Proof of Calvinism

No...

Glorified in Romans 8:30 is, in fact, in the Aorist tense

The Aorist form of the verb δοξάζω is ἐδόξασεν.

The imperfect form of the verb δοξάζω is ἐδόξαζον.

The Aorist shows a snapshot of past time; the imperfect shows ongoing action in the past.

There is a great, but subtle, difference between Aorist and Imperfect.

You shouldn't talk about that which you obviously know nothing about.

The Archangel

 

If God no longer knows about sins he has forgiven, then it must mean that God is ignorant of HUGE portions of the Bible, in which he recounts sins that he has forgiven, such as those by David, Abraham, Peter, Paul, and others.

If God literally forgets our sins, He does not know these parts of the bible...but only the parts that record sins that he has punished, or parts that do not relate to sin at all.

 

If we want verses, here they are:

Psalm 119:89 - forever, O Lord, your word, is firmly fixed in the heavens.
Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God will stand forever.
1 Peter 1:25 - but the word of the Lord remains forever.”

If Van's view of God's knowledge is correct, then God's word will abide forever in the heavens...but God won't know the portions of it that recount the sins that he has forgiven.

 

Reply to Skandelon,

My memory may be faulty but I asked you about the Now I know verse and you have not, as I remember, answered it.

You are asking me to speculate on what is not explained in scripture, but I should not add to scripture my own understanding.

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.

Niow lets see, Sir, if you answer my question.

 

Reply to anyone who can read

Notice Archangel agrees with me, when we are saved and spiritually placed in Christ, we are glorified, a done deal in our past. This verse is not referring to our physical glorification at Christ's return.

In summary, everyone called according to His purpose, i.e saved by being spiritually placed in Christ, was foreknown, i.e corporately elected before the foundation of the world, predestined, i.e. anyone placed spiritually in Christ will be conformed to the image of His Son, called individually during their lifetime and chosen to be placed in Christ based on God crediting their faith as righteousness, justified by undergoing the circumcision of Christ, and glorified, i.e transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

 

Reply to 12 Strings,

See my answer to Skandelon.

 

So, you are speculating that God may know of a murder but not know that the murder was violation of God's will? So, that would mean that God knew of Moses' murder but didn't know it violated His own plan, right? You don't find this a bit confounding and unnecessary? Why not just take the most orthodox approach here? Speaking of which can you point out the commentaries that support your view?

I'm addressing the point regarding remembrance of sin no more and nothing more...

I don't have an issue with God coming to know something within time and space... The origin of a thought in God is most certainly beyond us. Scripture teaches that God makes choices, but how do we explain how a person who has always known all things makes a choice? We can't. On this point, we agree.

 

I was making no such assertion in my post to you--and I think you know that.

I have not said--to you--what I believe this passage is saying. I was merely pointing out that you, as usual, have mishandled and mislabeled the Greek in calling something "past tense" that is, in fact, Aorist.

The Archangel

 

Archangel,
thanks for offering correction to this error that he insists on posting....no one is buying what he is selling.

 

It would serve van well to come clean here. He is making some very serious theological errors, and these are concerning the nature and person of God.

 

Reply to Skandelon,

Well, well, the truth comes out. God does not know everything imaginable, thus Skandelon in fact agrees that total omniscience is unbiblical. Or is he playing with words, God coming to know something within time, while all the while knowing it outside of time. Who knows?

Bottom line, God does not remember our sins, therefore He cannot use that knowledge to create a debt that must be repaid. Inherent Omniscience is consistent with all those passages where God casts our sin behind His back or into the see, while total omniscience denies God is powerful enough to remember no more our sin forever.

God can choose to search our heart and know what we will do given a circumstance or not. He can choose not to know how we will react and test us, just as He tested Abraham. Inherent Omniscience is consistent with these scriptures, while total omniscience denies God is able to not know everything.

God makes plans, but why would God make plans if He knows the outcome. Do not the plans of God alter the future? Therefore the future is not fixed but evolving as God creates the next things.

In the dark ages, Christians wrote into the Bible the pagan belief in an existent future that God inhabits and knows exhaustively. Time for the next things.

 

-Acts 13:48 - And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

12 Strings asserted in post #2 that this verse "speaks of predestination." This is false and misleading. The word translated appointed means to agree to requirements, thus an appointment by mutual consent. It does not refer to the unilateral predestination of God.

The person presenting the requirements, or terms of the appointment, was Paul who presented the gospel of Christ. As many as took Paul's direction to eternal life believed, which is a requirement of the gospel.

This is the simple, straightforward meaning of the text. Therefore the Calvinist doctrine as opposed to the Biblical doctrine of Predestination is false doctrine.

Romans 9:9-16 does not support the Calvinist doctrine of individual predestination to salvation before creation. The election in view occurred during the lifetime of the babies after there was an older one and a younger one, and was not for the purpose of New Covent election for salvation. Therefore, this verse also provides no support for the Calvinist false doctrine of individual predestination to salvation.

John 6:44 says a person must first be drawn by the Father in order to come to the Son, but it does not say, as Calvinism claims, everyone drawn by the Father comes to the Son, which is the Calvinist rewrite of the verse. This verse provides no support for the Calvinist false doctrine of individual predestination before creation to salvation.

 

I think a better way to put it would be that the sins He has forgiven will never be brought before us ever again. I do believe that He will not remember them ever again, because He said their sin will I remember no more.

The thing to think about is this; when God looks at His children which are saved, He sees them through the blood of Christ, which is our righteousness now. Before salvation, our righteousness was as filthy rags. Now, we have been clothed and made righteous by the blood of the Lamb.


Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.


Isaiah 38:17 Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.


Micah 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.


Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.


Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.


Another thing; under the OT, there was a remembrance a sin from year to year. That was why there was a need of the yearly sin sacrifice for all of Israel. Now, when Jesus' shed blood is applied to our soul, it is cleansed, and the sin that we had committed prior to this, is blotted out, and never will be brought up before us ever again.

 

I don't know why I bother. I should leave Don Quixote to his windmills, I guess. But....

This post (and the position taken therein) denies so many tenets of Christian Orthodoxy that it is hard to imagine...well, never mind.

First, I don't think Skandelon agrees with you. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's completely against you.

It is true that, for the believer, God no longer remembers our sins against us.

But, that--not remembering our sins against us--is based on the payment of those sins in Christ. This gets at the very heart of justification.

We are not forgiven simply because God decides to forget our sins. God forgetting our sins would mean that sin goes unpunished and that would make God unjust. Rather, we are forgiven of our sins and God "forgets" our sins because those sins have been paid for by Christ.

God doesn't "create a debt that must be repaid" simply because Christ has paid that debt. There is nothing to pay and, therefore, the sins can be "forgotten."

To deny the omniscience of God--as you are doing--is to say that God does not know the sins we would commit. Therefore, if God had no idea what sins I would commit in 2011, He could not have placed that sin on Christ while He was on the cross. If my sins (and they are many) were unknown to God on the day Jesus died, those sins were not placed on Christ, and my sins were not forgiven...and neither were yours.

A substitutionary-penal atonement--which is the predominant biblical portrait of the atonement--requires that God know which sins were to be, in the future, committed so that these sins could be placed on Christ as He suffered God's just and righteous wrath against our sin.

So, in denying God's omniscience, you are also denying the atonement--at least you're denying any biblical portrait of the atonement. You might as well as cut out all the "propitiation" language from your Bible.

God not only knows potentialities (I'm not meaning to argue the Molinist position as I am not a Molinist) He knows--definitively--every free action of every being. Nothing takes God by surprise.

If you hold that anything, ultimately, takes God by surprise, then, whether you like the label or not, you are an open-theist and, as such, are descending into heresy.

Look at the words of of Isaiah:

[8] “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
[9] remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,

[10] declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
[11] calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it. (Isaiah 46:8-11 ESV)
​

God knows the future--not potentialities about the future--precisely because He has declared the future from before time began.

Therefore, the future is fixed. If the future were not fixed, how could God prepare the Cross for Christ? We never have a biblical picture of God working behind the scenes like the Wizard of Oz. No, instead, every picture of God we have in Scripture is of Him seated on the throne--a picture of His absolute sovereignty and omniscience. All of history is unfolding just as it was designed to do and as He declared it would.

This is a hideously stupid statement.

Keep chasing your windmills.

The Archangel

 

Wrong.

The word τάσσω has several acceptable meanings inside the range of its semantic domain. "Agree to requirements" is not one of them.

Furthermore, your assertion that the usage of τάσσω in the Acts 13:48 passage means "an appointment by mutual consent" is absolutely wrong.

The reason you are wrong about this is this:

The inflected Greek form of the work used in Acts 13:48 is ταταγμένοι. It is a Perfect Passive Participle. The fact, alone, that it is passive rules out your interpretation. In Greek, the passive means that the subject is being acted upon, not acting for himself or herself.

So, you are simply wrong.

The Archangel

 

Yes...you are correct.....many have tried to show him, but he does not want to see. His position is increasingly unbiblical.....spiritual quicksand:tear:

Oh yes....Archangel just shredded yet another post full of bizarre ideas......If he keeps posting these ideas, everyone will jump to the grace side of things.....the posts and thoughts are fragmented.....

 

The word that comes to mind here is anthropomorphism

 

I am not denying God's omniscience. I'm only admitting what some refuse to admit: It is impossible to understand how an infinite omniscient being makes a choice, comes up with a new thought, comes to know of something He didn't originate (i.e. a sinful intent). We MUST admit there is a level of mystery here and BOTH sides are wrong to draw hard conclusions in the midst of uncertainty. Van is wrong to conclude that God doesn't know everything, and determinist are wrong IF they conclude that His omniscience demands divine predetermination. Neither conclusion is supported in the text, but are drawn based on finite human logic. Why must we draw unfounded conclusions simply because we can't fully understand how God in his infinite nature functions within time and space? We can't really even grasp the concept of eternity, what makes us think we can grasp how an eternal all knowing, all powerful being functions within time and space?

How about instead we agree that God chooses not to use that knowledge (of our sin) to create a debt that must be repaid, and leave it at that?

BTW, you still haven't given me any commentary that supports your view...

 

I'm simply amazed that folks on here think that God came up with a new thought, that something occurred to Him at a certain point, came to know of something (sin) that He didn't originate.

Wow. How erroneous.

I have a much higher view of God than to think that He has learned things, things have occurred to Him, that He "comes to know" of anything. Well, of course I got my view of God from Scriptures, and this is not how HE is portrayed, as some finite being. And that is EXACTLY what He would be IF He learns things along the way (came to know something) this would make Him finite.

What a profound misunderstanding of the person of God and of His being perfect in all things, knowledge, wisdom, everything.

God knows all things, knew of all things at all times and never "came to know" a thing.

Unreal.

 

Well.... YEA & if a supporter of a theology like that keeps posting thus then I will need to block him (them). I dont want that to interfere with my own beliefs in the Sovereignty of my Lord & Savior.