ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Clete]

Hi Clete,

You mean you don't spend every single moment of your free time on TOL? And actually, this discussion really should be in the "Open Theism makes me hair stand on end" thread, not this one.

But here are the main points I would raise, and feel free to move this discussion if you wish…

Thanks for understanding! And no, I don't think it needs moved. This thread is so old and long it's covered just about everything under the sun! I figure, if it has something to do with theology it will fit just fine. Besides, Open Theism (or at least my particular flavor of it) is about the exact opposite of Calvinism and so if any part of it is correct, Calvinism pretty much can't be, so it fits okay.

What specific meaning may we assign to "truly" in certain specific places, for example, in "you will deny me three times" (Mt. 26:34; Jn. 13:38), and in "another will gird you" in referring to Peter's death, which would glorify God (Jn. 21:18-19)?

I don't know that there is a specific meaning. It was an idiomatic expression common in Jesus' day. It probably had a range of meanings depending on the context but generally it simply was used to draw attention to what was being said. It could have been a way of saying something emphatically but it doesn't have to mean that.
To give a modern example, someone might ask a question to which you respond, "Absolutely!" When you say something like that, it could mean exactly that or it may not, it may simply be a really excited way of saying "yes" but doesn't actually mean "yes" in an absolute sense.
In any case, the word translated, "verily" or "truly" in our English bibles means just that "truly". That same word is translated "amen" in other places and it has the same meaning there. In fact, if you saw "The Passion of the Christ", "amen" was the very word they used when our bibles would read "Verily" or "Truly". It means that what I'm about to say can be trusted, that I am not lying, or making this up as I go. It means that I mean what I am saying and its important, so pay attention. In actual fact, coming out of the mouth of God, the word is something of a redundancy.

Does God have a share in primary responsibility, when he sees an evil deed about to be committed, and chooses not to stop it?

Certainly not! On the contrary, if God stopped all the evil it would be impossible to love God. I cannot love God if I cannot choose to love Him. If I CANNOT choose to rebel (do evil) and all there is left is obedience, then my obedience is meaningless because there was no alternative. Choice requires alternatives to choose from and love requires choice. If their is no possibility of evil, the is no possibility of love either.

When God swears by himself that he has a given intent to bring some event to pass (Gen. 22:16-17; Ps. 89:35; Jer. 44:26), is it certain, even in view of Jer. 18?

This will be a change from my previously stated position but no, I do not believe so.
I don't want to be seen as attempting to make light of prophecy, that is certainly not my intention. What I am doing is making God the Lord of prophecy not prophecy the lord of God.
Jer.18 says basically that IF there is GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS REASON, God will repent from His intended course of action and will not do that which He said that He intended to do. The only prophecies that would not fall under this principle are those were no such circumstance could possibly arise. It is possible that those prophecies in which we find God swearing by Himself could fall into this latter category but since I haven't spent the time to go through and study them all, I am no longer willing to make the claim that there is no such possible circumstance where God could justly change His mind. And actually, even if no such circumstance could possibly arise, they would still technically fit within the principle taught in Jer. 18 anyway it's just that God wouldn't change His mind because nothing would ever happened that would cause Him to do so. So any way you slice it, all prophecy could be said to fall under the principle taught in Jer. 18.

Also I am somewhat concerned that you seem to be holding that God doesn't know all about the past, in order to say God went down to Sodom to find out the situation there more exactly. Is God not omnipresent? Doesn't the Open View hold that omniscience means God knows all that can be known? This gives up two major attributes of God's nature, here…

I do indeed depart from most Open Theists on this point, although I think that most of the Open Theist on TOL agree with me on this (but probably not all of them).
It is my position that God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable and is able to find out anything He doesn't currently know if necessary (i.e. the details about Sodom). I believe that God can be anywhere that exists that He wants to be, but is not and cannot be forced to be somewhere He doesn't want to be, or to go where He doesn't want to go. And similarly, I believe that God can do anything that is doable that He wants to do, but is not and cannot be forced to do anything that He doesn't want to do.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:noway:This thing is already pretty long! :doh: :sigh:
Oh well, it's nice to get a fresh start anyway!

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Thanks for your reply…

Lee: What specific meaning may we assign to "truly" in certain specific places, for example, in "you will deny me three times"…

Clete: I don't know that there is a specific meaning.

If there is no specific meaning, then that seems to make it meaningless, though. Redundant, as you mentioned. I like it better if it means "This is unconditionally certain," which then is meaningful, even when spoken by God. But I would ask further…

Clete: It means that what I'm about to say can be trusted, that I am not lying, or making this up as I go. It means that I mean what I am saying and its important, so pay attention.

Then may we not say which of these apply in "you will deny me" and "another will gird you"?

Lee: Does God have a share in primary responsibility, when he sees an evil deed about to be committed, and chooses not to stop it?

Clete: … if God stopped all the evil it would be impossible to love God.

Yes, but isn't there also some primary responsibility? We both agree that God allows these sinful events for a good purpose, in a sense they are required even, but is God not responsible in a primary way, when he allows a given event?

Lee: When God swears by himself that he has a given intent to bring some event to pass (Gen. 22:16-17; Ps. 89:35; Jer. 44:26), is it certain, even in view of Jer. 18?

Clete: I am no longer willing to make the claim that there is no such possible circumstance where God could justly change His mind.

But Scripture says this makes a statement quite certain:

Hebrews 6:13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself…

Hebrews 6:17-18 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.

Clete: And actually, even if no such circumstance could possibly arise, they would still technically fit within the principle taught in Jer. 18 anyway it's just that God wouldn't change His mind because nothing would ever happened that would cause Him to do so.

Yes, I agree, that is what I would hold here…

Lee: Also I am somewhat concerned that you seem to be holding that God doesn't know all about the past…

Clete: It is my position that God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable and is able to find out anything He doesn't currently know if necessary…

But let us notice that the Lord stayed with Abraham, and by all indications did not accompany the angels, indicating that he did not need to be informed more exactly of the facts of the situation…

Clete: … it's nice to get a fresh start anyway!

Is this the TOL equivalent of spring cleaning?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Hi Clete,
If there is no specific meaning, then that seems to make it meaningless, though. Redundant, as you mentioned. I like it better if it means "This is unconditionally certain," which then is meaningful, even when spoken by God. But I would ask further…

By "no specific meaning" I meant that there is no single meaning, not that it had no meaning at all.

Then may we not say which of these apply in "you will deny me" and "another will gird you"?

How about all of them?
When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him, He wasn't making it up and was telling Peter what He believed to be true. It was very important and Peter needed to pay close attention and so "Verily" seems to fit the bill quite nicely. The fact remains however, that Peter could have repented and kept this prophecy from coming to pass and he would not have blown Jesus up or demoted God from heaven by having done so. In all likelihood, had Peter used the occasion of hearing such a prophecy to humble himself and repent of his pride, Jesus would have been astonished and exceedingly glad! Frankly, I can't think of anything that night that would have made Jesus happier!

Yes, but isn't there also some primary responsibility? We both agree that God allows these sinful events for a good purpose, in a sense they are required even, but is God not responsible in a primary way, when he allows a given event?

No.
It really astonishes me the length to which you are going to place blame at the feet of God for evil. At the end of the day, we choose to do what we do and are not obligated to do evil. And what's more, God is not simply allowing evil to take place. Every single evil though, word or deed will be accounted for on the Day of Judgment and it's due price demanded.

• Deu 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life…"

But Scripture says this makes a statement quite certain:

Hebrews 6:13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself…

Hebrews 6:17-18 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.

As I said, either way, it remains nicely under the principle laid out in Jer. 18 whether it is certain or not. The only difference is why it is certain. The point is that prophecy is not prewritten history. God doesn't predict the future based upon his having snuck a peek into the future or having predestined everything to happen.
I have no problem with the idea that certain prophecies are absolutely certain to happen, I just acknowledge that they aren't all absolutely certain and I therefore have no problem with passages in the Bible where some of them don't come to pass.

Yes, I agree, that is what I would hold here…

I'm relieved to see that we agree on something in regards to this issue. :thumb:

But let us notice that the Lord stayed with Abraham, and by all indications did not accompany the angels, indicating that he did not need to be informed more exactly of the facts of the situation…

What do you think the angels were going in there for, to have a picnic? And besides, God can find this sort of thing out pretty darn fast. Think about it, what would it take for God to get the info He needed? Read a few minds, which He could do all at once, and He'd be basically done (not that He actually did it this way, there's a thousand different ways He could have done it). No one ever said this sort of thing would be hard for God to do; He is God, after all.

Is this the TOL equivalent of spring cleaning?

Yes indeed! Thank you so much for indulging me. There are some who would not have been as gracious.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Glad to agree on one aspect of prophecy!

Lee: Then may we not say which of these apply in "you will deny me" and "another will gird you"?

Clete: How about all of them?

When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him, He wasn't making it up and was telling Peter what He believed to be true. It was very important and Peter needed to pay close attention and so "Verily" seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

Well, I don't think telling Peter to pay close attention to Jesus' statement was necessary here! Given the content of what Jesus said, that would surely disturb Peter very much, as it seemed to disturb the others.

Matthew 26:35 But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

I don't think the other meanings will do here either, though, for then we have an implication that at other times, Jesus was making statements up, and he was telling people what he did not believe to be true. And can we say that any statement like this that Jesus might have made could be unimportant?

Lee: … isn't there also some primary responsibility? We both agree that God allows these sinful events for a good purpose, in a sense they are required even, but is God not responsible in a primary way, when he allows a given event?

Clete: It really astonishes me the length to which you are going to place blame at the feet of God for evil.

Not evil (in the sense of being the source of evil per se), and not blame, but responsibility. How is there no primary responsibility?

Clete: At the end of the day, we choose to do what we do and are not obligated to do evil.

Yes, and do people stop other people, when they see them about to commit an evil deed? If they do not stop them, and they could have, then is there not some responsibility here?

Every single evil though, word or deed will be accounted for on the Day of Judgment and it's due price demanded.

Yes, but still, is there responsibility, for allowing the deed in the first place? Allowing a stone to roll past you down a hill, and cause evil and damage that should not have been, is not remedied by then punishing the one who started the stone rolling.

Lee: But let us notice that the Lord stayed with Abraham, and by all indications did not accompany the angels, indicating that he did not need to be informed more exactly…

Clete: God can find this sort of thing out pretty darn fast. Think about it, what would it take for God to get the info He needed?

Well then, why would he need to send angels? When he could read minds?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Hi Clete,
Well, I don't think telling Peter to pay close attention to Jesus' statement was necessary here! Given the content of what Jesus said, that would surely disturb Peter very much, as it seemed to disturb the others.

Matthew 26:35 But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.

I don't think the other meanings will do here either, though, for then we have an implication that at other times, Jesus was making statements up, and he was telling people what he did not believe to be true. And can we say that any statement like this that Jesus might have made could be unimportant?

No such implication is there. You are intentionally trying to make this difficult.
Don't you ever preface a statement with "To tell you the truth,..."?
You could say, if you wanted to be woodenly literal and tedious, that such a statement implies that you would otherwise have lied or that it is your normal mode is to tell something other than the truth. But that would be silly because that isn't what the phrase means. IT'S A FIGURE OF SPEECH!

Not evil (in the sense of being the source of evil per se), and not blame, but responsibility. How is there no primary responsibility?

Evil is evil Lee, whether in the primary sense or not. Your own statements prove this...

Yes, and do people stop other people, when they see them about to commit an evil deed? If they do not stop them, and they could have, then is there not some responsibility here?

Yes, but still, is there responsibility, for allowing the deed in the first place? Allowing a stone to roll past you down a hill, and cause evil and damage that should not have been, is not remedied by then punishing the one who started the stone rolling.

Why do you stop thinking this through there though? If the inaction is evil, why wouldn't God have prevented the inaction and was God responsible for the inaction since He didn't prevent that? And what if He did prevent the inaction and the person prevented the original evil act, who gets credit for the good deed, God who prevented the inaction, or the person who personally did the prevention?
Do you see the point? Now both the evil and the good are meaningless!
God does not do evil, Lee (of any sort!). Nothing you ever say will ever get me to concede otherwise. You sin every time you make the attempt.

Well then, why would he need to send angels? When he could read minds?

He wouldn't "NEED" to. He can do what He wants, that's why He's God and we aren't.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I like the new shorter version of our discussion! Much more enjoyable!

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi again, Clete,

Glad to be having a Writer's Digest version of a discussion!

Lee: I don't think the other meanings will do here either, though, for then we have an implication that at other times, Jesus was making statements up, and he was telling people what he did not believe…

Clete: Don't you ever preface a statement with "To tell you the truth,..."?
You could say, if you wanted to be woodenly literal and tedious, that such a statement implies that you would otherwise have lied…

Well, if "To tell you the truth" is only a figure of speech, and it doesn't mean "I have decided to tell you the truth now" (though I think it does have that implication at times), then "Truly" is only a figure of speech, and it's a rhetorical flourish, and it doesn't have any very objective meaning. Only you are telling me it does! Yet none of the proposed meanings seem to fit…

Lee: Not evil (in the sense of being the source of evil per se), and not blame, but responsibility. How is there no primary responsibility?

Clete: Evil is evil Lee, whether in the primary sense or not.

I agree, and we both (do we not?) agree that God allows evil for a good purpose, not for an evil one, thus God is not doing evil, when he allows it. But is there not responsibility? Evil is evil and sinners are sinners, and I agree that God does not do evil!

Lee: Allowing a stone to roll past you down a hill, and cause evil and damage that should not have been, is not remedied by then punishing the one who started the stone rolling.

Clete: If the inaction is evil, why wouldn't God have prevented the inaction and was God responsible for the inaction since He didn't prevent that? And what if He did prevent the inaction and the person prevented the original evil act, who gets credit for the good deed, God who prevented the inaction, or the person who personally did the prevention?

No, I meant the analogy to be where God is the one allowing the stone to roll past him. We would consider a person who allowed this stone to roll past him in this way to be responsible, in a real sense, for any harm done. Why does God not also have responsibility, in a similar way, when he allows sinful events, and could stop them, if the result is actual harm done, that should not have happened?

Now I believe God has a good purpose that he brings about without fail, and therefore is not sinning, or doing evil, but then he is responsible for the good outcome! That is my view here...

Lee: Well then, why would he need to send angels? When he could read minds?

Clete: He wouldn't "NEED" to. He can do what He wants…

Then he sends the angels, and then reads their minds? Well, maybe, but it strikes me as odd.

But I think you actually have to discount omnipotence here, too, for "knowledge is power," as the saying goes, and to not know something means there is power (for the agents where you have no knowledge how they are acting) that is independent, in an essential way, from your power.

And how can God infallibly know that he needs to now know something, that he chose not to know?

And couldn't a decision be based on incomplete knowledge, even more than the standard Open Theists hold it (not just ignorance of the future, but also of the present, and even of the past), and couldn't this incomplete knowledge cause errors in judgment, predictions and purposes that don't turn out?

Which again, discounts omnipotence…

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz--I expect that you agree that repentance and faith are so simultaneous that the time between them is immeasurable. The Bible speaks of BOTH of them as being gifts. I think maybe I disagree with you to a point, however.

In particular--do you agree with me that people neither repent nor believe before God GIVES THEM those gifts??

You are assuming that repentance and faith are gifts. If they are gifts, why does He not give them to everyone. This way He would impartially love and save everyone that He could save. The whole TULIP, elect vs non-elect, unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc. is a construct that is not defensible. Repentance and faith are portrayed as volitional responses to truth. They involve the will and mind and lead to a secondary emotional response. God commands repentant faith. He would not give this universal command if it is impossible to do so. A gift is a thing. Faith is not a literal thing. It involves knowledge, mental assent, trust, love, obedience, etc. A denial of free moral agency makes God alone responsible for whether men reject or receive Christ. The Bible shows the Gospel was preached persuasively with the assumption that men could receive it, reject it, or procrastinate (see Acts).

Wesley proposed that prevenient grace is given to all men by God. He tried to honor some Reformed tradition and free will theism. Certainly, God must draw, convict, convince, persuade, etc., but the idea of coercion or a gift foisted on us does not square with the nature of repentance and faith. Is love also a gift? Can we not love volitionally or remain selfish in any given choice or relationship?

Calvinism: repentant faith follows regeneration.

Alternative: Repentant faith precedes regeneration (or nearly simulataneous)....I am more in this camp. I believe your view is problematic and makes God responsible for reprobation...He does not save those He could save...the provision is efficacious to all who believe. If they refuse to believe the truth, they will be lost. It is not because God withholds a gift He could freely give apart from man's response/responsibility. This does not mean man saves Himself, but God predestined certain conditions to appropriate His provision leading to transformation without violating the gift of free will.

Salvation, not repentant faith, is the gift of God in Eph. 2:8-10.

 

[CheeseMan]

Oh yea, yea... I forgot....

And God murdered 6 million Jews and He flew planes into the World Trade Center..... God did all of that to glorify Himself. :vomit:

John the Baptist, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Mother Theresa they are all the same aren't they? All perfectly fulfilling God's will to glorify Himself right?

Right????

I do not believe God would have to take such extremes to glorify himself if the elect are already chosen, and the un-elect will stand unaffected by these horrific actions. What's the point in the holocaust? How does killing 6 million glorify God? To me that is utter insanity. It goes against and sense of goodness we have.

 

[Clete]

I do not believe God would have to take such extremes to glorify himself if the elect are already chosen, and the un-elect will stand unaffected by these horrific actions. What's the point in the holocaust? How does killing 6 million glorify God? To me that is utter insanity. It goes against and sense of goodness we have.

Uh, yeah. I think that was Knight's point. :freak:

 

[lee_merrill]

How does killing 6 million glorify God? To me that is utter insanity. It goes against any sense of goodness we have.

How does not stopping Hitler glorify God, according to your system?

Did God not see what was happening? And could he not have stopped it? Should he not have stopped it? If it was evil that could not be remedied, and that thus should not have happened, as you seem to be implying here...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Well, if "To tell you the truth" is only a figure of speech, and it doesn't mean "I have decided to tell you the truth now" (though I think it does have that implication at times), then "Truly" is only a figure of speech, and it's a rhetorical flourish, and it doesn't have any very objective meaning. Only you are telling me it does! Yet none of the proposed meanings seem to fit…

Yes it does, you just don't want to understand. I'm tired of repeating myself on the same point.

I agree, and we both (do we not?) agree that God allows evil for a good purpose, not for an evil one, thus God is not doing evil, when he allows it. But is there not responsibility? Evil is evil and sinners are sinners, and I agree that God does not do evil!

And yet you want to make Him responsible for it. It's blasphemy Lee, pure and simple blasphemy. I've about reached the end of my tolerance for it.

No, I meant the analogy to be where God is the one allowing the stone to roll past him. We would consider a person who allowed this stone to roll past him in this way to be responsible, in a real sense, for any harm done. Why does God not also have responsibility, in a similar way, when he allows sinful events, and could stop them, if the result is actual harm done, that should not have happened?

Asked and answered.

Now I believe God has a good purpose that he brings about without fail, and therefore is not sinning, or doing evil, but then he is responsible for the good outcome! That is my view here...

Your view is blasphemous and renders both good and evil meaningless, as I have already explained.

Then he sends the angels, and then reads their minds? Well, maybe, but it strikes me as odd.

I don't know if He read the angel's minds or whether or not they had already seen enough to confirm what He needed confirmed or what, the text doesn't tell us. What it does tell is that He investigated the accusations to see whether they had done altogether according to the outcry against it that had come to Him. What all that investigation entailed exactly is beside the point.

But I think you actually have to discount omnipotence here, too, for "knowledge is power," as the saying goes, and to not know something means there is power (for the agents where you have no knowledge how they are acting) that is independent, in an essential way, from your power.

All power comes from God. If you or anyone else has any power at all it is only because that power was delegated to you by God. What ever power has been delegated to you, can be delegated by and only by you. You cannot delegate someone else's power, only your own and someone else cannot delegate your power without your consent. God, on the other hand, can recall and/or redelegate any power at any time at His will. Thus God is the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe and all else that exists, period.

And how can God infallibly know that he needs to now know something, that he chose not to know?

I don't know. Maybe you could ask Him when you see Him. I for one don't really care how. The knowledge that He does is sufficient for me. God is not stupid, nor inept. God is omnicompitent and omniwise. That is all I need know.

And couldn't a decision be based on incomplete knowledge, even more than the standard Open Theists hold it (not just ignorance of the future, but also of the present, and even of the past), and couldn't this incomplete knowledge cause errors in judgment, predictions and purposes that don't turn out?

Which again, discounts omnipotence…

Again, God is not stupid. He does not make decisions based upon incomplete or insufficient information. God knows EVERYTHING that what He wants to know that is knowable. Your objection is therefore discounted.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Lee: Yet none of the proposed meanings seem to fit…

Clete: Yes it does, you just don't want to understand.

Well, I have indeed examined the meanings that were proposed:

"I don't think telling Peter to pay close attention to Jesus' statement was necessary here! Given the content of what Jesus said. … I don't think the other meanings will do here either, though, for then we have an implication that at other times, Jesus was making statements up, and he was telling people what he did not believe to be true. And can we say that any statement like this that Jesus might have made could be unimportant?"

Now you need to show me how one of these meanings does yet apply, to refute one of these statements, please.

Lee: We both (do we not?) agree that God allows evil for a good purpose, not for an evil one, thus God is not doing evil, when he allows it.

Clete: And yet you want to make Him responsible for it. It's blasphemy Lee…

Responsible for the outcome! I stated this clearly. Not for the evil, in the sense of being the source of the evil in a sinful action. But again, please answer my question!

"We both (do we not?) agree that God allows evil for a good purpose."

Yes, or no, please.

Lee: I meant the analogy to be where God is the one allowing the stone to roll past him. We would consider a person who allowed this stone to roll past him in this way to be responsible…

Clete: Asked and answered.

Clete, you did not answer this question.

Stating that there are meanings, saying I am blaspheming, saying you have answered the question, does not help matters.

Lee: Now I believe God has a good purpose that he brings about without fail, and therefore is not sinning, or doing evil, but then he is responsible for the good outcome!

Clete: Your view is blasphemous and renders both good and evil meaningless, as I have already explained.

Saying God is not sinning is blasphemous? Saying he has a good purpose that he always brings about makes good meaningless?

Lee: But I think you actually have to discount omnipotence here, too, for "knowledge is power," as the saying goes, and to not know something means there is power (for the agents where you have no knowledge how they are acting) that is independent, in an essential way, from your power.

Clete: All power comes from God.

Then God had all power, or will have all power. But omnipotence means God has all power.

Lee: And how can God infallibly know that he needs to now know something, that he chose not to know?

Clete: I for one don't really care how. The knowledge that He does is sufficient for me.

You are speaking of a conclusion, though, and we need to examine the basis for this conclusion. If we see a dilemma, that may well indicate a problem, and a need to look under the hood.

Lee: and couldn't this incomplete knowledge cause errors in judgment, predictions and purposes that don't turn out?

Which again, discounts omnipotence…

Clete: God is not stupid. He does not make decisions based upon incomplete or insufficient information.

I agree that God is infinitely intelligent. But how is the information complete, for a given decision, if he does not know all the past and present? Let me give an example…

I read somewhere that calculating the motion of two air molecules will be off significantly in a few seconds, if there are two electrons at the other end of the universe, that you didn't include in your calculations.

Now how can God predict even the weather, if he doesn't know what all the people in Sodom are doing, the position of all the atoms of all these people?

God knows EVERYTHING that what He wants to know that is knowable.

And for that, I would need a Scripture verse. But not this one!

John 21:17 "Lord, you know all things."

Or this one…

Hebrews 4:13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ChristisKing]

OK… I gotta vent.

I try to be calm and I try to be patient with those that credit bad things to God via Calvinistic theology. But there are some times I simply can’t be patient or cordial because this twisted sick, perverted theology is sometimes too much to handle.

Today I was listening to a Christian station on the radio. And there was a public service spot which featured a woman explaining a heart wrenching story. She explained that she was diagnosed with Leukemia on her child’s first birthday. She explained that she was treated with intense chemotherapy. She went on to say that she was comforted by God (which of course is fantastic). But then she said that God have given her the cancer so God would also give her the strength to get through it.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shocked:

Can you imagine that?

Can you imagine a women actual thinking that God had given her cancer???

That is just plain sick!

What ever happened to understanding that it was man’s sin (our rebellion) that brought sickness and death into the world? What ever happened to placing the responsibility for bad things with mankind? So now God is a disease dispenser?

People are just plain stupid.

:dunce:

I love Calvinism, it is the Gospel it its purest expression.

 

[godrulz]

I love Calvinism, it is the Gospel in its purest expression.

TULIP is contrary to sound biblical exegesis. Hyper-sovereignty and determinism negate the glory of the Creator and His creation. God is not a dictatorial control freak. He is a responsive, omnicompetent, providential Father. One of the big problems with Calvinism is that it makes God ultimately responsible for heinous evil and the damnation of the masses that He could save, but will not (elect/non-elect/reprobation). This is contrary to His explicit revealed nature as a God of impartial love and holiness (justice/truth).

There are varieties of Calvinism. Perhaps you are not a 5-point or hyper-Calvinist.

 

[ChristisKing]

Grace

Grace

TULIP is contrary to sound biblical exegesis. Hyper-sovereignty and determinism negate the glory of the Creator and His creation. God is not a dictatorial control freak. He is a responsive, omnicompetent, providential Father. One of the big problems with Calvinism is that it makes God ultimately responsible for heinous evil and the damnation of the masses that He could save, but will not (elect/non-elect/reprobation). This is contrary to His explicit revealed nature as a God of impartial love and holiness (justice/truth).

There are varieties of Calvinism. Perhaps you are not a 5-point or hyper-Calvinist.

I am a 5 point Calvinist and I love the Gospel of grace. You'll never understand grace until you understand biblical predestination. The Holy Spirit revealed in Scripture that you were predestined for salvation before the beginning of creation and others were not. Why? Because He loved you. You are no different than the non-elect and are probably worse than many of them. But God loved you so much He determined to save you and sent His Son to save you. Now there is nothing He would not do for you.

That is grace!

That is the Gospel, don't fight it, just praise God for His great love for you.

 

[Delmar]

I am a 5 point Calvinist and I love the Gospel of grace. You'll never understand grace until you understand biblical predestination. The Holy Spirit revealed in Scripture that you were predestined for salvation before the beginning of creation and others were not. Why? Because He loved you. You are no different than the non-elect and are probably worse than many of them. But God loved you so much He determined to save you and sent His Son to save you. Now there is nothing He would not do for you.

That is grace!

That is the Gospel, don't fight it, just praise God for His great love for you.

Does God not love those who are not predestined for salvation?

 

[ChristisKing]

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Does God not love those who are not predestined for salvation?

Not with the same love He loves the elect.

ROM 9:11 (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
ROM 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
ROM 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

[godrulz]

I am a 5 point Calvinist and I love the Gospel of grace. You'll never understand grace until you understand biblical predestination. The Holy Spirit revealed in Scripture that you were predestined for salvation before the beginning of creation and others were not. Why? Because He loved you. You are no different than the non-elect and are probably worse than many of them. But God loved you so much He determined to save you and sent His Son to save you. Now there is nothing He would not do for you.

That is grace!

That is the Gospel, don't fight it, just praise God for His great love for you.

This is neither love nor grace. God damns many whom He could save, and saves some that He does not have to save. Scripture portrays the Gospel being preached persuasively to the whole world (Jn. 3:16). He did not just die for the elect. He died for all men. The reason that all men are not saved is not because God is partial or arbitrary. It is because some receive truth, while others reject truth. God has predestined that all who believe will be saved, and that all who persist in rebellion will be lost. He did not elect or predestine individuals to heaven or hell. Predestination/election is corporate, not individual. Scripture does not teach some were predestined to heaven or hell even before they existed. This is a misinterpretation of the data.

It is disingenuous to say that God loves the elect and essentially does not love the so-called non-elect. This is arbitrary. Yes, He does not have to save anyone, but love would save all if it could. His provision is efficacious to all who come in repentant faith, His conditions for appropriating His perfect provision. He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and wants all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4).

There is nothing Jesus would not do for all men as evidenced by His death to take away the sin of the world as the Lamb of God. There is no need to fight the Gospel of God. I am suggesting that Calvinism distorts the simple gospel and adds deductive reasoning to support a preconceived theology that distorts His great love for all men, not just the 'elect'.

 

[LightSon]

'rulz,

The point I saw is that:
ROM 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

So does God hate Esau? I think the gentleman was suggesting that this scripture is indicative of "God's concern" or love for the lost, as in the context of the question: "Does God not love those who are not predestined for salvation? "

I'd be interested in hearing your resolution to the specific text cited.

Regards,

 

[ChristisKing]

whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called

whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called

This is neither love nor grace. God damns many whom He could save, and saves some that He does not have to save. Scripture portrays the Gospel being preached persuasively to the whole world (Jn. 3:16). He did not just die for the elect. He died for all men. The reason that all men are not saved is not because God is partial or arbitrary. It is because some receive truth, while others reject truth. God has predestined that all who believe will be saved, and that all who persist in rebellion will be lost. He did not elect or predestine individuals to heaven or hell. Predestination/election is corporate, not individual. Scripture does not teach some were predestined to heaven or hell even before they existed. This is a misinterpretation of the data.

It is disingenuous to say that God loves the elect and essentially does not love the so-called non-elect. This is arbitrary. Yes, He does not have to save anyone, but love would save all if it could. His provision is efficacious to all who come in repentant faith, His conditions for appropriating His perfect provision. He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and wants all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4).

There is nothing Jesus would not do for all men as evidenced by His death to take away the sin of the world as the Lamb of God. There is no need to fight the Gospel of God. I am suggesting that Calvinism distorts the simple gospel and adds deductive reasoning to support a preconceived theology that distorts His great love for all men, not just the 'elect'.

All of what you wrote is how "you see it." It's the "gospel of godrulz." Under your gospel it also doesn't make sense that your god who loves everyone who send anyone to suffer for ever in torment. But I've learned to trust the God of the bible and not what makes sense to me.

You gave two Scripture verses as support for your gospel. The first one from 2 Peter 3:9 was written by Peter to the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." He is telling the "elect" that the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any (of us; the elect) should perish, but that all (us; the elect) should come to repentance.

The second verse from 1 Tim 2:4 is simply a statement that God desires all types of men to be saved, the immediate preceeding verses defines how the Holy Spirit uses the word "all men" as "all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority."

The Gospel teaches that, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30)

These verses are easily understood