/lit/ - Literature

That he was wrong

I'm not even one of these cringey internet tradcath types but predestined salvation is probably the stupidest theological idea ever conceived.

>>16860447
Aquinas teaches predestined salvation though.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

>I answer that, It is fitting that God should predestine men. For all things are subject to His providence, as was shown above (I:22:2). Now it belongs to providence to direct things towards their end, as was also said (I:22:1 and I:22:2). The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above (I:12:4). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature. Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark. Hence, properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God. The reason of that direction pre-exists in God; as in Him is the type of the order of all things towards an end, which we proved above to be providence. Now the type in the mind of the doer of something to be done, is a kind of pre-existence in him of the thing to be done. Hence the type of the aforesaid direction of a rational creature towards the end of life eternal is called predestination. For to destine, is to direct or send. Thus it is clear that predestination, as regards its objects, is a part of providence.

Calvin teaches that not only the elect but the reprobate are predestined though. Meaning God wills people exist only to be damned. Pretty fucked up.

>>16860476

Very omnibenevolent of him.

>>16860476
Thanks for the heads up, i will proceed to instantly beat up any Catholic I'll meet on my way.

>>16860489
Extremely. To think that God would extend His divine mercy to some wretches who do not deserve it in any way shape or form. To save a handful when the whole measure deserves nothing less than destruction. God is truly good.

>>16860476
Fucked up you say? Not at all.

If He knows their end and creates them anyway, who are they to cry about the gift of life they did nothing to deserve?

He makes the sun rise on the just and unjust.. that is enough.

Also ditch the Beveridge translation.
Battles/McNeil is the way to go.

>>16860447
why though?

>his ideology is adopted in scotland
>they immediately start destroying ancient christian monuments and burn texts that are the first examples of languages and sometimes the only examples
ah. protestantism.

>>16860401
Freewill theism.

>>16860657
soon after Edinburgh becomes known as the Athens of the North

>>16860642

You want to know why an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God making people just for damnation is stupid?

>>16860719
yes i do, because what you just wrote is an 'if god is real why do bad things happen'-tier argument

>>16860806

The argument is self refuting. At least other Christians can point to free will. If God made you for damnation even that argument goes out the window.

>>16860810
being damned from the get-go might sound unfair or unreasonable to us but why question the logic of god, something you can't possibly comprehend

>>16860447
>>16860719
>>16860810
Romans 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

>Damn, somebody needs to save Christianity from Catholic and Lutheran retardation. Time to write the best theology of all time.
>>16860447
Predestination is unironically based as fuck. Free will is a total COPE that renders the idea of an omniscient God completely nonsensical.

>>16860810
Does God know the future? If he does, his knowledge is infallible. That means everything can only proceed in one way, the way which he knows, the way which he knew before creation. Everything can only proceed in the way which he willed into being through the act of creation. Further this knowledge cannot be said to be logically dependent upon you, as you are dependent upon God and not the other way around; any hypothetical conception of you within God has its source in God choosing to conceive of you in this fashion. It is frankly impossible that salvation is not predestined.

>>16860657
And then Scotland invented modern civilisation.

>>16860719
Because God's not omnibenevolent, this is unbiblical Pagan nonsense. It says right in the Bible that all things, good or evil, were created by God.

Isaiah 45:7
>7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

People hate predestination because they cannot stand that they did not get to "earn" their salvation in some sense. They didn't get to merit it with works, they didn't get to be wise enough to decide to have faith; nope, none of it was based on anything good or special about them. God simply deciding to save them out of his mercy is unacceptable. What place here has the pride of man?

>>16860949
You're retarded. It's not about pride, it's the assumption that God predestined certain humans to either go to hell or live for eternity in heaven, there is no justice in this demonic calvinist system, you may as well be muslims since they also believe in predestination.
>>16860894
Literally the death rattles of the west, congratulations.

>>16860985
If it seems unjust that's just you being mad at God for creating your sorry ass, where's the actual argument?

>>16860985
>there is no justice in this demonic calvinist system
What makes you think you have any say about any of this? See >>16860844
>19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
>20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
>21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

>>16860996
It's logically unjust and theologically stupid, a child could die a day after being born and we would not know whether he went to heaven or hell because God already predestined his fate.

>>16861019
You can't know whether any person goes to heaven or hell. You have no window into their soul.

>>16861032
That's not the point, the child is innocent and has committed no sin. It would be unjust for the child to go to hell because God had already predestined the child to his fate of eternal suffering. There is a reason why this heretical invention was pushed by wolves in sheep's clothing in the 16th century and never interpreted that way by the church since it's inception.
>>16861009
Are you honestly going to make me pull out the OSB to refute you? This heresy is so stupid even a layman like me could refute it with simple logic and research.

>>16861065
>That's not the point, the child is innocent and has committed no sin. It would be unjust for the child to go to hell because God had already predestined the child to his fate of eternal suffering.
The child's death was also foreordained. Everything that occurs is foreordained by God. There is not some aspect that escapes or confounds his plan. That being said, I don't see what your point could possibly be. God may save all children who die, or he may not. There is no way for us to know as it has not been revealed to us. Regardless of what he does, it is right and good.
>Are you honestly going to make me pull out the OSB to refute you?
Please no, anything but some simplistic scripture annotations.

>>16861065
>Are you honestly going to make me pull out the OSB to refute you?
Are you going to make me pull out my RHSB? Stop being silly.

>>16861114
>>16861143
Actually, scratch that. I summon John Calvin's Bible Commentary (22 vols.).

>>16860504
Trash theology.

>>16861192
Which part of it is wrong? Does God owe salvation to people? Is he your debtor?

>>16861114
That's inconsistent with the Bible in general, we have the laws of the OT and the teachings of Christ (who fulfilled those laws and made them null) in the NT which directly contradicts the notion that we have no choice in the matter, for why would God share his knowledge and deliver laws unto us if we had no free will? You are saying it's not Adam's fault that he ate from the tree of good and evil, God had already predetermined that he would sin against God's law, so it's not Adam's fault but God's fault for the creation of death which Christ came down to deliver us from. It's illogical and you know it.
>>16861143
>>16861191
kek, it really is trash "theology", what a waste of paper.

>>16861218
>for why would God share his knowledge and deliver laws unto us if we had no free will?
This is nonsensical even if you have free will, as your argument is that the existence of law implies that you can fulfill the law. Are you stating that you are capable of living a perfectly sinless life in fulfillment of the law? If you are not then you have no ground, as the existence of law does not mean you can fulfill it.
>You are saying it's not Adam's fault that he ate from the tree of good and evil, God had already predetermined that he would sin against God's law
Adam was foreordained to eat and it was his fault that he ate. He was not coerced and behaved in accordance with his own nature.

>>16861218
Why do you think it wouldn't be Adam's fault if God preordained him to do it? By this logic you may as well say without free will no one is responsible for anything, it doesn't realise a person is naught but their essence and it is their essence that leads them to do what they do. Adam still willfully chose to defy God, he just did not choose that he would will it.

>>16861244
The existence of the law itself implies that we have the free will to follow it, otherwise there is no purpose for these revelations from God.
>>16861244
No, your entire theology is based on the idea that man has no free will, you believe that even if it was preordained that Adam would sin, it was also predetermined for him to do it for if he had free will there would have been a possibility that he would not have sinned.

Sorry if the scan isn't fully clear, but even that tiny commentary is worth reading.

>>16861270
>By this logic you may as well say without free will no one is responsible for anything
That's exactly what I'm saying. You cannot "willfully choose" to defy God if we live in a predetermined universe because all of our actions are already predetermined.

>>16861301
Free will is not compatible with an omniscient God. If there was ever going to be a reality in which Adam didn't sin, God knew it before he even created him and chose to make this one instead.

It basically boils down to that Calvinists worship what is essentially an all-knowing all-powerful demon, this is their conception of God.

>>16861335
God is omniscient and has foreknowledge of all things to come, but this doesn't mean we as humans don't have our individual will to either abstain from or commit sin. How can love of God be forced on us? The nature of love is that it is given freely from one to another, and if we love God then we would follow His law out of our own free will. It was clear that Adam didn't love God when he sinned by his own free will.

Again, there would have been no point for God instructing us to do good if we have no free will to do it anyway, it's completely redundant.

>>16861370
What he's saying is this: >>16860889.

>>16861364
>an all-knowing all-powerful demon
What is God if not this?

>>16861317
I don't think you really comprehend the determinist mindset. To a determinist you are not some kind of unconscious puppet that's just unthinkingly executing a script, you're just as conscious and full of competing wills as you were when you thought you had free will. The thing is that your will is not free, everything you do aligns with that which you will to do but the ultimate source of your will is not yourself but God.

What's happening here is that your notion of "responsibility" is intimately related to your concept of free will when that's just not the way determinists see it. If you willed to do something then you willed to do it, whether or not the ultimate origin of that thought was yourself or God.

>>16861390
The idea that the ultimate origin of our will is not God is kind of silly, if you think about it. I mean, if it's not God then what it is it? Your "self"? Well where did your "self" originate from?

>>16861370
>God is omniscient and has foreknowledge of all things to come, but this doesn't mean we as humans don't have our individual will to either abstain from or commit sin
These two positions are completely incompatible though.

Take Adam in the Garden of Eden for example. If God truly knew all things past, present and future then he would have known what Adam would ultimately do from the moment he thought of him so there was never a real possibility that Adam wouldn't defy God. On the obverse if the outcome was truly uncertain and Adam could have not sinned then God can't know all things, as the future is uncertain even to him.

>>16861403
Some platonic hypotheometastasisgnosispoesis or whatever. PRAAAAAAAAISE JESUS!!

>>16860683
>200 years is soon
And soon after Scottish leaders began their anglicisation campaign against Scotland's native culture in an attempt to genocide the native Scots.
>>16860894
>Scotland
Hume, Smith, Boswell and many more there were not Scottish and actively scorned the existence of Scotland to the point they wanted it entirely annexed into England.

>calvin's idealogy is adopted in scotland
>the upper class immediately tries to have scotland annexed into england and banish all scottish culture
whoah...

>>16861390
I could agree that everything is derived from God including our will. But just to make sure we're on the same page, we are autonomous in our actions and these actions will result in either our salvation or damnation, for if God predetermined these things to happen then our responsibility for our actions are no longer ours and we're damned to hell or forced into salvation regardless if we wanted one or the other.
>>16861377
Omniscient Foreknowledge =/= Determinist Soteriology

>>16861427
>incapable of disproving calvinism based on scripture or logic
>find some sociological problem to wave around instead and pretend it's an argument
whoah...

>>16861433
>for if God predetermined these things to happen then our responsibility for our actions are no longer ours
This is simply a philosophical assumption that you're bringing to the table. You have no way to prove it.
>Omniscient Foreknowledge =/= Determinist Soteriology
It necessitates it. Saying that it doesn't is not an argument. I and at least one other anon have explained how it is so.

>>16860476
How does this apply with some of the modern (re?)reinterpretation of biblical Hell to not be an eternal punishment but to either be annihilation and nonexistence after death, or transformation and purification?

Wouldn't this just be saying not that God curses people to be damned from the moment of existence, but that most people don't live forever and only the elect may discover the truth and become one with God immediately or at all after death?

>>16861389
An all-knowing all-powerful all-loving god

To suggest God is a "demon" because he consigns sinners to hell is wildly heretical, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the function of hell.

>>16861463
God just isn't loving enough for me. Knowing that he became man and died for my sake to save me from my own misdeeds is nice, but unless he did it for everyone I'm simply not impressed and he is probably a demon honestly.

>>16861463
God doesn't love the wicked

>>16861476
Of course he does. Hell is the ultimate manifestation of God's mercy.

>>16861471
>but unless he did it for everyone
That is what non-Calvinists believe though. That he did it for everyone, not that everyone will accept however.

>>16861476
Didn't Jesus literally say he came for the wicked and the sick?

>>16861484
My post was mocking the anon I replied to.

>nooo muh heckin freewill

>>16861486
Jesus came for his sheep (the elect)
>John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
>26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
>27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
>28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

>>16861487
Yeah that is me, it is called having a conversation.

>>16861412
My point is that God's foreknowledge has no impact on our actions. God knew Adam would sin, and yet he still created him with that knowledge. Adam still had his individual will to not sin regardless if God knows the future.
>>16861449
>This is simply a philosophical assumption that you're bringing to the table. You have no way to prove it.
It's the only logical conclusion, if we at least have free will then our actions have meaning because we individually willed it to happen and the consequences are ours to bear. If we do not will for something as individuals then our actions and consequences are no longer ours and any damnation or salvation is unjustly given.
>>16861449
>It necessitates it. Saying that it doesn't is not an argument. I and at least one other anon have explained how it is so.
It's biblically inconsistent like I've explained before, it makes all the laws given to us redundant if we as individuals cannot follow God's law out of our own free will. Just like the other anon said, Christ died for everyone's sins not for a select few that had no choice in the matter.

>>16861521
>It's the only logical conclusion, if we at least have free will then our actions have meaning because we individually willed it to happen and the consequences are ours to bear. If we do not will for something as individuals then our actions and consequences are no longer ours
You're just repeating the same thing. I'm asking you to prove why that is the case. I hold that if God predestines you to will and perform a certain action, then you did not will or perform it any the less. You are fully responsible for it and it is fully yours.

>>16861436
Literally "It's not true communism" tier.

>>16861521
so God, who created you and everything, knows exactly what will happen to you but has no control over your actions? that's drastically limiting his power

>>16861536
We are dealing with theology, so if you care to argue about it I expect you to present a theological argument.

>>16861521
>My point is that God's foreknowledge has no impact on our actions. God knew Adam would sin, and yet he still created him with that knowledge. Adam still had his individual will to not sin regardless if God knows the future.
Then that's not really free will, that's just the illusion of free will. Adam thought he could choose otherwise but really that was never going to happen. At this point I don't see how this is supposed to be non-determinist.

Free-will anons, what does this passage mean?

Exodus 9:12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.
13 And the Lord said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.
15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.
16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

What is God doing when he hardens Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh would not obey God? What is God doing when he says that he raised Pharaoh up for the purpose of destroying him and showing God's own power?

>>16860401
i wasn't aware that he had a problem

>>16861542
Nah, it is free will, you are too much of a brainlet to differentiate the different planes at work, I recommend reading some theological works on free will, there are plenty. Impossible to sum up in one or two sentences for a 4chan post.

>>16860401
Christianity, apparently.

He smiles in hell knowing his mission is almost accomplished here in 2020.

>>16861575
Spoiler: they will say "it's a mystery" and be unable to explain it in any logical way.

>>16861575
nuh-uh communism works, it's just far too complicated to explain on the computer, plz consult the collected works of joseph stalin

>>16861575
How the fuck is it free will when God already knows 100% what everyone is going to do from the beginning of creation? That's not a reality where people have the power to make choices, that's a reality where people have the delusion that they ever could.
Why are Catholics so bad at answering simple questions?

>>16861575
>I recommend reading some theological works on free will
I "recommend" reading the primary text instead of copes

>>16861529
I'm saying you cannot be responsible for actions you haven't willed yourself, otherwise it's not your actions. I don't see how much clearer I can get. It's like saying we should suffer for the actions we were forced to do, this by its nature is completely unjust and illogical.
>>16861537
God could technically do anything he wanted, but he leaves us to our own will to do what we please.
>>16861542
You keep implying that God had a hand in Adam's will due to foreknowledge, I think this is the root of our disagreement. Adam could technically have done otherwise but God knew it wasn't going to happen, it still doesn't change the fact that we have our own will to follow God's law or not.

>>16861621
>'m saying you cannot be responsible for actions you haven't willed yourself
But you did will them. We've stated that numerous times. You will your own actions. But the ultimate source of that will is God.

>>16860447
>>16860949
>>16861009
Practically speaking, what is the point of Calvinism? If the purpose of religion is to instill morals and influence society in a positive way, how is Calvinism with predestination effective at that?

>>16861621
>God could technically do anything he wanted, but he leaves us to our own will to do what we please.
Can you answer this then please? >>16861568
God gave specific orders to Pharaoh to let the Jews go, and then he hardened Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh would refuse, and thus God sends the plagues upon Egypt, including killing all of their firstborn children. God states that he did this, raising up Pharaoh as ruler of Egypt, in order to show His own power by destroying him. How does that work with what you just said?

>>16861624
I don't see the point in mentioning where the will derives from. Everything including our will derives from God, so what? It's not like God influences our will to his desire even if the source is from God.

>>16861640
The purpose of religion is to follow God, you diseased secularist.

>>16861621
Not just due to foreknowledge, I'm saying God is the ultimate source of all wills as it was him who created us and gave us essence. It was within God's power to create an Adam of such essence that he wouldn't sin, instead God created an Adam that would.

>Adam could technically have done otherwise but God knew it wasn't going to happen
As I was saying to the other anon that's not really free will then. Adam was of such essence that he could only fail, even if this was unknown to all but God it was destined from the moment he was made that it must happen, the possibility an alternative course of events only existed in Adam's mind.

>>16861642
All of this makes perfect sense to Calvinists of course. I assume much of the Old Testament must seem confusing and evil to free will adherents.

>>16861497
Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
I really don't see the point of arguing, this theology, it is positively shit. Free will is a gift, humans are the only non celestial beings capable of it. Obviously God knows who will go to heaven and hell, but it's bread and circus for him to make us go through the motions to get there.

>>16861621
Also this situation >>16861642 disproves your idea of responsibility. God gave a command to Pharaoh, then hardened Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh disobeyed. And he held Pharaoh responsible for disobeying it and punished him and all of his people for it.

>>16861695
>“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Indeed, all of the elect are sick and sinners.

Based 1-boxing evidential decision theorist.

He read the Bible and applied logic to its words.

>>16861700
Here's some more shit that makes predestination obvious.
John 3:6-8
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

>>16861681
>It was within God's power to create an Adam of such essence that he wouldn't sin, instead God created an Adam that would.
All you're saying is that God could have created an Adam without free will but he chose not to.
>Adam was of such essence that he could only fail
That's not true, Adam could have refused to sin but he chose not to.
>>16861642
I'll be honest, I don't know but I will get back to you on that. I'm sure there's more to it than just that.

>>16861709
He found internal logic but what about proving the Bible to be logical without a priori Christian belief?

>>16861726
>I'm sure there's more to it than just that.
There isn't. Paul also references it in his discussion on predestination in Romans 9, see >>16860844, verse 17. His conclusion is "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

>>16861737
Man, I fucking hate Paul..

>>16861608
Calvinists/smallsouled bugpeople always repeat this juxtaposition, as if some definite course of action having been taken has to surprise god or applying our mode of piecemeal retrospective understanding to our own actions as if from god's perspective. "It was never going to happen otherwise" because we now know he was never going to choose otherwise than we now know he did choose: a tautology. From this you cannot conclude that he never really chose, you cannot access god's timeless allknowing mode of being from your retrospective knowledge that Adam chose x, god is not just a really really powerful, insecure calvinist.

>>16861753
I understand what you're saying but it's nonsensical. Even if God's knowledge of what you would do (the knowledge he had logically prior to creation) was based on what you would hypothetically do, that hypothetical is still created by God and later actualized by God. It is fully his decision that the you that would do X or Y was ever hypothesized to begin with. There is no sense in which God's knowledge can ever be dependent upon the independent action or hypothetical action of another being, as all such actions originate in God's own will.

>>16861771
God bestowed the ability to will things ex nihilo onto man. That's what being "made in God's image" means.

>>16861737
From what little research I've gathered, essentially the Pharaoh had already heartened his own heart before God spoke to Moses about it. It is customary in the scriptures to refer to God's action as His permission to do something. By God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, he essentially gives divine permission that the Pharaoh would have a hardened heart.

>>16860401
>Predestination, free-will, Sola Fide, works, etc, so on and so forth
Just believe God exists and be a good person who does good things.

>>16861829
>Just turn your brain off bro
lol
>>16861803
Is there a /lit/ Christian discord or something where we can discuss this stuff outside of /lit/?

>>16861771
There is nothing inherently nonsensical here. The hypothetical is created by god giving free will to us. God's knowledge is not dependent on our actions in the way that our knowledge is dependent on our/each other's actions because of god's completely different nature. For us this knowledge is not possible. I don't see how either of our positions refutes the other: they are both possible. Pharaoh etc. means nothing to me as more of a platonist and not a christian.

>>16861726
>All you're saying is that God could have created an Adam without free will but he chose not to.
You didn't understand at all. What part of what I said do you think says God created an Adam with free will? The part that says Adam was bound to fail or the part that says any possibility of him not defying God was just an illusion in his own head? I'm saying the Adam God created very much did not have free will, nor do we.

I suspect you're not familiar with the term "essence" either. "Essence" is what "you" are, the unique design of your being that God gave you. Since the argument I'm making is determinist one this also extends to being the blueprint of your whole life. God could have created an Adam that was essentially good and would have never defied him, but he didn't, God created an Adam of such essence that he would eat the fruit. As it was God who gave you essence it is God that is the source of all will.

>That's not true, Adam could have refused to sin but he chose not to.
Again how is this logically compatible with God have 100% knowledge of the future? If it was decided from the moment Adam was created then Adam never had a real possibility to choose otherwise. Do you not see the contradiction here?

>>16861865
You're assuming your conclusion and repeating yourself like a Muslim now. You're assuming god directly creates an action-necessitating essence like some kind of golem and not a human being.

>>16861844
If any of it mattered it wouldn't be up for interpretation.

>>16861865
>What part of what I said do you think says God created an Adam with free will?
It's not what you said, it's what happened. We know Adam sinned and God could have chosen to create a being with an "essence" as you describe that can only do the will of God, but evidently this didn't happen as Adam was clearly given two choices and chose one. Now, if Adam had no free will then it is the fault of God that Adam sinned because God is his creator and chose that Adam should sin instead of giving Adam the option of sinning.
>If it was decided from the moment Adam was created then Adam never had a real possibility to choose otherwise.
You keep equating knowledge with decision, there is no logical or philosophical or theological grounding for this assumption. Just because God knows what I will eat tomorrow doesn't mean I don't have the choice to eat it.

>>16861889
Says the man who's been repeating "That's not true, Adam could have refused to sin but he chose not to." and refusing to explain how this could ever be compatible with an omniscient God for hours now.

Thought we were having a nice discussion about theology but I see the Catholics are ready to throw the toys out of the pram (as usual).

>>16861939
I'm not even Catholic, you're just dogmatic to your heresy and can't see the point we're trying to make. You keep repeating that foreknowledge must equate to human action because you're making the assumption that nothing we do can be outside God's will because God knows what we will do already, even though there is nothing to support this assumption and plenty of evidence in the Bible which suggests otherwise. I get it, you're just accusing me of the same stuff you're doing.

>>16861939
You're arguing with two different people, Muhammad. I'm the platonist. We happen to agree here. You're a fichtean dogmatist incapable of understanding free will and thus boring.

>>16860447
Read the Bible for more than 5 seconds and you'll see it's the only predestination doctrine that makes any sense. Why do you think Catholics hate it so much?

Those who he allows salvation receive mercy.
Those who are damned receive what they deserve.

We all deserve Hell and God is gracious enough to save some. Who are you to say God isn't merciful enough? There is no unrighteousness in God.

>>16861925
>We know Adam sinned and God could have chosen to create a being with an "essence" as you describe that can only do the will of God, but evidently this didn't happen as Adam was clearly given two choices and chose one. Now, if Adam had no free will then it is the fault of God that Adam sinned because God is his creator and chose that Adam should sin instead of giving Adam the option of sinning.
1. Adam never had two choices. As established God knew from day 1 that Adam would sin, that 2nd choice was only ever a possibility in Adam's head. Let's consider your position for a second, Adam truly had a choice but God knew he would sin. This can only mean two things either a: Adam could have chosen not to sin, which meant God would have been wrong in his foresight (impossible) or b: no reality in which Adam didn't sin could have ever been attained, in which case Adam doesn't really have free will as the only reality possible is that which fulfils God's plan. In either case this position is simply not viable.
2. Is it Adam's fault or God's fault? This is where my comment on essence is relevant. You are your essence, you can only do that which your essence allows you to do, but all that you do will align with your essence hence why you feel like you want to do it. You are not some kind of tabula rasa ghost that coincides with a body and makes all the decisions, you are that essence and where it leads you is your responsibility.

>Just because God knows what I will eat tomorrow doesn't mean I don't have the choice to eat it.
God knew in the beginning of time before you were even created what you would eat tomorrow. How is it a choice when you can only do one thing?

>>16862003
Ok heretic

>>16861971
why do cathcucks think dogmatist is a pejorative?

>>16861964
>God knows all things past, present future
>God willed to create the universe
>God didn't will all things that he knew would happen in the universe he created

>>16862011
Last post before going to sleep, Muhammad. It's not Adam truly had a choice but god knew he would sin, it's whatever Adam does do, we now know that god knew it.

>>16862021
Way to read. I just said I'm the platonist and not a christian. By dogmatist Fichte means a determinist, materialist retard basically.

>>16860884
It's almost as if the idea of an omniscient God is ineherently nonsensical wow

>>16862081
> It's not Adam truly had a choice but god knew he would sin, it's whatever Adam does do, we now know that god knew it.
In other words: it's not that Adam had free will, it's that everything Adam did was preordained by God. Glad we could agree.

>>16862095
Cringe
>Limited but benevolent God
Based
>Omnipotent, omniscient and amoral God.

>>16860401
Irredeemebly refuted by David Bentley Hart.

>>16862145
>Universalism

Really, anon?

>>16862132
Now we can fucking talk, good points anon good points!

>>16862051
>God willed that Lucifer would rebel
>God willed that Adam would rebel
>God willed that souls would suffer for eternity in Hell
>This is somehow justified in the Calvinist worldview
>>16862011
I don't want to sound like a degenerate sophist who keeps blabbering on about things he hasn't studied, I'm simply a layman who is trying to answer the question of our relationship with God and the moral implications of soteriology in a deterministic world. You make a good point, but I still stand by that Adam had his own will outside of God's desire that Adam should not have sinned, even if God had foreknowledge of the events to come. I will have to study this problem in-depth but I will say that our essence, as you describe, is still derived from God. Therefore I could say that the essence in which we're given releases us from our individual responsibility for our actions if this is true. I could be a brainlet that misunderstood you, but I need to go to bed. Goodnight anon.
>God knew in the beginning of time before you were even created what you would eat tomorrow. How is it a choice when you can only do one thing?
I see your point, God knows what I will do therefore my actions cannot contradict God's knowledge. But I keep going back to the mindset that my actions are independent of God regardless of the knowledge that God has of the future.

>>16861209
>God creates you without your consent
>God predestines you for eternal torment
>Is God your debtor?
Yeah, that God would owe me an apology and restitution. Luckily the God you describe does not exist, because the real God is good, so he predestined everybody to Heaven.

>>16862203
>>16862176
You guys are letting American ideals seep way to deep into your theology.

>>16861640
>If the purpose of religion is to instill morals and influence society
It's not it's purpose. It's purpose is to spread the good news and call sinners to repent. That's it.

>>16862154
It's quite simple. If God is omniscient and good, then it neccessarily proceeds that all shall be saved. Not ifs of buts about it. If just a single soul goes to hell forever, then God is not good. If God is not good, he is not worthy of worship, in fact we should piss him off so hard that he annihilates us, and as such we could evade eternal torment.
However God is both good and all-knowing, as such he predestined us all to be saved.

>>16862220
>raping people into existence just so they can be tormented eternally is evil
>this is somehow an american idea

>>16862333
>Hell is eternal suffering
Anon, I...

>>16862361
>Hell is actually this fun place where you have gay orgies with that handsome devil, Lucifer and everyone has dragondildos.

>>16862377
>Tossing sinners into a pit of fire definitely means they're going to suffer eternally
>Annihilationism? What's that?
>Huh? The ancients saw fire as transformative of the essence and not destructive? Nah, that can't be part of this.

>>16862386
>God loves you so much that he will torment you for an Aeon before putting you out of misery and you should be grateful for this
>Also God is good.
Protestants are fucking delusional

>>16862331
>We are all born with original sin, and we all sin on a daily basis
>Therefore, we all deserve Hell
>This means it is somehow "evil" for god to give us what we deserve which is Hell (or a complete absence of God)

In reality it is good for God to give some what we all deserve, because they are getting judgment. Those who are saved receive mercy, which is also good. As >>16860844 said:
>13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
>14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
>15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
>16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(Romans 9:13-16)

As you can see in verse 14, there is no unrighteousness in God, therefore whatever he does is righteous and good.

If you're going to convert to a religion because it's cool and counter-culture in present time could you at least spend some time studying basic theology?

>>16862421
It's not an Aeon dumbass, it's instant.
Annihilationism means that after Jesus raises up the dead and they separate off those who were good in life, that those who are left are just destroyed instantly along with Satan.
Universal Reconciliation means that after Jesus raises up the dead and they separate off those who were good in life, that those who are left are thrown into tribulations in the full glory of good, to show them how they were sinful in life and reconcile them with the Truth of God.

>>16860884
>Predestination is unironically based as fuck. Free will is a total COPE that renders the idea of an omniscient God completely nonsensical.
>God must necessarily be rationally conceived

>>16860476
Not an expert on Aquinas by any means, but couldn't this mean that salvation is part of the human nature in general, given that sin is seen as something unnatural, a misuse of our free will? This would be consistent with the fact that God wants to save everyone

>>16860401
Scam artist
"Hey rich people, i wrote a book that says that you go to heaven! Support me please :^)"

>>16862628
>and if you do not support me then you're a reprobate that was eternally destined for hell anyway

>>16860504
They’re only “wretched who don’t deserve it” because God designed the Fall to play out like that, and made Adam and Eve sin. So this argument never really made sense to me. Like wow, it’s so great that you’re saving some of them, but they’re only destined to suffer in hell because YOU made them that way, Yahweh.

>>16862780
God didn't design the fall, that would be evil. However, he allowed the fall to happen so that he could use it for good. God uses evil for good, but God does not do evil.

>>16860401
He should have just converted to Islam

>>16861436
You shall know them by their fruits