Does Calvinism limit God?

[Nathon Detroit]

smaller must have missed my last response to him....

smaller must have missed my last response to him....

Let me re-post it.

Originally posted by smaller

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Are there EXCEPTIONS to ALL THINGS?

God might actually KNOW what He is doing eh?

Of course there are exceptions!!!

Maybe Smaller can answer for us these simple questions....

At creation.....

Did God create love?
Did God create righteousness?
Did God create Himself?

 

[Turbo]

Re: Does Calvinism limit God?

Originally posted by Tye Porter

You and Knight are both doing this.

I don't know who, nor do I care to know who Calvin is, unless he comes with a hobbes.

Originally written by Bill Watterson

Calvin is named for a sixteenth-century theologian who believed in predestination.
...
Named after a seventeenth-century philosopher with a dim view of human nature, Hobbes has the patient dignity and common sense of most animals I've met.

The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book; pp 22, 23.

Remember when Calvin was struggling to resist throwing a slushball at Suzie, because it was almost Christmas and Santa was watching him? But he talked himself into it by reasoning that he was predestined to do it.

I'm sure I remember reading a strip like that (long before I became a Christian or learned about John Calvin). Tonight I've been trying to find it in my C&H books, but I haven't found it yet.

 

[Tye Porter]

Re: Re: Does Calvinism limit God?

Re: Re: Does Calvinism limit God?

Originally posted by Turbo
Remember when Calvin was struggling to resist throwing a slushball at Suzie, because it was almost Christmas and Santa was watching him? But he talked himself into it by reasoning that he was predestined to do it.

I'm sure I remember reading a strip like that (long before I became a Christian or learned about John Calvin). Tonight I've been trying to find it in my C&H books, but I haven't found it yet.

This is the only type of "Calvinism" predestination behind which I can get.
:thumb: :chuckle:

 

[Tye Porter]

Re: smaller must have missed my last response to him....

Re: smaller must have missed my last response to him....

Originally posted by Knight

You and I look at the same Bible verses and you interpret differently than I read it.

I won't argue with you about it.
It is not a salvation issue.
You are Saved whether you believed God called you to Him ("predestined") or it was just some coincidental luck that you fell upon Him.
Either way, I will not continue with you and Poly.
You are too pugnacious.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Still waiting.....

Still waiting.....

Oh smaller.... hello....

Let me re-post it.... AGAIN.

Originally posted by smaller

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Are there EXCEPTIONS to ALL THINGS?

God might actually KNOW what He is doing eh?

Of course there are exceptions!!!

Maybe Smaller can answer for us these simple questions....

At creation.....

Did God create love?
Did God create righteousness?
Did God create Himself?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Cricket..... [chirp] [chirp].....

 

[1Way]

Jobeth - My friend and foe, welcome back to TOL, I hope you are doing well. How are you doing physically?

But, you said.

I believe that God is powerful enough to give man a freewill. But He's not that stupid.

But free will is a good thing, right, God has a free will, doesn't He?

Then you quoted Poly saying

Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event?

and then you said

(1) Yes, He could. (2) And that is just the kind of world that will exist for those who are separated from God's control. Which would seem to be good for them, since that's what they wanted. (3) But our Lord warned us that they won't actually be happy being separated from God's control. What a dilemma. On the one hand they want to be in Heaven rather than hell, but on the other hand (4) they don't want to give up their free will to live in a world where only God's will is done.

(5) Don't you know that everyone who will get into heaven will have first surrendered their will to God? (6) And if you surrendered you will to God, then how can you claim to still have a will of your own?

(1) - Good for you, you realize that God is powerful enough to be the God of the bible.

(2) - But, I thought you believe that everyone is controlled by God's will. So if you right that everyone and everything is controlled by God's will, then you are wrong to say there will be a world for those outside of God's control. Or said the other way, if your right that there will be a world where God is not in control of people in hell, then you are wrong that everyone and everything is controlled by God.

Which is it Jobeth, God is in control of everything, or not?

(3) - Oh, so some will not be under God's control, but I thought you believe that everything is under God's control. Please make up your mind.

(4) - They don't want to give up their whatttttttt!!!!!!????? You say that they have NOOOOOOOOOO free will, only God has free will, not man. What are you saying? Man does or does not have free will? Make up your mind.

(5) - What????? :freak: I thought that God controlled everything? It's not up to us to surrender anything, we can do nothing, only God does everything. Please make up your mind, do we control some things, or does God control everything? Which is it?

(6) - By letting the truth guide your faith. God says that after we become saved, we are a new creation, His spirit starts living within us working sanctifcation in our life, such that He is constantly working to conform us into Christlikeness. Even the words, surrendering your will to God, establish that it is still your will, and once God has started His good work within us, there is no mention in scripture that this means we have no will of our own anymore, it's that our will is ever being conformed to His. But, again, according to your view, such a thing as submitting our will to God is impossible, there is only one will that exists, and that is God's will and control. So if God wills that someone becomes saved, it is not because that person did anything at all, let alone submit their will to God, you are suggesting that it was God and His doing every step of the way, so you have no business teaching that some people do anything, least of all submit their own will to God.

Back in rare form and as contradictory and self refuting as normal, good to have you back Jobeth, you make God's classical omniscience look as bad as ever!

Here, let me ask you a question. Can God control everything and also at the same time and in the same relationship not control some things? Yes or no?

And as a standard test question for general logic, can yes mean no,
does truth mean false,
does good mean evil,
does right mean wrong,
or are all of these (baically) opposites and do not mean what the other means?

Good luck! :thumb:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by 1Way
Back in rare form and as contradictory and self refuting as normal, good to have you back Jobeth, you make God's classical omniscience look as bad as ever!

Here, let me ask you a question. Can God control everything and also at the same time and in the same relationship not control some things? Yes or no?

:thumb:

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Knight--God can and does do whatsoever He pleases. If He does not please in regard to anything, it is ABSURD to ask, "can God do this?"
His will is done and nothing else can or will be done. And He does not entertain absurdities. "Who is he who says and it comes to pass when the Lord has not commanded it?" Rather than rail against it, just try to understand it. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so his ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. Reject it and wallow in futility, but you can't defeat it.

 

[godrulz]

Quick question:

I assume most Open Theists lean to libertarian freedom of the will (at least significant, genuine moral freedom).

Calvinism seems to overemphasize the will of God at the expense of other free will moral agents.

How does Enyart and others here conclude that salvation is unconditional (OSAS)? This seems to be a logical conclusion of Calvinism (unconditional eternal security; perseverance of the saints; irrisistable grace; unconditional election). Arminianism (and Open Theism) generally supports conditional eternal security (possibility of becoming apostate).

This is debated elsewhere (Jerry Shurgart= baptismal regeneration thread). Without getting into the debate, what is the short response to OSAS held by those who uphold free will (I guess I have not go to that chapter in "The Plot". A response would benefit those who do not own the book)?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Knight--God can and does do whatsoever He pleases. If He does not please in regard to anything, it is ABSURD to ask, "can God do this?"
His will is done and nothing else can or will be done. And He does not entertain absurdities. "Who is he who says and it comes to pass when the Lord has not commanded it?" Rather than rail against it, just try to understand it. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so his ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. Reject it and wallow in futility, but you can't defeat it.

Sorry but I really cannot make heads nor tails as to what point you are attempting to make.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by godrulz
How does Enyart and others here conclude that salvation is unconditional (OSAS)? This seems to be a logical conclusion of Calvinism (unconditional eternal security; perseverance of the saints; irrisistable grace; unconditional election). Arminianism (and Open Theism) generally supports conditional eternal security (possibility of becoming apostate).

It's a myth that eternal security is a open view vs. closed view issue.

If God tells those in the Body that they are secure... who can say otherwise?

Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[godrulz]

Nothing external can separate us from the love of God. Sin and rebellion can and does separate us from a holy God. If we have free will that does not have a causative force (God) behind it, WE can sever the relationship. Love, by definition, involves the equal possibility of choosing another's highest good or choosing selfishness as the supreme choice.

Either salvation is a reconciled love relationship that must be freely entered into and maintained (morals), or it is an irrevocable metaphysical change ('born again' irrevocably, rather than as a metaphor).

 

[1Way]

godrulz - I believe that it's the mechanism that you are confused about. In Calvinism, the unconditionality of (OSAS) is because of God's sovereign will/choice/foreknowledge, take your pick, God fore something individuals to salvation. Since's God's fore whatever is never wrong, those who are saved are saved without a doubt. But that is nothing like Enyart's views as taught from scripture. We in the body of Christ are secure in Him. So, if you expect to see Jesus in heaven, and you are in Christ, then you will be in Heaven too. That is not unconditionality, that is based upon the condition that we are in Him. If we meet that condition, then we are going to be in heaven as assuredly as Jesus is and will be. The conditional salvation teachings are for the circumcision believers such that you could loose your salvation, thus we have teachings like being blotted out of the book of life, and forgive others if you want God to forgive you, etc.

• Don't forget that only we are sealed for the day of redemption, and even if we are faithless, He remains faithful, He will not reject HIMSELF. See, God considers us in Him so much, that even if we become without faith, God will not reject --) Jesus. (-- !!! God considers us that secure in Him. !!! These BIBLICAL teachings are brought to you by Paul who gave them to us, naturally they are NOT from any of the circumcion, their teaching is for another dispensation.

You see, it is really your understanding of so much manmade trumplery that confuses you and makes it hard for you to fit all the pieces together. Learn to grasp ahold of God's word and hold loosely, VERY loosely your own manmade understandings.

Your trying to run before your walking. Get the bible overview in first, then these sorts of details will fit naturally and effortlessly into place.

You said

1 - Nothing external can separate us from the love of God. 2 - Sin and rebellion can and does separate us from a holy God. 3 - If we have free will that does not have a causative force (God) behind it, WE can sever the relationship.

1 - No, Knight was quoting scripture which carries with it a beautifully developed context, it was talking about us who have "victory in Christ". For those "in Christ", we are secure "in" Him. God's word does not say that "something" can separate us from God (meaning loose our salvation) once we are saved, it says the exact opposite.
2 - Yes, it does, but not as though we could loose our salvation. We who are "in Christ", are secure "in Him". We can loose eternal rewards, but not our salvation.

3 - Please stay on planet reality, we want to understand God's word to direct man's thinking, not the other way around.

God is Lord over salvation, not the open view, nor libertarian realchoice freedom conbablistic liberty openmulinism freewill theism, so if God says that those "in Christ" are secure "in Him", then, we are. It's a God thing, go figure.

You said

Either salvation is a reconciled love relationship that must be freely entered into and maintained (morals), or it is an irrevocable metaphysical change ('born again' irrevocably, rather than as a metaphor).

:doh: No wonder you have such a hard time understanding God's word, it's true and very different from manmade thought. If you get any less biblical, I'm afraid that we will have to sentence you to a life of bible reading with no philosophical stuff for you.

... I'll give you an irrevocable metaphysical change

 

[godrulz]

As I have told Jerry Shugart over and over, IF we are in Christ, we are secure and have eternal life (I think we agree).

The question is: is it possible to be in Christ for years, and later become apostate and reject the truth (like Judas and Charles Templeton)? There can be some mistaken identity (never was a Christian), but this is not true of all former believers....hence, our understanding needs to change.

Robert Shank (Southern Baptist) has refuted the 'perseverance of the saints' in his 1960 book "Life in the Son" (Westcott). He looks at shared texts and proof texts from each view, and puts them in their context.

Arminians use foreknowledge as the mechanism to explain how God knows who will be saved, without negating free will.

Calvinists use predestination (TULIP) and the will of God to support unconditional eternal security (you are in this camp, despite the diversion to try to say salvation is conditional on being in Christ- exactly what a Calvinist would say).

If I could be so bold (in my vast ignorance and humility), I think you and Enyart error by making too much of dispensationalism and judging what is about the circumcision vs uncircumcision (eisogetical, subjective pre-conceived theological 'glasses').

Open Theism is not logically or theologically compatible with exhaustive foreknowledge or OSAS for believers (conditional eternal security= if you abide in Christ and persevere to the end, you will be saved; if you turn into a reprobate, God-hater, you will not be saved).

Please DO NOT take me out of your will or good books (as if I was ever there)!



:shocked: :help:

 

[1Way]

Oh ye of little retention span - I'd much rather have my understanding of being secure in Christ than yours which is really not being secure in Christ.

Don't forget that only we are sealed for the day of redemption, and even if we are faithless, He remains faithful, He will not reject HIMSELF. See, God considers us in Him so much, that even if we become without faith, God will not reject --) Jesus. (-- !!! God considers us that secure in Him. !!! These BIBLICAL teachings are brought to you by Paul who gave them to us, naturally they are NOT from any of the circumcion, their teaching is for another dispensation.

God teaches that even if we become faithless, that is without faith in God, He remains faithful, He can not reject HIMSELF.



Honestly, I think you like to regurgitate much more than you do digest.


I think you'd make a good truck driver since most of the time is spent traveling and only some of the time is spent after you have arrived. The trip is a struggle but the arival is easy. You like the journey and not the destination, you like the work in progress not the finished results, you like to struggle against instead of resting in (the truth?). Ok, that last bit was a bit harsh, but really, your version of security is not consistent, and your idea of faith is about as manmade as could be. Don't you like God's word?

Maybe you think that God's seal for the day of redemption is not a very secure thought, like what? Maybe God sometimes forgets to seal some? Or some of His seals are a bit outdated and their staying power just might give way under the awesome power of man's might? Or ???

Don't you trust God when He said that He will NOT reject Himself? I mean what in the world are you biblically talking about???

 

[godrulz]

Well, that is breaking some sort of rule of logic and sound thinking.

I am surprised that an Open Theist cannot see the contradictory Calvinistic assumptions and conclusions that have crept in on this one area of truth. There is a more Arminian/Open Theist way to understand those proof-texts.

Perhaps we should recognize our limitations as truck drivers and paramedics, and not pretend to be amateur theologians (I think you are wrong on this point of OSAS).

 

[1Way]

godrulz - You said

Well, that is breaking some sort of rule of logic and sound thinking.

I am surprised that an Open Theist cannot see the contradictory Calvinistic assumptions and conclusions that have crept in on this one area of truth. There is a more Arminian/Open Theist way to understand those proof-texts.

First sentence is you basically saying that you disagree with me, as I would say that you can honestly show nothing of what I have said to be as you characterized it.

As to the second bit, name one single Calvinistic or contradictory assumption that has crept in? And don't beg the question with conclusions, I agree with the Calvinists on OSAS but only for this dispensation and in a completely different way than they do. OSAS is NOT a Calvinistic teaching, security of the saints is Pauline through and thru. Just as I suggest I have already exposed you for being a bit off base concerning miracles, you agreed with Freak about them against Enyart's teaching, and I admit I am assuming that your lack of arguments against my defense of Enyart's teachings implied a general consent to the same, in perhaps a similar way, you are honestly speaking your mind about what you believe here and now, yet your thoughts so far do not demonstrate a good working knowledge of open theism and dispensationalism as they relate to Calvinism on this issue. You could not be more wrong, and I dare say, it is your almost constant focus and familiarity with the manmade mainstream stuff like Calvinism and such that is blinding you, even here and now, I presented God's word for my understanding of OSAS, and although it was just a brief snapshot, yet you offer NO biblical grounds for attacking my view, instead you turn to your old favorite, manmade philosophy and understanding as though such things are the source of determining eternal truth. :doh:

Please answer fully
Please re-examine what I gave you as being the grounds for my view, hint, they are all from the bible. From there, you need to expose how my understanding of those teachings/arguments is wrong. Hint, do so from scripture. Lastly, to see if you even understand my understanding of that one passage where God replaced Himself for us, do you understand my understanding of that passage? Namely, answer the following.

Do you expect Jesus Christ to be accepted by God and thus be in heaven?

Do you have the same confidence that those in Christ will be there too, no matter their lack of faith in God?

I understand the answer to those questions as being a joyous yes. If you don't, then you don't understand square one, and if you do understand, then you should have no problem with this sort of security, it is very clear and very clear, and for that matter, quite clear.

How about the HS sealing us for the day of redemption, that teaching can not fit into your anti-OSAS ideas, right? Does the HS sometimes forget to seal a believer? These are serious questions that you are not dealing with. Does the HS always remember to seal but sometimes God's seal for the day of redemption is not a fresh seal, it's stale and brakes down so that the believer may slip away sometime prior to the day of redemption. ???


"irrevocable metaphysical change"

 

[1Way]

I am greatful, and thank God for our time together,,, may our lives be guided by God's ways, honoring Him and His word in the process.

 

[1Way]

Blessings from on high

Blessings from on high

I loved Poly's first post of this thread! That is some serious food for thought, and blessed my soul greatly. Underlines are mine for added emphasis, plus added a line space for more white space distribution between para's.

:first:

I touched on this on another thread but I want to get other views on this. Does Calvinism limit God? Those that believe God predestined everything must admit one of 2 things. Either God was not powerful enough to give man a true freewill or He was powerful enough but instead chose to pre-program everybody's will.

Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event? If your answer is no then you limit God. If your answer is yes then you have to either deny predestination or believe He chose this way though He didn't have to. So why would a loving God choose to pre-arrange a woman being raped, a person being murdered, etc.? If you say it is to bring about His glory, is He not powerful enough to bring it about without this having to happen? I say He is. I say that since He truly is the living and loving God, if there be any other way to bring about His glory without having to do that which is against His nature then of course He would go this route. I believe He is so powerful, infact, that His glory will be established despite the evil of man. He's so powerful, He could give man his very own freewill yet man's own wickedness will never take away from God's power, glory and sovereignty.

Amen Poly, and the goodness and righteousness of God conforms to your understanding without a doubt, that was excellent. And to the natural objection from the other side, that His ways are higher than our ways, I love the biblical retort, ya, but God's ways are not lower than our ways! It's wrong to do or support or not oppose evil, so God having a permissive will over all evil (sinful immoral wicked etc., not righteous punishment/destruction) that ever happened is an evil and ungodly teaching. God's righteous eternal standard of right and wrong are not arbitrary nor represent a dual standard, we are to be like Jesus, and His ideas of right and wrong are to be our ideas too. Amazing and unplumbed are the depths of God's ways/understanding, but we have a huge clue in as brilliantly produced by God in His word to us, the bible.

Its so good (and fun) to rub shoulders with Christians who not only think for themselves, they do so with such devotion and care to God and His word.

:thumb: