Calvinist preachers, teachers, theologians

The many point is election. Lets look at the list again.

Boys...
When the 2 boys were born there was no nation. They became a nation. The blessing came because of the election. "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election"

Nation...
Mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion

Rulers....
Also Pharaoh was a person placed over a nation.

All men and all things..
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


Tis election my friend

 

And what was that?

I am commenting on your comments here. You have stated what you believe about what Calvinists believe. I didn’t make your beliefs up. You stated them.

You have also refused to learn what Calvinists believe by listening to Calvinists tell you what they believe.

Of course.

Did you know that Romans 6:10 does not say “once for all” as in “all people,” (which would be normally pan, pas, pantas) but once for all as in “all time.” It is the word efhapax. It is used in the NT with respect to time.

Again, I would just encourage you to make sure you do your homework.

So you are an open theist? I think in the past you have said that God knows all things, including knowing who will believe and who won’t.

I don’t want to misrepresent you. Will you please clarify for me what you believe about this?

 

Every Christian ought to be doing that. I get the impression that Spurgeon lived what he preached in that regard.

 

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Same Greek word for 'hate' is used in Luke 14:26 as in Romans 9:13. Do you think maybe our understanding of the word 'hate' is a bit too "black and white"?

 

Yes, I believe this comes under "put no other Gods before me".

 

Personally, I don't think "hate" is too strong a word in Luke 14:26. Jesus is talking about knowing the potential price of being a disciple. That is clear from the rest of the passage:

In other words, the fact that you choose to be a disciple of Jesus may set you against your mother, father, wife, etc. Consider that a potential price of being a disciple. If this is what happens, and you're not prepared to hate your father, mother, wife, etc., in order to be His disciple, you're not worthy to be His disciple.

 

Strongs-
3404. miseo

misew miseo mis-eh'-o
from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute);
by extension, to love less:--hate(-ful).

I understand what you are saying, Npetreley, and I agree. The word 'hate' is not too strong a word in Luke 14:26 or Romans 9:13, it is exactly the right word to use.

Though we "hate" them enough to choose Christ over their objections, we still love them enough to hope and pray that they will repent and choose Christ as well.

So, hate and love can co-exist in our feelings and actions toward others.

 

I see in this thread that we're back to battling over Spurgeon. Synergists are still trying to place him in their camp. How strange.

Seems like synergists think that if they can prove that Calvinists disagree with one another over some finer, non-essential points, they have proven the system faulty. If that's what they believe they only need a short look in the mirror to see their own wranglings and condemnings over such "crucial" matters as timing of the rapture and the name of the antichrist. Some won't even talk to each other because they hold different definitions of the word "repentance".

It doesn't matter if "hate" means virulently despising, or "love less"; either way, Rom 9 can not be mistaken - God chose one over the other by His own will and for His own reasons, not anything foreseen in them.

Which leads me to another point - the word "arbitrary". When the old theologians used the word arbitrary, they didn't mean it the way we mean today. We think of arbitrary as "random", or "for no purpose". But when Spurgeon makes "arbitrary" synonymous with "sovereign", he is saying that God's decisions are not reviewable or answerable to anyone outside of Himself. His decisions are according to His own counsel. They are arbitrary only in that sense - there is no democratic process in God's Kingdom.

I have often said that God simply does not reveal to us why he chooses some and not others. But I'm cooking up a theory on that issue which may be kooky but here goes. IF there are criteria for God's choices, could it be that God purposely chooses those that man would NOT choose, in order to confound man's pride?

The problem with this theory is that scripture says "not many noble, not many wise...are chosen". So while it is apparent that God has chosen the foolish things to confound the mighty, yet he has also chosen to save some of the mighty, the noble, the wise.

What do y'all think?

 

While I agree that it's entirely possible (if not probable) that God, alone, transcends time, God created time and communicates to man in those terms. That's why you see so many "pre"s and "fore"s in the Bible. Calvinists and Arminians and semi-pelagians didn't make them up or put them there. They were in there first. They're in there for a reason. You can't just discard them.

 

It all goes back to that overlooked key. Context!

We do not read the newspaper one line at a time. We read the newspaper in context. Why do we not read the Bible this way? Words alone mean nothing. Words in a group apply the meaning and give us context.

Like the English word "bar". Bar can have something to do with a lawyer or a place to drink beer, or a steal round rod object or it can mean to block or ban something..or it can mean secure something. The word alone tells us nothing. Its the context that tells us what it means.

In Romans 9..the context is showing Gods power in election. This is shown in a list of contrast...one of which is love and hate.

This text is showing how much we should love our Lord. Hate is used to show how deep we should go with our love for Him. We can not love the world, or any thing in it, or any person as much as we love our God. That is the context.

 

Are you saying the Calvinist are all ignorant?

 

no bob...just me

 

Synergist is a theologically correct word. I use it so I don't have to use less correct terminology like "Arminian", when a lot of you would accuse Arminius and Wesley of being "Calvinists" if you really understood their teachings.

"Synergist" covers all non-calvinist soteriological views. I don't know why you would object to that word.

I have been repeatedly referred to as a "fatalist" (maybe not by you), which is, as it is used here, nothing but a pejorative. Properly understood, fate is the opposite God's working out his own purpose in time. It has no place in the calvinistic system. This has been shown to BB many times.

 

Ok...if you say so.


I need to do some work...check you guys later

 

First, I didn’t put forth a straw man. I am asking your position, which you do not clarify.

Here is the problem, from reviewing the conversation.

I said “If you believe that God knows from the beginning who will believe and who won’t”

You replied, “I do not believe this.”

To my knowledge, the only people who do not believe that God knows from the beginning who will believe and who won’t are open theists. They do not believe God exhaustively knows the future.

Now, based on your words, you do not believe that God knows who will believe and who won’t.”

Do you believe that or not? If not, what do you believe?

Yes, it is. Which is what directly leads to the problem I am trying to get an answer to.

Omnipresence isn’t at issue here.

Which again, isn’t at issue.

No, they don’t. Calvinists believe God’s choice and knowledge exists outside of time, but that it comes to fruition in time. Arminians also believe that God’s knowledge exists outside of time, but comes to fruition in time.

However, this is a matter of omniscience, not omnipresence.

So explain your view. Remember, that was what I asked for, in order that I would not misrepresent you.

Do you believe God knew from before the creation who would believe in him for salvation, and who would not?