Featured How about this for a proof text?

I will engage you point by point...because I think it will be useful for lurkers, and those who are teachable....Not because I believe that you are teachable in any way.

 

Revealed truth is the only truth. If it seems logical to you or not....is not the issue.:thumbs:

God has revealed Himself and as orderly there is a lot of logic.It is biblical truth that comes together as one complete revelation.

What seems to many as offensive is any here who set aside the scripture as the only source of truth and then this vain attempt to set logic against the grace of God, against the goodness and knowledge of God.

It is not that we cannot "see" what you are trying to offer. We have already drank from the living water of the word and Spirit.

Benjamin......use you mind and thoughts to fit into, and obey these verses instead of trying to attack us...try it...you might enjoy it.

 

Hoss,

Essentially all you post is endless semantics about "determinism".

 

I have re-phrased my initial argument to your liking which contains no reference to "determinism". Please respond to it, if you know how...this has been covered, and anyone reading this thread has noted your refusal to respond...

I have already told you to stop calling me "HOSS" your continued insistence on doing so is, well, easily understood by anyone reading this thread and noting your responses.

 

Yeah, yeah...I already know of "your perceptions" that God "specially revealed your interpretations to you" and therefore "You are Truth".

Therefore, in the interest of saving time I have prepared this statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me.

K?"

:wavey:

 

Well said HoS, your rebuttal was thorough and to the point. Your argument dealt with the presentation of what amounted to two false dilemmas (“foreknowledge or determinism” and then either (Calvinism or Open Thesim) being used as a counter argument very well.

:thumbs:

 

Sadly....you show you are not quite up to it once again:laugh:

That is okay.You cannot do otherwise at this time.You reject all manner of christian teachers and theologians by calling me a parrot.That places you in the same group with Winman. You can call names and so on.You and others like you get exposed in here as your continual failure and inability to engage the scripture is becoming apparent to all.
Old Regular and many others are on to this tactic...which ironically you try to project on me and others who delight in God's law/word:thumbsup:

People post good threads and discussions which you do your semantic word games and syllogisms to avoid being exposed as void of edifying content. Re-read your own posts...

What can I conclude???

[/B]

Okay...I accept your surrender and your open confession of it here. I think it is wise for you to take this course of action . That will be a better use of
your time than trying to call me names that have no effect whatsoever and frankly many people are tired of reading this weak nonsense:sleeping_2:

That will also free me to "parrot" vital truths that others who are not bound by this carnal philosophical demon might enjoy reading and studying out for themselves. You see...now we can both move on and do what we enjoy and remember;

Each one of us will give a personal account to God.:love2:

 

Addemdum to statement:

 

Well ......I will just "parrot" the apostle Paul as my addendum----


6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

I will rejoice in those things revealed to the confessing church.....you can enjoy WLC and Pinnock, and others who depart from sound teaching.You are free to do this...a free moral agent.....enjoy your philosophical maze .....begging questions,and assorted other things you concern yourself with.

 

I think that about covers it...

 

Thank you for your response HoS,

Sorry for the long delay in replying. Sometimes I feel like I'm one of those annoying drivers puttering along in the slow lane just clogging up traffic, while everyone else races on leaving me behind!

Understood. However, I have observed the usage of the term on this board and the argument that follows is referring to causal determinism . In fact I think you yourself qualified the term that way. Even the OP of this thread assumes a causal determinism. I realize that you believe that the mainstream or classical Calvinistic view (as opposed to the "hyper" variety) is inconsistent and I assume that the tactic of arguing against hyper-calvinism is a means of defeating classic mainstream Calvinism. If this tack is really about meaningfully communicating differences in such a way that both parties can be edified however, it is demonstrably failing because of where the debate degrades when we are essentially accused of believing God saves men against their will and there's nothing they can do about it (which most Calvinists do not believe). So, we run the cycle of ambiguous assertion and accusations of misrepresentation. Perhaps laying out what in your view is inconsistent with God decreeing all things but maintaining free agency in the means of accomplishing that decree. I would hope (though I am not sure) that we could have a useful and civil discussion and disagreement in this area.

God decreed it (and so determined it permissively), Adam secured it causatively and my son confirmed it in the expression of his will.

Are you suggesting that there are hyper-calvinists out there that deny moral responsibility?

I appreciate that HoS. I actually think most of us are much closer doctrinally (especially practically speaking) than we care to admit. That is not to say the differences are not significant or important, but there is an effect of running as far from the other guy so as to at least suggest we do not even believe what we believe.

I do not hold that the decrees THEMSELVES are the causes of all events. I do believe that God has determined all events and in the eternal council of his will they are certain (and on the basis of his eternality and sovereignty ) necessary. I also believe that God's decrees are a sufficient guarantor of the events because I believe that God works out his decrees (both actively and permissively) to ensure all he has decreed comes to pass. I also believe that for man as a finite being, before an event is determined in time it is for him indeterminate and uncertain. For him the decree of God is not known and the operation of his will can act independently of the decree itself, while always bringing it to pass. For him the counter-factual is a real option and in the limitation of time and the finiteness of his being he really could choose either (laying aside the forces that act upon his will). I put the reality of uncertainty and possibility in the realm of the finite and temporal but not the eternal. In the eternal, there is little difference between that which has been determined in the past (which I believe most of us would agree that past events are indeed determined) and that which will be in the future. Time is the only limiter of what is determined (leaving aside the means) in this sense. Outside the limitations of time the path of choices is a line not a tree. So I see the will of man as not coerced by the decree but able to operate independently of but always in congress with the decree of God. That is not to say that man's will is independent of anything or that God does not work actively to bring about his decree, because I believe he works both actively and permissively, and that in God's operation (not man's) the fulfillment of his eternal purpose is ALWAYS in view.

Let me qualify it this way so that it does follow
(1) Indeterminism denies all events which involve the choices of free moral agents, including the effects of those choices are determined
(2) For the sake of argument, Only events involving free moral agents are significant
(3) An undetermined event is an uncertain event
(4) If indeterminism is true then there are no significant certain events

If 2 is not allowed then … (4) If indeterminism is true then there are no certain events involving the choices of free moral agents, including the effects of those choices.

I believe I understand your position on this to some degree. While I agree that certainty is not equal to necessity, I do believe that from an eternal and sovereign perspective that which is certain is also necessary. I believe I understand how it is you disagree with this position. I do not think it is an error to hold that position, but would agree that it would be an error to equate the two.

I believe that the knowledge you speak of can collapse into and be encompassed by natural knowledge which means we probably agree on the extent of God's omniscience. However, we begin to stray a great distance from scripture when we follow trails of possibilities not revealed or considered in scripture.

agreed. I have enjoyed the discussion.

 

Thank you for your response WITBOTL! :flower:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::applause:

 

HOS,
You are overthinking here. Just look at scripture;

The psalmist and Paul did not think that this was nonsense:
110 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.


12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The working is always effectual, the people are made willing....it is not a burden.

 

What you really mean is that you're to embarrassed to talk about it.

 

What I really mean MB is that I have no idea what you are talking about, either in your original post #35 or in the above post 6 days later. I have presented the time line to demonstrate that you apparently have no idea what you are talking about.

Paul's letter to the Ephesian Church is Paul's letter to the Ephesian Church. If you can show where I have made any claim disputing that I will be most happy to remove the fog from your mind.

 

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

God has revealed Himself (according to Icon’s receiving special revelations) and as orderly there is a lot of logic. (this is “orderly logic” it is not orderly to use logic to disagree with Icon) It is biblical truth (Only Icon’s orderly logic is equivalent to Biblical orderly logic) that comes together as one complete revelation. (according to Icon's revelations this orderly logic is complete and settled, therefore, only he and whosoever agrees with his revelation and that is also willing to “logically and orderly” proof-text Ad nauseum that his specially revealed systematic interpretations are in agreement with God can see the completion, as he (Icon) has undisputedly spoken!) (EWF, gives the thumbs up claps in praise to these meaningful words!)

What seems to many as offensive is any here who set aside the scripture (it is offensive to not proof-text according to Icon’s orderly logic, all other logic is to set aside scripture because it is not officially Iconosized as orderly!) as the only source of truth (only Icon will maintain the orderly logic source of scriptural truth) and then this vain attempt to set logic against the grace of God,(it is a vain attempt to use reasoning (logic) for any interpretations that are different than Icons) against the goodness and knowledge of God.(these attempts do not amount to Icon’s orderly logic and interpretations which are equivalent to Gods, therefore, yours are against Him and are setting aside scripture)

It is not that we cannot "see" what you are trying to offer. (we just simply see any that disagree with us as carnal) We have already drank from the living water of the word and Spirit. (We are already saved and therefore understand this orderly logic complete being all in the spirit and such, but you (carnal, non-seeing types)do not see Icon’s ways because of not drinking the water of salvation yet)


(Therefore (the conclusion of the matter is), Icon, by his orderly logic and reason questions the salvation of those who do not and cannot "see" it his way!)


EWF, likes Icon's reasoning!!! Thereby, EWF, sees that he has drank the water also!!! EWF, is happy that he is in agreement with Icon's "superior orderly logic"!!!




Making any sense out of the conclusions according to the reasoning given from people on this board boogles the mind!?!

 

however you label it, icon sees this from the viewpoint of theApsotle paul himself, yours not so much!

 

That Icon must be amazing in your eyes! That's a pretty good trick he can do there!

:laugh:

I guess you too are a believer that Icon has these special abilities over his opponents. Do you guys all belong to the same clan?

 

Benjamin,

So....you want to "play"...ok....I will, just for you friend.

I am truly touched by your devotion to me:thumbsup: Your keen insights are a great source of amusement to me:laugh:
Your praise of me.....I have to tell you as the resident BB iconoclast are crossing the line into idolatry,and quite logically,and philosophically I cannot have you idolize me ,as much as you seem intent on doing.
The promise of God that he will reveal His truth to all believers by the Spirit.
He did not promise to reveal Spiritual truth by carnal philosophy, logic, or debate fallacies.That is what everyone tries to tell you.
You cling to these things as a security blanket, but if you trust God and his word...it will not be long and you will make some progress.
You chide these fellow brothers who share a desire to study scripture.Most people in here seem to like that more than your syllogisms,and lectures about debate fallacies.[I remember the sad thread when you turned on webdog]

You have 3-4 people who still feed your philosophical musings...Van,Winman, HT,maybe HOS. So don't be sad friend:thumbsup:

I was thinking yesterday that it might be helpful for you do study the lessons from the life of Haman.....you are following his example when he plotted[in vain] against Moredecai...

Attention BENJAMIN......special icon insight for you...a "word of knowledge"

Benjamin noticed that Icon did not bow to his carnal philosophy, carnal logic, and debate fallacy list.... Instead Icon only wanted scripture!

Benjamin attacked like minded brothers to Icon.






2 And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.

3 Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment?

4 Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.

5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.

Benjamin noticed Icon would not bow to his philosophy

r.

Benjamin began to be publically exposed as going away from scripture ,so he whined to the moderators to try and destroy Icon and those who enjoy scripture.

Benjamin claims he used to have fun on the bb before, when he could just speak down to those who want to learn scripture rather than debate fallacies. Icon is ruining his fun...Benjamin is full of indignation against icon.

Benjamin....only trusts in himself ,so he cannot take imput from anyone else...so he also continues to plot evil....

Learn the lesson Benjamin...we know how this story ended:thumbsup:


10 So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.