Calvinism is a combination of Theological Fatalism and Determinism, or is it?

[HeirofSalvation]

Boettner....although named Lorraine...is a man:laugh::laugh:https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...bO-eaiAKv3oDoDw&ved=0CCMQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=653

hey, I did not name him:laugh:

Now that is too funny....Are his parents murder victims?

You are correct in that what I see clearly ...simply put is fatalism is impersonal and random.

I see what you mean...and what the responses mean...but my position is expressed above in my last edit....it essentially boils down to....What difference does it make?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

if people are set to resist it does not matter who or what is posted.

Do you not quite realize that anyone else might just as easily and randomly accuse you of being "set to resist"? You do realize that right? You do understand that you are no more immune to such an accusation than those of whom you regularly imply that. Do you think that all things that you post are completely air-tight or something? Seriously, why do you always talk like that?

 

[Iconoclast]

Now that is too funny....Are his parents murder victims?

You are correct in that what I see clearly ...simply put is fatalism is impersonal and random.

I see what you mean...and what the responses mean...but my position is expressed above in my last edit....it essentially boils down to....What difference does it make?

I think that if someone wants to understand the doctrines of grace[as calvinists describe them]

the big difference is- when someone makes the caricature,ie..it makes all men robots...it stops that person from actually considering the scriptures properly. I have seen that posted many times on BB.

or the ....that would make God a monster...posts

They think that God does not deal with us in loving kindness.Jesus weeping over Jerusalem....

I believe calvinists see both the goodness and severity of God.
Those who object.....keep accusing God. They cover it up, but they are asking the same questions that paul answers in romans 9

That alone should be a major clue, that they are not connecting the scriptural dots...so to speak:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you not quite realize that anyone else might just as easily and randomly accuse you of being "set to resist"? You do realize that right? You do understand that you are no more immune to such an accusation than those of whom you regularly imply that. Do you think that all things that you post are completely air-tight or something? Seriously, why do you always talk like that?

HOS,
I am not concerned about accusers because I know the scriptures I post about are God given and correct. I mostly post when I know what i am posting is air tight. Some could explain it clearer, and with more tact....but it's like this.

I had no preconceived agenda when I first came to scripture. I was completely hostile to all of it. God got a hold of me, and gave me a new heart.
It was such a radical change, i am the last person alive that would have ever believed the scripture...but God had mercy on me. No one can tell me that I was seeking God....he sought me 100%.
I did not know any theological terms, i did not know what the numbers of a bible verse meant.....like heb 6:17.....i read for months and was drawn to faith, and actually was shocked at the clarity with which Paul spoke of predestination in Eph 1. I knew that it had to be so...just as it said.God who created everything had a plan that was certain to come to pass.
I just believed it...

if a JW seeks to deny Jesus deity...it is a non starter with me. he is in error.
If someone attempts to deny election , predestination and the atonement...the same thing....
I still have much to learn about it, but it is futile for someone to attempt to undo the verses in Hebrews, and John and romans and ephesians....it is everywhere.

 

[Iconoclast]

What we discuss in here is superficial most of the time for several reasons.

i f we had more of a grasp on the actual work of our Great High Priest most of this nonsense would cease.

years ago, and sometimes even now...i tried to find the best arguments against these positions...i found them and saw they were weak and fatally flawed. after awhile you do not look bach as much, you look forward to seeing the truth be victorious.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HOS,
I am not concerned about accusers because I know the scriptures I post about are God given and correct. I mostly post when I know what i am posting is air tight.

I am asking you why you then, choose to act as an accuser on a regular basis.....in the sense of always acting as though anyone who disagrees with Iconism, is one who "refuses" to accept truths.....or "resists" them. Anyone might just as easily regularly refer to you as "resisting" the "truths" they are debating with you. Truthfully, I think it weakens your posts. Everyone posts when they "know" that what they are posting is "air-tight".

 

[Winman]

Here's my over-all objection....and then I don't really care what Cals consider themselves....The insistence upon demonstrating that "Providence" and mind is at work in the Cal system as opposed to a mindless or necessitated "Fate" (from a "Pagan" perspective) is of no real existential signifigance to the end subject (namely a human) anyway. Regardless of whether their eternal "Fate" is necessitated by mindless forces, or whether, it is rather a mind which intentionally created them for the sole pleasure of torturing them in Hell is of no ultimate existential signifigance. The differences between the two may technically be correct, but the "obvious implications"----are that it doesn't really matter one whit anyway.

Yes, you can put a dress and lipstick on a pig, and it's still just a pig.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh look, a new pic of Winmans momma....how flattering, LOL!:laugh:

 

[Winman]

Oh look, a new pic of Winmans momma....how flattering, LOL!:laugh:

My mother passed away last October.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Oh look, a new pic of Winmans momma....how flattering, LOL!:laugh:

I know you were trying to be funny but that was unkind. An apology should be offered.

 

[Van]

It seem Calvinism embraces determinism but sees a distinction between fatalism and determinism. But both views embrace that the future as well as the past is and was fixed by powers beyond our comprehension.
So a Tulip by any other name would smell just as putrid.

Jesus said things happen by chance, so the idea of exhaustive determinism is both unbiblical and is based on rebellion against the Lord Jesus Christ.

Calvinism teaches whatsoever comes to pass was ordained (predestined) by God, so it is sort of a theistic fatalism. Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death, but this must be rewritten in the name of Calvinism to read, God sets death before some and life before the elect. Not how it reads.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It seem Calvinism embraces determinism but sees a distinction between fatalism and determinism. But both views embrace that the future as well as the past is and was fixed by powers beyond our comprehension.
So a Tulip by any other name would smell just as putrid.

Jesus said things happen by chance, so the idea of exhaustive determinism is both unbiblical and is based on rebellion against the Lord Jesus Christ.

Calvinism teaches whatsoever comes to pass was ordained (predestined) by God, so it is sort of a theistic fatalism. Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death, but this must be rewritten in the name of Calvinism to read, God sets death before some and life before the elect. Not how it reads.

I think the God of Israel may take issue with your perceptions of Him.

 

[OldRegular]

Calvinism is a combination of Theological Fatalism and Determinism, or is it?

Several times I've seen calvinists on this board deny that Calvinism is fatalistic or state that claims made against the theology does not reflect their belief but instead reflects fatalism. While this may be the case, I have not seen any explanation as such. If it is the case it would seem that it is in their interests to make the distinctions known, since, imo, it is on the minds of most that would considering the theology.

I'd like to offer this thread for them to make the case that Calvinism is not equal to or worse than Theological Fatalism. Regarding determinism, I don't think I've seen anyone deny that but, if there is a Calvinist that would make the case that it is not equal to or worse than determinism then that is welcome here as well. Hopefully we can come to a better understanding so that we can communicate efficiently, effectively and fairly.

So, Calvinism is a combination of Theological Fatalism and Determinism, or is it?

In my very humble opinion most humble "humble thinker" you are most unlearned about the Doctrines of Grace. Your obsession with determinism has blinded you to the truth and perhaps to the wonders of the GRACE of GOD; that is in my humble opinion of course.

Of course in my humble opinion most "humble one" your flirtation with Open Theism does not aid your understanding of the wonders of the GRACE of GOD!

 

[OldRegular]

It seem Calvinism embraces determinism but sees a distinction between fatalism and determinism. But both views embrace that the future as well as the past is and was fixed by powers beyond our comprehension.
So a Tulip by any other name would smell just as putrid.

In my humble opinion that putrid smell is only in your mind!

Jesus said things happen by chance, so the idea of exhaustive determinism is both unbiblical and is based on rebellion against the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the Scripture for that is?

Calvinism teaches whatsoever comes to pass was ordained (predestined) by God, so it is sort of a theistic fatalism. Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death, but this must be rewritten in the name of Calvinism to read, God sets death before some and life before the elect. Not how it reads.

You only read that part of Scripture that your bias approves.

But in my humble opinion whether you like it or not all those who are saved by the Grace of God are saved because they were chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. Ephesians Chapter 1!

Now I can't speak about those who are saved by their works!

 

[OldRegular]

[/B]
I think that if someone wants to understand the doctrines of grace[as calvinists describe them]

the big difference is- when someone makes the caricature,ie..it makes all men robots...it stops that person from actually considering the scriptures properly. I have seen that posted many times on BB.

or the ....that would make God a monster...posts

They think that God does not deal with us in loving kindness.Jesus weeping over Jerusalem....

I believe calvinists see both the goodness and severity of God.
Those who object.....keep accusing God. They cover it up, but they are asking the same questions that paul answers in romans 9

That alone should be a major clue, that they are not connecting the scriptural dots...so to speak:wavey:

You have pretty much summed up the full content of the responses of these unlearned brethern [in my opinion of course] to Scripture. It is really sad that these people who are saved by the glorious Grace of God; who chose them in eternity past [whether they believe or care] to salvation in Jesus Christ could think of Holy GOD, their redeemer, as a monster.

 

[OldRegular]

You said you wanted an answer and several were given. You have not offered any response . I do not think you can because the answers are very clear.

THose who flirt with Open Theism either think that Holy GOD has a hard time making up HIS mind or just hasn't figured it out yet!

 

[OldRegular]

Thomas Paul Simmons addressed this question in his 1935 book A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine. You can find it on line.

THat is a most excellent response Tom. If I am not mistaken Islam is a religion based on Fatalism!

 

[Winman]

I know you were trying to be funny but that was unkind. An apology should be offered.

That's OK, I knew he was just joking. But you gotta be careful when you insult someone's Mom, lots of fellas have gotten bloody noses that way.

My Mom was not only a nice person with many friends who was a lot of fun to be around, but she was exceptionally beautiful by any man's standard, even in her old age. She was a real looker!

I am OK with her passing, as she had trusted Jesus as her Saviour. When I would visit her, she especially loved to listen to bible teaching by Vernon McGee. I enjoyed those last times with her.

 

[Winman]

And the Scripture for that is?

I can't speak for Van, but I believe he is speaking of this verse;

Luk 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

Van is correct, Jesus said some things happen by chance. But this is not the only scripture to support this;

Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

So, there is scripture to support that some things happen by chance, even from Jesus himself.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I can't speak for Van, but I believe he is speaking of this verse;

Luk 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

Van is correct, Jesus said some things happen by chance. But this is not the only scripture to support this;

Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

So, there is scripture to support that some things happen by chance, even from Jesus himself.

Did Jesus mean chance as "as luck would have it" or "as God would have it"? I don't know, but some Greek study may be in order to understand what He meant here.

And you must read the Ecclesiastes statement in context. The entire book is predicated on a "life under the sun" which means "without God".