Featured Has God determined all things?

Yes, to argue that finite creatures formed and fashioned by the mind of the Almighty Creator must be able to act outside the bounds of His mind and create ex nihilo themselves as a logical necessity is logically absurd.

 

God did not choose or ordain the old creation for life eternal it is fit for destruction, He ordained the new creation in Christ before the foundation of the world. That is why we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life. That is why we have to born again by His word, and become this new creation.

The tree of life was around before even the foundation of the world and God started it off with Israel the natural branches. They were cut out for unbelief, not because they were not chosen. God kept a remnant those who are meek and humble who will trust in the Lord and He included crafted in people who were not His people who heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed. He also started crafting back in to this tree the natural branches who did not continue in their unbelief.

This tree is what has been chosen before the foundation of the world that is why there is so many scripture pleading us to remain in Him and telling us to encourage one another not to turn away from the living God. Why because our Sovereign God takes no pleasure in the death of no one but rather them to repent and live. He made us who believe His messengers of the hope we have in Christ. Paul was talking to believer, those who are in Christ the new creation when He said you was chosen before the foundation of the world.

It is a shame those who turn away from what they have been ordained for like Satan.

Ezekiel 28 :
12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:...
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

 

Well said, brother Psalms109:31!

Psa. 109:31 For he stands at the right hand of the needy one, to save him from those who condemn his soul to death.

 

Good thing no one believes in your absurd straw man.

 

Iconoclast, I love you so much, brother! Your last sentence above gave me the most amusement I've had on this board in at least a few hours. Thanks, brother!

 

Actually AresMan makes a lot of sense just as usual!

 

The issue is not that knocking down a strawman makes sense, the issue is that it is irrelevant. Here is what we believe, God either causes or allows all things. This does not mean we can act outside the bounds of what God allows. Neither does it require that our choices are not influenced by our past experiences and conclusions. But our choices are not always dictated by our fallen condition, i.e the Compatibilism claim, nor by God always arranging circumstances whereby we choose according to His desires, the Molinism claim, and certainly not by God exhaustively determining what we will choose by the use of mysterious "secondary causes."

Scripture says things happen by chance, therefore God does not specifically arrange each and every circumstance we encounter to cause us to choose as He has predetermined. Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death, not death only for some and life only for others. Exhaustive determinism, no matter how much lipstick you smear on it, remains an unbiblical mistaken doctrine of men.

 

Oh but you are so wrong. I have shown the flaws of Calvinism here many times even to you. How ever you would believe the words of men rather than the word of God.

Wrong again.
The ball is in your court. Prove my statement to be wrong.
MB

 

I wouldn't want you feel I'm ignoring your "logic" Icon!

My philosophical expression presents a simple valid logical truth concerning “free will/volition” (synonyms, not semantic ambiguity) that even a child could understand as standing in truth.

So what is the alternative if one is to reject the simple logical truth of man possessing free will/volition?

Here is the simple “truths” of Determinism:

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 = man’s choices
X = evil

So is a man held responsible for his choices which were not freely made?

The Determinist’s (Iconoclast’s) answer to this question is “yes”.

Then the only conclusion one can come to concerning judgment is that man must be held responsible for his choices which were fore determined by God.

The Calvinist/Determinist claims that God has sovereignly (fore determined) that choice (X) and by necessity they insists that (X) = true, yet they attempt to place responsibility for that choice upon man.

There is not a bit of logic to the Calvinist conclusion that man is responsible for his sins if his choice is not freely made. So what will they argue to support their Determinist doctrines: A. That man being responsible is a mystery. B. They will deny logic as a way to determine the truth. C. They will begin with Ad Hominem and try to change the subject. D. They may offer scripture which they interpret as supporting their view of Divine sovereignty while avoiding the second part of the argument asking how man is held responsible, or how God is just to reassign what He is responsible for onto His creatures. But they will not offer a valid argument because there is none to defend their Deterministic position.

In a cult-like fashion, with what appears to be an Archie Bunker type of phikosophy many Determinists continue to use their invalid arguments for the “Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace”. These doctrines consist of a collection of force to fit scriptural interpretations to support the Systematic philosophies of Calvinism, which are centered on 5 points called the TULIP, all of which must indispensably hinge on these alleged Deterministic characteristics are being attributed to the Divine Nature of God, including evil, along with what they insist must be His sovereign controlling rule onto the world, regardless of the simple logically applied theological consequences in making out God to be a despot.


The Bible declares that all God’s ways are judgment, that He is a Just God and a God of Truth. (Deut 32:4)

The Determinists clearly deny these Truths of God’s Divine attributes as given in the scriptures according to the conclusions of their doctrines pertaining to creaturely freedom and responsibility as I have demonstrated above. In logically voiding the Goodness (Omnibenevolence) of God and attributing evil onto Him (The Hyper-Determinist often even openly admits that He believes God has evil in Him as part of His Nature) they yet have another problem: The doctrines of Calvinism/Determinism unavoidably logically lead into theological fatalism…See the “Problem of Evil”.

 

Believe it or not........Aresman didn't invent that strange idea out of whole cloth...some (presumably) semi-respectable Calvinist apologist, somewhere along the line, has actually argued that to make a volitional or libertarian free decision was to "create" something "ex-nihilo"...and Aresman seems to be repeating that argument. He has done it before, and he has not been seriously challenged on the notion, because the idea on its face seems to be (at least to me) neccessarily false.

I have heard that strange angle of argument before, not merely from Aresman, but not very often either. It's intitial source is hard to track down....I have been researching any possible responses to it, but, to date they seem to consist of being along the lines of:

"WHAT???"
"Since when is the making of a "choice" the "creation" of something "ex-nihilo"..........?????
Dunno, maybe he can go more in depth with what it is that makes him think that this is a valid objection. I have no idea what kind of thought process goes into an objection like this......But, I have actually heard this form of objection before:

Personally, I think the "Grounding Objection" to be at least reasonably valid...this one, is a unique one that I have rarely encountered, and it is usually not even responded to as far as I can tell.....
Where exactly would you start??? I have started trying to track the source and rejoinders to this idea, but the pickings are usually slim....I will post some links if I find any which:
1.) Provide some source for this objection
2.) Take this objection seriously
3.) Respond intelligently to it.


ARESMAN:

This verbiage here is wrong on two counts:
1.) No one thinks it "MUST" be the case, as you state, but merely that God has apparently chosen Incidentally to create man thus: We must be careful not to randomly hurl around terms like: "Must", "Neccessarry", or the like......Those are entirely different arguments...
2.) NOTHING.....in any classic or generally respected non-Calvinist Theology or Paradigm, escapes, or is not generally perfectly in line with the Mind of God as explained by Calvinism....It is simply false that majority accepted view argue, as you say:

Molinism.........probably obsesses over it, more than ANY major paradigm.........but are you arguing that "Classical Arminianism" strays from it??? No, the disagreements have little to do with God's MIND at all!

 

Strawman; it has been pointed out to Van many times that Molinism strictly argues for Libertarian Free Will and not exhaustive determinism "according to God’s desires" which are that all men would be saved, yet, Van continues to repeat this disingenuous misrepresentation based on that he cannot get past his Open Theist belief that LFW and Divine Foreknowledge are mutually exclusive and he believes otherwise it equals Determinism thereby he rejects God’s Omniscient attributes.

Van continues to ignore the consequences of Open Theist perception that leaving the "open" the ability of man to truly respond to the influences of God must envolve God not knowing whereby the Open Theist rejects Divine Foreknowledge. He cannot see any other possibilities, those goalposts of maintaining LFW and all of God's attributes are too high and far away for him.

Van shops for his lipstick at a store that only offers one color - Dark Open Theism.

 

That isn't......actually the Molinist Claim at all, but, you obviously don't know that. God simply KNOWS that they WILL choose as they do, in fact, choose.......THAT is the Molinist claim.
Any REAL Molinist...who understood a farthing of the idea knows full well that God might very well wish that a man's decision might be other than it were.........only, he happens to know it Won't.

You don't understand it. And That is an actual "straw-man"...Only, not an ingeniously contrived one......just one born of utter ignorance.
I am beginning to respect the intentional and ingeniously contrived dis-ingenuous straw-men that some Calvinist apologists might pose more than this utterlly STUPID thought that you are posing........At least a Calvinist who plays such a card is trying to sneakily work in a sideways objection to defend a false point...........But few of them would actually BELIEVE that that is what Molinism suggests....

Anyone, however, who would think that a Molinist maintains that God is arranging circumstances such that men will "CHOOSE" as GOD wants them to choose, is simply ignorant to an extreme.

Get this into your thick skull........Molinists think GOD WANTS men to make choices completely OTHER than what they actually make...DUUUUHHHHH. You see, that is what defines "Libertarian Free Will" you should look that idea up sometime....it's a dandy!!!!:thumbs::jesus:
Only someone capable of making a statement like this would fail to grasp that:

 

Glad to help out JB...:wavey::laugh::thumbs:

 

MB

Hello MB...I am sure I missed those posts:laugh:..as time permits I will review your old posts and see why we are not in agreement:wavey:

MB....many of these words of men are from gifted men who God has given to the church throughout time.They had the Same Spirit and bible as we do.
I believed the core of the teaching from the bible alone and still do.When I discovered the treasure of teaching available I began to sharpen and tighten up my understanding.

Mb when I post a quote from these words of men, go ahead and interact with it...after you read and look up the verses,,,let me know what you find!

I would rather discuss the truth and come to an agreement on what God has accomplished.:thumbs: I would like for you to see the truth on this.

 

Benjamin,

The biblical alternative is the fall into sin and death has bound mans will according to Jesus in jn 8.

A blind person might have all necessary parts of a sight system...iris, cornea, rods, cones,optic nerve,brain etc....but if they are damaged and not able to function properly...he can volitionally want to see but he will be bound by blindness unless the root cause is corrected.

You and others argue for "free will" which does not exist. Your self will cannot bring you to God...but we can be thankful that it is God who rescues His people.He sets them ...free to serve...but not free to sin. No one will be free to sin in heaven.
I am very glad it is how God has decreed it.

 

I am not saying one can come to God apart from His influences. I am saying we have the ability to truly respond to His loving influences or not, further I am saying that He judges us in truth according to our responses in love of the truths He gives us all (Rom 1:20) that He may give us grace according to our response through His judgment of it (Deut 32:4), which again only He can do…but I think you know this is the position of those who hold to creaturely volition as a truth already.

I find it sad to think that some come to believe through your determinist system that they may not be able to find it in themselves to respond to God’s loving influences of truth and thereby do not even have any responsibility to do so.

 

Now, you’ve got me concerned because maybe I’ve just been merely assuming that Van could understand what I’ve been trying to tell him about Molinist belief and his misrepresentation of it, since I’ve had to repeat it so many times to him, …regarding explaining Molinism holding to LFW while also going about explaining God’s desires when calling him on using this strawman.

I wasn’t figuring that he could possibly simply still be actually ignorant of Molinist thought; no I was thinking he was just being stubborn and ornery in repeating this strawman and thereby it was also disingenuous, but I now realize I may have only assumed he was basing it on his OT reasoning that there was no other way so kept pointing to that there was another way to think of it. Although, admittedly I was also beginning to wonder whether or not he actually knew what a strawman was and if he had considered that misrepresenting the opponent’s view to attack it was not an ethical way to debate.

I may have even complicated the matter for him with the mutually exclusive stuff being mixed in with it as to redirect his thinking so that he would consider/understand Molinist could believe differently than he kept repeating.

But my point is if he IS/WAS actually still just ignorant of Molinist belief I shouldn’t have been calling his misrepresentation “disingenuous” now that I see it in that light you have shed; so Van, if I was wrong on your motive for repeating this strawman, I'm truly sorry…

 

Benjamin

okay...this is progress....sometimes it sounds as if you are saying this, but we can agree here.

Here we do differ as you know...that being said...I do want you to think that I or other cals would neglect or minimize God's loving seeking of sinners in the message of the gospel.This is powerful and for sure a means that God uses in saving His people
In these debates the doctrinal points sometimes over -run the means that God uses.If you are sincere with a persons soul, and you are expressing God's love to sinners there will be times where you will of necessity use the very verses cals do to bring conviction to a lost soul.The sinner might sense your concern for his soul more than the doctrinal[or philosophical point [ you are making.

I do not believe God does anything according to our response in that He already knows and has purposed what He will do.The romans 1 passages are in reference to those in times past, noahs day, the tower of babel,etc.

The best I can do here....is....It might appear that way to some,so they believe it to be so,however further studying and thinking will show it is all on the side of God------which again only He can do---the results are that man repents, man believes, man exercises faith,....
I think it is all of grace and all of God. Man in his natural condition cannot submit, so when he does we can know that the Spirit of God has done the work behind the scenes.

That is why you fight against it:thumbsup:I believe it because I believe verses like this address it head on:
Jeremiah 10:23
O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

All of psalm 37 speaks this to believers:
23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord: and he delighteth in his way.

24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand.

 

I suggest you study the differences between Arminian theology and semi-pelagianism because I have no desire to deal with your ignorant determinist dogma nor spend the time dealing with your common Calvinist ploy here of making that accusation. Also note: that that I did not say your deterministic system did not exist, only that it is sad some feel they had to be forced to believe while being dragged into submission rather to than to freely respond to God's influences in love for Him. BTW, nothing I said would leave one to believe I trust in my righteousness as I clearly was referring to responding to His influences and recieving His grace for no other reason than belief/faith...a necessary condition the determinist openly admits they can't find within their own heart.

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.


Oh well, if they can't find God in their love of the truth through the influences He provides us within their heart I guess there is another way to respond with would be fear that there is indeed a God of judgment, but personally I wouldn't want to be in the boat with these guys (James 2:19-20) who also seem to proud to respond freely.