Foreknowledge: God’s Crystal Ball??

[Winman]

Except that most Calvinist., Arminians, and non-cals suggest that God works within the will of man. This is an argument that you should not have singled out for the “Calvinists.”

Well, that is what they say. First they tell you man is so utterly depraved that he cannot even form the will to love or cooperate with God in any way. He hates God with every fiber of his being, he CANNOT be willing. But then God supernaturally regenerates him and gives him a willing heart. How can this not be said to be against his will? He hated God, he wanted nothing to do with God, but God made him love him. Again, not much different than the fella who slips a pill into a ladies drink. R. C. Sproul called it the "holy rape of the soul"

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/07/rc-sproul-and-holy-rape-of-soul.html

This is not a true representation of man. Cornelius was not saved, neither did he have the Holy Spirit, but he feared God, prayed always, and gave much alms to the people. God recognized his good works and sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter where he heard the gospel and believed, receiving the Holy Spirit and being regenerated.

So, folks can say anything they want, doesn't necessarily make it so.

We don’t know a person intimately without knowing what they do. We do judge according to one’s action. We really never know anyone completely. You are exactly right. The Calvinists that I know, however, equate God as infinitely greater than man. They suppose that He knows us even before we act, knows us even more than we know ourselves. (We are not talking about "us" but about God). But I do understand why you wouldn’t accept that argument.

I would agree with this completely. No one would have thought Samson was saved, he disobeyed his parents and took a non-Jewish girl as a wife, killed 30 men to settle a gambling debt, deserted his wife, and visited a prostitute on a regular basis. But he had faith in God and is included in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews chapter 11.

But again, all men who pleased God had faith, without faith it is impossible to please God.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I never lost sight of the picture, but thanks for clarifying your position.

My point was not that “they” were right and you were wrong. It was that you cannot simply substitute your definitions for theirs and then proceed to disprove their theology. In other words, your first step should have been challenging a “Calvinist debater” on the BB regarding the definition of foreknowledge or simply leaving it out of the argument. Since you stated that you didn't care about their definition of "foreknowledge" it is impossible for you legitimately debate the issue (you'd only end up grandstanding and not actually addressing your opponent).

I don't think you can disprove a Calvinist. Calvinists have a way of interpreting scripture where you cannot refute them. You will show them John 3:16 where it says "For God so loved the world" and they will tell you the "world" only means the elect. How can you refute someone who constantly moves the goalposts?

I realize that most Calvinists will never listen to my arguments. But one or two will, and that is the best I can hope for.

 

[JonC]

I approach any discussion/debate regarding theology with one goal – to refine my beliefs. So if I were debating it would be for the purpose of examining what I believed rather than trying to change another’s views. This is for two reasons. First, I do not believe that I know all that there is to know about God. Other people have a reason for believing a certain way – their beliefs (while perhaps not true) are not unsubstantiated or inconsequential. Second, the one with whom I am debating is a brother in Christ. We may disagree, but steel sharpens steel. Perhaps something that I write will point him towards a new discovery, or vice-versa. It will not if either of us become arrogant and self-centered.

So, I guess the question would be why you want to disprove a Calvinist (or non-Calvinist) in the first place. Is it because you believe that if one holds a Calvinistic view he or she cannot be a Christian? Is it because you would feed your ego if you win a debate? Or is it a discussion to explore the topic, evaluating your beliefs and offering another view to your brother, and being satisfied with leaving (united in Christ) if neither of you change your understanding?

 

[Winman]

I approach any discussion/debate regarding theology with one goal – to refine my beliefs. So if I were debating it would be for the purpose of examining what I believed rather than trying to change another’s views. This is for two reasons. First, I do not believe that I know all that there is to know about God. Other people have a reason for believing a certain way – their beliefs (while perhaps not true) are not unsubstantiated or inconsequential. Second, the one with whom I am debating is a brother in Christ. We may disagree, but steel sharpens steel. Perhaps something that I write will point him towards a new discovery, or vice-versa. It will not if either of us become arrogant and self-centered.

So, I guess the question would be why you want to disprove a Calvinist (or non-Calvinist) in the first place. Is it because you believe that if one holds a Calvinistic view he or she cannot be a Christian? Is it because you would feed your ego if you win a debate? Or is it a discussion to explore the topic, evaluating your beliefs and offering another view to your brother, and being satisfied with leaving (united in Christ) if neither of you change your understanding?

I believe Calvinism is complete error. I do not simply make claims, I try to present scripture that supports my view. It is in fact very easy to refute Calvinism from the scriptures.

For example, we know for a fact that Cornelius was not saved, because the angel told him to send for Peter where he would hear words and be saved.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

So, we know for a fact he was not saved. We also know he did not have the Holy Spirit until Peter preached to him.

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

We know from Romans 8:9 that any man who does not have the indwelling Holy Spirit is "in the flesh".

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

So, Cornelius was neither saved nor regenerated. Did he absolutely hate God in this unregenerate state as Calvinism insists? No. Was everything he did evil as Calvinism insists? No. Therefore Calvinism is refuted.

Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

I actually do not like to debate, but we are told to contend for the truth. Otherwise I would let people believe whatever they want to believe.

Do I want to win a debate? Not really, I simply want to know the truth for my own benefit and so that I can tell others the truth.

I will tell you this, there are MANY things about scripture I do not understand. I am still studying many things. But one thing I do know is that Calvinism is a very serious error, and that is why I fight against it.

I am not a soft guy, I am going to tell you straight.

 

[JonC]

This does bring me to an off topic yet somewhat relevant question. There is a lovely older lady with whom I have become acquainted at church. She is from a Pentecostal background and said she never intended to attend a Baptist church because she had never felt welcome (she’s been a member now for over a decade). She is one of the most spirit filled, praying and loving people I have had the pleasure to know. She truly lives by faith in Christ. A problem comes along, she prays. If the situation does not turn out like she planned, she prays that she will persevere.

She does not have an opinion about election. She does “speak in tongues” (which is odd since no one else in our church does). She donates money to the 700 club and many of the television evangelists on TBN. She simply believes that if you will accept Jesus as your savior you will be saved. She also believes that God is sovereign and in control of everything. She doesn’t try to reconcile these two statements. She confesses that she has read the Bible, and while the Holy Spirit has helped her understand a lot, there is much that she doesn’t understand (but she understands fully the Gospel of Christ and is content if she doesn’t understand Revelations).

I wish that I had the faith that this dear lady posses, she is truly a “prayer warrior.” I am amazed every time I speak with her. I cannot describe the strength of her faith in Christ (some of you may have known one like her), but her faith is absolutely amazing. My question, however, is where do you think I should attack her beliefs first? Rationalizing sovereignty vs. human responsibility, continuation of sign gifts, or supporting television evangelists?

 

[Winman]

This does bring me to an off topic yet somewhat relevant question. There is a lovely older lady with whom I have become acquainted at church. She is from a Pentecostal background and said she never intended to attend a Baptist church because she had never felt welcome (she’s been a member now for over a decade). She is one of the most spirit filled, praying and loving people I have had the pleasure to know. She truly lives by faith in Christ. A problem comes along, she prays. If the situation does not turn out like she planned, she prays that she will persevere.

She does not have an opinion about election. She does “speak in tongues” (which is odd since no one else in our church does). She donates money to the 700 club and many of the television evangelists on TBN. She simply believes that if you will accept Jesus as your savior you will be saved. She also believes that God is sovereign and in control of everything. She doesn’t try to reconcile these two statements. She confesses that she has read the Bible, and while the Holy Spirit has helped her understand a lot, there is much that she doesn’t understand (but she understands fully the Gospel of Christ and is content if she doesn’t understand Revelations).

I wish that I had the faith that this dear lady posses, she is truly a “prayer warrior.” I am amazed every time I speak with her. I cannot describe the strength of her faith in Christ (some of you may have known one like her), but her faith is absolutely amazing. My question, however, is where do you think I should attack her beliefs first? Rationalizing sovereignty vs. human responsibility, continuation of sign gifts, or supporting television evangelists?

First, I easily detect the sarcasm. That's OK.

Second, do you have a desire to contend for the truth? Not everyone has. There are different gifts of the Spirit. Your friend will know these gifts.

1 Cor 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Perhaps it is not your gift. You can't just take it upon yourself.

 

[JonC]

First, I easily detect the sarcasm. That's OK.

Not sarcasm. Everything I wrote is true and after an encounter with her yesterday I couldn’t get it out of my mind. I disagree theologically with some of her understandings and I know that she hasn’t formed doctrinal views of most of what we speak of here in the BB, but her faith is greater than mine. I believe that I have a clearer understanding of Scripture, but at the same time I feel that she has a closer relationship with Christ.

I was planning on putting this on a separate thread, but somehow it seemed more appropriate here (maybe it was my sarcastic nature – if so, I do apologize, but I still feel it relevant).

 

[Winman]

Not sarcasm. Everything I wrote is true and after an encounter with her yesterday I couldn’t get it out of my mind. I disagree theologically with some of her understandings and I know that she hasn’t formed doctrinal views of most of what we speak of here in the BB, but her faith is greater than mine. I believe that I have a clearer understanding of Scripture, but at the same time I feel that she has a closer relationship with Christ.

I was planning on putting this on a separate thread, but somehow it seemed more appropriate here (maybe it was my sarcastic nature – if so, I do apologize, but I still feel it relevant).

No, I apologize if I misjudged you.

I don't go after folks just because they believe what I consider to be false. I only go after the ones who try to spread falsehood, to recruit others, etc...

This lady sounds like a very nice lady, she just needs to hear good sound preaching and good sound doctrine and she will come along nicely.

She's not out to convert anybody is she?

In the meantime, you should stick around folks with lots of faith, you will be surprised what you see.

I've got to get to bed, have a nice night.

 

[JonC]

She's not out to convert anybody is she?

Basically, she is someone who believes the Bible. She believes everything that you’ve said in terms of Scripture – but she doesn’t seem to have the need to develop a systematic way of reasoning it out. People are saved because they accept Christ, they willingly “open the door,” and they are saved because God draws them, He chooses them and chose them before the foundation of the earth.

In regards to the Gospel, she is a great witness and she shares the gospel message continually (and encourages others to do so as well). But she focuses on the “Who” rather than the how. I think that she leaves much to the individual believer (she wouldn’t condemn a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist because that would be condemning Christ in them ).

There are some people on different sides of about any issue (and I am not speaking of you, please don’t think that) who go beyond “Christian debate” and become a potential stumbling block to others. They prize their understanding and interpretation of the Gospel above the Gospel itself. In other words, they have knowledge without wisdom.

I don’t always know where to draw the line, when debate goes beyond “Christian,” but perhaps it depends on those involved. I’m not advocating that it is wrong to debate these types of issues (I believe much is to be gained), but sometimes these “debates” go wrong.

 

[JonC]

Not all “Calvinists” believe that faith follows regeneration.

If I defined regeneration as “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” then I couldn’t help but see that regeneration precedes faith. That’s not the definition that I would use because I view regeneration as being made a new creature in Christ - actual salvation which is through faith. I think that many Calvinists enlarge the doctrine to magnify the doctrine of total depravity. But I do believe that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit man will not come to Christ.