Cals, What does God really intend?

[A Faithful Sidekick]

T

The closed theism of Calvinism is shown to be unbiblical by all the "if/then" covenants of God, such as the Covenant of Love. God allows us to make choices that affect the outcome of our lives.

To the contrary, the Reformers counted contingent second causes as part of God's eternal decree.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, whether necessarily, freely, or contingently (WCF 5.2, emphasis mine)

Whether necessarily (laws of nature), freely (the choice of second causes), or contingently (if / then), all things come to pass immutably and infallibly according to the Reformers ("Calvinists," if you must).

Of course we make choices and are in no way forced to do so. No one forced the Jews to have Jesus arrested and crucified. They did so freely. Yet it was all part of the Plan that was ordained "before the foundation of the world." Every act of every creature is not only foreknown, but foreordained according to Calvinism.

Oh, and my apologies for quoting the Westminster Confession rather than the London Baptist Confession - I'm still "in transition," a questioning Presbyterian giving Baptist theology a hard look. :flower:

-Robin

 

[12strings]

Fair enough.
Do you think that it cannot be the case that God is capable of creating a world in which events with ontological possibilities exist? If you think He is capable, then for this argument's sake let's assume that He determined to create such a world (not our world, per se, this is just a thought experiment). Let's also assume:

I think that's possible, that He created a world in which I have a choice to make about whether to help my wife with the dishes or berate her for not doing them...he knows all the options I have before me, and what actions he might take as a result of each of my choices...BUT I would say he also knows which choice I will make.

(1) that none of the possibilities He allows to exist put in jeopardy God's desired final outcome.

So... If Lucifer & Eve do not rebel, God's plan in that scenario still leads to his desired end? What about the opposite? ALL the angels rebel, all the people rebel, and no person EVER turns to God of their own choice? This possibility also does not jeapardize God's eternal plan?

(2) God knows all that is to be known about this project, therefore He knows reality as it is and is never of a false belief on the matter.
(3) In this world, He would know all of the events' possibilities and it would never be the case that there were any possibilities for which He was unaware of their existence. And,

If God knows all, how is it that you are not saying he knows what our future free choices will be?

(4) in this world, God, prior to creation, is already prepared for all ways that an event may obtain.

I would agree with this.

(5) God has determined to be faithful to the project to the end.

...and this

Imagining, again for sake of argument, the above world, of what difficiency can God be accused?

The difficiency of not knowing all things, which I believe the bible teaches he does.

The best question that we all should be asking is not what kind of God is He but what kind of world has He created. This is mainly what we all disagree about.

-I agree. Everybody will admit God COULD create beings that he controls completely that have no freedom of choice whatsoever...the question is what DID he create? On the flip side, Some Calvinists might argue that God WOULD NOT, maybe even COULD not create creatures with totally free wills because that would be considered something against his character (soveriegn), akin to becoming less sovereign, and would therefore be as unheard of as God breaking a promise (another thing that would go against his character).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So... If Lucifer & Eve do not rebel, God's plan in that scenario still leads to his desired end? What about the opposite? ALL the angels rebel, all the people rebel, and no person EVER turns to God of their own choice? This possibility also does not jeapardize God's eternal plan?

That may be a scenario which is, not, in fact, possible or in some parlance feasible for God to create and still remain true to his desired purpose. No such potential World may exist.

 

[Van]

1. You are responding as if I said God determined their response. I did not say that, merely that he KNEW what the nations' response would be. I realize you feel that these are inseparable, but most non-calvinists do not.

2. ALL interpretations of scripture require using logic and context to determine what the scripture teaches when 2 passages seem, at first glance to contradict each other. Accusing calvinists of somehow doing something different than others does not help. You yourself have said that "He knows everything" in 1 John 3:20 does not mean "everything." All Bible interpreters do this.

3. Believe it or not, Calvinists are not on a mission to nullify Scripture. Some actually believe it is what scripture teaches.

I did not accuse Calvinists of doing something, misinterpreting scripture, that is different from what others do which is also misinterpret scripture.

What I said is "everything" in context is the intended meaning of everything. If I say I took everything out of the room, it does not mean I took the light or air or volume out of the room, but simply the furnishing, i.e. chairs, pictures, bed, etc.

Our difference is that I believe I use the same rules everywhere. I do not apply an "out of context" meaning to alter the message. But I believe Calvinism does not apply consistent rules, it picks and chooses to misrepresent the contextual message.

For example in John 12:32, "all" does not mean every imaginable person that every lived. No, the idea is those who behold, i.e. understand that Christ died for them, will be drawn. Faith comes from hearing, so "all" is qualified by the context. This is the Calvinist understanding.

However in another verse "everything" means everything imaginable, rather that accepting the contextual limits. In 1 John 3:20 God knows all things, i.e. what is hidden in our heart that condemns us. This would apply the same rule of interpretation that Calvinism use in John 12:32.

However if you rip the snippet out of context, you can claim scripture says God knows everything imaginable. Perhaps He does, but you cannot support that premise contextually from 1 John 3:20.

 

[Van]

To the contrary, the Reformers counted contingent second causes as part of God's eternal decree.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Whether necessarily (laws of nature), freely (the choice of second causes), or contingently (if / then), all things come to pass immutably and infallibly according to the Reformers ("Calvinists," if you must).

Of course we make choices and are in no way forced to do so. No one forced the Jews to have Jesus arrested and crucified. They did so freely. Yet it was all part of the Plan that was ordained "before the foundation of the world." Every act of every creature is not only foreknown, but foreordained according to Calvinism.

Oh, and my apologies for quoting the Westminster Confession rather than the London Baptist Confession - I'm still "in transition," a questioning Presbyterian giving Baptist theology a hard look. :flower:

-Robin

What your WCF quote says is that God's foreknowledge determines what happens, even though it appears to be caused by necessity, or the free choice of people, or a contingent action. Thus it says the opposite of what you seem to claim it says.

I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold,[1] direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things,[2] from the greatest even to the least,[3] by His most wise and holy providence,[4] according to His infallible foreknowledge,[5] and the free and immutable counsel of His own will,[6] to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.[7]WCF 5.1

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;[8] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.[9] WCF 5.2

Bottom line, Calvinism says God directs and foreordains the actions we seem to choose, thus nullifying the meaning of choice and of if/then covenants because God has ordained what we will "freely" choose.

 

[humblethinker]

I think that's possible, that He created a world in which I have a choice to make about whether to help my wife with the dishes or berate her for not doing them...he knows all the options I have before me, and what actions he might take as a result of each of my choices...BUT I would say he also knows which choice I will make.

I see what you are saying, and you are identifying the point that was so difficult for me to grab hold of without it slipping through my fingers. If we say something is possible then it may or may not obtain, and that is the true state of the possibility. When it becomes the case that it will obtain, then that is the event's true state and at such point it is no longer a possibility. If God knows event E as a possibility then that is it's true state. If God were to know event E as a certainty then that is it's true state, but never would we say that a possibility is a certainty. Once a possibility becomes a certainty then it no longer is a possibility. So, if God makes something a possibility He therefore knows it as a possibility, and that to his credit. If He made something a possibility but then knew it as a certainty He would be deceiving Himself and this He can not do. So, if something is a possibility from His perspective then so it it. On the other had, if He made something to be a certainty, then it cannot be the case that it is a possibility. If all things are known as certainties to God, then there can not be any ontological possibilities. It must necessarily be the case then that God creates no possibilities and anything that we may consider as a possibility is simply an illusion, an amazingly convincing illusion.

If God creates something as a possibility then that is what it is. He knows it as such and for that He should not be shamed by finite man who's need for certainty must be projected on God.

So... If Lucifer & Eve do not rebel, God's plan in that scenario still leads to his desired end? What about the opposite? ALL the angels rebel, all the people rebel, and no person EVER turns to God of their own choice? This possibility also does not jeapardize God's eternal plan?

I too came up with all kinds of scenarios in which God's predeterminations would be overthrown. It took a while for all of this to seem at least internally coherent. Notice what I said though,

(1) that none of the possibilities He allows to exist put in jeopardy God's desired final outcome.​

If the possibility of thwarting God's predetermination was to theoretically exist then it would not be allowed. This agrees with the sentiment of HoS's comment above. That should satisfy the question. Let me know if not and we can discuss more.

In response to the following:

(2) God knows all that is to be known about this project, therefore He knows reality as it is and is never of a false belief on the matter.

(3) In this world, He would know all of the events' possibilities and it would never be the case that there were any possibilities for which He was unaware of their existence. And,​

you said:

If God knows all, how is it that you are not saying he knows what our future free choices will be?

If God knows all, and it is His plan that possibilities exist, then it is the case he is more than familiar with all of the possibilities. We, of course, cannot choose to do anything that is not a possibility. So, to say that, to his shame, He doesn't know what we will do is to assume a different premise than this thought experiment's premise: why should He know something to 'be' when it 'is not'? Now, that would be to his shame. (law of noncontradiction) In this thought experiment, since what I may choose to do is known to God as a possibility then my choice does not yet exist in order to be known. When my choice does come into existence then yes, He knows. What kind of world did He make? Did He make a world that contains possibilities? If He knows the certainty of it's obtaining then how can it be described as a possibility?

Continuing... I said:

Imagining, again for sake of argument, the above world, of what difficiency can God be accused?​

The difficiency of not knowing all things, which I believe the bible teaches he does.

Yes, I agree, He knows all things and the Bible teaches such. "Omniscience" makes for a nice descriptor that we can all say we agree with. But what do you/we mean when we say that? Surely we don't mean to say that God does not know something to be what it is not. Does He know the DNA of unicorns? Does he know the marital status of a married bachelor? We know the answer to these questions. For the same reason, in this thought experiment, God cannot be accused of a difficiency and it is such that in this world He knows all.

-I agree. Everybody will admit God COULD create beings that he controls completely that have no freedom of choice whatsoever...the question is what DID he create? On the flip side, Some Calvinists might argue that God WOULD NOT, maybe even COULD not create creatures with totally free wills because that would be considered something against his character (soveriegn), akin to becoming less sovereign, and would therefore be as unheard of as God breaking a promise (another thing that would go against his character).

I agree and think that a little closer analysis of the greek ideas of "omni" and "the good" and "perfection" will show that they are illogical and not praiseworthy. Plato and neoplatonism did much harm to theology.

 

[Cypress]

Brilliant!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think it was a matter of need as much as it was a matter of wanting to share His love. In John 17 we see that before creation the Father shared glory and love with the Son and we see that Jesus wants believers to behold this glory and that this love would be in them. It seems to me that God wanted to share life and love with other sentient beings who would freely love Him. Beyond this I believe He provided a world in which these sentient beings, could never atain a level of belief amounting to verifiable certainty, unlike the angels. A world in which by faith they freely choose to love Him and grow toward a settledness of such character (maturity) that they continuously choose God. This is praiseworthy, imo.

I don't believe that He is growing up or maturing along with humans or learn how to become more and more God.

I do believe that He can appreciate His own creativity. Do you think God knows that he is creative? Do Cals think that God can have a new thought or that He is creative? If he is creative then wouldn't the self awareness during his creative action constitute a new thought? If not then how can a cal say that He is creative?

is your question: How can God be creative and all knowing in absolute sense?

Answer BECAUSE He is God!

 

[A Faithful Sidekick]

Okay then, here's a question I sincerely want non-Calvinists to answer:

If Almighty God foreknows that something terrible and evil is about to happen, is there any chance that it won't?

If the answer is yes, then He has no true foreknowledge. He foresaw only a possibility, but didn't know the outcome in advance. A yes answer denies His foreknowledge.

If the answer is no, then it must be that God chose not to intervene in order to prevent the evil calamity.

This is one of the reasons I lean towards Calvinism. It exalts God as all-knowing and all-sovereign, having chosen all that comes to pass, not just according to His foreknowledge, but according to His eternal purpose. The universe is unfolding exactly the way its Creator intended. Otherwise He is not Lord, He is not Almighty, nor is He all-knowing.

I find that what semi-Pelagians and Arminians object to is not so much the doctrine of "particular (limited) atonement" as it is the doctrine of "total depravity." It is the idea that sinners are helpless and incapable of faith. But isn't faith the "that" thing being referred to in Ephesians 2: 8?

By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves...

 

[Iconoclast]

Okay then, here's a question I sincerely want non-Calvinists to answer:

If Almighty God foreknows that something terrible and evil is about to happen, is there any chance that it won't?

If the answer is yes, then He has no true foreknowledge. He foresaw only a possibility, but didn't know the outcome in advance. A yes answer denies His foreknowledge.

If the answer is no, then it must be that God chose not to intervene in order to prevent the evil calamity.

This is one of the reasons I lean towards Calvinism. It exalts God as all-knowing and all-sovereign, having chosen all that comes to pass, not just according to His foreknowledge, but according to His eternal purpose. The universe is unfolding exactly the way its Creator intended. Otherwise He is not Lord, He is not Almighty, nor is He all-knowing.

I find that what semi-Pelagians and Arminians object to is not so much the doctrine of "particular (limited) atonement" as it is the doctrine of "total depravity." It is the idea that sinners are helpless and incapable of faith. But isn't faith the "that" thing being referred to in Ephesians 2: 8?

By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves...

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[humblethinker]

Okay then, here's a question I sincerely want non-Calvinists to answer:

If Almighty God foreknows that something terrible and evil is about to happen, is there any chance that it won't?

If the answer is yes, then He has no true foreknowledge. He foresaw only a possibility, but didn't know the outcome in advance. A yes answer denies His foreknowledge.

"He foresaw only a possibility, but didn't know the outcome in advance." This is akin to blaming Him for not knowing the DNA of a unicorn. If He knows the DNA of a unicorn then it MUST be the case that it exists. This would mean that God knows that a nonexistent thing exists. An ontological possibility is an event whose certain outcome does not exist. There is no fault to be found for not knowing what does not exist, rather such a state of mind is to be credited.

Do you think God can create a possibility? If yes then do you think God can appreciate it for what it is? I don't see how you could answer 'yes' to either question. But, if you do, I would really like to hear your reasoning.

 

[Yeshua1]

"He foresaw only a possibility, but didn't know the outcome in advance." This is akin to blaming Him for not knowing the DNA of a unicorn. If He knows the DNA of a unicorn then it MUST be the case that it exists. This would mean that God knows that a nonexistent thing exists. An ontological possibility is an event whose certain outcome does not exist. There is no fault to be found for not knowing what does not exist, rather such a state of mind is to be credited.

Do you think God can create a possibility? If yes then do you think God can appreciate it for what it is? I don't see how you could answer 'yes' to either question. But, if you do, I would really like to hear your reasoning.

WHY does he need to creat even though a possibility? Does he require to have that in order to be fully God?

Wsa the Cross of Christ a future event "fixed" into real time to come by Sovereign God, or could jesus have been killed off early, died at birth, refused the Cross etc?

 

[humblethinker]

WHY does he need to creat even though a possibility? Does he require to have that in order to be fully God?

I don't quite understand why you frame the question as though "he need"s to do anything. I don't understand your second question either. If God is God I don't think it can be the case that he needs to do anything to still be God. Maybe you could rephrase the questions?

I'll take a stab at an answer though... Let's try and imagine that God DID create a world where many possibilities existed and many certainties existed (ie. the world I referred to above in our thought experiment). In what ways would we expect that world to appear to be different than this world? If one is of the belief that everything in our world was predetermined wouldn't one have to admit that God has at least created our world such that it appears to us there are possibilities and that God seems to encourage us to think that possibilities exist ontologically? If all is predetermined or pre-ordained then is not our perception of possibility just an illusion?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't quite understand why you frame the question as though "he need"s to do anything. I don't understand your second question either. If God is God I don't think it can be the case that he needs to do anything to still be God. Maybe you could rephrase the questions?

I'll take a stab at an answer though... Let's try and imagine that God DID create a world where many possibilities existed and many certainties existed (ie. the world I referred to above in our thought experiment). In what ways would we expect that world to appear to be different than this world? If one is of the belief that everything in our world was predetermined wouldn't one have to admit that God has at least created our world such that it appears to us there are possibilities and that God seems to encourage us to think that possibilities exist ontologically? If all is predetermined or pre-ordained then is not our perception of possibility just an illusion?

Doesn't the fact of God being perfect in all that He does mean that this was ONLY way could have created it anyways? As he would have made it per His Will, according to what is the best way?

 

[humblethinker]

Doesn't the fact of God being perfect in all that He does mean that this was ONLY way could have created it anyways? As he would have made it per His Will, according to what is the best way?

I don't believe that a perfect person is the same as a perfect form. This is platonic/neoplatonic idea. We would consider a perfect person as one that is responsive to other people, in a genuine fashion. If the idea of 'perfect form' is applied to every aspect of God then He would be a supernatural form of an idol which never changes in any respect and any change perceived from an outsider would simply be the world changing in respect to it. This is not Biblical. So, I don't think we can say that God had to create only one exact world, which is the world we are in. For similar reasons I reject the idea of 'best' as being relevant.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Okay then, here's a question I sincerely want non-Calvinists to answer:

If Almighty God foreknows that something terrible and evil is about to happen, is there any chance that it won't?

No....and nobody would answer "yes" to that statement...It is tautologous as framed.

If the answer is yes, then He has no true foreknowledge. He foresaw only a possibility, but didn't know the outcome in advance. A yes answer denies His foreknowledge.

By that definition of foreknowledge

is about to happen

yes... You have to wrap your head around the O.T. such as expressed by HT (it can take a while) O.T.'s do not define the future as being that way....H.T. would maintain that SOME things...are left to remain only AS possiblilities. I don't really agree with it. But it is a consistent view.

If the answer is no, then it must be that God chose not to intervene in order to prevent the evil calamity.

That or he actively caused it yes

This is one of the reasons I lean towards Calvinism. It exalts God as all-knowing and all-sovereign, having chosen all that comes to pass,

That is not unique to Calvinism alone....Classical Arminianism holds to the same definition of Closed Theism and exhaustive foreknowledge

not just according to His foreknowledge, but according to His eternal purpose. The universe is unfolding exactly the way its Creator intended.

Again....Calvinism is not the only system which believes that....Nor do all non-Cals hold to a Simple Fore-knowledge view of Omniscience such as you are describing....I would argue that most educated non-Cals are moving away from that Point of View....

nor is He all-knowing

That doesn't strictly follow...he could be all knowing even within a deistic framework....Let alone the others. He could be All-knowing merely as an incidental matter of course....If I understand most Calvinist explanation....God's being all-knowing follows as a direct result of his determining all things which shall come to pass....That is fine, but it is not the only way to believe in exhaustive foreknowledge.

I find that what semi-Pelagians and Arminians object to is not so much the doctrine of "particular (limited) atonement" as it is the doctrine of "total depravity."

Nah....it's the Limited Atonement really, but "TD" is kind of a close second. More accurately...it is essentially the notion of "Inability" not really "Depravity"...Either way, that is why many believe in "Prevenient Grace" which is a special act of God's Grace which would over-come Man's Totally Depraved nature or innate Inability....The only difference is then whether or not it is "Irresistable"....This is where the disagreement lies, and the place where Calvinism is unique.

It is the idea that sinners are helpless and incapable of faith.

Calvinism is decidedly not the only school of thought which believes this. Arminius himself would agree with that statement completely.

But isn't faith the "that" thing being referred to in Ephesians 2: 8?By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves...

Well, yes...but hence the doctrine of "Prevenient Grace"....which pretty much covers that base.

 

[humblethinker]

But isn't faith the "that" thing being referred to in Ephesians 2: 8?By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves...

Well, yes...but hence the doctrine of "Prevenient Grace"....which pretty much covers that base.

HoS,
My understanding is that the "that" is referring to salvation and not faith.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/godgift.htm Check out that link. They seem to give a very good explanation about the issue.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HoS,
My understanding is that the "that" is referring to salvation and not faith.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/godgift.htm Check out that link. They seem to give a very good explanation about the issue.

Oh....criminy...yes, that is always how I took it to mean. I had not quite grasped what Sidekick's intent was with that particular question. I guess I kind of just thought he was randomly throwing in a "proof-text" and surrounded it with a rather awkward sentence :type: in order to create a purpose for having placed it there. :laugh: I had no idea he was trying to convey that "That" was referring to "Faith" and not "Salvation"...Well, now his particular choice in diction makes more sense....:thumbsup:
I had never even heard of the idea of defining the "gift" as being faith....Interesting little quandry. I guess my immediate answer would be...no, it's salvation, not faith....But I don't think I've ever even thought twice about that before.

 

[Cypress]

Oh....criminy...yes, that is always how I took it to mean. I had not quite grasped what Sidekick's intent was with that particular question. I guess I kind of just thought he was randomly throwing in a "proof-text" and surrounded it with a rather awkward sentence :type: in order to create a purpose for having placed it there. :laugh: I had no idea he was trying to convey that "That" was referring to "Faith" and not "Salvation"...Well, now his particular choice in diction makes more sense....:thumbsup:
I had never even heard of the idea of defining the "gift" as being faith....Interesting little quandry. I guess my immediate answer would be...no, it's salvation, not faith....But I don't think I've ever even thought twice about that before.

Hos, that seems to actually be the common interpretation of those on bb holding to total depravity. Hence the frequent arguments over man having capacity for faith on his own, or if it must be granted by God individually. I

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't quite understand why you frame the question as though "he need"s to do anything. I don't understand your second question either. If God is God I don't think it can be the case that he needs to do anything to still be God. Maybe you could rephrase the questions?

I'll take a stab at an answer though... Let's try and imagine that God DID create a world where many possibilities existed and many certainties existed (ie. the world I referred to above in our thought experiment). In what ways would we expect that world to appear to be different than this world? If one is of the belief that everything in our world was predetermined wouldn't one have to admit that God has at least created our world such that it appears to us there are possibilities and that God seems to encourage us to think that possibilities exist ontologically? If all is predetermined or pre-ordained then is not our perception of possibility just an illusion?

Just was asking if you hold to the cross of Christ to have been a "fixed" event in history by God, in that he already knew what/when jesus would die, as his death HAD to happen, in order for God to save and redeem sinners?