What's calvinism?

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

If God kills, is it still murder? Why is the word "murder" key? You act as if God did predestine babies to die, then He is guilty of murder.

No, I simply state that to punish people for murder (or even calling it murder for that matter) when He has predestined the action is UNJUST. God is not unjust!

What's your definition of murder? Last time I checked, it meant the unlawful killing of one human being by another. God isn't a human, so if He purposefully kills a person, or a bunch of people for that matter, why do you charge us with declaring that God is a murderer? You make no sense.

As I said, your version of God isn't technically a murderer but He would be unjust and evil.

Your view of God is limited and confined to how you view mankind. You put Him in a manmade box. If it's wrong for us to do it, you think it's wrong for God to do it also. Since when did you become the judge of God?

I did not say this, in fact quite the reverse. As I said, He did the children of Sodom a favor. It is Calvinism that confines God to a box of impassable immutability.

This is ridiculous. You are merely going on emotions here. No evidence, no intelligence, no proof; just simple, limited, evil logic of your mind. You let your feelings get in the way of TRUTH and Scripture.

What have I said that conflicts with the Biblical record? What "TRUTH of Scripture is it that I am getting on the way of with my comments about the children of Sodom?

Two friends are standing on a pier. One of them falls in and doesn't know how to swim and if isn't saved, will quickly drown. Now, if the other friend on the pier was a fatalist, he would say to himself, "Well, God must of predestined my friend to fall in the water. It must be his time to die." However, if he was a Calvinist, he would say, "God may of perhaps predestined me to save my friend from drowning and give him another opportunity to hear about Jesus." So he reaches in and grabs his friend.

See the difference?

No! There is no difference! In Calvinism there is no, "may of" or "perhaps"! And his friend will have precisely the number of chances to hear the Gospel as have been predestined, no more no less. Your own thinking testifies to the falsehood of your own theology. It is simply impossible to think in a way consistent with a Calvinist worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[John Reformed]

One of the major flaws the OVers make is that they see God as existing within the bounds of time, rather than transcending time and space.

For God to fit their model they must ignore the conequences of their doctrine. That is... God must be limited and subject to the constraints of time itself. This view leads to the logical conclusion which is: God has always existed, but because He is unable to know the future perfectly, He can not be absolutely certain that He Himself will continue to exist!

Calvinists believe that time, space and all things which are part of our experience were planned for,created by and ruled over by Almighty God.

Our God is transcendent. We don't need to understand His ways for us to believe Him. It'a faith thing.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

For example, it is you who must say that when the Bible says that God brought all the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them" that, of course, this means that God already knew.

When I reread a book, I already know how it will turn out. But I do enjoy the rereading, and I can be said to see what will happen when I reread it, though I know it already.

No, I simply state that to punish people for murder (or even calling it murder for that matter) when He has predestined the action is UNJUST. God is not unjust!

God is certainly not unjust! But God has a good purpose for all that happens:

GE 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.

Joseph's brothers nearly did murder him, Jacob thought they had. Though his brothers did get some punishment for their sin:

GE 42:17 And he put them all in custody for three days.

But God's intent was good for all of them:

GE 50:21 So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.

God had a good purpose for everyone, the motive establishes guilt or innocence.

PHP 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

God doesn't have any other kind of purpose...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed

One of the major flaws the OVers make is that they see God as existing within the bounds of time, rather than transcending time and space.

For God to fit their model they must ignore the consequences of their doctrine. That is... God must be limited and subject to the constraints of time itself. This view leads to the logical conclusion which is: God has always existed, but because He is unable to know the future perfectly, He can not be absolutely certain that He Himself will continue to exist!

Where is the verse that speaks of the creation of time?
Where is the verse that speaks of God existing "outside" of time?
What exactly would it mean to be "outside" of time?
Can you even prove that time exists, in and of itself?
I submit that you cannot. Time is an idea. It is a mental frame of reference that thinking minds use to keep track of duration and succession. As long as there are events and a thinking mind to be aware of them, time will exist, even if it is not kept track of in years, months, weeks, days, etc. God cannot exist outside of time because time isn't something that one can either be in or out of. It is not a thing at all.
Not only do verses that speak of the timelessness of God not exist but verses that speak of the reverse do exist. Here's just a couple of examples...

Rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.

Note the setting of these verses of Scripture. Both are in heaven, one is on this side of the Great white thrown judgment, the other is AFTER the new heavens and new Earth have been created.
So it would seem that the Biblical record indicates that God experiences duration and sequences exactly the same way you and I do. In fact there is not one single verse of Scripture that indicates otherwise.

Further, I am not afraid of the logical consequences of acknowledging reality. The assurance of God's future existence is not contingent upon His knowledge of that furture but upon His omnipotence. God is not subject to entropy, He does run down like a battery or burn out like a camp fire. The eternal existence of God is as much necessarily future as it is past. In other words, if it is a logically necessity to understand that God has always existed (which it is), then by the same reasoning, one can know that He will always exist. If you say otherwise, then show me the syllogism and we'll discuss it further.

Calvinists believe that time, space and all things which are part of our experience were planned for, created by and ruled over by Almighty God.

Time is not a thing but otherwise I do not disagree with this statement. I too believe that God planned His creation and rules over it. Anyone who does not is not a Christian.

Our God is transcendent. We don't need to understand His ways for us to believe Him. It’s faith thing.

This statement is insulting. I do, of course, agree that all of God's ways cannot be understood or even comprehended in the slightest degree, but that fact has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is about having the courage to believe the substantive evidence presented to you.; acknowledging not necessarily the obvious but that which is SUBSTANTIVELY EVIDENT. Faith is not blind. God never asks us to check our minds out and just "go on faith" as though it where "the force" or some nonsense like that. There is nothing about God that is irrational for God is not irrational. Any belief or theology that can be shown to be irrational will at the same moment shown to be untrue. For is is God who says...
Isaiah 1:16 "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke *the oppressor;
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow.
18 "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land;
20 But if you refuse and rebel, You shall be devoured by the sword";
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

I threw in verses 16 & 17 for context but verses 19 & 20 bring up an interesting question for the Calvinist.

What could they mean? How is it that God can make "if - then" statements of this nature concerning OUR will? I, as an Open Theist can read these verses and take them for precisely what they say. They do in fact mean precisely what they seem to mean. But this plain easy to understand verse presents itself as a problem text for the Calvinist. Any typical third grader could read this passage and tell you what it means, and yet Calvinist are required to jump through all sort of convoluted theological hoops to keep it from tearing there whole worldview to shreds.
I, for one, prefer to simply read the text and take it at face value, but if you prefer convoluted theological hoop jumping, knock yourself out.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

No, I simply state that to punish people for murder (or even calling it murder for that matter) when He has predestined the action is UNJUST.

Romans 9:17-19
v.17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ v.18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. v.19 You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"

The objection and Paul’s answer to v.18 in v.19 show that Paul did not deal with God’s sovereignty the way most people deal with it today. Paul raises the objection: "You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’" Now at this point most people today say, God finds fault because his hardening is a response to our prior self-hardening.

For example, one popular, and usually good commentary, says,

"Neither here nor anywhere else is God said to harden anyone who had not first hardened himself." That Pharaoh hardened his heart against God and refused to humble himself is made plain in the story. So God’s hardening of him was a judicial act, abandoning him to his own stubbornness.

Let me say this calmly and firmly: That is exactly the opposite of what Romans 9:18 teaches. And the reason that I say so is this: Paul could have so easily removed the objection of verse 19 that way, and he did not! The objector hears Paul say, "God hardens whomever he wills," and he responds, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" How easily Paul could have answered the objection with all the answers of modern man! And he didn’t. Because they are the wrong answer. They turn his teaching right on its head. He said, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" Indeed he said more – but in a direction exactly the opposite of what people today (or then) expect.

The hardening of God does not make fault impossible, it makes fault certain.

Now here is the mystery – which is why the opinions of man don’t count for much – people who are hardened against God are really guilty. They have real fault. They are really blameworthy. They really deserve to be judged. And God decided who would be in that condition. If you demand an explanation for HOW this can be – that God decides who is hardened and yet they have real guilt and real fault – there are pointers in the Bible. But they will not satisfy the natural, fallen human mind.

I simply assert what I see in the Word: God hardens whom he wills, and man is accountable. God’s hardening does not take away guilt, it renders it certain. God hardens unconditionally and those who are hardened are truly guilty and truly at fault in their hard and rebellious hearts. Their own consciences will justly condemn them. If they perish, they will perish for real sin and real guilt. How God freely hardens and yet preserves human accountability we are not explicitly told.

It is the same mystery as how the first sin entered the universe. How does a sinful disposition arise in a good heart? The Bible does not tell us. To call the mystery "free will" – ultimate human self-determination – is only to put another name on it. Why would a perfectly good, ultimately self-determining creature (if there were such being) ever do evil? Ultimate human self-determination no more explains the mystery of the origin of evil than unconditional election explains the guilt of the hardened sinner. All it does is give the mystery a different name.

The real question is: Which is the more Biblical name of the mystery, "Ultimate human self-determination," or "Unconditional election"? Romans 9:18 is plain in its context to all who will see: "God has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." The mystery remains, but the revelation is clear.

- taken from an excerpt by John Piper

As I said, your version of God isn't technically a murderer but He would be unjust and evil.

For killing people?!?

I did not say this, in fact quite the reverse. As I said, He did the children of Sodom a favor. It is Calvinism that confines God to a box of impassable immutability.


What have I said that conflicts with the Biblical record? What "TRUTH of Scripture is it that I am getting on the way of with my comments about the children of Sodom?

Your whole spill about how God did the children of Sodom a favor! That was totally made up and so unbiblical!!! Show me Scriptural proof that says God destroyed Sodom to do a favor for the children that lived there. That's not why He destroyed the city, and you know it. He didn't care if children lived there or not, Sodom was ordained to be destroyed along with all of it's inhabitants. The only being He was doing a favor for was Himself and His purposes.

No! There is no difference! In Calvinism there is no, "may of" or "perhaps"! And his friend will have precisely the number of chances to hear the Gospel as have been predestined, no more no less. Your own thinking testifies to the falsehood of your own theology. It is simply impossible to think in a way consistent with a Calvinist worldview.

I can say "perhaps" or "maybe" or "might of" because I'm not God. I'm only human. My knowledge of the future IS limited, unlike God. If the oppurtunity arises and presents itself to me, I'm going to take it. If it's meant to be by God, it will happen. If not, it won't happen, and God will lead the way to where I'm suppose to be.

Acts 16:6-10
Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them. So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.

We go through tests not to prove anything to God, or to make things certain to Him as if He didn't already know the outcome, but we go through trials and tribulations so that God can show us things and teach and prove to us what we need to know. I don't the know the outcome of what may become of my friend, but God does. However, it would be idiotic of me to conclude that I too know what God's purpose is for my friends life and do nothing as he paddles frantically to stay afloat in the water. It would be wise of me to take the oppurtunity to reach in and pull him out, since the opportunity presents itself.

Now, if I wasn't there, and my friend fell in, and no one was there to help him, then obviously God had ordained that that was the time for him to go. But since I was there, my reason for being there serves a purpose, and that purpose could very well be to save him. If for some reason I was unsuccessful at rescuing my friend, maybe God's purpose for me being there was to witness my friends death and learn from the experience of not being able to help. Who knows. There are so many possible variables and outcomes. But whatever happens always happens for a reason. God knows which outcome is best to bring about His ultimate purpose.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
When I reread a book, I already know how it will turn out. But I do enjoy the rereading, and I can be said to see what will happen when I reread it, though I know it already.

There is no indication of any sort in the text that this kind of thing is going on. And this would not explain the many times that the Bible says that God repented (changed His mind) about some particular thing that He was going to do.

God is certainly not unjust! But God has a good purpose for all that happens:

GE 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.

Joseph's brothers nearly did murder him, Jacob thought they had. Though his brothers did get some punishment for their sin:

GE 42:17 And he put them all in custody for three days.

But God's intent was good for all of them:

GE 50:21 So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.

God had a good purpose for everyone, the motive establishes guilt or innocence.

PHP 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

God doesn't have any other kind of purpose...

Blessings,
Lee

The problem you have here is that the motives themselves are predestined according to Calvinism. We are not even responsible for the very thoughts in our own minds! They were all predestined before one of us was even born.
You are right, motive does determine guilt, but even that is an arbitrary and unjust accusation when the motives themselves were caused by an agent outside the control of him who processes those motivations. No matter how you slice it. If God predestined everything then He is responsible for everything that happens and to punish anyone for those happenings is fundamentally unjust.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Swordman,

I understand now why you don't wish to debate these issues; you do not know what you are talking about. Just because you say something doesn't make it true, and when you say something you know to be false (as I believe you did in this post), that makes you a liar.

I just remember this verse every time someone persecutes me...

2 Corinthians 4:8-9
We are hard-pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed

I, nor any Open Theist that I am aware of has any problem whatsoever with the story of Job, or any other story in the Bible for that matter. What happened to Job is recorded in the pages of Scripture as a matter of historical fact. It happened precisely the way the Bible says it happened, for precisely the reasons given in the same pages of Scripture.

Great! That's awesome!

It is you who must say that things recorded in the Bible cannot be as recorded. For example, it is you who must say that when the Bible says that God brought all the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them" that, of course, this means that God already knew. It must mean the exact opposite of what it clearly says or else Calvinism falls apart on the testimony of a single verse of Scripture.

I, nor any Calvinist that I am aware of has any problem whatsoever with the story of Adam naming the animals, or any other story in the Bible for that matter. What happened with Adam is recorded in the pages of Scripture as a matter of historical fact. It happened precisely the way the Bible says it happened, for precisely the reasons given in the same pages of Scripture.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman
I, nor any Calvinist that I am aware of has any problem whatsoever with the story of Adam naming the animals, or any other story in the Bible for that matter. What happened with Adam is recorded in the pages of Scripture as a matter of historical fact. It happened precisely the way the Bible says it happened, for precisely the reasons given in the same pages of Scripture.

Then you admit that God wanted to see what Adam would name the animals. This directly implies that He did not already know because then He would have already seen and to say that He brought the animals before Adam "to see what he would name them" would be a meaningless thing to say.

Here's another passage that you must not think presents any problem for the Calvinist world view...

Jer. 19:5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

Do you admit that God says here that this wicked thing that these people were doing never came into His mind that they would do such a thing? Because, that is precisely what it says.
How can God predestine a thing without it ever having come into His mind?
Further if God is immutable as Calvinism teaches, then how is that any new thought could enter into the mind of God. If one did, that hadn't always been there, then that would be a change and God would not longer be immutable and would therefore no longer be God. How does Jer. 19:5 fit into the Calvinist view? Please explain how this verse that explicitly says that it never entered His mind means that it was always in His mind.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Then you admit that God wanted to see what Adam would name the animals. This directly implies that He did not already know because then He would have already seen and to say that He brought the animals before Adam "to see what he would name them" would be a meaningless thing to say.

Here's another passage that you must not think presents any problem for the Calvinist world view...

Jer. 19:5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

Do you admit that God says here that this wicked thing that these people were doing never came into His mind that they would do such a thing? Because, that is precisely what it says.
How can God predestine a thing without it ever having come into His mind?
Further if God is immutable as Calvinism teaches, then how is that any new thought could enter into the mind of God. If one did, that hadn't always been there, then that would be a change and God would not longer be immutable and would therefore no longer be God. How does Jer. 19:5 fit into the Calvinist view? Please explain how this verse that explicitly says that it never entered His mind means that it was always in His mind.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Tisk, tisk.....

The translation for nor did it come into My mind from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) uses the Greek word "kardia", meaning "heart". Therefore, nor did it come into My heart.

So you see, His people's sins never enter the intentions of God's heart. But, OVers just take it without further research and say God is ignorant of His people's behaviors.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Where is the verse that speaks of the creation of time?

There are numerous verses that speak of the eternal and immutable nature of God, of which I am certain that you are already aware.

But, what does being "eternal" imply? Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary lists timelessness as a synonym for eternity. When one stops to consider what time is, it is helpful to apprehend what it is not. We know that time is not a thing. So I do see your point that time itself was not directly created by God.
Nevertheless, time (as well as space) were consequences of Creation, and therefore exist as a direct result of God's will.

Being mortal ourselves, it is impossible for us to comprehend immortality. But our God given power of reason allows us to contemplate such mysteries. I do not believe that our concept of time is compatible with our concept of erternity. The Bible says that there was never a time that God did not exist. That means that time has no meaning apart from the creation of the universe.

I am sorry to have to say it Clete, but your theology reduces God to a being that is subject to something other than Himself...Time. This is the logical conclusion of believing that God cannot know with 100% accuracy of events that have not yet occurred. You fellas give credit to God that His powers of prognostication are far greater than man can imagine...but stop short of absolute when you say He does not know what has yet to occur. Logic tells us that, no matter how great the power of prognostication is, lacking absolute knowledge, the door is left open to error.

Until you can overcome this unalterable conclusion, there is no good reason for one to buy into your theory.

 

[Clete]

Zman,

Just a quick note to say that I haven't overlooked your post. It is the best argument thus far and I don't have time here at work to put together an appropriate response. After all, it is three against one here on this thread.
I will respond as soon as I have the time to spend (probably this evening).

Excellent post by the way. :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Zman,

Just a quick note to say that I haven't overlooked your post. It is the best argument thus far and I don't have time here at work to put together an appropriate response. After all, it is three against one here on this thread.
I will respond as soon as I have the time to spend (probably this evening).

Excellent post by the way. :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Roger doger. I was beginning to wonder...

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Lee: When I reread a book, I already know how it will turn out. But I do enjoy the rereading, and I can be said to see what will happen when I reread it, though I know it already.

Clete: There is no indication of any sort in the text that this kind of thing is going on. And this would not explain the many times that the Bible says that God repented (changed His mind) about some particular thing that He was going to do.

Certainly I am not saying here that God was reading a book! I only make this point to show how you may be said to see something that you know already.

We can talk about the "repented" verses, too, that's a separate issue, though. I agree, this analogy does not address those issues. Nor was it intended to!

Lee: God had a good purpose for everyone, the motive establishes guilt or innocence.

Clete: The problem you have here is that the motives themselves are predestined according to Calvinism. We are not even responsible for the very thoughts in our own minds! They were all predestined before one of us was even born.

I was talking about God's purpose, though, not the brothers' purpose.

You are right, motive does determine guilt, but even that is an arbitrary and unjust accusation when the motives themselves were caused by an agent outside the control of him who processes those motivations. No matter how you slice it. If God predestined everything then He is responsible for everything that happens and to punish anyone for those happenings is fundamentally unjust.

No it's not, though! Not if God has a good purpose for what he predestines. Since we agree that the motive determines guilt, then he is not guilty, or unjust. That is my point.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[John Reformed]

Blaise Pascal. He wrote,

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed

Blaise Pascal. He wrote,

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

Interesting, although I think it is a bit optimistic. I believe it more accurate to say that men avoid pain. They may think they are perusing happiness but in actual fact they are running from what they perceive as painful. They think that if they can remove all pain then they will be happy. This is an incorrect assumption and thus the pursuit is doomed to failure. Happiness cannot be pursued successfully. One must pursue righteousness, no matter the cost. Happiness will be a side effect.
I see no meaning in such a pursuit from a Calvinistic point of view. Not only is the pursuit predestined but so is the outcome.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
Certainly I am not saying here that God was reading a book! I only make this point to show how you may be said to see something that you know already.

We can talk about the "repented" verses, too, that's a separate issue, though. I agree, this analogy does not address those issues. Nor was it intended to!

You missed my point then. They are the same issue. God would have no reason to change His mind if He knew precisely what men would do. There would be no need for conditional prophecies or conditional promises or conditional anything. The entire 18th chapter of Jeremiah and 9th chapter of Romans need not to have been written because if God's knowledge of the future is exhaustive then there is no contingency and thus no free will. If God already knows precisely what will happen then there are literally hundreds of verses of Scripture that make no sense at all. Indeed the Bible itself would make no sense.

No it's not, though! Not if God has a good purpose for what he predestines. Since we agree that the motive determines guilt, then he is not guilty, or unjust. That is my point.

Remember Sole Scriptura?
Where in Scripture is this mystery reason God has for tricking us all into thinking that we have a free will?
What reason is given in Scripture for God having predestined murder, child molestation, homosexuality, and the like?
Where in Scripture is it said that such a reason even exists?

Why do you feel compelled to go to such lengths to preserve a doctrine that is clearly in conflict with the plain meaning of the text of Scripture?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Tisk, tisk.....

The translation for nor did it come into My mind from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) uses the Greek word "kardia", meaning "heart". Therefore, nor did it come into My heart.

So you see, His people's sins never enter the intentions of God's heart. But, OVers just take it without further research and say God is ignorant of His people's behaviors.

Out of nine English versions that I have checked only one translates the word as "heart" in this verse. I would assume that the context constrains them to use the word "mind" for clarities sake. However, the Hebrew word is translated in many other places in the Bible as "heart" and so I do not object to the use of it here.
The simple fact is that it doesn't change the meaning of the verse at all. Your heart in this context is not the pump in your chest but it is in fact your mind. And even if you want to strain at gnats on this issue and insist that it is in some way significantly different some how, it still doesn't change my argument. How could God predestine something that "never came up on His heart" as Young's translation puts it?
Now matter how many word games you play, there is simply no way to keep both the clear meaning of the passage and a Calvinistic world view intact. This verse must mean anything except what it says or else Calvinism cannot be true.
As for me, I'll stick with the text, thank you very much.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete and Swordsman,

The entire 18th chapter of Jeremiah and 9th chapter of Romans need not to have been written because if God's knowledge of the future is exhaustive then there is no contingency and thus no free will.

The 18th chapter of Jeremiah outlines God's plan, from our perspective, since we don't know the future. It shows God's ways, but does not prove, I think, that God does not know the future.

JER 7:27 "When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer."

God knew what would happen here, and told Jeremiah what to expect, thus he did know the future.

How about Romans 9?

RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

That's not free will!

RO 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Nor is that!

RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

And here is Paul's answer:

RO 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Free will is not possible to maintain, from this passage, I think...

Where in Scripture is this mystery reason God has for tricking us all into thinking that we have a free will?
What reason is given in Scripture for God having predestined murder, child molestation, homosexuality, and the like?
Where in Scripture is it said that such a reason even exists?

All has a good purpose, that is my point.

AC 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

And this was speaking of the cross, the worst sinful deed that has ever been done, which every one will agree, I think, had a very good purpose.

LK 22:17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks...

How could God predestine something that "never came up on His heart" as Young's translation puts it?

Here is a verse about this:

EZE 20:25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by.

And here is the reason he did so:

EZE 20:26 "and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first-born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord."

God had a purpose, even in this, it was predestined, "that they might know that I am the Lord", though it was not in his heart, as Swordsman says.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed

There are numerous verses that speak of the eternal and immutable nature of God, of which I am certain that you are already aware.

Eternal yes, course. Immutable, NO definately not!
God's character and personality do not change but that is not the same as being immutable. There are nothing in the Bible that says otherwise.

But, what does being "eternal" imply? Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary lists timelessness as a synonym for eternity.

Quite the reverse. Eternity is an unlimited amount of time. It is not that there is no time at all, that would be the opposite of eternity. Eternity is where time is limitless or never ending.

When one stops to consider what time is, it is helpful to apprehend what it is not. We know that time is not a thing. So I do see your point that time itself was not directly created by God.
Nevertheless, time (as well as space) were consequences of Creation, and therefore exist as a direct result of God's will.

Physical space is part of the creation or a consequence of it as you put it but time is the consequence of a thinking mind. As long as God has been able to think and experience duration and sequence then there has been time.

Being mortal ourselves, it is impossible for us to comprehend immortality. But our God given power of reason allows us to contemplate such mysteries. I do not believe that our concept of time is compatible with our concept of eternity.

Your understanding of both time and eternity are tinted by your theology. Your foundation is faulty and therefore so are your conclusions. The "incompatibility" as you call it should serve as evidence that this is so.

The Bible says that there was never a time that God did not exist. That means that time has no meaning apart from the creation of the universe.

No it doesn't. How is this conclusion logically necessitated by this premise? Show me the syllogism please.

I am sorry to have to say it Clete, but your theology reduces God to a being that is subject to something other than Himself...Time.

No, as I said earlier, time only exists as long as there is a thinking mind to experience duration and sequence. Apart from such a mind, time does not exist at all. Time is nothing more than an idea.

This is the logical conclusion of believing that God cannot know with 100% accuracy of events that have not yet occurred.

Sorry, saying it doesn't make it so. Your understanding of time is determined by your theology. If you take your theology out of it and simply think about what time actually is then no such problem arises. Actually, I don't think that this particular problem arrises logically in either case but even if it did, I have no problem with God being constrained by the limits of reality.

You fellas give credit to God that His powers of prognostication are far greater than man can imagine...but stop short of absolute when you say He does not know what has yet to occur. Logic tells us that, no matter how great the power of prognostication is, lacking absolute knowledge, the door is left open to error.

Quite true. Again, I have no trouble with God being within the confines of reality. God cannot do the undoable and He cannot know the unknowable.

Until you can overcome this unalterable conclusion, there is no good reason for one to buy into your theory.

Would you rather ignore reality? Is that what you are saying?
Does acknowledging that God cannot make a sphere with sharp corners or two sided triangles in someway diminish God? Or is it a simple statement of reality?

I have a parable for you. Perhaps it will be familiar....

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.

3 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
6 I will lay it waste;
It shall not be pruned or dug,
But there shall come up briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it."

7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Interesting, although I think it is a bit optimistic. I believe it more accurate to say that men avoid pain. They may think they are perusing happiness but in actual fact they are running from what they perceive as painful. They think that if they can remove all pain then they will be happy. This is an incorrect assumption and thus the pursuit is doomed to failure. Happiness cannot be pursued successfully. One must pursue righteousness, no matter the cost. Happiness will be a side effect.
I see no meaning in such a pursuit from a Calvinistic point of view. Not only is the pursuit predestined but so is the outcome.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Good morning Clete,

I don't see where Pascal is being optomistic. His intent is to put forth his idea that the pursuit of happiness is the ultimate motivator of mankind. To me, this appears self-evident.

Take an athlete for example. "Pain is gain" is their credo. They endure great physical discomfort if they percieve it to be a necessary means to achieving their goal. Politicians; businessmen, scientists; artists etc. all motivated people are willing to do what it takes to win the prize. Why? Because they value a trophy, money, power and influence, acclaim? I don't think so. What good, in themselves, do these things bring? No...they strive to attain the desires of their hearts because they believe, having succeeded, they will be made happy.

Think of our pursuit of the imperishable prize.

1Cr 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

Are we motivated by the fear of Hell or by our love for Christ? It is the love of Christ that restrains us from sin.

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.