Harmony or Hostility?

JonC · Feb 1, 2023

DaveXR650 said:
Basically it would be like if it's determined that Bill is going to die at age 63 it will happen no matter what Bill does. And it's possible that the only reason is that "it is written". The cause may be nothing, or it may be from a god. But there is nothing you can do about it. That's fatalism.

In Calvinistic determinism it may be determined that Bill is going to die at age 63. Bill finds out that he has horrible cholesterol numbers at age 43 when he goes into the the ER for chest pain. He discovers he's a walking time bomb and decides to loose weight, eat right and get in shape. He does end up dying at age 63. But Bill's changes in diet and so on truly and actually had an effect on lengthening his life. His choices were real, the effects were real, and his will was changed by forces and motivations outside himself. But he was choosing to do what he did. That would be more like a form of Calvinistic determination. You might say so what, he died at 63 still. Yes, but in this case his actions were real, had real effects, and his death was in the perfect will of God himself. There is a difference.

The question for the non determinist is this. Does God have foreknowledge of events? If the event happens did God allow it to happen? Could it happen differently once God knew it was going to happen without being outside of God's foreknowledge? Then was it not determined to happen? What really is the difference? I don't care if someone wants to reject Calvinist determinism. It is not related in any way to salvation, thank God. But sometimes free willers act like Calvinists are idiots who have overlooked some obvious point of logic when we are all in the same boat with these difficulties. It is humbling.

Bottom line, the only philosophy that is completely within our human faculties is either a random future not determined at all or we go on complete determinism. Anything in between is going to be hard for us to grasp.

Well . .I believe I will die at the time and manner decreed by God, so that could be considered fatalism I suppose.

I prefer determinism because I view fatalism as discounting human action all together, while predestination (determinism) doesn't.

So fatalism says our choices do not matter. But determinism (predestination) says the opposite (it is because God controls the future that we have the courage to act). We see this in action with Paul's words to the sailors urging them to remain on the ship (Acts 27).

Martin Marprelate · Feb 1, 2023

JonC said:
Determinism is defined as human contingent events being predetermined outside of the human will.

A shorter definition (Merriam Websters) is simply a belief in predestination.

So maybe it depends on the Calvinist. The context would be salvation. If a Calvinist believes men are predestined to salvation, that their faith is a result of God's work rather than human will, then they hold to determinism.

Determinism is simply tge idea that events are determined before they occur rather than being contingent on the will of men.

While in no way, shape, or forum would I advocate Calvinism (I hold Jefferson's opinion of Calvinism, and he wasn't even a Christian), I do believe in determinism (in the simple definition).

How are you defining determinism?

I placed 'determinism' in inverted commas. It was a late addition to my post because I noticed that @George Antonios mentioned 'Gnostic' determinism in his post #17, and 'Gnostic' fatalism in post #28. I supposed therefore, perhaps wrongly, that he viewed the two as similar or identical.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of Determinism is as follows: Doctrine that human action is not free but determined by motives regarded as external forces acting on the will. If by 'external forces,' the dictionary means the Christian God, then I do not believe that Calvinism is Determinative.. The unconverted person freely rejects Christ (John 3:19; 5:40) not because God forces him to do so but because he has a wicked unbelieving heart. That will continue until such time as the Holy Spirit opens his heart to receive Him (John 6:44; Acts of the Apostles 16:14) but again, this is not forced but done freely.
I think this is the teaching of the 1689 Baptist Confession.
Of Free Will — The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
It is also the teaching of the 17th Century Particular Baptists and almost all of the Puritans.
I don't wish to get into a discussion about non-biblical words. If you think that is determinism, that's fine.

AustinC · Feb 1, 2023

George Antonios said:
You're right. Augustine would not be allowed to teach SS in most Baptist Churches. But Calvin was 100% into Augustine and got his Determinism from him, which he in turn ported over from his former Manichaean Gnosticism.

I would love to know what books you are reading that cause you to make this assertion.
Do you have primary source documents that show Calvin spent 100% of his study reading Augustine and Gnostic writings?

I question your actual study as it seems you may have followed a rabbit trail down a hole to Wonderland somewhere on internet sites filled with conspiracy.

So, a bibliography of the primary source documents and the quotes from Augustine and Gnostics which Calvin quoted would be helpful.

George Antonios · Feb 1, 2023

canadyjd said:
As I have already stated, the scriptures teach the doctrines of grace. Whoever embraced that truth throughout history was not teaching something new. They were teaching what Jesus thought and what His Apostles taught.

The only evidence I need is the scriptures themselves. It is very plainly stated.

Peace to you

You also stated that Calvinism has been the historic interpretation for 2,000 years.
It is THAT SPECIFIC claim which I'm telling you is false, as you well understand.
You're obfuscating the matter.

George Antonios · Feb 1, 2023

Martin Marprelate said:
The unconverted person freely rejects Christ (John 3:19; 5:40) not because God forces him to do so but because he has a wicked unbelieving heart.

This is classic obfuscation. You well know that it is God himself who initially "ordained" the fall and further so constituted fallen human nature as to render it incapable of accepting Christ. So the person does not "freely" reject Christ - he has been programmed to reject him.

Martin Marprelate said:
I don't wish to get into a discussion about non-biblical words. If you think that is determinism, that's fine.

So drop "sovereignty".

AustinC · Feb 1, 2023

JonC said:
Well . .I believe I will die at the time and manner decreed by God, so that could be considered fatalism I suppose.

I prefer determinism because I view fatalism as discounting human action all together, while predestination (determinism) doesn't.

So fatalism says our choices do not matter. But determinism (predestination) says the opposite (it is because God controls the future that we have the courage to act). We see this in action with Paul's words to the sailors urging them to remain on the ship (Acts 27).

I am unsure how anyone reads the letter of Revelation, and Revelation 5, which tells us of the scroll of destiny (also Ezekiel 2), and then states that God has not determined the events of all things.

You are correct, fatalism leaves everything to the laws of nature determining events with no care (that is the view of a true atheist) for any spiritual condition. God, however, speaks to us and determined to act on behalf of his creation when Adam corrupted the human condition and subsequently the earth as a whole.

I praise God that God is Sovereign and Supreme.

Van · Feb 1, 2023

Lets see:
1) My last post, number 14, answered a specific question from JohC. Since, then, 32 posts, the thread has been discussing that Calvinism is not 2000 years old, but the invention of Augustine which makes the doctrine man-made and about 1600 years old.

2) When a translation alters the text to create the appearance of harmony, it actually demonstrates hostility toward God's word.

3) Worse yet is to alter the text to create the appearance of harmony to man-made doctrine.

a. Change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from chosen for salvation to chosen to be saved.
b. Change James 2:5 from rich in faith to to be rich in faith.
c. Change Revelation 13:8 from from the foundation of the world to before the foundation of the world.
d. Change 1 Corinthians 2:14 from the things of the Spirit of God to the things that come from the Spirit of God.

canadyjd · Feb 1, 2023

George Antonios said:
You also stated that Calvinism has been the historic interpretation for 2,000 years.
It is THAT SPECIFIC claim which I'm telling you is false, as you well understand.
You're obfuscating the matter.

Ok, once again I’m going to correct you. This is what I said…

canadyjd said:
……
“Calvinism” appeared in the 16th century, during the reformation, but it reflected the truth held by Christians throughout history because it was based on the teachings of scripture.

My point is the early church had no problem understanding the concepts of “God’s grace’” in salvation. They are clear in the teachings of Jesus and reflected in the writings of the Apostles. Christians in the early church understood it just fine……

Peace to you

Please try to understand the distinction I am making. The “doctrines of grace” were taught by Jesus and the Apostles as recorded in scripture.

There have been Christians throughout history that have embraced those truths, beginning with the Apostles and those they taught in the early church.

That Calvin, and before him Jon Hus and others magnified those truths to contrast the doctrines of the Roman church does not mean that is when these truths were first recognized and articulated.

peace to you

Van · Feb 1, 2023

Returning to topic after off topic post #48:
Lets see:
1) My last post, number 14, answered a specific question from JohC. Since, then, 32 posts, the thread has been discussing that Calvinism is not 2000 years old, but the invention of Augustine which makes the doctrine man-made and about 1600 years old.

2) When a translation alters the text to create the appearance of harmony, it actually demonstrates hostility toward God's word.

3) Worse yet is to alter the text to create the appearance of harmony to man-made doctrine.

a. Change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from chosen for salvation to chosen to be saved.
b. Change James 2:5 from rich in faith to to be rich in faith.
c. Change Revelation 13:8 from from the foundation of the world to before the foundation of the world.
d. Change 1 Corinthians 2:14 from the things of the Spirit of God to the things that come from the Spirit of God.

Marooncat79 · Feb 1, 2023

Man is alienated from God

we actually meet God in His calling of us to salvation

Van · Feb 1, 2023

What is the context of the verses which include the phrase, the foundation of the world?
Matthew 13:35 refers to the time period since things were hidden from humanity.

Matthew 25:34 refers to the kingdom prepared for people since the founding of humanity.

Luke 11:50 refers to charging the shed blood of prophets against humanity since the founding of humanity.

John 17:24 refers to Christ existing before the founding of humanity.

Ephesians 1:4 refers to Christ being chosen before the founding of humanity to be God's redeemer and the corporate choice therefore of those His redeemer would redeem.

Hebrews 4:3 refers to God completing His words since the founding of humanity.

Hebrews 9:26 refers to the fact Christ would have needed to suffer many times since the founding of humanity if He was like the human High Priests, entering a temple made by human hands, but He was not, and offered Himself once for all.

1 Peter 1:20 refers to Christ being know as the Lamb of God before the founding of humanity.

Revelation 13:8 refers to names written in the Lamb's book of life since the founding of humanity.

Revelation 17:8 refers to names written in the Lamb's book of life since the founding of humanity.

Van · Feb 1, 2023

When a translation alters the text to create the appearance of harmony, it actually demonstrates hostility toward God's word. Worse yet is to alter the text to create the appearance of harmony to man-made doctrine.

a. Change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from chosen for salvation to chosen to be saved. This alteration is for the purpose of hiding our conditional election for salvation through faith in the truth.

b. Change James 2:5 from rich in faith to to be rich in faith. This alteration is for the purpose of hiding our conditional election for salvation on the basis of existing faith and love of God.

c. Change Revelation 13:8 from from the foundation of the world to before the foundation of the world. This alteration is for the purpose of hiding the fact our names were written since the founding of humanity, rather than as claimed by man-made doctrine before.

d. Change 1 Corinthians 2:14 from the things of the Spirit of God to the things that come from the Spirit of God. This alteration is for the purpose of making all thing from the Spirit not understandable to those not indwelt, but note the clever word play, as all things that come from the Spirit are now said to be included.

Martin Marprelate · Feb 1, 2023

George Antonios said:
This is classic obfuscation. You well know that it is God himself who initially "ordained" the fall and further so constituted fallen human nature as to render it incapable of accepting Christ. So the person does not "freely" reject Christ - he has been programmed to reject him.

If anyone's obfuscating, George, it's you. Either that, or your understanding of God is too small. We both agree (I suppose) that 'The Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men.....' (Daniel 4:25, NIV). but to be so He does not need to turn men into so many Stepford wives. Adam fell of his own free will, and today, 'men prefer darkness rather than light....' not because God has 'programmed' them that way, but '....because their deeds were evil' (John 3:19). God's rule does not negate man's free will, it simply orders it for His own high purposes. The best examples of this are probably Genesis 50:20 and Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28. There is no suggestion that either Joseph's brothers or Herod, Pilate etc. were forced against their wills to do their wicked deeds. If you think they were, show me chapter and verse. In Exodus, we are told that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but we are also told that his heart 'grew hard' (e.g. Exodus 7:13,22) and that he hardened his own heart (e.g. Exodus 8:15).

So drop "sovereignty".

Why? Just because it is not in your Bible? 'He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of Lords......' (1 Timothy 6:15, ESV). Just because the KJV has 'potentate'? I don't think so. The NKJV has 'potentate' in the text and 'sovereign' in the margin.

George Antonios · Feb 1, 2023

Martin Marprelate said:
If anyone's obfuscating, George, it's you. Either that, or your understanding of God is too small. We both agree (I suppose) that 'The Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men.....' (Daniel 4:25, NIV). but to be so He does not need to turn men into so many Stepford wives. Adam fell of his own free will, and today, 'men prefer darkness rather than light....' not because God has 'programmed' them that way, but '....because their deeds were evil' (John 3:19). God's rule does not negate man's free will, it simply orders it for His own high purposes. The best examples of this are probably Genesis 50:20 and Acts of the Apostles 4:27-28. There is no suggestion that either Joseph's brothers or Herod, Pilate etc. were forced against their wills to do their wicked deeds. If you think they were, show me chapter and verse. In Exodus, we are told that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but we are also told that his heart 'grew hard' (e.g. Exodus 7:13,22) and that he hardened his own heart (e.g. Exodus 8:15).

Why? Just because it is not in your Bible? 'He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of Lords......' (1 Timothy 6:15, ESV). Just because the KJV has 'potentate'? I don't think so. The NKJV has 'potentate' in the text and 'sovereign' in the margin.

We don't get to print our own Bibles with our own preferred words.

Are you denying that God ordained the fall?
Are you denying that God is the one who constituted the make-up of man's fallen nature?

Why are those issues never directly addressed?

canadyjd · Feb 1, 2023

Van said:
What is the context of the verses which include the phrase, the foundation of the world?
Matthew 13:35 refers to the time period since things were hidden from humanity.

Matthew 25:34 refers to the kingdom prepared for people since the founding of humanity.

Luke 11:50 refers to charging the shed blood of prophets against humanity since the founding of humanity.

John 17:24 refers to Christ existing before the founding of humanity.

Ephesians 1:4 refers to Christ being chosen before the founding of humanity to be God's redeemer and the corporate choice therefore of those His redeemer would redeem.

Hebrews 4:3 refers to God completing His words since the founding of humanity.

Hebrews 9:26 refers to the fact Christ would have needed to suffer many times since the founding of humanity if He was like the human High Priests, entering a temple made by human hands, but He was not, and offered Himself once for all.

1 Peter 1:20 refers to Christ being know as the Lamb of God before the founding of humanity.

Revelation 13:8 refers to names written in the Lamb's book of life since the founding of humanity.

Revelation 17:8 refers to names written in the Lamb's book of life since the founding of humanity.

You are doing the very thing you are railing against. You are changing “foundation of the world” to “foundation of humanity”.

Please reference any peer reviewed journal where that distinction is made.

peace to you

DaveXR650 · Feb 1, 2023

George Antonios said:
Are you denying that God ordained the fall?

Out of curiosity, do you believe that God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat of the tree? The reason I ask that is if you simply read the passages you could easily make a good case that just from scripture it looks like God did not know. Except we have the benefit of tons of other scriptures and even prophetic statements in that very section of scripture that indicate God not only knew but had a plan.

If you just concede that God had foreknowledge of the fall you have to ask yourself this question. Could God have done something about it to prevent it? Of course he could have. But he chose in his own wisdom not to. Did he really want Adam and Eve to fall then? You could honestly say no to that yet also say that God's overall wish and final decision was to allow it to happen and in THAT sense the fall was ordained by God and actually his final will. Now it's starting to look more and more as you go like God is sovereign and it's starting to look more and more like Calvinistic theology is true. (Even some types of Calvinistic theology that go further than I would like to go.)

The only logical answer to God ordaining the Fall is that it took God by surprise. If he knew then he allowed it. If he allowed it then at least in some sense it was indeed his will. Or else he was unable to stop it or it took him by surprise.

George Antonios · Feb 1, 2023

DaveXR650 said:
Out of curiosity, do you believe that God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat of the tree? The reason I ask that is if you simply read the passages you could easily make a good case that just from scripture it looks like God did not know. Except we have the benefit of tons of other scriptures and even prophetic statements in that very section of scripture that indicate God not only knew but had a plan.

If you just concede that God had foreknowledge of the fall you have to ask yourself this question. Could God have done something about it to prevent it? Of course he could have. But he chose in his own wisdom not to. Did he really want Adam and Eve to fall then? You could honestly say no to that yet also say that God's overall wish and final decision was to allow it to happen and in THAT sense the fall was ordained by God and actually his final will. Now it's starting to look more and more as you go like God is sovereign and it's starting to look more and more like Calvinistic theology is true. (Even some types of Calvinistic theology that go further than I would like to go.)

The only logical answer to God ordaining the Fall is that it took God by surprise. If he knew then he allowed it. If he allowed it then at least in some sense it was indeed his will. Or else he was unable to stop it or it took him by surprise.

A) Foreknowledge is not Predestination (which, by the way, is never unto salvation in the Bible)
B) The Permissive Will of God is not the Directive Will of God
C) The assumption in the Calvinist argument is that nothing that can happen which is not the will of God. But the argument plays on a semantic ambivalence of the word "will".
God does allow things to occur which are against his will (in the sense of desire). The fall was against his will (in the sense of desire). Of course, he could have stopped it, but in his overarching will he chose to allow his will (in the sense of desire) to be thwarted on certain matters of his own choosing (such as salvation VS damnation) in order to preserve our free will and therefore meaningfulness and also our responsibility, and in order to preserve the very nature of love.

Mat_23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Luk_13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

There. God himself tells you man's will wins out against God's will when it comes to salvation. Which is why he weeps!

The Calvinist brethren, fearing for God's soooovvvvvreignty, rush to his help by correcting him.

Job_13:8 Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?

Why, yes they will, Job, yes they will. Behold:

DaveXR650 · Feb 1, 2023

George Antonios said:
B) The Permissive Will of God is not the Directive Will of God
C) The assumption in the Calvinist argument is that nothing that can happen which is not the will of God. But the argument plays on a semantic ambivalence of the word "will".

I don't know how you can say "B" which I agree with, and then turn around and say "C" which is another way of saying "B". All the Calvinist argument says is that if God allows something to happen that he could have caused not to happen - then you can say he thought that allowing it to happen was a better choice than causing it not to happen. So it was his primary will - and the proof of that is that he let it happen even though he was able to do otherwise.

Now, I admit that some Calvinists, and maybe even Calvin himself I think do believe that everything is the minute directive will of God. That there is no "allowing" at all. And I don't agree with that either.

George Antonios · Feb 1, 2023

DaveXR650 said:
All the Calvinist argument says is that if God allows something to happen that he could have caused not to happen - then you can say he thought that allowing it to happen was a better choice than causing it not to happen. So it was his primary will - and the proof of that is that he let it happen even though he was able to do otherwise.

That is not the Calvinist argument. That's the non-Calvinist (Deterministic) argument.

DaveXR650 said:
Now, I admit that some Calvinists, and maybe even Calvin himself I think do believe that everything is the minute directive will of God. That there is no "allowing" at all.

That is indeed the Calvinist argument (aka exhaustive/minute universal divine determinism); for all, not just "some".

DaveXR650 · Feb 1, 2023

George Antonios said:
That is not the Calvinist argument. That's the non-Calvinist (Deterministic) argument.

"Whether God has decreed all things that ever came to pass or not, all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he is either willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them." Jonathan Edwards

I'd call him a Calvinist.

Harmony or Hostility?

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member