Is Foreknowledge Causative?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ย. 2024
- We returned to listening to the 2018 interview by Leighton Flower of Ken Wilson.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio...
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
Proverbs 16:9 A man’s heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps
As R C Sproul said, “ Every choice we make is free and every choice we make is determined.”
contradictory.
@@donhaddix3770it’s not contradictory. I used to think it was. You have to quit thinking about it from your perspective and what makes sense to you. It’s explained in the Bible. Isaiah 55:8-9. We have to let go of our pride, tradition, and intellect and just let Gods word speak. And interpret scripture with scripture. It’s not easy to do. One easy thing to try to find out your biblical biases is to really ask yourself, “what part of scripture are you avoiding or ignoring and why?”
What is the Cause of God's Omni-Prescience of all that would happen in His creation?
God's Free Will Decree of all that would be.
General Order of Divine Foreknowledge (exhaustive; infallible):
1). The Triune God possesses knowledge of all that _could be_ (aka. "Natural Knowledge").
2). The Triune God Decrees what will _actually be_, or come to pass in His creation (aka. "Free Knowledge").
3). God's exhaustive, infallible Foreknowledge of all that would happen in His creation, is based on His Pre-creative Decrees.
Now we can talk about the proper ORDER of God's Pre-creative Decrees, and that takes us to the Infralapsarian vs. Supralapsarian debates.
Exciting stuff, to be sure!
*Soli Deo Gloria*
It seems that declaring "it's a mystery" can be much more than merely a capitulatory act of confessing that something is beyond your understanding and that you are not willing (or able) to push into it further because it gives you a headache. I often embrace the concept of mystery as a positive explanatory answer - a recognition that some theological issues do possess genuine antinomy - i.e that there are some combinations of biblical exegesis that if dealt with simply and honestly, can't be ultimately reconciled with one another to the satisfaction of the human mind, without doing violence to one side or the other side of the disputed point in question. For me - when I see things that seem to fall into this category, I find myself both frustrated and yet also gloryfying the God who's mind is big enough to perfectly resolve these antinomies.
So in other words you're appealing to mystery in order to turn a clear contradiction into a paradox. What if when you die you appear before the pearly Gates and the Lord tells you that you had been reading scripture wrong all along that neither of the five points of tulip are correct, what would you say to the Lord?
I think that is the most ridiculous perspective I have ever heard. Do you honestly think the five points of Calvinism are going to matter one iota on that final day? Its a bit like looking out of your window after the Russians have detonated a 50 Megaton Hydrogen bomb half a mile away from your house, and getting cross because the damage caused will likely mean the local council will be putting up the rates next year.
The guy has never seen a chess master play chess. They know what moves you will make.
But the Bible also states clearly that God causes the things He wants. That's one of the perks of being God. You can't understand it,neither can I. Hence God vs. Everything else.
@@kimmykimko If God CAN play both sides of the chess board, but God has no need to because he is God.
Self autonomy is the oldest sin in the book. God is sovereign. Period. He ordains all the free choices of men. His divine decree ordains all things that will pass. Men will freely choose that which aligns with their nature, what they desire most and we will be held responsible for those choices. Predestination and man’s free will are not contradictory. It’s only the case when you confide what free will means. Free will is not arbitrary or contradictory or the ability to choose against your nature, which God created. That humanist, secular understanding of free will is erroneous
Calvinism is not biblibal
@donhaddix3770
Maybe it is not "biblibal", but it certainly is biblical.
6:50..."it is not the foreknowledge that causes the action"...James White
Is that supposed to be a “gotcha”?
Correct, it's the Divine decree that causes it. According to James White God must decree everything in order to be sovereign. But that's not sovereignty. Sovereignty is being in authority, not being in meticulous control over everything.
@@DaveH8905 It's literally the point he's attacking.
@@sngehl01 I’m not following. You’ll need to spell it out for me
@@josephthomasmusicthat's actually not true, James White does not believe that, because God is sovereign He has decreed everything. Not that God wasn't sovereign and he has to decree everything as if somebody's telling Him what to do in order to keep Him as God nobody actually believes that, that's a straw man.
Let me ask you a question, is there a possibility that Hannah could not have had Samuel in the old testament? Was there a possibility that Samuel was never going to be born?
I like the shorter beard better than the new beard.
God is amazing! Humans are sooo bad at assessing His ...everything! I love my God, and I am happy that He IS....and there is NONE beside Him. Make your view of God higher, never lower!
God also can't look down the corridors of time to learn what will happen. That would mean He is not omniscient if He has to learn. The looking-through-time position attacks God’s quality of omniscience.
Did Flowers not cause those glasses to fall, by dropping them, and indeed, wasn't that the only reason he knew they were going to fall?
Yeah, the whole example seems ridiculous. I just imagine a court room: yes your honor, I knew that by aiming the gun at his head and pulling the trigger I would kill that person, and yes I pulled the trigger. But you can't find me guilty of murder just because of my foreknowledge of the consequences of pulling the trigger! Judges Wilson and Leighton: "Wow, what a great point! Not guilty!
@@oracleoftroy yes, you don’t find them guilty because of their foreknowledge. You find them guilty because they murdered that person.
Exactly, it is an absurd example for him to use because it works against the argument he’s trying to make.
@@ODDDUCK1n3z I’m super late, but could you explain that a bit more? I think I get what the OP is asserting. The only reason that Leighton knew the glasses were going to drop was after dropping them, because he doesn’t possess any foreknowledge. But God does know if the glasses will, for certainty, because he does have foreknowledge?
Creating is causative.
If God has all knowledge and all power, which He clearly does, nothing happens without His consent. In other words, everything happens because He wills it to happen.
Note: I wrote this comment to mark this video. I know you, the reader, know that already. -Blessings in Christ Alone.
Flowers and the rest of his ilk are classic examples of those who have a VERY LOW view of God. It's no wonder their followers have no reverence or awe of God. When man is the central figure and everything revolves around him, their steep downgrade will lead to their man centered, synergistic, unbiblical conclusions. Wow!!!! Thanks James, great as usual.
Lol
Low view of God? Tell me something. Why does God need to constantly meticulously control and determine all events? If he doesn't do so then he's not sovereign?
Non-calvinist believe that God is so sovereign that he can fulfill his perfect will and divine plan even through our own libertarian free choices.
So no offense brother but it's actually you who has the lower view of God. Your view ultimately ends with God needing to control and force all things to happen by his decree in order for his plan to be carried out. The god I believe in is far greater than that.
@@josephthomasmusicGod "doesn't need to" God needs nothing and your words of God "needing" are self defeating...
@@barrettcarl3009 yes they are self-defeating especially if you define God as needing to meticulously control everything in order to be sovereign. So thank you for proving my point that Calvinism is self-refuting.
The fact that you're saying that God doesn't need to control everything in order to be sovereign, demonstrates that scripture does not say that God determines everything. So if you're a calvinist, thenyou've actually just refuted yourself.
I wish I could hear what Rich said lol this is good 😁
I still do not understand why knowledge must equal causation. Dr. White seems to be saying that the only way God can possibly know what will be, is by causing it. How is that not limiting God? How can God not know all possibilities, and yet also know even what the human will do?
I didn't hear Dr. White claim that knowledge=causation and that they are in fact synonymous terms.
I think that's a false statement on your part.
You would have to prove where he said that.
What James is saying is that God's knowledge is NOT derivative; whereas, all creaturely knowledge is ABSOLUTELY derivative...it's derivative, ultimately, from the Creator Himself (the 'vault of all knowledge').
Causation (aka. 'Creation') came about as a result of God's Pre-creative Decrees, which gave rise to His "Free Knowledge" (aka. His Omni-Prescience; or, exhaustive, infallible Foreknowledge).
We could discuss further, if you like.
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647so in other words the reason that he knows something is because he caused it. That still doesn't get rid of the problem.
The problem is that God only knows what He decrees to happen. But if that's the case then God is Not omniscient.
How do we respond when someone asks who caused the bank to be robbed, or who caused that adultery to be committed?
God decreed it to happen but the people did it out of greed and are accountable for why they wanted to do it, God uses these events for good like the robbers are arrested but come to Christ in prison.
@@kevinbratton670 So the evildoers COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE done differently?
Calvinism straw man
@@delbert372 did they do those actions of their own desire? yes
therefore they are accountable for them
it's not like they didn't want to commit adultery and God forced them to
He knows future events because he is timeless. You fall into this trap of restricting God by your own temporality. If God us Timeless He would experience all moments in time as if they were now.
Did you listen at all? 😂
IMHO....Matthew 7:21-23 applies to those in the Arminian, charismatic, ecumenical, Vineyard movement like Mr. Wilson. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist (perhaps a 3 /12 to 4-pointer 🧐). But I most certainly am not in any way Arminian as they believe you can lose your salvation, nor charismatic as they say man can supernaturally heal others and speak gibberish, nor ecumenical as they essentially will hold hands with just about anyone. Thanks for the thoughts on God's eternal, foreknowing sovereignty.
Let me guess, unconditional election and limited/ particular atonement are your objections? But total depravity of man you agree with? But in this 31/2 to 4 point Calvinism,how can you not lose your salvation? Your theology seems to unravel with no justification of your convictions.
Regarding salvation, you either believe in the monergistic system or the synergistic system. One is represented by the narrow gate in Matthew 7 and the other the wide gate to perdition. Hope you get it right.
Hello brother, I understand your plight. When I came to the knowledge of the Calvanist doctrine I began as a 4 pointer. Likely limited atonement is a hang up for you. I found 1 Peter 2 and 1 Corinthians helpful for this doctrine, as it clearly states that Christ "will be a stumbling block" for those who don't believe, thereby his atoning death and resurrection will not save them, but will be the very thing that keeps them from salvation, thereby making salvation limited to those who believe only.
Sophistry is exactly true.
God knows not only the past, present, and future, but also alternate timelines, as shown by the "if-then" statements in Scripture. For example, when God said to Jonah, _"If_ Nineveh turns from their sin, _then_ I will not destroy them." How does God _know_ that He won't destroy Nineveh if they turn from their sin? He would have to possess knowledge of a timeline (or, world) in which that takes place. This is why God has middle knowledge.
🤦🏼♂️
He only knows those things because creation has ALREADY occurred. Middle knowledge is supposed to happen BEFORE creation. So, no, there is no connection to middle knowledge because of those things.
Yikes, a bit too many Marvel movies for someone; talking about alternative time-lines. What's next, parallel universes!
Saying God's decree of creation is enough of an explanation for his fore-knowing all creaturely free-will decisions isn't much of an explanation. Flowers and Wilson would agree God has a decree of creation, they would just deny that is a good enough of an explaination and moreover, it is a mystery HOW god knows, but isn't causative. Flowers may be an actual Molinist, so there's that.
What are you talking about He for knows bc He is the Author and Creator who decreed, determines, works all things for His purposes. The explanation is clearly given in scripture 🙄
This would mean prophecy couldnt be foretold because man could change it on a wim.
If I'm understanding James White's argument correctly, he's saying that: "God knows the future because he has determined all of it, how could God know of something that doesn't exist (the future) unless He has determined the future to occur?"
My question to this is, does this mean that James White doesn't believe that God knows what WOULD HAVE happened in any other situation? Ex. does God know what would happen if He had determined a drunk driver to run into James? If so, doesn't this nullify James' argument?
If we say "God knows everything simply because it's His nature" and James White says that's bogus because it doesn't tell us HOW God knows everything. Then how would he explain how God knows what would happen in possible "other universes" that don't exist because He didn't determine them to occur. Does this make sense?
_"My question to this is, does this mean that James White doesn't believe that God knows what WOULD HAVE happened in any other situation?"_
Not quite. The London Baptist Confession lays out the Reformed Baptist position that White holds in 3.2 "Although God knoweth _whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions,_ yet hath He not decreed anything, because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."
In other words, God knows what would happen in the universe if he created it otherwise, and he knows what happens in the universe he did create. The issue is not just the foreknowledge, but how God has that foreknowledge and its implication given that God is the creator and sustainer of creation.
It is true that mere foreknowledge does not imply any sort of causal relation. For example, I know what a gun is and what will happen if I point one at someone and pull the trigger. Me having that mere knowledge doesn't kill someone. Likewise, God knowing what would happen if he creates a universe with a garden and puts a tree in it that he tells his creation not to eat doesn't mean that Adam will eat the fruit. That in and of itself doesn't result in a universe with a fall.
But the Bible says more. The Bible says God actually made the universe as it is. And at minimum, foreknowledge implies God knew exactly what he was getting before he created it. If I have knowledge of what a gun will do, _and I pull the trigger,_ now we have an actual crime with motive. My knowledge of what will happen establishes intent. I didn't fire it out of ignorance or neglect, I knew what I was doing.
God knowing what would happen if he creates a certain way, _and then actually creating that universe,_ shows a degree of intent. All Christians have to answer this issue in some way. Its known as the Problem of Evil and is a long standing issue that has been raised and answered long before Calvin was born, and Calvinists happen to give the same answer the church has always given to the problem.
_"Ex. does God know what would happen if He had determined a drunk driver to run into James? If so, doesn't this nullify James' argument?"_
No, I don't see how. God would still be the creator and sustainer of that alternative universe, not merely a passive observer that happens to know what will happen in the future.
_"If we say "God knows everything simply because it's His nature" and James White says that's bogus because it doesn't tell us HOW God knows everything. Then how would he explain how God knows what would happen in possible "other universes" that don't exist because He didn't determine them to occur."_
In any possible universe, including this one, God would be the creator of it, right? There is none beside God. God is the sole being with such power. But being creator of a universe puts God as the first causal even of all that happens in that universe. Yet Wilson, Leighton, and many on that side want to distance God from any causal link to man's sin. They don't seem to deal with a God who both knows and creates knowingly. The Open Theists in that crowd say God didn't know, but as pointed out, that isn't an option for Leighton. Leighton should be able to give an answer, and if he doesn't like the historic answer the church (and Calvinists) have always given, he should give his own answer that better accounts for the issues at hand. Maybe someone could say God didn't create the universe, someone or something else did, and God just happened to know about it, but that isn't what the God of the Bible claims.
Anyone defending historic orthodox Christianity needs to account for both God knowing what will happen if he creates a certain way, and then going through with it while still being a holy and good God who is not the author of evil. And if they don't like the Calvinist answer, they really need to have a better one that doesn't run into its own problems.
"No one can make a decision other than the one that they made."
No offense, Dr. White, but that's like saying that no car can turn in any direction other than the direction that they just turned. You're assuming that the car can only turn in one direction.
Likewise with choices you're assuming that a person can make only ever make one choice, the one that God decrees for them to make. You're still presupposing the doctrine that God MUST decree their choices in order for them to even have a choice. But then how is it even a choice if God decreed them to make it? Do you not see the contradiction here?
The charge related to Manachean Gnosticism and Calvinism - is NOT that Calvinism is Gnostic. They believe in the same core essential Christian doctrines that I do and all evangelicals do
The assertion. Is this:
In 412 AD during a debate - when Augustine flip flopped in the traditional view of free will he once held- Along with Church fathers for the first 300-400 years of Church history- he at that time reverted to his former Manachean notice view in two areas:
1. Adding the new concept of inability to total depravity. No disciples of the disciples believe that- nor did they hold to Calvinist soteriology.
2. Defined the sovereignty of God as essentially fatalistic determinism.
The early Church fathers condemned the Gnostic fatalistic heresies of their day. Fatalistic heresies that sound almost identical to what Calvinism teaches today.
So- that fact that Manacheanism ane Stoicism did not hold to essential Christian doctrine like the Triune God of Scripture is not the charge. The charge is- that Augustine reverted to his former views in those two areas and even contradicted his earlier writings. He imposed those views in their two areas into Scripture by eisegesis. As did Calvin - some 1100 years later.
Scripture clearly and plainly refutes Dr. White's view.
1 Samuel 23:11-12 "Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will surrender you.”
God knew precisely what was going to happen with David and his men and none of these events came to pass, thus they were not determined. God's knowledge is demonstrably not based on determinism. Just as God's ability to create something out of nothing cannot be explained, his knowledge of man's free will decisions cannot be explained. In his attempt to do so, Dr. White makes God like man assuming the only way God can know is by determining it. Which again, 1 Samuel 23:11-12 refutes.
He was asking others how God knows if he didn't determine it. The Reformed Baptist position that White defends affirms that God has hypothetical knowledge. Per London Baptist Confession 3.2 "Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything, because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."
The issue is that God is creator, and so as creator, if he had created the universe in such a way that some other event occurred, it would occur as God decreed it to in the creation decree, just as he knows what happens in the universe he did create. But the people White is dealing with seem to disconnect what God foreknows with the fact that God is the creator and sustainer of this universe. When they argue foreknowledge they do so as if God is just a passive observer to some other god's creation.
I think God can know anything that CAN be known, but what if it is impossible to "look into the future". I think it's possible that this is just sci fi thinking. If that's the case, the only way He can know the future is that He is in control of the future. He can only know the things that He has decreed. Just a theory.
7:30 "so foreknowledge isn't causative."
This is a long video to say "Is foreknowledge caustative? - No."
Instead, you are conjuring up a distinction that the foreknowledge isn't what is causative, but the creation is what's causative. It still comes back to the point being made - God knowing what's going to happen doesn't mean He's the cause behind all things that happen.
_"God knowing what's going to happen doesn't mean He's the cause behind all things that happen."_
Are you saying God didn't create the universe?
Yes, White is saying foreknowledge + creation is causative. Provisionism and others who run in those circles don't deny this as far as I've seen, so they need to give an account for how God can be good and yet know that sin will occur if he creates the universe a particular way and then goes ahead and creates it that way anyway.
The church has given an answer for 1000's of years. Calvinists agree with that answer, but Leighton and others in that camp don't like the Calvinist answer. The Open Theists say God didn't have foreknowledge, but that is rather outside of orthodoxy, and as pointed out, Leighton is bound to the BF&M, which forbids Open Theism.
@@oracleoftroy The problem with the video is he's responding to the assertion by others that foreknowledge != causation. Then he simply states in the video that foreknowledge isn't causative, agreeing with the point he's arguing against.
God's goodness isn't tainted by the fact He allowed wicked men to exist. The same argument can be made against determinism, asking "How can God be good if He intentionally creates wicked people only for the purpose of destroying them."
I don't care what open theists say, I'm not an open theist or arguing for it, no real reason to bring that in here.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Only in calvinism foreknowledge means something different than it actualy does
6:55..."the foreknowledge flows from the act of creation"...James White
White loves to go after the person making an argument much more than the argument.
White does not even understand that BOTH, Molinism and Open Theism ARE subsets of Calvinism because BOTH accept the Calvinistic, false redefining of the term, sovereign. BOTH were invented doctrines, made with one purpose, accept Calvinism while correcting its error on free-will!
Open theism accepts that God is the only cause for all things that are not free-will choices.
Molinism accepts that God is the only cause of all things, and created and guided the universe so that men freely choose what he desires to come to pass.
Since Calvinism holds that being pre-ordained, said thing must come to pass and if not pre-ordained, it cannot come to pass. James white holds that this is true and that his foreknowledge is founded upon his knowledge of what he pre-ordained. and this IS causation, period. He decries the term being used, and then he uses the definition of the term, as if that changes anything.
You abandoned our last conversation...
The correct answer regarding the transformative distinction between believers and unbelievers; is that one group _believed_ unto salvation while the other group rejected and rebelled against God unto damnation.
I thought it would've been obvious to someone as knowledgeable as yourself. But instead you attempted to apply some "one group loved their sin and the other group did not love their sin"..."choice meats" response.
As an aside, quick joke; do you know what Leighton Flowers choice meat is?
Give up? It's bologna 😆
Oh well, let's try again with something different.
I would like to better understand your position and not just what position/s you are against.
So...
Can you give an example of something that has come to pass which God has not ordained?
Or something that has occurred absent his ordination of the foundational principles which made the thing a possibility?
@@dustincampbell4835 I reanswered. Abandoned? You are a dishonest person, but being a Calvinist, you cannot be truthful, as the truth cannot support heresy.
You should also know the I am under no obligation to continually answer you. Neither you nor your comments are that important.
@@dustincampbell4835 I can factually state billions of human sin that are not and we're not ordained by God, but I shall just cite Scripture Jer. 32:35
@@buzzbbird sir, you've posted numerous times on this channel since my last response/questions to you on that thread. So yes, you abandoned the conversation. That's factual not dishonest.
And it's not a matter of me being "important", but these types of conversations are important.
Are you saying that Jeremiah 32:35 is a confession of ignorance on God's part about what took place and/or powerlessness on His part to prevent it from happening?
Because it seems like that interpretation of the text would completely dismiss God's omniscience and/or omnipotence...
I don't want to misunderstand you or misstate your interpretation so could you please walk me through your interpretation of that passage a little more?
@@dustincampbell4835 I answered you one day prior to your claim of abandoning it. Again, I owe you no response and if you wish to reiterate that I abandoned our back-and-forth, so be it. I do not owe you any continuation and removing myself from speaking to a Satanist does not prove that you are correct. the Gigle even commands abandoning, your choice of words, people like you. rebuke then two or three times then utterly reject them.
I will not respond to weak sophisrty any longer. GOD, not me, certainly not you, states what he states, deal with God
White starts out stating that those who do not hold his view use the human example.
WHAT?
The HUMAN method of knowing future events ONLY exists via man causing them.
HOW did God create the universe?
I cannot answer and that does not default to Calvinism is correct. NO PERSON KNOWS!
Calvinism claims that the only way for God to know is to cause. But scripture says no such thing.
He knows in the same manner that he creates. He is God! That is how!
White interjects, "then there is has no purpose"
SO QHAT!? The Bible does not show, anywhere that all things have a divine purpose.
Since God prefers obedience over sacrifice, there is no way to argue that God ordained SIN over NEVER having sin.
Now pay attention to his misdirection and deception:
Think of the million free-will decisions that must occur, think of Calculus, etc...
Um, the infinite God has no problem with the number of events, Jimbo!
His false Example of what he will have for dinner
Well, in order for God to know it, he also knew that all the free will choices and all consequences from them will not cause you to miss dinner.
God is barred from knowing what will not happen because he knows what will. He does know the theoretical as well, this is shown when he tells David that IF he remains in the city, Saul WILL come down and they WILL hand him over.
*Your question:*
"How did God create the universe?"
*Answer:*
He spoke it into existence.
Genesis 1:3,6,9,11-16; 2:7
That's basic stuff, sir.
What do you mean "NO ONE KNOWS!"?
*"White interjects, "then there is has no purpose"*
*SO QHAT!? The Bible does not show, anywhere that all things have a divine purpose.*
*Since God prefers obedience over sacrifice, there is no way to argue that God ordained SIN over NEVER having sin."*
Yes, there is-
Acts 2:23 states: "... Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain ...."
Revelation 13:8 states:"... And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
He had already counted the cost of our redemption before He created the foundation of the world.
Sir, you paint a picture of a very oblivious god; which is certainly not the One revealed in Scripture.
Of course not
Yet, while White mocks and ridicules those who accept the truth, he plainly states that the Bible DOES say HOW God knows the future when it does not. IF it did, like all people in error, he would have shown it, but he did not because he can not!
Yes it does. And he has.
_"remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; l am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose"_
Isaiah 46:9-10
@@dustincampbell4835 that is NOT a declaration of Golf ordaining ALL THINGS THAT COME TO PASS.
I also can sat that I will do all my pleasure. But that does not claim to ordain all things. As for declaring the end, from the beginning, that does NOT say HOW now does it?
@@buzzbbird your rebuttal is not really up to par 😉
Get it?
Because you wrote "Golf" when you meant "God"...
Anyway...
You can say "I will do all my pleasure" until you're blue in the face. But you are absolutely powerless to carry out all your pleasure; both in your personal life and sphere of influence.
Whereas nothing happens outside of God's will; and God only permits that which will lead to His sovereign will being accomplished.
And what He wills to permit could not have even come into reality; had He not ordained the foundational principles that allow it to occur in the first place.
In that sense, He has clearly ordained ALL things that come to pass.
He is in complete control.
As for "declaring the end from the beginning"...
It does say how He does it, it's right there in the text.
He _declares_ it.
The King speaks and it is done.
@@dustincampbell4835 mere claims, no support whatsoever.
That is the essence of philosophy.
God's claim that he does HIS pleasure is not a simlutaneous claim of ordaining all things, ans you are impotent to show otherwise.
Jer_32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Uh oh! Something coming to pass that God did not ordain!
If one rogue atom destroys the calvinistic definition of Sovereignty, then many people sacrificing their children does so in a real, not theoretical way.
Now, go and argue with the Bible while you reflect upon the fact that you are unsaved and bring a different gospel.
@@buzzbbirdnow you say I'm an unsaved idolator...you'll give an account for saying such things about me, sir. Whether you are truly regenerate or not.
I forgive you for saying it but you would be wise to repent of having said something so untrue.
I certainly do not know nearly as much as you think you do; but one thing I do know is that I know God; He is my Father and I am known by Him.
Will you define the term "ordain" as you understand its application in Reformed theology, please?
The jump of logic made at 6:29 is where we disagree. "No one can make a decision other than the one they made". That's not a given
I agree with you. What Dr White is saying is like saying that "no car can turn in any direction other than the direction it just went."
It's presupposing that the car can only go in One direction just like James White is assuming that the person can only make that one choice.
It starts at 6:16. To be clear, are you saying that God can know what you will choose (e.g. what to eat for dinner on a particular day), you can in fact choose other than what God knows, and so God will be wrong about it?
God considered foreknowledge in his plan, freewill is required to love or not. a program just functions without compassion.
The debate is autonomous free will; the Calvinist idea is that the will is bound by the sin nature (slave to sin, child of wrath etc).
@@jtbtdlkt2012 God gives a way out, thus freewill choice. Calvinism gives no such choice.
@donhaddix3770 sooooo God choosing to save a person, out of His own good grace and love is what exactly? You say Calvinism gives no way out but it gives the ultimate way out, God Himself choosing to give an enemy grace, mercy and loving kindness.
You say, God's ultimate act of love is giving fallen man autonomous free will; we say God's ultimate act of love is saying "here and no further" to an unregenerate man, gracing him with a brand new heart, a brand new nature....and even further still, blessing that new man with fruits of the spirit to validate what God has done, blessing them with God The Holy Spirit dwelling within. Blessing them with eternal security and with being able to please Him.
That's love on steroids my friend. Study about THIS God that you unwittingly condemn and mock.
@@jtbtdlkt2012 your thinking also means God condemns out of His own good grace.
don't give this saving the elect crap unless you admit he also sends people to hell om steroids.
he gives all a way out but few choose it
@@jtbtdlkt2012 incoherent rambling.
Completely not true folks! this guy blows smoke all the time with open theism and how foreknowledge indeed can not and doesn't work in regards to what Molina called middle knowledge and what white here is tip toing around in saying God can't know something without decreeing it first.... that's not fore knowledge! If he said it would happen then its gonna happen. The real issue is is there foreknowledge to be had at all! If Ecclesiastes is right (which it is) is that time and chance happen to all things... well then there must be some kind of free choice within God's plan and not just as Sproul put it “ Every choice we make is free and every choice we make is determined.”! If God determined it to happen it happened there is no freedom! Here is an example to kill the logical fallacy that white here has set in motion. The Bible says that God knows the count of the hair on our heads, so does God decree the count or does God know the count? Which to you is more God like? White makes God sound like a bad magician which fumbles the trick mid way and some how manages to pull the rabbit from the hat he already knew was there to start with! No Folks my God can is a God not this poor imitation white has conjured up!