Featured Not Closed Theology

@Van you sound more and more like a calvinist every time you post.

 

It matters because ideas have consequences. If you make the words "omniscient" and "sovereign" synonyms then all you've really done in make one of the words meaningless. But that isn't really what the Augustinian (e.g. Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic or whatever else one might call themselves), they've simply changed the definition of the word to mean "is in meticulous control of every event that happens".

They've done this for a reason!

It is the same reason that the left has made it against the rules of polite society to use the term "master bedroom". To control the language is to control ideas. To control ideas is control the mind. To control the mind is to control the person.

If you despise political correctness and the left's attempt to take over the language, you should despise the Augustinian take over of very nearly every word in the English language that has any religious connotation whatsoever, including, but not limited to, the word "sovereign".

Quite so! Arminians and Catholics and other non-calvinist people who believe in what is commonly called the "Settled View" (as apposed to the "Open View" or "Open theism") have a much more difficult time against the open theist because their doctrine is even less logically consistent that the Calvinist's position. By quite a lot, actually. Arminians, in particular, seem to almost pick their beliefs out of thin air and at random.

The syllogism prove that it does precisely that.

Either way you cut it, if God predestined it you clearly have no choice or else it wasn't predestined. If God simply infallibly knew it in advance then you cannot do otherwise and so do not choose.

No I'm not. I'm forcing you to use the term correctly! Just because you don't like the consequences, isn't my fault or problem. Again, ideas have consequences!

Besides, the bible does not teach that God is in meticulous control of every thing that happens. People do things that God doesn't want them to do all the time! That's what the whole bible is about from beginning to end!

NO!

A "by definition" argument is a rationally valid argument. Someone cannot defeat the argument by simply redefining the word to suit their needs. I mean, that CAN do that - people obviously do that a lot, but they cannot do it rationally because it only camouflages the issue instead of actually resolving it. It's no different than when Gov. Newsome stops prosecuting property crimes and then tries to take credit for the fact that crime numbers are down. It's a trick!

The fact is that God is, in fact, sovereign! He is the highest authority in existence. I can say that with full confidence without needing to imply that God is a control freak that would somehow break if something happened that He didn't want to happen, like people killing babies, for example.

 

Contradict yourself much?

 

You sound like the little girl who cries "Everybody hates me, and I am just going to eat worms and die." He was not disparaging you. He was speaking truth. You almost sound like a Calvinist, but your strange Arminian Belief that God does not have complete omniscience is far from it.

 

My post had exactly the same amount of substance as the one I was responding too.

Make an argument or don't address me at all. I couldn't care less about your personal opinions unless they are both relevant to the topic being discussed AND they're accompanied by substantive evidence and rational support.

 

No, that's not what they have done. They have just assumed you would be on the same page about the other attributes of God. If God is the supreme ruler, and if he is all knowing, then his rule will look different than a sovereign human monarch who may be uninformed or even a fool. Playing with the word meanings if useless. Is God all knowing? Is he all powerful? Then his sovereignty will extend to every single molecule. I don't see the purpose of interjecting the fact that you can still claim to be a sovereign ruler and have a lot going on without your knowledge. Are you applying that case to God? If so then we should discuss those issues. They are more important than the definition of sovereignty.

 

Van you do exhibit quite a bit of Cognitive Dissonance in your comments.
"Actually we could only choose the one choice" no free will here as free will is the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.
"His perfect knowledge does not predestine our choice to sin" I agree, God knowing via His omniscience what our free will choices will be does not mean that He caused them. That's why it is called free will.

But Van you are trying to walk both sides of the street at the same time. If man can only choose from one option that means the chosen option is predestined. Reread what you wrote, your fighting against yourself.

Van pointing out that you are sounding more and more like a Calvinist is just stating the reality of what ones sees when they read your posts.

 

Van I have to ask "What is so hard to grasp?" you say on one hand "we could only choose the one choice" which = no free will.

Then you try to avoid the obvious result that God is the author of sin by saying that God just forgot what He said would happen so not responsible for man's sins.

Man is responsible for the choices they make because God has given man an actual free will not a sudo one that you seem to think he has. You do understand the difference between cause and allow don't you? God knows all that will happen because He is omniscient not because He causes all that happens.

You seem to fall back on the same arguments that calvinists do so why are you surprised when I say you sound like them in your posts

 

Van to quote you
"What is so hard to grasp? {A} That if our choice is only what God knows will happen, we have to actual choice? Is that too hard?
Or, "OTOH, {B} since God knows what He chooses to know, He is not the author of sin because His perfect knowledge does not" include whether we choose to sin."

This is what you have said in prior posts. And you wonder why I said you are sounding like a calvinist.

{A} = no free will. Is that hard for you to grasp?

{B} = God forgets what He chooses to forget. Is that hard for you to grasp?

 

No sir. It was/is an intentional redefinition of the term. The proof is the fact that there's hardly a term of any importance in the whole of the Christian lexicon that the Augustinian (Calvinism in particular) hasn't redefined. Sovereign, Love, Justice, Righteousness, and several other words all have different "theological meanings" when applied to God.

Sovereign = control freak
Love = impassible
Justice = arbitrary
Righteous = do anything whatsoever

If you're naive enough to believe otherwise then I really can't help you.

I reject the premise and this single sentence proves my point!

You redefine the word to suit your doctrine. I mean you can't deny it because you just did it!

You believe that God is all knowing (in the Calvinist sense of the term) for the same reason you believe that God is a control freak. That reason being that Augustine of Hippo, who practically worshiped Aristotle and Plato, imported Greek ideas like immutability and omniscience, etc into the Christian faith. These ideas are pagan in their origin and are not taught in scripture.

Oh, no its not!

If you can control the language, you can control ideas. Ideas have enormous consequences!

Not in the Calvinistic sense, no.

Biblically, God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable and is able to find out any knowable fact that He doesn't already know.

Again, not in the way the Calvinists believe, no.

First, there is more than one kind of power and so this requires more than one answer....

Biblically, God is the source of all power but has delegated both power and authority to others as well as the ability to act on that ability and authority. He, therefore, does NOT always get what He wants and people are all the time doing things He rather they not do. The payoff for this, however, is that some choose to love Him. He has the power and right to recall any delegated power or authority at any time and is thus fully invincible.

Biblically, God's omnipotence does not extend to anything that one can imagine. God cannot - I repeat - God CANNOT make anyone love anyone else, including Him. Nor can God make anyone do anything else that is moral in nature. Moral action is either chosen or the action isn't moral, by definition. This same logic applies to any other inherently self-contradictory idea. God, for example, cannot make perfect spheres with flat edges and sharp corners. God cannot go to a place that does not exist. Etc.

In short, God can do anything He wants to do that is doable. God cannot do the rationally absurd.

That's two of the three "omni" doctrines. Let's go ahead and address the third even though you didn't mention it directly. That third doctrine being omnipresense, of course.

Once again, the Calvinist teaching is incorrect.
Biblically, God is capable of being in all places at once but it only actually where He wants to be. God, for example, is not required to be a first person witness to every vile act that takes place in the back rooms of every gay bar. God is not required to hang out in the space between someone's back side and the toilet paper they're using. And it isn't just evil or gross things that God isn't required to be present for. God isn't required to be present while people are having spousal relations and is perfectly capable of giving people privacy.

Also, the same logic applies to omnipresence as applies to omnipotence. God cannot do the rationally absurd, thus God cannot be in a place that does not exist.

Again, you're proving my point!

In actually fact, your own logic doesn't hold up under real scrutiny but I'm not going to get into that. The point is that the word sovereign simply does not mean "meticulous control of all that comes to pass" and the reason you think otherwise has nothing to do with the word itself but is ENTIRELY because of your doctrine.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get away with adding and subtracting important concepts to whatever words we needed to! That way, we could believe nearly anything we want and we'd never have to lose a debate with anyone!

Forgive the sarcasm, but if you think the issue is less trivial than that, you're simply wrong.

Yes, you do.

If you're communicating that there isn't any one in a position of authority over you and that all will eventually answer to you then the word sovereign is THE perfect word to use!

If they exist at all, it proves that the Augustinian definition of the term is false - not to mention most of rest of his doctrine!

There are, of course, several biblical examples but addressing those occurrences directly would be a waste of time if you're not even willing to acknowledge the conceptual issues involved. So, one step at a time.

 

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

Jesus, as the God man, chose, in his human nature, not to exercise that divine omniscience. Totally consistent with Absolute Divine omniscience.

Your god doesn't know everything and is less that God.