Why are you debating me?

[Luke2427]

And talk about arrogant, you think you are the only person who has ever thought of these things. I was thinking about this stuff before you were born.

So you are an old man who ought to know better.

[snipped]

 

[Skandelon]

Guys, this is bad. Hundreds read through our threads looking for answers to their theological questions and they have to read this. This doesn't represent us well, as believers, or as participants on this board. Edit your own comments or I'll be forced to do so.

Discuss the topic, not each other. PLEASE.

 

[Winman]

You're the one avoiding the question Winman.

Do you believe that in order for God to ordain something he must command somebody to do something?

I believe God has determined every single thing that ever comes to pass in eternity past.

Oh, I believe that to ordain something means to command it, yes. That is why I showed the definition several times from the dictionary. I know that you will DENY that ordain means to command, but that is simply you playing with the true definition of words. That is what you Calvinists do, you have your own set of definitions for words that is quite different than everyone else.

But what did Shakespeare say?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet


Shakespeare must have known some Calvinists.

Look Luke, if God has "determined" what must happen, that is the same as a command or decree. If God has determined a sinner must sin, then he cannot do anything but sin.

That is not what I believe. I believe God knew that Judas would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. It was absolutely certain to happen, because God's foreknowledge is perfect and cannot be wrong. God allowed Judas to betray Jesus to bring about his crucifixion.

But in theory Judas could have repented. Only in reality he could not because God's foreknowledge is perfect and knew exactly what he would certainly do.

My view does not incriminate God. God did not cause Judas to betray Jesus, he simply knew he would.

This is not your view and you know it, Calvinism rejects this view. But now you are stuck with the problem of trying to explain how God is not the author of sin.

You really think non-Cals do not understand this? We get it, and that is why we reject your view.

 

[Winman]

Here is my "dumb" mugwump (though I'm not a calvinist - tulips give me hayfever) position.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.​

How can it be that the eternal almighty all-knowing, all powerful God would want to stoop down and reason with me concering my sin and love of darkness - I don't know and I can't explain it, but I just accept it without questioning the how-to's and what-if's.​

This passage clearly outlined my own experience.​

It was like a wrestling match (how could I possibly win?).
I exercised my choice and "tapped-out" before I ended up in the place of perdition.​

I will say this: When He called me through His word, I already knew Him (who He was/is) though I was yet unsaved.

HankD​

Thanks for the nice testimony Hank. :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is my "dumb" mugwump (though I'm not a calvinist - tulips give me hayfever) position.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.​

How can it be that the eternal almighty all-knowing, all powerful God would want to stoop down and reason with me concering my sin and love of darkness - I don't know and I can't explain it, but I just accept it without questioning the how-to's and what-if's.​

This passage clearly outlined my own experience.​

It was like a wrestling match (how could I possibly win?).
I exercised my choice and "tapped-out" before I ended up in the place of perdition.​

I will say this: When He called me through His word, I already knew Him (who He was/is) though I was yet unsaved.

HankD​

I thought he was a fictitious character made up to keep me in line.

 

[Jerome]

Dictionaries always put the most likely definition first and in descending order from there. . . .that I have to explain this to you is indicative of the fact that you are WAY in over your depth. . . .You don't know what you are talking about and what's worse is that you don't know that you don't know what you are talking about.

Huh?


Oxford English Dictionary:

http://public.oed.com/resources/for-students-and-teachers/a-level/

How does the OED decide in what order to list its senses?

It is a historical dictionary, which means that the entries are listed in the order in which they are found to have occurred chronologically.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm

Order of Senses

The order of senses within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in English is entered first.

 

[Luke2427]

Huh?


Oxford English Dictionary:

http://public.oed.com/resources/for-students-and-teachers/a-level/



Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm

Yes, that is the way the OXFORD dictionary orders words for ENGLISH definitions.

The point still stands.

Any view that says because ONE OF FIVE definition OPTIONS is command that the word defined ALWAYS MUST MEAN command is eat up with stupid.

Skandelon, note I said the VIEW is eat up with stupid- not the person. You seem to think that as long as you are insulting the view like Winman does then it is perfectly ok.

I'm just capitalizing on what you allow him to do. 10-4?

 

[Jerome]

Luke, please clarify. The view that "Dictionaries always put the most likely definition first and in descending order from there"—is that view moronic, idiotic, or just plain stupid?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, please clarify. The view that "Dictionaries always put the most likely definition first and in descending order from there"—is that view moronic, idiotic, or just plain stupid?

Do you know the difference between wrong and idiotic?

A person can be brilliant and wrong.

But a person who thinks a certain way can HAPPEN to be right and be a complete moron.

Do you understand that?

For example a person can be wrong about how the OXFORD ENGLISH dictionary orders its definitions. Anybody can.

But anybody who thinks that any ONE OPTION must be the only one and must always apply to every usage of the term has a view that is utterly ridiculous in the highest degree.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

There is a right way of thinking that sometimes leads to wrong conclusions.

Then there is just a totally wrong way of thinking that HAPPENS to be right rarely.

The latter is that of ignorant person.

The former is that of an imperfect person.

I hope you can discern between the two.

 

[Skandelon]

Jerome is rightly pointing out that your reply to Winman was uncharitable while also not completely accurate. There is no reason to imply others are stupid, moronic, dumb, or idiotic because they disagree on some matters of faith. There is no reason to tell other posters they are in over their heads, needing more education or other personally insulting statements. It is unnecessary and a poor reflection upon us as Christians and Baptists.

Both Winman and Luke seem to be very uncharitable in your replies, which is why I asked you to edit your posts and try to discuss the topic and not each other.

 

[Luke2427]

Jerome is rightly pointing out that your reply to Winman was uncharitable while also not completely accurate. There is no reason to imply others are stupid, moronic, dumb, or idiotic because they disagree on some matters of faith. There is no reason to tell other posters they are in over their heads, needing more education or other personally insulting statements. It is unnecessary and a poor reflection upon us as Christians and Baptists.

Both Winman and Luke seem to be very uncharitable in your replies, which is why I asked you to edit your posts and try to discuss the topic and not each other.

I concur.
______________

 

[Skandelon]

Why?

Back to the question of the OP, for the determinist: Why do you debate?

1. Do you believe you can change my will or the will of someone reading along?

2. Do you believe that the reason you debate is because God determined you to have the desire to debate? And the only reason I might believe your arguments is because God determines me to believe them?

3. When you are faced with a choice to act do you honestly believe in your heart that you could refrain or not refrain from that act? For example, you are now faced with the option to reply to this post. Do you believe right now that you could willingly respond or refrain from responding? If not, why not? If so, has God lead you to believe contrary to the truth because determinism isn't a livable philosophy of life?

 

[Luke2427]

Back to the question of the OP, for the determinist: Why do you debate?

1. Do you believe you can change my will or the will of someone reading along?

Yes.

2. Do you believe that the reason you debate is because God determined you to have the desire to debate? And the only reason I might believe your arguments is because God determines me to believe them?

Yes.

3. When you are faced with a choice to act do you honestly believe in your heart that you could refrain or not refrain from that act? For example, you are now faced with the option to reply to this post. Do you believe right now that you could willingly respond or refrain from responding?

Yes.

 

[Yeshua1]

Determinism is certainly untrue because if it were true we shouldn't consider the Determinist's arguments as really being arguments meant to persuade, provoke or convince our wills, but as conditioned reflexes meant to invoke the predetermined outcome.

Think about this practically. Why do Determinists debate? Isn't it because for all practical purposes they believe they can influence the outcome and somehow make us able to recognize the objective validity of their insightful arguments and be swayed? In short, the determinist, by engaging with us in debate, is for all practical purposes presuming the outcome has not been predetermined.

Now, I can already hear the objections: But we believe in MEANS! We could be the means God uses to convince or persuade a reader to believe our views and thus we were the pre-appointed means by which that predetermined outcome was realized. But, practically speaking, your argumentation didn't convince or persuade anyone except the one who determined their wills to be swayed. So, your argument, which, by the way, you only decided to make by His determination, served only to "persuade" Him to determine your hearer's will to be swayed. So, on one side of the debate you have God causally determining the will of you, the determinist, to make your arguments; and on the other side you have God causally determining the will of your opponent to either accept these well crafted arguments and be swayed or to reject them and remain in opposition. The nature of your argument (if you can even call it 'yours' considering that God is the one who determined it) does nothing that the determiner, God, hasn't already decided it would do.

It is a picture of God debating himself. God convincing himself. God persuading himself. God playing both sides of the chess board. That is the ultimate inner workings of this forum's purpose if determinism is true...a playground for God to use his pawns to debate theories about Himself. A self-defeating impractical worldview if I've ever seen one! But then again, maybe the opponent will show up with just the rightly worded conditioned reflex needed to causally determine me to be won over into the light of their wonderfully impractical self defeating existence? I can't wait...or can't I?

"Determinism is self-stultifying. If my mental processes are totally determined, I am totally determined either to accept or to reject determinism. But if the sole reason for my believing or not believing X is that I am causally determined to believe it, I have no ground for holding that my judgment is true or false." (Christian Theism, Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1984, p. 118)
​

{btw, I know all Calvinists are not determinists in the since that you take things to the point of affirming God's complete determination of man's nature, desires and choices...but some here (like Luke) certainly are}

How do you define "Determinism" though?

 

[Luke2427]

Yes.


Yes.



Yes.

Hello?

Any body there?