alrighty then.
I already explained my position on that.
The evangelist tells everyone that Christ died for their sins and to believe this is so. Only those chosen to believe will see it and believe. Likewise only the ones who are chosen will accept that God made peace through the death of His Son. “Many are the called but few the chosen.”
Of course God asks us to do things we are not capable of doing. He does this to prove to the human they are not capable of doing what they are told to do. God made a covenant with Israel for them to do ALL the law. They said they would. God knew they couldn’t. They didn’t know they couldn’t. It had to be proven to them they couldn’t so this would lead them to Christ as Paul tells us.
1 Like
Those examples above do not prove we are free from God’s plan and purpose for our lives. After all, the Bible does say “He gives to all, life and breath and ALL” (Acts 17). And “What have you got but what you received and why are you boasting as not having received it?” It is not that “nothing you do can change this.” It is if you do something to change this then it is God Who gave you the desire to do something to change this.
Will exists. Free will does not. She did what she did due to God giving it to her since that was the part she was to play in this play called life.
You ask “How do folks who never heard of Christ and have only will - in a deterministic theological system - supposed to attune their will to God’s will?” If such a one does attune their will to God’s will, this would be due to God putting that in them to do that.
That depends on if God wants us to discover that through science. It may not be provable through science in the first place. Believe it or not, science can’t answer everything.
Man plans but God disposes.
The Bible never says mankind is morally responsible for their actions. It says they are to give an account for what they do. The word “account” uses the same Greek for for “word.” It is “logos.” They are to give a word concerning what they did. That does not show responsiblity.
Because ignorance is bliss?
The writers of the Bible did believe in determinism. God believes in it too.
1 Like
Hey, that’s my line! LOL.
You and I have much in common.
All it shows is that anyone can come up with a logical and coherent system of theology, from the Protestant canon of scripture. And they can argue logically, that there version is correct. I have seen it done, here and elsewhere:
In the Southern Baptist present, with his Baptist Presentation
The Wheaten Bible Church (a mega, fundamentalist church), with their committee of scholars
The teachers of Christian Science, with their idealistic version of the gospel
Davo with his full Preterit Gospel
Dr Jeremiah, the TV evangelist
Etc.
And they are all very logical, sound and convincing. And all equally ready to battle, if someone tries to undermine what they present. So where does this leave us? Well:
They all could be right and see things only partially
Some or one could be right
None could be right
etc.
You end up picking something and running with it.
Actually, you are correct. 
BUT, with the exception of David, I have not seen the others ever DEBATE their positions, (and I’m not saying that they haven’t, I have just not seen or read of it) and to be honest, most of your ‘successful’ religious organization tend to stray from that. Why, because they want to control the show. 
Denominations have their own seminaries for a reason, and they have creeds for the reason as to not “confuse the thoughts of the common Christian.” 
Yes, many can come up with what seems like a logical coherent system of theology, but the question is "can they or their adherents properly defend their position? Presenting is different from presenting and defending. As someone who seems to understand science, I would think you might agree with that.
At the end of the day I agree…“You end up picking something and running with it.”
Just a thought.
Peace
Chad
Usually, the ones at the top (i.e. President of the Baptist convention, founding Scholars at Wheaton Bible Church, teachers of Christian Science, Dr. Jeremiah, Davo, etc.), can defend their positions very well. Now the congregation members, TV viewers, etc., are another matter entirely. 
Yea you may be right, but I have to ask, Are they defending select tree’s in the biblical forest, in other words ‘dogma’ or tradition within their given sphere of influence?
N T Wright and John Piper have locked horns over the meaning of some of Paul’s verbiage in his letters. In his book ‘Justification’ (which was a book in response to Pipers book ‘The Future of Justification’ which was written by Piper as a response to Wrights view,) Wright notes that Mr Piper seems to miss much of what he is trying to say because he is busy defending a position. (Reformed position) I can say (I have heard him) that Mr piper is a strong orator and no doubt can debate his position strongly, but as Tom Wright insinuates is he missing the possible forest because he has learned about certain tree’s?
So we could say that they have free will to pick and choose what to believe aye?
Or we could say, that God want’s to give me a break - from all this intellectual activity. And in a choice between the Lone Ranger and The Three Stooges, God will determine what is the most redeeming and educational show - for me to watch.
The dilemma is solved by definitive verses which show, without a shadow of a doubt, if God is sovereign over the affairs of mankind nor not.
For you, it might. It all depends on how one sees, God being sovereign - over the affairs of mankind.
For all it should. To anyone who is rational, they would know that there are definitive Scriptures which form a major premise over which trump non-definitive verses which form a minor premise.
1 Like
Which would include most - if not all - the seminarian trained theologians and Christian philosophers, in church, clergy and academic positions. They should be rational, should they not? But I can guarantee, they won’t see things your way. 
I think we - and they - would have to agree to disagree.
And what happens to “this understanding”, when Eusebius passes?
I leave things this way. If Eusebius has “discovered the truth”, in the Protestant canon…and God has made everything deterministic, then God will determine a way … for all the seminarian trained theologians and Christian philosophers, in church, clergy and academic positions…as well as mankind in general and the scientific community…to see the truth, as Eusebius has “uncovered” it. 
Kind of reminds me of the set of pioneers, in the Matrix movie trilogy. They did discover the truth. They really did live in a deterministic world. But it wasn’t one they really liked, once they discovered the truth.
Again, I believe we are capable of doing what God requires. We must be willing participants. In any relationship, it takes equal effort on both sides. Thus both get the glory, as it says “Honor the Father and the Son.”
Randy has made a good point. Many debate strictly from the Bible, as Jesus says " because in them they think they have life." However, there are other “books of life” to consider; that is experience, observation of the world around us and of course, the life(living word) of God-Jesus. For example, Jeff and Eusebius come from the point that God wills everything including evil. One can point to scripture to defend this. However, in light of Christ, this does not seem to be the case. Likewise, if I understand Davo correctly, all sins were fully paid for on the cross, and we are no longer at enmity with God. In observation of the world around me, I see that there are still people who are against God, and in their sin, their lives have become living “hells”. For some, this may be due to ignorance, but for others(and I may be wrong), it is because they don’t their lies to be exposed. As in the case of the leaders of Israel, they saw “the great light” but continued to rebel against it.
The Apostle Paul, a Jew, a former Pharisee of Pharisees, said Israel could not do the law. That should settle it.
The Jews were told by Jesus to search the Scriptures for in them they think they have life. Their only scriptures at that time was the Old Testament. They thought, wrongly so, that they had life via the law when in fact they did not. That was the point. Jesus wasn’t telling them to search pagan literature to find life.
1 Like
I will take a variation of Pascal’s wager, and call it the Matrix wager.
Suppose we lived in the Matrix (as seen in the movie), but we all held to different variations - of the Christian faith. And the powers that be (i.e. men in the business suits, that look alike), allowed Morpheus to come and preach - that everything we experienced was unreal and determined.
More often then not, folks who believe in Christ and try to implement his teachings, will end up in the same place after death.
Whether they
Believe in universalism or not
Believe in free will or not
Believe that God creates evil or not
Believe in some minority variation, of the last days
Are part of this forum, members of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and other churches, etc.
And it might surprise some, that folks who are not “officially” Christian, might join us in the same place - after death.
Now suppose Morpheus is right. And we are living in the Matrix. And everything is determined. No big deal. I’m enjoying myself in the Matrix and will end up, in the same place as Morpheus - after death.
Now suppose Morpheus is wrong. He lived that terrible lie, believing that the Matrix was a determined reality. And went around in his ship, trying to convince folks otherwise. We both end up, in the same place - after death.
Randy said:
This is correct although to clarify further… the “enmity” that existed for some existed ONLY in terms of their darkened thinking; not darkened by a sin per se but by their ignorance of grace, as opposed to the wickedness of law righteousness. Paul sheets home the origin of such “enmity” right here…
Again… the “wicked works” that “alienated” was none other than the “commandments contained in ordinances” i.e., THE LAW… hence the “enmity” Christ abolished “in/of His flesh” – the context of BOTH passages above proves that THIS is what the “enmity” that darkened their minds was. And again Paul elsewhere identifies this AND the solution…
And once again… “the enmity” WAS LAW RIGHTEOUSNESS; something Israel of the old covenant clung so vociferously to and of which Paul wanted to liberate (save) them from is shown here…
And of course “the righteousness of God” was found/fulfilled in Christ.
Excellent points about how the law itself aggravated us sinners in the realm of self-justification versus God-justification!
Ephesians 2:1-5 also addresses the point about our sinful nature and sinful man’s love of the flesh.