Non-Calvinist Help- Questions

[DaveXR650]

What I see on this board and other's is that calvinist run away from the logical outcome of their theology and keep saying to those that point out their errors, well you just do not understand calvinism. We use your own words and you still claim that.

How many times has it been explained to you that God will accomplish whatever he sees fit. Within that, he determines and intervenes directly when he wants and allows everything else that happens to happen because he thought it best to do so. I wish you would stop making the same false claim. I'm not saying that this is not difficult because within the scope I just explained (for the 20th time), if God doesn't save everyone under Calvinism, he indeed has chosen not to save them but has allowed them to continue in their own beloved path, according to their free will which you so highly value. Your difficulty with this is that you view man as having a neutral standing before God so that now God has to explain why everyone is not given some kind of equal chance to everyone. And speaking of pointing out errors, with your view taken to it's conclusion, God simply cannot truly act to accomplish his plan and purpose because he never can know what an individual's contrary decision might be. Simple foreknowledge, without determination is a logical impossibility. At best you go into Molinism or reduce God to simply outmaneuvering us to get his way. Talk about paganism.

The Gospel call in calvinism is not a well meant or sincere offer.

This is true in some branches of Calvinism. I don't believe that. I am not responsible for that any more than you are responsible for the majority opinion of free willers that you can lose your salvation. Use that if you want for the hypers on here but don't try it on me.

So all men do not have an equal chance to know or trust in God. Your own theology precludes this, but you it seems do not want to acknowledge that fact.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that no matter what your theology all men do not have an "equal chance" to know God. That is absurd on it's face.

When God determines the nature and the actions of men or as RC put even the movement of a molecule then for calvinists to claim man is responsible for anything is just to display sheer ignorance of their own theology.

I think he was extreme there but even so, if you really read Sproul you would know that in that same context and section he points out that God determines or at least allows everything that happens to happen. That is not what you are trying to present him as saying, is it.

I told you before that I do read a number of various authors but I do not use them inform me as to what the bible means. God gave us a book that anyone can understand but theologians have made it into a book that no one can understand.

I agree that theology goes way beyond what we need. I would think that if you really believed that you would not be on a theological debate site though. But here we are. There is no scripture only argument that you have brought up that Calvinists are not using also.

 

[Silverhair]

How many times has it been explained to you that God will accomplish whatever he sees fit. Within that, he determines and intervenes directly when he wants and allows everything else that happens to happen because he thought it best to do so. I wish you would stop making the same false claim. I'm not saying that this is not difficult because within the scope I just explained (for the 20th time), if God doesn't save everyone under Calvinism, he indeed has chosen not to save them but has allowed them to continue in their own beloved path, according to their free will which you so highly value. Your difficulty with this is that you view man as having a neutral standing before God so that now God has to explain why everyone is not given some kind of equal chance to everyone. And speaking of pointing out errors, with your view taken to it's conclusion, God simply cannot truly act to accomplish his plan and purpose because he never can know what an individual's contrary decision might be. Simple foreknowledge, without determination is a logical impossibility. At best you go into Molinism or reduce God to simply outmaneuvering us to get his way. Talk about paganism.

This is true in some branches of Calvinism. I don't believe that. I am not responsible for that any more than you are responsible for the majority opinion of free willers that you can lose your salvation. Use that if you want for the hypers on here but don't try it on me.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that no matter what your theology all men do not have an "equal chance" to know God. That is absurd on it's face.

I think he was extreme there but even so, if you really read Sproul you would know that in that same context and section he points out that God determines or at least allows everything that happens to happen. That is not what you are trying to present him as saying, is it.

I agree that theology goes way beyond what we need. I would think that if you really believed that you would not be on a theological debate site though. But here we are. There is no scripture only argument that you have brought up that Calvinists are not using also.

God has a plan and we see Him working it out throughout scripture. Where you run into a problem is that you think God has too determine everything down to the movement of a molecule. But when the logical outcome of that view is pointed out to you, that you make God the author of evil, you balk and say but man does what his nature dictates. But how can man do otherwise than what God determined for him to do? You are trying to walk both sides of the street and it just shows the inconsistency of calvinism.

Please explain how under deterministic calvinism God allows things to just happen? You write God allows man to have free will to sin but deny that man can use that same free will to trust in God, just another glaring inconsistency of calvinism. While man tend toward sin and reject God that does not equate to inability to respond to the many means that God has provided for man to know and trust Him. You have made the some logical error that I have seem many calvinist’s make, you are equating foreknowledge with determinism. God is omniscient so knows all that will happen, even the free will choices of man. God knowing what will happen does not equal God causing what will happen.

Or we could go with your view of foreknowledge. You said “Simple foreknowledge, without determination is a logical impossibility.” So by your own words God being omniscient and thus having perfect foreknowledge has to determine all things including all the evil and sin.

Here is a simple analogy that explains why your view is in error:
“I explain this by analogy of holding a heavy book. I ask the class what will happen if I let go of the book if gravity is not changed and no person intervenes. They reply it will hit the floor. I ask, ‘Are you 100 percent sure?’ They reply ‘yes.’ I respond, ‘So you have perfect foreknowledge?’ to which they respond, ‘Yes.’ I drop the book. It hits the floor. I look at them and say, ‘You caused the book to hit the floor.’ Now they understand why Christian foreknowledge does not cause events.” Ken Wilson The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism (Regula Fidei Press, 2019), 88.

I am surprised that you suggest the gospel call in calvinism is a well meant or sincere offer. You may deny it but the DoG/TULIP is a main component of calvinism. Your theology hinges on the ideas found in that systemic. You have already shown your support for Irresistible Grace which logically requires the rest of TULIP for support.

I must ask where you get this idea that all men do not have and equal chance to know God? The bible is clear that God has provided various means for all man to know Him and they will be held responsible for how they respond to that knowledge.

How did say Sproul put it “that God determines or at least allows everything that happens to happen” Under your calvinist theology God has decreed all that happens so it is not Him allowing but rather Him decreeing the action. If RC and others wish to have God allowing actions then you have to allow for actual free will. Which undermines your whole theology.

Why would I not be on a theology debate site since my purpose is to direct people back to the word of God rather than them trusting in what some “theologian” tells them the word of God means. Yes calvinist’s may use scripture but what I have noticed is that context is usually ignored or they attach special meanings to words that the context does not warrant.

 

[DaveXR650]

You have made the some logical error that I have seem many calvinist’s make, you are equating foreknowledge with determinism.

Foreknowledge by itself is reliable according to the determinism that we already know about. Where I live there will be a total solar eclipse on Monday. I know this based on our scientific knowledge and calculations of the relationships of the planets that God has determined and set in place. God could have said this would happen also. Is God basing it on scientific calculations? No, he would be basing it on the fact that he set it up to occur. See the difference. If the event had not been set up in a specific way then no one could have predicted it no matter how good our math skills. You are looking at foreknowledge like a man does, and you are correct from that perspective. That is not the way God sees it. Foreknowledge is knowledge of a future happening but that had to be determined by something or it is truly random and could not be predicted. God wanted Joseph in Egypt as a young man. He allowed Joseph's brothers to act sinfully but used their free will decision to accomplish his ultimate purpose. Because it was a free will decision they could still be held responsible for their actions. Having just explained this how can you continue to make statements like this:

If RC and others wish to have God allowing actions then you have to allow for actual free will. Which undermines your whole theology.

It doesn't undermine it at all.

Why would I not be on a theology debate site since my purpose is to direct people back to the word of God rather than them trusting in what some “theologian” tells them the word of God means.

It's a little arrogant to act like you alone are using scripture when everyone else is too.

 

[Silverhair]

Foreknowledge by itself is reliable according to the determinism that we already know about. Where I live there will be a total solar eclipse on Monday. I know this based on our scientific knowledge and calculations of the relationships of the planets that God has determined and set in place. God could have said this would happen also. Is God basing it on scientific calculations? No, he would be basing it on the fact that he set it up to occur. See the difference. If the event had not been set up in a specific way then no one could have predicted it no matter how good our math skills. You are looking at foreknowledge like a man does, and you are correct from that perspective. That is not the way God sees it. Foreknowledge is knowledge of a future happening but that had to be determined by something or it is truly random and could not be predicted. God wanted Joseph in Egypt as a young man. He allowed Joseph's brothers to act sinfully but used their free will decision to accomplish his ultimate purpose. Because it was a free will decision they could still be held responsible for their actions. Having just explained this how can you continue to make statements like this:

It doesn't undermine it at all.

It's a little arrogant to act like you alone are using scripture when everyone else is too.

I have never suggested that God does not determine some things {Joseph in Egypt, the cross etc.} but it is the calvinist that says He has to determine all things then balk at the logical outcome of their claim.

What makes you think that God's foreknowledge equals determination? And please explain how your view does not make God the author of sin & evil? Must I remind you over and over that it is the calvinist's that insist that God decree's all things. Are you suggesting that His decrees are not binding?

Even your use of Joseph's brothers does not get you off the hook. Under your calvinism even their "free will" actions were decreed so not really free will were they. Having just explained this how can you continue to make your illogical comments?

As a calvinist you are bound to support your theology, God has decreed it it be so. But He has given me the free will to oppose that view.

It is not arrogant to say I point people back to scripture, what should I do point them to men that can tell me about scripture?

 

[DaveXR650]

What makes you think that God's foreknowledge equals determination?

Because it is a logical contradiction to say that something in the future is "seeable" and yet at the same time, truly random. (If you "see" what it is going to be and you are correct in what you see, then that means that it must be that and therefore it is determined.) Even if you say like some of the philosophers do that the future is laid out like an unrolled scroll and God is standing outside of time and thus can see ahead you still have the situation that if God doesn't like what he sees he can do something to modify or prevent it. If he doesn't, he is said to ordain it, even though he wasn't the direct, determinate cause. If you are talking about a human agent, acting according to his own free will, I don't see how God allowing him to go ahead would make God responsible if what he was doing was a sinful action. But he did ordain it, if after knowing what was going to happen he allowed it. If that in your mind makes God the author of that sin then you are entitled to your opinion, I guess.

 

[DaveXR650]

So if you roll a dice next week and God says it is going to be a six - I am saying that it must be a six or else God will be mistaken. According to @Silverhair if it is truly allowed to happen according to free will there is no way there can be more than a 1 in 6 chance of the dice rolling a 6. If you are sure it is going to be a six it means by necessity that God is determining that it be a six. You cannot get around this.

 

[Silverhair]

Because it is a logical contradiction to say that something in the future is "seeable" and yet at the same time, truly random. (If you "see" what it is going to be and you are correct in what you see, then that means that it must be that and therefore it is determined.) Even if you say like some of the philosophers do that the future is laid out like an unrolled scroll and God is standing outside of time and thus can see ahead you still have the situation that if God doesn't like what he sees he can do something to modify or prevent it. If he doesn't, he is said to ordain it, even though he wasn't the direct, determinate cause. If you are talking about a human agent, acting according to his own free will, I don't see how God allowing him to go ahead would make God responsible if what he was doing was a sinful action. But he did ordain it, if after knowing what was going to happen he allowed it. If that in your mind makes God the author of that sin then you are entitled to your opinion, I guess.

You seem to forget that God is sovereign and omniscient of which we are neither. God has total foreknowledge of what man will do but He does not have to cause them to do it as they have a God given free will. You will disagree but you really only have two options God controls all actions of man or man has a God given free will or perhaps it is just all random actions with no rhyme or reason at all.

But lets play it your way shall we. God in His foreknowledge see's that you are going to take your family out to a nice show and dinner on the tenth of April 2024. Now because it is foreknown then according to you it is determined so it must happen. But if God determined that you would do this deed can you alter it, can you decide instead that you will go bowling with your family and then go to Burger King. Not according to your view. So who is responsible for doing what you did, your fate was determined by God so you were in effect just a puppet being controlled by someone else. But change going to dinner to you killing your family, who is responsible now? Under your view it has to be God as He foresaw it thus it was determined/decreed.

You have conflated foreknowledge with causation. God does know all that will happen but He does not have to cause it to happen. Man has a free will that God expects him to use and will hold Him responsible for the choices that he makes.

God can allow man to exercise His free will in a given situation He can even ordain that a man will exercise his free will in a given situation but He can not ordain what that free will action will be as then it would not be free will.

 

[DaveXR650]

. But if God determined that you would do this deed can you alter it, can you decide instead that you will go bowling with your family and then go to Burger King. Not according to your view.

There you go. Now you are starting to get it. If God determined I would do this then I definitely and for sure would do it. Don't get this confused with the fact that God may tell me to do this and I may either obey or disobey. Or God may leave such a thing as part of my human freedom so that it may be that God allows but doesn't care whether I do this or not. In those cases God knows what I will do, infallibly, and he knows anything that may prevent me from doing this and thus if I end up successfully doing this I can say God ordained it and yet he did not directly determine it.

God wanted the Israelites to go immediately and take the promised land. He gave them orders and revealed his will. Because of their actions and lack of faith though, he determined that they would not go in for 40 more years. That decree was God's determining power and could not be modified. His original plan, which according to scripture was his primary will was that they immediately go on into the promised land. God knew and yet allowed them to mess this up. So we say that it did not take God by surprise but was "ordained" by God, permissively, in light of the Israelites unbelief. That was still God's control, yet it was the Israelites fault here and not God's that they could not then go on in immediately.

God can allow man to exercise His free will in a given situation He can even ordain that a man will exercise his free will in a given situation but He can not ordain what that free will action will be as then it would not be free will.

I partially agree. The only beef I would have with that is that I think when God influences our free will it is for our good except when it's part of a judgment that we have earned for obstinate continuance in sin. In such cases he may give us over to follow our free will toward sin. But I don't think God pushes us to sin by manipulating our wills.

 

[Silverhair]

There you go. Now you are starting to get it. If God determined I would do this then I definitely and for sure would do it. Don't get this confused with the fact that God may tell me to do this and I may either obey or disobey. Or God may leave such a thing as part of my human freedom so that it may be that God allows but doesn't care whether I do this or not. In those cases God knows what I will do, infallibly, and he knows anything that may prevent me from doing this and thus if I end up successfully doing this I can say God ordained it and yet he did not directly determine it.

God wanted the Israelites to go immediately and take the promised land. He gave them orders and revealed his will. Because of their actions and lack of faith though, he determined that they would not go in for 40 more years. That decree was God's determining power and could not be modified. His original plan, which according to scripture was his primary will was that they immediately go on into the promised land. God knew and yet allowed them to mess this up. So we say that it did not take God by surprise but was "ordained" by God, permissively, in light of the Israelites unbelief. That was still God's control, yet it was the Israelites fault here and not God's that they could not then go on in immediately.

I partially agree. The only beef I would have with that is that I think when God influences our free will it is for our good except when it's part of a judgment that we have earned for obstinate continuance in sin. In such cases he may give us over to follow our free will toward sin. But I don't think God pushes us to sin by manipulating our wills.

There you go admitting that God would be the author of sin. You just do not seem to understand your own theology. God does not tell you to do something He decrees it under calvinism. So when you sin it is because you are doing exactly what He has decreed for you to do and since you have no free will He becomes the responsible one your just the tool He used.

I always find it amazing how calvinist can miss the obvious or perhaps they just ignore what they see as it does not fit their theology. Take the Israelites, God gave them an order but they chose, free will here, not to do as God commanded. Now under calvinism they would not be able to go against the command as they would not have the free will to do so. And yes God determined that they would spend the next 40 yrs in the desert, that was judgement. You even agree that God allowed for Israel's free will, and yet you just can not accept the idea that God gave man an actual free will. You keep making these comments that show man's free will and yet you keep denying it. Why is the Dave?

I really do not have a problem with much of what you said as you said what I did but used different words. Man has a free will and God will influence it through various means so that he can choose to follow or reject Christ or sin as the case may be. Where we diverge is when you say "I don't think God pushes us to sin by manipulating our wills" but that is calvinism 101. God decrees all that happens so under calvinism God does control our wills so that we do exactly as He has determined for us to do.

Now to be clear does God influence us by various means, yes. But at the end of the day it is man that has to make the choice to sin or not, to trust in Christ or not.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Silverhair . You seem to be saying that I could actually undo a decree of God? That is a difference that goes way beyond the Calvinism/Arminian debate. I don't know how to explain this any clearer. Either there is some cognitive issue or you view God like the gods on Jason and the Argonauts.
God either knew what the Israelites would do when they heard the report of the spies or he did not. I say he did, yet in his wisdom allowed them to do what they wanted. (They were not just doing what God meticulously ordered.) Yet it was part of God's overall plan that Israel wander in the wilderness for 40 years while he prepared them to go in. (The whole thing was ordained by God).
You can have the last word. There is no sense taking this any further.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair . You seem to be saying that I could actually undo a decree of God? That is a difference that goes way beyond the Calvinism/Arminian debate. I don't know how to explain this any clearer. Either there is some cognitive issue or you view God like the gods on Jason and the Argonauts.
God either knew what the Israelites would do when they heard the report of the spies or he did not. I say he did, yet in his wisdom allowed them to do what they wanted. (They were not just doing what God meticulously ordered.) Yet it was part of God's overall plan that Israel wander in the wilderness for 40 years while he prepared them to go in. (The whole thing was ordained by God).
You can have the last word. There is no sense taking this any further.

I have endeavored to point out the error of calvinism with regard to determinism and God given free will. It seems that you are unable to grasp the outcome of your chosen theology.

You have constantly twisted what I have said in the attempt to make your view more palatable. If you will not trust what scripture clearly shows then we really do not anything else to talk about. You hold on to the idea that God has to ordain all things but at the same time deny the logical outcome of such a view.

You have fallen down the rabbit hole of calvinism and can not see the truth right in front of you. I think it is your pride that makes it so hard to accept that you have trusted in man rather than God.

I do hope that you will continue to read but might I suggest it be the bible rather than the calvinist writers you seem so fond of.

 

[DaveXR650]

You have constantly twisted what I have said in the attempt to make your view more palatable. If you will not trust what scripture clearly shows then we really do not anything else to talk about.

This is why you are non functional on a debate board. I refuse to allow you to define what you think I have to conclude and then argue that. Instead, why not try to respond to what I actually say.

Look. An extreme hypercalvinist might say that you don't need to pray for someone because everything is already determined. But if you have a strong view of free will I would ask you the same question. Depending on how strong your view of God's sovereignty is, when you pray for someone you are either asking God to change that persons mind, enlighten them, put circumstances and such in their path that serves to influence them and so on. All of that involves a manipulation of their will. They currently are not interested in Christ and you want them to change that opinion. If you yourself fall into any of those categories then you a partially sharing the view of many Calvinists. Otherwise, you tell me what you are trying to accomplish when you pray for someone who is familiar with the gospel message but has rejected it so far. Try for once just to answer the question rather than just telling me what I have to believe if I go the very edge of the Calvinist spectrum. I have pointed out that I don't do that so stop the straw man arguments. What are you asking God to do when you pray for that person above?

 

[37818]

As Bible believers we might disagree on our understanding and meaning of certain passages of Scripture. I am of the opinion we should have the attitude of wanting our brothers to understand what we do.

 

[kyredneck]

I am of the opinion we should have the attitude of wanting our brothers to understand what we do.

Good luck with that! Many there are that want to be heard, few there are willing to listen.

 

[DaveXR650]

As Bible believers we might disagree on our understanding and meaning of certain passages of Scripture. I am of the opinion we should have the attitude of wanting our brothers to understand what we do.

So, in the case above I pray that God will enlighten someone, or give them understanding or conviction or set up circumstances that cause them to change. All that is within a mainstream Calvinist perspective. Would you object to that? In normal human life we spend most of our time trying to influence the will of other people in various areas. And I don't understand why God himself would not be allowed to do this. Show me where this is wrong. (In fact, show me why God wouldn't be allowed to do this and have it be completely effective when he wants it to be, especially if it is undisputedly for our benefit.)

 

[Van]

1) God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

2) God causes what He want to accomplish His purpose. Thus if He wants people to chose to put their trust in Christ, He allows us to make the choice, rather than compels some of us to believe in Christ.

3) The Calvinist view, found in published statements of doctrine, but not held by other Calvinists such as R.C.Sproul, is that God "ordains" (meaning predestines) whatsoever comes to pass. Then, in a display of cognitive dissonance, say this does not make God the author (cause) of sin.

4) There are no weaknesses in the view that God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. The weakness in the published "exhaustive determinism" view is that the Bible clearly says God gives humans a choice. If that "choice" has been foreordained, then it is not a choice. Thus the view is unbiblical.

 

[JonC]

Thread closed due to length