Proof of Calvinism

If you agree that it means "determine beforehand" then God "determined beforehand" some people to be conformed to the image of his son (which is what happens to people who are saved). You clarifying the definition does not change what it is saying.

I agree predestined means determined beforehand. And He did determine beforehand that some people, those corporately elected and not specific individuals, would be conformed to the image of His Son, which happens to people when they are individually chosen and saved. In our verse, Romans 8:29, what was predetermined was that those individuals who would be saved would also be conformed to the image of Christ. The individuals were not predetermined, only what would happen to them was predetermined.

 

I said nothing more than that being called "INCLUDES being drawn by the Holy spirit." Do you disagree with this?

Yes, my post agrees that being called includes being drawn, with being called meaning hearing the gospel and understanding the gospel, and being drawn meaning being attracted by God's lovingkindness. I specifically addressed Calvinism's rewrite of the meaning of drawn to mean irresistible grace which I disagreed with!

 

So lets back up and ask the question, justified by whose faith? Does our faith justify us? If we took a poll, would not a large group, perhaps even a majority, say our faith justifies us? But that would be a works based salvation would it not. Ah but you say faith is not a work.

Maybe we should back up again and consider “justified by whom?” Were we justified by what we did or by what Christ did on the cross? The free gift of justification to life was provided by Christ on the cross, Romans 5:18. So it was Christ’s faithfulness, even unto death on the cross, which provided the propitiation for the whole world. So then the question becomes, how did we “receive” that gift or have that gift applied to us individually?

So it would seem, then that our faith in Christ provides access to Christ’s free gift of justification by the grace of God. But does that too miss the mark? I think so. Would not our faith in effect “save us” then and make us the actual architect of our salvation?

So if our placing our faith in Christ does not automatically save us, then God must credit our faith as righteousness and spiritually place us “in Christ” which saves us because in Christ we receive the justification to life provided by Christ. Wow now that is a systematic theology that fits with all scripture.

 

Our difference is in the tense of the word glorified. It is past tense, therefore it does not refer to our future resurrection in a glorified body, but to our past glorification of being spiritually placed into the kingdom of His Son.

 

I extracted this from post #20, your response to 12strings, because it sorta jumped out at me.

Your comment is an attack on God's omniscience and immutability.

So say that something is unknowable is to say there is something that God doesn't know or can't know. Now, there may be something that is unknowable for you and me, but we're not God. But God either knows all or he doesn't.

Then, if God does not know something, then knows it, then that's a change in God. And God clearly says he doesn't change.

I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion that even for God, some things are unknowable.

 

FROM VAN:

Tom, Van is describing the "open" view of God's knowledge, known as "open Theism." That is, though God is very wise, He does NOT KNOW the future actions of his free creatures. This view does indeed deny the omniscience of God.

TO VaN: What is interesting to me is that given your definition of foreknowledge only being possible when God determines to bring about an action...If you ever gave up you view of God not knowing ALL THINGS; you would, in effect be a calvinist...Because then if God knew someone would beleive in him, he would have had to bring that belief about. :thumbs:

 

Yes Tom....the whole post is tragic.

An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, although it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate.

An entity could be viewed as a set containing subsets. In philosophy, such sets are said to be abstract objects.

Sometimes, the word entity is used in a general sense of a being, whether or not the referent has material existence; e.g., is often referred to as an entity with no corporeal form, such as a language. It is also often used to refer to ghosts and other spirits.

 

Hi Tom, if you believe something that is not true about God, for me to question your belief is not an attack on God. If all you bring to the table is ad hominem arguments, where I must defend myself from your misrepresentations, I see no reason to respond. You apparently believe God knows things about His creation before He creates them! Think about this. You redefine the meaning of creation to be re-creation where God only does what is foreseen. Yet God did not create the foreseen plan. Your view is a direct attack on God, you say He cannot create out of nothing, something that did not exist before He created it. I say God decides, declares, and creates out of nothing. And the Bible, Sir, is on my side. No scripture supports your fictional view of God.

Answer this, if God knows the future exhaustively, He would not plan anything, because everything is a done deal. Scripture however says God plans and carries out His plans. He intervenes, and causes what would have happened, to not happen, i.e. hardening the hearts or speaking in parables. Your view is an attack on God, not mine. Mine is based on honoring the God of the Bible, not the invention of men.

 

Hi 12 Strings, please do not post untruths about me.

Here is what you said:

Tom, Van is describing the "open" view of God's knowledge, known as "open Theism." That is, though God is very wise, He does NOT KNOW the future actions of his free creatures. This view does indeed deny the omniscience of God.

Here is what I said:

My position is God knows what will happen in the future, provided He has decided what will happen. Thus when God makes a prophecy, He knows that part of the future, because He has declared it, and He declares the end from the beginning. Jesus told folks that if the people of another town had seen His miracles, they would have repented. So God knows the hearts of people and knows how they would react to circumstances, should He cause those circumstances to arise. Jesus told Peter how Peter would die for the Lord. Now scripture does not describe that fulfillment, but it happened just as Jesus said, Peter stretched out his hands and went where he did not want to go. John 21.


You said my view was God did not know the future actions of His free creatures, but I said Jesus told Peter how he would die. Please retract your completely false and misleading post.

 

Why would I be a Calvinist when Calvinism is completely false. All that has been offered, yet again, is a false charge, I am presenting Open Theism, and not one Calvinist who has read my complete shredding of Open Theism has the integrety to post that Van is most definitely not advocating Open Theism. How many times to I have to post it before even one Calvinist will present the truth? Answer, infinity.

 

Open Theism correctly presents some biblical truths, while also presenting many mistaken views of scripture. Lets take a look at some of the mistaken assertions.

Does the Bible teach that God’s knowledge of the future is imperfect, that God confronts the unexpected? Open Theism advocates cite Isaiah 5:1-5 and assert God expected good grapes and was surprised when He got wild grapes. But is this what the text actually teaches? Nope.
The Hebrew word translated in some English versions of the text as “expected” actually means to await an outcome, or to look for an outcome while waiting, or to endure a circumstance for a purpose. Similarly, the Hebrew word translated bad grapes or wild grapes, actually means sour and unripe, suggesting God desired Israel to grow closer to God in its protected vineyard, but since it did not, the hedge was removed, and the environment changed.
So lets look at the passage using the NIV translation, which actually does justice to the text:
The Song of the Vineyard
1 I will sing for the one I love
a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside.
2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones
and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
but it yielded only bad fruit.
3 "Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
4 What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?
5 Now I will tell you
what I am going to do to my vineyard:
I will take away its hedge,
and it will be destroyed;
I will break down its wall,
and it will be trampled.
And now with a sound understanding of Isaiah’s words, lets turn to the Open Theism assertion concerning the text: Because the vineyard unexpectedly failed to yield grapes, the Lord sadly concludes, “I will remove its hedge and it shall be devoured (v5).”
But the actual message is that God desired for Israel to become more godly, and when they chose to remain worldly, God took action to foster His desired outcome. God may or may not have experienced the feeling of sadness when He took the action, but since the text does not say, we are left with His enduring efforts to draw us closer to Him. So while the text can be used to support the premise God has chosen to allow autonomous behavior rather than deterministically determining every thought and every outcome, it in no way supports the idea that God did not know the hearts of the people of Israel, or that He did not know that they needed to learn that their good fortune was a gift from God.
The second mistaken view of Open Theism is that God is surprised by the worldly behavior of Israel. To support this contention, Open Theism cites Jeremiah 19:5, but does it say God did not know what the people would do? Nope. Again the word translated “mind” in many English versions of the text actually means “heart” the seat of appetites and inclinations. In other words, Jeremiah was saying God did not desire this behavior.
Lets look at the verse using the HCSB translation: “5 They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, something I have never commanded or mentioned; I never entertained the thought.” With this correct understanding of Jeremiah’s message, we find no support whatsoever for the assertion that God was surprised by their wicked actions. The same thought is expressed in Jeremiah 7:31 (“did not come into My mind”) meaning I did not entertain the thought, or desire the behavior. Ditto for Jeremiah 32:35, all three actually indicate the behavior did not come up upon God’s heart, He did not entertain it nor desire it.
A third contention of Open Theism is that God thinks one thing is going to happen, but something else happens, indicating God knowledge of the future is wrong. To support this mistaken view, Open Theism cites Jeremiah 3:6-7, but does it say God held a mistaken view of the future? Nope. The verse does say that God said or thought that Israel would repent, but was the thought a desire or a statement of foreseen behavior? Desire. Why desire and not foreseen behavior? Because God says in verse 6 that He knows Israel is “faithless” so desire fits but foreseen faithfulness does not fit with faithlessness.
Open Theism also cites Jeremiah 3:19-20. Contextually the passage has the return of Christ in view. It is a prophecy of the millennial kingdom, verse 19, contrasted with Israel’s behavior under the Old Covenant, verse 20. And what does Open Theism make of this fairly straightforward passage? It asserts that since Christ has not inaugurated His millennial kingdom yet, God was mistaken in His prophecy. Sorry but that is a mistaken view of the text.
Does that fact that what God desires does not immediately or universally come to pass indicate God is not all-powerful? Nope. Rather it indicates God desires according to His purpose, and therefore His purpose is for mankind to bring Him glory autonomously, and not under deterministic control.

 

There is no support for Calvinism's TULI in scripture, None, nada, zip. We have seen arguments based on fictional meanings of words, where drawn is redefined as irresistible grace, predestined as chosen individually, and so forth. Foreknowledge refers to knowledge obtained or forumalated in the past being used in the present and does not refer to foreseeing the future. God fulfills His plans for the future, He brings them about. This view is actually what the Bible says.

 

This is heretical....God does not need to obtain anything.

 

Actually, "Glorified" is not, as you say, past tense. It is Aorist Tense. There is a difference.

In addition, you are taking the verb "glorified" away from its other accompanying verbs--Chose, predestined, called, justified. Every commentator I know of (and they are legion) suggests in some way, that this is the God's-Eye point of view. Given what v. 28 says, there is likely no need for discussion.

The Archangel

 

This is a scary statement you make when you leave hanging the phrase "Open Theism correctly presents some biblical truths."

Which "truths" would those be?

The Archangel

 

I didn't think anything ever occured to God either.

 

While theoretically I could agree with this statement may I press you a bit on this point?

The bible speaks of God making choices, but if God has always known his choices how would he go about making one? Likewise, how does God have an original thought ever?

Could we all agree there are just somethings we can't quite comprehend and stop making dogmatic conclusions based upon infinite matters we will never grasp this side of heaven?

 

YES! God knew about me before he created me. To say otherwise is an attack on God and heretical.

 

Amen!

Psalm 139:16 16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

Jeremiah 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

 

ok, you already did it! you are much faster than I am.

Good verse!