Help me understand calvinism.

[Iconoclast]

I see different uses of the word knew.

Your not inferring God knows me as Adam knows Eve? Ick.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

Well of course not that, however, it shows an intimate relationship.
For example take a moment to read psalm 139 as if you wrote it, and are praying it back to God.
In Genesis...they knew mentally that their wives existed, but it spoke of more than an idea of what they might do.
G, you "know" your wife differently than you know any other woman on earth.
Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate.
God knows other people exist, but Whom He did foreknow,He also did predestinate,justify, sanctify,glorify.....this is not true of the unsaved.

 

[Gorship]

I apologize if you feel as though I'm being instantly dismissive.

Trust me I'd have a lot more books to read (and maybe some friends) if I was a calvinist. I will certainly look into what you've posted.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

I apologize if you feel as though I'm being instantly dismissive.

Trust me I'd have a lot more books to read (and maybe some friends) if I was a calvinist. I will certainly look into what you've posted.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

No problem G.
We are trying to help remove obstacles even if our attempts come off as being hard at times.
All sincere questions are good and welcome. You will be given a sincere answer.
This is a bit more biblical meat, rather than milk.
Some of my best times of learning and growth have come from what started out as confrontation. Being challenged, I would raise my defense first.
Upon further review when I was considering what was offered, I had to modify what I had received as truth, as biblical verses were given in a way that forced me to.prayerfully reconsider what I thought previously.
I am still doing this in other areas of the Christian life now.
A pastor once said to me, the truth delights to be investigated.

 

[Gorship]

This may help Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

However, even in Strongs (I just looked it up) it says it can be used to talk about predestinating, to choose. But if you look at the usage it is talking about making a choice, it is not talking about knowing beforehand. That is certainly a use for the word, but not in this context.

Help me out here.

Why can't it mean to simply know before hand in this context?

Based on reading the definition again, it seems to me it could mean either (is that fair). So ok why can't it be to foreknowledge of faith and then predestined.

I hear you if your response is "it doesnt say on forknowledge of faith". OK I could bite on that but I'm not ready to jump ship yet.

My next option before going to individual election would be coperate election. Whom God forknew being the body of believers. That body of believers He predestined etc etc.

I'll certaintly do some reading tonight.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

 

[Gorship]

No problem G.
We are trying to help remove obstacles even if our attempts come off as being hard at times.
All sincere questions are good and welcome. You will be given a sincere answer.
This is a bit more biblical meat, rather than milk.
Some of my best times of learning and growth have come from what started out as confrontation. Being challenged, I would raise my defense first.
Upon further review when I was considering what was offered, I had to modify what I had received as truth, as biblical verses were given in a way that forced me to.prayerfully reconsider what I thought previously.
I am still doing this in other areas of the Christian life now.
A pastor once said to me, the truth delights to be investigated.

While some may say my concerns are simply emotional. I do have sincere objections to compatabilistic freedom.

I can't get to a place where before the foundations of the earth God was like "Jordans mom? Burn. That'll bring me glory".

I simply can't get there. If I'm humbled in heaven so be it.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

This thread is very instructive and also (sadly) representative of the Calvinist's response to the question of the origin of evil.

First of all, notice the question posed by Gorship:

"Who was the primary first cause to the fall?"
(and)
'Please explain like I'm 5."

OK, who was the primary cause of the fall and explain it like I'm a little child. So what does he get in response? The conditions of the question are changed and a 330 year old document is invoked.

You are asking whether God predestined and/or predetermined that Adam would sin in the Garden.

No, he is asking who was the primary cause of the fall. The candidates are God, Satan, or Adam (and Eve). That's it.

Let me provide an answer from a centuries-old Baptist source on the matter. I quote from the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:

5.4 The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation....blah, blah, blah...

Does that sound comprehensible to a 5 year old?

The Calvinist argument gets a bit dicey with the introduction of "first causes" and "second causes". Also, God has knowledge and God has control, but apparently they are not the same thing.

With this being true, nothing takes place outside of God's knowledge or control, not one random molecule, or partical is not under God's control.
If anything happens God knows all about it.

and

what God has indeed ordained to come to pass could not have happened any other way.

But wait! Another Calvinist enters the thread and flat out says that foreknowledge is predetermination, there is no difference!

Foreknowledge does not imply predetermining

You are right, it doesn't imply it. It flat says it.

And then we are off to the usual Calvinists tactic of redefining words to make their theology fit scripture. Foreknowledge = foreordain or to choose, and does not mean knowing what will happen. Basically, this Calvinist is saying that foreknowledge means to "cause".

Well, that's interesting. In the garden, did Adam know he was going to fall? No. Did Satan know Adam was going to fall? No. So, that leaves us with God. But wait, God didn't cause the fall, because, well, because, he just didn't. But...but... I thought foreknowledge = cause. Surely God knew Adam was going to fall, right?

Next we have the accusation that people are ignorant of Calvinism. If they weren't so darn dumb, study up on it, they would understand it.

But if you have studied it then you know you are incorrect. [Foreknowledge] is not knowing a choice that will be made.

And then there is condescending dismissal of the questioner, and personal attacks:

Another anti-calvinist who can't actually refute the position....or support their own when shown to be in error....

...what is ridiculous is that you...keep sputtering nonsense...

So I enter the fray and try to point the thread back to its original subject matter:

Gorship wants an answer to the question, "If God created man with the ability to choose sin, and if God is in control of everything, determines everything, then how can the Calvinist claim God is not responsible for sin?"

..and, crickets...no response to my attempt to steer the subject back on track. Instead we get back to the Calvinist's tactic of redefining words.

And finally, the piece de resistance, "You're not a believer"

We cannot enable you to believe, that is between you and God.

 

[Van]

That's the same thing @Van does. He keeps saying I only said "taint so" when in fact, I have totally refuted his position and he refuses to engage just as you are doing now.

Mr Taylor offers arguments against the man, name calling, and absurdity. IMHO, he is an empty suit, who simply repeats back posts. If he says some nonsense, he will charge you with saying nonsense. He makes claims of "totally refuted" when he simply denied what the verses cited said, citing instead the Cal leaning translations such as the NIV, NLT, and ESV.

 

[InTheLight]

Mr Taylor offers arguments against the man, name calling, and absurdity. IMHO, he is an empty suit, who simply repeats back posts. If he says some nonsense, he will charge you with saying nonsense. He makes claims of "totally refuted" when he simply denied what the verses cited said, citing instead the Cal leaning translations such as the NIV, NLT, and ESV.

Please stop bringing petty arguments from other threads into this thread. Thank you.

 

[Iconoclast]

While some may say my concerns are simply emotional. I do have sincere objections to compatabilistic freedom.

I can't get to a place where before the foundations of the earth God was like "Jordans mom? Burn. That'll bring me glory".

I simply can't get there. If I'm humbled in heaven so be it.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

I do not introduce carnal philosophical ideas into the mix...Look at scripture first, see what it declares about God, then man.
.many of these ideas are not found or discussed in scripture.
I do not see these ideas in scripture.
Compatible this, libertarian that,

 

[Iconoclast]

This thread is very instructive and also (sadly) representative of the Calvinist's response to the question of the origin of evil.

First of all, notice the question posed by Gorship:

"Who was the primary first cause to the fall?"
(and)
'Please explain like I'm 5."

OK, who was the primary cause of the fall and explain it like I'm a little child. So what does he get in response? The conditions of the question are changed and a 330 year old document is invoked.



No, he is asking who was the primary cause of the fall. The candidates are God, Satan, or Adam (and Eve). That's it.



Does that sound comprehensible to a 5 year old?

The Calvinist argument gets a bit dicey with the introduction of "first causes" and "second causes". Also, God has knowledge and God has control, but apparently they are not the same thing.



and



But wait! Another Calvinist enters the thread and flat out says that foreknowledge is predetermination, there is no difference!





And then we are off to the usual Calvinists tactic of redefining words to make their theology fit scripture. Foreknowledge = foreordain or to choose, and does not mean knowing what will happen. Basically, this Calvinist is saying that foreknowledge means to "cause".

Well, that's interesting. In the garden, did Adam know he was going to fall? No. Did Satan know Adam was going to fall? No. So, that leaves us with God. But wait, God didn't cause the fall, because, well, because, he just didn't. But...but... I thought foreknowledge = cause. Surely God knew Adam was going to fall, right?

Next we have the accusation that people are ignorant of Calvinism. If they weren't so darn dumb, study up on it, they would understand it.



And then there is condescending dismissal of the questioner, and personal attacks:



So I enter the fray and try to point the thread back to its original subject matter:



..and, crickets...no response to my attempt to steer the subject back on track. Instead we get back to the Calvinist's tactic of redefining words.

And finally, the piece de resistance, "You're not a believer"

We can simplify for you.

Satan rebelled.
Adam sinned
God cannot sin, He never sins,He never causes sin.
All are responsible to bow the knee to the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Men by themselves are unable and unwilling to do this.
God elects a multitude that He will enable to do this.
If you want to see the scripture, look at the 400 year old document because it has not changed.
If you want to remain ignorant of it , keep using wrong definitions from a dictionary rather than scripture...

 

[InTheLight]

All are responsible to bow the knee to the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Men by themselves are unable and unwilling to do this.

Who created this "feature" in man? This feature that makes them unwilling and unable to worship Jesus?

 

[Van]

Please stop bringing petty arguments from other threads into this thread. Thank you.

Why did you not address this to be person who brought the "petty" attack to this thread. See post #39

 

[Van]

Answers in RED
In Calvinism. Did God predestinate and predetermine that Adam would fall in the garden.
[No, God did not cause Adam to sin, but did arrange for Adam to sin, providing the tree, the command not to eat thereof, and allowing the temptation (via Satan and the deceived Eve).]
Or
did Adam do it of his own free choice and God simply foreknew the events and called them acceptable.
[Adam volitionally sinned, knowing it went against God's will.]

Did God move the chess piece or observe the chess board.
[God arranged the pieces and observed His desired outcome.]

Piper says things like not one speck of dust hangs without God decreeing it.
[Some Calvinists believe in Exhaustive Determinism, but the view is bogus]

Who was the primary first cause to the fall.
[God arranged for and allowed the fall. Remember before creation, He choose Christ to be His Redeemer from the effects of the fall.]

 

[Iconoclast]

Who created this "feature" in man? This feature that makes them unwilling and unable to worship Jesus?

That was the promised judgment on sin and rebellion, dying thou surely die.

No Calvinist anywhere would even hint that God authors sin.
Men and fallen Angel's are fully responsible for their sin. God did not force them to sin.

The confession is quite clear on this.
Also if you want truth it is found in the biblical meaning that God has given, not in twisting the biblical meaning into carnal unbiblical thought.

 

[Iconoclast]

Who created this "feature" in man? This feature that makes them unwilling and unable to worship Jesus?

If you are told do not jump out the 3rd story window, you might wind up with broken bones and paralyzed, you ignore the warning and jump...and sure enough you wind up in that paralyzed condition. Who caused it?
You?
Gravity?
The concrete?
Or creation itself? If you were never born, you would not have jumped?

 

[InTheLight]

If you are told do not jump out the 3rd story window, you might wind up with broken bones and paralyzed, you ignore the warning and jump...and sure enough you wind up in that paralyzed condition. Who caused it?
You?
Gravity?
The concrete?
Or creation itself? If you were never born, you would not have jumped?

Terrible analogy.

Deflection and unresponsive.

Let's try this again:

If God created man with the ability to choose sin, and if God is in control of everything, determines everything, then how can the Calvinist claim God is not responsible for sin?"

 

[Van]

Cognitive Dissonance on display. God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass, but is not the author of sin. If we sin, then it comes to pass, then God predestined it. Or, the correct view, God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, therefore God is not the author of sin. Such a simple concept, but beyond the grasp of every single Calvinist. They also rail against "open theism" but if we sin volitionally, and we do, then all our actions are not predestined, which is partially open theism. They cannot accept this truth either. Instead, they wrap themselves in "its a mystery!" As I said, Cognitive Dissonance on display.

 

[Van]

One of the ways to rewrite the Bible is to redefine the meaning of words used in the Bible. We are dead in our sins. But just how does being dead incapacitate our ability to (1) set our minds on some spiritual things, and (2) the milk of the gospel. It does not. But if you can redefine "dead" to include "total spiritual inability" then you can claim the mistaken doctrine has support in scripture. Twaddle

 

[Iconoclast]

"InTheLight

(Terrible analogy.)
Not really. It is just you cannot answer it, if you do it will show why your questions are defective.

(Deflection and unresponsive.)
No..on target so you avoid it.
(If God created man with the ability to choose sin, )

There was no sin,Adam had no knowledge of sin. God created Adam very good, but untested.
(and if God is in control of everything, )

Nothing can take place outside of God's control...that means, He is;
Never surprised ,never confused,never needing to speculate.

(determines everything, then how can the Calvinist claim God is not responsible for sin?")
The Calvinist believes God's revelation of Himself in ALL the Scriptures ..
Others seem to look somewhere else carnal philosophy, double talking open theists, carnal logic, and.speculation .

 

[Gorship]

ok lets...wind this back @Iconoclast and @InTheLight , maybe we can get somewhere here.

@Iconoclast . From the top - help us both here.

In the beginning (insert cool cosmic sound here) - God created the heavens and the earth.

ok - full stop -

God whilst creating man does He:

A) Allow man to do things of their own will and simply know ahead of time (because He is God)

or

B) Determine that Adam will "freely" sin

"Paragraph 4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men;11 and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully binds, and otherwise orders and governs,12 in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends;13 yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.14"

The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689