Determinism??

[AgeofKnowledge]

There's always plenty of threads on OSAS, etc... but it's been awhile since we delved into academic determinism which can be defined like this:

"The view that all natural events, including human choices and actions, are the product of past states of affairs in accordance with causal necessity. Thus the determinist holds that, given the state of the universe at any particular time, plus the causal laws that govern events in the natural world, the state of the universe at every future time is fixed. Various kinds of determinism are possible depending on the nature of the causally determining forces. Most determinists today are scientific determinists who believe the laws of nature are the determining factors, but theological determinism, in which God directly determines every event, is also possible." -Evans, C. S. (2002). Pocket dictionary of apologetics & philosophy of religion (34). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Are you having trouble refuting strict scientific determinists and need resources?

The discussion of Free Will has come up so much here. Surprised I haven't seen anyone talk about Determinism a full discussion and the arguments for and against Naturalistic and Theistic. If you know of a good thread made already please post a link.

 

[psychomom]

For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. (1 Cor 2:2)

 

[nowyouseem033]

I know that I have posted this elsewhere; but it seems to fit here.

IMO, God created mankind because He wanted a creature able to receive and return His love.

The price God paid for a creature able to love Him was He got a creature able to reject His love.

Love must, by its nature, be volitional.

God was faced with a choice between preventing both sin and love or preventing neither sin nor love; because love cannot exist without the possibility of its rejection; which is the essence is what sin is .

To make love possible; God chose to temporarily permit sin to exist; since the alternative is a world without love.

I would like those who believe that God's election is independent of freewill to explain why God permits evil in the world.

I disagree with the first premise.

"God created mankind because he wanted a creature able to receive and return his love"

First of all I believe when God created, he did so not wanting anything from the creature whatsoever, but rather that the creature was intended to be an exact expression of Gods nature in the earth, an ambassador of God as such. Or to put it simply, that God was concerned more for his Glory being revealed in all the earth and expressed through man, rather than a relationship with man. (although that is part of it, but not the main concern for God. More concerned for his own glory, his own well being, his own purposes).

and I also disagree with the second premise/ statement "The price God paid for a creature able to love Him was He got a creature able to reject His love".

Scripture emphatically teaches that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" So love was being displayed and directed towards us, while we were still in a state of sin, not love or neutrality. I would say that God paid the price for A REBEL AT ENMITY TOWARDS HIM, for the purpose of saving and enabling him to again express and reveal Gods nature in all the earth. (which is love, joy, peace etc.)
Scripture also proclaims "men are lovers of darkness and hate the light"
Here we see men everywhere love darkness rather than light. The love of sinners is directed towards sin because it doesn't know love. If it did know love then it would know God, who is LOVE!!!

Also our love cannot be authentic or genuine if its not done out of a heart for God.... e.g
The GREAT COMMANDMENT: "You shall LOVE the Lord Your God, with all your heart, mind, body, soul and strength"
The GREAT TRANSGRESSION: "failing to love God PERFECTLY"

We disobey the great commandment everyday... to love God perfectly. Therefore it is CHRISTS LOVE AND OBEDIENCE TO GOD that is deposited to me on my behalf, BECAUSE my free-will love towards God at best is pathetic compared to Christs.

also disagree with "love by nature must be volitional"
Love by nature is God himself!!! he never choose to be love. He just simply IS LOVE. Which means if we are ever to express perfect and authentic love towards him, we must first have Christ in us. Again God is love, because by nature LOVE... IS GOD!
TO say that I can choose to love God out of my free will, means I can choose to love God without any external or internal influence whatsoever. If that be so Love will be expressed to God out of a heart of self rather out of a heart of God.

AGAIN another statement: "God was faced with a choice between preventing both sin and love or preventing neither sin nor love; because love cannot exist without the possibility of its rejection; which is the essence is what sin is .

 

[nowyouseem033]

God was faced with a choice??? Almost sounds like God didn't know what was going to happen and it took him by surprise.
God wasn't faced with any choice because love always will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS exist wether everybody rejects it and nobody accepts it. WHY?? Because God is LOVE... Love can exist without the possibility of its rejection. and love does exist and would exist if every single person rejected it. Do you think Gods concerned about the existence of LOVE. lol that's like saying do you think Gods concerned about the existence of himself?? I doubt it, because God cannot doubt his existence. If he doubts his existence, then we ARE ALL IN BIG TROUBLE!!!

 

[ember]

For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. (1 Cor 2:2)

I can understand why Paul would have said this.

Get to know the inner workings of a church and you wear this verse on a T shirt...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oh.... is this where the whole predestination belief comes from? Like how some say God created ppl to go to hell and others to heaven?

the point we have to understand, is what is predestination, and what is it based on.

One view states God forces some to heaven, and others to hell. (man has no free will to chose)

One view states God chose based on foreknowledge. (man still has free will)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I (the Calvinist woman, as opposed to Marc lol) don't think so. We're not compatible. Our will is to hide in darkness to keep our sin. (John 3:18-20.) God's will is to knock whosoever-will out into the light and expose the sin.

I would disagree, if this is true, there would never be faith, or working in love, we would never have the capacity fo love anyone, or serve anyone. we would all be like puppets tied to astring doing what the puppet master wants us to do.

For an unbeliever you are right, for a believer, God has changed our thinking and our desires. so we can chose freely to serve in love. and not serve self.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That depends on which version of Calvinism you're eluding to. Do we modern-day Calvinists believe everything Calvin believed? Nope. He got stuff wrong. Do we believe in TULIP? Yupper.

That's actually why I'm against the name Calvinist. We don't follow Calvin. We really are Christians because we follow Christ. I accept the title simply because many folks wouldn't know a Reformed Christian if we took them to church and then out for brunch afterwards. They'd just notice something was different about the service, and, in our case, man, do we know great breakfast joints. lol.

true, this calvin/arminian argument is prety futile. I do not hold to either of the 5 points. so I would not be classified as either one.

Better to just say christian, then find ones belief system to see if you agree or not.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Gods soverignty works from his omniscience.

God did not chose pharoah from birth and force him to do his will (if so, no need to chose him he could have chosen anyone and just had them do what he wanted) He chose him because he KNEW how he would FREELY act. and KNEW he would do exactly what he did based on what God did to him.

Gods soverignty does not negate our free will, it is true inspite of our free will. If God needs something done, and he knows crossnote will do it in the given circumstance, and EG will not do it. no matter what the circumstance is, He will chose to use Crossnote. not EG. His soverign will is still intact. as was crossnote's and eg's free will.

 

[atwhatcost]

I don't believe that we can will ourselves saved!

We are told 2 Pe 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV

But the Lord knows that it will not be that way; because our will allows us to reject His payment for our sin and His Lordship.

We have been returned to the same choice Adam and Eve had: to accept God's love on His terms or reject it and be lost.

Rv 22:17
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
KJV

Then accept is how we deserve salvation? I can't buy that one either, not to mention the dead can't accept. We were dead in sin -- not fainted, not in a coma, not losing life, but dead.

I was Arminian for the first 20 years of my walk with Christ, and I kept knocking my head against this wall that says I did something to deserve my salvation. Actually, I was kind of proud I had something to do with it, except whatever that thing was kept getting changed. Sometimes it was my faith, sometimes my choice, sometimes my acceptance, sometimes it was just showing up at the right place and time, but it really didn't feel like any of that.

There was this dink. Dink. The light goes on. I wasn't even never the light switch nor did I know where it was to turn it on, nor did I know I was even in the dark. Just a dink. And then God had me even before I knew I needed him to have me.

Dink. God descends.

 

[MarcR]

I disagree with the first premise.

"God created mankind because he wanted a creature able to receive and return his love"

First of all I believe when God created, he did so not wanting anything from the creature whatsoever, but rather that the creature was intended to be an exact expression of Gods nature in the earth, an ambassador of God as such. Or to put it simply, that God was concerned more for his Glory being revealed in all the earth and expressed through man, rather than a relationship with man. (although that is part of it, but not the main concern for God. More concerned for his own glory, his own well being, his own purposes).

and I also disagree with the second premise/ statement "The price God paid for a creature able to love Him was He got a creature able to reject His love".

Scripture emphatically teaches that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" So love was being displayed and directed towards us, while we were still in a state of sin, not love or neutrality. I would say that God paid the price for A REBEL AT ENMITY TOWARDS HIM, for the purpose of saving and enabling him to again express and reveal Gods nature in all the earth. (which is love, joy, peace etc.)
Scripture also proclaims "men are lovers of darkness and hate the light"
Here we see men everywhere love darkness rather than light. The love of sinners is directed towards sin because it doesn't know love. If it did know love then it would know God, who is LOVE!!!

Also our love cannot be authentic or genuine if its not done out of a heart for God.... e.g
The GREAT COMMANDMENT: "You shall LOVE the Lord Your God, with all your heart, mind, body, soul and strength"
The GREAT TRANSGRESSION: "failing to love God PERFECTLY"

We disobey the great commandment everyday... to love God perfectly. Therefore it is CHRISTS LOVE AND OBEDIENCE TO GOD that is deposited to me on my behalf, BECAUSE my free-will love towards God at best is pathetic compared to Christs.

also disagree with "love by nature must be volitional"
Love by nature is God himself!!! he never choose to be love. He just simply IS LOVE. Which means if we are ever to express perfect and authentic love towards him, we must first have Christ in us. Again God is love, because by nature LOVE... IS GOD!
TO say that I can choose to love God out of my free will, means I can choose to love God without any external or internal influence whatsoever. If that be so Love will be expressed to God out of a heart of self rather out of a heart of God.

AGAIN another statement: "God was faced with a choice between preventing both sin and love or preventing neither sin nor love; because love cannot exist without the possibility of its rejection; which is the essence is what sin is .

God was faced with a choice??? Almost sounds like God didn't know what was going to happen and it took him by surprise.
God wasn't faced with any choice because love always will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS exist wether everybody rejects it and nobody accepts it. WHY?? Because God is LOVE... Love can exist without the possibility of its rejection. and love does exist and would exist if every single person rejected it. Do you think Gods concerned about the existence of LOVE. lol that's like saying do you think Gods concerned about the existence of himself?? I doubt it, because God cannot doubt his existence. If he doubts his existence, then we ARE ALL IN BIG TROUBLE!!!

Ok we disagree! I don't presume myself infallible

God's recognition of the nature of love does not make any presumption that God didn't know what he was doing!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Then accept is how we deserve salvation? I can't buy that one either,

We can not, and mark is not saying this from what I see. or what I know of him.

not to mention the dead can't accept. We were dead in sin -- not fainted, not in a coma, not losing life, but dead.

Dead just means separated. it makes no sense for the HS to convict the world of sin righteousness and judgment if they can not understand it, and make a choice to recieve and accept it. if it is impossible for them to understand it or make that choice. as paul said in romans 1. No one will have an excuse.

I was Arminian for the first 20 years of my walk with Christ, and I kept knocking my head against this wall that says I did something to deserve my salvation. Actually, I was kind of proud I had something to do with it, except whatever that thing was kept getting changed. Sometimes it was my faith, sometimes my choice, sometimes my acceptance, sometimes it was just showing up at the right place and time, but it really didn't feel like any of that.

There was this dink. Dink. The light goes on. I wasn't even never the light switch nor did I know where it was to turn it on, nor did I know I was even in the dark. Just a dink. And then God had me even before I knew I needed him to have me.

Dink. God descends.

Those honestly does not make any sense. God had to explain to you why arminianism was in error. before you could have faith in his true means of salvation. Justification comes by faith, until your justified, your dead in sin.

 

[MarcR]

Then accept is how we deserve salvation? I can't buy that one either, not to mention the dead can't accept. We were dead in sin -- not fainted, not in a coma, not losing life, but dead.

I was Arminian for the first 20 years of my walk with Christ, and I kept knocking my head against this wall that says I did something to deserve my salvation. Actually, I was kind of proud I had something to do with it, except whatever that thing was kept getting changed. Sometimes it was my faith, sometimes my choice, sometimes my acceptance, sometimes it was just showing up at the right place and time, but it really didn't feel like any of that.

There was this dink. Dink. The light goes on. I wasn't even never the light switch nor did I know where it was to turn it on, nor did I know I was even in the dark. Just a dink. And then God had me even before I knew I needed him to have me.

Dink. God descends.

Lynn,

I do NOT believe that anyone deserves Salvation.

I believe that Salvation is available to all and that none deserve it.

I believe that rejection of Jesus' Lordship (ownership) is temporarily possible; and that choice also includes permanent rejection of Salvation.

I believe that ALL will acknowledge Jesus as Lord when He returns.

 

[atwhatcost]

I would disagree, if this is true, there would never be faith, or working in love, we would never have the capacity fo love anyone, or serve anyone. we would all be like puppets tied to astring doing what the puppet master wants us to do.

For an unbeliever you are right, for a believer, God has changed our thinking and our desires. so we can chose freely to serve in love. and not serve self.

Yeah, but that faith, as that salvation did, came from God. Again, not something we did for ourselves to deserve anything.

And, we do have the capacity to love. We always did love self completely. God's love in us changes our capacity to love to the point it's a bold reveal of a vague something we had all along. (Total depravity. Not utter depravity.)

We do agree on many things and one is God changed everything in us.

 

[atwhatcost]

Gods soverignty works from his omniscience.

God did not chose pharoah from birth and force him to do his will (if so, no need to chose him he could have chosen anyone and just had them do what he wanted) He chose him because he KNEW how he would FREELY act. and KNEW he would do exactly what he did based on what God did to him.

Gods soverignty does not negate our free will, it is true inspite of our free will. If God needs something done, and he knows crossnote will do it in the given circumstance, and EG will not do it. no matter what the circumstance is, He will chose to use Crossnote. not EG. His soverign will is still intact. as was crossnote's and eg's free will.

I already posted a link that explains why the post-modern concept of free will doesn't cut it. (I don't know if today's definition of free will is the same as previous generations definitions.) Unless you have a third definition of free will, I will continue to deny free will in all things.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yeah, but that faith, as that salvation did, came from God. Again, not something we did for ourselves to deserve anything.

One can not boast of trusting in someone elses work. This it can never be said one deserved something because they trusted in someone else.

Yet one must chose freely to trust that someone elses work. or there is no faith.

Faith in its defenition means an assurance or complete trust. One must chose to do this, if their is no free will. there can never be faith

And, we do have the capacity to love. We always did love self completely. God's love in us changes our capacity to love to the point it's a bold reveal of a vague something we had all along. (Total depravity. Not utter depravity.)

Loving self goes against Gods defenition of love. It is what caused separation to begin with

We do agree on many things and one is God changed everything in us.

Yes, which gave us the capacity to chose freely to do Gods will.

 

[atwhatcost]

We can not, and mark is not saying this from what I see. or what I know of him.


Dead just means separated. it makes no sense for the HS to convict the world of sin righteousness and judgment if they can not understand it, and make a choice to recieve and accept it. if it is impossible for them to understand it or make that choice. as paul said in romans 1. No one will have an excuse.



Those honestly does not make any sense. God had to explain to you why arminianism was in error. before you could have faith in his true means of salvation. Justification comes by faith, until your justified, your dead in sin.

Um, no, cutting and pasting to fit what you wanted me to be saying simply doesn't cut it with me. Dink has nothing to do with philosophies. Dink is God saving us.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I already posted a link that explains why the post-modern concept of free will doesn't cut it. (I don't know if today's definition of free will is the same as previous generations definitions.) Unless you have a third definition of free will, I will continue to deny free will in all things.

free will is simple.

You come to a stop sign, you can stop or run it, Turn right or left or go straight, you must make a choice what you will do. if you make the wrong choice (ie run the stop sign) and get injured or killed by your action. its your fault.

non free will is simple. You come to that same stop sign, You have no choice in what you will do. You will do what God says you will do. If God says run the stop sign, and you are killed by a car who was driving in the cross street. You were not killed by your own action. God killed you by forcing you to run the stop sign.

Post modernism is a danger, not because of a particular free will defenition. but because of what it is teaching, so not sure how it relates.

 

[atwhatcost]

Lynn,

I do NOT believe that anyone deserves Salvation.

I believe that Salvation is available to all and that none deserve it.

I believe that rejection of Jesus' Lordship (ownership) is temporarily possible; and that choice also includes permanent rejection of Salvation.

I believe that ALL will acknowledge Jesus as Lord when He returns.

Okay, then what is our faith, our choice and our accepting if not our deserving by some magnificent (or minor) gesture?

(And yeah, all will acknowledge Jesus. We don't disagree on most things. lol)

 

[Gr8grace]

Then accept is how we deserve salvation? I can't buy that one either, not to mention the dead can't accept. We were dead in sin -- not fainted, not in a coma, not losing life, but dead.

I was Arminian for the first 20 years of my walk with Christ, and I kept knocking my head against this wall that says I did something to deserve my salvation. Actually, I was kind of proud I had something to do with it, except whatever that thing was kept getting changed. Sometimes it was my faith, sometimes my choice, sometimes my acceptance, sometimes it was just showing up at the right place and time, but it really didn't feel like any of that.

There was this dink. Dink. The light goes on. I wasn't even never the light switch nor did I know where it was to turn it on, nor did I know I was even in the dark. Just a dink. And then God had me even before I knew I needed him to have me.

Dink. God descends.

But there is no merit in our personal faith. Our faith deserves nothing. We get no credit for our faith.

We have 3 systems of perception......rationalism,empiricism and faith.

Faith is the system of perception that has not merit in and of itself in these 3 perceptions.

Coming out of Arminianism and into Calvinism is the problem here. We still have a tendency to believe that our faith has merit and deserves something. It is ingrained in us that our faith has merit. The Arminian teaches(pounds it into us) that our faith had merit and you deserve salvation by your faith. If you lose faith, you lose salvation. But it was not our faith that had merit. It was the OBJECT(Christ) of our faith that has the merit.

And you are right, we were dead......spiritually. Not physically. If we were dead,dead,dead......how could we even sin?

God has set eternity on every mans heart,Ecc 3:11. And every man has a measure of freewill faith that is undeserving in and of itself.

It is like eating, every man can swallow his food. And there is no merit in it, the merit is in the food.