Proof of Calvinism

RED FLAGS

When seeking to understand a verse, passage, or doctrine, the Bible student goes through a process for the purpose of deriving their understanding as close to the truth as possible. We not only read, study and pray concerning one particular verse, but we also consider the textual and historical context, and the meaning of the inspired words, the grammar, and the other passages that present similar or the same idea. We try to make sure our understanding of this verse, passage or doctrines, does not create paradoxes or conflicts with other verses, passages or doctrines. If the literal straightforward sense makes sense, we seek no other sense, because when we take that first step toward saying the verse does mean what it says, we could be heading down the path of scriptural nullification, where we make scripture to no effect by the traditions of men.

But when we arrive at what seems the straightforward understanding of a verse, and that understanding creates conflicts or paradoxes with other passages, we see “red flags” because it seem we have not adhered to one or more of our rules for arriving at the truth. This view presupposes that the entire Word of God, when correctly understood is entirely consistent as far as the message God intended to convey.

If, upon study of all the verses, we can find, that throw light on the subject, most point one way, lets call that the “balance of scripture” and one or a few point the other way, it is probably wise to view our understanding of the few or the one as suspect, rather than rejecting the straightforward understanding of the balance of scripture. For example, it would not seem wise to cling to our straightforward understanding of one or two verses, if that meant we had to say dozens of verses did not mean what the straightforward reading conveys. With each mounting verse that must be “interpreted” such that it does not mean what it appears to say, a red flag should drop, and when after study, we see an avalanche of red flags we should reconsider our position.

 

So God remembers our sins no more, and you just said that doesn't mean that "God no longer knows the sinful act." So what is it that you are advocating that God doesn't know with the "remember sin no more" argument?

 

Van, just go back to post number 48 of this thread where our conversation started and clearly you were saying he remember the sin no more as proof for your limited knowledge view. I asked you clearly if you took this verse to mean that God no longer knew of those sinful acts and you never denied that is what you were saying.

It was only when pressed about Peter's denial and other sins recorded in scripture that you admittedly speculated that God might remember the act of the sin but not that it was against his will, remember?

Now, you are dogmatically arguing that God does remember the act of the sin and rebuking me for putting words in your mouth?

In reality, you have put words in my mouth when you wrote, "You are denying the very words of scripture, not in one or two verses, but in verse after verse. You kept saying God really remembers when scripture says He does not."

Where did I say that? I didn't. I explained what I believed the intent of the verse was, which is not much different from where you have landed now that you affirm God does remember the sinful acts.

 

I'm trying to understand how to use these words below.

ex·e·ge·sis
critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.

de·rive
1.to receive or obtain from a source or origin (usually followed by from).
2.to trace from a source or origin.
3.to reach or obtain by reasoning; deduce; infer.

in·fer
1.to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3.to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.to hint; imply; suggest.

eis·e·ge·sis
an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

 

Good point. :thumbsup:

 

ONLY the calvinism that you have decided to recreate here on the BB, as "real" cals do NOT hold to what you traditional post here on board!

 

Skan,
some of this I agree with,some not so much,pressed for time , found this for your consideration.

JP Boyce says it better than I do.

 

The first "derivative" of a function is velocity and also the slope of tangent line to that function at a defined point. The second derivative of the original function is the acceleration......

 

"Van, are you saying that because God forgave Peter for his denial of Christ that he doesn't know about it? Are you saying we all know of Peter's denial but God doesn't? Doesn't this make God unaware of large portions of human history since much over the years has surely been forgiven?

Could it not be the phrase "remember them no more" simply connotes God's choice to forgiven and thus treat them as if it never happened?"

And here is how I responded to Skandelon post #48

When we were discussing this topic, and I was posting verse after verse you stopped the discussion. Now you want to resume?

I believe in what the Bible says, and build doctrine based on what it says, so no verse or dozen verses need to be nullified. God says he remembers no more forever, not once but lots of times. God says He throws that knowledge into the sea, He casts it behind Him. Therefore the Bible is clear, God puts our forgiven sins our of His mind. He does not know them.

On the other hand, you have not one verse to support your unbiblical view, not one. For example, when Peter says to Jesus, you know all things, that does not refer to knowing the time of His return, so "all things" simply means all things about Peter or more broadly about those Jesus encounters. To say it means more is to rip the verse out of context. And that is exactly what the proponents of "total omniscience" have done. God said, "Now I know." indicated God learned something about Abraham by testing him, rather than searching his heart.

The number of passages that utterly invalidate your position exceeds one dozen. And on your side? Claims that God cannot do what He says, so God does not mean what He says. Fiddlesticks.

Skandelon replied:

Quote from Van:”When we were discussing this topic, and I was posting verse after verse you stopped the discussion. Now you want to resume?”

"I'll take this as a 'yes,' you believe God is somehow unaware of all the events throughout history which have been forgiven, which is about the most absurd conclusion I've ever heard drawn from the biblical account. How do you suppose He inspired the writing of that which he didn't know?"

Skandelon, those last bolded words are the ones you put in my mouth.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is how I responded:
You continue to say the Bible does not mean what it says, because it is about the most absurd conclusion. However, many commentaries agree with me, and yes, I found some that agree with you.

Lets actually talk about it a bit. Lets assume that tomorrow you will sin. Now the question is since in your view, God knows everything about everything, including future things, does God know you will sin tomorrow? If He does, could not a charge be brought against you? But scripture says no charge can be brought against God's elect. So that future sin of yours is not "remembered" or else a charge could be brought against you today. You are a sinner and you are going to sin again! But no charge can be brought, because God remembers no more your sin forever.

Now I know you want to rewrite scripture after scripture and have it say I will forgive your sin and will not hold it against you forever. But that is not what it says.

Next we have God saying "now I know." So yet another verse where God obtains knowledge by testing rather than searching our heart. So again, you say this also does not mean what it says. You do know I can cite more than a dozen verses that show God makes plans, so the future is not fixed, where He reacts to behavior, punishes or relents.

Inherent Omniscience is totally biblical, your view fails to pass muster and is based on shoddy bible study.

Now I can speculate with the best, but such does not move the ball. Your position is since you do not understand "how" God could do something He said He does, then He does not do it.

Now for some merit-less speculation because you seem willing to buy into the clever stories of men, rather than biblical truth. Sin is not a thought or an action, because animals do not sin. It is going against the will of God, it is missing the mark, creating if you will a debt that must be paid (ransomed).

Once we are saved, and Peter was saved after the resurrection like everyone else, then He forgives our sins and remembers them no more forever. So God could remember the action, but not remember the action violated God's will or created a debt needing repayment. Now to repeat, this is pure speculation, but it shows how easily speculation can be used to add to God's word.

Your view has God remembering the violation but taking no action, my view has God remembering the thought or action but not remembering it was sin, just as His inspired word says.

And the last bolded line expresses a possible meaning of God remembers our sin no more forever, posted in post number 84.

.And here is how I supported the speculation in post 105:

The bible teaches our sin testifies against us. Now when God remembers no more our sin forever, does He cast that testimony into the sea. Does He blot it out, and obliterate that testimony from His memory? I say yes based on a straightup reading of scripture. Colossians 2:14. Therefore, there is no reason not to accept the doctrine of inherent omniscience based on God saying He can remember no more forever.

Yet Skandelon is back to putting words in my mouth in post #106: Do you mean like God inspiring the writing of events he can't possibly know because he doesn't remember them anymore?

Clearly Skandelon is not understanding or is misrepresenting my position over and over.

 

Job correctly asserted that God controls both sides, and in so doing did not sin in stating it. We also see the testimony of Scriptures that God only allows Satan to do as He allows him to do, showing who is ultimately in control at all times. There are other passages showing God in control of both the good and the evil. This is the conclusion of Scriptures, not deterministic systems, as those determinists have gotten their views from the Scriptures themselves.

- Peace

 

Exhaustive determinism is a pagan philosophical view, not a biblical view. Calvinism cozies up to it but then adopts a logical impossibility as their official view. God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, but is not the author of sin. Since sin is something that comes to pass, God ordains sin. So Calvinists speak from both sides of their mouth, God ordains sin but is not the author of sin. Go figure.

 

So we are on page 21 and the defense posted in post #2 has been demonstrated to not reflect biblical truth in many aspects, but candidly in other respects it does. Predestination is a biblical doctrine, what God declares will happen is predestined to happen because God will cause it to happen. God does not look into a crystal ball from outside of time and see a created future, that is pagan philosophy, the Bible says God fulfills His prophecies, He brings them about, He causes them to happen. God devises plans and then impliments those plans according to His purpose. He says if you do this, I will do that, but if you do something else, I will do something else.

God sets before us a choice of life or death, not life only for some and death only for others as Calvinism claims. If only one outcome is possible because God has predestined it, then it is not a choice but a non-choice, so Calvinism relies on redefining the words used in scripture to fit their unbiblical doctrine into scripture.

 

Aren't you in the same "predicament"??? Here is your view (I hope I represent your view adequately) and the logical conclusion:

No matter what, God knew full well what would happen to his creation, despite that knowledge he created the world anyways. He created a world that would "allow" sin. Is he not then the cause of all things, including a world that has sin? Is he not then the ultimate cause of sin? If God absolutely knew something before it happened, then that knowledge is determinative b/c God cannot be wrong. Therefore, what God knew would happened was determined to happen (in this case, sin). Therefore God knew sin would happen (and God cannot be wrong) so he is the author of sin.

 

Van, just want a clarification. Are you saying that God does have knowledge of the sinful act? And if so, then what were you saying that God didn't know in the discussion about "remember our sin no more" if he does know the sinful act?

 

Reply to Greektim,

My position is God is not the author, i.e. direct causer, of sin. God is the uncaused cause of everything created so He of course is the indirect cause of sin. I am not in the predicament of Calvinism where God ordains, i.e. predestines everything because my view is God causes,i.e predestines, or "allows" everything, i.e. sin. God created man with the capacity to sin, but He also created man with the ability to choose to sin or not to sin. Adam was tempted by Eve and Adam chose to violate what He knew was God's command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God created the situation, putting the tree in the garden and telling Adam not to eat of it, and He knew that Adam would sin. As Pink puts it, God arranged for Adam to sin.

You may conclude I am slicing the baloney pretty thin, but I believe there is a clear distinction between God allowing Adam to choose to sin, knowing that the circumstances would result in that choice, and giving Adam no choice, i.e predestining that choice via irresistible power.

 

Footnote to post #215, God had to know that mankind would be in a fallen state before the foundation of the world, i.e. before Adam sinned, because Christ was known as the Lamb of God, the Redeemer before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20.

 

The actual issue being contested by the Calvinists is whether or not God can do what He says He does, i.e "remember no more our sins forever." Both an Arminian (Skandelon) and several Calvinists believe God really does remember our sins, but does not hold the penalty against us. I take a slightly more literal view, God actually puts some aspect of our sins out of His mind such that He limits His knowledge. Since this straightforward understanding of the text invalidates a dark ages doctrine -total omniscience - and replaces it with the more modern inherent omniscience, some have suggested I must be mistaken.

I have defended my view with three lines of evidence, God remembers no more, God says now I know indicating He did not know beforehand, God makes plans and there would be no need to make plans for the future if the future was both known and fixed by that knowledge. Additionally I have pointed out that the Greek words translated foreknown and foreknowledge refer to knowledge obtained or formulated in the past and being used in the present.

I have shown, using two of the verses that say Jesus and God are all-knowing, that in context what is being said is God knows all things about the hidden things of our heart, and therefore the extrapolation to use these verses to support God knows everything imaginable is unwarranted.

 

What is it that is out of his mind? You said that God knows the act of sin.

What else would it be? If I sin, what are you advocating that God doesn't have knowledge of anymore if it's not the sinful act?

 

I have answered these questions, Calvinists are simply repeating their questions to cover over the posts with actual content. God remembers no more our sins forever means some aspect of our sins is put out of His mind. The Bible does not say what aspect. I have speculated, based on Colossians 2:14 that it is the decrees against us. And I have explained this at least three times before, yet I get the same question over and over and over. This is how Calvinists defend their false doctrine, an avalanche of empty posts.

 

reposted post

Calvinism has not support in scripture, just verses ripped out of context, or misrepresented, such as Ephesians 2:8-9 supposedly supporting the gift of faith when the grammar precludes that understanding.