How about this for a proof text?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OR.....he is probably off his meds & this is what causes the incoherent rambling....just ignore it my friend.

 

[OldRegular]

OR.....he is probably off his meds & this is what causes the incoherent rambling....just ignore it my friend.

I really do but I didn't want to hurt his feelings!

 

[Benjamin]

It's aight. I don't expect Determinists to be able to focus on more than one thing at a time...if they did then they wouldn't be able to have their Determinist Doctrines both ways. But I'm sure that makes no sense to you guys either, because I'm beginning to think those kind of abilities ("focusing on more than one thing at a time", in case you missed it) are beyond those who would buy into Determinist Doctrines, so yeah, I believe you, not.

Maybe this will help:

Determinsm + Non-Determinsm = logically impossible for both to be true at the same time....eh? Get it?

Nah, nevermind, I understand these kinds of things don't make sense to your kind. :laugh:

Just ignore what I said, I don't want you to hurt yourselves trying to figure it out. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The Op May be a little toungue in cheek...but it is also true.
Consistency within the Calvinist schema creates a Dilema as many have pointed out namely that:


2. Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism#ixzz2F291NaOS

Some blessedly consistent Calvinists are at least intellectually honest enough with themselves to accept that fact and have no issues with it (Luke).

The Calvinist is content that God made Arminians. He has a purpose for all things.

This is no problem for the Calvinist at all.

God had a purpose for creating a world in which he knew there would be all kinds of errors- including Arminianism.

We are perfectly satisfied with trusting his wisdom in this matter.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin;

Maybe this will help:

It does not help anyone...it is just another useless post.

Determinsm + Non-Determinsm = logically impossible for both to be true at the same time....eh? Get it?

No...we do not get it....Don Quixote....this is only taking place in your head, not in reality.

Nah, nevermind, I understand these kinds of things don't make sense to your kind.

Yes...now we get it:thumbs: It does not make sense because we like the scriptures instead, and mostly you avoid them,except for a few you offer out of context once in awhile:thumbs:

So ...all that crying last week about how you are no longer "having fun" here on the BB......that translates to you trying to talk down to everyone like in this post....yes...we "get it" as to what you are about :sleeping_2:

 

[OldRegular]

The Op May be a little toungue in cheek...but it is also true.
Consistency within the Calvinist schema creates a Dilema as many have pointed out namely that:


2. Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism#ixzz2F291NaOS

Some blessedly consistent Calvinists are at least intellectually honest enough with themselves to accept that fact and have no issues with it (Luke).

Your problem Hoss is that you do not understand what you are trying to talk about! You seem to be chasing your tail over "determinism". Determinism is not the issue, the Grace of God and the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your problem Hoss is that you do not understand what you are trying to talk about! You seem to be chasing your tail over "determinism". Determinism is not the issue, the Grace of God and the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are!

Exhausting isn't it! Before I would throw rocks at another's beliefs, I would sincerely endeavor to understand them. In these situations you wonder if they have made any effort or have the capacity to understand. Its even funny to observe their wrangling.

 

[OldRegular]

Exhausting isn't it! Before I would throw rocks at another's beliefs, I would sincerely endeavor to understand them. In these situations you wonder if they have made any effort or have the capacity to understand. Its even funny to observe their wrangling.

I wonder if the problem is ego. Some folks just don't want to let God be God! Isaiah addressed this problem ~2800 years ago:

Isaiah 40:21-23
21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23. That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

Makes us rejoice that God is a God of Grace doesn't it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I wonder if the problem is ego. Some folks just don't want to let God be God! Isaiah addressed this problem ~2800 years ago:

Isaiah 40:21-23
21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23. That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

Makes us rejoice that God is a God of Grace doesn't it.

Brother ....I sincerely dont desire to dialog with these few but I plan on ignoring these people before they start to get to me so be at peace & try out the "Ignore" feature. It's wonderful!!!

 

[OldRegular]

Brother ....I sincerely dont desire to dialog with these few but I plan on ignoring these people before they start to get to me so be at peace & try out the "Ignore" feature. It's wonderful!!!

I used the ignore feature on a couple of occasions when I foolishly started trading barb for barb. Solves problems!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Your problem Hoss is that you do not understand what you are trying to talk about! You seem to be chasing your tail over "determinism". Determinism is not the issue, the Grace of God and the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are!

Sir...I do, using a different term does nothing to change the situation. You may dislike the term "determinism" (but there really is no reason for you to). The term is not a pajorative (not in the real world anyway). What you like to call "Doctrines of Sovereign Grace" amounts to "determinism".

If you don't agree with the argument presented, why not explain what you disagree with rather than ignoring it with something like: "You don't understand....the term is (X) not (Y) how about I repost the same argument and use your preferred term then?

Just for OR:
2. the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace . For if one comes to believe that the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

Now, you make make a sensible rejoinder if you so choose and explain to us why what is presented is false, (perhaps by actually engaging the argument presented,) instead of using a different word for the same thing and hiding behind self-created ambiguity.

 

[OldRegular]

Sir...I do, using a different term does nothing to change the situation. You may dislike the term "determinism" (but there really is no reason for you to). The term is not a pajorative (not in the real world anyway). What you like to call "Doctrines of Sovereign Grace" amounts to "determinism".

If you don't agree with the argument presented, why not explain what you disagree with rather than ignoring it with something like: "You don't understand....the term is (X) not (Y) how about I repost the same argument and use your preferred term then?

Just for OR:
2. the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace . For if one comes to believe that the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

Now, you make make a sensible rejoinder if you so choose and explain to us why what is presented is false, (perhaps by actually engaging the argument presented,) instead of using a different word for the same thing and hiding behind self-created ambiguity.

Hoss, I will repeat an earlier post just for your gratification!

Some folks just don't want to let God be God! Isaiah addressed this problem ~2800 years ago:

Isaiah 40:21-23
21. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23. That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

Makes us rejoice that God is a God of Grace doesn't it.

Now you are free to believe what you choose but you really need to educate yourself "just a little" about the Doctrines of Grace. In the meantime you can chase your tail as you meditate on the vagaries of philosophic determinism.

 

[WITBOTL]

The Op May be a little toungue in cheek...but it is also true.
Consistency within the Calvinist schema creates a Dilema as many have pointed out namely that:


2. Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed... etc,

It is not the word determinism that I object to it is what the term means that I object to. Determinism specifically speaks of causation. In other words event A happens because of pre-occurring causes and is determined by those causes.

My son leaves the house for school and often will leave his backpack behind. I can tell him to get his backpack and he will. I can also choose to teach him a lesson and not remind him. If I do this then I determine that he will not bring his pack to school. However, the cause of his not bring the backpack is not my determination, it is his depraved will to put in his mind other things and not the things he needs to be thinking on to be properly ready for school.

DoG affirms that God decrees all things in the eternal council of his will but the causation of those events are by various means including through the actual exercise of the will of free moral agents. The decrees themselves are not the causes. Hence your term determinism is either pejorative or misinformed.

However, as you use the term negatively I must assume that you are then an indeterminist. This is a rather difficult position to hold in concert with a belief in the God of the Bible. For, as an indeterminist you must hold that there are no certain events. 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. I suppose your conception of God's foreknowledge is one of wishful and hopeful thinking rather as a denier of certainty. 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...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hoss, I will repeat an earlier post just for your gratification!



Now you are free to believe what you choose but you really need to educate yourself "just a little" about the Doctrines of Grace. In the meantime you can chase your tail as you meditate on the vagaries of philosophic determinism.

You are simply refusing to engage the OP...or any arguments or statements which speak to it. Why do you even post???

I've read the verse....(long before you ever posted it). I've read it now 3 more times since you have posted it....It is irrelevant to the OP. Your post is irrelevant to the OP, or my argument which supports it.

Now you are free to believe what you choose

Given your own theology...that statement is actually non-sense. Your Theology renders that statement absurd.

but you really need to educate yourself "just a little" about the Doctrines of Grace.

Again........I am fully aware of the teachings expounded. In fact, this thread is demonstrating that I understand them better than you do. I am not exaggerating. Making the statement that I need to "educate myself" more, when you don't know what my level of understanding is, and furthermore, no honest person who has interracted with me on this board could legitimately maintain that I don't understand them.

BTW: The OP and the argument I presented only demonstrate that your statement is meaningless in your own schema anyway...That is for GOD to determine...not either myself or you.
You really don't understand (or you simply refuse to acknowledge) the teaching in your own schema. Your own schema renders that decision God's and not either yours or mine. The argument in the OP (and mine) is that if that is true, than God will determine it, if you think that God's decision NOT to grace me with sufficient understanding is wrong, than you are questioning either God's motives or knowledge. If you think otherwise, then, please, by all means enlighten us.
THOSE are the arguments we present, and you have not acknowledged them, or rebutted them. You are simply pretending they don't exist. We can all see that.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thank you for actually engaging in an argument relevant to the OP! :thumbs:
I appreciate your POV...but if I may:

It is not the word determinism that I object to it is what the term means that I object to. Determinism specifically speaks of causation. In other words event A happens because of pre-occurring causes and is determined by those causes.

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.

My son leaves the house for school and often will leave his backpack behind. I can tell him to get his backpack and he will. I can also choose to teach him a lesson and not remind him. If I do this then I determine that he will not bring his pack to school. However, the cause of his not bring the backpack is not my determination, it is his depraved will to put in his mind other things and not the things he needs to be thinking on to be properly ready for school.

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

DoG affirms that God decrees all things in the eternal council of his will but the causation of those events are by various means including through the actual exercise of the will of free moral agents.

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". I personally would actually agree with you that God "decrees all things in the eternal council of his will"...but truth be told, I think that only a Molinistic explanation truly preserves that truth AND will-full action of free moral agents. (As this is not about that though) much as I might like to, we shouldn't de-rail this thread with more of that.

The decrees themselves are not the causes. Hence your term determinism is either pejorative or misinformed.

"Determinism" is simply NOT pejorative....In a way, I AM a "determinist", what I am NOT is a "compatibilist". 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.

However, as you use the term negatively I must assume that you are then an indeterminist.

Disagreeing with an idea, and using "negatively" are not the same. I am not a "determinist" (as such)...but I do NOT mis-use the term.

This is a rather difficult position to hold in concert with a belief in the God of the Bible. For, as an indeterminist you must hold that there are no certain events.

That doesn't follow....ALL events are certain. I encourage you to present the argument which should force us to conclude that.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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...

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

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

 

[OldRegular]

You are simply refusing to engage the OP...or any arguments or statements which speak to it. Why do you even post???

Because it was predestined!:thumbs:

I've read the verse....(long before you ever posted it). I've read it now 3 more times since you have posted it....It is irrelevant to the OP. Your post is irrelevant to the OP, or my argument which supports it.

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

Given your own theology...that statement is actually non-sense. Your Theology renders that statement absurd.

You are showing your arrogance and your behind. Just what makes you an expert in my theology?

Again........I am fully aware of the teachings expounded. In fact, this thread is demonstrating that I understand them better than you do. I am not exaggerating.

You are exaggerating and your arrogance is showing again!

Making the statement that I need to "educate myself" more, when you don't know what my level of understanding is, and furthermore, no honest person who has interracted with me on this board could legitimately maintain that I don't understand them.

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

BTW: The OP and the argument I presented only demonstrate that your statement is meaningless in your own schema anyway...That is for GOD to determine...not either myself or you.

Schema? Is that the same as theology. No! I don't believe so. You see how silly you look Hoss using such words. I will have my amanuensis check the meaning of that word!

You really don't understand (or you simply refuse to acknowledge) the teaching in your own schema. Your own schema renders that decision God's and not either yours or mine. The argument in the OP (and mine) is that if that is true, than God will determine it, if you think that God's decision NOT to grace me with sufficient understanding is wrong, than you are questioning either God's motives or knowledge. If you think otherwise, then, please, by all means enlighten us.

I never question the Grace of God. That is why I say you can believe what your free will allows you to believe.

THOSE are the arguments we present, and you have not acknowledged them, or rebutted them. You are simply pretending they don't exist. We can all see that.

Hoss, rambling on about determinism is meaningless. If you want to prove something to me in reference to the Grace of God then you must use Scripture and then rely on the Grace of God.:wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin;

...it is just another useless post.

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.

 

[Benjamin]

Your problem Hoss is that you do not understand what you are trying to talk about! You seem to be chasing your tail over "determinism". Determinism is not the issue, the Grace of God and the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are!

Would that be a view of "Deterministic Doctrines of Sovereign Grace" over the pre-selected elect or doctrines of "Providence and Sovereign Grace" over creatures with free will?

Make up your mind OldRegular! The issue is was that grace pre-determined or not pre-determined. What? Did your mamma tell you you could have it both ways if you want and then give you a sucker to make you feel better, or what? She say, YoungFar...err...YoungRegular, if you pretend it doesn't exist it will go away. Just tell others they're ee heads and ignore it??? Was it your upbringing that makes you and your kind avoid simple logical truths or was this practice arrived at later years while trying to defend your Doctrines of Determinstic Grace?

 

[OldRegular]

Would that be a view of "Deterministic Doctrines of Sovereign Grace" over the pre-selected elect or doctrines of "Providence and Sovereign Grace" over creatures with free will?

Make up your mind OldRegular! The issue is was that grace pre-determined or not pre-determined. What? Did your mamma tell you you could have it both ways if you want and then give you a sucker to make you feel better, or what? She say, YoungFar...err...YoungRegular, if you pretend it doesn't exist it will go away. Just ignore it??? Was it your upbringing that makes you and your kind avoid simple logical truths or was this practice arrived at later years while trying to defend your Doctrines of Determinstic Grace?

Bengy

The above post is borderline sick, well no it is sick, and is irrelevant to any discussion of the Grace of God.

Hosea 4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

 

[Benjamin]

Bengy

The above post is borderline sick, well no it is sick, and is irrelevant to any discussion of the Grace of God.

Hosea 4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

No, it is eactly right on in pointing to "what" the issue is, "how" you are going about dealing with it and asks "why" you are avoiding it. Start with your statement, then observe how mine addresses yours, I know you can do this! Try reading it again, I even revised one part, I'll highlight for you so you can also see how you're handling your self in your onnly defense you've give in this debate:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Your problem Hoss is that you do not understand what you are trying to talk about! You seem to be chasing your tail over "determinism". Determinism is not the issue, the Grace of God and the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are!

Benjy's Reply:

Would that be a view of "Deterministic Doctrines of Sovereign Grace" over the pre-selected elect or doctrines of "Providence and Sovereign Grace" over creatures with free will?

Make up your mind OldRegular! The issue is was that grace pre-determined or not pre-determined. What? Did your mamma tell you you could have it both ways if you want and then give you a sucker to make you feel better, or what? She say, YoungFar...err...YoungRegular, if you pretend it doesn't exist it will go away. Just tell others they're ee heads and ignore it??? Was it your upbringing that makes you and your kind avoid simple logical truths or was this practice arrived at later years while trying to defend your Doctrines of Determinstic Grace?

I know you want to win ands would like to have it both ways, but ignoring the truth that you have to pick between the two (determinism -nondeterminism) and resorting to insults isn't the way to do it. Okay OldFar...errr...OldRegular?