Question about Calvinism

[Silverhair]

I believe that grace can be resisted, and I don't believe in a limited atonement. I also don't believe that God created millions of people for the sole and primary purpose that they would burn in Hell forever. Having said that, if I can still be a Calvinist then I am one.

The question is why would you want to be? I agree with what you said and I do not consider myself to be an Arminian just a bible believer. I have never liked labels as they are usually used as a pejorative. Look at the division that it has caused on this board.

Of course it does. Why would you make such a moronic statement. Don't try to dig through Edwards, that idea can be found in Sproul's little paperback "Chosen by God". If you can't see the difference between God making a man sin and knowing a man will sin and allowing that action to continue to completion then I don't know what to say to you. Sometimes I don't know if you are just pulling my leg or if you really are that dense.

Now you do not need to be insulting Dave. The fact that you clearly do not know what the WCF/LBCF says is your problem. You can not have God determine all things and then turn around and make the statement that He just allows it to happen. Calvinist theology is chock full of contradictions as you have just shown. Calvinists do not seem to be able to grasp the difference between God determining all things and making a man sin which would make God the author of the sin and God giving man a free will and knowing he will sin and holding him responsible for that sin.
Sproul is writing from a flawed calvinist view. Your trying to prove your calvinist view is right by trusting in calvinist writers.

Scripture verses alone can support all the points of the TULIP. At the worst, from scripture they can all be deduced. I do think Calvinism has some flaws that I have mentioned above. I also think Edwards has the best writing on free will if you are interested in such things, which @AFJ seems to be. But I am not encouraging him to become a Calvinist. It has flaws, it can get you in hot water with your local church, and most important of all, it appears to no longer be "cool". It is so 2015! All the cool kids now are leaving the Young, Restless and Reformed for Roman or Eastern Catholicism.

The only ones that think scripture supports the TULIP/DoG are committed calvinists. Just a simple reading of the TULIP doctrine will show it's flaws. TULIP calls into question the character of God.

The YRR need another theology that has someone tell them what to think and after finding the flaws in calvinism have just traded one bad theological view for another. Thankfully not all are doing that as many are just coming back to the bible and leaving all the baggage behind.

I am just encouraging @AFJ to study the bible as the Holy Spirit guides him.

 

[JonC]

Okay we can say that "he would" remain lost. Logically it follows then that if God has infallible knowledge that he is going to hell, he would remain lost for the rest of his life. Would you agree?

Yep. I don't think that you and I have disagreed on anything so far. I began by agreeing with you.

 

[DaveXR650]

The fact that you clearly do not know what the WCF/LBCF says is your problem. You can not have God determine all things and then turn around and make the statement that He just allows it to happen.

If you want to come on and display your ignorance publicly that's your right. The problem is that someone might get on a site with the WCF and read it. It's carefully worded so that God is not the author of sin, those predestined to be lost are "passed over" and left in their own sinful condition, and no one's free will is violated. You don't have to agree with them but you reflect on yourself when you make ignorant statements that can be refuted on the same computer on which you view this stuff in 10 seconds.
Instead of instructing me on the WCF, which you have obviously not read, why don't you go read some Wiersbe, who you recommend, and once again, have not read. He describes man's natural condition just like a Calvinist, as being spiritually dead and unable to be able to respond to God without the Holy Spirit. To quote that famous theologian Andy Griffith, "You beat everything, you know that".

 

[DaveXR650]

Since we’re in agreement, let’s take that example and replace “X” with a man named Dan and “Y” with a man named Kevin and “Z” with the final judgement. If God knows what happens at the final judgement and if He knows that Dan is going to Heaven and Kevin is going to Hell, can it happen any other way except that Dan will inevitably be saved and Kevin will inevitably be lost?

This is why Calvinists, and the WCF can appear to be unclear and worded ambiguously. The problem being that once God declares that in the future Kevin is going to Hell then in a sense it either must be so or God could be wrong. But what if God specifically promises Kevin that "if you come to me you will be saved". Is that promise invalid, based on predestination? That's something we simply can't answer as humans unless you allow both to be true as the confessions state. A lot of Calvinists so camp on the decrees that they feel the direct promises and appeals are thus not valid.

 

[Van]

As someone who is not a Calvinist currently, but open to becoming one, I have been presented with a straightfoward question that I have not been able to refute with confidence.

Most Christians will agree that God is all-knowing of future events. Therefore, if God knows every action that I will ever do, can I do anything but what God knows? If I say no, then am I falsifying God's infallible knowledge of the future?

Let me provide a practical example:
Let's say that I hold to a free will position and I confess that God knows what I will have for dinner on Christmas this year. How does God know that? How many free will actions of myself and countless others have to happen to lead to me having dinner on Christmas exactly as God has predicted? Every day between now and Christmas I have to commute 20 miles to my job. If someone exercises their free will, gets drunk, crashes into me and send me Home early before Christmas, has that person's free will now invalidated God's infallible knowledge of the future?

In the past I have said God's knowledge of the future is based on foreknowledge and that He did not necessary determine the future. In other words, when God created time itself, He must have looked down the tunnels of time and, at least temporarily, He was not all-knowing. If God did not determine all events in history, who did? Are they all uncaused? If they are uncaused, how can God have knowledge of them if they are theroetical?

I'll ask my original question again this way. If God knows between now and to the end of time every single person who will ever be saved and who will be lost, can it happen any differently than what God knows or can we exercise our free wills to change the outcome?

Hi AFJ,

Great Question!

I have a sort of off topic response. You correctly assert that most Christians agree that God is all-knowing of future events. But that assuredly does not support the validity of the premise. The real issue is "Does the Bible, contextually interpreted, teach God is all knowing, which is to say God knows everything imaginable, past, present and future?"

Is Jesus God and did He know the time of His Return. Does God forgive and "remember no more forever" our sins? Did God say to Abraham, who was about to sacrifice his son, "now I know?"

Consider Matthew 24:36.
Consider Hebrews 8:13, 10:17, and Isaiah 43:25
Consider Genesis 22:12

What if when scripture says God is "all knowing" the scope or extent of the assertion is not "everything imaginable" but whatever is in view contextually.

In John 21:17 scripture says Jesus knows "all things" but the contextual scope is all things about Peter or about those individuals that Jesus encountered. He knew their thoughts and motives.

What if the actual biblical doctrine is God knows everything He chooses to know, and can choose to not know what He chooses not to know, such that He provides us the opportunity to choose life or death, rather than predestining our choice.
This is the Biblical Doctrine of Inherent Omniscience.

 

[Silverhair]

If you want to come on and display your ignorance publicly that's your right. The problem is that someone might get on a site with the WCF and read it. It's carefully worded so that God is not the author of sin, those predestined to be lost are "passed over" and left in their own sinful condition, and no one's free will is violated. You don't have to agree with them but you reflect on yourself when you make ignorant statements that can be refuted on the same computer on which you view this stuff in 10 seconds.
Instead of instructing me on the WCF, which you have obviously not read, why don't you go read some Wiersbe, who you recommend, and once again, have not read. He describes man's natural condition just like a Calvinist, as being spiritually dead and unable to be able to respond to God without the Holy Spirit. To quote that famous theologian Andy Griffith, "You beat everything, you know that".

You really do show just how nasty calvinists can get when their sacred cow of calvinism is challenged. You are more concerned about defending that theological view than you are of Gods' word.

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to passa) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(c) : WCF Chapter III. Of God’s Eternal Decree.

That is as clear a statement as you will find. In other words, God decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and in doing so, God (a) is neither the “author of sin” that He unchangeably ordained from eternity past, and also (b) His decree did not eliminate free-will but rather “established” it.

So Dave which is it? God " unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" thus no free will and God is the author of all the sin and evil or "nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established" thus free will and man is responsible for his sins. That is the obvious contradiction in your WCF. Calvinists love to play both sides of the chess game as that is the only way they can win.

Wiersbe does not say that the Holy Spirit has to be the decisive factor as you require. God has used many means to draw people to Himself but in the end it is the man that must choose to trust in Him.

Calvinism is not the standard Dave. Your view of God and His salvation are distorted by your loyalty to your calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

You really do show just how nasty calvinists can get when their sacred cow of calvinism is challenged. You are more concerned about defending that theological view than you are of Gods' word.

I do get offended when you come on a thread going into a very specific aspect of philosophy and pull this attack dog stuff against Calvinism. It was not the subject, nor was the subject whether you have to be a Calvinist.

That is as clear a statement as you will find. In other words, God decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and in doing so, God (a) is neither the “author of sin” that He unchangeably ordained from eternity past, and also (b) His decree did not eliminate free-will but rather “established” it.

No one asked you to like it or agree with it. Just don't misquote it. "Ordain" is not the same as "decree" and if it says God is not the author of sin, while you may not agree with the statement, it clearly is stated and while you can refute it you cannot deny that the statement is there.

Wiersbe does not say that the Holy Spirit has to be the decisive factor as you require. God has used many means to draw people to Himself but in the end it is the man that must choose to trust in Him.

Wiersbe's commentary on the Bible is on-line. Read his stuff on Ephesians. He was a moderate Calvinist.

Calvinism is not the standard Dave. Your view of God and His salvation are distorted by your loyalty to your calvinism.

A point regarding Calvinism was the subject of this thread. I don't know why you would come on here with this off topic stuff and bad attitude. Contribute something or stay out of the conversation. If God knows something will happen in the future, which we all concede he does, and he announces that it will happen in a point in time, then the question is is it possible that free will can at that point change what will be. God has announced that something will happen. That does not mean that what will happen is according to what God would like his created beings to do, it may, but it certainly means he has decided to at least allow it to occur. That, by the way is why the WCF used the word "ordain". But the question is whether God can simply look ahead and see what will happen without at the same time ordaining that it will happen.

 

[AFJ]

Yep. I don't think that you and I have disagreed on anything so far. I began by agreeing with you.

This leads me to the conclusion that the reason why some are saved and some are lost is part of how the fabric of time has been woven by a sovereign God.

 

[AFJ]

But what if God specifically promises Kevin that "if you come to me you will be saved". Is that promise invalid, based on predestination?

If God’s knowledge of the future doesn’t change, then I don’t see how this works because now it depends on the decision Kevin makes, potentially invalidating God’s knowledge. It also creates a moment in time in which God has no idea what is going to happen because he is letting Kevin determine the outcome.

 

[DaveXR650]

If God’s knowledge of the future doesn’t change, then I don’t see how this works because now it depends on the decision Kevin makes, potentially invalidating God’s knowledge. It also creates a moment in time in which God has no idea what is going to happen because he is letting Kevin determine the outcome.

That's what you have to come to terms with in your own mind. Some Calvinists say that this is set and there is no offer of the gospel to a non-elect person. But other Calvinists, and I'm talking about real Calvinists, like Edwards and Owen, constantly talk about real offers of the gospel to everyone. Calvinism is not monolithic.
You can reject Calvinism and go with a full on free will system where the elect are simply those who believe. Then you have another whole divergence where the question is what is free will? Does the Holy Spirit have anything to do with coming to faith? If so, does he convince or bring faith about or persuade? Can this be resisted? Is this influence decisive? If it is enough to be decisive then is it sovereignly selective or given to everyone in some measure. If it is decisive and sovereign in application then are you not back teaching a sovereign selection just like Calvinistic election?

 

[AFJ]

The real issue is "Does the Bible, contextually interpreted, teach God is all knowing, which is to say God knows everything imaginable, past, present and future?"

I would say that God absolutely knows all of the potential outcomes of any potential realities He could create. If I said no then I am limiting His power.

Is Jesus God and did He know the time of His Return.

Yes, this is something I don't know if any of us can fully understand. I have always assumed that this has to do with the fact that He entered into creation, took on human flesh and humbled Himself as a servant. I suppose you could say He did limit Himself temporarily but not eternally because He was within the confines of time.

Did God say to Abraham, who was about to sacrifice his son, "now I know?"

Did God really mean that He had no idea what was going to happen until that moment? I have a hard time accepting that. If God doesn't know what is going to happen at any moment in time then He can't be God and I think this is illustrated in Isaiah 41 when the false gods are put on trial. I think it's more likely that God (who is not bound to time) wanted to demonstrate to Abraham (who is bound to time) the tremendous faith he had and this is the reason why He will bless him and his descendants.

 

[AFJ]

That's what you have to come to terms with in your own mind.

I don't believe that I am using any man made philosophies. I'm not even looking at the most common Calvinist proof texts such as John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1. My foundation to getting to the bottom of this is starting at Isaiah 41 which says that the test of a true God is one who can infallibly tell you what is going to happen in the future.

Does the Holy Spirit have anything to do with coming to faith? If so, does he convince or bring faith about or persuade? Can this be resisted? Is this influence decisive?

Sure, I'll agree with you and say that the Holy Spirit persuades some to come to faith and others will resist it. The part I haven't found a way around is that God knows the future perfectly. That being said, if I were to ask God to tell me the names of all of the people who will be saved at the end of time then He would have to tell me infallibly. This means that there could not be any decisions made other than the decisions that are made to either accept or reject faith. In light of this understanding, it provides some clarity to difficult passages such as Acts 13:48. I'm really not trying to be difficult here but I haven't yet seen a convincing argument that explains how there is enough wiggle room for us to change the future of which God knows and absolutely must know for Him to be God.

 

[37818]

Did God really mean that He had no idea what was going to happen until that moment?

The Son deliberately limits His omniscience on behalf of His Father. Mark 13:32, Acts of the Apostles 1:7, And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

 

[AFJ]

The Son deliberately limits His omniscience on behalf of His Father.

Does the fact that the Son limits His omniscience by necessity mean that the Father limits His omniscience?

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't believe that I am using any man made philosophies. I'm not even looking at the most common Calvinist proof texts such as John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1. My foundation to getting to the bottom of this is starting at Isaiah 41 which says that the test of a true God is one who can infallibly tell you what is going to happen in the future.

The reason we have theology is that scripture also says other things with just as much authority. If scripture also says to examine yourself, to see whether you are in the faith, there is at least implied that you can read that and act on it. Same with all the calls for repentance and belief. You end up in the situation that Scrooge finds himself in at his future gravesite where he asks " why show me these things if I am beyond all hope. Please tell me I can sponge away the writing on this stone". In other word, from his standpoint, at least, change his future. Those are also legitimate questions and because of the way some Calvinists handle such questions people like @Silverhair legitimately ask whether Calvinism can also mess things up. It can, and by doing so may slander God and his love and intention towards people. So that's why the nuanced answers in the WCF and arguments of Edwards and other theologians are important.

The Bible is not written in systematic theology and probably for good reason. But you have two choices for dealing with answers that just don't come together in our finite minds. You can just take the scripture at it's word. God is completely sovereign, the elect are already determined - and you will at some point have a choice to make as to whether you will repent and believe and therefore you will indeed in that sense determine your own destiny; or you can begin to try to figure out how both can be true at the same time. I don't think any theological system adequately explains all this.

 

[37818]

Does the fact that the Son limits His omniscience by necessity mean that the Father limits His omniscience?

The Son limits His omniscience per His Father's will. John 5:19, Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. God remains fully omniscient. The Son is God's agent. John 14:6.

 

[Silverhair]

I do get offended when you come on a thread going into a very specific aspect of philosophy and pull this attack dog stuff against Calvinism. It was not the subject, nor was the subject whether you have to be a Calvinist.

Why should you get offended by my pointing out the logical error of that philosophical view? As I recall @AFJ said "As someone who is not a Calvinist currently, but open to becoming one," so my pointing out the flaws in that view is reasonable. What you call attack dog is far less than what I have seen calvinists do on this board in regard to those that disagree with them. Recall what you said regarding me.

No one asked you to like it or agree with it. Just don't misquote it. "Ordain" is not the same as "decree" and if it says God is not the author of sin, while you may not agree with the statement, it clearly is stated and while you can refute it you cannot deny that the statement is there.

I copy/pasted the text from the WCF so hard to misquote it. So you are comfortable with the contradiction in that WCF statement. I do have to ask why the obvious contradiction does not bother you?
Ordain: To appoint; to decree. Webster's 1828 Dictionary
Decree: In theology, predetermined purpose of God; the purpose or determination of an immutable Being, whose plan of operations is, like himself, unchangeable. Webster's 1828 Dictionary
What was that I quoted from the WCF "...unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass " Of course I do not agree with it as it is not biblical but it is calvinnism.
If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass perhaps you can explain how that does not determine all things that come to pass? Or do you think that ordains just means it is a suggestion?

Wiersbe's commentary on the Bible is on-line. Read his stuff on Ephesians. He was a moderate Calvinist.

Do not have to look it up on the net as I have both his NT and OT commentaries on my system. Yes I know that he tends toward calvinism but I do not hold that against him.

A point regarding Calvinism was the subject of this thread. I don't know why you would come on here with this off topic stuff and bad attitude. Contribute something or stay out of the conversation. If God knows something will happen in the future, which we all concede he does, and he announces that it will happen in a point in time, then the question is is it possible that free will can at that point change what will be. God has announced that something will happen. That does not mean that what will happen is according to what God would like his created beings to do, it may, but it certainly means he has decided to at least allow it to occur. That, by the way is why the WCF used the word "ordain". But the question is whether God can simply look ahead and see what will happen without at the same time ordaining that it will happen.

You are still writing as if God has to determine all things. If God determines /ordains all thing unchangeably then the person has no option but to do as God has determined him to do. In which case the person can not be held responsible for the determined action. God being omniscient has perfect knowledge of all that will happen, even the free will choices that man will make. Whether the man in time chose A or B God in His omniscience would know what that choice would be. So the choice while free was foreknown by God but not caused by God.
Now if God has determined something to happen in the future He could move men in such a way as to bring it about but to say that all things have to be determined/ordained unchangeably as your WCF insists then logically moves the responsibility back to the one that ordained the action.
Sorry Dave but ordain does not mean allow, even as much as you would like it to. If God looked ahead and ordained such and such then it would happen and since He is omniscient then He would according to your WCF have ordain unchangeably all things which would logically include sin & evil. So we are back again to your WCF making God the author of sin.

 

[DaveXR650]

Ordain: To appoint; to decree. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

It means to establish or set something in an established order if you took the time to look up the word as it was used when the WCF was written. So if God causes Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery that is different than God using the fact that they want to get rid of him (by their own free choice), and then arranging for a caravan to come by at the right time leading to Joseph ending up in Egypt. Joseph's brothers free will was not violated, yet God had ordained that Joseph would go to Egypt and Joseph's brothers worked for God while all the while sinning against God, to accomplish what he ordained. That is why "ordain" is used and why it can be followed by a note that free will does not have to be violated to accomplish what God has ordained.

You are still writing as if God has to determine all things. If God determines /ordains all thing unchangeably then the person has no option but to do as God has determined him to do.

So no, that is why "ordains" is in there, and why it is made clear that the person has every option to act according to his own free will. You are wrong and your real problem is that it is dawning on you that the WCF was taking all that into account when it was written.

So we are back again to your WCF making God the author of sin.

And lastly, in case some jasper came along that still didn't get it, the WCF put in plain language that God was not the author of sin. But there is always somebody who doesn't get the word.

 

[AFJ]

It can, and by doing so may slander God and his love and intention towards people.

Could it also be slanderous if I were to admit that God knows the future perfectly, yet at the same time claim that I have the power to make decisions that could nullify that knowledge? Thus making God no different than the false gods mentioned in Isaiah 41 if the future isn't 100% determined.

But you have two choices for dealing with answers that just don't come together in our finite minds.

Since Wiersbe keeps being mentioned, this is what he has to say in his commentary on Romans 9.

"No one will deny that there are many mysteries connected with divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Nowhere does God ask us to choose between these two truths, because they both come from God and are a part of God’s plan. They do not compete; they cooperate. The fact that we cannot fully understand how they work together does not deny the fact that they do. When a man asked Charles Spurgeon how he reconciled divine sovereignty and human responsibility, Spurgeon replied: “I never try to reconcile friends!”

It is established from scripture alone in Isaiah 41 that God knows the future. This proves that the future must come to pass exactly as He knows it. This is not philosophy or taken from extra biblical sources. Let's go back to my example using Dan and Kevin. I will present four scenarios showing how free will could possibly play into that.

God can see into the future and knows that Dan will be saved and Kevin will be lost. The moment in time comes when both Dan and Kevin are presented with the Gospel and they both have an equal opportunity to exercise their free will to accept or reject the Gospel.

Scenario #1: Dan exercises his free will to accept the Gospel. Kevin exercises his free will to accept the Gospel. The result of the free choices made means that God was wrong about the future.

Scenario #2: Dan exercises his free will to reject the Gospel. Kevin exercises his free will to accept the Gospel. The result of the free choices made means that God was wrong about the future.

Scenario #3: Dan exercises his free will to reject the Gospel. Kevin exercises his free will to reject the Gospel. The result of the free choices made means that God was wrong about the future.

Scenario #4: Dan exercises his free will to accept the Gospel. Kevin exercises his free will to reject the Gospel. The result of the free choices made means that God was right about the future.

If human free will had a role to play using these scenarios, then there was only a 25% chance of God being right about the future. If there can only be one outcome for God to be 100% correct about the future, is that really free will at all?

When examined further, it is difficult for me to accept free will and divine sovereignty as two truths when I see that it is necessary that one must override the other in any set of circumstances.

 

[DaveXR650]

Could it also be slanderous if I were to admit that God knows the future perfectly, yet at the same time claim that I have the power to make decisions that could nullify that knowledge? Thus making God no different than the false gods mentioned in Isaiah 41 if the future isn't 100% determined.

If you believe this.

If human free will had a role to play using these scenarios, then there was only a 25% chance of God being right about the future. If there can only be one outcome for God to be 100% correct about the future, is that really free will at all?

When examined further, it is difficult for me to accept free will and divine sovereignty as two truths when I see that it is necessary that one must override the other in any set of circumstances.

And you believe the above.

When a man asked Charles Spurgeon how he reconciled divine sovereignty and human responsibility, Spurgeon replied: “I never try to reconcile friends!”

Then it would be intellectually dishonest to say you also believe Spurgeon was correct. Am I not correct in saying that you indeed are already a convinced Calvinist? And you have arrived at your decided theology based on the newer arguments from the internet warrior Calvinists who became popular back in 2004 to about 2015. You probably don't have much background in Puritan literature, or even Calvin. That's OK but just know that the modern Calvinists are much heavier into relying on the TULIP than the actual Reformers were and they are more, sometimes much more, deterministic.