Omniscience means fatalism.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I use the English meaning for destined and predestined, not the Calvinist definition. That the tree of life was in the garden and made available and that he was specifically commanded not to take the alternative is evidence that it was a planned destiny. Adam failed to fulfill that destiny.

Here's a question for Calvinists - that they won't answer...

If Adam and Eve weren't predestined to eat of the Tree of Life, why did God have to kick them out of the Garden and post guards in order to prevent them from eating of that tree? Didn't God know what He had predestined and what He hadn't?

Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.​

Clete
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Then I will ask you, personally. When you are sharing the Gospel with an unbeliever do you share the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and the Elect with that person? If not, why not?
When sharing the Gospel, I begin with the "Romans Road to Salvation" verses: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13

Spoiler

The Good News:

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:13
For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."


Getting people to see they are lost is my beginning step towards setting them upon the path to being found. This usually means some discussion may take place related to the fall of man in the Garden, and the dire state of all men as a consequent: sinners from birth, not merely becoming sinners from some neutral state when they sin after being born and/or at some sort of accountable age, and so on.

If in the discussion the topic of election comes up, I deal with it as I have here often, beginning with all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Those that do—a great multitude no man can number—are the elect. Those that do not are not the elect. In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do.

As the discussion proceeds, I remind my interlocutor that election is unto salvation; election is not salvation. In other words, at the appointed time the elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Election unto salvation may take place in eternity, but the declarative judgment of God, one's justification, and imputation of Our Lord's righteousness to us, takes place at a time and place. Prior to that time, all elect remain under the wrath of God (Eph. 2:3).

If the conversation proceeds more deeply, I make a point to disabuse the person of the erroneous notion that predestination means everything is cast in stone. This is a common error of many. Predestination used in Scripture refers to God's setting His preference upon another, God's salvific love upon those He has chosen for reasons know only to Him and not for any foreseen merit of those He has chosen.

This corrective necessarily leads to a proper understanding of God's foreknowledge, which is simply God's knowledge of all that happens. It is really not "fore" knowledge from God's perspective, for He sees all things equally vividly, rather it is called foreknowledge from our finite, temporal perspectives. God, I tell them, knows these things because He has decreed these things, that is, volitionally willed them. God has no unfulfilled desires, hence, what God wills cannot not happen.

Furthermore and important is that willing of God (decreeing) included the act of God to establish the person's free will so that he or she may choose per their greatest inclinations when he or she so chooses.

At this point, examples help to solidify what has been stated are offered up in the discussion:

Foreknowledge is God's knowing that Peter will not refrain from sin. Foreknowledge is not: if God knew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. To claim that last statement is to make a logical error—the necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical—and to associate foreknowledge with causation.

As to the decree of God, one could think of this going something like this:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that on {insert date and time here}, your grandson will—using his own the free will that I have so granted and established in him—choose a white shirt over a blue shirt."

And, for the very cynical and hostile person, I quickly forego the benign example above and get right to the heart of their hidden agenda:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that on {exact date known to God}, the Jews—using their own the free will that I have so granted and established in them—will take Jesus to Galgotha, scourging Him along the way, nail Him to a cross, torment and mock Him until He has died."

or, perhaps a significantly less horrific crime:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that Adolf Hitler—using his own the free will that I have so granted and established in him—will be the driving force leading to the unlawful killing of millions."

From there the discussion proceeds more animated and real learning is possible.

God's decree (basically His plan) is worked out in time via His Providence (Prov. 15:3, Ps. 104:24, Ps. 145:17). Providence is not creation, but a maintaining of what has been created.

Thus, providence is God's actions which upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest to the least, to fall out according to the nature of secondary causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (Gen. 8:22, Jer. 31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, I Kings 22:28, 34, Isa. 10:6-7).

God's ordinary providence relies upon means, that is, the ordinary manner in which second causes produce natural effects (what some call natural laws). Nevertheless, God may dispense with this ordinary manner and produce the effect in an extraordinary way, which is called extraordinary providence. In other words, God is free to work without, above, and against means, at His pleasure. All the miracles recorded in Scripture are examples of God's extraordinary providence.

In summary, the answer to your question is that I know of no Reformed or Calvinist that is hesitant to discuss any of the hard sayings of Scripture with another, believer or non-believer. In fact, I would welcome these sort of questions, for it signals to me that the person I am speaking to is serious about these matters and his eternal destiny, a signal that I might just be speaking with someone who will be later known as one of God's elect. So I had better be ready to give a defense, not just mere assertions or opinions, for that which I hold dear (1 Peter 3:15).

In all my years I can only recall maybe three instances where I had these sort of deeper discussions face-to-face with a non-believer, beyond the usual Romans Road, in circumstantial environments: waiting at the doc's office, standing in a long airport security check in line, and riding on a cross-country Greyhound bus. Of course, non-face-to-face communications like these take place often and no one here can claim I am hesitant to discuss them with all comers that are sincerely seeking to understand these things.

Have I answered your question sufficiently? If not, what can I do to correct the issue?

AMR
 

Rosenritter

New member
When sharing the Gospel, I begin with the "Romans Road to Salvation" verses: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13
Spoiler

Spoiler

The Good News:

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:13
For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."


Getting people to see they are lost is my beginning step towards setting them upon the path to being found. This usually means some discussion may take place related to the fall of man in the Garden, and the dire state of all men as a consequent: sinners from birth, not merely becoming sinners from some neutral state when they sin after being born and/or at some sort of accountable age, and so on.

If in the discussion the topic of election comes up, I deal with it as I have here often, beginning with all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Those that do—a great multitude no man can number—are the elect. Those that do not are not the elect. In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do. As the discussion proceeds, I remind my interlocutor that election is unto salvation; election is not salvation. In other words, at the appointed time the elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Election unto salvation may take place in eternity, but the declarative judgment of God, one's justification, and imputation of Our Lord's righteousness to us, takes place at a time and place. Prior to that time, all elect remain under the wrath of God (Eph. 2:3).

If the conversation proceeds more deeply, I make a point to disabuse the person of the erroneous notion that predestination means everything is cast in stone. This is a common error of many. Predestination used in Scripture refers to God's setting His preference upon another, God's salvific love upon those He has chosen for reasons know only to Him and not for any foreseen merit of those He has chosen.

This corrective necessarily leads to a proper understanding of God's foreknowledge, which is simply God's knowledge of all that happens. It is really not "fore" knowledge from God's perspective, for He sees all things equally vividly, rather it is called foreknowledge from our finite, temporal perspectives. God, I tell them, knows these things because He has decreed these things, that is, volitionally willed them. God has no unfulfilled desires, hence, what God wills cannot not happen.

Furthermore and important is that willing of God (decreeing) included the act of God to establish the person's free will so that he or she may choose per their greatest inclinations when he or she so chooses.

At this point, examples help to solidify what has been stated may be offered up.

Foreknowledge is God's knowing that Peter will not refrain from sin. Foreknowledge is not: if God knew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. To claim that last statement is to make a logical error—the necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical—and to associate foreknowledge with causation.

As to the decree of God, one could think of this going something like this:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that on {insert date and time here}, your grandson will—using his own the free will that I have so granted and established in him—choose a white shirt over a blue shirt."

God's decree (basically His plan) is worked out in time via His Providence (Prov. 15:3, Ps. 104:24, Ps. 145:17). Providence is not creation, but a maintaining of what has been created.

This means, providence is God's actions which upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest to the least, to fall out according to the nature of secondary causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (Gen. 8:22, Jer. 31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, I Kings 22:28, 34, Isa. 10:6-7).

God's ordinary providence relies upon means, that is, the ordinary manner in which second causes produce natural effects (what some call natural laws). Nevertheless, God may dispense with this ordinary manner and produce the effect in an extraordinary way, which is called extraordinary providence. In other words, God is free to work without, above, and against means, at His pleasure. All the miracles recorded in Scripture are examples of God's extraordinary providence.

In summary, the answer to your question is that I know of no Reformed or Calvinist that is hesitant to discuss any of the hard sayings of Scripture with another, believer or non-believer. In fact, I would welcome these sort of questions, for it signals to me that the person I am speaking to is serious about these matters and his eternal destiny, a signal that I might just be speaking with someone who will be later known as one of God's elect. So I had better be ready to give a defense, not just mere assertions or opinions, for that which I hold dear (1 Peter 3:15).

In all my years I can only recall maybe three instances where I had these sort of deeper discussions face-to-face with a non-believer, beyond the usual Romans Road, in circumstantial environments, waiting at the doc's office, standing in a long airport security check in line, and riding on a cross-country Greyhound bus. Of course, non-face-to-face communications like these take place more often than not.

Have I answered your question sufficiently? If not, what can I do to correct the issue?

AMR

If I may hearken back to the theme of a few weeks ago, there was a related question asked earlier for which I didn't see the response. Do you believe that one could live their entire lives without ever hearing of or understanding Calvinism (as it is called here) and be among those who are ultimately saved through faith and grace of Jesus Christ? or perhaps a second question, that they could disagree and reject Calvinism and be one of those among the risen saints?
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
If I may hearken back to the theme of a few weeks ago, there was a related question asked earlier for which I didn't see the response. Do you believe that one could live their entire lives without ever hearing of or understanding Calvinism (as it is called here) and be among those who are ultimately saved through faith and grace of Jesus Christ? or perhaps a second question, that they could disagree and reject Calvinism and be one of those among the risen saints?

Good questions.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
When sharing the Gospel, I begin with the "Romans Road to Salvation" verses: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13

Spoiler

The Good News:

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:13
For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."


Getting people to see they are lost is my beginning step towards setting them upon the path to being found. This usually means some discussion may take place related to the fall of man in the Garden, and the dire state of all men as a consequent: sinners from birth, not merely becoming sinners from some neutral state when they sin after being born and/or at some sort of accountable age, and so on.

If in the discussion the topic of election comes up, I deal with it as I have here often, beginning with all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Those that do—a great multitude no man can number—are the elect. Those that do not are not the elect. In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do.

As the discussion proceeds, I remind my interlocutor that election is unto salvation; election is not salvation. In other words, at the appointed time the elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Election unto salvation may take place in eternity, but the declarative judgment of God, one's justification, and imputation of Our Lord's righteousness to us, takes place at a time and place. Prior to that time, all elect remain under the wrath of God (Eph. 2:3).

If the conversation proceeds more deeply, I make a point to disabuse the person of the erroneous notion that predestination means everything is cast in stone. This is a common error of many. Predestination used in Scripture refers to God's setting His preference upon another, God's salvific love upon those He has chosen for reasons know only to Him and not for any foreseen merit of those He has chosen.

This corrective necessarily leads to a proper understanding of God's foreknowledge, which is simply God's knowledge of all that happens. It is really not "fore" knowledge from God's perspective, for He sees all things equally vividly, rather it is called foreknowledge from our finite, temporal perspectives. God, I tell them, knows these things because He has decreed these things, that is, volitionally willed them. God has no unfulfilled desires, hence, what God wills cannot not happen.

Furthermore and important is that willing of God (decreeing) included the act of God to establish the person's free will so that he or she may choose per their greatest inclinations when he or she so chooses.

At this point, examples help to solidify what has been stated are offered up in the discussion:

Foreknowledge is God's knowing that Peter will not refrain from sin. Foreknowledge is not: if God knew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. To claim that last statement is to make a logical error—the necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical—and to associate foreknowledge with causation.

As to the decree of God, one could think of this going something like this:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that on {insert date and time here}, your grandson will—using his own the free will that I have so granted and established in him—choose a white shirt over a blue shirt."

And, for the very cynical and hostile person, I quickly forego the benign example above and get right to the heart of their hidden agenda:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that on {exact date known to God}, the Jews—using their own the free will that I have so granted and established in them—will take Jesus to Galgotha, scourging Him along the way, nail Him to a cross, torment and mock Him until He has died."

or, perhaps a significantly less horrific crime:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that Adolf Hitler—using his own the free will that I have so granted and established in him—will be the driving force leading to the unlawful killing of millions."

From there the discussion proceeds more animated and real learning is possible.

God's decree (basically His plan) is worked out in time via His Providence (Prov. 15:3, Ps. 104:24, Ps. 145:17). Providence is not creation, but a maintaining of what has been created.

Thus, providence is God's actions which upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest to the least, to fall out according to the nature of secondary causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (Gen. 8:22, Jer. 31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, I Kings 22:28, 34, Isa. 10:6-7).

God's ordinary providence relies upon means, that is, the ordinary manner in which second causes produce natural effects (what some call natural laws). Nevertheless, God may dispense with this ordinary manner and produce the effect in an extraordinary way, which is called extraordinary providence. In other words, God is free to work without, above, and against means, at His pleasure. All the miracles recorded in Scripture are examples of God's extraordinary providence.

In summary, the answer to your question is that I know of no Reformed or Calvinist that is hesitant to discuss any of the hard sayings of Scripture with another, believer or non-believer. In fact, I would welcome these sort of questions, for it signals to me that the person I am speaking to is serious about these matters and his eternal destiny, a signal that I might just be speaking with someone who will be later known as one of God's elect. So I had better be ready to give a defense, not just mere assertions or opinions, for that which I hold dear (1 Peter 3:15).

In all my years I can only recall maybe three instances where I had these sort of deeper discussions face-to-face with a non-believer, beyond the usual Romans Road, in circumstantial environments: waiting at the doc's office, standing in a long airport security check in line, and riding on a cross-country Greyhound bus. Of course, non-face-to-face communications like these take place often and no one here can claim I am hesitant to discuss them with all comers that are sincerely seeking to understand these things.

Have I answered your question sufficiently? If not, what can I do to correct the issue?

AMR

I don't have the time right now to respond. I promise I'll get back to you later tonight.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If I may hearken back to the theme of a few weeks ago, there was a related question asked earlier for which I didn't see the response. Do you believe that one could live their entire lives without ever hearing of or understanding Calvinism (as it is called here) and be among those who are ultimately saved through faith and grace of Jesus Christ?
Of course I believe this.

Calvinism was a name not assigned to anyone until well after the end of Luther's life, where the distinction between Lutherans' views of the Lord's Supper differed from that of "those Calvinists".

It also means that there were undoubtedly those that believed what was not yet fully systematized into what is now called Calvinism. One need only read the Early Church Fathers (ECF) to see what we now call Calvinism in evidence. Nevertheless, it also means those that did not believe the same, yet saints were among them.

Lastly, given that I am confident the doctrines we commonly associate with Calvinism are to be found in Scripture, I can say that even Paul taught these doctrines we now associate with Calvinism. Consider a small sampling....

Spoiler

1. Unconditional election without foreknowledge of a person's choices: Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9:6-24; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11

2. Perseverance of the believer: Romans 5:9-10; Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:13-14

3. Total inability of the fallen to seek spiritual things: 1 Cor. 2:14-15; 2 Cor. 4:3-4

4. Compatibility between God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom, i.e., the liberty to obey God without restraint, without sin standing in the way: Romans 9:22-24; Philippians 2:12-13

5. God’s common grace given to all out of benevolence, but common grace is not a saving grace: Acts 14:17

6. God’s saving grace of His elect cannot be conquered: Romans 8:29-30; 2 Cor. 4:3-6

7. Penal nature and limited applicability of Christ’s atonement: 2 Cor. 5:21; Galatians 3:6-13; Colossians 2:13-14; Ephesians 1:3-14


;)

...or perhaps a second question, that they could disagree and reject Calvinism and be one of those among the risen saints?
I suppose that depends upon what exactly is being rejected. Calvinism is more than just the five points of the doctrines of grace. But let's say they reject salvation is by grace alone, which all Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike affirm. Or that they reject the Triune Godhead. That would be a problem.

But if you mean by "reject" to mean reject Calvinism per se, as in TULIP, and affirm Arminianism per se, again my answer would be "yes."

All of which is to say that in general I believe that those who believe the essentials, through Scripture alone, justification by faith alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, and the Triune Godhead necessarily implied by these five solas, will be shaking hands with me in our glory.

I simply maintain and have always done so that those that reject the Reformed/Calvinist view are denying themselves greater blessings in their walk of faith that is to be gained from affirming these doctrines.

AMR
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
If Jesus wanted us to recite a creed, where is that creed located in scripture? If I were attempting to make a legitimate creed, I would form it from scripture, and attempt to use exclusively scripture to such a degree that none of my words (or anyone else's) were used. The best possible statement that can be made is to quote what is already written in its appropriate context.

For example:

The Creation of the Earth and Man

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Genesis 1:1, Exodus 20:11). So God created man in his own image, male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27, 5:2).

In this (small) example, none of my own words are used, so the only way it could be contested would be to challenge the context or to directly attack scripture itself. God's words are inspired, and I am not put in the position or temptation of substituting my own words for the Highest authority.

I'd like to see your full doctrinal statement in such a format :up:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Do you or any other Calvinist you know of, tell unbelievers about predestination or about the 'Elect' when you're trying to share the Gospel? If not, why not?
No, I don't tell people about predestination but we are careful what we say too. I try to use scriptures instead of 'Christ died for you.' Rather, for me, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 It may look the same, but because I'm using scriptures instead of my comprehension of them, I'm a lot more comfortable 'too much of me getting in the way' isn't a concern.

If someone who was not saved asked "Are you a Calvinist? How do I know if I am one of the elect?" Romans 10:13 would likely be one of the verses I'd share. 2 Peter 3:9 is another. For the most part, I simply try to share scriptures. Most people don't need the surrounding theological ideas when first hearing the gospel. I try not to give extra information because the need is 1) to know Christ and His saving work, and 2) if responsive, to know what to do next. "Saved child of God" is consistent with 'elect.'

Grosnick, let me turn it around a moment: You believe also in election. Why or why don't you share when explaining the gospel? It's true, yes?

It seems like it is information atf :think: Thank you for asking. In Him -Lon
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
No, I don't tell people about predestination but we are careful what we say too. I try to use scriptures instead of 'Christ died for you.' Rather, for me, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 It may look the same, but because I'm using scriptures instead of my comprehension of them, I'm a lot more comfortable 'too much of me getting in the way' isn't a concern.

If someone who was not saved asked "Are you a Calvinist? How do I know if I am one of the elect?" Romans 10:13 would likely be one of the verses I'd share. 2 Peter 3:9 is another. For the most part, I simply try to share scriptures. Most people don't need the surrounding theological ideas when first hearing the gospel. I try not to give extra information because the need is 1) to know Christ and His saving work, and 2) if responsive, to know what to do next. "Saved child of God" is consistent with 'elect.'

Grosnick, let me turn it around a moment: You believe also in election. Why or why don't you share when explaining the gospel? It's true, yes?

It seems like it is information atf :think: Thank you for asking. In Him -Lon

I do not believe in Calvinist Election or Calvinist predestination, Lon. Calvinists and believers in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as Paul called it, totally disagree when it comes to certain interpretation of Scriptures relating to free-will versus predestination. I think you were already aware of that.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
When sharing the Gospel, I begin with the "Romans Road to Salvation" verses: Romans 3:23; 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13

Spoiler

The Good News:

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:13
For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."


Getting people to see they are lost is my beginning step towards setting them upon the path to being found. This usually means some discussion may take place related to the fall of man in the Garden, and the dire state of all men as a consequent: sinners from birth, not merely becoming sinners from some neutral state when they sin after being born and/or at some sort of accountable age, and so on.

If in the discussion the topic of election comes up, I deal with it as I have here often, beginning with all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Those that do—a great multitude no man can number—are the elect. Those that do not are not the elect. In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do.

As the discussion proceeds, I remind my interlocutor that election is unto salvation; election is not salvation. In other words, at the appointed time the elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Election unto salvation may take place in eternity, but the declarative judgment of God, one's justification, and imputation of Our Lord's righteousness to us, takes place at a time and place. Prior to that time, all elect remain under the wrath of God (Eph. 2:3).

If the conversation proceeds more deeply, I make a point to disabuse the person of the erroneous notion that predestination means everything is cast in stone. This is a common error of many. Predestination used in Scripture refers to God's setting His preference upon another, God's salvific love upon those He has chosen for reasons know only to Him and not for any foreseen merit of those He has chosen.

This corrective necessarily leads to a proper understanding of God's foreknowledge, which is simply God's knowledge of all that happens. It is really not "fore" knowledge from God's perspective, for He sees all things equally vividly, rather it is called foreknowledge from our finite, temporal perspectives. God, I tell them, knows these things because He has decreed these things, that is, volitionally willed them. God has no unfulfilled desires, hence, what God wills cannot not happen.

Furthermore and important is that willing of God (decreeing) included the act of God to establish the person's free will so that he or she may choose per their greatest inclinations when he or she so chooses.

At this point, examples help to solidify what has been stated are offered up in the discussion:

Foreknowledge is God's knowing that Peter will not refrain from sin. Foreknowledge is not: if God knew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. To claim that last statement is to make a logical error—the necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical—and to associate foreknowledge with causation.

As to the decree of God, one could think of this going something like this:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that on {insert date and time here}, your grandson will—using his own the free will that I have so granted and established in him—choose a white shirt over a blue shirt."

And, for the very cynical and hostile person, I quickly forego the benign example above and get right to the heart of their hidden agenda:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that on {exact date known to God}, the Jews—using their own the free will that I have so granted and established in them—will take Jesus to Galgotha, scourging Him along the way, nail Him to a cross, torment and mock Him until He has died."

or, perhaps a significantly less horrific crime:

"I, God, decree (ordain) that Adolf Hitler—using his own the free will that I have so granted and established in him—will be the driving force leading to the unlawful killing of millions."

From there the discussion proceeds more animated and real learning is possible.

God's decree (basically His plan) is worked out in time via His Providence (Prov. 15:3, Ps. 104:24, Ps. 145:17). Providence is not creation, but a maintaining of what has been created.

Thus, providence is God's actions which upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest to the least, to fall out according to the nature of secondary causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (Gen. 8:22, Jer. 31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, I Kings 22:28, 34, Isa. 10:6-7).

God's ordinary providence relies upon means, that is, the ordinary manner in which second causes produce natural effects (what some call natural laws). Nevertheless, God may dispense with this ordinary manner and produce the effect in an extraordinary way, which is called extraordinary providence. In other words, God is free to work without, above, and against means, at His pleasure. All the miracles recorded in Scripture are examples of God's extraordinary providence.

In summary, the answer to your question is that I know of no Reformed or Calvinist that is hesitant to discuss any of the hard sayings of Scripture with another, believer or non-believer. In fact, I would welcome these sort of questions, for it signals to me that the person I am speaking to is serious about these matters and his eternal destiny, a signal that I might just be speaking with someone who will be later known as one of God's elect. So I had better be ready to give a defense, not just mere assertions or opinions, for that which I hold dear (1 Peter 3:15).

In all my years I can only recall maybe three instances where I had these sort of deeper discussions face-to-face with a non-believer, beyond the usual Romans Road, in circumstantial environments: waiting at the doc's office, standing in a long airport security check in line, and riding on a cross-country Greyhound bus. Of course, non-face-to-face communications like these take place often and no one here can claim I am hesitant to discuss them with all comers that are sincerely seeking to understand these things.

Have I answered your question sufficiently? If not, what can I do to correct the issue?

AMR

You stated: "In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do." Calvinists, such as yourself believe that God CHOSE His Elect before the foundation of the world. Yet, you basically you stated that certain unbelievers may NEVER be part of the Elect if they never do what they're commanded to do[/B] Do you see the discrepancy here? The reason being, if God CHOSE His Elect before the foundation of the world according to His Sovereign Will, there would be NO "may never or if they never do what they are commanded to do."

It sounds as if you're saying, in order for them to become one of the Elect, they need to do what they're commanded to do, therefore, THEY need to do something. However, the do something or NOT do something, requires a 'free-will' to choose to do something or NOT do something.

You stated: "at the appointed time the elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved." The problem is IF God CHOSE the Elect before the foundation of the world then, how can you say: "at the appointed time the Elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. After all, IF God CHOSE His Elect, how can they use their 'free-will' to make a choice, either way? Calvinists say that 'God CHOSE His Elect by His sovereign Will.' Do you see the problem with what you stated?

You stated: "Election unto salvation may take place in eternity, but the declarative judgment of God, one's justification, and imputation of Our Lord's righteousness to us, takes place at a time and place. Prior to that time, all elect remain under the wrath of God." You will have to explain FURTHER on this one?

I've chosen a few of your words to discuss further. I need you to elaborate on the last 'You stated?'
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You stated: "In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do." Calvinists, such as yourself believe that God CHOSE His Elect before the foundation of the world. Yet, you basically you stated that certain unbelievers may NEVER be part of the Elect if they never do what they're commanded to do[/B] Do you see the discrepancy here? The reason being, if God CHOSE His Elect before the foundation of the world according to His Sovereign Will, there would be NO "may never or if they never do what they are commanded to do."

It sounds as if you're saying, in order for them to become one of the Elect, they need to do what they're commanded to do, therefore, THEY need to do something. However, the do something or NOT do something, requires a 'free-will' to choose to do something or NOT do something.

You stated: "at the appointed time the elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved." The problem is IF God CHOSE the Elect before the foundation of the world then, how can you say: "at the appointed time the Elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. After all, IF God CHOSE His Elect, how can they use their 'free-will' to make a choice, either way? Calvinists say that 'God CHOSE His Elect by His sovereign Will.' Do you see the problem with what you stated?

You stated: "Election unto salvation may take place in eternity, but the declarative judgment of God, one's justification, and imputation of Our Lord's righteousness to us, takes place at a time and place. Prior to that time, all elect remain under the wrath of God." You will have to explain FURTHER on this one?

I've chosen a few of your words to discuss further. I need you to elaborate on the last 'You stated?'


Excellent post!

Here's some quotes from John Calvin himself that seem relevant to the point...

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)

“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)

"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion Book 5, Chapter 21, paragraph 5)​

Of course there are many more but that serves to demonstrate what actual Calvinist doctrine is on the issue. According to Reformed Theology, God did not choose us because we will believe nor do we believe because God chose us but rather both things happen as a result of God's arbitrary will of for no other reason.

Clete
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Excellent post!

Here's some quotes from John Calvin himself that seem relevant to the point...

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)

“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)

"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion Book 5, Chapter 21, paragraph 5)​

Of course there are many more but that serves to demonstrate what actual Calvinist doctrine is on the issue. According to Reformed Theology, God did not choose us because we will believe nor do we believe because God chose us but rather both things happen as a result of God's arbitrary will of for no other reason.

Clete

There's NO rhyme nor reason for the false doctrine that Calvinism declares as 'truth.'
 

Rosenritter

New member
All of which is to say that in general I believe that those who believe the essentials, through Scripture alone, justification by faith alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, and the Triune Godhead necessarily implied by these five solas, will be shaking hands with me in our glory.

I simply maintain and have always done so that those that reject the Reformed/Calvinist view are denying themselves greater blessings in their walk of faith that is to be gained from affirming these doctrines.

AMR

If God has chosen someone from the beginning of the world, they are redeemed and will be ultimately saved regardless is they believe in Scripture, faith, grace, or any particular theory of the Godhead, regardless of whether they ever a missionary (which may be from the elect or non-elect) reaches them with the gospel or not. Is this essentially correct?

So considering above, when you said that there may be elect that do not affirm Calvinist doctrine, what possible "greater blessings" does the created creature have the power to deny themselves? And were they unavoidably fated to not believe, or is this their choice?

Rom 8:18 KJV
(18) For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

So far from your answers I understand that the saved will be saved regardless of whether Calvinism is preached, not by one more and not by one less, and from Romans I understand that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with our future glory. As such while I do want to hear your answer of the benefit of Calvinism it seems to me that anything lost by a lack of acceptance in the here and now would be insignificant in the long run.

Which brings us to the third part of my question, the inevitable corollary. If we might lose some benefit by not accepting Calvinism now, are you able to explain possible dangers or loss that we might face from accepting Calvinism? and proceeding in our faith and lives as if it were true? If Calvinism is in error (as many here have maintained) can you explain to me how this would affect us in this life, and potentially the next? I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but will you attempt to do this question justice upon supposing the opposite premise?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There's NO rhyme nor reason for the false doctrine that Calvinism declares as 'truth.'

Actually, there is!

It stems from Aristotle and Plato and what they said about their god. Aristotle's god was immutable, meaning that god cannot change in any way WHATSOEVER - period.

The logic went roughly ike this...

  • That which is perfect, if it changes, does so for the worse because the perfect cannot change for the better or else it wouldn't have been perfect to begin with.
  • God is perfect.
  • God would not be willing to change for the worse.
  • God cannot be forced to change.
  • Therefore god does not change. (I'm using a lower case 'g' in 'god' because this is not biblical doctrine and is not describing the real God.

In Plato's Republic Book II, Plato presents a dialog where this logic is laid out in detail....


Shall I ask you whether God is a magician, and of a nature to appear insidiously now in one shape, and now in another --sometimes himself changing and passing into many forms, sometimes deceiving us with the semblance of such transformations; or is he one and the same immutably fixed in his own proper image?

I cannot answer you, he said, without more thought.
Well, I said; but if we suppose a change in anything, that change must be effected either by the thing itself, or by some other thing?

Most certainly.
And things which are at their best are also least liable to be altered or discomposed; for example, when healthiest and strongest, the human frame is least liable to be affected by meats and drinks, and the plant which is in the fullest vigour also suffers least from winds or the heat of the sun or any similar causes.

Of course.
And will not the bravest and wisest soul be least confused or deranged by any external influence?

True.
And the same principle, as I should suppose, applies to all composite things --furniture, houses, garments; when good and well made, they are least altered by time and circumstances.

Very true.
Then everything which is good, whether made by art or nature, or both, is least liable to suffer change from without?

True.
But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect?
Of course they are.
Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take many shapes?

He cannot.
But may he not change and transform himself?
Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all.
And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or for the worse and more unsightly?

If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty.

Very true, Adeimantus; but then, would any one, whether God or man, desire to make himself worse?

Impossible.
Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being, as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every god remains absolutely and for ever in his own form.

That necessarily follows, he said, in my judgment.​


Now, what the heck does any of that have to do with Calvinism? Well, it is the verbatim, exact same logic used by Calvinists to defend the immutability of god...

His immutability necessarily results from his absolute perfection. If he were to change, it must be either to the better or to the worse. He cannot change to the better, for that would imply past imperfection; he cannot change to the worse, for then he would cease to be perfect. He must, therefore, remain invariably the same. To the absolute immutability of God the Scripture gives numerous testimonies. - Robert Shaw: The Reformed Faith An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith

"He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible. He is perpetually the same." - A.W. Pink: The Immutability of God

"God does not increase or decrease. God is not subject to a process of development or aging. Let's ask the question, reverently, "Why should God change?" He cannot become more perfect, wiser, or better. If God changed, even in some small way, He would not be and could not be God." - Dale H Kuiper, The Immutability of God (6)

"....God does not change. In fact, He cannot change because He cannot improve on absolute perfection or decline in His eternally fixed nature. " - John MacArthur: Divine Immutability and the Doctrines of Grace (pt. 1)

This concept of the immutabilty of God found it's way from Aristotle to the church via Augustine who all but worshiped Aristole and Plato and refused to believe the bible until his mother's bishop, Bishop Ambros of Milan, explained to him that the scriptures are to be understood in the light of Aristotle. Ambrose learned it from Simplicianus who Augustine met and subsiquently later wrote, “he (Simplicianus) congratulated me for not having fallen upon the writings of other philosophers full of fallacies and deceits, after the rudiments of the world, whereas in the Platonists, God and His Word are everywhere implied.” (Confessions VIII.2)

The Catholic church considers Augustine to be a "church father", basically as if he helped to establish the church and thus his writings stand as nearly authoritative as scripture itself in the Catholic Church. The doctrine then survived the Reformation through Luther, who was an Augstinian monk, and then on to Calvin who formalized the Reformed doctrine.

So we have directly tracable historical linkage of the doctrine from Aristotle to Plato to Simplicianus to Ambrose to Augustine to Luther to Calvin to anyone alive today who believes it. (Notice that the Bible is nowhere to be seen in that linkage.)

There are actually some intermediary steps in that line that I haven't mentioned, like Thomas Aquinas and some others but my point isn't to lay out a whole history of the doctrine but simply to show that there is at least strong evidence to demonstrate that the doctrine has pagan Greek origins and certainly would not meet the criteria of "sola scriptura" to say the least.



Now, you may think that I lost track of things and went off on a rabbit trail never to find my way back to the topic at hand but I didn't lose my place!

What does immutability have to do with predestination? EVERYTHING!

"The resolve of Predestination, as an act of the divine knowledge and will, is as immutable as the Divine Essence itself. The number of those who are registered in the Book of Life (Phil 4:3, Rev 17:8; cf. Lk 10:20) is formally and materially fixed, that is, God knows and determines with infallible certainty in advance, how many and which men will be saved . . ." Catholic Teaching: Predestination of the Elect (Ludwig Ott)

The immutability doctrine is the rational basis for nearly everything else that is distinctively Calvinist (or Augustinian). If God is immutable then He is also immpassible (emotionally immutable). If God is immutable then the future is immutably settled. Etc, etc, etc. Everything that is Calvinism is inexorably tied to the doctrine of immutability. It is their bottom most philosophical foundation.


Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If God has chosen someone from the beginning of the world, they are redeemed and will be ultimately saved regardless is they believe in Scripture, faith, grace, or any particular theory of the Godhead, regardless of whether they ever a missionary (which may be from the elect or non-elect) reaches them with the gospel or not. Is this essentially correct?

So considering above, when you said that there may be elect that do not affirm Calvinist doctrine, what possible "greater blessings" does the created creature have the power to deny themselves? And were they unavoidably fated to not believe, or is this their choice?

Rom 8:18 KJV
(18) For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

So far from your answers I understand that the saved will be saved regardless of whether Calvinism is preached, not by one more and not by one less, and from Romans I understand that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with our future glory. As such while I do want to hear your answer of the benefit of Calvinism it seems to me that anything lost by a lack of acceptance in the here and now would be insignificant in the long run.

Which brings us to the third part of my question, the inevitable corollary. If we might lose some benefit by not accepting Calvinism now, are you able to explain possible dangers or loss that we might face from accepting Calvinism? and proceeding in our faith and lives as if it were true? If Calvinism is in error (as many here have maintained) can you explain to me how this would affect us in this life, and potentially the next? I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but will you attempt to do this question justice upon supposing the opposite premise?
Just as an observation...

You are asking AMR to discuss a doctrine which denies the existence of alternative possibilities in terms of alternative possibilities.

For example, "I understand that the saved will be saved regardless of whether Calvinism is preached (or not)." The "or not" isn't stated but it is unavoidably implied. In the Calvinist mindset, there is no, "or not". What will be will be - period. And that was determined by God before time began (ignoring the contradiction of using the phrase "before time").

Also, "are you able to explain possible dangers or loss that we might face from accepting Calvinism?". There is no "if" or "might" in the Calvinist system or mindset.

That doesn't mean that your questions are invalid at all. In fact, they are excellent questions! It's just that he cannot answer you straight without contradicting his own position and as a result, will not answer you straight.



Clete
 

Rosenritter

New member
Now, you may think that I lost track of things and went off on a rabbit trail never to find my way back to the topic at hand but I didn't lose my place!

What does immutability have to do with predestination? EVERYTHING!

"The resolve of Predestination, as an act of the divine knowledge and will, is as immutable as the Divine Essence itself. The number of those who are registered in the Book of Life (Phil 4:3, Rev 17:8; cf. Lk 10:20) is formally and materially fixed, that is, God knows and determines with infallible certainty in advance, how many and which men will be saved . . ." Catholic Teaching: Predestination of the Elect (Ludwig Ott)

The immutability doctrine is the rational basis for nearly everything else that is distinctively Calvinist (or Augustinian). If God is immutable then He is also immpassible (emotionally immutable). If God is immutable then the future is immutably settled. Etc, etc, etc. Everything that is Calvinism is inexorably tied to the doctrine of immutability. It is their bottom most philosophical foundation.

Clete

Exo 32:32-33 KJV
(32) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
(33) And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

God himself said that the book of life is not immutable.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Just as an observation...

You are asking AMR to discuss a doctrine which denies the existence of alternative possibilities in terms of alternative possibilities.

For example, "I understand that the saved will be saved regardless of whether Calvinism is preached (or not)." The "or not" isn't stated but it is unavoidably implied. In the Calvinist mindset, there is no, "or not". What will be will be - period. And that was determined by God before time began (ignoring the contradiction of using the phrase "before time").

Also, "are you able to explain possible dangers or loss that we might face from accepting Calvinism?". There is no "if" or "might" in the Calvinist system or mindset.

That doesn't mean that your questions are invalid at all. In fact, they are excellent questions! It's just that he cannot answer you straight without contradicting his own position and as a result, will not answer you straight.

Clete

I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to fairly evaluate and answer from the perspective of an opponents position. Many that try do so as only a surface attempt and quickly descend into mockery before they can touch on the essential foundation. But if put in similar shoes I would also do my best to answer fairly.
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You stated: "In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do." Calvinists, such as yourself believe that God CHOSE His Elect before the foundation of the world. Yet, you basically you stated that certain unbelievers may NEVER be part of the Elect if they never do what they're commanded to do[/B] Do you see the discrepancy here?
Perhaps I could have worded this more clearly:

If in the discussion the topic of election comes up, I deal with it as I have here often, beginning with all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Those that do—a great multitude no man can number—are the elect. Those that do not are not the elect. In fact, they may never be the elect, if they never do what they are commanded to do.​

In other words, to counter the assumption by others that claim the elect can be anyone, my point is that the elect are a specific great multitude. The non-elect will never do what they are commanded to do. The sentence above could have been bettered stated as "In fact, they may never be the elect, since they never do what they are commanded to do."

You stated: "at the appointed time the elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved." The problem is IF God CHOSE the Elect before the foundation of the world then, how can you say: "at the appointed time the Elect inevitably shall, of their own free will, call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. After all, IF God CHOSE His Elect, how can they use their 'free-will' to make a choice, either way? Calvinists say that 'God CHOSE His Elect by His sovereign Will.' Do you see the problem with what you stated?

Herein is the root of much confusion by the anti-Calvinist. You assume that the choosing of God ignores the free will (choosing per one's inclinations) of the person so chosen. You assume God's choosing does violence to the chosen person's free will. No.

God's providence acts within all the free, necessary, and contingent circumstances presented to the person. The person freely chooses according to these circumstances. God's acts set things in motion per the natural order of things. When God acts outside the natural order of the free, necessary, or contingent, this is extraordinary providence, or miracles.

No miracle is taking place when God sets in motion the free, necessary, or contingent circumstances that will result in the choices, good or bad, by any person. Rather it is just God's ordinary providence. The setting of things in motion are but God's necessarily good actions upholding what He has created. The choices made based upon these free, necessary, or contingent circumstances set in motion by God become moral actions, good and evil, when chosen my the moral agent, a human being (or an angel).

Sure, God, the First Cause, set's in motion circumstances that will always be in alignment with what He has volitionally willed, that is, ordained/decreed. But He does so in concurrence with the liberty of spontaneity (Biblical free will) of the moral creature. It is always the second cause which brings in the element of sin. God moves to action; He never moves to sinful action. God never moves men by secondary causes to act in accordance with new inclinations. This would make God the author of sin.

I believe that God has decreed all things that shall come to pass. I also maintain that God offers no violence to the freedom of the will but men act in full accord with their own choices. I don't see a contradiction in those two views because I can distinguish between the decree and its execution. The decree is absolute while the execution takes contingency and conditionality into account as things which God has also decreed. We can speak of ultimate causality so far as the decree of all things is concerned. But in terms of the execution of the decree we only allow active influence by God in relation to grace and redemption; we must deny active influence by God in relation to sin and damnation, because the Bible rejects all thought that God sins or tempts to sin, or damns men for any reason other than their own voluntary choice to sin.

You stated: "Election unto salvation may take place in eternity, but the declarative judgment of God, one's justification, and imputation of Our Lord's righteousness to us, takes place at a time and place. Prior to that time, all elect remain under the wrath of God." You will have to explain FURTHER on this one?
This statement is in contradiction to the heretical hyper-Calvinistic view of eternal justification. They lurk about and I want to draw a line in the sand here. For more, see this:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Faith-Alone&p=4869475&viewfull=1#post4869475

AMR
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I believe that God has decreed all things that shall come to pass. I also maintain that God offers no violence to the freedom of the will but men act in full accord with their own choices. I don't see a contradiction in those two views because I can distinguish between the decree and its execution. The decree is absolute while the execution takes contingency and conditionality into account as things which God has also decreed.

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.


Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct

 

Rosenritter

New member
In other words, to counter the assumption by others that claim the elect can be anyone, my point is that the elect are a specific great multitude. The non-elect will never do what they are commanded to do. The sentence above could have been bettered stated as "In fact, they may never be the elect, since they never do what they are commanded to do."

Herein is the root of much confusion by the anti-Calvinist.

Eze 3:20 KJV
(20) Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Eze 33:13 KJV
(13) When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

If we use hindsight to define those who die in their iniquity as the non-elect and always having been non-elect, it certainly looks like some of the non-elect did what they were commanded to do, at least once upon a time.

In attempting to reconcile your statement here it seems a little confusing. Either the righteous are not the elect, or the elect can change, or the non-elect are capable of righteousness, and it is God himself that calls them righteous by name, not that they are wicked that did seemingly righteous things. Any of those inevitable options seem to conclude in a contradiction of traditional Calvinism.
 
Last edited:
Top