M Frame that Libertarian Freedom makes Determinism and Compatibilism FALSE.
You’re certainly living up to the Calvinist reputation of holding things TRUE one minute and FALSE the next! :-]
rhutchin
No one, not even Dr. Flowers, can explain a distinction between what they cal LFW and compatibilistic freedom…..
br.d
How many brain cells does it take to connect the dots which Paul Helm’s, Neal Anderson, and John Frame connect?
-quote
Libertarianism on standard definitions, entails that determinism is FALSE.
And therefore entails compatiblism is FALSE
Oh that’s right I forgot!
You don’t have the ability to distinguish TRUE from FALSE. :-]
rhutchin
in the case of Adam and Eve.
br.d
Were you the Calvinist in that joke – who said no thank you – when Calvin’s god was handing out brains? :-]
You don’t seem to be able to connect with what Paul Helm’s, Neal Anderson, and Mondergism.com insists about the Westminster confession.
1) The wording in the Westminster confession “Whatsoever comes to pass” implies Determinism/Compatiblilism
2) Adam was created on the 6th day of creation.
3) A whole lot of “whatsoever comes to pass” came to pass prior to the 6th day.
CONCLUSION
On Calvinism – Determinism/Compatiblilism is what exists for Adam and Eve
rhutchin
As long as Dr. Flowers confuses LFW with compatibilistic freedom, I will concede the point to him and let him ramble on.
br.d
As long as rhutchin continues to confuse TRUE with FALSE – I will happily let him ramble on! :-]
br.d: “And Dr. Paul Helm’s, Dr. Neal Anderson, and Dr.John M. Frame recognize [in Calvinism’s core foundation of determinism] that what you concede – as a Calvinist – as FALSE”
When Dr. Flowers figures out that his position is not really different than compatibilism, and either admits it or goes whole hog for LFW, I will take a different position. It’s not owrth fighting with him at this point.
Then, “So now you concede the exact opposite – agreeing with Calvinists Paul Helm’s, Neal Anderson, and John M Frame that Libertarian Freedom makes Determinism and Compatibilism FALSE.”
I’ll use Dr. Flowers brand of LFW which seems no different than compatibilism. Until the LFW advocates own up to what LFW is, confusion will reign. Even you never define LFW in a manner that distinguishes it from compatibilist freedom.
rhutchin
When Dr. Flowers figures out that his position is not really different than compatibilism, and either admits it or goes whole hog for LFW, I will take a different position. It’s not owrth fighting with him at this point.
br.d
You got caught FIBBING and now you’re trying to deflect.
Too funny!!!
rhutchin
I’ll use Dr. Flowers brand of LFW which seems no different than compatibilism. Until the LFW advocates own up to what LFW is, confusion will reign. Even you never define LFW in a manner that distinguishes it from compatibilist freedom.
br.d
INTERPRETATION
I’ll continue to try to deceptively claim that Libertarian Freedom exists for Adam in Calvinism
While trying to ignore the fact that that claim is completely rejected by all academic Calvinists.
I’ll also continue to try to claim – no advocate of Libertarian Freedom can distinguish between it and Compatibilist freedom
A claim no one in academia would consider RATIONAL – and neither would Dr. Flowers
And then I’ll try to deflect slipshod tactics – and my IRRATIONAL thinking – by putting the blame on someone else.
How Calvinistic!!! :-]
br.d writes, “You now totally contradicting all of your assertions that divine omniscience entails Determinism.”
Because God is omniscient, all things are determined, either directly or indirectly, by God. God directly brought about the flood of Noah and the confusion of languages at Babel – thus determining both. God indirectly determined the crucifixion of Christ working through, but not coercing, the actions of the Jews and Romans. Ephesians 1:11 is true regardless how God does it.
Then, “Libertarian Freedom cannot exist with Determinism – any more than oxygen can exist in a perfect vacuum.”
The reason why that is true is that :LFW requires the person to be autonomous and not under God’s sovereign control. However, do any of the advocates of LFW say that. Dr. Flowers does not. Of course, if anything is outside God’s sovereign control, then there are at least two gods.
br.d\
You now totally contradicting all of your assertions that divine omniscience entails Determinism.”
rhutchin
Because God is omniscient…..
br.d
Which for you equates to Determinism/Compatiblism – which as Calvinist scholars assert mutually excludes Libertarian Freedom.
Like Darth Vader told you the other day: “Now your DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS is complete”! :-]
Libertarian Freedom cannot exist with Determinism – any more than oxygen can exist in a perfect vacuum.”
rhutchin
The reason why that is true is……
br.d
So now you totally contradict yourself for the third time
This time contradicting your earlier FALSE claim that Libertarian Freedom exists for Adam – and when you asserted that no one can distinguish any difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatiblist freedom.
How much Wacky Tobaccy did you say you were smoking these days? :-]
rhutchin: “Because God is omniscient…..”
br.d: “Which for you equates to Determinism/Compatiblism – which as Calvinist scholars assert mutually excludes Libertarian Freedom.”
If God is omniscient with regard to future events, then those future events are certain and therefore determined – a point Dr. Flowers has yet to grasp. How future events come to be determined is at issue. Obviously, God is the first cause since He created the whole system under which events occur.
br.d writes, “So now you totally contradict yourself – when you say no one can distinguish any difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatiblist freedom.”
No. I said the LFW advocates are unable to distinguish a difference between LFW and compatibilist fee will. People like Dr, Flowers always present LFW in a manner that does not distinguish it from compatibilist free will. Those who say that LFW does not exist can easily explain what LFW is and why it doesn’t represent reality.
rhutchin
Because God is omniscient…..”
br.d:
Which for you equates to Determinism/Compatiblism – which as Calvinist scholars assert mutually excludes Libertarian Freedom.
Sorry rhutchin – No such thing as Libertarian Freedom for Adam – in Calvinism
You got caught FIBBING!!!!
Naughty Naughty rhutchin :-]
rhutchin
If God is omniscient with regard to future events, then those future events are certain and therefore determined
br.d
Only in the Calvinist’s FALLACY of Non sequitur :-]
For a RATIONAL thinking person – epistemic certainty does not LOGICALLY entail determinism.
I have a certainty that you are going to continue to think IRRATIONALLY – without me determining you to do so. :-]
rhutchin
Obviously, God is the first cause since He created the whole system under which events occur.
br.d
More preciously – Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES, and then DECREES every movement of every molecule.
That is what “Whatsoever comes to pass” means in the Westminster confession.
Sorry rhutchin – No such thing as Libertarian Freedom for Adam – in Calvinism
And you’ve totally contradicted yourself for the third time – by the FALSE claim that Libertarian Freedom exists for Adam in Calvinism – and – when you say no one can distinguish any difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatiblist freedom.
rhutchin
No. I said the LFW advocates are unable to distinguish a difference between LFW and compatibilist fee will.
br.d
One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make him drink! :-]
Academia long-ago distinguished the difference between Libertarian Freedom and Compatiiblisit freedom.
All affirmed by William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Dr. Flowers, Dr. Paul Helm’s, Dr. Neal Anderson, and Dr.John M. Frame.
Your consistent strategy of voluntary ignorance – in order to attribute that failure onto others is all too funny! :-]
rhutchin
Those who say that LFW does not exist can easily explain what LFW is and why it doesn’t represent reality.
br.d
What is reality to a brain whose every perception is determined by an external mind??
The Calvinist’s IRRATIONAL Double-Think
Going about his office *AS-IF* his brain is NOT determined in every part by an external mind.
In other words – going about your office *AS-IF* the most sacred proposition in the universe is FALSE.
Which once again reminds me:
God must have given Calvinism to mankind as a form of entertainment! 😛
RH: “Those who say that LFW does not exist can easily explain what LFW is and why it doesn’t represent reality.”
AIDAN: You say that people who receive faith are given LFW. In that scenario can you explain your version of LFW? Somehow I doubt if it really is!
Very true!
Firstly – rhutchin (as a Calvinist) has no way of knowing whether or not he is TOTALLY DEPRAVED or not.
Secondly: Of all of the perceptions infallibly decreed to exist within rhutchin’s thinking – he has no way of knowing what percentage of them are infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTIONS.
Which means he can’t discern a FALSE PERCEPTION from a TRUE one.
Which leaves him with no way of RATIONALLY affirming anything.
Thirdly – his attempts to MAGICALLY grant Libertarian Freedom to someone as a gift of salvation – is totally rejected by all Calvinist scholars.
I think rhutchin simply got caught FIBBING!!
What was it he said? Oh, yeah! Adam had libertarian free will before the fall – lost it – then regained LFW when he was given faith after being kicked out of the garden. Seems like Adam didn’t have Compatibilist free will for very long – I guess he was the most LFW guy you’d ever meet. Hmmm!! I wonder how long it will take Rh to try to confuse what these terms mean, just enough to muddy the waters like an Octopus squirting ink to make his escape?
Great point!
And I see the Calvinist model of thinking in all of rhutchins assertions.
Of whatever subject the Calvinist speaks (in this case rhutchin) he perceives himself as the only one who has gnōsis.
Fits the model of Gnostic thinking doesn’t it! :-]
Sher, a prophet wouldn’t have half the insight these fellas have!
Yea they have special divine knowledge of Calvin’s god’s every intimate thought.
Especially what he’s thinking when he cuts the cheese! 😉
AIDAN: “I wonder how long it will take Rh to try to confuse what these terms mean, just enough to muddy the waters like an Octopus squirting ink to make his escape?”
You can end the confusion by giving us a definition of LFW that differentiates it from compatibilixt free will. So long as Dr. Flowers and others are wishy-washy on this, confusion is inevitable.
rhutchin
You can end the confusion by giving us a definition of LFW that differentiates it from compatibilixt free will.
br.d
Been there – done that!
And since you’ve acknowledged that Calvin’s god has Libertarian Freedom – and his choices are not determined by factors outside of his control – its obvious on this topic you’re simply chasing your own tail again.
1) The ability to choose from a range of options
2) Those options being logically possible from which to choose
3) That choice not being made *FOR* you by an external mind or external forces.
All of which do not exist in Compatibilitist freedom.
1 & 2) above are rule out because – only one “rendered-certain” option is possible – as any other option that would be permitted to come to pass – would falsify that “rendered-certain” option which was infallibly decreed.
In academia this is known as PAP (Principle of alternative possibilities ) which does not exist with compatibilist freedom
3) In Determinism – all of your choices are made *FOR* you before you exist – by infallible decrees – none of which are UP TO YOU.
AIDAN: Rhutchin said “Adam had libertarian free will before the fall – lost it – then regained LFW when he was given faith after being kicked out of the garden.” Seems like Adam didn’t have Compatibilist free will for very long – I guess he was the most LFW guy you’d ever meet.”
RHUTCHIN: “You can end the confusion by giving us a definition of LFW that differentiates it from compatibilixt free will.”
AIDAN: As you can see from above, I only used your view of LFW, and your view of Compatibilist free will. Obviously they mean two different things in your mind which is enough to set them apart! Perhaps you could tell me what the distinction was when you said Adam had LFW before the fall – then CFW – and then LFW after faith? In other words, how do you define them?
AIDAN: “You say that people who receive faith are given LFW. In that scenario can you explain your version of LFW? Somehow I doubt if it really is!”
People without faith are totally depraved and have no LFW having only a desire for their sin. People with faith are not totally depraved and have a real choice between accepting or rejecting salvation, thus LFW, even though faith determines the final choice.
However, if the LFW advocates are honest, then LFW requires autonomy which is not possible so long as God is sovereign.
rhuthcin
People without faith are totally depraved and have no LFW
br.d
rhutchin is FIBBING again!!!
There is no such thing as Libertarian Freedom ever existing in Calvinism
rhutchin
However, if the LFW advocates are honest…..
br.d
Which rhutchin – would like to both be an not be! :-]
rhuthcin
, then LFW requires autonomy which is not possible so long as God is sovereign.
br.d
Well – that depends on one’s definition of autonomy
If one defines autonomy as being able to create one’s self then DUH!
But if by autonomy is defined as:
1) The ability to choose from a range of options
2) Each option of which is logically and physically possible to choose from
3) That choice not being determined by someone else
Then on that definition there is no incompatibility with divine sovereignty.
br.d writes, “But if by autonomy is defined as:
1) The ability to choose from a range of options
2) Each option of which is logically and physically possible to choose from
3) That choice not being determined by someone else”
Big IF. br.d has to change the definition of the term, “autonomy,” to make his point. Let’s stick with the usual definition of autonomy – self-governing.
rhutchin
Let’s stick with the usual definition of autonomy – self-governing.
Autonomous:
From the Greek autonomia – meaning “independence”
Abstract noun from autonomos – meaning “independent”
Which fits
1) The ability to “independently” choose from a range of options
2) Each option of which is logically and physically possible to choose from
3) That choice being “independent” of someone/something external to you determining it for you.
Works for me! :-]
I did a typo on 3
3) That choice being “independent” of – and therefore not be made by someone/something external to you.
br.d writes, “Which fits
1) The ability to “independently” choose from a range of options
2) Each option of which is logically and physically possible to choose from
3) That choice not being “independent” and thus NOT determined by someone else ”
Let’s make it–
1) The ability to “autonomously” choose from a range of options
I think you might and meant,
3) That choice not being “dependent” and thus NOT determined by someone else ”
or
3) That choice being “autonomous” and thus NOT determined by someone else ”
However, this allows for decisions to be determined by something else (e.g., one’s desires). Of course, that causes LFW to become compatibilist free will.
rhutchin
However, this allows for decisions to be determined by something else (e.g., one’s desires). Of course, that causes LFW to become compatibilist free will.
br.d
Only if one BLINDLY IGNORES the glaring fact that one’s internal desires are determined by EXTERNAL factors outside of your control
Thus mutually excluding the existence of Libertarian Freedom
Sorry rhutchin – a high-school child should be able see through that one
Why don’t you try again :-]
rhutchin
Decisions to be determined by something else (e.g., one’s desires). Of course, that causes LFW to become compatibilist free will
br.d
The “T” in Calvinism’s TULIP also explains how this a total contradiction.
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature (or anything else for that matter) is ever up to any man.
Hence Libertarian Freedom for Adam never ever existed in Calvinism and is logically impossible to exist for any Calvinist!
THE COIN FLIP:
When Calvin’s god flips a coin – he has the option of making it land “heads” or he has the option of making it land “tails”
But since it is a physical impossibility for it to do both- only one option can be “rendered-certain”.
If Calvin’s god decrees the coin land “heads” – then the coin is compatibilistically “Free” to land “heads” and NOT FREE to land “tails”.
To land “tails” would falsify the infallible decree – which is not compatible with determinism and thus not permitted.
If Calvin’s god decrees the coin land “tails” – then the coin is compatibilistically “Free” to land “tails” and NOT FREE to land “heads”.
To land “heads” would falsify the infallible decree – which is not compatible with determinism and thus not permitted.
Calvin’s god decreed Adam to eat the fruit.
Therefore Adam was compatibilistically “Free” to eat the fruit – and NOT FREE to not eat the fruit
To not eat the fruit would falsify the infallible decree – which is not compatible with determinism – and thus not permitted.
RHUTCHIN: “People with faith are not totally depraved and have a real choice between accepting or rejecting salvation, thus LFW, even though faith determines the final choice.”
AIDAN; I see you have defined LFW as having “a real choice between accepting or rejecting salvation.” That’s precisely what I would say too! LFW is having a real choice between accepting or rejecting anything, including faith in God! But that just means we choose to put our faith in someone, or something else! So, I suppose in a sense you are right; that through faith we can determine to reject the gospel. I have to say, it was nice of you to admit it all the same!😏
rhutchin
People with faith are not totally depraved
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
He instills into their minds such a SENSE of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes pg 342)
-quote
He causes those whom he ILLUMINES ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he….FORSAKES THEM……..and STRIKES THEM with even greater blindness (Institutes vol 2)
rhutchin
And they have a real choice between accepting or rejecting salvation,
br.d
DOUBLE-THINK is the power to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously while accepting both as TRUE
And Calvinists do have a love affair with DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
This example is hilarious!!
Calvin’s god can infallibly decree a coin to land both “heads” and “tails” at the same time. :-]
Because the Calvinist has a “real choice” to RESIST that which Calvin’s god has made INFALLIBLY IRRESISTIBLE.
Too funny!!! 😛
rhutchin
And they have a real choice between accepting or rejecting salvation,
br.d
I think it should be totally obvious here – the strategy is to rob attributes of Libertarian Freedom and claim them for Calvinism.
There is no such thing as a natural creature rejecting [X] – when Calvin’s god has decreed that person will INFALLIBLY and IRRESISTIBLY NOT reject [X].
The fact that Calvinist statements constantly come out of both sides of the mouth – clearly reveals where the doctrine comes from.
Exactly Br.d! In fact, I was just watching a video in which the thing about TULIP is that it’s ultimately speaking about the same thing, namely, the destruction of man’s free will.
Total depravity denies man’s ability, or free will to choose to accept the gospel! Unconditional election, just wipes out any involvement on man’s part regarding who will be among the elect! Limited atonement, again, just another way of denying human free will, because Calvin’s god has limited whom HE chose to die for – it’s a limited invitation only! But it’s not even an invitation that a man can say NO to! Because Irresistible grace completely denies his ability to say NO! And then, Perseverance of the saints – denies any ability to choose to leave Christ once he is saved! So, the whole thing from beginning to end, is all about taking away man’s free will! Every choice, or lack of, is truly Determined for a man – under this system.
If the truth be told, FREE WILL is anathema to the Calvinist!
Aiadn
If the truth be told, FREE WILL is anathema to the Calvinist!
br.d
Its no wonder – John Calvin instructs tells them – the only way they can have a sense of normalcy in life – is to
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
John Calvin’s institutes of square-circles :-]
Br.d: John Calvin quote- “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
Aidan: Go about your office speaking *AS-IF* nothing is determined that has been determined. In that way, you can convince others that they they have free will too!
Exactly!!
That is the horrifying aspect of determinism.
The only way you can have any sense of normalcy in your life is to go about thinking and speaking *AS-IF* your belief system is FALSE
Now rhutchin – internally recognizes that the only way Calvinism is tolerable – is to MASQUERADE it as something it isn’t.
And that’s why we see him coming up with 1001 statements – all of which resolve to square-circles. :-]
Poor guy!!
I wouldn’t want to be faced with the twilight-zone world he is forced to live in! :'(
Living it up at the Hotel Calvifornia!🤞
Aidan writes, “Calvinism limits God’s Sovereignty and power by suggesting that He cannot be in control if He allows men have LFW.”
LFW requires that a person have faith doesn’t it? Without faith, a person cannot accept Christ can he? And a person can only receive faith from hearing the gospel – Right!!!
Are you saying that God cannot be in control of people who do not have faith?
AIDAN: – “Calvinism limits God’s Sovereignty and power by suggesting that He cannot be in control if He allows men have LFW.”
RHUTCHIN: – “LFW requires that a person have faith doesn’t it? Without faith, a person cannot accept Christ can he? And a person can only receive faith from hearing the gospel – Right!!!”
“Are you saying that God cannot be in control of people who do not have faith?”
AIDAN:
1). LFW requires that a person have faith doesn’t it? No!
2). Without faith, a person cannot accept Christ can he? True!
3). A person can only receive faith from hearing the gospel – Right!!!? They choose to believe when they hear, which logically means that LFW preexists faith in Christ!
4). “Are you saying that God cannot be in control of people who do not have faith?”
INTERPRETATION:
Are you saying that God cannot be in control of people who do not have LFW? No! Because most everybody has LFW!
Look at my first statement again:
I’m saying Calvinism suggests that God cannot be in control if He allows men have LFW. In other words, they are afraid to allow men have LFW, because CALVINISTS think that God would then lose control of His sovereignty!
Clearly all men have LFW, and clearly God is still sovereign!
rhutchin
LFW requires that a person have faith doesn’t it?
br.d
Children…… I mean Calvinists ,,,,say the silliest things!!!
Adolf Hitler – without faith in Christ – can made a Libertarian choice between a bullet in the head vs jumping off a roof-top
And every Totally Depraved Calvinist – can make a Libertarian choice between two Totally Depraved options
rhutchin
Without faith, a person cannot accept Christ can he?
br.d
Calvinists do love their DOUBLE-SPEAK!
Monergism.com in the article “Libertarian Calvinism by Paul Manata”
Writes that any Calvinist who acknowledges the existence of Libertarian Freedom in any form is a Deviant Calvinist.
Calvinist Paul Helm’s agrees – and states “The Westminster confession makes room for a Compatibilistic form of freedom predicated on Determinism. And Determinism RULES OUT Libertarian Freedom in any form.
rhutchin
Are you saying that God cannot be in control of people who do not have faith?
br.d
Talk about syncretism!
This Calvinist lives in his own little syncretistic reality of square-circles!! :-]
Instances of religious syncretism—as, for example, Gnosticism (a religious dualistic system that incorporated elements from the Oriental mystery religions), Judaism, Christianity, and Greek religious philosophical concepts—were particularly prevalent during the Hellenistic period.
Yea!!!
Since Augustine is the father of syncretism
It makes perfect sense that the Calvinist (as Augustine’s offspring) would live in a syncretistic reality.
I’m wondering if the next question RH is going to ask you – is why elephants are born with the heads of mice.
And at what age does Calvin’s god give them the gift of an elephants head. :-]
BR.D:- “I’m wondering if the next question RH is going to ask you – is why elephants are born with the heads of mice.
And at what age does Calvin’s god give them the gift of an elephants head. :-]”
AIDAN: 😂🤣😄🙂🙄😜😲😬🙊🐘🐘🐘
rhutchin
Are you saying that God cannot be in control of people who do not have faith?
br.d
Calvin’s god designs people to function as robots.
So whatever faith he programs into them – would be robotic faith.
And a robot is controlled the say way – with or without Calvin’s god’s gift of robotic faith. :-]
br.d writes, “Calvin’s god designs people to function as robots.”
A child can easily discern the difference between a robot and a human created by God. Perhaps, that is why Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” br.d needs to up his game.
br.d
“Calvin’s god designs people to function as robots.”
rhutchin
A child can easily discern the difference between a robot and a human
br.d
How can you say you discern anything – when your every perception of every matter is 100% determined by an external mind?
Calvin’s god’s brain does the discerning for your brain
Your brain is not permitted to discern anything.
rhutchin
br.d needs to up his game.
br,d
Well – how would you know – since your brain can’t discern anything
You don’t appear to have a game to up! :-]
RHUTCHIN: “LFW requires that a person have faith”
RHUTCHIN: “Are you saying that God cannot be in control of people who do not have faith?”
AIDAN:
INTERPRETATION:………
1). Faith = LFW …… (I wonder what kind of LFW that is?)
2). Unbelief = DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM
DEFINITION:
Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system,
You are right br.d,
Rh is in his own little syncretistic reality of square-circles!! :-]
Aidan writes, ‘1). Faith = LFW …… (I wonder what kind of LFW that is?)”
A person with faith (in Christ) always accepts salvation. God knows the impact of giving a person faith in Christ.
2). Unbelief = DIVINE CAUSAL DETERMINISM
A person is born without faith in Christ and that is God’s doing.
RHUTCHIN: “A person with faith (in Christ) always accepts salvation. God knows the impact of giving a person faith in Christ.”
AIDAN: In that case, Calvin’s god either gave him faith:
1). Against his will – to believe in him against his will – to obey him against his will – etc..etc..against his will!
That’s a funny sort of LFW!
2). But even if a person was born with LFW and Calvin’s god irresistibly gave him faith, that too would be a violation of LFW – against the man’s will.
AIDAN: In that case, Calvin’s god either gave him faith:
1). Against his will – to believe in him against his will – to obey him against his will – etc..etc..against his will!
That’s a funny sort of LFW!”
It’s actually compatibilist free will because the decision on salvation is a very personal decision that reflects a person’s desires. However, if you want to call that LFW, do so.
No one has ever complained about God forcing faith in them against their will. Are you complaining?
rhutchin
It’s actually compatibilist free will
br.d
So lets watch this pattern of language
First he will assert determinism.
But he can’t leave it there because it leaves him functioning as a robot
He must somehow DENY determinism to at least some degree
Lets watch his next statement to see how he does that.
rhutchin
because the decision on salvation is a very personal decision that reflects a person’s desires.
br.d
AH! Here is the very subtle DENIAL of determinism.
Notice how this statement paints a picture of the person making the decision – and that decision is determined by something INTERNAL to the person.
Notice how there is no mention of WHO determines the person’s desires.
rhutchin
However, if you want to call that LFW, do so.
br.d
And that is because the Calvinist needs to rob the attributes of Libertarian Freedom – and claim them as the attributes of Compatiblistic freedom.
All a part of his need to DENY determinism – in order to retain some degree of functional normalcy.
rhutchin
Are you complaining?
br.d
INTERPRETATION
Boy I hope I can get Aidan pulled off on some totally tangential topic – because I’m totally clueless on this one!
br.d writes, “First he will assert determinism. But he can’t leave it there because it leaves him functioning as a robot.”
First I assert that “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” that you call “determinism. I then assert that “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” and that this is different than a robot – proven by the ability of a child to tell the two apart and do so easily.
Then, “Here is the very subtle DENIAL of determinism.
Notice how this statement paints a picture of the person making the decision – and that decision is determined by something INTERNAL to the person.”
The person does make the decision and this was decreed by God before the person was born, even before God created the universe.
Then, “Notice how there is no mention of WHO determines the person’s desires. ”
If you have been following the discussion, you know that God determined the person’s desires by giving him faith. In another message, Aidan complained that God forced faith in Christ on the person against the person’s will.
Then, “And that is because the Calvinist needs to rob the attributes of Libertarian Freedom – and claim them as the attributes of Compatiblistic freedom.”
I don’t rob anything from LFW. It is the LFW proponents who have yet to distinguish LFW from compatibilist free will in any meaningful way with respect to salvation.
Then, “I’m totally clueless on this one!”
LOL!!! I am not surprised.
br.d
First he will assert determinism. But he can’t leave it there because it leaves him functioning as a robot.
rhutchin
First I assert that “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” that you call “determinism.
br.d
Come on rhutchin – you can’t be more honest than that?
Dr. James N. Anderson – Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC
-quote
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism”
rhutchin
I then assert that “God created man in His own image…. and that this is different than a robot
br.d
More evasive dishonesty?
Incapable of distinguishing between robotic FUNCTIONALLY and a robot ONTOLOGICALLY?
So then we have the Calvinist’s sneaky/subtle DENIAL of determinism.
Notice how this statement paints a picture of the person making the decision – and that decision is determined by something INTERNAL to the person.
rhutchin
The person does make the decision….
br.d
And the robot automobile makes a decision to turn left in order to get on the highway.
But that decision was determined by a program.
Same mode of decision making in Calvinism.
So far – what we have is robotic functionality.
Now – Notice how there is no mention of WHO determines the person’s desires.
rhutchin
God determined the person’s desires by giving him faith
br.d
AH!
Here is another excellent example of that subtle DENIAL of determinism
Notice again – how this attempts to paint a picture of decision making caused by INTERNAL factors.
Everyone here knows that Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will appear in the bio-bot’s neurological network.
You’re doing a good job a trying to paint Determinism as IN-Deterministic
But you’re not very good at hiding it! :-]
All because the Calvinist needs to rob the attributes of Libertarian Freedom – and claim them as attributes of Compatiblistic freedom.”
rhutchin
I don’t rob anything from LFW.
br.d
Did I say rob from?
Or did I say rob attributes of?
rhutchin
It is the LFW proponents who have yet to distinguish LFW from compatibilist free will in any meaningful way with respect to salvation.
br.d
Nah!
No one here is fooled by this!
The fact that you need the ILLUSION of being the determiner of your determinations (-quote “self-determined”) reveals what is meaningful for you.
Its obvious how much Libertarian functionality is meaningful to you – because you spend 99% of your time trying to craft deceptive language designed to MASQUERADE Calvinism as IN-deterministic.
rhutchin
Then, “I’m totally clueless on this one!”
br.d
Well what would you call the inability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter? :-]
I’m sorry, rhutchin, but you are the one who said that LFW comes with faith. Yet now you are talking about compatible free will? What is it? Is it compatible free will before conversion which then turns into LFW after conversion? Either way, whether it’s compatible or libertarian it’s all a flip of the coin as to what you know. Why should anyone trust what you have to say, including yourself?
Aidan
Why should anyone trust what you have to say, including yourself?
br.d
Wonderful analysis!!
The Calvinist doesn’t have the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter
An external mind controls his every perception.
An external mind who does not permit him to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
The Calvinist must go about his office *AS-IF* determinism is FALSE
In order to present an ILLUSION – that he can participate in RATIONAL dialog. :-]
What percentage of Calvinism is nothing more than a masquerade? :-]
BR.D: “What percentage of Calvinism is nothing more than a masquerade? :-]”
AIDAN: I don’t think even a Calvinist would need to flip a coin to answer that one!🙃
Thanks br.d.
AIDAN: “What is it? Is it compatible free will before conversion which then turns into LFW after conversion?”
Without faith, a person does not have the ability to accept salvation. Thus, he cannot do otherwise. With faith, a person now has the ability to do otherwise (i.e., accept salvation). That meets the definition of LFW. The decision to accept salvation reflects the person’s desires, so it meets the definition of compatibilist free will.
Then, “Why should anyone trust what you have to say, including yourself?”
They shouldn’t. They should trust the Scripture. That goes for all of us. To the extent that we base that which we say on the Scriptures, and do so accurately, we can be trusted.
Aidan
Why should anyone trust what you have to say, including yourself?”
rhutchin
They shouldn’t. They should trust the Scripture.
br.d
This evades the question – they already trust the scripture.
And you assert their interpretation of scripture as FALSE
You simply evaded Aidan’s question:
Since you can’t discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter – why should anyone trust what you say – including yourself?
br.d writes, “And you assert their interpretation of scripture as FALSE”
I claim Aidan has misread Romans 4 and in misreading, has misunderstood what Paul said.
rhutchin
I claim Aidan has misread Romans 4 and in misreading, has misunderstood what Paul said.
br.d
So then answer Aidan’s question – since you can’t discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter – why should anyone listen to what you have to say – including yourself?
RHUTCHIN: “With faith, a person now has the ability to do otherwise (i.e., accept salvation). That meets the definition of LFW. The decision to accept salvation reflects the person’s desires, so it meets the definition of compatibilist free will.”
AIDAN: So, after his conversion he basically has LFW and CFW all at the same time? Book, chapter and verse please!
AIDAN: So, after his conversion he basically has LFW and CFW all at the same time? Book, chapter and verse please!
Romans 7
14* For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15* For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.
16* If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
17* But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18* For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19* For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20* Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21* I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22* For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23* But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24* O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25* I thank God–through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
That is TOTALLY hilarious!!
Posting a list of verses that the Calvinist mind has no ability to RATIONALLY affirm!! :-]
AIDAN: “So, after his conversion he basically has LFW and CFW all at the same time? Book, chapter and verse please!”
AIDAN: I think you’ll have to explain how in Romans 7:14-25 PAUL is teaching what happens AFTER conversion to Christ? And also how that relates to having LFW and CFW all at the same time?
IDAN: I think you’ll have to explain how in Romans 7:14-25 PAUL is teaching what happens AFTER conversion to Christ?”
When Paul says in v2, “I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.” he identifies himself as a believer. v14-25 describe Paul’s continuing struggle with sin even after accepting Christ.
AIDAN: “I think you’ll have to explain how in Romans 7:14-25 PAUL is teaching what happens AFTER conversion to Christ?”
RHUTCHIN: “When Paul says in v2, “I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.” he identifies himself as a believer. v14-25 describe Paul’s continuing struggle with sin even after accepting Christ.”
AIDAN: Chapter 7 is a more full elaboration of 6:14, where Paul implied that the power of sin over us is due to law; that in order to escape the tyranny of sin one must be free of the dominion of law. In verse one of Chapter 7 the basic proposition is set forth: Chapter 7 shows how sin exercised its dominion in connection with the law; we witness the futile struggle of a man seeking justification under law. The weakness of the flesh causes the effort to attain righteousness through law to end in despair.
But Paul’s expression of thanksgiving (7:25a) recalls the encouragement of 6:14 and the deliverance already described in 7:4-6. Sin will not have dominion over them, for they are not under law but under grace (6:14). They have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him..(7:4). Paul has described what man is OF HIMSELF in Chapter 7 (cf. 7:25b). But in Christ he is not alone! In Chapter 8 we move out of the shadows into the sunlight! Chapter 8 moves into describing the position of the Christian in Christ. What a contrast we have between Chapters 7 and 8.
AIDAN: “Paul’s expression of thanksgiving (7:25a) recalls the encouragement of 6:14 and the deliverance already described in 7:4-6.”
Still, the struggle with sin is still there and it is real, as Paul explains, “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God–through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”
No doubt there is always going to be an ongoing battle with temptation and sin. But again, Paul’s expression of thanksgiving at the end of this chapter (7:25a), is a reminder that deliverance has been provided in Christ. Sin will not have dominion over the Christian, for he is not under law but under grace (6:14). All you have to do now, is repent and be baptized “into Christ” (Gal. 3: 27).
rhutchin
A person is born without faith in Christ and that is God’s doing.
br.d
Here is a question for your rhutchin.
Out of all of the beliefs that exist in your current thinking – what percentage of them are FALSE beliefs?
br.d writes, “Adolf Hitler – without faith in Christ – can made a Libertarian choice between a bullet in the head vs jumping off a roof-top”
Yeah, if he flips a coin to make the decision. If not, it is the same as a compatibilist choice meaning that the person chooses according to his desire;
However, the real issue here is the choice to accept or reject salvation. LFW is invoked to say that a person can choose whether to accept or reject salvation. This is only true if the person has faith. If he has no faith, he has no LFW choice concerning salvation. That is why Jesus said, “No one can come to me…” Of course, you can say that a person in the Sahara Desert has a choice to take the subway to work, but that is just silliness.
Then, “Calvinist Paul Helm’s agrees – and states “The Westminster confession makes room for a Compatibilistic form of freedom predicated on Determinism. And Determinism RULES OUT Libertarian Freedom in any form. ”
That’s because the choice to accept or reject salvation is made on the basis of the person’s desire. Even here, faith is necessary to have that choice. Without faith, there is no choice available to the person regarding salvation – the person without faith will only, and always, reject salvation. When a person has faith, that faith determines his choice – which is to accept salvation. Who would really reject heaven in favor of hell? I don’t see anything wrong with saying that faith conveys LFW to a person since the examples people give of LFW choices are made on the basis of the person’s desires so that LFW is no more than compatibilistic freedom.
br.d
Adolf Hitler – without faith in Christ – can made a Libertarian choice between a bullet in the head vs jumping off a roof-top”
rhutchin
Yeah, if he flips a coin to make the decision.
br.d
Well then – on your thinking – a Calvinist flips a coin after having the gift of faith!
DUH!
rhutchin
If not, it is the same as a compatibilist choice meaning that the person chooses according to his desire;
br.d
Thank you for revealing you live in your own little syncretistic reality!
How long do you halt between two opinions? (1 Kings 18:21)
At one moment Libertarian freedom exists – because you’ve been given some magical the gift of deterministic/compatiblistic (i.e. robotic) faith
Then at the next moment Libertarian freedom doesn’t exist for you – because it is ruled out by compatiblist choice.
If I take an X-ray of your brain – will I see a pretzel? :-]
rhutchin
However, the real issue here is the choice to accept or reject salvation.
br,d
Nah!
The real issue here is that Calvinist’s live in a world of DOUBLE-THINK.
Your every moment by moment desire which determines your choice between TRUE and FALSE – is determined by an external mind.
Your brain is void of any control over what perceptions of TRUE vs FALSE will come to pass within it.
You have no control over your perceptions – because they are controlled by an external mind
Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever perceptions of TRUE vs FALSE come to pass within your brain.
That leaves your brain with ZERO% left over of TRUE vs FALSE to determine.
The fact that Calvin’s god planted in your brain – the idea that his control over your brain requires a gift of robotic faith – tells me Calvin’s god is playing a game of chop-sticks inside your Cranium. :-]
Yes!
I’ve often noted that the very things Calvinist accuse others of – is nothing more the reverse attribution. They are attributing to others – what is going on with themselves.
brianwagner writes, “A Calvinist admitting to Fate behind predestination of the first sin… Interesting! ”
That depends on how much baggage you are attaching to the term, “fate.” We can say that Jesus was fated to be the savior of the world or that Paul was fated to be the apostle to the gentiles. When Paul writes, “whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” one can read this as people being fated to these ends. I don’t see any problem doing this.
The problem comes when people see “fate” as the effect of the impersonal forces of nature locking people into a certain future. That is different than saying thet God – who works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose – determines the fate of people as when Paul wrote, “God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,”
So, when you use the term, “Fate, ” are you referring to the working of impersonal nature on people, or are you referring to the working of a personal God in the lives of people?
Then, “it’s sad he chooses to believe God is locked in and unable to create a reality where conditional elements exist with other free will creatures whom He makes.”
We both know that God has infinite understanding so it doesn’t matter when God decrees X, whether two seconds before the act of in eternity past, the decree will be the same. That is because nothing escapes God’s understanding. Once God decrees X, we know that the decree reflects the counsel of His will and is a most wise decision. There is not basis for God to change a most wise decision to a less wise decision, so God “locks Himself in” as you say,into the most wise decisions He can make. It’s sad that you seek to deny this.
Then, “It’s easy to see from Scripture God is free to make conditional plans which He can change in multiple ways, since “perfect” to Him is not only one choice for every opportunity to glorify Himself.”
God’s plans for people can involve impacts conditional on their behavior. Nothing wrong with that. That does not prevent God understanding people and knowing what they will do before they do it. There is nothing conditional from God’s perspective nor can there be anything conditional with God. Wouldn’t that mean that God is not all-knowing and still has things to learn that will increase His understanding? Why you want to denigrate God is beyond my understanding, but I am confident that God understands your purposes even better that you understand your purposes.
rhutchin
The problem comes when people see “fate” as the effect of the impersonal forces of nature locking people into a certain future.
br.d
So when the Calvinist wakes up in eternal torment in the lake of fire – he has the benefit of knowing it was personal!.
How charming!!! :-]
Now that is a SIGNIFICANT difference!! 😛
rhutchin
We both know that God has infinite understanding …….
br.d
Of what he determines.
rhutchin
so God “locks Himself in”
br.d
AH!
This is one of those concepts that are both TRUE and FALSE for the Calvinist.
In one post RH says Calvin’s god can create an “infallible”decree – and then at a later time he can make that decree “fallible”. So Calvinists have an altered meaning for the word “infallible” – in which it doesn’t really mean “infallible”
But in this case – Calvin’s god does -quote “lock” himself in.
Which for a RATIONAL person – means “locked” in.
But Calvinists have a altered meaning for the word “locked” – in which it doesn’t really mean “locked”.
The decree is “infallible” one minute and “fallible” the next.
And guess who the REAL determiner is – who determines whether it is or not!!!!
The Calvinist!!!!
For Calvinism is all about making a diety in the Calvinists own image! 😉
rhutchin
God’s plans for people can involve impacts conditional on their behavior.
br.d
Now here we have Calvinism’s language of Deceptive Equivocation.
This language is designed to make determinism APPEAR IN-Deterministic
Westminster Confession:
-quote
Yet hath He NOT decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which WOULD* come to pass upon such CONDITIONS.”
How many assertions in Calvinism are nothing more than SELF-DECEPTIONS?
Proof again some are too willing to deny that God’s mind conforms to His Word… But His Word clearly reveals the conditional elements of God plan, but some say – “There’s nothing conditional from God’s perspective nor can there be anything conditional with God.” That’s clearly making God into a known liar in His own Word and also suggesting His mind doesn’t believe what He said about reality to His people. Very sad! Very harmful!
rhutchin
God did not create beings who must sin. He created beings and gave them a law and then removed His protection over them…
br.d
INTERPRETATION:
The “law” in this case is a reference to Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will.
Which in most cases is in opposition to his SECRET will
And the SECRET will AUTHORS and CAUSES 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
When the ENUNCIATED will is in opposition to the SECRET will – the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.
And the creature is NOT PERMITTED to resist the SECRET will, nor is any alternative made available to the creature.
So if Calvin’s god didn’t create beings who must sin for his good pleasure – he sure came pretty close! :-]
br.d:: The “law” in this case is a reference to Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will. Which in most cases is in opposition to his SECRET will”
God’s enunciated will, “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
God’s secret will, “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”
Then, “And the SECRET will AUTHORS and CAUSES 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.”
God decreed, “”when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” making God the author and cause of that event.
Then, “When the ENUNCIATED will is in opposition to the SECRET will – the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.”
God’s enunciated will was the opposite of God’s secret will in this instance..
rhutchin
God’s enunciated will, “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
br.d
Which command Calvin’s god knew was a FALSE REPRESENTATION of his SECRET will – and which command he in no way would ever PERMIT Adam to obey.
rutchin
God’s secret will, “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”
br.d
With Calvin’s god knowing that as nature creatures Adam and Eve were totally powerless to RESIST.
And when the ENUNCIATED will is in opposition to the SECRET will – the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.”
rhutchin
God’s enunciated will was the opposite of God’s secret will in this instance.
br.d
Correct!
And Calvin’s god knew that he was DECEIVING Adam and Eve – by leading them to believe they were FREE to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit – which he SECRETLY knew he would in no way ever PERMIT.
rhutchin
God knew that creating Adam and Eve…..then prohibiting the eating of the fruit and then giving Satan access to the garden would lead to Eve eating the fruit and Adam also eating.
br.d
The deceptive language tick here – is the fact that Calvin’s god does not Prohibit that which he CAUSES to infallibly come to pass.
What he does Prohibit is any ALTERNATIVE to what he CAUSES to infallibly come to pass.
So Calvin’s god Prohibited Adam and Eve from NOT eating the fruit.
No other alternative existed for Adam and Eve – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree
rhutchin
Evil then results from a superior intellect (Satan)…..
br.d
The deceptive language trick here – is the fact that in Calvinism – Satan is FORCED to do Calvin’s god’s service.
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly…..can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived….nor move a single finger to perpetrate…..unless in so far as He COMMANDS….they are not only bound….but are even FORCED to do Him service.” (Institutes I, 17, 11.)
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what He INSPIRES
(A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
rhutchin
So God caused Adam to sin by creating Adam as He did and did this by allowing Adam to Adam to make his own decisions without first consulting God.
br.d
The deceptive language trick here – is where the Calvinist – the word allowing means AUTHOR or CAUSES.
So we simply de-code this statement:
Calvin’s god CAUSED Adam to sin by CAUSING Adam eat the fruit – and to not consult Calvin’s god.
Because an infallible decree DOES NOT PERMIT Adam any alternative – at pain of falsifying an infallible decree.
rhutchin
Yes. God gave Adam permission or freedom, to act on his own without consulting God.
br.d
Same deceptive language trick as above – the word permission here means CAUSE.
Calvin’s god CAUSED by infallible decree – Adam to act
Also – there is no such thing as Adam acting “on his own” when every impulse that comes to pass within the brain is under the direct control of Calvin’s god.
Paul Helm’s:
-quote
Every thought and desire……every twist and turn of each of these is under the direct control of God
(The Providence of God pg 22)
The notion of Adam acting “on his own” is a Calvinistic Deception
rhutchin
So God allows people to sin …….
br.d
INTERPRETATION
So Calvin’s god CAUSES people to sin
rhutchin
when He could easily force everyone to obey Him.
br.d
DUH!
A hypnotist doesn’t force you to do his will
He simply determines whatsoever perceptions come to pass within your brain.
That’s how Calvin’s god does it.
rhutchin
Satan certainly didn’t ask God for permission…….
br.d
Of course – in Calvinism – Satan didn’t ask for permission – because Calvin’s god didn’t FORCE Satan to do that.
Satan is only permitted to do what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees Satan do.
Nothing more and nothing less – is permitted.
And this brings us to the “I” in the TULIP
“I” Irresistible Human Functionality
All human functionality, including morally significant functionality, is produced by impulses infallibly actualized within the human brain which occur as irresistible.
br.d quotes, “R.C. Sproul “– God sovereignly, providentially ordains ONLY what is good.”
rhutchin: “I don’t think this is correct. Do you have a citation?”
br.d: “its a quote from his book “Does God Control Everything? ”
Sproul writes in, “Does God Control Everything,”–
“I have to say that I have no idea why God allows evil to besmirch His universe. However, I know that when God ordains anything, His purpose is altogether good. Does this mean I think that in the final analysis evil really is good? No. I am saying it must be good that evil exists, because God sovereignly, providentially ordains only what is good. In terms of His purpose, God has esteemed it good that evil should be allowed to happen in this world.”
Guess you are correct. Sproul disagrees with your conclusions, though.
rhutchin
Guess you are correct. Sproul disagrees with your conclusions, though.
br.d
Actually that is FALSE
Sproul simply hides behind deceptive language.
And that will be obvious to any RATIONAL person who examines the syllogism I presented.
A syllogism is VALID (or logical) when its conclusion follows from its premises.
And a syllogism is TRUE when the information it contains is consistent with the facts.
I also presented the statement by Jon Edwards – which entails EVIL as one of the -quote parts of divine glory.
The SOT101 reader should also know – from posts here – that in Augustinian theology (aka Calvinism) “good” and “evil” are co-equal, co-necessary, and co-complimentary.
The SOT101 reader will also take note of the fact that Calvinist conceptions resolve to “good-evil” pairs.
Calvin’s god equally AUTHORS and CAUSES both “good” events and “evil” events.
He predestines the vast majority of human individuals he creates – specifically for eternal torment in the lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
And R.C. Sproul states the Calvinist perspective.
-quote
God sovereignly, providentially ordains ONLY what is good.
Additionally – in Calvinism – the notion of “human affairs” is an ILLUSION.
In Calvinism – humans don’t have any *REAL* “affairs” which belong to them.
All “affairs” within the universe – resolve to “whatsoever comes to pass” with created things.
And “whatsoever comes to pass” with created things – are the “affairs” of Calvin’s god.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
Hence they are merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure. (Institutes)
Calvinist Thomas Chalmers explains:
quote
The will of god gives IMPULSE to every desire. The will of man is an instrument in his hand – he turns it at his pleasure. (On Predestination)
Instruments don’t have “affairs”.
They are simply objects used by a player.
Multiple Instruments may become objects within the “affairs” of a player
But those “affairs” are still the “affairs” of the player.
Exactly! Calvinists cannot be intellectually honest and hope to retain their sanity – or any followers, as their system is nothing but disguised fatalism. Nothing comes to pass but that which God decrees. Thus, you will not be saved unless God has chosen you to be saved. Which means, on the other hand, you will not perish unless God has chosen you to perish. And the same can be said about every single thing that EVER comes to pass – rendering all of life nothing but a predetermined play in which men are simply manipulated robots, doing exactly as their sovereign controller determines. But the Calvinist knows that no one can live with such a meaningless concept of life. Indeed, he walls it off from himself, thus the constant Doublethink, Douplespeak and contradictory, illogical assertions. Confronting Calvinism full in the face would render life meaningless.
“disguised fatalism” – I like that definition!
TS00 writes, “Nothing comes to pass but that which God decrees.”
That is the cons