Omniscience means fatalism.

[Rosenritter]

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” - Romans 10:8b-13)​

If you get this one thing right, whatever else you get wrong cannot overcome the blood of Christ. You may make it "by the skin of your teeth" as Job described his escape from his enemies or, as Paul put it in I Corinthians, "as if by fire" but that's better than the alternative.

...
I strongly suspect, however, that most of the people who call themselves Calvinist believe it the exact same way that you and I believe it and they make no attempt to reconcile it with the doctrine of immutability or with any other Calvinist doctrine. They believe it and, as compartmentalized as it may be away from the rest of their doctrine, that belief is, in my view, an acceptance of the gospel.

Clete

I agree with GM's assessment, that is a good post. I think it is important to remember that we should look to one's fruits, especially if we disagree over specific doctrine or theory.

Mat 13:28-30 KJV
(28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
(29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
(30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

To mix this with another parable, doesn't it matter far more what we become than were we started, whether the seed takes root and produces fruit a hundredfold, rather than what type of ground that seed managed to grow within? We don't have the right or wisdom to ultimately judge wheat from tares now. And even most especially from the Open perspective, where we understand that God himself has withheld judgment until the end.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The Calvinist, in sharing the Gospel with the unsaved, would 'dare not' add their particular doctrine about Election and predestination into the mix. That would tend to bring about confusion and lack of certainty within the heart and mind of the listener. However, wouldn't it be somewhat 'hypocritical' for the Calvinist to leave those beliefs out of the conversation since they cling to those supposed truths?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Is there any Calvinist that started out as a believer in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' (what Paul preached) and became a Calvinist at some point thereafter? On the other hand, is there any 'Grace believer' that eventually turned to Calvinism?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Election is Scriptural, so we cannot avoid or deny the term. There are only two kinds of people in the world, the believers and the non-believers. The believers are the elect of God, no matter what view one holds about how exactly election works itself out. Those that do not call upon the name of the Lord will be damned to eternal punishment. These are the reprobate (2 Peter 2:9).

What makes you think my previous discussion with you on the matter has changed? A refresher...

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813451&viewfull=1#post4813451
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813460&viewfull=1#post4813460
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813465&viewfull=1#post4813465
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813748&viewfull=1#post4813748

It is a core teaching of Scripture which makes it plain that only those so granted faith by God will be saved. This is true for the Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike.

Who are the one's so granted faith? All those that call upon the name of the Lord. It matters not whether we speak of the elect or the non-elect, for we do not know whom they may be. So why try to operate as if we know the secret will of God? We know our duty. Do it. Not a single person can claim he could not do his duty because he felt some compulsion by God, some coercion of his own volitional will. This is manifest nonsense dealing with hypotheticals in some vain attempt to be able to claim some mitigation for one's non-belief.

What we do know is our duty: call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Do that, versus trying to argue, "Well I could not do that, since I was reprobated." How exactly could anyone actually know what is the determinate will of God concerning one's eternal destiny? No one knows the unrevealed will of God (Deut. 29:29). Fortunately, God has revealed all that we need to know and do when it comes to matters concerning our eternal destiny.

AMR

If there's actually a loving creator behind life then the notion that one created such with the express intention of consigning part of it to an eternity of suffering by design makes no sense given the Biblical definition of love. It's not just Calvinism that makes no sense in that regard to be fair.

 

[Lon]

We both realize that our interpretation of certain Scripture verses will NEVER coincide.

:nono: Disagree. God gets to make this call. 1 John 3:2 True is true and we both will indeed hold to it lest our faith is in vain. There is no way I can 'agree to disagree forever. Even in this life, God can certainly win out with either you or I. How stubborn do either of us have to be? God can bust down pride and make what He wants to come about.

So, if it's all the same to you, I'd rather avoid this sort of debate.

Understood. You are allowed to pick and choose what you want to discuss and who you want to do so with :up:

I'll do this, pick one of those verses you posted and give YOUR interpretation, and I'll give my own interpretation. Okay?

Thank you. John 6:37-40; 17:2

 

[Lon]

Is there any Calvinist that started out as a believer in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' (what Paul preached) and became a Calvinist at some point thereafter? On the other hand, is there any 'Grace believer' that eventually turned to Calvinism?

Yes.

 

[Lon]

Exo 4:21 KJV
(21) And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

I believe (note that I limit this word to believe) God will not harden anyone's heart in a south direction that wasn't there already. God didn't have to harden Pharaoh's heart initially; it was after Egypt was receiving divine smack-down and any sane ruler would have relented, not out of love or understanding but simply acknowledgment of brute force. But three times it repeats that God was to harden that heart, and for the reason to stop him from letting Israel go ahead of the schedule. Without that specific intervention Israel would have been let go sooner.

Grace can turn or harden. Christ's sacrifice either hardens or softens. The 'act' doesn't change, the heart changes, such that even Grace to Pharaoh in the manner of warning and plagues, came across as hard to him and hardened him whereas the same equivalent to Nineveh turned them and softened them.

My understanding has no problem with names being assigned to people. God only need to direct the mind of the parent to the proper name, either subconscious (which would be hard to prove) or even in the direct obvious sense as in John ("... and wrote, saying, His name is John.", Luke 1:63).

Omniscience neither. God told David what would happen exactly 'if' he did one action. David did the opposite. To me, omniscience makes the better sense of scripture and it is said already, He is "all knowing." Prognosis means literally "knows before."

Were you willing to let God direct you? I don't think it takes much argument that throwing a select bible verse in front of someone is not normally expected to have any sort of effect. If God had to manifest himself or an angel in front of you and force your action against your heart and you still resist, the sin remains in your mind, even if the action was never completed.

Doesn't matter. Jonah wasn't willing. Saul wasn't willing. God 'makes' one willing. Yes, God made me willing too.

God can direct the naming of a child, he can shape events to place the child in the right circumstances, and if required he can force the action to complete the prophecy. King Saul is an example where God had to step in to actually stop Saul from taking action. Is it not written, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"

1Sa 19:18-24 KJV
(18) So David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth.
(19) And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah.
(20) And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.
(21) And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also.
(22) Then went he also to Ramah, and came to a great well that is in Sechu: and he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And one said, Behold, they be at Naioth in Ramah.
(23) And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah.
(24) And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

It is/was a question. Moreover, it ended a question. That means they always questioned it. Agree?

I refuse to dismiss any term that is from the Bible text. I don't think Calvinism has a right concept of election, which goes back to the "outside of time" theory of reality. As touching that point, what I was trying to show here is that (at least so far that I have seen) any and every recorded miracle works within the power of God and by the power of God, rather than requiring "foreknowledge" of the "I saw the future in a crystal ball" variety. Meaning, "outside of time" is not required to believe the Bible as written.

Better than some. I rarely get 'election' acknowledged from anyone. It is 'almost like they want to cut that part out of their bibles.' I don't know any nonCalvinist that loves Romans 9, for instance. To me? Problematic. If I have to avoid or become squeamish, I'm likely needing to change my theology. :e4e:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Delete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Delete.

 

[Ayn Marx]

Perhaps we can discuss Ephesians 1:4 after these? If you so desire?

One reading could take it we were never granted free will. If so, we have never sinned.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

:nono: Disagree. God gets to make this call. 1 John 3:2 True is true and we both will indeed hold to it lest our faith is in vain. There is no way I can 'agree to disagree forever. Even in this life, God can certainly win out with either you or I. How stubborn do either of us have to be? God can bust down pride and make what He wants to come about.

Understood. You are allowed to pick and choose what you want to discuss and who you want to do so with :up:


Thank you. John 6:37-40; 17:2

After talking to a good friend of mine and a great Bible teacher today, I've decided NOT to debate you on those verses you suggested. My friend told me that, basically, it wouldn't accomplish anything.

 

[Rosenritter]

Grace can turn or harden. Christ's sacrifice either hardens or softens. The 'act' doesn't change, the heart changes, such that even Grace to Pharaoh in the manner of warning and plagues, came across as hard to him and hardened him whereas the same equivalent to Nineveh turned them and softened them.

Lon, it doesn't seem like warning or plague hardened Pharaoh's heart. It looks like it was something God did so that he would not listen to the warnings that he otherwise would have heeded, or to not yield to the plagues that he otherwise would have yielded. At least as written, the hardening seems like a distinct action.

Exodus 7:11-14 KJV
(11) Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
(12) For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
(13) And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
(14) And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.

Exodus 10:24-27 KJV
(24) And Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said, Go ye, serve the LORD; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed: let your little ones also go with you.
(25) And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God.
(26) Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve the LORD our God; and we know not with what we must serve the LORD, until we come thither.
(27) But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

There are instances where it says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but there are also times when after great duress and Pharaoh was in the process of yielding, that it speaks as if this was a specific action that intervened. My understanding is that Pharaoh's heart was still evil and that he wouldn't have relented under lesser circumstances, not that his heart suddenly turned righteous and God reversed that.

Doesn't matter. Jonah wasn't willing. Saul wasn't willing. God 'makes' one willing. Yes, God made me willing too.

Neither Jonah nor Saul were made willing. Saul had to be struck down where he lay naked prophesying. Jonah had to be swallowed by a fish, and we still have recorded episode where after he begrudgingly prophesied as he was told, he complained afterwards saying "See! I knew this would happen! Just kill me already." Jonah is an excellent proof that while God can force someone to go to a country with a storm and a fish, and even compel them to preach, he cannot force the heart.

Jonah 4:1-3 KJV
(1) But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
(2) And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
(3) Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.

 

[Clete]

I agree with GM's assessment, that is a good post. I think it is important to remember that we should look to one's fruits, especially if we disagree over specific doctrine or theory.

Mat 13:28-30 KJV
(28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
(29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
(30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

To mix this with another parable, doesn't it matter far more what we become than were we started, whether the seed takes root and produces fruit a hundredfold, rather than what type of ground that seed managed to grow within? We don't have the right or wisdom to ultimately judge wheat from tares now. And even most especially from the Open perspective, where we understand that God himself has withheld judgment until the end.

Places like TOL, however, are a special case. People come here (obstensively) in order to debate their doctrine. They come here expecting to be challenged and it is not unreasonable for someone to assume the role of challenger when they encounter false doctrine. Further, most of the people participating here are not in the category of the "average person who calls themselves 'Calvinist'". On the contrary, AMR, to name one example, isn't a typical pew sitting doctrinal sponge, he is a self-proclaimed expert. He not only claims to be a seminary professor but a pastor and even a near life long member of MENSA, of all things. He has no excuse and cannot rightly be treated as if he's the sort that is merely confused or simply wrong. He is not that! In fact, it is his type that create atheists all over the place. It is exactly his flavor of theism that most atheists reject. How many hundreds of thousands of people have followed Ayn Rand, for example, on the path she paved toward Hell precisely because of doctrines like predestination and original sin and other doctrines where sound reason is intentionally rejected in favor of dogma?

Clete

 

[Rosenritter]

After talking to a good friend of mine and a great Bible teacher today, I've decided NOT to debate you on those verses you suggested. My friend told me that, basically, it wouldn't accomplish anything.

@Lon, may I take that challenge on John 6:37-40, 17:2? We've had a fairly good rapport and mutual respect for a while now and I have some context to add to those passages that I think may help. If we are extending on Grosnick's challenge, would you like to introduce those passages first with your understanding?

 

[Rosenritter]

Places like TOL, however, are a special case. People come here (obstensively) in order to debate their doctrine. They come here expecting to be challenged and it is not unreasonable for someone to assume the role of challenger when they encounter false doctrine. Further, most of the people participating here are not in the category of the "average person who calls themselves 'Calvinist'". On the contrary, AMR, to name one example, isn't a typical pew sitting doctrinal sponge, he is a self-proclaimed expert. He not only claims to be a seminary professor but a pastor and even a near life long member of MENSA, of all things. He has no excuse and cannot rightly be treated as if he's the sort that is merely confused or simply wrong. He is not that! In fact, it is his type that create atheists all over the place. It is exactly his flavor of theism that most atheists reject. How many hundreds of thousands of people have followed Ayn Rand, for example, on the path she paved toward Hell precisely because of doctrines like predestination and original sin and other doctrines where sound reason is intentionally rejected in favor of dogma?

Clete

I understand where you are coming from and I have had those same thoughts myself. Bad doctrines and traditions leave damaged and dying in their wake, and it is not a valid justification for those that maintain them to simply say "they were never of us." But I am going to say that mere intelligence is not immunity to misunderstanding, and we should not forget to look for other signs. For example, love and longsuffering are fruits of the Holy Spirit, and you usually won't find these in long supply in someone who is actively spreading false doctrine with no remorse.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I've had opinions from 'likeminded' people I know, meaning, people who share my faith in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached by the Apostle Paul on the subject of: "Is a Calvinist truly saved?" I've heard opinions on both sides of the issue. Some would say, NO, while others would say, YES. A friend of mine and a Bible teacher was of the opinion that the Calvinist is truly saved. He added a caveat, of course, that being, as long as they placed their faith in Christ as their Savior, believed in His death and subsequent resurrection, and were part of the Body of Christ.

Another 'True believer' was of a different opinion and said, they do not believe a Calvinist is saved. As long as the Calvinist has placed their faith in Christ and Christ alone it would appear as if they 'would be a member of the Body of Christ.' However, there is that lingering thought that Calvinism seems to teach another Gospel other than the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached by Paul, that includes, hearing the Gospel and placing one's faith in Christ? What's your opinion? Anybody?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've had opinions from 'likeminded' people I know, meaning, people who share my faith in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached by the Apostle Paul on the subject of: "Is a Calvinist truly saved?" I've heard opinions on both sides of the issue. Some would say, NO, while others would say, YES. A friend of mine and a Bible teacher was of the opinion that the Calvinist is truly saved. He added a caveat, of course, that being, as long as they placed their faith in Christ as their Savior, believed in His death and subsequent resurrection, and were part of the Body of Christ.

Another 'True believer' was of a different opinion and said, they do not believe a Calvinist is saved. As long as the Calvinist has placed their faith in Christ and Christ alone it would appear as if they 'would be a member of the Body of Christ.' However, there is that lingering thought that Calvinism seems to teach another Gospel other than the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached by Paul, that includes, hearing the Gospel and placing one's faith in Christ? What's your opinion? Anybody?

People can be saved even when the message isn't the usual salvation message. Even a bad witness of Christ is a witness of Him, and people can still be saved even if while teaching the truth falsehood is mixed in.

People come to the Lord even through the messages preached by the megachurches who sell miracles... so if someone claims to be saved because they placed their faith in Christ a la Romans 10:9, then I have no reason to doubt them.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

People can be saved even when the message isn't the usual salvation message. Even a bad witness of Christ is a witness of Him, and people can still be saved even if while teaching the truth falsehood is mixed in.

People come to the Lord even through the messages preached by the megachurches who sell miracles... so if someone claims to be saved because they placed their faith in Christ a la Romans 10:9, then I have no reason to doubt them.

Good post, JR

 

[glorydaz]

:nono: Disagree. God gets to make this call. 1 John 3:2 True is true and we both will indeed hold to it lest our faith is in vain. There is no way I can 'agree to disagree forever. Even in this life, God can certainly win out with either you or I. How stubborn do either of us have to be? God can bust down pride and make what He wants to come about.

Understood. You are allowed to pick and choose what you want to discuss and who you want to do so with :up:


Thank you. John 6:37-40; 17:2

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

 

[Clete]

I've had opinions from 'likeminded' people I know, meaning, people who share my faith in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached by the Apostle Paul on the subject of: "Is a Calvinist truly saved?" I've heard opinions on both sides of the issue. Some would say, NO, while others would say, YES. A friend of mine and a Bible teacher was of the opinion that the Calvinist is truly saved. He added a caveat, of course, that being, as long as they placed their faith in Christ as their Savior, believed in His death and subsequent resurrection, and were part of the Body of Christ.

Another 'True believer' was of a different opinion and said, they do not believe a Calvinist is saved. As long as the Calvinist has placed their faith in Christ and Christ alone it would appear as if they 'would be a member of the Body of Christ.' However, there is that lingering thought that Calvinism seems to teach another Gospel other than the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached by Paul, that includes, hearing the Gospel and placing one's faith in Christ? What's your opinion? Anybody?

Being saved isn't about what you preach, it's about whether you've placed you faith in Christ, believing that He died for your sin and that God raised Him from the dead.

There are a great many Calvinists who do believe that and there are a great many other Calvinists who do not. As such whether one is or is not a Calvinist per se is not determinitive of one's salvation. Therefore, asking the question, "Is a Calvinist saved?" is identical to asking, "Is a Christian saved?". The answer to both questions is the same. In other words, Calvinist doctrine is not so far outside the pail of Christianity as to disqualify any of it's adherents from being saved or being considered Christian. Being a Calvinist is not the doctrinal equivalent to being a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or Branch Davidian. The doctrines that distinguish Calvinism from other Christian doctrines are all false but do not distinguish it from Christianity itself the way Mormon doctrines do. Calvinism is not a cult. It still tells the same story; that there is but One God Who created all things and that mankind rebelled against Him. It still teaches that God the Son became flesh and died because of our rebellion and that God raised Him from the dead on the third day. The core of the gospel is still present in the Calvinist system. There are those Calvinists who take things entirely too far who have perhaps undermined the gospel to a degree that they have indeed believed a different gospel but most people who call themselves Calvinists would instantly agree with and wholeheartedly embrace the actual gospel in whatever wording you or I (or any other grace gospel believer) chose to state it.

Clete