How about this for a proof text?

[HeirofSalvation]

I will engage you point by point...because I think it will be useful for lurkers, and those who are teachable....Not because I believe that you are teachable in any way.

Because it was predestined!:thumbs:

Yes, that is actually the point of the Op, and my arguments in support of it...glad you finally admit it.

You are entitled to your opinion, even those that are false! I assume you do understand the difference between a grasshopper and God!

Actually, your previous posts have granted me no assumption that you actually do believe that I understand the difference between grasshoppers and God...but, I am charmed to know that you have granted me at least that much as oppossed to your insulting and foul previous posts...Thanks....HOS can comprehend the difference betwixt God Almighty and a Grasshopper, heck, I think I am half-way to TRUTH:thumbs::thumbs:

You are showing your arrogance and your behind.

Not at all, actually. I have in no way been personal or insulting. I have engaged your tactics and I have disputed your tactics, but, I have not done so arrogantly nor presumptuously nor in any way which shows one's "behind" as you state so eloquently. I am debating you point-by-counter-point...and I am merely exposing what I maintain to be the flaws in your posts. It is your job to demonstrate me wrong. It is meaningless to hurl ill-conceived insults.

Just what makes you an expert in my theology?

If I even knew how to respond to that question, I might engage it.....That not-withstanding, I have actually already given you one possible source of information, inasmuch as I have already provided you with the option of appealling to any reasonable and knowledgeable Calvinists on this board who are familiar with my postings, and have suggested to you that you might ask them whether I have sufficient knowledge to debate the topic.

I have already anticipated and answered this question for you...You have refused to act upon it. That is not my fault. Anyone reading this thread can already see that.

You are exaggerating and your arrogance is showing again!

Please then pose the counter-argument that is relevant to the OP and my supporting propositions....WITBOTL has done so. You haven't.
Please supply the "arrogant" posts...and any "exagerrations" I have made and explain them...

As a liner note:
You have not previously accussed me of "arrogance" on this thread...but yet, you have stated that I was showing my arrogance "again"....
I would ask you to provide which particular statements of mine you consider "arrogant"...and then provide an explanation of how you maintain why I am being "arrogant" now.
I am not pretending that I don't know what I am talking about...nor am I pretending that I think that any of your responses are reasonable, relevant or well-concieved, but my pointing such things out is not "arrogant"; truth is...it's being a superior debater...and as this is, in fact, a "debate" thread.............

About all I have seen you post is meaningless ramblings about "determinism"!

And the sum-total of your argument has been to deny the use of the word "determinism"....I have granted you the favour of re-posting what I have argued by using terminology which you prefer....You have failed to address my argument even though I erased all "determinism" phraseology specially and only for you and your comfort.
You still have not addressed it, even though I re-stated my argument with the terms you prefer. Everyone reading this thread can already see that.

Schema? Is that the same as theology.

If you are asking me if they are synonyms...no they aren't.

No! I don't believe so.

Then, if you already knew the answer to that...why did you ask me?

You see how silly you look Hoss using such words.

No, I don't...please explain why without the mere assertion of insult. Nor pretending that my "Screen-name" shouldn't be understood to be an anagram meaning "Heir Of Salvation" instead of the term "HOSS"..which I (and many people reading this already know to be) an un-necessary insult semi-equivalent to calling me "boy".
Everyone reading these threads can also see through that as well BTW. You have purposely chosen to continuously call me "hoss"...which you seem to think clever...it isn't. It either suggests your inability to type (not plausible considering your usual capacity to correctly spell words) or it is an intentional and un-Christ-like implicit insult.
Again, anyone reading this thread, or others in which you have responded similarly to me can already see this.

I will have my amanuensis check the meaning of that word!

If that is meaningful to you...by all means, knock yourself out.

I never question the Grace of God.

Could you explain what exactly it means to "question" the "grace" of God???
As far as I know...no one here does. I have not "questioned" the "grace" of God....I only question your interpretation of how it is determined whether it is applied.

That is why I say you can believe what your free will allows you to believe.

What is why??? You haven't explained it. You haven't engaged the point of the OP directly...nor my supporting argument for it (even though I have already re-phrased it to your liking)...And everyone else reading this thread can already see that.
You never will either BTW

Hoss, rambling on about determinism is meaningless.

Fine...that is why I have already re-posted my initial response to your liking...not only do you pretend that the OP does not exist, but you also pretend that my supporting argument does not exist, and you are now pretending that I haven't already re-stated it to your liking and challenged you to respond to it directly. Again, you refuse to do so, and everyone can see that.

If you want to prove something to me

OR...I don't want to "prove" anything to YOU...that is not actually possible...I respond to you, because a counter-argument is valuable to anyone else reading the thread, or "lurkers". I am not so stupid as to think that it is ontologically possible to "prove" anything to you (this is largely because I think you confuse the term "prove" with: "force me to publically admit the superiority of your arguments vs. mine own").

In that sense, no one will ever "prove" anything to you. At no point, will any argument be sufficient regardless of whether it be 100% valid and sound...for you to re-think your beliefs.

I do not for one second believe that if a 100% both "valid" and "sound" argument were presented to you which un-equivocally dis-proved Calvinism that you would re-tool or re-think your committed beliefs. You are incorrigible in that particular respect. Do you HONESTLY think that I BELIEVE that you can POSSIBLY be "SWAYED" by argumentation???

No, sir, I don't think that. And I am absolutely correct in that knowledge.
I have presented my arguments...I have re-phrased my arguments to your particular pallette...and yet, the OP has not been addressed by you, nor my supporting argument. Oh, and everyone reading this thread already knows that.

My prediction:
It will remain that way. You will NOT directly address the argument presented, as you have refused to do so thus far. And everyone (other than you, to whom I am trying to "prove" nothing)...already knows that.

 

[Iconoclast]

I understand that logical truth is useless to you, but if you'd try follow the argument once in a while you might at least get the points.

Revealed truth is the only truth. If it seems logical to you or not....is not the issue.:thumbs:

God has revealed Himself and as orderly there is a lot of logic.It is biblical truth that comes together as one complete revelation.

What seems to many as offensive is any here who set aside the scripture as the only source of truth and then this vain attempt to set logic against the grace of God, against the goodness and knowledge of God.

It is not that we cannot "see" what you are trying to offer. We have already drank from the living water of the word and Spirit.

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Benjamin......use you mind and thoughts to fit into, and obey these verses instead of trying to attack us...try it...you might enjoy it.

 

[OldRegular]

I will engage you point by point...because I think it will be useful for lurkers, and those who are teachable....Not because I believe that you are teachable in any way.

Hoss,

Essentially all you post is endless semantics about "determinism".

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hoss,

Essentially all you post is endless semantics about "determinism".

I have re-phrased my initial argument to your liking which contains no reference to "determinism". Please respond to it, if you know how...this has been covered, and anyone reading this thread has noted your refusal to respond...

I have already told you to stop calling me "HOSS" your continued insistence on doing so is, well, easily understood by anyone reading this thread and noting your responses.

 

[Benjamin]

Revealed truth...

God has revealed Himself...

Yeah, yeah...I already know of "your perceptions" that God "specially revealed your interpretations to you" and therefore "You are Truth".

Therefore, in the interest of saving time I have prepared this statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me.

K?"

:wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by WITBOTL
Therefore, as an indeterminist you must also affirm that God cannot know certainly that which is actually uncertain (otherwise it wouldn't be uncertain, would it). Therefore, God cannot have actual knowledge of any event.

Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
UMMM.........I believe that God has perfect and absolute Omniscience and perfect knowledge of all future events. I think you are somewhat mis-lead to think that only determinative causation can guarantee that. What I believe is that certainty is NOT necessity....I think the error usually lies in confusing certainty with necessity. They are not the same.

Originally Posted by WITBOTL
I suppose your conception of God's foreknowledge is one of wishful and hopeful thinking rather as a denier of certainty.

Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
Actually....My concept of God's foreknowledge is possibly stronger than yours, as a Molinist (for instance) I believe that God actually possesses knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which never even obtain. A classical descriptor of Omniscience doesn't even demand that level of forknowledge!!!! It is actually QUITE POSSIBLE (believe it or not) that I believe that God possesses certain forms of knowledge that you might think are immpossible to know!!! It is quite possible that my schema posits
God's possession of knowledge which even yours denies is even possible...let alone whether he possesses it or not. (I do not know which particular form of Calvinism you espouse, and what specifics you would maintain.)

Originally Posted by WITBOTL
By denying the foreknowledge of God you also then deny His omniscience and instead hold to a concept that God only knows a lot of things, and more than you (!) but not really omni anything...

Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
God knows everything...including the future. In fact, I actually believe that God perfectly knows what would occur in scenarios which don't even obtain in the real Universe.....I believe in foreknowledge.
The gamut of available options are not limited to:
1.) Calvinism
2.) Open Theism

Well said HoS, your rebuttal was thorough and to the point. Your argument dealt with the presentation of what amounted to two false dilemmas (“foreknowledge or determinism” and then either (Calvinism or Open Thesim) being used as a counter argument very well.

:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, yeah...I already know of "your perceptions" that God "specially revealed your interpretations to you" and therefore "You are Truth".

Therefore, in the interest of saving time I have prepared this statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me.

K?"

Sadly....you show you are not quite up to it once again:laugh:

That is okay.You cannot do otherwise at this time.You reject all manner of christian teachers and theologians by calling me a parrot.That places you in the same group with Winman. You can call names and so on.You and others like you get exposed in here as your continual failure and inability to engage the scripture is becoming apparent to all.
Old Regular and many others are on to this tactic...which ironically you try to project on me and others who delight in God's law/word:thumbsup:

People post good threads and discussions which you do your semantic word games and syllogisms to avoid being exposed as void of edifying content. Re-read your own posts...

What can I conclude???

I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate.

[/B]

Okay...I accept your surrender and your open confession of it here. I think it is wise for you to take this course of action . That will be a better use of
your time than trying to call me names that have no effect whatsoever and frankly many people are tired of reading this weak nonsense:sleeping_2:

That will also free me to "parrot" vital truths that others who are not bound by this carnal philosophical demon might enjoy reading and studying out for themselves. You see...now we can both move on and do what we enjoy and remember;

Each one of us will give a personal account to God.:love2:

 

[Benjamin]

Sadly....you show you are not quite up to it once again:laugh:


Each one of us will give a personal account to God.

Addemdum to statement:

Therefore, in the interest of saving time I have prepared this statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me and also reminds me of the tactics used by cult members who commonly go about threatening that others aren't saved if they don't believe in your "special enlightenments".

K?"

 

[Iconoclast]

Well ......I will just "parrot" the apostle Paul as my addendum----


6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

I will rejoice in those things revealed to the confessing church.....you can enjoy WLC and Pinnock, and others who depart from sound teaching.You are free to do this...a free moral agent.....enjoy your philosophical maze .....begging questions,and assorted other things you concern yourself with.

 

[Benjamin]

Well ......I will just "parrot" the apostle Paul as my addendum----


6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

I will rejoice in those things revealed to the confessing church...

In the interest of saving time I have prepared this statement for you:

"Icon, to be frank, your “specially revealed” Archie Bunker scriptural interpretations which you eagerly await to begin presenting to “help me” understand “your” Deterministic system seems more in tune to the constant beat of the drums that comes from a person without a mind of his own to reason with or ability to change his beat. I’m fed up with your evasive and obnoxious debate tactics nor do I expect you to be rational or your values and goals within a debate to be of interest to me, so your efforts to push your agenda is best ignored by me. I’ve decided to no longer waste my time to attempt to have a rational and ethical debate with you which would only serve to frustrate me by trying to, so don’t bother wasting your time to try to engage me in a debate. These attempts will merely amount to nothing more than a rather comical reminder these ignorant and irritating broadcasts of yours resemble the sounds of an “annoying false teaching parrot” to me and also reminds me of the tactics used by cult members who commonly go about threatening with words or by use "your highlighted scriptural interpretations to suggest" any aren't saved if they don't believe in your "special enlightenments".

K?"

I think that about covers it...

 

[WITBOTL]

...

Thank you for your response HoS,

Sorry for the long delay in replying. Sometimes I feel like I'm one of those annoying drivers puttering along in the slow lane just clogging up traffic, while everyone else races on leaving me behind!

Well, yes it usually speaks of causes, but, strictly speaking, it doesn't HAVE to, only determination. The article I linked to (and essentially agree with) uses the term "determination" and agrees with it actually. Divine Determination Does not HAVE to speak of causation per se. Although it usually in the modern era is assummed to.

Understood. However, I have observed the usage of the term on this board and the argument that follows is referring to causal determinism . In fact I think you yourself qualified the term that way. Even the OP of this thread assumes a causal determinism. I realize that you believe that the mainstream or classical Calvinistic view (as opposed to the "hyper" variety) is inconsistent and I assume that the tactic of arguing against hyper-calvinism is a means of defeating classic mainstream Calvinism. If this tack is really about meaningfully communicating differences in such a way that both parties can be edified however, it is demonstrably failing because of where the debate degrades when we are essentially accused of believing God saves men against their will and there's nothing they can do about it (which most Calvinists do not believe). So, we run the cycle of ambiguous assertion and accusations of misrepresentation. Perhaps laying out what in your view is inconsistent with God decreeing all things but maintaining free agency in the means of accomplishing that decree. I would hope (though I am not sure) that we could have a useful and civil discussion and disagreement in this area.

Who determined that he would possess just such a depraved will which renders that decision of his necessary???

God decreed it (and so determined it permissively), Adam secured it causatively and my son confirmed it in the expression of his will.

Certain forms of DoG (and presumably whichever form you espouse) but certainly not all of them do. Hypers (for instance) believe in essentially no such thing as the exercise of the will of "free moral agents".

Are you suggesting that there are hyper-calvinists out there that deny moral responsibility?

I personally would actually agree with you that God "decrees all things in the eternal council of his will"...

I appreciate that HoS. I actually think most of us are much closer doctrinally (especially practically speaking) than we care to admit. That is not to say the differences are not significant or important, but there is an effect of running as far from the other guy so as to at least suggest we do not even believe what we believe.

Meaning if God's decrees are THEMSELVES the "determiners" of all events, than human culpability is maintained. I would state that if God's decrees are sufficient guarantors of all events than human culpability cannot be maintained.

I do not hold that the decrees THEMSELVES are the causes of all events. I do believe that God has determined all events and in the eternal council of his will they are certain (and on the basis of his eternality and sovereignty ) necessary. I also believe that God's decrees are a sufficient guarantor of the events because I believe that God works out his decrees (both actively and permissively) to ensure all he has decreed comes to pass. I also believe that for man as a finite being, before an event is determined in time it is for him indeterminate and uncertain. For him the decree of God is not known and the operation of his will can act independently of the decree itself, while always bringing it to pass. For him the counter-factual is a real option and in the limitation of time and the finiteness of his being he really could choose either (laying aside the forces that act upon his will). I put the reality of uncertainty and possibility in the realm of the finite and temporal but not the eternal. In the eternal, there is little difference between that which has been determined in the past (which I believe most of us would agree that past events are indeed determined) and that which will be in the future. Time is the only limiter of what is determined (leaving aside the means) in this sense. Outside the limitations of time the path of choices is a line not a tree. So I see the will of man as not coerced by the decree but able to operate independently of but always in congress with the decree of God. That is not to say that man's will is independent of anything or that God does not work actively to bring about his decree, because I believe he works both actively and permissively, and that in God's operation (not man's) the fulfillment of his eternal purpose is ALWAYS in view.

For, as an indeterminist you must hold that there are no certain events…
I encourage you to present the argument which should force us to conclude that.

Let me qualify it this way so that it does follow
(1) Indeterminism denies all events which involve the choices of free moral agents, including the effects of those choices are determined
(2) For the sake of argument, Only events involving free moral agents are significant
(3) An undetermined event is an uncertain event
(4) If indeterminism is true then there are no significant certain events

If 2 is not allowed then … (4) If indeterminism is true then there are no certain events involving the choices of free moral agents, including the effects of those choices.

What I believe is that certainty is NOT necessity....I think the error usually lies in confusing certainty with necessity. They are not the same.

I believe I understand your position on this to some degree. While I agree that certainty is not equal to necessity, I do believe that from an eternal and sovereign perspective that which is certain is also necessary. I believe I understand how it is you disagree with this position. I do not think it is an error to hold that position, but would agree that it would be an error to equate the two.

Actually....My concept of God's foreknowledge is possibly stronger than yours, as a Molinist (for instance) I believe that God actually possesses knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which never even obtain. A classical descriptor of Omniscience doesn't even demand that level of forknowledge!!!! It is actually QUITE POSSIBLE (believe it or not) that I believe that God possesses certain forms of knowledge that you might think are immpossible to know!!! It is quite possible that my schema posits God's possession of knowledge which even yours denies is even possible...let alone whether he possesses it or not. (I do not know which particular form of Calvinism you espouse, and what specifics you would maintain.)

I believe that the knowledge you speak of can collapse into and be encompassed by natural knowledge which means we probably agree on the extent of God's omniscience. However, we begin to stray a great distance from scripture when we follow trails of possibilities not revealed or considered in scripture.

Other real world-views, do in fact exist. I appreciate your responses to the OP and my argument!

agreed. I have enjoyed the discussion.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thank you for your response WITBOTL! :flower:

Understood. However, I have observed the usage of the term on this board and the argument that follows is referring to causal determinism . In fact I think you yourself qualified the term that way. Even the OP of this thread assumes a causal determinism.

I am using the term that way, I guess, when I speak of "Calvinism" I ascribe to it a sense of causal determinism.

I realize that you believe that the mainstream or classical Calvinistic view (as opposed to the "hyper" variety) is inconsistent and I assume that the tactic of arguing against hyper-calvinism is a means of defeating classic mainstream Calvinism.

Well...not exactly. I DO think "mainstream" Calvinism is inconsistent, and I only believe that "hyper-Cavlinism" is, only, I am not trying to "defeat" hyper-Calvinism. I dis-like modern mainstream Calvinism's denial (in my opinion) of what seems to me to be logical end of it's own teaching.

If this tack is really about meaningfully communicating differences in such a way that both parties can be edified however, it is demonstrably failing because of where the debate degrades when we are essentially accused of believing God saves men against their will and there's nothing they can do about it (which most Calvinists do not believe).

No, I wouldn't say that you believe that God saves men "against their will"...I know that most modern Calvinists would rather say something to the effect that: God rather regenerates and so graces the person that they are irresistably drawn to respond freely to the Gospel by exercising the Faith God has given them and God's grace secures that free response. Or something like that....personally, I think that is non-sense, in that the states of affairs are such that the response is guaranteed, and the state of affairs is one which God determined causatively.

Perhaps laying out what in your view is inconsistent with God decreeing all things but maintaining free agency in the means of accomplishing that decree.

The responses of creatures are guaranteed as necessarry responses to whichever state of affairs God has determined. With respect to salvation...NNE whom God has "called" and "regenerated" and "graced" CAN possibly respond other than with a response of faith. No one can say "Thanks, but, no thanks"....The "grace" God has given them is irresistable. Similarly, if God "passes over" others, who, mind you, were (not by their choice) born in a state of depravity such that they are truly incapable of doing that which is good nor freely responding to the gospel unless God secure their "willingness" irresistably...than that is no different than admitting to "double-predestination" IMO, and that does not preserve IMO any meaningful sense of "free-agency".

That is it in a nut-shell I guess.

I would hope (though I am not sure) that we could have a useful and civil discussion and disagreement in this area.

Certainly we can.

God decreed it (and so determined it permissively), Adam secured it causatively

Adam...did indeed secure it (for himself at least) freely...but if All of Adam's progeny are now born in the same fallen state, than that decision to impute the sins of Adam onto his progeny was God's. Sometimes, I think Calvinists tend to think that Adam simply got a ball-rolling that was not necessarily of God's choosing or making. But that cannot be. If we are fallen in our nature, it is because God has chosen for us to be born in that state.

and my son confirmed it in the expression of his will.

A fallen will, a depraved will which he was born with, which is incapable of doing other than what it did.

Are you suggesting that there are hyper-calvinists out there that deny moral responsibility?

Not exactly...but some of them essentially do. There are some who essentially grant that God is indeed the "cause" of all that is evil, but that man is still held to acount for it legally. They don't justify it, by saying that man is a free moral agent though. They just accept it as God's will and decree and say...."he's sovereign, deal with it". I rather appreciate that approach far more. The old-school divines were far more likely to make no bones about "free-agency" prior to the Edwards style Calvinism more common today. If you ever (for instance) speak to Luke 24/7 (who is essentially what I call a "hyper"). You will note that he makes few, if any, references to free agency nor does he deny "double-predestination".

I appreciate that HoS. I actually think most of us are much closer doctrinally (especially practically speaking) than we care to admit. That is not to say the differences are not significant or important, but there is an effect of running as far from the other guy so as to at least suggest we do not even believe what we believe.

You are correct....I think most of us ARE far more close doctrinally than we care to admit. But, yes, the differences are important.

I do not hold that the decrees THEMSELVES are the causes of all events. I do believe that God has determined all events and in the eternal council of his will they are certain (and on the basis of his eternality and sovereignty ) necessary. I also believe that God's decrees are a sufficient guarantor of the events because I believe that God works out his decrees (both actively and permissively) to ensure all he has decreed comes to pass. I also believe that for man as a finite being, before an event is determined in time it is for him indeterminate and uncertain. For him the decree of God is not known and the operation of his will can act independently of the decree itself, while always bringing it to pass. For him the counter-factual is a real option and in the limitation of time and the finiteness of his being he really could choose either (laying aside the forces that act upon his will). I put the reality of uncertainty and possibility in the realm of the finite and temporal but not the eternal. In the eternal, there is little difference between that which has been determined in the past (which I believe most of us would agree that past events are indeed determined) and that which will be in the future. Time is the only limiter of what is determined (leaving aside the means) in this sense. Outside the limitations of time the path of choices is a line not a tree. So I see the will of man as not coerced by the decree but able to operate independently of but always in congress with the decree of God. That is not to say that man's will is independent of anything or that God does not work actively to bring about his decree, because I believe he works both actively and permissively, and that in God's operation (not man's) the fulfillment of his eternal purpose is ALWAYS in view.

In order to keep this post as short as I reasonably can...and your view deserves more than this....I will only say for now, that quite frankly, man's "choice" is, in this scenario an illusion of choice.........but, it's not an illusion that God has kept very well, because apparently some of us can see right through it.
I don't mean to be snarky....I'm just giving you the quick rejoinder and a critcism...Obviously, you deserve a more detailed response later.

Let me qualify it this way so that it does follow
(1) Indeterminism denies all events which involve the choices of free moral agents, including the effects of those choices are determined
(2) For the sake of argument, Only events involving free moral agents are significant
(3) An undetermined event is an uncertain event
(4) If indeterminism is true then there are no significant certain eventsIf 2 is not allowed then … (4) If indeterminism is true then there are no certain events involving the choices of free moral agents, including the effects of those choices.

The difference between us, is that I deny premise (3).... I would deny that an "indetermined event" is or MUST be uncertain. I believe they can be both, and see no reason to assume the truth of your third premise.

I believe I understand your position on this to some degree. While I agree that certainty is not equal to necessity, I do believe that from an eternal and sovereign perspective that which is certain is also necessary. I believe I understand how it is you disagree with this position. I do not think it is an error to hold that position, but would agree that it would be an error to equate the two.

We should go over this some more later too.....to me, the sentences I italicized seem to be essentially contradictory inasmuch as, it is only God's eternal and Sovereign perspective which matters in the end, and thus, your view of certainty essentially collapses into necessity whether the words are the same strictly defined.

I believe that the knowledge you speak of can collapse into and be encompassed by natural knowledge which means we probably agree on the extent of God's omniscience.

Well......."middle knowledge" such as what I speak of is not exactly "Natural Knowledge". I suppose we should flesh out those definitions more.

However, we begin to stray a great distance from scripture when we follow trails of possibilities not revealed or considered in scripture.

Sure....but those who believe in CCF's for instance maintain that the notion is supportable with Scripture such as
Matt. 11:23
and
I Sam 23:7-13

agreed. I have enjoyed the discussion.

Seconded!!! :godisgood::wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God has revealed Himself and as orderly there is a lot of logic.It is biblical truth that comes together as one complete revelation.

What seems to many as offensive is any here who set aside the scripture as the only source of truth and then this vain attempt to set logic against the grace of God, against the goodness and knowledge of God.

It is not that we cannot "see" what you are trying to offer. We have already drank from the living water of the word and Spirit.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

HOS,
You are overthinking here. Just look at scripture;

No, I wouldn't say that you believe that God saves men "against their will"...I know that most modern Calvinists would rather say something to the effect that: God rather regenerates and so graces the person that they are irresistably drawn to respond freely to the Gospel by exercising the Faith God has given them and God's grace secures that free response. Or something like that....personally, I think that is non-sense, in that the states of affairs are such that the response is guaranteed, and the state of affairs is one which God determined causatively.

The psalmist and Paul did not think that this was nonsense:
110 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.


12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The working is always effectual, the people are made willing....it is not a burden.

 

[MB]

I have no idea what you are talking about! It appears that you don't either!

What you really mean is that you're to embarrassed to talk about it.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular Post #33, 12/13/12
That is a false view of Calvinism as I understand it {Using the pejorative Calvinism to define the Doctrines of Grace.}




God did not make you an Arminian. Either your refusal to accept Scripture or your ego made you an Arminian. People, especially professing Christians, should not blame God for their failures, sins, and shortcomings!

Response by MB, Post#35, 12/13/12
What do you do about your failures to admit that Ephesians, is a letter to the Saints and believers at Ephesus?.
MB

Response by OldRegular, post #37, 12/13/12

I have no idea what you are talking about! It appears that you don't either!

Response by MB, Post #75, 2:36 PM, 12/19/12
What you really mean is that you're to embarrassed to talk about it.

What I really mean MB is that I have no idea what you are talking about, either in your original post #35 or in the above post 6 days later. I have presented the time line to demonstrate that you apparently have no idea what you are talking about.

Paul's letter to the Ephesian Church is Paul's letter to the Ephesian Church. If you can show where I have made any claim disputing that I will be most happy to remove the fog from your mind.

 

[Benjamin]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::applause:

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

God has revealed Himself (according to Icon’s receiving special revelations) and as orderly there is a lot of logic. (this is “orderly logic” it is not orderly to use logic to disagree with Icon) It is biblical truth (Only Icon’s orderly logic is equivalent to Biblical orderly logic) that comes together as one complete revelation. (according to Icon's revelations this orderly logic is complete and settled, therefore, only he and whosoever agrees with his revelation and that is also willing to “logically and orderly” proof-text Ad nauseum that his specially revealed systematic interpretations are in agreement with God can see the completion, as he (Icon) has undisputedly spoken!) (EWF, gives the thumbs up claps in praise to these meaningful words!)

What seems to many as offensive is any here who set aside the scripture (it is offensive to not proof-text according to Icon’s orderly logic, all other logic is to set aside scripture because it is not officially Iconosized as orderly!) as the only source of truth (only Icon will maintain the orderly logic source of scriptural truth) and then this vain attempt to set logic against the grace of God,(it is a vain attempt to use reasoning (logic) for any interpretations that are different than Icons) against the goodness and knowledge of God.(these attempts do not amount to Icon’s orderly logic and interpretations which are equivalent to Gods, therefore, yours are against Him and are setting aside scripture)

It is not that we cannot "see" what you are trying to offer. (we just simply see any that disagree with us as carnal) We have already drank from the living water of the word and Spirit. (We are already saved and therefore understand this orderly logic complete being all in the spirit and such, but you (carnal, non-seeing types)do not see Icon’s ways because of not drinking the water of salvation yet)


(Therefore (the conclusion of the matter is), Icon, by his orderly logic and reason questions the salvation of those who do not and cannot "see" it his way!)


EWF, likes Icon's reasoning!!! Thereby, EWF, sees that he has drank the water also!!! EWF, is happy that he is in agreement with Icon's "superior orderly logic"!!!




Making any sense out of the conclusions according to the reasoning given from people on this board boogles the mind!?!

 

[Yeshua1]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

God has revealed Himself (according to Icon’s receiving special revelations) and as orderly there is a lot of logic. (this is “orderly logic” it is not orderly to use logic to disagree with Icon) It is biblical truth (Only Icon’s orderly logic is equivalent to Biblical orderly logic) that comes together as one complete revelation. (according to Icon's revelations this orderly logic is complete and settled, therefore, only he and whosoever agrees with his revelation and that is also willing to “logically and orderly” proof-text Ad nauseum that his specially revealed systematic interpretations are in agreement with God can see the completion, as he (Icon) has undisputedly spoken!) (EWF, gives the thumbs up claps in praise to these meaningful words!)

What seems to many as offensive is any here who set aside the scripture (it is offensive to not proof-text according to Icon’s orderly logic, all other logic is to set aside scripture because it is not officially Iconosized as orderly!) as the only source of truth (only Icon will maintain the orderly logic source of scriptural truth) and then this vain attempt to set logic against the grace of God,(it is a vain attempt to use reasoning (logic) for any interpretations that are different than Icons) against the goodness and knowledge of God.(these attempts do not amount to Icon’s orderly logic and interpretations which are equivalent to Gods, therefore, yours are against Him and are setting aside scripture)

It is not that we cannot "see" what you are trying to offer. (we just simply see any that disagree with us as carnal) We have already drank from the living water of the word and Spirit. (We are already saved and therefore understand this orderly logic complete being all in the spirit and such, but you (carnal, non-seeing types)do not see Icon’s ways because of not drinking the water of salvation yet)


(Therefore (the conclusion of the matter is), Icon, by his orderly logic and reason questions the salvation of those who do not and cannot "see" it his way!)


EWF, likes Icon's reasoning!!! Thereby, EWF, sees that he has drank the water also!!! EWF, is happy that he is in agreement with Icon's "superior orderly logic"!!!


Making any sense out of the conclusions according to the reasoning given from people on this board boogles the mind!?!

however you label it, icon sees this from the viewpoint of theApsotle paul himself, yours not so much!

 

[Benjamin]

however you label it, icon sees this from the viewpoint of theApsotle paul himself, yours not so much!

That Icon must be amazing in your eyes! That's a pretty good trick he can do there!

:laugh:

I guess you too are a believer that Icon has these special abilities over his opponents. Do you guys all belong to the same clan?

 

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

God has revealed Himself (according to Icon’s receiving special revelations) and as orderly there is a lot of logic. (this is “orderly logic” it is not orderly to use logic to disagree with Icon) It is biblical truth (Only Icon’s orderly logic is equivalent to Biblical orderly logic) that comes together as one complete revelation. (according to Icon's revelations this orderly logic is complete and settled, therefore, only he and whosoever agrees with his revelation and that is also willing to “logically and orderly” proof-text Ad nauseum that his specially revealed systematic interpretations are in agreement with God can see the completion, as he (Icon) has undisputedly spoken!) (EWF, gives the thumbs up claps in praise to these meaningful words!)

What seems to many as offensive is any here who set aside the scripture (it is offensive to not proof-text according to Icon’s orderly logic, all other logic is to set aside scripture because it is not officially Iconosized as orderly!) as the only source of truth (only Icon will maintain the orderly logic source of scriptural truth) and then this vain attempt to set logic against the grace of God,(it is a vain attempt to use reasoning (logic) for any interpretations that are different than Icons) against the goodness and knowledge of God.(these attempts do not amount to Icon’s orderly logic and interpretations which are equivalent to Gods, therefore, yours are against Him and are setting aside scripture)

It is not that we cannot "see" what you are trying to offer. (we just simply see any that disagree with us as carnal) We have already drank from the living water of the word and Spirit. (We are already saved and therefore understand this orderly logic complete being all in the spirit and such, but you (carnal, non-seeing types)do not see Icon’s ways because of not drinking the water of salvation yet)


(Therefore (the conclusion of the matter is), Icon, by his orderly logic and reason questions the salvation of those who do not and cannot "see" it his way!)


EWF, likes Icon's reasoning!!! Thereby, EWF, sees that he has drank the water also!!! EWF, is happy that he is in agreement with Icon's "superior orderly logic"!!!




Making any sense out of the conclusions according to the reasoning given from people on this board boogles the mind!?!

Benjamin,

So....you want to "play"...ok....I will, just for you friend.

I am truly touched by your devotion to me:thumbsup: Your keen insights are a great source of amusement to me:laugh:
Your praise of me.....I have to tell you as the resident BB iconoclast are crossing the line into idolatry,and quite logically,and philosophically I cannot have you idolize me ,as much as you seem intent on doing.
The promise of God that he will reveal His truth to all believers by the Spirit.
He did not promise to reveal Spiritual truth by carnal philosophy, logic, or debate fallacies.That is what everyone tries to tell you.
You cling to these things as a security blanket, but if you trust God and his word...it will not be long and you will make some progress.
You chide these fellow brothers who share a desire to study scripture.Most people in here seem to like that more than your syllogisms,and lectures about debate fallacies.[I remember the sad thread when you turned on webdog]

You have 3-4 people who still feed your philosophical musings...Van,Winman, HT,maybe HOS. So don't be sad friend:thumbsup:

I was thinking yesterday that it might be helpful for you do study the lessons from the life of Haman.....you are following his example when he plotted[in vain] against Moredecai...

Attention BENJAMIN......special icon insight for you...a "word of knowledge"

5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath

Benjamin noticed that Icon did not bow to his carnal philosophy, carnal logic, and debate fallacy list.... Instead Icon only wanted scripture!

6 And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.

Benjamin attacked like minded brothers to Icon.






2 And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.

3 Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment?

4 Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.

5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.

Benjamin noticed Icon would not bow to his philosophy

r.

8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for the king's profit to suffer them.

9 If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed:

Benjamin began to be publically exposed as going away from scripture ,so he whined to the moderators to try and destroy Icon and those who enjoy scripture.

9 Then went Haman forth that day joyful and with a glad heart: but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king's gate, that he stood not up, nor moved for him, he was full of indignation against Mordecai.

Benjamin claims he used to have fun on the bb before, when he could just speak down to those who want to learn scripture rather than debate fallacies. Icon is ruining his fun...Benjamin is full of indignation against icon.

13 Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate.

14 Then said Zeresh his wife and all his friends unto him, Let a gallows be made of fifty cubits high, and to morrow speak thou unto the king that Mordecai may be hanged thereon: then go thou in merrily with the king unto the banquet. And the thing pleased Haman; and he caused the gallows to be made.

Benjamin....only trusts in himself ,so he cannot take imput from anyone else...so he also continues to plot evil....

6 So Haman came in. And the king said unto him, What shall be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to honour? Now Haman thought in his heart, To whom would the king delight to do honour more than to myself?

7 And Haman answered the king, For the man whom the king delighteth to honour,

8 Let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear, and the horse that the king rideth upon, and the crown royal which is set upon his head:

9 And let this apparel and horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king's most noble princes, that they may array the man withal whom the king delighteth to honour, and bring him on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaim before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honour.

10 Then the king said to Haman, Make haste, and take the apparel and the horse, as thou hast said, and do even so to Mordecai the Jew, that sitteth at the king's gate: let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken.

Learn the lesson Benjamin...we know how this story ended:thumbsup:


10 So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.