Dr. Leighton Flowers was named the Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists in 2018. In addition to preaching on a wide range of biblical subjects, Leighton regularly travels to churches of all sizes to conduct seminars that specialize on evangelism and apologetics. He has participated in debates with leading apologists and led training conferences for the Annual Convention, Conclave, Apologetic Conferences, and the SBC Annual Convention.
Previously, he served as the Director of Youth Evangelism for Texas Baptists for 13 years. In this position he oversaw the statewide youth leadership training camp called Super Summer and the Youth Evangelism Conferences impacting thousands of teenagers with evangelistic messages, missions mobilization and discipleship training. Leighton has also assisted in the oversight of such ministries as See You At The Pole, a worldwide prayer movement (began by his father, Chuck Flowers) which is impacting people not only in Texas but all around our world.
Leighton earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Applied Theology from Hardin-Simmons University (1997); a Masters of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (2000); and completed his Doctorate at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (2016).
Leighton and his wife Laura, a Licensed Therapist in Richardson, have four children (Colson, Cooper, Esther and Caden) and live in North Garland just outside of Dallas where he also serves as an Adjunct Professor of Theology for Trinity Seminary. Prior to coming on staff with Texas Baptists, Leighton served as a pastor in the local church for over 10 years. He and his family are active members of First Baptist Richardson.
Do you believe that Calvinism is a damnable heresy because by definition it makes God the author of evil? Just curious
Welcome Daniel. Heresy is usually kept for those teaching a false gospel. And Calvinists deny that God is the author of evil, though they have to believe contradictions are true in Scripture to do so.
Here’s my view. Calvinism, imo, has a deformed view of the true gospel, but still the true gospel.
Calvinism’s Gospel – God has provided salvation sufficiently for all and planned for it to be “freely” and irresistibly accepted by some.
NT Gospel – God has provided salvation sufficiently for all and planned and provided for all to be sufficiently enabled to freely seek it.
The bigger problem, imo, is that Calvinism must have God as the author of evil for their idea of reprobation to work. And reprobation is the logical outcome of believing the divine plan was that only some were to benefit from the offer of salvation. The gospel, to them, is not good news for everyone. And they admit it.
But they are professing the true gospel, but it is a deformed view of it, like looking at your real self in a warped mirror. So we shouldn’t immediately think Calvinists are all unsaved. They would have to be if they believed in a false gospel, right?
I understand the view others have that Calvinists have a false gospel. And the ones who call Calvinism the gospel certainly should be called out for claiming a false gospel. But Calvinists still do invite each and every person to trust only in Jesus for salvation. Yes, they undermine that message later to harmful results in many, especially those who never were truly saved, but thought they were. I think that happens alot because of infant baptism and childhood indoctrination into Calvinism without any true conversion experience.
Hi Brian,
I sent Dr. Flowers a message recently on one of his recent videos. I was seeing if Dr. Flowers or someone like yourself would be willing to help me. I recently wrote a friendly letter to my small group at Church in response to some backlash I received for disagreeing with the doctrine of Election. It has now been passed onto our Pastor. My Pastor (who is a John Macarthur disciple) is wanting to have a meeting to talk about Election and our beliefs. We disagree with Tulip and agree with you on Free Will. I was hoping one of you could read our letter and watch our Pastor’s sermon on election recently and get your thoughts. Thank you!
br.d
Hello Scott
I will reach out to Brian to let him know you are asking him this question.
.
But I need to warn you – I suspect the reason this pastor wants to meet with you is because he wants to strong-arm you.
And that process will include different forms of manipulative tactics which – depending upon how strong of a person you are – could be devastating.
.
If you are not familiar with Kevin Thompson’s “Beyond the Fundamentals” youtube channel – I highly recommend you check it out.
Kevin has done numerous videos on the manipulation tactics and often dishonest tactics often deployed by Calvinist ministries
And the mind-games and a library of logical fallacies which Calvinists are required to resort to.
.
You may not know this – but Calvinism is derived from Augustine who mixed GNOSTIC and NEO-PLATONIC concepts into his theology.
So the Calvinist concept of “Election” follows many of the same patterns you will find with the GNOSTIC concept of “Election”
.
If you search the N.T. you will not find a statement from any N.T. author – where people who are NOT SAVED or NOT YET SAVED are identified as “Elect”
The concept that people who are NOT SAVED or NOT YET SAVED are identified as “Elect” comes from GNOSTICISM.
.
What the Calvinist does – is take a GNOSTIC concept of “Election” and reads it into the text of scripture
Since no N.T. author identifies people who are NOT SAVED and NOT YET SAVED as “Elect” the Calvinist has to *FORCE* that concept into the text.
The Calvinist simply *ASSUMES* a GNOSTIC concept of “Election” as Biblical
.
If I were you – I would suggest you consider a NON-Calvinist congregation.
I suspect you have raised a hornets nest with your disagreement of “Election” and you and your family will be punished for doing that.
Of course – the Calvinists in the church will not acknowledge they are punishing you – they will see themselves as being Christ-like.
.
But after all is said and done – you and your family will be attacked and will be SECRETLY viewed as an enemy within the church.
.
If you have a wife and children – you need to be aware of the distress this will place on them.
So please consider the option of leaving this church before any devastation to you or family occurs.
.
Blessings!
br.d
.
NEO and the MATRIX
.
There is a scene in the Matrix – in which Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill by rebel leader Morpheus (played by Laurence Fishburne). .
.
The concept here is fairly easy to understand.
.
The BLUE PILL speaks of compliance and acceptance to the concepts and beliefs within the current social order.
The RED PILL speaks of a journey of investigation
.
In your examination and disagreement with Calvinist “Election” you have taken one tiny step in the RED PILL direction
Your pastor has more than your personal beliefs and opinions to worry about
He has the responsibility of maintaining compliance and acceptance of the concepts and beliefs within the social structure of the congregation
.
As a pastor – he knows beliefs and opinions of the people within his congregation are going to be somewhat different from one individual to another.
That is to be expected
But the concern will be the degree to which individual opinions and beliefs will produce *CONFLICT* within the congregation
Where that *CONFLICT* is inconsequential – the pastor will have only a slight concern
His plan for moving forward in that situation – is to simply keep on teaching teaching teaching – with the hopes that your beliefs will eventually conform.
.
But when *CONFLICT* occurs within a congregation that is significant – he will follow the wisdom of Caiaphas – who said: “It is better for one man to die than for the whole nation to suffer.”
.
The degree to which your disagreement causes *CONFLICT* will be the primary concern.
.
But why do we mention the RED PILL?
Because you have started down a path if examination of Calvinism.
Your first step in that process is to question “Election”.
.
But you also mentioned your pastor is a disciple of John MacArthur
If you continue to allow your mind to be *OPEN* – you will eventually discover – the Calvinist social structure incorporates and justifies certain forms of dishonesty.
.
One particular form of dishonesty which is quite ubiquitous within Calvinism is the “LIE OF OMISSION”.
.
A “Lie of omission” is communication designed to mislead – by the process of OMITTING critical facts – which if NOT-OMITTED would NOT mislead.
.
As you continue to *EXAMINE ALL THINGS* in regard to Calvinism – you will eventually discover lies of omission are an integral part of Calvinist language.
.
You will eventually discover – Calvinism requires the believer to hold the doctrine as TRUE – while simultaneously treating the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
.
You will eventually discover Calvinist teachers (including John MacArthur) are DOUBLE-SPEAK artists
.
You will eventually discover – Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK has a pattern to it
1) *EXPLICIT* statements affirming the doctrine
2) Followed by a string of *INFERENTIAL* statements denying the doctrine
.
.
At this point in time – your journey of investigation is just started
You have taken a very tiny step in the direction of taking the RED PILL
.
Your pastor is going to want you to take the BLUE PILL
He is going to want to you relax – stop questioning – and hopefully simply absorb the teachings.
.
.
So you are at a critical juncture right now.
Will you take the BLUE PILL or will you take the RED PILL?
.
If you take the RED PILL – you will be on a journey of *CONFLICT* with Calvinism in earnest.
.
.
What I’m saying here – is if you continue that journey – you are going to discover so many things about Calvinism that you have no idea about now.
And in that process – you will realize – there is no way you can continue in that congregation – knowing what you have discovered.
.
SO you need to be aware – there are many more things to discover in that journey
And one discovery after another – will be increasingly uncomplimentary to Calvinism.
.
So you need to bear these things in mind – *IF* you are going to take the RED PILL.
.
.
Blessings!
br.d
br.d
Hello Daniel
I think that conclusion depends upon the person.
I have heard some people (not here at SOT101) who make that statement.
But here at SOT101 the interest is in dialog with Calvinists with the hopes of getting them to think outside of the box their minds are captured in.
.
Personally for me – I see the Calvinist mind captured having been drawn into a form of mental ensnarement.
.
In the O.T. God warned his people – for example – to utterly tear down the high places.
But as you know – they did not heed those warnings.
.
They said to themselves – if one God is good – then multiple gods is even better.
They told themselves they could have the blessings of the God of scripture – and the blessings of Baal, or Dagon, or Moloch, etc
.
So we find the children of Israel throwing their first-born into the fire
.
Whenever God’s people do that – they end up with what is called “Syncretism”
The synchronizing of multiple belief-systems
.
John Calvin was a young man in his twenties who was said to be very combative and head-strong
Martin Luther was a shinning star within the Reformation
And Erasmus became a shinning star with his New Testament translation.
.
Young John Calvin greatly desired to be a shining star.
But he needed something that he could use as a spring-board
And he found that in the writings of Augustine.
He developed an unfortunate trust and worshipful adoration for all things Augustine
.
In Augustine’s day – there were two very prevalent and pervasive systems – Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism.
.
Manichaeism spread with extraordinary speed through both the east and west, from North Africa to China. Being widely promoted by apostles, it reached Egypt at around 240 A.D., and Rome at around 280 A.D. The Roman Emperor Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration in 311 A.D., which ended the Diocletianic persecution of Christianity. Manichaean monasteries existed in Rome in 312 A.D. during the time of the Catholic Pope Miltiades.
.
And the Greek teacher Plotinus – took some of the doctrines of Plato and reshaped them into religious form.
.
Augustine corresponded by letter to a close friend Nebridius, who praises how Augustine’s letters: “speak of Christ, Plato and Plotinus.
.
Consequently – Augustine’s inventions were based on certain Gnostic and NeoPlatonic components – mixed into Catholic theology.
.
The two key and unique components within Calvinism are:
1) DUALISM – in which “Good” and “Evil” are Co-Equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-Complimentary”
2) Determinism – as found in Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
These are the two components which have perennially caused the conflict for Calvinism
And these are in fact the two components which every Calvinist internally struggles with.
.
Blessings
br.d
br.d,
On the other hand…
When the Bible uses the term, “author of…”, the word to the right of “of” is not “evil”.
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation
However, it doesn’t indicate that God is, or is not the author of “evil”.
Let’s think about this for a moment. Who, other than God, can define what evil is, or isn’t.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
How did God know what evil was? Did Satan have to author it before God knew? Just because Satan DID evil, that doesn’t mean that he is the author of evil. God had to make that judgment of what the evil was, which makes God the law giver, in that “this is good, but that is evil”.
I would say that God is indeed the author of evil…otherwise, how would anyone know what evil is? Satan authored it, and God was the student of Satan to learn it? God didn’t know what evil was until Satan authored it? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
So yes, I conclude that God is indeed the author of evil. However, evil is necessary in order to make a choice between life, or death.
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Ed Chapman.
Yes – good points Ed.
On the subject of the SEMANTIC GAMES which Calvinists play – they do have the word “Author” to play with.
.
John Calvin
-quote
But it is 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)
.
1) Calvin’s god decrees whatsoever comes to pass
2) Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of what he decrees
3) The vast majority of whatsoever comes to pass is evil
.
Therefore it follows:
Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of evil.
.
This is where we get into the various SEMANTIC TAP-DANCE routines that Calvinists love to play.
For example
– Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of whatsoever comes to pass
– But not in such a way as Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of evil
.
This is like saying:
– All [S] are [P]
– But in such a way as SOME [S] are NOT [P]
In logic this is a clear contradiction.
Calvin made a distinction between ultimate and proximate causation. Thus, to him there are different kinds of authorship that can even work harmoniously with each other as in a cause-and-effect relationship. We see that in Philippians 2:12-13 – “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to do work for His good pleasure.” Thus, what God wills, man responds cordially for good or evil. Thus, God is the ultimate author of sin and man the proximate. We see this same kind of twofold authorship with the inspiration of the infallible Holy Scriptures. At face value this is not contradictory. The question then becomes is it evil for God to be the ultimate cause of man’s willing sin? If so, by what standard can we make that absolute judgment? And where does it come from? Lastly, when speaking about evil and sin, we must consider the two terms are not synonymous. Yet, they are rarely ever defined. Somethings to think about. Peace.
Michael M. Volpe,
You mention:
Philippians 2:12-13 as if it states that you can only do what God wills you to do.
That’s not what it states, however.
Once you become a Christian, it is NATURAL for you to WANT to do God’s will…no coercing going on, no twisting of arms.
But that doesn’t mean that you ARE going to do what God wills you to do. FREE WILL!
Now, my Phillipians 2:12-13 states:
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling….
That shows me that these people could have DISOBEYED God’s will. But they didn’t. Not only that, they weren’t obeying JUST to impress Paul, either. They obeyed from the HEART, not due to some SOVERIEGN GOD dictating their every move.
Ed Chapman
God does not coerce the will against itself but makes it cordially willing from within whether for good or evil. So then, we have a will but it’s not free from the control of God or our desires He gives us. Or, to put it another way, we like what we are determined to will either in accordance with or against the knowledge of God.
Lastly, freewill is not needed for love, faith and obedience to have value. Neither God, Christ, the angels or the saints in heaven have freewill to sin, yet practice these three virtues better than those who think they have freewill.
And we see the same with us when in love. We can’t help but willing love but have no power to will otherwise. The same is for those who have a sense of destiny. Or, even in personal preferences. We can’t will otherwise and cordially accept this inner compulsion.
Michael,
God does not coerce the will against itself…..
.
br.d
This in Calvinism is called the NO FORCE argument and it is a red-herring.
.
The idea that a human would have to be FORCED to do anything – logically entails that human has a degree of AUTONOMAY.
And in Calvinism – humans are not granted any degree of AUTONOMY.
.
Calvin’s god decrees WHATSOEVER comes to pass – which includes WHATSOEVER impulses will come to pass within your brain.
.
If I determined every impulse in your brain – I certainly don’t have to FORCE you to do anything
.
Calvin’s god does not have to FORCE you to perform SIN_X at TIME_T
All he has to do is decree the impulse in your brain to perform SIN_X at TIME_T
That decree does not grant you any ALTERNATIVE
.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
.
One does not have to FORCE a robot to do what it is programmed to do :-]
No force necessary!
blessings!
br.d
Calvinist’s, including Calvin, affirm God makes all things certain by His decree but does not make evil and sin certain by His efficient power. By separating His decree and Divine efficiency they think somehow that relieves them from the charge of making God the author of evil even though He determines all things
But, in the end calvinists and freewill believers agree that man creates evil out of nothing from the power of the will. Thus the former indirectly affirms free will, whereas the latter directly. Because the Calvinist is inconsistent, you win the argument every time.
As for me, I don’t believe you can separate God’s decree and efficient power concerning evil and sin. I affirm God is the author of man’s evil and sin. And He does it by creating a cordial willingness. Thus, for God’s own glory to and for Himself, He makes man both fitted for and deserving of hell by His power and decree. Therefore, I’m not a Calvinist but an absolute theistic determinist.
I like discussing theology with people of other perspectives when they are respectful and show a sense of humility. I encourage you to emulate Mr. Flowers. May God’s peace be upon all of us.
Michael M Volpe,
You had said:
“But, in the end calvinists and freewill believers agree that man creates evil out of nothing from the power of the will. ”
Question…where is Satan in all this? And as for your doublespeak, it’s insane to say that God decrees all things, but ya, let’s blame THE OTHER GUY…humans. LOL. Come on, dude! Really? Sorry, but I don’t buy into that logic at all.
Ed Chapman
br.d
I don’t know where Michael comes up with these totally wild statements!
.
Creating something out of nothing is classified in Theological literature as: Creatio Ex Nihilo
The power for Ex Nihilo is attributed solely to God and to God alone.
.
Man is never said to have the power to create anything out of nothing.
.
The other problem with Michael’s statements about the human will – is that he presents man as an AUTONOMOUS creature – and man’s will operating independent of Calvinistic divine sovereignty.
.
Calvinist R.C. Sproul
-quote
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God.
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-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)
.
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is immediately operative in *EVERY ACT* of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance *THE IMPULSE TO ACTION PRECEDES* from god (Systematic Theology)
.
.
.
I suspect Michael has a very inventive imagination – and is simply making stuff up out his head
And then presenting what he makes up as absolute unquestionable declarations
.
This does kind of follow a pattern with Calvinists.
Every Calvinist seems to present whatever pops into his imagination as the GOLDEN STANDARD.
.
Interesting how that behavior pattern is so consistent with Calvinists!
br.d,
Exactly. It’s a fascinating religion to study, but I certainly don’t see what they see, such as David, wicked from the womb, and Romans 9, “created” for hell (destruction). And, of course, John 6, that God chooses who is going to heaven, Romans 3, no one is righteous, no not one…but they missed out on Abraham, and…
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
And Jesus hadn’t even died on the cross yet to “impute” HIS righteousness of living a sinless life. But no one is righteous, no not one, huh?
Oh, and let’s not forget the “given” faith in order to believe, or irresistable grace, that you’ll never be able to change your mind, and that God uses Satan to do God’s will which causes someone to sin, that benefits another, because good comes out of evil…very strange stuff they have.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Some kids run around play acting Superman
Some kids run around play acting the Lone Ranger
The imagination allows them to become like the Superhero.
.
John Calvin – for all intents and purposes was a “Super Apostle”
He speaks with authority not as the scribes and pharisees
He is a Superhero
He speaks EX-CATHEDRA
.
So I think it makes perfect sense to find Calvinists play acting that out.
Michael
Calvinist’s, including Calvin, affirm God makes all things certain by His decree but does not make evil and sin certain by His efficient power
.
br.d
Actually that is FALSE
.
In Calvinism vernacular – the phrase “Rendered-Certain” simply states the fact that by virtue of the fact that decree is INFALLIBLE – it follows – that which it decrees is also INFALLIBLE.
.
So “Rendered-Certain” simply means “Made Infallible”
.
Additionally – Calvin’s god has “Certainty” of whatsoever will come to pass – simply because his decree establishes whatsoever will come to pass as “Infallible”.
.
And the infallible decree is in fact Calvin’s god’s “Efficient Power”
So he does make evil and sin “Certain” (aka infallible) by virtue of the “Efficient Power” of the decree.
.
Michael:
I affirm God is the author of man’s evil and sin.
.
br.d
That would be the LOGICAL approach – so I congratulate you on that.
Many Calvinists are more emotional than they are logical and they reject rational reasoning for emotions sake.
.
Michael:
He does it by creating a cordial willingness.
.
br.d
Again – it is critical to acknowledge the fact that an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
In Academic Reformed circles – this is commonly understood as “BE OTHERWISE” or “DO OTHERWISE”
Determinism – does not grant creation the power or ability to “BE OTHERWISE” or “DO OTHERWISE” than that which is decreed.
.
And since Determinism is EXHAUSTIVE (the movement of every atomic particle) it follows – the decree determines every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain.
.
So in Calvinism – whatever the state of your “will” is at any nano-second in time – can *ONLY* be what Calvin’s god decreed it to be – and that decree – because it is infallible – does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
Michael
I encourage you to emulate Mr. Flowers. May God’s peace be upon all of us.
.
br.d
Thank you!
I appreciate that!
Sometimes it is a little necessary for me to respond to irrational dogmatism which is an expected behavior pattern.
.
blessings!
You and I agree that one cannot separate the decree from God’s efficient power. But Calvin and the Calvinists (wrongly howbeit) disagree:
“You must now see that although God does, in His own secret and sovereign way, harden men’s hearts, no fault can possibly be imputed to Him, because every man hardens his own heart by the essential evil and wickedness of his own nature. But when God turns the hearts of men to the obedience and worship Himself, that is another form of His working altogether…. But with reference to His hardening men’s hearts, that is a different way of God’s working…. He so overrules their depraved wills by His secret judgment and counsel that they can do nothing but what He decreed…. God hardens whomsoever He will, yet everyone so hardened is the cause and author of his own hardening.” – John Calvin, God’s Eternal Predestination and Secret Providence, pages 283-284.
“God is neither the author or approver of evil.” – The Westminster Confession of Faith.
“There are other things, however, which God included in His decree and thereby rendered certain, but which He did not decide to effectuate Himself, as the sinful acts of His rational creatures. The decree, in so far as it pertains to these acts, is generally called God’s permissive decree. This name does not imply that the futurition of these acts is not certain to God, but simply that He permits them to come to pass by the free agency of His rational creatures. God assumes no responsibility for these sinful acts whatsoever.” – Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition, page 103.
So, since both Calvinists and free will believing Christians affirm God created all things good, and since the latter believe the will has the power of contrary choice, regardless of having true knowledge and God’s preserving power, then one can rightly ask, where did evil come from, if not by His immediate Divine power? Man must create it Ex nihilo from the power of his own will.
Yet, the Scriptures declare God is the Creator of evil – “I make peace and create evil.” Isaiah 45:7. And that’s what makes Him God! The Hebrew word for calamity is not used here, but ra, which often refers to moral evil as it does in Genesis 3:22. And the evil God brings about is not a judicial hardening as it is in Jeremiah 18:4. This is seen not only in Isaiah 45:9-10, but most of all in Romans 11:36 – “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever.” There are no exceptions, not even my unbelief and sin. So, I bow before this all-consuming God and cry out to Him through Christ’s imputed righteousness – “”For You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not recognize us. You O Yahweh, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is Your Name. Why O Yahweh, do You cause us to stray from Your ways and harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribe of your heritage…. We have become like those whom You never ruled, like those who were not called by Your name. Isaiah 63:16-19.
Though we don’t agree, I have strong reasons why I’m an absolute determinist and not as stupid or wild as you and Chapman think. Anyway, if you (Mr. br.d) are at least willing to hear a full argument for my position, I’ll send you a free copy of my book called Commemorative Justice and a pamphlet I wrote called Evil, Suffering and Hell: Why? God’s peace.
Michael,
God doesn’t harden men’s hearts.
Good hardened the Pharoah’s heart.
And there was a spiritual prophesy reason.
The Pharoah plays the role of Satan, holding God’s people in the BONDAGE OF SIN.
Moses plays the role of Jesus, the redeemer.
The children of Israel playing the role of God’s human creation.
Egypt as the role of sin.
Wandering the desert as the role of a Christian Walk.
Jordan River as the role of natural death.
Canaan, the Promised Land, as the role of entering heaven.
And that is what Romans 9-11 is telling you.
The promise given to Abraham was about two things. Canaan and Isaac.
That’s the carnal. That’s all that the Jews can see. They don’t see anything else.
But we see the spiritual side of the story that Canaan is heaven, and Isaac is Jesus.
There is two sides to the story. Carnal, and spiritual.
And God uses the Jews to tell a story about himself.
See Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8. Due to their blindness, that they can’t see the spiritual side of the story, God gives them mercy in the end.
Those whom God used will get mercy. He used the Pharoah.
But this is not to be known that God hardens the hearts of people in general.
Expository preaching will get you nowhere fast.
Ed Chapman
Michael,
And on that same note, God USED Jonah, too.
Prophets, in the Bible, their sole purpose in scripture is the prophesy of Jesus, wittingly, or unwittingly.
3 days, 3 nights. Actually, all of jonah 2 is about Jesus.
I snicker in church when the preacher wants to talk about the topic of obedience regarding jonah. That’s the carnal side. But the spiritual side is Jesus dying, sent to hell, and rising from the dead.
Jonah was used for destruction.
Ed Chapman
br.d
There is an interesting phenomenon to observe with Michael
.
Calvinism is a belief system which maintains what Sociologists call a “Closed System of Logic”
.
The Calvinist authority structure exerts a much higher degree of control over information.
Thus Calvinism social structure exercises what Sociologists call “Milieu Control”
.
Milieu Control – is what we see with the WOKE mind-set
An example of this – would be a biological man who identifies as a woman
He demands you accept his identity.
.
Notice one of Michael’s last statement to me was framed:
-quote
*YOU MUST SEE* that although God does, in His own secret and sovereign way, harden men’s hearts, no fault can possibly be imputed to Him.
.
Notice how this is framed in the form of a demand *YOU MUST SEE*
.
This follows the same pattern as the WOKE mindset
Some people today are describing this as the “WOKE mind virus”
.
I think when you know how to look for it – you will find the same mind pattern with Calvinists
This is a “Socialization” phenomenon
.
How the Calvinist social structure works to CONDITION the mind to memorize MANTRAS and mindlessly recite them.
I guess I was not clear. I quoted Calvin, WCF and Berkof to show that they erroneously separate God’s decree from His efficacious power so as to deflect the charge they make God the author of evil while still maintaining He makes all things certain by His decree, especially evil and sin. I granted that this is inconsistent.
I then asked the question where does evil come from? I concluded saying, by implication, both the Calvinist and freewill believing Christian have to affirm that man creates it ex nihilo by the power of his will because both agree God created everything good and that God does not efficaciously work evil in human nature. Thus, when it comes to evil the two affirm the same even though the former are determinists and the latter indeterminists.
Lastly, I said I do believe God is the author of man’s evil and sin, because He must create and sustain everything by both His decree and efficacious power. And I gave some exegesis.
But you responded with an analogy, and then said to Chapman I have a woke mindset.
So, to distinguish what I’m saying from both the Calvinist and freewill believers, I leave with an a Scriptural analogy and a charge.
God creates willing evil in and through creatures and then punishes them for it, so that He may manifest and magnify His power of His wrath on vessels prepared and fitted for everlasting destruction. Only then to show the power of His grace by forgiving others He previously made willingly evil.
For when God creates evil in the creature they cannot but desire it and break God’s commands against the knowledge of His truth. Thus, they are fitted to be deserving of wrath even though they could not, nor would not do otherwise. We are like clay to a potter. And with God being His first audience, He does this in order to celebrate Himself to Himself in Christ.
By what standard can we use to arbitrate between God and man and determine that is wrong? And if there is something above both that can determine this, where did it come from? How would that not make us equal with God and make Him finite?
Note how I never berated you like you’ve done with me, especially in your responses with Chapman. Like Mr. Flowers, a first rate thinker would not say such things. Emulate him.
br.d
Hello Michael
.
I have a question for you:
In Calvinism – is creation granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree?
br.d
AH!
I see I misunderstood some of your language.
Many of your statements have followed a pattern of making declarations
So I assumed you were following that pattern.
I agree with the points you make here
.
1) Calvin’s god does in fact *MAKE* sinful evil impulses infallibly come to pass within the human brain
.
2) Those impulses are determined by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of man’s control
.
3) Thus in Calvinism – all sinful evil impulses are *MADE* to come to pass within the human brain – by antecedent
factors outside of the brain’s control
.
4) Thus it follows – man is granted NO SAY, NO CHOICE, and NO CONTROL over any sinful evil impulse or act.
.
5) Thus in Calvinism – it is more truthful to say – man *PERFORMS* sins and evils on Calvin’s god’s behalf.
.
.
Now you ask in the final question:
“By what standard can we use to arbitrate between God and man and determine that is wrong? ”
.
The irony of this question – is the fact that the Calvinist himself stands as the arbitrator without realizing it.
.
Calvinist language is designed to *obfuscate* the very components which you sight above
Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language
Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language
.
Cosmetics are designed for two primary functions
1) Hide what we don’t want people to see
2) Create an appearance which we calculate people will accept
.
Calvinist language is designed to hide the EVIL aspects of the doctrine
It is designed to create SEMANTIC MASKS in order to cover the TRUE FACE of the doctrine
It is designed to create an appearance which the Calvinist calculates NORMAL people will accept.
.
For example – Calvinists call the doctrine a “Doctrine of Grace”
John MacArthur calls his ministry “Grace to you”
We both know – these are FALSE representations.
.
Under scrutiny – we can identify Calvin’s doctrine – as a doctrine of “GOOD-EVIL”
Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of human individuals specifically for “EVIL” based on his “GOOD” pleasure
So what we have here is “EVIL” for the sake of “GOOD” pleasure
Thus we have a doctrine of “GOOD-EVIL”
.
This system of “GOOD-EVIL” is a critical part of what every Calvinist internally struggles with.
That is why Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language – designed to hide the TRUE FACE of the doctrine
.
So the Calvinist himself – by his need to *obfuscate* the EVIL components of the doctrine serves as the red-flag
He himself sees something “wrong” with the doctrine
His response to what he sees “wrong” with the doctrine – drives him to hide its TRUE-FACE behind a COSMETIC mask
The COSMETIC mask is the premier characteristic of Calvinist language
.
So the Calvinist himself – by his language – declares he finds something “wrong” with the doctrine.
blessings!
As for your question: is creation granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree?
The answer should be no, but it’s not so simple because there are different grades of Calvinism. By separating God’s decree from His efficacious power concerning man’s evil so as not to be charged with making God guilty of sin Himself in making all things certain, it creates a system of thought that has antinomies. But the mind cannot maintain opposing truths. So even if both are maintained, in practice one becomes dominate over the other. For Calvin he sided more with God’s absolute sovereignty, whereas the majority of his theological heirs’ side with the idea that man creates sin (at least in Adam) though God makes everything certain. That is why men like McArthur, Piper, Keller and even Sproul to a lesser degree unwittingly use cosmetic language. Though they maintain the dogma of theistic determinism, their focus is on man creating evil from himself so as not to make God the author of evil. That is why unlike Calvin, they also affirm God’s permissive decree and will, a consequential necessity for the atonement, and the free-offer of the gospel, whereby God desires the salvation of even those whom He does not choose. There are even hyper-infralapsarians like Van Til and John Murray, who ground this free-offer in Christ’s limited atonement.
But there are more consistent Calvinist’s like Gordon H. Clark and Herman Hoeksema. Clark is even more of a consistent determinist than Calvin. Though both he and Calvin maintain a hypothetical necessity for the atonement, and reject the free-offer, Clark does not separate God’s decree from His efficacious power concerning man’s evil. Nor does he, like Calvin leave to mystery the conflict between God’s decree to reprobate and the call of the gospel and the law. Clark more than Calvin states that something is good only because God wills it, and that in no sense did Christ die for the unelected.
Yet, no Calvinist is fully a consistent determinist. That is why men like you, Flowers, Bair, Craig, Stratton and Thompson are able to pick apart their arguments, especially those who maintain the free-offer and have to use cosmetic language. For all Calvinists affirm God has freewill. But true and consistent determinism would even deny that of God. Thus, that would be and is the opposite of freewill indeterminism. Everything God does would be absolutely necessary, even for Himself. And since He is God and His own limit, this necessity would be a cordial or willing compulsion whereby He could not, nor would not do otherwise. We see something similar in ourselves when in love. We are compelled to love a person and we find ourselves unable not to love. Nor would we want to. There is no power of contrary choice involved yet we experience a sense of freedom in that inner compulsion to possess the object of our desire.
So, what is God’s free compulsion? It is the desire and ability to glorify Himself to Himself first in the highest possible manner through the man Jesus Christ. For this election and reprobation of mankind serves this necessity better than everything else created. Thus, God makes both the elect and non-elect willing for their ends. Both are fitted for the purpose they serve to make Christ possible so that God might be fully glorified in Him. Therefore, in relation to God, neither the rational creature nor God Himself has freewill. This implies Christ could not nor would die for the unelected. The gospel then is good news for God, Christ and the elect only. For the elect the gospel is the aroma that resurrects them from death to life, whereas it is the smell of death for those already dead.
This is logically consistent Christian theistic determinism. You’ll disagree with it, but more because you reject the premises are not true. So how then can one decide which consistent argument (pure determinism vs pure freewill indeterminism) is true? By which system not only answers its own epistemological problems but even those of its opposite system. I maintain only pure Christian determinism answers the problems of evil, suffering, hell and salvation in light of a sovereign God who in some sense is love also. Mr. br.d, like I offered before, if you request, I’ll send you a free copy of both my book Commemorative Justice and a pamphlet called Evil, Suffering and Hell: Why? Or you can at least order the book on Amazon. The book is a theodicy based on pure determinism, or God considered as an Absolute and not a maximally great being. May Christ’s God’s peace be upon us both.
Michael,
I’m sorry, but your explanation is why Calvinism is so convoluted. Have you ever considered Romans 5:13, 4:15 for a moment?
Think of the word “DISPENSATIONALISM” for a time.
Law vs. NO LAW.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Pay attention in Romans 5:13 where it states, “UNTIL…THE LAW”.
Abraham fell under that, and so did all those in the flood, as well as many other places.
Adam got knowledge of good and evil from a tree. Abraham didn’t. Think of this for a bit…
Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s
daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God!
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Now, because you have read Genesis 26:5 above, you might get the idea that Abraham was “sinless”? How can that be, with the statement, “for all have sinned”?
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
__________________
And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister with a promised inbred son. According to the codified law, Abraham is cursed, because he did a wicked thing, and should be cut off from the sight of his people, and shall bear his iniquity…yet, he was NOT cursed at all, but BLESSED. God never told him about this sin, but gave brother/sister an inbred child instead.
And while you are at it…
Gentiles worshiping idols…
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
So, you have Adam that got GUILT when he KNEW “what” his sin was, due to KNOWLEDGE that God didn’t want him to have.
But why did Adam eat of that tree?
1 Corinthians 15:42-46 tells you why. Because God made him WEAK…
42 It is sown in corruption (THAT MEANS TO DIE, aka DECAY)****This is why I do not believe in Original Sin…
i.e.
Acts 13:36
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
Acts 13:37
But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
διαφθορά diaphthorá, dee-af-thor-ah’; from G1311; decay
Moving on…
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is sown in weakness…
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
****46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
That is why I do not believe in Original Sin. Adam’s body was made of DIRT, which decay’s and dies. Dirt is weak and dishonorable, and dies. And, Adam COULD HAVE “obtained” eternal life, but did not eat of THAT OTHER TREE that no one talks about. And he could have “obtained” it, even in a fallen state, had God not blocked access to it…
Genesis 3:22, 24
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Now, this “KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil may have been passed down for a couple of generations, but…Abraham didn’t know this stuff…
Abraham got righteousness just by BELIEVING.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
But for the children of Israel…
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
But under Jesus:
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
The Jews:
Romans 9:31
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
And my final note…The law was a SETUP for FAIL…
Romans 5:20
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.
The law was a SETUP so that sin WOULD INCREASE! NOT DECREASE. But why?
Again, Romans 5:20
But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
And this is why the Jews will be saved in the end of this…and that is Romans 9-11. Calvinism’s take on Romans 9-11 isn’t about HUMANITY, but about the SALVATION of the Blind Jews.
To those Jews who are the UNBLINDED already, they are the DISPENSATION OF GRACE, aka REMNANT.
In short, the bible is about LAW vs. FAITH/GRACE. Abraham (faith) vs. Moses (Law).
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Calvinist as a whole believe justification by faith alone by the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ to God’s law. There is an exchange between the elect’s unrighteousness and Christ’s righteousness. Thus, they are saved by grace alone. And, they further maintain by God’s grace He imparts the law in the soul for sanctification only.
So, when it comes to salvation it’s faith vs law. When it comes to sanctification it’s obedience vs antinomianism.
The difference between the Calvinist and freewill believing Christian is the former believes faith is a gift by election, while the latter believes it’s the man’s will in response to the gospel and is created from the self. Otherwise, it would have no value as true faith.
Both agree faith has moral value but is not a work. The Calvinist says it’s not a work because it’s a gift along with the grace of election, justification and sanctification. So, the believer can’t take credit for it as to merit in any sense.
I leave it up to you to explain how faith, is not a work for merit if not given by God but created by the freewill of man.
Anyway, though I’m a determinist and agree with them on election and justification, I’m not a Calvinist because my position on determinism and some other dogmas would be considered as heresy by them and even Calvin himself. I’d be hanging from a noose along with free willers and anabaptists back in the day. Peace.
Michael,
Obedience to WHAT, exactly?
I agree that faith is not a work…but if I say that it’s MY FAITH ALONE, then you will say that I am interpreting faith as a MERIT of my own…right? That’s why Calvinists would accuse ME of WORKS, if I say that it’s MY FAITH not a given one.
But that’s not even the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1. Dissect it.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Bottom Line, God made a promise to Abraham, and Abraham believed it, and LIVED what he believed, and the LIVING IT is WORKS that justified what he believed.
Faith is NOT GIVEN, the promise was, and it is UP TO YOU to believe it…or not. It’s not up to God whether you believe it or not. It’s ONLY up to you. That means, TO YOU, as a Calvinits, that it’s by my own merit, aka MY WORKS…right?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
The answer to your question – obedience to what?
God requires perfect obedience to His law which requires not only unsullied love towards God and even man, but exact conformity to His statues and even faith.
And since we are sinners in every aspect of our nature, we can’t give Him that perfection which also requires perfect faith. But Christ can and did. So, by a given faith (not of ourselves) we appropriate Christ’s righteousness through assent. Since this simple given assent honors God because of its object – Christ, God receives it by imputing our sins to Him and His perfect faith, love and obedience to us for both eternal life and the forgiveness of sin.
Thus, we honor the law in all its fullness while receiving grace. This creates in the mind gratitude and not a spirit of merit, fear or guilt. We obey because we want to and not so much because we have to. This is how God writes the law upon the hearts of His chosen. Thus, their assurance is not even their given faith nor obedience derived thereof, but in faith’s object – Christ. We live by faith in Christ’s righteousness alone for both justification and sanctification.
How do we know we are elected? That we assent to Christ against the backdrop of our depravity that would otherwise reject Him for our own righteousness. No man who is not elect will receive His alien righteousness for justification.
Many will divide Christ’s righteousness by asserting only His passive obedience (His suffering) gets imputed to us for forgiveness of sins only. Thus, our imperfect faith takes the place of active obedience (perfect conformity to God’s law) for eternal life, which unwittingly becomes a ground for merit.
And they do this because it’s understood that if justification requires perfect obedience and perfect suffering and perfect faith, then only by election and imputation can anyone be saved. For all fall short except Christ. Peace
Michael
I’m not a Calvinist because my position on determinism and some other dogmas would be considered as heresy by them and even Calvin himself. I’d be hanging from a noose along with free willers and anabaptists back in the day. Peace.
.
br.d
You have a good sense of humor Michael! 😀
It is appreciated!
.
However – please allow an observation
From many of your statements of personal position – they do appear to be leaning more towards Calvinism then they do towards theological Determinism.
.
For example – it is very common for a Calvinist to not be able discern the fact that there is a FORM of “freewill” in Calvinism. And based on that lack of discernment – Calvinists will erroneously label NON-Calvinists as “Freewillers”
.
The Westminster confession states “They come most freely”
And as Dr. Paul Helms states – this is a confession of human free-will
But – as Dr. Helm’s goes on to point out
The Reformed position on “Freewill” is not LIBERTARIAN free-will
The Reformed position on “Freewill” is COMPATIBILISM (the thesis that “Freewill” is COMPATIBLE with Determinism)
.
Your posts have generally followed the pattern of the typical Calvinist who doesn’t recognize the Reformed position does in fact embrace “Freewill” by embracing COMPATILIST “Freewill” while rejecting LIBERTARIAN “Free-will”
.
So both the Calvinist and the NON-Calvinist embrace “Freewill”
But they are not the same
.
blessings!
Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy embrace the will as the power of contrary choice. By implication you agree also. Yet, you would deny being either.
I embrace election and imputation but that does not make me a Calvinist. My position on determinism rejects Calvinisms freewill position which is hidden in Adam. He had the power of contrary choice within himself to create evil by which God then reacts either with a hypothetical or consequential necessity for the atonement.
I reject Adam had that kind of power of the will. I also reject God has the power of freewill. And affirm an absolute necessity for the atonement. For these differences among others, I would be considered by Calvinists a heretic.
Back in the day you I would be in the gallows together but for different reasons. 😁
Michael:
Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy embrace the will as the power of contrary choice.
.
br.d
Yes!
.
“Contrary Choice” – is simply choice between CONTRARY options.
In such case CONTRARY options must exist for a person to choose.
This represents a state of affairs in which MORE THAN ONE option exists
And those option(S) are available to a person to choose
.
I would hope you are aware – Jon Edwards in his work “On Contrary Choice” points out that this FORM of choice does not exist within Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD).
.
The state of affairs in which CONTRARY option(S) existed would be an UNDETERMINED state of affairs.
This state of affairs would falsify Determinism (EDD)
Therefore – there is no such thing as CONTRARY choice for a Calvinist.
.
But it is critical to point out – that no Calvinist can live coherently with this aspect of the doctrine
Because living without CONTRARY choice entails loosing a sense of human NORMALCY.
And there is no human being who can find doing so palatable.
.
Michael
By implication you agree also. Yet, you would deny being either.
.
br.d
I’m not sure what you mean by I would deny being either?
I certainly don’t deny the existence of CONTRARY choice.
CONTRARY choice – is by definition Libertarian Choice.
It LOGICALLY entails a state of affairs in which CONTRARY options exist within creation for man to choose between
.
BTW:
Every Calvinist – and every Determinist (including yourself) lives *AS-IF* he has CONTRARY choice.
This is what I call the *AS-IF* thinking pattern for all Calvinists/Determinists
.
1) The Calvinist asserts his doctrine is TRUE
2) The Calvinist treats his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human NORMALCY
.
Dr. William Lane Craig explains
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable)
.
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist – Atheist Determinist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
.
John Calvin
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”(Concerning the eternal predestination of God)
Edwards, like most Calvinists will argue that since the fall, no man has freewill because of man’s sinful nature. For nature determines the will. Thus, man cordially wills to do evil.
Edwards would argue that Adam was different. He had a good nature. And since God is neither the author or approver of evil, and though He makes all things certain, the question for him and other Calvinists is – where did evil come from? He would, like Sproul, say it’s a mystery. But you and I know it can only either come from God or man.
So, by default, modern Calvinists decide for man. Why? Because it is more consistent with the idea that God desires the salvation of all in the call of the gospel, which Edwards also believed in spite of affirming God’s decree makes everything certain.
His immediate followers found this idea of the free offer of the gospel and Edwards view of the will incompatible, which it is. So they rejected the idea that nature determines the will, upheld the free-offer but maintained God determined all things without being the author of evil. Within a hundred years New England theology turned into Unitarian Universalist. Why? Because it reaffirmed free will but in a Calvinistic garb. The mind can’t maintain contradictions
Anyway, I affirm this: unlike a rock, both God and man make choices. But for neither is the will free from their nature or from God’s necessity to glorify Himself in the highest possible manner. God’s will is limited by Himself whereby He cannot will differently then He does. The creatures will is determined for good or ill by God’s will and power and the nature He gives.
Free will as the power of contrary choice is neither necessary or sufficient to give value to choice, faith, love or obedience. For God, Christ, the angels or saints in heaven do not have the power of contrary choice to do evil, yet practice virtue better than those who assume power of contrary choice. Freewill is not needed nor possible for God or man.
Therefore, God and the rational creature have a will and make choices, but neither are free but determined by God and our natures whether for good or evil. And when we make a choice by our will it’s cordial, meaning we like what we choose even knowing if it is wrong.
Unlike Allah or fate, God makes the will of the creature willling its preferences and choices but with no power of ourselves to do otherwise. And we are held accountable because our determined decisions will either do what God hates and must destroy, or the good He must respect for His own sake.
Allah punishes good and rewards evil regardless of man’s freewill. Whereas, the true God cannot but punish evil and reward good He determines through His creatures cordially willing either one.
Lastly, if the will is free for both God and creature from everything but its own power to choose, then the chance/fate dialectic embedded in the will in order for one to determine choice or destiny, makes everything irrational for the sake of freedom. For what chance has fated, fate chooses but for no reason but power to be or not be.
You may balk at this, but if the will is free even true knowledge does not determine it. So what does?
The free will is power that is neither good or bad, but inherently can change at any given moment. Thus at bottom it is pure flux and there can be no grounds for immutability or incorrigibleness to be liable for choosing. And how much knowledge and control does one need to be liable for any decision, especially for hell? How can God punish an amoral freewill that is freer than His? Freewill cant but choose and it is its right to do so. Matter of fact the only thing that can be evil is to punish the will for choosing, irrespective if it chooses what God considers evil. The only justification God can then punish is might makes right. But we know this is wrong.
Freewill Christian theology gave birth to existentialism. This is seen not only by logical implication but historical fact. Kierkegaard the staunch and consistent free willer was the founder of existentialism for a reason. Peace
Michael
Edwards, like most Calvinists will argue that since the fall, no man has freewill because of man’s sinful nature. For nature determines the will. Thus, man cordially wills to do evil.
.
br.d
Not quite!
Edwards is a determinist.
Edwards is not a NATURAL Determinist (in which the “Determiner” of whatsoever comes to pass is NATURE including man’s nature)
.
Edwards is a Theological Determinist (in which a THEOS is the “Determiner” of whatsoever comes to pass.
.
For your statement to not *OBFUSCATE* Theological Determinism – it would be like the following:
.
The state of nature – including every man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined by a decree which is infallible.
.
And thus at every nano-second in time the state of man’s nature cannot possibly be OTHER than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
I would suggest you revise your language – and stop using the language “man cordially wills to do evil” because this language has LIBERTARIAN inferences.
.
It infers a degree of AUTONOMY to man’s will which is FALSE on EDD
It infers a degree of human CONTROL over man’s will – which is FALSE EDD
.
Therefore it is language which lacks honesty.
.
.
I’m also surprised that you continue to attribute man does not have “Freewill” on the Reformed (in this case Jon Edwards) view.
.
I gave you information on the article “Christological Arguments for Compatibilism in Reformed Theology) in which the Reformed author of that article clearly identifies Edwards as a COMPATIBILIST.
.
And I provided numerous quotes from Reformed scholars on how Calvinism embraces a COMPATIBILIST form of “Freewill”.
.
I’m hoping you will not ignore that COMPATIBILISM is clearly an integral part of the Reformed position on “Freewill”
.
But never the less – the statements I made are LOGICALLY sound
1) A state of affairs in which CONTRARY OPTIONS exist within creation for a person to choose between – would constitutes a state of affairs in which something was left OPEN.
.
A state of affairs in which something was left OPEN would constitute a state of affairs in which something was left UNDETERMINED.
.
In such case – Determinism would be falsified.
Therefore there is never a state of affairs in which a Calvinist has CONTRARY OPTIONS to choose between.
.
Never the less – every Calvinist/Determinist lives *AS-IF*
1) CONTRARY OPTIONS exist
2) He has choice between those options
3) That choice is *UP TO* him
.
All of which are denials of divine Determinism.
Edwards, like all Calvinist’s believe God determines all things by His decree. But the disconnect comes when you ask where did Adam’s evil come from if God created all things good and is neither the author or approver of evil?
He may say like Calvin it’s the decree but not by His efficacious power. Otherwise God would be its author. So, Edwards conceals his inconsistent determinism. Why? Because in the end man in Adam creates evil by the power of his will though somehow (without explaining it) God made certain with His decree.
But how can God make certain anything, especially evil by His decree without efficacious power? The decree becomes an ineffectual something or other concerning man’s will to evil. His disciple Nathaniel Emmons tried to fix this inconsistency but to no avail.
Anyway, I use the term cordial to mean preference or liking something. God and man can prefer, love or like something over and against something else without having the power of contrary choice to do otherwise. God loves Himself against evil and cannot do other wise. And He makes the choice everyday to destroy evil. The same goes when we are in love. We are compelled to love another and make choices everyday to fulfill that love but without the power to do otherwise. The same goes with a belief in God. I can’t stop believing nor do I want to. I’m compelled from within to choose Him.
These ideas and language is consistent with determinism. Freewill indeterminacy does not have a monopoly on the terms choice or cordialness. It depends on how they are defined and if the definitions have a basis in reality.
What is not consistent is to say man has the power of contrary choice determined by nothing but the self to will and God’s determinism. Nor is it consistent to say man’s will is determined by God except when it comes to the first impulse to evil.
But I’ll will once again reconsider what you’re saying because it maybe the definitions don’t agree and/or we are misunderstand them.
Anyway, I think we’ve exhausted this without going round and round. For another day. Peace
Seriously, why is Satan NEVER mentioned by you guys? Why is it always MAN? And since I don’t believe in Original Sin, there is no such thing as “IN ADAM” statements.
The same is applied to Satan’s sin. And God then uses Satan to externally incite man to sin from within God makes certain by both His decree and efficacious power. Adam then, and any after him (with or without original sin) therefore are compelled to sin by liking or preferring it against the knowledge of the Truth.
Anyway, just finished doing yard work. I have a good night.
Michael,
Where do you get that idea from? When you wake up, tell me where you get that idea from. That’s the nuttiest thing I’ve ever heard in my life of being a Christian. And I’m 59 years old.
Ed,
Romans 11:36 states – “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Cf. Acts 17:28). This is the most powerful verse in the Bible. The implication is God is the cause of all things, including the will of the creature, unbelief, evil and sin. There are no exceptions.
Isaiah 45:7 states God is the author of evil – “I make peace and create evil.” Many will interpret the word peace as well-being, and evil as calamity in order to evade the idea God is the creator of moral evil. But the Hebrew word for peace is shalom which means more than well-being, and the word for evil (ra) often means moral evil like it does in Genesis 3:22. There is a Hebrew term for calamity, and it is not used here. Others will say the evil spoken here is a judicial hardening which God brings upon the creature for creating their own evil like it is in Jeremiah 18:4. But the context of Isaiah won’t allow for that. How do we know? Just look at verses 9-10 in chapter 45. God uses the analogy of a potter in way that is not a reaction but a cause. And He further beings this home by using the analogy of parents to children. The latter has no say whatsoever as to their being or existence.
Seeing that God is the ultimate cause of all things, we can better understand when the Scripture says – “Yahweh makes everything for His own purpose, even the wicked for the day of wrath” (Proverbs 16:4), or – “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God Who has mercy …… So, then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” (Romans 9: 16,18). And we know this is not a judicial hardening in reaction to man’s sin because verses 20-21 are used in the same sense as Isaiah 45:9-10 and not Jeremiah 18:4.
The root El for the Hebrew word Elohim means the DREAD of the FEAR itself. Why? Because the meaning of Elohim is the Putter-forth of all power. All power (including the will to evil) comes from God for His own glory – “Once God has spoken; Twice I have heard this: That power belongs to Yahweh” (Psalm 62:11). Thus, our wills and destiny are determined by God and not of ourselves. This is the fearful reality.
God is not moved to wrath or grace by the independent power of the creatures (Cf. Job 35: 6-8). The will of the creature is only a means that God might celebrate and reveal these attributes through and for Christ, back unto Himself for good or ill. Thus, we can conclude that Satan and man can only desire and then will evil because God causes them to do so. And, that is why Satan, who is stronger than man can easily tempt him.
We stand before a God Who is a consuming fire – “Who understands the power of Your anger and the fury according to the fear that is due You? So, teach us to number our days, that we may present to You a heart of wisdom (Psalm 90 11-12). By God’s unconditional grace for His own glory, I CHOOSE Him as this ABSOLUTE and not as the maximally great God of freewill theology. I cry out with the saints – “Why O Yahweh, do You CAUSE us to STRAY from Your ways and HARDEN our HEARTS from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage” (Isaiah 63:17). AMEN
Michael
“Yahweh makes everything for His own purpose, even the wicked for the day of wrath”
.
br.d
CALVINIST VERSION:
Calvin’s god makes everything for his own purpose.
And he especially takes pleasure in making people wicked giving them no say in the matter.
Because Calvin’s god gets a special pleasure out of making people for his special day of wrath.
.
John Calvin explain
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god though the reason does not appear, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
Michael,
Oh, my golly gosh…the things you guys interpret is just mindblowingly insane.
Romans 9-11 is about the salvation of the Jews, due to their blindness, because he USES them as a means to tell a story about himself.
Isaiah 45:7 does NOT say that God is the AUTHOR of sin. There is only two places in scripture that uses the word “AUTHOR”. And neither of them is “of sin”.
Calamity is the CORRECT word for that Hebrew word, even though the word “evil” is also the English equivelant.
Exodus 32:14
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Jeremiah 18:8
If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jeremiah 26:3
If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
Jeremiah 26:13
Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.
Jonah 3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Does God “DO” evil in the sense of SIN? Based on your logic of God being the AUTHOR OF, it would appear that we have an EVIL AND WICKED God that sins just like we do, because he REPENTS.
Now, is that the HOLY God that you know as a Calvinist?
Now, in regards to JUDICIAL hardening…there is NO SUCH THING, as Deuteronomy 29:4 points out, that they are blind NOT DUE TO ANYTHING THAT THEY DID, OR DIDN’T DO.
Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference between Jew and Gentile.
Deu 29:4 is REPEATED in Romans 11:8
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
And it’s ALL ABOUT THE JEWS HERE, not HUMANITY as a whole. Not the Gentiles.
For the Gentiles…
Romans 15:21
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
You need to SEPARATE the Jew from the Gentile, and stop including all of humanity in the same boat. Romans 9-11 is indeed about the SALVATION of the BLIND Jews, who CAN’T see Jesus, but YOU CAN.
When Jesus left the scene, one of the questions of the apostles was about restoring the Kingdom. We have Ezekiel 36-37 that STILL NEEDS TO BE PLAYED OUT. And yes, they will STILL BE under the LAW of Moses, still blind to seeing Jesus, but they will believe that the KING in Ezekiel 37 is the guy that they’ve been waiting for…and THAT KING is NOT JESUS.
The Jews STILL HAVE prophesy to fulfil, but they will be saved in the END TIMES. Romans 9-11 is EXPLAINING that salvation of the blind Jews…not their sins. Their sins will be WIPED AWAY. Why? Because God used them…as the potter…for destruction, etc., as a PROP to tell a story about the SPIRITUAL realm of God vs. Satan. Satan is NOT A FRIEND to God, and certainly not an EMPLOYEE. Satan wants our soul, just as much as God wants our soul. And each are fighting for our soul.
But the things in the Bible that you Calvinists declare…ugh! Terrible.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
The specific Hebrew word for calamity is not used in Isaiah 45:7
The Hebrew word for evil (RA), like I said, can often be interpreted as moral evil as it does in Genesis 3:22.
Though RA can be translated was calamity, that will depend on context.
If Isaiah was referring to a judicial hardening in response to man creating evil out of nothing but the independent power of his own will, then calamity would be appropriate. But verses 9-10 uses analogies conveying God as the cause of evil and not in the sense as a response.
Thus, RA in this verse means moral evil. Why? Because the intent of Isaiah chapters 40 – 63 is to show God is not contingent upon the creature in any way. He is God, and we are clay.
And when the clay melts itself in the hands of the Potter (Jeremiah 18:4) it is because God previously hardens the heart for His own glory (Proverbs 16:4).
This comports with the comprehensiveness of Romans 11:36. Peace.
Michael Volpe asks a great question: “So how then can one decide which consistent argument (pure determinism vs pure freewill indeterminism) is true? By which system not only answers its own epistemological problems but even those of its opposite system.”
The answer, if anyone can receive it, is to examine carefully and consistently through sound and prayerful exegesis what is taught in the Scriptures. The whole counsel of God, as revealed in His Word. Such a study will quickly demonstrate beyond all question that neither pure determinism nor pure freewill indeterminism are taught in the Bible. Instead, we find clear statements of absolute divine sovereignty, often right alongside clear statements of human responsibility and meaningful freedom of choice. Andy we find strong encouragements not to go beyond what is written, and to leave the wonderful and mysterious matters to the Lord’s supreme wisdom. For those committed to Sola Scriptura and truly dependent on God’s Word as Revelation which is elevated far above our best human reasoning, I would posit the only proper approach will be a bold embrace of Biblical paradox and a humble willingness not to have definitive (i.e., Bible-level-authoritative) answers for a great many questions. Certainly explore and philosophize and theorize on those questions, and try to resolve the tensions created by those Biblical paradoxes, but return always to a prudent recognition that where God has not clearly spoken we can NEVER fully know. Trust Him and His Word more than mere human reason. This alone will keep us from the absurdities of absolute free-will theology and those of hyper-Calvinism. And it will give us a much more charitable mindset toward those who disagree, so we will stop insultingly referring to a fellow believer’s conception of God with a small “g” and instead accept him as a brother who is wrestling through challenging matters of theology just as we are. This is the big question: Do you believe the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible revelation from God, requiring human faith and divine illumination to be understood properly, and at a level far above any mere human reasoning in their epistemological impact and authority? Only by grossly elevating human thought and/or by devaluing divine revelation can one expect to have pure consistency on matters of determinism and freewill. We find very similar kinds of paradoxes throughout Christian theology, so why not here? Why should we suddenly become inconsistent by demanding a level of consistency we do not expect in other areas?
THEO:
The answer, if anyone can receive it, is to examine carefully and consistently through sound and prayerful exegesis what is taught in the Scriptures.
.
br.d
Where “prayerfully and consistently through sound prayerful exegesis” is defined as reading into scripture what each person wants it to say. :-]
.
Michael is correct when he points out “there are different grades of Calvinists”
Even though he doesn’t define what he means by “grades”
.
What he means by “grades” is that there are some Calvinists who are rational and who have a desire to be TRUE to what the doctrine stipulates and not compromise the doctrine.
.
But most Calvinists are not that “grade” of Calvinists – because there are aspects of what the doctrine stipulates which they don’t find palatable. So they have to find inventive strategies for evading what the doctrine stipulates.
.
Simply put – these are Calvinists who simply WANT WHAT THEY WANT and refuse to take NO for an answer
.
But they will eventually all claim they reached their positions (which contradict each other) through sound prayerful exegesis. :-]
.
blessings!
Oparadox,
I appreciate your tone and attempt to give all of us the benefit of the doubt we are Christians. I hope I do the same. If not, may all please forgive me.
Yet, there is always a but. Your call for exegesis to answer the question assumes you are interpreting Scripture correctly, whereas both the absolute determinist ( which you seem to equate with hyper-Calvinism) and freewill indeterminist are not.
It comes down to whose interpretation of Scripture and why? How can we do that without the sufficiency of propositions to state and convey truth, and the validity of the laws of identity and inference? And if there are antinomies we must accept, why should we accept yours and not another’s? How can we compare the two and decide without logic? And how can the God Who is Truth convey Himself through contradictory truths? How can we say the Bible is infallible if it contains antinomies? What’s the difference between an antinomy and a contradiction?
Lastly, those (probably like yourself, but don’t know for sure) who believe God loves and desires the salvation of the very ones He does not choose, never tell the unbeliever that when they preach the gospel to them. Why because they intuitively know that’s absurd and would make the sincere offer not so sincere.
So, though maintaining the contradiction as orthodoxy, they then don’t preach what is to considered by themselves the full counsel of God. The effect is the so-called reformed message of the gospel is presented almost the same as the non-reformed gospel message because they never tell the unbeliever God might not choose them even though He could (and wants to) without doing injustice to Himself.
Something things to consider. Peace
br.d
WOW this was wonderfully stated!
Bravo Michael!!!
.
Michael
The effect is the so-called reformed message of the gospel is presented almost the same as the non-reformed gospel message…
.
br.d
Wonderfully said – and very insightful!!!
This is where we both agree that Calvinist language becomes COSMETIC language
Just as a woman who wants a man’s interest – will apply cosmetics to her face.
.
Calvinists like MacArthur, and Piper (as you insight-fully point out) stand before a mixed audience.
.
A certain percentage of the congregation are going to be the “Hyper” types
These Calvinists will AMEN preaching which is 100% Divine Sovereignty (aka Determinism) affirming.
However these Calvinist represent a tiny portion of the congregation.
.
The vast majority of the congregation are going to be the “Moderate” types.
These Calvinists cannot stomach preaching which is 100% Divine Sovereignty (aka Determinism) affirming.
They inherently recognize the “AUTHOR OF EVIL” component within the doctrine
And they become face-to-face with it.
If this happens too often for them – they will find a different Calvinist church to attend.
.
MacArthur, and Piper completely understand this!
If a Calvinist preacher is CONSISTENT with the doctrine – he knows his congregation will dwindle down a handful of “Hyper” types
.
So as you point out – this is where Calvinist language becomes a COSMETIC language
.
There is language which has Deterministic inferences
There is language which is Libertarian inferences
.
Calvinist ministers will TAP-DANCE back and forth between these two language modes – in order to keep their congregation.
.
Let’s take THEO’s statement for example – where he states:
“if you can receive it – we are to carefully and prayerfully exegete scripture”
.
This is LIBERTARIAN language.
The statement is completely MAN-CENTERED.
THEO is not even aware when his statements are blatant DENIALS of his own doctrine.
.
blessings!
Michael,
Thank you for your reply and charitable approach (which is much more like that of Dr. Flowers than I usually find on this page, where the VERY MOTIVES of Calvinists are assumed and harshly judged over and over again by a moderator, with an air of intense certainty that cannot possibly be real since no one can possibly know another person’s actual heart, and motivations can be complex and multi-faceted; in this environment, your polite and collegial tone are much welcomed by me, even if we disagree very strongly on fundamental points of theodicy and soteriology).
Your litany of counter-points are well-stated and I have wrestled through some of those questions with High Calvinists and Clarkians over the years (much to my benefit, I would add, and hopefully to theirs as well). Iron sharpens iron!
A curiosity I have (and perhaps I should just read your publications for the answer) is this: Hiw do you respond to the classical theodicy of Augustine and others who state that evil is not a thing in itself in the same way that good is a thing, but evil is instead a privation or distortion of the good that God created? I have always found this compelling. Based on your comments here, it seems you may not be so impressed by the idea. Any quick, helpful thoughts on this? I realize it is a large can of worms, so feel free to send me to a book or publication if that is the best route. Thanks!
THEO
where the VERY MOTIVES of Calvinists are assumed and harshly judged over and over again by a moderator,
.
br.d
Silly!!!!
Its just a matter of understanding human nature.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
.
blessings!
br.d
UNDERSTANDING ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY:
.
Dr. Bella Depaulo Social Scientist (The Hows and Whys of Lies)
-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.
.
.
Altruism is in fact an excellent way to understand Calvinism’s word-juggling cosmetic language.
.
A battered wife may choose to restrain herself from communicating anything that may paint her husband in a bad light – even if she knows what she is communicating is false rather than truth-telling.
She is simply protecting the ‘target.’
.
How much more would a Calvinist evade and obfuscate anything that would in any way reflect badly on his god.
.
He would feel worse if his language were truth-telling – because it would reveal things about the ‘target’ he doesn’t want people to see.
Oparadox,
Thank you. And the answer to your question starts with the concept of God’s wrath.
Because of God’s aseity and His wrath is eternal, the latter could not be dependent in any sense upon the will of the creature.
Otherwise, God would not be self-contained or immutable. So, if God is wrath as He is Love, what can be the object of His eternal wrath?
Whatever it is, it can’t be finite. In some sense it must be of Divine origin. But God is the Good and cannot be evil.
Every positive affirmation entails its own negation. Since God is love and peace in being three Persons codependently autotheos (God in their own right), then the eternal object of their wrath can none other be the corollary idea of each person wanting preeminence for themselves and hating the others and even the self for being co-Divine. This pride would only result in an eternal Sadomasochistic self-hell. God hates this idea and all that can possibly stand for it.
Thus, God determines what evil is from His own self-contained existence (Genesis 3:22) because He is the Good of the Truth. Since God determines the meaning of His own negation whereby it must make eternal and everlasting reparation of its necessary existence by having His wrath upon it, then evil is a power that must and will be destroyed. So it’s more than a privation.
And yet, eternal and everlasting wrath against His own negation is not sufficient to show His superiority over it. More is needed. It must be shown God is in repose over it in reconciling it unto Himself.
How then does God justly celebrate and honor Himself over and against the idea of His own negation? He does it in Christ, for and through Whom the world is created as the theatre whereby God demonstrates He is the Good of the Truth. And the election and reprobation of mankind serves this better than all the other creatures.
I can send you a pamplhet I wrote called Evil, Suffering, and Hell: Why? It explains this in more detail. But for the full-orbed theodicy you can get my book on Amazon called Commemorative Justice.
To request the pamphlet, email me at mmvolpe3@gmail.com
May God’s Face shine upon us all.
Michael
Because of God’s aseity and His wrath is eternal, the latter could not be dependent in any sense upon the will of the creature. Otherwise, God would not be self-contained or immutable
.
br.d
Yes
In Calvinism – this correlates to the confession which states – The decree (which determines whatsoever will come to pass within creation) is not based upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof. It is solely within himself.
.
So the decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that will infallibly come to pass within man’s brain – is not based on anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof. It is solely within himself.
.
A common NON-Calvinist conception of divine foreknowledge and human accountability – is that of a THEOS who looks down the corridor of time and OBSERVES what each man will be and what each man will do – and then holds each man accountable accordingly.
.
But that conception makes the creature the DETERMINER of what he will be and do
And the THEOS in such case – functions as a *RESPONDER* of what the creature Determines.
.
That conception of is anathema because it compromises divine sovereignty where the THEOS is the sole and exclusive DETERMINER of whatsoever comes to pass.
.
That is why Calvin insists – the creature is not FOUND – but MADE worthy of destruction.
.
Man is of course granted NO SAY in the matter of what he will infallibly be.
And nothing within creation – including man’s will – is ever “Free” to be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
It is of course – on the topic of theodicy – Calvinist’s become very uncomfortable with the doctrine
They are overcome by an overwhelming urgency to erase the THEOS from the picture
And manufacture FACADES of man being granted a degree of mental AUTONOMY.
.
We can see how this is unfortunate for the Calvinist
But it is to be expected given the burden the doctrine places on him.
.
blessings!
When it comes to theodicy, the real problem for Christianity is not so much evil, but hell.
Unfortunately both Calvinism and freewill theology cannot offer a justifiable answer to why there is even one person in hell.
According to both of their theologies, God did not have to create a world in which He had to express Himself at the expense of anyone.
And the same applies to all the evil and suffering the world has been engrossed in from the beginning. Why so much suffering on both sides of death?
So, since God is Truth, the Good, Love and absolutely sovereign, there’s got to be (and there is ) a better answer than mystery, man or God’s supposed freewill.
Michael
When it comes to theodicy, the real problem for Christianity is not so much evil, but hell.
.
br.d
No that is not the case at all.
.
It is – obviously a problem for the Calvinist
Because Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within man’s brain.
He then *MAKES* those impulses infallibly (and thus irresistibly) come to pass within man’s brain
They are determined by antecedent factors outside of the brain’s control.
Thus man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter.
.
As Dr. William Lane Craig states – it is impossible to avoid a THEOS who is the AUTHOR OF EVIL within that system.
.
Michael
Unfortunately both Calvinism and freewill theology cannot offer a justifiable answer to why there is even one person in hell.
.
br.d
No that is not the case either.
.
Calvin clearly states the reason Calvin’s god creates man for damnation is -quote “For his good pleasure”
The reason can’t be based on or determined by the creature – because that would compromise divine sovereignty.
.
OUTSIDE of Calvinism however ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist for man
And man is granted CHOICE between those options.
.
It is well recognized Christian Scholarship – Calvinism’s answer to the problem of evil – falls short of that which is understood OUTSIDE of Calvinism because it makes the THEOS as the AUTHOR OF EVIL
.
blessings!
God did not have to create a world with a hell. So, why did He do it? That’s a problem for every man whether one is a Calvinist or not.
Michael
God did not have to create a world with a hell.
.
br.d
Thus it logically follows – he had a CHOICE between TWO CONTRARY options.
Option_A: Make world with hell
Option_B: Make a world without hell
.
These two options are CONTRARY to each other.
If he selects Option_A then he has DONE OTHERWISE then select Option_B
If he selects Option-B then he has DONE OTHERWISE than select Option_A
.
When ever Option he selects – is CONTRARY to the option he rejects
Thus in the process of making a choice between two CONTRARY options – he has made what is called a CONTRARY choice.
.
blessings
I think you misunderstand my argumentation. I stated that to show what both yours and the Calvinistic position entails (that God can create an infinite number of possible worlds), in order to further show that God cannot create other possible worlds than the one He did. Nor could He not create. This is consistent absolute determinism.
Soup or Salad, Michael?
I keep bringing that up, because you keep saying that you have no choice in the matter. But this example shows that you do.
I remember when I quit smoking. My “will” wants to smoke…right now. But I fight that will, and don’t. The same can go for “BEEF, IT’S WHAT’S FOR DINNER”…OR PIZZA. What you “will” may not be what’s available. Or, both are available, and you “will” for both, but can only have one. “Decisions, decisions”. Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Mo…which is it going to be?
And for Cavlinisist to CONCLUDE that man’s will is ALWAYS SINFUL…Uh, no, that’s not true at all. I know a lot of atheists that do GOOD…and they even remind us of all the good that they do, because they have most of the same morals as we all do. For all have sinned, but we all don’t always want to sin.
I think you are reading into things that are JUST NOT THERE in the Bible…such as…
Psalms 53:1-6
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2
God looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3
Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
4
Do all these evildoers know nothing?
They devour my people as though eating bread;
they never call on God.
5
But there they are, overwhelmed with dread,
where there was nothing to dread.
God scattered the bones of those who attacked you;
you put them to shame, for God despised them.
6
Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When God restores his people,
let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!
Please NOTE verse 4…”THEY DEVOUR MY PEOPLE”. So “they” is the subject of the conversation who DEVOURS God’s people.
We have anti-semites today! We have people who hate Jews…even in Christianity. I think they call them, ETHNIC JEWS, who reside in Israel, who can’t stand the Jews because they killed Jesus. In other words, it has a context that is being missed.
The problem that I see is that most Catholic defectors still have angst against the Jews for various reasons, but Calvinism lumps ALL OF HUMANITY together with the Jews of their blindness, as well as to lump all of humanity with the “evil doers” who wish to annihilate the Jewish nation.
Which also follows THERE IS NO ONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE, but you miss the following:
Luke 1:6
Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.
So you have this debate on free will. What is the reason that God created hell? Satan and his angels had to have SOMEWHERE to go after being kicked out of “ETERNITY”. And HERE THEY ARE.
So God creates man in the same realm of Satan…to give us FREE WILL CHOICE to follow God, or Satan. The Jews, God blinded for a SPIRITUAL purpose to SHOW HIS POWER, in what he WILL DO by CRUSHING Satan…played by the Pharoah.
Romans 9-11 is NOT ABOUT SIN, not about the word “destruction” equating to hell. In my view, the Pharoah got MERCY due to his being USED for destruction, just like the Jews will receive mercy, due to the same reason.
For example…we know:
Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But Calvinism shows that God does indeed show favoritism. In any case, I present you with…the Apostle Paul.
Did Paul seek Jesus, or did Jesus seek Paul?
Acts 21:39
But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Paul is a Jew.
NOTE: It’s also important to mention that Paul is a Jew due to some who think that Jew means Judaen, or Judah! Paul is from the tribe of Benjamin, from Rome…so this debunks the Judean, and Judah theory.
Acts 22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
2 Corinthians 11:22
Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
So, Paul states he is a Jew, a Hebrew, an Israelite, and the seed of Abraham.
Now, let’s go back to Deuteronomy 29:4, Moses speaking to the JEWS/HEBREWS/ISRAELITES and the seed of Abraham:
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
What makes Paul so SPECIAL?
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Who is “THEM”? JEWS
Who is “all”? BLIND JEWS.
Gentiles is a completely different topic to cover. And I already showed you Acts 17:30, regarding Gentile Idol Worshipers!
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
IGNORANCE…please note 1 Timothy 1:13 above. IGNORANCE. They didn’t KNOW it was wrong. MERCY.
In every alternative before me both my intellect and will are involved. But this does not mean that whatever decision I make has not been determined by God.
As for exiting before my conception in the womb, though possible, I don’t see enough Scriptural support. Nor is the idea Needed for me to believe that this present world is not my home.
I understand the dogma of total depravity as no man’s motives or deeds (singularly or collectively) can be a ground for justification before God to forgive him of sins and grant eternal life. Thus, men can and do semblances of good, but avails for nothing concerning salvation. Thus, God has to impute Christ’s perfect righteousness to God’s law innocent suffering to me for justification.
Lastly, just because I believe God is now saving both Jew and Gentile by the elective imputation of Christ’s righteousness through faith makes me anti-Semitic.
Peace
Michael
God did not have to create a world with a hell.
.
br.d
If your position is that he does not have CONTRARY choice – then he does not have choice between CONTRARY options.
.
In such case – he did not have a choice between creating a world with hell or NOT creating a world with hell.
.
So if it is the case that he created a world with hell without CONTRARY CHOICE – then it follows – he did in fact *HAVE* to crate world that world simply because no CONTRARY option was available to him.
.
In such case – your statement that he did not have to create that world is logically FALSE
.
Blessings!
Michael
So, since God is Truth, the Good, Love and absolutely sovereign
.
br.d
That is a good description of the NON-Calvinist’s god
.
But Calvinism (per Augustine) incorporates DUALISM in which “Good” and “Evil” are CO-Equal, Co-Necessary, and CO-Complimentary.
.
Augustine
-quote
And because this orderly arrangement maintains the *HARMONY OF THE UNIVERSE* by this very *CONTRAST* it comes about that *EVIL THINGS MUST NEED BE* . In this way, the *BEAUTY* of all things is in a manner configured, as it were, from *ANTITHESIS* , that is, from opposites: this is pleasing to us even in discourse”. (ord 1.7.19)
.
Augustine derives this DUALISM from Gnosticism – which is a DUALISTIC system.
.
Jon Edwards confirms
-quote
….. the shining forth of god’s glory would be very imperfect both because the *PARTS* of divine glory would not shine forth as the *OTHER* do …….nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. (Works of president Edwards)
.
So here we see the DUALISM again
We have PARTS of divine glory which are GOOD and PARTS of divine glory which are EVIL
They CO-Necessary and CO-Complimentary
.
Calvin’s god creates people for EVIL for his GOOD pleasure
Thus we have EVIL – for the sake of GOOD
Thus “GOOD-EVIL”
.
That explains the difference.
Blessings!
Michael
As for your question: is creation granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree?
The answer should be no
But it’s not so simple because there are different grades of Calvinism.
.
br.d
This goes to my point about following the pattern of the WOKE mindset
Here is a little dialog between a Trans_woman and Matt Walsh:
.
Trans_woman:
Some of us believe we were never a man
.
Matt Walsh:
But since you were born a biological man
So doesn’t it logically follow you were once a biological man?
.
Trans_woman:
its not that simple because there are different grades of Trans_women
From the perspective of an absolute determinist the answer is an unequivocal no.
But as I have shown Calvinists are not consistent because they nuance determinism in different ways. Therefore, they also indirectly equivocate. That’s why, as you say, they use cosmetic language.
So, your comment does not apply to my position. But you are correct concerning Calvinists. Not so much concerning Clark, Hoeksema or Calvin, but it does toward men like McArthur, Piper, Keller and to a less extent Sproul. Peace
br.d
Yes!
Well said!
I totally agree with you!
.
This is where – within the social structure of Calvinists as a divergent group – they have what they call the “Moderate” Calvinist vs the “Hyper” Calvinist.
.
I have often been in conversations with Calvinists and my approach to the doctrine is to be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT with it.
.
When that happens – it is never a surprise for that Calvinist to LABEL my position as “Hyper”
.
So we do recognize – there are Calvinists who are rational – and there are Calvinists who much more follow the WOKE mindset.
.
They WANT WHAT THEY WANT and refuse to take NO for an answer
They are happy to live in a world of self-contradicting talking-points
Because self-contradicting talking -points gives them what they want.
.
Thus they follow the pattern of the WOKE mindset.
Personally – I see many Calvinists captured in a form of mental ensnarement
God has given them over to an ensnared mind.
.
Blessings!
Do you actually live as if what you are proposing is true or is it just an irrelevant philosophical position when you discuss theology? Is prayer meaningful or just a mental exercise like yoga or meditation?Serious questions
Welcome Zoran! Here’s my take on prayer.
God’s answers to prayer help mold the still flexible future that exists in God’s mind!
Three great examples –
Isaiah 38:5 NKJV — “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely 👉I will add👈 to your days fifteen years.”‘”
… adding is a change in the plan.
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And pray that your flight may not be 👉in winter👈 or on the Sabbath.
… the date of the fall of Jerusalem and the flight from it was able to be altered by prayer.
Exodus 32:11,12,14 NKJV — Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people….Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people.” So the LORD relented from the harm 👉which He said He would do👈 to His people.
…God changed His plan in answer to prayer.
James 5:16 NKJV — …The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
br.d
Hello Zoran
.
You ask an insightful question!
It is actually not possible for a Calvinist to live coherently with his doctrine because of the radical nature of the doctrine.
.
This is similar with the belief in Solipsism.
The Solipsist system stipulates – the believer is the only human who exists
Everyone else is a figment of his imagination.
.
But you can imagine there will be consequences if he treats people accordingly.
.
Imagine a Solipsist treating his supervisor or his boss as a figment of his imagination.
Will his boss be offended or agitated by that?
Will his boss decide he would not be a good choice for promotions.
.
Imagine him treating his wife as a figment of his imagination during their intimate moments
Will she not be offended by that?
How will that effect their marraige?
.
Obviously – he is smart enough to know – his career and his marriage might be adversely affected
So in order to avoid consequences – he treats people *AS-IF* they are real.
.
The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
Every impulse within the Calvinist brain – is determined by antecedent factors outside of the brain’s control.
.
You can see how no one could possibly live coherently with that doctrine.
Consequently – every Calvinist (just as the Solipsist) lives *AS-IF* his belief system is FALSE
.
blessings!
I concur with Br.d, this is a good question. Why pray if everything is determined? And why pray if we have freewill? God cannot change it for either the self or for others.
For me, I pray out of gratitude, dependence, for others, and to seek Him in order to conform to His will, which He is not obligated to reveal to me. So, I find myself throughout the day incessantly praying. But in the end I’m compelled to pray to Him and enjoy doing so. Hope this suffices. Peace.
Michael
Why pray if everything is determined? And why pray if we have freewill?
.
br.d
WHAT????
Obviously – in Calvinism – man is not granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything – simply because
1) No ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose
2) Even if ALTERNATIVES did exist for man to choose – his brain is not granted any CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within it. So his brain is not granted CONTROL necessary to make a choice.
.
Accordingly – the only way an impulse to pray can come to pass within the Calvinist brain – is if that impulse was decreed.
.
And NO ALTERNATIVE is granted existence from that which it decreed.
thus NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted existence within the human brain.
.
.
In Calvinism – divine intervention does not exist – because no event is granted existence unless that event is decreed
And events are decreed to come to pass with infallible exactness which cannot be intervened.
.
OUTSIDE of Calvinism however none of that is the case.
– ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose between
– Events are not FIXED in the past by an infallible script
– Humans are granted a degree of mental AUTONOMY
– Thus divine intervention is possible.
.
Blessings!
To the degree God has granted me true knowledge, I pray Thy will be done.
Thus, prayers are a constant devotion and submission to Him, even when He does not allow them to conform to what He wills.
Because of what He did for me in Christ, I trust all is right and good.
Michael,
You should have stopped while you were ahead…just sayin’! LOL.
“…even when He does not allow them to conform to what He wills…”
Calvinism double speak in play.
If God puts it in my heart to pray for something or someone and He answers, then He gets all the glory because He used me as a conduit through my prayers to let me and others know what His will is, which cannot change.
And regardless if He answers or not, I know He can change all things, even men’s wills. So, life becomes one of constant dependence and devotion. Amen
br.d
A very interesting Star Trek Next Generation episodes is “Ship in a bottle”
.
The ships computer has a Holodeck in which it can create SIMULATED worlds which are sophisticated enough to fool the human mind into perceiving them as real.
.
Calvin’s god – can be likened to a Holodeck computer.
He can create SIMULATIONS of divine prevention and divine intervention which are sophisticated enough to fool the Calvinist into perceiving them as real.
.
For example – for the Calvinist – Calvin’s god prevented Joseph’s brothers from killing Joseph
But Josephs brothers couldn’t possibly kill Joseph – because that was never in the program.
.
It was a computer generated SIMULATION of a 100% infallibly scripted event.
But the program is sophisticated enough to fool the Calvinist into perceiving it as a real
.
This is the way prayer works for the Calvinist also
Every impulse in his brain is pre-programmed
But the divine computer makes the program sophisticated enough to fool the Calvinist into perceiving it as a real :-]
Just because your meta-epistemology has a lot in common with that of deism you would still maintain there are significant differences. So the same with absolute theistic determinism and acosmism, which is the charge being made.
If God is Triune and the real, and they want to gift each other with a possible world in which they celebrate their love for being the Good of Truth in determining all things – like a dreamer to his dream whereby the latter is from their perspective virtually real (incorrigibly real in effect) as compared to the former who is the real by being the basis-
Who can say otherwise it’s wrong?
And who can say the virtually real is not effectually existing from what the dreamer decides is both factual or fiction? After all the dreamer can dream dreams, think in time, distinguish between substance and non-substance and of space. If we can do this in being finite, how much more so the Triune God for the love of His own glory in and for Christ?
This distinction between the real and virtually real explains better than the meta-epistemological dualism of indeterminate freewill thought and its maximally great God the following Scriptures:
“In Him we move, live, and have our being”
“Of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things”
“In Thy Light, we see light”
“You will say to me then, ‘why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
By His grace and good pleasure, I accept I’m fully circumscribed and determined by His will and reject the existential revolt of determining my own essence and destiny, which is by implication what freewill theology implies.
Like I said in an earlier post, freewill theology gave birth to existentialism. And that is why it has no force to stand up to nihilism. Why? Because both affirm the same presupposition- freewill.
And as I’ve shown also with both Calvinism and freewill theology, only absolute determinism can rationally explain evil, suffering, hell and salvation.
Try as you wish, but on your assumed general benevolence of God in order to affirm freewill indeterminacy to determine one’s own destiny, it was wrong for God to create a world with evil, suffering and hell. It’s no wonder many within freewill theology downplay the extensiveness and intensiveness of hell, or ignore it. Peace
Michael
Who can say otherwise it’s wrong?
.
br.d
Here is a TRUE/FALSE question for you.
.
Right and wrong are CONTRARY to each other.
.
TRUE or FALSE?
Michael
To the degree God has granted me true knowledge, I pray Thy will be done.
.
br.d
Well – that is another problem we haven’t yet discussed
.
Exhaustive divine Determinism (EDD) does not grant the human brain the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on the mater of anything.
.
The human brain’s process of discerning the TRUTH-VALUE of any proposition – requires that brain making a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE on the matter of that proposition.
.
Such a choice doe not exist for the Calvinist – because it would constitute a CONTRARY choice.
A CHOICE between two CONTRARY options
And CONTRARY OPTIONS do not exist within creation for the Calvinist.
.
The doctrine stipulates – WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is FIXED before you are created by a decree
And that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
Accordingly – WHATSOEVER “Perception” comes to pass within your brain – must be decreed.
.
1) if it is decreed your brain will perceive [X] as TRUE – then NO ALTERNATIVE perception is granted to your brain.
.
2) if it is decreed your brain will perceive [X] as FALSE – then NO ALTERNATIVE perception is granted to your brain.
.
In either case- your brain is not granted the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE – because your brain isn’t even granted the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
.
This is an epistemic consequence of EDD
.
Gregory Koukl
-quote:
The problem with determinism, is that…..rationality would have no room to operate. Arguments would not matter, since no one would be able to base beliefs on adequate reasons. One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so. Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if it were. Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
.
Dr. John Searle – (Rationality in Action – Philosophy of Mind and Language – Berkeley)
-quote
All human rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian Free Will.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a *CHOICE* among various rational as well as irrational options.”
.
Take the example in Calvinism – where Calvin’s god creates CHAFF believers
.
John Calvin
-quote
The Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt *WITHOUT* the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
What has been decreed in this case – is FALSE PERCEPTIONS will infallibly exist within the believers brain.
That decree does not allow the believer to *DISCERN* any FALSE PERCEPTION at pain of falsify the decree.
Thus the believer’s brain cannot discern a TRUE PERCEPTION from a FALSE PERCEPTION
Which means – he cannot *KNOWN* if anything he thinks is TRUE – because he cannot *KNOW* if his PERCEPTION on the matter is a FALSE PERCEPTION which his brain is not permitted to discern.
.
Blessings!
I don’t think my last post went through, so I’ll reiterate. If it did, please excuse me.
Neither God, Christ, the angels and even the saints in heaven do not have the power of contrary choice concerning evil yet know what good and evil is. And their virtues of love, faith and obedience have value. So freewill is not needed for predication or morality. So why freewill?
Lastly, why would God create a world with freewill beings and a hell when He could have created one with unfallen beings loving and knowing Him better than those supposedly having freewill?
Wouldn’t love demand He create the best possible world for all whereby He is fully loved and He loves all? If He couldn’t, why not?
On earth, we have Pecan Pie, Apple Pie, Berry Pie.
But in heaven, there is only Chocolate Cream Pie. How can I have Pecan pie, if there isn’t any?
Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
I’ll never remember how good a pecan pie tasted. But that chocolate cream pie…HEAVENLY!
But it will be in the minds of those who will be burning in hell forever. How is God love when He did not need to create a world with a hell? Matter of fact, we can conclude from the same principle, He is wrong for creating a world with so much evil, suffering and hell.
Michael,
You are answering your own question! It’s the question of the ages! MAN CHOOSES where he/she will go. God said, CHOOSE LIFE, that he set before us both life and death.
Atheists, for example, they want nothing to do with God. So guess what? They get their wish fulfilled.
God did not choose death for them. They chose it themselves, because God gave us TWO choices, whether they believe it or not. Whether you believe it or not. All this nonsense that God sends people to hell for his own good pleasure is insane. What kind of God do you worship? No wonder we have evangelicals LEAVING Christianity a lot these days. They had to take your 36 week indoctrination of Romans 9, when it has nothing to do with humanity as a whole.
If you are referring as some have that we were born in eternity past, that’s a possibility. But I don’t see enough Scriptural warrant for that. I would say collectively the elect were conceived in Christ from all eternity, but born at the moment of conception. Either way, I’m interested to see where you are going with this. Thanks
The “elect” is such a subject of major confusion for you Catholic defectors! The elect are JEWS ONLY, saved, or unsaved. There is no such thing as a saved, or unsaved Gentile that is classified as “elect”.
That’s one…
But yes, there is a major hint of being created before being conceived…Genesis 2 is NOT a review of Genesis 1, for example.
Genesis 1 is about the creation of OUR spirits (Not just Adam, not just Adam and Eve). Chapter 2, however, is about the FORMATION of the DIRT BODY.
Note, in Genesis 1, animals were CREATED before man? In short, man was LAST. What’s the order of events in chapter 2? Man first, before the animals, THEN the animals, and after all that was over and done with, then finally Eve came on the scene.
So there is a difference between the order of events between chapters 1 and 2, as well as a difference between CREATION and FORMATION. Plant a SEED (SPIRIT) in dirt, and Adam became a living breathing THINKER.
Now, where am I going with this? This is NOT OUR HOME, it never was, it never will be. We are just passing through. This is OUR TESTING ground…it is a LIKENESS of the eternal, but has never been eternal in the first place.
Heaven was never created. THE HEAVENS were created. God’s throne was never created. It just always has been.
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
This life was always meant to be TEMPORAL. Everything about it.
I got a serious question for you, Michael,
Do you believe that THIS EARTH was meant to be our PERMANENT home? Our bodies made of DIRT, formed to DIE ANYWAY? Adam never began with a spiritual body at all.
THIS is not our home. This is NOT from whence we came from. This is where we get a BODY that dies, but this is not where we originated.
When were you created? Notice I didn’t say, when were you born, or when were you conceived in the womb? No, I didn’t. I specifically asked, when were you CREATED.
Ponder that question.
Michael,
There is no such thing as CHOICE/choose IF THERE ISN’T AN ALTERNATIVE. Soup or Salad?
Michael
So freewill is not needed for predication or morality. So why freewill?
.
br.d
Michael – you need to understand the difference between making a claim vs providing logically sound reasoning.
.
You will notice in my posts – I don’ t just make claims up out of thin air – and then AUTO-MAGICALLY assume the claim is unquestionable truth just because I say so.
.
I provided logical evidence
And then provide quotes from academic sources – affirming that evidence
.
There is an epistemic consequence of Determinism
Which (if you can think logically) you should be able to connect the dots.
.
Perhaps your model of thinking – is to simply accept whatever imagination comes into your mind and AUTO-MAGICALLY assume it infallibly true?
.
BTW:
The Reformed view of Calvin’s god is that he has CONTRARY choice.
For example – at the foundation of the world – he had a choice concerning the month of your birth
He had 12 months as POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES to choose from
Each ALTERNATIVE month is CONTRARY to the other.
Thus in the process of making a choice concerning the month of your birth – he has made a CONTRARY choice.
.
Therefore the classic Reformed view is – at the foundation of the world – Calvin’s god determines what he wants to come to pass within creation – by making a selection out of POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
.
But for every decision – he can only choose ONE OPTION.
So for every event – he must reject all available POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES in lieu of the ONE OPTION he wants to come to pass.
.
In regard to Adam eating the fruit – he has two ALTERNATIVES
1) Adam will [EAT]
2) Adam will [NOT EAT]
.
Those two ALTERNATIVES are CONTRARY to each other.
He cannot choose both
He cannot leave it UNDETERMINED
He must choose one option and reject the other.
.
That process of choice – is in fact a CONTRARY choice.
So the Reformed view is that Calvin’s god has CONTRARY choice.
But he does not grant CONTRARY choice to anything within creation.
.
If Calvin’s god does not have CONTRARY choice – then he cannot choose between TRUE and FALSE
Thus he cannot discern TRUE from FALSE – because doing so requires choosing between TRUE and FALSE
.
I did not make these things up out of thin air and then AUTO-MAGICALLY assume them to be true simply because I want them to be true.
.
Perhaps you are not a rational thinking person?
.
blessings
The difference between Calvinism and what I’m asserting is alternatives are not possible for God or man because neither have freewill. Whatever affirmation is made by the intellect and the will (because they always go together) of the soul is what is absolutely determined and certain. For God, His own nature and purpose decides that. For the creature, its God’s efficacious decree.
Alternatives or possible worlds only exist in the minds of both God and man in order to reveal and show the value of what God wills as the best and only possible world, because God cannot but exhaustively glorify Himself as the highest end through the greatest means in every jot and tittle. Otherwise, He would cease to exist and everything else with Him, which is impossible. Thus, with such a cause-and-effect relationship everything is rational and has value.
Choice as a legitimate term can be used in this context when considering the will affirms what it finds good along with the intellect. And it does so in light of the knowledge of other possibilities, which only exist to confirm what is actual is the real. Thus, predication and morality need not freewill. You can see this also in your position and Calvin’s concerning the freewill of God and Christ when it comes to evil. Neither one can be evil or do sin yet know what good and evil is and even love. Thus, freewill indeterminacy is not needed to have a knowledge of good or evil or for love and obedience and even faith to have value. We see this also in the unfallen angels, and to a lesser extent when a man is in love. These are examples of a will affirming what it desires and considers true over and against other possibilities being made without freewill indeterminacy.
All this is logically consistent in accordance with major premises. But it’s not sound for you because your major premise is freewill determinacy for both God and man. I argue the opposite. So, since logical necessity and soundness are not the same, how do we decide between two contradictory consistent systems of thought? – by which one explains reality the best, by showing it can’t be otherwise. And whatever that is, comports with Scripture. That is why I keep bringing up the realities of evil, sin and hell. Based on your assumption of a general benevolence of God to ground your belief in freewill indeterminacy to determine your own destiny, you cannot explain why a God of love, Who does not need the creature would create a world with even one person going to hell, especially when He did not have to. Freewill indeterminacy is insufficient to interpret reality.
Michael
The difference between Calvinism and what I’m asserting is alternatives are not possible for God or man because neither have freewill.
.
br.d
Thus it follows – where ALTERNATIVES do not exit for Calvin’s god – then ALTERNATIVES (since they don’t exist) are not available to him.
.
So if he wanted to determined the month of your birth – he does have ALTERNATIVES to choose from.
Which means he does not have a CHOICE in the matter.
.
Michael
Whatever AFFIRMATION is made by the intellect and the will (because they always go together) of the soul is what is absolutely determined and certain.
.
br.d
The word AFFIRMATION is defined as ” the act of affirming”
The act of affirming entails CONTRARY options
– Option_A: Affirming [X] = TRUE
– Option_B: Affirming [X] = FALSE
This act would require both TRUE and FALSE – be available for the intellect to affirm
Thus what you have here is simply CONTRARY CHOICE.
.
If the PERCEPTION within the intellect is PREDETERMINED (as you would like it to be)
Then the act of “Affirming” does not exist for the intellect.
What exists for the intellect in that case – is simply a PREDETERMINED PERCEPTION.
.
Michael
For God, His own nature and purpose *DECIDES* that.
.
br.d
You see – you have a decision here!!!
So what you have here is a NATURE which has a CHOICE
.
But NO ALTERNATIVES exist for that NATURE to choose.
Thus that NATURE does not have a CHOICE.
Thus your assertion that NATURE decides collapses in on itself – simply because NO CHOICE exists for it to decide.
.
Michael
Alternatives or possible worlds only exist in the minds of both God..
.
br.d
AH! This is an about face!
You do have ALTERNATIVES which exist after all!!!
So your previous assertion that ALTERNATIVES do not exist collapses into self-contradiction.
.
.
So we can proceed with your acknowledgement that ALTERNATIVES exist
And the decision maker (aka CHOICE-MAKER) in this case is the NATURE of a THEOS.
.
The fact that ALTERNATIVES exist within his mind does not negate the fact that they exist as ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES from which from which his NATURE can select – in the process of his decision making
.
Those ALTERNATIVES constitute CONTRARY OPTIONS.
Thus his NATURE has CHOICE between CONTRARY OPTIONS which exist in his mind as ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES.
.
Since those ALTERNATIVES constitute CONTRARY OPTIONS – it follows – he has CONTRARY OPTIONS to choose from.
.
Thus what you have given his NATURE – is called CONTRARY CHOICE.
.
Additionally- if his NATURE does not have CONTRARY CHOICE – then his NATURE does not have the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
I don’t envy him – because he doesn’t have the ability to make a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter. :-]
.
Blessings
God has a will and intellect but cannot be evil or sin. Yet, He decides for good everyday. So without having the power of contrary choice at least in this one instance,how can He know evil or His decisions have any value as a moral choice when He decides for what is good? So, if predication, moral value and decision making is possible whereby God cannot know or do otherwise concerning both good and evil, why cannot it not be the same in all His thoughts and actions? So the word choice can have meaning apart from freewill indeterminacy.
There have been at least two times you misunderstood my argument. One time you admitted it. The other seems to be when you thought I was affirming God has freewill, which I deny. Therefore, it puts me outside the Calvinist camp. Anyway, these two examples should make you reconsider how you argue. You’re an intelligent man and have passion for what you believe. A little more humility will go a long way. Something to consider to make your arguments stronger.
I part with these questions for you and others:
1. How can God know good and evil if He does not have the power of contrary choice to sin?
2. How is God’s foreknowledge not a form of election and compatible with a belief in His general benevolence?
3. If God is love and all powerful, does not need man, and could have created an infinite number of possible worlds without doing any injustice, why is there even one person in hell?
4. And if He is obligated to create a world with freewill beings who could merit hell, where’s the necessity?
5. Why should God and man not kill as many babies as possible in order to possibly prevent them from reaching the age of accountability and merit hell?
6. How can faith not be a work of merit if based on freewill indeterminacy?
7. Why is Christ necessary?
God’s peace
Trans-person:
I identify as a women – therefore I am a woman.
But as a women – I don’t have any of the attributes of a woman.
.
Michael:
My god decides for good (aka chooses between GOOD and EVIL) everyday.
But without having the power of contrary choice (aka choosing between GOOD and EVIL)
.
br.d
AH! the WOKE mindset!
Its at least entertaining! :-]
Including one of the men you quoted, I once heard Leighton Flowers and Kevin Thompson say that determinism is a possibility. And if so (which it is), then it’s not absurd as you portray it. Something to consider, even if you are in the right. Peace.
br.d
Michael – you should be smart enough to discern there are consequences when something is taken to the extreme.
.
There is a difference is between SOME and ALL
.
Here is where we introduce the classical “Square of opposition”
We distinguish between two propositions:
1) ALL men are mortal
2) SOME men are mortal
.
(1) above – is called a UNIVERSAL positive proposition
(2) above – is called a PARTICULAR positive proposition
.
Every Calvinist knows what UNIVERSALISM means
Every Calvinist knows what PARTICULAR means
.
These terms (UNIVERSAL and PARTICULAR) have their origin in the Square of Opposition.
.
In every human society world-wide the NORMAL conception of Determinism is that it is PARTICULAR
SOME things are Determined.
.
For example – when an aircraft engineer uses a computer program to design a wing
That computer program includes the laws of physics which are consistently repeatable
Things which never fail to be repeatable are recognized as deterministic
.
The most famous billiard player in the world – is someone who understand the laws of physics as they pertain to the interaction of the billiard balls on the billiard table. Those laws are deterministic.
.
Therefore – no NORMAL person within any society rejects PARTICULAR Determinism
What NORMAL people reject is UNIVERSAL (aka EXHAUSTIVE) Determinism.
They reject EXHAUSTIVE Determinism because it is Determinism take to an extreme – entailing consequences which are so RADICAL that no person can accept them and at the same time retain a sense of human normalcy.
.
Every Calvinist that I dialog with – struggles with the EXHAUSTIVE nature of the doctrine.
They don’t want to accept it!!!
They all recognize to some degree that it entails human functionality which is SUB-HUMAN.
And they are not comfortable perceiving themselves as ABNORMAL human beings
.
It is also completely consistent – that every Calvinist lives *AS-IF* the doctrine is FALSE.
1) They lives *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist
2) They live *AS-IF* they have CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) They live *AS-IF* their CHOICE is *UP TO* them.
.
Thus every Calvinist lives *AS-IF* the doctrine is FALSE.
.
Every Calvinist (including you) can claim CONTRARY Choice does not exist
But every Calvinist (including you) lives *AS-IF* it does.
.
If they did not live that way – they would have to acknowledge their brains are not granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
That is why you exhibit the WOKE mindset – making claims – which are logically self-contradicting – while forcing your brain to ignore the self-contradictions.
.
blessings!
In response to your last post, what unconditional means is the creature does not determine God in His wrath or grace. But from the creature’s perspective towards God, election is conditioned by God’s sovereign will. The language is appropriate for the concept being conveyed.
In response to the one before this one: You have asserted that based on determinism one cannot predicate nor do moral acts have value. Yet, I’ve given you the ultimate example that is not true – God. He has no freewill indeterminacy regarding evil but knows what evil is and all His choices and acts to do have moral value though He cannot do otherwise than good. You can’t sufficiently explain this, nor the questions I’ve posed as to why there is evil, suffering and hell if God and man have free will. Neither can you answer (based on provisionism or any other freewill theory) why Christ is necessary.
lastly, you state I can only live an inauthentic life of a woke person because decisions require freewill indeterminacy. No. I’m a finite person with an inescapable knowledge of God, good and evil. Yet, I don’t know what decisions God will be determined through me until I make them, for good or ill. But since He chose me, and has given an alien positive assent towards Him I cannot nor desire otherwise, I live in gratitude and pray unto Him the Lord’s prayer and assert – “For all things come from You, and from Your hand we have given you” (2 Chronicles 29:14), even when He has determined for me to sin – “Why O Yahweh, do You cause us to stray from Thy ways and harden our hearts from fearing Thee? Return for the sake of Thy servants, the tribe of Thine heritage” (Isaiah 63:17). Yet I have more objective assurance than the Calvinists and freewill determinists that in spite of evil, sin, suffering and hell this is the best and only possible world because from the ultimate perspective everything triune God does is absolutely necessary (in contrast to consequential and hypothetical necessity) in order to celebrate and honor Himself in Christ.
Since this is your site, I defer to you in having the last say. Unless, you have something new and of value in response. Until we duel again, may God’s face continue to shine upon you and yours.
Michael
what unconditional means is the creature does not determine God in His wrath or grace.
.
br.d
Well – Calvinism (EDD) doesn’t make any difference there.
The idea that the creature would determine a THEOS simply EDD flipped backwards – which is just as logically incoherent as it is without flipping it backwards.
.
Michael
But from the creature’s perspective towards God, election is conditioned by God’s sovereign will.
.
br.d
This statement is nothing more than a reiteration of the Calvinist use of the word CONDITIONAL which is equivocal.
In Calvinism election is both CONDITIONAL and UNCONDITIONAL
1) Election (along with every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within every human brain) is CONDITIONED upon an infallible decree – and is therefore CONDITIONAL
.
2) Election (along with every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within every human brain) is NOCONDITIONED upon an infallible decree – and in that sense is said to be UNCONDITIONAL
.
The strategy behind Calvinism’s use of the word UNCONDITIONAL is simply a strategy designed to obfuscate the AUTHOR OF EVIL which his the predominant characteristic of Calvin’s god.
.
Michael:
You have asserted that based on determinism one cannot PREDICATE nor do moral acts have value.
.
br.d
No this is FALSE
Firstly – you are playing shell games with words – by trying to use the word PREDICATE – because the equivocal nature of that word allows you to obfuscate behind a smoke-screen of equivocation
.
And your assertion that you provided an “example” is another equivocation
You don’t provide examples
You simply declare WOKE claims – the logical equivalent of “I say I am a woman – therefore I am”
.
In your case – my god does not have the ability to choose TRUE from FALSE
But in such a way that he does have the make TRUE decisions
.
Your “so called” examples are not examples at all – they are simply WOKE declarations
.
Here are the facts on that matter:
1) In EDD every FALSE PERCEPTION which exists in your brain – exists by an infallible decree
2) Thus the determining factor of whether you will have a FALSE PERCEPTION or not – is the decree
3) As long as that decree is in effect – you brain will have that FALSE PERCEPTION
4) That decree cannot permit your brain to discern that FALSE PERCEPTION as FALSE
5) The decree makes it the case that your brain sees that FALSE PERCEPTION as TRUE
6) Making it the case that your brain is not permitted to differentiate a FALSE PERCEPTION from a TRUE PERCEPTION
7) Thus your brain has no way of knowing if any PERCEPTION it has – on any matter – is a FALSE PRECEPTION
For example – on EDD – every PERCEPTION which exists within a Jehovah’s Witness brain – exists by decree
And the JW’s brain is not permitted to discern his PERCEPTIONS are FALSE PERCEPTIONS
Its that simple.
.
Your strategy is simply playing shell-games with words in order to create a SEMANTIC FACADE of what you call “predicate”
.
Michael
The language is appropriate for the concept being conveyed.
.
br.d
This reveals it!
Calvinism – (and thus your position) is not LOGICAL
It is simply all about playing Language games
.
Emanuel Kant dealt with this in his day
-quote
Determinism/Compatibilism is a *WRETCHED SUBTERFUGE* with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved lives problems with *PETTY WORD JUGGLERY*
.
Your system – is simply a system of word jugglery which functions to create SEMANTIC FACADES of things you want to be real – which cannot possibly be real because they are logically self-refuting.
.
Thus the quote from Greg Kuokle
-quote
Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if it were.
Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our brains control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
.
You live in a world of self-made delusion
The problem with this world – is that there is no desire for truth in it
The desire is simply the desire of the will – to get what it wants – no matter how irrational
And then try to make it APPEAR to be rational – by the strategy of sophistry.
.
Its called the WOKE mindset :-]
.
blessings!
br.d
I made a typing error here
.
Election (along with every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within every human brain) is NOT CONDITIONED upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof.
In that sense – it is said to be UNCONDITIONAL
Michael,
According to Calvinism, what’s this all about? Life? Is it all just a play that God wrote, and we are the actors in his play? God’s eating popcorn in the audience, for his good pleasure? If so, I sure hope we all get an academy award for our impeccable acting.
br.d
Yes!
A god who creates a puppet theater
Men and women are the puppets
The strings which control the puppets are decrees
The strings are invisible – yet infallible and thus irresistible
.
Calvinist James White – in a recent debate with Dr. Flowers – defines the process of human learning
In this debate – James defines the human brain a “Passive Receiver”
The teacher is god
.
The process James calls “teaching” is the CONTENT being moved into the human brain
And in this case the human brain does not have the function of CHOICE
The human brain functions as a “Passive Receiver”
.
James defines the process of the movement of the CONTENT into the human brain
He defines it as a -quote “Effectual Instrumental Mechanism”
.
So CONTENT is downloaded into the human brain through some kind of Effectual Instrumental Mechanism.
.
And after all of that – James rolls his eyes when someone says OH you are describing a ROBOT
What you have is a ROBOT theology
.
One NON-Calvinist who was watching this debate said – Calvinists have an “Idiosyncratic anthropology”
Man is likened to a machine
And man’s brain functions like a thumb-drive
.
So for James’ the process of human “learning” is simply the downloading of content into the brain which functions like a thumb-drive.
.
And Calvinists see that view of man – as superior!
What a joke!!!! 😀
Since the Calvinistic God has freewill and could have saved everyone without doing injustice to Himself, I can’t answer for such. But as for me, existence is similar to a theatre. Why? Because in being Triune and self-contained, God could not but grant Himself the most perfect gift – Jesus Christ. And for that reason everything serves that purpose, but nothing more than the election and damnation of men. I defer to His right and honor to do so, and find comfort I’m a part of this play as object of grace in order for the Trinity in love to gift each other in Christ. This can be the only ground for theodicy and to sufficiently give God His own due. Amen
Michael,
I respectfully think that your religion is WHACKED…a cult. I can deal with the Original Sin folks, even tho I don’t believe in it. I can even deal with the PREVENIENT grace folks, even tho I don’t believe in it. But your religion, I believe to be demonic. You have friends, and a home in the Southern Baptist Church…and without them…I think your religion would come to naught, as you don’t have much success in many other denomination on the planet.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Evil, sin, and hell need to be explained, which believing in freewill for both God and man cannot do. Therefore, if what I’m affirming does explain these (and it does whether one likes it or not), then it’s truth and not of devil, because he loves the lie.
As for being cultic. To the degree one believes in the contradiction grace based on merit, to that degree one is cultic because it’s more about man than God. The theology I present makes everything dependent upon God, especially salvation. So, if my definition of cult is true, then what I’m affirming is not cultic. Actually, all cults believe in free-will indeterminacy. I’ll let you draw the conclusion.
As I said to br.d, I defer to you to have the last say, unless in your response you say something new and of value even if I don’t agree with it. Otherwise, peace to you.
P.s. I’m not a Baptist. Never was. And I don’t think I’ll be finding any friends amongst the southern Baptists anytime soon.
Michael
Therefore, if what I’m affirming does explain these (and it does whether one likes it or not),
.
br.d
Understanding this – is all a matter of understanding how the WOKE MIND defines an “explanation”
.
Trans-person’s explanation:
I say I am a woman
Therefore I am a woman
That is the explanation whether one likes it or not.
.
.
What we actually have here is classically called a BLIND-CLAIM
.
For the WOKE MIND a BLIND-CLAIM functions as an “Explanation”
And that BLIND-CLAIM is all the “Explanation” the WOKE-MIND needs to make something true.
.
The WOKE MIND says it is true
Therefore it is true
Whether you like it or not.
.
That is how the WOKE MIND works :-]
Mucheal,
Evil, sin, and hell has been explained. You just aren’t listening.
God kicked out Satan and his angels from heaven and this earth is their temporary kingdom.
God placed man in the same realm.
God doesn’t want robots to worship him. He wants people, by their own free will to worship him.
Satan wants our soul. God wants our soul.
This life is a test for people. Life, or death. God placed both good and evil in front of us to make that free will choice.
Hell is the reward for those who don’t choose life.
The Jews… and the Pharoah… was used to tell the spiritual story about God, and his arch nemesis Satan… not about God choosing your salvation. You choose that. God doesn’t. Hence Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8, as opposed to Romans 15:21.
Without evil, there can’t be a choice. We’d then be robots.
Without hell, no justice.
Treat others as how you want to be treated. Ultimately, if you violate that, that’s sin. By loving your neighbor as yourself, you are not sinning. Therefore, you are not sinning against God, either.
How you treat your fellow man is what justifies you, or condems you.
Romans 2 tells us this, in verses 14-16, and that is for those who don’t know anything about God/Jesus.
But the Jews… they alone can’t come to Jesus until Jesus wants them to come to him. And that is the explanation of John 6… Jews, not gentiles. The law of Moses people who transition to the law of Christ. John 6 isn’t about you.
I’ll close with John 6 isn’t about you.
Ed Chapman
God could have created an infinite number of possible worlds but why this one with so much evil, sin and hell?
If someone argues so He can have freewills to love Him, then are we to say the angels who can’t sin don’t love Him or love Him less? And what about Jesus? He loves God but does not have freewill to sin nor has the ability not to love Him. And what about God Himself? He too can’t sin yet cannot but love Himself supremely.
Thus, freewill is not required to love God and know the difference between good and evil. So why freewilll?
If love demands what is best, why then would He give man freewill to merit damnation, when He could have easily made them like the angels who love Him and yet can’t fall?
And, even if we assume the need for freewill, why would God create knowing even one would end up in hell, let alone countless billions, when He did not have to create in order to be loved. In bring Triune He is love itself. According to 1 Corinthians it would have been more benevolent not to create because love does not seek its own at the cost of anyone.
So, freewill for God or man cannot explain evil, suffering or hell. But the Calvinist cannot either. Why? According to their theology Christ fully satisfied God’s justice and propitiated His wrath. So why is there even one person in hell? And God could have chosen everyone without doing injustice to Himself. Why hasn’t He? What compounds this absurdity is that most Calvinists believe God truly loves and desires the salvation of the very ones He does not choose. Wow!
So, I do believe in God. And I have to reconcile that with evil, suffering and hell because they are realities He created. Thus, the onus is on Him to explain Himself. And He does. It’s called Commemorative Justice. Peace
Michael,
Ughhh. I can’t believe the response you gave. The whole point is about mankind freewill, and you can’t have that unless there are two choices. Your religion is about robots that is preprogrammed to obey both evil and good with no choice in the matter. My religion is about mankind’s choice to choose. That’s how God planned it. He made us weak and dishonorable for a reason (1 Cor 15:42-46) so that sinners would choose Jesus (life), for Jesus said that he is the life. But we can choose death if we want to. God promised eternal life before the world began. How we get that is up to us. He provided the way, for Jesus said that he’s the way. It’s up to us to choose the way.
Your way…Preprogrammed robot.
Ed,
Think about it this way, regardless if one has freewill or not, the onus is on God to explain Himself why He created when He did not have to in light of so much evil. Even if God does not determine every jot and tittle, He’s still responsible.
So, either we just accept it and believe it’s good anyway, when knowing it’s not. We can refuse to believe and willingly go to hell in defiance feeling justified, or we can ask and expect a rational answer, knowing He’s going to do what He wants anyway. I choose to believe in this last option.
Anyway, I sense you do care for my soul, as I do for yours. Appreciate your zeal for what you believe in. God’s peace be upon you.
Michael,
The evil is necessary for free will formankind. I don’t understand how you don’t get that. Robot vs. Free will. If all we had was good, there would be no choice. If all that was on the menu was soup, you would not have a choice for salad. But the choice is for mortal mankind. What I see that you are attempting to say, is that God should have eradicated evil from the beginning. Then I would respond by reminding you that YOU were created long before you were born, so why didn’t God keep us in his realm, instead of putting us on this planet? And my answer would be the same. Free will to choose God, or few will to choose Satan.
Michael
We can refuse to believe and willingly go to hell in defiance feeling justified, or we can ask and expect a rational answer
.
br.d
Here we have a whole assembly of self-contradictions!!!
.
1) Every belief which comes to pass within your brain – is determined by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of your brain’s control
.
2) In such case – your brain is not granted a CHOICE or CONTROL over what belief will infallibly come to pass within it.
.
3) Yet somehow your brain is MAGICALLY able to make a CONTRARY CHOICE between two CONTRARY options [BELIEVE] and [NOT BELIEVE] – which your brain is not permitted to make.
.
And all of that – within Michael’s mind is “rational”
What a hoot!!! :-]
.
But wait!
Michael continues:
I choose to believe in this last option.
.
br.d
OH LORD!!!
Poor Michael!!!
.
God must have given Calvinism to mankind as a form of entertainment! 😀
Once again arguing by implication.
br.d
I need a YES or NO answer to this question
.
Does your god have ALTERNATIVE options (which exist in his mind) from which to choose from – as you have statede before?
.
YES or NO?
Michael
God could have created an infinite number of possible worlds but why this one with so much evil, sin and hell?
.
br.d
Ed – you do see what Michael is trying tell himself is totally self contradicting don’t you?
.
1) In order for Calvin’s god to create any infinite possible worlds – would logically entail Calvin’s god having a CHOICE between CONTRARY options.
.
2) If he creates WORLD_A he is creating a world which is CONTRARY to WORLD_B
.
3) In such case – he is exercising a CHOICE between two CONTRARY options
.
4) Choosing between CONTRARY options – equates to a CONTRARY CHOICE – which Michael will then claim does not exist.
.
So we have a THEOS who is making a CHOICE
But not in such a way that he is making a CHOICE :-]
br.d,
Yep, contradictions. Classic double speak.
br.d
YES!
.
The second problem Michael has – is the fact that according to his thinking – every perception which comes to pass within every human brain – is determined by infallible decrees.
.
THUS:
1) The perception which comes to pass within the Jehovah’s Witness brain is determined by infallible decree
.
2) The perception which comes to pass within the Atheist’s brain is determined by infallible decree
.
3) The perception which comes to pass within Michael’s brain is determined by infallible decree
.
4) The Jehovah’s Witness brain is not granted the ability to discern its perceptions are FALSE
.
5) The Atheist’s brain is likewise not granted the ability to discern its perceptions are FALSE
.
.
But somehow Michael’s brain is MAGICALLY different! :-]
You misunderstand. When I say God has an infinite number of possible worlds to choose from, I’m speaking in terms of those who presuppose God has freewill in order to show what that entails. It’s called arguing by implication.
As for my position, like I said, neither God nor the creature has freewill. What God does, He necessarily has to and cannot do otherwise because He is His own limit. And He loves that necessity. Why? because to be fully exhausted into Himself, everything He must do also must be done in the highest manner and through the greatest means. Jesus Christ is the by-product.
And this world serves that with all its evil, sin, hell and heaven. Thus, everything from the ultimate perspective is absolutely certain, rational and good. Evil will be either reconciled in Christ or make everlasting reparation unto God in hell. Amen
br.d
So yYour god does not have ALTERNATIVE options (which exist in his mind) from which to choose – as you have stated before?
God only has one option – what is best. And He loves that limitation. All other ideas of other possible worlds exist in the mind only in order to magnify that one option which is what is actual.
Michael
God only has one option….
.
br.d
AH!
So he doesn’t have a CHOICE in the matter of whether he will create a world with evil or NOT
Which is what you stated before.
.
Thus there is nothing for him to “Decide”
Which is also a contradiction of what you stated before
No. You misunderstood me. And it won’t be the first time.
God is compelled from within through His intellect and will to know and love Himself. He does not have the power of contrary choice to do otherwise. And in necessarily loving Himself, that love must be perfect. Thus, He can only will what is best and can do no other. Every other thought serves that in order for Him to be magnified – first to Himself, then only secondarily to all other rational creatures for good or ill.
Therefore, everything is absolutely determined for that purpose. To affirm is to deny, as to love is to hate. The denial of God which is the object of His hate only exist as corollaries and not correlatives of God being the Truth and the Good. He loves this necessity, and so do I. Amen
br.d
Michael – your god (as you have said) only has *ONE OPTION* available in the matter of what world he will create.
.
Please answer
YES or NO?
No. He only has one option which He loves and wills against any and all corollaries that exist in the mind only to serve and show the preeminence and fullness of that one option. Thus God wills but without a contrary choice to do otherwise. And He loves this necessity and celebrates Himself. And He has granted me to love and celebrate it also. This thought, unlike Calvinism, is consistent determinism and is the opposite of freewill indeterminacy.
br.d
Michael – your god (as you have said) only has *ONE OPTION* available in the matter of what world he will create.
.
Please answer
YES or NO?
.
Michael
No. He only has *ONE OPTION*
.
br.d
That is exactly what I understood the last time you stated so many times before
.
Therefore I did not misunderstand.
.
1) As you have stated – your god only has *ONE OPTION* available to himself concerning the world he will create
.
2) Thus – it follows – he does not have a CHOICE in the matter of whether he will create a world with evil or not
.
3) Because such a CHOICE would constitute a CHOICE between *MORE THAN ONE OPTION* which he does not have.
.
4) And you have affirmed that by repeatedly stating – your god dose not have CONTRARY CHOICE
.
5) Which means he does not have CHOICE between CONTRARY OPTIONS
.
CONCLUSION
Your god does not have CHOICE in the matter of whether he will create a world with evil or NOT.
.
As a mater of fact – your god does not have CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
Now you can convince yourself that you can perform a *WORD-JUGGLING TAP-DANCE* in order to have CHOICE which does not exist – all you want to.
.
Ed is correct!
What you have is called DOUBLE-SPEAK
Very common with all Calvinists.
.
blessings!
Issue is we have different definitions of the term choice. For you it seems to be defined only by the indeterminate power of contrary choice. Correlative options to choose from.
As for me the term means preference and act. One can have a preference and act upon it without having the power of contrary choice to do otherwise. We experience that when in love, or have certain desires. We can’t but act upon them. With God it’s the same.
In knowing Himself as the Truth and the Good He prefers and acts upon it without having the power of contrary of choice to do otherwise. Nor would He want to. That’s why He cannot be or do evil, yet knows what evil is.
Therefore, based on that definition of choice God can’t nor would not want to do otherwise than to love and act upon Himself as the truth of the Good in the highest manner and through the best means possible. So there is only one option -what is actual.
You don’t like this system of thought. But if the terms are understood it’s not inconsistent. It would be if we shared the same definitions. Words can have different connotations.
Do you see Michael, not only have you used an uncommon definition of the term “choice”, but you have added, what you are needing to prove, into your definitions of “highest” and “best” the idea that “only one option” fulfills those terms, and locks in and limits defining reality to God predetermining everything to work out only one already set, eternal, immutable way.
But God’s own Word clearly counters those definitions. Yet, you are free to choose to remain loyal to a man-made philosophically driven theology, believing you have no freedom to believe otherwise. I just hope you’ll one day wake up from that hypnotic deception and take God plainly at His Word about reality and see that His “highest” and “best” includes creating free will choice so that faith and covenant love relationships with the persons He creates in His image can come into existence.
br.d
Michael – the difference between your position and mine is the fact that you wail always have to eventually *SNEAK-IN* some kind of CONTRARY CHOICE for yourself in order to make your position *APPEAR* logically coherent.
.
The process of doing that requires playing *SHELL-GAMES* with words.
.
This is what Immanuel Kant meant when he stated your strategy as a strategy of SUBTERFUGE
Solving the inherent problems which your position produces by the process of WORD-JUGGLING
.
The bottom line is this
1) You will assert your position as TRUE
2) While at the same time treat your position *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to evade its consequences.
.
That is why Ed recognized your statements as DOUBLE-SPEAK.
.
blessings
Michael
God only has one option – what is best.
.
br.d
BTW:
On Determinism – your brain is not granted CONTRARY CHOICE
So your brain is not granted CHOICE between the two CONTRARY options [best] vs [NOT best].
.
And since the human brain’s process of discerning [best] from [NOT best] requires making a CHOICE between those two options – which by definition would be a CONTRARY CHOICE which your brain does not have
.
It follows – your brain does not have the ability to discern [best] from [NOT best]
.
Gotta love it! 😀
Michael,
Really? How about all those times that God…clears throat…repented? That means that God CHANGED HIS MIND.
He had made a promise to Abraham, then told Moses that he would renig on that promise and make Moses a great nation.
But Moses scolded God, reminding him of his promise to Abraham, and that the whole world would mock God for destroying his people.
So, God repented, changed his mind. God is not constrained, because he could have destroyed his people and made Moses a nation. So God has free will.
Ed Chapman
God condescends and speaks on our level of ignorance and sin, only then to lift our minds to His absoluteness which cannot change and comprehends everything. Our God is an awesome God.
Michael,
Regarding Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8, there are two other references in relation.
The first, Romans 15:21 to contrast.
The other, John 9:39-41 for the Jewish remnant. You call it regeneration, I think.
Ed Chapman
Michael
You must now see that although God does, in His own secret and sovereign way, harden men’s hearts, no fault can possibly be imputed to Him,
.
br.d
This is one of the unique aspects of Calvinism.
It follows the pattern of how “Human Accountability” is conceived in Calvinism
.
Here is a parable to help understand it
.
A certain woman named Margaret was accused of reckless driving – striking and killing a small child in front of an elementary school in New Jersey.
.
A judge was getting ready to sentence Margaret to prison for Reckless Manslaughter
Margaret’s family hired a lawyer
The Lawyer presented the evidence to the judge to show that Margaret could not have committed the crime
.
Margaret was a Paraplegic – who was bed-ridden in a convalescence facility in Texas most of her life
She could not move any part of her body
She had never owned a car – and even if she did – it would be impossible for her to drive it
She have never been in New Jersey.
.
The judge however was exercising his sovereignty
In the exercise of his sovereignty he declared Margaret was guilty anyway
.
That is the way “Human Accountability” works in Calvinism
Calvin’s god decrees a sinful evil impulse to infallibly come to pass within your brain
And then in the exercise of his sovereignty he declares you are to be punished for the sinful evil ipmulse he made come to pass within your brain.
.
John Calvin explain
-quote
by the *ETERNAL GOOD PLEASURE* of god
though *THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR*
they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. –
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
So your statement about Calvin’s god finding “FAULT” with humans fits the pattern perfectly.
Divine determinism the way Calvin explained it is not correct, since that would prevent humans from exercising their free will and choice regarding salvation. Yet God permits the devil to blind people’s minds who are not presently saved, Second Corinthians 4:4, “In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel . . . should shine unto them.” Hebrews 1:14 tells us that the Lord sends His angels to help and minister to those “who shall be heirs of salvation”. These two scriptures tell us there are powerful spiritual forces that work to hinder nonbelievers and help believers on their spiritual walk with Christ. And the Lord knew from before the foundation of the world that some people would spend their entire lives with spiritual hinderances, i.e., circumstances rendering it more difficult to accept Christ while the hinderances remain in place, and the Lord sent those people to earth anyway, knowing from before the foundation of the world what their final destiny would be (Acts 15:18). Thus, the need to pray for those without Christ, and that more laborers be sent out to the harvest (Matthew 9:38). Thus, the mechanism appears to be when there is sufficient prayer for nonbelievers, the Lord sends His angels to remove the spiritual influences blocking the person from believing in and accepting Christ, and then the Lord sends His angels to minister to the new heir of salvation to help them on their spiritual walk with Christ. It appears that before the nonbeliever accepted Christ, the Lord in His mercy had to intervene in some supernatural way by sending angels to intervene in the person’s life. Could this be referred to as a non-Calvinist version of “prevenient grace”? (If so, it would certainly not prove or in any way rely upon Calvin’s teaching of divine determinism.) In this process, the believer would still fully retain their free will and choice regarding salvation. Just because the spiritual hinderances had been removed would not guarantee the person would choose Christ instead of materialism, etc. Just because the gospel shines unto the unbeliever does not necessarily mean they will choose the gospel and salvation, yet it will certainly make that choice more possible. If a nonbeliever’s mind were to remain blinded by the god of this world (II Cor. 4:4), would it be possible for that person to accept Christ without the blinding being removed first? What scriptures would support that argument in a manner that further elucidates II Corinthians 4:4? And if it would not be possible, could the Lord’s decision to intervene by sending His angels to remove the spiritual hinderances be defined as a non-Calvinist version of “prevenient grace”, given that removal of spiritual hinderances would not be dependent upon a person’s free will and choice being totally removed or nullified?
Hi Robert. You’ve shared some good thoughts. He’s my take on 2Cor 4:3-4.
It is interesting that ESV translation of 2Cor 4:4 has a Calvinistic slant. “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” But like other proof texts, Calvinists take this verse out of context.
Just add the previous verse where the sentence begins to see what I mean – NKJV 2Cor 4:3-4 “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
Paul is talking about his gospel being veiled, the gospel that they already heard in Corinth. I even think the NKJV should have translated the ἐν τοῖς in verse 3 as “by whom” and the ἐν οἷς in verse 4 as “by whom”. I believe both phrases point to the activity of those false teachers in Corinth that are countering Paul’s gospel and veiling it in the hearts and minds of those who have not believed yet. The reading would then clearly be “… it has been veiled by those who are perishing, by whom the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving (in Corinth) so that the enlightenment of the gospel of the glory of Christ does not shine on them…”
They “cannot” see the light of this gospel as long as they let Satan use these false teachers to undermine Paul’s gospel which they have already heard. But Paul has just said in the previous chapter that if they “turn to the Lord” to seek the truth the veil will be taken away (3:16). That turning is not passive… being turned by someone else to the Lord, but active… turning themselves to the Lord. Paul’s appeal in this epistle is to get the believers to see how harmful these false leaders are with their false gospel, veiling the true one.
br.d
Hello Robert
.
Yes – in Calvinism – many things are radically different than they are for NORMAL Christians.
.
Man’s will is NEVER “Free” to be other than what it was decreed to be – at any instance in time.
.
Man is granted NO SAY in the matter.
And since the decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees – it follows – man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter – simply because NO ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose.
.
So in Calvinism – for example – Adam was not granted a choice between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] simply did not exist for Adam to choose.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Michael – here are a few quotes from an article on Determinism/Compatibilism from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado .
.
You can google for this PDF document if you are interested – by searching for the text
“The Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)”
University of Colorado
.
But in any case – here are the quotes
.
1. Compatibilism:
Contrary to what the hard determinists argue, many philosophers believe that determinism is *COMPATIBLE* with free will. So, if it turns out that all of our actions are determined, and we can *NEVER DO OTHERWISE* we are still free, nevertheless.
.
And then later in the article:
-quote
The fact remains that, if determinism is true, then *YOU COULDN’T HAVE DONE OTHERWISE*
.
This is again confirmed in the literature by Dr. Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant *EXACTLY ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE* . (Oxford Handbook on Free Will)
.
.
Thus in Calvinism – for every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION*
.
And man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
.
.
The decree is what grants EXISTENCE to every event within creation
Consequently – if it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Then the event of you performing SIN_X at TIME-T is granted existence within creation.
But in such case – the ALTERNATIVE event is NOT granted existence within creation.
.
The very existence of any ALTERNATIVE event from that which is decreed – would falsify the decree
And the decree cannot be falsified – because it is infallible.
Therefore NO ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed is granted existence within creation
.
Thus where it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
NO ALTERNATIVE event is granted existence at TIME-T
.
You did not have a CHOICE in the matter simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists for you to choose
.
blessings!
br.d
Michael – here are some quotes from scholars (mostly Calvinists) to help you get a more mature understanding of the subject of free-will and in Calvinism. These quotes should make it clear to you that *LIBERTARIAN* free-will does not exist in Calvinism.
.
It doesn’t appear that you will accept any information (no matter how rational) from anyone unless that person is a Calvinist. So here are the quotes.
.
Calvinist Randall K. Johnson
-quote
I present the christological arguments for *COMPATIBLISM* from three prominent theologians in the Reformed tradition: John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Jonathan Edwards. I conclude with some reflections on the power of christological arguments for *COMPATIBLISM* (Christological Arguments for Compatibilism in Reformed Theology)
.
Calvinist – Dr. Paul Helms
The Westminster confession straightforwardly affirms *COMPATIBILISM* by asserting that god DETERMINES that the elect freely come to Christ. *LIBERTARIAN* free-will is thus ruled out.
.
Calvinist Dr. James N. Anderson
-quote
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism and *COMPATIBILISM* concerning human free will.”
.
Calvinist Dr. Paul Kjoss Helseth
-quote
Scripture presumes that determinism and genuine human freedom are *COMPATIBLE* …..even though it does not explain the mechanics of how this is possible… (Four Views on Divine Providence)
.
John Calvin
-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)
.
Dr. Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly *ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE* (Oxford Handbook on Free Will)
Michael M. Volpe,
You said that sin is not defined, and is not synonymous with sin…
1 John 3:4
Sin is the transgression of the law
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mark 7:20-23
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
******23 All these EVIL things come from within, and defile the man.
Others might say that Evil was a motorcycle rider that did dangerous jumps! LOL
Ed Chapman
Manicheanism, Neo-Platonism, Catholicism, and Gnosticism all strongly affirm freewill, as did Augustine while he was a follower of the first three. And Augustine never viewed evil as necessary in any ultimate sense. To him it is a privation which God allowed but could have created the world without it. This is not much different from the explanation of the origin and essence of evil given by freewill believing Christians throughout history. Considering his background, Augustine should have continued in his belief in freewill. But something other than the influence of these four schools of thought made him change in his battles with Pelagius.
Calvin was a Catholic freewill believing humanist who had a sudden conversion. Immediately he wanted to seclude himself to live a life of study. But the Reformer John Farel exhorted him with the threats of God’s wrath to serve as a pastor. Geneva was an immoral city that first kicked Calvin out but only to invite him back because of their uncontrollable behavior. As he walked the streets, the people would spit on him. Yet, he quietly received it and continued to teach the citizens about dogma and righteousness. To this day Geneva, Great Britian, and United States are still living off the capital of his efforts. Calvin’s life was one of quiet discipline and not vain glory seeking.
Along with Luther, all the major first and second-generation Reformers were previously freewill believers that came to affirm predestination and the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ through a given faith for both the forgiveness of sin and eternal life. And, both Anslem and Wycliff the morning star, who both made the Reformation possible, were Augustinians.
It was not freewill theology that was the grounds for the Reformation. This is proven by the fact Catholicism, Arminianism and the like affirm freewill but reject predestination, and the imputation of Christ’s obedience (at least his active obedience) through a given faith. So, from an historical perspective of what is considered orthodox Protestantism, it is freewill theology and not Calvinism that can be considered heresy. We need to be more considerate in our criticism even we are right. God’s peace.
Michael
Manicheanism, Neo-Platonism, Catholicism, and Gnosticism all strongly affirm freewill, as did Augustine while he was a follower of the first three.
.
br.d
This statement is highly misleading
.
Catholicism – historically affirmed what scholars today call “Libertarian” freewill.
.
NeoPlatonism was is a version of Platonic philosophy which entails Determinism.
Libertarian Free-will does not exist in Determinism
.
Calvinism – today is classified as EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Calvin’s god *MUST* grant “Freedom” for that which he decrees
If he does not grant “Freedom” for that which he decrees – then he is a house divided against himself.
.
So – if it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Then Calvinist_A must be granted “Freedom” to perform SIN_X at TIME-T
.
However – an infallible decree does not grant “Freedom” to creation to BE/DO OTHER than that which is decreed
.
In such case – Calvinist_A is NOT granted “Freedom” to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Because doing so would countervail the decree
And creation is NOT granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree.
.
So the “Free-will” you have in Calvinism is better understood as “NON-FREE Free-Will”
Your will is *ONLY* “Free” to BE what what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
On your point concerning Arminianism.
Yes – it is the case that the Arminian – (as all non-Calvinists) do not embrace EDD
Therefore – the Arminian (as all non-Calvinists) affirm Libertarian Freedom
.
But it is not accurate to say the Arminian (Non-Calvinist) does not affirm predestination.
The Arminian (Non-Calvinist) simply does not interpret “Predestination” as EDD the way the Calvinist does.
.
blessings!
br.d
I agree with your assessment about Calvin’s divine determinism and that it differs from his theological heirs who have tried to water it down.
Neo-Platonism believed in determinism concerning the material universe and even fate. But fate did not control the will from within or makes it will what it does. It only controls from outside it or better yet, against it.
As for Catholicism, regardless how they nuance it, in the end the will is free to choose and is not determined by God. And that goes the same for all freewill forms.
br.d
Hi Michael,
.
The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Thus in Calvinism – the state of nature – including the state of every man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined. And at any nano-second in time cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to be.
.
And since Determinism is EXHAUSTIVE (without exception) in Calvinism – it follows – every movement of every atomic particle is PRE-DETERMINED at the foundation of the world.
.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
Calvinism embraces Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
This is the view that God causally determines everything without exception which happens within creation.
In this view, God brings all things to pass by strongly actualizing (causally determining) all states of affairs.
Calvinism also affirms a *COMPATIBILISTIC* view of human freedom.
.
Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is *COMPATIBLE* with determinism.
.
.
Thus – on Calvinism – the human will is “Free” *ONLY* where it is *COMPATIBLE* with Determinism
Which in Calvinism means the human will is *ONLY* “Free” to Be and DO that which is decreed.
.
Creation is NOT “Free” to countervail an infallible decree
Therefore in Calvinism – the human will is *NOT FREE* to be or do that which is *NOT COMPATIBLE* with that which is decreed.
.
Now it is critical to understand the following:
An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Therefore ALTERNATIVES from that which is decreed do not exist within creation.
.
An example would be Adam in the garden
Calvin’s god decreed that Adam would [EAT]
That decree is infallible – which makes the event of Adam [EATING] an infallible event
In such case – Adam is granted “Freedom” to [EAT] because doing so is *COMPATIBLE* with that which has been determined
.
But Adam is NOT “Free” to [NOT EAT]
Because creation is NOT “Free” to countervail an infallible decree
And because [NOT EAT] is *NOT COMPATIBLE* with that which is decreed and thus *NOT COMPATIBLE* with Determinism.
.
Concerning human choice:
One question you need to answer – is are you granted a CHOICE for an option which does not exist for you to choose?
.
If it is infallibly decreed that [IMPULSE X] will infallibly come to pass within your brain at TIME-T
Then it follows – [IMPULSE NOT X] is NOT granted existence within your brain a TIME-T
So how is it possible for you to CHOOSE [IMPULSE NOT X] when it does not exist for you to choose?
Michael M. Volpe,
So, you are praising John Calvin, as some meek and lowly Christian that just wanted to live in peace, to be quiet and study by candle light?
You did say, “through a given faith.”.
Before I began studying Calvinism, and the RELATED, which was Catholic originally, I had never heard of “through a given faith”, as if God has to push a button in order for someone to believe…except, of course, to the blind Jews, for it is well documented in scripture how blind that they are, and it’s not due to anything that they did, or did not do, so I don’t believe in “judicial blindness”.
I don’t see where faith is GIVEN to anyone for any reason. Hebrews 11:1 doesn’t even define faith that way. When I first heard a Calvinist say that faith is a work, I fell off my rocker laughing hysterically!
So, to me, what it boils down to is first, debunking Original Sin, which is really easy to do, then the doctrines (plural) grace falls flat, and TULIP disintegrates into thin air.
Ed Chapman
Calvin was a righteous man who had more steel in his soul for God than most Christians. I doubt you or I can compare to the grace given to him. Yet, he had his flaws like all of us. He moved the world for Christ. We must give credit where it’s due.
Faith is given that’s why though it has moral worth by its very act, is still not considered a work – “who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” John 1:1
Whether the dogma of original sin is biblical, it is not so easy to dispel. Many who have gone before us, upon whose shoulders we stand, believed in it for strong reasons. We must be humble in our estimations, even if correct. Peace
br.d
These are all very bold claims.
They all remind me of the wizard of oz when he declared himself the all powerful one!
Smoke and mirrors! :-]
Interesting! That sounds like what Catholics say about their popes, too.
br.d
Yes! 😀
And the followers of Sun Myung Moon make the exact same boast about their hero.
And the Mormons make the exact same boast of Joseph Smith
And the believers a Waco Texas make the exact same boast of David Koresh
.
The pattern is very familiar! 😀
“who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” John 1:1”
Jesus was born of a virgin… Joseph was out of the loop.
Our faith originated with ourselves. We are saved by grace through our own faith.
What do we believe, and why?
We believe in the promise of eternal life, and that Jesus is the way to that promise.
Dissect Hebrews 11:1.
Faith is knowing that we will get what we are waiting for.
Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
“Faith is knowing that we will get what we are waiting for”.
This kind of faith – referenced in Hebrews 11 is PISTIS – better translated ‘faithfulness’. It speaks, not of saving faith but of believers hearing from God, believing what he says, even if there is no visible evidence of a positive outcome, and acting in obedience, often over prolonged periods of time
When PISTIS is used to describe the faith that is the first step, after repentance, towards a saving relationship with God it is better translated ‘commitment’ or ‘allegiance’. It describes not only believing but acting on that belief in entrusting one’s very soul – its future, its destiny, its whole being – into the hands of Jesus as Saviour/King/God, to obey and be loyal to him. Belief is insufficient, receipt of saving grace is not free and unconditional – it requires a response of surrender and a commitment to loyalty, biblically expressed in the deliberate and freely undertaken act of baptism. In this respect our justification is inseparable from sanctification, it is the first moment of the dedication of ourselves that continues in the sanctified, separated, faithful life until our glorification at Jesus’ return.
Hello Zoran and welcome.
br.d
Hey Zoran,
You had me at hello, until you said the following:
“Belief is insufficient, receipt of saving grace is not free and unconditional – it requires a response of surrender and a commitment to loyalty, biblically expressed in the deliberate and freely undertaken act of baptism. In this respect our justification is inseparable from sanctification, it is the first moment of the dedication of ourselves that continues in the sanctified, separated, faithful life until our glorification at Jesus’ return.”
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Abraham was saved apart from all that gobbly gook you mentioned. However, God “TESTED (TRIED)” Abraham’s faith, to see if he really had faith…or not.
Side Bar:
To our Calvinist friends, why would God need to TEST Abraham’s faith, if faith is GIVEN?
Back to our regularly scheduled program:
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Most people seem to think that Abraham was going to do it out of OBEDIENCE, or, out of LOYALTY to God. But that’s not what I read at all.
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
James 2:21
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Now, some don’t like James, because he talks about WORKS, and they are against WORKS, and they tell a story that James is speaking to the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL and James that was CONFUSED, thinking that a Jew must still OBSERVE THE LAW.
NOT! (sorry for the caps, I’m not shouting…just emphasis)…
Abraham had no problem sacrificing Isaac, NOT BECAUSE OF OBEDIENCE/LOYALTY TO GOD, but because Abraham BELIEVED God’s PROMISE that his seed would continue through Isaac, therefore, he believed that God would have no choice but to resurrect Isaac from the dead, in order to make good on his PROMISE.
THAT’S FAITH. Again, Hebrews 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac…
In short, Abraham “LIVED” what he believed…WORKS.
So, you bring up the word BAPTISM.
Acts 19:2-5
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
It’s obvious John was a PRE-CURSER to Jesus, and that the baptism of Jesus is SPIRITUAL, not PHYSICAL, as John’s was.
Nonetheless, Cornenious received the Holy Ghost PRIOR (VERSE 2 ABOVE) to water. So, what did the water do, except to get him wet to cool him off after a hot day.
And isn’t it interesting the following:
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Apparently, the Apostles couldn’t follow SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS:
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
No one baptized in the name of the Father, or the Holy Ghost.
By the way, what’s the name of the Holy Ghost, anyway?
Ed Chapman
br.d
When I am in a grocery store – I have ever come across a mother with a very vocal child
Typically it is a boy and he wants something – and he’s not going to take no for an answer
His presupposition is: I WANT WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT IT!
.
Many years ago – I started engaging with Calvinists and occasionally discovered the same predisposition.
They have their own customized version of Calvinism
Their customized version is basically what THEY WANT IT TO BE
And the fact that their version of Calvinism is loaded with self-contradictions doesn’t phase them.
.
All self-contradictions are ignored because they WANT WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT IT! :-]
.
blessings
br.d
br.d
Another point to consider in this – is the fact that words and terms in Calvinism do not have the same meanings they do OUTSIDE of Calvinism.
.
The term “Permission” for example – is derived from the Latin “permettere” – which means “To let Go”, “To let loose”
.
Calvin fiercely rejected this meaning for the word “Permission”
Calvin took the COMMON meaning for the term “Permission” and qualified it – calling it “MERE” Permission and then rejecting it.
.
So in Calvinism – the terms “Permission” and “Allow” do not have the same meanings they do OUTSIDE of Calvinism.
.
John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term Permission, *THE MEANING WHICH HE ATTACHES TO IT* will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary *CAUSE* of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
.
So in Calvinism – the terms “Permission” and “Allow” equate to CAUSE.
.
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSES by decree – he permits/allows
2) What Calvin’s god DOES NOT CAUSE by decree – he does NOT permit/allow
.
In Calvinism – divine sovereignty equates to divine control.
So any compromise to divine control – equates to a compromise in divine sovereignty
.
Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain by an infallible decree
And that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Thus – NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted within the human brain – from that which is decreed.
.
blessings!
br.d
HOW THINGS ARE BOTH “CONDITIONAL” and “UNCONDITIONAL” IN CALVINISM
.
Calvinists have what they call “UNCONDITIONAL” election.
.
However – when one looks under the hood – what one finds is Election in Calvinism is both “CONDITIONAL” and “UNCONDITIONAL”.
.
– EVERYTHING in Calvinism – is CONDITIONED upon an infallible decree.
– This makes it the case that Election is CONDITIONAL
– However – the decree is NOT CONDITIONED upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof
– The decree is -quote “Solely within himself”
– The decree is -quote “According to his good pleasure”
– The decree is -quote “The exercise of his divine sovereignty”
.
So when we start to see how this works – we start to understand the SEMANTICS of Calvinism
.
But it is critical to remember – the Decree determines more than Election
The decree determines EVERYTHING
.
So in Calvinism:
– The NON-ELECT (just as everything else) are CONDITIONED upon the infallible decree
– And the decree which determines the NON-ELECT is NOT-CONDITIONED upon the creature or the condition thereof
– It is “Solely within himself – According to his good pleasure, in the exercise of his divine sovereignty”
.
– All sins and all evils (just as everything else) are CONDITIONED upon the infallible decree
– And the decree which determines all sins and all evils is NOT-CONDITIONED upon the creature or the condition thereof
– It is “Solely within himself – According to his good pleasure, in the exercise of his divine sovereignty”
Is there some way I can contact De Flowers or anyone else working with him to ask specific questions about theological matters?
Hello Tacitus,
Brian is here at SOT101 – and he is pretty close with Dr. Flowers
Why don’t you try asking your questions here to see if they get answered
.
There are a few people here who are not directly associated with Dr. Flowers – and who may express their personal opinions apart from Dr. Flowers position on the matter.
.
But I can let you know when that is the case.
.
blessings
br.d
Hi, BRDMOD.
Okay. I wasn’t sure if this comment section was still active. Thank you. I shall ask my question here.
How is regeneration defined biblically and does this definition not imply that our wills are bound and that we have to be gifted with faith for us to be born again?
In John 3:4-5, Jesus mentions a baptism of water and a baptism of the Spirit. Does the “baptism of water” refer to Ezekiel 36:25-27, in which God replaces the heart of stone with a new heart. Could this be an indication of a freedom of the human will that’s solely done by God? How can we accept His appeals of repentance, through the Gospel, if we are not given new hearts first?
How is the baptism of water different from the baptism of the Spirit?
Pardon the incoherence of this message.
br.d
Hello Tacitus
.
I’m sure you are already aware of this – but when we bring up the subject of how something is defined Biblicaly – we always have to deal with the reality of our humanity.
.
In Luke 10 – Jesus asks the Lawyer who tempted him two questions:
1) What does the text say?
2) How do you read it?
.
The Lawyer answers Jesus’ first question by quoting the text verbatim.
But you will notice – the lawyer evades answering Jesus’s 2nd question.
.
Eventually – the lawyer will ask “Who is my neighbor”
The lawyer has an IDIOSYNCRATIC definition for the word “neighbor”
So the lawyer has his own “Biblical” definition for the word “neighbor” which is designed to affirm his ideology.
He reads his ideology into the text in order to make the text affirm his ideology.
.
The underlying foundational core of Calvinism – and that which unique to Calvinism and separates it from its alternatives is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
So EDD is the ideology which the Calvinist is going to read into the text of scripture.
And just like the Lawyer – the Calvinist will define words within the text – according to his ideology which is EDD
.
For example – take Roman’s 8:28 “God WORKS all things together for the good”
The word “WORKS” in this text is going to be defined as “DETERMINES”
The doctrine of decrees stipulates – Calvin’s god “DETERMINES” whatsoever comes to pass.
Thus the Calvinist is going to define the word “WORKS” to affirm EDD.
.
So this goes to your question about whether someone has to have the -quote “GIFT OF FAITH” in order to believe.
You can see – the doctrine of decrees is the ideology behind this conception.
.
In order for the IMPULSE of faith to come to pass within a human brain – that impulse has to be decreed.
So the Calvinist gets his conception of how FAITH comes to pass within a human – through the lens of EDD.
.
Calvin’s god thus – gifts people with two kinds of faith.
1) He gifts believers who are elect – with TRUE faith
2) He gifts believers which he creates to be CHAFF believers – with the gift of FALSE faith.
.
.
What is critical to understand within the Calvinist system – is the fact that CHOICE is not granted to humans in the matter of anything.
.
An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Therefore if the impulse of FAITH is decreed to come to pass within your brain – that decree is infallible
It does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
So you are not granted any CHOICE in the matter of what impulses are infallibly decreed to exist within your brain.
.
In Calvinism – if you are created as a CHAFF believer then
1) A FALSE FAITH has been decreed to infallibly exist within your brain
2) Your brain is not granted the ability to discern the faith that was decreed – is a FALSE FAITH
3) You will live your life – experiencing a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation
4) You will eventually wake up in the lake of fire – and then realize you were created as a CHAFF believer – divinely deceived – having been given a FALSE FAITH.
.
Those are just a few of the consequences which come with reading scripture through the lens of Calvinism’s IDEOLOGY.
.
Calvinists themselves – have very serious internal struggles with the consequences of their own belief system.
This forces the Calvinist into all sorts of TAP-DANCE routines designed to evade those consequences.
.
So you will eventually find DOUBLE-SPEAK is an inherent characteristic of Calvinist language.
.
When you discover the amount of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS inherent in Calvinism – you need to ask yourself if that is a HOLY SPIRIT inspired belief system.
.
Let me know what you think so far.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hi, Br.D.
I understand that Calvinism is determinism, but how do you ascertain the meaning of and differences between the “baptism of water” and the “baptism of the Spirit” in John 3:5?
br.d
Ah! Well – that is going to differ based on whether or not one’s theology requires those two things to essentially be one and the same.
.
For the person whose theology dictates Cessationism (gifts of the Holy Spirit do not exist for today) that person would be inclined to see those baptisms as essentially the same thing – or if they are not the same thing – they happen concurrently.
.
Some people hold water baptism as an absolute necessity for salvation.
.
For the believer who adopts that position – they would say – a person who repents and believes upon the Lord Jesus as their savior on their death-bed – but who is unable to be baptized in water – is not saved.
.
Believers who believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still in effect today – those believers would see water Baptism and Baptism in the Spirit as two different things. They would say – the baptism in the Spirit does not necessarily have to happen at the same time the believer is saved – but can occur later.
.
And I think you will find some of the people who post here – hold to different positions on that.
.
It really depends on what you hold as a personal conviction.
.
Sorry I couldn’t be more definitive than that.
But it is really true – the views on that subject are quite varied.
.
Blessings!
What’s your view on this and where can I read up on other views?
br.d
Well – personally – my view on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit – is that it can come at time of conversion.
For example – when Peter is ministering to Cornelius in Acts 10 – where it says “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message”
.
The background I grew up in – identifies this as an example of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The after that event – the text reads “Peter ordered they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”
.
The background I grew up in – identifies this as baptism in water.
.
On your question about materials – lets ask Brian if he can point you in a direction.
Brian is a teacher of the Greek in an official capacity – and he would probably know about materials on the subject.
.
So let me see if Brian can answer that question for you.
.
blessing!
Hi Tacitus. Any good theology should give you all the views on baptism as taught in the NT. Sacramental and Reformed theologies will of course also try to prove a link exists between water baptism and birth by the Spirit, either equating the two at the same moment or linking the one as a sign of promise for the other in children already members of God’s elect.
Dispensational and Pentecostal theologies will separate the two, putting the new birth by the Spirit through personal faith before the training of that given in water baptism. Pentacostal theology also adds a separate work of the Spirit is available after regeneration and water baptism.
Here are some of my thoughts as a dispensationalist.
Baptism in the name – is water baptism because a name is an outward identification (Matt 28:19, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, cf. 1Pet 3:21, and it is answer of an already good conscience).
Baptism into Christ or His body or His death – is Spirit baptism because those things are unseen spiritual unions (Rom 6:3, 1Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27).
Paul emphasizes Spirit baptism as the one necessary baptism and de-emphasizes water baptism as not part of the gospel.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 NKJV — For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
1 Corinthians 1:17 NKJV — For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Paul led many to salvation, the new birth (Spirit baptism), in Corinth through the gospel, not through water baptism.
1 Corinthians 4:15 NKJV – 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [you do] not [have] many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
–
Hi, Brian. Thank you for the response and the overview of views on Baptism.
What’s your view or the dispensational view on regeneration and freedom from the bondage of the will?
The reason I ask this is because of Calvinists I met who say that the “baptism of water” in John 3:4 refers to the “sprinkling of water” and the spiritual cleansing in Ezekiel 36:25. According to how they interpret John 3:4 and Titus 3:5, the “washing of regeneration” includes the will being set free so that we may be saved. Is this valid?
Thank you, Tacitus, for the question. The will is a slave to the sin nature/flesh from birth, but that does not mean inability to respond to the enlightenment which God gives everyone sufficiently at least a few times to enable them to freely seek Him and His mercy. (John 1:9, Rom 2:4, Job 33:14-30, Acts 17:26-27)
Water baptism does not cause a freedom of the will nor does it cause regeneration. I am going to give you alot to read right now, but I hope it will be of some help.
Total Inability is Unscriptural
Deuteronomy 30:14 ESV — But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, 👉so that you can do it.👈
Ability in the unregenerate heart to understand, and to do God’s will to repent and believe, is clearly Scriptural.
Unregenerate shallow or thorny hearts are able to believe the truth of the Word in a positive way before making a rooted, full commitment in God for His mercy.
Satan even knows the hard unregenerate heart is able to believe and be saved if the Word stays there!
Luke 8:12 NKJV — “Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
You can read my critique of Calvin, Gill, and MacArthur and my exegesis on the 5 favorite verses Calvinists think teach total inability in the unregenerate heart. John 3:3, John 6:44, Rom 3:11, Rom 8:7-8, 1Cor 2:14, Luke 8:12.
https://vbc.academia.edu/BrianWagner/Exegetical-Dialogs
As for Titus 3:5 NKJV — not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
The genitive (“of) should be kept the same for both phrases and the subjective genitive makes the most sense for the phrase – “renewing of/by the Holy Spirit”.
So it is a “washing of/by regeneration” which is through faith. Peter talks about this purifying through faith when recalling the new birth by the Spirit in Cornelius.
Acts 15:7-9 NKJV — And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”
br.d
Hello Tacitus
I know your question was directed towards Brian – and I hope you don’t mind if I interject a point concerning Calvinists and your question.
.
Remember – the Calvinist reading of scripture is always designed to affirm Exhaustive Determinism (EDD)
.
And it is critical to understand the underlying construct behind the Calvinist conception of “Freedom” of the human will.
.
Creaturely freedom in Calvinism works this way:
1) For any [X] decreed come to pass – that [X] must be granted “Freedom” to come to pass.
.
2) If Calvin’s god does not grant “Freedom” for what he decrees then he is a house divided against himself.
.
3) Nothing happens within creation that is not decreed.
.
4) So in order for the impulse within your brain or your will to desire salvation – that impulse must be decreed.
.
5) That impulse within your brain or within your will – must then be granted “Freedom” to come to pass.
.
That is what “Freedom” of the “Will” means in Calvinism.
.
.
THUS:
Creation is NOT FREE to countervail an infallible decree
Creation is Free to be and do *ONLY* that which is decreed
.
If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T
Calvinist_A must be granted “Freedom” to perform SIN_X at TIME_T
.
But Calvinist_A is NOT granted “Freedom” to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Because creation is NEVER FREE to be or do OTHER than that which is decreed
.
blessings
br.d
Hi I don’t know where to go for private contact, but is there some one that I could go to for therapeutic support? I accidentally (somewhat) sought refuge from multiple traumatic experiences in a calvinistic (They would say reform theology to mask themselves) church who opened their arms to welcome me with the words that “this is the safest place for you to be, we would rather you be here than anywhere else”. But I have experienced nothing but trauma. Outside of good works as in giving us food gifts and cards, which I was extremely grateful for and humbled by and gracious about and expressed much thanks for, but I did not come there seeking material goods. I came there for spiritual, moral support and Christian friends, as I go through a super tough time as a basically single mother with five children and more traumatic experiences to go through ahead In my life which I can see. Every time I confide privately in any member of this church nobody came back to me to answer any questions or if they said they would come back to talk they did not. Whatever I said was preached against from the pulpit. I don’t know how many people reported my conversations maybe a few. But mostly when I would be speaking directly to the pastor’s wife and himself . Whenever I tried to reach out to them, my thoughts and words were demonized from the pulpit so many times that I could not deny that it was happening anymore. I was simply arguing for more love and compassion towards people and Bible from a non-calvinistic viewpoint of life, things also things that God had showed me in my life that had set me free from unnecessary chains in my soul. Acquaintances say “just leave” but I have been in so many churches in my life and it was out of my control whether I left or not due to parents in my childhood, or immoral circumstances within the church, and here I wanted to sit and grow and develop the mutual benefits of long-term Christian relationships. So I have sort of dug in my heels but I am definitely experiencing deep trauma. Is there somebody that can help me ???? Sort of Like therapy/counseling, but someone experienced in these things? I cannot get help from a novice. A novice would drown in this.
We do not have community, but do need it very much raising little children, and I don’t want to lose the little bit I have. I have definitely debated just leaving Christianity entirely because of this. Not God, but Christianity itself. So I’m trying digging in my heels and doing the best I know how. This request for help would be to someone who has an existing ministry? maybe a non calvinistic Baptist style church right in my area who is actively working against these messages and can comment a reply to what I’m saying and or someone running this website who can reach out to the private email listed. I don’t know if it’s asking too much if I could talk to Leighton himself. I know we are just one family but it would mean so much to us. I do not know how to contact someone who can help other than commenting here, and am still looking for another way to contact someone. I turned on the email me new comments button.
Welcome A.L. I’m sorry to hear of the unloving, harsh experiences you’ve faced, especially from those in leadership positions in the family of God. This happens so often and must be a constant grief to our Lord’s heart!
I believe there is a godly older woman out there, perhaps whose been through the same “wars” that you have, who would meet with you at least weekly for prayer and counsel, and with whom you could serve Jesus together by serving others.
And I’m as a single mom, I believe there are godly “spiritual” men, coaches or youth leaders who might help fill in some of that area of need for godly male leadership in your children’s lives.
If you have not yet prayed for those kind of people to be brought into your life, I hope you will. Listen for the names God brings you your mind while you are on your knees praying. I have prayed this morning that God will show you who these people are.
Well, I heard him say his wife was a therapist. And thought if we could make personal contact, I could reach her. I regret reaching out on this website as it seems like it is too personal and this is more theological. I wish I could delete the original comment.
We have never recovered from that situation. Although we have moved on. There are no people out there. We were already isolated and in a terrible situation. That church was a last attempt. Secular people are far more kind. In churches, you have to protect yourself and watch your back. Especially when you’re a single mom and everybody suspects you of evil no matter how innocent you are.
Sorry, A.L., for the delay in response. I missed the notification. When all forsake you the Lord will not. Ask Him to lead you to one or two other likeminded people you can pray with and serve Him with weekly. I will pray now for that for you.
Dear Sir, My name is Vincent Long, and I am a Bible-believing, Born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have been watching some of your videos, and I have a request for you. I agree that Reformed theology is wrong and not the word of God, but I was hoping that you would make a list of all the doctrines that Calvinist/Reformed Theology believes in that are wrong. and the Scriptures that prove that their doctrines are not the Word of God. Yours Faithfully. My email address is moduin@gmail.com
Hello Vincent and welcome
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not able to interact with posters here at SOT101
But if you are a facebook user you may readily find him there.
.
On your request for a list I would suggest – if you are not already familiar with it – Kevin Thompson’s “Beyond the Fundamentals”
Kevin has a web-page and also produces a large number of youtube videos detailing how Calvinists force concepts into the text while reading the text of scripture.
.
The Calvinist mind is conditioned to embrace certain EXTRA-BIBLICAL concepts as unquestionable truth.
Then the Calvinist mind is conditioned to read those concepts INTO the text of scripture
This can often be evidenced when a Calvinist is asked to quote a verse of scripture.
The words that he quotes will not be the actual words of the text
His mind will quite naturally quote words which mind has been conditioned to READ INTO the text.
His mind will AUTOMATICALLY REPLACE the original words of the text with words which are not actually in the text
This process happens so AUTOMATICALLY that his mind is oblivious to the fact that he is doing it.
.
For example – when the Calvinist reads “God WORKS all things for the good”
The Calvinist mind AUTOMATICALLY replaces the word “WORKS” with the word “DETERMINES”
So his mind alters the verse to read “God DETERMINES all things”
And since a large percentage of things which come to pass are sinful/evil things – it follows Calvin’s god DETERMINES all sinful/evil events
.
Thus it follows:
1) WORKS all things becomes DETERMINES all things
2) All sinful/evil events are thus the WORKS of Calvin’s god.
.
I would point you to Kevin Thompson’s “Beyond the fundamentals” for the list you are looking for.
.
Blessings!
br.d
On behalf of a Determinist and not a Calvinist (because most are inconsistent as Br.d is apt to point out), the term is “works”.
But the question is “How can God assure all things work for the good, if He does not absolutely determine everything?” And that would include the will of the creature and even the meaning and existence of evil. He cannot. Our hope would be baseless.
As for the Christian Indeterminist, it must be asked, “How can a faith produced by free will and not by God’s efficient power of grace be considered not a work of merit and thereby avoid boasting?” Also, “How is this not imposing concepts upon the text?” (Cf. Eph.2:8-10; Jn.1:13; Phil.2:12-13; 1 Chron.29:14; Rom.11:36). Some things to consider.
I’m always perplexed by those who uses the word works, as well as merit.
Haven’t we figured it out yet that the word works, in the proper context, is the works of the law of Moses?
That’s it. Over. And out.
That’s the merit being discussed. Faith is not a part of the law.
Evil is defined by the law of Moses. How is that difficult to understand?
Essentially, sin is what you do to treat your fellow man. Do you steal from your neighbor? If yes, toy sinned. If you didn’t, you WORKED.
THE WORD DO…DO…, no, not doodoo, but DO, is defined as… what?
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
That is works.
Galatians 3:12
And the law is not of faith
Works is not of faith. They have nothing to do with each other. Faith is not a work. Faith is not a merit.
Why do people still refer that faith is a work, when it’s the law of Moses that is the work.
This frustrates me to no end.
It’s your faith, not an imputed faith. Your faith gets you grace. And that’s what righteousness is.
Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him righteousness.
Philippians 3:9
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith
Ed Chapman
Ed, good to hear from you again. My reply is:
The faith for eternal life and forgiveness of sin Paul talks about is a belief granted by the Holy Spirit as compared to perfect obedience to the law, whether in Adam or given to Israel. But perfect obedience to the law presupposes perfect faith (belief) and love. God always demands perfection.
The only one Who obeyed with this kind of perfection that alone can satisfy God is Christ. Thus, technically it can never be our imperfect faith, love or acts that can save but only Christ.
So, how does His perfect obedience unto suffering and death, ( which included His perfect faith) become ours since we can’t be that obedient? Only by God imputing (reckoned to our account undeservedly)His perfect righteousness through a simple given faith in that righteousness.
This given faith or belief only appropriates us to Christ, whereby we come to know we were saved in and by Him alone before the foundation of the world.
Therefore, the will to believe and the act of belief which follows is all of all of God’s efficient power of grace. Otherwise the free will and its resultant faith would be a ground for merit as towards God and others who don’t believe. There can then be no boasting, especially in light of the given depravity that otherwise does not nor cannot choose God. God gets all the glory as we get the benefits of salvation. Amen
Michael,
You are completely wrong, dude. Until this issue is settled, you’ve got issues. And it’s not the July ’89 issue, either.
Paul is constantly talking about the law vs grace. Faith vs works. The law gives no grace. Works of the law would be the boasting, i.e.
1. I never stole a thing in my life
2. I’ve never lied to anyone
3. I’ve never committed adultery
4. I’ve never coveted my neighbors boat, car, wife, house
5. etc.
That’s what the boasting is all about.
Where do you get the idea that faith is a work?
The Bible dies not speak of faith being a work.
It does, however, talk about all those THOU SHALT NOT’S being work. And that’s all.
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified
WORKS OF THE LAW is mentioned three times in that one verse.
I say again, faith is not a gift, it’s not imputed, and it’s not a work, so what’s the issue with you?
Ed
Oh, Michael, I must add that Abraham was never under the law. So the law is irrelevant to the whole conversation about Abraham receiving RIGHTEOUSNESS. When we’re gentiles ever under the law?
Never.
So we had no works to begin with. That was the Jews.
We are no different than Abraham
Ed
And another thing, Michael,
I don’t believe in original sin or the depravity of man, either. That’s your doctrines, not of the Bible.
I know, I know, you will claim that it is biblical. I disagree. Your Romans 5, right? Lol. David stole a candy bar in the womb! Ha!
Ed
Michael:
But the question is “How can God assure all things work for the good, if He does not absolutely determine everything?”
.
Br.d
This question becomes problematic for the Determinist (whether Calvinist or not) when we ask the question about whether or not ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES exist – and are available to choose between for a God who Determines everything that will come to pass within creation.
.
I’m assuming you know – where Determinism is TRUE – there is no such thing as ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES.
In Determinism – ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES cannot exist any more than air can exist within a perfect vacumm
.
The very existence of any ALTERNATIVE would falsify Determinism.
.
John Calvin had to deal with this issue in his conceptions of divine Determinism.
For Calvin – it is a matter of maximizing the attribute of divine sovereignty.
.
Calvin understood – where ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES do not exist – they do not exist to choose between.
In such case – Calvin’s god would not have the function of CHOICE in the matter of what comes to pass within creation – because that would already be DETERMINED – and there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which has been DETERMINED
.
This was a problem for Calvin – because he wants to give his god CHOICE in the matter of whatsoever comes to pass.
He wants his god to have the power of CONTRARY CHOICE
For example – the power to choose what month you will be born – where 12 ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES (12 possible months) exist for him to choose between.
.
So for Calvin – the function of CONTRARY CHOICE must exist for his god.
.
The consequence of that (as your question points out) is that this will lack divine foreknowledge.
Thus – Calvin’s god cannot know what [X] will be – until *AFTER* he DETERMINES what [X] will be.
He has CERTAINTY Of what [X] will be – simply because he knows what he decreed [X] to be.
.
So in Calvinism – there is a point (prior to the decree) where Calvin’s god’s knowledge of the future is lacking.
.
The two horns of the dilemma for the Determinist – are whether or not their god has CONTRARY CHOICE
Do ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES exist prior to his Determination?
If the answer is YES – then divine foreknowledge is compromised.
If the answer is NO – then divine CHOICE is compromised.
.
Typically – what will be resolved is some variation of wanting to have it both ways – and punt to mystery.
.
Blessings!
Br.d
As Mr. Leighton Flowers has pointed out – as to how God knows all things (including the arbitrary decisions of freewill) and makes all things certain without Divine determinism is mysterious.
So, at least we can both conclude omniscience is not required in trying to answer these awesome questions. But unlike some Calvinists, we probably also agree mystery and contradiction are not synonymous. With that aside, here is my response:
God cannot but know, will and glorify Himself in the greatest possible manner through the greatest means without ceasing to be God. Thus, what God did in Christ and everything required to make this a reality, makes this the best and only possible world. This implies:
1. God does not possess the power of contrary choice but a cordial compulsion to will the greatest for Himself.
2. Preference does not require alternative possibilities to choose from.
3. Preference at most can only determine its opposite or other possibilities to show its necessity and value in being the only possibility. Or, to put it differently, Possible worlds only exist in thought to prove the actual world is the best and only possibility.
4. Therefore, concerning God, He does not have prescience in relation to contingent events, nor does He need it. He only knows what He determines in order to glorify Himself in the highest possible manner and means. Which includes evil to either be atoned or destroyed in everlasting hell unto and for Christ’s righteousness. God there is glorified. Amen
Michael,
Have you ever read Romans 5:13, 4:15? Of course you haven’t! Why would you?
But once you have, did Abraham fall under those two verses?
And if so, how about all those who drowned in the flood? Heaven or Hell, Mike!
Oh, and speaking of Abraham, is sleeping with your sister a sin, under the law? If so, why did God give BRO/SIS an inbred promised child?
I’m sorry, but I don’t see God the way that YOU DO, with a narcisistic attitude about him NEEDING GLORY from us LITTLE PEOPLE, as if he’s co-dependent. He already gets all the glory WITHOUT CREATURES bowing, serving tea and crumpets.
Ed
Ed, obviously Abraham was liable to the law that required perfect obedience otherwise he would have not been in a state of death needing Christ’s righteousness for salvation. Adam’s sin was imputed to him also.
God in some senses is above the law He requires of us, and can even change them in accordance to a greater revelation of Himself. That’s why He allowed Cain and even David to live when both His revealed law and natural law in our minds requires the death penalty. There are other examples.
If God’s self-interest (which you call narcissism) is not the reason for all the suffering and pain on this side of death and in hell, how would you account for such? Why, based on your understanding, would God create a world at the expense of even one person when He did not have to? And which He did.
Would it not have been more benevolent not to create in the first place? Should He not have? Thus, He is cruel and unjust in the end if God is supposedly love defined as benevolence.
But if God is self-love and must glorify Himself in the highest thereby making everything certain ( including sin, evil, suffering and hell), we at least have a theodicy.
We may not like it but it’s reality. That’s what Romans 9 and Proverbs 16:4 is all about. Be grateful that He chose you as a vessel of mercy and not to reveal His wrath. I am. Amen
Michael,
Your comment about Abraham proves that you know nothing about the Bible.
The law of Moses did not come about until 400 years after Abraham.
You know Luke 16, in that there was (used to be) a place called Abraham’s Bosom, which was the good side of sheol. The story of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man wanted Abraham to give him a drop of water.
Now, you completely ignore Romans 5:13, 4:15. It states
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
What sin could be imputed to Abraham? Furthermore, what sin could be imputed to those who died in the flood?
There was no law.
1 John 3:4
Sin is the transgression of the law
Romans 3:20
The law is the knowledge of sin
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:3-5
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Works
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
No works
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets
Just like Abraham.
Ed Chapman
Chapmaned24 said:
“Your comment about Abraham proves that you know nothing about the Bible.”
The Bible said:
“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
Here we clearly see a distinction between the law of Moses (i.e., the divine law as instituted specifically for the nation of Israel) and the underlying divine law as universally present and speaking to mankind through conscience, working even in the hearts of those who do not otherwise “have” the law (i.e., as revealed objectively in specific commands).
See also Romans 1 and God’s self-revelation through creation, which leaves all mankind “without excuse.” Thus, creation and conscience work together to reveal and apply the divine law to human beings everywhere. Even to Abraham.
Derek,
Apples, oranges.
What was the purpose of Acts 17:30, where you had GENTILE idol worshippers? God winked at that, because they didn’t know.
Romans 1 is all about the Jews, not the gentiles, because they knew God and therefore are without excuse. It’s not about mankind.
Romans 2:14-16 is basic, such as a guilty conscience if you steal, or lie, etc. Nothing about shellfish or pork, etc.
And then you have verses like…
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess
NO KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL
And
Romans 7:7-7
7 … I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 …For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
That’s when one spiritually dies… when you finally know what your sin is.
No one is born spiritually dead.
Without the law, sin is dead.
I again take you back to Romans 5:13, which continues to be ignored.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ed
If Abraham did not break the law in some respect he would have not been in a state of death needing to be redeemed by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ by faith like he was. Paul establishes that point thru Romans 1-5 by stating death was always in the world from the beginning. Why? Because we broke the law in Adam and even in natural law. Whereas the Jews did also, but even more so, by breaking the fuller revelation of the law in the Mosaic covenant. And God did all this so that all mankind, including Adam, might be held liable to the only righteousness that can satisfy and honor Him – Christ’s righteousness, which includes His perfect faith, love and conformity to the precepts. Amen
Michael,
You seem to forget that Abraham was declared righteous thousands of years before Jesus died in the cross.
Sin causes SPIRITUAL death, not natural death.
I don’t believe in ORIGINAL SIN.
Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Jesus didn’t die on the cross before Genesis 15:6!
As far as dying a natural death 1 Cor 15:52-46 tells you that anything made of dirt dies. It wasn’t sin that caused the natural death of Adam. It was the dirt that he was made of.
Pay attention to the words planted or sowed, depending on what Bible version you use.
Natural, aka dirt, came first, not spiritual, aka body that doesn’t die.
Now, I know that you will entertain the thought of sin causes death by referencing Romans 5.
Romans 5:12-14
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But, I’m going to add some context.
The reason that Adam did not live forever was because he FAILED to OBTAIN eternal life from…
THAT OTHER TREE called…
THE TREE OF LIFE.
WHY? BECAUSE HE SINNED. AND THAT IS THE CONTEXT.
But wait, there’s more…
Adam still could have lived forever by eating of the Tree of Life in a fallen state. Eternally separated from God.
Genesis 3:22, 24
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
In short, God blocked access to the tree of life so that Adam could not have eternal life.
So, your Romans 5:12-14 is a bit short on context about that we all die because Adam sinned. There’s more to the story in Genesis.
Regardless, there was a good side of Abraham’s Bosom that Lazarus was in. No one could leave that place until Jesus died for their sins.
Yes, Abraham sinned… but due to no law, sin was not imputed to him.
What was his sin? Married to his sister… half sisters count.
But God never informed Abraham or Sarah about it. Instead, he blessed brother and sister with an inbred son named Isaac.
In either case, Abraham was already declared righteous in Genesis 15, and Jesus hadn’t even come on the scene yet.
Ed Chapman
Michael,
In my last comment, I referenced 1 Cor 15:52-46….SCRATCH THAT. It’s 1 Cor 15:42-46. Dag gone phone! Oops.
Oh, for goodness sakes, I’ll do it FOR YOU…
1 Cor 15:42-46 states that the BODY that YOU HAVE NOW, and that Adam had, as well when he FORMED ADAM of the DUST is:
NATURAL:
VERSE 42
It is sown in corruption
NOTE: Look up that word, “CORRUPTION”. It is NOT dealing with MORALITY, but with DECAY of the body, meaning, a DYING BODY.
VERSE 43
It is sown in dishonour
it is sown in weakness
VERSE 44
It is sown a natural body
Quoting all of verse 44:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
NOTE: The RESURRECTED body is a SPIRITUAL BODY, meaning, it does not die.
SPIRITUAL:
VERSE 42
it is raised in incorruption:
NOTE: DOES NOT DIE
Verse 43
it is raised in glory
it is raised in power:
VERSE 44
it is raised a spiritual body
Quoting all of verse 44 again:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Now, for the SLAM DUNK
Verse 46
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
THE NATURAL CAME FIRST, NOT THE SPIRITUAL.
A dying, dishonorable, weak body came first.
And GOD CALLED THAT GOOD!
VERSE 45
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
According to the Catholic dogma, Original Sin means that Adam began with a GLORIFIED body, and LOST IT. But not according to THIS LESSON.
Some even say that Adam’s dying PROCESS began the day that he ate of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. But not according to THIS LESSON.
Some say that he DID EAT of the Tree of Life that gave him NOURISHMENT. But not according to THIS LESSON.
You might want to change your tune in regards to INHERITED SIN of Adam, otherwise known as ORIGINAL SIN. That was a doctrine that AUGUSTINE made up out of thin air.
Ed Chapman
Michael,
And like I said before, which you didn’t seem to get…
I don’t believe in original sin.
No one inherited Adams sin. No one.
Ed
Michael
God cannot but know, will and glorify Himself in the greatest possible manner through the greatest means without ceasing to be God. Thus, what God did in Christ and everything required to make this a reality, makes this the best and only possible world.
.
br.d
This is stated by every position – whether Calvinist, Determinist, or NON-Calvinist, NON-Determinist.
.
Michael:
This implies:
God does not possess the power of contrary choice but a cordial compulsion to will the greatest for Himself.
.
br.d
Actually – that is not at all a necessary implication of your previous statement.
Additionally – this statement relies too heavily upon equivocations (aka “cordial compulsion”)
.
In Determinism – whatever COMPULSION exists must be Determined
Which means – that COMPULSION has a DETERMINING factor
The question them becomes “What DETERMINES the COMPULSION within the mind of the THEOS”
This is the same question as “What DETERMINES the INCLINATION within the mind of the human”
.
Where CONTRARY CHOICE does not exist – your THEOS does not have a CHOICE in the matter of what month you will be born on – because that would require a CHOICE between CONTRARY options (AKA CONTRARY CHOICE) which is a power he does not have.
.
Michael:
Preference does not require alternative possibilities to choose from.
.
br.d
This is logically FALSE
Preference by definition entails “PREFERRING” [X] over [NOT X] – which by definition is a CONTRARY CHOICE.
.
What you are trying to accomplish here is denying a LABEL
You want the *ATTRIBUTES* of “CONTRARY CHOICE” while denying the LABEL CONTRARY CHOICE
.
This is like claiming ducks do not exist – but a bird that flies, swims, has webbed feet and quacks does exist.
.
.
Michael
Preference at most can only determine its opposite or other possibilities…..
,
br.d
Here is where it is clear – you want the *ATTRIBUTES* of CONTRARY CHOICE
As soon as you introduce an “other” possibility – by definition you have an introduced an ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITY
As soon as you introduce an “opposite” option available to choose – by definition you have introduced CONTRARY CHOICE
.
Michael
He only knows what He determines in order to glorify Himself ….
.
br.d
If he knows what will be Determined regarding what any [X] will be – then it follows:
1) An ALTERNATIVE regarding what that [X] will be does not exist for him to choose
2) In such case he does not have a CHOICE in regard to what that [X] will be.
.
.
On review – the “implications” you are hoping to achieve here by the use of inventive terminology resolve to self-refuting statements.
You actually do want a god who has CONTRARY CHOICE
You just don’t want to call it that.
This is also a strategy very common to Calvinists – and it would be understandable – since they struggle with the same dilemmas.
But a rose is still a rose under any other name.
.
Blessings!
Br.d
From the creature’s perspective there is a seemingly infinite number of possibilities if conditions were different. But they are not. From God’s perspective there is only one possibility called reality. Thus, we can speak of possible worlds even though there is only one possibility without being in contradiction.
Unlike it is in both Calvinism or in freewill theology, God does not have a freewill. He must from His self-knowledge glorify Himself and do so in the highest possible manner as the man Jesus Christ. And He necessarily creates everything, including evil, suffering and hell to make that actual. He could not nor would want to do so in any other way, or not do it. Thus, God knows Himself exhaustively and knows everything outside Himself because He determines it.
God knows and wills Himself and cannot deny Himself. He has preference for Himself without there being an alternative. We as creatures do something similar when in love. We desire whom we do and cannot nor would not want it differently. Yet, we can in thought conceive of loving another, only to reject the idea. Thus, the idea of a cordial compulsion is not equivocal or inconsistent with other thought possibilities that cannot be actualized.
Lastly, only a consistent form of Divine determinism can give us a theodicy and explain why there is a hell.
In Calvinism God could have created a world without suffering or hell but mysteriously decided otherwise to reveal His attributes which in being self-contained did not have to. And He can justly and sovereignty save all but did not. Hell is not needed.
In all forms of free will theology God is love, yet creates a world at the expense of others when He did not have to. But He did. Why? Thus, indirectly your view of God is just as irrationally arbitrary as the God of Calvinism. In one sense worse, because love would require Him not to create a world if He knew even one person would suffer and go to hell.
The unbeliever wins the argument against the Calvinist and free will believer every time. Peace
Michael:
From the creature’s perspective there is a seemingly infinite number of possibilities….
.
Br,.d
Yes – in Determinism – that is called a FATED FALSE PERCEPTION which the human brain is not granted the ability to discern as FALSE.
.
Michael:
From God’s perspective there is only one possibility
.
Br.d
On Determinism for any [X] – where there is only ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED PREDETERMINED possibility – then that makes it the case that your THEOS does not have a CHOICE in the matter of that [X]
.
Therefore your THEOS does not have CHOICE in the matter of anything – including any COMPULSION that will exist within his mind.
.
Michael:
God does not have a freewill.
.
Br.d
This is also FALSE
In Determinism – the “WILL” is granted “Freedom” – but only to be that which is Determined
The “WILL” is NOT FREE to be OTHER than that which was Determined.
So your THEOS does not have any CHOICE in the matter of what his “WILL” will be.
.
Michael:
He must from His self-knowledge glorify Himself….
.
br.d
Once again – by appealing to KNOWLEDGE you are appealing to discernment which requires CONTRARY CHOICE
A NECESSARY CONDITION for KNOWLEDGE concerning any [X] is the ability discern whether that [X} is TRUE vs FALSE – which by definition entails a CONTRARY CHOICE – which is a power your THEOS does not have.
So your THEOS does not have KNOWLEDGE – what he is granted are PREDETERMINED PERCEPTIONS within his brain – and Determinism dose not grant any ALTERNATIVE PERCEPTION within his brain – and NO CHOICE in the matter of.
.
Michael:
and do so in the highest possible manner…..
.
br.d
This is the equivalent of Jon Edwards “Greatest inclination” which has been PREDETERMINED – with NO ALTERNATIVE “inclination” granted existence within his brain.
.
Micheal:
He could not nor would want to do so in any other way….
.
br.d
This statement is another concept found in Calvinism
Whatever “WANT” or “COMPULSION” or “INCLINATION” or “IMPULSE” exists within his brain – was Determined
Which he is not granted a CHOICE in the matter because Determinism does not grant him any ALTERNATIVE.
.
Micheal:
God knows and wills Himself and cannot deny Himself.
.
br.d
It is not actually his “Self” that he cannot deny – it is DETERMINISM that he cannot “Deny”
Determinism does not grant him any ALTERNATIVE in the matter of anything – including what his “WILL” will be.
Concerning KNOWLEDGE see my previous answer where KNOWLEDGE does not exist for him because it requires DISCERNMENT which requires CHOICE which he does not have.
.
Michael:
God knows Himself exhaustively and knows everything outside Himself because He determines it.
.
br.d
See my previous answer concerning KNOWLEDGE which requires the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE – which your THEOS does not have
.
Michael:
He has preference for Himself …..
.
br.d
Once again – for any given “Preference” he is not granted a CHOICE in the matter – because Determinism does not grant him any ALTERNATIVE
.
Michael:
Lastly, only a consistent form of Divine determinism can give us a theodicy and explain why there is a hell.
.
br.d
Here you appeal to the word “consistent” which is another example of a reliance upon equivocal language.
.
This statement also follows from the pattern of your last post where you commit the fallacy of wishful thinking.
.
This speaks of thinking patterns which based on emotional needs – which must evade rational reasoning – in order to be sustained.
.
Michael
In all forms of free will theology God is love, yet creates a world at the expense of others when He did not have to.
.
Br.d
This is more wishful thinking
.
The “Free-Will” you are referring to here is LIBERTARIAN “Freedom” which grants humans ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS – and grants humans CHOICE between those options.
.
Determinism does not grant existence to ALTERNATIVES and thus does not grant humans CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
Michael
Thus, indirectly your view of God is just as irrationally arbitrary as the God of Calvinism….
.
br.d
Silly!
Just because a God gives humans ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS and thus gives them CHOICE – it does not follow that God irrational. This is simply more wishful thinking.
.
But it is a fact clearly enunciated within Calvinism that Calvin’s god treats humans *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVES are granted existence for them to choose between – and *AS-IF* they are granted the option to BE OTHER than that which was determined – and treats them *AS-IF* they are granted CHOICE . All of which is FALSE.
.
Michael:
The unbeliever wins the argument against the Calvinist and free will believer every time.
br.d
You are not doing yourself any favors by relying on emotional desperation.
Currently – no unbeliever has defeated Dr. Alvin Plantingas “Free-Will Defense”
.
Blessings!
Br.d
I did not immediately respond because I was out of town.
Anyway, you’re very good at breaking down statements.
Choice as defined by having alternatives in order to support the concept of the power of contrary choice is not applicable to God Who cannot sin or deny Himself.
Thus, He has a determination of the will without an alternative choice or possibility to do otherwise than to affirm Himself over and against the evil He necessarily defines and creates in being Truth Himself.
And this absolute necessity He delights in or is cordially compelled to express from all eternity unto everlasting as a self-celebration in and for Christ back unto Himself in satisfaction.
Therefore, there is only one possibility, and God would not want it any other way. Nor would I. There is no plan b with God. Christ is the mystery of God concerning Himself revealed. Amen
Try as you do, but your definitions of choice and will are not sufficient.
Michael,
Your appeal to mystery is ludicrous.
But, whatever floats your boat. I still believe your god is a demon.
You still ignore that Abraham was declared righteous in genesis 15, thousands of years before Jesus died on a cross. You still adhere to original sin. That’s a mystery to me.
Ed Chapman
Ed, for Christ’s sake and righteousness Abraham was considered righteous by faith though under the law he was guilty unto death because he broke the law in Adam and revealed in Nature.
That’s not hard to understand, especially since Christ said Abraham knew about Him. Peace
Michael,
Wrong dude. Romans 5:13! There was no law. No sin could be imputed to him.
How many times do I gotta reference Romans 5:13? Re-emphasizing that there was no law?
He was declared righteous by one reason only. He believed. That’s it. Nothing more. End of story.
You people are the most stubborn people I’ve ever known.
Ed Chapman
Michael,
Not only that, there is no such thing as original sin, that you keep alluding to.
Ed Chapman
Michael
Choice as defined by having alternatives in order to support the concept of the power of contrary choice is not applicable to God Who cannot sin or deny Himself.
.
br.d
Here we have a NON-Sequitur.
.
Choice between ALTERNATIVES has nothing to do with sin or denying or not denying one’s self
A NECESSARY CONDITION of a CHOICE is the existence and availability of more than one option.
.
KJV Dictionary
-quote
The act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or separating from TWO OR MORE things
.
Dictionary.com
-quote
An act or instance of choosing; selection: an ALTERNATIVE
.
The Free Dictionary
-quote
The act of choosing; selection – a NUMBER OR VARIETY from which to choose
.
Collins Dictionary
-quote
If there is a choice of THINGS, there are SEVERAL OF THEM and you can choose the one you want.
Your choice is someone or something that you choose from A RANGE OF THINGS.
.
Oxford Learners Dictionary
-quote
An act of choosing between TWO OR MORE possibilities;
.
Longman Dictionary
-quote
if you have a choice, you can choose BETWEEN SEVERAL THINGS
.
.
Michael:
Thus, He has a determination of the will without an alternative choice or possibility to do otherwise….
.
br.d
NOPE!
But nice try!
Making stuff up out of thing air as you go is interesting to watch though! :-]
.
Michael:
Therefore, there is only one possibility, and God would not want it any other way.
.
br.d
In other words – he does not have a CHOICE in the matter :-]
What he has is an INCLINATION which you inventively LABEL a “COMPULSION”
But having a COMPULSION and making a CHOICE concerning that COMPULSION are two different things.
.
Blessings!
Br.d
That dictionaries or your definition does not cover the meaning of a term which applies to the conceivable idea God has a determination of the will arising from His self-knowledge and delight or desire to glorify Himself in the highest possible manner, whereby He could not nor would not want to do otherwise, is of no surprise.
Yet, the concept is not only conceivable but all-sufficient to explain everything. But you keep denying this concept and therefore any terms that might be applicable in some sense because it goes against the impossible idea of your definition of will, which makes an effect its own cause out of nothing but chance. This is equivalent to getting something from nothing.
Deal with fact that God has a determination of the will that not only can He not sin but do good, but also He must glorify Himself to Himself in the greatest manner. Why? Because in knowing Himself as Perfect Love in being Triune, He must grant Himself the perfect Gift – Jesus Christ.
In Christ the three Persons of the Godhead are saying to themselves from all eternity unto everlasting – I love you much, that if You were My enemy deserving of our wrath, I would in perfect obedience bear it for You and save you. And God delights in this necessity and would not want it any other way. I coin this form of necessity Commemorative Justice.
This absolute necessity (as compared to hypothetical and consequential necessity) for Christ and the world in part and whole to be the theatre of God’s Love story that determines the meaning and justification of even evil and hell, is neither acceptable to Calvinists nor believers in free will.
I’ll serve this God in Christ, and you, yours. Peace brother. And I call you brother because I believe God has granted you the grace to believe you have yet to embrace in its full meaning.
Michael:
That dictionaries or your definition does not cover the meaning of a term which applies to the conceivable idea God
.
br.d
Two things to take note of here:
1) This statement follows the pattern of your previous argument in which you argue any position which is apposing your position does not apply to a THEOS
As soon as you present that argument – you have lost your argument because it also of necessity applies to your position as well :-]
.
.
2) You present your THEOS as having the option to “WANT IT” another way – but he can’t “WANT” it any other way
– That presentation obfuscates Determinism
– Determinism does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it Determines
– What your THEOS will “WANT” has already been Determined – with no ALTERNATIVE OPTION granted to him
– Therefore Determinism does not grant your THEOS any CHOICE in the matter of anything – including what he will “WANT”
–
– ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS do not exist for your THEOS to choose
– Thus it follows – your THEOS is not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything
.
Blessings!
Br.d
The etymology of the terms choose and choice include taste, try, accept and approve. And the etymology for the term will includes wish, desire, determination or purpose. Thus, these three terms don’t necessitate the concept of the power of contrary choice or even alternatives.
Locke even understood this by saying will primarily means preference, which, like proclivities, wishes, wants and determinations also does not require a power of contrary choice or alternatives to have meaning.
God, like man has certain preferences and determinations of the will that can’t do or want otherwise than to act upon them like loving something, someone or self.
God desires to love Himself and can’t do or want otherwise. He is compelled from within and delights in this absolute necessity so much that He must act upon it. Whatever your definitions and concepts concerning will, choice and choose must account for these rationally conceivable kinds of necessity.
But you’re so bent on proving the indeterminate power of contrary choice, whereby an effect becomes its own cause , you refuse to address my arguments. In the end you maybe correct, but as you wonderfully break down my statements, you talk past me. Peace.
Michael:
The etymology of the terms choose and choice include taste, try, accept and approve. And the etymology for the term will includes wish, desire, determination or purpose.
.
br.d
Now you are arguing against yourself! :-]
You’ve already argued – earthly definitions do not apply to a THEOS
You’ve already defeated your own position!
.
Now I already know what you’re going to do next.
Your going offer up another stream of EX-Cathedra declarations.
Fanciful imaginations which your brain accepts as TRUE without thinking! :-]
.
Thus the SELF-REFUTING nature of Determinism is once again affirmed.
.
It makes perfect sense
Determinism has determined your brain to accept FALSE PERCEPTIONS of reality which it does not grant your brain to discern as FALSE
.
Your brain is not granted the ability of making a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter
It believes whatever Determinism Determines it to believe – whether that belief is TRUE or not.
.
Determinism has granted the benefit of a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS going through your brain
.
FALSE PERCEPTIONS including:
1) ALTERNATIVES (e.g TRUE vs FALSE concerning this topic)
2) CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE concerning this topic.
3) That CHOICE being *UP TO* you
All of which are FALSE
.
So your brain exists within a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS which Determinism does not grant your brain to discern – because it cannot CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
What a wonderful gift Determinism has granted! :-]
.
Blessings!
Br.d
I should have been more precise and said modern dictionaries. But, in my last text, I used etymologies that are no longer in vogue to show it is conceivable to have a determination of the will that neither requires the power of contrary choice or alternatives.
The way you typically argue is breaking down statements and then use the law of non-contradiction to find inconsistencies. This is valid.
But in me presenting an example of an act of a will determined by the intellect and motive, whereby the agent could not nor would not want it any other way is not self-contradictory.
The most you can argue is that what I’m stating is insufficient to explain reality. But you have not done that. Peace
Michael
The way you typically argue is breaking down statements and then use the law of non-contradiction to find inconsistencies. This is valid.
.
But of course your brain cannot differentiate VALID from NOT-VALID because that would require your brain make a CHOICE between those two CONTRARY options.
And CONTRARY CHOICE is not something Determinism grants to your brain.
.
Michael:
The most you can argue is that what I’m stating is insufficient to explain reality.
.
DW.
Actually its not that your brain is not granted the ability to sufficiently explain reality – its that your brain is not granted the ability to discern REALITY from UNREALITY
REALITY is CONTRARY to UNREALITY – and Determinism does not grant your brain the ability to make a CHOICE between them.
.
Where it is Determined your brain will perceive [X] as REALITY – then it follows – Determinism does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE perception within your brain.
It is impossible for your brain to CHOOSE something which your brain can’t even perceive.
.
So your brain is simply going to perceive whatever Determinism Determines it to perceive – whether it is TRUE or NOT.
And in such case – your brain is not granted the ability to discern one way or the other.
.
That’s how Determinism works.
.
At this point – you might as well give up
If Determinism lets you give up that is!
You are not granted a CHOICE in the matter of that either.
.
What Determinism grants the human brain is:
1) FALSE PERCEPTIONS of ALTERNATIVES which don’t actually exist – because their existence would falsify Determinism
2) FALSE PERCEPTIONS of CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES which don’t actually exist
3) FALSE PERCEPTIONS that that CHOICE is *UP TO* you
.
So the longer you continue here – the longer everyone will get to see how a Determinist treats his belief system *AS-IF* it is False.
.
We are familiar with the pattern – because Calvinists exhibit it also.
Because they are Determinists of course! :-]
.
Blessings!
Br.d
In response to the comment you made to me on September 8:
If I understand you correctly, for both God and man knowledge of the truth requires the priority of an indeterminate power of contrary choice and contingent alternatives.
How then does choosing is this indeterminate sense establish what is true or necessitates its acquisition? Especially since one can assent and/or choose what is false or wrong?
So, though inseparable from it, truth and knowledge have a priority over the will. And if that be the case (and it is), then the will is never free but is always determined by desires, motives, proclivities, etc.
Choosing than in this sense (as opposed to what you affirm) is not only compatible with Divine Determinism but can be shown to be established by it.
For falsity, evil, and even other possibilities as compared to what is factual are only corollaries, whereby the preeminence of truth, goodness and actuality are understood to be necessary and sufficient in explaining reality. And this would be the case for both God and man, whether the latter is good or evil.
Knowledge is obtained by a ratiocinating intuition in progressively sharing God’s thoughts (Divine Illumination; Cf. Psalms 36:9; Acts 17:28; Romans 11:36) as to what is true, good and factual from what is false, evil and imaginary – instead of a correspondence and realistic theory of knowledge based on a blank slate, sense perception and nominalism which you, and Locke must erroneously presuppose to establish indeterminacy.
Besides being inconsistent determinists, one of the reasons why you usually win arguments against Calvinists is because they assume the same meta-epistemology as you do.
The response to what I’m affirming will be that it makes God the ultimate cause of evil and sin through the shared knowledge of the creature. I accept and bow down in reverence to this Divine Prerogative of God (Cf. Genesis 3:22; Proverbs 16:4; Isaiah 45:7; 63:17; Romans 9:16-24). Amen
Michael:
How then does choosing is this indeterminate sense establish what is true or necessitates its acquisition?
.
br.d
So what should be clear so far is:
In Determinism:
1) For any perception/belief to exist within any human brain – its existence within the human brain is granted by Determinism
2) For any perception/belief which exists within any human brain – it cannot BE OTHER than what it was determined to be
3) Therefore perceptions/beliefs are not TRUTH connected or TRUTH established – they are DECREE connected and DECREE established
4) They can be FALSE perceptions/beliefs just as easily as they can be TRUE perceptions/beliefs
5) The reason they exist within the human brain is *NOT* because they are TRUE – but rather because they are DECREED.
.
For example:
The Jehovah’s Witness perceives/believes his doctrine is TRUE
The Mormon also perceives/believes his doctrine is TRUE
The Atheist also perceives/believes his doctrine is TRUE
The Satanits also perceives/believes his doctrine is TRUE
.
All of these humans perceive/believe what they perceive/believe *NOT* because it is TRUE – but because that is what has been Determined.
.
Thus on Determinism:
The human brain is not granted the ability to discern the fact that these perceptions/beliefs are FALSE
The human brain assumes perceptions/beliefs are TRUE *ONLY* because that is what was Determined
The human brain will perceive/believe that which has been Determined – as long as the DECREE is in affect
.
Nothing within creation can countervail what has been Determined
Education makes no difference – it cannot countervail what has been Determined
Mental IQ makes no difference – it cannot countervail what has been Determined
Maturity makes no difference – it cannot countervail what has been Determined
.
Thus on Determinism:
The human brain (including your brain) is not granted the ability to differentiate a TRUE perception/belief from a FALSE perception belief.
.
NOW LETS SAY DETERMINISM is not the case:
.
Then it follows
Determinism does not determine what perceptions/beliefs exist within the human brain
The human brain is able to CHOOSE between CONTRARY options – such as TRUE vs FALSE on any proposition
.
HOW DOES HUMAN KNOWLEDGE WORK:
Let us say a person is told a falsehood
They perceive/believe that falsehood is TRUE
But then later – they are presented with evidence which shows beyond a shadow of doubt what they were told was FALSE
At that point they can recognize they once perceived/believed a falsehood – and believed it to be TRUE
But now they ****KNOW**** it was FALSE
That is how *KNOWLEDGE* exists for humans where *EXHAUSTIVE* Determinism is not the case – and where CONTRARY CHOICE exists
.
There is nothing to prevent their brains from CHOOSING between TRUE and FALSE on the matter of that proposition.
.
.
However – it must also be recognized – all humans are fallible.
It is always possible for a human brain to be wrong.
But the CRITICAL difference is that on Determinism – the human brain can never *KNOW* whether anything is TRUE
because Determinism does does not grant the human brain the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on the matter of anything.
.
Outside of Determinism – the human brain can still be wrong
So it is impossible for the human brain to be correct ALL of the time.
But with the power of CONTRARY CHOICE the human brain at least it has the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE and be correct SOME of the time.
.
Blessings!
br.d
As an addendum to my last post on how the human brain (Outside of Determinism) can be correct some time
.
Paul says:
Examine all things – and hold fast to the good
.
That is impossible in Determinism – because the human brain is not granted the ability to discern GOOD from NOT-GOOD
GOOD is CONTRARY to NOT-GOOD
Where it is determined the brain will perceive [X] as GOOD – Determinism does not grant the brain to perceive OTHERWISE
Since it is impossible for the brain to choose something it cannot perceive – it is not possible for the brain to choose that which is GOOD.
.
Paul says “We know in part….we see through a glass darkly….but we shall at some point see face to face
.
Determinism does not grant any such thing
So on Determinism Paul’s statement is FALSE
Determinism never allows the human brain to discern TRUE from FALSE on the matter of anything
.
Outside of Determinism – the human brain can be correct SOME of the time.
Consequently – the human mental capacities of LEARNING and KNOWING are by degree.
Currently we KNOW it part (i.e. by degree)
Currently we LEARN in part (i.e. by degree)
.
SO outside of Determinism – we can at least LEARN and KNOW in part
Where Determinism does not grant the human brain to LEARN or KNOW anything.
What it grants to the brain are perceptions/beliefs in which it is not permitted to discern the truth-value of
.
Blessings!
br.d
Another thing to note here Michael
.
Determinism according to your position has consequences which clearly apply to you because you are not a THEOS
.
1) For every PERCEPTION that exists within your brain is Determined such that NO ALTERNATIVE PERCEPTION is granted existence within your brain.
2) Thus every FALSE PERCEPTION which exists within your thinking is Determined with NO ALTERNATIVE PERCEPTION granted existence within your brain
3) Your brain is not granted the ability to discern any FALSE PERCEPTION as FALSE – because that would falsify Determinism
4) Therefore your brain is not granted the ability to differentiate a TRUE PERCEPTION from a FALSE PERCEPTION
5) Thus Determinism does not grant your brain the ability to discern a TRUE PERCEPTION from a FALSE PERCEPTION
.
CONCLUSION:
You have no way of knowing if anything you think concerning any matter is TRUE
because you have no way of knowing if your PERCEPTION on that matter is a FALSE PERCEPTION
.
.
This falls back to our previous conversations in which we conclude Determinism as SELF-REFUTING – and why every Determinist/Calvinist treats his belief system *AS-IF* it is FALSE
.
For example
You live *AS-IF* your brain is granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on various propositions
Thus you live *AS-IF*
1) ALTERNATIVES EXIST
2) They exist for you to choose between
3) That choice is *UP TO* you
All of which are FALSE on Determinism
.
This brings us back to where we ended the last time we chatted together
Determinism does not grant your brain the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on the matter of anything
.
Determinism (not rational reasoning) determines what conclusions your brain will reach and what beliefs your brain will have
Those conclusions and beliefs which determinism has granted to your brain – can and in many cases are FALSE
And your brain is not granted the ability to know if they are FALSE
.
This is why all Determinists/Calvinists treat Determinism *AS-IF* it is FALSE
They would have to otherwise acknowledge that they have no ability to know if anything they think is TRUE
.
Gregory Koukl
-quote:
The problem with determinism, is that…..rationality would have no room to operate. Arguments would not matter…..One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one.
One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so.
Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if it were.
Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control.
Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
.
Dr. John Searle (Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Language – Berkeley)
-quote
“Rationality only makes a difference where there is the possibility of irrationality.
.
And all rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian Free Will.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options.”
.
Blessings!
br.d,
He can’t change his mind. He wrote a book called, “Commenorative Justice”, and has a web site by the same name, and quotes some of his stuff in his comments to you. Oh bless his heart (cough cough)! As he so states, HE “coined it”.
In short, he is the leader of his own cult, and he wants to drag as many to hell with him as possible. I feel sorry for him now.
He’s “bound and ‘determined'”! LOL. He can’t be taught, or corrected in his thinking. I think he’s trying to sell his book, without paying advertising. He’s even been to college to study the Bible! Well, isn’t that special!?
Ed Chapman
br.d
AH!!!!
Thank you Ed for letting me know that!
That makes it obvious!
.
What we have here – is called INVESTORS BIAS
He invests out of himself – in a given stock
That stock’s value will increase – in proportion to the more people investing in it.
The more people who invest in it – the more its value increases
Also – the more people invest in it – the more PREEMINENT it becomes as a stock
.
On the reverse – the more people who don’t invest in that stock – threatens the viability of the stock.
Those people who reject that stock will inform others why they reject it
And then others will understand and likewise reject the stock.
.
This is the same dilemma that Calvinists face.
Calvinists are like a used car salesmen who needs to trick people into buying the car they re selling
If a Calvinist get get you to buy the car – he is betting you will be ENSNARED by INVESTORS BIAS just as he is.
.
Calvinism – is more than a theology
Calvinism is a SOCIAL STRUCTURE which contains RESPECTED PERSONS
The great HEROES of the faith
John Calvin is HEROIZED
Augustine is HEROIZED
Other Calvinists who follow afterwards are HEROIZED
.
This creates secret internal LUSTING after PREEMINENCE within every Calvinist
.
If he can get you to accept his doctrine – then he EMBELLISHES himself.
.
Thank you ED for letting me know!
br.d
Ed, you’re better than that.
Michael M. Volpe,
You never addressed my comments regarding Genesis 15, that Abraham was declared righteous by HIS FAITH ALONE, WITHOUT THE AID OF JESUS and his righteousness, and that there is no such thing as original sin (a goofy Augustine doctrine that permeates much of the reformation clan) that you keep alluding to. It was a long comment, and you are so focused on being BOUND (IN BONDAGE TO), and DETERMINED (a goofy Calvinist doctrine), that you can’t see straight.
Even your own self, in your own website said that you expect push back. Well, you are getting push back!
And so, yes, I know better than to buy off on what you are selling.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I believe Abraham was, like all the elect, eternally justified in Christ. Because of that fact, whatever faith Abraham had, it was considered righteousness and God received it. As to what and how much he knew is debatable. But Jesus said Abraham understood something about Him (John 8:56). Regardless of how much he knew before he died, Abraham came to a full knowledge of his justification in Christ in the place called the abode. Otherwise known as Abraham’s bosom. Peace.
I don’t normally comment in here but when I read “change them in accordance to a greater revelation of Himself” I’m sorry but that’s not God you’re talking about. If God is all then he cannot suddenly have a greater revelation of Himself.
See my latest post to Br.d
br.d
Hi Dan – I think what you are seeing here is the self-refuting nature of Determinism.
Whenever a position is weak due to self-refuting thinking – you will typically observe an attempt to sustain that position by the use of rhetorical devices – such as hyperbolic language, Ex-Cathedra type declarations, and tautologies based on the Gamblers fallacy (if one repeats a mantra enough times it will eventually become true).
.
What we see from this – which is typical of Calvinist patterns – is “Angel of Light” language patterns.
An “Angel of light” is an entity trying to make itself *APPEAR* as something it isn’t.
.
In Michael – and Calvinism’s case – what they desperately want and desperately need is a state of affairs in which
1) ALTERNATIVES exist
2) They are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) That CHOICE is *UP TO* them.
.
That of course – is a state of affairs which does not exist in Determinism – which is what Calvinism is founded on.
.
For example
1) The brain of the Determinist/Calvinist is not granted the function of CONTRARY CHOICE
2) This means his brain is not granted a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter
3) Thus his brain cannot differentiate a TRUE PERCEPTION from a FALSE PERCEPTION on any matter
4) Thus his brain is not granted the ability to KNOW if anything he thinks is TRUE
.
You can see how this is a self-refuting belief system.
.
The way every Determinist/Calvinist gets around this dilemma is by treating his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
.
He is forced to treat his belief system *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human normalcy.
.
He is forced to depend upon “Angel of Light” language tactics (Cosmetic Language) which is designed to produce an *APPEARANCE* of epistemic functionality which Determinism does not grant to humans.
.
So every Determinist/Calvinist will use hyperbolic declarations to assert his doctrine is TRUE – while simultaneously treating his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human normalcy (normal human functionality).
.
Blessings!
Hello Provisionists !
Is there anyone among us who could reply to this forum question please ? I am not a native english speaker and not comfortable replying.
The web site is Christianity.StackExchange and the question is: What are the characteristics of God’s elect ? Is this how we will know that we are ‘elect’?
Thanks in advance,
Immanuel
br.d
Hello Immanuel and welcome
.
There is a common understanding of what “Elect” means within Christianity
And also – there is a GNOSTIC understanding of what “Elect” means
.
The GNOSTIC definition is a people who were created specifically for salvation
And since they were created specifically for salvation – it is impossible for them to NOT be “Elect” and thus NOT eventually be saved.
.
Calvinism – is a branch of Christianity which incorporates the GNOSTIC conception of “Election”
.
However – if you review scripture – and every instance in which the term is found in the N.T.
you will find – no author of scripture every defining the “Elect” as people who are NOT saved or people who are NOT YET saved.
.
Every reference to the “Elect” by N.T. authors – identifies the “Elect” as those who are ALREADY believers in Jesus.
.
So the N.T. answer to this question is – the “Elect” are individuals who are ALREADY believers in Jesus
.
This question became controversial because of Augustine who synchronized GNOSTIC components into his theology
John Calvin swallowed the camel of GNOSTIC thinking due to his inappropriate adoration for all things Augustine.
This becomes a warning to all Christians that they should never put any man on a pedestal.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hello Immanuel and welcome
There are different understandings of what “Elect” means within Christianity
And also – there are those who deny the obvious implications of this word. The basic Greek word means “chosen.” Add to this the associated word, “foreknown,” and you get a clear understanding of the BIBLICAL meaning.
The provisionist definition is (rather ironically) a people who CHOSE to be saved (rather than actually being chosen by God, as the text clearly shows: “even as he chose us in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD,” Eph. 1:4).
But in the provisionist milieu they CHOSE to be saved, they were afterward” chosen” to be saved, making “election” sort of a joke-reference to human free-will and thereby doing violence to the clear meaning of the text.
Provisionism– is a novel branch of Christianity which incorporates this extremely unorthodox conception of “Election” rather than dealing with the obvious meaning of Scripture.
Br.d says: “However – if you review scripture – and every instance in which the term is found in the N.T.
you will find – no author of scripture ever defining the “Elect” as people who are NOT saved or people who are NOT YET saved.” This is because, given the fact that election is a mystery contained within God’s knowledge alone, it is impossible for us (mere mortals) to know whom the elect are–until they are actually saved.
More importantly, we find Scripture referring to the nation of Israel as “elect,” and Paul further identifying those individuals within Israel who believe in Christ as “elect.” Similarly, we find the NT writers identifying the Church as elect, and those within the Church who are true believers as “elect” individuals. This is because God elects a nation, a church (a called assembly), and individuals within those categories, in different ways.
Br.d also says: “Every reference to the “Elect” by N.T. authors – identifies the “Elect” as those who are ALREADY believers in Jesus,” but this is for the reason noted above, which will be self-evidently obvious to anyone who considers this topic from an orthodox perspective. Further, Paul says in Romans 11:7 “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,” and then He follows up by saying, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.” (Romans 11:28-31). This clearly shows that there are elect Jews who do not now believe, but will later believe, thereby overturning the invalid thesis presented by Br.d above. As you can see from Scripture, the references to gnosticism are just a decoy used by those who do not wish to accept the clear meaning of the text.
So the N.T. answer to this question is – the “Elect” are individuals whom God knows are (or will be) believers in Jesus, since He chose them “BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.” And also a nation and an assembly in which the elect reside.
This question became controversial because of people who want to avoid the obvious implications of the clear language of the text, since it does not work well with their man-made free-will philosophies and provisionist, Arminian, or open theist theologies.
This becomes a warning to all Christians that they should never put their own understanding on a pedestal, rather than simply taking the Word of God at face value and accepting the clear meaning of the text.
Blessings!
Derek
br.d
Hello Derek
.
Derek
The provisionist definition is (rather ironically) a people who CHOSE to be saved…..
.
br.d
This is a good example of duplicitous language.
.
A more acruate representation would be – a people who were granted a CHOICE in the matter of their salvation.
.
In Calvinism – humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter because an infallible decree determines the person’s salvation before they are created by a decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
As a matter of fact – in Calvinism – humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
Derek:
Br.d says: “However – if you review scripture – and every instance in which the term is found in the N.T.
you will find – no author of scripture ever defining the “Elect” as people who are NOT saved or people who are NOT YET saved.” This is because, given the fact that election is a mystery contained within God’s knowledge alone, it is impossible for us (mere mortals) to know whom the elect are–until they are actually saved.
.
br.d
This statement commits the error of Eisegesis (adding conceptions into the text which are not in the text)
.
The RESPECTFUL handling of scripture simply recognizes what the text says – and does not ADULTERATE the text by adding to it.
.
If the N.T. authors identified people who are NOT saved or NOT YET saved as “Elect” they would have clearly done so within the text – because there are plenty of opportunities for them to do so – and identifying who the “Elect” are is no trivial matter for a N.T. author.
.
But that is not what they do.
They identify the “Elect” *ONLY* as those who are ALREADY saved.
.
Out of respect for scripture – we don’t ADULTERATE it by forcing concepts into it which are not there.
.
The rest of your post – follows the same process of AUTO-MAGICALLY super-imposing Calvinist concepts onto scripture.
.
Very similar to what Jehovah’s Witness do with scripture. 🙁
.
blessings!
br.d
Derek:
Br.d says: “However – if you review scripture – and every instance in which the term is found in the N.T.
you will find – no author of scripture ever defining the “Elect” as people who are NOT saved or people who are NOT YET saved.” This is because, given the fact that election is a mystery contained within God’s knowledge alone, it is impossible for us (mere mortals) to know whom the elect are–until they are actually saved.
.
br.d
A 10th grader could see the logical error here!
.
The N.T. authors clearly identify the recipients of their letters as “Elect”
So there is no ambiguity or UNKNOWING concerning that.
.
IF in doing that – they actually don’t know that to be TRUE – then they would be telling people lies – or otherwise misleading people – – an act which they know Jesus would disdain.
.
Perhaps your argument provides an indication of how Calvinists compromise honesty?
Simple question, Br.d: Does your theology allow for the fact that we do not currently know which unsaved person will be saved, and thus identified by us as “elect” in the future? Does anyone know who those people are? Does God know?
Derek Ashton,
Derek is EQUATING the word ELECT to those who WILL BE SAVED, and have already been saved.
But I don’t see that. I see it as JEWS ONLY, not GENTILES at all. Therefore, the word Saved is NOT a representation of the word SAVED, whether has been saved, or will be saved.
However, the BLIND JEWS will be saved.
ISRAEL MINE ELECT, the bible states. The Bible does not state that GENTILES are Israel!
You will have to convince the WORLD PERIOD that the Gentiles are Israel. That one doesn’t fly with me!
Ed Chapman
In my previous, I said:
“But I don’t see that. I see it as JEWS ONLY, not GENTILES at all. Therefore, the word Saved is NOT a representation of the word SAVED, whether has been saved, or will be saved. ”
Change “…THEREFORE, THE WORD SAVED IS NOT…” to “THEREFORE, THE WORD ELECT IS NOT…”.
Ed Chapman
Derek:
Br.d: Does your theology allow for the fact that we do not currently know which unsaved person will be saved, and thus identified by us as “elect”?
.
br.d
Yes – the N.T. tells us – those who believe ( PRESENT TENSE) will be saved.
.
Here is a question for you.
.
Lets say you write something to someone
And you lead them to believe something is TRUE
But you actually have no way of knowing if it is TRUE
And you also know – there is a statistical probability that what you are telling them is in fact FALSE
Do you consider that something an honest person would do?
Ain’t NO WAY that Derek is right!
He said:
“So the N.T. answer to this question is – the “Elect” are individuals whom God knows are (or will be) believers in Jesus, since He chose them “BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.””
My response:
My Bible doesn’t have a period at the end of the word “world”. Mine has a comma! And that makes the whole difference in the world, exclamation point! Period!
The words TO BE is what I concentrate on. Apartment 2b, or TO BE! Could be too bee, as well!
Or, in this case, “that we”…the words to the RIGHT of “that we” is what the whole point of Ephesians 1:4 is. Not the other way around.
Ed Chapman
Ed, how does the comma (not present in Greek, BTW) change the meaning so that we become elect at a different time than “before the foundation of the world,”? With regard to the words “to be,” Bill Clinton would be proud! It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Derek,
The nice part about the GREEK is that there is NO PUNCTUATION, but you put a period after the word “world”, anyway! Then complain about my comma! Ironic, huh?
But when you consider “that we” in the SENTENCE, you will see WHY Bill Clinton would be wrong to question what is is!
This is SIMPLE English sentence structure, and you don’t even have to be a Greek expert, which, by the way, are a dime a dozen, and yet we still have a BAZILLION denominations anyway!
If you didn’t learn sentence structure in the THIRD GRADE, and watch Sesame Street as a kid…you be hurtin! Comma’s are CONJUNCTIONS.
There is no such thing as a period at the end of the word, “world” in Ephesians 1:4 in ANY translations that you may choose. It’s only INSERTED when Calvinists create a new doctrine! Much like SKIPPING OVER Romans 5:13 when creating a false doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN!.
Ed Chapman
Derek Ashton,
Speaking of BILL CLINTON…
2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
The same would go for the word “THROUGH”, as well. We don’t put a period after the word “salvation”, either.
It is the words to the right of “through” that we concentrate on. And there are two things:
1. SANCTIFICATION OF SPIRIT and
2. BELIEF IN THE TRUTH.
You can’t get salvation without first being presented some key facts of the case! And then, after that, you gotta beleive it. THEN you are saved. That’s how it was done with Abraham! So let it be written, so let it be done! And it was!
Ed Chapman
Derek,
I just reread your comment, and so I have to comment on that…
You said:
“How does the comma (not present in Greek, BTW) change the meaning so that we become elect at a different time than “before the foundation of the world,”?”
My response:
When did I say that you BECOME ELECT? First of all, I’m not Calvinist, NOR AM I PROVISIONIST, and I’m not reform, either.
I do not believe in your twisted game of salvation means elect.
What I believe is that the JEWS ARE BLIND, and it’s due to that blindness that THEY, the Jews only, are the elect. YOU are not now, nor ever will be elect.
Someday you may get saved, but even then, you are NOT ELECT…because you are not a Jew.
I wish that Gentiles would stop this ELECT nonsense as if it’s equated to the word, “saved”, whether past, present, or future. It’s has NOTHING TO DO WITH GENTILES.
Ed Chapman
Derek,
And another thing..
The word ELECT is not even a word in the book of Ephesians!
Ed Chapman
While I agree with you that Ephesians 1 does NOT teach unconditional election/predestination in the way Calvinist interpret it, and that the “in Christ”/”in Him” are extremely important, I think there is a key point that you are missing. Nobody has clearly identified who the “we” and “us” are in versus 3-12. that is crucial. Most interpret that the Ephesian church is included in that “we”/”us”. I don’t believe that is true. Verse 13 clearly identifies that the “we”/”us” does not included the Ephesian church when Paul switches to say “and you also…”. If the Ephesian church was already included in the “we” and “us” in the prior versus, why would Paul now switch to clearly identify the Ephesians as “you” and continue to use “you” instead of “we/”us” throughout the rest of the book? Versus 8/9 show that the “we”/”us” were lavished with all wisdom and understanding and were given the knowledge to the mystery of his will. Chapter 3 of Ephesians starting in verse 4, Paul says that he is going to tell the Ephesian church what that mystery is, so it wouldn’t make sense that the Ephesians already knew the mystery in Ephesians 1:8. Also verse 12 says the “we”/”us” were the first to hope in Christ. That is crucial to understanding who is the “we/us” and it couldn’t have been the Ephesian church.
I believe the “we”/”us” that Paul is referring to in versus 3-12 is the Apostles. The choice and predestination was for the Apostles to be the ones to go out and spread the Gospel. Granted, the proper antecedent isn’t there to clearly reference all the apostles. However, in Chapter 3, again Paul explicitly says the mystery was made known to the Apostles and to the Prophets in the Spirit. This is referring to Ephesians 1:8/9. Also, I noticed a very similar pattern in how Paul opens his other letters such as the letters to the Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. He generally starts off with a “I”/”We”/”Us” that references the authors and then moves into a “you” statement to specifically call out the recipients of the letter. I don’t see in any of his letters where his first few versus that have a “we” or “us” included the recipients of the letter.
Just food for though, but if you read Ephesians 1:4-12 understanding that the “us in Christ/Him” does not include the Ephesians themselves it can’t support unconditional election at all. Chapter 1 also now has a completely different reading. Chapter 3 clearly identifies who the “we” and “us” are that are referenced in Chapter 1 as the Apostles and Prophets. Chapter one says “we” knew the mystery, and Chapter 3 says it was the Apostles who knew the mystery and know the Ephesians were going to learn it.
I think it is critical to understand if the church in Ephesus can be included in Chapter 1:3-12. I don’t see how it could.
Hello Brian and welcome
.
I’ve passed your comment on to Brian – and asked him to respond
He is a teacher of the Greek.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Welcome, the other Brian! I have heard that view before but looking at all the 1st person plural pronouns in chapter 1 lead me not to think Paul is limiting the “us” in 1:4 to just the Apostles. Here’s my take.
Eph 1, 4&5 Individual Election and Predestination was not before creation!
Determinists have always tried to read too much into these verses that Paul wrote in a context about blessings we now have, now that we are in Christ. Some of those blessings were given to Him (the only Elect one) before creation, to be shared with all who would later be joined to Him and become one of the elect in Him. The ones in verses 4 and 5 are such blessings… Verse four is not about being chosen in Christ, but chosen in Christ “to be” holy and blameless.
The pronoun “us” is being used in both verses, 4&5, in a general reference, anachronistic sense, like me saying – “The Native Americans were chased by us before the Revolution so that they would live west of the Appalachian Mtn range.”
Another similar example would be the Levites in David’s day who were chosen to carry the ark. David said, as recorded in 1Chr 15:2 – “No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, because the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.”
Any Levite that day could have said to another Levite – “God chose us in Aaron, before Israel entered the promised land, that we should carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.” Of course, he would not have had the ridiculous thought that God had his name written down in a book during Aaron’s time, along with the names of all future Levites. He would not think that he individually or physically would be ministering before the Lord forever in this special task as a priest. He would just be using the “us” as a pronoun of reference with a corporate connection because of the promise made to Aaron, and because of his being added into Aaron’s lineage by physical birth.
We say, with Paul, we have the same privileges/blessings granted to the Son of God before creation that would go to any in His lineage. This is just like a written will grants privileges to children not yet conceived or even thought about, the privileges granted to Jesus before creation were made available then to all who would be born again through personal faith. Those inheritance privileges are now ours individually, since we are now individually joined to Him by spiritual birth through our personal faith. We now have the blessing to stand holy and blameless before God as one of God’s chosen in the Chosen One – Christ, and we are now predestined for the inheritance that all sons receive.
********
Questions to ask a determinist:
When God supposedly “chose” you before creation, were you unchosen at some point and then chosen, according to the normal meaning of that word? What did God see when He supposedly chose you… just your name, your life up to some point where He decided He wanted to get involved noticeably to you, or your whole life forever and all His involvement in it already? In other words, what does “you” mean when He chose “you” back then before you even existed? Trying to answer these questions will hopefully help a determinist see they are being dogmatic about a premise – determinism – that Paul wasn’t even trying to teach about in this passage, and which is illogical when using the words “chose… before the foundation of the world”, if no actual choice of any individuals, who didn’t even exist back then, was made.
Here’s a good 10min video discussion in support of this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FxHfnqLBmg
As for 1:12 – Ok here’s an interesting Greek interpretation question.
The Meaning of “First Trusted in Christ” (Eph 1:12)
τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ
Is it “the first ones who hoped” or “the ones who first hoped”?
In other words, is it that they hoped in Christ before other people or that they hoped in Christ before doing or experiencing something else themselves (my choice)?
[Eph 1:11-14 NKJV] 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, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Here is supporting evidence that makes me think it means the ones who first placed their hope in Christ instead of the first ones who placed their hope in Christ.
I. Popular Translations in support – CSB, KJV, LSB, LSV, NAB, NKJV,
CSB – we who had already put our hope in Christ
KJV – we … who first trusted in Christ
LSB – we who first have hoped in Christ
LSV – we who first hoped in the Christ
NAB – we who first hoped in Christ
NKJV – we who first trusted in Christ
II. Lexicons in Support
Thayer’s – “to repose hope in a person or thing before the event confirms it”
Liddell/Scott – “generally, anticipate, expect,”
My Application – the preposition προ on the perfect participle .προηλπικότας is about the subject of the participle “we” as having a hope in something before something else is experienced by the subject or is done by the subject, and not before someone else does the hoping. In this case the subject “we” is either hoping before the main verb of the sentence – “obtained an inheritance” (vs 11) or before the experience stated in the prepositional phrase – “should be to the praise of His glory” (vs. 12, see also vs. 14).
III. Verse 13 in Support
The phrase – ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς – gives the elliptical idea in my opinion – “in Him also you [first trusted]”. This is confirmed by the word “trusted” added for clarification by translators of the KJV and NKJV, who thought the same thing, which is also confirmed by the next clause that follows in a parallel way and has ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες.
IV. Verse 14 in Support
The sentence of verse 13-14 includes the phrase “our inheritance” confirming the “we/us” of verse 1-12 was the full group of Jews and Gentiles in Christ and the “you” in 13-14 is a subgroup of Ephesian Jews and Gentiles who are in Christ.
Leighton, I would recommend interviewing Jason Staples with his new book published by Cambridge press (2024), “The Resurrection of Israel.” His thesis on Romans 9-11 is very helpful. Cheers.
Hello J and welcome
We will pass along your recommendation
Sincere thanks
blessings
br.d
Hello!
I’ve seen a few comments in here that deal with Ephesians 1:4 “Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” and I must say, many of the arguments I’ve seen from the non-Calvinist side (whether provisionist or otherwise) have always felt lacking. Like the alternate definition of God “Choosing us in him before the foundation of the world” has to mean all believers who are “Found in HIM” will be the ones “Chosen before the foundation of the world” rather than the individually selected ELECT chosen from all eternity past. Basically the corporate view of Election of all believers.
I’ve always found this definition troublesome and have spent practically the entire time since I’ve walked away from Calvinism looking into this phrase.
Specifically the “Foundation of the World” or “Katabole Kosmou” as it’s often found in the Greek. Even on Dr. Flowers program, I’ve rarely heard him discuss what “Foundation of the World” means. It seems that it always gets rendered as some variation of Genesis 1:1. I don’t think this is the case. I think it’s better to understand it at a minimum of Genesis 4:17.
The word “Katabole” means Founding, or foundation, or establishment. The word “Kosmos” is much like our word “World” which can mean anything from the governmental authority of a small city, to the land that city is on, to the Government of the Empire that owns that nation, to the way the stars in the sky are situation, and finally the actual created order. Not a small range in meaning by any means.
So to narrow our arguments to the definition of “Katabole Kosmou” being “The beginning of creation” doesn’t necessarily make sense. Especially in light of Ephesians 1:3-14. In fact there is a better term in the Greek, that is used BY PAUL, to mean “The start (or beginning) of creation”. This term is “Ἀπὸ Κτίσεως Κόσμου” (Apo Ktiseos Kosmou) which translates to “from the creation of the world”. Interestingly enough the word “Ktiseos” is a better term than Katabole to describe a thing coming into existence from a previously non-existent state, since the idea with Katabole is to take pre-existent things (like clay) and form them into something else. Which is where the word comes from, it literally mean a “throwing down” invoking this imagery of throwing clay onto a wheel and forming into something new.
Ktiseos means more like “something didn’t exist, but now it does”. So if “katabole Kosmou” means the foundation of the world, then it is reasonable to conclude that the word “Kosmou” or “Kosmos” used in conjunction with Katabole could mean human order or civilization.
Making the proper understanding of “Katabole Kosmou” to mean “the establishment of Human Governmental authorities/Order” which would be opposed to the authority of God. This aligns well with what Jesus says in Luke 11:50-51 when he says “so that the blood of all the prophets, shed [Apo Katabole Kosmou], may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.”
Now if the “establishment of human order” is the definition then what we can conclude and understand from Jesus statement is that Cain, as the founder of the first city in history, which was a place of great rebellion and evil, would be the reference point of “the foundation of the world” wherein Abel was the first prophet at the time of the founding of the world who was killed. This would mean that Paul’s reference to those “[Chosen] in him before the foundation of the world” has to do with the Genealogical lineage of the righteous seed of the woman as opposed to the rebellious and wicked seed of the serpent, found in Genesis 3:15. This Choosing of the righteous as opposed to the wicked then would have taken place BEFORE the establishment of the Human Order.
Which means, when Paul references those chosen “in him before the foundation of the world” he’s referencing the lineage of the righteous seed from Seth to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel. Making the ones Chosen the Jews. Which aligns with the rest of Paul’s thesis statement of Ephesians 1:3-14, particularly where he shifts pronouns in verse 13 says “In him you also” referencing the Gentile audience he’s speaking to, and even distinguishing and separating the Gentiles from the ones who were “Chosen in him before the foundation of the world”.
This is further established when you get to Ephesians chapter 2 where Paul makes a CLEAR distinction that the people of Israel where given the promises and covenant at a time when the Gentiles did NOT. Ephesians 2:12-13 “remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” later he even makes it clear that the “Mystery” he was referencing in Ephesians 1:8-9 was NOT given to the Gentiles, but to the Apostles and Prophets (Jews). He references this in Eph 3:1-6. Making it clear that the Gentiles did NOT have the Mystery revealed to them, but rather they had to depend on the JEWS to BRING them the Mystery since the Jews were the ones to whom the mystery had been revealed. Paul elaborates that the “Mystery” is the inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of Abraham, to receive the Promises THROUGH the Gospel. meaning they could not receive the promises before the Gospel came.
So then the Choosing “Pro Katabole Kosmou” has nothing to do with all believers everywhere, it has to do specifically with the calling that was placed on the JEWS to be the ones who brought the Gospel to the Gentiles so that ALL people can be saved.
Welcome I. Rock! I am familiar with that take on “before the foundation of the world” and the “chosen Jews” interpretation of Eph 1 and other passages that use the terms “elect” or “chosen”. My own view is that each place the phrase “before the foundation of the world” is studied in NT and a thorough word study of the Greek word for “foundation” in the NT and LXX, plus a study of Paul’s use of the terms “choose” or “elect” will not deliver the support you seek for your view for Eph 1:4.
Here is my view, because I think the meaning of “us” in 1:4 is crucial to understanding what that verse means.
Eph 1, 4&5 Individual Election and Predestination was not before creation!
Determinists have always tried to read too much into these verses that Paul wrote in a context about blessings we now have, now that we are in Christ. Some of those blessings were given to Him (the only Elect one) before creation, to be shared with all who would later be joined to Him and become one of the elect in Him. The ones in verses 4 and 5 are such blessings… Verse four is not about being chosen in Christ, but chosen in Christ “to be” holy and blameless.
The pronoun “us” is being used in both verses, 4&5, in a general reference, anachronistic sense, like me saying – “The Native Americans were chased by us before the Revolution so that they would live west of the Appalachian Mtn range.”
Another similar example would be the Levites in David’s day who were chosen to carry the ark. David said, as recorded in 1Chr 15:2 – “No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, because the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.”
Any Levite that day could have said to another Levite – “God chose us in Aaron, before Israel entered the promised land, that we should carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.” Of course, he would not have had the ridiculous thought that God had his name written down in a book during Aaron’s time, along with the names of all future Levites. He would not think that he individually or physically would be ministering before the Lord forever in this special task as a priest. He would just be using the “us” as a pronoun of reference with a corporate connection because of the promise made to Aaron, and because of his being added into Aaron’s lineage by physical birth.
We say, with Paul, we have the same privileges/blessings granted to the Son of God before creation that would go to any in His lineage. This is just like a written will grants privileges to children not yet conceived or even thought about, the privileges granted to Jesus before creation were made available then to all who would be born again through personal faith. Those inheritance privileges are now ours individually, since we are now individually joined to Him by spiritual birth through our personal faith. We now have the blessing to stand holy and blameless before God as one of God’s chosen in the Chosen One – Christ, and we are now predestined for the inheritance that all sons receive.
********
Questions to ask a determinist:
When God supposedly “chose” you before creation, were you unchosen at some point and then chosen, according to the normal meaning of that word? What did God see when He supposedly chose you… just your name, your life up to some point where He decided He wanted to get involved noticeably to you, or your whole life forever and all His involvement in it already? In other words, what does “you” mean when He chose “you” back then before you even existed? Trying to answer these questions will hopefully help a determinist see they are being dogmatic about a premise – determinism – that Paul wasn’t even trying to teach about in this passage, and which is illogical when using the words “chose… before the foundation of the world”, if no actual choice of any individuals, who didn’t even exist back then, was made.
I hear what you’re saying, but the view you expressed was what I was talking about initially with the general alternative to the individual deterministic choosing. The biggest problem I’ve got with it is trying to make “the foundation of the world” mean “the initial creation of all matter” and the word Katabole doesn’t have that as a function within its definition. The Word Ktisis from Romans 1:20 does better job to serve that function of the ex nihilo starting point of creation. Whereas Katabole is a taking of something that already exists and reshaping into something new. Literally it means to cast down or to throw down. Which is used to mean “take some that already exists and do something different with it” like scattering seed. You’re taking a preexistent material “seed” and “casting it down” (Katabole) to make wheat. But the idea of it being used to mean material creation wasn’t in use until much later.
The other thing I’ve had to contend with is the fact that Paul structures all of his letters with an opening almost thesis like statement wherein he establishes what he’s going to talk about. This “thesis” for Ephesians IS the section of 1:3-14, and in chapters 2 and 3 he VERY clearly identified that the “Us” who are spoken of in verses 1:3-12 are the Apostles and the Prophets (who were exclusively Jews). Further he identifies the “You” as the “uncircumcision” who were “strangers to the covenants of promise” (which would be the “blessings in the heavenly places”) and “aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel” (which would correspond to the adoption as sons). That alone should be enough to prove that the Gentiles were excluded from the choosing before the foundation of the world. Though we Gentiles are now included through the Gospel. But when he clarifies in chapter 3 that the Mystery of the Gospel was specifically revealed to the Apostles and Prophets (Jews) in order for them to deliver it to the Gentiles, he furthers this idea that the Gentiles were separate from those who were chosen “before the foundation of the world”. again the definition for “foundation of the world” that I’m using is specifically either the casting out of Adam from the Garden or the establishing of the first City by Cain. Both instances fit perfectly with the idea of Katabole, meaning a throwing or casting down (like scattering seed) giving this idea of an establishment of something new from something preexistent. This also fits with Jesus’ rendering of the blood of the Prophets shed from (or since) the foundation of the world in Luke 11:50-51. And Paul’s use of the phrase in Eph 1:4 would fit perfectly with this definition as the promise for the righteous seed of the woman (through Seth) as opposed to the unrighteous seed of the serpent (as exemplified by Cain) in Genesis 3:15 came BEFORE even Adam and Eve were thrown out (cast out, thrown down, established as a new thing) from the Garden.
Also I can’t help by consider the parallel passage in Colossians 1:26-27. since everything Paul talks about in Colossians is elaborated on in Ephesians, we can surmise that what he says about the mystery in Colossians can also supplement what he says in Ephesians. In Colossians 1:26-27 the word he uses for “saints” just means “set apart ones” which doesn’t necessarily HAVE to mean all Christians, it can mean “the ones God set apart to deliver the Gospel” which would be Jews. Which fits with what he says in verse 27 as the “Saints” were chosen “to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you [Gentiles], the hope of Glory” meaning, the ones “Saints” in this context are distinct from the Gentiles as being the onse chosen to go to the Gentiles to deliver to them the Good News that they are included into the Family of Abraham (the family of promise) through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Anyways. Very curious to hear your thoughts and thank you SO MUCH for hearing me out.
Well, I already gave you my thoughts, I. Rock. I don’t think the Greek word holds up to pushing that etymologically based meaning of “cast down” or “scatter”. Most ancient foundations were formed from throwing down heavy material into soil to firm up the location to build upon a more stable platform. God “threw down” a firmament, separated from the water, upon which to use as a foundation of life, especially human life.
But a bigger problem with your view is the ignoring of “before” in “before the foundation of the world.” You pointed to the promised seed as the moment of choice, but that was after the fall into sin. You then had to point to the expulsion from the garden or Cain’s rebellion as markers to help the word “before” make more sense. But even then, you have no specific persons being chosen before then, but only a corporate choosing based on the seed of the woman, which is Christ. I hope you don’t promote that everyone in Cain’s lineage was lost and everyone in Seth’s lineage was saved, because Seth was “chosen” in your view.
Nope! I am going to stick with my view, which has no problem with “before the foundation of the world” being before creation of man, since corporate election in indeed in Christ through personal faith of any individuals after that foundation, which your view also has to commit to, if it is going to work.
To answer your question, no I’m not saying “the lineage of Cain is lost” and vice versa with Seth, but rather I’m looking to the common ancient Jewish understanding of how prophecy works. Which is also common in modern Judaism. Where a prophecy can be fulfilled in 2 ways one way for a specific purpose for the people hearing it, and one in a future (Messianic) purpose. Like Isaiah 7 and the prophecy of the Virgin Birth, I believe the reason why the modern Jews can raise the objects they do regarding the Virgin Birth prophecy, is because they are focusing on the direct fulfillment of that verse within the lifetime of Isaiah, but fail to recognize it’s future fulfillment (past in our perspective) in Christ.
So that being said, “The foundation of the World” is, in my view, is regarding not the point of material creation (of which Ktisis is a better word in the Greek to encompass this meaning, found in Romans 1:20). But rather the foundation of the world is referencing the establishment of the human age, or the ages of men as Paul references it in Colossians. Specifically my view does actually hold to a corporate view, it fits more specifically to the call and the purpose of the Jews to bring about the Messiah, and ultimately for the Apostles and other Disciples (who were initially all Jews) to go forth and bring the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus to the Gentiles for the purpose of their inclusion into the Family of Abraham (which is to say the Family of Promise). But this means that the “Choosing in him before the foundation of the world” specifically means the choosing of a specific people (Jews) for the purpose of bringing about the Messiah, so that they through the Messiah and his command in the great commission can bring reconciliation to the Lost (Gentiles).
This is not saying that Gentiles cannot be included into the Promise through the Gospel. It’s merely saying what Paul says in Ephesians chapter 2 when he says Gentiles were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise. Well to say one person is alienate from a family is to say that they, at one time, were not included into the inheritance of that family. But he goes on to say that they are NOW included through the Gospel. Which would mean that ‘Before the foundation of the World’ the Gentiles were not chosen. But now that the Gospel is here, they can be grafted in. Which, again, makes sense with the pronoun shift in verse 13 of Ephesians 1, where it directly indicates that the Gentiles were not included in the group of people stated in the previous 10 verses. So, no, I am by no means advocating that some people are just screwed, and others are saved regardless of their heart toward Jesus. I’m saying rather, that what Ephesians 1:3-14 is actually doing is setting up Paul’s argument as a thesis statement for the rest of the letter, which specifically talks about how the Gentiles were not included before the Gospel, but are now included, and are fellow heirs through this inclusion, through the Gospel.
Sorry Ian for the late reply… but just to confirm, you do believe there were many Gentiles saved during OT times… right? As members of Gentile nations, their nations as a whole were not chosen to be representatives of God’s revelation concerning the Gospel in the coming Christ, but they still were able to be saved as individuals by grace through faith in OT times. Right?
Yes, exceptions were always made (the Egyptians that went with the Israelites during the Exodus, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman, etc.) But them leaving their nations does not mean then that Israel’s unique calling (as the chosen ones, or the Elect) was nullified. Nor does it mean that those Gentiles automatically became “Elect” because they went with the Israelites. Rather, they would have to become Israelites according to the Law (Circumcise the males, observed the Laws, and all around become Jewish) only in that way would they be considered “Elect” since that term was meant for the nation of Israel. Being of the “Elect” is not the same as being Saved. Naaman is actually a great example of this. He was saved, but he never became an Israelite, and therefore was not “Of the Elect” though he was saved.
So, just to really drive home what I’m getting at, Election does not mean salvation. Election has to do with purpose, and to what one is called for, and in my readings of Paul it seems evident that he places a VERY high responsibility on the Jews as being the ones to whom God initially revealed himself, and therefore are the ones who bore a great responsibility to bring the Gentiles into the obedience of the Faith through the Gospel (as he says in Romans 1:5-6). Thus he devotes the GREATEST majority of Romans (1:16-11:12) exclusively to the Jews, and the smallest portion (11:13-12:2) exclusively to the Gentiles, and the remainder from 12:3-15:33 to both the Jews and the Gentiles on how to walk in unity with each other.
I’m also curious if you have noticed the same pattern I have in Paul’s writings, were he starts each letter with a Thesis like statement which he uses to set up the theme and topics of the rest of the letter?
(in fact the structure of his Thesis in 2 Corinthians 1:3-11 is a direct parallel of how he structures his Thesis in Ephesians 1:3-14. It’s fun to set them side by side and see the direct parallels, but I digress.)
If so, you can see how what he says in Ephesians 1:3-14, as this thesis, are the topics he touches on later.
Especially where he clarifies in Chapter 3 that the Mystery of Christ was only revealed to the Jews (The Holy Apostles and Prophets ch 3 v. 5) and the Jews were supposed to take that revelation to the Gentiles. He specifies in the first verse of ch. 3 that this was HIS role, as a Jew, and the Apostle to the Gentiles, he was to bring the Good News to the Gentiles. In chapter 2:11-21 he also clarifies that the Gentiles were not included in the promises and were “Aliens” to the commonwealth of Israel beforehand, but now are included in Christ. If 1:3-14 is indeed a thesis, then the spiritual blessing of having been chosen “in him before the foundation of the world” was something only associated with the Jews prior to the advent of Christ. again “Chose” (eklegomai) is the root of the Greek word for “Elect” “Ekloge” and very strongly connected. Again, when we conflate “Elect” with “Saved” we are doing a disservice to the text, because “Soter” is not the same as “Eklegomai”. “Soter” has to do with one’s eternal destination, “Eklegomai” has to do with what one does here on this temporal stage.
But if that’s true, than it causes problems because then the only people who were “Eternally Elect” are the Jews. Unless we ascribe to a form of replacement theology where we Gentiles are now the Real Jews (which I don’t believe at all), then I would say we have misunderstood the phrase “Before the foundation of the world” (per my initial comment). Which is my contention: I believe we have misapplied the 20th century Einsteinian Physics notion of time where “Prior to the first picosecond of time” is how we understand the phrase “Before the foundation of the world”. and I don’t believe that’s what that means.
Anyway it’s hard to really clarify without making each comment unbearably long (as if I haven’t done that already haha), but I hope some of that clarifies things, and (time permitting) I look forward to another response from you!
Ian,
I’ve really gotta say, all this talk about “ELECT” that you guys throw around amuses me. Elect is not synonymous with “saved”. But, nobody listens. Ya’ll gonna believe what ya believe. You are on a track that I like, tho, regarding the Jews vs. the Gentiles, yes, but…there’s still a lot you are missing!
As I’ve done with a LOT of my posts, is quote:
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
What is the END RESULT of that? Who was included in that? How about those from the FLOOD who drowned? How about the PHARAOH, which Romans 9 discusses?
How about the DISOBEDIENT Jews? Why are they disobedient? What does the land of Israel REPRESENT, spiritually? Likewise, what does the JEWS represent SPIRITUALLY?
Is God telling a STORY about himself THRU the Disobedient Jews? Are the Jew BLIND to that knowledge? Likewise, are Catholics just as blind to that, as well as those who defected Catholicism, including REFORMERS, CALVINISTS, ect.?
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Should I also mention Abraham, who was married to his sister, which is a huge no-no under the Law of Moses, but that God gave bro/sis an inbred Isaac?
Now, if you want to discuss that the world needed populated…OK, but that doesn’t explain Romans 5:13, which would be ALL SINS, not just focusing on incest.
Then finally, we got:
Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
NOTE:
At one time, everyone was a Gentile, including Abraham.
Oh, and let’s look at Acts 17:30, discussing GENTILE Idol worshipers:
Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
IGNORANCE, and WINKED.
Seems that my God is NOT the MEAN GUY that you describe, Ian!
Ed Chapman
Ian,
One thing that you said that completely bothered me was the following:
“This is not saying that Gentiles cannot be included into the Promise through the Gospel.”
The problem with that statement
Promise of WHAT, exactly?
And, who gets what?
Genesis 15 discusses a PROMISED LAND. Genesis 17 discusses a PROMISED SEED.
Now…WHAT IS THE PROMISED LAND? It all depends! Are you a believer, or a non-beleiver?
NON BELIEVER:
1. Carnal – JEWS of the FLESH (NOT CHRISTIANS)
a. PROMISED LAND = Small Piece of Real Estate in the Middle East
b. Promised SINGULAR Seed = Isaac
c. PLURAL Seed of Isaac, (THROUGH JACOB (NOT ALL ISRAEL IS OF ISRAEL…FAMILY LINE SPLIT HERE)), INHERITS THE LAND. Esau does not, even though he is the seed of Isaac.
SEAL OF PROMISE: CIRCUMCISION
BELIEVER:
2. Spiritual – CHRISTIANS
a. Promised Land = HEAVEN
b. Promised SINGULAR Seed = Jesus (GALATIANS 3:16)
c. Plural SEED of Jesus gets Heaven
SEAL OF PROMISE: HOLY SPIRIT
And neither is dependent on THE LAW OF MOSES.
Galatians 3:18
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
In short, the behavior of the children of Israel is irrelevant to the promise. It don’t matter that they killed the prophets. It don’t matter that they killed Jesus. It don’t matter that they are apostate. It don’t matter that they disobeyed God. They still get that land.
UNBELIEVING JEWS get that land. Believing Jews forfeit that land for another called ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN.
But, in order for them to get that ETERNAL LIFE, Jesus has to [John 9:39-41]. But for now, they are NEEDED for when Revelation begins. So they can’t come to Jesus until Jesus wants them to. Their blindness began in Deu 29:4 and will remain there until…
Luke 19:42
Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
HID from their eyes. HID.
Now, is God a respecter of persons, does he show favoritism? No. The Bible states so several times. So, I introduce to you, the Apostle Paul:
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Three words:
1. Mercy
2. Ignorantly
3. Unbelief
How is that any different than any other Jew? Did Paul seek Jesus, or did Jesus seek Paul? If Jesus doesn’t save the remaining Jews, as he did Paul, then God is a respecter of persons
Romans 11:30
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Romans 11:26
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Jacob is NOT the church, NOT Gentiles. Therefore, Israel is NOT the Church, NOT a mix of Jew/Gentile, but it is Jew.
Ed Chapman
Nice try, but I’m still unconvinced. Words have contextual meanings. Even the word “saved” doesn’t always mean saved from sin, but it does sometimes. The word “elect” when talking about Israel is certainly not about those saved from sin, but when talking about those in the body of Christ, both from the Jews and Gentiles it is indeed talking about those saved.
The evidence is there for the two different uses of the word “elect” in the NT. Your attempt to make it only Jewish in every context does not work, and it does not really solve the issue of understanding being predestined for salvation according to foreknowledge. It also creates the real problem of seeing Paul’s ministry as more of an apostle to the Jews than to the Gentiles and that His writings as addressing Jews more exclusively, when they certainly were not.
I think your last portion definitely misunderstands the point I’m trying to make. Its not about Paul “being an Apostle to the Jews” but rather his understanding that the covenants to Abraham and David, etc. were exclusive to the Jews FOR the benefit of all the nations. My view here is expressing that Paul has a higher emphasis on the responsibility of the Jews to understand their role in the inclusion of the Gentiles, BECAUSE of his ministerial role to the Gentiles, not in spite of it. Which is what Romans is really driving at. But I also think that it’s wrong to say that because a word has two different meanings… We therefore can only apply one definition across scripture. Which feels like how “Elect” gets treated. There’s an acknowledgement that it has two meanings, but a refusal to accept that those two meanings could be applied at different times in different locations. Such as when Jesus says “but for the sake of the Elect” in the passages in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, I believe he’s talking exclusively about Faithful Israel and how they will endure the tribulation in Jerusalem. I feel like we tend to view scripture through way more of a metaphysical lens then the text actually allows. Like I have not found a cultural context from the first century that conceptualized a pre-temporal existence. Not to say there isn’t one, but if Paul was speaking from this cultural perspective, I think it’s irresponsible to place our modern concepts of time as a physical object into the framework of scripture, especially when Paul, as a second temple Jew, wouldn’t have seen time as a physical thing, but rather that the heavenly realm was something consistent with and parallel to our realm, rather than something outside of our realm.
Good day.
Pardon the irrelevant comment but I’m not sure who or where else to ask this. Are there any non-Calvinistic, maybe even Provisionist, commentaries anyone here can recommend?
Hello Tacitus
.
Check out this web-site
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html
.
You should be able to search for “Arminian” for example – to find commentaries which are guaranteed to not be Calvinistic
.
blessings
br.d
Tacitus, Sorry for the delayed response. There are Arminian commentaries, like Clarke, available for free on https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html As a Provisionist, I would be more than happy to comment on any verse you are interested in knowing a Provisionist view on. brianwagner@vbc.edu
Well, Ian, there were certainly saved individual Gentiles in the OT who never joined the elect nation of Israel! Right?
I.Rock,
Personally, I think that the subject is about a what and how a Christian will look after one becomes a Christian, and that the how and what was decided at the foundation of, or before, I really don’t care. But whatever it was, it was not the deciding of WHO will be saved. I’m not concerned with at the foundation, or before the foundation in that instance. Just the how and what.
I am a staunch anti Calvinist. However I am having difficulty understanding how Acts 13:48 is not referring to the Calvinistic view of God only saving some, and the others receive a one way ticket to hell. So much for God is Love. 1 John 4:8.
Hi Randal and welcome
What you are going to find with Calvinism – is the foundational core of the doctrine – and what separates it from all alternatives – is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
So it makes perfect sense that the Calvinist is going to want to find verses within scripture that affirm a god who determines who is going to be saved and who is not going to be saved.
.
However – you will eventually also discover – Calvinist do not apply that rule consistently – because there will be verses which when they apply EDD to – leads them to conclusions which they personally find threatening – or they do not find palatable.
.
Consequently – Calvinists are very INCONSISTENT and will CHERRY-PICK verses to affirm their doctrine – which they feel they can live with.
.
But they do not give that same flexibility to NON-Calvinists who do not apply their doctrine to the verses the Calvinist CHERRY-PICKS to apply his doctrine to.
.
So the bottom line is – the Calvinist will affirm Calvin’s doctrine when and where it suits them – and they will otherwise reject it.
.
So you can’t take too much stock how they construe verses to make them mean what they want them to mean.
.
The *CRITICAL QUESTION* is are human granted a CHOICE in the matter?
.
According to Calvin’s doctrine – humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything – because for every human event – and every human impulse – the infallible decree never grants more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION* and man is granted NO SAY in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
.
There is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which is infallibly decreed.
So ALTERNATIVES do not exist for humans to choose
Thus humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
Once you understand that as a consequence of that doctrine – then you can see how to look past the Calvinist use of Acts 13:48 and other verses.
.
Let me know if that makes sense to you.
.
Blessings
br.d
Hello,
My wife and I have been attending a reformed baptist church here for just over a year now, which we are members of and in its statement of faith they confess Calvinist soteriology. I was a Calvinist with some doubts when we became members of this church, and we got very involved, I taught Sunday school, we were part of a bible study, and have really found a wonderful community of friends and family in Christ in this church, not only that but God has richly provided for us through the people in the church with practical needs, that were amazing answers to our prayer. Our church has a polity of about 4 pastors on staff with around 10-12 elected elders that lead the church, and group of about 50 deacons that just care for practical needs and is not a teaching role.
I say all this to say to lead into the fact that just a couple months ago, my wife and I have become deacons in our church, but shortly there after I came to the place where I really started to see some bad fruit in Calvinism and started to really question it and came across some of Leightons videos and am now much more convinced of provisionism.
We are really praying for direction on how to handle this because, the last thing we want is to cause a rift of division in our church.
This is difficult for us because we genuinely have an amazing community in this church and have grown, and we felt that the Holy Spirit drew us to this church when we first started attending, however the longer I am here the more I notice have everything is soaked in Calvinism, and the negative fruit that it causes, and I really strongly sense that this will be a problem for many in leadership in our church.
I feel torn. I desire to just share where I am at with one of the pastors who I have grown to really trust, but I do feel hyper aware of the Calvinistic arguments and don’t want to look like a fool.
Do you have any practical advice?
Are we foolish to stay here long term and be positive catalysts for change without being divisive?
I don’t want to just hide with these beliefs in a corner.
Thank you for your time and this wonderful ministry. I have been encouraged by it greatly, especially the episode where Dr Flowers shared about why he left Calvinism. It was very relatable to where I am currently at.
God bless.
Hello Riley and thank you very much for your sincere and thoughtful post.
.
I believe you are starting to observe things within the Reformed/Calvinist world-view based on that which is stipulated by the doctrine.
.
It is critical to understand the radical difference the Reformed/Calvinsit world-view is – compared to what I would call *NORMAL* world-view
.
For example
The doctrine stipulates – *NOTHING* is granted existence within creation – *OTHER* than that which was infallibly decreed.
.
This means – *NO ALTERNATIVE* from that which was decreed is granted existence within creation – in which humans live.
.
Accordingly – there is no such thing as *ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS* granted to any creature within creation.
.
The very existence of any *ALTERNATIVE* would falsify Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
Thus:
1) ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS do not exist for humans
2) Making it the case that humans are never granted a CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS – because they do not exist.
.
.
HOWEVER:
The *NORMAL* human conception of CHOICE-MAKING entails CHOICES between ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
.
For example – a CHOICE between [SIN] vs [NOT SIN]
.
In Calvinism – per the doctrine – [SIN] cannot happen unless it is decreed – and that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE
.
Thus – you are not granted a CHOICE between [SIN] and [NOT SIN] because the option to [NOT SIN] is CONTRARY to the decree.
And that which is CONTRARY to the decree – is never granted existence within creation.
.
So you are NOT granted a CHOICE in the matter.
.
.
You can understand – that is a *RADICALLY DIFFERENT* world-view than what *NORMAL* people understand.
.
Calvinists intuitively recognize the *RADICAL* nature of the doctrine – and they are internally conflicted by it.
They are conflicted because it is in conflict with their PERCEPTIONS of reality and their PERCEPTIONS of the human function of CHOICE.
.
CONSEQUENCES:
Because the doctrine entails *RADICAL* distinctions – and produces internal conflict within the believer – Calvinist ministries try to hide these aspects of the doctrine.
.
So people such as yourself are drawn into the doctrine by ministries who advertise it as a superior form of Christianity.
The doctrine is advertised in that way – in order to attract and draw people into it.
.
All of the *RADICAL* implications of the doctrine are obfuscated – because people would consider them too *RADICAL* to adopt.
.
So what you are experiencing now – is a progression – of your own personal examination of the doctrine.
As you continue to examine and dissect the doctrine – you are going to increasingly recognize the *RADICAL* nature of it.
.
Calvinist/Reformed ministries are not going to want you to recognize the *RADICAL* nature of the doctrine – because they want you to accept it.
.
.
The Lord has been leading you in your progress.
And we can trust the Lord to give you all of the insight you need – in order to discover how dangerous Calvinism is as a belief system.
.
I pray that you continue to “Examine all things and hold fast to the good”
.
You need to be especially aware – Calvinism relies heavily on MISLEADING LANGUAGE strategies.
.
The Language is used as a form of COSMETIC – which is designed to hide aspects of the doctrine they don’t want you to see – and produce an *APPEARANCE* they calculate you will accept.
.
So Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language – it is a COSMETIC language – designed to produce an APPEARANCE – which in many cases is not real.
.
Thank you again for your post!!
And may the Lord continue to lead you and give you wisdom!!
.
Please feel free to ask any questions you might have.
.
blessings
br.d
Hello Riley,
If I may chime in … I find it interesting that you mention observing “bad fruit” of Calvinism in this church, and yet everything you describe sounds incredibly positive and indicative of the “good fruit” a Christian should desire in a church.
Speaking pastorally, if you find you have significant theological disagreements with the church, you should explain this honestly to at least a few key of the leaders with whom you are most closely connected. Ask for their help in locating and transferring your membership to a church where you will be more in agreement with the soteriological stance. This should be a fairly routine matter in a large church and they should have no trouble in helping you find your next place of fellowship and service. It sounds like they will be sad to see you go, and you will probably be sad to leave, but that is likely the best move since your convictions have significantly changed and are in opposition to the doctrinal stance of the church.
I will pray that the Lord may lead you in this matter and help you (and the church) to find the best way forward.
Solo deo gloria.
THEOparadox
Theo,
I’ve just been watching BLACKLIST episodes from Season 3. Your comment reminds me of Raymond Redington! He’s a great manipulator with words. Your desire for Riley seems a bit manipulative in your motives for him to leave the church, rather than expose the teachings of Calvinism to an unsuspecting congregation. You have such eloquence in your salutation that makes it almost believable! Redington would be so proud!
Ed Chapman
Ed, it’s a REFORMED BAPTIST church and Calvinism is affirmed in their statement of faith, per Riley’s description. No one should be “unsuspecting” about their theology! SMH.
I’m encouraging Riley to make an overt and honest move and find a church where he and his wife will be more edified because it is more suited to their views.
I was a ministry leader in a strongly Arminian church for 7 years, and later in a church with a mix of Calvinists and non-Calvinists for 12 years. I was part of a reformed Southern Baptist congregation for 2 years, and now I find myself in a confessionally reformed Presbyterian church. I was also an Arminian in a large Calvinistic Evangelical Free church for 5 years, and I spent 3 years in an SGM church. The thoughts I shared with Riley come from love and real life experience because I have fought these battles from many sides, and I’ve made mistakes that are better avoided.
Out of curiosity — are you regularly attending a Biblical church where you are held accountable, encouraged, taught sound doctrine, and walking in submission to godly elders as the Word commands us? If not, I’d encourage you to remain silent and seek the Lord in a solid non-Calvinistic church.
Theo,
It all depends on what you mean by “sound” doctrine. I’m not Baptist, or reform, or Calvinist. I find all of that to be abhorrent, and that includes any and all doctrines of grace themed church’s. I don’t believe in either preveniant grace, or irresistible grace. I don’t believe in original sin, the foundation of the doctrines of grace. I’m also a Zionist/Dispensationalist in my eschatology. And in today’s climate, that’s not a popular stance to have, but I’m willing to take my chances anyway. I’m unwavering.
Ed
Ed — By the way, I watched Blacklist and loved it! 🙂
Or that is the PERCEPTION which Calvin’s god gave you concerning it! :-]
But he also gives PERCEPTIONS to Jehovah Witness – and to Mormons and to Buddhists, and to Atheists.
.
For each of those minds – the PERCEPTION is given to them – that their belief system is TRUE
And the Calvinist will of course insist the PERCEPTIONS those minds have been given must be FALSE PERCEPTIONS because they cannot possibly all be TRUE.
.
Since the Calvinist acknowledges those PERCEPTIONS as FALSE – and that they could not come to pass without an infallible decree
The Calvinsit (If he can think rationally) will have to acknowledge – those were the PERCEPTIONS Calvin’s god decreed those people to have.
And that decree – being infallible does not grant them the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
And that decree – also does not grant them the ability to discern their PERCEPTIONS are FALSE
.
The critical questions for the Calvinist then are:
1) Is divine sovereignty over the Calvinist mind – not the same divine sovereignty exercised over all human minds?
.
2) Can a Calvinist have FALSE PERCEPTIONS in his mind – without those PERCEPTIONS being infallibly decreed?
.
3) Can divine sovereignty over the Calvinist mind disallow the function of discernment of FALSE PERCEPTIONS just as it does for all human minds?
.
4) Since the infallible decree does not permit other minds the ability discern FALSE PERCEPTIONS – what makes the Calvinist mind any less subject to the same decree?
.
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism – per the doctrine
1) Human PERCEPTIONS are not TRUTH-BASED – they are DECREE-BASED
2) The Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Buddhist etc – PERCEIVE their belief to be TRUE – not because it is – but because that is the PERCEPTION they were decreed to have.
3) The infallible decree does not permit their minds to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
4) The infallible decree does not permit their minds to discern their belief is FALSE
5) The Calvinist mind – is no less human – and no less subject to the same decree.
.
CONCLUSION:
The Calvinist mind – is just as subject to the decree as all other human minds
And as we can see from the examples above – which the Calvinist acknowledges – the decree does not grant the human mind the ability to discern.
.
This is one of the aspects of Calvinism that make it a *RADICAL* and *ABNORMAL* belief system.
.
blessings
br.d
One cannot know good and evil unless possessing the indeterminate power to choose good and evil. Since God cannot choose evil but only what is good. Therefore, God does not know the difference between good and evil.
Genesis 3:22
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Since God knows good and evil without having the indeterminate power to choose evil, but only what is good, then indeterminate power of contrary choice is not required to know good or evil. Anyway, Ed, you never answered Theo as to whether or not you go to church and put yourself under the authority of ordained godly men. I’m interested to know that also.
Exodus 32:14
14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
The question of whether I go to church or not is irrelevant to DOCTRINES of Calvinism.
br.d
Michael – see my answer to your post.
You are making a few simple errors in your thinking.
.
This is very common with Calvinists – because they do not find what their doctrine stipulates palatable.
.
1) The doctrine introduces certain things into the Calvinist’s life – which the Calvinsit does not find palatable to live with.
.
2) The doctrine infallibly eradicates certain things from the Calvinists life – which the Calvinist does not find palatable to live without.
.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Every Calvinsit lives from moment to moment:
1) *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVE exist within creation
2) The Calvinsit was granted a choice between those ALTERNATIVES
3) That choice was *UP TO* the Calvinsit
.
All of which are FALSE because the very existence of any of those things would falsify the doctrine of decrees.
.
Thus the Calvinist lives *AS-IF* his doctrine (Exhaustive divine determinism) is FALSE
.
.
The indeterminate power to choose between [X] and [NOT X] would be classified as a *LIBERTARIAN* function.
.
A *LIBERTARIAN* function entails the ability to *DO OTHERWISE* than what one does – within the same circumstance
.
Reformed scholar Paul Helms
-quote
The WCF’s statements about god’s attributes and god’s eternal decree imply theological determinism and thus rule out *LIBERTARIAN* free will.”
.
.
You can clearly see – an infallible decree does not grant anything within creation to *BE/DO OTHER* than what was decreed.
.
So *LIBERTARIAN* states of affairs do not exist in Calvinism.
The human brain’s ability to discern between TRUE and FALSE would require the ability to PERCEIVE one option and also the ability to *DO OTHERWISE*
.
That is why – in Calvinism – the Calvinsit brain is not permitted the function of discerning TRUE from FALSE.
.
Blessings
br.d
br.d
Hello Michael
– And yes your statement is true:
-quote
“One cannot know good and evil unless possessing the indeterminate power to choose good and evil”
.
But it is more precise to say:
“One cannot discern between [X] and [NOT X] unless one possesses the indeterminate power to choose between them.”
.
Your next statement however fails:
-quote
Since God cannot choose evil but only what is good.
.
You are conflating the ability to choose evil – with the ability to choose *BETWEEN* good and evil
.
In the case of Calvin’s god – per the doctrine – when Calvin’s god is examining any proposition – he does possess the indeterminate power to choose between [X] and [NOT X].
.
IN CALVINISM IT WORKS THIS WAY:
1) Calvin’s god must decree whatsoever [X] comes to pass
.
2) Calvin’s god is not limited in what he can decree concerning [X]
He possesses the indeterminate power to choose between *ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS* which exist as *ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES* within his mind.
.
3) For example – on the matter of your gender – he can choose between MALE and FEMALE
On the month of your birth – he can choose between 12 ALTERNATIVE POSSIBLE months
.
4) In Calvinism when “Evil” is decreed – it is classified as “Good” because Calvin’s god decrees it – and everything Calvin’s god does is “good”.
.
R.C. Sproul,
-quote
Even though evil is evil, it is good……because god decrees it…..and he only decrees that which is good.
.
John Piper
-quote
God looks at evil through his wide lens – and sees that evil brings glory to him and this gives him pleasure.
.
.
So in Calvinism – the delineating line between “Good” and “Evil” is blurred and often does not exist.
Evil is good when Calvin’s god decrees it.
This aspect of Calvinism is called DUALISM – and is probably a hangover of Augustinian Gnosticism.
.
.
HOWEVER
Your statement does in fact apply to humans within Calvinism
.
In Calvinism – humans are not granted the indeterminate power to choose between *CONTRARY* options.
.
Reformed philosopher Jon Edwards affirms this in his essay “On the power of contrary choice”
In this essay Edwards (in affirming Determinism) the human brain is not granted the power of contrary choice.
.
Jon Edwards
-quote
According to this scheme [i.e. the human mind’s ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE] it must be in a state of equipoise or indifference. Then most clearly the will is *NOT DETERMINED* either way by anything without or within – itself being instated in sublime equipoise or indifference above them all.”
.
Edwards as determinist (i.e. Calvinist) knows there is never any event in creation which is *NOT DETERMINED*
Thus in Calvinism – the human brain is never granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE.
.
Additionally – this would also be the case -because in Calvinism every PERCEPTION is also decreed.
And the infallible decree does not grant anything within creation to be OTHER than what it was decreed to be.
.
ACCORDINGLY:
1) Every human PERCEPTION is pre-determined by infallible decree
2) Where it is decreed your brain will PERCEIVE [X] as TRUE then the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE does not exist
3) Your brain cannot choose FALSE in this case – because it cannot choose what it cannot PERCEIVE
4) Thus in Calvinism – the human brain is never granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE
5) Now the function of discernment entails a choice between TRUE and FALSE
6) Since in Calvinism – that ability does not exist for the human brain – it follows – the function of discernment does not exist for the Calvinist.
.
blessings!
br.d
If one has the indeterminate power to choose good or evil, regardless of knowing what is true, then how does willing grant knowledge? There is no necessary connection between what one wills and what one knows. Therefore knowledge is obtained prior to or independent of willing. Based on your meta-epistemology you can never find that necessity. So, your argument against determinism fails at the very beginning. Anyway, time-wise, I think I’m about two hours ahead. Goodnight.
Michael
If one has the indeterminate power to choose good or evil, regardless of knowing what is true, then how does willing grant knowledge?
.
br.d
You must know – Calvinism is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
.
What the Jehovah’s witness “knows” to be TRUE is determined by an infallible decree
What the Mormon “knows” to be TRUE is determined by an infallible decree
What the satanist “knows” to be TRUE is determined by an infallible decree.
.
Calvin’s god can and does decree the human mind to “know” falsehoods.
And that decree does not permit the human mind to “know” otherwise
.
So in Calvinism – “knowledge” within any human brain – is simply what Calvin’s god decrees it to be.
And he can decree it to be TRUE and he can decree it to be FALSE
.
You for example – have things that you “know” to be TRUE – which Calvin’s god knows are FALSE
Per the doctrine – that cannot happen unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
.
Michael
There is no necessary connection between what one wills and what one knows.
.
br.d
I don’t know where you got the idea that there must be a connection between willing and knowing
I don’t believe I ever may any statement regarding a connection between those
.
Michael:
Therefore knowledge is obtained prior to or independent of willing.
.
br.d
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as “Independent” willing – and there is no such thing as “independent” knowledge.
.
Michael
Based on your meta-epistemology you can never find that necessity
.
br.d
Nothing I stated requires such a necessity – where you got that from is a mystery to me.
.
Michael
So, your argument against determinism fails
.
br.d
Nice try but no cigar! :-]
.
I gave you Jon Edwards – who clearly shows the argument concerning Determinism does not fail.
.
You need to review your steps in thinking and see where the fallacies occur.
Hopefully – you can do that.
.
blessings
br.d
The argument you present for indeterminacy and knowledge is valid but not sound. Therefore, you neither prove indeterminacy nor disprove determinism, which is your intent. By your understanding of what the will is and the reason for it, you cannot give a true definition of what the intellect is, how we, or even God, come to know, and why.
Michael
-quote
The argument you present for indeterminacy and knowledge is valid but not sound.
.
br.d
Here you’ve made what is called a BLIND CLAIM
.
An argument is sound if (1) it is valid and (2) all of its premises are actually true.
.
A BLIND CLAIM is defined as making a claim without providing any evidence to show how that claim is TRUE
.
To prove your claim is TRUE – you will have to provide *LOGICAL* evidence to show it.
.
The fact that you simply made a BLIND CLAIM would indicate you’ve looked at the argument and you cannot show how any premise is not TRUE.
.
Why don’t you give it a try! :-]
.
Michael
-quote
you cannot give a true definition of what the intellect is, how we, or even God, come to know, and why.
.
br.d
This is called that Fallacy of Misplaced (or Illegitimate) Burden of Proof
There is no need to define human intellect within Calvinism.
.
What is defined within Calvinism – is what determines all human PERCEPTIONS.
– An infallible decree
– And that decree does not permit anything within creation to be OTHER than what it was decreed to be.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
THUS:
1) *NO PERCEPTION HAPPENS* within the human brain – unless that PERCEPTION was knowingly and willingly decreed.
.
2) That decree being infallible does not grant existence to anything within creation OTHER THAN that which was decreed.
.
3) Thus all FALSE PERCEPTIONS within your brain – were established at the foundation of the world – to exist within your brain by virtue of an infallible and immutable decree
.
4) Thus – as long as that decree is in effect – your brain will infallibly have the FALSE PERCEPTIONS which were decreed for it to have – and your brain is powerless to countervail an infallible decree
.
FOR EXAMPLE:
The Jehovah’s Witness PERCEIVES scripture affirms his doctrine as TRUE and affirms Calvinism as FALSE
The Mormon PERCEIVES scripture affirms his doctrine as TRUE and affirms Calvinism as FALSE
The Catholic PERCEIVES scripture affirms his doctrine as TRUE and affirms Calvinism as FALSE
.
As a Calvinist (if you can think rationally) you will have to acknowledge:
1) Those are FALSE PERCEPTIONS established by an infallible decree
2) Those PERCEPTIONS will persevere as long as the decree is effect
3) Nothing within creation can countervail an infallible decree
4) The decree does not permit those minds the ability to discern those PERCEPTIONS as FALSE
.
ADDITIONALLY:
1) You also will have to acknowledge – you also have FALSE PERCEPTIONS within your mind
2) Per Calvinism’s doctrine – those PERCEPTIONS would have to have been decreed
3) You are not granted the power to countervail an infallible decree
4) Thus – the DETERMINING FACTOR of whether you will have those FALSE PERCEPTIONS or not – is solely an infallible decree
5) The decree will not permit your brain the ability to PERCEIVE those PERCEPTIONS as FALSE
.
.
John Calvin provides examples of this – in regard to your PERCEPTION of election.
.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater BLINDNESS (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
Notice here how Calvin identifies two phases of BLINDNESS which are infallibly decreed
.
Here BLINDNESS is defined as the inability to discern.
The decree does not permit the believer’s mind the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE in regard to election.
Calvinism’s Divine sovereignty has exclusive and absolute rule over every human PERCEPTION.
.
.
You are arguing against your own belief system! 😀
Too funny!
But no surprise at all!
.
Remember – I previously stated
.
1) The doctrine introduces things into the Calvinist’s life – that he does not find palatable to live with.
.
2) The doctrine infallibly eradicates things from the Calvinist’s life – that he does not find palatable to live without.
.
So your response is understandable!
.
blessings
br.d
The essence of your argument is that one must have the indeterminate power to decide for good and evil to know what good and evil is. And this goes for both God and man. For man is made in the image of God.
But God cannot decide for or do evil, but still knows what good and evil is. And the same goes for man made in His image.
Thus, choice is defined as a mental act that consciously initiates and determines a further action. And it’s dependent upon the intellect knowing the difference for what it considers good.
Note that in both the intellect and its dependent will, making a choice does not require indeterminate power but cordial or voluntary desire.
In reality we see something like this when two are in love. There is an inner compulsion that decidingly desires its beloved, and cannot do other. Nor would they want to. And, they know and will this against the idea they hate – infidelity.
Thus, without having the power not to love the other, they know their love is good, and infidelity is evil.
So, our definitions of God, man, intellect and will differ. If I agreed with your definitions, your argument for indeterminacy and knowledge would be valid and mine invalid. But it still would not prove your position to be sound because it does not comport with reality for both God and man.
The will follows the intellect. This is the difference between essentialism and existentialism.
Lastly, for further arguments sake, I reject both yours and Calvin’s position that God has a free will. And, nor do I accept a realistic and/or empirical epistemology. Instead, man knows God’s ideas of good and evil by sharing His thoughts concerning the same because minds overlap and interpenetrate. But as God must know and voluntarily choose Himself as the good over and against all that implies the opposite, for His own pleasure in affirming Himself, God gives man either assent or dissent to the good he knows God to be to whatever degree.
You’re a fine logician, but lack as a philosopher and theologian. Remember, validity is not soundness.
Michael
The essence of your argument is that one must have the indeterminate power to decide for good and evil to know what good and evil is.
.
br.d
No that is FALSE
.
You are making the same error as previous
You are again conflating a choice *FOR* something with making a choice *BETWEEN* two ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
.
Good and Evil are ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
.
TRUE and FALSE are ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
.
In Calvinism – (Exhaustive Divine Determinism) ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS do not exist within creation
.
LETS REVIEW:
1) Every infallible decree entails an divine decision at the foundation of the world.
.
2) That divine decision is a decision between ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Whether your gender will be MALE vs FEMALE – these are ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
What month you will be born entails a selection of 1 month out of 12 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
.
3) One option is selected – and all ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS are rejected
.
4) For that OPTION which was selected – the decree makes its existence infallible
.
5) All ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS are rejected – and CONTRARY to the decree – and not granted existence – and the decree make their NON-Existence infallible.
.
CONCLUSION:
ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES (options) are infallibly eradicated and do not exist within creation.
.
.
QUESTION:
Can you choose an OPTION which does not exist for you to choose?
.
ANSWER::
Obviously not!
.
Since NO ALTERNATIVES exist within creation – it follows – they do not exist for to choose.
.
THUS:
1) Where it is decreed you will PERCEIVE [X] as TRUE – that decree does not grant your brain any ALTERNATIVE
.
2) The option to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE does not exist for your brain.
.
3) For your brain to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE would entail the ability to countervail an infallible decree – which is not granted to your brain.
.
.
EXAMPLE:
It is decreed your brain will PERCEIVE [X] as TRUE
.
Your brain is not granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on the matter of [X] because
1) As Jon Edwards shows – that would entail a *CONTRARY* choice which is not granted to you
2) Your brain cannot choose something that it cannot PERCEIVE
– – In this case your brain is not permitted the ability to PERCEIVE [X] as FALSE
.
CONCLUSION:
As Jon Edwards shows – and as I have also shown – your brain was not granted a CONTRARY choice between TRUE and FALSE.
.
.
In Calvinism – that is called divine sovereignty :-]
.
blessings
br.d
Michael
For man is made in the image of God.
.
br.d
This is where Calvinism is *RADICALLY* different from all other theologies – because it is founded on Exhaustive divine determinism.
.
1) In Calvinism – the image of god – entails the ability to choose between ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES
.
2) The ability to choose between ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES would entail the ability to DO OTHERWISE
– You can do [X]
– And you can DO OTHERWISE and do [NOT X]
.
3) The ability to DO OTHERWISE is defined as a *LIBERTARIAN* function
.
4) In Calvinism *LIBERTARIAN* functions are not granted to any creation within creation
.
5) As choice between ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES would also entail the existence and availability of ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES
.
6) The existence of ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES within creation would falsify Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
.
CONCLUSION:
The image of god granted the humans in Calvinism – does not include *LIBERTARIAN* functionality.
.
For any impulse to happen within your brain – that impulse would have to be decreed
.
The impulse that was decreed – is granted existence within your brain
.
That decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE impulse within your brain.
.
A necessary condition for a CHOICE is the existence and availability of more than one option.
.
No such condition exists within creation – in Calvinism.
.
.
Once again – you are arguing against your own belief system.
.
blessings
br.d
br.d
.
Hello Theo
.
You do realize per your doctrine:
1) A PERCEPTION cannot exist within your mind unless that PERCEPTION was decreed.
2) And that decree being infallible does not grant your mind the ability to PERCEIVE otherwise
3) All TRUE PERCEPTIONS within your mind – are thus established by infallible decree – which cannot be countervailed.
4) All FALSE PERCEPTIONS within your mind – are also established by infallible decree- which cannot be countervailed.
.
CONSEQUENCE:
The infallible decree does not permit your mind the ability to discern any FALSE PERCEPTION as FALSE
Because the power to do so would entail the power to countervail an infallible decree.
.
CONCLUSION:
The infallible decree does not grant discernment as a function of your mind
.
NOW CONCERNING YOUR PERCEPTION OF “Good”
.
1) In order for your mind to have a PERCEPTION that [X] is “Good” that PERCEPTION would have to be decreed
2) Divine sovereignty is not limited – it can decree your PERCEPTIONS of “Good” to be FALSE PERCEPTIONS simply based on the divine pleasure.
.
3) That decree being infallible – does not permit your mind the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE at pain of countervailing an infallible decree.
.
4) Thus the decree does not permit your mind the ability to discern the fact that PERCEPTIONS of “Good” you were given are FALSE PERCEPTIONS.
.
.
CONCLUSION:
The infallible decree makes it the case that you are in no position to be an authority on “Good” vs “NOT Good”
.
This condition is classified as “Lack of epistemic warrant” and is a product of Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
.
.
Calvinists are so blessed to have that! ;-D
.
br.d
Hello BR. D
Has Leighton Flowers analyzed and discussed Biblical Counseling, especially along the lines of the CCEF?
Hello Anthony – and welcome
.
Boy – I don’t know about that.
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule is not here to interact with people
But if you are a facebook user – I understand you should be able to connect with him there.
.
Sorry I couldn’t be of any other help!
.
blessings
br.d
Hello Anthony, to my knowledge Dr. Flowers has not interacted with Biblical Counseling material in any of his published writing or podcasting (although I have not heard a lot of the more recent stuff). It’s an interesting question because most Biblical Counseling material, whether from CCEF, ACBC, or one of the lesser known similar organizations, are soaked through with Reformed theology. Understanding we have a “big God” who sovereignly and graciously rules over all things, and that nothing occurring in space and time can ultimately be meaningless, is an essential ground for the comfort and encouragement we needy sinners and sufferers are provided in the Bible. I would suppose this is why we don’t find many (any?) non-Calvinist Biblical Counseling ministries out there. But it would be fascinating to hear Dr. Flowers’ thoughts on this topic. Does he believe the Reformed elements in Biblical Counseling offset any potential benefit? Would he present an alternative approach from a Provisionist perspective.
Now, cue the tape and get ready for Br.d to give us another argument against forms of hard determinism that no Calvinist actually subscribes to, and reminds us how dishonest and misleading all Calvinist statements are.
3 – 2 – 1 …. 🙂
Theo
we have a “big God” who sovereignly and graciously rules over all things
.
br.d
Yes – a god who decrees FALSE PERCEPTIONS to infallibly inhabit your mind – which he does not permit your mind to discern as FALSE
.
EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
1) Under Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD), every human thought and perception—true or false—is infallibly decreed by Calvin’s god.
.
2) For those false beliefs which are decreed, the mind cannot recognize them as false without opposing the decree.
.
3) Thus, the human mind lacks any independent ability to differentiate truth from falsehood.
.
4) All perceptions and judgments could equally be decreed illusions.
.
5) Therefore, under EDD, the human mind cannot know whether any of its beliefs are true.
.
CONCLUSION
Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees (the big god) stipulates “Lack of epistemic warrant”
.
.
TRADITIONAL DETERMINIST RESPONSES:
1) Reformed compatibilists speak of “secondary causes” or “means,” allowing creaturely faculties to operate reliably under divine providence — but that reliability presumes a non-deceptive order independent enough to track truth.
.
2) Islamic occasionalists (like al-Ghazālī) sometimes appeal to divine customary consistency in how the divine will decrees human cognition — again implying a regularity beyond bare decree.
.
3) Contemporary Calvinists invoke the sensus divinitatis or divine illumination, effectively giving humans a guaranteed truth-tracking faculty — which contradicts strict exhaustive determination (EDD) of both truth and error.
.
.
Each “solution” is nothing more than an attempt to SMUGGLE IN some minimal degree of autonomous libertarian capability for the human mind.
.
The cost is always a compromise of Determinism and thus a compromise of divine sovereignty enough to get around it.
.
And all of those compromises are couched within philosophically inventive language designed to hide the compromise.
.
.
BEHAVIOR BETRAYS BELIEF:
.
BELIEF:
All is determined; there are no true alternatives within creation. Thus the perception of having a choice between alternative options is not real.
.
BEHAVIOR:
Daily life proceeds through the ability to perceive, discern, and choose between alternative options.
.
.
That is why every Calvinsit lives *AS-IF* his BELIEF system is FALSE
.
This is what happens when men compete with one another
Each man trying to create a god that is “bigger” than the other man’s god.
.
Best laid plans of mice and men! 😀
Br.d’s main (unspoken) argument is indeterminacy is required to have knowledge. For he says concerning determinism – “The human mind lacks any independent ability to differentiate truth from falsehood.”
Obviously, this does not apply to God, Christ, angles, those in heaven or hell., or even those in love. All these do not possess this kind of liberty, yet know the difference between truth and falsehood, and their thoughts and decisions are rewarded accordingly.
So, do men on this earth possess indeterminacy? And why is it needed?
To decide these requires a lot of explaining. But at least one must first define what is “independent ability” Secondly, how does it guarantee knowledge? Thirdly, is it prior to the intellect? Fourthly, how does this independent ability relate to the intellect.
If Aristotle, Aquinas, Occam, Locke, Whitehead nor any existentialist can explain knowledge based on indeterminacy, free will and sensation and disprove determinism, chances of Br.d doing so is about zero.
Indeterminacy by definition is non-rational. For decisions can and are made for no sufficient reason. It amounts to chance. Whereas, determinism means cause and effect, and this means there are reasons for the latter and even the former, especially if it self-evident and self-existing like God is.
Remember, validity is the same as soundness.
Michael
Obviously, this does not apply to God
.
br.d
Correct – as already explained:
1) Per the doctrine – Calvin’s god *MUST* have the ability to make decisions about whatsoever will come to pass within creation – and the creatures he creates within creation.
.
As stated by John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
2) The infallible decree which determines WHATSOEVER comes to pass – determines WHATSOEVER comes to pass with all created beings
.
3) And the infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees
.
Thus as Jon Edwards shows – humans are not granted CONTRARY CHOICE (choice between contrary options)
.
And CONTRARY OPTIONS do not exist for humans to choose
.
Thus the human mind is not granted the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE
.
.
Michael
those in heaven or hell., or even those in love. All these do not possess this kind of liberty, yet know the difference between truth and falsehood, and their thoughts and decisions are rewarded accordingly.
.
.
br.d
This would only be TRUE if:
1) ALTERNATIVES exist within heaven and hell – for creatures to choose between
.
2) Whatsoever PERCEPTIONS come to pass within the mind of creatures in heaven and hell are NOT DETERMINED by infallible decree before those creatures are created – as is the case in Calvin’s doctrine of decrees for creatures within creation.
.
.
Michael
Indeterminacy by definition is non-rational. For decisions can and are made for no sufficient reason. It amounts to chance.
.
.
br.d
The opposite consequence brought about by Determinism (as clearly shown above) utterly destroys Determinism because it Destroys the Determinism ability to know whether Determinism is TRUE or FALSE
.
.
Dr. Tomas Kapitan
– quote
To locate an inconsistency within the beliefs of a DELIBERATING DETERMINIST now seems easy; for as a deliberator, he takes his future act to be yet undetermined.
.
But as a determinist, he assumes the very opposite – that his future is already determined and fixed in the past, such that everything he does was previously determined by factors beyond his control.
Thus the ascription of RATIONAL-INCONSISTENCY within the mental state of the DELIBERATING DETERMINIST is secured.” (The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 14 (1986), pp.230-51)
.
.
Gregory Koukl
-quote:
The problem with determinism, is that…..rrationality would have no room to operate.
One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so. Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if were. Everyone of our thoughts and opinions would have been predetermined by factors completely out of our control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self-defeating.”
.
.
Dr. John Searle – Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Language – Berkeley
-quote
“Rationality only makes a difference where there is the possibility of irrationality.
And all rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian Free Will.
.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options.”
Therefore since the liberty to choose between multiple options is the quintessential definition of Libertarian freedom, it LOGICALLY follows – where Libertarian Freedom does not exist, neither does the ability to think rationally. (Rationality in Action)
.
.
This is why all Calvinists (aka Determinists) live *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE
.
John Calvin
-quote
Each ought to so apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.
(Eternal Predestination pg171)
.
.
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist – Atheist Determinist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
.
.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Again, your major assumption is that to know good and evil, one must have an indeterminate power of contrary choice. All that is necessary then to prove this wrong is to show one counter example. I gave several- God, Christ, angels, those in heaven and hell, and two people in love. All these know and make choices without having the possibility to do the contrary.
As for the possibility of remuneration without the indeterminate power of contrary choice. My wife knows I’m inwardly compelled to love her, and that I cannot do otherwise. She finds this necessity of the highest value and rewards me accordingly with her likewise compulsion for me. And how much more does God honor His self-love, which He cannot nor would not will otherwise?
Anyway, what is interesting is that in effect your theology and Calvin’s are the same. Why? Because you both believe God has free will. Thus, though it might be denied by you both, there is no necessary connection between God’s intellect, knowledge, will or His decree even with Christ being the Logos that supposedly exegetes both God and the world.
Why did God choose this world and not another, especially if He is self-contained? And why is there a hell? On Calvin’s view, why doesn’t God choose everyone? In your position, why would He create knowing or risking even one person going to hell when He need not the creature for happiness or existence? Therefore, there is no theodicy or justification of hell from the perspective of the Divine. Everything is a mystery and the onus is on God and not man. Dr. Flowers sees this problem and self-admittingly avoids the topic of hell.
But if God must know and will Himself over and against the corollary idea of His own negation and all that can stand for it in the highest and most honoring manner, God then has no free will and everything is absolutely necessary in order to magnify God affirming Himself. And this includes evil. Therefore, the creature knows and voluntarily wills what it is created for in bringing glory to God. And, the creature will be treated accordingly. “God has made everything for His own purpose, even evil for the day of His wrath.” (Proverbs 16:4). Thus, everything is determined and rational, including evil, unbelief and hell. And we learn all this through Christ as the Logos.
My soon to be published book called God’s Self-Love Begotten, will give a full explanation and justification of God not having a free will but an inner compulsion to celebrate Himself even at the cost of the creature. In this work both Calvinism and free will theology is critiqued. If you so desire, I’ll send you a free copy. Let me know.
Michael
Again, your major assumption is that to know good and evil, one must have an indeterminate power of contrary choice. All that is necessary then to prove this wrong is to show one counter example. I gave several- God, Christ, angels, those in heaven and hell, and two people in love. All these know and make choices without having the possibility to do the contrary.
.
br.d
Silly Bird!
You did not prove anything – you simply made what is called BLIND CLAIMS.
.
I provided a very clear evidence about why your claim could not possibly be true.
.
.
The bottom line here Micheal is what you *WANT* is the ability for something within creation to be granted the ability to BE OTHER than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
In your case – you are following the pattern observed by Dr. Thomas Kapitan
.
You want PERCEPTIONS within your brain to be UNDETERMINED such that your brain is granted the ability to PERCEIVE [X] as TRUE – and your brain is also granted the ability to DO OTHERWISE and PERCEIVE [X] as FALSE.
.
Dr. Tomas Kapitan
– quote
To locate an inconsistency within the beliefs of a DELIBERATING DETERMINIST now seems easy; for as a deliberator, he takes his future act to be yet undetermined.
.
.
What you *WANT* are the attributes of an UNDETERMINED state of affairs – to exist within your brain.
.
Sorry!!!
Calvin’s doctrine of decrees does not grant that to your brain.
.
And that is why Jon Edwards – in his essay “On the Power of Contrary Choice” shows your brain does not have that power – because it would entail the power to do that which is *CONTRARY* to an infallible decree
.
.
This is explained by Determinist Daniel Dennett
-quote
“We cannot help acting under the idea of freedom, it seems; we are stuck deliberating *AS-IF* our futures were open.” (Freedom Evolves)
.
.
It is quite understandable that this is what you *WANT*
But as all of these scholars I have provided acknowledge – it is not what Determinism gives you.
.
You have to live with what the doctrine of decrees offers you
Whether you like it or not!
.
But of course – you are not granted a CHOICE in the matter of whether you will like it or not – because every desire/inclination/impulse within your brain – is also FIXED by an infallible decree – and cannot be OTHER than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
.
THUS:
1) Where it was decreed – you will *WANT* the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE than the PERCEPTION which was infallibly decreed
.
2) That decree being infallible – does not grant any ALTERNATIVE *WANT* to exist within your brain
.
3) Since NO ALTERNATIVE *WANT* is granted existence within your brain – it follows – there is NO ALTERNATIVE *WANT* available for you to choose.
.
.
As Jon Edwards shows – your brain is not granted the ability to be CONTRARY to an infallible decree
.
That’s Divine Sovereignty in Calvinism :-]
.
.
Sorry if you don’t like it!
.
blessings
br.d
Duane, the disagreement between us is partly due to our different definitions of choice. Whatever yours is I can only surmise. As for me choice means a mental act that consciously initiates and determines a further action. This does not necessitate indeterminacy or more than one possibility.
So, as God necessarily knows and decides for the truth He is over and against falsehood, and can do no other, He has granted me the same knowledge and willing assent. While others, He grants them also to share in His idea of truth and falsehood but in dissent to the former for the love of the latter.
Whether we realize it or not, all that we know and do as creatures, even in the mundane things in life, aim to God as the truth whether it be in assent or dissent.
There is no other way a finite creature can know and will. Thus, choice is a voluntary willingness to what it considers and wants to be true or false and not the indeterminate power to do the contrary.
The cash value is that your position and Calvin’s ( because he believes like you that God has free will) cannot explain God and the world He created even with the knowledge of Christ. On my position everything is rationally knowable and explained, even evil, unbelief and hell. God for His necessary self-love cannot but decide for and will Himself as the truth. And everything is created for good or ill that He might celebrate Himself as such over and against His own idea of the false. Thus, each rational creature knows, thinks and wills for its purpose. We are fitted and made deservingly so for our ends to glorify Him.
Michael
br.d the disagreement between us is partly due to our different definitions of choice. Whatever yours is I can only surmise. As for me choice means a mental act that consciously initiates and determines a further action.
.
br.d
Yes – that is typically the case – the Calvinist has AD-HOC definitions for many terms.
That is a very well known characteristic of Calvinism.
.
Calvinist compatibilism for example – relies on linguistic equivocation.
.
Terms like “freedom,” “choice,” and “voluntary” retain their Libertarian connotations but are REDEFINED to fit within a deterministic framework.
.
In Calvin’s system, every human impulse arises infallibly from divine decree; thus, no ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES exist in our out of the human brain.
.
.
HOWEVER:
You’ve already acknowledged in your last post – that CONTRARY CHOICE does not exist for created beings
.
In your last post you stated
-quote
…… those in heaven and hell, and two people in love. All these know and make choices without having the possibility to do the contrary.
.
.
So you’ve made progress here!
1) You’ve come to recognize the fact that *NOTHING* within creation can be CONTRARY to that which was decreed.
.
2) Now you need to recognize the fact that the decree determined *EVERYTHING* within creation
.
3) And that means – the decree determines every PERCEPTION that will be granted existence within your brain.
.
THUS:
1) Where it is decreed your brain will PERCEIVE [X] is TRUE – that decree does not grant you brain the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
.
2) As long as that decree is in effect – nothing can countervail it
.
3) Your brain will regard [X] as TRUE and will regard your PERCEPTION of [X] as also TRUE
.
BUT WHAT IF YOUR PERCEPTION IS FALSE?
.
4) Your brain will not be granted the ability to discern your PERCEPTION is FALSE – without countervailing an infallible decree – which is not granted to your brain.
.
.
CONCLUSION:
1) IN DETERMINISM (EDD):
Under exhaustive divine determinism, every mental state — every belief, perception, inference, and judgment — is directly and infallibly decreed by Calvin’s god. There are no “undetermined” acts of cognition. Even errors are determined.
.
2. The Infallibility Constraint:
If the decree is infallible, then what is decreed must occur exactly as decreed.
.
That means a person’s false belief is as fixed as any true belief, and the mind cannot, even in principle, deviate from that decree to “discover” the falsity of its belief.
.
3. The Epistemic Consequence
If the decree governs both:
· True beliefs (e.g., “2+2=4”)
· False beliefs (e.g., “2+2=5”)
.
then the human mind’s belief-forming process is epistemically opaque — it cannot reliably discriminate truth from falsehood on the basis of its internal cognitive faculties, because whether it recognizes something as true or false is itself determined independently of truth value.
.
4. The Result: Epistemic Defeat
If your cognitive states are wholly determined by decree, you cannot know whether any given belief is true — because:
· You have no independent epistemic check (reason, evidence, introspection) that isn’t itself determined.
· Any “sense of certainty” could just as well be decreed false as decreed true.
.
So, under EDD, no human belief has epistemic justification, since all justificatory processes are subject to the same determinative structure.
.
This yields a “universal defeater” for human knowledge claims within a world governed by exhaustive divine determinism.
.
.
blessings
br.d
If I remember correctly, you quoted someone in the affirmative who said “rationality requires irrationality.”
I take this to mean indeterminacy, particularly concerning the will. For there to be true liberty, knowledge and the intellect cannot determine the will. And the will can decide for or against the truth for no sufficient reason. Thus, irrational chance imbedded in the will is determinative of what it assents to as the truth.
Regardless though, neither empiricism, rationalism nor existentialism has been successful to show how knowledge is obtained from such a void of irrational indeterminate power.
Yet, even if taken for granted, such a power does not help in understanding the why of everything. Why this world and not another? Why anything? Why a world with so much suffering and evil on both sides of death, especially since God does not need the creature?
So, what is needed to make knowledge and assent possible, and give a rational and just answer for the why of everything is an all-sufficient and necessary meta-epistemological pou sto, whereby reality can be no other way than it is. Thus, the real must be the rational and the rational the real.
Irrational indeterminacy by definition fails to be that rock to stand upon to predicate and know the truth in assent or even dissent. Only God’s absolute determinism concerning Himself and the world He creates for His own glory as revealed and celebrated in Christ being His Logos suffices. “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).
Thus, Christ is an a priori necessity to know and judge reality with certainty. How, why and what that means is expounded in God’s Self-Love Begotten.
Michael
If I remember correctly, you quoted someone in the affirmative who said “rationality requires irrationality.”
.
br.d
Dr. John Searle ( Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Language – Berkeley)
-quote
“Rationality only makes a difference where there is the possibility of irrationality.
And all rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian Free Will.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options.”
Therefore since the liberty to choose between multiple options is the quintessential definition of Libertarian freedom, it LOGICALLY follows – where Libertarian Freedom does not exist, neither does the ability to think rationally. (Rationality in Action)
.
.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh and can decide….
.
.
John Calvin
-quote
Each ought to so apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.
(Eternal Predestination pg171)
.
.
THUS:
Every Calvinsit (because he is a determinist) lives from moment to moment
1) *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVES exist within creation
2) *AS-IF* he was granted a CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) *AS-IF* that CHOICE was *UP TO* him
.
All of which are FALSE according to his doctrine – because the very existence of any of those things would falsify Calvinism doctrine of decreed (i.e. falsify Determinism)
.
.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
It is impossible for you to CHOOSE something that does not exist for you to CHOOSE
.
.
FOR EXAMPLE IN CALVINISM
1) For all human souls who are created NON-ELECT – the option of eternal salvation does not exist for them.
2) For all human souls who are created ELECT – the option of eternal damnation does not exist for them.
.
And yet Calvinists desperately *WANT* to claim that all humans are granted a CHOICE between [SALVATION] and [NON-SALVATION]
.
Obviously – that is impossible – because you cannot CHOOSE something that does not exist for you to CHOOSE
.
Calvinists are childish thinkers – they don’t care about whether something is impossible
They only know what they *WANT* – and they will not accept no for an answer.
.
This is called MAGICAL THINKING
It is not rational thinking – it is MAGICAL thinking.
.
And that is why when Calvin (and Calvinists today) bump up against self-contradictions – they appeal to divine mystery. They simply refuse to accept a contradiction as a contradiction.
.
That is not rational thinking
That is MAGICAL thinking
.
.
blessings
br.d
The whole position of freewill theology is based on the idea that to know and make a real choice, one must first and always be in state of non-rational indeterminacy, conditioned by nothing but its own power.
From this neutral position or existential assertion, knowledge and assent arise, particularly when having two or options to choose from. It is reasoned that without this prerequisite of pure indeterminacy, one can never know the difference between truth and falsehood. Otherwise, at most, there can only be discreet perceptions with no ground or unity to make up free consciousness to know truth and falsehood.
Most, if not all modern freewill believers are empiricists. I take br.d as one from the terms he uses like perception and brain.
A consistent empiricist starts with the idea of the mind, brain or soul as being a blank slate that is both passive and active. It receives impressions through sense organs, as it seeks to know what’s outside itself to fill the void and terminate into something with positive assent that corresponds to what is objectively universally true, whereby to build even more knowledge.
This seems to me to be the standard br.d uses to define his terms and inductively establishes premises to draw conclusions that Divine determinism is in error.
For obvious reasons, I find not only empiricism impossible to establish knowledge and make choices but reject the whole idea that from non-rationality one can come to know anything to even make a choice.
For another day. Peace.
br.d
Michael – have you ever heard of the story of the farmer who drove his tractor around all day long – trying to convince people tractors don’t exist?
.
Whether you connect the dots about it or not – that is the irony of your position.
.
The fact that every Calvinist (Determinist) goes about his moment by moment life:
1) *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVES exist within creation
2) *AS-IF* he was granted a CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) *AS-IF* that CHOICE was *UP TO* him
.
Whether you are aware of it or not – you – just like every other Calvinist (Determinist) go about your office *AS-IF* Libertarian freedom is TRUE and Determinism is FALSE
.
.
The difference between your position and mine:
1) My BEHAVIOR is congruent with my BELIEF
2) Your BEHAVIOR betrays your BELIEF
.
.
.
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist – Atheist Determinist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
.
Daniel Dennett (internationally recognized Determinist)
-quote
“We cannot help acting under the idea of freedom, it seems; we are stuck deliberating *AS-IF* our futures were open.” (Freedom Evolves)
.
John Calvin
-quote
Each ought to so apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.
(Eternal Predestination pg171)
.
.
These Determinists are acknowledging something – which you so far are unwilling to acknowledge
.
.
BEHAVIOR BETRAYS BELIEF
.
BEHAVIOR:
Daily life proceeds through the ability to perceive, discern, and choose between alternative options.
.
BELIEF:
All is infallibly decreed (determined)
An in fallible decree does not grant existence to ALTERNATIVES
Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist as real.
Thus perceptions within my mind of having a choice between ALTERNATIVE options are infallibly decreed illusions.
.
.
The irony of your position is as the Determinists above acknowledge
.
Every time you assume your brain is granted the ability to PERCEIVE [X] as TRUE – and also to DO OTHERWISE and PERCEIVE [X] as FALSE – you ASSUME the very Libertarian freedom which I have.
.
Thus (metaphorically speaking) you are like the farmer who drives around on his tractor all day – trying to convince people tractors don’t exist. :-]
.
.
blessings
br.d
br.d,
All this reminds me of my days in high school learning computer programing in 1979.
10 LET C=10
20 LET D=20
30 LET A=C+D
40 IF A30 THEN 50
50 END
Computers can determine what is true, or not true based on information given. That’s why Excel Spreadsheets are so effective.
So what are Calvinists saying? We don’t know that A equals 30? Or that C=10?
br.d
Yes!!! Funny!
.
A calculator (just like a Calvinist) is a 100% DETERMINED device
.
The Calvinist ( just like the calculator) can be programmed (infallibly decreed) to think 2 x 3 = 25
.
That is the answer the Calvinist (just like the calculator) will know as the TRUTH.
.
And the Calvinist (just like the calculator) will not be permitted to know OTHERWISE
.
.
Calvinists are so blessed to have that! :-]
.
blessings
br.d
The magical thinking is believing that knowledge comes from that which is not rational, and then can irrationally decide otherwise when supposedly knowing the truth. This is the sum of what you are affirming. And why?
In thinking you can determine truth from falsehood by being an indeterminate power, you use this as a justification for believing you determine your own destiny by obligating God through your will. Thus, by implication, you are your own god.
And this is why you cannot receive Christ’s elective imputed active and passive obedience for justification unto eternal life and forgiveness of sins.
You’ll accept the forgiveness of sins, but your free will faith merits your eternal life. That is why in your theology the atonement does not imply redemption. In the end, it’s your self-righteous free act of the will versus Christ’s imputed sufficient and necessary righteousness for both the atonement and redemption.
Concerning Divine determinism and knowledge. As God knows truth and falsehood without being an indeterminate power or blank slate that knows only by sense impressions, so does man being made in His image. And since man knows for good or ill by sharing in God’s thoughts concerning truth and falsehood to whatever degree, God can say to him “man has become like Us, knowing good and evil.
Michael M. Volpe,
You had said:
“You’ll accept the forgiveness of sins, but your free will faith merits your eternal life.”
My response:
THIS above is the WHOLE PROBLEM with Calvinism. Where do you get the idea that our side indicates that faith is a WORK, aka MERIT?
The ONLY “merit” that the Bible discusses is…THE LAW OF MOSES. Faith has NEVER been a merit, whether on OUR SIDE, or YOUR SIDE. It is a RESULT OF, not a MERIT OF. GRACE is the gift, not faith. You think that FAITH is the gift, but that’s NOT what the Bible states. It states that grace is the gift THRU faith. Where does it say that faith is IMPUTED? There is only two things that is imputed.
1. SIN = death
2. GRACE = life
There is TWO WAYS to get LIFE
1. WORK, which does not mean FAITH
2. GRACE, which is a gift THRU faith.
Faith is not imputed, or a work, or a merit.
Ed. Glad to hear from you again. Anyway, faith is not imputed, but Christ’s righteousness thru a given assent for justification unto a complete salvation. Thus, all is of grace for the elect. Faith does not merit anything but only allows the chosen believer to come to a conscious understanding of being eternally justified in Christ from all eternity. The act of a given simple assent is accepted by God not because of the act but what is its object – Christ’s perfect righteousness. The former represents the latter, which alone satisfies God. Christ’s active obedience is His perfection to God’s law which is always required of all for all time. It merits eternal life. Christ’s passive obedience is the perfect suffering that merits forgiveness of sin. Together they sufficiently atone and then grant redemption for the elect. Thus, one who believes is justified to have a claim upon God for a complete salvation. Anything less or other than this imputed righteousness deserves hell. So, I’ll not point to my act of faith, it’s quality or derived deeds for justification when I stand before Christ. When He asks why He should grant me salvation when I die, I’ll point exclusively to Him and His cross., and nothing of myself. God cannot deny me then without denying Himself. And this is impossible.
Michael,
In the days of Abraham, Christ not only had not been born yet, but he didn’t die on the cross yet, so WHAT righteousness was IMPUTED to Abraham? All he did was BELIEVE, and that is what we have also been tasked to do as well.
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Justification of your OWN faith is LIVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE. What do you BELIEVE? IF you believe that faith is imputed, then you live vicariously, not by your heart.
Belief is NOT imputed. YOU get to decide what is true, and what isn’t. And yes, you CAN BE WRONG. It’s a choice that you have to make. The PROMISE was ETERNAL LIFE THRU JESUS. How did you come to believe that? By God pressing a button to MAKE you believe, I mean, irresistible grace?
Ed, Christ saves not faith. Obedience saves, not ours, but Christ’s. Faith is said to save because of what it points to – Christ’s perfect righteousness. It becomes ours through imputation, meaning: reckoned to our account undeservedly, just as our unrighteousness was imputed undeservingly to Christ. It is thru a simple given assent or faith we become conscious of what we were given in Christ from eternity. Abraham knew of Christ, and his faith was in Him. He knew what Genesis 3:15 meant. Yet, he did not have to have the knowledge of Christ to the degree we have. He was as us, always in Christ. But he now knows what we know, and more. All of us will agree in the day of judgment – only Christ justifies unto salvation through His imputed righteousness alone.
Michael,
THRU faith Christ saves. If YOU don’t believe, Christ will NOT SAVE. If you believe Christ will. Hello? YOUR faith Saves you. If you REJECT the TRUTH (Jesus), then Christ refuses to save you. Yes, Cletus, you have a say in the matter.
Yes, faith is necessarily involved but as an appropriation in one’s mind to what saves from all eternity – union with Christ and His obedience alone. We were always conceived by God chosen in Him as justified sinners. Thus, faith is said to save because through it Christ’s active and passive obedience is imputed to us or reckoned to our account undeservedly. Therefore, its taken as an equivalent to Christ’s righteousness for His and our sake. Thus, Christ and faith are inseparably different.
I don’t think there’s more to be said about this between us. We will just keep talking in circles. God’s peace to you Ed.
Michael
The magical thinking is believing that knowledge comes from that which is not rational, and then can irrationally decide otherwise when supposedly knowing the truth. This is the sum of what you are affirming. And why?
.
br.d
Well – since as has been profusely shown – your brain (In Determinism) is not granted the epistemic ability to discern as TRUE
.
Once again – you have refuted your own position!
.
Too funny! :-]
.
.
Here is a Syllogism for you on the subject:
.
Syllogism: An Epistemic Consequence of Calvinism’s (EDD)
.
Major Premise:
According to Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees, every event—including every human belief—is knowingly and willingly decreed by a god, and the decree is infallible such that nothing in creation can counteract it.
.
Minor Premise 1:
If this god decrees that a human believes something, then that human will believe it—and nothing within creation can alter or counteract that belief.
.
Minor Premise 2:
The ability for that human to discern that belief is a lie would counteract the belief.
.
Minor Premise 3:
All Calvinists are human and no less subject to the infallible decree
.
Conclusion:
Therefore, if it is decreed that a Calvinist believe a lie, then for as long as that decree stands, the Calvinist will not be able to discern what he believes is a lie.
.
.
Here is a more Formalized Version:
Major Premise (P1):
Every belief decreed by this god will be held infallibly by the human; nothing in creation can alter or counteract it.
.
Minor Premise (P2):
If a human could discern that a belief is false, this discernment would counteract the belief.
.
Minor Premise (P3):
All Calvinists are human and thus subject to the infallible decree.
.
Conclusion (C):
If it is decreed that a Calvinist believes a lie, then the Calvinist cannot discern that the belief is false.
.
Step-by-Step Logical Flow
1. P1: Nothing can counteract a belief decreed by the god.
2. P2: Discernment that a belief is false would counteract the belief.
3. P1 + P2: Therefore, discernment that a belief is false is impossible while the decree stands.
4. P3: Calvinists are humans under this decree.
5. C: Therefore, a Calvinist cannot discern that a belief decreed to be false is false.
.
.
There are only two legitimate ways to refute a syllogism:
1) You must show that one or of the premises is false.
2) You must show the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Nothing else counts as a legitimate refutation.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Your position is something from nothing. Mine is knowledge from knowledge. Yours is impossible and irrational. Mine is determinative and rational. And it makes one liable to God as a piece of clay to the potter. This is what you hate. You, like the Jews, want to believe you can obligate God by your will to either bless with eternal life or damnation. Thus, you are your own god. As for my position, God obligates Himself to His elect. Therefore, justification unto salvation is given and certain. So, you choose your own indeterminacy. I choose God’s determination. Remember, choice is defined as a mental act that consciously initiates and determines a further act. This is how God, Christ and the holy angels know and choose without being able to do other than what they decide for. And in God’s determinism, He grants the elect the same kind of knowing and choosing. Knowledge and choice without indeterminacy. I Praise God for this gift. I take no credit. Therefore, I look to Christ’s imputed righteousness alone for justification through the immutable assent God has given me. So keep looking to your non-rational or even irrational indeterminate power. May you one day see the sufficiency and necessity of Christ who both atones and redeems His elect. He fully saves. Amen
Michael
Mine [my position] is knowledge from knowledge.
.
br.d
AH! But you neglected to mention the critical point
.
Your position can easily be FALSE knowledge from divine knowledge (aka divine decree).
(See the syllogism I provided for you)
.
Where is your refutation of that syllogism btw?
Did you decide you can’t find a way to get around it – so the best strategy is evade it?
.
.
blessings
br.d
Michael
May you one day see the sufficiency and necessity of Christ who both atones and redeems His elect. He fully saves. Amen
.
br.d
Here we have the Epistemic consequence again!
.
In Calvinism’s (EDD) – your brain is not granted the ability to discern the TRUTH-VALUE of your election status.
.
You have a statistical probability of having been created a CHAFF believer
.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater BLINDNESS (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
John Calvin
-quote
A small and contemptible number are hidden within a huge multitude.
A few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff.
We must leave to god alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his SECRET election. (Institutes 4.1.4)
.
.
Notice here – how Calvin identifies two phases of BLINDNESS
.
Here the term BLINDNESS is defined as the inability to discern.
.
Those Calvinists who are created as CHAFF believers – are given a FALSE faith and FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation.
.
These Calvinists may go through their whole lives – experiencing a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation – and then at some point wake up in the lake of fire – where they will then realize what they were created for.
.
.
Ligonier ministries
-quote
The visible church comprises all those who CLAIM or IDENTIFY as followers of Christ.
The invisible church comprises all those who REALLY ARE followers of Christ.
.
.
Thus – it is a statistical probability that Calvin’s god has decreed you will IDENTIFY as a follower of Christ – when he knows you are not – because he created you for damnation.
.
This provides an example of the Epistemic Consequence of EDD as taught in Calvinism.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news!! 🙁
.
br.d
God decrees that I know truth and falsehood as He knows to whatever degree, with the difference being at first He makes me assent voluntarily to the later over and against the former. Then He grants that I assent voluntarily to the former over and against the latter. Thus, I know and choose as He determines for His own glory. I have no problem believing God is the ultimate cause of my knowing and willing, even in evil, while I am the proximate. Thus, knowledge comes from knowledge. Your position of indeterminacy wants something from nothing. But you can never obtain knowledge to even make a choice from that state. And the empiricism you use to try to justify it fails miserably. Neither Aristotle, St.Thomas, Occam, Berkley, Hume, Locke or Reid could prove or save it from its impossibility. So, I don’t agree with your definitions and premises. Remember, validity is not soundness.
br.d
I see you are once again – you appear to be evading the syllogism I provided for you.
.
Me wonders why???? 😀
.
Making a thousand Ipse dixit claims is not going to help.
.
Ipse dixit (Latin for “he said it himself”) A dogmatic assertion
.
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is “just how it is” distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic and immutable.
.
.
blessings
br.d
I’m not evading. Just not answering the way you want. The syllogism is indispensable but has its limits. It maybe valid but not sound. The truth of premises and definitions can only be proven true by the system of thought they produce. That is why I try to bring you into declaring your system to see if it comports with reality. But you resist and keep going back in different ways to the two same unproven assumptions. One, that indeterminacy is the prerequisite for knowledge. Two. Any thing determined is an automaton. But I have shown that God is not indeterminate and His self-knowledge and knowledge of all other things is determinative, making everything rational and moral. In your unspoken system, you need empiricism. Yet, as Hume, an empiricist himself, has shown, an indeterminate blank slate can only at most receive discreet impressions with no logical connections but only correlations, whereby you can never get ought from is, whether that ought be truth or moral. Occam showed you can never obtain concepts. Berkeley showed you can’t grasp objective reality. Aristotle by his failure, showed you can’t find never find the unit in the first place from the collage of impressions to build knowledge to even make a choice as you define the term. And Heidegger could not save empiricism with existentialism. It’s incumbent upon you to build a system, where the strength of the premises and definitions imply validity and is sound because it comports with reality and is thereby self-evident without requiring omniscience on our part. I’ve tried to do that with my soon to be published book. Do the same.
br.d
Michael – I think its clear you are evading – what is ultra simple for anyone to see.
.
1) If it is possible for you to ever be wrong about something – then it is possible for you to have a FALSE PERCEPTION
.
2) If it is possible for you to ever have a FALSE PERCEPTION – then the doctrine stipulates – that FALSE PERCEPTION was established by an infallible decree
.
3) You will have that FALSE PERCEPTION as long as the decree is in effect because the decree cannot be countervailed.
.
4) The ability to discern the FALSE PERCEPTION as FALSE would countervail the decree – which is not granted to you.
.
.
John Calvin agrees
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even GREATER BLINDNESS (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
.
MAKING IT PERSONAL
Calvin’s god illumines Michael’s PERCEPTIONS for a time – to partake of the FALSE PERCEPTIONS – then at some point later – he decrees a GREATER BLINDNESS (i.e. inability to discern)
.
.
Your claim is either – Calvin’s statement cannot possibly apply to you – or that it is impossible for you to ever have a FALSE PERCEPTION.
.
.
In other words – divine sovereignty only applies to you – the way you want it to. :-]
.
As for continuing on here – no amount of “pie-in-the-sky” Ipse dixit claims are going to work.
I think you might as well have the last word – because you’re at the end of how far you can go.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Without indeterminacy as you define it, God knows and determines truth and falsehood, and He shares such with His creatures through their intellect and will. Knowledge comes from knowledge, both truth and falsehood together. From your blank slate and sensations you can never obtain knowledge to even make a choice as you define it.
Each of our starting points produce a system of thought. In comparison indeterminacy by definition is non-rational and even irrational. Divine determinism is rational and establishes knowledge, liability and factuality that cannot be other than it is – “For in Him we live and move and exist. For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. There are no exceptions to God’s Divine efficiency and illumination, not even the evil that we will and do over and against the truth we cannot but know. Peace.
You seem very satisfied with your view of determinism, Michael, so I don’t know if you are open to reconsider, especially looking at biblical evidence. Will you consider this?
Verses – future is not completely set in God’s foreknowledge.
Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam 👉to see👈 what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, 👉that I may know👈 what to do to you.’ ”
Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and 👉devising a plan👈 against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And 👉pray that your flight may not be in winter👈 or on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, 👉if it is possible👈, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
God’s mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It’s not locked in right now to seeing everything as “will be” or “is”. God’s foreknowledge is dynamic and includes also the truth about what “might be” or “might not be”. This is called – dynamic omniscience.
1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?
3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.
4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples’ prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem’s fall, indicating Jesus’ believed it might not yet be set?
5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God’s will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?
The answer is an obvious “yes” to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don’t clearly show those self-evident implications, it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.
********
The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God’s mind in His knowing a “before” that then becomes known as an “after” and a “might be” that then becomes known as either a “will be” or a “could have been”.
Calvinism rejects that such change in God’s mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of “before” creation means “before” and illogically accepts that changes in God’s mind exist and don’t exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God’s mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.
Only Dynamic Omniscience offers the idea that God’s mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as “will be” was known only as “will be” in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as “fulfilled”. Those declared as “might be” are only known as “might be”. He will freely choose to cause or permit one “might be” to change in His mind to a “will be” and another “might be” into a “won’t be/could have been”.
The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a falsehood… or that changes happening in God’s mind is imperfection is also a falsehood. God’s Word counters clearly those falsehoods. And God’s mind cannot believe falsehoods as truths.
Hello Brian
I was under the impression that Dr. Flowers believes differently than you concerning God’s foreknowledge. If that is true, I respect that fact. Each man has got to stand for what he believes to be true.
For me, I don’t consider myself a Calvinist because I reject the idea of God having free will. Therefore, everything He does is absolutely necessary. Meaning, God can’t desire and do other than what He does because He must glorify Himself in the highest sense possible through the greatest means. He can do no less without ceasing to exist. And that is impossible. What is actual is the best and only possible world. Thought possibility only exist to show that fact.
But not only this, I disagree with Calvin on the Trinity, incarnation and the atonement enough so, that you and me, for different reasons, would have been together put to death in Geneva.
Anyway, I will and have considered your request, especially since I do anyway in questioning my own beliefs to myself and God almost everyday.
The main reason I affirm Divine determinism to the degree I do is because to me both indeterminacy and Calvin’s form of Diivine determinism cannot answer why there is a hell. And I don’t believe we can truly know the fullness of God without it. So, I ask on Calvin’s position, why does God not save all, when He can. On the position of indeterminacy, why would God knowingly or even risk creating a world in which even one person might go to hell, let alone billions, if He does not need the creature? It seems it would have been better for Him not to create at all. Therefore, regardless of man’s sin, the onus is on God to explain a fallen worldly with so much suffering on both sides of death.
I can only believe there is a necessary and sufficient reason, whereby God could not and would not do differently then what He has, thereby making everything necessary, certain and sufficient for their purpose for that grand reason. That is what my book Self-Love Begotten is about.
Thank you for all the arguing back and forth. I’ve been sharpened by you, and left me much food for thought. May God’s face shine upon you and yours.
Thank you, Michael for your thoughtful reply. But I noticed you did not respond to the Scriptural evidence I gave. I assume you are working on it. But it does lead me to ask – Do you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?
Also, I think you should consider your view of God glorifying Himself in the “highest possible sense through the greatest possible means.” You tie that concept to the very definition and foundation of God’s existence, it seems.
So, I think I understand, since you deny free will to God, that when you say, “highest possible sense… greatest possible means” you are stating man’s false view of things, in your view, for, in your view, there is truly no other possible sense or means at God’s disposal!
I also think you might reconsider what it means for God to “save” anyone. You seem to support the false view that Salvation can be just forced upon people, whomever God might choose. But that is not how He designed salvation to be. It is a covenant love relationship that must be by His grace freely offered and freely received through faith.
Br.d,
Had I known you were an opened theist, I’d probably would had a different approach in our discussions.
Anyway, I’m still working on the idea of inerrancy. To me, it at least means there are no theological contradictions, and that the system of thought contained in the Bible is not a set of antinomies but is logically coherent and comports with and interprets reality. There is nothing that is contained in it that is inconceivable.
I’ve not read much on open theism in any form except maybe Charles Hartshorne. But after your latest post, I’ve thought about it some and realize that my denial of God having free will is the antithesis of open theism. Vice versa.
By implication, if God has free will then open theism would be really the only possibility except maybe Barth’s existential theism, whereby God can be whatever He wants at any given moment. By affirming free will in God, Calvinism, Arminianism, Lockean provisionism (Dr. Flowers), and even Molinism loses the argument to open theism and dynamic omniscience.
As for my position of an essentialism that implies God has no free will, it means He determines from Himself apart from the creature what truth and falsehood means in reference to Himself. Everything outside Him is only a reflection and celebration of His affirmation over and against His own negation or antithesis. Thus, the creature shares in God’s self-contained assertion by either affirming or denying God it cannot but know in all things, even mundane ones. Thus, man has no free will though he knows truth and falsehood.
As for the Scriptures you’ve shared. I see them as God condescending to man’s level to conceal but gradually reveal greater truths of His essentialism and the necessity of Christ arising thereof. But I’m thinking on these more.
Though I do believe it is God who saves in a deterministic manner, my comment that I think you are referring to was to show that neither Calvin’s belief in Divine free will or the non-Calvinist belief in man’s free will can grant a justification for hell, let alone all the suffering on this side of death. To me there must be a necessary sufficient rational answer as to why God created this actual state of affairs. I believe only Divine absolute determinism provides the answer.
Lastly, your position and arguments are formidable. You’ve peaked my interest, and will continue to use what you’ve said, and the Scriptures you refer to, to check my on beliefs against. I always leave open or at least consider the possibility I’m in the wrong. Thank you again. God’s peace.
Hi Michael! I’m Brian. Br.D is the moderator of this site and someone else. 🙂 Yes, you, like Calvin, have to resort to the view that God is unable or unwilling to give clearly, accurately, and what might even seem as honestly His view of Himself through His Word. That is one reason I asked for your view of inerrancy. Gen 6:6-7 says God reacted with grief and purposed destruction based that reaction. He would not have been eternally grieved that He made man, right? So, He would not have had an eternal, immutable decision already made to create man in the garden and destroy almost all mankind later. If you would like more biblical support for dynamic omniscience, let me know!
Brian, sorry for confusing you and Br.d. For clarification, is Br.d also an open theist? It seems at least Dr.Flowers is not.
Anyway, concerning inerrancy, logical consistency and the hermeneutical principle of anthropopathy.
The Scriptures state God repents and further asserts, He does not repent or change like a man (Cf. Gen.6:1-8; Num.23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29).
A higher unity to reconcile such is not included in these passages themselves or even together. This must be sought elsewhere in and for Christ, who is the mystery of the self-contained absolute sovereign God revealed. So, I don’t see a problem with what I stated. Peace.
Yes, Michael, God does repent/relent and change His mind, but just not like man does! See the nuance! If God makes an unconditional promise, He will fulfill it. If He sets up certain open conditions to respond to, then He can change His mind on how to respond as those conditions play out according to man’s free choices and His. Right?
Br.D is not an open theist yet, nor is Leighton yet. There is always hope for people to come around to biblical truth! 🙂
Brian. Your position:
Both God and man have a free will. Qualitatively they are the same. Neither one can or knows the future with certainty in anything, and therefore change their minds in the same way.
But, that is what those passages deny, once put together logically for a higher unity of understanding that there can be no contradiction so God might be revealed and honored properly. (Gen.6:1-8; Num.23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29).
With Divine determinism and the hermeneutical principle of anthropopathy, both reason and inerrancy is maintained.
The nuance you refer to is artificial.
Michael – the idea of anthropopathy cannot logically mean that God does not experience in any univocal way at least in part of what the word says. That would deny the first law of logic. God grieves cannot mean God does not grieve at all in any univocal way like man. To say it does is to create a hermeneutic that takes the Bible out of the hands of the layperson, who reads exactly what it says!
Brian,
The univocal element between God and man is that He grieves. But the equivocal element between them is that God eternally determinatively grieves but man does not. Thus, a thousand years before Celsus, Elihu, with God’s approval, stated that God cannot be moved by man and react to him, thereby being indebted in any way – “If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against Him? And if you transgressions are many, what do you do to Him? If you are righteous, what do you give to Him, Or what does He receive from your hand? Your wickedness is for a man like yourself, and your righteousness is for a son of man.” (Job 35:6-8; Cf. Rom.11: 33-36).
Your open theism makes God and man qualitatively univocal. There is no ground for their differences though you would say otherwise. As one theologian was famously often quoted – “You destroy the Creator/creature distinction” for the purpose of maintaining the ultimacy of indeterminism, so that you may affirm to yourself that you decide as to whether or not you go to hell by moving God and indebting Him either way.
As for me, I’ll affirm it is God’s right and power to do so – “For though the twins were not yet born or had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’…..So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy….Or does not the potter have a right over the clay….What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known, endured with much patience (and grieving) vessels of wrath (He) prepared for destruction?” (Rom.9:11-13, 16-24; Cf. Prov.16:4; Ps. 76:10).
Where, Michael, in Elihu’s words does it mean that God is not free to respond to what man does? God making decisions in response to the actions of man does not logically mean that man’s actions “caused” God’s response. It only means that God freely waited to decide what to do in response. Nor does man’s action always limit God to only one response for each kind of action. You are locked in and limited in your thinking, it appears, similar to how you view God’s mind must be.
No, God’s grief is not qualitatively equal to man’s grief in every aspect, but definitely in some, or God’s truth really is not true! Remember God’s breath into the dirt formed as Adam, made Adam a living soul.
Brian,
Both the believer in free will indeterminism and the inconsistent Calvinistic determinists, like a John Piper or MacArthur, affirm that man moved God and obligated Him to either dam or save mankind at least in Adam’s free will by creating an infinite offense that requires a sacrifice of infinite value.
But this capability and possibility is denied not only in Job 35:6-8, but with greatest clarity and force in Rom. 11:35-36. “Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
And this comprehensiveness of God’s absolute sovereignty, whereby God moves Himself deterministically without being moved at any given point by the creature, includes even evil, sin and unbelief. “God has made everything for His own purpose, even the evil for the day of His wrath.” (Proverbs 16:4).
Job under stood this and even denied the possibility of both ideas of God’s permissive and prescriptive wills, whereby He desires certain things but decides they not to be fulfilled in response to the indeterminate will of the creature. “But He is unique (one mind) who can turn Him? And what His soul desires, that He does. For He performs what is appointed for me and many such decrees are with Him. (Job. 23:13-14) “ It is all one; therefore I say, He destroys the guiltless and the wicked. If the scourge kills suddenly, He mocks the despair of the innocent. The earth is given into the hand of the wicked, He covers the faces of its judges. If it is not He, then who is it? (Job 9:22- 24.
The God of the indeterminist is an impossibility, while the God of the more consistent determinist Calvin is not deterministic enough because supposedly He has free will, thereby making an unbridgeable disconnect between rationality and providence. Everything just is because God willed it so. He could have done all things another way. This is really no different than the god Allah.
But, as it is with the indeterminist and both forms of Calvinism, though Christ as the Logos revealed in Scripture is supposed to exegete God and all of reality, all we can know through Him is that everything is a mystery. For there can be no necessary and sufficient answer as to why God would create a world knowing or even risking one person suffering and even going to hell, let alone billions, when He did not have to. This is not rational or moral.
What is needed are new concepts of God, man, Christ, the Scriptures, and hermeneutics. He who has an ear, listen.
Michael, you are certainly satisfied with your view, and I with mine. What is left is for others to judge who interpreting Scriptures according to normal rules of context and grammar and who is reading their theology into certain passages or extrapolating from certain verses what the author never intended.
You said – “all we can know through Him (Jesus) is that everything is a mystery.” That is a strong universal that needs some Scriptural support, don’t you think! There are many things I have learned from Jesus which I don’t consider mysterious!
You also said – “For there can be no necessary and sufficient answer as to why God would create a world knowing or even risking one person suffering and even going to hell, let alone billions, when He did not have to. This is not rational or moral.” You are stacking the deck! We both believe God did not have to create, I think. And I think we both believe there is indeed a hell for Christ rejectors. So, actually it is indeed “rational” and “moral” and a “sufficient answer” to say that the reason why God would create such a free-will scenario which does have men ending up destined for hell because of their freewill rejection of Christ (God’s offered mercy) is that He receives true everlasting glory from the covenant love created from freewill choice with many when it is displayed after the final judgment, and we will also have a more complete understanding of His everlasting grieving, unconditional love for those who rejected His mercy, who will be suffering in hell.
Brian.
If supposedly Divine love “does not seek its own”, it would be wrong for God to create knowing or risking even one would go to hell, especially because He need not the creature for existence or happiness. According to this standard, He would have to be considered selfish and immoral for creating. The more just and loving thing for God would be not to create and be content with Himself.
The problem of hell on your theology is compounded by the fact that those who don’t have indeterminate power of contrary choice love and obey better than those who supposedly do. Examples range from God Himself, Jesus Christ, the unfallen angels, and saints in heaven. Even those on earth who are in love have an inner compulsion whereby they can do no other but be in love. In all these cases, without having a power to do otherwise, their love and obedience have a value of being good and rewardable. So, why then the need or desire of God to create beings with freewill? Thus, everything is under your understanding of Scripture and hermeneutics is unexplainable. For God created a world with beings having indeterminate power of contrary choice when He did not have to or should have. God is therefore arbitrary in spite of His love.
The Calvinist’s understanding of God is even more arbitrary and unexplainable. God’s justice and wrath are fully satisfied in Christ. So, why not save all? With the failure of both traditional non-Reformed and Reformed theology to explain hell, it’s no wonder many on both sides either reject hell, down play its intensity and/or extension, or ignore it. I’ve heard Dr. Flowers say his tendency is to ignore it.
The answer to why God created reality with suffering, evil and hell, lies in the fact this is the best and only possible world. Why? Because God cannot nor would not but Grant Himself the perfect gift of Jesus Christ. And for this reason all things necessarily exist and are sufficient for their purposes to make Christ possible. – “God made everything for His own purpose, even the evil for the day of His wrath. In Christ is all wisdom and knowledge. “
So, unlike traditional non-Reformed and Reformed theology, God has no indeterminate power of contrary choice. He cordially to Himself must exhaustively honor Himself in the highest possible manner and means. He can do no other without ceasing to exist, which is impossible. Therefore everything is rational, moral and certain. This includes evil, sin, suffering and hell. – “For of Him, and through Him and to Him are all things. Amen.”
br.d
Final word from me on this:
.
If a system’s logic requires that its followers are divinely prevented from discerning when they’re wrong, then the system itself undermines its own claim to provide true knowledge.
.
blessings
LIne 40 was supposed to say “IF A (DOES NOT EQUAL) 30 THEN 50
UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLIND CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
.
1) A claim is a statement or position about what is or should be.
.
2) A claim can be TRUE and it can be FALSE, but by itself it has no inherent warrant.
.
3) a BLIND CLAIM is a claim made without evidence or reasons— it is simply asserted without question.
It doesn’t provide grounded support for accepting it.
.
For example
My wife knows [X] is true – commits the fallacy of circular reasoning (i.e. begging the question)
.
4) ARGUMENT BY EVIDENCE is when one offers a claim and providing empirical or logical support (facts, statistics, expert testimony, reasoning) which show the claim to be TRUE.
.
Evidence changes the status from “just asserted” to “verifiable”.
.
So in critical thinking / logical fallacy terms:
Making claims without evidence opens the door to fallacies (e.g., assertion without proof, ipse dixit).
.
As a reference you can read the article titled: Ipse dixit in Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
.
.
You need to stop before you post
.
A large percentage of your statements are BLIND CLAIMS – and you don’t appear to be able to recognize them as such.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Michael
-quote
My wife knows I’m inwardly compelled to love her, and that I cannot do otherwise.
.
br.d
Michael – your thinking is NOT CONGRUENT with Determinism.
.
In Calvinism – your wife PERCEIVES inwardly that you may be compelled to lover here and cannot do otherwise.
.
Per the doctrine of decrees – your wife’s brain is NOT PERMITTED to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
.
But lets say Calvin’s god knows the PERCEPTION he decreed your wife to have is FALSE
.
1) It has been infallibly decreed that your wife will have a FALSE PERCEPTION
.
2) That decree – will not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE PERCEPTION within your wife’s brain.
.
3) Where Calvin’s god knows – that perception is FALSE – then he has decreed your wife to have a FALSE PERCEPTION that her brain is not permitted to discern as FALSE
.
.
.
Those are the dots you need to learn how to connect.
Your difficulty connecting those dots is that your thinking is not congruent with Determinism.
.
Many of your statements are statements any Arminian would agree with – and Calvin would disagree with.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Michael
yet [those in heaven and hell] know the difference between truth and falsehood, and their thoughts and decisions are rewarded accordingly.
.
.
br.d
This statement also entails the issue of creaturely responsibility – i.e. what are creatures held responsible for.
.
This position on creaturely responsibility (rewarded accordingly) is ANATHEMA in Calvinism because
.
1) What the creature will be held accountable for – is solely determined by an infallible decree before the creature is created
.
2) The decree which determines what creatures are to be held accountable for – is NOT based upon the creature or the condition thereof – it is SOLELY within himself according to his good pleasure.
.
3) The reason Calvin rejects your assertion here – is because it would make the creature the DETERMINER of what it is to be held accountable for – and that for Calvin is ANATHEMA because it compromises divine sovereignty
.
4) In Calvinism – humans are held accountable SOLELY based upon the GOOD PLEASURE of Calvin’s god
.
5) So in Calvinism – a new-born baby – can be held responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs – or the size of the planet Jupiter – if that is the divine good pleasure – and no Calvinist is permitted to judge.
.
6) That new-born baby will be cast alive into the fire of Moloch – and the later cast into eternal torment in a lake of fire
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
.
CONCLUSION:
The Arminian concept of human accountability is of a God who looks down the corridor of time – and OBSERVES what the creature will be FOUND to be and do. And the creature is thus held accountable accordingly.
.
That concept of creaturely accountability is ANATHEMA in Calvinism because it betrays divine sovereignty
.
.
blessings
br.d