Featured A Determinist Question

Benjamin has gone away angry yet again. That is his defense mechanism around here. Rather than deal with actual questions, he can feel self-satisfied that he is being persecuted for his faith, though no one is actually persecuting him at all. Just trying to have a discussion.

 

God made man and placed him in the world.

He then took the man and placed him in a garden he had prepared in the world.

Who was this world and even that garden in subjection to?

Why is there going to be something different in the world to come?

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:

God is sovereign but at this present time the world is in the hands of Satan.
The prince of the power of the air, (spirit controlled).

What is man?

But we see not yet all things put under him, man.

But we see Jesus, made a little lower that the angels, a man for the suffering of death.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Most of you I would say think, it shall bruise thy head, is presently a done deal.
But is it? How did Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit see this verse?

Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

Shortly I would think would be in the world to come when all things will be under subjection to Jesus and the body of Christ.
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

What we need to do is, Stand still and see the salvation of the LORD.

JMHO

 

Okay, to answer #1 is kinda touchy. Did you eat steak because it was your choice, or did you want something else, but God decreed from eternity past, that at that moment in time, you would eat steak?

Did you choose to wear brown dress shoes, or did God give you the choice to wear those brown shoes? Things such as what we do, such as what we choose to wear, eat, places we go, etc., God knows our choices before we make them. That does not mean He decreed them, though(this should answer question two).

 

yes, yes/kinda
I ate steak because I choose to eat steak. It was my greatest desire to eat steak at that time with the options available to me.

As I've stated about 999 times so far(ok, maybe I exaggerated a bit ) God predestining something doesn't not mean 1) we don't make choices, 2) God causes all events to happen.

Now, you used the word "decreed" here and I've used predestine/preordain. There are two types of events that God has predestined. 1. God has decreed certain events will happen. (I usually use this term to describe this type.) These events will happen. Nobody can go against these decrees. This would be things like creation. God said let their be light. God not only choose the event to take place, but makes sure that the event will take place regardless of any choices of other people.

The second type would be God allowing an event to take place. Some of called this his "permissive will." God has decided that he will allow people to disobey him. For instance God has said that people are not to commit adultery. But people commit adultery all the time. God is in control and that adultery wouldn't not happen unless God allowed it to happen. God knew the event would take place in eternity and thus ordained that the event would take place. It doesn't mean that God caused the adultery to take place. But it is part of the bigger plan of God. Prime example is the story of Joesph and his brothers.

The question is if God had a "better" plan to get Joseph to Egypt. I don't think so based on the wording of Genesis 50:20 and Ephesians 1:11. And in reality, no body will ever understand how God's sovereignty and man's will work together. But it does.

 

Yes, you chose, or yes, He chose for you? I honestly don't know which way your "yes/yes kinda " is directed.

Agreed. :thumbs:

I agree....

Can't disagree with this, I reckon.

Agree. All-in-all, a very good post.

 

JBH, not to but in.....but I will

1. I believe God has authority of all events but is not necessarily "controlling" all events.
2. Yes.

 

I guess you see a difference in "controlling" and "in control." Is that correct?

 

Yes, I see a distinction. Not precisely sure how to describe it, but yes. I have been accused of being "deist" in nature. However deist's hold that God rarely intervenes in history or nature, I would consider myself FAR from that perspective.

 

Premise:

That God can will every particle in the cosmos is beyond human comprehension, but not beyond human logic, (premise = opponent makes a claim that he will logically support his argument) (P)

Original Argument:

…we have a scnenario where God is ultimately in control of every sub-atomic particle in the cosmos. He HAS to be in order to be God, for if ANYTHING could over-rule Him, that thing would exert more power than Almighty God, so logically, like it or not, God IS sovereign (at least the God self-revealed in Scripture). = (Hard/fatalistic Determinism) (T)

But, the WAY He controls all things is where fatalistic determination falls short, ..(Snip, question begging) If that were so, we could neither love God nor have any reason for faith, both of which God has decreed… = (Not Hard/fatalistic Determinism) + (F)

…and yet, your action to eat whatever for lunch is FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE (weaseler) an absolutely FREE action based on your will and based on your circumstances. (Conclusion = Absolutely Free) = (T)

Argument: T (determinism) + F (Not determinism) = T (Absolutely Free)

Claims made during the argument assumed to support his argument as logical:

(indeed, unless He ordained and created both the concepts and the ability there would be neither!). (question begging claim – God created both concepts to be true - T + F = T)

That God can will every particle in the cosmos is beyond human comprehension,… (question begging) = Fallacy

…an all-powerful, all-knowing God could/can do all. (question begging, weaseler on “P”) = Fallacy

Your objection then is the problem of evil, which is only a problem for rebellious human beings who reject the fact that God is God. (Question begging and Ad hominem) = Fallacy

From His perspective, there is no true rebellion nor any true problem with evil. He wills and it is -- period. (Question begging, weaseler on “P”) = Fallacy

To US, there is a problem with evil, for our moral compass is skewed when we see what appears to be great evil in the world -- as if God neither cares nor is powerful enough to halt… (weaseler on “P”, appeal to allusion, appeal to conviction, appeal to authority) = Fallacy

BUT -- in the plans of God that evil has a purpose and I expect that we will become fully aware of that purpose once we see face-to-face ALL of the facts that God was manipulating in order to bring about His good and perfect will for His divine purpose (only one), and for His ultimate glory. (Question begging + reiterating that claim “P” is fact, logical) = Fallacy

And there is your answer... God can SO easily arrange circumstances to suit His divine will that He can and does whatever He needs to do to insure that His will is true always (there is NO other state that His will can inhabit, for to will is to be as far as God is concerned -- think about that for a bit). That God can will every particle in the cosmos is beyond human comprehension, but not beyond human logic,… (LOL, claim to have proved T + F = T, while claiming this is beyond human comprehension = “Weaseler” of “P”, but not beyond human logic = yet claims “P” is “T”) = ahh, Fallacy




Originally Posted by Benjamin: (restating opponent’s fallacious argument with sarcasm, but calling it- the argument- on trying to claim that T+F=T after also claiming said argument to be logical) ( = refuting opponents “P” and rejecting opponents argument based on it being pure fallacy and not LOGICALLY proving the conclusion):
That explains it, it is all simply an allusion to us that what is (all things including the origins of evil) “actually” under the ultimate control of God, which is a must in order to be sovereign btw, which isn’t “fatalistic determinism” btw, because what appears to be an “absolutely” necessity to avoid theological fatalism in reality it is not actually “absolute” …it is just us rebellious types that believe things like evil being attributed to God’s nature and things like absolutes which cannot be true and can be true at the same time that is what is the problem here; it’s that darn perspective of ours that “truth” is actually “truth”. It's all in the “way” He controls all things, you see, God be can true and not true at the same time, because Truth doesn’t “actually” exist, …got it!


Response from Glf:
Why the anger? Is that of God? Or is it of the rebellious enemy of God? (Directed toward me – Ad Hominem) = Fallacy

You are CONSTANTLY on this board telling us that YOUR POSITION represents God and God's Word, and yet you are SO SO SO ANGRY. That is not God. That is YOU. Can you not see it? Guess not... (More Ad Hominem) = Fallacy

Why not do what I mentioned above and start with the first verse of the Bible and we'll examine the Scriptures together to see what God has indeed said. (Diversion tactic to change “P”) = Fallacy

Question for you, because I know that the Parable of the Sower is one of the proof-texts that those holding a free will position often use. What is the seed sown? (Diversion tactic to change “P”)

Response from Benjamin: (points to opponents fallacies, and back to original premise):
It's nothing less than comical how you turn to strawmen like saying I'm angry and ad hominem to support your arguments... but just as fallicious none the less. I'm not interested in your circular arguments which involve neverending scriptural food fights and chase the rabbit games for each premise presented. You've clearly shown you either will not stick to a premise or don't know how and so resort to fallacy after fallacy thinking you're being logical. I tire of your tactics, but might just call you on your logic once in while for the practice.

Response from Glf:
Have you broght anything to the table or have you just attempted to intimidate me with bluster?

Response from Benjamin: (Again, points back to original “P” = claim opponent will support a logical argument):
Just got done refuting the argument you presented, big surprise that you must have missed that. Maybe you were too busy trying to think up arguments about how angry I am and how to divert the argument to something else.

Response from Glf:
I must have missed your refutation...

Is this it? = (Correctly identifies refutation)

I see no refutation, (doesn’t see it after-all) just some blathering on. A refutation would be a series of Scriptures, properly exegeted, in context, that demonstrate where what I said was wrong, not just you telling me that I am wrong. (tactically diverts argument to scripture rather than sticking to “P”) = Fallacy

And, for the sake of the argument, let's take one of your phrases and examine it.

Glf presents argument he claims to have missed:
It's all in the “way” He controls all things, you see, God be can true and not true at the same time, because Truth doesn’t “actually” exist, …got it!

Glf now response to said argument:
Becasue you do not understand what I wrote, you attack it instead. But if I presume that you are correct, I am still left without understanding what you would actually hold AS THE TRUTH to replace what I wrote. (Complains that I attacked his argument, then uses a diversion tactic trying to get me to start a new argument) = Fallacy

So, what is the truth? Come out with a positive statement of your doctrine, backed up with Scripture, and share the truth. We will see it it stands or not. IF it is true, it will, and I will accept it. If not... Then you have to do some more homework. That's the way it goes. (More attempts to divert to a new argument) = Fallacy

 

Continued:

Response from Benjamin:
I not only understand what you wrote but shreaded any doubt that what you wrote wasn't completely illogical for anyone who understands that T + F doesn't = T. Granted I used some some satire, a little sarcasm, but you might want to note any attack was on your argument. (Once again points back to original “P”)

Response from Glf:
(Exhibit A) Benjamin, what you said was in essence that what I said cannot be. (TRUE!, and he acknowledges argument !!!) That was ALL you said, yet you feel that you refuted what I said. Sorry, but you will have to bring more of an argument than that, for you truly do misunderstand. (Says I have to do more, - meaning answer to his diversion tactics) = False! And Fallacy

Perhaps some help... With God, there is both permissive and declarative will. There is the absence of God (evil, darkness) and the presence of God (righteousness, light). There is exhaustive foreknowledge, and of all possible actions of a free moral agent, and because of that, also and at the same time, the control in active or passive means of what transpires so as to bring about the true will of God. (More diversion tactic away from “P”) = Fallacy

Now, if you can explain to me how God can will something and yet it not come to be, while yet God remains God, then you will be on your way to refuting my position. (Says I must accept his terms of starting new argument first to prove my refutation, diversion, LOL) = Fallacy

Response from Benjamin: (Addressing “Exhibit A’):
Correct, T + F cannot = T. Your argument centered on T+F=T; GLF, not until: (inserts irritant of “Pigs flying, LOL)


Let me spell this out for you: (Provides another argument against original “P” which addresses it without sarcasm):
Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.

Response from Glf;
Again, why the anger and the "pigs fly" stuff... Unbecoming of you and hurts rather than helps your cause. Makes you appear as an ignorant fundamentalist. Perhaps that is true... (Ad Hominem) = Fallacy

In any case, you argue FOR free will. How free? Can we will ANYTHING? (Diverts away from original “P”) = Fallacy

Would you side with Rob Bell, who also argues free will, and who stipulates that the extent of our free will exists entirely into the realms of heaven and hell, and if one "wills" to leave either, he is able? (More diversion with Ad Hominem and attempt at strawman) = Fallacy

Or, would you draw a line somewher and say, "this far and no farther" for free will. Where is your line? (attempt at strawman diversion from refutation original “P”) = Fallacy

And, finally, does God have to obey our will? If so, are we not placing ourselves on the throne in His place? How do you reconcile our having a totally free will and yet God being God? Or do you? (Assumes strawman then continues with diversion from refutation of original “P”) = Fallacy

Response from Benjamin: (points to fallacies, diversions, and back to refutation of original “P”)
Glf, your accusations of anger, appearing as an ignorant fundamentalist, of being on the side of Rob Bell, and trying to sit on the throne of God...

Does not help your argument that T+F=T

Can't you understand why I said I see your tactical diversions of debate, that you think are logical, amount to being comical? Are you really this clu...NVM

Response from Glf:
First, my argument is not T + F = T. That is YOUR strawman take on an argument that I am making that you simply do not understand or if you do understand, refuse to accept. So, your initial premise for defeating my argument is not valid. (Denies refutation of original “P” exists, calls it strawman because I do not understand or refuse to accept his conclusion, therefore my premise is not valid, LOL) = Fallcay

Second, you have indeed come off -- in this thread and in multiple others -- as a VERY angry man, who can barely restrain himself from hurling invectives worthy of the devil at brothers and sisters in the Lord. This is verifiable from anyone who reads any of your posts, and is being confirmed in this thread by others. (Back to Ad Hominem) = Fallacy

Third, you are majoring on your strawman but ignoring the larger picture, i.e., what or whome is above God? Until you can answer that, you have not a leg upon which to stand, for it remains doubtful that you have an adequate doctrine of God upon which to build your case. (First, Assumes his diversion tactic of accusation of strawman to be true, Second, claims I am ignoring his tactical diversions = LOL-True, Third, reiterates that I must accept his terms to engage in his diversions to build my claim) = Fallacy

GLf's defense mechanisms (tactics of diversion) are clearly seen, being spelled out above. He offers nothing to validate his arguments but diversion and Ad Hominem while thinking he can avoid being pinned down on these fallicious arguments; first he claims to provide a logical argument and when he is called on that logic then resorts in pure hypocrisy to refer to this as my defense mechanism around here. = Equals my defense mechanism is to try to hold him to his original premise. = Fallacy!!! All he gots...

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Response when I have some time to dig into your stuff... Should prove interesting.

 

Obviously I didnt read the whole thread but I just want to make sure I understand the question properly....if I am right, your asking about the absolute Predestination of ALL THINGS.....What I would call an "Absoluter" ....is this correct?

 

Great! First start with turning your premise into a deductive argument, like I did:

Premise:

That God can will every particle in the cosmos is beyond human comprehension, but not beyond human logic, (premise = opponent makes a claim that he will logically support his argument) (P)

Original Argument:

…we have a scnenario where God is ultimately in control of every sub-atomic particle in the cosmos. He HAS to be in order to be God, for if ANYTHING could over-rule Him, that thing would exert more power than Almighty God, so logically, like it or not, God IS sovereign (at least the God self-revealed in Scripture). = (Hard/fatalistic Determinism) (T)

But, the WAY He controls all things is where fatalistic determination falls short, ..(Snip, question begging) If that were so, we could neither love God nor have any reason for faith, both of which God has decreed… = (Not Hard/fatalistic Determinism) + (F)

…and yet, your action to eat whatever for lunch is FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE (weaseler) an absolutely FREE action based on your will and based on your circumstances. (Conclusion = Absolutely Free) = (T)

Argument: T (determinism) + F (Not determinism) = T (Absolutely Free)

Then list your categorical claims from within that argument which prove your argument to be logical, this should be interesting indeed.

All you will have to do is prove how God's "way" of truth is different from actual truth, meaning Determinism + Not Determinism = Absolute Creaturely Volition, is logical along with at the same time how this logic of yours is beyond our comprehension.

:laugh:

 

Benjamin, what gives you the right to dictate how to frame my argument?

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:GLF....He has to use language that is bent toward a non-personal fatalistic premise from the start...so it is flawed to begin with...but in order to try and fend of the scriptural teaching something must be in it's place:thumbs:

post 89 goes on and on...no scripture..only this;

Most here are looking to improve in scriptural truth. the apostles used the scripture and directed all of us to scripture.

I do not see the apostles saying.......g=m ,,,- d+t......opps you made a fallacy.....I see them about scripture most all the time.

Everyone in the christian world who studies the bible knows that Gen. 50:20 is not just a proof text, but shows many aspects of God's decreed plan. This verse is the cap-stone on the whole inclusion of Joseph's story in the text. It implies that to anyone who has worked through the story of Joseph and his brothers knows and understands what this verse means.
Anyone who would only see a "proof text here " is wilfully ignorant of Divine truth, or just being strange.

 

"Dictate"? What’s the matter Glf? I simply asked you to frame your argument which you claim to be logical through beginning with philosophical principles. Maybe you were referring to some other kind of logic, street logic perhaps??? Have I cut into “your style” of “logic” by asking you to form a deductive argument consisting of your own premises, claims and conclusion that would agree with your own argument? Sorry; when one claims truth to come from logic I naturally assume they are speaking of evidence about philosophical principles which would start with methods to lay out validity through deductive reasoning and to “establish truth” in claims meant to draw out the "truth" of one's conclusion through 'logic'. But, I understand you maybe struggle with the concept of philosophical truth principles (duh, LOL) so if you will allow me to offer you a suggestion at least? I’ll give an example (underlined) for categorizing one of your claims from your opening argument:

(C) = “…we have a scnenario where God is ultimately in control of every sub-atomic particle in the cosmos. He HAS to be in order to be God, for if ANYTHING could over-rule Him, that thing would exert more power than Almighty God, so logically, like it or not, God IS sovereign (at least the God self-revealed in Scripture).”

I thought you might want to cut out all the boloney and get to the nuts and bolts; Philosophical Logic/Critical Thinking 101, for example, using the "cardinal rule" of "argument identification" (meaning an argument must have two parts and one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true and this consists of two claims and a “therefore”) so the following should be elementary in regards to recognizing the Calvinist’ first claim (C) above as necessarily true:

(C) = God determines all things, same as God is absolutely sovereign (i.e. 'in complete control over all things...including men's choices')

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

(X) = “ANYTHING”

Determinism = (T)

That would be a categorized claim that is said to be true (T), philosophically speaking, that is.

One step at a time; we can deal with the “But’s” later. Will you agree that “Determinism” is “true” or not? Can you answer either yes or no? I believe this first step should be as easy as 1), 2), 3).

 

Now Icon! You wouldn't be trying to philosophize here, would you?

 

Hey Benjamin....

1. Is God in control of all events?
2. Does God know all events that will take place?

 

No...it has limited if any value....the scripture has the value...return to scripture...almost got to glendale on this trip...not quite far enough south...will have to return on i-40 through flagstaff... I am in hesperia ca.

Did you ever visit phoenix reformed baptist church???

 

Because that right was determined from the foundations of the world.