What is the point?

[RisingSpirit]

If we are predestined then our "choice" is not exactly a choice is it?

Don't waste yourself.

The power of "NOW" always begins with God. God creates Time and He is the "Present". No one really lives in the present. You have to be created first to exist. They live in nano micro split seconds after the present. meaning they only think a touch too late and takes them way too long to recognize the moment. The free will bullies only see what their slow poke brain tells them to see. They don't see God being in total charge of the present. "NOW" is the time to take it as the Bible states it. alone.

Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, writes: “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the ground and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us. ... If we reject divine sovereignty then we must embrace atheism.” (Chosen by God, pp.26-27)

So yeah, if you want to think like a wise man (CLICK HERE) you might wanna say, "Choosing without choosing" or "Robots without robots".
Most wise men would say, "stop asking too many questions". If you wanna be a free willer then go ahead but you'll be living in a constant lie if you do.

The Art of Fighting without Fighting - Bruce Lee (HD) ORIGINAL - YouTube

 

[RisingSpirit]

Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, writes: “But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.” (Chosen By God, p.31, emphasis)

 

[SPB1987]

Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, writes: “But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.” (Chosen By God, p.31, emphasis)

This is confusing. If we are predestined then how did Adam and Eve choose to sin?

 

[RisingSpirit]

This is confusing. If we are predestined then how did Adam and Eve choose to sin?

Calvinism totally rejects "predestination" defined as the Supreme Being making people do what they didn't want to do.

 

[SPB1987]

Calvinism totally rejects "predestination" defined as the Supreme Being making people do what they didn't want to do.

Rather than just saying this, why don't you explain how Calvinism actually defines predestination?

 

[RisingSpirit]

Rather than just saying this, why don't you explain how Calvinism actually defines predestination?

​

[SIZE=+1]Serious wise men don't go wrong[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=+1]
The first place we attack this kind of misconception about Calvinism is where it judges God as just any other human. The Supreme Being ain't a creature ! Like parents don't have to go to bed at the bedtime they set for their children, God isn't obliged to the same rules set down for His creatures. This where semi-Pelagians (Arminians, Romanists) first go wrong: They contrive a moral equivalence between humans and Deity which just doesn't exist ! We exist for the Lord's glory. There's no corresponding parallel where God exists for our glory. The relationship [God/Man], therefore, is NOT egalitarian. Thus we gravely err whenever we judge the Supreme Being by our standards ! Only after we establish this basic fact can we discuss the particulars of what "free" will is, and what predestination means.[/SIZE]

 

[RisingSpirit]

​

We reject the notion of "fate", and -especially- any characterization of Calvinists as fatalists.

"Fate" carries the connotation of an impersonal force directing the course of events.

Calvinist deny any such thing !

We see an intelligent and personal Supreme Being having total sovereignty over every element and aspect of the physical universe He created.

Therefore, "fate vs. free will" vis-a-vis Calvinism and Arminianism misrepresents the issues.

We would frame the matter: God's Sovereignty vs. Human Autonomy.

Let's be real clear about this up front.

And also a couple other things...

First, Reformation Christians don't deny humans having any 'free will'. , but we affirm human volition and, specifically, a voluntary human volition.

We disaffirm all concepts of Divine Mind Control where humans are used by God as zombies. Such a doctrine would absolve people of the responsibility for their thoughts and actions which Scripture so clearly places on them !

Secondly, the sovereignty of God vis-a-vis volition is not just a Calvinist position. The same doctrine was maintained by Luther (Bondage of the Will; Ch. 2, Sec. 9; Ch. 4, Sec. 1; ect.; Martin Luther).

And -as risingspirit shall demonstrate- the same doctrine as found in God's Word.

 

[DocNH]

Election was before the foundation of the world - Eph 1:4-5,11, etc. if you are the only one in your family that is and will be saved,then yes, you were the only one that was elected.

Some people speak of free-will as if they may choose anything at all, even choose things that are outside of their nature. A better term for understanding man's ability to choose is free agency, that man is free to choose anything according to his nature. The Scripture teaches us that our nature before Christ is dead in sin- Eph 2:2. It did not desire God, nor could it as it was enslaved to sin - Rom 8:5-8. This bondage or enslavement limits our choices. We only make choices within the limits of our chains we are in bondage too.

When Spirit calls and regenerates a person - John 3 - then he has a new nature and receives the gifts of grace - Eph. 2:8-10 and repentance 2 Tim. 2:24-26. The chains of bondage have been loosed and in the dungeon of their sin they see a bright light which they are irresistibly drawn toward. Justification, adoption, etc follow in this marvelous chain of grace (ordo salutis).

Evangelical efforts, prayers, etc. are included in God's eternal plan and therefore he commands them. For instance, Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20:1-11. In the text, God gives a conditional judgment. Hezekiah knew that God alone determines when repentance will turn his wrath aside (2 Sam 12:22; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9). Hezekiah repents and God adds fifteen (15) years to his life. If Hezekiah had not repented then God, true to his nature, would have carried out his judgment in full.

However, true to God being all-knowing and ordaining all things for his own glory Hezekiah repented. How do we know that all this was ordained? Why was Isaiah used as a secondary means in the ordained purpose of God? Who was Hezekiah's son? His name was Manasseh. Manasseh was in the linage of Christ (Matt. 1:10) who was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world (1 Pet 1:19-20) to be born and die for the sins of his people (Rom 5:15).

Without Isaiah's evangelistic efforts and Hezekiah's repentance the lineage of Christ would have been destroyed. Thus, this reveals that God's eternal plan is always on schedule and that he uses secondary causes (i.e. obedience to his word, repentance, prayer, WCF 5: Of Providence, et. al.) to insure they do. This also shows that God did not change his original plan to accommodate the sins of others. God's plan will never be overthrown (Dan 4:35; Psa 115:3, etc.). God is immutable and sovereign.

All who are elect will be saved.

Evangelism: Why should we preach the gospel?

I'm glad I found this thread - it seems like I have many of the same questions as the OP.

When thinking about predestination (is that the proper term Presbyterians use?) I think of my salvation. I am the only saved person in my family. Baring the possibility of my family being saved later in life, does this mean I was chosen and they were not.

I also tend to think of God's foreknowledge as something different than predestination. For example: yes, Peter denied Christ just as foretold, but does this necessarily mean that Peter could have chosen differently but simply didn't?

Also, what does this imply for evangelistic efforts? I was saved after hearing the gospel and, being convinced of my sin and need for Christ's righteousness. Is the Church supposed to broadcast the gospel in order that it might reach one of God's elect? Is it possible that someone could be one of the elect, but never encounter the gospel?

Sorry for the many questions. I am eager to learn and understand =)

 

[RisingSpirit]

This is confusing. If we are predestined then how did Adam and Eve choose to sin?

[SIZE=+1]If everybody did right, Adam wouldn't have
sinned, and we wouldn't be in this situation !

Theonomy is "God's Law", So, if we don't
need any laws because all people do the
right thing without it, then we ain't talking
theonomy any more ! Sounds rather like
Universalism, instead.[/SIZE]

 

[DocNH]

Adam and Eve were created very good (Gen. 1:31). So we know that God created man with an inclination toward good. We also know that pre-fall man was not in bondage to sin. However, in the Garden man was also in probationary state. In the Covenant of Works, he had a choice between two trees ....

Now while man was inclined to choose good, God created his nature in such a way that was not yet sealed in righteousness; thus the probationary state. If he were sealed in righteousness it would not have been possible to choose evil (compare Christ, the second and last man Adam - 1 Cor. 15:45, 47, - the righteous One (Isa. 53:11; 1 Cor. 1:30) - who fulfilled the covenant of works). Adam, the Federal Head of all mankind (Rom. 5:12-19), was inclined to good, but choose to sin. Thus, all mankind "in Adam" fell into sin (original sin).

Eve was deceived. Satan modified God's original command; must not "touch." Once Eve touched the fruit and nothing happened, she ate of the fruit - But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. James 1:14-15. While Eve's sin is hideous, Adam's was even worse. Adam was not deceived - 1 Tim. 2:14. He willingly sinned against God. As Gill states,

Adam never was deceived at all; neither by the serpent, with whom he never conversed; nor by his wife, he knew what he did, when he took the fruit of her, and ate; he ate it not under any deception, or vain imagination, that they should not die, but should be as gods, knowing good and evil. He took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him ...

Now it is important to note here that Christ was ordained BEFORE the foundation of the world to die for the sins of the elect (1 Pet 1:19-20; cf. Acts 2:23-24; 4:27-28). So, God ordained the fall of man, but did not author it. (See Evil and God? and Does God Use Evil to Accomplish His Purposes? for how and why ...).

Without going into even more detail, we end up with Augustine's 4 states of man:

1. able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare) the state of man in innocence, before the Fall.

2. not able not to sin (non posse non peccare); the second the state of the natural man after the Fall.

3. able not to sin (posse non peccare) the third the state of the regenerate man.

4. unable to sin (non posse peccare) the fourth the glorified man.

The Scriptures define freedom as basically free from sin. In Romans 6 Jesus teaches that only he can set his people free. Of course, the saint has been set free from sin, and will see the totality of this reality at glorification.

Have good evening. Been nice being able to spend some time here this weekend.

 

[SPB1987]

[SIZE=+1]If everybody did right, Adam wouldn't have
sinned, and we wouldn't be in this situation !

Theonomy is "God's Law", So, if we don't
need any laws because all people do the
right thing without it, then we ain't talking
theonomy any more ! Sounds rather like
Universalism, instead.[/SIZE]

Thanks for stating the obvious, lol. I am still a little confused. I just can not wrap my head around the concept that God chooses only some of us. I will use the following scripture:

1 Timothy 2 NASB
1First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Here it says that God desires all men to be saved....so why would he only choose to save some and not all?

 

[DocNH]

Very few attempting to understand unlimited atonement from texts such a 1 Tim. 2:4 and a few others actually quote the entire text. Thank you for being honest with the text and attempting to understand it in its entire context.

The Greek word for "all" is pas. The term can have several meanings in Scripture, including "all kinds of," etc. Other passages which use the word all in this same way, to mean "all kinds" or "all manner" – Matt. 4:23; 5:11; 10:1; Luke 2:1, 2; 11:42; Acts 2:5 (cf. 2:9-11); 10:11-14; Rom. 7:8; 1 Tim. 6:10, etc.

Look at the context which you quoted. Paul, not denying the other texts in which he speaks of definite atonement, is here speaking of "all kinds of men" or "all classes of men," or "all types of men" – even kings and those in authority. Paul begins in 1 Tim 2:1, where he admonishes the church to pray for all kinds of persons - especially kings and those in authority. And so in the following verses he does not introduce a new thought. He simply follows up that admonition with various reasons, i.e., that God has willed the salvation of all types of persons and that Christ is also the Mediator of all kinds of persons.

If God desires all men to be saved without exception, then why are any lost? It is impossible to give the four words - ransom, substitute, reconcile, propitiate - their Biblical meaning and still hold to universal atonement without also accepting universal salvation.

Christ died specifically for the sins of the elect and actually accomplished, not just provided a mere possibility of their salvation (Isa. 53:11; Matt. 1:21; 20:28; 26:28; Luke 1:68; John 6:37-39; Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:8-11; Gal. 3:13 Heb 7:24-26; 9:11-12; cf. Luke 19:10, 1 Tim 1:15; Tit. 2:13-24, etc.). Since Christ literally accomplished the redemption of those that would believe this means all their sins have been atoned for! Since all their sins are atoned for – including the sin of unbelief – then the definition of "all" or "world" in such contexts cannot include "every man in the world without exception" as then every man in the world without exception would be saved (universalism).

Christ gave himself a ransom for all kinds of men (1 Tim. 2:6) – both Jews and Gentiles (the two classes referred to in Scripture) – only "the many" (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) in these groups are atoned for ….

There are other verses that give some people difficulties such as:

http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/42427
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/42382

I just can not wrap my head around the concept that God chooses only some of us. I will use the following scripture:

1 Timothy 2 NASB
1First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Here it says that God desires all men to be saved....so why would he only choose to save some and not all?

 

[RisingSpirit]

... 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth....

[SIZE=+1]Paul has interesting phraseology in
Titus 1:1...

"an apostle of Jesus Christ
for the faith of God's elect
and the knowledge of the
truth" (NIV)

See how the Apostle interconnects
election, faith, and knowledge.

We, today, prefer the reverse ...a
disconnect between faith and knowledge.
Like you can having Saving Faith without
any factual knowing. A non-intellectual
commitment.


While I would be the last to say that
Saving Faith is knowledge
only, the inverse isn't true either !

Doctrine is part of salvation.

Belief has an object. A factual basis. And
that's knowledge.

In theology we refer to this as Saving
Knowledge. A component of Saving Faith.
Without which there isn't any Saving Faith !

Faith minus knowledge being a mere trite
feeling.[/SIZE]

 

[SPB1987]

Very few attempting to understand unlimited atonement from texts such a 1 Tim. 2:4 and a few others actually quote the entire text. Thank you for being honest with the text and attempting to understand it in its entire context.

The Greek word for "all" is pas. The term can have several meanings in Scripture, including "all kinds of," etc. Other passages which use the word all in this same way, to mean "all kinds" or "all manner" – Matt. 4:23; 5:11; 10:1; Luke 2:1, 2; 11:42; Acts 2:5 (cf. 2:9-11); 10:11-14; Rom. 7:8; 1 Tim. 6:10, etc.

Look at the context which you quoted. Paul, not denying the other texts in which he speaks of definite atonement, is here speaking of "all kinds of men" or "all classes of men," or "all types of men" – even kings and those in authority. Paul begins in 1 Tim 2:1, where he admonishes the church to pray for all kinds of persons - especially kings and those in authority. And so in the following verses he does not introduce a new thought. He simply follows up that admonition with various reasons, i.e., that God has willed the salvation of all types of persons and that Christ is also the Mediator of all kinds of persons.

So basically your saying that "all" is a rather poor translation here?

If God desires all men to be saved without exception, then why are any lost? It is impossible to give the four words - ransom, substitute, reconcile, propitiate - their Biblical meaning and still hold to universal atonement without also accepting universal salvation.

Christ died specifically for the sins of the elect and actually accomplished, not just provided a mere possibility of their salvation (Isa. 53:11; Matt. 1:21; 20:28; 26:28; Luke 1:68; John 6:37-39; Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:8-11; Gal. 3:13 Heb 7:24-26; 9:11-12; cf. Luke 19:10, 1 Tim 1:15; Tit. 2:13-24, etc.). Since Christ literally accomplished the redemption of those that would believe this means all their sins have been atoned for! Since all their sins are atoned for – including the sin of unbelief – then the definition of "all" or "world" in such contexts cannot include "every man in the world without exception" as then every man in the world without exception would be saved (universalism).

Christ gave himself a ransom for all kinds of men (1 Tim. 2:6) – both Jews and Gentiles (the two classes referred to in Scripture) – only "the many" (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45) in these groups are atoned for ….

There are other verses that give some people difficulties such as:

http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/42427
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/42382

Well I was not trying to imply that the text says that God will save everyone. I took it to mean that he wants everyone to be saved(basically offer salvation to all). Why would Jesus need to die if God has elected who will be saved before the world even began? I suppose these individuals do not even have the ability to reject salvation? Why choose to offer or force salvation on some but not others?

 

[RisingSpirit]

...Here it says that God desires all men to be saved....so why would he only choose to save some and not all?

[SIZE=+1]All who hear the genuine Gospel call are genuinely
called by that Gospel.

But "few" can respond. Only the Elect. (Matthew 22:14)

This is known in theology as the Effectual Calling. It's
the same calling the reprobate hear. The Gospel doe
not differ. What differs are those listening to it !

Not "all men are called", though. Billions have died
in the course of history never hearing Gospel of Grace.[/SIZE]

 

[SPB1987]

[SIZE=+1]Paul has interesting phraseology in
Titus 1:1...

"an apostle of Jesus Christ
for the faith of God's elect
and the knowledge of the
truth" (NIV)

See how the Apostle interconnects
election, faith, and knowledge.

We, today, prefer the reverse ...a
disconnect between faith and knowledge.
Like you can having Saving Faith without
any factual knowing. A non-intellectual
commitment.


While I would be the last to say that
Saving Faith is knowledge
only, the inverse isn't true either !

Doctrine is part of salvation.

Belief has an object. A factual basis. And
that's knowledge.

In theology we refer to this as Saving
Knowledge. A component of Saving Faith.
Without which there isn't any Saving Faith !

Faith minus knowledge being a mere trite
feeling.[/SIZE]

Why does God elect some and not others?

 

[SPB1987]

[SIZE=+1]All who hear the genuine Gospel call are genuinely
called by that Gospel.

But "few" can respond. Only the Elect. (Matthew 22:14)

This is known in theology as the Effectual Calling. It's
the same calling the reprobate hear. The Gospel doe
not differ. What differs are those listening to it !

Not "all men are called", though. Billions have died
in the course of history never hearing Gospel of Grace.[/SIZE]

Why can only few respond?

 

[RisingSpirit]

... I took it to mean that he wants everyone to be saved(basically offer salvation to all). ...

"Want" is the same as "willed". If He wants it, He will Will it. Nothing is on autopilot and running amok in it's own course without God's Wills.

If God wants then it will happen. If God doesn't want then it won't happen,

The real problem is that you're placing God over there where you want Him to be. You don't want Him to be in total control over you so you see Him over there (if at all) and not in you or you'll lose control over your own free will that you feel that totally belongs to you as if God gave you that much freedom to change God's plan He already laid down for the future.

Try This: Go outside and watch the wind tumble the leaves around. Take a snapshot in your mind and tell yourself that the leaves tumbling really happened and God was there and made every action of every leaf being tumbled in the wind and even the God was there to control the wind to push the leaves around. See, You can't place God over there and say He isn't among every action of the winds and the leaves.

Reality is real and already happened as if God is in the real present. Try this: God first and then the wind and the leaves. Not wind and the Leaves and then God willed it afterwards.

Past, Present and future, all at once, is tricky to the unrenratate's mind. The reformed will tell you just take the Bible to say what it said and not question it. Free willers questions God's actions, every moment, and fight against it all the time and do harm to their own organs and get sick.

 

[DocNH]

Yea, I figured you were not a "universalist" however, if we interpret the text the way you suppose that is the necessary end of such an interpretation. As I bring out in another place:

John Owen proves the point. I will briefly state in modern English, Owen's arguenent which may be found in the definitive work entitled, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the #1 is correct for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. One sin, only one sin, means eternal death (Rom 3:23; 1 Kings 8:46; Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:9). The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover "all a sinners' sins" with his blood.

Some (Arminians) would say that #3 is correct: "Christ died for all the sins of all men." But then one needs to ask, "Why are not all saved?" (I.e. Judas, the son of perdition). They answer, "Because some do not believe." However, is not unbelief one of the sins for which they claim Christ died? If they say yes, then why is thier unbelief not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? And if they answer, "No, unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for" then they must affirm against the Gospel (Heb 11:6; cf. Acts 16:31; Rom 4:24; 10:9-10; Matt 10:32; Luke 12:8; 1 Pet 1:21; 1 John 4:15) that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus! But there is only one way (John 14:6).

The reality is #2 is true: "Christ died for all the sins of some men." That is, he died specifically for the unbelief of the elect and actually accomplished, not just provided a possibility (Heb 7:24-26; 9:11-12; cf. Luke 19:10, 1 Tim 1:15), of their salvation. For, them and them alone, God's punitive wrath is appeased and his grace is free (Eph 2:8-10) to draw them irresistibly to himself (John 6:44, 65). As Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said, "We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved."

The text speaks of the fact that God desires "all types of persons" saved - or all types of sinners not matter their position in society.

Jesus needed to die for his elect so they could be saved - without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

The reprobate do not even truly desire God - see Rom. 8:7. They willfully continue to reject the Gospel. They are hostile to God, do not and cannot obey him - as they do not truly know him. See my post on baptism just before this one ...

As far as offering the Gospel in a saving way to some and not to others see what I have written here: Will all mankind eventually be saved? (Isn't election unjust?)

Sorry for the limited response, but I need to get back to work ... a lot of Bible Notes on Titus to write today ...

So basically your saying that "all" is a rather poor translation here?




Well I was not trying to imply that the text says that God will save everyone. I took it to mean that he wants everyone to be saved(basically offer salvation to all). Why would Jesus need to die if God has elected who will be saved before the world even began? I suppose these individuals do not even have the ability to reject salvation? Why choose to offer or force salvation on some but not others?

 

[SPB1987]

"Want" is the same as "willed". If He wants it, He will Will it. Nothing is on autopilot and running amok in it's own course without God's Wills.

If God wants then it will happen. If God doesn't want then it won't happen,

The real problem is that you're placing God over there where you want Him to be. You don't want Him to be in total control over you so you see Him over there (if at all) and not in you or you'll lose control over your own free will that you feel that totally belongs to you as if God gave you that much freedom to change God's plan He already laid down for the future.

Try This: Go outside and watch the wind tumble the leaves around. Take a snapshot in your mind and tell yourself that the leaves tumbling really happened and God was there and made every action of every leaf being tumbled in the wind and even the God was there to control the wind to push the leaves around. See, You can't place God over there and say He isn't among every action of the winds and the leaves.

Reality is real and already happened as if God is in the real present. Try this: God first and then the wind and the leaves. Not wind and the Leaves and then God willed it afterwards.

Past, Present and future, all at once, is tricky to the unrenratate's mind. The reformed will tell you just take the Bible to say what it said and not question it. Free willers questions God's actions, every moment, and fight against it all the time and do harm to their own organs and get sick.

Can we apply the same logic to Hitler's rise to power and the subsequent atrocities he committed?