Foreknow

[The Archangel]

Surely someone as smart as you can see the evils of Calvinism, but then again, maybe not.

One former pastor I had told me that Calvinism is the lazy Christian's theology. I disagree. I believe it is the arrogant Christian's theology. After all, they are the ones who believe themselves to be somehow better. After all, they are the chosen ones.

Robert,

This is absolutely unfair and a caricature and it is quite offensive. Certainly there are arrogant Calvinists, but there are also arrogant non-Calvinists.

Your unqualified statement that "they are the ones who believe themselves to be somehow better" is not a blanket statement that you can honestly make. You've never met every Calvinist. And if you've ever read the Puritans, who were Calvinists, you get quite a different picture. If you read the prayers in Valley of Vision you will clearly see these Puritan Calvinists did not think themselves better than other Christians. In fact, they thought themselves much, much worse.

Furthermore, such incendiary comments are unbecoming someone who calls himself a Christian and is addressing other Christians.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Johnv]

Surely someone as smart as you can see the evils of Calvinism, but then again, maybe not.

Thanks for the compliment that you believe me to be intelligent. Such a compliment will not go unrewarded. An intelligent person will acknowlege that there is some scripture which appears to support Calvinism, and some scripture to support Arminianism. Neither position is scripturally wrong per se. Most people lean towards one position or another to some extent. An intelligent person can do so without disparaging the other. However, it is the ignorant person, the one whose intelligence is lacking, that will claim the opposing position is or has "evils". Statements such as those do nothing but demonstrate a person's lack of ingelligence. It doesnt' matter of that person is Calvinist or Arminian.

 

[Skandelon]

Robert,

As a former Calvinist, I need to agree with Archangel on this one. Calvinism itself is not what makes a man prideful or arrogant. Being honest, when I first came to believe Calvinism I was quite humbled to think that God would choose me. If their was arrogance it came much later when debating this doctrines with people who didn't understand them or just didn't want to accept them because of John 3:16. They seemed ignorant to me and that may have lead to my feeling a bit more "intelligent" or "insightful." There are a lot of really uninformed "Arminians" in our world. These people are the ones who give Calvinists the false sense of "superiority," in my opinion. I honestly believe that treating Calvinists with respect and honor will go much further in helping them to see where they may have made some errors in interpretation. No one likes to be told they are wrong but they especially don't like it when they are being accused unfairly for things they don't think or believe.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[The Archangel]

Robert,

As a former Calvinist, I need to agree with Archangel on this one. Calvinism itself is not what makes a man prideful or arrogant. Being honest, when I first came to believe Calvinism I was quite humbled to think that God would choose me. If their was arrogance it came much later when debating this doctrines with people who didn't understand them or just didn't want to accept them because of John 3:16. They seemed ignorant to me and that may have lead to my feeling a bit more "intelligent" or "insightful." There are a lot of really uninformed "Arminians" in our world. These people are the ones who give Calvinists the false sense of "superiority," in my opinion. I honestly believe that treating Calvinists with respect and honor will go much further in helping them to see where they may have made some errors in interpretation. No one likes to be told they are wrong but they especially don't like it when they are being accused unfairly for things they don't think or believe.

Just my two cents worth.

See! Civility is possible, even if we disagree.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

I believe it is the arrogant Christian's theology. After all, they are the ones who believe themselves to be somehow better. After all, they are the chosen ones.

You are flat wrong Robert. It is those who hold to the doctrine of Freewillism who are arrogant. They believe that the final decision on Salvation is theirs. They believe that they have some "inherent good within themselves" that those who reject Salvation do not have.

Those who hold to the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace on the other hand recognize that none are deserving of Salvation and that it is only by the Grace of GOD that anyone is saved, including those who refuse to give all the Glory to GOD but want to retain a little for themselves.

 

[Robert Snow]

Bad choice of words on my part. I shouldn't have used the word "evil." I apologize. I do think Calvinism is wrong, if I said otherwise I would be lying. I don't, however, think the people who believe Calvinistic doctrine are evil. I should have been less judgmental toward Christians who do believe this doctrine.

 

[OldRegular]

2. I don't like that I am unable to please God in and of myself.

3. I don't like that God had to intervene to make my cold, unwilling heart willing.

4. I don't like that I had to give up on the pride I once had as an Arminian--thinking I made all the right choices and was, therefore, better than all the non-believers.

After all, I am a human being and for any human, pride is always an issue. Like so many others I want to be proud about what I have done.

I believe your above comments explain the mindset of many of those who hold to Freewillism. Unfortunately many like to think that GOD and the big I were the authors and finishers of their salvation. Fortunately GOD will not hold that against those who are truly HIS children!

 

[OldRegular]

How do you know if you were chosen?

The same way you know you are saved. All those who are saved were Chosen by GOD unto Salvation in Jesus Christ whether they are willing to admit it or not. Your opinions on the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace has nothing to do with its Scriptural validity.

 

[Robert Snow]

You are flat wrong Robert. It is those who hold to the doctrine of Freewillism who are arrogant. They believe that the final decision on Salvation is theirs. They believe that they have some "inherent good within themselves" that those who reject Salvation do not have.

Those who hold to the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace on the other hand recognize that none are deserving of Salvation and that it is only by the Grace of GOD that anyone is saved, including those who refuse to give all the Glory to GOD but want to retain a little for themselves.

This type of posting is insulting to some of us (Let's see if OR apologizes) who reject Calvinism. Just like you claim that we don't truly understand Calvinistic beliefs, you do not understand many of us who reject Calvinism.

We don't view ourselves as superior because we accept God's offer of salvation, yet you continue to say that we do.

We simply believe what the bible says:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Matt. 11:28,29

God said "come unto me" and I was obedient; I came unto Him!

 

[Skandelon]

You are flat wrong Robert. It is those who hold to the doctrine of Freewillism who are arrogant. They believe that the final decision on Salvation is theirs. They believe that they have some "inherent good within themselves" that those who reject Salvation do not have.

Those who hold to the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace on the other hand recognize that none are deserving of Salvation and that it is only by the Grace of GOD that anyone is saved, including those who refuse to give all the Glory to GOD but want to retain a little for themselves.

Now you all are doing exactly what you accused Robert of doing. Believing that we are responsible for our response to God's offer of salvation doesn't produce pride. At least that has not been my experience. Repenting of being sorry piece of crap doesn't tend to be a pride filling practice regardless of the doctrine of soteriology you hold to.

 

[Skandelon]

God said "come unto me" and I was obedient; I came unto Him!

And thus there is a basis for which God can say to you, "Well done my good and faithful servant." If indeed you had nothing to do with coming to him He should say, "Well done me."

 

[Winman]

Really? Suppose you planned a banquet where your only Son was the guest of honor and you sent messengers all over the world with your invitations (filled with YOUR SPIRIT). Do you think that those who got those invitations were the initiators? Really?

In fact, I think it is obvious that YOU are the initiator and the those being invited are responders.


With all due respect, maybe the reason you are rejecting my position is because you don't fully understand it yet. That can be my only conclusion based upon statements like these.

Yes, this is a ridiculous charge that Cals make. If not for the scriptures no person on earth would know of the true God and Jesus Christ. No non-Cal believes that God is not absolutely the initiator in salvation.

It cannot be said that God knew what Jesus would do beforehand. That is true, certainly, but it is not the full meaning. Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world to accomplish the mission the Father gave Him--our redemption. The Father's choice of Christ was not based on the Father seeing what Christ would do of His own free will, rather what Christ freely did was based on the the Father's choosing of Him to accomplish our redemption.

Of course God the Father knew what Jesus would do, he knows all things that will happen in the future, all prophesy is based on this fact. God has already told us the events that will happen in the future because he can see them and knows them.

And this may upset some Cals, but Judas was chosen or elected. He was chosen for a specific purpose, God seeing beforehand that he would betray Jesus.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Jesus chose or elected Judas knowing beforehand he would betray him that scripture be fulfilled.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Jesus knew beforehand that eleven of his disciples would believe on him, and he also knew Judas would not and would betray him. He chose Judas to bring about or fulfill prophesy. The scriptures had prophesied centuries before of Jesus's betrayal for 30 pieces of silver, and that this silver would be used to buy the potter's field.

Zech 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Matt 26:14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

So, you may not like it, but Judas was chosen or elected by God to fulfill a specific purpose. When Jesus chose his disciples, he intentionally chose Judas to be among them already knowing he would not believe and would betray him.

 

[Amy.G]

The same way you know you are saved. All those who are saved were Chosen by GOD unto Salvation in Jesus Christ whether they are willing to admit it or not. Your opinions on the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace has nothing to do with its Scriptural validity.

This is circular reasoning.

I know I'm saved because I put my faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, believing the promises made in scripture. I too was chosen, but not in the way the Cal thinks. I was chosen because I put my faith in Christ. You were chosen because..................why?

 

[canadyjd]

Canadyjd,

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not intending to say that I loathe the Doctrines of Grace. On the contrary, I love them. ....The Doctrines of Grace constantly and consistently show me what a vile sinner I am and they show me that even my best works are shot-through with sin.

But, with Paul, I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Blessings,

The Archangel

I think I understand. I remember reading about Jonathan Edwards going through periods of great grief for his sin, followed by great joy over God's grace.

Thanks for clarifying

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

This is circular reasoning.

I know I'm saved because I put my faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, believing the promises made in scripture. I too was chosen, but not in the way the Cal thinks. I was chosen because I put my faith in Christ. You were chosen because..................why?

The kindness and mercy and will of God.

peace to youraying:

 

[BaptistBob]

The problem is that the scripture says what the scripture says. As in the case of "foreknew," the scripture is quite clear in the contextual usage--it means to choose. So to apply the your preferred definition is not a matter of interpretation or of understanding, it is a question of going against the text.

You're simply asserting your conclusion. That's about all that can be done, I suppose.

Perhaps you've forgotten this post of yours:

​

The above post was the first time you addressed anything of what I said in this thread. You tout your training at the feet of some "famous living Calvinists," your "reading Greek," and "diagramming" in Greek. Now, either you have that training and are therefore touting your own education or you don't have that education and were only mimicking my post and being disingenuous at the same time. Either way, you don't address any textual arguments I've made.

I was mimicking your approach to put it on display, but perhaps you missed that.

So, assuming you do have the training you profess, you are in fact, touting your education and abilities. So, pot, kettle, black.

See above.

No, certainly anyone can can address anyone else. But your first address was a mimic of my post.

Oh, you did see that I was mimicking you. I wonder why, then, you pretended I was doing the same thing as you with the same intent. If I was doing that, then I would be a pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't I?

It didn't deal with any of my arguments (you would do that later). Rather, your post (quoted above) was at me in an ad hominem.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem attack is, since I was putting on display your tactic, and was not attepting to refute anything.

So you didn't address any "fallacious arguments." You attacked me for mentioning my Greek studies to someone else. Obviously, you think any mention of education in an attempted refutation of the theological position you happen to hold, whether directed at you or not, is an attack on you. Perhaps you are seeking to make yourself a pariah for all non-Calvinists?

Part of your argument is that you so know so much. That was supported by a subsequent post in which you talked about a plumber. It is a fallacious argument.

But you have not been addressing my arguments--you mimicked a post of mine (and therefore you yourself did exactly what you accuse me of).

How could I do "exactly what" I accused you of? Were you mimicking someone who appealed to their superior education? No.

I think you are having a serious issue--You continue to accuse me of the very things you are doing and you seem to feel that any disagreement (by anyone--whether addressed to you or not) with the position you hold is an attack on you. Very unfortunate.

Not at all, brother. Stop grasping at straws.

 

[OldRegular]

This is circular reasoning.

Not really Amy. How is it circular? I simply say I know I was chosen the same way you know you are saved.

I know I'm saved because I put my faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, believing the promises made in scripture. I too was chosen, but not in the way the Cal thinks. I was chosen because I put my faith in Christ. You were chosen because..................why?

I know I'm saved because I put my GOD given faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. I was chosen because GOD chose me and I don't know why; and neither do you know why you were chosen. Scripture simply tells us:

Ephesians 1:3-6
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Please notice Amy.G that after GOD chose us it was HE, not you or me, who made us accepted in the beloved. So when you declare that it was your faith that saved you are you really sure that that faith was not the Gift of GOD? How can you really be sure? Remember that Salvation is a supernatural event, not a natural event!

Now as to why GOD chose certain individuals, such as you and me, to Salvation in Jesus Christ I do not believe that Scripture gives an answer.

 

[BaptistBob]

Sorry to post twice in a row. I missed something.

Ok...I will address this, likely for the last time.

We'll see.

The problem is that the scripture says what the scripture says.

I'll take note of that.

As in the case of "foreknew," the scripture is quite clear in the contextual usage--it means to choose. So to apply the your preferred definition is not a matter of interpretation or of understanding, it is a question of going against the text.

More arrogant posturing. Bascially you have made an assertion and then make circular arguments upon it.

1. Scripture says what it says.

2. Scripture is clear, so applying another definition (other than the clear one) is going against the text. :sleep:

So, to you it may seem like an interpretive issue, but it only seems that way.

Wow, so no interpretation can be done, because scripture says what it says. (I showed this to a couple of freshmen and they laughed.)

 

[Winman]

The kindness and mercy and will of God.

peace to youraying:

Well, no doubt God is merciful and kind, but this does not mean everyone will be saved. We know from scripture that more will go to hell than heaven.

But how do you know you are the elect?

 

[OldRegular]

But how do you know you are the elect?

I suspect the same way you know you are saved!:thumbsup::thumbsup: