/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>713642

>no reformedbros left on /christian/

>OR

>no reformed who even have thoughts on the question

>>714018

They all converted to Orthodoxy or Catholicism

>>714047

Correction: they were all banned at the stake for heresy

>>714102

To dare* challenge me

>>714102

>Finding out if you are saved or not can sometimes be nerve wracking and lead you to question your salvation

I don't really understand the Protestant obsession with this. It strikes me as laziness. Maybe if you actually went out and produced good fruit you wouldn't worry so much about whether you're in this imaginary status of "saved" or "not saved". Listen to what Paul said

>Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Life is the game, you're competing for salvation. You need to run your race according to Gods will. The time you spend fretting over this notion of whether you're 'saved' would be much better spent actually producing the good works that come from a faith that saves

>>714107

>I don't really understand the Protestant obsession with this. It strikes me as laziness.

I'll start off by saying that just like there are things you as a Catholic don't understand about Protestantism there are also things that I as a Protestant does not understand about the Roman Catholic church. It's funny you say it's laziness considering we had people such as the puritans who were extremely zealous for their beliefs. You had Protestants during the reformation that were willing to die for their beliefs and despite this being a system that tells you that all it takes is fait, it has produced some of the holiest people that have ever lived. Listen to these words by the man himself, Martin Luther:

If [good] works and love do not blossom forth, it is not genuine faith, the gospel has not gained a foothold, and Christ is not yet rightly known” (Martin Luther, ed. John Dilenberger, Martin Luther, [DoubleDay], xxix)

And who said we are worrying all day? Who said that we do not bring forth good fruits? In my Presbyterian church you could get kicked out for spiritual sloth so far are we from being lazy.

>Life is the game, you're competing for salvation.

You've misunderstood the words of Paul here. By calling it a competition you are saying that by one persons winning the race, he has caused those behind him to fall and fail the race. By going ahead and leaving them in the dust you have kicked them out of salvation. We believe whole heartedly that you must perservere till the end as Philippians 2:12 states:

<Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

But a lot of Catholics ignore the very next verse that explains the origins of this persevering faith and the answer comes in the very next verse:

<for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Philippians 2:13

It is not us doing these good works but God working in us.

<For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2:10

>>714122

>You've misunderstood the words of Paul here. By calling it a competition you are saying that by one persons winning the race, he has caused those behind him to fall and fail the race

No, it's you who is taking the analogy too far. Paul likening living as a Christian like running a race doesn't imply that by winning you damn others, that's a very dumb interpretation. It's a competition in that you're competing against yourself. You only have so much time on the Earth and you need to compete against your earthly desires to finish the race strongly. The only possible loser is you.

The point is that you obsess over this notion of your current state being saved or not saved which is pointless because only your condition upon death matters in Gods eyes. Whats' the point of worrying "Am I saved or not" when you have another 40 years to live and at any point during that you can fall away and be cleaved from the vine of Christ? What you need to do is live according to the commandments each and every day, submitting yourself to Gods will. There is no point during your earthly life where you are definitively "saved", all you can do is run the race and hope that you end it in Gods good grace.

>>714127

Yeah, your post is a prime example of the difference of thinking between the Protestant and Roman Catholic church. Whereas you try your best please God and earn your salvation and so are in constant fear of losing it, hence why you noted that we may lose it in the next 40 years, we have peace with Christ because we know that His finished work on the cross:

<Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:1

Catholicism doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

Again, you make another mistake. We believe that we must perservere to the end, but it is not us doing so but God who works in us as per Philippians 2:13. That's why we can have peace because we do not rely on our own works since they cannot save but the one who saves, Christ God:

>What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in[a] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Romans 4:1-5

>>714018

Reformed Baptists here. Can confirm was banned for questioning the Catholic moderation.

>>713642

A trap that many of us fall into is trying to think from God's perspective and second guessing, rather than living a life of obedience. Personally, it is clear to me when the Holy Spirit is giving instruction, and sometimes I try to rationalize away from it.

>derailed plans

It only seems that way. There is no parallel reality where you took some other path; this is it. Steer ahead according to the Holy Spirit and the word. Good luck, and God bless you.

>>714145

>we have peace with Christ because we know that His finished work on the cross

Then you're contradicting Paul because he was very concerned with not only losing salvation himself but the people he was writing to losing theirs

>Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Why is Paul disciplining his body so he won't be disqualified if you think it's impossible to be disqualified? It's not only Paul either, a LOT of Jesus parables directly talk about people being rejected from the Kingdom due to their actions

Read this:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

Jesus is talking about people either being accepted or rejected based on their actions during life. This parable makes absolutely no sense with your view of salvation

>That's why we can have peace because we do not rely on our own works since they cannot save but the one who saves, Christ God:

This is what I mean by laziness. "Oh we don't need works because Christ did everything for us". Listen, you're making a deadly mistake here. It's true that you cannot merit salvation through works, that is true, it was called Pelagianism and it was condemned as heresy. But to extend that to think that your behavior doesn't matter at all is completely wrong. You CAN lose your salvation through your deeds. Jesus talks about this CONSTANTLY.

>If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

It's worth noting he's talking to his followers there. These are the people who already believe in Jesus. He's warning his own followers, the ones who believe he is the Messiah not to sin otherwise they risk hell. Again, this is completely incompatible with your view on salvation. You're contradicting Jesus Christs own words in order to push a twisted view of salvation that neither Jesus nor any of his apostles believed, including Paul.

>>714154

Watch this debate if you want to see the reformed view of salvation be completely dismantled. James White can't defend it at all.

>>714122

Luther isnt on your side here. And the Puritans? Well they rely on having to "know" they believe through their so called spiritual exercises.

Luther's own Sola Fide isnt your sola fide. Luther's assurance isnt your assurance, as Luther says we are able to look outwards at God's signs for them, like Baptism or the Eucharist.

>>714164

>Don't they know Works are salvation?

I never said this and it speaks volumes about how weak your position is when you immediately need to strawman me into saying salvation is based on works and not simply that works are a factor in salvation.

>>714145

Lutherans, some Anglicans, Arminians, some Anabaptists…etc all accept Salvation can be lost. Do the honest thing and say "Reformed" and not lump everyone else of the Protestant camp who are in obvious disagreement with you

>>714154

I've seen that entire debate already, was a joke tbh.

>Why is Paul disciplining his body so he won't be disqualified if you think it's impossible to be disqualified?

I'm gonna repeat myself a lot here since you've kinda brought up the same old arguments from your earlier post. You make the mistake of finding passages in the Bible where we are told to do good works, not fall away and such but these are all the works of God in us as per Philippians 2:13. Understand that even we Protestants argue preach against falling away and committing sins. Watch any sermon by Paul washer or John Piper and you'll see how serious they are against committing sins. Sola fide does not give you the right to do as you wish and it doesn't mean be lazy. We are commanded to preach the gospel and rebuke those who do not follow it. Like I said earlier, in my church you can get kicked out for not following the church and were a 5 point Calvinist, 5 sola believing church. What Paul is warning against is people leaving the visible church and is being a instrument of God to bring His people to Himself by Paul's preaching.

Also, for that verse you linked, it means more than you think. Bear in mind that Muslims also believe in that verse and it's even quoted in their hadiths.

>This is what I mean by laziness. "Oh we don't need works because Christ did everything for us".

I can understand you are a Catholic not being able to comprehend the truths of scripture but understand that that thing Christ did also was active and physically moves us to do His will. You mentioned Pelagianism like it makes a difference from the fact that you're synergists. Read John 6:44:

<No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

>>714163

Luther did believe in my form of sola fide but he believed that the way the benefits of the cross applied to you was through the sacrament of baptism. I'm a Presbyterian so am somewhat sympathetic to Him but fall more inline with John Calvin who was a much better theologian than Martin Luther.

>>714166

I'm not sure how familiar Catholics are with our beliefs so as to not confuse them I just say Protestant. For the sake of the argument I will say reformed.

>>714164

>I'm not worried about whether I am saved or not. My question is about the limits, if any, on God's sovereignty, whether or not I can stuff-up God's carefully laid plans, or whether His sovereignty already incorporated by stuffing around into His plans for my life, or perhaps He knew the paths I would travel badly and they were never His will for me to begin with.

Don't worry about trying to get around God's plan. If you did attempt to get around it then that would be incorporated in His plan since He predestines all. Simply carry on with your good works and trust that God is good and do not worry about anything. You are clay and He is the potter.

>>714168

Calvinists are a joke, because once you preach determinism and then say you must be on guard against falling away, that means you are opposing your own rule, that all human acts are predetermined by the agency of another. After all if this is the case, what reason is there to engage a person and tell him how he acts actually matters and presume him some powers of self determination. Catholics and Augustine both agree on the importance of the will, so they can acknowledge Grace and then remind the faithful of their duties. Lutherans and non determinist Prots can, because at least the will isnt something pulled by God's strings so it isnt inconsistent.

So the question is, why the inconsistency?

>>714169

No he didnt. Because his Sola Fide differs in presupposition than Reformed and other Protestant sola fide. The key similarity in both sola fides is that justification is entirely on the basis of faith alone and this faith is different from faithfulness, love and obedience

Luther's Sola Fide is also much more sacramental in nature than the Reformed one. This is why Luther's Sola Fide emphasize the key element of the real presence of Christ in faith and even elements of deification.

>>714168

>I've seen that entire debate already, was a joke tbh.

In that White got his butt whooped and was completely unable to offer up any explanation for the multiple contradictions and holes in Calvinistic theology? Yeah, a bit of a joke but Calvinism is too silly for anyone to defend once you dive in.

>Watch any sermon by Paul washer or John Piper

John Piper is even worse at defending his theology than White. It's completely self contradictory and relies entirely on cherry picking verses and then expanding those verses to explain away the 50 verses that completely refute your interpretation. Using Philippians 2:13 as a shield to try and rationalize away the vast amount of scripture that completely contradicts your position is trying too hard. You can't choose 3-4 verses to define your theology then view the entirety of the Bible through the lens of those verses. You need a holistic approach that uses scripture to contextualise those verses. If you think Philippians says that because you're supposed to credit your good works to God it means you have zero agency to do good works you're wrong. Period. Just wrong.

>>714172

>So the question is, why the inconsistency?

Because Calvinism is inherently self contradictory and you need to tie yourself into these knots trying to defend two incompatible ideas

>>714177

They usually appeal to compatabilism on these issues but that doesnt change anything when how people will act is necessarily based on divine ordination or decree which is intentional. Even the analogies they use here implies this as how God creates all is akin to how an author makes a book

>>714173

I didn't deny that. I even said that he believes the way you know the benefits of the cross are applied to you us by baptism. Whether or not he has a different presupposition, it doesn't matter since since I fall more inline with John Calvin since he was a more learned theologian.

>>714172

Hey, this was meant for you:>>714180

>>714164

Hi, same anon you replied to but my VPN may have cycled.

>So, let me put it another way: Jonah ran from the Lord. WAS God's plan for Jonah's life the A-train, but Jonah ran so God invented the B-train to compensate, and still good was done in Jonah's life because God is magnificent, OR did God foreknow Jonah's fear/rebelliousness and all that we read is the A-train anyway, OR … and here is where I go full Matrix Oracle … did God PLAN for Jonah to derail what seeeeeeemed to be God's A-train plan for him when, in truth, God planned exactly what happened anyway.

When I say, there is no other timeline besides this one, I'm deliberately speaking in terms of our time-space dimension. You can get a rundown of the 10 dimensions from the embedded video.

Here is the summary:

0th Dimension: Nothing (example, a dot)

1st Dimension: Only length (example, a line)

2nd Dimension: Length and width (example, a shape)

3rd Dimension: Length, width, and depth (example, a cube. This is where our perception is attuned.)

4th Dimension: Timeline (example, your birth to death)

5th Dimension: Different areas the timeline can branch off to (example, a timeline where you decide to become a doctor and another where you don't)

6th Dimension: Being able to travel across those timelines (example, being able to physically move from the doctor timeline to the not doctor timeline.)

7th Dimension: an entirely new timeline for everything (example, a timeline where God didn't create the universe)

8th Dimension: the timelines all together (example, the non-universe timeline connected with any other timeline)

9th Dimension: Being able to travel across those timelines (example, being able to physically move from the non-universe timeline to another timeline)

10th Dimension: Everything above all together

So it could be said that the A and B train both "exist" in the 5th dimension. Keep in mind that "exist" is a term we ALWAYS use in a 3rd dimension context; we don't have extradimensional vocabulary. Thus the quotes. OK so consider a concept from quantum physics called the "observer effect" where observing a situation causes all potentialities to converge into a single concrete existence. The double-slit experiment proves that this happens, and so these aren't just abstractions. There is an actual potential reality that gets intersected with our 3rd dimensional perception! Well decision making is one way in which we control what we will interact with, so by extension, our decisions are causing real physical things to happen in higher dimensions (just the thought process themselves!). I sometimes ponder what our decisions look like to God, and how we don't understand the metaphysical impact of sin and righteousness. It's a mystery, one in which my mind relies on in justifying the concepts of heaven and especially hell.

Anyways, since we don't have higher dimension vocabulary and no way of reasoning outside of our 3rd dimension home, we can say that those alternative trains don't exist, never have and never will, but God, being a higher dimensional entity, can perceive and reason about them anyways.

>>714186

This is why I refer to Calvinism as the "quantum physics of Christianity" =]

>>714180

You may post the Augustine quote there, but here's the thing, even some Reformed exegetes are willing to concede that God wants the best for Pharaoh, like for him to be obedient. Secondly, Augustine can say God moved Pharaoh especially given how he used various OT Passages in On Grace and Free Will, but he acknowledges these to be hardenings they rightfully deserved. It isnt divine predestination that lies behind the hardening.

So if I am Catholic, I can actually say God indeeds hardened Pharaoh and brought him up for his purposes. But, God also wanted Pharaoh to be obedient and repent, as God being patient with the vessels of wrath shows.

So hardening is not much an issue for me, as long as that hardening is not one which God predestines evil. Now that is certainly heretical to Augustine.

The way I see it, Calvinist appeal to mystery is just a way to get away from the implications of Fatalism and God authoring evil.

>>714187

Calvinism isnt the Quantum Physics of Christianity. If any, the main findings of QM would either demand the Calvinist to drop determinism and provides non determinists a way to showcase how God's omniscience and human choice works.

And wanna know something? The observer effect actually shows that how things are measured or observed can affect what is seen. Are we gonna say the observer's choice was predetermined by prior causes?

Think about it. The observer effect poses a danger to a determinist view. This is why an interpretation of QM uses the multiverse theory to put in room for determinism!

>>714189

>The observer effect actually shows that how things are measured or observed can affect what is seen

It doesn't just effect what is seen, it effects what actually happens. Thus,

<observing a situation causes all potentialities to converge into a single concrete existence

>The observer effect poses a danger to a determinist view.

>multiverse

The above model is neither. According to the above, the 6th dimension is where our decision making takes physical form, and is a road between timelines.

Quantum physics is fun to think about, but we can't really understand it. That's why so many different models exist. I've provided one, in which the Calvinist points make the most sense to me.

>>714194

QM is fun but if any it's implications or some models(to give room for them) demand that determinism to be scrapped. If this is so, we are left with indeterminist models of providence and predestination to explain God's action if we want to use QM rules as analogies to theological issues.

After all, your own description of observer effect shows how human observers are able to potentially actualize various possibilities given the existence of various other potentialities. We thus can decide which potentialities to be the one. That does not work with a Calvinist view unless the observer effect applies solely to God and not humans

>>714198

What is deterministic in a higher dimension is not necessarily deterministic in a lower dimension. I've always maintained that Calvinism is an attempt to explain reality from God's perspective.

>>714204

Not when you are using that which is observable from a human perspective as analogies for the divine. Human potentialities in choice exist not under a Calvinist view.

And historically speaking your explanation relies a lot on Stoic compatabilist logic, which was used by Gnostics, abhorred by early Christians

>>714188

Ok, I know it's you Soylomon. I didn't really bring up the example of the pharaoh but you are only hurting yourself by mentioning it. We see even after the pharaoh let's the Jewish people go God still then afterwards hardens his heart so that he will try to take the Jews back. We see the events of exodus were necessary for the later parts of the OT since it is referenced as to show how God will always be by His people's side. Even in the NT when the phraoah is mentioned it's never about Him not co-operating with God but rather God using him as a example to fulfil His will

<What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Romans 9:14-18

You're just imposing your interpretation onto the scriptures.

I too believe that God desires all to be saved but whether or not it is a part of His divine decree is another question.

>>714208

>Human potentialities in choice exist not under a Calvinist view.

In this model, both free will (in the 3rd dimension) and strong determinism (in the 6th dimension) are true.

>>714210

The case of Pharaoh does not hurt my case. As even some of your own side acknowledge, God really do desire Pharaoh to obey Him. Even the two commentaries on Romans from the Pillar NT Commentary series makes this clear eventhough God's sovereignity is acknowledged. Leon Morris goes as far as to admit that God's patience is essentially giving Pharaoh time to repent.

This matches the narrative flow of Exodus. God starts by describing the state of Pharaoh who will not let Israel go. Then God said he would harden him which no doubt due to the fact only by a strong hand will Pharaoh allow them to leave.

But any actual hardening doesnt come immediately. It comes later around the fifth or sixth plague. Before that, the piel stem used is one that is descriptive of Pharaoh's stubborness. These chances are plenty for repentance. Pharaoh did not.

So by the time he submits, it is too late. So many people had been killed and carnage caused. The final hardening that shuts off his autonomy is thus justified, he cannot blame God who in his mercy was patient with him.

Romans 9 also occurs in a context where Paul is shutting down any notion of merit as the cause of Israel's election.

No one wants to say Paul misreads Exodus. So unless you figured a way around the Piel Stems and provide a narrative backbone to what Romans 9 addresses, you cannot really use it and claim determinism on Paul's part.

>>714213

No. Because suppose this is true, it only provides a QM basis for Thomism and Augustinianism. Not Reformed theology which typically assume compatabilism and deny the indeterminist freedom as DA Carson, Sproul, Helm..etc all argue.

>>714215

When Sproul et. al. were using the term "free will", they were speaking omnidimensionally. The proof of that is that they compared it with God's will, which is on the omnidimensional scale. That does not contradict this model. If anything, Calvinism should be completely restated with modern scientific vocabularly so that these concepts are understood less ambiguously and confusions like yours no longer arise.

>>714213

There is a reason why I say Thomism and Augustinianism here, this is because these views permit that those who come to God, do so only by Grace but Grace doesnt negate free choice at all.

But there is still a huge problem, Calvinists who use this model also concede God cause an agent to do evil, rather than that cause done for the end of Good or as a sentence of just punishment. The act must even seen as predestinating to evil on God's part and thus, the Calvinist model here essentially presents a god who still authors evil. He just does it with Quantum 'programming' and that programming necessitates the agent to do evil. Therefore choice is but an illusion even in this system

>>714222

No. When they use free will, they only meant what in today's philosophical terminology is called Compatabilist free will. The kind that demands both divine and causal determinisms. After all Sproul et al. deny libertarian free choice, which is the kind that is presupposed when we speak of potentialities and that which we can choose to collapse or whatever.

In fact, Sproul et al have no education in QM, and never use its concepts to explain how Divine Sovereignity can be reconciled with choice. They only define it in the manner Stoics did ages ago, as the agent's movements determined by his nature, which itself is determined by other prior causes.

>>714222

And no, there is no confusion. Sproul et al are explicit evil is ordained by God or decreed by Him. Maybe if they dont want confusion, they should simply said "permitted" and preparation of punishments for deserts but this cannot be not when Calvin says and acknowledges God moves men to evil. He just does it in a manner that preserve their will, being the one the Stoa conceives of.

>>714224

>>714225

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/08/compatibilistic_determinism.php

>In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism.

Notice the concept is stratified between "human" (3rd dimension) and "divine" (nth-dimension).

>>714227

That is simply you inserting into the article. Nothing of QM is mentioned in there at all. The article literally supports my point against yours too. Libertarian free choice is denied. This opposes what we know of the double slit experiment where particles exist in probabilistic wave functions, reflecting the various possibilities until an observer makes a measurement.

If your link is true, this capabilitity to actualize one possibility from others is negated automatically. This is why there is only one requirement, the agent voluntarily does it!

The article also agrees compatabilism is doesnt dismiss hard determinism. Hard determinism also includes causal determinism which doesnt rely on your attempt of using various hierarchies of reality.

Only a Thomist, Augustinian and Neoplatonist have access to the QM analogy and use of various hierarchies. You cannot.

>>714236

>That is simply you inserting into the article.

<In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism.

>human choice

>divine determinism

Quantum Calvinism (QC): >>714213

>In this model, both free will (in the 3rd dimension) and strong determinism (in the 6th dimension) are true.

The only connection I made is that God perceives from a higher dimension, which is compatible with what scripture says about God's omniscience, and the "God's plan" issue brought up by OP.

>>714242

The article denies free will. And goes as far as to even state those who affirm it are inconsistent. Therefore by your own article's standards you are inconsistent.

Quantum Calvinism is also inconsistent because essentially God still predestines evil. In fact by virtue of Divine determinism, the double slit experiment shows not what available measurements can be made but something else more deterministic.

Therefore your use of QM is simply just extreme window dressing

>>714250

>>714250

The semantics are a bit confusing, because I said "free will" when referring to what they call "human choice", and "omnidimensional free will" when referring to the concept they call "free will". They are the same exact concepts. I'd prefer QC to use less ambiguous terms which reflect the concept's dimensional context, but we can use archaic terms for now to be less confusing.

>by virtue of Divine determinism, the double slit experiment shows not what available measurements can be made but something else more deterministic.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

>>714280

>the multiverse theorem

It's not a multiverse theorem because that would imply parallelism. In the model described, the 6th dimension is a bridge across timelines.

>a reverent statement regarding the supremacy of the Sovereignty of God

Absolutely! The dimensional analysis is just that, as it provides a coherent way for modeling human choice and divine determinism.

>>714280

>its implication is that "somewhere, out there" is a "me" that didn't obstruct God

No, not quite. You're applying 3rd-D reasoning to 5th-D concepts. It's like I said about not even being able to use the word "exist" when speaking about higher dimensions.

>>714276

Then here's a tip. Dont use the word "free will" as that article state. Or give a definition of what a "free will" is. If you want to agree with your article, then one cannot use the analogy of the double slit experiment and observer effect anymore to illustrate God's knowledge or how He plans things. One also cannot use the "higher dimension" argument to say God and human wills can be reconciled. They cannot with Divine Determinism and a description of choice that excludes a view where one is capable of choosing from select possibilities.

The Double Slit experiment precisely illustrates this sort of choice regarding how one makes measurements or actualize the particle in a position. At best the qualifier that the observer himself is predetermined must be added

But regardless of this as long as one is acting by coersion of another agent even if one doesnt feel forced, he is not free at all. And this is even more so considering God's agency necessitates how human agency moves

>>714280

Your own point is contradictory. By accepting that all eventd even human acts are accomplished due to Divine ordination or decree, one is saying the event transpires because the act of one agency. As your own points state, God formed man's inclinations, his fate. That is Divine Determinism even if you deny it.

You cant just say it isnt and then give a description that is the very thing you deny. That only makes you more like a joke

>>714284

>>714282

Okay, then I mis-assumed where you were going with QM and higher-dimensions. Okay, then we're not so far apart, you and I.

I like this, too:

>The dimensional analysis is just that, as it provides a coherent way for modeling human choice and divine determinism.

I need to think on this.

>>714293

>That is Divine Determinism

O-o-okay.

>That only makes you more like a joke

How impolite. Has your ID changed and you are this guy >>714176 ?

I express such things as understood by humans. I don't understand why people get tripped up on the fact that YOU can have free-will within the context of God's sovereign will. It's not complete free will, but to us it seems so.

>>714296

When everything depends on God's agency, it is really just an extremely advanced display of puppetery, not genuine agency

>>714298

And to be clear by this I mean Divine Determinism, not to deny that all that exists demands Divine substinence to move and breathe

>>714289

>Then here's a tip.

I guess I was being too polite. I already corrected your understanding of the observer effect >>714194 and now your statement about the double-slit experiment showing something deterministic is a tautology. I thought maybe you could restate your thought in a meaningful way but you would rather be arrogant.

>If you want to agree with your article, then one cannot use the analogy of the double slit experiment and observer effect anymore to illustrate God's knowledge or how He plans things.

I certainly can, and already demonstrated to you that my dimensional comparison aligns perfectly with the concepts of human choice and divine determinism. In fact I derived it before even seeking out compliance with external sources. I became Calvinist after learning that it agreed with my understanding of physics.

>One also cannot use the "higher dimension" argument to say God and human wills can be reconciled.

But it could obviously model the wave function's superposition of eigenstates and what happens when it collapses. It's not a stretch to apply that to human choice, as both phenomenon are time-irreversible convergences of multiple potentialities into a single reality. It's a useful analogy for understanding seemingly contradictory concepts surrounding God's sovereignty and human choice.

>They cannot with Divine Determinism and a description of choice that excludes a view where one is capable of choosing from select possibilities.

A choice in this dimension is a knotch on the string of a higher dimension. God already knows what choices we make; our entire life is like a tapestry that he can see all at once.

>>714305

The problem is Calvinism is determinism as even your own link shows. You think I am arrogant? Well you cant even represent my point properly. I never made mention of the double slit experiment entailing determinism. In fact if you read properly the opposite is the case.

I even made it clear why it is incompatible with your view, given how physicists usually describe the observer effect and particles existing as wave functions. Under a determinist system, these cannot be used to claim people have free choice or can exercise it in a manner where they can choose from a set number of possible acts. Especially if the only reason why the human agency moves is because another agency pushes it!

That negates the ability for them to be able to choose from possibilities which your link acknowledges. This is why it denies free will and only say it is voluntary. Stoics who are determinists also define choice in this manner.

Stating you know physics but dont know the basics of philosophy shows your downfall here too. In fact the only philosophers that use QM in the free will discussion are libertarians. Not determinists like you. And even worse, this means nothing if you end up with a concept that is inconsistent. Using the foreknowledge excuse does not work, as that alone is not how predestination works as you agree, it is deterministic. So all creatures are by implication unable to choose. All they are are simply wave particles in the system and how they end up is how God the observer decides. But QM places that capacity on any observer! Which is why you only confuse and confound!

>>714311

>I never made mention of the double slit experiment entailing determinism.

You said,

>In fact by virtue of Divine determinism, the double slit experiment shows not what available measurements can be made but something else more deterministic.

Even if you were stating a hypothetical, it's still a tautology and doesn't actually say anything.

>I even made it clear why it is incompatible with your view, given how physicists usually describe the observer effect

Given that you wrongly described the observer effect, how much less you would understand an anology based on it.

>particles existing as wave functions

This phrase is nonsense and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of wave-particle duality. Waves and particles are different paradigms of understanding the same quanta.

>Under a determinist system, these cannot be used to claim people have free choice or can exercise it in a manner where they can choose from a set number of possible acts.

Non-sequiter. You've departed from physics, skipped the analogy, and made a general proposition about Calvinism which is unrelated to the QC model.

I stopped reading your post at this point because it's just nonsense upon nonsense, which is tiresome to parse.

>>714315

That refers to why you cannot use the double slit experiment, not that it proves that determinism is true. It only says if we suppose Divine Determinism, then that is the case. Which is true because as Calvinists here have shown time and time again, God's agency is the reason for any human movement and this is seen explicitly in how Calvinist GK Beale exegetes the case of Pharaoh in Exodus. This isn't some tautology. This it the natural result of your own system and Calvinism.

And regardless of how wave-particle works, physicists agree that observer effect means the observer's presence or act of observing the particle can affect its behaviour. This cannot be said to be indeterminist or somehow prove multiple potential choices in human beings if you affirm Calvinism, which is essentially Divine Determinism as you yourself acknowledge. The model is thus inconsistent. It cannot reconcile human freedom in the sense of an agent capable of choosing within a set of possibilities as I have explained and you ignored, only God's agency determines how an agent moves.

So what you presented is simply nonsense upon nonsense, which is tiresome to parse

>>714318

Also to add, the model doesn't even describe anything at all nor does it take any account of how God could interact with the system, which actual philosophers who are familiar with these actually go and take the time to describe. But as I said, with Calvinism, there is no such thing as any capacity of alternate choices, or even a potential list of choices to act from, making the model incoherent

>>714280

>WE don't SEE it that way. Why is that so hard for people to grasp? Does the ant know it is inside a maze, if I set it within one? Does it worry itself day and night about the walls of the maze?

That whole essay didn't make any damn sense. And I was referring to us Calvinists when I said we. Not you. Anyways, rephrase your post in a way I can understand so I can refute it more systematically.

>>714402

He was being hyperbolic. Read this from Martin Luther:

If [good] works and love do not blossom forth, it is not genuine faith, the gospel has not gained a foothold, and Christ is not yet rightly known” (Martin Luther, ed. John Dilenberger, Martin Luther, [DoubleDay], xxix)

>>714214

Your limiting of Romans 9 to simply be talking about the incongruous nature of grace just shows myopic your understanding of it is and how desperate you are to find a way to fit human responsibility in. I even agree that God gave the phraoah the opportunity to come to Him since God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of Him. But God also has a decree that only His elect may be saved.

>So by the time he submits, it is too late. So many people had been killed and carnage caused. The final hardening that shuts off his autonomy is thus justified, he cannot blame God who in his mercy was patient with him.

Here is another good example of how your personal understanding of exodus also affects your reading of Romans 9. You claim that the final hardening was justified due to the phraoah already falling too deep into sin but this isn't even the reason scripture states why God hardened his heart.

<And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD.” And they did so.

Exodus 14:4

This right here is the answer to the final hardening of the phraoahs heart. It was not a reciprocal hardening where the phraoah hardens his own heart the God hardens the phraoahs heart but God seeking to use the phraoah as an example to display the full spectrum of His glory. From His love and mercy, which is seen by God separating the sea so the Israelites can walk across, to His wrath, as seen by Him hardening the phraoah to then destroy Him in the waves. This is also inline with Romans 9:22-24:

<What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Also, just to let you know this isn't the only instance where God hardens someone's heart for His own purpose and you will have to deal with much more after this.

>>714490

Why is it myiopic? That fits the narrative context and the issue Paul wants to address which concerns God's election and promises to Israel. He must find a way to show how if not the Law, then how did God's promise to Israel still stands

His solution is to stress sovereignity which means cutting off any possible merit for election. This is what Paul does in Romans 9. You cant really say that Paul says not all of Israel is Israel and then say you hope that all of Israel will be Saved. Only something like St Prosper's view would make sense here where Grace is unmerited, predestination is affirmed and God wish the salvation of all men. Here, Paul wishes the Salvation of all Israel

As for Exodus, given how the piel stems are structured and Pharaoh's stubborness is highlighted, it does not help your case to argue all of his stubborness stems from God declaring it to be so and His hardening. It must match the narrative context and grammar.

I have already stated how we can interpret God's patience with His vessels of wrath, He wants them to repent(some Reformed also agree on this). This if any does mean whatever hardening occurs, the person still have room to repent at times.

God hardened a lot of people in the OT. But I say with Augustine, they deserved it and there are opportunities presented for them to repent

>>714753

Thanks for that reply.

As soon as you limit Romans 9 to be talking about the incongruous nature grace then you have displayed your myopic understanding of this chapter. I can congratulate you on seeing that grace isn't something merited and that it is in fact a free act from God. You're done well in refuting pelagianism and semi pelagianism but this isn't where it stops. Romans 9 also discusses God actively hardening and reprobating people as I will show soon.

>His solution is to stress sovereignity which means cutting off any possible merit for election. This is what Paul does in Romans 9.

That's only half the story.

>You cant really say that Paul says not all of Israel is Israel and then say you hope that all of Israel will be Saved.

Ok, there's a misunderstanding on your part. First of all when Paul states that all isreal isn't isreal what he means is not all physical offsprings of Abraham are heirs to the promise. This only applies to children of the promise. And being a children of the flesh or promise isn't something that is based upon the human will or action but rather God who sovereignly declares who are His sheep and who aren't. This point is further proven by Paul's example of Jacob and Esau. Just as grace is imputed onto the man by God so is the reprobate made to be so by God's active hand. This is see in verses 19-23. This really devastates any idea that the vessels have moulded themselves in order to be hardened.

>Exodus, given how the piel stems are structured

Read the whole of exodus and this piel stem argument falls short when trying to take away from the sovereignty of God as I have demonstrated earlier.I

>He wants them to repent(some Reformed also agree on this).

I would agree with you but the patience is God not destroying them immediately but rather using them, like the example with the pharoah, for His own special purpose to gain glory. Not for their repentance since God already had their destiny prepared as vessels of wrath.

>>715191

You are essentially repeating what we already know of your points. But if you say those who see election and grace as unmeritted are "myopic", the same could be said of your view of Exodus and the apparent lack of engagement with the narrative backdrop.

When you raised "not all Israel are Israel", that point could easily had been seen as nationality or ethnicity as not the basis for election. The other examples stress this point which means all that can be gleamed on at the very least is God predestines His people to Salvation. This is the closest one gets to anything Calvinistic. Nothing is said about a double predestination at this point, nor is any question of free choice made or considered. Which is why FF Bruce and Herman Ribberdos get credit for understanding this point.

Lastly, if God truly wanted repentance from those vessels of wrath, as many commentators on Romans observed even some Reformed theologians, then the hardening must either be reciprocal and not place necessity, the vessels of wrath actually being capable of repentance or as some like St Prosper say, have neccesary Grace for that. God's patience makes no sense if your point is meant to be emphasized as why is God patient with something He made to be damned and planned it in His mind before creation? That statement is out of place!

>>715197

No, my point was that by you limiting to Romans 9 to be discussing the incongruous nature of grace then you have only been looking at a fraction of what subject the chapter is discussing. My understanding on exodus is in fact not myopic because I do not stop at the first few instances of the pharoah having his heart hardened but I look at the entire story as well as the significance of the events that occurred in exodus as well as later on references of the event, which do not agree with your understanding of what happened in exodus, Romans 9:14-18 is one example. Also, look at how the mercy that is given to the individual here, which is a verb in the greek, is paralleled with God's hardening. This would imply that just as God actively imparts His grace onto a believer, which as you agree has not merited this grace since the very definition of mercy is giving someone what they do not deserve, is is the hardened done so by God's free choice regardless of the humans free will.

>When you raised "not all Israel are Israel", that point could easily had been seen as nationality or ethnicity as not the basis for election.

I agree, it is based on God's purpose of election, which is unconditional and unmerrited.

>Nothing is said about a double predestination at this point

Are you sure about that? If you were to just stop at verse 5 where there is no clarification and the way in which one becomes a part of the spiritual seed of Abraham then yeah, nothing to imply double predestination. Whenever I use this verse it's never to prove predestination but rather how Paul has individuals in mind when referencing the loving and having of Jacob and Esau and not nations like some like to say. Furthermore, if we start at Romans 9:11 it states:

<though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls

It's key here to understand how Paul uses his words since he does a good job at being consistent with himself. If we go back to the previous chapter, bearing in mind that chapter divisions didn't exist in Paul's original letter, you read in Romans 8:30 the golden chain of redemption:

<And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Everyone here would agree that Paul is talking about salvation and thus uses salvivic language and one of which is the term "called". This is the same word that is used in Romans 9:11 and so we can conclude that Paul here is talking in the context of salvation and coming to salvation is determined based on God's free and sovereign choice.

To answer your last paragraph I'd say that the patience isn't for their repentance, event though God wants all to come to repentance. The patience should be seen in light of what has just been said before. When Paul uses the example of pharoah it leads me to believe that God is being patient with them in the sense that He does not destroy them immediately but first used them for a dishonourable use to gain glory and then He destroys them.

>>715598

If you state that my point is myiopic, then so is yours added with a God who is essentially bipolar in nature given your explanation of God's patience towards his vessels of wrath. But as usual, my point considers the narrative context and intent of affirming unmerited Grace as a counter to Jewish views of the Torah and works. Firstly, you claim that you look at the whole narrative context of Exodus. Clearly this is false, as holistically Pharaoh was given more than sufficient room to obey God and at the beginning we are already told Pharaoh wont let Israel go, except by a strong hand. Piel stems and statives used of Pharaoh dont support a determinist look, particularly when for the first five plagues, Pharaoh was simply defiant when God gave His signs. So because of this, to avoid Paul as contradicting Exodus as you already done so. So in Romans 9 where Paul speaks of the vessels of wrath being "prepared", Chrysostom is right, they did it to themselves which means "prepare" must be a perfect middle participle.

Next, Jacob and Esau only proves single predestination where Jacob was chosen and Esau not, this is literally single predestination which Augustinians easily accept whilst avoiding the Calvinist conclusion, as Esau will simply suffer just punishment for his future sins according to this line of thought. This is also the same in Romans 8, Election to life. Nothing mentioned about election to damnation there. So at most, we can say Augustinian predestination is entailed by it.

Your final point brings out what I said in my opening as you concede God wishes repentance as you said God wish all to come to it. So it must include those vessels of wrath too whom God is patient with. Hence, those vessels must have sufficient room to repent and God genuinely wants it, as Romans 2:4 similarly states, God's "goodness and forebearing" is meant to bring us to repentance. Had we take your view it creates a weird bipolar will in God where one wants repentance but another overrides and already determined these vessels to move only at his agency.

>>715622

Why does your ID change every time you post?