Why the Blindness?

[Allan]

I am supra, but not in the way you have it defined. I agree with you that there is really no before with God, that He is present in all time. I do believe that God is the first cause however.... that is where my determinism is from. If ElGuro has a problem with it..... oh well.... just don't question my salvation.

Ok, Allan, you believe God is present in all time and outside time.... as I do. Do you believe God had to experience what man would do before He could elect them?

No, I believe God KNEW exactly what man would do of and by himself. - The fall
AND that God KNEW how man would respond with regard to various means God would send into mans life.

He knows all things. Scripture DOES NOT tell us the when God knew or the How God knew WHAT He knew but it tells us that He knew. Anything more than that and you are strictly in the relm of philosophical teachings.

We know He foreknew... and that is all we know about what He KNEW.

 

[reformedbeliever]

El Geuro, I am determinist in that I believe God is the first cause of everything. He is all powerful and in control of all. He however, does not sin or temp anyone to sin. Joseph is an example where what men meant for evil, God meant for good. I believe that all that happens, do so because of God's perfect knowledge. In other words, what God knows will happen. I do not believe in free will at all. I do not believe in "free choice". I believe it is all determined by God. We always choose in a manner that will be consistent with God's decreed will.

 

[reformedbeliever]

No, I believe God KNEW exactly what man would do of and by himself. - The fall
AND that God KNEW how man would respond with regard to various means God would send into mans life.

He knows all things. Scripture DOES NOT tell us the when God knew or the How God knew WHAT He knew but it tells us that He knew. Anything more than that and you are strictly in the relm of philosophical teachings.

We know He foreknew... and that is all we know about what He KNEW.

I agree. So why did you ask me if what He knew would happen before the fall or after?

 

[Allan]

Originally Posted by Allan
Ok, let me back up then and get technical as you are most likely hold to SUPRALAPSARIANISM or high Calvinism.

My question is better placed this way:

Is you view:
...that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So basically you would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained (or after the fact). In other words, you would suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

OR

Do you hold the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. However this view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is actaully called "equal ultimacy" according to R.C. Sproul, in his book "Chosen by God".

Or

Am I just wrong altogether.

I am supra, but not in the way you have it defined. I agree with you that there is really no before with God, that He is present in all time. I do believe that God is the first cause however.... that is where my determinism is from. If ElGuro has a problem with it..... oh well.... just don't question my salvation.

First, have I ever?

Second, I got that definition from the Spurgeon website. Actaully that is the most extreme point he gives before going into some of the Hyper classifications. Although you would definately not classify on the Infra Model.

Supra -
Elect some, reprobate rest
Create
Permit Fall
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation

Infra -
Create
Permit Fall
Elect some, pass over the rest
Provide salvation for elect
Call elect to salvation

Here is the site http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

 

[Allan]

I agree. So why did you ask me if what He knew would happen before the fall or after?

Because the Hyper states that God determines who will be saved BEFORE God determines man will sin.

In other words God creates sin so that those He chose can now fulfill their purpose in His plan and vise-versa. Ergo God is the first cause of sin or the progenitor of sin.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Because the Hyper states that God determines who will be saved BEFORE God determines man will sin.

In other words God creates sin so that those He chose can now fulfill their purpose in His plan and vise-versa. Ergo God is the first cause of sin or the progenitor of sin.

Of course you know that God can not sin or be the direct cause of anyone sinning.... or even tempting them. I do not deny scripture.

I was not saying that you were implying I was lost. My brother Wayne was approaching that.

Again, Allan, I beleive God to be the first cause. How can we put our minds around that? I don't know. If you think there is a progression of thought with God, then that would represent change. He is immutable. He has nothing to learn. Don't you agree?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Allan, I will not hijack this thread, which has already happened I think. We have discussed this before. I don't remember the thread, and maybe it was closed. But if we want to discuss this further, maybe we should start a new thread?

 

[Allan]

Of course you know that God can not sin or be the direct cause of anyone sinning.... or even tempting them. I do not deny scripture.

I was not saying that you were implying I was lost. My brother Wayne was approaching that.

Again, Allan, I beleive God to be the first cause. How can we put our minds around that? I don't know. If you think there is a progression of thought with God, then that would represent change. He is immutable. He has nothing to learn. Don't you agree?

Without question, however knowing all things about everything concerning anything is a tiring thing to me. :laugh:

However we actually limit God to our finite mind set when we assume what "everything" entails when it concerns Gods knowledge and to what extent it it would thereby extend. Would you not agree? We can make all the assumptions in world but they should not be the foundation of our doctrine if they are foundational in the mind of man and not scripture. We know He foreknew intimately certain people and predestined them to be like Christ Jesus and that is all we know about what He Knew.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I will not hijack this thread, which has already happened I think. We have discussed this before. I don't remember the thread, and maybe it was closed. But if we want to discuss this further, maybe we should start a new thread?

No reason to really, unless you just want to argue :smilewinkgrin:

I understand a little better where you are coming from now. I still don't agree with all the mechanics you accert to it but I do believe those same truths.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Without question, however knowing all things about everything concerning anything is a tiring thing to me. :laugh:

However we actually limit God to our finite mind set when we assume what "everything" entails when it concerns Gods knowledge and to what extent it it would thereby extend. Would you not agree? We can make all the assumptions in world but they should not be the foundation of our doctrine if they are foundational in the mind of man and not scripture. We know He foreknew intimately certain people and predestined them to be like Christ Jesus and that is all we know about what He Knew.

Well, so as to not hijack the thread.... I believe God is *ALL* knowing. That means He knows all and has nothing to learn, or He would not be all knowing and would not be God. Now, since we know that He is all knowing....... He has blinded those who are blind, and this was done in His perfect knowledge, which has no progression of time. Thats easy huh? :applause:

 

[Allan]

Well, so as to not hijack the thread.... I believe God is *ALL* knowing. That means He knows all and has nothing to learn, or He would not be all knowing and would not be God. Now, since we know that He is all knowing....... He has blinded those who are blind, and this was done in His perfect knowledge, which has no progression of time. Thats easy huh? :applause:

Yep, especially when scripture says He did it cause He knew they would be in unbelief so He judged them. God is *ALL* knowing and is why He blinded them so they WOULDN'T come to that knowledged wherewith He blinded them to. :laugh: :laugh:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Yep, especially when scripture says He did it cause He knew they would be in unbelief so He judged them. God is *ALL* knowing and is why He blinded them so they WOULDN'T come to that knowledged wherewith He blinded them to. :laugh: :laugh:

I agree with you brother. You are the best calvinist of all the non calvinist I know.:laugh:

 

[Tom Butler]

Then consider this, Tom -- God became man and dwelt among us. Was that a change for God in your view? Did God have to change His location in order to walk among us? Did God have to change His status vis-a-vis the angels? All are true, right? God changed in many ways. He might even have decided not to have a chocolate for breakfast one day.

If you'll think about it, you really don't want to make this argument.

He knew everything that could be known at the time, right? He knows the beginning from the end "from before the foundation of the world" as reformb likes to use. That doesn't mean that He knew before some point in time when He decided to create the world.

Sounds like Open Theism for sure. Sounds like something I used to tell my kids: "I know everything, but I don't know that."

All things can be known in advance, as soon as God chooses to know them. He knows everything about all that He chooses to create. Imagine, for instance, the things He could have made but didn't. Why didn't He? They wouldn't "work" with His plan. Imagine the sin He could have done but didn't. Why didn't He? Because it is not in His character, right? In fact, He doesn't do these things because He knows of the dreadful consequences.

Is this sort of like God chooses not to know something until he chooses to know it? Or, maybe, God can't know some things until he decides he can? In trying to preserve God's omnipotence you have made him only partly omnipotent. You've also eliminated his omniscience. Or, at the least, made him partly omniscient. Except there is no such thing.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

That did not make sense . . . at least to me.

You made this statement from my comments on Post #85. Sorry I didn't see it before.

In other words...God knew from the foundation of creation every person who will ever be His, just as surely as their Christ (the Lamb) stood slain from the foundation as well. The book of life of the Lamb is the evidence that all things proceeded according to His perfect knowledge and will. This book (among other things)is what gives His people reason to exalt, praise, and give glory to God; Because it declares God accomplished His purpose and plan to the satisfaction of His good pleasure.

And all those not written in the Lambs book will worship the beast (as their god).

 

[Allan]

Allan

How do you come to the conclusion that God forknew all who would be His?

Because scripture says He knows all who are His.
Rev 13:8 shows this.
John 6:40 shows this.
John 10:3-4 shows this - He even calls them by name (could it be He recorded those names)

But much to the chagrin of my Calvinist brothers (who will now hang there heads unbelief) I hold that the scriptures teach He knew all who would come to Him BY Faith via means of the gospel call. God sees them In Christ long before they ever literally come to Him by faith because He knows they will accept and not reject the calling. But God what God knows will be (in the end) is already known as a shall be (from the foundation of the world) so God declares it as though it IS (timely or in that time).

 

[Allan]

I am reposting this since it sort of got lost in the schuffel when we veared off topic.

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
reformedbeliever can answer this for himself, but here's my take on it. Whom God chooses he does not unchoose. When we were saved, thus realizing that we were elect, we recognize that before salvation, we, too were in rebellion against him. And some of us played that role to the hilt. Yet God did not unchoose us. In fact, while we were yet sinners, he died for us.

In the same way, God does not unchoose the Jews, his chosen people, despite their rebellion. They are still his chosen today, and I believe the scripture teaches that ultimately they embrace Jesus as the Messiah.

I suppose I should also distinguish between elect Jews chosen for salvation through Jesus, and the Jews as a nation (or race). Although they are blinded as a nation, individual Jews have been saved.

I can still follow that ...

But you still have yet to give biblical evidence as to why God blinded them. We ALL agree God did it and we ALL agree it was a decision made in eternity past. Were we are loosing cohesiveness is why it was done. You state, cause God wanted to...fine but why does scripture SAY God wanted to. God did not MAKE them to seek out unbelief as I'm sure you will agree because He was Constantly pleading with them to turn for years before He gave Isaiah the prophesy that they would not heed anymore.

What I am saying is that God knowing what will be (their unbelief) is it not part of His plan for His purpose that IN their unbelief He would blind them.

This brings again the older question... Why blind someone from seeing something if they can not or could not see it anyway unless God remove their blindness first? Could it be they were not always blinded??

To say God does something just to do it for no other reason than He can, makes God out to be a mindless childlike being who does things on a whim. I'm not saying you hold that or any Calvinist does, but when a question arises to give an explanation as to WHY God did something the typical answer is cause He is soveriegn. He is I agree, but He does not do anything without reason or purpose and quite often we find the reason God does something explained in the scriptures. Yes, I agree there are times where scriptures do not say why God did something but MANY are the times we see that it does.

Are we ignore those scriptures that explain the 'why's" that God does/did many of things (the predeterminded means for or the cause of His actions) that we may cling to our doctrines?

 

[Tom Butler]

But you still have yet to give biblical evidence as to why God blinded them. We ALL agree God did it and we ALL agree it was a decision made in eternity past. Were we are losing cohesiveness is why it was done. You state, cause God wanted to...fine but why does scripture SAY God wanted to. God did not MAKE them to seek out unbelief as I'm sure you will agree because He was Constantly pleading with them to turn for years before He gave Isaiah the prophesy that they would not heed anymore.

What I am saying is that God knowing what will be (their unbelief) is it not part of His plan for His purpose that IN their unbelief He would blind them.

The scriptures provide us few if any specific clues as to the mind of God in hardening and blinding. In general, all we are told that when God acts, decrees, etc., it is because if pleased him to do so (as in Matthew 11:25-26, where Jesus thanks the Father for hiding some truths from some, revealing it to others, because it seems good to God to do so).

We also glean that his ultimate end is to bring glory to himself and to his Son.

To assert that God does something because it pleases him is a far cry from making God out to be like someone who does things on a whim.

So we are reduced to debating how to interpret Isaiah 6 and John 12:37-41, and arguing over whether blindness results in sin or vice versa.

I've given what I think is pretty much my best shot, so I'll jump in only occasionally from now on. I made that pledge on another thread, and within a half-a-day I yielded to the irresistible urge and fell off the wagon.

In the meantime, maybe I can stir up a debate between you and skypair over his Open Theism.

As always, Allen, you are a class act and an able defender of your position.

 

[reformedbeliever]

The scriptures provide us few if any specific clues as to the mind of God in hardening and blinding. In general, all we are told that when God acts, decrees, etc., it is because if pleased him to do so (as in Matthew 11:25-26, where Jesus thanks the Father for hiding some truths from some, revealing it to others, because it seems good to God to do so).

We also glean that his ultimate end is to bring glory to himself and to his Son.

To assert that God does something because it pleases him is a far cry from making God out to be like someone who does things on a whim.

So we are reduced to debating how to interpret Isaiah 6 and John 12:37-41, and arguing over whether blindness results in sin or vice versa.

I've given what I think is pretty much my best shot, so I'll jump in only occasionally from now on. I made that pledge on another thread, and within a half-a-day I yielded to the irresistible urge and fell off the wagon.

In the meantime, maybe I can stir up a debate between you and skypair over his Open Theism.

As always, Allen, you are a class act and an able defender of your position.

Amen, and Amen

 

[reformedbeliever]

I do wish you would not go away Tom. You teach many of us. You and Allan are very articulate, and we could all learn from you. God bless you on your decision to not respond. I know it is tireing. That is why I told MB to look it up. Plus, i'm just not as good a communicator as you and Allan.

 

[Allan]

The scriptures provide us few if any specific clues as to the mind of God in hardening and blinding. In general, all we are told that when God acts, decrees, etc., it is because if pleased him to do so (as in Matthew 11:25-26, where Jesus thanks the Father for hiding some truths from some, revealing it to others, because it seems good to God to do so).

We also glean that his ultimate end is to bring glory to himself and to his Son.

To assert that God does something because it pleases him is a far cry from making God out to be like someone who does things on a whim.

So we are reduced to debating how to interpret Isaiah 6 and John 12:37-41, and arguing over whether blindness results in sin or vice versa.

I've given what I think is pretty much my best shot, so I'll jump in only occasionally from now on. I made that pledge on another thread, and within a half-a-day I yielded to the irresistible urge and fell off the wagon.

In the meantime, maybe I can stir up a debate between you and skypair over his Open Theism.

As always, Allen, you are a class act and an able defender of your position.

While I appreciate the kind words I don't think you realize just how hard it is to keep up with you and reforemed.:thumbs:

My reposting wasn't so much for you to REsubstantiate your views, but to maybe get the thread back on the topic of blindness. (I was being ornery :laugh: )

Yeah...about skypair... that is a whole new thread in itself - huh, skypair.

Well I do appreciate your willingness to discuss the scriptures and set forth your views in a very Christlike and mature way. Thank you for that honor - and you to Reformed. You are both assets to Gods purpose and plan but I think you are most definately a pleasure to him. :godisgood: All the time. (and this time ALL means All - LOL )