Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined

RJP : You said that you are not comfortable with much that Calvin wrote . My question is : How much of Calvin's works have you read to make that determination ?

The Lord draws all "to some degree" ?! He draws only some and those effectually according to John 6 . In John 12:32 where it says that He draws all -- it has to be in reference to His own -- the elect . He does not draw the entire human race unto Himelf . The drawing is not a partial attraction that may cease at some point . When the Lord draws it is to completion -- all those He draws are savingly united to Himself .

 

I'm saying that I'm not sure I go along with the definition of supra vs infra. Sure, the definition is what it is.... but I seem to think that God can cause what He wants to cause without being the direct cause (providence). He is the first cause of everything, but yet without being the author of sin or the reason for temptation. The providence of God and the responsibility of man is an antinomy. Two seemingly opposing truths. I'm content with my understanding of it.

As far as hyper calvinism... and that depends upon the definition of such... I'm not a hyper calvinist. I do not believe in double predestination. I believe that God leaves the reprobate in their sin..... He does not intervene. He does not directly cause them to be reprobate however. The offer of salvation is for everyone. He commands everyone to repent et.

 

Thanks RB.

 

What page is that on in Sproul's book?

 

Sorry, my poor wording! There is much that Calvin wrote that I do not agree with! I have never read through "Institutes" but I have read sections. I have not made a great effort to read a lot of Calvin. Perhaps it would be better had I said, there are numerous things that I understand Calvin to have held to, that I soundly reject -- just about all of his eschatology, his views re paedobaptism, his view that the church has replaced Israel (probably an oversimplification), his allegorical interpretation of passages that I believe should be interpreted in a normal literal grammatical sense...

I am by no means an authority on John Calvin, or his writings. I will leave the rest of you to discuss what he actually wrote and what he meant by it...

Your spin on John 12:32 is not exegesis, it is eisogesis. The text plainly says, "I will draw all men unto me". There is no way to take that other than as a general drawing of all men that is less than effectual, without doing great violence to the text.

John 6 does not say that he only draws some. It says that no one can come except the Father draw him (v. 37). These are the only two passages where elkuw is used of God drawing anyone to Himself. You may draw a distant parallel with the word "call" (Rom 8:30). But even then there is a limited or general use of use kalew in contrast to those who are "chosen" (eklektos - Matt 20:16; 22:14).

 

Hello rj. May I voice my humble opinion? If Christ is saying that He will draw all men (as in every individual rather than all races of men) then that would point to a universal revelation of Christ. We know that Christ has not been revealed to all men. Ask those on the mission field. They will testify that there are many tribes of men who have never heard of Christ. They will testify that their deceased family members have never heard of Christ. I don't think due to that, that we can use this "all men" as a universal meaning. I think it would be all races of men. There you have it. My Humble Opinion brother. What do you think?

 

RB, and I think it fits well with the context of John. V. 20 notes how some Greeks were seeking Jesus, so the statement of Jesus fits perfectly well. There's no break of thought nor the introduction of a new pericope from vv.20-36.

 

RJP : Please tell me where John Calvin used the allegorical method ? He repudiated that school of interpretation as did all the Reformers . Calvin even called that hermeneutic Satanic .

 

Sovreignty of God

If a sovreign God say's that if you are able to work and you don't work in His field you will not eat and you don't work in which you die of starvation . Is He still sovreign?

If God say's whosoever believes shall be saved and whosoever does not will be condemned. It happens this way. This does not make God not sovreign. God going to save those who He foreknew, you saying in this He is not sovreign is leaning on your own understanding. Being sovreign is what you say is going to happen.

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Whosoever can join. If you do not believe in Jesus you will be condemned, because God is sovreign. If you believe on Him, you will be saved, because God is sovreign.

Whosoever trust in Jesus, God has made a promise to you, that you will not be diappointed.

God is sovreign, because whosoever believes shall be saved and you can bank on it.

 

Once again I find that I have mis-stated in that it is incorrect to apply the term "allegorical", when a preferred term is "spiritual". I must at the outset confess some personal degree of confusion in that both of these terms mean that the Scripture has some other meaning than a normal contextual literal grammatical historical meaning. Hermeneutics class has been too many years ago, mid to late 70's. While the allegorical method assumes that the real meaning of the text is something behind the literal wording of the text, the spiritual method only does this sometimes, and even then usually on the basis of reading the NT back over the OT. Certainly the "spiritual method" is much less arbitrary and applied only in some passages as opposed to the allegorical method which is totally arbitrary and applied at the whim of the interpreter.

For me, I see little difference in the outcome, as far as Calvin is concerned in passages concerning Israel, the church, baptism, the kingdom, the covenants, et al. In looking through Institutes last night, I was again stricken with how commonly Calvin substitutes a "spiritual meaning" for the clear words of the text.

I will go to one of the first topics I checked out, paedobaptism...

"I may add, that I will study so to arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther to illustrate the subject of baptism. The argument by which paedobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious, viz., that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity" (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 1)

"2. In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed - that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water." (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 2)

"3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen_17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of blievers: "God," says he, "is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Mat_22:32).... We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision." (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 3)

"5. Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure?" (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 5)


Suffice it to say, that Calvin imposes upon the text of Holy Writ such meaning as fits his predetermined theology, inherited from those who did use the allegorical method. Certainly this is potentially a great danger for all of us and we would be self deluded to believe that our own preconceptions do not tend to color our understanding of the Scriptures.

How the reformers could reject the romish concepts of salvation by any means other that grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and at the same time fail to grasp the promises to Abraham as having tangible meaning regarding the promises to his seed through Isaac and Jacob is a tribute to concept of progressive illumination. The truth had been revealed in the Scriptures, but the Holy Spirit was shining the light of understanding primarily upon the more basic issue of our salvation. This was the primary concern of the reformers and therefore there was little attention paid to the fact that the RCC had spiritualized clear OT promises to Israel in the Abrahamic, Land, and Davidic covenants. When the reformers came to Israel or Zion in the NT they just automatically "read" that as "the church". Herein they failed to literally interpret and forcefully contend for God’s promises to His elect nation, though they zealously contended that His promises to the elect of the Church should be interpreted quite literally and that none of His promises to NT believers should ever fail. I have heard this referred to as "the incomplete reformation".

Again, pardon my failure in that I used the term "allegorical"when a more appropriate term would have been "spiritual" interpretation. I should have recalled the distinction, but again, it has been about 30 years since I last gave much attention to other methods of interpretation besides the literal grammatical historical method. Only a contextual literal grammatical historical hermeneutic will rightly divide the truth. This was my intent in the earlier post.

 

Then how do you explain God's unwillingness to let anyone die?
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

MB

 

ReformedBaptist already anwered this for me MB. If you had read many responses to this question.... as I'm sure you should have by now.... you would see that we (reformed and non reformed alike, such as Allan) contextually understand that Peter was writing to the elect.
1 Peter 1:1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Peter told the elect that God was not willing that any of them would perish. This has been argued back and forth until I thought that the whole world had heard it. Wait.... did I mean litterally the "whole world" when I said that? :laugh:

 

It is true, contexually that is what it means - that the verse is in regard to believers.

This one however is not:

Though 'all' can mean "all of the whole" and "all of a part of the whole" we find the context in the above verses establishes THIS 'all' in vers 4 to be 'all of the whole' regarding context starting with verse one and ending in verse 6. It does not switch meaning mid-stream but is consistant throgh them.

Another person asked me if I could pray for every person and all people in authority while maintianing my normal life and personal prayers (praying for them all would give me no time for anything else). However, I pray for every person in my state, in the U.S. and around the world, while in the same prayer praying for every person in authority AND my own personal prayers and still eat my sandwich, drink my Southern Tea and go back to work at the end of my lunch break. "All" does mean just that here "All of the whole" and not a part of the whole.

 

I thought you were tired and went away! :laugh: Here you are back giving me grief. :thumbs:

I wonder why God would tell us in His Word to pray for all men... as in every individual..... when Jesus Himself did not pray for all men? John 17

Double standard? Or could the all men used in "all" of 1 Timothy 2 be interpreted as all of a part of the whole?.... as in 1 Timothy 6:10. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

You can go to sleep now Allan. :wavey:

 

The whole chapter 4 -- "Essence and Person: Probing the Mystery...." He loves philosophy (which he majored in in undergrad school) and I can enjoy reading him since his argumentation is well done.

Wanna discuss this further? Got the book?

skypair

 

That sounds like Calvin's humble opinion to me. :laugh:

Rom 1 says He draws ALL men -- NONE have an excuse. And if that isn't good enough, think about this --- ALL will be drawn to Christ's judgment seat, even the GWT. Calvinism's argumentation here is absolutely without foundation in scripture!

skypair

 

Well thank you for the compliment.... you don't do that often.

 

In this case, the context is "all without distinction", i.e., including even kings and those in authority.

 

I don't find where He draws all men in Romans 1. Maybe I need to go read it again? Or your exegesis is faulty?

Maybe you have Romans 1 mixed up with another Scripture?

Nope.... none of us have an excuse.