Did Jesus teach TULIP

[CookedGoose]

Yes it would but that's not the only way.

He tells us how He does it. He makes it happen.

Listen to Him.

So you're what's called a "hard determinist"
All the other Calvinists on this board are only "soft determinists"
We all accept compatibilism.
Sounds like you're more Calvinist than we are.

Yet you're saying He intentionally limits His own foreknowledge.

It's my current working model and it's also consistent with scripture.

If He limited His infallible foreknowledge, he would no longer have infallible foreknowledge, by His own choosing.
He also wouldn't be omniscient.

It's also consistent with Him promising life and death based on if we love him.

But you already said above that our "loving Him" would be something He does anyway.
Now you're trying to work in "free will" with "hard determinism" and "open theism".
"Modified molinism" is confusing.....

You are redefining the word infallible and BTW you just made it up.

1: incapable of error

I'm using your definition Roger.
You're saying He limits it, so it's "capable of error"

You can't deal with the scriptures that says He does his will.

No one disagrees with that, some kind of strawman

 

[Roger Thornhill]

So you're what's called a "hard determinist"
All the other Calvinists on this board are only "soft determinists"
We all accept compatibilism.
Sounds like you're more Calvinist than we are.

If you mean I don't compromise from what God says, yes I'm not flexible there.

If you are using "Calvinist" as a synonym for "stubborn" yes I am when defending God's word.

If He limited His infallible foreknowledge, he would no longer have infallible foreknowledge, by His own choosing.
He also wouldn't be omniscient.

I don't accept your definition. You are still binary and not analog. Black and White.

God limited His power when He destroyed Sodom.


At Genesis 19:21 God listened to Lot's request not to destroy Zoar along with Sodom. He limited His power.

He has control of his omnipotence. Therefore he also has control of His omniscience.

But you already said above that our "loving Him" would be something He does anyway.
Now you're trying to work in "free will" with "hard determinism" and "open theism".
"Modified molinism" is confusing.....

You like labels don't you? And none of them are used in the Bible.

I'm using your definition Roger.
You're saying He limits it, so it's "capable of error"

No, you and your philosophy say that.

There are no errors because He says He will do it. He does not make a mistake and fix it.

He's a hands on God, not a mere observer.

He's powerful, not a couch potato.

No one disagrees with that, some kind of strawman

 

[CookedGoose]

God limited His power when He destroyed Sodom.

If God limited His infallible foreknowledge, He would be "capable of error".
If you limit infallible, you're no longer "infallible", you've become "fallible".

I don't accept your definition. You are still binary and not analog. Black and White.

Well......It's your definition. ?

I'm using your definition Roger.
You're saying He limits it, so it's "capable of error"

He's a hands on God, not a mere observer.

He's powerful, not a couch potato.

Right, but His omnipotence is another matter.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

If God limited His infallible foreknowledge, He would be "capable of error".

I don't agree and you just state that with no evidence.

If you limit infallible, you're no longer "infallible", you've become "fallible".

I did not limit it. You are defining your philosophical concept in a non scriptural way and assuming that infinite foreknowledge is required or else it results in error.

But God says He does His will.

Well......It's your definition. ?

And you apply it incorrectly.

Right, but His omnipotence is another matter.

You are not talking about 3 Gods here are you? The God of foreknowledge and the omnipotent God and the God of love?

He says He does His will.

​

 

[CookedGoose]

I did not limit it.

Then what's your point here ?

God limited His power when He destroyed Sodom.

He has control of his omnipotence. Therefore he also has control of His omniscience.

Well.....?

If God limited His infallible foreknowledge, He would be "capable of error".

I don't agree and you just state that with no evidence.

What are you talking about Roger?
Anything less than infallible foreknowledge would be "capable of error".
Anything less than infallible foreknowledge would be "fallible foreknowledge"

 

[Theo1689]

King James VersionIsaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

That is PRECISELY what we believe.

He does not say as Calvinists do that He's already seen what will happpen because the future is determined.

I've been a Calvinist for over 30 years, have fellowshipped with thousands of Calvinists, and heard probably 10's of thousands of sermons on Calvinists.

And not ONCE have I EVER heard that God allegedly knows the future because "He's already seen what will happen".

That is the anti-Calvinist perspective.
You are clearly clueless regarding what we actually believe.
You are a perfect example of the "Dunning-Kruger" effect.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Then what's your point here ?


Well.....?



What are you talking about Roger?
Anything less than infallible foreknowledge would be "capable of error".
Anything less than infallible foreknowledge would be "fallible foreknowledge"

I understand your philosophy. You presume that this is how God's foreknowledge works a priori and you discard what God says as to how He accomplishes His will.

But He says He will do it.

I believe Him.

 

[David1701]

John 6:40 has the subjunctive of έχω (should have). On page 465 footnote 48 in Wallace's exegetical grammar he discusses this form of the word.

He says that in none of the 44 occurrences in the GNT does it mean "the enjoyment of something already possessed." He lists John 6:40 as something that is acquired.

In context the acquiring is by looking on the Son and believing in him.

Thus it's conditional and not unconditional. It happens after the believing and not before as in an unconditional election before they were born.

Eternal life is given after the person believes; but, election to eternal life happened in eternity past.

 

[David1701]

I don't agree and you just state that with no evidence.




I did not limit it. You are defining your philosophical concept in a non scriptural way and assuming that infinite foreknowledge is required or else it results in error.

But God says He does His will.




And you apply it incorrectly.




You are not talking about 3 Gods here are you? The God of foreknowledge and the omnipotent God and the God of love?

He says He does His will.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

What on earth are you talking about?

My interlocutor wanted to disregard God's omnipotence in the discussion. If you want to jump in at the end you'll need to go back and read from the beginning.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Eternal life is given after the person believes; but, election to eternal life happened in eternity past.

That seems reasonable that eternal life is after believing considering John 17:3.

As for the philosophy of predestination of individuals in eternity past, I've not seen convincing evidence.

 

[CookedGoose]

My interlocutor wanted to disregard God's omnipotence in the discussion.

Not true Roger, as you know....

But you have to admit, if He declares it before He does it, this would not be possible through omnipotence alone, He would have to already know He will do it, which requires foreknowledge of the event.

This would not allow for a "limited" or "fallible" foreknowledge.

So it shoots your whole theory out the window.

If you want to jump in at the end you'll need to go back and read from the beginning.

I think a person needs that like they need a finger stuck in their eye.

 

[Theo1689]

Not true Roger, as you know....

Not sure if you've been watching the Fani Willis hearings (she's the one prosecuting Trump in Georgia for "election interference").

She was on the stand trying to defend her independent financing when she went to Napa Valley with her married coworker Nathan Wade, and she happened to mention that she didn't really like wine, she primarily drinks Grey Goose (a vodka).

So with all the trouble she's in, people have commented that "her grey goose is cooked!"

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Not true Roger, as you know....

But you have to admit, if He declares it before He does it, this would not be possible through omnipotence alone, He would have to already know He will do it, which requires foreknowledge of the event.

I do not agree. If you say you are going to meet me for coffee tomorrow you will probably be there.

But if you were omnipotent you would be there for sure.

You could and would make sure nothing prevented that with a 100% guarantee.

God is better than that. You limit Him with your incomplete understanding of physics, space and time.

This would not allow for a "limited" or "fallible" foreknowledge.

So it shoots your whole theory out the window.

I think a person needs that like they need a finger stuck in their eye.

 

[CookedGoose]

Not sure if you've been watching the Fani Willis hearings (she's the one prosecuting Trump in Georgia for "election interference").

She was on the stand trying to defend her independent financing when she went to Napa Valley with her married coworker Nathan Wade, and she happened to mention that she didn't really like wine, she primarily drinks Grey Goose (a vodka).

So with all the trouble she's in, people have commented that "her grey goose is cooked!"

LOL
That settles it, I'm changing my Nick
With any luck at all they'll use wet wood on her.

 

[CookedGoose]

I do not agree.

Of course you don't, it's too obvious

If you say you are going to meet me for coffee tomorrow you will probably be there.

Maybe just pencil me in.

But if you were omnipotent you would be there for sure.

And if I had infallible foreknowledge I could declare it ahead of time the way God does.

You could and would make sure nothing prevented that with a 100% guarantee.

The issue is only infallible foreknowledge allows Him to declare it ahead of time.
it's not limited.

God is better than that. You limit Him with your incomplete understanding of physics, space and time.

Does "modified molinism" incorporate scientology?

 

[David1701]

My interlocutor wanted to disregard God's omnipotence in the discussion. If you want to jump in at the end you'll need to go back and read from the beginning.

I very much doubt that, since I've been on CARM since 2012 (including old CARM) and I know the views of the Calvinist posters well.

 

[David1701]

That seems reasonable that eternal life is after believing considering John 17:3.

As for the philosophy of predestination of individuals in eternity past, I've not seen convincing evidence.

Eph. 1:4,5 (KJV)
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

2 Thess. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

By the way, it was election to which I referred, not predestination (although they are closely related).

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Eph. 1:4,5 (KJV)
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

2 Thess. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

By the way, it was election to which I referred, not predestination (although they are closely related).

I understand how you take these passages.

I see them as recognizing that God had made arrangements from the beginning for the body of Christ. Eph 1:23

 

[David1701]

I understand how you take these passages.

I see them as recognizing that God had made arrangements from the beginning for the body of Christ. Eph 1:23

Would you please clarify what you mean by "...God had made arrangements from the beginning for the body of Christ.", thanks.