How Hard Determinism turns God into the devil and Grace into a myth.

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Does anything happen in all of Creation that is outside of God’s will?

This is the avoided question.
The avoidance is you not defending your OP and shifting the burden.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The avoidance is you not defending your OP and shifting the burden.

It defends itself. This simple question has been answered. The quote is available. The word control was within its verbiage. I will not draw it from one location to here.

Does anything within Creation occur outside of God’s will?

The answer is YES, from the LBF perspective, the answer is NO from determinism’s perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
It defends itself. This simple question has been answered. The quote is available. The word control was within its verbiage. I will not draw it from one location to here.

Does anything within Creation occur outside of God’s will?

The answer is YES, from the LBF perspective, the answer is NO from determinism’s perspective.
It doesn’t defend itself. You made a claim

“To say... “but if God mind controlled Bob to kill someone innocent, God is guiltless of the crime”, is to make God duplicitous by God’s own standards that He meticulously lays out in all of scripture. This is to say that Determinism accepts the idea that God is Double Minded!”

I’m asking you to give any evidence that any orthodox teaching holds to this view. So the burden is on you to show it. Asking me questions about my beliefs, which I’ve not introduced into this discussion, is out of line. You need to support your statement.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It doesn’t defend itself. You made a claim

“To say... “but if God mind controlled Bob to kill someone innocent, God is guiltless of the crime”, is to make God duplicitous by God’s own standards that He meticulously lays out in all of scripture. This is to say that Determinism accepts the idea that God is Double Minded!”

I’m asking you to give any evidence that any orthodox teaching holds to this view. So the burden is on you to show it. Asking me questions about my beliefs, which I’ve not introduced into this discussion, is out of line. You need to support your statement.

I say, God neither desires Evil to exist, nor willed it to exist, yet provided opportunity for it to exist by endowing Creation with LBF.

If I ask if you agree, a Determinist, in context of this thread, would most likely not answer.

It is no secret how Determinism interprets Isaiah 45:7 then doctrinally builds from that single verse.

If the heart of the theology weren’t known, the question has no merit, but the heart of the theology is well known.

Thus, I posit that the question remains valid and no burden of proof is on my shoulders.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
All Love to All Of you... Determinism and LBF are philosophical concepts, as well as the varying degrees to which they are described.

Theological Framework attempts to draw out the perspective of God by making philosophical leaps.

I enjoy these debates, but simply wanted to interject counter-perspective.

In reality, only God knows the answers to these posits.

- Grip
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
@Hammster, at the end of the day, you may be more correct than myself.

I admit that only God knows the mind of God and God Alone knows the full picture that we are debating... for the purpose of challenging our own perspectives and being plunged deeper into scripture and meditation on Christ.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, Brother in Him
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟746,824.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Right to it... Determinism unapologetically makes all of Creation specifically performing God’s will.

The Devil is merely an extension of God’s will, within Determinism, existing and torturing to ultimately bring Glory to God, within Determinism.

Grace is UNMERITED FAVOR. If all is God’s will, then there is no need for Grace, as even the Wicked are performing God’s will, which means they are not in rebellion of God and thusly without the need for grace.

If I hold a gun to Bob’s head and force him to kill someone innocent, Bob still has a choice to be shot or kill the innocent someone.

If I were to mind control Bob to shoot someone innocent, Bob is guiltless and the guilt of the crime rests on my head.

To say... “but if God mind controlled Bob to kill someone innocent, God is guiltless of the crime”, is to make God duplicitous by God’s own standards that He meticulously lays out in all of scripture. This is to say that Determinism accepts the idea that God is Double Minded!

God created/creates evil.

ca·lam·i·ty

noun
noun: calamity; plural noun: calamities
an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster.

I know modern translations prefer to translate the Hebrew word “ra” as calamity…what do you say?

cropped-oldchurch2.jpg


Word Study Dictionary READS:

ra‛, ָרָעה

rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9; Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22). It was necessary for a wise king to be able to discern the evil or the good in the actions of his people (Ecc 12:14); men and women are characterized as evil (1Sa 30:22; Est_7:6; Jer 2:33). The human heart is evil all day long (Gen 6:5) from childhood (Gen 8:21); yet the people of God are to purge evil from among them (Deu 17:7). The Lord is the final arbiter of whether something was good or evil; if something was evil in the eyes of the Lord, there is no further court of appeals (Deu 9:18; 1Ki 14:22). The day of the Lord’s judgment is called an evil day, a day of reckoning and condemnation (Amo 6:3). Jacob would have undergone grave evil (i.e., pain, misery, and ultimate disaster) if he had lost Benjamin (Gen 44:34). The word can refer to circumstances as evil, as when the Israelite foremen were placed in a grave situation (Exo 5:19; 2Ki 14:10).

The word takes on the aspect of something disagreeable, unwholesome, or harmful. Jacob evaluated his life as evil and destructive (Gen_47:9; Num_20:5); and the Israelites considered the wilderness as a threatening, terrifying place. The Canaanite women were evil in the eyes of Isaac (i.e., displeasing [Gen 28:8]). The rabble’s cry within Israel for meat was displeasing in the eyes of Moses (Num 11:10). This word describes the vicious animal that killed Joseph, so Jacob thought (Gen 37:33). The despondent countenances of persons can be described by this word; the baker’s and the butler’s faces were downcast because of their dreams (Gen 40:7). It can also describe one who is heavy in heart (Pro 25:20).

In a literal sense, the word depicts something that is of poor quality or even ugly in appearance. The weak, lean cows of Pharaoh’s dream were decrepit, ugly-looking (Gen 41:3, Gen 41:20, Gen 41:27); poisonous drinking water was described as bad (2Ki 2:19; 2Ki_4:41). From these observations, it is clear that the word can be used to attribute a negative aspect to nearly anything.

Used as a noun, the word indicates realities that are inherently evil, wicked, or bad; the psalmist feared no evil (Psa 23:4). The noun also depicts people of wickedness, that is, wicked people. Aaron characterized the people of Israel as inherently wicked in order to clear himself (Exo 32:22). Calamities, failures, and miseries are all connotations of this word when it is used as a noun. (end quote)

Scriptural Quotations to Consider:

Isaiah 45:7

KJV- I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

ESV- I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

Lamentations 3:37-38

KJV- Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

ESV- Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

A Quotation from Gordon H. Clark:

The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, “ra, translated ‘sorrow,’ ‘wretchedness,’ ‘adversity,’ ‘afflictions,’ ‘calamities,’ but never translated SIN. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

scofield.png


Now the most remarkable point about Scofield’s note is that he told the truth when he said, “RA . . . [is] never translated sin.” How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of RA in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of RA with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that RA in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated WICKEDNESS. In fact RA is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, RA is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word EVIL, a partial list of verses in which this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where WICKED or WICKEDNESS is used.

Going through the Bible, Scofield must have read as far as Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; 6:5; 8:21; 44:4; 48:16; 50:15, 17, 20. “The knowledge of good and EVIL” is simply a knowledge of sorrow or calamity; it is primarily a knowledge of disobedience and sin. Similarly, Genesis 3:5, 22 refers as much to sin as to its punishment. In fact Genesis 3:22 hardly refers to punishment at all. True, Adam was banished from the garden; but the word EVIL in the verse refers to his disobedience and sin.

Whatever lame excuse can be given for excluding sin and retaining only punishment in the previous four verses, Genesis 6:5 is clearly and indisputably a reference to sin. God did not see “adversity” or “afflictions”; he saw sinful thoughts. RA, in this verse at any rate, means sin. The same is true of Genesis 8:21. In fact sin and its punishment are separated here. God will not again curse or smite, as he had just done, for man’s heart is evil. The flood was a punishment, but the evil was the sinful heart of man.

Toward the end of Genesis RA refers to an alleged theft, many sins from which the Angel had redeemed Jacob, and three times the brothers’ sin against Joseph. In 50:17 again the sin is easily distinguishable from the feared punishment.

Is it necessary to plod through all the Old Testament to show that RA often means sin as distinct from its punishment? It should not be necessary; but to show the pervasiveness of the doctrine and the perverseness of Arminianism, something from II Chronicles will be listed: 22:4; 29:6; 36:5, 9, 12. Ahab did EVIL in the sight of the Lord. Our fathers have trespassed and done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Manasseh did evil in the sight of the Lord. He wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord. Jehoiakim did evil in the sight of the Lord. . . .

ra-strongs.png


Evil, RA, is not once TRANSLATED sin. Very strange, but true.

Then there is Isaiah 56:2; 57:1; 59:7, 15; 65:12; 66:4. All instances of RA, or EVIL.

Now, if Scofield knew that RA was never translated SIN, he must have known that it was often translated WICKEDNESS. WICKEDNESS or WICKED, as the translation of RA occurs in Genesis 6:5; 13:13; 38:7; 39:9. Also in Deuteronomy 13:11 and 17:2. Also in I Samuel 30:22 and II Samuel 3:39. I Kings 2:44; Nehemiah 9:35; Esther 7:6, 9, 25. And Proverbs 21:12; 26:23, 26. Nor are these the only instances.

Scofield told the literal truth when he said it is never translated SIN. But nothing could be more false than his statement, “ God created evil ONLY in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

The scriptural meaning of the word RA, has now been abundantly made clear. But there is another point too. If RA means simply external calamities, then the word PEACE, which God also creates, can mean only military peace. The phrases are parallel. But this interpretation reduces the verse, or THIS PART OF THE VERSE, to triviality. Even verse one can hardly be restricted to purely political matters. Verse three speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God. Jacob my servant and Israel my elect are not phrases to be restricted to politics and economics. Verse 6 speaks of the extension of the knowledge of God throughout the world. Then comes “I make peace and create evil.” Merely military peace? Not peace with God? The next verse speaks of righteousness dropping down from heaven, not like dew, but like pouring rain. Bring forth salvation, let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord have created it.

O, Arminian, Arminian, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told your children the plain truth . . . and ye would not let them understand!

There is still more in this chapter from Isaiah. Once again we find the potter and the clay. It indicates that God is not responsible to man. Woe to the man who complains that God has made him or anyone else a vessel of dishonor. The clay has no ‘rights’ against the potter. Nor does it have any free will to decide what sort of a bowl or jug it shall be.

Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987, pp. 185-188
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟746,824.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Indeed... God can take bad situations that arise from creations rebellion and bring about good through Love based, relational intercession.

The burden of evil occurring is on Creation’s Rebellion, while God carries the burden of defeating Evil and truth be told, He is already Spiritually Victorious... yet we await the Physical, Global victory... when Evil will be wiped out and only Good will remain. :)

In this view God just makes the best of a bad situation. God is a weak old man who stand by and allows evil to happen, without purpose and meaning. Can your god even save a sinner considering the reported effectiveness of (Orthodox) Toll Houses?
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
God created/creates evil.

ca·lam·i·ty

noun
noun: calamity; plural noun: calamities
an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster.

I know modern translations prefer to translate the Hebrew word “ra” as calamity…what do you say?

cropped-oldchurch2.jpg


Word Study Dictionary READS:

ra‛, ָרָעה

rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9; Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22). It was necessary for a wise king to be able to discern the evil or the good in the actions of his people (Ecc 12:14); men and women are characterized as evil (1Sa 30:22; Est_7:6; Jer 2:33). The human heart is evil all day long (Gen 6:5) from childhood (Gen 8:21); yet the people of God are to purge evil from among them (Deu 17:7). The Lord is the final arbiter of whether something was good or evil; if something was evil in the eyes of the Lord, there is no further court of appeals (Deu 9:18; 1Ki 14:22). The day of the Lord’s judgment is called an evil day, a day of reckoning and condemnation (Amo 6:3). Jacob would have undergone grave evil (i.e., pain, misery, and ultimate disaster) if he had lost Benjamin (Gen 44:34). The word can refer to circumstances as evil, as when the Israelite foremen were placed in a grave situation (Exo 5:19; 2Ki 14:10).

The word takes on the aspect of something disagreeable, unwholesome, or harmful. Jacob evaluated his life as evil and destructive (Gen_47:9; Num_20:5); and the Israelites considered the wilderness as a threatening, terrifying place. The Canaanite women were evil in the eyes of Isaac (i.e., displeasing [Gen 28:8]). The rabble’s cry within Israel for meat was displeasing in the eyes of Moses (Num 11:10). This word describes the vicious animal that killed Joseph, so Jacob thought (Gen 37:33). The despondent countenances of persons can be described by this word; the baker’s and the butler’s faces were downcast because of their dreams (Gen 40:7). It can also describe one who is heavy in heart (Pro 25:20).

In a literal sense, the word depicts something that is of poor quality or even ugly in appearance. The weak, lean cows of Pharaoh’s dream were decrepit, ugly-looking (Gen 41:3, Gen 41:20, Gen 41:27); poisonous drinking water was described as bad (2Ki 2:19; 2Ki_4:41). From these observations, it is clear that the word can be used to attribute a negative aspect to nearly anything.

Used as a noun, the word indicates realities that are inherently evil, wicked, or bad; the psalmist feared no evil (Psa 23:4). The noun also depicts people of wickedness, that is, wicked people. Aaron characterized the people of Israel as inherently wicked in order to clear himself (Exo 32:22). Calamities, failures, and miseries are all connotations of this word when it is used as a noun. (end quote)

Scriptural Quotations to Consider:

Isaiah 45:7

KJV- I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

ESV- I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

Lamentations 3:37-38

KJV- Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

ESV- Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

A Quotation from Gordon H. Clark:

The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, “ra, translated ‘sorrow,’ ‘wretchedness,’ ‘adversity,’ ‘afflictions,’ ‘calamities,’ but never translated SIN. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

scofield.png


Now the most remarkable point about Scofield’s note is that he told the truth when he said, “RA . . . [is] never translated sin.” How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of RA in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of RA with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that RA in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated WICKEDNESS. In fact RA is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, RA is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word EVIL, a partial list of verses in which this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where WICKED or WICKEDNESS is used.

Going through the Bible, Scofield must have read as far as Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; 6:5; 8:21; 44:4; 48:16; 50:15, 17, 20. “The knowledge of good and EVIL” is simply a knowledge of sorrow or calamity; it is primarily a knowledge of disobedience and sin. Similarly, Genesis 3:5, 22 refers as much to sin as to its punishment. In fact Genesis 3:22 hardly refers to punishment at all. True, Adam was banished from the garden; but the word EVIL in the verse refers to his disobedience and sin.

Whatever lame excuse can be given for excluding sin and retaining only punishment in the previous four verses, Genesis 6:5 is clearly and indisputably a reference to sin. God did not see “adversity” or “afflictions”; he saw sinful thoughts. RA, in this verse at any rate, means sin. The same is true of Genesis 8:21. In fact sin and its punishment are separated here. God will not again curse or smite, as he had just done, for man’s heart is evil. The flood was a punishment, but the evil was the sinful heart of man.

Toward the end of Genesis RA refers to an alleged theft, many sins from which the Angel had redeemed Jacob, and three times the brothers’ sin against Joseph. In 50:17 again the sin is easily distinguishable from the feared punishment.

Is it necessary to plod through all the Old Testament to show that RA often means sin as distinct from its punishment? It should not be necessary; but to show the pervasiveness of the doctrine and the perverseness of Arminianism, something from II Chronicles will be listed: 22:4; 29:6; 36:5, 9, 12. Ahab did EVIL in the sight of the Lord. Our fathers have trespassed and done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Manasseh did evil in the sight of the Lord. He wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord. Jehoiakim did evil in the sight of the Lord. . . .

ra-strongs.png


Evil, RA, is not once TRANSLATED sin. Very strange, but true.

Then there is Isaiah 56:2; 57:1; 59:7, 15; 65:12; 66:4. All instances of RA, or EVIL.

Now, if Scofield knew that RA was never translated SIN, he must have known that it was often translated WICKEDNESS. WICKEDNESS or WICKED, as the translation of RA occurs in Genesis 6:5; 13:13; 38:7; 39:9. Also in Deuteronomy 13:11 and 17:2. Also in I Samuel 30:22 and II Samuel 3:39. I Kings 2:44; Nehemiah 9:35; Esther 7:6, 9, 25. And Proverbs 21:12; 26:23, 26. Nor are these the only instances.

Scofield told the literal truth when he said it is never translated SIN. But nothing could be more false than his statement, “ God created evil ONLY in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.”

The scriptural meaning of the word RA, has now been abundantly made clear. But there is another point too. If RA means simply external calamities, then the word PEACE, which God also creates, can mean only military peace. The phrases are parallel. But this interpretation reduces the verse, or THIS PART OF THE VERSE, to triviality. Even verse one can hardly be restricted to purely political matters. Verse three speaks of treasures of darkness, hidden riches, and the knowledge of God. Jacob my servant and Israel my elect are not phrases to be restricted to politics and economics. Verse 6 speaks of the extension of the knowledge of God throughout the world. Then comes “I make peace and create evil.” Merely military peace? Not peace with God? The next verse speaks of righteousness dropping down from heaven, not like dew, but like pouring rain. Bring forth salvation, let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord have created it.

O, Arminian, Arminian, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told your children the plain truth . . . and ye would not let them understand!

There is still more in this chapter from Isaiah. Once again we find the potter and the clay. It indicates that God is not responsible to man. Woe to the man who complains that God has made him or anyone else a vessel of dishonor. The clay has no ‘rights’ against the potter. Nor does it have any free will to decide what sort of a bowl or jug it shall be.

Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987, pp. 185-188

Calamity would point to LBF, Evil would point to determinism.

The Romans 9 reference is taken out of context.... IMO
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In this view God just makes the best of a bad situation. God is a weak old man who stand by and allows evil to happen, without purpose and meaning. Can your god even save a sinner considering the reported effectiveness of (Orthodox) Toll Houses?

I worship Jesus Christ and even in the most intense of Debate I would not suggest that a brother worships anyone else.

I believe we both Worship Jesus Christ to the Glory Of the Father. I won’t believe otherwise unless you correct me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I say, God neither desires Evil to exist, nor willed it to exist, yet provided opportunity for it to exist by endowing Creation with LBF.

If I ask if you agree, a Determinist, in context of this thread, would most likely not answer.

It is no secret how Determinism interprets Isaiah 45:7 then doctrinally builds from that single verse.

If the heart of the theology weren’t known, the question has no merit, but the heart of the theology is well known.

Thus, I posit that the question remains valid and no burden of proof is on my shoulders.
You still are shifting the burden. If any orthodox teachings state that God mind-controls people, it should be easy to show. If you don’t believe this, then why start the thread?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Grip Docility
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You still are shifting the burden. If any orthodox teachings state that God mind-controls people, it should be easy to show. If you don’t believe this, then why start the thread?

How does God “Control” a man, according to your perspective? I would be willing to change the wording if you assist my understanding of the Determinist perspective.

Also, is Satan acting according to God’s Will?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
How does God “Control” a man, according to your perspective? I would be willing to change the wording if you assist my understanding of the Determinist perspective.

Also, is Satan acting according to God’s Will?
Once again, my view doesn’t matter here. So stop trying to change the subject. You indicated that there’s a teaching where God mind-controls people. I am still wondering what orthodox group teaches this, and as an addendum, where I can read about this mind-control.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Once again, my view doesn’t matter here. So stop trying to change the subject. You indicated that there’s a teaching where God mind-controls people. I am still wondering what orthodox group teaches this, and as an addendum, where I can read about this mind-control.

I would think it does matter. Is the mind and very being of a man endowed with LBF, from your perspective? You are a Determinist, are you not?

I answered the question asked on the other thread and added qualifiers to prevent the posit from misusing my intended answer to contradict my posit.

Qualifiers are permitted in the answer of the questions posited.

I’m not a Determinist, thus the burden isn’t on my shoulders, IMO.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
  • Useful
Reactions: Grip Docility
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I would think it does matter. Is the mind and very being of a man endowed with LBF, from your perspective? You are a Determinist, are you not?

I answered the question asked on the other thread and added qualifiers to prevent the posit from misusing my intended answer to contradict my posit.

Qualifiers are permitted in the answer of the questions posited.

I’m not a Determinist, thus the burden isn’t on my shoulders, IMO.
You are the OP. It’s incumbent upon you to lend support to your argument. You’ve not done so at all. You’ve only tried to change the subject by asking me about my views, which are not part of this thread. If you want to discuss my views, start a thread about my views and I will decide whether or not to participate.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You are the OP. It’s incumbent upon you to lend support to your argument. You’ve not done so at all. You’ve only tried to change the subject by asking me about my views, which are not part of this thread. If you want to discuss my views, start a thread about my views and I will decide whether or not to participate.

I have supported my views. Either a man has his own mind and being (LBF)... endowed by God to be so, or a man isn’t autonomous.

It’s binary and no amount of blurring the difference can reduce this fact... IMO.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,551
1,752
North America
✟84,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Even Jesus said; “Father not “My Will”, but “Your Will”.

2 distinct wills.

God the Father’s and God the Son’s

How much more different are our wills from God the Father’s and God the Son’s?

LBF is justified as biblical if the logic is properly evaluated.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I have supported my views. Either a man has his own mind and being (LBF)... endowed by God to be so, or a man isn’t autonomous.

It’s binary and no amount of blurring the difference can reduce this fact... IMO.
Your OP gave indication that there are some theologies that teach that God mind-controls. That seems to be your understanding of Determinism. So I’m asking you for support of that claim.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Even Jesus said; “Father not “My Will”, but “Your Will”.

2 distinct wills.

God the Father’s and God the Son’s

How much more different are our wills from God the Father’s and God the Son’s?

LBF is justified as biblical if the logic is properly evaluated.
That’s not the subject of the OP.
 
Upvote 0