Thanks for the interview! As a side note, it really strenghtens my faith to see a brother who came to faith from atheism in a secularized country like France!
Around the 40:00 the relevant similarities in both cases are: being a robot is equal to total inability. He argues that this argument is weak because it begs the question of determinism but it doesn't because the assertion is not that being a robot is equal to determinism, rather the argument is that being a robot is equal to total inability, therefore determinism is incompatible with human responsibility.
I'm just finishing up Guillaume's book "Confessions of a French Atheist". That's been a great read. Next, I'll look into the other book he mentions here - "Excusing Sinners ..."
At the 55:00 point he misunderstands the phrase "the author of sin" which is best defined as the first cause, which is distinct from the determiner because something can be the first cause of something without being the determiner, for example the wind can be the first cause of something without determining something, so it doesn't beg the question.
Human freedom and moral responsibility (accountability) are never equated in Scripture. God has determined the actions of man while also judging us for those actions. These two truths are every taught in Scripture. However I have not seen anyone use Scripture to support human freedom. Any attempt to do so usually takes the form of someone being held accountable to God for their actions and the assumption being made that man must therefore be free since It is often assumed that God cannot hold anyone responsible for their actions if that person is not free and if God Himself is the cause of those actions. This, however, is not proof of human freedom, but rather only proof that we are held accountable for our actions. The Bible teaches that man's accountability to God does not necessitate that man be in any sense free. [Rom 9:19 NKJV] 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" Paul never denies the objector's claim that no one ever (ultimately) resists God's will, and yet He still holds us accountable. I believe that God is justified in judging mankind for their actions while Himself being the cause of those actions based on Divine Ownership. He is the Creator, we are his creation. [Rom 9:21 NKJV] 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? I would love to hear Dr. Bignon's response to this statement. Thank You.
I think it is kinda semantics, as he doesn't hold to some definitions of freewill. I think what he considers free is that we freely do according to our nature. So, being that there are all sorts of parameters on the decisions we make, I think choice would better describe the 'freewill' some people claim. In Scripture all I've found is 'freewill offerings' in the temple service, which does sorta legitimize the label, though it may be misleading to some ears. There is certainly much more language used such as, "choose this day whom you will serve". 🥂
I would love to know what his reasons are for not using divine foreknowledge as an argument for determinism. I mean I don’t think omniscience alone necessitates it but the combination of that with omnipotence seems to for sure. Like if God is here when I do something with the knowledge I’m going to do it and the ability to stop it then isn’t he making a decision to allow it and thereby ordaining it? Idk somebody should fill me in
106:00 He says it's grounds for humility because the believer can't say "I'm better than unbelievers" since God chose me not based on anything I have done. But actually the Calvinist CAN say "I am better than unbelievers" because, according to Calvinism, God gave the believer the ability to believe prior to salvation, which made him better than the unbeliever who is unable to believe. It's kinda like how people who have natural, God-given abilities to be talented at music or athletics will boast about being better than others even though their abilities are given to them
When an Arminian and a Calvinist are standing before God and He asks them each to sum up how they got there, I think they’d both provide similar answers. “It was because your grace, Lord.” But if He follows up with a question about why they are in heaven and someone else is in hell, the Calvinist answer won’t change. However, the Arminian would have to start his explanation off with something he did or the person in hell failed to do. “I believed and he didn’t.” Or maybe they’d try to say the God’s grace wasn’t enough the people in hell.
@@Bdq777 The answer for the reason people are in Hell is unbelief. The Calvinist would have to say that the person in Hell is there because of unbelief which was determined by God. The non-calvinist would say that the unbelief was determined by sinful men who hardened their hearts.
Suffering having a redemptive purpose, i.e., a sanctifying purpose, is the greatest blessing of the truth that is expressed in Romans 8:28, (and so many Scriptures ) that "we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.". I love how Mr. Bignon, like all Calvinist philosophers, submits to the authority of Scripture. As far as the age of accountability question, there is no age of accountability. No one is impeccable or innocent, not even for the nanosecond, or however long it takes for a fetus to be conceived. This is nothing more than a denial of the doctrine of ‘Original Sin”. Original Sin means that all men are born both guilty and corrupted by sin; and, without Original Sin, what need have you for redemption? The Scripture is clear (Rom 5:12-21) that all that are in Adam, viz. every mortal born of a woman, is guilty of Adam's sin. Paul is absolutely clear when he says "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam,"(vs 14) that this means infants or even fetuses is patent. The fact is, that "the wages of sin is death"(Rom 6:23), therefore, everyone who dies is guilty of sin, otherwise babies and fetuses wouldn’t die. The mere fact that physical death happens is proof of that sin has a dominion and rules over the children of Adam. It may be emotional and we may not like it; but, should the pot turn to the potter and ask “why have you made me thus?”. That God saves whom He wishes, where and when He wishes, this we do not have a doubt of. In a womb, in a cradle, in a coma, or falling from a mountain, it’s not for us to know who or how or why; but, it is for us to believe and praise Him who is worthy. And, as Mr. Bignon put it, to know that His purposes are good and sure, no matter what the circumstance. Guilt of sin does not mean guilt of sins, this is where those that deny Original Sin are confused, an individual sin is not what condemns the man, it is being in Adam that is the reason "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”(Rom 5:19), and the word "made" in this verse is not very good, it actually says that all men were "constituted" as sinners, viz. put in the category of being a sinner, and this, of course, is the action of God, as a result of one sin by Adam. So, God has declared all men to be sinners; therefore, the fact that they commit a measurable sin or not before they die is of no consequence. And, in like manner “through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”(Rom 5:19), where again the word for “made” means “constituted”, viz. God declares His elect as being righteous with the forensic declaration known as ‘justification’, accomplished by the propitiation of Christ’s substitutionary atonement on the cross. Very glorious and nice to know that there is a philosopher like Mr.Bignon to carry the torch that God lit in men like Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. Very good interview!
you have a lot of problems here. -Deuteronomy 19 acknowledges there are "innocent" -"Every mortal born of a woman is guilty of Adam's sin." - That makes Christ also guilty, and unable to be a perfect sacrifice. Are you suggesting Christ did not possess human flesh? Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. -The wages of sin is death...your sin. Deuteronomy 24:16 - “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin alone.
Around the 47:00 in the mad scientist argument he assumes that the choice to sin flows from our God-given desires but the scripture says that God does not give anyone the desire to sin.
The claim that free will is a control condition for responsibiity lacks objectivity and gives the impression that it is simply defined as such. It is the same structure as the claim that God can be defined as a being described in the book of revelation, and both share the point that it is an arbitrary argument. We need to imagine what God could be like without relying on existing scriptures.
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- 23 this Jesus,3 delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. ..this and many other passages seem to entail both determinism and free will thus compatibilism seems inescapable to maintain biblical inerrancy.
You would here be referring to "determinism" in a particular sense and NOT "determinism" in terms of what people refer to with everything being determined by the intention of God. That the plan of bringing about the Messiah was indeed planned and accomplished by God who can see the future (somehow) doesn't mean that everything is determined or that God plans or intends to bring about everything that happens. At best he may allow things to happen contrary to his intention or desire, while making sure his main plans of salvation are accomplished, which he would surely know how to do.
@@Xenosaurian That God knows the future I take as a given part of Orthodox Christianity and a basic attribute of God (Omniscient). Secondly, If you allow for determinism in even case then in order to account you must introduce compatibilism and thus incompatibilism fails (it really only requires one instance to the contrary to disprove a theory).
@@Xenosaurian In Him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined(Y) according to the plan of Him who works out EVERYTHING in conformity with the purpose(Z) of His will. It seems to me in order to account for everything then atleast compatibilism must be introduced.
If God works EVERYTHING according to the conformity of His Plan and Purpose it seems compatibilism is the best option to reconcile all of Scripture and mantain biblical inerrancy. Compatibilism can account for free will but incompatibilism can not reconcile determinism.
I am not sure that Dr Bignon saying people don't adopt this 4th position is correct. In a survey of philosophers I saw, there were a vast majority of philosophers who affirm atheism and determinism and mixed results over the existence of objective morality, but that leaves some philosophers who are atheists who affirm free will and reject objective values. A person who believes that consciousness entails free will and that values are cultural social constructs would fall into the category that Bignon says virtually nobody holds. There's also the possibility of a theist who affirms that free will was granted to humans by God and that God allows humans to construct their own sets of moral values would also fall into that category, although I admit I've never seen anybody take this position. I have, however, seen people take the atheist free will no responsibility position in a conference on free will. Most atheists who affirm free will seem to take the position that objective moral values can be derived from a rational examination of the universe, such that there is no justification for committing heinous crimes, but not all of them. I believe the famous philosopher Nietzche would fall into the category of people who affirm free will with no moral responsibility. The Bible never says we have been foreordained to salvation. There is no verse anywhere in scripture which says this. This is purely a notion invented by Augustine and popularized by the Reformation. Finding a proof text which is compatible with predestination to salvation is not the same thing as finding the concept in the Bible. I can teach that Jesus was made of wood rather than human flesh and point to the verse where Jesus says "I am a door". That's what Calvinists do. They define what elect means, then go to verses that contain the word "elect" and say it proves the concept is Biblical. No. It doesn't work that way. Elect merely means chosen. It does not prove who is chosen, why they were chosen, when they were chosen, or for what purpose they were chosen. Merely saying God's elect will be adopted, one of the Calvinist classic proof texts for their theology, in no way says "God chose individuals before the world was formed to irresistibly come to faith by an infusion of the Holy Spirit". That's a wildly inappropriate level of reading too much into the scripture. It's textbook eisegesis. Another example is the Calvinist "golden chain" of salvation, Romans 8 verses 29-30. The Calvinist golden chain includes faith, but the scripture does not. Calvinists just insert faith where they want to, so it coincides with their theology. Again, it's eisegesis. The Calvinist proof text for regeneration preceding faith never mentions faith. The Calvinist just inserts faith where the Calvinists wants it to be, but in the actual scripture it's not there.
there's still the problem of Acts 13:48 though (that one explicitly mentions salvation) that one can be solved if we allow the possibility that the book of Acts, just like Paul's epistles, may not be part of canon scripture (some denominations exclude those books from their bible)
@@blackfalkon4189 I don't think there's anything to be solved here. Acts 13:48 does specifically mention salvation. It does not specifically mention the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. People who rejoice and glorify the Word of God are destined for eternal life. Virtually every Christian of any denomination or tradition would agree with that. If you look at Acts 13:48 you'll see it says that Gentiles rejoice and glorified the Word of God, and those who were appointed to eternal life believed. The problem for Calvinism here, is that their doctrine of salvation holds that only people predestined to eternal life can rejoice and glorify the Word of God. This fact makes the placement of "appointed" after the Gentiles rejoice and glorify the Word to be an awkward thing for Calvinism. Acts 13:48 is very strangely worded if you accept Calvinism because the placement of "appointed" between the rejoicing/glorifying and the eternal life really seems to indicate that the "those" in the phrase "those appointed" is referring back to the Gentiles. But under Calvinism it can't be, because that would mean the Gentiles turned to God without being appointed first and that contradicts Calvinism. Acts 13:48 is an awkward verse in English no matter how you look at it. It just doesn't translate smoothly into our language from the Greek. But given that situation, I believe the plainest and most straightforward reading of the verse is that many Gentiles heard the word of God and rejoiced, and those who were affected by it sufficiently greatly to believe in Jesus became appointed to eternal life. It's a clear and obvious reading of the text which does not involve needing to import any outside theological doctrine into the verse.
@@patrickbarnes9874 but that's precisely the problem: the word 'believed' is only placed _after_ the word 'appointed' (or 'ordained' in KJV) this plays well into calvinist argument like James White who basically signs his books with that verse because this implies: 1) that only those who've won that lottery ie. are 'elect', can believe (total depravity) 2) that people are predestined to eternal life (unconditional election) 3) that evidently not everyone's been ordained to eternal life (limited atonement) and 4) that those who are elect inevitably believe (irresistible grace) > *why* didnt it say "those who believed were appointed to eternal life" instead? that would make much more sense (instead of the other way around: "those who were appointed to eternal life believed" which is what the verse says)
I take this to mean "those who were ready (appointed towards / orientated in heart and mind towards) to receive the good news at that particular time. Presumably there were others who would become ready later, but were still putting up 'roadblocks'.
I find the argument from self-consciousness very weak as a response to the “robots claim”. The entire point for discussion is that non-compatibilist are claiming the self-consciousness of determinism is completely controlled and thereby making it robot-like. Being aware that you are a being doesn’t make you morally responsible. To use Bignon’s own arguments against him… this would then turn into the coercion or manipulation argument against compatiblism. He has done nothing but kick the van down the road.
@@Nathan-xz3mj I already said your comments were confusing and incoherent. You go off on a lot of tangents and suddenly speak of "unconscious and conscious" and I have no idea what you're trying to communicate. It's the equivalent of me saying something like "people like to have fun but blue isn't orange".
All of mankind would be destined to hell if God had not chosen to save a multitude. Does God owe humanity the possibility when humanity has thrown up the middle finger to God? God is not beholding to his creation.
Assuming you’re an Arminian, your theology as it exists right now basically says, “Man is fallen and God provided an opportunity for all to be redeemed by putting their faith in Christ. Some will choose wisely and some will receive their just punishment.” Now imagine that we live in a world where this plays out and nobody follows Christ. Would you agree that all should then receive damnation? Well all Calvinists are saying is that this is the world we live in. Christ was offered and nobody would choose Him on their own…but instead of damning everybody God still saves a number as unmeasurable as the sand on the seashore by revealing himself to us and giving us a new heart. It’s actually far more gracious when you consider the fact that He gives us a choice, allows us to fail, and then saves us anyway.
If God made all my decisions before he made my parents it's impossible I'm responsible for anything. God made all my decisions. God could make us to believe we have freewill but don't. God is still responsible though in what he makes us do.
Agree, as an ex-Calvinist, now Lutheran, I find this via media position free yet determined - if stated in philosophical terms only, and without instrumentality(means of grace), Bignon's position is inadequate and unconvincing. His view that ALL things is God determined, even this objection I am writing right now. Indeed, you can still charge God as the author of one's damnation - to say that this interlocution is the one who has to supply the evidence ie our objection has the carry the burden of proof, is just hand waving. Although St James we cannot blame God for sin, indeed, true, but St James is not making the same argument as Calvinists are making - ie their rebuttal against the rhetorical objection - is by fiat.
you still make decisions, God is simply the one who is in ultimate control it's both and since when does God ultimately making the decision make it no longer your choice as well?
@@quinnpeterson2716 well I did say it and it's true and I'm most certainly not an open theist my friend . Your comment presents a false dilemma Quinn, I hear James White saying this type of nonsense indoctrinating his followers with his false dichotomies quite often . Scripture is so much richer and deeper than he and most calvinist I've encountered realize simply because they're caught up in their systematic presups that disable then from actually believing the biblical texts for what they actually say . The philosophical arrogance it takes for someone to say that GOD has to predetermine everything in order to know all things just because they can't logically understand how HE could otherwise is shameful and disrespectful to GOD and results in blasphemy when taken to its full application in contrast with scripture . To claim EDD is to claim that GOD predetermined us to sin , rape and murder children , worship satan , curse GOD etc... Do you honestly believe that GOD predestined evil reprobates to worship satan ? Slaughter children? Abortion ? James White has said that he believes GOD predestined these abominable acts of evil men and the evil men doing them . Calvinism is blasphemy against our SAVIOR and I plead with you to rethink these blasphemous teachings you embraced Quinn.
Thanks for the interview!
As a side note, it really strenghtens my faith to see a brother who came to faith from atheism in a secularized country like France!
Thanks for uploading this video. This was intellectually very stimulating. I listened to it while hiking here in Switzerland.
Great interview, Jordan and Guillaume! Thanks for the shout-out, too!
Around the 40:00 the relevant similarities in both cases are: being a robot is equal to total inability. He argues that this argument is weak because it begs the question of determinism but it doesn't because the assertion is not that being a robot is equal to determinism, rather the argument is that being a robot is equal to total inability, therefore determinism is incompatible with human responsibility.
I'm just finishing up Guillaume's book "Confessions of a French Atheist". That's been a great read. Next, I'll look into the other book he mentions here - "Excusing Sinners ..."
Great interview!
At the 55:00 point he misunderstands the phrase "the author of sin" which is best defined as the first cause, which is distinct from the determiner because something can be the first cause of something without being the determiner, for example the wind can be the first cause of something without determining something, so it doesn't beg the question.
Human freedom and moral responsibility (accountability) are never equated in Scripture. God has determined the actions of man while also judging us for those actions. These two truths are every taught in Scripture. However I have not seen anyone use Scripture to support human freedom. Any attempt to do so usually takes the form of someone being held accountable to God for their actions and the assumption being made that man must therefore be free since It is often assumed that God cannot hold anyone responsible for their actions if that person is not free and if God Himself is the cause of those actions. This, however, is not proof of human freedom, but rather only proof that we are held accountable for our actions. The Bible teaches that man's accountability to God does not necessitate that man be in any sense free. [Rom 9:19 NKJV] 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" Paul never denies the objector's claim that no one ever (ultimately) resists God's will, and yet He still holds us accountable. I believe that God is justified in judging mankind for their actions while Himself being the cause of those actions based on Divine Ownership. He is the Creator, we are his creation. [Rom 9:21 NKJV] 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
I would love to hear Dr. Bignon's response to this statement.
Thank You.
I think it is kinda semantics, as he doesn't hold to some definitions of freewill. I think what he considers free is that we freely do according to our nature. So, being that there are all sorts of parameters on the decisions we make, I think choice would better describe the 'freewill' some people claim. In Scripture all I've found is 'freewill offerings' in the temple service, which does sorta legitimize the label, though it may be misleading to some ears. There is certainly much more language used such as, "choose this day whom you will serve".
🥂
G is sadistic. A compassionate person would not behave like G.
I would love to know what his reasons are for not using divine foreknowledge as an argument for determinism. I mean I don’t think omniscience alone necessitates it but the combination of that with omnipotence seems to for sure. Like if God is here when I do something with the knowledge I’m going to do it and the ability to stop it then isn’t he making a decision to allow it and thereby ordaining it? Idk somebody should fill me in
Knowing what someone will do and choosing not to interfere (allowing it) is not the same as determining it to happen.
foreknowledge logically refutes libertarian free will and categorical PAP
@@ChumX100for God, yes it is
106:00 He says it's grounds for humility because the believer can't say "I'm better than unbelievers" since God chose me not based on anything I have done. But actually the Calvinist CAN say "I am better than unbelievers" because, according to Calvinism, God gave the believer the ability to believe prior to salvation, which made him better than the unbeliever who is unable to believe. It's kinda like how people who have natural, God-given abilities to be talented at music or athletics will boast about being better than others even though their abilities are given to them
Exactly. One is boasting in God and one is boasting in self. I don’t disagree.
When an Arminian and a Calvinist are standing before God and He asks them each to sum up how they got there, I think they’d both provide similar answers. “It was because your grace, Lord.”
But if He follows up with a question about why they are in heaven and someone else is in hell, the Calvinist answer won’t change. However, the Arminian would have to start his explanation off with something he did or the person in hell failed to do. “I believed and he didn’t.” Or maybe they’d try to say the God’s grace wasn’t enough the people in hell.
@@Bdq777 The answer for the reason people are in Hell is unbelief. The Calvinist would have to say that the person in Hell is there because of unbelief which was determined by God. The non-calvinist would say that the unbelief was determined by sinful men who hardened their hearts.
@@robynhouse8166don't read Romans 9 then 😂😂😂
@@jalapeno.tabasco Romans 9 is about Israel
Suffering having a redemptive purpose, i.e., a sanctifying purpose, is the greatest blessing of the truth that is expressed in Romans 8:28, (and so many Scriptures ) that "we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.". I love how Mr. Bignon, like all Calvinist philosophers, submits to the authority of Scripture.
As far as the age of accountability question, there is no age of accountability. No one is impeccable or innocent, not even for the nanosecond, or however long it takes for a fetus to be conceived. This is nothing more than a denial of the doctrine of ‘Original Sin”. Original Sin means that all men are born both guilty and corrupted by sin; and, without Original Sin, what need have you for redemption? The Scripture is clear (Rom 5:12-21) that all that are in Adam, viz. every mortal born of a woman, is guilty of Adam's sin. Paul is absolutely clear when he says "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam,"(vs 14) that this means infants or even fetuses is patent. The fact is, that "the wages of sin is death"(Rom 6:23), therefore, everyone who dies is guilty of sin, otherwise babies and fetuses wouldn’t die. The mere fact that physical death happens is proof of that sin has a dominion and rules over the children of Adam. It may be emotional and we may not like it; but, should the pot turn to the potter and ask “why have you made me thus?”. That God saves whom He wishes, where and when He wishes, this we do not have a doubt of. In a womb, in a cradle, in a coma, or falling from a mountain, it’s not for us to know who or how or why; but, it is for us to believe and praise Him who is worthy. And, as Mr. Bignon put it, to know that His purposes are good and sure, no matter what the circumstance.
Guilt of sin does not mean guilt of sins, this is where those that deny Original Sin are confused, an individual sin is not what condemns the man, it is being in Adam that is the reason "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”(Rom 5:19), and the word "made" in this verse is not very good, it actually says that all men were "constituted" as sinners, viz. put in the category of being a sinner, and this, of course, is the action of God, as a result of one sin by Adam. So, God has declared all men to be sinners; therefore, the fact that they commit a measurable sin or not before they die is of no consequence. And, in like manner “through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”(Rom 5:19), where again the word for “made” means “constituted”, viz. God declares His elect as being righteous with the forensic declaration known as ‘justification’, accomplished by the propitiation of Christ’s substitutionary atonement on the cross. Very glorious and nice to know that there is a philosopher like Mr.Bignon to carry the torch that God lit in men like Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. Very good interview!
you have a lot of problems here.
-Deuteronomy 19 acknowledges there are "innocent"
-"Every mortal born of a woman is guilty of Adam's sin." - That makes Christ also guilty, and unable to be a perfect sacrifice. Are you suggesting Christ did not possess human flesh?
Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.
Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
-The wages of sin is death...your sin. Deuteronomy 24:16 - “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin alone.
His argument for defending determinism against manipulation is just a restatement of Molinism.
Around the 47:00 in the mad scientist argument he assumes that the choice to sin flows from our God-given desires but the scripture says that God does not give anyone the desire to sin.
who creates man the way that he is? also, who decided that original sin be imputed to all men?
The claim that free will is a control condition for responsibiity lacks objectivity and gives the impression that it is simply defined as such. It is the same structure as the claim that God can be defined as a being described in the book of revelation, and both share the point that it is an arbitrary argument.
We need to imagine what God could be like without relying on existing scriptures.
Should they get along?
They are naturally incompatible concepts, so no.
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- 23 this Jesus,3 delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. ..this and many other passages seem to entail both determinism and free will thus compatibilism seems inescapable to maintain biblical inerrancy.
You would here be referring to "determinism" in a particular sense and NOT "determinism" in terms of what people refer to with everything being determined by the intention of God. That the plan of bringing about the Messiah was indeed planned and accomplished by God who can see the future (somehow) doesn't mean that everything is determined or that God plans or intends to bring about everything that happens. At best he may allow things to happen contrary to his intention or desire, while making sure his main plans of salvation are accomplished, which he would surely know how to do.
@@Xenosaurian That God knows the future I take as a given part of Orthodox Christianity and a basic attribute of God (Omniscient). Secondly, If you allow for determinism in even case then in order to account you must introduce compatibilism and thus incompatibilism fails (it really only requires one instance to the contrary to disprove a theory).
@@Xenosaurian In Him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined(Y) according to the plan of Him who works out EVERYTHING in conformity with the purpose(Z) of His will. It seems to me in order to account for everything then atleast compatibilism must be introduced.
@@Adam-ue2ig You're not making any sense.
If God works EVERYTHING according to the conformity of His Plan and Purpose it seems compatibilism is the best option to reconcile all of Scripture and mantain biblical inerrancy. Compatibilism can account for free will but incompatibilism can not reconcile determinism.
I am not sure that Dr Bignon saying people don't adopt this 4th position is correct. In a survey of philosophers I saw, there were a vast majority of philosophers who affirm atheism and determinism and mixed results over the existence of objective morality, but that leaves some philosophers who are atheists who affirm free will and reject objective values. A person who believes that consciousness entails free will and that values are cultural social constructs would fall into the category that Bignon says virtually nobody holds. There's also the possibility of a theist who affirms that free will was granted to humans by God and that God allows humans to construct their own sets of moral values would also fall into that category, although I admit I've never seen anybody take this position. I have, however, seen people take the atheist free will no responsibility position in a conference on free will. Most atheists who affirm free will seem to take the position that objective moral values can be derived from a rational examination of the universe, such that there is no justification for committing heinous crimes, but not all of them. I believe the famous philosopher Nietzche would fall into the category of people who affirm free will with no moral responsibility.
The Bible never says we have been foreordained to salvation. There is no verse anywhere in scripture which says this. This is purely a notion invented by Augustine and popularized by the Reformation. Finding a proof text which is compatible with predestination to salvation is not the same thing as finding the concept in the Bible. I can teach that Jesus was made of wood rather than human flesh and point to the verse where Jesus says "I am a door". That's what Calvinists do. They define what elect means, then go to verses that contain the word "elect" and say it proves the concept is Biblical. No. It doesn't work that way. Elect merely means chosen. It does not prove who is chosen, why they were chosen, when they were chosen, or for what purpose they were chosen. Merely saying God's elect will be adopted, one of the Calvinist classic proof texts for their theology, in no way says "God chose individuals before the world was formed to irresistibly come to faith by an infusion of the Holy Spirit". That's a wildly inappropriate level of reading too much into the scripture. It's textbook eisegesis. Another example is the Calvinist "golden chain" of salvation, Romans 8 verses 29-30. The Calvinist golden chain includes faith, but the scripture does not. Calvinists just insert faith where they want to, so it coincides with their theology. Again, it's eisegesis. The Calvinist proof text for regeneration preceding faith never mentions faith. The Calvinist just inserts faith where the Calvinists wants it to be, but in the actual scripture it's not there.
there's still the problem of Acts 13:48 though (that one explicitly mentions salvation)
that one can be solved if we allow the possibility that the book of Acts, just like Paul's epistles, may not be part of canon scripture (some denominations exclude those books from their bible)
@@blackfalkon4189 I don't think there's anything to be solved here.
Acts 13:48 does specifically mention salvation. It does not specifically mention the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.
People who rejoice and glorify the Word of God are destined for eternal life. Virtually every Christian of any denomination or tradition would agree with that.
If you look at Acts 13:48 you'll see it says that Gentiles rejoice and glorified the Word of God, and those who were appointed to eternal life believed. The problem for Calvinism here, is that their doctrine of salvation holds that only people predestined to eternal life can rejoice and glorify the Word of God. This fact makes the placement of "appointed" after the Gentiles rejoice and glorify the Word to be an awkward thing for Calvinism.
Acts 13:48 is very strangely worded if you accept Calvinism because the placement of "appointed" between the rejoicing/glorifying and the eternal life really seems to indicate that the "those" in the phrase "those appointed" is referring back to the Gentiles. But under Calvinism it can't be, because that would mean the Gentiles turned to God without being appointed first and that contradicts Calvinism.
Acts 13:48 is an awkward verse in English no matter how you look at it. It just doesn't translate smoothly into our language from the Greek. But given that situation, I believe the plainest and most straightforward reading of the verse is that many Gentiles heard the word of God and rejoiced, and those who were affected by it sufficiently greatly to believe in Jesus became appointed to eternal life. It's a clear and obvious reading of the text which does not involve needing to import any outside theological doctrine into the verse.
@@patrickbarnes9874 but that's precisely the problem: the word 'believed' is only placed _after_ the word 'appointed' (or 'ordained' in KJV)
this plays well into calvinist argument like James White who basically signs his books with that verse
because this implies:
1) that only those who've won that lottery ie. are 'elect', can believe (total depravity)
2) that people are predestined to eternal life (unconditional election)
3) that evidently not everyone's been ordained to eternal life (limited atonement) and
4) that those who are elect inevitably believe (irresistible grace)
> *why* didnt it say "those who believed were appointed to eternal life" instead? that would make much more sense
(instead of the other way around: "those who were appointed to eternal life believed" which is what the verse says)
I take this to mean "those who were ready (appointed towards / orientated in heart and mind towards) to receive the good news at that particular time. Presumably there were others who would become ready later, but were still putting up 'roadblocks'.
Bignon says a lot that isn't correct , Calvinism itself isn't correct .
I find the argument from self-consciousness very weak as a response to the “robots claim”. The entire point for discussion is that non-compatibilist are claiming the self-consciousness of determinism is completely controlled and thereby making it robot-like. Being aware that you are a being doesn’t make you morally responsible. To use Bignon’s own arguments against him… this would then turn into the coercion or manipulation argument against compatiblism. He has done nothing but kick the van down the road.
I was unmoved. I'm still an incompatabalist. Thanks for reasoning about this, brothers.
You would be correct to hold that view, seeing as free will and determinism stand in stark contrast to each other.
@@Nathan-xz3mj That didn't really make a lot of sense. What are you talking about?
@@Nathan-xz3mj Your entire response is incoherent. I have no idea what you're talking about!
@@Nathan-xz3mj I already said your comments were confusing and incoherent. You go off on a lot of tangents and suddenly speak of "unconscious and conscious" and I have no idea what you're trying to communicate. It's the equivalent of me saying something like "people like to have fun but blue isn't orange".
@@Xenosaurian i dont think Bignon is adhering to your definition of "free will" that is free will in libertarian sense.
So God decides to destine the non-elect for perdition without their ever having had any possibility of avoiding that destiny?
All of mankind would be destined to hell if God had not chosen to save a multitude. Does God owe humanity the possibility when humanity has thrown up the middle finger to God? God is not beholding to his creation.
Assuming you’re an Arminian, your theology as it exists right now basically says, “Man is fallen and God provided an opportunity for all to be redeemed by putting their faith in Christ. Some will choose wisely and some will receive their just punishment.” Now imagine that we live in a world where this plays out and nobody follows Christ. Would you agree that all should then receive damnation? Well all Calvinists are saying is that this is the world we live in. Christ was offered and nobody would choose Him on their own…but instead of damning everybody God still saves a number as unmeasurable as the sand on the seashore by revealing himself to us and giving us a new heart. It’s actually far more gracious when you consider the fact that He gives us a choice, allows us to fail, and then saves us anyway.
So God decides to destine the elect for salvation without their ever having had any possibility of avoiding that destiny?
that's what Romans 9 says
@@jalapeno.tabasco That depends on how you interpret Romans 9. The Calvinist interpretation is not the only one that grapples with the twxt
If God made all my decisions before he made my parents it's impossible I'm responsible for anything. God made all my decisions. God could make us to believe we have freewill but don't. God is still responsible though in what he makes us do.
Agree, as an ex-Calvinist, now Lutheran, I find this via media position free yet determined - if stated in philosophical terms only, and without instrumentality(means of grace), Bignon's position is inadequate and unconvincing. His view that ALL things is God determined, even this objection I am writing right now. Indeed, you can still charge God as the author of one's damnation - to say that this interlocution is the one who has to supply the evidence ie our objection has the carry the burden of proof, is just hand waving. Although St James we cannot blame God for sin, indeed, true, but St James is not making the same argument as Calvinists are making - ie their rebuttal against the rhetorical objection - is by fiat.
@@lpcruz5661Romans 9 lol
you still make decisions, God is simply the one who is in ultimate control
it's both and
since when does God ultimately making the decision make it no longer your choice as well?
Shut this off. Listened for 5 minutes to talking in circles. If you have to talk in circles there is no truth within.
Compatiblism is just as ridiculous and unbiblical as EDD is and that's ridiculous .
edd?
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf exhaustive divine determinism .
I don’t see how you could say that without being an open theist.
@@quinnpeterson2716 well I did say it and it's true and I'm most certainly not an open theist my friend . Your comment presents a false dilemma Quinn, I hear James White saying this type of nonsense indoctrinating his followers with his false dichotomies quite often . Scripture is so much richer and deeper than he and most calvinist I've encountered realize simply because they're caught up in their systematic presups that disable then from actually believing the biblical texts for what they actually say . The philosophical arrogance it takes for someone to say that GOD has to predetermine everything in order to know all things just because they can't logically understand how HE could otherwise is shameful and disrespectful to GOD and results in blasphemy when taken to its full application in contrast with scripture . To claim EDD is to claim that GOD predetermined us to sin , rape and murder children , worship satan , curse GOD etc... Do you honestly believe that GOD predestined evil reprobates to worship satan ? Slaughter children? Abortion ? James White has said that he believes GOD predestined these abominable acts of evil men and the evil men doing them . Calvinism is blasphemy against our SAVIOR and I plead with you to rethink these blasphemous teachings you embraced Quinn.