If you believe God infallibly foreknew all future events u ARE a Divine Determinist - even if u don't know it... yet. #TheOpenTheismHeresyIsYourOnlyOtherOption
In Christ Jesus by Grace-Faith
Joined May 2012
- Tweets35.6K
- Following2.6K
- Followers822
- Likes9.4K
Pinned Tweet
My Reformed argument that God can save any or all infants or children who die as infants or children only guilty of #OriginalSin and #SinsOfIgnorance if He wants to.
Arthur Moore retweeted
Sixty Christians. Sixty innocent human lives. Sixty families whose worlds have been shattered.
Look at these images. These are not statistics. These are human beings, people of faith, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters who deserved to live, worship, and raise their families in peace.
Their only crime was being Christians. May they RIP. 🙏💔
Arthur Moore retweeted
Muslims chant about getting guns and shooting Christians on Sundays as they worship.
Also, in the same country, Muslims have been shooting Christians on Sundays as they worship.
Military action is needed.
#TheArgumentAgainstIslamFromMuhammads1Point8InchPenis
Andrew Wilson (an "#Orthobros") proves #Muhammad's penis must be 1.8-Inch or smaller. Everyone, including the #Muslim host, Sneako, can't help laughing!
#Islam #Quran #Hadith #PedophileProphet
youtu.be/e3RI6xSds2Q?si=T8Tq…
Arthur Moore retweeted
In light of my recent post about how it's logically impossible for God to create you with LFW, many have demanded formal argumentation to support this.
My argument, as most of you know by now, is always rooted in God being the creator and sustainer of all things that exist at all moments. God is in control of His own power and the effects thereof, and is therefore in control of how things exist at all moments as He upholds them. (This includes your mind/will, obviously).
It seems as though it's very easy for me to argue people into understanding that God is in control of exactly how physical matter or energy exists. I think this demonstrates that my argument, at least as far as that aspect of creation is concerned, is valid and powerful.
However, this results in the opposition to my argument always boiling down to the attempt to separate your moral choices from your existence. I am at a loss for words at how anyone could even consider such a thing. I've asked those who claim such to explain it. I have yet to see a single explanation. It is merely a claim so far. A baseless claim thrown out in attempts to avoid the implications of my argument.
I have personally argued against them clearly and explained how you can't separate those two things. Your choices and thoughts and desires are grounded in the state of existence of your mind or will at those given moments. You can't separate them.
My explanations are declared to be non-sequiturs without explanation. I have not encountered any serious engagement thus far.
Below is a formal structure to my argument from God as sustainer of all existence. While you can swap "choice" in this argument for anything else that exists and this argument stands. This particular formulation of the argument focuses on human choice and how you can't separate that from your existence.
I'm asking anyone anywhere to provide a detailed refutation of this argument. Please demonstrate why one of the premises is wrong or why the conclusion does not follow.
I have yet to get any meaningful engagemetn from my casual conversations here on X. I'm hoping a more public declaration of my argument might gain some more serious engagement.
Arthur Moore retweeted
Weak.
The idea that we merely “think” he is not able to do what is logically impossible is absurd. We can very easily demonstrate using logic that God can’t do illogical things.
Can God sin? No?? You must have “a low view of God” if you say he can’t do something… Right?
Or... perhaps it’s actually the opposite. Perhaps it’s the HIGHEST POSSIBLE VIEW OF GOD to say God CANNOT sin.
The same holds true for any other thing that God can't do. There's a difference between saying God can't do something because he's not powerful enough and saying God can't do something because He's God.
God can't sin, cause Himself to cease to exist, create another God like Himself, or lie. The list goes on and on. Saying God can't do these things is not a "low view". It's the highest possible view.
God creating you with LFW is just as logically impossible as all the things above. You wanting to claim autonomy for yourself is on par with saying God can sin or cease to exist.
I stand ready to defend that position with "rational reasons". What you "think" doesn't matter. Your imagination is not the arbiter of truth.
Here's the debate #MohammadHijab tried to suppress. He filled a copyright strike against #GodLogic when he published this video and then sued.
BREAKING: Mohammed Hijab SUED Me and LOST - God Logic
#Islam #QuranicDilemma #Dawah #Apologetics #Christianity
youtu.be/zU8iCCoJZGQ?si=ovlM…
Arthur Moore retweeted
Since the “If God can’t make a rock so big he can’t move it…” form of argument keeps resurfacing, despite the refutation, let’s provide the refutation.
The ultimate reason for that which exists or occurs goes back to God the Creator and Preserver.
Nothing except God has self-existence. That’s the Creator-Creature distinction.
God can and does create free creatures, as well as plants, planets, stars, etc. However, creaturely freedom is relative. Plants have life that rocks don’t have. Animals have freedom of movement that plants lack. Humans and angels have even more freedom than animals. But all of this freedom is freedom relative to the creation, not freedom from the Creator.
The ultimate reason for your continued existence from moment to moment, is God willing it to be so. You are free in many ways, but you are not self-existent.
You can deny that God determines everything, and folks like @Soteriology101 do exactly that, but you cannot escape the fact that God knows in advance what you plan to deny and could prevent you from doing so, not by overpowering you, but simply by withdrawing his permission that you continue to exist.
You might object that there are folks who believe that God decides everything that will happen, but that God does so without determining it. Ultimately, this objection comes down to an important nuance as to the precise scope of what “determine” means.
Ultimately, though, the idea of God creating a being that in any way doesn’t depend on God for its very existence, much less its action, is not a high view of God’s creative ability, it’s just a fundamental error regarding the Creator-Creature distinction.
Arthur Moore retweeted
Great response!
Since the “If God can’t make a rock so big he can’t move it…” form of argument keeps resurfacing, despite the refutation, let’s provide the refutation.
The ultimate reason for that which exists or occurs goes back to God the Creator and Preserver.
Nothing except God has self-existence. That’s the Creator-Creature distinction.
God can and does create free creatures, as well as plants, planets, stars, etc. However, creaturely freedom is relative. Plants have life that rocks don’t have. Animals have freedom of movement that plants lack. Humans and angels have even more freedom than animals. But all of this freedom is freedom relative to the creation, not freedom from the Creator.
The ultimate reason for your continued existence from moment to moment, is God willing it to be so. You are free in many ways, but you are not self-existent.
You can deny that God determines everything, and folks like @Soteriology101 do exactly that, but you cannot escape the fact that God knows in advance what you plan to deny and could prevent you from doing so, not by overpowering you, but simply by withdrawing his permission that you continue to exist.
You might object that there are folks who believe that God decides everything that will happen, but that God does so without determining it. Ultimately, this objection comes down to an important nuance as to the precise scope of what “determine” means.
Ultimately, though, the idea of God creating a being that in any way doesn’t depend on God for its very existence, much less its action, is not a high view of God’s creative ability, it’s just a fundamental error regarding the Creator-Creature distinction.
Spoken like a full Pelagian.
Being "born this way" (dead in Adam) makes God's salvation of anyone an act of pure graciousness on His part and prevents folks like @rootcausesleuth from taking credit for doing something (trusting Christ) they couldn't do w/o divine intervention.
Let's see now. Has the unborn child been convicted of capital murder by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death by a legitimate court of law LIKE A CONVICTED MURDERER?
#OneOfTheseThingsIsNotLikeTheOther
#PopesSayTheDumbestThings
Arthur Moore retweeted
God wills the occurrence of evil for good purposes.
What God wills is good.
Thus, it is good that evil occurs for good purposes.
Fixed it.
And for the record: The above is not Calvinist specific. It should be affirmed by any Christian (even bare permission views).
Evil occurring for no good purpose would be bad, by definition.
I guess @AletheiaHS realized he wasn't called by Jesus to preach to or teach me - so he blocked me.
As for his citation below, it is an example of ONE man CALLED BY JESUS to preach.
AGAIN, where does Christ command ALL disciples to preach or teach?
xitter.cf/AletheiaHS/status/2108…
unavailable
@AletheiaHS is working real hard to make sure you can't see his unbiblical teaching. Here's his tweet which he "disappeared" above. My response is above.
Why Adrian Rogers Can't Let Romans 9 Mean Salvation - Rogue Calvinist
Notice that Rogers ignores Romans 9:1-5 which IS about salvation (as well as national election & election to service) & skips verse 6-8 altogether.
youtu.be/wxyUKPA-JnY?si=wYCw…
This can't be posted enough.
#LFW = random (often irrational) choices in the face of obvious, sometimes multiple, wise, rational, and/or moral choices.
A #DivineIndeterminist refutes his own #DivineIndeterminism. For Derrick, God becomes more sovereign when He determines fewer things. Yet, that's just obvious rhetorical drivel. That would make a dead man who's sovereign over nothing on earth - sovereign over everything on earth!
No one's saying it's a synonym, but they are concepts that can't be separated. Apparently, for these guys, the more things God does NOT control, the more sovereign he is somehow.
This sort of thing has always baffled me. Can you give an example of something that God is “sovereign over” that he does NOT control?
I’ll then ask you what it means for God to be sovereign over it in the first place. How can you possibly answer that question without explaining how God determined the very thing you say he's sovereign over?
Is God sovereign over your thoughts? If you deny that God determines your thoughts, how can you then claim he's Sovereign over them? You can't. That's the point. Pointing at something God is not sovereign over doesn't make him more sovereign. It makes him less sovereign.
We often hear the non-Calvinist say “A King is sovereign over his subjects!! It doesn’t mean the King determines everything about his subjects!!”
Well, then, that king is not sovereign over EVERYTHING about his subjects... only SOME things. Duh. The things you'll say he's in control of are the ONLY things he's actually sovereign over.
An earthly king does not uphold all things by the world of his power. An earthly king, therefore, is NOT sovereign over:
1) the weather affecting his subjects.
2) The mind/will/thoughts/emotions of his subjects.
3) The physical makeup and function of his subjects... the list is almost endless.
An earthly king is actually NOT sovereign over MOST of the things relating to his subjects. And guess what: That doesn't make him MORE sovereign than he would be if he was in control of those other things. It makes him LESS sovereign, by definition.
Now, "less sovereign" doesn't mean "not sovereign", does it? No. However, we can't ignore degree. If we do, on what basis could you say that God is "more" sovereign than the earthly king? The only answer is: Because God CONTROLS/DETERMINES MORE than the earthly king. Right?
Just because we use the broad term 'sovereign' to describe his POSITION doesn't actually speak to the DEGREE of his sovereignty, does it? No, it does not. And the same holds true when using the term of God (or even the earthly king).
Logically speaking, you can only be "sovereign" over something you control/determine. Otherwise, the statement is meaningless.
Did Evangelist Adrian Rogers Try to Hypnotize Me? - Rogue Calvinist
...and WHY did he SKIP Romans 9:6???
[Rom 9:6 NASB95] – 6 But [it is] not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are [descended] from Israel;
youtu.be/u1Lha_W1XbE?si=LAuh…