What's the distinction between a good book and scripture?

Archangel,

I'll wade past the demeaning and snide comments to address the otherwise well thought out response. I don't know why these discussions must always be brought into the mud, but anyway...

And I quoted from the last part of this saying, "God ordained whatsoever comes to pass," yet you argue I'm not saying the same thing. I agree with Ben's points regarding this on the other thread so I'll leave it at that for now...

No, its to argue that those 'exceptions' are inconsistent for the reasons Ben so eloquently laid out.

Well, some of your aren't, and I will concede that you have been a victim of confusion caused by SOME others from the more "Calvinistic side" who post here regularly. I do apologize for the tendency to group people and address issues as a collective group rather than to you specifically. It all gets muddled at times when dealing with so many different views and different nuances of the same views. I have the same problem from my end as well.

Thus far my only definition was to say you believed a choice was free if it was according to one's desire, which you have agree is accurate. I've then gone on to ask what determined the desire/nature? You attempt to avoid the obvious answer by involving 'natural consequence,' as if God is not the direct cause of a 'natural consequence.' That is all so far. What about that exactly is 'wrong?'

Agreed.

What about books written before or without knowledge of scripture which contain truths? What about books that cover truths not specifically discussed in scripture? See the point? You have to have an origin to these concepts, ideas, analogies, etc, whether they are good or bad they must have an origin.

If they are good, true or right then isn't their origin from God? If so, then how do they differ from that which is in scripture?

Same question with things that are wrong. If their origin is not from God then was God informed at some point of them? This is important because it addresses the origin of truth and lies...the origin of good and evil.

So, in what way does God give truth to those not writing by inspiration? And how is God 'sovereign' over the truth that author writes versus his 'sovereignty' over the truth written by Paul?

According to Calvinists he is sovereign over both writings, right? He did bring both of them to pass through means that could not have been otherwise, right? Bunyan's work was just as 'ordain to come to pass' as scripture was, right? Both express God's truth, right?

From what I can tell the only difference in God's 'control' over the two is that He deems one of them as 'authoritative/inspired' and not the other one. There is nothing really 'unique' about the way in which scripture is 'brought to pass,' is there?

Yet, there is creative material that must have an origin. Are their origins in God or Bunyan?

Yet, there are truths written in books by authors not privy to the scripture, thus this argument doesn't avoid the question posed.​

 

And what of apples? Do we give men or God credit for those?

Your red herring is cute, but only avoids the issue. If God sovereignly 'ordains whatsoever comes to pass' then he sovereignly ordained the Pilgrims Progress and the book of Romans to come to pass. You have yet to demonstrate how God is in anyway more or less sovereignly in control over the writing of either of these works. The only uniqueness of scripture's origin in a compatibilistic system is that God labels one with authority.

I think scripture is authoritative because it is uniquely under His direct control, whereas in your system everything is 'under his control,' thus the line is blurred as to what is 'of God' and what is not.

 

The person conceived AND the means by which each was conceived.

Jesus, God's only begotten, conceived by supernatural means, just like scripture, God's inspired words, conceived by supernatural means.

I was conceived by mom and dad just like everyone else. It's the uniqueness of the conception that sets Christ apart as being supernatural, just as the uniqueness of scriptures inspiration sets it apart. You have made my point. Its not JUST the product but the supernatural and unique means of its conception that sets it apart as being "of God." In a "deterministic" world view everything is equally 'of God' in that God is sovereignly bringing it to pass. He may use second causes (etc) to bring it about but it is still HIM doing it in such a way that it could not have been otherwise, so the outcome is the exact same.

Like I said, the only difference is the title He puts on it. You undermine the uniqueness of what is truly 'of God' in a world where you suppose everything is really 'of God.'

I'm not attempting to argue that you don't acknowledge scripture as authoritative. I understand that you do. My argument is that you undermine that claim of authority by suggesting that God is as 'in control' over 'this' as He is 'that.' You leave no room for anything being independent or separate from God in any real sense.

 

OldReg, Ben covered this issue in the other thread and that hasn't been sufficiently rebutted so as to give me cause to readdress it here, so I'll defer you to that post... Post 111

 

Aaron,

In your system God is in as much control over the authoring of Pilgrim's progress as He is the book of Romans because you believe in a deterministic world where God has ultimately brought all things to pass according to his foreordained or predetermined plan. Whether he does that through natural/secondary means matters little because the end result is the same...God determined it to be in such a manner that it could not be otherwise. He originated it, he ordained it, he brought it to pass through various means, period.

If you think putting a couple secondary dominos ('natural means') between God and the inevitable consequence somehow explains away this problem then that is probably more of a reflection of the bias you carry into this discussion, because I know if you were sitting on a jury you wouldn't be okay with a defendant making a similar case. Now, I know you think that is 'carnal' justice, but only if you can show Paul's intent in Romans 9 is actually meaning to say that God is just to harden a man from birth due to the Fall unto certain condemnation. Since Paul clearly believed in the potential salvation of those hardened there is no basis on which to draw such conclusions. The judicial hardening was unique to a specific group at a specific time for a specific redemptive purpose, yet Cals want to apply it to a universal concept of God's justice in dealing with the nature of all men from birth. It is simply unfounded.

 

Again, you ignored the fact that I acknowledged that you give scripture the label of authority, but that is its ONLY uniqueness because in your system he brings everything to pass.

Plus, in regard to this verse, even some 'reformed' scholars teach in agreement with non-Cals such as Adam Clarke, who wrote: "He hath permitted or suffered a lying spirit to influence thy prophets. Is it requisite again to remind the reader that the Scriptures repeatedly represent God as doing what, in the course of his providence, he only permits or suffers to be done? Nothing can be done in heaven, in earth, or hell, but either by his immediate energy or permission. This is the reason why the Scripture speaks as above."

"...we are not to imagine that God is ever put upon new counsels; or that he needs to consult with angels, or any creature, about the methods he should take; or that he is the author of sin, or the cause of any man's telling or believing a lie." - Matthew Henry

"That is, suffered the lying spirit to suggest a lie to them..." -Gill

So, you can see there is a clear distinction in what God ACTIVELY does (bringing scripture) and what he 'suffers' or 'permits' to occur. I don't believe determinists, such as yourself, really allow for that distinction for the reasons already mentioned.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. God's 'suffering' of such evil is one thing, but to even suggest that he is the origin or cause of it is absolutely unbiblical and heinous. But that is exactly where your doctrine leads because the rapist is only doing what God has pre-determined him to due. Granted, in your system, there may be a few dominoes (secondary causes) put in there to subtly suggest God isn't really culpable for the sin, but the end is the same and your dogma can't avoid that charge. It can only attempt to nuance it enough to distract, confuse or confound its hearers enough that they concede or walk away in disgust.

 

The nature and manner in which it came to pass is indeed significant in a world view where more than one agent is bringing things to pass. But in a world view such as yours, where God is the only agent bringing things to pass through secondary means (other agents He is causally determining), this distinction means nothing.

It's like debating if domino #2 or domino #3 triggered the gun to fire, instead of asking who set up the dominos and pushed the first one over. It's just a distraction from the real issue at hand.

And Gills too?

Again, is it necessary to remind you that the Scriptures repeatedly represent God as doing what, in the course of his providence, he only permits or suffers to be done?

So, if something originated apart from God, how did He come to know of it? How does something originate independently of God in your deterministic world view? Can you explain that?

 

Nice. But, you do realize the irony of your insult as it falls to the feet of the God who causally determined my blindness of such things, right?

Volumes of works have done just that and interestingly enough it is not met with near as much confusion and repulsion as the Calvinist's speculation as to how God causally determines all things.

This is only the case if one equates fore-knowledge with active participation, which I do not.

And in regard to divine foreknowledge there most certainly is an appeal to mystery. Any time one speculates as to how an infinite timeless being knows something BEFORE (a human linear concept) it happens and how that relates to causality, they are walking into mystery indeed. But I'm not the one speculating that prior knowledge of an action dictates determination of said action, you are. I'm simply saying its mysterious WITHOUT drawing such speculations.

 

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored, but nevertheless...

1. I'm not assuming culpability

2. If "foreknowledge" = "predetermination" why to both terms even exist, and why does scripture choose one and not the other in a given context? Is it your contention that they are meant to be synonymous?