What's the distinction between a good book and scripture?

[Aaron]

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored...

I noticed you ignored my citation of the law.

1. I'm not assuming culpability

It's your whole argument. Somehow, if Calvinism is true, God is to blame.

2. If "foreknowledge" = "predetermination" why to both terms even exist, and why does scripture choose one and not the other in a given context? Is it your contention that they are meant to be synonymous?

I don't know how much simpler I can say this. If you believe God to be omniscient, you don't escape the difficulty you say Calvinists have. In the evil He allows, He does not restrain the ox He knows is apt to gore.

If one has the power to prevent an evil, and does not, his culpability is the same as if he perpetrated the crime.

You're only logical refuge is to deny the omniscience of God.

 

[Skandelon]

I noticed you ignored my citation of the law.

The citation need not be addressed if the statement being reference is irrelevant to the case.

It's your whole argument. Somehow, if Calvinism is true, God is to blame.

No. You are confusing the matter. Look at it this way:

X = God is culpable for predetermining sinful acts

Y = God is culpable for foreknowing and permitting sinful acts
​

You are arguing if X is true then Y is true, OR more specifically, you are saying, "if you, a non-Cal, can claim Y is not true then I, a Calvinist, can claim X is not true on the same basis."

But that doesn't follow. There is no proof, philosophically or biblically, that shows foreknowledge equals predetermination. That is a presumption you are bringing to the text. This is sometimes called the "You Too" fallacy (Tu quoque), and it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it, but the only way you can make that case is to ASSUME foreknowledge equals predetermination, when clearly it does not.

In the evil He allows, He does not restrain the ox He knows is apt to gore.

Which is a far cry from 'pulling the strings' which determined the goring, not to mention the strings which determined the decisions of the individual who was gored to be in the place where he was certain to be gored.

If one has the power to prevent an evil, and does not, his culpability is the same as if he perpetrated the crime.

So, a parent who KNOWS his future children will freely choose to sin but chooses to procreate anyway is just a culpable as the parent who decides to train and use his child in a criminal enterprise? Non-sense. Again, equating divine permissiveness with divine predetermination is unfounded.

You're only logical refuge is to deny the omniscience of God.

Only if you accept the finite logical construct you've imposed upon the infinite God.

 

[Aaron]

So, a parent who KNOWS his future children will freely choose to sin but chooses to procreate anyway is just a culpable as the parent who decides to train and use his child in a criminal enterprise? Non-sense. Again, equating divine permissiveness with divine predetermination is unfounded.

Holy freakin' cow, Charles. This is really desperate. God did not beget mankind. He created them. He owns them. They're His property. They're the vessels He created to use for His own purposes.

If you make something, or something you own or are operating results in an injury to another, you are liable.

When are you going to learn to see God as Creator? Either your opinion of yourself is too high, or your view of God is too small (or both). There is no other way you could even begin to think that your begetting of children is anything like God's act of creation.

 

[Skandelon]

Again, the strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

Holy freakin' cow, Charles. This is really desperate. God did not beget mankind. He created them.

Aaron, you're intentionally avoiding the point of an analogy to focus on another unrealted point. We all know God didn't beget children in the manner a parent does, but the point being addressed was our since of justice as it relates to foreknowing something will happen versus determining to make it happen. How anyone can't see or willing accept the difference in those two concepts is beyond me.

He owns them. They're His property. They're the vessels He created to use for His own purposes.

Yet, if someone treated their dogs like you suppose God treats his 'property' they would be locked away immediately. Down playing the importance, value and significance of mankind and playing up the slave master role of God is a popular pass time for Calvinists, but ironically Jesus' teaching seems to be taking us in the exact opposite direction. He teaches that we are no longer slaves, but friends (Jn 15:15) and that we don't have a spirit of slaves but sons. Jesus reveals a loving, merciful, benevolent father who desires all to come to repentance, while you present him as a slave master, or landlord who couldn't care less for most of what he owns.

If you make something, or something you own or are operating results in an injury to another, you are liable.

You are making my point. If I create a robot and make it where it destroys others property or kills people, then I AM LIABLE, which is why I reject your form of determinism.

When are you going to learn to see God as Creator?

When are you going to respond to me with consistency? According to your own view I will only learn what God has predetermined for me to learn when and if He wants me to learn it. You are debating God, not me. I have no control over what I learn or don't learn, so take it up with Him and be consistent.

Either your opinion of yourself is too high, or your view of God is too small (or both).

Again, I guess God just hasn't humbled me like he has you. And I can't think of a much smaller view of God than portraying Him as one who acts like Michael Vick. After all, the dogs were his property!

 

[OldRegular]

In terms that everyone can understand!

If we characterize the Bible as LIGHT then relatively speaking a good book or any book is darkness!

So there!

 

[convicted1]

In terms that everyone can understand!

If we characterize the Bible as LIGHT then relatively speaking a good book or any book is darkness!

So there!

Does this include "The Institutes of Christian Living"??

 

[Aaron]

Let's just sum up the arguments.

Charles: If God was in control of all things, then we would have no Scripture.
Aaron: You neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Good day. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Let's just sum up the arguments.

Charles: If God was in control of all things, then we would have no Scripture.

Wow.

After all that you seriously think that summarizes my argument? No wonder you fight against my views so vehemently. I would too if I thought that is what our side believes. As Aristotle wisely said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." To entertain a thought one must be willing to objectively and honestly understand it and actually address the objections rather than formulating a straw man to attack. Allow me to restate the summary statement for you more accurately:

If God is in control over all things (in the way described by Deterministic believers), then the manner in which scripture is brought to pass is not uniquely supernatural and thus such a view lessons or undermines the unique authority of scripture.

Aaron: You neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Translation: Your views of the scripture, God's power, and the manner He chooses to engage with mankind are different from mine, so you must be wrong because I'm always right.

"Humble yourselves and you will be exalted." -God

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow.

If God is in control over all things (in the way described by Deterministic believers), then the manner in which scripture is brought to pass is not uniquely supernatural and thus such a view lessons <sic> or undermines the unique authority of scripture.

Wow.

The fact that God superintended the writing of the Scriptures is uniquely a supernatural work in and of itself. No other writings are inspired in this manner.

God is in control of all things and this by no means lessens or undermines the authority of the Scriptures.

No one who believes that God is Sovereignly over all things, by so believing this truth, undermines the authority of Scripture, nor do said lessen the authority of Scripture. To say otherwise is a blatantly false accusation.

We're not buying it.

 

[JesusFan]

Wow.

After all that you seriously think that summarizes my argument? No wonder you fight against my views so vehemently. I would too if I thought that is what our side believes. As Aristotle wisely said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." To entertain a thought one must be willing to objectively and honestly understand it and actually address the objections rather than formulating a straw man to attack. Allow me to restate the summary statement for you more accurately:

If God is in control over all things (in the way described by Deterministic believers), then the manner in which scripture is brought to pass is not uniquely supernatural and thus such a view lessons or undermines the unique authority of scripture.

Translation: Your views of the scripture, God's power, and the manner He chooses to engage with mankind are different from mine, so you must be wrong because I'm always right.

"Humble yourselves and you will be exalted." -God

Do you believe that God actually determines anything than?
or has he set up free will for all things/decisions/just reacting to what is made and done by us?

Do all calvinists hold that God determines to the degree that you state we do?

God determined directly to create the Bible, and allowed all other books to be written by men 'themselves", with their own understanding of the Bible, fallibility and all!

You do know that we CANNOTknow anything about God in a personal sense apart from divine revelation, primarily thru Incarnate Word Jesus, secondarily by wriiten Word, Bible?

 

[Aaron]

Wow.

After all that you seriously think that summarizes my argument?

It's the end result. So what's the difference?

 

[Skandelon]

Do you believe that God actually determines anything than?

Yes! That is my point. He determined to bring about the writing of the scriptures, which is the very thing that makes the scriptures uniquely authoritative. If God equally determine everything then what makes anything uniquely authoritative?

It's like when Calvinists quote Paul's testimony about being set apart from birth for apostleship as a proof text for Calvinistic soteriology. Calvinists reason that if Paul was 'set aside from birth' that somehow proves God has likewise set every believer apart from birth in the same manner. But the problem with this interpretation is that Paul was making that claim in order to set himself apart as having apostolic authority. If every believer was set apart and effectually called out like Paul was then what is uniquely authoritative about Paul? The believers in Galatia could just say, "So what Paul? We were all set apart from birth and called effectually, why should we listen to you?!"

 

[Skandelon]

It's the end result. So what's the difference?

No, it's not. I never even implied the statement you attributed to me and it completely misses the point of contention being discussed. It only shows you have yet to objectively deal with my actual views.

 

[Aaron]

Sure it is. If the only thing that distinquishes the Scripture from other writings is God's control, you must have God not in control of some things.

 

[Skandelon]

Sure it is. If the only thing that distinquishes the Scripture from other writings is God's control, you must have God not in control of some things.

No, just not "deterministic control."

I agree with what Edwards said when he wrote, "God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

Notice how he distinguishes between what God permits and his 'positive agency.' I would place scripture under his positive agency and other works under his permission.

As we've learned from the earlier quotes, scripture often portrays God doing that which in his providence He merely permits.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes! That is my point. He determined to bring about the writing of the scriptures, which is the very thing that makes the scriptures uniquely authoritative. If God equally determine everything then what makes anything uniquely authoritative?

Most cals would though view God has having both a determined and a permissive Will in play, so why all the fussing about strictly determint view of God and scripture in your OP?

It's like when Calvinists quote Paul's testimony about being set apart from birth for apostleship as a proof text for Calvinistic soteriology. Calvinists reason that if Paul was 'set aside from birth' that somehow proves God has likewise set every believer apart from birth in the same manner. But the problem with this interpretation is that Paul was making that claim in order to set himself apart as having apostolic authority. If every believer was set apart and effectually called out like Paul was then what is uniquely authoritative about Paul? The believers in Galatia could just say, "So what Paul? We were all set apart from birth and called effectually, why should we listen to you?!"

again, cals would see it as being SAME way to be saved by God, as being elected in Christ, and saved by act/will of God on our behalf, but in case pf Apostle paul , Giod chose ans selected Him to 'special assignment" of an Apostle for Christ!

what again was the main reason that you were persuaded to abndon held cal positions fr more of an Arminian view of salvation?

What authors/circumstances/verses etc caused this change to occur?

 

[Skandelon]

what again was the main reason that you were persuaded to abndon held cal positions fr more of an Arminian view of salvation?

What authors/circumstances/verses etc caused this change to occur?

I already answered that in one of your threads... HERE>>>>