OUCH!!!:thumbs::applause::wavey::thumbs:....looks like a close shave.You have seen clearly through the haze of philosophical jargon....once again.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is there really a conflict between Freedom and Sovereignty, if rightly defined?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
OUCH!!!:thumbs::applause::wavey::thumbs:....looks like a close shave.You have seen clearly through the haze of philosophical jargon....once again.
Herald,
Thank you for this helpful post,and solid biblical thought.Someone could certainly learn from these sources and godly men who have written for us...
I notice also that many who speak against these quotes do not offer any teaching that is comparable and as edifying:thumbs::thumbs:
Did you not go back to the post, to which I originally responded to you, and saw my clear wording?
Apparently not.
Is this post an attempt to cover or recover some perceived advantage?
I have no problem with someone "pinning" my position, when it is done with accuracy and with gentlemanly respect.
Do you deny that God uses decrees?
Do you deny that what God decrees will in fact happen?
Do you deny that because God foreknows all from beginning to end, that God uses that understanding to state decrees?
Human invention and supposition of what some would like to consider accurate, proper and authoritative are mythical fantasy if not aligned with the character and nature of God.
Therefore, what is contrary to the nature of God (in your logic - evil) cannot be created by God.
Does God use evil and evil people? Certainly.
He has the authority to use that which is condemned ALREADY, just as He has the authority to use that which is redeemed.
But He did not create evil, not in the slightest.
There is not a true Bible Scholar of any worth that believes God created Evil - especially on the BB.
Why then is this type of post offered?
It certainly isn't to edify.
Christ said, "Whatever is not of faith is sin."
Does that mean I can't eat at Whataburger were the meal is cooked by Jose and Laticia puts it in the bag?
Perhaps because my bride's name is not faith, I can't eat at all!!!!!
Is that the kind of reasoning Ben is attempting to pass off as accurate?
Oh My!!!
Did God lie? He clearly said:
(1Sa 23:11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.
(1Sa 23:12) Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.
Or did Davis change the circumstances, which demonstrates he had the ability to do so?
You might want to save all that banter and check that reasoning again to see if it is accurate or not. :thumbs:
Agedman asked 8 questions or more....Benjamin ignores them all and offers one misunderstood verse as an answer.....that just will not get it done Benjamin.
Answer his questions ...
Answer his questions ...
I don't need to chase all his never-ending rhetorical rabbit trails to demonstrate a simple TRUE logical conclusion that any honest child could understand, Icon.
According to the "whatever/your" position for God to be Sovereign he must have determined all things:
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
Simple enough?
convicted1
Guest
For those on here who know me, this post may come off differently than you're accustomed to, but I will explain why later on.
If God desires all to be saved, then why are many on the broad road that leads to destruction, and few on the straight and narrow road that leads to righteousness?
Now, what do you mean by to allow their hearts to become repentant to themselves? Do you believe mankind opens their hearts up to allow God to come in, or is it God that crushes that stony heart to bring the gospel Seed and plant it thusly?
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed.
There are a few posters that I have decided not to interact with, so I cannot provide specifics as to their speaking against "these quotes", but I can speak to their objections in general terms.
The authority for all matters of faith and practice is the Word of God; the Bible. Whenever an author is quoted, or a confession cited, it is with the intent to offer commentary on Scripture. It is sheer hubris to assume that we (personally) are the biblical authority on any one topic. And in the end does it matter whether we, or a dead person from centuries ago, rightly interprets a passage or explain a doctrine? There is a certain member of this board who, if memory serves me, quotes himself in his signature. That is exactly the type of thing I am trying to avoid. I am not the authority. I am not going to appeal to myself. I am just as content to turn the attention to the work of another to explain Scripture. But do not confuse that with laziness on my part. I have wrestled with these doctrines. I have exegeted the text. In short, I have done the heavy lifting required of a minister of the Gospel. God gets the glory for that, not me. But I see no need to thump my chest and say, "Look what I have done!" when others of better reputation and pedigree have made the same point. Citing them is just another way to make a convincing point.
Willis,
I believe understanding God's desire begins in understanding His will of decree. Has God decreed that all are to be saved? If we understand what is meant by a decree then we would have to conclude that the answer to the question is "no". Whatsoever God decrees He brings to pass each and every time.
Another common mistake in interpreting 1 Timothy 2:4 is to start with men doing the acting instead of God. God is the one in charge here, not men.
Take a look a Luke 13:34-35:
Jesus is speaking with strong emotion. Oh, how His heart yearned to gather all Israel to himself ("Jerusalem" is synonymous with Israel). Jesus' strong emotive appeal does not translate into His decree. He did not decree that all Jerusalem come to Him. Had He decreed it, it would have happened. In fact, it could be argued that verse 35 makes it impossible for the whole of the nation to come to Him until a future time, but that is a whole other discussion.
Just some thoughts to consider.
By the way, you are a pleasant fellow to converse with even though we often disagree.
DrJamesAch
New Member
When you ask a question you have to begin with a logical axiom and premise. There isn't one in your question. You are asking a question that assumes a false definition of knowledge as a premise, and then making conclusions based on a false premise. Therefore you are asking the wrong question because the question itself is not valid. It is like asking "have you stopped beating your wife". The answer is assumed before the question is asked and is a rhetorical question based on a fallacious premise.
The only way your premise would lead to a valid question is if you define knowledge as something other than "to know". If that is truly your premise then we can work from there.
saturneptune
New Member
posted in error
Last edited by a moderator:
If memory serves me you avoid other things too like integrity, such as admitting that your reasoning has been shown to be flawed. You don't interact with people who call you on your fallacies, because you don't like to lose. Then you play the innocent martyr like you demonstrate here once again while mouthing off "indirectly" behind someone's back...
Give me break...
Originally Posted by DrJamesAch
When you ask a question you have to begin with a logical axiom and premise. There isn't one in your question. You are asking a question that assumes a false definition of knowledge as a premise, and then making conclusions based on a false premise. Therefore you are asking the wrong question because the question itself is not valid. It is like asking "have you stopped beating your wife". The answer is assumed before the question is asked and is a rhetorical question based on a fallacious premise.
The only way your premise would lead to a valid question is if you define knowledge as something other than "to know". If that is truly your premise then we can work from there.
What on earth would lead you to the conclusion that this post gives reason to get banned??? He is addressing the issue (only) and you are attacking him personally and have been stalking him like this for days as far as I have seen...I'd rethink this...just sayin...
P.S. if your talking about the wife thing :laugh:
that is a reference demonstrating a "loaded question fallacy" you google that fallacy and see what comes up.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
What on earth would lead you to the conclusion that this post gives reason to get banned??? He is addressing the issue (only) and you are attacking him personally and have been stalking him like this for days as far as I have seen...I'd rethink this...just sayin...
P.S. if your talking about the wife thing :laugh:
I will do that, but yes, among other issues, the wife reference to me was way beyond the line. There is no excuse, loaded question or not, of dragging spouses and family members into our petty arguments.
I looked up loaded question, and it is a tactic intended to deceive, cause strife, and just be pure mean. This does not surprise me. The person he was attacking was JohnDeereFan. We are not on the best of terms, but regardless, reported it because the act was outrageous, as is many of his other tactics. As of today, he is on ignore, as I want nothing to do with paying the price of being banned for a person who would do things like what he has done in his short history on this board.
Last edited by a moderator:
:laugh: You don't get man!
That phrase is very commonly used and is interchangeable with saying a loaded question fallacy - which many people would not understand what that fallacy is so you just give this example: "Have you stopped beating your yet?" - uh, try to answer that...give me a yes or no SN...:laugh:saturneptune
New Member
:laugh: You don't get man!
OK I see the miscommunication. The poster in question went on to say that his wife had a Twitter account and wanted to show the person he attacked if he did not believe him, he would send some of her personal information.
As far as beating my wife, I beat my first three until the divorce, then on the fourth one I finally got help. She divorced me anyhow. I do not beat my fifth wife, but do put cigarette burns on her arms when she talks back.
As the Bible says to your last question, let your yes be yes and no be a no. LOL
DrJamesAch
New Member
Well nice of you to ask a question about my education, and then answer your own question about it. I used other sources as a baby Christian, but when I grew up I studied the Bible almost exclusively. If you are admitting you are a still a baby Christian then I'll excuse the citations of the creeds virtually everytime there's a debate about the Bible. I wasn't aware that those creeds were such a crutch.
When I began responding to this thread, I used the Bible, not some creed. It's a shame that professed believers can't do the same.
I wouldn't expect someone defending their error to admit to anything else than their own position.
Once again, failing to deal with the BIBLE and resorting to rationalizing outside of it.
It's a good thing God does know everything because claiming that "ANY first year Bible student knows" is a statistical anomaly that you offered no evidence for. Not every Bible college in the world is Calvinist. I would have to say the majority are NON Calvinist, so I can assume, though I could be wrong, that MOST first year Bible students would disagree.
Determinism has not only been defined accurately to this debate, but applied correctly, you simply choose to call it something else because it sounds less ominous to your theology. You repeatedly make statements like, "show me in the confession where God is the author of sin?" without realizing or simply refusing to admit that it doesn't have to be stated as a premise to have that result. When you say that God decrees all things, and that all things happen because He decreed them, and that there is no choice in whether those things occur or not, and they occur because God knew they would occur, you are in fact ARGUING FROM DETERMINISM. You have never denied that God doesn't cause all things when it's convenient for your theology. You only deny it when it conflicts with God being the author of evil, but then go right back to it when attempting to prove God's decrees over man's will anywhere else. That is patently dishonest and inconsistent.
Furthermore, you didn't deal with one single verse that was raised.
The Westminster Confession itself says this, and then blatantly contradicts itself by attempting to preempt the logical conclusion of it's statement on God's decree:
1646 Confession:
"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass"
John Calvin wrote, "All things being at God’s disposal, and the decision of salvation or death belonging to him, he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that his name may be glorified in their destruction."
Augustine wrote "we shall exercise our wills in the future because He has foreknowledge that we shall do so."
The Confessions are taken directly from the writings of John Calvin and Augustine (which is why it's called Calvinism, duh!), and is CLEARLY determinsim.
Just because the Confession writes a preemptive statement "as such that God is not the author of sin", doesn't mean that such is not the RESULT of the Calvinist view of "decrees". Why would they think to place that there in the first place? BECAUSE THEY KNEW WHAT IT IMPLIED. Yet instead of being honest with the Scriptures, they merely threw in a preemptive statement to settle the contradiction. This is why Calvinists always talk from both sides of the mouth when dealing with decrees and determinism because THEIR CONFESSION DOES IT! One minute the Calvinist argues that "man can not have free will because GOD DETERMINES ALL THINGS". But then when faced with the logical implications of God determining all things claim, "The Westminster Confession clearly denies that God is the author of sin".
As Van would say, "Shuck and Jive, Baby, Shuck and Jive".
Some folks can't have a conversation without playing Pee Wee Herman games of "I know you are, but what am I?" Calvinism itself is a religion FULL of labels, HELLO...:wavey:REMEMBER "TULIP"?
You mean agree with YOU. Gotcha. I can't argue against errors if I don't have your permission to call them errors first. I'll say please next time.
You mean like "God decrees WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS"
But is "not the author of sin".
If you can show me where non Calvinist on this board always resort to creeds as an authority sure, replace away.
Well aren't you just so pious and helpful.
It amazes me that you are so blind to your own hypocrisy. I have not attacked anyone's education level, their intelligence, or their character. I have attacked the DOCTRINES and that fact that when Bible verses are raised that conflict with someone's theology, they won't address the Scriptures head on.
I "made Scriptures" my point, and you didn't address ANY of them. You even quoted them in your response and danced around them instead of addressing them, and then have the nerve to say "make the scriptures your point". What part of 1 Cor 14:33, James 1:13, Jeremiah 32:35, and 1 Samuel 23:11-14 isn't Scripture?
Then you patronize me by saying "let your words be seasoned with salt" and then say " it is really beneath your education level" "some folks can't have a gentlemanly conversation", "jumping on the bandwagon". Really?
You should be a politician.
Last edited by a moderator:
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Hi Jonathan, maybe this phraseology will be helpful:
a "free-choice" (assuming it exists) does so logically prior to God's temporal knowlege of the particular choice. If contra-causal freedom exists, than it exists independently of whether God has foreknowledge of it or not.
Foreknowlege is an explanation of God's knowing something temporally prior to it's coming to pass, not logically prior. That COULD be through simple fore-sight (I don't think so) or through some other medium. Perhaps God fore-perceives a temporal event due to a timeless existence such that temporal happenings exist all in one "moment" for him...
Or, he knows it differently by simply knowing all choices anyone will make in any given circumstance. (A view I personally favour).
I think you are making a small error in that since God knows something will occur (in time) than it "CAN'T" happen otherwise, or that it must occur. That messes up the logical priority. It WON'T happen otherwise, but nothing constrains it. It would be more correct to say God couldn't KNOW differently.
IOW: The choice itself decides what God knows about it. If something were different, than it follows only that God would have known otherwise, not that it was impossible.
God's foreknowing that Hitler would invade Poland in 1939 does not stand in causal relationship to the event. Had Hitler NOT invaded Poland, than what follows is that simply God would have known it, not that Hitler COULN'T have done it.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status