Does Calvinism limit God?

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

no, paul was not wrong. but the difference is that when you see "works" you read it as "causes" and i see it as "works" as in something after the cause.

sunergeo {soon-erg-eh'-o}
1) to work together, help in work, be partner in labour.
2) to put forth power together with and thereby to assist:
work with , help with , workers together, work together.

The nasb translates Rom 8:28 as: "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose."

an example of something that changes and is neither more perfect or less perect is a watch. a watch changes what time it tells every second. it has to change. if it did not change, it would not be perfect.the watch is only perfect when it is able to change. when it changes what time it displays it becomes neither more perfect, nor less perfect but just as perfect as it was before. failure to change would result in the watch no longer being perfect.

Your kidding...are'nt you? All time-pieces regardless of quality degrade over time. No watch is perfect to begin with. By human standards, some are more accurate than others...but perfect? No way Jose! Absolute perfection is in God alone.

that is why Plato was wrong. something perfect CAN change and be neither a change for the better or for the worse. and thus, God no longer HAS to be immutable in that sense.

Perfect: Brought to consummation or completeness; completed; not defective nor redundant; having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind; without flaw, fault, or blemish; without error; mature; whole; pure; sound; right; correct.

Care to try again?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

sunergeo {soon-erg-eh'-o}
1) to work together, help in work, be partner in labour.
2) to put forth power together with and thereby to assist:
work with , help with , workers together, work together.

The nasb translates Rom 8:28 as: "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose."

ok, it says "God causes all things" now does this mean he causes them to happen? no, but the verse says "causes all things to work together for good". in other words, he uses all events to bring about good things "to those who love God".

Your kidding...are'nt you? All time-pieces regardless of quality degrade over time. No watch is perfect to begin with. By human standards, some are more accurate than others...but perfect? No way Jose! Absolute perfection is in God alone.

well for the sake of the argument let's say we have a perfect watch. it tells time perfectly and never degrades. in fact, it was made by God. the argument still applies though because in order for the watch to remain perfect after first being made it MUST change. the hands of the clock MUST move in order to remain a perfect clock. it is when the clock cannot change that it becomes imperfect.

and so, just because something is perfect, it does not mean it cannot change and in fact sometimes must change. now i'm not saying that God must necessarily change, but he is certainly allowed to change and yet remain perfect just as the watch did in the illustration.

Perfect: Brought to consummation or completeness; completed; not defective nor redundant; having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind; without flaw, fault, or blemish; without error; mature; whole; pure; sound; right; correct.

i didn't mean to say that the watch was absolutely perfect, but only perfect in so much as a watch can be perfect. it does what it was made to do perfectly. it is without flaw.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

ok, it says "God causes all things" now does this mean he causes them to happen? no, but the verse says "causes all things to work together for good". in other words, he uses all events to bring about good things "to those who love God".


well for the sake of the argument let's say we have a perfect watch. it tells time perfectly and never degrades. in fact, it was made by God. the argument still applies though because in order for the watch to remain perfect after first being made it MUST change. the hands of the clock MUST move in order to remain a perfect clock. it is when the clock cannot change that it becomes imperfect.

and so, just because something is perfect, it does not mean it cannot change and in fact sometimes must change. now i'm not saying that God must necessarily change, but he is certainly allowed to change and yet remain perfect just as the watch did in the illustration.



i didn't mean to say that the watch was absolutely perfect, but only perfect in so much as a watch can be perfect. it does what it was made to do perfectly. it is without flaw.

The problem, as you yourself acknowlege, is that we have nothing in this world that is perfect. Therefore we are forced to suppose a thing to be perfect! you do so by supposing that the perfect watch be made by God. OK...but still we are talking about apples and oranges. The Creator as compared to that which has been created.

Perfection itself must suffer if it is changed. To say otherwise is to change it's definition. You can't improve upon GOD!

1 + 1 = 2. This calculation cannot have a better answer. Any change would destroy it's perfection.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by John Reformed

The problem, as you yourself acknowlege, is that we have nothing in this world that is perfect. Therefore we are forced to suppose a thing to be perfect! you do so by supposing that the perfect watch be made by God. OK...but still we are talking about apples and oranges. The Creator as compared to that which has been created.

Perfection itself must suffer if it is changed. To say otherwise is to change it's definition. You can't improve upon GOD!

1 + 1 = 2. This calculation cannot have a better answer. Any change would destroy it's perfection.

i think you missed my point. my point was that something perfect (even though the watch doesn't actually exist) CAN change and the change neither improves it or makes it worse. change does not have to be a better/worse thing. it can be neutral. and the watch analogy proves that.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i think you missed my point. my point was that something perfect (even though the watch doesn't actually exist) CAN change and the change neither improves it or makes it worse. change does not have to be a better/worse thing. it can be neutral. and the watch analogy proves that.

I understood you. Now please tell me how adding a change to my calculation does not destroy the only perfect answer.

Thank You,
John

 

[God_Is_Truth]

1 + 1 + -1 + 1 = 2

calculation changed-perfect answer remains.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

1 + 1 + -1 + 1 = 2

calculation changed-perfect answer remains.

Nice try. But that is not an actual change. You have simply expressed the answer in different terms.

I hope now you have begun to see that "perfect" cannot endure addition or subtraction.

God told Abraham that His name was I am that I am.


"...the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17

Variableness: parallage {par-al-lag-ay'}
1) variation, change

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed

Nice try. But that is not an actual change. You have simply expressed the answer in different terms.

I hope now you have begun to see that "perfect" cannot endure addition or subtraction.

God told Abraham that His name was I am that I am.


"...the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17

Variableness: parallage {par-al-lag-ay'}
1) variation, change

The problem you have is that the Bible repeatedly says that God does in fact change His mind and intended course of action. Who God is doesn't change, that is, His personality, character, etc. But a person who cannot think and react to changing circumstances is certainly anything but a perfect person. Indeed, such a god would more closely resemble a stone idol, which our God hates.
In other words, God is not a static number or mathematical formula, He is a person. If you take away from some perfect thing that is by nature static, then it changes for the worse. But a person is by definition dynamic and so a change would not necessarily lead to something that is better or worse, simply different than it had been.

"Consider a flame, obviously it is the same flame from one moment to the next, yet it is continuously changing. Does that make it a different flame?" author unknown

This question has been debated for centuries, but I submit that a flame is dynamic by definition and so the mere fact that it changes does not imply that it is a different (or less perfect) flame. In fact if it were to stop changing, it would go out, it would cease to exit, it would not longer be a flame.

The same is true of God, He is a person, and so if He were to become immutable (static), He would no longer be a person and would therefore no longer be God.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

If our will thwarts His will, then He is not Supreme and Sovereign, and He could never be happy, thus we would never be happy. Nothing would work.

Man's will can and does thwart God's will, yet He is still Sovereign. The problem is with your understanding of sovereignty (meticulous control vs providential responsiveness). Jesus wept. This is not joy joy happy happy. It records that God was GRIEVED. This is not joy joy happy happy. God's heart is broken at the rebellion of man. He is not happy that Hitler killed millions of people, nor was this His will. He does not delight in the masses suffering and going to hell (never intended for man, but for devil/demons). The 'blueprint' worldview is severely flawed and contrary to God's revelation in Scripture. The 'warfare model' is demonstrated in the life and ministry of Jesus. He came to resist evil, not affirm it.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by John Reformed

Was Paul guilty of error when he said:

God works ALL THINGS together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose...

I found it interesting that you did not find it necessary to support your statement by arguement or example... Please do.

In context, His purpose is to conform us into the character of Christ. A careful Greek exegesis is needed of this passage. It does not mean that all circumstances work together for our good (this was never promised). If my kid gets run over by a bus or murdered, this cannot be undone or made to be good. My response and God's subsequent demonstration of love and grace despite the accident or evil does work for the good, not the actual circumstance which is inherently bad (except to Christian Scientists who deny reality and apparently Calvinists who think God's will is the only factor in the universe, contrary to Scripture and reality. Every time you drive a car or type on this forum, you demonstrate an independent will).

 

[godrulz]

The Living God is dynamic, responsive, loving, creative, relational (Open View). He is not static, absolutely immutable in all aspects, unchanging, impassible (unfeeling), impersonal, etc. (pagan philosophy and some aspects of classical theism).

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

The problem you have is that the Bible repeatedly says that God does in fact change His mind and intended course of action. Who God is doesn't change, that is, His personality, character, etc. But a person who cannot think and react to changing circumstances is certainly anything but a perfect person. Indeed, such a god would more closely resemble a stone idol, which our God hates.
In other words, God is not a static number or mathematical formula, He is a person. If you take away from some perfect thing that is by nature static, then it changes for the worse. But a person is by definition dynamic and so a change would not necessarily lead to something that is better or worse, simply different than it had been.

Don't you see Cliff,that your idea of a mutable diety conflicts with James 1:17, as well as many other verses found in Scripture? "I am that I am"(Ex. 3:14);His Word is "forever settled in heaven" (Ps. 119:89). His love is eternal: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love" (Jer. 31:3) and "Having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end" (John 13:1). His mercy ceases not, for it is "everlasting" (Ps. 100:5).

It leads me to believe that some believers understand God as a being who lives within His creation; Subject to time and space and change. That is a very carnal view. Paul told the Greek philosophers: Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and have our being,". Creation exists in God, not the other way around! God is transcendent...that is He beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding. And yet we continue to insist that He conform to our paradigms. That is idolotry which exists in the theology of Open Theism.

Consider a flame, obviously it is the same flame from one moment to the next, yet it is continuously changing. Does that make it a different flame?" author unknown

This question has been debated for centuries, but I submit that a flame is dynamic by definition and so the mere fact that it changes does not imply that it is a different (or less perfect) flame. In fact if it were to stop changing, it would go out, it would cease to exit, it would not longer be a flame.

The same is true of God, He is a person, and so if He were to become immutable (static), He would no longer be a person and would therefore no longer be God.

You make my point for me. By comparing God to an eternal flame, you leap to the conclusion that He changes.

What does the Bible say? Thats what impresses me.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

In context, His purpose is to conform us into the character of Christ. A careful Greek exegesis is needed of this passage. It does not mean that all circumstances work together for our good (this was never promised). If my kid gets run over by a bus or murdered, this cannot be undone or made to be good. My response and God's subsequent demonstration of love and grace despite the accident or evil does work for the good, not the actual circumstance which is inherently bad (except to Christian Scientists who deny reality and apparently Calvinists who think God's will is the only factor in the universe, contrary to Scripture and reality. Every time you drive a car or type on this forum, you demonstrate an independent will).

Matthew Henry

2. The privilege of the saints, that all things work together for good to them, that is, all the providences of God that concern them. All that God performs he performs for them, Ps. lvii. 2. Their sins are not of his performing, therefore not intended here, though his permitting sin is made to work for their good, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. But all the providences of God are theirs--merciful providences, afflicting providences, personal, public. They are all for good; perhaps for temporal good, as Joseph's troubles; at least, for spiritual and eternal good. That is good for them which does their souls good. Either directly or indirectly, every providence has a tendency to the spiritual good of those that love God, breaking them off from sin, bringing them nearer to God, weaning them from the world, fitting them for heaven. Work together. They work, as physic works upon the body, various ways, according to the intention of the physician; but all for the patient's good. They work together, as several ingredients in a medicine concur to answer the intention. God hath set the one over against the other (Eccl. vii. 14): synergei, a very singular, with a noun plural, denoting the harmony of Providence and its uniform designs, all the wheels as one wheel, Ezek. x. 13. He worketh all things together for good; so some read it. It is not from any specific quality in the providences themselves, but from the power and grace of God working in, with, and by, these providences. All this we know--know it for a certainty, from the word of God, from our own experience, and from the experience of all the saints.

The old pilgrim was no slouch when it came to exegesis.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

well i don't mean to say that God is ever going to glorify something OTHER than himself. what i mean is that i don't think that God's purpose for doing something is to glorify himself.

will he always be glorified by what he does? yes. definately. but does God always do something just so he can be glorified? i don't think so. i believe that there are other motives for why he does things. things love, mercy, kindness etc. i don't believe that his ultimate purpose or motive for doing things is just to bring him glory.

GIT,

What is the ultimate purpose for us? Why do we exist? Also, what is it called when someone does something that does not glorify God, or did not intend to do so through their actions/thoughts/words?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Man's will can and does thwart God's will, yet He is still Sovereign.

Where does it say such a thing in Scripture, that man's will can thwart God's?

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

The Living God is dynamic, responsive, loving, creative, relational (Open View). He is not static, absolutely immutable in all aspects, unchanging, impassible (unfeeling), impersonal, etc. (pagan philosophy and some aspects of classical theism).

Book, chapter, verse please...... Why and how can you suggest such an idea?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by John Reformed

The old pilgrim was no slouch when it came to exegesis.

Matthew Henry was more homiletical/devotional (sermons; illustrative), allegorical (lead to goofy comments on Revelation) rather than a scholastic exegete. Was he a Calvinist (did study on Westminster Catechism; was in Presbyterian church)? I have his commentary and appreciate his insights, but he is not known for his Greek exegesis. He refers you to other works for non-devotional exegesis.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

Where does it say such a thing in Scripture, that man's will can thwart God's?

Every historical narrative of man's rebellion against God and subsequent negative consequences is an example of man not doing God's will. His will is that we be holy, as He is holy. Sin, lawlessness, rebellion are all evidence of man thwarting God's will in an individual or nation's life.

Jesus prayed that His will would be done on earth as it is in heaven implying that it is not always done on earth. The incarnation and ministry of Christ reflects God taking back ground establishing the rule and kingdom of God countering the kingdom of darkness.

He does not will/wish anyone to perish. The fact that many do perish shows that His will is thwarted.

He created the Garden of Eden and man perfect. The Fall was His intended will thwarted to the point that He was grieved (change) and wanted to wipe mankind out.

He created Lucifer, not Satan. Satan thwarted God's will for him by wanting to be a god. His pride, originating in his will (not God's will), thwarted God's will for him and creation.

Jesus chose disciples to be part of his inner ministry. One became a traitor (was not chosen in a rebellious state) thwarting God's will in his life (Judas).

There are now billions of people that were created for His good pleasure that He longs to fellowship with. Man's insanity and rebellion hinder the Church, the Spirit's full release in their lives, etc.

If you think it is God's good pleasure and secret will for babies to be sodomized, you need to get out of your ivory tower and quit slandering the character of God. This breaks God's heart and is not His will for the baby or its parents. He will judge this in the fury of his wrath. He could not righteously do this if the perpetrators were doing His will and had no choice in the matter. They are culpable precisely because they thwart his will due to gross evil and disobedience (obey and disobey or moral choices seated in the will of the individual, not just in God's so-called coercive will).

The many exhortations in the epistles that tell us what God's moral will for us (holiness and all the specific examples) means that the opposite (sin and its listed manifestations) is thwarting His will.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Book, chapter, verse please...... Why and how can you suggest such an idea?

Are you saying that God is a static blob with no will, intellect, emotion?

Classical theism sometimes limits God's experiences of reality, reducing Him to a principle, rather than a person.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Where does it say such a thing in Scripture, that man's will can thwart God's?

29 And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

I have it on very good authority that the word in this verse translated "will" is the strongest possible word in the Greek language that can be translated as "will". There can be no doubt that this is clearly stating that God wanted these men to be baptised by John and that they refused to do so.

Z Man,

I know that you did not ask me this question but you have asked me this question and many others like it several times in the past and I have NEVER failed to give you a direct answer with a verse of scripture that directly addresses the issue that your are asking about. When are you going to stop asking questions and start listening to the answers? How many verses do you need that directly contradict your theological position before the weight of them is overwhelming?

I once had a Sunday school teacher who was teaching Calvinism tell me that all I had to do was to show him a scripture where anything ever happened that God did not expect.
I instantly quoted Jeremiah 19:5 and Isaiah 5:1-2 both of which fit the bill perfectly. As you might guess, it didn't mike one bit of difference. He didn't even respond. All I got was silence (a silence by the way that I think did more to convince the room of about 60 people that I was right more than anything else that I could have ever said).
But why silence? I can guarantee you that he did not go home and research it out to see if the Bible actually says the things I was saying, he just dismissed it. He called his little second in command of the Sunday School class and told him to call me at home and tell me to keep my mouth shut or stop coming, and then he went on with his life just as if I had never sat in that classroom.
WHY?
I think the answer simply is that he was over invested. This man has spent years and years investing time into his theology and thousands of dollars becoming "educated", not to mention the thousands of hours spent preparing lesson plans and sermons and all the while he never even knew that those Bible verses existed until I read them to him! The cost to him from an emotional perspective was simply too great. The best that I can hope for is that I put a crack in the dam and that over time the pressure will slowly build and perhaps one day break through, who knows.
Anyhow, I certainly do not wish to be insulting in any way but I fear that you are in this same situation or a similar one at least. And while I'm sure the thought has already occurred to you that it is I who need to see the truth of Scripture, I submit that it is not I who must wrestle with the plain reading a Scripture. It is the Calvinist who must write off vast quantities of Scripture, calling them anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms or some other figure of speech that renders the passages meaningless. It is not I who cringe when I read that God has changed His mind about wiping out a city or repented from giving Israel their kingdom, or about God grieving, or getting angry, or frustrated, or jealous. I do not have to find creative ways to figure out how the incarnation was somehow not a fundamental change in the very nature of God's existence (from Spirit to physical). The fact that God died and was dead for three days and that He is no longer dead does not present to me any sort of difficulty as it must for one who believes God to be immutable.
I implore you, as a brother in Christ, to just give these ideas one half of a chance. And if not that, then simply ask God to help you to start over. Just, whatever you do, don't be like that ding dong Sunday school teacher. Even if you are never convinced that Calvinism is false teaching then at least do Calvinism the dignity of dealing with problem passages in a forthright and honest manner and don’t pretend that they do not exist or forget about them ten minutes after having read this post.

Resting in Him,
Clete