Proof of Calvinism

[Van]

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.

 

[jbh28]

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.



....

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.

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?

 

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[CF1]

...a process for the purpose of deriving their understanding...

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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

Good point. :thumbsup:

 

[JesusFan]

Hi 12 Strings, there is no support whatsoever in the Bible for the TULI of Calvinism.

There is support for election, predestination, being called, justified and glorified. These biblical doctrines are misconstrued and misrepresented by Calvinism.

Here is part of what you asserted:

5 crucial doctrines:
1. Foreknew – God looked down history before creation and knew (Personally) us.
(Did God predestine those that he foreknew would believe? We don't believe this fits with the numerous other verses that seem to say otherwise.)
2. Predestined – Chosen by God.
3. Called – includes being drawn by the Holy spirit (John 6:44)
4. Justified – Declared righteous, Jesus’ perfect record transferred to us.
5. Glorified – When Jesus returns and we receive new bodies

The words translated as foreknew, and foreknowledge, do not mean looking down history before creation, they mean to use knowledge obtained or formulated in the past in the present, i.e. to do something now based on something known beforehand. I have presented in the thread "foreknowledge" where and how these words are used and they are always used in the same way. Calvinism takes this truth and redefines the meaning of the word, pouring into the Greek one of the meanings of foreknowledge from English which is to know things from the future. Pure fiction and shoddy bible study.

In the case of Biblical predestination, God knows that you would get saved NOT because He could foresee it happening in the future, but because he was determining/directly causing it to happen, that He chose you and saved you not due to anyhting we could do, but based upon His will and Grace ALONE

2. Predestined does not mean chosen by God, it means to determine beforehand. When God decides what will happen in the future, it is predestined because God brings about what He has decided to bring about, for no plan of God can be thwarted. So yet another rewrite of the meaning of a word to pour Calvinism into scripture where none actually exists.

ALL things that happen are under the absolutecontrol of God, just that some things He directly caused to occur, others that he permitted, ALL though are under His providence and control!

3. To be called is a tricky term, it sometimes is used to refer to hearing the call, but other times it refers to "the called" which are those whose faith in Christ God credited as righteousness. Next, Calvinism redefines "drawn" to mean compelled, rather than attracted by God's loviningkindness. This redefinition is an attempt to pour "irresistible grace" into scripture, but again the doctrine is fiction based on misrepresentation.

God does NOT saved based upon faith of us, but based upon the Cross and His plans and purposes for His elect in Christ!

4. Justification is provided by God accepting Christ's sin offering for all men, (He laid down His life as a ransom for all) but only those whose faith God credits and righteousness and are therefore placed spiritually in Christ receive the justification. When we are spiritually placed in Christ we undergo the circumcision of Christ where the body of sin is removed and therefore we are redeemed, made right with God because the separation as a result of our sinful condition is removed and we are made alive together with Christ.

Again, our faith does not save us, not a work in and by itself, but that is means to access what actually saves us, that being the atonement of Christ done for our behalf on the Cross!

5. And it is true we will be physically glorified when Christ returns but Romans 8 speaks of those in Christ being already glorified, applicable to every born again believer. This refers to us being transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God, and therefore we are spiritually glorified when we are spiritually placed in Christ.

we are reborn in our spirit by God at the point of salvation, but the HS is just a seal/pledge in earnest of the future glory that we will share in Christ at His second coming, when this Mortal put on immortality, when our physical bodies become as His is! ALL of creation groaning, along with our bodies, for future time, when jesus returns again!

So five for five, Calvinism misconstrues and misrepresents biblical truth.

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!

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

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

II. It is again objected, that the Scriptures represent change in God, when they speak of him as "repenting" of the acts which he had done.

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

1 Sam. 15:35. "And the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

Ps. 106:45. "And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitudes of his mercies."

Amos 7:3. "The Lord repented concerning this: It shall not be saith the Lord."

Jonah 3:10. "And God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them."

In reply to this objection, it may be stated that these are merely anthropopathic expressions, intended simply to impress upon men his great anger at sin, and his warm approval of the repentance of those who had sinned against him. The change of conduct, in men, not in God, had changed the relation between them and God. Sin had made them liable to his just displeasure. Repentance had brought them within the possibilities of his mercy. Had he not treated them differently then there would have been change in him. His very unchangeableness makes it necessary that he shall treat differently those who are innocent and those who are guilty, those who harden themselves against him and those who turn toward him for mercy, with repentant hearts. So far as the first of these passages is concerned, it is simply a protest against the great wickedness into which the race of man has fallen. The Scriptures show that God has had a purpose with reference to such sin, which, from the beginning, contemplated the fall of man and the different stages of wickedness by which in various ages that fall has been accompanied. These statements differ widely from those which declare love, pity, or anger, for there is no emotion in God correspondent with the outward declaration.

III. Again it has been objected that God must be changeable or he could not answer prayer. It is said if his purposes stand forever and he changes not his will, then there is no place for prayer.

It is unquestionably true that God promises to answer prayer. It is also true that prayers have been answered, and that the course of human events has thus been different from what it would have been had there been no prayer and no answer to it.

But the mistake arises from supposing that there has been change in God's purpose or action from what he always contemplated.

The difficulty is not one that affects prayer only; it arises as well in connection with labour, or with any other act, by which, through man, a new force is introduced into the universe.

It proceeds from the fact that man, being a voluntary agent, may act according to choice at any moment of his life. That choice puts his action outside of the mere mechanical movements of the universe. Over these it is admitted that God has absolute control, and that his purpose relative to them has no change. But it is thought, that if man can choose one thing, or another, or can do, or not do, any special act he pleases, then so much of the future being dependent upon and resultant from his act or volition, God must change his purpose to correspond with that act or volition.

To this it may be replied that, even without explanation, we know that such cannot be the case, for this would take away the independence of God. It would make his volitions dependent upon those of man. If it be therefore true, that man cannot be a free agent, without such mechanical action, on his part, as would leave God free, we know that free agency does not belong to him. But we are so fully conscious of our free agency, that that consciousness becomes to us the highest revelation from God that it has real existence. If prayer then be offered, the only doubt about it, as a power and force, the effect of which does not change, is whether God answers it. And, in his word he has so plainly taught this, as to leave no room for doubt.

JP Boyce says it better than I do.

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

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]

"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.

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

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

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Greektim]

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.

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.

 

[jbh28]

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 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?

 

[Van]

Reply to Greektim,

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.

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[jbh28]

... 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.

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

I never said, nor suggested God no longer knows the sinful act.

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?

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Van]

reposted post

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.

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.