Featured A Determinist Question

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.

 

Because you are...

Have you broght anything to the table or have you just attempted to intimidate me with bluster? Thought so... :wavey:

 

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.

 

I must have missed your refutation...

Is this it?

I see no refutation, 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.

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

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.

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.

 

Sure he missed it...because you did not refute anything with this paragraph;

Because you do not understand what he or any other calvinist writer is saying...does not make it a refutation at all. it just shows you do not have a grip on the issue. This thought shows a confused and troubled soul...that cannot rest.

 

Exactly....he seems to be a troubled soul:thumbsup: You might wait awhile to see a positive statement here...

 

I've been waiting weeks... I've made the call before. All I get in return is more anger. Not becoming for one who believes he holds the truth. All he has to do is proclaim it, not SPIT it at us...

 

:laugh: 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 :laugh: but you might want to note any attack was on your argument.

 

Benjamin, what you said was in essence that what I said cannot be. 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.

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.

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.

 

Here is a paragraph or so by John Frame. from "Determinism, Chance and Freedom" that lays out the issues clearly:
He is dealing with libertarian free will.

 

Correct, T + F cannot = T. Your argument centered on T+F=T; GLF, not until:


Let me spell this out for you:

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.

 

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...

In any case, you argue FOR free will. How free? Can we will ANYTHING?

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?

Or, would you draw a line somewher and say, "this far and no farther" for free will. Where is your line?

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?

 

Some would rather post childish comments than engage in real conversation. He had nothing to refute but didn't want to admit you were right.

 

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

 

:laugh: 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 :laugh:

 

And your argument addresses the premise and refutes the simple logic laid out in my argument how?

 

I do not think that God "wills" something and it does NOT happen. Whatever HE wills it happens. I do think (my personal position) that things happen that were not "willed" by him. I realize that it sounds "confusing", but let me say if I can, I see a difference between "not willed" and "willed to not happen". I "semi" agree with my reformed colleagues here as to mankind's will not being completely free, being that mans will (freedom) is confined and must operate within the parameters of creation initialized by God. When I "speak" of God's Will, to me it means specific things and outcomes what WILL occur without exception, many (most) things occur in our existence (what color socks etc) occur without "necessarily" being willed by Him, although I am not saying that such "control" is beyond His capability.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

Thanks... When we consider the God of the Bible, we MUST admit what the self-revelation of the Bible tells us about God, i.e., that He is sovereign King and that no thing can come about unless or until He wills it -- whether by permissive will, in that He "allows" something to be, essentially, His absence, or whether by his declarative will He "mandates" that something will be. In either case, to set ANYTHING above God, including the will of man -- a created contingent being -- above God is to remove God from His throne, no matter how carefully or nuanced that removal may be.

 

What argument? This wasn't an argument. You never made an argument. How am I to reply to your argument if you never made one?

btw, I did see you didn't respond to the question that I laid out for you.

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