Has God determined all things?

Very good point. You're echoing Augustine and Luther on the bondage of the will.

 

Wow, those are some bold words! You are putting a lot on the line there... Is the "inability to understand scripture" a type of 'shibboleth'? That sure would make things easier. Can you delineate what subjects and ideas are a necessary indicator of someone who trusts in your God and then also the subjects and ideas that are a necessary indicator of someone who doesn't trust in your God? Apprise us of this gnowledge that you have.

 

WITBOTL did a better job that I did of explaining how God determines all things while using man's individual choices, all without God being culpable for sin. Kudos.

 

Sounds like you'd affirm this?

Wow, this approach is the ultimate form of logical jiu jitsu! More people should use this! ;-) Did you come to this conclusion logically or was this direct revelation? So, you do not use logic to understand revellation?

I call Poe!

What if you disagree with another's understanding of what actually exists? Surely one shouldn't be expected to believe that something 'is the case' when it actually isn't? I don't mean to coercively use logic here... you are free to disagree.

 

Doesn't this cut both ways? If the semi-Pelagians on this board state that something is fact does that, indeed, make it so? The DoG should be held to that same standard as well. Just because we claim something is fact doesn't close down debate. On that I can whole heartedly agree.

 

I agree Herald (but I think it's not helpful to use the term 'semi-pelagian'). If I recall our previous conversations together I think we agreed that you and I could enjoy one another's company. However, we may have people on this board that are so convinced of their belief that it is no longer reasonable to call it such... their belief is instead a certainty. They derive their life, security and identity from the correctness of their beliefs. This is theological idolatry.

 

You are avoiding the issue and "begging the question". The Doctrines of Grace clearly teach that Faith in Jesus Christ is an essential part of Salvation. John 3:16 simply states this truth. It states nothing about the order of Salvation. You have been shown innumerable times that regeneration precedes faith: In the words of Jesus Christ Himself, John 3:3ff, and in the words of Jesus Christ as revealed to the Apostle Paul, Ephesians 2:1ff. Now look at John 3:16 from the KJV, Young's Literal, and Greens Literal. I believe they establish what Icon posted.

KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

YLT: for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

GLT: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

No it does't Winman! Repeating that endlessly does not make it any more true than the first time you said it!

Repeating that endlessly does not make it any more true than the first time you said it!

 

lol... well, no I wouldn't but it was well done and amusing if not representative.

no, I am far too embroiled in mediocrity to use the ultimate form of anything let alone jiu jitsu (or Kung Fu) You will note that I did not deny the usefulness of logic, just tried (perhaps poorly) to point out significant problems with trusting it or ascribing to it the same importance as revelation. The point being that revelation is perfect even if we are not, logic on the other hand as a human construction is inherently fallible. (isn't it?)

I call Poe on your calling Poe!!!! (I am saying this with a grin on my face) ;) ;) :)))

Look, I believe we should always challenge our understanding of "what is the case" and always weigh what we understand to be so against what we understand the scriptures to be saying. I don't have a lot of patience for the arrogance of absolute infallible rightness that many seem to express. We should also seek to properly understand the positions of those with whom we disagree. Nevertheless, I do not believe in relative truth or the prevailing philosophy of choosing from a smorgasbord of theological options the most palatable to our senses. Our responsibility is to study to understand the Word of God, pray that God will provide that understanding and then humbly thank HIM when and if he gives it to us. Where is there any place for pride and a haughty spirit in any of this? What any of us know we know by the grace of God and not through the bewilderingly exceptional machinations of our space age minds.

 

I agree; There can be no truth when they reject the Word. And rejection is exactly what is going on.
MB

 

So man makes choices according to the pre-determined “nature upon him” yet this is still defined as a “choice”? I fail to see you or anyone else here support such a conclusion that this is possible? Just saying so with a ("Nevertheless") doesn't make it true. Your statement has no validity to it no matter "what man's faultly Deterministic interpretations" it echoes!


“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.” ~ Benjamin

 

Witbotl, you are alright! I appreciate your humor. I don't think I disagree with anything you've said here, except your 're-Poe-ing' me! ;-). The thing about logic though is that God does expect us to use our minds in reasoning about the scriptures and communing with him and others, this makes sense and, what's more is that such is evident in revelation. I can agree with the idea that revelation trumps human logic. The task before us is to give a best effort at understanding what is revealed, and it is in this effort where we (people) find disagreement. It is reasoning and logic that we use to understand the revelation. You do trust in reasoning after all, don't you? Otherwise how could one even start to comprehend what is revealed, or that it IS revealed?

 

No, you attempt to redefine the word regeneration. The word regeneration means to be alive again. No one is alive again until all their sins are forgiven. Until a person is forgiven they are dead in trespasses and sins.

Yep, whosoever believes on or in Jesus will HAVE (following) life. Faith precedes regeneration, plain as day.

Again, everyone who is believing may HAVE (following) life. Again, scripture shows faith precedes regeneration.

You are refuting your own view. All scholars who translated the many versions of scripture all say that whosoever believes will HAVE life. All scholars show life as a result or effect of believing.

Yes, scripture clearly shows faith precedes and is the cause of regeneration. John 3:36 makes this absolutely clear.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jesus said the person who believes has life, but the person who believes not shall not see life. This is unmistakable, unless a person intentionally wrests the word of God. Jesus shows that it is necessary to believe to have life, any person who does not believe shall not see life.

And I could say the same to you, refusing to admit that all scripture shows faith preceding regeneration does not make you correct. You are the one who is wresting scripture, I accept scripture for what it simply and plainly says.

 

humble, certain posters can't get over their obsession with our identifying with the DoG. Other posters are enamored with the terms "fatalist" or "determinist" when used as a pejorative against others. When the tables are turned they reveal how thin their skin really is. Instead of a civil debate they mistake their sarcasm with intelligence. And so it goes. I posted my scriptural support for the position I hold to, but not one of them engaged in kind. I wonder why that is?

 

It is telling to see Herald use such a source after me saying this to him while referring to his "Calvinist/Hyper-Determinst Tactics Book":

I was tempted to deal with his ignorance on this issue and begin a thread on Prevenient Grace VS Semi-Pelagianism but he has already demonstrated his unethical and fallacious debate tactics in raising this red herring and attempting to form an Ad Hominem against his opponents as well as his unwillingness to stick to the topic of his own thread in doing so. Therefore, I have little doubt he would continue to use such unethical debate tactics if I were to do so and it would be an utter waste of time and effort.

On that note, I got to say it is good to see someone else here who readily recognizes these types of fallacious debate tactics being used on this board.:thumbs:

 

Absolutely. Calvinists and DoG must twist and wrest the word of God in a vain attempt to prove their false doctrine.

They know they are doing it, but they will never come clean, NEVER. There's not an honest one in the bunch.

 

Both sides have some questions that will remain unanswered in this life (and maybe in the life to come).

Those who hold to the free will position (humblethinker, in deference to you I am avoiding use of the "SM" label) are forced to accept a mystery. They cannot provide convincing biblical proof that man can make decisions independent from God either a) knowing about them ~or~ b) determining them. There is no one verse in the Bible that can support their premise. They must build their doctrine within a biblical framework that leads to a logical conclusion.

Those who hold the DoG must do similar. They must look at the breadth of scripture and build a logical case that answers the question of whether God foreknows without causing or foreknows and causes; all while allowing man to be a volitional creature.

Since both sides of the debate start with presuppositions it is unlikely views are going to be changed by an Internet debate. It takes thick skin to participate in this venue. The participants who pat themselves on the back, or who go so far as to even quote themselves, are not serious about the truth. I have more respect for the opponent who makes a biblical case based on a rational argument, and does so with respect. I have to check myself often in that regard as I am given to excesses of rhetoric. Others would be well served by doing the same.

 

humblethinker

.

While it is a serious topic and suitable for it's own thread...It needs to be brought forth upon occasion.

HT...Winman sounds like a reasonably nice person...he has over 8000 posts...he is not a novice. All of us have error in several ways as we are all learning and growing..Agreed???
If you go through the gospels...it is Jesus who identified the inability to understand Divine truth several times ....as a mark of the person not yet being saved.

These are bold words HT...but as you can see very important....

.

The way you word this sounds like it is dripping with contempt. I have no secret or hidden knowledge HT...no gnostic experiences.... I just have been around many christians from many backrounds.....I speak everyday with people about their soul.Without being able to see their heart[which only God can do] we can see their actions or here on BB their words.

Each of us has some truth and some error..that is a given. And of course we know all that are on BB have professed to be christians...so they must be saved;)

Winman has called me a false teacher,and basically not a believer. It does not bother me..
His lack of solid theology does not allow for him to state otherwise.
I think we should be free to express whatever opinion we have. I many times have pointed out that the word of God cautions against false brethren, false professors.
There are many who do not believe the same as I and others do, but they at least make a reasonable attempt to reason from scripture.

Winman posts many scriptures.....but almost 90% without any comprehension,and yet he insists he is correct.

jn 3:16 is a case in point....What i posted is completely accurate.Others in times past have done the same thing, and he just brushes it off.
This indicates he is unteachable.

On other posts....he offers ideas that are so far away from truth they should not even be read. he has in other places been confronted many times by others....he just writes us off and repeats the errors. romans 7;9 eccl7;29...he posts over and over...refusing to learn. That is the flesh, a natural understanding...but not of the Spirit.
Unless he is joking....to my view he is in serious trouble.If you look he comes in to disrupt the thread, not to really contribute...just resist.

it is not one area...but virtually on every point.

HT.....if I am speaking with a stranger who says these things, I present the gospel to them because it is apparent that they do not grasp any area of teaching.They need the Spirit.

here on the BB..everyone is saved so we cannot say that to them...even if they say the same thing unsaved people say.

HT......if I deny the trinity in my next post...would you call me out on it? or just say some politically correct statement. A few have posted in here in times past doing that very thing...eventually they were weeded out.


Have you ever spoken with a RC who uses the words grace..and yet describe a works gospel???? They deny biblical grace, use the word grace, but substitute works for grace...do you see it HT. To explain away the scripture is to not have the scripture.

Winman can accuse me of being false or a non believer,or a parrot, all he wants to. I will not "report this at all". He cannot help but think that way,unless God shows him otherwise.

The belief in God's grace that has been made known to me, i see held by millions in church history. Millions believe in the book of mormon...but that is why there is a judgement day.God is the judge...I am okay with it.

By the way...I believe open theism is a theological third rail,and I believe I have urged you and others to use extreme caution, if not to just turn from that error.It will lead to apostasy from the truth if embraced.

 

A simple comparison logical truth and Biblical truth refutes the above.

If God fore determined all things, including the choices of man, then man cannot be held responsible for his sins as the Determinist claims.

“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.” ~ Benjamin

The Bible spells out God’s attributes and says all of God’s ways are judgment in Truth:

Deu 32:4
(4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

God cannot make a rock so big that even He cannot lift it as well He cannot an untruth be a truth.

The Determinist attempts to separate reason from truth!

 

The whole Bible just screams freewill and your so blind you can't or should I say won't see it. Simply because you are so full of your self. Not once is there even the slightest hint of God determining any mans Salvation until that man begins to trust in Christ. Then you sit there a boast as if you know what your talking about. LOL! I've discovered that Calvinist do not read the Bible as a whole they read it by a verse here and one from over there then they place the two together and hope they can fool others into believing what they say. Just like your founder Augustine you are still so Catholic you can't stand it. Living on the crumbs that fall from the Popes table.

Then you must not have much respect for yourself or your fellow Calvinist.
MB

 

According to you! Defend your position biblically.

You have the gall and audacity to quote yourself?! What are you, a credible source that should shut up all dissenting opinions?

Deuteronomy 32:4 speaks to God's holiness, that His character cannot be impugned. You are so consumed with your opposition to the DoG that you are willing to bend, twist, and contour scripture to fit your presuppositions.