How many Calvinists/Arminians do we have?

[Guest]

to say that God knows the future, but did not plan the future is like saying that God read the story and knows it, but didn't write the story

Hey brother,

Yes, it is like this. But where is the fallacy in your example here?

God bless,

to me, the fallacy is that if God knows the future, but didn't plan it, then someone/something must have first planned it in order for God to know it, and we all know that is not the case

[Guest]

to me, the fallacy is that if God knows the future, but didn't plan it, then someone/something must have first planned it in order for God to know it, and we all know that is not the case

What do you mean someone else must have "first planned" it. I simply see it as foreknowledge. Knowing beforehand. No one "planned it" so to speak. God simply knows all things (including all contingencies).

I don't think you believe this way but I want to ask the question anyway:
Are you saying that God wrote the story but didn't know what would happen "before" He wrote it? In other words, was there a time when God didn't know what was going to happen, like before He authored the story (as you put it).

In my line of reasoning, there has never been a time when God wasn't all knowing. Therefore He always knew what we would do.

If, however, we conclude that God only knows what will happen because He causes it to happen then all things that have ever been are good because God is incapable of sin.

When I mentioned to other Calvinist that double predestination brings to mind the "Good Samaritan" parable. Those who passed by the one fallen among theives did not help the man who needed it. This was Jesus' explanation of love, to help those in need, not pass by them. John says God is love. But if Calvinism is true, this makes God the one who passes by all those who are unable to repent being falling in sin.

The answer I get is that it's ok for God to do whatever He wants and it is not sin. This is an illogical statement since the bible states there are several things God cannot do: Deny Himself, lie, change, etc. Since God is love, then God cannot do what is unloving. Unloving defined by God incarnate (Jesus) Himself said is anyone who passes by someone in desperate cercumstances that they can help. Can God pass over the non-elect and be loving?

All this to say that I believe the difference between the elect and non-elect is the choice they make to accept the gift of Grace, already paid for by Christ Himself.

[Guest]

In other words, knowing the future is not the same as causing it.

Knowing what free-will agents will choose would result in causing those "free choices", and this is a contradiction, and therefore impossible.

We've been through this before and we disagee with one another.
To put it simply, you've made an assertion based on your own understanding. Were talking about God here, not us. Therefore we cannot reason out what God can do based on what we can do.

[Guest]

What do you mean someone else must have "first planned" it. I simply see it as foreknowledge. Knowing beforehand. No one "planned it" so to speak. God simply knows all things (including all contingencies).

what i meant by "first planned" it seems to me that every moment in the life of a human was planned, the good, and the bad. if God didn't plan it, then who did? that may be faulty reasoning, so i dont hold this idea authoritatively, but while pondering what you've asked that's my response

I don't think you believe this way but I want to ask the question anyway:
Are you saying that God wrote the story but didn't know what would happen "before" He wrote it? In other words, was there a time when God didn't know what was going to happen, like before He authored the story (as you put it).

i just used the analogy of a story to depict what i feel about believing in omniscience, but denying the calvinistic sense of predestination.

i do believe that God has known all things at all times, to get philosophical for a moment, consider eternity, is there a past and a present in eternity? (ya dont got to answer, its just something i've been thinking about lately)

In my line of reasoning, there has never been a time when God wasn't all knowing. Therefore He always knew what we would do.

i agree

If, however, we conclude that God only knows what will happen because He causes it to happen then all things that have ever been are good because God is incapable of sin.

When I mentioned to other Calvinist that double predestination brings to mind the "Good Samaritan" parable. Those who passed by the one fallen among theives did not help the man who needed it. This was Jesus' explanation of love, to help those in need, not pass by them. John says God is love. But if Calvinism is true, this makes God the one who passes by all those who are unable to repent being falling in sin.

i dont believe that brings up a problem for calvinists

in the non-calvinist view, God sees who will die in sin before-hand, but passes them by, the calvinist view presents an adequate explanation for why people die in sin without God

The answer I get is that it's ok for God to do whatever He wants and it is not sin. This is an illogical statement since the bible states there are several things God cannot do: Deny Himself, lie, change, etc. Since God is love, then God cannot do what is unloving. Unloving defined by God incarnate (Jesus) Himself said is anyone who passes by someone in desperate cercumstances that they can help. Can God pass over the non-elect and be loving?

i do agree that it is ok for God to do whatever He wants, and i dont believe that it is illogical at all, it is like a question that i get from many unbelievers, which is: if God is love, then why did He create hell?

it isn't that God passes over the non-elect, He planned what they would do, and how they would be for His own purposes (Romans 9:22-24)

All this to say that I believe the difference between the elect and non-elect is the choice they make to accept the gift of Grace, already paid for by Christ Himself.

For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
Romans 8:6,7

[Guest]

We've been through this before and we disagee with one another.

Well, I guess we've got to go through it again, since you still don't seem to get it.

To put it simply, you've made an assertion based on your own understanding. Were talking about God here, not us. Therefore we cannot reason out what God can do based on what we can do.

Why do you use the phrase "your own reasoning"? Is there some flaw in my reasoning? Or are you saying that logic does not apply to God? Or are you rejecting logic itself?

2+2=4. This is a logical statement. Can God come up with a different sum?

My wife is not now in our house. Might God conclude that she was now in our house?

It is a contradiction to affirm that an omnipotent being could create a stone so large that he could not lift it. For, if he could create such a stone, then he would not be omnipotent. Are you saying that God has a special kind of logic whereby He could create such a stone, and lift it too?
To say so, is meaningless nonsense. Only non-contradictions have any meaning.

To say that future actions of free-will agents are true of false now (and therefore can be known) is such a contradiction.

Maintaining that "God's logic" is different from "man's logic" won't do.
There is only one logic. Man may make mistakes in applying it, but that does not defeat logic itself.

[Guest]

paidion convinced me ( i think) of the soundness of his position here and the many pages contained therein):

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=45

that is not to say i understand everything perfectly now, quite the contrary. but i have given up on the "because God is God he doesnt have the same rules as us" argument.

TK

[Guest]

Paidon,

What about God knowing the end from the beggining? And do you believe that God is bound to time?

[Guest]

in the non-calvinist view, God sees who will die in sin before-hand, but passes them by, the calvinist view presents an adequate explanation for why people die in sin without God

...it is like a question that i get from many unbelievers, which is: if God is love, then why did He create hell?

Actually, in the non-calvinist view (at least all I ever heard give their opinion on it) God gives man life and a conscience. God has also offered salvation through the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth. I certainly know my unborn child may have any number of birth defects but most people take the "chance" anyway. God gives people a choice. So while God does have to send people to "hell", it's their choice. God is giving them what they want of the available choices, that is.

it isn't that God passes over the non-elect, He planned what they would do, and how they would be for His own purposes (Romans 9:22-24)

So you believe the scope and context of Romans 9 is all people (elect and non-elect)? I see the context as Paul's reasoning why some Jews are elect and some are not (along with Gentiles grafted in). The are the "chosen" people after all. Paul does a good job of explaining that some of Israel (earthy Jerusalem) is being prepared for destruction, while others are being prepared to bring glory to God.

For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
Romans 8:6,7

Lets look at more of the context of this:

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I've not heard a good Calvinist explanation of Cornelius who was:
Act 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

God sent an angel saying:
Act 10:4 Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Later, when Peter spoke:
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

So how is it that if the Clavinist is correct, and those without the Spirit of God cannot please God in any way, how is it that Cornelius apparently did. Again, he did not yet have the Spirit as Peter mentioned fell as on "us" at the beginning.

Just as one who is in the Spirit and has crucifed the flesh with it's desires can still fall in temtation. It stands to reason that one who is in the flesh can at times do some things right.

[Guest]

Consider this:

"From God, Time, and Eternity" by William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Theology at Talbot School of Theology

But, of course, prior to creation was not simply nothing, but God. Would his existence necessitate the presence of time prior to creation? Lucas argues that a personal God could not be timeless and that if God is eternal, then time must be infinite as well. {24}But Hackett argues convincingly that a personal God need not experience a temporal succession of mental states. He could apprehend the whole content of the temporal series in a single eternal intuition, just as I analogously apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God could know the content of all knowledge - past, present, and future - in a simultaneous and eternal intuition.{25} Therefore, the fact that the creator is personal does not necessitate the presence of time prior to creation. Sturch argues that in order to avoid an infinite temporal regress of states of consciousness, God's knowledge must be timeless.{26} On a Newtonian view of time, God would exist changelessly in an undifferentiated time prior to creation. On a relational view of time, God would exist changelessly and timelessly prior to the first event, creation, which marks the beginning of time.

Our logic and finite minds may fail us in understanding what an infinite God can and can not do. Romans 11:33 ought to humble us a bit:

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out!

[Guest]

Actually, in the non-calvinist view (at least all I ever heard give their opinion on it) God gives man life and a conscience. God has also offered salvation through the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth. I certainly know my unborn child may have any number of birth defects but most people take the "chance" anyway. God gives people a choice. So while God does have to send people to "hell", it's their choice. God is giving them what they want of the available choices, that is.

By reading what you've just said, since you believe that it is the person's choice to go to hell, do you also believe that a person must make the choice to go to Heaven? I do know that human responsibility is a "must" to the Christian, but I believe that only happens when God saves one who has been predestined to be adopted by Christ (Eph 1:3-6). The man's choice is already made up, for God planned each believer to make that choice, and experience God to glorify Him.

So you believe the scope and context of Romans 9 is all people (elect and non-elect)? I see the context as Paul's reasoning why some Jews are elect and some are not (along with Gentiles grafted in). The are the "chosen" people after all. Paul does a good job of explaining that some of Israel (earthy Jerusalem) is being prepared for destruction, while others are being prepared to bring glory to God.

Here is what Albert Barnes said of Romans 9:24. I agree with him.

Romans 9:24 -
Even us ... - See Rom_1:16; Rom_2:10; Rom_3:29-30. To prove that the Gentiles might be called as well as the Jews, was a leading design of the Epistle.
Us - Christians, selected from both Jews and Gentiles. This proves that he did not refer to nations primarily, but to individuals chosen out of nations. Two things are established here.
1. that the grace of God was not confined to the Jewish people, as they supposed, so that it could be conferred on no others.
2. that God was not bound to confer grace on all the descendants of Abraham, as he bestowed it on those selected from the mass, according to his own will, and not of necessity “on the mass” itself.

I said:
For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
Romans 8:6,7 "

You said:
Lets look at more of the context of this:

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I see in the context that the carnal mind is at enmity with God via a sinful nature, in other words being born in Adam. One must be reborn in Christ to become spiritually minded. That also is the only way to please God, if the Spirit is not in us, then we are not His.
It comes down to this:
Does man make Himself born again by his own act of choosing/believing? Or does God reveal Himself to a man, and then the man follows Him? Does the Shepherd choose His sheep? Or do the sheep choose their Shepherd?

I've not heard a good Calvinist explanation of Cornelius who was:
Act 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

God sent an angel saying:
Act 10:4 Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Later, when Peter spoke:
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

So how is it that if the Clavinist is correct, and those without the Spirit of God cannot please God in any way, how is it that Cornelius apparently did. Again, he did not yet have the Spirit as Peter mentioned fell as on "us" at the beginning.

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the Word. And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, should not be baptized? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they begged him to stay certain days.
-Acts 10:44-48

If God gave to them the same gift as to us, they having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to prevent God?
When they heard these things, they were silent and glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted repentance to life to the nations.
-Acts 11:17-18

Those with faith glorify God, Cornelius had faith, but did not have the Holy Spirit. Is not faith a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9)?
Do you think that Cornelius could have stopped the Spirit from falling on him?

Just as one who is in the Spirit and has crucifed the flesh with it's desires can still fall in temtation. It stands to reason that one who is in the flesh can at times do some things right.

So then they who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:8

Works of the flesh profit a man nothing towards God.

Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:19-21

(for the children had not yet been born, neither had done any good or evil; but that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who called,)
Romans 9:11

In King Jesus,
Devin