What UNIQUELY sets apart a 'work of God' from every other common event in history?

[Luke2427]

I've never said God cannot see time in a linear fashion. Please don't even try to restate my views. Quote directly from me or link to my post, but don't attempt to restate it, PLEASE. I really don't want people thinking I believe the things you say I believe.

Which is the view of 'bare permission' which you and I went around and around about before, remember? You reject bare permission, Willis accepts it. (either/or vs. both/and) I laid that out very clearly from the very beginning of this discussion yet you still want to attempt to make Willis, who wouldn't even affirm soft determinism, into someone who supports your views of hard determinism. I even sent you the post where he told you he wouldn't accept your view of determinism. What else do we need to do?

Because you seem to think Willis agrees with you and he is NOT a hard determinist, a self-evident truth but one you have been digging your heals in with me over for the last 20 posts, for whatever reason.

Right, and Willis disagrees. Point made, case closed. Thank you for finally admitting that your 'high five' of his "either/or" quote was in error. We can now move on.

Willis affirms that God knew exactly what would happen before he made the universe if he made the universe the way he intended to make the universe. God knew that one day Jeffry Dalmer would eat little children in the universe he intended to build and he went right ahead and built that universe anyway God being content to have such a universe for a time because that very universe in which Dalmer did what he did serves his eternal purposes.

He affirms that God always intended for this VERY universe to exist.

Do you affirm that?

 

[Skandelon]

These points have all been asked and answered:

Read posts 63, 65 and then post 70

He affirms 'bare permission,' as I do. You are a hard determinists Luke. We have been over this enough times for anyone to see it. Just admit that you misunderstood Willis' comment and be done with it. Why do you dig in like this and fight to make him say things he never would actually say or believe?

...

He and I probably have different views on several matters, but the point was THAT particular quote (either/or), where you affirm (both/and). You are a hard determinist. He isn't even a a soft determinist, Luke and you are trying to twist what he said to be in agreement with you.

You just misunderstood. That's all. No big deal, move on.

 

[Luke2427]

These points have all been asked and answered:

No, that doesn't even touch it actually.

Willis affirms that God knew exactly what would happen before he made the universe if he made the universe the way he intended to make the universe. God knew that one day Jeffry Dalmer would eat little children in the universe he intended to build and he went right ahead and built that universe anyway God being content to have such a universe for a time because that very universe in which Dalmer did what he did serves his eternal purposes.

He affirms that God always intended for this VERY universe to exist.

Do you affirm that?

 

[Skandelon]

Luke as much as you want to make this about my speculations regarding omniscience, this is about comparing your view with Willis, as that was the subject of our disagreement...

Willis stated clearly...

God is the driving source in regards to sin in that He allows men to perform their wickedness. To say men have no choice but to do them because He desired them to perform them, is fringing on determinism.....and I can't, and won't, go that far.

Willis won't even go so far to 'fringe on determinism' and you remain a hard determinist. You made a mistake. You simply misunderstood Willis' 'either/or' comment as being supportive of your 'both/and' view.

That is all that needs to be said on this point Luke. Goodbye. :wavey:

 

[Luke2427]

Luke as much as you want to make this about my speculations regarding omniscience, this is about comparing your view with Willis, as that was the subject of our disagreement...

Willis stated clearly...



Willis won't even go so far to 'fringe on determinism' and you remain a hard determinist. You made a mistake. You simply misunderstood Willis' 'either/or' comment as being supportive of your 'both/and' view.

That is all that needs to be said on this point Luke. Goodbye. :wavey:

Respectfully, bud, it is apparent to any who read this that you are running on TWO DIFFERENT threads because Willis' view of omniscience (which has EVERYTHING to do with how you define God allowing things to happen which you well know) is way more akin to mine than yours.

Willis, does not by any means agree with me on one aspect of this.

But he by NO MEANS agrees with you concerning your view of omniscience (or lack of one). His view enables him to affirm that God knew exactly what would happen before he made the universe if he made the universe the way he intended to make the universe. God knew that one day Jeffry Dalmer would eat little children in the universe he intended to build and he went right ahead and built that universe anyway God being content to have such a universe for a time because that very universe in which Dalmer did what he did serves his eternal purposes.

Do you affirm that?

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, this point of debate going back several pages was NEVER about my view versus Willis' view, or my view versus your view. It was about the difference between Willis' 'bare permission' view (either/or) and your hard deterministic view (both/and).

I know you want to confuse that issue with other discussions regarding the basis of God's foreknowledge of all things logically equating to determinism of all things, a point that is irrelevant to the affirmation of 'bare permission' in relation to hard determinism. Now, if you want to start a debate with Willis to explain to him why you feel the 'bare permission' view isn't logically tenable. Fine by me. Go right ahead, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter regarding his affirmation of (either/or) in relation to your affirmation of (both/and).

Okay? Can we move on?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, this point of debate going back several pages was NEVER about my view versus Willis' view, or my view versus your view. It was about the difference between Willis' 'bare permission' view (either/or) and your hard deterministic view (both/and).

I know you want to confuse that issue with other discussions regarding the basis of God's foreknowledge of all things logically equating to determinism of all things, a point that is irrelevant to the affirmation of 'bare permission' in relation to hard determinism. Now, if you want to start a debate with Willis to explain to him why you feel the 'bare permission' view isn't logically tenable. Fine by me. Go right ahead, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter regarding his affirmation of (either/or) in relation to your affirmation of (both/and).

Okay? Can we move on?

It is about how Willis view is not at all in line with mine- that's your point.

I have pointed out to you that it is closer to mine than yours because Willis can affirm that God knew exactly what would happen before he made the universe if he made the universe the way he intended to make the universe. God knew that one day Jeffry Dalmer would eat little children in the universe he intended to build and he went right ahead and built that universe anyway God being content to have such a universe for a time because that very universe in which Dalmer did what he did serves his eternal purposes.

Can you affirm that?

Yes or no.

It is a very simple question.

Can you or can you not affirm that?

 

[Skandelon]

It is about how Willis view is not at all in line with mine- that's your point.

Correct. And that point was established and its over. Let it Go.

On ANOTHER point, which this isn't about...If you think someone who won't even affirm soft determinism is 'closer to you' than to me you are self deceived and from everything I've seen thus far have no working knowledge of my theories and speculations regarding omniscience. In fact, that hasn't even been discussed in this thread by Willis or me, so it wouldn't be possible to really compare or contrast those views.

I'd suspect if you got the three of us in a room and I (using my words, not yours) explained my understanding of infinite omniscience and you explained your logical conclusions of how foreknowledge = determinism, he would more likely agree with me. Nevertheless, he already denied your logical case for determinism based on foreknowledge by affirming bare permission. Case closed.

You can debate him on that point and win him over if you'd like...

 

[Skandelon]

If you'd like to start a thread on the topic of Omniscience I'd be glad to address my views there...

 

[Luke2427]

Correct. And that point was established and its over. Let it Go

.

It's OVER? Why, because you say so?

Who do you think you are Skan? Lord God Almighty of baptistboard?

 

[Skandelon]

.

It's OVER? Why, because you say so?

Who do you think you are Skan? Lord God Almighty of baptistboard?

Yes, that is what I think Luke. Again, making it personal...

 

[Winman]

Yes, that is what I think Luke. Again, making it personal...

As Yogi Berra said, "It's Deja Vu all over again!"

Now, which one is Luke? :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Yes, that is what I think Luke. Again, making it personal...

Peers do not get to control the parameters of the debate.

Peers do not get to say "You can no longer discuss this. We will now move on to another topic."

Only the moderator can say that- the one who transcends the debate, who commands the debaters.

That's how you see yourself, it seems to me.

You not only fight in the ring but you think you are the referee and the bell ringer who can ring the bell whenever he chooses all at the same time.

That's the kind of language you constantly use.

 

[Skandelon]

I've purposefully refrained from moderating (which simply entails giving infractions and editing posts) posts of those I'm engaging in a debate. My requests to stay on a topic are no more or less 'authoritative' than your when you start a thread and would like to keep things on a particular track. You can heed them or ignore them just like any other poster, as I can yours.

 

[Luke2427]

I've purposefully refrained from moderating (which simply entails giving infractions and editing posts) posts of those I'm engaging in a debate. My requests to stay on a topic are no more or less 'authoritative' than your when you start a thread and would like to keep things on a particular track. You can heed them or ignore them just like any other poster, as I can yours.

I know that I can.

I am simply pointing out to you that when you use that kind of language it smacks of you thinking of yourself in a superior fashion.

Most of us would not say "It's over" like you did here because we do not think of ourselves like you apparently think of yourself- in such a superior manner. That's not an attack- it is meant to bring you off your perch in your mind and to stand toe to toe with me as if you too were just a mortal so that we can discuss things without the frustration of dealing with your constant language of looking down your nose from your perch of moral or intellectual high ground.

We speak to each other as equals.

 

[convicted1]

For whatever reason, my name and beliefs have been bandied about quite abit lately, and I don't know why. But I will give everyone the way I have come to understand things, and some will agree and others disagree, and I am well aware of that. Some will say "right on", and "kudos", and others will say "I need to study the bible more", or "do you want to go from emotion, or what the bible says"....yadda, yadda, yadda.....but he goes.


In eternity, when God decided to make this "orb" we call earth, He made it and hung it upon nothing(Job 26:7). Even before He made the decree, He knew full well that sin would be a part of it. And for whatever reason(s), He went ahead a made it. He knew that Lucifer would do what he did, and the angels that fell with him. But, God never coerced Lucifer, neither simply withdrew His grace from Lucifer, nor did He make Adam and Eve do what they did, but He simply allowed evil to come to pass. He knew that Jesus would come as the sacrificial Lamb that would die for us.


Now, we know that God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, but I think the bible leans towards silence in regards to why. I am under the assumption....and it's merely an assumption....that by doing this, He made a way to give us a choice between good and evil.....again, the bible doesn't explicitly state why He placed it there, but it was there, they partook of it, and we got the sentence of death because of it.


God knew that evil would be part of the plan(not coming from Him, but Lucifer), because He knew what Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels that fell with him would do. He knew that Adam and Eve would do what they did, and what the outcome for us would be.....but He never made anyone sin and transgress against Himself.

 

[Herald]

For whatever reason, my name and beliefs have been bandied about quite abit lately, and I don't know why. But I will give everyone the way I have come to understand things, and some will agree and others disagree, and I am well aware of that. Some will say "right on", and "kudos", and others will say "I need to study the bible more", or "do you want to go from emotion, or what the bible says"....yadda, yadda, yadda.....but he goes.


In eternity, when God decided to make this "orb" we call earth, He made it and hung it upon nothing(Job 26:7). Even before He made the decree, He knew full well that sin would be a part of it. And for whatever reason(s), He went ahead a made it. He knew that Lucifer would do what he did, and the angels that fell with him. But, God never coerced Lucifer, neither simply withdrew His grace from Lucifer, nor did He make Adam and Eve do what they did, but He simply allowed evil to come to pass. He knew that Jesus would come as the sacrificial Lamb that would die for us.


Now, we know that God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden, but I think the bible leans towards silence in regards to why. I am under the assumption....and it's merely an assumption....that by doing this, He made a way to give us a choice between good and evil.....again, the bible doesn't explicitly state why He placed it there, but it was there, they partook of it, and we got the sentence of death because of it.


God knew that evil would be part of the plan(not coming from Him, but Lucifer), because He knew what Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels that fell with him would do. He knew that Adam and Eve would do what they did, and what the outcome for us would be.....but He never made anyone sin and transgress against Himself.

I agree with you 100%. God is not the author of sin, nor does He force anybody to sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with you 100%. God is not the author of sin, nor does He force anybody to sin.

Think where our non cal bethren get upset though is when we declare that while god does NOT author evil, nor cause any to sin, he still purposed in his plans to use that to accomplish His sovereign Will, that even evil acts are in purpose/plans of God somehow!

 

[Skandelon]

I know that I can.

I am simply pointing out to you that when you use that kind of language it smacks of you thinking of yourself in a superior fashion.

Most of us would not say "It's over" like you did here because we do not think of ourselves like you apparently think of yourself- in such a superior manner. That's not an attack- it is meant to bring you off your perch in your mind and to stand toe to toe with me as if you too were just a mortal so that we can discuss things without the frustration of dealing with your constant language of looking down your nose from your perch of moral or intellectual high ground.

We speak to each other as equals.

Luke, you use similar language all the time. This post is a good example of that, with the exception that you violate the rules when you do it...

It has nothing to do with arrogance or my thinking I'm better as a moderator. I don't even remember that I am a moderator on most occasions...I just enjoy discussing theology. When I say 'its over' that is the end of it, that simply means that I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse, or rehash something that has long been conceded. That is all. Many people makes such comments.

Once again, you are turning things personal. This is really not necessary. Stop judging others motives as you really have NO IDEA as to the motive of another and you are violating BB rules that you agreed to abide to. If you have a personal critique of me then use the PM feature, as those are the rules. I'd say the same thing even if I weren't a moderator.

 

[Skandelon]

Think where our non cal bethren get upset though is when we declare that while god does NOT author evil, nor cause any to sin, he still purposed in his plans to use that to accomplish His sovereign Will, that even evil acts are in purpose/plans of God somehow!

Why would we get upset over that when we affirm it ourselves? I simply disagree with those who say God determines everything. That God does it all, but the evil things aren't evil because he does them for good motives. (Luke's Hard Deterministic View)

I have no problem with what you just stated, nor would most non-Calvinists that I am aware of...