You Might Just Be A Semi-Deist If…

[Kampioen]

No this does not follow. Nothing can exist or continue to existKampioen said:
...why was He unable to give us unbound libertarian choice?apart from God Determining its next moment of existence.

This does not mean God is bound to continue your existence. God is free to choose that you no longer continue to exist…

God is free to withdraw his sustaining power at any moment.

Free within the only choice He has, correct? … ie no other choice but to give us no other choice?

The part that you can not grasp is the fact that if God determines to stop exerting power over you, you don't continue to exist by an independent power, in fact you no longer exist at all.

You assume that if God stopped exerting power over you, you could continue to exist and be doing something else but this is not the case.

You exist therefore God controls you.

You assume man's libertarian choice means omnipower over God. It doesn't. So no, we don't continue to exist if God stops power over us.

Because, according to scripture, apart from God there is no other determinative power in existence that can continue your living, moving, and being.

True. But that scripture doesn't deny libertarian choice, neither does it say God is unable to create it, neither does it say libertarian choice means an omnipower over God.

It's a logical impossibility that is contrary to scripture.

According to your philosophic deism.

 

[Sketo]

Free within the only choice He has, correct? … ie no other choice but to give us no other choice?

Already denied this statement. You are trying to create a problem where there is no problem.

Consider in your view that "God must deal with the hand he has been dealt" by you.

Your view has God determined by an external source.... namely you Ultimatly determine and God merely reacts to you.

In Calvinism God freely determined All things independent of any external source. God was free to determine differently so the fact that he freely chose not to is not proof that he could not.

You assume man's libertarian choice means omnipower over God. It doesn't.

No, "libertarian" assumes man is an omnipower along side God.

So no, we don't continue to exist if God stops power over us.

But you have not addressed weather you can "move" if God stops exerting power to "move" you.

True.

Glad you agree.

But that scripture doesn't deny libertarian choice...

It does not deny choice but it absolutely denies a choice "libertarian" from God.

neither does it say God is unable to create it

But to assume so would be a contradiction to scripture.

neither does it say libertarian choice means an omnipower over God.

True, but "libertarian" does assume an omnipower along side of God.

According to your philosophic deism.

Scripture.

...

 

[Kampioen]

True, but "libertarian" does assume an omnipower along side of God.

Man has no omni-attributes. So libertarian assumes omnipower? How? But you deny God is libertarian, so how do you say God has omnipower?

 

[Sketo]

Man has no omni-attributes.

Correct…

So libertarian assumes omnipower? How?

Because as I have explained many times before “libertarian” must have a reference point and the only reference point that matters in a theological discussion is God.

Therefore when you say man does anything “libertarian” you are saying that the thing being done is “being done” independent from the “only reference point that matters” (God).

And in order for this claim to be true then that thing being done independently must be powered by something other than “the only reference point that matters” or it is NOT “libertarian” from IT.

This would require an independent power, other than God, powering the thing that is happening ”libertarian” from God or it is not “libertarian” from God.

But you deny God is libertarian,…

Correct. I deny that God, or man, is “libertarian” from the only reference point that matters…

I deny that God, or man, is “libertarian” from God…

so how do you say God has omni (all) power?

Because God is the Ultimate Source of all power that causes the continued living, moving, and being of every atom of his creation to interact into its next state moment by moment.

God must first Determine to exert his power to cause you to determine to move into your next state of being before you determine to move into your next state of being.

…

 

[Kampioen]

Because as I have explained many times before “libertarian” must have a reference point and the only reference point that matters in a theological discussion is God.

It seems to me you are making yourself and your philosophic deism as the reference point over God..

Therefore when you say man does anything “libertarian” you are saying that the thing being done is “being done” independent from the “only reference point that matters” (God).

And in order for this claim to be true then that thing being done independently must be powered by something other than “the only reference point that matters” or it is NOT “libertarian” from IT.

This would require an independent power, other than God, powering the thing that is happening ”libertarian” from God or it is not “libertarian” from God.

A man's sense of beingness is outside of God because we are not God, neither is our libertarian choice. Upheld by God yes, but still outside of being God.

So man's libertarian choice is likewise outside of God by God creating an outside of God like He created us at all. We are not God.

You heretically make us one lockstep God ie pantheistic.

God created an outside of God's decision, for which there is no other outside of God without God's creating it.

God is omni-aware and has incidental foreknowledge over libertarian choice, so man can't escape God, nor God's omnipower. Thus man has zero omnipower.

Correct. I deny that God, or man, is “libertarian” from the only reference point that matters…

I deny that God, or man, is “libertarian” from God…

God is not libertarian from God. God is just plain libertarian within the limitations of His own nature. And He created man the same.

Because God is the Ultimate Source of all power that causes the continued living, moving, and being of every atom of his creation to interact into its next state moment by moment.

God must first Determine to exert his power to cause you to determine to move into your next state of being before you determine to move into your next state of being.

Man does not move without God's upholding and moving him. But man's choice to move is not God, otherwise you are pantheistic.

 

[His clay]

You dont think I’m one of them do you ?

Several months ago, I would have said that I don't know. But now? Things are definitely different. With your view of man's will right now, you definitely fit into the category of advocating creaturely autonomy from God. You would probably describe it differently, as free from the Calvinistic meticulous determinism; but it amounts to the same. Namely, creaturely independence and freedom from God to make choices, to determine one's own life. This is the essence of autonomy, ontological self-sufficiency from God.

Let me put it a slightly different way, or rather from a different angle. From the angle of contrary choice, or the ability to do otherwise, one has to be free from God, or else only one "option" (what God determines) is allowable. In light of the idea of, "the ability to do otherwise," people advocate creaturely autonomy from God.

In my view, the above paragraph is an interesting idea, but it fails the test of scripture and logic, destroys human identity, destroys responsibility, etc. Sadly, the very thing that was thought to promote the above ideas (of logic, scriptural adherence, genuine human action, and responsibility) ends up doing the exact opposite.

 

[Sketo]

A man's sense of beingness is outside of God because we are not God, neither is our libertarian choice. Upheld by God yes, but still outside of being God.

So man's libertarian choice is likewise outside of God by God creating an outside of God like He created us at all. We are not God.

You heretically make us one lockstep God ie pantheistic.

God created an outside of God's decision, for which there is no other outside of God without God's creating it.

God is omni-aware and has incidental foreknowledge over libertarian choice, so man can't escape God, nor God's omnipower. Thus man has zero omnipower.


God is not libertarian from God. God is just plain libertarian within the limitations of His own nature. And He created man the same.

You do not know what you are saying.

Hebrews 1:3 “he upholds the universe by the word of his power.”

Colossians 1:17 “he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Acts 17:28 “In him we live and move and have our being”

Nothing “holds together”, “lives”, “moves”, or “has its being” outside of God.

Man does not move without God's upholding and moving him. But man's choice to move is not God, otherwise you are pantheistic.

Yes there is a difference between Pantheism and Panentheism. So what catigory does your (outside of God) understanding fall in…

 

[Redeemed]

“Deism is essentially the view that God exists, but that He is not directly involved in the world. Deism pictures God as the great “clockmaker” who created the clock, wound it up, and let it go. A deist believes that God exists and created the world, but does not interfere with His creation…

Deists deny the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, miracles, and any supernatural act of redemption or salvation. Deism pictures God as uncaring and uninvolved. Thomas Jefferson was a famous deist, referring often in his writings to “Providence.” - GotQuestions

---

I don’t believe anyone in this forum is a full blown Deist, in the sense that they agree with the part in red,
but what are your thoughts on the part in black?

This is a question of Gods metaphysical relationship with his creation…

Are you, at minimum, a semi-Deist?


CCP​

Can you define what you mean by a semi deist and the difference between a deist and a semi ?

 

[Sketo]

Can you define what you mean by a semi deist and the difference between a deist and a semi ?

A Deist is one who agrees with both the BLACK and RED section…

A Semi-Deist would only agree with the BLACK, but does not agree with the RED section:


“Deism is essentially the view that God exists, but that He is not directly involved in the world. Deism pictures God as the great “clockmaker” who created the clock, wound it up, and let it go. A deist believes that God exists and created the world, but does not interfere with His creation…

…Deists deny the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, miracles, and any supernatural act of redemption or salvation. Deism pictures God as uncaring and uninvolved. Thomas Jefferson was a famous deist, referring often in his writings to “Providence.” - GotQuestions

…

 

[armylngst]

“Deism is essentially the view that God exists, but that He is not directly involved in the world. Deism pictures God as the great “clockmaker” who created the clock, wound it up, and let it go. A deist believes that God exists and created the world, but does not interfere with His creation…

Deists deny the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, miracles, and any supernatural act of redemption or salvation. Deism pictures God as uncaring and uninvolved. Thomas Jefferson was a famous deist, referring often in his writings to “Providence.” - GotQuestions

---

I don’t believe anyone in this forum is a full blown Deist, in the sense that they agree with the part in red,
but what are your thoughts on the part in black?

This is a question of Gods metaphysical relationship with his creation…

Are you, at minimum, a semi-Deist?


CCP​

Let's make people's heads explode. Is it possible to be any part deist if you are a determinist?

 

[Kampioen]

Let's make people's heads explode. Is it possible to be any part deist if you are a determinist?

There is for those determinists who let God kick the first domino in a chain of cause-and-effect instead of God causing sin directly. The dominos are then the deism.

 

[Sketo]

Let's make people's heads explode. Is it possible to be any part deist if you are a determinist?

No… because the most important verses in the entire bible, on the topic of God's metaphysical relationship to his creation, are Hebrews 1:3, Acts 17:28, and Colossians 1:17.

Hebrews 1:2-3
in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Colossians 1:16-17
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
And he is before all things, and in him all things consist/hold together.

Acts 17:24-28
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

Hebrews 1:3 says that God, not only created the world and the universe, but that he constantly upholds the universe by his power. So God upholds every atom of the universe by his power and the verse is always true moment by moment by moment. God is exerting power and upholding the things that he created, and if you stop to think about it, this must be the case because whatever he creates is going to be less than him, less than eternal, less than self powered so it's going to be reliant upon him. So he must provide the sustaining power by which things, not just come into existence, but also are sustained in their existence.

Acts 17 says "in God we live and move and have our being". It's also mentioned in the context of creation. It says that “God who created the world... and "in God we live and move and have our being" so even us as creatures;
living (making choices),
moving (making choices taking actions)
and having our being in God.
The verse is always true that we live and move and have our being in God!

Colossians 1:17 says “In God all things consist/hold together”! So all three verses are saying the exact same thing that God not only created all things but continuously upholds them.

My point here is that these provide the foundation for the Biblical world view of God's absolute power over all things, and absolute control over all things, and our denial of any part of Deism and Dualism!

I bring up these verses, instead of just launching into the standard Calvinistic proof texts such as "God works all things" or "God hardens hearts", because you have to have the right foundations in place. The three verses I quoted are FOUNDATIONAL… they are not proof texts! You can't look at those and say "you know you're reading your Calvinism into that". It's just plain, God upholds the universe, moment-by-moment-by-moment, at all times! There is no Calvinistic lens there! There is just Foundation, and I build the rest of my world view, and read other proof texts, like "God works all things" (Eph1:11), in light of that foundation.

So my questions for the Deist position is...

How can “free will” be true in light of the verses I just quoted?
How can you claim to be free from the God who upholds your existence at all times?
How can you claim to be free from the very power upon which you depend for your existence?

…​

 

[Sketo]

An interesting quote by A. W. Tozer about what we have observed and termed “Laws” and God’s metaphysical working of All Things…


“One cannot long read the Scriptures sympathetically without noticing the radical disparity between the outlook of men of the Bible and that of modern men. We are today suffering from a secularized mentality. Where the sacred writers saw God, we see the laws of nature. Their world was fully populated; ours is all but empty. Their world was alive and personal; ours is impersonal and dead. God ruled their world; ours is ruled by the laws of nature and we are always once removed from the presence of God.

And what are these laws of nature that have displaced God in the minds of millions? Law has two meanings. One is all external rule enforced by authority, such as the common rule against robbery and assault. The word is also used to denote the uniform way things act in the universe, but this second use of the word is erroneous. What we see in nature is simply the paths God’s power and wisdom take through creation. Properly these are phenomena, not laws, but we call them laws by analogy with the arbitrary laws of society.

Science observes how the power of God operates, discovers a regular pattern somewhere and fixes it as a ”law.” The uniformity of God’s activities in His creation enables the scientist to predict the course of natural phenomena. The trustworthiness of God’s behavior in His world is the foundation of all scientific truth. Upon it the scientist rests his faith and from there he goes on to achieve great and useful things in such fields as those of navigation, chemistry, agriculture, and the medical arts.”

 

[Sketo]

“For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Mat 5:45)

Most Christians are unable to properly understand the metaphysical relationships between God and his creation such as the sun and rain.

Can you explain Matthew means when he says “he makes” or “he sends”?

…

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

“Deism is essentially the view that God exists, but that He is not directly involved in the world. Deism pictures God as the great “clockmaker” who created the clock, wound it up, and let it go. A deist believes that God exists and created the world, but does not interfere with His creation…

Deists deny the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, miracles, and any supernatural act of redemption or salvation. Deism pictures God as uncaring and uninvolved. Thomas Jefferson was a famous deist, referring often in his writings to “Providence.” - GotQuestions

---

I don’t believe anyone in this forum is a full blown Deist, in the sense that they agree with the part in red,
but what are your thoughts on the part in black?

This is a question of Gods metaphysical relationship with his creation…

Are you, at minimum, a semi-Deist?


CCP​

Not a chance...

 

[Sketo]

“While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants and consumed them, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “The Chaldeans formed three groups and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother's house, and behold, a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and they are dead, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.””

“In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” (Job 1:16-22)

---

How can Job ascribe the “taking away to the LORD” and it not be a “sin” or be considered “charging God with wrong”… but if a Calvinist declared “the LORD has taken away” in these same modern day atrocities then the Non-Calvinists would say “you sin and charge God with wrong”?

What’s the difference???‍

…

 

[armylngst]

“While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants and consumed them, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “The Chaldeans formed three groups and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

While he was yet speaking, there came another and said, “Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother's house, and behold, a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and they are dead, and I alone have escaped to tell you.”

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.””

“In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” (Job 1:16-22)

---

How can Job ascribe the “taking away to the LORD” and it not be a “sin” or be considered “charging God with wrong”… but if a Calvinist declared “the LORD has taken away” in these same modern day atrocities then the Non-Calvinists would say “you sin and charge God with wrong”?

What’s the difference???‍

…

There is no wrong because everything had and was belonged to the Lord. If the Lord decides to take back what he owns, where is there any evil? Where is there sin? This is God's creation, unless you don't believe God created. Job understood that all he had was of God, and not truly his. If only people today could/would understand this.

 

[Sketo]

There is no wrong because everything had and was belonged to the Lord. If the Lord decides to take back what he owns, where is there any evil? Where is there sin? This is God's creation, unless you don't believe God created. Job understood that all he had was of God, and not truly his. If only people today could/would understand this.

Now the question is HOW did the LORD Determined to “take back what he owns”?

God could Determine to “take back” in many different ways. He could have Determined to “take back” his things by the means of them simply disappearing but he instead Determined to “take back” by means such as:

“… fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants and consumed them, …

“The Chaldeans formed three groups and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, …

“a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and your sons and daughters are dead,…

Then Job … said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.””

“In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” (Job 1:16-22)

---

How can Job ascribe these means of “taking away” to the LORD and it not be a “sin” or be considered “charging God with wrong”…

but if a Calvinist declared “the LORD has taken away” by these same means then the Non-Calvinists would say “you sin and charge God with wrong”?

What’s the difference???‍

…

 

[armylngst]

Now the question is HOW did the LORD Determined to “take back what he owns”?

Now the question is, what gives you any standing to ask, that you basically question God?

God could Determine to “take back” in many different ways. He could have Determined to “take back” his things by the means of them simply disappearing but he instead Determined to “take back” by means such as:

“… fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants and consumed them, …

“The Chaldeans formed three groups and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, …

“a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and your sons and daughters are dead,…

Then Job … said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.””

“In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” (Job 1:16-22)

---

How can Job ascribe these means of “taking away” to the LORD and it not be a “sin” or be considered “charging God with wrong”…

I guess you really don't understand what it means when we say God owns EVERYTHING, even us. If you buy food and you eat it, is that a sin? Well no. If Suzy buys food, and you take it, run and eat it, is that a sin? Now what if you are at a meal, and Suzy takes food, but you take it back because it is actually yours, and you eat it. Is that a sin? If you didn't take it back, and she ate it, is that a sin?

but if a Calvinist declared “the LORD has taken away” by these same means then the Non-Calvinists would say “you sin and charge God with wrong”?

What’s the difference???‍

…

God has given (actually loaned) items to Job, and then He took it back. Where is the wrong in that? Remember, God owns everything. That issue is that the non-calvinist talks about a God he doesn't understand/know/comprehend. Why? Everything is about man, even the description and understanding of God starts with man. However, God created man. Why in the world are we starting with man in trying to understand He who created man? That is already one thing that is beyond our capability to understand. Do not that since it is written in Job, it is God who said that He took it away, even though the actual words are coming from Job. I mean, we believe the Bible is inspired, which means it is from God's mouth, to the author's pen, to paper. Who are you to argue with God? What it means is that you have don't have a properly constructed argument, if the final answer doesn't match what God Himself gave us.

 

[preacher4truth]

Now the question is HOW did the LORD Determined to “take back what he owns”?

God could Determine to “take back” in many different ways. He could have Determined to “take back” his things by the means of them simply disappearing but he instead Determined to “take back” by means such as:

“… fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants and consumed them, …

“The Chaldeans formed three groups and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, …

“a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people, and your sons and daughters are dead,…

Then Job … said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.””

“In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.” (Job 1:16-22)

---

How can Job ascribe these means of “taking away” to the LORD and it not be a “sin” or be considered “charging God with wrong”…

but if a Calvinist declared “the LORD has taken away” by these same means then the Non-Calvinists would say “you sin and charge God with wrong”?

What’s the difference???‍

…

Good Biblical answer.