Proof of Calvinism

[zrs6v4]

I don't think Dagg was referencing anthropomorphic terms. Obviously Scripture does attribute human faculties to God so that we are able to understand. What Scripture does not do is impute human faculties to God, along with their inherent limitations.

That is well said.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think Dagg was referencing anthropomorphic terms.

What are anthropomorphic terms if not the attributing of human faculties to God? It seems to me that Dagg is acknowledging the use of the terms in scripture, but instructing others not to believe them as they are presented, or to repeat them as if we really did believe them. In other words, it seems he is saying that we need to qualify God's revelation by explaining away any aspect of that revelation which might lead people to believe that God really relates and interacts with humans in any manner like a human would.

Obviously Scripture does attribute human faculties to God so that we are able to understand.

Heaven forbid people actually understand Him by the terms he chose to reveal himself. Good thing smart men like Dagg are there to qualify the manner in which God chose to reveal himself lest we all go around saying that God hears and responds to our prayers or tests our hearts too see if we are faithful. We can't have that. raying:

What Scripture does not do is impute human faculties to God, along with their inherent limitations.

No, it explains that his ways are higher than ours and that we need to accept Him as revealed by faith, not as our finite logic reasons He must be. (i.e. "if He knew it before creating it then he caused it" etc. )

 

[Van]

Reply top Skandelon,

How can God know my heart when he is somehow unaware of many of the key moments of my life where I have sinned against him? How does he really know Peter when he doesn't even know about his denial of Christ and all the faults in his character that makes up that heart?

If what you believe is true then a counselor who knows my past mistakes and tendencies would be more knowledgable than God. Does God just close his ears when a Christian talks about his past sins?

Again, I challenge you to provide a commentary that teaches this approach. I encourage everyone here to avoid discussing this issue until Van meets that simple request.

I have addressed that God could know of all your actions, yet not know about the forgiven aspect, the decree against you.

Next you make a philosophical argument, rather than one based on scripture.

Next, I have quoted two commentaries saying God remembers no more forever our sins, He puts them out of His mind. Yet you bring it up as if I had not complied with your mandated requirement. See post #151.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic, we see now how the underlying false premises of Calvinism are defended not from scripture buy by appealing to God's character as described by men. Hence, arguments from silence. These are not biblical premises, but neo Platonic premises.

God says now I know, but that means He really already knew.
God says He remembers our sins no more forever, but really means He remembers them.

The sad truth is that many of the so called doctrines held in the past were based on shoddy bible study, and agenda driven analysis. Determining the scope of a statement takes careful study. When we play for all the marbles, we are referring to all the marbles in the game, not those in a pouch in China. When Peter says Jesus is all knowing, the topic is Peter's heart condition, therefore the minimalist view is Jesus is all knowing about Peter's heart condition, or perhaps more broadly about the heart condition of those Jesus deals with.

 

[Skandelon]

I have provided verses that can be googled, and below them are commentaries from several who say God remembers no more means put out of mind, consigned to oblivian.
Lets take Isaiah 38:17

Gill: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back; as loathsome and abominable, and so as not to be seen by him; for though God sees all the sins of his people with his eye of omniscience, and in his providence takes notice of them, and chastises for them, yet not with his eye of avenging justice; because Christ has took them on himself, and made satisfaction for them, and an end of them; they are removed from them as far as the east is from the west, and no more to be seen upon them; nor will they be any more set before his face, or in the light of his countenance; but as they are out of sight they will be out of mind, never more remembered, but forgotten; as what is cast behind the back is seen and remembered no more. The phrase is expressive of the full forgiveness of sins, even of all sins; see Psalm 85:2, the object of God's love is the souls of his people; the instance of it is the delivery of them from the pit of corruption; the evidence of it is the pardon of their sins.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: cast . behind back-consigned my sins to oblivion. The same phrase occurs (1Ki 14:9; Ne 9:26; Ps 50:17). Contrast Ps 90:8, "Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance."

Neither of these draw the same conclusions you draw regarding God's lack of knowledge. A sin can be forgiven, never to be held to account without God not being aware that it happened.

Plus, Van, you have seemed to shifted your position from this supporting the idea that God doesn't know of the sinful event to what you admitted was a speculation on your part, which was that God knew the event but didn't know it broke his law. As if God knew of Moses' murder but somehow didn't know it was wrong. Can you expound on that and show where that view is specifically taught by any scholar?

 

[Van]

No compelling evidence has been provided to support the false doctrine of total omniscience, but scripture after scripture has been cited demonstrating that inherent omniscience fits with all scripture. There is no shifting or shadow in God when He says, Now I know, that means God just learned something, not He already knew it but is pretending to have just learned it.

The TULI of Calvinism are not biblically based, but rather reflect ends driven analysis ignoring context. Christ died for all, He laid down His life as a ransom for all. People entering heaven were turned aside, teaching God's revelation can be accepted or rejected, and is not given to some irresistibly. God choses individuals for salvation who are rich in faith, based on faith in the truth, but who are poor in the eyes of the world.
God chooses us after we have lived without mercy.

 

[Van]

Reply,

Neither of these draw the same conclusions you draw regarding God's lack of knowledge. A sin can be forgiven, never to be held to account without God not being aware that it happened.

Plus, Van, you have seemed to shifted your position from this supporting the idea that God doesn't know of the sinful event to what you admitted was a speculation on your part, which was that God knew the event but didn't know it broke his law. As if God knew of Moses' murder but somehow didn't know it was wrong. Can you expound on that and show where that view is specifically taught by any scholar?

The last sentence in the first paragraph needs to be unwound. Were you trying to say God must remember our sin after or before He forgives it?

I did not shift my position. God remembers no more our sins forever, therefore some aspect of our sin God puts out of His mind, therefore total omniscience is unbiblical. I have speculated that the aspect is the decree against us that our sin testifies about. I cited Col. 2:14.

God means what He says and I trust in His word and for that I will not be put to shame.

 

[Skandelon]

Van, let's simplify this. Does God know that Peter denied Christ three times or not? Does he know that I just typed that last sentence or is He closing his eyes real fast so He doesn't accidentally see it and come to know that Peter did something that he had completely shut out? What about when a preacher preaches about that sin? Does God not listen? This seems absurd when you take it to this degree. Why not just admit that "remember no more" means just as it sounds, that God doesn't count it against you in that he will now treat you as if you never did that sin. It doesn't have to mean, as you suggest, that God is unaware of Peter's denial of Christ.

 

[Van]

reply to skandelon,

Van, let's simplify this. Does God know that Peter denied Christ three times or not? Does he know that I just typed that last sentence or is He closing his eyes real fast so He doesn't accidentally see it and come to know that Peter did something that he had completely shut out? What about when a preacher preaches about that sin? Does God not listen? This seems absurd when you take it to this degree. Why not just admit that "remember no more" means just as it sounds, that God doesn't count it against you in that he will now treat you as if you never did that sin. It doesn't have to mean, as you suggest, that God is unaware of Peter's denial of Christ.

Remember when I answered this question before? I speculated, leaning on my own understanding, that God knows the actions but puts the consequence out of His mind. I have posted this answer twice before. This is the third time I have answered this question. I know that God remembers no more our sin forever, but exactly what aspect of sin is put out of His mind is not explained. Based on Colossians 2:14, I think it is the decree against us the sin testifies to.

When He casts our sin into the sea or behind Him, the idea is He puts it out of His mind forever.

And to repeat, yet again, God could be aware of Peter's denial and yet not remember the decree against Peter that sin proclaims. Pretty simple really.

 

[Skandelon]

Remember when I answered this question before? I speculated, leaning on my own understanding, that God knows the actions but puts the consequence out of His mind.

Right, which would be the same position as the rest of us. God knows what happened but doesn't invoke the consequences of that action...he forgives and forgets it.

But, before you were pointing to this passage as proof that God's knowledge is not total (i.e. he no longer knows of the sinful act). That is much different than saying he has chosen for sins forgiven not to have the consequences otherwise invoked.

If you admit God knows that Moses murdered a man, that David slept with Bathsheba, that Peter denied Christ then you are admitting right along with the rest of us that God knows everything but chooses to forgive them and not invoke the consequences of those sins upon them ever again...they are gone into the sea, etc...

Good to see we are now in agreement. :thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

What are anthropomorphic terms if not the attributing of human faculties to God? It seems to me that Dagg is acknowledging the use of the terms in scripture, but instructing others not to believe them as they are presented, or to repeat them as if we really did believe them. In other words, it seems he is saying that we need to qualify God's revelation by explaining away any aspect of that revelation which might lead people to believe that God really relates and interacts with humans in any manner like a human would.

Heaven forbid people actually understand Him by the terms he chose to reveal himself. Good thing smart men like Dagg are there to qualify the manner in which God chose to reveal himself lest we all go around saying that God hears and responds to our prayers or tests our hearts too see if we are faithful. We can't have that. raying:

No, it explains that his ways are higher than ours and that we need to accept Him as revealed by faith, not as our finite logic reasons He must be. (i.e. "if He knew it before creating it then he caused it" etc. )

These terms are used to help us to understand.......Skan...I only offered you one quote and you struggle with it. You have posted things that I would not post.
To ascribe human attributes to God,or limit Him is like a theological third rail.
I would advise you to slow down about making these statements

Heaven forbid people actually understand Him by the terms he chose to reveal himself. Good thing smart men like Dagg are there to qualify the manner in which God chose to reveal himself lest we all go around saying that God hears and responds to our prayers or tests our hearts too see if we are faithful. We can't have that. raying:

This wisecrack about Dagg shows you do not understand what is really at issue. Dagg does not need me to defend Him. I will say this...this wrong view you have bleeds over into most other areas of theology. It affects it.

21These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.

Dagg and others do understand ;

Heaven forbid people actually understand Him by the terms he chose to reveal himself.

The terms are one thing, understanding is something else.

 

[Skandelon]

To ascribe human attributes to God,or limit Him is like a theological third rail.
I would advise you to slow down about making these statements

See, this is the problem. I am not the one 'ascribing human attributes to God,' scripture is. You and Dagg are the ones equating that ascribing of attributes as being "limiting." I don't believe that. I reject that God's choice to present Himself in scripture by the use of anthropomorphic terms is in any way limiting. I believe it reveals the multi aspect nature of God in the way HE has chosen to engage with His creation. I believe God can be 'omni-everything' in his transcendence while still genuinely conversing with Abraham about whether or not to destroy the Israelites as an immanent Being reacting in our time and space.

I think God can not know of his second coming (Son) and at the same time know of his second coming (Father), and not sacrifice one iota of his sovereignty, oneness, omniscience or any other divine attribute. I accept the paradox in faith.

So, practically speaking, what does that mean in my walk with God? When I pray I really believe it can have an effect. I believe my prayers may affect what happens in my life and the lives of those I pray for. I believe God may respond, relent, move and answer when I speak to him. We have real conversations like I have with a real person. We have arguments and I usually lose We have a relationship.

Before, when to me God was just some omni-theological concept, I didn't know how to relate to him. I over intellectualized him to the point of practical absurdity. He was fun to study but impossible to know and love. Call me crazy, I really don't care, but I wouldn't go back to that for anything in the world. I love my relationship with God now. Its exicting, real, romantic, dynamic and ever growing. He is not a concept to be studied, He is a person to know and love. That is just my take, I am not suggesting that is your relationship...its was just mine for far too long.

 

[Iconoclast]

See, this is the problem. I am not the one 'ascribing human attributes to God,' scripture is. You and Dagg are the ones equating that ascribing of attributes as being "limiting." I don't believe that. I reject that God's choice to present Himself in scripture by the use of anthropomorphic terms is in any way limiting. I believe it reveals the multi aspect nature of God in the way HE has chosen to engage with His creation. I believe God can be 'omni-everything' in his transcendence while still genuinely conversing with Abraham about whether or not to destroy the Israelites as an immanent Being reacting in our time and space.

I think God can not know of his second coming (Son) and at the same time know of his second coming (Father), and not sacrifice one iota of his sovereignty, oneness, omniscience or any other divine attribute. I accept the paradox in faith.

So, practically speaking, what does that mean in my walk with God? When I pray I really believe it can have an effect. I believe my prayers may affect what happens in my life and the lives of those I pray for. I believe God may respond, relent, move and answer when I speak to him. We have real conversations like I have with a real person. We have arguments and I usually lose We have a relationship.

Before, when to me God was just some omni-theological concept, I didn't know how to relate to him. I over intellectualized him to the point of practical absurdity. He was fun to study but impossible to know and love. Call me crazy, I really don't care, but I wouldn't go back to that for anything in the world. I love my relationship with God now. Its exicting, real, romantic, dynamic and ever growing. He is not a concept to be studied, He is a person to know and love. That is just my take, I am not suggesting that is your relationship...its was just mine for far too long.

Scripture says God cannot change.....He does not need to.
So if we read that ;

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Dagg and others understand that this language is used and written so we get the idea. God writes in a way we as created beings can grasp.

You have a different view on this ,that I see as error. You [and other non cals]say you believe in God's sovereignty. Some of us here believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. We come to different conclusion...as seen in the confessions of faith.
Most disagreements center around this issue.

 

[Skandelon]

Scripture says God cannot change.....He does not need to.

His nature, characteristics, personhood, attributes never do change. Where have I claimed otherwise?

Dagg and others understand that this language is used and written so we get the idea. God writes in a way we as created beings can grasp.

Right, so why try to re-reveal Him in a way that we can't grasp? Why not allow us to grasp him and believe in that which we have grasped rather than confounding the matter with complex theological theories most people without a formal education would have no hope of ever "grasping?" Which, interestingly enough, is most of humanity. Most people don't have formal theological educations, most don't even have basic reading and writing skills. Yet in Christianity (where the weak, uneducated, unwise are said to shame the strong, educated, rich elitists) I guess we just need more sophisticated revelations of God than the ones scripture provide....you know, ones people can "grasp."

You have a different view on this ,that I see as error. You [and other non cals]say you believe in God's sovereignty. Some of us here believe in the absolute sovereignty of God.

And some think sovereignty demands that God 'play both sides of the chess board,' so to speak, to ensure victory; but I happen to believe in a God who sovereignly accomplishes his purposes despite sin, evil and suffering in this fallen world...and He can do so without being just as 'in control' over the black pieces as he is the white ones.

 

[preacher4truth]

His nature, characteristics, personhood, attributes never do change. Where have I claimed otherwise?

Right, so why try to re-reveal Him in a way that we can't grasp? Why not allow us to grasp him and believe in that which we have grasped rather than confounding the matter with complex theological theories most people without a formal education would have no hope of ever "grasping?" Which, interestingly enough, is most of humanity. Most people don't have formal theological educations, most don't even have basic reading and writing skills. Yet in Christianity (where the weak, uneducated, unwise are said to shame the strong, educated, rich elitists) I guess we just need more sophisticated revelations of God than the ones scripture provide....you know, ones people can "grasp."

And some think sovereignty demands that God 'play both sides of the chess board,' so to speak, to ensure victory; but I happen to believe in a God who sovereignly accomplishes his purposes despite sin, evil and suffering in this fallen world...and He can do so without being just as 'in control' over the black pieces as he is the white ones.

Does God control both black and white pieces? Or does He only control one side, and then adjusts as things come along? I believe He controls both pieces, and in so doing (as I believe is the Scriptural position) is glorious in all of it, and infinite in Being beyond our comprehension in these things. I think any other position is non-Scriptural, and limits God to mans reason.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree, it is beyond our full comprehension which is why we have to allow scripture's revelation to speak for itself. Saying that He controls both sides equally is not in line with the biblical revelation IMO.

God may be 'in control' without necessarily controlling a particular free moral agent. The bible says that Satan prowls like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, not that God, looking like a lion and just calling himself satan does the prowling and destroying. The bible also teaches that there are rulers and authorities of this dark world who are in opposition to him, so to suggest God is behind the scenes controlling their moves just as he is controlling the 'good side' is biblically unfounded. That is the conclusion based on the logic of a deterministic system, not scripture.

 

[CF1]

Originally Posted by Van
I have provided verses that can be googled, and below them are commentaries from several who say God remembers no more means put out of mind, consigned to oblivian.
Lets take Isaiah 38:17

Gill: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back; as loathsome and abominable, and so as not to be seen by him; for though God sees all the sins of his people with his eye of omniscience, and in his providence takes notice of them, and chastises for them, yet not with his eye of avenging justice; because Christ has took them on himself, and made satisfaction for them, and an end of them; they are removed from them as far as the east is from the west, and no more to be seen upon them; nor will they be any more set before his face, or in the light of his countenance; but as they are out of sight they will be out of mind, never more remembered, but forgotten; as what is cast behind the back is seen and remembered no more. The phrase is expressive of the full forgiveness of sins, even of all sins; see Psalm 85:2, the object of God's love is the souls of his people; the instance of it is the delivery of them from the pit of corruption; the evidence of it is the pardon of their sins.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: cast . behind back-consigned my sins to oblivion. The same phrase occurs (1Ki 14:9; Ne 9:26; Ps 50:17). Contrast Ps 90:8, "Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance."

I am searching for these new terms below in the above commentators quotes:
Inherent Omniscience
Total Omniscience

I am searching for the meaning of these new terms to understand the difference:

Definition of Inhere (Dictionary.com)
in·here
to exist permanently and inseparably in, as a quality, attribute, or element

Definition of Total
to·tal
1.constituting or comprising the whole; entire; whole: the total expenditure.
2.of or pertaining to the whole of something: the total effect of a play.
3.complete in extent or degree; absolute; unqualified; utter: a total failure.
4.involving all aspects, elements, participants, resources, etc.; unqualified; all-out: total war.

Some terms make things less clear rather than more clear.

 

[quantumfaith]

See, this is the problem. I am not the one 'ascribing human attributes to God,' scripture is. You and Dagg are the ones equating that ascribing of attributes as being "limiting." I don't believe that. I reject that God's choice to present Himself in scripture by the use of anthropomorphic terms is in any way limiting. I believe it reveals the multi aspect nature of God in the way HE has chosen to engage with His creation. I believe God can be 'omni-everything' in his transcendence while still genuinely conversing with Abraham about whether or not to destroy the Israelites as an immanent Being reacting in our time and space.

I think God can not know of his second coming (Son) and at the same time know of his second coming (Father), and not sacrifice one iota of his sovereignty, oneness, omniscience or any other divine attribute. I accept the paradox in faith.

So, practically speaking, what does that mean in my walk with God? When I pray I really believe it can have an effect. I believe my prayers may affect what happens in my life and the lives of those I pray for. I believe God may respond, relent, move and answer when I speak to him. We have real conversations like I have with a real person. We have arguments and I usually lose We have a relationship.

Before, when to me God was just some omni-theological concept, I didn't know how to relate to him. I over intellectualized him to the point of practical absurdity. He was fun to study but impossible to know and love. Call me crazy, I really don't care, but I wouldn't go back to that for anything in the world. I love my relationship with God now. Its exicting, real, romantic, dynamic and ever growing. He is not a concept to be studied, He is a person to know and love. That is just my take, I am not suggesting that is your relationship...its was just mine for far too long.

Excellent Post. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Does God control both black and white pieces? Or does He only control one side, and then adjusts as things come along? I believe He controls both pieces, and in so doing (as I believe is the Scriptural position) is glorious in all of it, and infinite in Being beyond our comprehension in these things. I think any other position is non-Scriptural, and limits God to mans reason.

Does He control, or is he "in control"? With what type of "reason" do you understand the things you understand?

 

[Van]

Reply to Skandelon,

Right, which would be the same position as the rest of us. God knows what happened but doesn't invoke the consequences of that action...he forgives and forgets it.

But, before you were pointing to this passage as proof that God's knowledge is not total (i.e. he no longer knows of the sinful act). That is much different than saying he has chosen for sins forgiven not to have the consequences otherwise invoked.

If you admit God knows that Moses murdered a man, that David slept with Bathsheba, that Peter denied Christ then you are admitting right along with the rest of us that God knows everything but chooses to forgive them and not invoke the consequences of those sins upon them ever again...they are gone into the sea, etc...

Good to see we are now in agreement. :thumbsup:

Lets not rush and miss the truth. I never said, nor suggested God no longer knows the sinful act. You are putting words in my mouth. I quoted scripture which says God remembers our sin(s) no more forever, and then referred to the fact that scripture does not explain what aspect of the sin is not remembered. You assumed a position I did not take. Go back and read every post.

God remembering no more something about our sin is very different from not holding the sin against us. 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.

All these verses clearly demonstrate total omniscience is unbiblical, just as "now I know" demonstrates God did not know something, so again total omniscience should be put of the dust bin of history. We must stick to what scripture says, not what men claim based on what scripture does not say.