You're wrong on this; you've always been wrong on this; no matter how many timnes you repeat this incorrect Straw Man, you'll still be wrong on this.
Calvinism acknowledges that PRIOR TO Creation, God has an INFINITE number of Creative Potentialities available to the Power of His Omnipotence and perfectly foreknown to His Omniscience. Calvinists have ALWAYS believed this to be True.
Only AFTER God ordains specifically to Create, does that particular Potentiality become Reality -- that, and none other (for example, the Potentiality in which God would perform miracles in Sodom and thereby bring them to Repentance was omnitemporally foreknown to God, but it was NOT the scenario which He actually determined to Create).
And, since God's Elective Decisions in Creation pre-determine what Man's Choices will be, God absolutely Predestines all things (as your "Chess" example just proved, quite neatly).
Alternatives only come into play when God is responding to mankinds decisions.
A blatant LIE against Christ from the idolatrous heretic FtD. Jesus Christ specifically said that God had the alternative of performing Miracles in Sodom, and that God's choice whether or not to perform Miracles was NOT determined by Sodom's choice to repent or not, but in fact God's choice (to Perform miracles, or to Not Perform miracles) had the effect of pre-determining what Sodom's choice would be (to Repent, or to Not Repent). For you to say that God did not have this Alternative available to the Power of His Omnipotence is to call Christ a Liar and to call God a Fraud. Again you pile blasphemy upon blasphemy in defense of your Papish Arminianism.
Adam might not have sinned and history would have been different. That is a real option. In Calvinism that 'alternative' could not exist since God did not want it, thus, Adam was always decreed to Fall, and the 'alternative' would not be a real one.
Your "Straw Man" against Calvinism is baseless. You have not demonstrated Calvinist predestination to be false; but (by your Chess example), you have demonstrated Absolute pre-determination to be true.
And we thank you for doing so. :-)
Regarding, Sodom and Tyrie, yes, they would have responded to the miracles, and not have to been regenerated first.
Balderdash. God can certainly use Miracles as an Agency of Regenerating Grace, of course. Who are you to tell Him that He can't? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
How can a spiritually dead man (in Calvinism) respond to anything unless first regenerated.
God can certainly use Miracles as an Agency of Regenerating Grace, of course. Who are you to tell Him that He can't? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
It is only then that the miracles can be beleved in. In that, case the miracles are irrelevant since God could have regenerated Sodom if He has wanted to and with or without miracles.
Balderdash. God can certainly use Miracles as an Agency of Regenerating Grace, of course. Who are you to tell Him that He can't? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
Thus, it was always His decree to condemn Sodom (according to Calvinism) and no other alternative would have been possible since they were never unconditionally elected
On the contrary. Before Creation, God was under no obligation to create Sodom at all, nor was He under any obligation to permit the Fall and thereby allow Sodom to fall under the Condemnation of Adam, nor was He under any obligation to withhold the miracles which He foreknew would brinmg about Repentance.
All of these Options were freely available to God's Elective Omnipotence. Who are you to tell God that He did not have these alternatives? Oh, nevermind, you're the Blasphemer-against-Christ who claims "God has no alternative" except to respond to Man.
Well, as always, you're wrong. Prior to Creation, God had an infinite number of Creative potentialities available to the Power of His omnipotence, and the ultimate outcomes of each and every one were foreknown to His omnitemporal foreknowledge (to not create Sodom at all; to perform Miracles and thereby pre-determine Sodom's repentance; to NOT perform miracles and thereby pre-determine Sodom's NON-Repentance, etc)... and God Elected to create the Potentiality which He chose to create, thereby pre-determining that the foreknown Ends of THAT Creation would actually come to pass, and none other (if He chooses to create the scenario in which He elects to NOT perform miracles in Sodom with the Foreknowledge that they will therefore NOT repent, then His Election has made it absolutely certain that they will not repent -- for His omnitemporal foreknowledge of the results of His Elections is perfect, and cannot be mistaken).
Sodom and Gomorah did have enough evidence to believe which they rejected (Rom.1), as the Jews were rejecting even more.
Of course. My point is, God could have chosen to create the Scenario in which He foreknew that they would Repent in response to His performance of miracles, and God could have chosen to create the Scenario in which He foreknew that they would NOT Repent in response to His NON-performance of miracles.
Ergo, His Decision DETERMINED what their Decisions would actually be.
As you own "chess" example so beautifully proves.
You are nothing more then a determinist who believes that circumstances dictate action. You are no different then B.F. Skinner.
On the contrary. Unlike B.F. Skinner, I believe that God is in total control of all aspects of Human Destiny.
You do not.
That's a bit over the top OP. It might be better to just say that YOU think or believe or know that HE is WRONG because.....
Calling people liars and heretics and idolators is not conducive to a civil discussion.
___________
The best car safety device is a rear-view mirror with a cop in it. -- Dudley Moore
You are really jumping off the deep end here. Jesus says nothing of the sort. It is you who are impregnating this verse with so much of your own meaning, certainly not Jesus.
I insist that you are starting from a false premise. Jesus is simply stating a logical causality in the form of a traditional Jewish judgement oracle. It is not about Jesus speaking "Truth" or a "Falsehood". He is simply using his (human) reason to provide an illustration for a point He is making.
If you cannot establish that Jesus was omniscient in this verse, with divine aftknowledge and foreknowledge (and you cannot) then your whole argument falls flat (and it does). And, because you cannot move on from this false start, everything you say after this is meaningless.
1. What is the nature of God's sovereignty? Is there such a thing as human free will? Does God decide everything directly, or does he permit man to make certain decisions?
— Calvin — Whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. (Book 2, Chap 4, Sec 7)
The arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 6)
— Arminius — I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; … God both wills and performs good acts, but … he only freely permits those which are evil. (Vol 1, p 251, italics in original)
God in the administration of his Providence conducts all things in such a manner that when he is pleased to employ his creatures in the execution of his decrees, he does not take away from them their nature, natural properties or the use of them, but allows them to perform and complete their own proper motions. (Vol 1, p 297)
… something is done contingently … in such a manner as makes it possible not to be done. (ibid, italics in original)
[Concerning the opposite view] It makes God to be the author of sin, and man to be exempt from blame. (Vol 1, p 298)
Both Calvin and Arminius believed in the sovereignty of God, but they defined sovereignty differently. Calvin believed in a direct sovereignty. When God wills, he causes whatever he has determined to happen. This means that man is not free. Man may make what seem to him to be “voluntary” choices, nevertheless those choices are predetermined by God.
Arminius believed in an indirect or permissive sovereignty. When God wills, he sometimes causes what he has determined to happen, but other times permits others to determine what happens. This means that man is free in certain areas including salvation. Thus, Arminius held that God, as part of his sovereignty, allows man to make his own free choices — choices which in each case could have been the opposite
Regarding Calvins 'logic'
There are three things that should be kept in mind regarding Calvin's Institutes. First, Calvin was only 27 years old when he wrote it. Second, only three years before writing the Institutes he converted from Catholicism to Protestantism, so it may be reasonable to assume that he was a relatively new believer. Third, it appears that Calvin adopted a peculiar approach to truth, judging from his earlier book, which appeared in 1532. This book was a critical edition and commentary on the Roman philosopher Seneca's work De clementia (“Concerning Clemency”). In this book Calvin demonstrated his scholarly abilities, but also showed that he favored the opinions of the rhetoricians over those of the dialecticians. The dialecticians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by how well it fits into a coherent logical system. The rhetoricians believed that a statement's truth is best tested by its clarity and elegance as well as its persuasive power. (Robert M. Kingdon, “John Calvin,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed, 1982, Vol 3, p 671)
Calvin's tendency to underplay the importance of logic can also be seen in his Institutes. Here are just three examples from the Institutes where Calvin emphatically states ideas that are logically weak — a sure indication of the rhetorician's approach to truth. First, any discussion of free will is logically related to the subject of divine predestination. However, when Calvin discusses Adam's free will, he claims that it is unreasonable to introduce the subject of divine predestination.
It were here unreasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. (Book 1, Chap 15, Sec 8). Second, the idea that human punishment is ultimately based on man's actions is logically contradictory to the idea that it is ultimately based on God's decision. Yet, Calvin states both of these ideas in the same sentence. Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 8). Third, Calvin states that man makes voluntary choices which are not free. This is an obvious logical contradiction which can be avoided only by adopting a very narrow and inappropriate definition of volition. … a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice. (Book 2, Chap 5, Sec 1) The Institutes are Calvin's most systematic statement of his theology. Calvin's style is polemic, even caustic; he refers to his opponents as “filthy swine” who speak “profane blasphemies” (Book 3, Chap 23, Sec 12).
Calvin's teachings, while in line with the three basic themes of the Reformation mentioned above, included certain ideas about divine election (choosing) of believers which were controversial right from the start.