All Christians DO believe that God has determined SOME THINGS. Don't you????
But the most sound Christians understand that God has determined ALL THINGS.
What is so hard for you guys to grasp about that?????
-
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!
Volition / ability
- Thread starter webdog
- Start date
All Christians DO believe that God has determined SOME THINGS. Don't you????
But the most sound Christians understand that God has determined ALL THINGS.
What is so hard for you guys to grasp about that?????
Yes, for about the tenth time.
I have said as much since my very FIRST response to you.
Everything that exists.
The free will that I believe exists is the free will that says that man is free to do what he most wants to do.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If so, please explain why anyone would even bother speaking of God's foreknowledge and permitting of X?
If God's motive being good excuses any culpability, explain why all the explanation of "second causes" and denial that God authors sin? Why not say, "God DOES author sin, but does so with good motives, so its not sinful?"
Stating that “All Christians believe that God is the cause of some things” in no way supports your “determinist’ argument” that God is the cause of all things. This was a fallacious attempt on your part to weaken (weasel) the process of nailing down a definition of “determinism” and served no purpose but to cloud the issue and clearly represents a smoke screen. Why can’t you grasp that there is no legitimate value in injecting these types of fallacies into a debate???
Originally Posted by Benjamin
Luke, are you then agreeing with and are willing to hold to the premise and syllogism in the following that defines "determinism":
According to “Determinism” for God to be sovereign He must have predestined everything:
1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen
Yes, for about the tenth time.
I have said as much since my very FIRST response to you.
Cool Luke, I feel like I should frame that and put it on my refrigerator or something
…glad we can go onto the next step since you will hold that the opening premise & syllogism which define “determinism” must remain “TRUE” in unison with the second premise, “creaturely volition/ability to freely choose/free will” to make the conclusion of (Compatibility) true. We’ll symbolize the agreed upon definition of “determinism” as (D).
Please feel free to begin establishing your definition of creaturely volition (V) that you want to agree on as being true along with (D).
Human philosophy is shared ignorance. Talk about diverting! So scripture is of less value to you the philospher, we can only proof text??...interesting
All this from someone who offers no scripture at all even more interesting
Let me check an online definition of Hubris and see if your picture is next to it;
So your philosphical musing are going to over turn the historic view of the redeemed church of God?
Thanks for taking time to condescend to us who "simply' look to the scriptures for truth. For someone with your exalted intellect ,it must be hard to take time out to reach down to us and re-define biblical truth into philosphical double talk ,and perverse disputings of words,like this-
Sorry to post a scripture verse.But you do not have to read it though.It might take away from your syllogisms which I am sure will be so helpful and superior.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I rather like Peter Kreefts take on philosophy. "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology."
Human philosophy is shared ignorance. Talk about diverting! So scripture is of less value to you the philospher, we can only proof text??...interesting
All this from someone who offers no scripture at all even more interesting
Let me check an online definition of Hubris and see if your picture is next to it;
So your philosphical musing are going to over turn the historic view of the redeemed church of God?
Thanks for taking time to condescend to us who "simply' look to the scriptures for truth. For someone with your exalted intellect ,it must be hard to take time out to reach down to us and re-define biblical truth into philosphical double talk ,and perverse disputings of words,like this-
Sorry to post a scripture verse.But you do not have to read it though.It might take away from your syllogisms which I am sure will be so helpful and superior.
You really seem to have trouble following a point!
FYI, I have no problem with philosophizing about the meaning of scriptures; what I have a problem with is someone who rudely steps into a structured debate that involves an argument with a set premise and tries to “completely” change the premise in order to exercise a contest of circular proof texting arguments which he feels would better suit his interests.
If you have no interest in the premise at hand go somewhere else, start your own tread, lay out your own argument some where else and throw out circular scriptural proof texting arguments all day long for all I care, BUT don’t presume to think you have a right to derail this tread because YOU don’t like the format! (BTW, which YOU continue to rudely do instead of swallowing your pride and admitting your fault in presuming you had the right to do such to begin with.) Get the point?!
You remind me of a child who comes up to play with a group that is trying to build a tower out of Lincoln logs and decides he want to build a house out of Lego’s instead. When he’s told, “no thanks” he then stands there and continually interrupts the build while insulting those who dare to build out of Lincoln logs, argues how his Lego’s are better and starts taking swings at the tower in hopes to end the building of it. Grow up! Go away and quit bothering me,, before I give you a wedgies!
:laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
You really seem to have trouble following a point!
FYI, I have no problem with philosophizing about the meaning of scriptures; what I have a problem with is someone who rudely steps into a structured debate that involves an argument with a set premise and tries to “completely” change the premise in order to exercise a contest of circular proof texting arguments which he feels would better suit his interests.
If you have no interest in the premise at hand go somewhere else, start your own tread, lay out your own argument some where else and throw out circular scriptural proof texting arguments all day long for all I care, BUT don’t presume to think you have a right to derail this tread because YOU don’t like the format! (BTW, which YOU continue to rudely do instead of swallowing your pride and admitting your fault in presuming you had the right to do such to begin with.) Get the point?!
You remind me of a child who comes up to play with a group that is trying to build a tower out of Lincoln logs and decides he want to build a house out of Lego’s instead. When he’s told, “no thanks” he then stands there and continually interrupts the build while insulting those who dare to build out of Lincoln logs, argues how his Lego’s are better and starts taking swings at the tower in hopes to end the building of it. Grow up! Go away and quit bothering me,, before I give you a wedgies!
I am certain to hear about these.
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
You don't know what you are talking about.
I am not trying to weaken ANYTHING.
I am just pointing out that EVEN YOU believe that God determines SOME THINGS.
More thoughtful people realize that God determines EVERYTHING.
That you guys can't see a definition when it is given to you is not my fault.
Benjamin,
I answered the question webdog asked in the original post,
Evidently you did not care for my answer ,as seen in post 9
I was addressing webdog, not you.I can see what you are up to ,trying to twist lukes words ,and accuse him.
I was answering the thread, not derailing anything.Again it did not fit your lincoln log philosophy so you attack me as simple...yes I get the point.
Looking at your anti calvinist posts....I see very well what you are about.
I have no need to interact with you,your so called structured debate, or your odd ideas. Enjoy your private little thread wedgie boy.
I answered the question webdog asked in the original post,
in post 5
Evidently you did not care for my answer ,as seen in post 9
I was addressing webdog, not you.I can see what you are up to ,trying to twist lukes words ,and accuse him.
I was answering the thread, not derailing anything.Again it did not fit your lincoln log philosophy so you attack me as simple...yes I get the point.
Looking at your anti calvinist posts....I see very well what you are about.
I have no need to interact with you,your so called structured debate, or your odd ideas. Enjoy your private little thread wedgie boy.
I am not surprised that you would find the science of drawing out the truth in debate as “odd”, or that it is offensive to you, or that you would rudely stoop in desperation to disrupt the debate, especially considering your “Pro Calvinist” position. Yes, I see what you are about.
Yes, in Luke’s case I believe that is at the roots of what a troll attempts to do. They want to give quick irrational arguments with the intent of provoking emotional responses and think of themselves as clever for being able to do so; the quicker they can respond and agitate others the more glory they feel they have earned because they perceive this as intellect. The evidence to that (value of proving their intellect) is that they commonly will also be quick to openly bring up the subject of “intellect” and try to degrade other’s because that is what it is all about for them as commonly seen in his posts.
Further, they understand that they have to stay within the parameters of a discussion board, such as this one, so the game is on in that they want to say enough to suggest such a thing (in this case attribute that God is the author of sin) without actually saying it while flaring as much attention to their selves as possible. In accomplishing that goal the troll perceives they have outsmarted the board and everyone on it in the whole, regardless of whether others on the board might try side with them or not.
Watching Luke squirm as I try to pin him down through a science which draws out the truth, (philosophy) was merely an exercise for me to practice in that field; watching his obvious avoidances also brings some chuckles along the way. But, I know he will jump the sinking ship before allowing himself to be tied to it and it appears he has reached that point. I have more pressing things to attend to anyway than participating in his games.
Actually, I expected all along that Luke would bail on his requests to logically establish a definition of “creaturely volition” if I where able to pin him to a logical definition of “determinism” first. Further, I expected him to immediately begin new quests to and continue his on with voyage elsewhere as soon as he did. But thanks anyway.
God Bless You
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I will write you a check for $1000 if you can point me to post where you DEFINED the word "Degree."
That's doesn't include using the word in a sentence, or quoting confessional statements that simply used the term. Those aren't definitions. A definition by definition doesn't use the word to define itself.
Will you take my $1000 challenge?
Last edited by a moderator: