A Determinist Question

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Because that right was determined from the foundations of the world.

Jon that was a cheap shot. FYI, most Calvies do NOT agree with Absolute Predestination of all things. Just bluntly ask the question, "Are you an ABSOLUTER"? Put it in a poll if you wish....think that would clarify it.

 

[glfredrick]

Jon that was a cheap shot. FYI, most Calvies do NOT agree with Absolute Predestination of all things. Just bluntly ask the question, "Are you an ABSOLUTER"? Put it in a poll if you wish....think that would clarify it.

Agreed. This continued press to make Calvinism about God's fatalistic determination is a lie from hell!

Those who argue this way often cite "human logic" as the means by which Calvinism is derived, and yet they are using "human logic" to press Calvinism farther than either the Text of Scripture allows OR farther than Calvinists themselves carry their doctrine.

That does not absolve those who are intentionally "hyper-Calvinistic" which is itself a known heretical position. Hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism proper any more than Pelagianism is Arminianism proper. To say otherwise is to join the devil in his lies against God's people.

 

[percho]

Determinism?

Only if God wanted it so, presently, and even now I believe it to be, through allowance. Truss me the ends will justify the means.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Hasn't happened yet.

Lord, teach us to pray

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Hasn't happened yet.

A. You only have I known of all the families of the earth:
B. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

B hasn't happened yet, just a calling out of them a people for his name, so far.

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Ah determinism!

 

[Amy.G]

I thought you might want to cut out all the boloney and get to the nuts and bolts; Philosophical Logic/Critical Thinking 101, for example, using the "cardinal rule" of "argument identification" (meaning an argument must have two parts and one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true and this consists of two claims and a “therefore”) so the following should be elementary in regards to recognizing the Calvinist’ first claim (C) above as necessarily true:[/SIZE

In order to cut out the baloney we're going to have eliminate your posts. :smilewinkgrin:

I really have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. It seems you like to use verbage in an attempt to make yourself look smarter than the rest of us, but what you end up with is babbling with no real point. If you want to make a valid point, use scripture instead of your self invented little algebraic formulas that have no purpose other than to belittle those who disagree with you.

 

[glfredrick]

In order to cut out the baloney we're going to have eliminate your posts. :smilewinkgrin:

I really have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. It seems you like to use verbage in an attempt to make yourself look smarter than the rest of us, but what you end up with is babbling with no real point. If you want to make a valid point, use scripture instead of your self invented little algebraic formulas that have no purpose other than to belittle those who disagree with you.

Hang in there with my Amy... I'm working on a response to Benjamin, but I only get to hit the board in "sound bite" portions while at work.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Jon that was a cheap shot. FYI, most Calvies do NOT agree with Absolute Predestination of all things. Just bluntly ask the question, "Are you an ABSOLUTER"? Put it in a poll if you wish....think that would clarify it.

I meant my statement to glf more as a joke than anything else.

 

[Iconoclast]

In order to cut out the baloney we're going to have eliminate your posts. :smilewinkgrin:

I really have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. It seems you like to use verbage in an attempt to make yourself look smarter than the rest of us, but what you end up with is babbling with no real point. If you want to make a valid point, use scripture instead of your self invented little algebraic formulas that have no purpose other than to belittle those who disagree with you.

:applause::thumbsup::applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

Because that right was determined from the foundations of the world.

While he has no such right......his objection as posted was ordained as were all objections of those who oppose themselves:thumbsup:

 

[Benjamin]

Hey Benjamin....

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

Hey JBH…

This is how you came into this discussion:

Originally Posted by jbh28 http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1819118#post1819118
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.

Originally Posted by Benjamin http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1819122#post1819122
And your argument addresses the premise and refutes the simple logic laid out in my argument how?

Originally Posted by jbh28
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?

Since you came into this discussion with an Ad hominem and followed my response to that with a denial that my argument existed, along with asking your questions, and now, that you should no longer be able to claim not to see my opening argument/refutation of Glf’s argument would you like to explain the relevance of your questions you are repeating? Or is this yet another “childish” and disingenuous diversion tactic on your part to retract away from my original argument? That’s a rhetorical question, BTW. I am well aware of the tactics by people used on this board to keep an argument from staying on tract as demonstrated by my pointing out Glf’s multiple fallacies attempting to do so and have no interest in playing your type of little games because you “would rather post childish comments/or questions than engage in real debate designed to get to the truth in a matter”.

 

[Benjamin]

No...it has limited if any value....

I understand Icon, really I do, I can see where philosophical critical thinking techniques designed to draw the truth out of an argument would be no value to you whatsoever. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Benjamin]

In order to cut out the baloney we're going to have eliminate your posts. :smilewinkgrin:

I really have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. It seems you like to use verbage in an attempt to make yourself look smarter than the rest of us, but what you end up with is babbling with no real point. If you want to make a valid point, use scripture instead of your self invented little algebraic formulas that have no purpose other than to belittle those who disagree with you.

As seen by the way you have now contributed to this discusion it appears you don't know the difference between arguing and a philosphical argument and understand its value any more than the rest of your "peanut gallery" around here. Sorry, but your statements really shows some ignorance in that you wouldn't value critical thinking skills, but it does shows you value coming into a discuss to throw AD Hominem. Anybody can do that; I'm not trying to show myself smarter, I'm practicing learning the age old developed skills, a science called Philosophy, one that Paul knew well BTW, designed to draw out the truth in words used to express ideas. If none of this makes any sense to you you might want to study it a bit instead of following your buddy, P4T's lead while you go about following the philosophically designed system of Calvinist.

 

[Amy.G]

As seen by the way you have now contributed to this discusion it appears you don't know the difference between arguing and a philosphical argument and understand its value any more than the rest of your "peanut gallery" around here. Sorry, but your statements really shows some ignorance in that you wouldn't value critical thinking skills, but it does shows you value coming into a discuss to throw AD Hominem. Anybody can do that; I'm not trying to show myself smarter, I'm practicing learning the age old developed skills, a science called Philosophy, one that Paul knew well BTW, designed to draw out the truth in words used to express ideas. If none of this makes any sense to you you might want to study it a bit instead of following your buddy, P4T's lead while you go about following the philosophically designed system of Calvinist.

Well I am hurt! NOT! :laugh:

You have still offered nothing to the discussion except complaining about others. Are we supposed to be arguing about arguing? That's all I get from your posts. But that's probably because I'm "ignorant" and "don't value critical thinking".

You have proven my point by calling me ignorant which means you're smarter. :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

As seen by the way you have now contributed to this discusion it appears you don't know the difference between arguing and a philosphical argument and understand its value any more than the rest of your "peanut gallery" around here. Sorry, but your statements really shows some ignorance in that you wouldn't value critical thinking skills, but it does shows you value coming into a discuss to throw AD Hominem. Anybody can do that; I'm not trying to show myself smarter, I'm practicing learning the age old developed skills, a science called Philosophy, one that Paul knew well BTW, designed to draw out the truth in words used to express ideas. If none of this makes any sense to you you might want to study it a bit instead of following your buddy, P4T's lead while you go about following the philosophically designed system of Calvinist.

Benjamin... Just a snippet of my response, seeing as how you left the door wide open.

while you go about following the philosophically designed system of Calvinist

You argue in terms of logic and philosophy to make your point above (and not well, for that matter) and yet you want the other side of the argument as well -- that Calvinists use logic and philosophy to argue their points.

Self-refuting is the term... You loose for you cannot argue your point without using the same issues you accuse the other side of using.

 

[Benjamin]

BTW, Amy, if you can stop thinking about ways to attack me for a minute, and will focus on the "real" (true) argument for a sec. :smilewinkgrin: What is your answer to whether or not you agree with "Determinism" as simply laid out to confirm a "truth" and cut out the boloney?

I thought you might want to cut out all the boloney and get to the nuts and bolts; Philosophical Logic/Critical Thinking 101, for example, using the "cardinal rule" of "argument identification" (meaning an argument must have two parts and one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true and this consists of two claims and a “therefore”) so the following should be elementary in regards to recognizing the Calvinist’ first claim (C) above as necessarily true:

(C) = God determines all things, same as God is absolutely sovereign (i.e. 'in complete control over all things...including men's choices')

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) = “ANYTHING”

Determinism = (T)

That would be a categorized claim that is said to be true (T), philosophically speaking, that is.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin... Just a snippet of my response, seeing as how you left the door wide open.



You argue in terms of logic and philosophy to make your point above (and not well, for that matter) and yet you want the other side of the argument as well -- that Calvinists use logic and philosophy to argue their points.

Self-refuting is the term... You loose for you cannot argue your point without using the same issues you accuse the other side of using.

A (true) logical argument lays at your feet and what does the opponent engage in, rhetorical accusations of you, you, you. That would be attacking opponent instead of the argument, which is blowing in the wind, apparently unnoticed (designed to cutting out all this boloney :smilewinkgrin and what is offered adds nothing to a philosphical argument at hand but a another good example of more fallacy and a demonstration of your (true) motives in being here if you were to (truly) understand these principles.

P.S> Glf, I've asked you (who speaks of logic) to engage in a logical discussion and you have done nothing but continue to draw pesonal conflicts into the argument which continues to distract from it and to which is a major point I've been making here that these "tactics" do not get to the truths in the original premises, they are simply something that you and your "peanut gallery" like to engage in. I can throw out rhetoric with you all day long, but I tire of it and it really does have its problems especially if one understands the differences between the two types of argument and really do value the purpose of philosophy.

 

[jbh28]

Since you came into this discussion with an Ad hominem

I came into the discussion on page 2 with this same question.

I had no ad hominem. An ad hominem is when I attack you personally as a point to say you were wrong because of something bad about you. If I say you have a bad attitude and thus you are wrong because of that. THat would be an ad hominem. I did no such thing.


I read your comments and you were not being kind by any stretch of the imagination. Now you want to play the victim game. no one is buying it. It's very telling that you won't answer my question.

Here it is again if you want to answer it.

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

 

[Benjamin]

You have proven my point by calling me ignorant which means you're smarter. :laugh:

I'd love to sit and break down that reasoning with you and see where your claim in this matter rests concerning the truth. :laugh: It would probably be fun. But, alas, in doing so I only let distractions continue all the more and it is not in my priority to engage in the same type of arguing as you which is always neverending compared to the type which goals are to get down to the truth. I get tired of that kind of "fun" especially when it focuses on a person rather than a subject and a circle instead of straight line.

 

[Benjamin]

I had no ad hominem. An ad hominem is when I attack you personally

You wouldn't know an ad hominem any better than a strawman, or recognize the fallacy of injecting a red herring in an argument if it jumped up and bit your nose off! :laugh:

 

[jbh28]

You wouldn't know an ad hominem any better than a strawman, or recognize the fallacy of injecting a red herring in an argument if it jumped up and bit your nose off! :laugh:

Areyou going to answer the question?

 

[Amy.G]

BTW, Amy, if you can stop thinking about ways to attack me for a minute, and will focus on the "real" (true) argument for a sec. :smilewinkgrin: What is your answer to whether or not you agree with "Determinism" as simply laid out to confirm a "truth" and cut out the boloney?

You're trying to reduce God to an equation that you can understand and it's not going to work. If you want to discuss scripture I will be happy to, but I'm not going to play your game.