Why don't Calvinist believe the Gospel?

[makesends]

I’ve heard John Calvin’s name come up in “history of philosophy” debates before. He’s a common citation for people who argue back and forth about determinism vs free will. Determinism is the theory that the universe is just a giant lottery machine, and almost all atheists are determinists, which is why some people who get in there question the baptists, since baptists themselves allege that they are not atheists, while it is definitely a trend in philosophical determinism that most determinists are also forthright atheists. The religious debate around it is over whether or not Jesus HAD to be sacrificed in the temple. Had he himself no choice? It’s a better argument than people think it is, because Satan did make the first move. God may be the creator, but in terms of a war between good and evil, or the need for God to redeem his creation, including everything from the Sun and Moon, to wales and salmon, trees and doves, and you, was Satan more powerful than God? In the sense that he went first, meaning that he could shout “I was here first!” In a true statement like you would if you’d made the first move in chess, won a marathon, or gotten suited up and charged into the basketball court before the opposition arrived. Fully expostulating determinism does prove that Satan won. He killed the prophetic messiah. You can’t refute that one with logic, you have to actually believe in the resurrection to make a further anti Herod-anti Satan claim.

Logical error. You think that if someone HAD to do something, that they had no choice? The fact that they chose what they chose is evidence enough that they could not have done otherwise. NOTHING happens, except whatever happens. Prove me wrong!

But you mislead yourself by your terminology. If predeterminism means that people "have to" do something, then you are trying to prove (but failing) that they had no choice. The fact is, that whatever God has spoken into fact, is SURE TO happen. There is no point in saying that someone could have done different. (The fact is that perhaps they SHOULD HAVE done different, and are morally responsible for not doing so. But to say that they could have is a matter of a different category from morals.)

How is "Determinism...the theory that the universe is just a giant lottery machine"? Are you admitting that every turn of the lottery is entirely caused, and that there is no such thing as truly random or chance?

 

[Homework]

Logical error. You think that if someone HAD to do something, that they had no choice? The fact that they chose what they chose is evidence enough that they could not have done otherwise. NOTHING happens, except whatever happens. Prove me wrong!

But you mislead yourself by your terminology. If predeterminism means that people "have to" do something, then you are trying to prove (but failing) that they had no choice. The fact is, that whatever God has spoken into fact, is SURE TO happen. There is no point in saying that someone could have done different. (The fact is that perhaps they SHOULD HAVE done different, and are morally responsible for not doing so. But to say that they could have is a matter of a different category from morals.)

How is "Determinism...the theory that the universe is just a giant lottery machine"? Are you admitting that every turn of the lottery is entirely caused, and that there is no such thing as truly random or chance?

You call determinism predeterminism. It isn’t, they’re two different things. Predeterminusm is a Baptist interpretation of the doctrine of divine election, which exchanges the Israeli state law that a King must be anointed by the Prophet as well as being of the correct lineage. The Calvinist modern interpretation of this ancient stately doctrine is non Monarchial, and applies to the common wheel of hoi poloi ordinary church members. It’s an update to ye binary old Israelite Kingship law which Zion Baptists and their Southern Baptist brethren see as acceptable for a republican, non-king led country.

By contrast, philosophical determinism is the simple denial of the statement “free will exists”, and is held by atheists who don’t think that anyone sleaze us capable of making their own decisions, having original thoughts, or engaging in quite a few human endeavors especially in the arts. Determinists don’t believe in civil ballots, for example.

The two are separate. A philosophical determinist who disbelieves in the existence of free will is a cynic. As for the baptists, I’m aware that their churches have fewer incense and candle holders than ye Greek Orthodoxs up the road, and that sometimes a Protestant church’s music seems a bit flatter and less symphonic than Gregorian plain chant, but the two opinions are separate from each other in fact.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You call determinism predeterminism. It isn’t, they’re two different things. Predeterminusm is a Baptist interpretation of the doctrine of divine election, which exchanges the Israeli state law that a King must be anointed by the Prophet as well as being of the correct lineage. The Calvinist modern interpretation of this ancient stately doctrine is non Monarchial, and applies to the common wheel of hoi poloi ordinary church members. It’s an update to ye binary old Israelite Kingship law which Zion Baptists and their Southern Baptist brethren see as acceptable for a republican, non-king led country.

By contrast, philosophical determinism is the simple denial of the statement “free will exists”, and is held by atheists who don’t think that anyone sleaze us capable of making their own decisions, having original thoughts, or engaging in quite a few human endeavors especially in the arts. Determinists don’t believe in civil ballots, for example.

The two are separate. A philosophical determinist who disbelieves in the existence of free will is a cynic. As for the baptists, I’m aware that their churches have fewer incense and candle holders than ye Greek Orthodoxs up the road, and that sometimes a Protestant church’s music seems a bit flatter and less symphonic than Gregorian plain chant, but the two opinions are separate from each other in fact.

Your distinction between “predeterminism” and “determinism” is built on an unstable foundation—both conceptually and theologically.

Let’s begin with definitions. You assert that philosophical determinism is the denial of free will, while “predeterminism” is a uniquely Baptist doctrine rooted in Israelite kingship law. But that’s an arbitrary bifurcation. Neither Scripture nor historic theology supports that framing.

In fact, predestination—not “predeterminism”—is the biblical and historic term (cf. Romans 8:29–30; Ephesians 1:4–11). And it has nothing to do with Israel’s monarchy laws. Calvin didn’t invent divine election—Paul proclaimed it, and Christ Himself said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me…” (John 6:37).

You treat determinism as a strictly atheistic mechanism, likening it to a lifeless lottery machine. But that's a strawman. Calvinists do not affirm mechanistic determinism, but theistic determinism—better termed divine sovereignty. God is not an impersonal system. He is the personal Creator who “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), without ever doing violence to secondary causes or human responsibility.

You also attempt to wedge Calvinist theology into American political structures—suggesting it was adapted to suit republicanism. But Reformed theology was fully formed long before the American Revolution. The doctrines of grace don’t depend on candles, incense, or Gregorian chant; they depend on Scripture. If Calvinists reject man-centered worship, it's because Scripture demands “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and Truth.” (John 4:24)

Lastly, you suggest that if Christ had to die, then Satan somehow “won.” But this reflects a category mistake. The cross was not Satan’s victory—it was his undoing. “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him” (Colossians 2:15, Colossians 2:15). Christ laid down His life willingly—not because Satan made the first move, but because “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:20, 1 Peter 1:20). The Lamb slain is not the loser of a cosmic chess match. He is the sovereign King.

In short, the monergistic view holds that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass—and does so in righteousness, holiness, and justice. Human responsibility is not erased; it is rendered meaningful precisely because God is not absent from the details.

 

[Homework]

Your distinction between “predeterminism” and “determinism” is built on an unstable foundation—both conceptually and theologically.

Let’s begin with definitions. You assert that philosophical determinism is the denial of free will, while “predeterminism” is a uniquely Baptist doctrine rooted in Israelite kingship law. But that’s an arbitrary bifurcation. Neither Scripture nor historic theology supports that framing.

In fact, predestination—not “predeterminism”—is the biblical and historic term (cf. Romans 8:29–30; Ephesians 1:4–11). And it has nothing to do with Israel’s monarchy laws. Calvin didn’t invent divine election—Paul proclaimed it, and Christ Himself said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me…” (John 6:37).

You treat determinism as a strictly atheistic mechanism, likening it to a lifeless lottery machine. But that's a strawman. Calvinists do not affirm mechanistic determinism, but theistic determinism—better termed divine sovereignty. God is not an impersonal system. He is the personal Creator who “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), without ever doing violence to secondary causes or human responsibility.

You also attempt to wedge Calvinist theology into American political structures—suggesting it was adapted to suit republicanism. But Reformed theology was fully formed long before the American Revolution. The doctrines of grace don’t depend on candles, incense, or Gregorian chant; they depend on Scripture. If Calvinists reject man-centered worship, it's because Scripture demands “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and Truth.” (John 4:24)

Lastly, you suggest that if Christ had to die, then Satan somehow “won.” But this reflects a category mistake. The cross was not Satan’s victory—it was his undoing. “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him” (Colossians 2:15, Colossians 2:15). Christ laid down His life willingly—not because Satan made the first move, but because “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:20, 1 Peter 1:20). The Lamb slain is not the loser of a cosmic chess match. He is the sovereign King.

In short, the monergistic view holds that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass—and does so in righteousness, holiness, and justice. Human responsibility is not erased; it is rendered meaningful precisely because God is not absent from the details.

Scripturally speaking, what you’re saying is that predestination for salvation means that when God created the Garden of Eden, he intended it as a Heaven (remember how earth is a planet in the heavens), and everyone was saved as we’d think of that today when they were created.

In atomic spelling, you’re using a word that says, prior to the advent of destiny, which is fate…(predestination). So your doctrine of predestination is about Gods thoughts on what he created, before the fall introduced at very least, confusion (Satan’s lies are confusing) and at worst, a strong tendency in the world for people to believe in determinism. Determinism on the dice technically just refers to gravity, and the fact that it’s illustrated with dice is considered a proof that randomness exists.

Having said that, I realize that science isn’t all that exists, rational gravity causes fair dice to fall at random, but the rather more irrational Satan caused The Fall with Capitalized letters.

 

[makesends]

@Homework

You treat determinism as a strictly atheistic mechanism, likening it to a lifeless lottery machine. But that's a strawman. Calvinists do not affirm mechanistic determinism, but theistic determinism—better termed divine sovereignty. God is not an impersonal system. He is the personal Creator who “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), without ever doing violence to secondary causes or human responsibility.

Not that I'm any better than @Homework at expressing myself, but I'm wondering if he meant, as I would, that it is a logical mechanism, that operates (in my view) well for both atheist or believer.

In short, the monergistic view holds that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass—and does so in righteousness, holiness, and justice. Human responsibility is not erased; it is rendered meaningful precisely because God is not absent from the details.

One thing I love about this is that it too follows logically, since God is First Cause, that not only does he ordain whatsoever comes to pass, but that, as the WCF hints by its following statement, human responsibility is ESTABLISHED by his ordaining! And, indeed, there couldn't even BE choice, responsible or otherwise, but for God's determining all things.

 

[makesends]

Scripturally speaking, what you’re saying is that predestination for salvation means that when God created the Garden of Eden, he intended it as a Heaven (remember how earth is a planet in the heavens), and everyone was saved as we’d think of that today when they were created.

Wrong. Predestination means that when God created the Garden of Eden, he intended it as exactly what it turned out to be —a paradise of existence until they would sin and be booted out. A 'springboard' for the rest of temporal activity for the purpose of redemption.

Your logical progression is based on the mistaken assumption that some things God intends are possibly not going to happen. But our security rests in the absolute fact that God will accomplish everything he sets out to do, and our happiness rests in the absolute fact that what he will do pleases him. We are passengers.

In atomic spelling, you’re using a word that says, prior to the advent of destiny, which is fate…(predestination). So your doctrine of predestination is about Gods thoughts on what he created, before the fall introduced at very least, confusion (Satan’s lies are confusing) and at worst, a strong tendency in the world for people to believe in determinism. Determinism on the dice technically just refers to gravity, and the fact that it’s illustrated with dice is considered a proof that randomness exists.

Having said that, I realize that science isn’t all that exists, rational gravity causes fair dice to fall at random, but the rather more irrational Satan caused The Fall with Capitalized letters.

Can't you tell that "destiny" and "fate" are human constructions? And intentionally Godless—that is, man-centered—at that? There is no such thing as random, nor indeterminate fact. You strike me as someone who would truly consider the ridiculous notion that "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody was there to hear it, [that indeed it did not] make a sound." Not only was God there to hear it, but God caused it to both exist and to fall.

 

[Homework]

Wrong. Predestination means that when God created the Garden of Eden, he intended it as exactly what it turned out to be —a paradise of existence until they would sin and be booted out. A 'springboard' for the rest of temporal activity for the purpose of redemption.

Your logical progression is based on the mistaken assumption that some things God intends are possibly not going to happen. But our security rests in the absolute fact that God will accomplish everything he sets out to do, and our happiness rests in the absolute fact that what he will do pleases him. We are passengers.

Can't you tell that "destiny" and "fate" are human constructions? And intentionally Godless—that is, man-centered—at that? There is no such thing as random, nor indeterminate fact. You strike me as someone who would truly consider the ridiculous notion that "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody was there to hear it, [that indeed it did not] make a sound." Not only was God there to hear it, but God caused it to both exist and to fall.

You claim that God planned sin and the fall. Also, you think that mortals who had to build walled cities and keep the hungry tigers out of their houses had time to come up with notions like destiny. Nah. Devil made that one up. You’re indulging yourself in the Gamblers Fallacy. People can’t comprehend fate or their ultimate destinies, because it is a lie of Lucifer that those exist. Believing in that is equivalent to believing that you can prognosticate and forecast the future or that you can blow on the dice in a casino and roll a thousand dollar win.

 

[makesends]

You call determinism predeterminism. It isn’t, they’re two different things. Predeterminusm is a Baptist interpretation of the doctrine of divine election, which exchanges the Israeli state law that a King must be anointed by the Prophet as well as being of the correct lineage. The Calvinist modern interpretation of this ancient stately doctrine is non Monarchial, and applies to the common wheel of hoi poloi ordinary church members. It’s an update to ye binary old Israelite Kingship law which Zion Baptists and their Southern Baptist brethren see as acceptable for a republican, non-king led country.

WHAT???? Lol, we have a rule for those who post a deluge of accusations of logical fallacy. We need one for those who fly about in one sentence or paragraph or post with a deluge of unexplained unsubstantiated 'all over the place' statements. This is amazing!

Ok. You are right that determinism is not predeterminism; I added the pre- to emphasize that proper determinism is indeed causation, according to God's own principle of cause-and-effect, that we can see as both: 1) God having purposed and caused in every respect and detail from the beginning (though I didn't go so far in my statement), and, 2) God having worked out and caused in every respect and detail throughout time and eternity —which two things, in my opinion, are one and the same thing, determined and predetermined.

By contrast, philosophical determinism is the simple denial of the statement “free will exists”, and is held by atheists who don’t think that anyone sleaze us capable of making their own decisions, having original thoughts, or engaging in quite a few human endeavors especially in the arts. Determinists don’t believe in civil ballots, for example.

The two are separate. A philosophical determinist who disbelieves in the existence of free will is a cynic. As for the baptists, I’m aware that their churches have fewer incense and candle holders than ye Greek Orthodoxs up the road, and that sometimes a Protestant church’s music seems a bit flatter and less symphonic than Gregorian plain chant, but the two opinions are separate from each other in fact.

I appreciate the differences, though I wouldn't put the two notions how you do. But it is interesting how you categorize things, which is partly why my first complaint about your earlier post. I am a strict determinist. Yet, in no way do I deny choice. I am cynical about ballots, not because I deny real choice, but because I know a little bit about human corruption.

Your logical progression leads you to conclude that the determinist must 'not believe in' civil ballots, because —as I think that you are thinking— a determinist must conclude that all things whatsoever will come to pass, will come to pass regardless of what anyone does, says or thinks. Can you not see that whatever comes to pass does so (in part) by what anyone/everyone does, says or thinks? There is no "God does his part and we do ours". It is, "God does the whole thing by use of (among other things) what we do". —As I put it, we do so because it IS so.

Choice, by the way, is only real because of God. Reality, after all, is only what it is, because God 'invented' it —('invented', I say, to put it in Human conceptual terms).

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Logical error. You think that if someone HAD to do something, that they had no choice? The fact that they chose what they chose is evidence enough that they could not have done otherwise. NOTHING happens, except whatever happens. Prove me wrong!

How is "Determinism...the theory that the universe is just a giant lottery machine"? Are you admitting that every turn of the lottery is entirely caused, and that there is no such thing as truly random or chance?

You call determinism predeterminism. It isn’t, they’re two different things. Predeterminusm is a Baptist interpretation of the doctrine of divine election, which exchanges the Israeli state law that a King must be anointed by the Prophet as well as being of the correct lineage. The Calvinist modern interpretation of this ancient stately doctrine is non Monarchial, and applies to the common wheel of hoi poloi ordinary church members. It’s an update to ye binary old Israelite Kingship law which Zion Baptists and their Southern Baptist brethren see as acceptable for a republican, non-king led country.

By contrast, philosophical determinism is the simple denial of the statement “free will exists”, and is held by atheists who don’t think that anyone sleaze us capable of making their own decisions, having original thoughts, or engaging in quite a few human endeavors especially in the arts. Determinists don’t believe in civil ballots, for example.

The two are separate. A philosophical determinist who disbelieves in the existence of free will is a cynic. As for the baptists, I’m aware that their churches have fewer incense and candle holders than ye Greek Orthodoxs up the road, and that sometimes a Protestant church’s music seems a bit flatter and less symphonic than Gregorian plain chant, but the two opinions are separate from each other in fact.

I'm wondering if you can answer the questions.
1) I asked whether you think the term, "HAD to [do something]" implies that one had no choice. You did not answer.
2) I asked how your definition makes sense, that Determinism is the theory that universe is just a giant lottery machine. I got no answer.
3) I asked if you do or don't believe that there is such a thing as truly 'random' or 'chance'.
4) I challenged you to prove me wrong, that the fact that someone chose what they chose is evidence enough that they could not have done otherwise. I don't see you answering that, but by scorn, obfuscation or ignoring.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Scripturally speaking, what you’re saying is that predestination for salvation means that when God created the Garden of Eden, he intended it as a Heaven (remember how earth is a planet in the heavens), and everyone was saved as we’d think of that today when they were fcreated.

In atomic spelling, you’re using a word that says, prior to the advent of destiny, which is fate…(predestination). So your doctrine of predestination is about Gods thoughts on what he created, before the fall introduced at very least, confusion (Satan’s lies are confusing) and at worst, a strong tendency in the world for people to believe in determinism. Determinism on the dice technically just refers to gravity, and the fact that it’s illustrated with dice is considered a proof that randomness exists.

Having said that, I realize that science isn’t all that exists, rational gravity causes fair dice to fall at random, but the rather more irrational Satan caused The Fall with Capitalized letters.

Your comment appears to blend several categories—philosophical determinism, poetic metaphor—without a clear distinction between them. But Scripture does not permit such blurred lines.

Yousaid:

“Predestination means the Garden was Heaven and everyone was saved when created…”

That is not what the doctrine teaches. Predestination, biblically defined, refers to God’s eternal decree to save a specific people in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4–5). It has nothing to do with Eden as “heaven” or the initial state of Adam and Eve being one of guaranteed salvation. They were created upright—but mutable (able to fall), not confirmed in righteousness. Heaven is not Eden, and innocence is not the same as eternal security.

You said:

“In atomic spelling, predestination means before destiny…”

Im not sure what "atomic spelling" might be in your view but it's not theology. Christian doctrine is not built on how a word sounds phonetically, but on how God reveals it in Scripture. The term proorizō (προορίζω) in the Greek (BibleHub Link) means to foreordain, to mark out beforehand, and is used by Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit—most notably in Romans 8:29–30 and Ephesians 1:5. It refers to God’s sovereign purpose—not vague fate, nor pagan destiny, but His loving determination to redeem His elect.

You said:

“The Fall introduced confusion, which leads people to believe in determinism…”

On the contrary, confusion and disorder are marks of the rejection of God’s decrees—not of belief in them. Satan’s lie in Eden was not deterministic; it was an appeal to autonomy: “You shall be like God” (Genesis 3:5). It was a rejection of God’s right to govern and define good and evil. Reformed monergism, however, affirms that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11). That is not fatalism—it is providence. God is not the author of sin, but He sovereignly ordains all things for His glory and our good.

You said:

“Randomness proves gravity, and Satan caused The Fall…”

Dice fall due to gravity, yes—but Scripture tells us even the outcome is not random: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33). We do not believe in chance. Randomness is a human term for what we cannot predict—not a real force governing the universe. God is not guessing. He is reigning.

You said:

“The Fall was irrational…”

The Fall was not irrational; it was rebellious. Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned with knowledge. The irrationality was not in the event—but in humanity’s proud rejection of their Maker. Yet even this was not outside God’s decree. He ordained it for a purpose: that the glory of redemption in Christ might be made known to the praise of His Glory.

So, predestination is not an abstract poetic image. It is a revealed doctrine about the unshakable love and purpose of God. It tells us that salvation does not depend on the will of man, nor on randomness, nor on cosmic gravity, but on “God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16). That is what brings the believer peace

 

[Homework]

makesends said:
Logical error. You think that if someone HAD to do something, that they had no choice? The fact that they chose what they chose is evidence enough that they could not have done otherwise. NOTHING happens, except whatever happens. Prove me wrong!

How is "Determinism...the theory that the universe is just a giant lottery machine"? Are you admitting that every turn of the lottery is entirely caused, and that there is no such thing as truly random or chance?

I'm wondering if you can answer the questions.
1) I asked whether you think the term, "HAD to [do something]" implies that one had no choice. You did not answer.
2) I asked how your definition makes sense, that Determinism is the theory that universe is just a giant lottery machine. I got no answer.
3) I asked if you do or don't believe that there is such a thing as truly 'random' or 'chance'.
4) I challenged you to prove me wrong, that the fact that someone chose what they chose is evidence enough that they could not have done otherwise. I don't see you answering that, but by scorn, obfuscation or ignoring.

I’m not ignoring you. For the first question, it’s an in depth discussion. When you say yourself that you HAD to do something, what do you mean? Did you mean that the law required it, or simply that you possessed enough money to do something? If you mean that you absolutely had to do something, because the law required it, then you’re past the stage of determinism. People who really believe in determinism in sport it and truth just don’t know yet that there’s something up there. It’s fine over in great detail by the apostle Paul, who was definitely the victim of kidnapping, torture, enslavement and false imprisonment.

Paul knew that his home country, with its history, language and laws, was both at war against Egypt, then occupied by Alexandrian Greece, and itself occupied by Rome, a separate nation with again its own history, language, and laws. He was a mature man of advanced years and in possession of both education and personal intelligence. But he lived in a world at war, and there were several countries besides his own country in that war.

Paul, who was very definitely opposed to the Maccabees, a somewhat religious sectarian civil war faction in Israel, also conducted exterior diplomacy with Titus, the Etruscan leader who in common with Mosaic Israel and Paul’s contemporary Jesus of Nazareth also opposed. Paul was a philosopher, which is the opposite of a cynic.

A cynic is a do nothing kind of person, they go with the flow and just let themselves get knocked around. A cynic is easily led, but you might find yourself hard pressed to tell the difference between a cynic and a religious philosopher, because only the true believer is passionate enough in faith to resist the flow. The New Agey Go With the Flow stuff.

That’s what determinism means. You might say, “I have to get up and go to work this morning.” You don’t mean it, you just know that you want to get paid on Friday. Also, I know that no one is forcibly compelling you to go to work, and that in fact you had to compete for your job on an application and in interviews. You don’t HAVE to work today. In fact, you work because you don’t HAVE money unless you labor.

Are you understanding this line of reasoning?

 

[makesends]

I’m not ignoring you. For the first question, it’s an in depth discussion. When you say yourself that you HAD to do something, what do you mean? Did you mean that the law required it, or simply that you possessed enough money to do something? If you mean that you absolutely had to do something, because the law required it, then you’re past the stage of determinism. People who really believe in determinism in sport it and truth just don’t know yet that there’s something up there. It’s fine over in great detail by the apostle Paul, who was definitely the victim of kidnapping, torture, enslavement and false imprisonment.

I was asking YOUR use of "HAD to". Not mine. You did not explain yourself, so I had to guess. Noticing, though, that you still have not answered —do you think that if one HAD to do something that they had no choice?

Paul knew that his home country, with its history, language and laws, was both at war against Egypt, then occupied by Alexandrian Greece, and itself occupied by Rome, a separate nation with again its own history, language, and laws. He was a mature man of advanced years and in possession of both education and personal intelligence. But he lived in a world at war, and there were several countries besides his own country in that war.

Paul, who was very definitely opposed to the Maccabees, a somewhat religious sectarian civil war faction in Israel, also conducted exterior diplomacy with Titus, the Etruscan leader who in common with Mosaic Israel and Paul’s contemporary Jesus of Nazareth also opposed. Paul was a philosopher, which is the opposite of a cynic.

A cynic is a do nothing kind of person, they go with the flow and just let themselves get knocked around. A cynic is easily led, but you might find yourself hard pressed to tell the difference between a cynic and a religious philosopher, because only the true believer is passionate enough in faith to resist the flow. The New Agey Go With the Flow stuff.

That’s what determinism means. You might say, “I have to get up and go to work this morning.” You don’t mean it, you just know that you want to get paid on Friday. Also, I know that no one is forcibly compelling you to go to work, and that in fact you had to compete for your job on an application and in interviews. You don’t HAVE to work today. In fact, you work because you don’t HAVE money unless you labor.

Are you understanding this line of reasoning?

What I don't understand is your terms. That is not what 'determinism' means. That may be what a cynic does, but it is not what it means. You are referring to what [you think] determinism implies —not what it means.

What I do understand in what you are calling "this line of reasoning", is that you are trying to validate your use of the terms —not define them. We can leave it alone, though, before it gets more contentious and argumentative for its own sake.

What I was after was the question of whether you can understand the notion of God being in absolute control of all things, down to the smallest detail, and that being the CAUSE of (or basis of—the very ability for) our choice. Do you think CHOICE implies independence of precedent causation? Do you think CHOICE implies absolute spontaneity by the chooser?

 

[Homework]

I was asking YOUR use of "HAD to". Not mine. You did not explain yourself, so I had to guess. Noticing, though, that you still have not answered —do you think that if one HAD to do something that they had no choice?

What I don't understand is your terms. That is not what 'determinism' means. That may be what a cynic does, but it is not what it means. You are referring to what [you think] determinism implies —not what it means.

What I do understand in what you are calling "this line of reasoning", is that you are trying to validate your use of the terms —not define them. We can leave it alone, though, before it gets more contentious and argumentative for its own sake.

What I was after was the question of whether you can understand the notion of God being in absolute control of all things, down to the smallest detail, and that being the CAUSE of (or basis of—the very ability for) our choice. Do you think CHOICE implies independence of precedent causation? Do you think CHOICE implies absolute spontaneity by the chooser?

Look dude. Determinism means the absence of free will. If you think it’s differently defined, that’s alright, you’re free white and over twenty one. Think what you feel like thinking.

 

[QVQ]

Look dude. Determinism means the absence of free will. If you think it’s differently defined, that’s alright, you’re free white and over twenty one. Think what you feel like thinking.

100% of what a person determines is detemined by Providence, aka external circumstances.
A person cannot "decide" to do anything except what the sausage machine reality allows

Free will is an illusion because all you can will is within the very narrow boundaries of the opportunitiies provided (providence)
You cannot will yourself wings and fly away.
You can "will" yourself to go to work or not, Except if there isn't any work to be had.
You cannot create the choice, the opportunity (providence), that absolutely governs your life.
You can choose chocolate or vanilla ice cream, If there is any ice cream at all
You can make choices within a very limited range of Providence, what is provided to you but to call that "free will" is a conceit and laughable considering all that is possible if free will were an actual fact.

 

[QVQ]

There’s also consumer choice, and your civil status as a registered voter. God might care almost as much as a president or senator what you spend your treasury dollars on, he might even mind quite a bit who you voted for. But in absolute transfinite, infinite, eternal, theologically speaking, “Free Will just means that God exits.” It’s a real sophistry to say that determinism is factual just you don’t know that God exits. Why don’t you know that God exits?

It is not up to the wisdom or the power of the individual to choose God.
Until Christ, the god in most cultures was a vain imagining, such as Baal. The people who worshipped Baal were worshipping god as they perceived him to be. It is only through Jesus Christ our Lord that mankind received the true image of God.
It is God who reveals Himself to whomever and however He so chooses.

So, are you saying we can vote all the evil out of the world? Or we can choose to be perfect saints even though the Bible clearly states we are all sinners? And if we all chose to vote rightly and act rightly we could manufacture the kingdom of heaven here on earth? Through our will and our work?
Genesis 3: 17 -19

Ephesians 1:11 whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will:

That "we" means everyone, at all time, in every single circumstance ever created in heaven and earth.

 

[Homework]

It is not up to the wisdom or the power of the individual to choose God.
Until Christ, the god in most cultures was a vain imagining, such as Baal. The people who worshipped Baal were worshipping god as they perceived him to be. It is only through Jesus Christ our Lord that mankind received the true image of God.
It is God who reveals Himself to whomever He so chooses.

So, are you saying we can vote all the evil out of the world? Or we can choose to be perfect saints even though the Bible clearly states we are all sinners? And if we all chose to vote rightly and act rightly we could manufacture the kingdom of heaven here on earth? Through our will and our work?
Genesis 3: 17 -19

Ephesians 1:11 whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will:

You are quoting bible verses, but your English language composition indicates that you do not choose to believe in the doctrine of free will, and have chosen instead to believe in predestination.

The fact that God exists does require that you make choices, including whether or not to believe in God, accept God as an Authority, and choose or not choose to discrete God as your own creator.

You make the same choices as Adam and Ever were presented with because God exists, therefore you have free will. The fact that you have free will means that you do not HAVE to choose to make the same choices they did. With your 20/20 Bible hindsight, you can make the opposite choice, believing that the book of world history you read is true, and that its narrative details all kinds of logically valid reasons for deciding not to accept the fact of Satan’s existence, and even gives you a historical reason to believe that even though Mussolini exacted you at daybreak, and Picasso is a bad painter, you’ll be resurrected like Lazerus and go to heaven.

You can also choose in smaller things, like whether you want Pepsi or Coke, and whether the founder of your country was “Connor Agrippa” or “George Washington”.

I’d be careful with that Pepsi or Coke decision though. You have to spend this nationality based scrip to get the cold beverages, and it comes from this house in a street in the United States with a Hebrew name, that claims to be engraved by a scribe who believes in “God”, and seems to believe that he has some kind of enforceable secular right to expect you to do the same!

 

[His clay]

You are quoting bible verses, but your English language composition indicates that you do not choose to believe in the doctrine of free will, and have chosen instead to believe in predestination.

The fact that God exists does require that you make choices, including whether or not to believe in God, accept God as an Authority, and choose or not choose to discrete God as your own creator.

You make the same choices as Adam and Ever were presented with because God exists, therefore you have free will. The fact that you have free will means that you do not HAVE to choose to make the same choices they did. With your 20/20 Bible hindsight, you can make the opposite choice, believing that the book of world history you read is true, and that its narrative details all kinds of logically valid reasons for deciding not to accept the fact of Satan’s existence, and even gives you a historical reason to believe that even though Mussolini exacted you at daybreak, and Picasso is a bad painter, you’ll be resurrected like Lazerus and go to heaven.

You can also choose in smaller things, like whether you want Pepsi or Coke, and whether the founder of your country was “Connor Agrippa” or “George Washington”.

I’d be careful with that Pepsi or Coke decision though. You have to spend this nationality based scrip to get the cold beverages, and it comes from this house in a street in the United States with a Hebrew name, that claims to be engraved by a scribe who believes in “God”, and seems to believe that he has some kind of enforceable secular right to expect you to do the same!

What if choice, human agency, and human responsibility are compatible with biblical determinism?

 

[Homework]

What if choice, human agency, and human responsibility are compatible with biblical determinism?

In that case, when you say biblical determinism you really mean “God exists and judges the final outcome.” In that view, your destiny, meaning where you “go” for the rest of eternity after your earthly demise, is up to God.

That’s not my own understanding of how the word determinism is defined, but that’s what you just said determinism means.

 

[Homework]

I get it. Calvinist do believe in the Gospel, they just don’t believe in Charles Spurgeon.

Come on, tell me how y’all really feel about the fact that your spiritual ancestors murdered Charles Stewart and kicked off the English Civil War.

How does that affect your relationship, if any, with the United States?

How does it effect your relationship, if any, with the present day Republican state in the western island?

 

[His clay]

I get it. Calvinist do believe in the Gospel, they just don’t believe in Charles Spurgeon.

Come on, tell me how y’all really feel about the fact that your spiritual ancestors murdered Charles Stewart and kicked off the English Civil War.

How does that affect your relationship, if any, with the United States?

How does it effect your relationship, if any, with the present day Republican state in the western island?

Unfortunately, I can only be online for a little bit longer. I don't really concern myself with guilt by association tactics and hybrid-genetic fallacies. However, I would love to discuss the biblical grounds for what I believe. If you could keep on topic biblically, keeping the discussion on the biblical text for why people believe what they believe, then I would gladly participate in the discussion. Otherwise, I just simply see chasing irrelevant rabbit trails as pointless (US, Charles Stewart, republican, etc.) Wouldn't you agree that what God has to say on the subject is of higher value and importance than historical and political digressions?