Omniscience means fatalism.

Lon

Well-known member
Only if you are limited to dealing with potential and not actual future. Are you limiting God now, saying He doesn't know the actual future?

You can't know for sure that he's actually going into the street, because your words actually prevented him from doing so.

Everybody is an open theist when it gets down to brass tacks.
Interestingly, the Calvinist says "Everyone is a Calvinist when he/she is on their knees."

As far as my example, of course I'm not omniscient, but God is. In sheer power, alone for instance, He could play both scenarios (already unnecessary in definite foreknowledge and perfection) and choose the one He wants. Again, hope your Labor Day Weekend is awesome.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think it's obvious: If Jesus told the disciples to pray "God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven", showing that God's will is not always happening on earth, a different will is required to maintain that nothing happens outside of God's will.

Common sense (a.k.a. Open Theism) tells you that there is what God wants and then there's what actually happens. Sometimes they're the same thing, sometimes not.

In other words, in essence, the idea of a permissive and perfect will of God is, in effect, the Calvinist stealing from the Open Theism paradigm. (Which they are continually having to do because bad doctrine doesn't make reality go away.)

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Where do I say God has two wills. It seems you are constructing a fantasy doctrine and applying it to me as though it will stick.

God does what He wills.
You're either lying or I know your doctrine better than you do.

The post I responded to is still there for everyone to read, you know.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No open theism on my end. God knows all things and he has set them in place by His providence.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

I can see by this that you're already out of substance and are quitting. Nice.

I shared the context around the two passages you shared so that you would stop attempting a prooftext by using only a couple sentences.

You can read the entire chapter! Read the entire book! Read the whole bible!

You shared no such context. You stated your doctrine. Of course, Calvinists do think that it's the same thing but it isn't.

Jeremiah 18 begins with the Potter and the Clay allegory. The passage I quoted provides the context in which that allegory is to be understood (i.e. it explains what the allegory means). That's why it comes after the allegory.

As for the rest of the Jeremiah passages, they mean what they say. They mean precisely what they say. You can quote the whole chapter if you want but it doesn't change the fact that God Himself said that it never enter His mind that they should do such things. Sort of hard to ordain something that it never accrued to you, don't you think?

The passage I quoted from Jonah is the story of the entire book in one sentence. It is the context!

What you call a proof-text is not only that but it is, in fact, an argument. A biblical argument. If you wanted to engage the debate at that point and challenge the veracity of the argument on the basis of a misunderstanding of the text then you should have done so. Instead, you claim that it's not literal and think that this claim is supposed to be sufficient to convince me and anyone else reading this.

Well, saying it doesn't make it so and I'm not one bit afraid of the text of scripture. If you want to engage me on that basis, bring it. I dare you.





He will NOT do so! This post was him quitting (or trying too). Anyone else who is interested is invited by me to read read read! Read Jonah - the whole book! And as you're reading it, ask yourself whether it sounds like these events are predestined or does it read like God is having to fight Jonah to get things done? Is there a prophecy in the book of Jonah? Did that prophecy come to pass as stated? Why or why not? Is Jonah a false prophet? Why or why not?

Read Jeremiah 18! It is perhaps the single most important chapter in the entire bible. Read it over and over again - all of it. It happens to answer several of the questions I just posed.

Then read Jeremiah chapters 19 and 36. What you'll find is that you have to choose between reading these chapters of the Bible and understanding them to mean what they say or believing in Calvinist doctrine and therefore forcing them to say something other than what the text itself actually says. In fact, you'll have to believe that it means the opposite of what it says. You'll find that it says that events were occurring that never entered God's mind. You'll have to choose to either believe that or that these events not only entered God mind but that He planned them and infallibly and immutably predestined that they would happen. You will have to choose! No matter how much the Calvinist inside you or beside you is telling you that you have no choice, you will, nevertheless, be making a choice by answering the following question: Do I read the Bible and believe it or do I come to the Bible with my beliefs and make the text say what I need it to say?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

New member
Saying it doesn't make it so.

I can see by this that you're already out of substance and are quitting. Nice.



You can read the entire chapter! Read the entire book! Read the whole bible!

You shared no such context. You stated your doctrine. Of course, Calvinists do think that it's the same thing but it isn't.

Jeremiah 18 begins with the Potter and the Clay allegory. The passage I quoted provides the context in which that allegory is to be understood (i.e. it explains what the allegory means). That's why it comes after the allegory.

As for the rest of the Jeremiah passages, they mean what they say. They mean precisely what they say. You can quote the whole chapter if you want but it doesn't change the fact that God Himself said that it never enter His mind that they should do such things. Sort of hard to ordain something that it never accrued to you, don't you think?

The passage I quoted from Jonah is the story of the entire book in one sentence. It is the context!

What you call a proof-text is not only that but it is, in fact, an argument. A biblical argument. If you wanted to engage the debate at that point and challenge the veracity of the argument on the basis of a misunderstanding of the text then you should have done so. Instead, you claim that it's not literal and think that this claim is supposed to be sufficient to convince me and anyone else reading this.

Well, saying it doesn't make it so and I'm not one bit afraid of the text of scripture. If you want to engage me on that basis, bring it. I dare you.





He will NOT do so! This post was him quitting (or trying too). Anyone else who is interested is invited by me to read read read! Read Jonah - the whole book! And as you're reading it, ask yourself whether it sounds like these events are predestined or does it read like God is having to fight Jonah to get things done? Is there a prophecy in the book of Jonah? Did that prophecy come to pass as stated? Why or why not? Is Jonah a false prophet? Why or why not?

Read Jeremiah 18! It is perhaps the single most important chapter in the entire bible. Read it over and over again - all of it. It happens to answer several of the questions I just posed.

Then read Jeremiah chapters 19 and 36. What you'll find is that you have to choose between reading these chapters of the Bible and understanding them to mean what they say or believing in Calvinist doctrine and therefore forcing them to say something other than what the text itself actually says. In fact, you'll have to believe that it means the opposite of what it says. You'll find that it says that events were occurring that never entered God's mind. You'll have to choose to either believe that or that these events not only entered God mind but that He planned them and infallibly and immutably predestined that they would happen. You will have to choose! No matter how much the Calvinist inside you or beside you is telling you that you have no choice, you will, nevertheless, being making a choice. Do I read the Bible and believe it or do I come to the Bible with my beliefs and make the text say what I need it to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete, you sound like an angry follower of Pelagius.
I will respond by stating your own words. "Saying it doesn't make it so."
 

Rosenritter

New member
I can see in my dog's eyes, he is going to run into the street. A word stops him. Wouldn't it be correct to say BOTH I knew what he was going to do AND that I stopped him from doing it?

Only if you were speaking in the same understanding of the world as used by the Open Theist. Not if you were speaking from the perspective of the Closed Future or Settled View.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Interestingly, the Calvinist says "Everyone is a Calvinist when he/she is on their knees."

As far as my example, of course I'm not omniscient, but God is. In sheer power, alone for instance, He could play both scenarios (already unnecessary in definite foreknowledge and perfection) and choose the one He wants. Again, hope your Labor Day Weekend is awesome.

That statement "Everyone is a Calvinist on their knees" is both incorrect and contradictory.

It is incorrect because "everyone" means "every person" without exception. I may not know the hearts of all men but I know that I am not a Calvinist in prayer. I do sometimes ask for God to change his mind, and I know better than to think that God can force someone's heart to be right.

It is contradictory because the true Calvinist believes that God cannot be influenced by prayer, and that prayer is something merely done for our own benefit. While the Calvinist may believe that God has the power to make someone's heart be a certain way (to be more loving, etc) they also believe that God cannot change anything from what it is or will be, because what will be is already known and decreed.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
I believe 'Calvinism' is one of those false doctrines' that is a 'scourge on Christianity.'
It goes against the teachings/preaching of the Apostle Paul. Paul preaches Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

It is 'GRACE' that is the 'Gift,' not faith. God created mankind with a 'free will.'
 

Lon

Well-known member
Only if you were speaking in the same understanding of the world as used by the Open Theist. Not if you were speaking from the perspective of the Closed Future or Settled View.
Disagree. In fact, it goes against the Open Theist paradigm that God "cannot know what is unknowable" i.e. a future before He altered it. We all argue from our paradigms. I simply try to ensure that none of mine put God in a man-made box. Going to happen? Probably not, because I'm finite and limited so my concept of Him always will be. That said, I've a bit of room over a few others in my head with a 7 3/4 hat size.
That statement "Everyone is a Calvinist on their knees" is both incorrect and contradictory.
Are you sure? Or does it only look that way to you? :think:

It is incorrect because "everyone" means "every person" without exception.
You mean everyone who kneels here, don't you? :think:

I may not know the hearts of all men but I know that I am not a Calvinist in prayer.
Really? It is always "God, I want my will on this when you answer"? Or is it said more with "If it is 'YOUR' will"? See what they are saying and meaning?

I do sometimes ask for God to change his mind
To me? Calvinist. Your will doesn't matter when you ask for His will.

and I know better than to think that God can force someone's heart to be right.
You mean like with a hammer? Or with consistent, gentle, but firm pressure? Did you have to have a ton of spankings when you were young? Why does it take so much force to have gotten your heart right? I'm not sure you know better, honestly. I think I know God does exert force. Hezekiah had to have his life about to be removed to get right. God does discipline those He loves. I 'think' I know better than to not believe this, but I'm not certain if this is a disagreement or what exactly you have in mind here. It may be no disagreement at all? :think:


It is contradictory because the true Calvinist believes that God cannot be influenced by prayer, and that prayer is something merely done for our own benefit.
James 5:16

While the Calvinist may believe that God has the power to make someone's heart be a certain way (to be more loving, etc) they also believe that God cannot change anything from what it is or will be, because what will be is already known and decreed.
Not only that, but that God thought about it, the correct way with the needed outcome, first. RATHER prayer allows me to participate in the love God has for me and for you. When I pray for you, and you are healed, I've asked for nothing that God didn't want to already do. Rather, I've entered into relationship between you and God, and I am better for it. More? You are better for it and it is you and I that have changed. Therefore, I pray.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete, you sound like an angry follower of Pelagius.
I don't know anything about Pelagius. I simply read the Bible and take it for what it says.

As for sounding angry, I'm not angry. Annoyed perhaps but I am not angry. If I were angry, I wouldn't have been able to predict your response (or lack thereof) so accurately. Besides, Calvinists are fools and you are stupid. I couldn't care less what you think about the way I sound.

I will respond by stating your own words. "Saying it doesn't make it so."

As predicted. Menn here is out of his depth and has quit at the first hint of a real argument. He reads three bible verses he didn't know existed and runs like a scared rabbit.

Of course saying it doesn't make it so, which is why I offered a rationally sound and very formal argument which everyone on his side of the debate has completely ignored. In addition to that, I offered, even dared him to take, a perfectly valid avenue of attack again another argument I've made and which he has mostly ignored except to simply state his doctrine which doesn't move the debate at all (precisely because saying it doesn't make it so) and telling people to read more than the verses I quoted, which I encourage people to do as well. It is he who has made unsubstantiated claims and refused to even make an argument in their favor nor any real rebuttal to arguments that falsify those claims. In short, it is he who is simply saying it.



This is certainly not the best that Calvinism has in the way of people capable of championing their doctrine but it is par for the course when it comes to Calvinists on TOL. They are all liars, hacks, hypocrites, blasphemers or down right stupid fools. Many are a combination of those things. These threads have become good for nothing else other than demonstrating that fact. It is easy and bores the crap out of me.

Clete
 

MennoSota

New member
I don't know anything about Pelagius. I simply read the Bible and take it for what it says.

As for sounding angry, I'm not angry. Annoyed perhaps but I am not angry. If I were angry, I wouldn't have been able to predict your response (or lack thereof) so accurately. Besides, Calvinists are fools and you are stupid. I couldn't care less what you think about the way I sound.



As predicted. Menn here is out of his depth and has quit at the first hint of a real argument. He reads three bible verses he didn't know existed and runs like a scared rabbit.

Of course saying it doesn't make it so, which is why I offered a rationally sound and very formal argument which everyone on his side of the debate has completely ignored. In addition to that, I offered, even dared him to take, a perfectly valid avenue of attack again another argument I've made and which he has mostly ignored except to simply state his doctrine which doesn't move the debate at all (precisely because saying it doesn't make it so) and telling people to read more than the verses I quoted, which I encourage people to do as well. It is he who has made unsubstantiated claims and refused to even make an argument in their favor nor any real rebuttal to arguments that falsify those claims. In short, it is he who is simply saying it.



This is certainly not the best that Calvinism has in the way of people capable of championing their doctrine but it is par for the course when it comes to Calvinists on TOL. They are all liars, hacks, hypocrites, blasphemers or down right stupid fools. Many are a combination of those things. These threads have become good for nothing else other than demonstrating that fact. It is easy and bores the crap out of me.

Clete
You follow Pelagius. You are a Pelagian. This is too bad. He's had other followers who read the Bible and teach his philosophy. You follow Pelagius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You follow Pelagius. You are a Pelagian. This is too bad. He's had other followers who read the Bible and teach his philosophy. You follow Pelagius.
Rather than making a tout court claim, it would be best to qualify the "Pelagius!" charge as there are distinctions.

Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?​

For more, see:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html

AMR
 

MennoSota

New member
Rather than making a tout court claim, it would be best to qualify the "Pelagius!" charge as there are distinctions.

Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?​

For more, see:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html

AMR
Pelagius taught that humans choose God and that their choice brings God's grace. He is the forerunner of Arminius who was the forerunner of Finney. The path of heresy is long in the Pelagian camp.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
LOL, the Pelagians in TOL can rip on Calvinism, but when they are labeled as Pelagians they pout. Man up, Stripey and accept your position as a Pelagian.
:yawn:

Go away, Troll.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
Top