Has God determined all things?

[HeirofSalvation]

I understand that this board is dominated by semi-Pelagians. That's fine since semi-Pelagian theology dominates the Baptist scene in the United States and Canada. I state this since I am not expecting agreement or even understanding. I'm used to the "salmon swimming upstream" dynamic when it comes to positing the DoG on the Baptist Board That's not a complaint, it's a truthful statement. In fact, no one on this board who holds to the DoG should be complaining about how they are treated by the semi-Pelagians and Open Theists on this board. It is what it is. We are playing in their sandbox so to speak. The only thing we can do is defend what scripture teaches. This thread was started to discuss whether God determines all things, and consequently whether what God determines will come to pass. It is my opinion that the answer to these questions is "yes", that this is the teaching of scripture: Is. 46:9-10; Job 42:2; Is. 55:8-11; Rom. 9:11; Ps. 41:9, 69:25, 109:8; Eph. 1:4-5 et. al.

In the end the doctrine of God's sovereignty (which is what this is really about) is answered by scripture. I believe the Reformed interpretation of scripture on this issue is correct, or as correct as fallible creatures will ever be.

First.....I wanted to re-iterrate to you that I meant no dis-respect or insult to you personally, when I objected (on the previous thread) about the term "DoG".......That wasn't personal.....:flower: It's just the term I object to.

You are correct that "Semi-Pelagian" and "Arminian" or even "Pelagian" Theology......(Whatever you Calvinists claim we are to believe those terms mean) DOES dominate the "scene" in the US and Canada.......but it DOES NOT dominate boards like this one!!!

Whatever Calvies are....They are a VOCAL MINORITY!!! and kudos :thumbsup: to them for it....I wish Arminians were equally as well-heard for their numbers!!! They are a "silent" majority. Yes, most Churches and individuals are non-determinists....but on debate boards amongst active members...You guys are DECIDEDLY NOT much of a "Minority"..... You guys can't do two things at once:

1.) Lay claim to the status of a persecuted minority
2.) Lay claim to ownership of the word "Grace"......

Pick your rhetorical angle; and stick to it....

Herald.....it occurs to me that you probably are truly flummoxed about my apparent obsession with the term "Doctrines of Grace"........This is a link that explains why I abhor the term...and I think it to be fruitful to all who engage in such disscussions to consider it.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism

 

[Winman]

Winman,


Actually it does not,lol

16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.


You just like to be negative and resist truth...I understand but you have lost all credibility in that you have been answered over and over..and yet you trample the scripture under your feet.This is not a good thing to do.

No Bible scholars agee with your interpretation. All say that whoever believes will HAVE (following) life (regeneration). No scholar interprets John 3:16 to teach that whoever has life will believe.

This is how Calvinists butcher the scriptures. Iconclast is actually trying to say that John 3:16 says the exact OPPOSITE of what it truly says, and how all scholars interpret this verse.

KJB-For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Does this verse say whoever has life will believe? NOPE.

NIV- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,* that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Does the NIV say whoever has life will believe? NOPE.

ESV- "For God so loved the world,* that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life

Does the ESV say whoever has life will believe? NOPE.

NASB- "For God so loved the world, that He gave His *only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Does the NASB say that whoever has life will believe as Iconoclast says? NOPE.

No versions of scripture interpret John 3:16 the way Iconoclast does. Iconoclast interprets this verse in exact reverse of what all scholars say. All scholars interpret John 3:16 to say that whosoever believes will HAVE life. This life is regeneration.

You, nor any other Calvinist/DoG in history has EVER shown a single verse that teaches regeneration precedes faith. You cannot show such a verse, because it does not exist.

You must resort to twisting and wresting scripture in a vain attempt to make it agree with your false doctrine.

 

[Herald]

First.....I wanted to re-iterrate to you that I meant no dis-respect or insult to you personally, when I objected (on the previous thread) about the term "DoG".......That wasn't personal.....:flower: It's just the term I object to.

You are correct that "Semi-Pelagian" and "Arminian" or even "Pelagian" Theology......(Whatever you Calvinists claim we are to believe those terms mean) DOES dominate the "scene" in the US and Canada.......but it DOES NOT dominate boards like this one!!!

Whatever Calvies are....They are a VOCAL MINORITY!!! and kudos :thumbsup: to them for it....I wish Arminians were equally as well-heard for their numbers!!! They are a "silent" majority. Yes, most Churches and individuals are non-determinists....but on debate boards amongst active members...You guys are DECIDEDLY NOT much of a "Minority"..... You guys can't do two things at once:

1.) Lay claim to the status of a persecuted minority
2.) Lay claim to ownership of the word "Grace"......

Pick your rhetorical angle; and stick to it....

Herald.....it occurs to me that you probably are truly flummoxed about my apparent obsession with the term "Doctrines of Grace"........This is a link that explains why I abhor the term...and I think it to be fruitful to all who engage in such disscussions to consider it.
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism

Please understand this is not personal for me. I have nothing against those who disagree with me; even vehemently. Depending on the manner in which those who disagree me present their argument causes me to either take them seriously or simply dismiss them.

I'm not flummoxed by your obsession with the term "DoG", nor are the majority of those who believe as I do; we simply disregard it. I honestly am not concerned about how those who do not believe in the DoG label those who do. We view the term as a positive affirmation about what we believe, not a negative statement about others. How others accept what we call ourselves really doesn't concern us. This would be a problem if our motivation was to purposefully misrepresent what you believe, but that is not the case.

I disagree with you about the majority view on the Baptist Board. One either believes in monergism or synergism when it comes to justification; there is no middle ground. The synergist believes that the sinner is not completely fallen in all his faculties. Some synergists go so far as to deny original sin. Synergists may have disagreements as to explain it, but they share a similar belief that the sinner maintains some capacity to respond to the Gospel without God having to grant that ability. The monergist believes that man is completely fallen in all his faculties and does not not possess in himself the ability to exercise faith. That ability is granted by God, through the Holy Spirit, and allows the sinner to respond to the call of God unto salvation. Semi-Pelagianism, not Arminianism, is the theological system that best describes synergist belief.

The fact that the DoG occupies a minority position among Baptists, and on this board, is not a cause to claim persecution. No one here is claiming that. You are making an unwarranted assumption. All I did was state the facts. I don't feel persecuted. Yes, the DoG does get mischaracterized and maligned, but that is to be expected. I won't say that's "okay", but it is what it is.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Synergists may have disagreements as to explain it, but they share a similar belief that the sinner maintains some capacity to respond to the Gospel without God having to grant that ability. The monergist believes that man is completely fallen in all his faculties and does not not possess in himself the ability to exercise faith.

The part I bolded is absolutely, and unequivocally False about Classical Arminian Theology...........

NO ARMINIAN believes what I bolded...and yet, they are, in fact "synergists"....

Your further explanation of what "Monergism" is.........which I quote here:

The monergist believes that man is completely fallen in all his faculties and does not not possess in himself the ability to exercise faith.

Is ABSOLUTELY and UNRESERVEDLY a Confessionally believed and un-compromisable truth held by EVERY SINGLE "Classical Arminian" on this board, and anywhere else in the Universe.... That is what the Doctrine of "Prevenient Grace" comes from......

You are failing to distinguish the most fundamentally BASIC areas of disagreement between Calvinism, and those who oppose it.......

It is therefore, no wonder, that I should object to the idea that you have been convinced of determinism's claims NOT because of relevant argumentation, but are merely one who has similarly fallen prey to the dysphemism that is so prevalent in Determinist Philosophy that you don't distinguish truth from error...........NO....I Repeat....NO Arminian Believes what you just posted.

You were lied to about the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism.....

And it was an amalgam of Calvinists who lied to you about it........which is why I said they

"lyingly"

(My Words) call their Theology the "Doctrines of Grace"..........They worked out a system of mis-representation......and you have bought it hook, line and sinker. You have bought into it in the same fashion that every Obama voter has bought into a confussion of terms into sheer Communism. It is the same phenomenon........Most Cals today are Cals because every word with legitimate meaning has been "relativized"....Yes, Calvinists are the quintissential relativists of Christian Theology.......
That phenomenon, is created by the insistence of a repetition of certain terms, such that they lose real and definitive meaning.
"Fairness" = "Handi-capping"
"Rich"= "Self-Reliant"
"Middle-Class"= The well-fare dependent poor
"Progress" = Tearing-down and re-inventing
"Law" = "Majority opinion of men"
"Sovereignty" = "Meticulous Determination"
"Will" = "The capacity to make a 'volitional'?? 'choice' ? between option:
1:
OR, ALTERNATIVELY

option: 1OR, IF you "will" it.......

Option 1 !!!!!!!
Your post, with it's absolute FAILURE to understand even the real differences be tween "Synergism" and "Monergism" is absolute Proof of this.

80% of most "Calvinists" today wouldn't have even fallen prey to the notions they hold if it weren't their capacity to fall for the same trick that communists are using in this Country Politically today by inventing and repeating terms over and over without real qualification. You, sir, are a victim of it, and I am sorry for you.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

King James Bible:
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Icon:

Actually it does not,lol
16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

This is why no-one will debate "Scripture" with you, Icon...........
because you literally will re-write Scripture, without hesitation, when it dis-agrees with your pre-determined Philosophical assumptions...............

John 3:16........FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!
You just literally RE-WROTE John 3:16 in order to make it say what YOU want it to say.........
You Didn't: "Quote" Scripture.............
You literally Re-wrote it......

I am not surprised.....You are a Calvinist.......Your Philosophy comes first, your Theology comes second.......and the Scriptures themselves will be simply Re-written to state what you claim they should state.....

Icon is now more educated and informed than the amalgam of the translators of the King James Bible were.......
No fear, Icon has corrected their mis-translation of that verse.........

No-One in the last 100 years, Icon, can re-write Scripture in utter defiance of the genius of the Godly men who translated the KJV.......WHO, PRECISELY......do you REALLY think you are????

If you dislike Winman's posting of a Scripture, you re-write it, as you did here............
I will NEVER "Open Bible" with you, if THIS is your tactic.

 

[Herald]

HoS,

You're wrong.

John Hendryx articulates the differences between synergism and monergism quite eloquently:

This is the one point that monergism establishes and synergism in all its forms denies: namely, that sinners are impotent to lift a finger toward their own salvation, but that salvation, from first to last, whole and entire is of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory for ever; amen

Remember, divine election, by itself, has never saved anyone. It marks out certain individuals for salvation; it is God's "blueprint" of what he intends to do in time through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. God the Father elects, the Son redeems them, and the Spirit applies the work of Christ to the same. The Trinity works in harmony to bring about God's purposes of election... and He gathers them through the preaching of the gospel, the seed which the Spirit germinates and brings to life. Again, salvation is of the Lord.

Synergists teach that 'salvation depends on human will', but the Bible teaches that 'it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." (Rom 9:16) and that we "were born, not of...the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

Once the synergist injects free will into the equation he has fallen into the lie of semi-Pelagianism. Note I am not even mentioning Arminianism. The modern free will position has more in common with semi-Pelagianism than Arminianism.

In order to give this discussion better treatment it needs to incorporate the impact of the effectual call (which Henrdyx alludes to).

By the way, when you throw out a statistic such as "80% of all Calvinists..." without offering any support for your 80% claim then it's obvious you've lost the debate.

As for your real obsession with the the DoG, as I said in my last post, I am going to disregard your future comments on the topic.

 

[Benjamin]

The part I bolded is absolutely, and unequivocally False about Classical Arminian Theology...........

NO ARMINIAN believes what I bolded...and yet, they are, in fact "synergists"....

Your further explanation of what "Monergism" is.........which I quote here:

Is ABSOLUTELY and UNRESERVEDLY a Confessionally believed and un-compromisable truth held by EVERY SINGLE "Classical Arminian" on this board, and anywhere else in the Universe.... That is what the Doctrine of "Prevenient Grace" comes from......

You are failing to distinguish the most fundamentally BASIC areas of disagreement between Calvinism, and those who oppose it.......

It is therefore, no wonder, that I should object to the idea that you have been convinced of determinism's claims NOT because of relevant argumentation, but are merely one who has similarly fallen prey to the dysphemism that is so prevalent in Determinist Philosophy that you don't distinguish truth from error...........NO....I Repeat....NO Arminian Believes what you just posted.

You were lied to about the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism.....

And it was an amalgam of Calvinists who lied to you about it........which is why I said they (My Words) call their Theology the "Doctrines of Grace"..........They worked out a system of mis-representation......and you have bought it hook, line and sinker. You have bought into it in the same fashion that every Obama voter has bought into a confussion of terms into sheer Communism. It is the same phenomenon........Most Cals today are Cals because every word with legitimate meaning has been "relativized"....Yes, Calvinists are the quintissential relativists of Christian Theology.......
That phenomenon, is created by the insistence of a repetition of certain terms, such that they lose real and definitive meaning.
"Fairness" = "Handi-capping"
"Rich"= "Self-Reliant"
"Middle-Class"= The well-fare dependent poor
"Progress" = Tearing-down and re-inventing
"Law" = "Majority opinion of men"
"Sovereignty" = "Meticulous Determination"
"Will" = "The capacity to make a 'volitional'?? 'choice' ? between option:
1:
OR, ALTERNATIVELY

option: 1OR, IF you "will" it.......

Option 1 !!!!!!!
Your post, with it's absolute FAILURE to understand even the real differences be tween "Synergism" and "Monergism" is absolute Proof of this.

80% of most "Calvinists" today wouldn't have even fallen prey to the notions they hold if it weren't their capacity to fall for the same trick that communists are using in this Country Politically today by inventing and repeating terms over and over without real qualification. You, sir, are a victim of it, and I am sorry for you.

Wow! Got some blood out of that rabbit, didn't cha?! :laugh:

"quintissential relativists of Christian Theology" Like it! I hope you don't mind if I borrow that term? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[jonathan.borland]

I'm tired of this synergism/monergism false analogy. "Do you believe you have to exist for God to save you?" Answer: "Yes." Then you're a dang synergist doggonit!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HoS,

You're wrong.

John Hendryx articulates the differences between synergism and monergism quite eloquently:



Once the synergist injects free will into the equation he has fallen into the lie of semi-Pelagianism. Note I am not even mentioning Arminianism. The modern free will position has more in common with semi-Pelagianism than Arminianism.

In order to give this discussion better treatment it needs to incorporate the impact of the effectual call (which Henrdyx alludes to).


By the way, when you throw out a statistic such as "80% of all Calvinists..." without offering any support for your 80% claim then it's obvious you've lost the debate.

As for your real obsession with the the DoG, as I said in my last post, I am going to disregard your future comments on the topic.

O.K...........You do.......know who John Hendryx is, don't you???
Are you quoting him as a scholasitic and dis-engaged intellect on this topic?

JOHN HENDRYX...... I repeat....JOHN HENDRYX
Are you quoting "John Hendryx" to me?
John Hendryx.......The vaguely creepy (Child-molester-look-alike-Hendryx)

Of the Objectively Scholastic Website "Monergism.com"???
THAT Hendryx?????????

Are you insulting me on purpose?
Do you think I have never heard the bloviations of Hendryx????
Please answer this question in all honesty:

Do you un-equivocally believe that John Hendryx is perfectly objective and scholastically honest with all of his Theological descriptions of Soteriological debate???

Your citing Hendryx about this topic, is truly as meaningfull as if I were to cite Hitler about the value of Jews.....and I truly don't exaggerate. Hendrix is equally as objective about Soteriology as Goethe was about the "Final Solution".........
But Herman Goethe was at least intelligent.
Hendryx is simply stupid.

Guess what....I now know, without reservation, that you are similarly as informed (as I have submitted and demonstrated earlier) about the meaning of the word "Grace"............
as you are about the words:
"Synergism"
and
"Monergism"

You don't know what EITHER term means..........

and you have been tricked by the likes of Hendryx (of all people) into a definition of "Grace"......
I still don't call you dis-honest sir..........

I call John Hendryx dis-honest......and you ignorant or merely stupid for quoting him.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin

Want to cut to chase eh?

BTW, If you can't logically answer this question maybe I can "help you" to figure out why can't. :thumbs:

You know I do not like to invest a lot of time in this kind of discussion, but seeing as you are trying to help me....How can i resist..
133 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!:flower:

One thing at a time there Icon, and don't forget you wanted me not to ignore your "logic" and I answered you. 1) Are you "logically" what would be considered a Determinist?

No.As I have posted previously and Herald addressed this early on...determinism is a false philosophical idea that leads to fatalism...which all of us reject. You seem to want us to have to use a terminology that we reject out of hand.

I re-read some of this thread and when Herald made a very clear post...it was you who insisted that the biblical language that he used was "semantic ambiguity"??? Do you remember when you said this:

Please name the fallacy? Because the only fallacy I see being expressed here is one involving that you prefer to use semantic ambiguity as in God did not “determine” all things, He “ordained” them, or He “decreed” them, or “God “causes all things” to happen for His own reasons.” And you go on to say to God’s “determinations” have been made in eternity but they happen in time citing Eph 1:11.

Do I have to point out the obvious here? Herald uses biblical terminolgy, which you call ambiguous semantics. Do you want to really understand the teaching? You cannot confuse the terms and how they are used biblically.
For example you and others constantly abuse foreknowledge. It is used biblically of persons...not events or actions most everytime.

That Is why I said I would remain quiet if you addressed Herald biblically.

Then we can begin to look at the conseqences of involved with Determinist and where they lead, okay?

Well let's see what a "logical" discussion has brought us to:

Now we will see what it leads you to...not us...

Determinism, logically simple as 1,2,3:

No one here is a 'determinist"...so you in your terminolgy are creating the debate fallacy kmow as ///the Strawman:laugh:

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

Do you mean like in acts 2;23?

Well, first, seems to me I’ve demonstrated the conclusion is Iconoclast logically believes that God determined all things. Yes, I think that would define "Determinism.

Again you think this...I deny it and your whole syllogism.I do not see the Apostles in Acts 15 making syllogisms, but rather quoting scripture.

So having been spelled this out logically the question remains:

Your logic is off.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I'm tired of this synergism/monergism false analogy. "Do you believe you have to exist for God to save you?" Answer: "Yes." Then you're a dang synergist doggonit!

LOL!!!!!!! I JUST READ this...But, it's also SO TRUE!!!

Calvinists must either maintain that God saves those who simply do not exist......... OR.......
They MUST maintain that God is forced to rely on SOMETHING about an individual man in order to save him.....

Even if it is the fact of his own existence. Nice argument :laugh:
Not Flawless....but, nice. :thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

King James Bible:
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Icon:

Actually it does not,lol
16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.


John 3:16........FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!
You just literally RE-WROTE John 3:16 in order to make it say what YOU want it to say.........
You Didn't: "Quote" Scripture.............
You literally Re-wrote it......



No-One in the last 100 years, Icon, can re-write Scripture in utter defiance of the genius of the Godly men who translated the KJV.......WHO, PRECISELY......do you REALLY think you are????

If you dislike Winman's posting of a Scripture, you re-write it, as you did here............
I will NEVER "Open Bible" with you, if THIS is your tactic.

Hos....for you...I quoted from Youngs Literal translation, so maybe you would like to retract your stupid post. I did not re-write anything at all, here are some more men who actually know what the verses say..you can read it or remain ignorant; You and others with an aversion to the truth will post without looking into the matter[I found these within 5 minutes of reading your latest futile attack]....If you do not like the different interlinear translations ...maybe buy an amplified bible for christmas...or better yet the message.maybe you will like that rather than the truth:laugh::wavey:
ylt...

15 that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,

16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation

Add My Comments on John 3:16 Blogs Online 3:16 Οὕτως "unto-the-one-this" γὰρ "therefore" ἠγάπησεν "it-excessed-off-unto," ὁ "the-one" θεὸς "a-Deity," τὸν "to-the-one" κόσμον "to-a-configuration," ὥστε "as-also" τὸν "to-the-one" υἱὸν "to-a-Son" τὸν "to-the-one" μονογενῆ "to-alone-kindreded" ἔδωκεν, "it-gave," ἵνα "so" πᾶς "all" ὁ "the-one" πιστεύων "trusting-of" εἰς "into" αὐτὸν "to-it" μὴ "lest" ἀπόληται "it-might-have-had-destructed-off," ἀλλὰ "other" ἔχῃ "it-might-hold" ζωὴν "to-a-lifing" αἰώνιον. "to-aged-belonged."

[
ONLY-generated
only-begotten
edwken
edOken
G1325
vi Aor Act 3 Sg
He-GIVES
ina
hina
G2443
Conj
THAT
pas
pas
G3956
a_ Nom Sg m
EVERY
o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE
pisteuwn
pisteuOn
G4100
vp Pres Act Nom Sg m
one-BELIEVING
one-believing
eis
eis
G1519
Prep
INTO
auton
auton
G846
pp Acc Sg m
Him
mh
mE
G3361
Part Neg
NO
apolhtai
apolEtai
G622
vs 2Aor Mid 3 Sg
SHOULD-BE-beING-destroyED
should-be-perishing
all
all
G235
Conj
but
ech
echE
G2192
vs Pres Act 3 Sg
MAY-BE-HAVING
zwhn
zOEn
G2222
n_ Acc Sg f
LIFE

[
Conj
3956 [e]
pas
πᾶς
everyone
Adj-NMS
3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
who
Art-NMS
4100 [e]
pisteuōn
πιστεύων
believes
V-PPA-NMS
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
on

3. Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT) - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten [or, unique] Son, so that every [one] believing [or, trusting] in Him shall not perish, _but_ shall be having eternal life!
The Analytical-Literal Translation is, as the name implies, a very literal translation of the original Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Majority Text. It also includes aids within the text to help readers better understand the text. The new ALT is the first New Testament version to be based on the second edition of Byzantine Majority Greek Text.

Sorry to confuse you with the facts,,,but go ahead and dream on.:love2:

I am not surprised.....You are a Calvinist.......Your Philosophy comes first, your Theology comes second.......and the Scriptures themselves will be simply Re-written to state what you claim they should state.....

Icon is now more educated and informed than the amalgam of the translators of the King James Bible were.......
No fear, Icon has corrected their mis-translation of that verse.........

The scripture always puts the work of God first, not man as you and winman and the others do.You have falsely accused me of re-writing or twisting scripture which is a lie. Not a problem...I have come to expect such.

No-One in the last 100 years, Icon, can re-write Scripture in utter defiance of the genius of the Godly men who translated the KJV.......WHO, PRECISELY......do you REALLY think you are????

I am a sinner saved by grace. I re-write nothing but learn from men who know what the scripture actually says before boasting in ignorance as you have.maybe you can delete your foul post before anyone see's this stupidity.

This is why no-one will debate "Scripture" with you, Icon...........
because you literally will re-write Scripture, without hesitation, when it dis-agrees with your pre-determined Philosophical assumptions...............

No..wrong again..you cannot discuss the scripture so you divert to other things....this post is as foolish as winmans. Maybe it made you feel better to get it out ,like pus from an infection...go ahead ....enjoy yourself.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin

No.As I have posted previously and Herald addressed this early on...determinism is a false philosophical idea that leads to fatalism...which all of us reject. You seem to want us to have to use a terminology that we reject out of hand.

You rejecting it doesn't make it false.

I re-read some of this thread and when Herald made a very clear post...it was you who insisted that the biblical language that he used was "semantic ambiguity"??? Do you remember when you said this:

Yes, and proved my point quite well.

No one here is a 'determinist"...so you in your terminolgy are creating the debate fallacy kmow as ///the Strawman:laugh:

Nice try, but I haven't misrepresented your view one iota.

Your logic is off.

Uh-huh I fail to see you logically prove it though.

 

[Winman]

Hos....for you...I quoted from Youngs Literal translation, so maybe you would like to retract your stupid post. I did not re-write anything at all, here are some more men who actually know what the verses says..you can read it or remain ignorant; You and others with an aversion to the truth will post without looking into the matter[I found these within 5 minutes of reading your latest futile attack]....If you do not like the different interlinear translations ...maybe buy an amplified bible for christmas...or better yet the message.maybe you will like that rather than the truth:laugh::wavey:
ylt...


Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation

uion
huion
G5207
n_ Acc Sg m
SON
autou
autou
G846
pp Gen Sg m
OF-Him
ton
ton
G3588
t_ Acc Sg m
THE
monogenh
monogenE
G3439
a_ Acc Sg m
ONLY-generated
only-begotten
edwken
edOken
G1325
vi Aor Act 3 Sg
He-GIVES
ina
hina
G2443
Conj
THAT
pas
pas
G3956
a_ Nom Sg m
EVERY
o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE
pisteuwn
pisteuOn
G4100
vp Pres Act Nom Sg m
one-BELIEVING
one-believing
eis
eis
G1519
Prep
INTO
auton
auton
G846
pp Acc Sg m
Him
mh
mE
G3361
Part Neg
NO
apolhtai
apolEtai
G622
vs 2Aor Mid 3 Sg
SHOULD-BE-beING-destroyED
should-be-perishing
all
all
G235
Conj
but
ech
echE
G2192
vs Pres Act 3 Sg
MAY-BE-HAVING
zwhn
zOEn
G2222
n_ Acc Sg f
LIFE

[
Conj
3956 [e]
pas
πᾶς
everyone
Adj-NMS
3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
who
Art-NMS
4100 [e]
pisteuōn
πιστεύων
believes
V-PPA-NMS
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
on


Sorry to confuse you with the facts,,,but go ahead and dream on.:love2:

I knew you were quoting Young's Literal in your first post, but you twisted and wrested what Young said. Young in no way says that John 3:16 says that whosoever has life will believe. Young did not say that no matter how much you desire it to be so. Young's interpretation agreed with all the other versions I showed that says whoever believes will HAVE life.

YLT- for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Young interpreted this verse to say that every one who is believing may HAVE life. Believing is shown as the cause, life is shown as the effect of that believing. This clearly shows faith preceding regeneration.

You are simply wresting scripture, no scholar agrees with you.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

"quintissential relativists of Christian Theology" Like it! I hope you don't mind if I borrow that term? :smilewinkgrin:

Not at all sir......not at all...:thumbsup:

Heck, If the oponent can literally re-write John 3:16 to their liking..........Why Not?

 

[Winman]

Not at all sir......not at all...:thumbsup:

Heck, If the oponent can literally re-write John 3:16 to their liking..........Why Not?

Oh yeah, they use nothing but dishonest tactics. Iconoclast simply refuses to be called a determinist, even if he logically is one. Childish and dishonest, but they will use anything to win.

Iconoclast simply wrests scripture to mean what he desires it to mean, even if all translators of all versions of scripture completely disagree with him.

These are those false teachers scripture warns about.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hos....for you...I quoted from Youngs Literal translation, so maybe you would like to retract your stupid post. I did not re-write anything at all, here are some more men who actually know what the verses say..you can read it or remain ignorant; You and others with an aversion to the truth will post without looking into the matter[I found these within 5 minutes of reading your latest futile attack]....If you do not like the different interlinear translations ...maybe buy an amplified bible for christmas...or better yet the message.maybe you will like that rather than the truth:laugh::wavey:
ylt...


Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation




[
ONLY-generated
only-begotten
edwken
edOken
G1325
vi Aor Act 3 Sg
He-GIVES
ina
hina
G2443
Conj
THAT
pas
pas
G3956
a_ Nom Sg m
EVERY
o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE
pisteuwn
pisteuOn
G4100
vp Pres Act Nom Sg m
one-BELIEVING
one-believing
eis
eis
G1519
Prep
INTO
auton
auton
G846
pp Acc Sg m
Him
mh
mE
G3361
Part Neg
NO
apolhtai
apolEtai
G622
vs 2Aor Mid 3 Sg
SHOULD-BE-beING-destroyED
should-be-perishing
all
all
G235
Conj
but
ech
echE
G2192
vs Pres Act 3 Sg
MAY-BE-HAVING
zwhn
zOEn
G2222
n_ Acc Sg f
LIFE

[
Conj
3956 [e]
pas
πᾶς
everyone
Adj-NMS
3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
who
Art-NMS
4100 [e]
pisteuōn
πιστεύων
believes
V-PPA-NMS
1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
on


Sorry to confuse you with the facts,,,but go ahead and dream on.:love2:



The scripture always puts the work of God first, not man as you and winman and the others do.You have falsely accused me of re-writing or twisting scripture which is a lie. Not a problem...I have come to expect such.


I am a sinner saved by grace. I re-write nothing but learn from men who know what the scripture actually says before boasting in ignorance as you have.maybe you can delete your foul post before anyone see's this stupidity.



No..wrong again..you cannot discuss the scripture so you divert to other things....this post is as foolish as winmans. Maybe it made you feel better to get it out ,like pus from an infection...go ahead ....enjoy yourself.

Item 1:

Westcott and Hort were little more than Satan worshippers.....but, don't worry your little head about that for now....
Item 2:
Young's is fine, but not flawless.......however, you are using Young's in order to literally re-write what the obvious intent as translated into plain English is........I have a "YOUNG'S" too Icon...........Actually, sorry, that is false......I have 3........and I know what you were quoting...

Your error is to use Young's in order to dis-regard the knowledge of Hundreds of Holy and Educated Servants of God who over HUNDREDS of years have universally KNOWN how "Young's" should be meaningfully translated into ENGLISH....

In case you didn't know it, Koine' isn't English, and their sentence structures aren't the same...........

You won't quote any respectable English version of John 3:16.......You are
MIS-USING a Young's...

Icon...it is not in God's perfect determinative will for you to worry about a "Young's"......Just read it in English.... God would Sovereignly have you NOT sweat how to use a Young's appropriately....

Just, work hard, and tithe......and leave the use of Young's to others who don't think that it should re-write 550 ish years of English Bible Translation....O.K???

You are defining why for Hundreds of years the R.C.C. didn't allow the Scriptures to be handed to the common man........................

I don't like it, I dis-agree with it...but.............
They had their reasons.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

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,

This claim has been made by Ben and HOS many times. And I have addressed the fact that the claim is false before. But let me go over it again. If God arranges all the circumstances we encounter such that we choose just as God desired by arranging the circumstances, then we have exhaustive determinism and our autonomous choices. However since God knew what we would choose, and then arranged the circumstance so that we would choose as arranged, God is responsible for our autonomous choice because He put us into a circumstance where He knew what we would choose.

Now if God desires all men to be saved, yet He arranges circumstances that preclude some from choosing life, scripture is broken. Thus God cannot arrange the circumstances whereby He determines our choice through manipulation of our life experience.

Therefore Molinism is a mistaken view.

[Van's] 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.

And I have also addressed this false claim too. LFW and Divine Foreknowledge are not mutually exclusive. If God arranges a circumstance where He knows we will freely choose one and only one option, then we have both factors working together. The actual issue is whether God actually uses this method to achieve His plan and purpose? My answer is no.

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.

Let me try to unwind this jumble.
Man can respond to the influences of God. If God puts man in a circumstance where God knows what the man will freely choose to do, then God has determined the outcome of that choice. Thus if God arranges circumstances where we choose to sin, and God knows with certainty we will choose to sin given those circumstances, then God is the author of that sin.

God knows in exactly what circumstances people will freely respond to His grace and places people in circumstances in which each one receives sufficient grace for salvation if only that person will avail himself of it. But God knows who will respond and who won't. So again the fault does not lie with God that some persons freely resist God's grace and every effort to save them; rather they like Israel fail to attain salvation because they refuse to have faith.

There you have it folks, God puts people in a circumstance where they could choose life, but God knows that in that circumstance they will choose death. This is not rocket science.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hos....for you...I quoted from Youngs Literal translation, so maybe you would like to retract your stupid post. I did not re-write anything at all, here are some more men who actually know what the verses says..you can read it or remain ignorant; You and others with an aversion to the truth will post without looking into the matter[I found these within 5 minutes of reading your latest futile attack]....If you do not like the different interlinear translations ...maybe buy an amplified bible for christmas...or better yet the message.maybe you will like that rather than the truth:laugh::wavey:
ylt...


Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation






I knew you were quoting Young's Literal in your first post, but you twisted and wrested what Young said. Young in no way says that John 3:16 says that whosoever has life will believe. Young did not say that no matter how much you desire it to be so. Young's interpretation agreed with all the other versions I showed that says whoever believes will HAVE life.

YLT- for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Young interpreted this verse to say that every one who is believing may HAVE life. Believing is shown as the cause, life is shown as the effect of that believing. This clearly shows faith preceding regeneration.

You are simply wresting scripture, no scholar agrees with you.

Winman.....the text says....everyone believing and continuing to believe.
I did not write it, or re-write it....just know what it says.

Winman........even if the text says whosoever believes ....it does not change one thing at all.

It does not say;
why they believe
when they believe
how they believed

Jn 3 answers the question...they believe at the very moment the Spirit gives life.....
jn 6 re-enforces it....

63 the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;


or here is the amplified version for Hos....
63 It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.


It is the Spirit who gives life[regeneration]///not the flesh believing....


Hos.....the text says what it says as it is written, but you have no point anyhow as if it did say whosoever...it does not change the verses offered here...

No new birth no heaven
No Spirit quickening...no whosoever wills

Your pathetic rant changes nothing at all.I quoted several different interlinears for you....I suppose they are all satan worshippers writing interlinears in their spare time....yes I see it clearly now. i have asked several greek teachers about it...they were all lying to me also??? A satanic conspiracy.....pull yourself together Hos.....put away your quintessential thesauras and learn some bible.

Monergism is also of the devil???? You have some insight there Hos...lol...and an active imagination also...too much molinism has made you made most noble Hos...haha...now you have invited the wrath of Van on yourself....that will teach you!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Oh yeah, they use nothing but dishonest tactics. Iconoclast simply refuses to be called a determinist, even if he logically is one. Childish and dishonest, but they will use anything to win.

Iconoclast simply wrests scripture to mean what he desires it to mean, even if all translators of all versions of scripture completely disagree with him.

These are those false teachers scripture warns about.

I knew what he was quoting when he posted it..........as I am sure you did as well.

Even if you take it from Young's perspective........Icon still doesn't realize that it DOESN'T SAY what HE THINKS it says.......but, he only appeals to it because he THINKS it states what he already assumes it states.

Carry on warrior for truth Icon....Carry on......