The Calvinist doctrine of God decreeing all that comes to pass is so unbiblical it’s not even funny.
35
3
87
3,517
There is so little explicit Biblical evidence for this view that it’s wild ppl would risk implicating God like this.
4
27
436
So little? Ever read 2 Kings 18-19 or its parallel in Isaiah 36-37?
In that passage God explicitly says that he determined, planned, and brought about every conquest of the Neo-Assyrian empire.
Isaiah 10 is mentioned often in these discussions, and rightly so because it’s relevant, but the 2 Kings account goes well beyond Israel and reaches all of the Assyrian conquests, even those where they toppled other pagan nations. So, while one might could argue that in Isaiah 10 it is only talking about God disciplining and punishing his people (not that that negates a reading friendly to an exhaustive divine decree), that’s not possible in the 2 Kings account.
And I’m not saying this is a slam dunk, but coupled with many other accounts, along with theology proper, it’s rather strong.
1
124
God planned this one thing; therefore, God has predestined all things.
You are making a BIG leap here.
1
2
106
God could have predestined all sinful desires of all Assyrians ever and it wouldn’t make the point you want it to here…
1
3
101
Right, because you’re closed minded on the topic; no evidence presented will ever change your mind or even have you think critically about it.
I find this ironic, that here the demand is for overwhelming evidence, but when it comes to freedom that demand is thrown out the window and intuitions are presented with little to zero tangible evidence.
And I’m not saying there is “little evidence” for the divine decree”, I believe the opposite is the case, there is a plethora of biblical and philosophical evidence, which is precisely why your “evidence” objection is so ironic when compared to your position of LFW.
2
1
116
I have not demanded “overwhelming evidence” on this. My standard has been the same for some years now through the three debates, many podcasts, etc. that I’ve done on the issue.
1
4
1,100
I think there are several verses that check multiple boxes. I’m curious: do you apply the same standard for proving the doctrine of LFW from scripture?
1
1
117
LFW has a much lower threshold of proof since you only need one PAP to show an indeterminist world and since the Bible assumes responsibility, LFW follows.
Determinism is an absolute claim and needs stronger evidence (especially because of the implications that are denied in WCF3.1).
1
1
1,815
You cannot show a single example of the PAP under a libertarian framework. It’s quite impossible.
1
3
119
Are you saying he needs to show an example in the Bible where the same person is in the exact same situation and makes an alt choice?
Bc reality doesn’t work that way. I’ve pointed that out to you before. That’s why it’s a bad definition for LFW
3
2
128
In reality, there aren’t multiple universes. So that definition makes it impossible to prove. Talk about eliminating the competition!
1
1
82
What? Do you think I’m making this up? I’m confused.
I’m working with well-established definitions.
2
212
You’re like someone reading a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon and actually believing Calvin’s father telling him that they drive heavier trucks across a bridge until the bridge breaks, then rebuild the bridge knowing the actual weight limit.
To wit: that time travel or time loops don’t exist isn’t proof LFW is false, and pretending those are necessary for LFW to be true just proves you don’t understand Provisionism. Like, HARD FAIL, there, Chris.
1
1
64
There are different LFW accounts. One is PAP. Another is agent causation. Another is just indeterministic explanations of choice, e.g. Epicurus' swerving atom. And you can combine them. But LFW is typically defined as some kind of freedom that is incompatible with determinism.
1
80
To prove PAP from scripture you'd need either scripture saying PAP explicitly in so many words, or you would need an example where someone does one thing but is explicitly said that in another world the same person in the same circumstances did something else. You have neither.
2
1
88
Ok so to prove compatibilist free will you need a scripture where it says that even though he might have a choice, his choice was determined before the foundation of the world?
2
1
5
249
No, you don't need scripture at all to prove compatibilism. But to prove it from scripture, you either need a statement saying that the two things are compatible, or you need a passage that affirms the two compatible things. You do have several cases of the second.
2
45
I don’t agree that those examples prove compatibilism.
They simply show what non Calvinists believe—that God uses evil events. Not that he preplanned them.
1
2
34
I don't even love saying that He 'uses' evil actions, I like to say He 'repurposes' the evil intentions and actions of men.
Not trying to be pedantic, but 'uses' can have a connotation of evil being a valid/justified means to a good end, which goes to a dark place when taken to its full potential.
1
1
31
You can work into those texts a less obvious but possible interpretation that another kind of exhaustive sovereignty or providence is at work. Molinism could handle it, if it didn't have a problem with grounding the truth conditions of counterfactual freedom.
2
42
