Exhaustive Foreknowledge

[DaveXR650]

One well worn method of scripture nullification, is to claim scripture does not mean what it says, because of some claimed attribute of God. The most used one is "God would not send people to Hades because God is love."

One problem with your method of understanding scripture is that you simply must keep what you already know in mind as you read a new passage. The reason is obvious in that every time something is said it is not exhaustively explained in all aspects. Otherwise people do what you said in the case of God being love. Say what you want about Calvinism but that is one thing they don't do. No theological system does. That is why they have a system of theology. As kids used to say, "Duh"!

Does having an understanding of theology in your mind as you read scripture have a practical use for us? Yes. That is how we know that Jesus was not going against the 10 commandments when he said to "hate" your mother in order to follow him, why we don't literally cut off body parts that cause us to sin.

While it's true that scripture means what it says, it often has a much deeper meaning too. How else can you account for Proverbs 26:4-5. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly.....Answer a fool according to his folly...." There you have a direct contradiction in scripture, in the same exact context and the only way to deal with that is to understand that it is to make you think about this, using wisdom. We are either to get more out of those verses than they say, or scripture is mistaken, as your method must conclude.

 

[JesusFan]

You are. And this verse:

Should always be in our minds.
But if you do that you may end up cutting off various body parts, believing that you are saved by works, believing you are not saved by works, believing you are saved by baptism, believing you are saved by faith, believing works must be added to faith, believing you must honor your mother, believing you must hate your mother, believing you can carry a sword, believing in total non-resistance............... Every one of those statements have individual verses that prove their truth and they also contradict other verses.

You must try to make an overall sense of scripture. There is simply no way around it and the proof is that you are doing it even as you claim you are above doing it. If it's any help I would suggest that many of the best "theologians" have been doing this for years. There really is nothing new under the sun. One of the biggest defenders of high Calvinism, John Owen, is also on record as saying that he has it on direct authority of scripture that anyone without exception who comes to Christ will be received by him and saved. He also freely used Rev. 3:20 "I stand at the door and knock" freely as Jesus himself knocking on the hearts door of a sinner and asking admission. Does that sound like what you have heard about high Calvinism?

At the minimum, at least find out what the theologians who you have decided to disregard have really said before coming to judgement about their theology. And realize that you probably will not come up with something truly new and so anything you think of will for sure fit into an existing theology. Just like saying God doesn't always know what is going to happen indeed fits into open theism.

God cannot know His so called secret things though if His knowledge is being limited as some suggest on this topic

 

[JesusFan]

One well worn method of scripture nullification, is to claim scripture does not mean what it says, because of some claimed attribute of God. The most used one is "God would not send people to Hades because God is love."
I say God is all knowing about whatever is contextually in view. The false doctrine of Infinite Omniscience rips "all knowing" out of context and claims it means everything imaginable. Using this pretext, next they say God cannot remember no more forever, because He MUST know everything imaginable. It is nonsense.

Calvinism's God is an Open Theism God because He is not the author of sin. This is not rocket science.

By very definition of the divine attribute of being God and Omniscience, God must be exhaustive in all knowledge

 

[JesusFan]

One problem with your method of understanding scripture is that you simply must keep what you already know in mind as you read a new passage. The reason is obvious in that every time something is said it is not exhaustively explained in all aspects. Otherwise people do what you said in the case of God being love. Say what you want about Calvinism but that is one thing they don't do. No theological system does. That is why they have a system of theology. As kids used to say, "Duh"!

Does having an understanding of theology in your mind as you read scripture have a practical use for us? Yes. That is how we know that Jesus was not going against the 10 commandments when he said to "hate" your mother in order to follow him, why we don't literally cut off body parts that cause us to sin.

While it's true that scripture means what it says, it often has a much deeper meaning too. How else can you account for Proverbs 26:4-5. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly.....Answer a fool according to his folly...." There you have a direct contradiction in scripture, in the same exact context and the only way to deal with that is to understand that it is to make you think about this, using wisdom. We are either to get more out of those verses than they say, or scripture is mistaken, as your method must conclude.

Since God is the ver present I AM, that name of His by itself reveales to us he is really "all knowing"

 

[DaveXR650]

God cannot know His so called secret things though if His knowledge is being limited as some suggest on this topic

The idea behind Molinism, if I understand it, is not that God is limited in any knowledge that is there. It says that if God allows a true free choice, if it is truly a free choice, then the choice is not made yet and therefore cannot be known, even by God. Then they say that God does know all possible choices and all possible outcomes of the free choice and therefore maintains complete sovereignty over the situation while at the same time truly allowing a free choice. And, it does dovetail with some of what Calvinist theologians have said. You see this when you read in Calvinistic literature about handling the idea that something is predestined, yet the free will of creatures was allowed. This, admittedly is a difficulty and so you will hear the question come up as to whether a predestined event was "necessary" to be as it occurred or whether events could have been otherwise. If you say the event was not truly necessary to occur then you are getting close to some type of Molinism. If you say the event was necessary then you have a difficulty in allowing any real measure of free will.

I'm not saying Molinism is true. I am saying this so that if you get into an argument with a non-Calvinist who knows what he is about you don't inadvertently throw them a softball answer that they can knock out of the park by showing bonified Calvinistic theologians who think in a similar manner. My personal opinion is that this is all great fun to discuss but not really important because none of us really knows what we are talking about except for the small amount God reveals about himself in scripture. That is why the confessions by the Calvinists assert both man's free will and God's absolute sovereignty - but they do not, in the confessions try to reconcile the two.

 

[JesusFan]

The idea behind Molinism, if I understand it, is not that God is limited in any knowledge that is there. It says that if God allows a true free choice, if it is truly a free choice, then the choice is not made yet and therefore cannot be known, even by God. Then they say that God does know all possible choices and all possible outcomes of the free choice and therefore maintains complete sovereignty over the situation while at the same time truly allowing a free choice. And, it does dovetail with some of what Calvinist theologians have said. You see this when you read in Calvinistic literature about handling the idea that something is predestined, yet the free will of creatures was allowed. This, admittedly is a difficulty and so you will hear the question come up as to whether a predestined event was "necessary" to be as it occurred or whether events could have been otherwise. If you say the event was not truly necessary to occur then you are getting close to some type of Molinism. If you say the event was necessary then you have a difficulty in allowing any real measure of free will.

I'm not saying Molinism is true. I am saying this so that if you get into an argument with a non-Calvinist who knows what he is about you don't inadvertently throw them a softball answer that they can knock out of the park by showing bonified Calvinistic theologians who think in a similar manner. My personal opinion is that this is all great fun to discuss but not really important because none of us really knows what we are talking about except for the small amount God reveals about himself in scripture. That is why the confessions by the Calvinists assert both man's free will and God's absolute sovereignty - but they do not, in the confessions try to reconcile the two.

many times non cals state God will never go against our will, how did that go for Paul and getting saved?

 

[Van]

One problem with your method of understanding scripture is that you simply must keep what you already know in mind as you read a new passage. The reason is obvious in that every time something is said it is not exhaustively explained in all aspects. Otherwise people do what you said in the case of God being love. Say what you want about Calvinism but that is one thing they don't do. No theological system does. That is why they have a system of theology. As kids used to say, "Duh"!

Does having an understanding of theology in your mind as you read scripture have a practical use for us? Yes. That is how we know that Jesus was not going against the 10 commandments when he said to "hate" your mother in order to follow him, why we don't literally cut off body parts that cause us to sin.

While it's true that scripture means what it says, it often has a much deeper meaning too. How else can you account for Proverbs 26:4-5. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly.....Answer a fool according to his folly...." There you have a direct contradiction in scripture, in the same exact context and the only way to deal with that is to understand that it is to make you think about this, using wisdom. We are either to get more out of those verses than they say, or scripture is mistaken, as your method must conclude.

All about me and nothing about the topic. Open theism says people sometimes make autonomous choices, not dictated by God. This claim is consistent with God not being the author of sin. Please address the issue.

Proverbs 26:4-5 NASB
Do not answer a fool, taking his argument seriously
Or you will also be like him.

Answer a fool as his foolishness deserves,
So that he will not be wise in his own eyes.

 

[DaveXR650]

All about me and nothing about the topic. Open theism says people sometimes make autonomous choices, not dictated by God. This claim is consistent with God not being the author of sin. Please address the issue.

Van. I raised legitimate questions about your method of scriptural interpretation and you never respond directly to what I say, you only seem to take offense. Once again, I don't claim to be an expert on open theism, while I think all types of open theism do teach that men make autonomous choices, I think that your particular type is only one specific type and is refuted by the other open theists. By that I mean your view that God chooses things not to know. Most types of open theism do like I said where they believe that truly autonomous choices do not actually exist before they are made therefore they cannot be known even by God, because they do not yet exist. What I was trying to say to you, again repeated, is that the idea that God can know of certain things that he then chooses not to know is preposterous and self contradictory. The other type I at least respect although there are some big problems with it in my view. But I haven't really looked into it that much and only first heard of Molinism last summer.

One more thing you have to keep in mind if you are going to argue this is that Calvinism does teach that men make autonomous choices that although permitted by God and foreknown by God are truly their own choices. Calvinism also teaches that such choices will reflect man's depravity and will show that the whole problem of men as not being able to come to God is due to our "free will" to the extent that it is operating according to our own wishes without God's grace. Take that or leave it as you will but you simply have no right to keep acting like that is not the teaching of the theology. You may not agree with the concept, but that is the teaching and if you won't accept that you will just continue to attack a straw man of your own making.

 

[Dave G]

Van. I raised legitimate questions about your method of scriptural interpretation and you never respond directly to what I say, you only seem to take offense.

He does that all the time.
Perhaps you will have better success getting through to him than others have.

 

[JesusFan]

All about me and nothing about the topic. Open theism says people sometimes make autonomous choices, not dictated by God. This claim is consistent with God not being the author of sin. Please address the issue.

Proverbs 26:4-5 NASB
Do not answer a fool, taking his argument seriously
Or you will also be like him.

Answer a fool as his foolishness deserves,
So that he will not be wise in his own eyes.

Calvinist do NOT see us as being mere puppets and robots ordered around by God, as God knowing ALL things, whether actually happening or merely potentially occurring, as that is by very definition being omniscient God

 

[JesusFan]

Van. I raised legitimate questions about your method of scriptural interpretation and you never respond directly to what I say, you only seem to take offense. Once again, I don't claim to be an expert on open theism, while I think all types of open theism do teach that men make autonomous choices, I think that your particular type is only one specific type and is refuted by the other open theists. By that I mean your view that God chooses things not to know. Most types of open theism do like I said where they believe that truly autonomous choices do not actually exist before they are made therefore they cannot be known even by God, because they do not yet exist. What I was trying to say to you, again repeated, is that the idea that God can know of certain things that he then chooses not to know is preposterous and self contradictory. The other type I at least respect although there are some big problems with it in my view. But I haven't really looked into it that much and only first heard of Molinism last summer.

One more thing you have to keep in mind if you are going to argue this is that Calvinism does teach that men make autonomous choices that although permitted by God and foreknown by God are truly their own choices. Calvinism also teaches that such choices will reflect man's depravity and will show that the whole problem of men as not being able to come to God is due to our "free will" to the extent that it is operating according to our own wishes without God's grace. Take that or leave it as you will but you simply have no right to keep acting like that is not the teaching of the theology. You may not agree with the concept, but that is the teaching and if you won't accept that you will just continue to attack a straw man of your own making.

God can and does know all possible outcomes and also knows what will actually happened in real time and in real history, If not true, them biblical prophet would be God making education guesses on what should be happening, not fixed time events that indeed shall and must happen!

 

[JesusFan]

He does that all the time.
Perhaps you will have better success getting through to him than others have.

Or could just expect to get "tainst so", and stating totally opposite of what Calvinists really teach and believe

 

[DaveXR650]

God can and does know all possible outcomes and also knows what will actually happened in real time and in real history, If not true, them biblical prophet would be God making education guesses on what should be happening, not fixed time events that indeed shall and must happen!

You are right and that is an argument against open theism. But the counter argument is that if God in any fashion bases something he sovereignly does in part by taking into account prior actions of men then in a sense God is indeed responding to what men do. Calvinist theologians take that into account and find that acceptable because they view sovereignty as God either causing or allowing by permission all that happens. But everyone doesn't accept that. Hyper-Calvinists say God directly causes all that happens and open theists say God, although he can always win so to speak and accomplish what he wants does still respond to the dynamic actions of men and only "makes things happen" in a causative way when he desires to. So, they would say, prophesy will still be true, yet God is not exhaustively controlling every singe molecule everywhere in the universe.

I know that's a mouthful but when you really look into what the high level Calvinist theologians were and are saying there are some similarities in that they really did believe in God's complete sovereignty and man operating freely. And they explained that in their discussions of the "necessity" of events actually or potentially having to happen or whether even in God's sovereignty there were other possible scenarios of reality that could have occurred. Most of us, myself included, don't go into this that far and probably can't really understand it so we have confessions which simply say both and leave the truth of it as a "mystery".

So I don't mind at all if people don't accept Calvinism's explanation of how God's sovereignty dovetails with man's freedom but I do get tired of those who come on a theological debate forum and act like the Calvinistic explanation is stupid and irrational and they have figured it all out when they show that they aren't even reading the full discussions offered by the Calvinists. So you are right, "taint so" is not an acceptable argument and neither is creating a false straw man and then arguing against that.

 

[Van]

Van. I raised legitimate questions about your method of scriptural interpretation and you never respond directly to what I say, you only seem to take offense. Once again, I don't claim to be an expert on open theism, while I think all types of open theism do teach that men make autonomous choices, I think that your particular type is only one specific type and is refuted by the other open theists. By that I mean your view that God chooses things not to know. Most types of open theism do like I said where they believe that truly autonomous choices do not actually exist before they are made therefore they cannot be known even by God, because they do not yet exist. What I was trying to say to you, again repeated, is that the idea that God can know of certain things that he then chooses not to know is preposterous and self contradictory. The other type I at least respect although there are some big problems with it in my view. But I haven't really looked into it that much and only first heard of Molinism last summer.

One more thing you have to keep in mind if you are going to argue this is that Calvinism does teach that men make autonomous choices that although permitted by God and foreknown by God are truly their own choices. Calvinism also teaches that such choices will reflect man's depravity and will show that the whole problem of men as not being able to come to God is due to our "free will" to the extent that it is operating according to our own wishes without God's grace. Take that or leave it as you will but you simply have no right to keep acting like that is not the teaching of the theology. You may not agree with the concept, but that is the teaching and if you won't accept that you will just continue to attack a straw man of your own making.

Now you charge me with not responding to your "on topic" questions. But you did not present the questions.
The issue is not what open theists might say, the issue is Calvinism holds to open theism, in that they say God is not the author of sin. You have not agreed that the statement is true.

A choice among sinful choices is not a choice, it is a non-choice, with only one outcome, Hades.

Calvinism supports open theism, yet Calvinists post as if Open Theism was false doctrine.

And I did address at least one of your claims, see post #67.

 

[DaveXR650]

the issue is Calvinism holds to open theism, in that they say God is not the author of sin. You have not agreed that the statement is true.

I did say that there is a dovetailing of the logic in that Calvinism has God allowing free choices of men and still remaining sovereign. And I said in the above post that there are similarities in that and open theism because in both cases God, even though he is sovereign, is indeed responding as it were to men's choices. I admit that some Calvinists, especially those that lean toward hyper-Calvinism don't accept this but since many do, what can I say. And what can you say. They do, and it's easily proven by the arguments even strict Calvinists give when they discuss the story of Joseph and the action of his brothers. They meant it for evil, scripture says, but God turned it around and made it a good thing that the brothers sold Joseph into slavery. But I admit that here you have God responding and it could be argued, adapting to what men freely chose to do in order to still get his overall sovereign plan of eventually saving Joseph's family accomplished.

The difference as I see it is that in open theism you have a more developed vision of this dynamic unfolding of the future than you do with Calvinism where the sovereignty of God is extended to all events everywhere and where His plans are unfolding everywhere and in all events. It is indeed true that Calvinists tend to become very uncomfortable whenever it is suggested that God in any way would ever respond to what we did as that would allow too much autonomous freedom in their minds.

The reason your statement above is not true is simply that the choice is not that you must either hold to open theism or make God the author of sin. If you insist on that you are creating a straw man of a Calvinistic principle and then arguing against that. They don't hold to that.

A choice among sinful choices is not a choice, it is a non-choice, with only one outcome, Hades.

I don't see why this would matter if the choices were free and according to the nature of the person making the choice. If our own free will leads us to Hades, infallibly, then why is that still not our own doing? If scripture notes, and human history proves, that as a whole we naturally are evil by choice and by our own choosing I don't see why that is God's fault.

Calvinism supports open theism, yet Calvinists post as if Open Theism was false doctrine.

Like I said above, in some area there are similarities, but you don't usually see that until you start getting into the ideas of how free will really fits with God's sovereignty and how a future decreed event that involves free creatures with free wills is really unfolding. I do admit that most of us, either because of lack of looking into it or due to lack of mental acuity (and I'm putting myself here too) will either tend to say God either causes everything or God is waiting to see what happens next like the rest of us, neither of which are true. All I am saying is that if you go deeper you will find that Calvinism has answers to these questions that are at least as good as anything I have discovered so far and while I don't agree with all aspects of Calvinism it is far more formidable as a coherent theology than you think.

And personally, I do not think open theology, in some forms is a false doctrine, especially if it is only used in a practical sense where we as humans are dealing with God in real time and truly living in the present moment only. I don't believe any of this discussion is a matter of questioning someone's Christianity or salvation for that matter but it is good discussion if not overdone. We don't want to end up like Talkative in Pilgrim's Progress.

 

[Van]

I did say that there is a dovetailing of the logic in that Calvinism has God allowing free choices of men and still remaining sovereign. And I said in the above post that there are similarities in that and open theism because in both cases God, even though he is sovereign, is indeed responding as it were to men's choices. I admit that some Calvinists, especially those that lean toward hyper-Calvinism don't accept this but since many do, what can I say. And what can you say. They do, and it's easily proven by the arguments even strict Calvinists give when they discuss the story of Joseph and the action of his brothers. They meant it for evil, scripture says, but God turned it around and made it a good thing that the brothers sold Joseph into slavery. But I admit that here you have God responding and it could be argued, adapting to what men freely chose to do in order to still get his overall sovereign plan of eventually saving Joseph's family accomplished.

The difference as I see it is that in open theism you have a more developed vision of this dynamic unfolding of the future than you do with Calvinism where the sovereignty of God is extended to all events everywhere and where His plans are unfolding everywhere and in all events. It is indeed true that Calvinists tend to become very uncomfortable whenever it is suggested that God in any way would ever respond to what we did as that would allow too much autonomous freedom in their minds.

The reason your statement above is not true is simply that the choice is not that you must either hold to open theism or make God the author of sin. If you insist on that you are creating a straw man of a Calvinistic principle and then arguing against that. They don't hold to that.

I don't see why this would matter if the choices were free and according to the nature of the person making the choice. If our own free will leads us to Hades, infallibly, then why is that still not our own doing? If scripture notes, and human history proves, that as a whole we naturally are evil by choice and by our own choosing I don't see why that is God's fault.

Like I said above, in some area there are similarities, but you don't usually see that until you start getting into the ideas of how free will really fits with God's sovereignty and how a future decreed event that involves free creatures with free wills is really unfolding. I do admit that most of us, either because of lack of looking into it or due to lack of mental acuity (and I'm putting myself here too) will either tend to say God either causes everything or God is waiting to see what happens next like the rest of us, neither of which are true. All I am saying is that if you go deeper you will find that Calvinism has answers to these questions that are at least as good as anything I have discovered so far and while I don't agree with all aspects of Calvinism it is far more formidable as a coherent theology than you think.

And personally, I do not think open theology, in some forms is a false doctrine, especially if it is only used in a practical sense where we as humans are dealing with God in real time and truly living in the present moment only. I don't believe any of this discussion is a matter of questioning someone's Christianity or salvation for that matter but it is good discussion if not overdone. We don't want to end up like Talkative in Pilgrim's Progress.

Deflection. You can say Calvinism believes God causes all things and does not cause all things. You can claim this is Calvinism's logic. Doesn't cut the mustard.

You repeatedly say "God is sovereign" which is not at issue. I say God is sovereign in that He causes or allows all things. You do not define your view.

Yes, I say if you must only to open theism or make God the author of sin. Saying Calvinists deny this truth, without an explanation is nonsense.

I have explained how our limited autonomous will fits with God's sovereignty, He allows us to autonomously operate within the purview He allows. This is not rocket science.

When God decrees (declares) something will occur in the future, the people involved are not free to cause some other outcome!

Calvinism has absolutely no answers, it is nonsense.

Open Theism is not a complicated theological view, with many flavors, it simply says God causes or allows all things.

I have not read Pilgrim's Progress, but am familiar with what scripture says about those who do not walk the talk.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Van. Your problem is that you don't understand your own view of your own theology and you would rather argue against what you wish people have said rather than what they said.
For example:

I say God is sovereign in that He causes or allows all things.

That my friend is pure Calvinism and is almost a direct quote from R.C. Sproul's book "Chosen by God".

He allows us to autonomously operate within the purview He allows.

This also is pure Calvinism with the possible exception that one could argue whether it is possible to be truly autonomous within a purview. Calvinism just says that free will is in operation to the extent God allows it.

When God decrees (declares) something will occur in the future, the people involved are not free to cause some other outcome!

That is exactly what I mean in that free will is limited and subject to God's sovereignty, yet still free. Calvinism 101.

Open Theism is not a complicated theological view, with many flavors, it simply says God causes or allows all things.

Once again, if you are saying that Calvinism comes close to some of the principles of open theism in some areas I would have to agree. But to say it means that "God causes or allows things" is wrong because that is what Calvinism says. This is not a debatable point. Calvinism's view of God being sovereign is that God either causes or allows by permission everything that happens. What open theism says is that God, to the extent that he has allowed men free choices does not know what they are going to do and therefore the future is dynamic and uncharted yet in the specifics. But because God is the most powerful and knowledgeable actor in this his overall will certainly will be realized. Open theism, just like Calvinism, has various schools of thought within it and in some cases, like with Molinism, God knows every single free and possible action men might take, and every response that God may choose, and every contingent action or result of all those choices. That, to me, is somewhat like Calvinism, at least to the extent that God really does know everything that is knowable. The only difference being that some things are not possible to yet know because they will be the result of truly free choices not chosen yet and thus not existing yet. In other types of open theism God simply does not know what men will freely choose and is constantly learning and deciding what to do next, just like us, with the difference being God has more intelligence and wisdom.

Don't take my word for it Van. Just google "open theism" and read their page. Honestly, that is the level you are at and so am I. How else would I know to recommend it? But you are all over the place theologically. You are already half Calvinist based on what you say. You need to review what it is you actually believe first. And get a more realistic view of what you really know. I am telling you, there is a whole level of argument for Calvinistic compatibilism that I, at this point in my life am probably not going to try to study. And there are also higher level arguments against Calvinism that are a step above what you hear on this site. It is interesting indeed, but not very important in your practical Christian life.

 

[JesusFan]

You are right and that is an argument against open theism. But the counter argument is that if God in any fashion bases something he sovereignly does in part by taking into account prior actions of men then in a sense God is indeed responding to what men do. Calvinist theologians take that into account and find that acceptable because they view sovereignty as God either causing or allowing by permission all that happens. But everyone doesn't accept that. Hyper-Calvinists say God directly causes all that happens and open theists say God, although he can always win so to speak and accomplish what he wants does still respond to the dynamic actions of men and only "makes things happen" in a causative way when he desires to. So, they would say, prophesy will still be true, yet God is not exhaustively controlling every singe molecule everywhere in the universe.

I know that's a mouthful but when you really look into what the high level Calvinist theologians were and are saying there are some similarities in that they really did believe in God's complete sovereignty and man operating freely. And they explained that in their discussions of the "necessity" of events actually or potentially having to happen or whether even in God's sovereignty there were other possible scenarios of reality that could have occurred. Most of us, myself included, don't go into this that far and probably can't really understand it so we have confessions which simply say both and leave the truth of it as a "mystery".

So I don't mind at all if people don't accept Calvinism's explanation of how God's sovereignty dovetails with man's freedom but I do get tired of those who come on a theological debate forum and act like the Calvinistic explanation is stupid and irrational and they have figured it all out when they show that they aren't even reading the full discussions offered by the Calvinists. So you are right, "taint so" is not an acceptable argument and neither is creating a false straw man and then arguing against that.

Look at Jesus and Judas for examples of God sovereignty and man decisions, as While the father permitted wicked men to put Jesus to death, He also had already chosen from eternity past that Son of God would die upon Calvary as sin bearer, and He also prophesied that one close to messiah would rise up and strike Him down, and yet Judas chose to fulfill that destiny, not "forced" into it

 

[DaveXR650]

Look at Jesus and Judas for examples of God sovereignty and man decisions, as While the father permitted wicked men to put Jesus to death, He also had already chosen from eternity past that Son of God would die upon Calvary as sin bearer, and He also prophesied that one close to messiah would rise up and strike Him down, and yet Judas chose to fulfill that destiny, not "forced" into it

You are right. And it's also in Calvinist literature that God has the right and sometimes does use sinners willingness to sin in ways that they did not plan and in ways that they would not have gone on their own. God has a right to do this. Like when Pharoah was raised up for the purpose of showing God's power in delivering Israel. It's not that Pharoah was a nice humble man except that God wanted him for this purpose - but given Pharoah being the person he was, God used him ultimately for His own purpose. God's is sovereign and man has a free will.

All I am saying is that God acting in sovereignty according to Calvinism indeed has him doing things in response as it were to men's free actions. It indeed may have been a possibility that Pharoah might have obeyed God and let the people go. Then you get into the argument of whether it was as they say "necessary" that Pharoah not obey God and if so, then did Pharoah really have a free will in the matter. You see how difficult this gets. You need to understand that Calvinist theologians themselves have and do wrestle with this and to raise such a question is not a heresy but merely doing theology. Does this make any difference? No. Not for people just wanting to live a Christian life and follow the commands of scripture.

But it's worth knowing in case some day you are confronted by an atheist who hits you with the argument that if God decrees the future and it must be as he has decreed it, then is God really all powerful since once it is decreed it cannot be "changed" even by God. If nothing else it shows us the limitations of our human minds as we go into the weeds with these things and it is humbling. That is why I never would call someone a heretic or have anything against someone who is content to stay within our human real time experience of living in the present and interacting with God as if the future is unfolding before us. There is nothing wrong with that and many Christians do that.

 

[JesusFan]

You are right. And it's also in Calvinist literature that God has the right and sometimes does use sinners willingness to sin in ways that they did not plan and in ways that they would not have gone on their own. God has a right to do this. Like when Pharoah was raised up for the purpose of showing God's power in delivering Israel. It's not that Pharoah was a nice humble man except that God wanted him for this purpose - but given Pharoah being the person he was, God used him ultimately for His own purpose. God's is sovereign and man has a free will.

All I am saying is that God acting in sovereignty according to Calvinism indeed has him doing things in response as it were to men's free actions. It indeed may have been a possibility that Pharoah might have obeyed God and let the people go. Then you get into the argument of whether it was as they say "necessary" that Pharoah not obey God and if so, then did Pharoah really have a free will in the matter. You see how difficult this gets. You need to understand that Calvinist theologians themselves have and do wrestle with this and to raise such a question is not a heresy but merely doing theology. Does this make any difference? No. Not for people just wanting to live a Christian life and follow the commands of scripture.

But it's worth knowing in case some day you are confronted by an atheist who hits you with the argument that if God decrees the future and it must be as he has decreed it, then is God really all powerful since once it is decreed it cannot be "changed" even by God. If nothing else it shows us the limitations of our human minds as we go into the weeds with these things and it is humbling. That is why I never would call someone a heretic or have anything against someone who is content to stay within our human real time experience of living in the present and interacting with God as if the future is unfolding before us. There is nothing wrong with that and many Christians do that.

Since God is eternally existing and outside space and time, what we call past prsent and future history to us would be all now and present to him, so to Him already has and will happen period