On another note.... aint it neizz when JF uses a PC & a keyboard!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does anything we do matter?
- Thread starter Winman
- Start date
- Status
On another note.... aint it neizz when JF uses a PC & a keyboard!
what, no love for ole I phone?
Yea, I know, I was mostly speaking from memory of the past when I could eat anything I wanted to. I do take a weekend every 2-3 weeks or so and splurge, and grits for breakfast and cornbread & soup beans for supper are often two of my indulgences. Chili over spaghetti (with the cornbread) is another indulgence I love. Otherwise, my diet is mostly meat and greens and salads and other low carb stuff...I've gotten into fermented foods this year too.
Yes it does, and yes they do.
Ware says "God did it. Satan did it. One action- two wills."
That is compatabailism and it is historic and mainstream Calvinism- it is what I have been saying all along and it is proof that you are not familiar with mainstream or historic Calvinism.
Your whole "divide and conquer" straegy is based almost SOLELY on your misrepresentation of my words, "God DID IT."
But those are the EXACT words of Bruce Ware and other mainstream Calvinists as I have proven multiple times.
Period. End of discussion. You lose. Take your lumps and move on, Skandelon.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Where does Edwards and the Arminian divines say this, because the question was are they all in agreement.
I'm not trying to divine and conquer. I'm trying to show you that God may allow it done without being the direct or immediate cause and some may take that as God "doing" it permissively without specifically saying that, which at times you appear to acknowledge...you just don't do so with any consistency. I believe when most scholars (like Ware possibly) use these terms in debates they may not go into detail as to their specific intent unless pressed, and then he would explain it more in-depth. That is why a written explanation serves a better purpose than a spoken presentation. So, "IT" in his mind could be "permissively decreed the sin" but to someone else it might be mean something different, which is why you have discussion and ask for clarification.
Plus, as I've explain from the beginning of our discussion, non-Cals don't argue that God NEVER intervenes to casually determine a desired outcome. He does actively participate to ensure certain events take place according to his Sovereign purpose, as would be the case with the crucifixion or the inspiration of scripture. Using these unique and clearly divinely inspired and appointed circumstances as proof texts that God likewise intervenes in everyday circumstances such as the evil intent of a crazy lunatic like Dahmer undermines the uniquely divine nature of such sacred events. It makes these sacred events commonplace rather than uniquely "of God."
In other words, it makes the inspiration of scripture on the same plan as the motivation of Dahmer. Both are equally causally affected by God which makes one wonder why you would even speak of God's direct intervention in the inspiration of scripture, when according to Compatabilism everything ever done is a result of God's direct intervention. What separates that which is OF GOD from that which is not?
Where did you prove they were the words of Edwards and the Arminian divines?
Very mature.
Last edited by a moderator:
No one on Baptist board beeves or has argued that God causes all things equally.
I have explained clearly and ad nauseum to you that God takes an active role in good and a passive role in evil.
There is no WAY you could interpret that to mean I believe God causes all things equally.
But the fact of the matter is that JOHN CALVIN HIMSELF said IN NO UNCERTAIN terms that God is either the proximate or remote cause behind all things.
THAT IS MAINSTREAM HISTORIC CALVINISM- PERIOD. End of story.
It is what Calvin believed.
It is what Edwards believed.
It is what Pink believed.
It is what Piper and Sproul and Ware and other MAINSTREAM modern scholars believe.
They ALL believe that when it comes to the affliction of Joseph and Job and Jesus that GOD DID IT.
That is what I have been saying this whole time and in SPITE of your twisted efforts to turn other calvinists against me on this board the FACT is that it is MAINSTREAM Calvinism.
Try the Ipad or another pad....that IPhone sucks
NOT disagreeing with you here BUT...
Instead of you and Skan getting into the ole "how many scholars I can quote"
Why not quote the Inspired Apostles and jesus?
Don't think scholars from either side were inspired!
Could just be "fat fingers itus!"
Because that is not the nature of our discussion at this point.
We are talking about what is mainstream and what is not.
If we were talking at this point about what the Bible teaches concerning these things then we would be quoting the Apostles.
We have done this before.
But quoting the Apostles in a discussion about what is mainstream is like quoting Paul in a discussion about recipes for Lemon Cream Pie.
It would be silly.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
How is it "passive" when you insist that "God did it?" Do you just mean "God allowed it to be certainly done" when you say "God did it?"
Can you show me a quote where they say God does the DEED but its ok because his motive is pure? Because when I read them, I hear them saying God doesn't prevent but allows the deed so that it will certainly come about for His purpose. I don't ever here them say that God does it himself, as you have.
Meaning he permitted and thus did not hinder it so that it would certainly come about in order to accomplish His good purpose, right? Not, God actively and directly did it, right? I'm trying to help you out here bro, meet me half way...
I have shown you multiple times.
Did you watch the video of Bruce Ware I presented to you three or four different times?
I even included TIME STAMPS so you would not have to watch the WHOLE TEN MINUTE video.
Bruce Ware says numerous times and in no uncertain terms- GOD DID IT.
Edwards says it, as I have shown you.
I have quoted CALVIN to you SEVERAL times speaking of proximate and remote causes concerning evil.
God doing a thing REMOTELY is God doing it but doing it passively and by secondary causes.
This is mainstream Calvinism.
This is what historic Calvinism has believed.
It is EVEN clear in the Westminster Confession that NOTHING happens by "BARE PERMISSION."
NOTHING COULD BE CLEARER.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I did listen to Ware's presentation and I found it interesting that he points to the redemption through Christ's crucifixion and to the inspiration of scripture as proofs that God ALWAYS works in this manner to bring about His desired outcome.
At the end he appears to think he has the libertarians by the throat when he declares that for God to have divinly inspired scripture under our system he must have just gotten "lucky." Laughter and applause follow as the speaker and apparently many in the audience reveal their own lack of knowledge regarding what libertarians actually believe on this subject.
What Bruce failed to recognize is that Libertarians don't deny that God does at times throughout history intervene to effectuate His desired outcome. And that He may do so through causally determined means such as a Compatabilist might describe (i.e. the use of appointed circumstances, sinful agents, second causes and the like). But those are unique examples of God's positive agency as he actively intervenes to DO something. That is what uniquely makes the scripture "divinely inspired" after all. If God causally determines all things in like manner then what is "divine" about the inspiration of scripture? How is scripture effectuated by God any differently than other Christian books if indeed God has actively determined all things in like manner? Such a view only undermines the uniqueness of God's ACTIVE work and inspiration.
You make the same error as your mentor, Luke. When the example of Dahmer was raised you pointed back to the Cross as being "the worse sin of all time" in hopes that if you can somehow prove God to be the "doer" of the deed in that case, then it would justify His being the "doer" of the deed in every case, even the most heinous ones, such as Dahmers.
So, while Libertarians might agree that God DID actively intervene to ensure the crucifixion of his Son (through second causes as a Compatibist would describe) in order to bring about the redemption of mankind, that in no way proves or even implies He likewise actively intervenes to ensure the molestation of a five year old girl for no more apparent reason than to gratify the sick lusts of a murdering heathen.
THIS is why I press you to carefully choose your words and explain your intent. It is most certainly justifiable for God to actively intervene to ensure redemption (while doing so through second causes etc to ensure his holiness isn't compromised), but to PRESUME that justifies and proves that God likewise brings about every sinful deed in a similar manner is baseless and completely unbiblical. God doesn't even TEMPT men to sin, yet your system has God not only casually determining the tempter, but actively determining the nature of the one tempted so that when he sins he could not willingly do otherwise. That is where you err.
At the end he appears to think he has the libertarians by the throat when he declares that for God to have divinly inspired scripture under our system he must have just gotten "lucky." Laughter and applause follow as the speaker and apparently many in the audience reveal their own lack of knowledge regarding what libertarians actually believe on this subject.
What Bruce failed to recognize is that Libertarians don't deny that God does at times throughout history intervene to effectuate His desired outcome. And that He may do so through causally determined means such as a Compatabilist might describe (i.e. the use of appointed circumstances, sinful agents, second causes and the like). But those are unique examples of God's positive agency as he actively intervenes to DO something. That is what uniquely makes the scripture "divinely inspired" after all. If God causally determines all things in like manner then what is "divine" about the inspiration of scripture? How is scripture effectuated by God any differently than other Christian books if indeed God has actively determined all things in like manner? Such a view only undermines the uniqueness of God's ACTIVE work and inspiration.
You make the same error as your mentor, Luke. When the example of Dahmer was raised you pointed back to the Cross as being "the worse sin of all time" in hopes that if you can somehow prove God to be the "doer" of the deed in that case, then it would justify His being the "doer" of the deed in every case, even the most heinous ones, such as Dahmers.
So, while Libertarians might agree that God DID actively intervene to ensure the crucifixion of his Son (through second causes as a Compatibist would describe) in order to bring about the redemption of mankind, that in no way proves or even implies He likewise actively intervenes to ensure the molestation of a five year old girl for no more apparent reason than to gratify the sick lusts of a murdering heathen.
THIS is why I press you to carefully choose your words and explain your intent. It is most certainly justifiable for God to actively intervene to ensure redemption (while doing so through second causes etc to ensure his holiness isn't compromised), but to PRESUME that justifies and proves that God likewise brings about every sinful deed in a similar manner is baseless and completely unbiblical. God doesn't even TEMPT men to sin, yet your system has God not only casually determining the tempter, but actively determining the nature of the one tempted so that when he sins he could not willingly do otherwise. That is where you err.
- Status