09 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrFreak, would you please just settle this by divulging your source? Are you the original author of the sections Bennett highlighted or were you directly quoting a source other than yourself?
You're a liar. This is from Robert McLaughlin on the practical application of DD:
"Since the Decree is the sum total of God's plan and purpose in eternity past, it centers on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 1:4-6, 1 John 3:23. Therefore, the free will of man must face the issue of Christ and His work on the cross. Faith in Christ is man fits apart from human merit or ability."
Try to have some intellectual integrity.
Also did you attend DTS? We had a student of that institution around these parts 6 or 7 months ago.
Edit: If this wasn't originally written by McLaughlin then he's one plagerist with a lot of time on his hands!
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, now you admit using a source (something hitherto unsaid).
Perhaps RM took his decree from my source.
Now, why don't you cite your source like a responsible scholar and those who are
remotely interested in this blather can look it up for ourselves.
Nemesio
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThank you for admitting you used a source (that, in negligence, you failed to cite). Why not just cite the source at the get-go to save fellow RHPers the trouble of exposing you as an unscrupulous twit? Besides, who in their right mind would actually give life to the impression that they are responsible for this gibberish?
[b]Can you account for this?
Sure. Take a look at the link below.
http://www.gbible.org/about_us.htm
And, specifically, read this blurb, three paragraphs down from the picture of the church:
"Pastor Robert R. McLaughlin was ordained by Col. R. B. Thieme, Jr. of Berachah Church in Houston, Texas."
Perhaps RM took his decree from my source.[/b]
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloI had previously cited Thieme, which is completely beside the point. Because those opposed cannot answer the ideas therein, they fall back on the usual diversionary tactics.
Thank you for admitting you used a source (that, in negligence, you failed to cite). Why not just cite the source at the get-go to save fellow RHPers the trouble of exposing you as an unscrupulous twit? Besides, who in their right mind would actually give life to the impression that they are responsible for this gibberish?
Whether or not the source is known does not erase the concepts posted. Because the self-proclaimed "thinkers" cannot refute the ideas, they go after the poster.
Gibberish? Reveal it as such and then you can make such a claim.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by NemesioYou won't find this online, although you will find articles from his students, as bbarr was able to show.
Well, now you admit using a source (something hitherto unsaid).
Now, why don't you cite your source like a responsible scholar and those who are
remotely interested in this blather can look it up for ourselves.
Nemesio
09 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk, fine. You've made your point about people not addressing the ideas in this thread, but before I let you get back to C&P'ing please answer one question.
You won't find this online, although you will find articles from his students, as bbarr was able to show.
Wouldn't it be easier just to go ahead and cite your source from the beginning? You don't lose anything by being on the level about it (This material certainly won't earn a Nobel Prize for Literature.), and you gain from avoiding the annoying distraction caused by us jumping down your throat about plagerism.
09 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis theological system apparently entails a contradiction:
I had previously cited Thieme, which is completely beside the point. Because those opposed cannot answer the ideas therein, they fall back on the usual diversionary tactics.
Whether or not the source is known does not erase the concepts posted. Because the self-proclaimed "thinkers" cannot refute the ideas, they go after the poster.
Gibberish? Reveal it as such and then you can make such a claim.
(1) The divine decree is the eternal plan by which God has rendered certain all of the events of the universe...God’s decree rendered all things as certain to occur.
(2) The decree of God is the sovereign choice of the divine will...by which all things are brought into being and controlled...
(3) Some things God permits; other things He causes.
(1) and (2) entail that a) everything that occurs does so necessarily and b) everything that occurs was brought about by God. So, (3) must be false, as it entails that there are some things that God does not cause, but merely permits.
The only possible response to this line of objection requires you to distinguish between ultimate and proximate causation, so that although God is the ultimate cause of all things, he is only the proximate cause of some. Is that your view? If so, then since it still follows from (1) and (2) that everything that happens does so of necessity, there is a contradiction between (1), (2), and:
(4) No unbeliever is ever predestined to go to hell.
Since if (4) is true, then it follows that for every unbeliever out there, even those that will in fact go to hell, it was logically possible for them not to go to hell. But this entails that whether some unbeliever goes to hell is a contingent matter. Yet (1) and (2) entail unbelievers go to hell or don't as a matter of necessity. But no fact or event can be both contingent and necessary. So, again, this theological system entails a contradiction.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarr(1) and (2) entail that a) everything that occurs does so necessarily and b) everything that occurs was brought about by God.
This theological system entails a contradiction:
(1) The divine decree is the eternal plan by which God has rendered certain all of the events of the universe...God’s decree rendered all things as certain to occur.
(2) The decree of God is the sovereign choice of the divine will...by which all things are brought into being and controlled...
(3) Some ...[text shortened]... is the ultimate cause of all things, he is only the proximate cause of some. Is that your view?
Necessarily? Depends upon your definition here.
There is, as stated, a coexistence in human history of man's free will and God's sovereignty.
09 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGiven that you claim that God's will is both eternal and immutable, it follows that it would be logically impossible for God to have willed something other than that which he in fact did. I'm using the term 'necessary' here to mean 'logically necessary'. Are you familiar with the notion of logical necessity? If not, I can explain.
[b](1) and (2) entail that a) everything that occurs does so necessarily and b) everything that occurs was brought about by God.
Necessarily? Depends upon your definition here.
There is, as stated, a coexistence in human history of man's free will and God's sovereignty.[/b]
Also, please see the edit in the post above.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrFrom your wording, it sounds as though God follows logic, instead of the other way around. While God is not illogical, He is not subject to anything. When the Bible speaks of God's decree, it is as an entire whole, each part of it integral to the whole.
Given that you claim that God's will is both eternal and immutable, it follows that it would be logically impossible for God to have willed something other than that which he in fact did. I'm using the term 'necessary' here to mean 'logically necessary'. Are you familiar with the notion of logical necessity? If not, I can explain.
Also, please see the edit in the post above.
Were any part of the whole different than what it was/is/will be, He would have known that prior to it ever happening.
The Bible only speaks of predestination for one group of people: believers. Unbelievers are not predestined for hell, although it is part of the decree, simply as a matter of record.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRight. So, you don't understand the any of the following notions:
[b]But no fact or event can be both contingent and necessary. So, again, this theological system entails a contradiction.
Contigent upon their free will, which is known before by God.[/b]
1) logical necessity
2) logical possibility
3) contingency
And you wonder why we don't take the time to offer critiques of the content of your theological system.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrAs you have taken a snipet without reading the whole (which clearly and deliberately delineates the entire doctrine, including what you are now attempting to dissect), why not simply refer you back to what you have left out?
Right. So, you don't understand the any of the following notions:
1) logical necessity
2) logical possibility
3) contingency
And you wonder why we don't take the time to offer critiques of the content of your theological system.
09 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf it is part of the content of the decree that S go to hell, then it follows from (1) and (2) that it is part of the eternal will of God that S go to hell; that God brought about S's going to hell (because he brings all things about), and that S's going to hell is a logically necessary event (given the immutability of God's will). Yet this isn't predestination. Whatever.
Unbelievers are not predestined for hell, although it is part of the decree, simply as a matter of record.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have read the whole thing, and it is internally contradictory. I can use any number of other passages to express the same point.
As you have taken a snipet without reading the whole (which clearly and deliberately delineates the entire doctrine, including what you are now attempting to dissect), why not simply refer you back to what you have left out?