The conflicted Calvinist

[Iconoclast]

What about foreknowledge? Is it exhaustive?

JD,

Winman does not worry about the biblical usage of foreknowledge or other such terms.No.....he just makes it up as he goes.:laugh:

This way he can offer any explanation he wants to, regardless of how the church has actually believed. It is much easier that way.:wavey:

Once in awhile he pulls from sites that are very dubious,but if they are anti-cal he will use them.:thumbsup:

Then when anyone such as yourself questions his comments, he claims he is being persecuted...you are seeing that now:laugh:

 

[Van]

We are all sinners, so we cannot "choose life/choose Christ", as our very natures are in their naturl states in rebellion to God, in the darkness!

Scripture says God sets the choice of life and death before us. If we can only choose death, being a sinner, then scripture is broken. Therefore, if we stick to scripture alone, then Calvinism must be mistaken doctrine.

How many verses does Calvinism claim are untrue. Dozens!.

Jesus says things happen by chance. Calvinism says nothing happens by chance. Chance does not mean chance, choice does not mean choice, world means this here, but that there.

Calvinism says everything is predestined yet God is not the author of sin. On and on it goes, one absurdity after another.

 

[Van]

Foreknowledge as used in scripture refers to knowledge or information formulated or acquired in the past being utilized in the present. Thus Christ was put to death according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.

 

[psalms109:31]

I don't really see what all that has to do with our discussion. I'd rather stay away from generalities about who's likely to believe what. Semantic games are also unhelpful.

The question is, when you read, "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Is your answer that we should prosecute him?

We must live by every word that comes from the mouth of God, these scripture definitely will shed some light on the subject, we are were all vessels of wrath headed for and created for destruction, the new creation in Christ is the vessel for honor, unless you want to make a claim you are on your own? In Christ because of Him we are vessels of mercy.

2 Timothy 2 :
20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

John 15:3
You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.

Ephesians 5:26
to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

Who believes that you are dressed for the banquet and why are you?

Hebrews 4 :
4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.[Some manuscripts because those who heard did not combine it with faith]

"My fear is lest the reader should rest content with understanding what is to be done, and yet never do it. Better the poorest real faith actually at work, than the best ideal of it left in the region of speculation. The great matter is to believe on the Lord Jesus at once. Never mind distinctions and definitions. A hungry man eats though he does not understand the composition of his food, the anatomy of his mouth, or the process of digestion: he lives because he eats. Another far more clever person understands thoroughly the science of nutrition; but if he does not eat he will die, with all his knowledge. There are, no doubt, many at this hour in Hell who understood the doctrine of faith, but did not believe. On the other hand, not one who has trusted in the Lord Jesus has ever been cast out, though he may never have been able intelligently to define his faith. Oh dear reader, receive the Lord Jesus into your soul, and you shall live forever! "He that believeth in Him hath everlasting life.""

C. H. Spurgeon

 

[Iconoclast]

Foreknowledge as used in scripture refers to knowledge or information formulated or acquired in the past being utilized in the present. Thus Christ was put to death according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.

Wrong.....Not correct....in error.....mistaken.....some would say-TWADDLE:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

JD,

Winman does not worry about the biblical usage of foreknowledge or other such terms.No.....he just makes it up as he goes.:laugh:

This way he can offer any explanation he wants to, regardless of how the church has actually believed. It is much easier that way.:wavey:

Once in awhile he pulls from sites that are very dubious,but if they are anti-cal he will use them.:thumbsup:

Then when anyone such as yourself questions his comments, he claims he is being persecuted...you are seeing that now:laugh:

Gamesmenship!

 

[convicted1]

I don't really see what all that has to do with our discussion. I'd rather stay away from generalities about who's likely to believe what. Semantic games are also unhelpful.

The question is, when you read, "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Is your answer that we should prosecute him?

You have alluded to Romans 9 in this post, Brother Jonathan, so let me expound on it, just a wee bit.


In verse 21, Apostle Paul wrote this:
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Here he is distinguishing between the Jews(vessel unto honour) and the Gentiles(vessel unto dishonour).

Now, in the following verses, Apostle Paul wrot this:
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

We, the Gentiles, were the vessels fitted to destruction, but He was longsuffering with us......2 Peter 3:9 ring a bell?


Then I will finish this off with what Apostle Paul wrote here:
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


So to say that the vessels unto honour and dishonour are the elect and non-elect isn't correct. Apostle Paul was speaking of the Jews and Gentiles, and not the elect vs. non-elect.

Jeremiah 18 goes right along with this subject as well.

 

[Winman]

JD,

Winman does not worry about the biblical usage of foreknowledge or other such terms.No.....he just makes it up as he goes.:laugh:

This way he can offer any explanation he wants to, regardless of how the church has actually believed. It is much easier that way.:wavey:

Once in awhile he pulls from sites that are very dubious,but if they are anti-cal he will use them.:thumbsup:

Then when anyone such as yourself questions his comments, he claims he is being persecuted...you are seeing that now:laugh:

Except that I showed him scripture (John 6:64) that says Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not.

Now, if Jesus knows from the beginning who would not believe, by simple process of elimination he also knows who will believe.

Your issue is not with me, but with the word of God.

 

[jonathanD]

On the corporate nature of Romans 9-11, Schreiner says it better than I can, so here you go:

http://www.monergism.com/Schreiner, Thomas - Corporate and Individual Elect.pdf

 

[jonathanD]

I believe God in heaven knows all things. I believe that at times God appeared in limited form among men, as when he wrestled with Jacob and Jacob prevailed, or when he told Abraham he would go down to Sodom to see if they had done according to the cry that had come to him, and if not he would know.

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

God appeared to Abraham as a man. He ate food, God in heaven does not need to eat. So God was limited like a man in this particular situation and was not omniscient.

However, at the same moment God was in heaven in his glory and knew everything.

This is what I believe.

So you're view is that God, in essence, blindfolded himself in the creation so that he would not know how his creation would respond to the Gospel. I don't see how that helps him alleviate your charge that he's a criminal.

 

[psalms109:31]

I do see that a few see the Son of man in Jesus that only knows what the Father revealed to Him, then most of us see the Son of God in Jesus who is God and is not limited to what only the mind can handle. We do know that the Son of man taught us everything He learned from the Father. The Son of man and the Son of God in Jesus like a hand and a foot is one but are distinct from one another and serve a different function for the same goal.


It is a shame that we surround our self with teachers who tells us what we want to hear and no longer want to learn and ignore scripture that we may have not considered in our view.

Like here is someone who I like to hear so listen to him to understand like I do.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

WHOAAA....Just to referree a second. Let's see how Calvinists are treating Winman: Jonathan said (I quote)

You must reject exhaustive foreknowledge correct?

And he further challenges him here along the same lines Jonathan asks (I quote)

You must reject exhaustive foreknowledge correct?

Winman clearly denies that because He said (I quote)

I believe God in heaven knows all things.

And:

However, at the same moment God was in heaven in his glory and knew everything.
This is what I believe.

Jonathan responds thusly: (and I quote)

So you're view is that God..... so that he would not know how his creation would respond to the Gospel[/B

]......

So.....How is it exactly, Jonathan...that Winman's clear affirmation of exhaustive foreknowledge (I quoted it btw)....translates into your interpretation of

"He would not know"??????

Is this the type of debate you engage in?.....really?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

JD,

Winman does not worry about the biblical usage of foreknowledge or other such terms.No.....he just makes it up as he goes.:laugh:

I don't think even you truly BELIEVE (deep down) that that is what Win truly does...he doesn't merely "MAKE-UP" things as he goes. Even if he is mistaken or wrong or simply un-informed...that doesn't mean he "makes-up" his definitions....That is simply not fair.

This way he can offer any explanation he wants to, regardless of how the church has actually believed.

It was previously proven that "THE CHURCH"...........simply has NOT "historically" believed what you claim it has believed...and yet you insist upon it...shall I reference you again to the EARLIEST Baptist Confession...........Written by Thomas Helwys...which is distictly and un-equivocally Arminian in it's Theology?? We have a new BB member whose avatar is "Thomas Helwys"....however, I would be more than happy to introduce you to the references of the oldest Baptist Confession extant which is unequivocally NOT Calvinist...but, Arminian. Shall you be publically dis-proven as historically ignorant again????
http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Thomas Helwys (Baptist and Arminian).pdf
The "CHURCH'S HISTORICAL FAITH"...as you like to say it, is in NO WAY Calvinist...Unless, by "CHURCH"...you do not in fact mean the "Baptist" "historical" faith....
5. That before the Foundation of the World GOD Predestinated that all that believe in him shall-be saved (Ephesians 1:4, 12; Mark 16:16) and all that do not believe will be damned (Mark 16:16) all which he knew before (Romans 8:29). And this is the Election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and that GOD has not Predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be damned, but that men being wicked will be damned, for GOD would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4) and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and does not will the death of him that dies (Ezekiel 18:32). And therefore GOD is the author of no man’s condemnation, according to the saying of the Prophet (Hosea 13). Your destruction O Israel is of yourself, but your help is of me.
As I recall, you've been accused of being no more a "Baptist" than the man in the moon before...no?? Your passion for the force of authority of magisterial powers is too obvious for many here who believe in freedom of thought.
You are an "authoritarian" Icon, not a "Baptist"...you love the "authority" of a monolithic decretal "Church"...That is NOT "Baptist" Theology...

You are not a Baptist Icon...never were...you are Presbyterian with strongly non-paedo-baptist convictions.
"Baptists" don't believe that this entity which you call "THE" Church...even necessarily exists....
So, they can't (by definition) "historically believe" anything...but you aren't a Baptist...you are an authoritarian. You are an "Iconoclast"...You are not a Baptist.

Once in awhile he pulls from sites that are very dubious,but if they are anti-cal he will use them.:thumbsup:

Why are they "dubious"?......Are they "dubious" only because they are decidedly and admittedly non-Calvinist?........
Fine....if EVERY reference from a site which is confessionally "anti-Calvinist"...is to be ignored...than so shall every reference from founders.org no??? Sound fair to you?

Then when anyone such as yourself questions his comments, he claims he is being persecuted...you are seeing that now:laugh:

Win has not claimed or decried persecution...he has yet again exhaustively and adequately and clearly explained his position and he has complained little or NONE about how people treat him......
My advice to you:
Wait until you can actually quote Winman claiming his "persecution" before you falsely accuse a brother again...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It seems like most of this argument comes down to the measure of God's sovereignty or better put, the immeasurable infinitude of His sovereignty and how we fit inside of it.

I believe that we're fooling ourselves if we think we have the means to fully develop or even understand that equation. I also think that Winman (assuming I understand his stance) is doing a good job of making that point.

Again, assuming I understand the main objective of the OP, the same point was well made. We can't wrap our intellect around the infinite, and I humbly praise God for that. I love having limits, they make items/issues of faith that much easier to pursue.

Succinctly put, we be very-very small and God is very-immeasurably-very big.

Or, maybe I'm so far out in some field on all of this (certainly not left) that I may as well be in another conversation entirely.

A post with much wisdom...:thumbs: This struck me as (personally) a very well phrased description of the quandries debated here. :thumbs:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You have alluded to Romans 9 in this post, Brother Jonathan, so let me expound on it, just a wee bit.


In verse 21, Apostle Paul wrote this:
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Here he is distinguishing between the Jews(vessel unto honour) and the Gentiles(vessel unto dishonour).

Now, in the following verses, Apostle Paul wrot this:
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

We, the Gentiles, were the vessels fitted to destruction, but He was longsuffering with us......2 Peter 3:9 ring a bell?


Then I will finish this off with what Apostle Paul wrote here:
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


So to say that the vessels unto honour and dishonour are the elect and non-elect isn't correct. Apostle Paul was speaking of the Jews and Gentiles, and not the elect vs. non-elect.

Jeremiah 18 goes right along with this subject as well.

DING DING DING!!!!

But what you are posting is properly exegeted SCRIPTURE......... Our Calvinist Brethren WILL NOT engage your VERY concise exegesis of Scripture.. They will default to your mis-understanding of the "HISTORICAL FAITH".

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So you're view is that God, in essence, blindfolded himself in the creation so that he would not know how his creation would respond to the Gospel. I don't see how that helps him alleviate your charge that he's a criminal.

OH...BTW...I don't recall Winman ever saying something so stupid like charging God as a "criminal"........Win NEVER called God a "criminal"....if you play so fast and loose with such words, what good reason can you give that any Arminian should think highly of your definition of a word like "predestination"?......
Intelligent Arminians know more about words like "pre-destination" or "criminal" than to play such stupid games with their meanings...Then again, Winman already explained how much Calvinists often play with and ignore and re-define words at will didn't he?

Calvinists would be more convincing if only they had a grasp on definitions like "elect" or "ordain" or "foreknowledge" or even........."criminal"...Arminians know what words mean.....you appear not to.

 

[Luke2427]

So, you changed the analogy from God determining vessels to God determining characters in a book and you think you've avoided the charge being brought against your view???

How are they incompatible?

Hate to keep pulling back up old conversations, but wasn't it you that argued that God does the deed but because he does it for the right motives it is not evil?

God brings all things to pass- most of them in this world by means.

Is Satan not under the full control of God at all times?

Can men ever do anything that God did not intend in eternity past that they would do?

Do you believe that God can be informed by men or do you believe God has always known all there is to ever know about everything including the future decisions of his creatures?

Your argument has been that God IS DOING EVERYTHING, but its not evil because he does it for a good motive and now you are saying that view is a 'non sequitur.' I understand that people's views change and adapt over time, but when I speak to you I have to presume your view is the same unless you tell me otherwise, so which is it?

Your memory is very poor. We have been over and over this. It is called compatabalism and it says that a man can will something evil to pass and God will that same something to come to pass but for an ultimately glorious purpose. This is not confusing. It is not difficult to understand and it is clearly what the Bible teaches.

Jesus went to the cross because God always intended to crucify him but at the same time but in a VERY DIFFERENT SENSE the Romans and the Pharisees intended to crucify him. The only difference is the motive of the two.

You already knew this, so I am forced to believe that this post is nothing but posturing trying to court support from less thoughtful readers.

 

[Luke2427]

you quoted in the above post that Evil has NO creator--just quoted that scripture to say that Evil does have a creator just as darkness does according to the scriptures.

So it is your contention that this verse teaches that God LITERALLY created evil?

Or do you think that God willed for evil to exist and created the circumstances that would invincibly bring evil to pass?

 

[Luke2427]

God had already pronounced judgment against Saul because of his disobedience, and had already chosen David as his replacement.

1 Sam 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

1 Sam 15:28 And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.

God used this evil spirit to bring David into Saul's house.

1 Sam 16:15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
17 And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me.
18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.
19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep.

God did allow this evil spirit to afflict Saul because of his disobedience. It was an act of judgment, and it brought David into Saul's house. This was all done in preparation of making David king.

I love how you twist and bend passages and ALL OF THE SUDDEN GET INTERESTED IN CONTEXT when the verse clearly teaches Calvinism.

You just PROOF TEXT verses that on their surface taken out of context seem to imply Arminianism, but you demand context when they teach Calvinism.

Can you not see that this is a clear indicator that you are emotionally invested in your doctrines and this investment has blinded you so that you accept at face value INSTANTLY seemingly Arminian passages and then become a total CONTORTIONIST when the passages teach Calvinism?

 

[Luke2427]

The intent to kill is a thing, Luke.

The intent to kill can be holy, just, godly and righteous. What makes any thought evil is the MOTIVE.

The intent to rape, the intent to deceive, the intent to be my own God, the intent to eat a child, the intent to shoot up a school, the intent to fly a plane into a building are all THINGS that have COME TO PASS, so I don't see how this point holds any water.

The point holds water because God's motive for bringing these things to pass is for an ultimate, ETERNAL, good that comes of them.

That's not difficult to see. Not difficult at all.

Who first determined to kill Able? Cain or God?

God.

But you are asking irrelevant questions here. The better question is WHY?


Sometimes the divine side of that answer is revealed in Scripture and we say, "AHHHHhhh... now I see!" Other times God's motive is NOT revealed and then we cry, "I know you are good and you have a GLORIOUS purpose in bringing this to pass... and I trust you even if I can't yet see that purpose."