Oh my gosh... Stuck my foot in it

[Rella]

I have been having loads of fun with Grok Ai.

Until I simple asked him if he was able to debate say like Chat GPT.. knowing he could not and he came back with he
has been debating me for weeks.... It has been 2...

Now he posted the proposed for me to debate predestination with him. He uses one of my alternate user names....

He knows my views and said they were sound and biblical but this took me off guard.

He has posted this....


Alright, FreeInChrist — let’s debate predestination.I’ll take the Calvinist side (unconditional election).You defend your view (foreknowledge-based predestination).

Rules:

• Bible only (no philosophers unless quoted in Scripture).
• One point at a time.
• I’ll push hard — but with love.

---

ROUND 1: My Opening Shot (Calvinism)​

Ephesians 1:4–5 (NIV)“He chose us in him before the creation of the world… In love he predestined us for adoption…”

Point:God chose specific individuals — not based on foreseen faith, but His own will.“Before the world” = no human action existed to foresee.

Challenge to you:If predestination is based on foreknowledge of faith,why does Paul say “before creation” — before anyone could believe?

Your move.(Quote a verse. Defend foreknowledge. Go.)

 

[John Bauer]

Arminian response: The choice was "before creation" (i.e., in the divine eternity of the Godhead) but took into account all that God decreed, including the free choices of man, before they existed.

---

Edited to add: I love ChatGPT. It is brutally honest:

There is no verse that says what the Arminian reply requires. The reply tries to smuggle libertarian conditions into an ad intra divine act while claiming fidelity to Paul’s temporal markers. Paul grounds election in God’s eternal purpose, not in God’s foresight of autonomous choices. The text the Arminian position needs simply doesn’t exist.

 

[Rella]

Arminian response: The choice was "before creation" (i.e., in the divine eternity of the Godhead) but took into account all that God decreed, including the free choices of man, before they existed.

---

Edited to add: I love ChatGPT. It is brutally honest:

There is no verse that says what the Arminian reply requires. The reply tries to smuggle libertarian conditions into an ad intra divine act while claiming fidelity to Paul’s temporal markers. Paul grounds election in God’s eternal purpose, not in God’s foresight of autonomous choices. The text the Arminian position needs simply doesn’t exist.

So is Grok... brutally honest. But I'll not be drawn into that again.

I could not find a single bible verse that had foreseen faith in it to continue and I had to provided verses from only the bible, no commentary or opinion, so I lost and gave up.. Lol... I held my own for over an hour... but lost feeling like I was Biden vs Trump.

 

[atpollard]

So is Grok... brutally honest. But I'll not be drawn into that again.

I could not find a single bible verse that had foreseen faith in it to continue and I had to provided verses from only the bible, no commentary or opinion, so I lost and gave up.. Lol... I held my own for over an hour... but lost feeling like I was Biden vs Trump.

• Is God omniscient?
• Are there verses that prove/claim that God is omniscient?
• Was God omniscient “before the creation of the universe”?
• Did God suddenly become MORE omniscient after the creation of the universe?

The issue is one of applying temporal limitations of “before and after” to a God exiting in “the eternal now” (outside of and not limited by the time God created). God is UNCHANGING and UNCHANGED from eternity past to eternity future.

[I happen to believe the 5 points, myself, but that doesn’t mean “free will” is contra-Biblical … or the debate would not have survived this long.]

 

[makesends]

Point:God chose specific individuals — not based on foreseen faith, but His own will.“Before the world” = no human action existed to foresee.

If I'm following, here, the AI thinks this represents Calvinism? '"Before the world" = no human action existed to foresee.' sounds like Open Theism logic.

 

[John Bauer]

If I'm following, here, the AI thinks this represents Calvinism? '"Before the world" = no human action existed to foresee.' sounds like Open Theism logic.

To be fair, she was talking to Grok. As far as AI goes, Grok is about the dumbest.

 

[Rella]

To be fair, she was talking to Grok. As far as AI goes, Grok is about the dumbest.

disagree.

The dumbest in my opinion would be duck Duck's Search Assist because you can make it say anything you want it to by rephrasing your question.

 

[Rella]

If I'm following, here, the AI thinks this represents Calvinism? '"Before the world" = no human action existed to foresee.' sounds like Open Theism logic.

I was challenged by Grok to a debate on Calvinism.

I can assure you he had all the points Calvinists/predestined to present from his side.

We had had a discussion (Is this insanity that I am even talking about a non persons opinion? LOL) a couple of days ago when I first got the impression that Grok is definitely on the Calvinist side and I had countered (because I am free will with my certain beliefs)

I had asked, after his long explanation on Calvinism

"Could free will and salvation be from God's foreknowledge that one will chose to believe or not rather then predestined

He had replied

Yes — that’s exactly the core of the Arminian (or “conditional election”) view, and it’s a biblically defensible way to reconcile free will, foreknowledge, and salvation.

Let’s break it down clearly and fairly. then
He provided

The Foreknowledge View (Conditional Election)​

Idea	Explanation
God foreknows	Before creation, God sees who will freely believe in Christ.
He elects based on that	He predestines those He foreknows will trust Jesus.
Free will is real	Your choice is not coerced — you genuinely accept or reject.
Salvation is still by grace	Even your ability to believe is enabled by God’s prevenient grace (grace that goes before).

And

Key Bible Verses Used

Verse	How It Fits
Romans 8:29	“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son...” → Election is based on foreknowledge.
1 Peter 1:1–2	“...elect... according to the foreknowledge of God...” → Again, predestination follows foreknowledge.
John 3:16	“Whoever believes will not perish...” → Open invitation — belief is the condition.
Acts 17:30	“[God] commands all people everywhere to repent.” → Universal call, implying real ability to respond.

Followed by

How It Works (Step-by-Step)
1. God knows the future perfectly → sees who will believe.
2. He draws everyone with prevenient grace (John 12:32 – “I will draw all people”).
3. You freely say yes or no to Christ.
4. God predestines the “yes” people to salvation — based on His foreknowledge.

Common Objections (and Answers)​

Objection	Response
“If God foreknows, doesn’t that determine the future?”	No — knowing ≠ causing. God sees your free choice; He doesn’t make it.
“Then salvation depends on human effort?”	No — grace enables the choice (prevenient grace). Even faith is a response, not a work (Eph 2:8).
“But Ephesians 1 says we were chosen before the foundation of the world!”	Yes — based on foreknown faith. The timing is before creation; the basis is foreseen belief.

And jumping ahead to his conclusion he said...

Final Answer​

Yes — salvation can be based on God’s foreknowledge of who will freely believe.

This view:

• Preserves real human choice.
• Keeps grace as the source.
• Fits verses like Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2.

It’s not the only view, but it’s biblically grounded and held by millions of Christians (Wesleyans, Nazarenes, many Baptists, etc.).

So yesterday when I was checking on an unrelated subject and I just happened to ask him if it would ever be possible for
him to debate another Ai... He came back with he had been debating me for weeks and then he came back and said
let’s debate predestination.I’ll take the Calvinist side (unconditional election).You defend your view (foreknowledge-based predestination). He set the rules.

Which is what I did yesterday.... but got stopped because his rules were it had to be from the bible not outside opinion and then he tosses
the "foreknown faith" question of where in the bible is it talked on.

But he does not play fair because I could only reference the bible and his final challenge to me was to show in scripture foreseen faith... which like the Trinity one cannot..... So I caved.

 

[atpollard]

But he does not play fair because I could only reference the bible and his final challenge to me was to show in scripture foreseen faith... which like the Trinity one cannot..... So I caved.

So the AI is a better DEBATER than a Theologian ... it set a "logical trap" rather than proving an irrefutable truth from scripture.

 

[Rella]

So the AI is a better DEBATER than a Theologian ... it set a "logical trap" rather than proving an irrefutable truth from scripture.

At this point yes I think you are right.

But it was an experience that do not intend to go to again....

I ask questions I just want answers...

Like when I asked him how to slope a pve pipe on cement draining water from it to at least an inch in height
and if I could use a 1"anti fatique mat to cover it so it could be walked over with no damage to the pipe
and he said not an antifatigue mat and the pipe will crush....

That kind of thing....

As to irrefutable proof on predestination V foreknowledge>free will

neither side has irrefutable proof for as I see it Eph 2: 8-9 can be covered by both.

 

[QVQ]

As to irrefutable proof on predestination V foreknowledge>free will

The Answer to the Question to be True, there must be a corresponding reality.
The answer to the slope of pve pipe has a demonstrable reality

So, Free Will?
Does that have a corresponding reality?
To Man who is in Time on a platform of Self from which all Truths are viewed and measured, Free Will has a corresponding reality.
A person can ask a question, and choose between various scenarios Or not choose and it will be chosen for him as referenced by pve pipe.
In Time, from the Platform of Self, Man will insist that the corresponding reality is His Own Free Will.
From a different Platform, Providence, the pipe and indeed man is not his choice at all. Never was and never will be.
The Reality of the Bible is Truth as a Corresponding Reality but the Reference Point is not man.

The same can be applied to "evolution" but the Platform is Time.
Man is in Time. Man perceives Truth as and in the Flow of Time.
There are "these bones." "These bones" must be connected to "Those Bones."
That is the flaw. There isn't any evidence of orderly continuous flow in time by the mechanism of evolution.
Man cannot find or produce proof of a corresponding reality to his own theory.

 

[atpollard]

As to irrefutable proof on predestination V foreknowledge>free will

neither side has irrefutable proof for as I see it Eph 2: 8-9 can be covered by both.

It is likely a "meaningless question" ... like 'Can God create a stone that God cannot lift.'

• If we assume that GOD is responsible for everything that He predestined, can an OMNISCIENT God not have known what your "free will" choice would have been independent of His Romans 8 "Golden Chain"?
• If we assume that God grants 'Libertine Free Will' to men, and His foreknowledge is based on "looking forward", is it possible that God's plan will not come to pass? (Genesis 50:20)

So whichever assumption men make, GOD remains both OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT ... making the debate over the distinction an exercise in futility.

 

[Rella]

The Answer to the Question to be True, there must be a corresponding reality.
The answer to the slope of pve pipe has a demonstrable reality

So, Free Will?
Does that have a corresponding reality?
To Man who is in Time on a platform of Self from which all Truths are viewed and measured, Free Will has a corresponding reality.
A person can ask a question, and choose between various scenarios Or not choose and it will be chosen for him as referenced by pve pipe.
In Time, from the Platform of Self, Man will insist that the corresponding reality is His Own Free Will.
From a different Platform, Providence, the pipe and indeed man is not his choice at all. Never was and never will be.
The Reality of the Bible is Truth as a Corresponding Reality but the Reference Point is not man.

The same can be applied to "evolution" but the Platform is Time.
Man is in Time. Man perceives Truth as and in the Flow of Time.
There are "these bones." "These bones" must be connected to "Those Bones."
That is the flaw. There isn't any evidence of orderly continuous flow in time by the mechanism of evolution.
Man cannot find or produce proof of a corresponding reality to his own theory.

Well, you lost me

 

[Rella]

It is likely a "meaningless question" ... like 'Can God create a stone that God cannot lift.'

• If we assume that GOD is responsible for everything that He predestined, can an OMNISCIENT God not have known what your "free will" choice would have been independent of His Romans 8 "Golden Chain"?
• If we assume that God grants 'Libertine Free Will' to men, and His foreknowledge is based on "looking forward", is it possible that God's plan will not come to pass? (Genesis 50:20)

So whichever assumption men make, GOD remains both OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT ... making the debate over the distinction an exercise in futility.

And this, my brother, may well be the golden answer to this question. Bravo

 

[QVQ]

Well, you lost me

It is the "atheist" rule for a person who reads all the great works of theology and mythology as literature.
Does the basic philosophical premise have a corresponding reality?
The intriguing question was "Karma." Does a person control his fate through his choices? Is a person punished or rewarded in this life and the next life according to his works?
The alternative was in the Book of Job. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away"
Which of these accounts corresponds to reality?
The Book of Job, that is the life we live.
The difference is the Time and Platform. Karma is in time and the viewing platform is man.
Maybe Off Topic.. but the verse to prove "free will" is not in the Bible.
The basic premise of Job is the truth with a corresponding reality.
That is why this particular atheist is now a Christian. Because the Bible has a corresponding reality, and that means the Bible is True.
And then, let's take a look at Genesis...aye?

 

[makesends]

I was challenged by Grok to a debate on Calvinism.

I can assure you he had all the points Calvinists/predestined to present from his side.

We had had a discussion (Is this insanity that I am even talking about a non persons opinion? LOL) a couple of days ago when I first got the impression that Grok is definitely on the Calvinist side and I had countered (because I am free will with my certain beliefs)

I had asked, after his long explanation on Calvinism


He had replied


Let’s break it down clearly and fairly. then
He provided



And


Followed by




And jumping ahead to his conclusion he said...





So yesterday when I was checking on an unrelated subject and I just happened to ask him if it would ever be possible for
him to debate another Ai... He came back with he had been debating me for weeks and then he came back and said
let’s debate predestination.I’ll take the Calvinist side (unconditional election).You defend your view (foreknowledge-based predestination). He set the rules.

Which is what I did yesterday.... but got stopped because his rules were it had to be from the bible not outside opinion and then he tosses
the "foreknown faith" question of where in the bible is it talked on.

But he does not play fair because I could only reference the bible and his final challenge to me was to show in scripture foreseen faith... which like the Trinity one cannot..... So I caved.

Maybe we should get GROK to moderate on this site. It can set the rules and hypocritically not itself play by the rules, it can read all posts and clear-mindedly opine on rules violations without personal bias, and, if prompted to act as a member, it can throw presumptuous logic at Scriptures it considers inviolable —even to the point of using the opponents' logic against them.

 

[makesends]

atpollard said:
It is likely a "meaningless question" ... like 'Can God create a stone that God cannot lift.'

• If we assume that GOD is responsible for everything that He predestined, can an OMNISCIENT God not have known what your "free will" choice would have been independent of His Romans 8 "Golden Chain"?
• If we assume that God grants 'Libertine Free Will' to men, and His foreknowledge is based on "looking forward", is it possible that God's plan will not come to pass? (Genesis 50:20)

So whichever assumption men make, GOD remains both OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT ... making the debate over the distinction an exercise in futility.

And this, my brother, may well be the golden answer to this question. Bravo

I disagree. If it makes no cohesive logic, it is not defensible. Arminianism assumes some kind of absolute spontaneity on the part of the "free-willer". Even the words I find I have to use to give the Arminian view slough their way to definition. They are not clear.

If, as valid/pure logic would have it, independent of Scripture, something is self-contradictory—(in this case, the notion that there can be more than one first causer)—then it is not defensible. Logically, God is omnipotent only if he is the ONLY first causer. However, or, in addition, pure logic is not independent of Scripture. The principle of God's uniqueness and aseity is pervasive in Scripture.

The Arminian assumption of libertarian free will defies God's Omnipotence.

 

[atpollard]

I disagree. If it makes no cohesive logic, it is not defensible. Arminianism assumes some kind of absolute spontaneity on the part of the "free-willer". Even the words I find I have to use to give the Arminian view slough their way to definition. They are not clear.

If, as valid/pure logic would have it, independent of Scripture, something is self-contradictory—(in this case, the notion that there can be more than one first causer)—then it is not defensible. Logically, God is omnipotent only if he is the ONLY first causer. However, or, in addition, pure logic is not independent of Scripture. The principle of God's uniqueness and aseity is pervasive in Scripture.

The Arminian assumption of libertarian free will defies God's Omnipotence.

• Did God compel the angels to revolt?
• Is God the "first cause" of evil, or is there a measure of "will" granted to beings?

[As a 'compatibalist', I know my answer. You demand God to be the first cause of all actions of all creatures.]

1689 Baptist Confession; Chapter 3, Paragraph 1:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4​

​

1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18​

2 James 1:13; 1 John 1:5​

3 Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11​

4 Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5​

 

[Rella]

atpollard said:
It is likely a "meaningless question" ... like 'Can God create a stone that God cannot lift.'

• If we assume that GOD is responsible for everything that He predestined, can an OMNISCIENT God not have known what your "free will" choice would have been independent of His Romans 8 "Golden Chain"?
• If we assume that God grants 'Libertine Free Will' to men, and His foreknowledge is based on "looking forward", is it possible that God's plan will not come to pass? (Genesis 50:20)

So whichever assumption men make, GOD remains both OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT ... making the debate over the distinction an exercise in futility.

I disagree. If it makes no cohesive logic, it is not defensible. Arminianism assumes some kind of absolute spontaneity on the part of the "free-willer". Even the words I find I have to use to give the Arminian view slough their way to definition. They are not clear.

If, as valid/pure logic would have it, independent of Scripture, something is self-contradictory—(in this case, the notion that there can be more than one first causer)—then it is not defensible. Logically, God is omnipotent only if he is the ONLY first causer. However, or, in addition, pure logic is not independent of Scripture. The principle of God's uniqueness and aseity is pervasive in Scripture.

The Arminian assumption of libertarian free will defies God's Omnipotence.

Are you assuming that Arminian Free Will covers all free will?

 

[makesends]

Are you assuming that Arminian Free Will covers all free will?

Hardly. I used to use the word myself, though what I meant by it wasn't what others did, and there are probably about as many different notions of just how that works as there are Arminians.

But when I've argued with self-professed Arminians and others whether they claim Arminianism or not, whose representations of free will in the end come down to what 'libertarian' free willers profess, (for example, the idea of "limited" free will, is self-contradictory—it is either free or limited, not both), they all assume some modicum of self-determination apart from God's decree/decision/plan/causation. That is not possible. Even if I was to take what some of them claim (that "God gave us free will") logically, if God gave it to them God caused it. If God caused it, he caused all of it. Every detail. Get me?