Were non-Calvinists predestinated to be non-Calvinists?

[Steven Yeadon]

On what points? I was merely stating his views, for which there is no scriptural proof.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you argue God's omniscience is not the Calvinist understanding, you should show it from scripture. Jeremiah 18:7-10 provides some context for moral ability on mankind's part while other scriptures point to God knows all things. How, I see it is as a paradox that can be explained if we knew how omniscience worked. My #3 thread on defending synergism goes into this more deeply.

Also, provide scriptures to back up your view on God being incapable of temptation and authoring sin or rebellion against Him. You can also show that God wants all saved.

These are just pointers, not any real criticism.

 

[Derf B]

If you argue God's omniscience is not the Calvinist understanding, you should show it from scripture. Jeremiah 18:7-10 provides some context for moral ability on mankind's part while other scriptures point to God knows all things. How, I see it is as a paradox that can be explained if we knew how omniscience worked. My #3 thread on defending synergism goes into this more deeply.

Also, provide scriptures to back up your view on God being incapable of temptation and authoring sin or rebellion against Him. You can also show that God wants all saved.

These are just pointers, not any real criticism.

Appreciate the criticism, Steve. My point to @AustinC was to point out the inconsistency in his doctrine as enumerated by his confessions. If his confessions are inconsistent with themselves, then they can’t be accepted as truth, and it should lead him to search the scriptures for the truth, if he’s interested in the truth.

I had a similar point to you—that the Arminian position is inconsistent with itself, which makes it untenable.

I offered a suggestion about what has to give to resolve the inconsistency in both, which is to let go of the one thing that makes both Calvinism and Arminianism internally inconsistent.

All of these things deal not with scripture, but with presuppositions people are bringing to their doctrinal views. These are not biblically derived presuppositions.

I offered a single example of a scenario given in scripture (2 places) which I am happy to discuss—the story of Hezekiah’s illness. In it God tells Hezekiah two contradictory things within minutes of each other about his survival of the illness. You can read about it in 2Kings 20:1-11 or Is 38:1-8.

This one example is enough to destroy either side’s view of God’s foreknowledge.

 

[AustinC]

Appreciate the criticism, Steve. My point to @AustinC was to point out the inconsistency in his doctrine as enumerated by his confessions. If his confessions are inconsistent with themselves, then they can’t be accepted as truth, and it should lead him to search the scriptures for the truth, if he’s interested in the truth.

I had a similar point to you—that the Arminian position is inconsistent with itself, which makes it untenable.

I offered a suggestion about what has to give to resolve the inconsistency in both, which is to let go of the one thing that makes both Calvinism and Arminianism internally inconsistent.

All of these things deal not with scripture, but with presuppositions people are bringing to their doctrinal views. These are not biblically derived presuppositions.

I offered a single example of a scenario given in scripture (2 places) which I am happy to discuss—the story of Hezekiah’s illness. In it God tells Hezekiah two contradictory things within minutes of each other about his survival of the illness. You can read about it in 2Kings 20:1-11 or Is 38:1-8.

This one example is enough to destroy either side’s view of God’s foreknowledge.

What confessions?
Are you claiming that scripture is inconsistent?
What I find is that open theism relies upon intellectualism (really liberalism) and prooftexts with no context to try make an argument. Rarely is scripture treated fairly and thus the open theist creates a god in their own image. A golden calf if you will.

 

[Derf B]

What confessions?
Are you claiming that scripture is inconsistent?
What I find is that open theism relies upon intellectualism (really liberalism) and prooftexts with no context to try make an argument. Rarely is scripture treated fairly and thus the open theist creates a god in their own image. A golden calf if you will.

The golden calf analogy works both ways, as well the fair treatment of scripture, including ignoring the parts you don’t like (like Hezekiah’s illness).

The confessions I know best are the Westminster 1647 and the 1789 London Baptist. They both lay out the ordination of everything by God from all eternity.

Of course, the predestination of believers is a mere subset of “everything”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AustinC]

The golden calf analogy works both ways, as well the fair treatment of scripture, including ignoring the parts you don’t like (like Hezekiah’s illness).

The confessions I know best are the Westminster 1647 and the 1789 London Baptist. They both lay out the ordination of everything by God from all eternity.

Of course, the predestination of believers is a mere subset of “everything”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God was in full authority over Hezekiah's illness. If you imagine God was unaware or incapacitated by unforeseen events, you're simply ignorant of God and God's Supremacy.

Let's stick with God's word and put the confessions back on the philosophy shelf, shall we?!

 

[Derf B]

God was in full authority over Hezekiah's illness. If you imagine God was unaware or incapacitated by unforeseen events, you're simply ignorant of God and God's Supremacy.

Let's stick with God's word and put the confessions back on the philosophy shelf, shall we?!

Yes, I agree God had full authority over Hez’s illness! So at one time He could truthfully say, “You will die of this illness.” And almost immediately after, He could truthfully say, “You won’t die of this illness.” But only an open theist could agree that He could TRUTHFULLY say both things, because both Arminians and Calvinists believe He knew from the beginning of the creation that Hez would outlive the illness.

This pertains directly to the thread topic, in that if God KNOWS from the foundation of the world whether someone will be Arminian, either from looking into the future or from His own ordainment, then he can’t be anything else, or God would be wrong, either in His knowledge of the future or His ordaining.

But if God ordained Hez to survive the illness from the foundation of the world, yet told Him he would die of it, He told a falsehood. And if He ordained from the foundation of the world that He would die of the illness, yet He survived, God is either not omniscient or He’s not omnipotent.

You picked correctly—that God is not omniscient, in the classical sense, but has authority (power or potency) over the illness, and can change His mind about whether it will kill Hez or not.

So why do you fault me for saying God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge? You sound like a closet open theist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[George Antonios]

God was in full authority over Hezekiah's illness. If you imagine God was unaware or incapacitated by unforeseen events, you're simply ignorant of God and God's Supremacy.

Let's stick with God's word and put the confessions back on the philosophy shelf, shall we?!

Classic Calvinist-spirited reply, just classic. Ignore the issue raised by the man and dishonestly claim he doesn't believe in the authority of God, always with a sprinkling of self-righteousness.

 

[George Antonios]

both Arminians and Calvinists believe He knew from the beginning of the creation that Hez would outlive the illness.

This pertains directly to the thread topic, in that if God KNOWS from the foundation of the world whether someone will be Arminian, either from looking into the future or from His own ordainment, then he can’t be anything else, or God would be wrong, either in His knowledge of the future or His ordaining.

You picked correctly—that God is not omniscient, in the classical sense

Hang on a second. Could you clarify two things?

1) How do you understand the Arminian view of foreknowledge?
2) Do you think that the Calvinist and Arminian views of foreknowledge are the only possible ones?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Of course God can change His mind. The idea He decreed every single thing before creation is not found in the bible. God is the One free agent to do as He wills and change His own mind as He sees fit. History is little more than His tapestry and mankind His creations. God is in charge.

Now, what you guys seem to at base be in disagreement is whether man has moral ability God responds to in anyway. Then again, given the "If, then" structure of prophecies as given in Jeremiah 18:7-10, this one seems easy to me.

 

[AustinC]

Yes, I agree God had full authority over Hez’s illness! So at one time He could truthfully say, “You will die of this illness.” And almost immediately after, He could truthfully say, “You won’t die of this illness.” But only an open theist could agree that He could TRUTHFULLY say both things, because both Arminians and Calvinists believe He knew from the beginning of the creation that Hez would outlive the illness.

This pertains directly to the thread topic, in that if God KNOWS from the foundation of the world whether someone will be Arminian, either from looking into the future or from His own ordainment, then he can’t be anything else, or God would be wrong, either in His knowledge of the future or His ordaining.

But if God ordained Hez to survive the illness from the foundation of the world, yet told Him he would die of it, He told a falsehood. And if He ordained from the foundation of the world that He would die of the illness, yet He survived, God is either not omniscient or He’s not omnipotent.

You picked correctly—that God is not omniscient, in the classical sense, but has authority (power or potency) over the illness, and can change His mind about whether it will kill Hez or not.

So why do you fault me for saying God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge? You sound like a closet open theist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God spoke truth both times because God is Sovereign and...context matters.
To say "only an open theist could"... is rather silly.
The problem with open theism is that it is a human attempt to bring God down and wrestle authority from God so that humans can be in control and God can be their genie who grants wishes. It is an abominable theology from hell like the liberalism of old. No person who has been given faith should ever follow such a horrible path.

 

[AustinC]

Classic Calvinist-spirited reply, just classic. Ignore the issue raised by the man and dishonestly claim he doesn't believe in the authority of God, always with a sprinkling of self-righteousness.

I addressed the issue. Clearly you despise how I addressed it. I can live with that.

 

[Derf B]

Hang on a second. Could you clarify two things?

1) How do you understand the Arminian view of foreknowledge?
2) Do you think that the Calvinist and Arminian views of foreknowledge are the only possible ones?

1) it’s a simplistic way to look at it, but most Arminians believe God looks down the corridors of time to see who will believe, and elects/predestines based on that knowledge. If I have that wrong, please explain it better to me.

2) in my simplistic way of thinking about it, yes, except a third possibility, which I offered, which is often called open theism. I don’t have a particular stake in the name, but every believer is really an open theist at heart when we pray to God for anything.

Think about it this way: Did God know from all eternity what you would have for breakfast today? Why or why not?

If you say yes, then you believe the future was settled before you existed, and then you have to ask yourself who decided what you would have for breakfast, you or God (if you say your Mom, you shouldn’t be posting on this forum).

If you say “God”, you’re a Calvinist.
If you say “myself”, you’re an Arminian, and you’re logically inconsistent, because you didn’t exist when the choice was made, as we established above. You also make God subject to a higher power, a “fate”, if you will, since even He can’t change what you have for breakfast without doing it from the foundation of the world and becoming a Calvinist, Himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derf B]

Of course God can change His mind. The idea He decreed every single thing before creation is not found in the bible. God is the One free agent to do as He wills and change His own mind as He sees fit. History is little more than His tapestry and mankind His creations. God is in charge.

Now, what you guys seem to at base be in disagreement is whether man has moral ability God responds to in anyway. Then again, given the "If, then" structure of prophecies as given in Jeremiah 18:7-10, this one seems easy to me.

Congratulations, Steve, you’re an open theist, and you’ve answered your own OP—that God doesn’t predestine what your theological bent will be, at least not from the foundation of the world! Because He didn’t know that Calvin or Arminius would exist, because He didn’t know if their parents would exist, or if they would marry and have children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derf B]

God spoke truth both times because God is Sovereign and...context matters.
To say "only an open theist could"... is rather silly.
The problem with open theism is that it is a human attempt to bring God down and wrestle authority from God so that humans can be in control and God can be their genie who grants wishes. It is an abominable theology from hell like the liberalism of old. No person who has been given faith should ever follow such a horrible path.

Yet you don’t seem to be able to refute it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Congratulations, Steve, you’re an open theist, and you’ve answered your own OP—that God doesn’t predestine what your theological bent will be, at least not from the foundation of the world! Because He didn’t know that Calvin or Arminius would exist, because He didn’t know if their parents would exist, or if they would marry and have children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you believe God knows all possible futures?

 

[Derf B]

Do you believe God knows all possible futures?

Perhaps. But if He doesn’t know which one is the actual one...

I prefer to think God made man an intelligent and creative being like Himself, to some degree, and that He wanted to see where man took it, like Adam naming the animals.
Genesis 2:19 (KJV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Perhaps. But if He doesn’t know which one is the actual one...

I prefer to think God made man an intelligent and creative being like Himself, to some degree, and that He wanted to see where man took it, like Adam naming the animals.
Genesis 2:19 (KJV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is then where we differ. God knows all things, He knows all. However, He can change His mind and do other things as the One truly free and omniscient actor.

 

[Derf B]

This is then where we differ. God knows all things, He knows all. However, He can change His mind and do other things as the One truly free and omniscient actor.

If God knows all things that are going to happen, then He must also know what He’s going to do in response to anything anyone, including Himself, will do. There’s no reason for Him to change His mind in your view.

And there’s no reason for our existence, as you’ve made us mere puppets of a truly fickle puppet master.

What is the image of God in your view?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[George Antonios]

1) it’s a simplistic way to look at it, but most Arminians believe God looks down the corridors of time to see who will believe, and elects/predestines based on that knowledge. If I have that wrong, please explain it better to me.

hink about it this way: Did God know from all eternity what you would have for breakfast today? Why or why not?

If you say yes, then you believe the future was settled before you existed

You are making foreknowledge out to be identical to predestination.
Foreknowing something is very different from forecausing it.
If you distinguish foreknowledge from predestination, then there is no problem at all.

P.S. In the Bible, predestination is never that of a lost man unto salvation, but always that of saved man unto a Christ-like glorious resurrection body.

 

[Derf B]

You are making foreknowledge out to be identical to predestination.
Foreknowing something is very different from forecausing it.
If you distinguish foreknowledge from predestination, then there is no problem at all.

P.S. In the Bible, predestination is never that of a lost man unto salvation, but always that of saved man unto a Christ-like glorious resurrection body.

What you’re saying here is that predestination is a general thing, where God didn’t necessarily know who He was predestinating for Christ-like glorious resurrection bodies? I’m ok with that.

But if a particular person is predestined for a particular outcome, it requires the foreknowledge in the Arminian view. Foreknowledge is necessary for particular predestination.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk