On the omniscience of God

[Idolater]

So, the Calvinistic understanding of the word 'elect' isn't supported by the text of scripture itself. They basically read their doctrine into the text.
Going strictly by what the text itself says, "the elect" generally refers to groups of people that have been selected for a particular purpose. Israel, for example, were God's chosen people for a whole list of reasons but that doesn't mean that every Israelite that was ever born was saved. Quite the contrary, actually.

Likewise, those who are members of the Body of Christ are "the elect" but they are elect because they're members of the Body, not the other way around. The destiny of the Body of Christ has been predestined by God. It WILL be glorified and those in that body of believers will be glorified with it. But, again, people are not members because they're predestined to glory but the reverse, they are predestined for glory because they are members.

I think that's a false dichotomy. You below are going to point out some positive examples and I'm going to add two—negative ones.

It's sort of like boarding an airplane. The owners of the plane determined well in advance where the plane would be going and when/if you get on board then you share that destiny by virtue of the fact that you got on board.

And that's also true, agreed. And, I like that analogy, it's vivid and accessible. Helps people like me with zero imagination.

This corporate election and predestination is generally applicable in most cases throughout the bible. There are, however, several notable exceptions where certain specific individuals are "elected" by God. Both king Saul and king David, for example, as well as Moses and Jonah and Paul, etc. Each of these and several others where specifically singled out by God for a specific purpose and thus were 'elect', but never were any of them singled out in such a way as their salvation was predestined, which is what the Calvinists would have you believe that election is always about.

"Double predestination", right. But Judas. We can't necessarily rule out "double predestination", not from just the Bible and plain reason, like Luther said to do. According to Sola Scriptura, there's an argument to be made that double predestination is actually a thing.

It might revolt us. That's a separate issue until you can bring it into discourse, rather than just emoting about it, because we're just not fit to deal with much emotion here, being the anonymous internet discussion board for theology, the most incorrupt platform on the internet for this sort of thing, which is self-curating, a thing never seen before online and anywhere.

Judas was the son of perdition, or whatever he was called. And Paul said that there's another one like Judas coming too. And who even knows what all Revelation is prophesying. These guys who are coming—what are these guys but reprobates? Reprobation really is the double in double predestination. God turns away from you when you're reprobate, it's not that God's steering you around like a grocery cart in a grocery store, going to the produce section. You and God are using the same cart. You don't split up in the store to make shopping more efficient, you stay together. And you go to the produce section, together.

Or, God's like, "Let's get out of here and go Home," but you're like, "No God, I'm going to the produce section."

Maybe sometimes He goes with you. Maybe sometimes, He doesn't. And maybe that isn't His fault, that we're so ...

So what if He looks the other way sometimes.

Genesis 50:20

He decrees when to exercise His permissive will, Genesis 50:20. That's all I'm saying, and I'm asking the question, why. Not. Why couldn't that be the case. It just seems like, you get your cake, and you eat it too. Full sovereignty. Full freedom.

?

 

[Idolater]

Okay, I know that I said that I wasn’t going to be sticking around, but since I’m here, I’ll go ahead and explain my thought process. I felt like I had no choice but to be a Calvinist because if God is omniscient, and if God knows everything that everyone will ever do, then everyone is going to do everything that God knows. That includes those who will come to faith. In light of that understanding, it made passages such as Acts 13:48 make perfect sense. Those who were appointed to eternal life came to belief.

What tripped me up is when you get to passages about God changing His mind and God’s command for everyone to repent. Calvinists will dismiss passages about God changing his mind is anthropomorphic language. If that’s the case, why can’t I say that predestination is anthropomorphic too? Then they say that God will absolutely accomplish His will. But if He commands all men everywhere to repent, obviously He isn’t accomplishing His will because not all people repent.

That's either what hooked me on Clavin, or it at least was a big part of what hooked me. Was God in any sense ... failing? I couldn't countenance that, and I didn't, and when I found Clavinism, I found that it also did not countenance that God was failing. So I instantly converted, mentally, to Clavinism.

That was why, it had nothing to do with "the omnis" for me, it was a matter of ... like what the score was on the scoreboard. If God's will's diverted every other time someone dies, because, as I believed, you got to think at least every other person goes to Hell, right?

But what if it's like only one out of ten thousand or something? Does that change the theological calculus at all?

I didn't really think of it that way. I was just zeroed in for years on the reprobate. It's clear from Scripture that we're really not to worry about them, we're to treat all men equally, preach the Gospel, period. "Let God sort it out." But you preach to everybody (the problem with believing Clavinism is your Gospel is distorted somewhat by the fact that you wrongly perceive someone is Hellbound, so much more frequently than is actually the case. So you end up not only questioning, but downright denying people's faith, or, at least their eternal destiny. And I mean without justification.

Seems like there are too many double standards.

I’m starting to think that pastor Chuck Smith had it right when he said that divine election and human free will is a mystery. No need to get tied up in theological pretzels trying to figure all that stuff out.

People say that about the Flood too. And the Creation.

Basically, totally agreed. But I myself can't stay away. It's just not my cup of tea, to not discuss the Flood and the Creation and Christ's Resurrection and our Lady's bodily assumption. I do agree to not get tied up in pretzels while doing it. But I think if you are already tied up in pretzels, it's a good idea to participate on TOL.

 

[Idolater]

Once heard of a pastor/priest stating that God does not get everything He wants. He forgot that God has displayed at least two different types of His Will. The above is a perfect example of the Preceptive Will of God.

Preceptive being, "Let's go Home," but the decretive will permits the permissive will, and so you go to the produce section instead, violating His precept, but He decrees His permissive will (looks the other way) while you go to the produce section.

It's interesting though when you think about it how sin frequently has its own inherent punishments. So even if God didn't exercise any preceptive will (such as, people who have no Bible for instance), you could still tease out where the sins are, just because you get snake bitten way more, when you sin. Especially if a culture hands down its lessons learned, as traditions, about sin.

 

[Idolater]

His will is mentioned in multiple places. Why do you assume it’s more than one?

In some sense, you're right, and that's the decretive will.

But the decretive will can surely decree that He's going to exercise His preceptive will, which is His right to Speak to us.

And obv, from places like Genesis 50:20, He can also decree to exercise His permissive will. It doesn't mean in any way that He wants something like the Holocaust to happen. And we can never understand how He can mean something evil for good Genesis 50:20, but apparently,

That's a thing.

So that's where we get permissive will from.

In a sense, the decretive will is the one will. This is according to Calvinism, according to my memory. I've forgotten more about Calvinism than most people ever know about it.

And it's because I AM a Clavinist, properly understood. And that means Roman Catholic. Divine providence, in the Catechism, if you're interested.

 

[Idolater]

actually there are three types of His Will that are on display in the KJV in various places.

What ones?

 

[Clete]

Okay, I know that I said that I wasn’t going to be sticking around, but since I’m here, I’ll go ahead and explain my thought process. I felt like I had no choice but to be a Calvinist because if God is omniscient, and if God knows everything that everyone will ever do, then everyone is going to do everything that God knows. That includes those who will come to faith. In light of that understanding, it made passages such as Acts 13:48 make perfect sense. Those who were appointed to eternal life came to belief.

What tripped me up is when you get to passages about God changing His mind and God’s command for everyone to repent. Calvinists will dismiss passages about God changing his mind is anthropomorphic language. If that’s the case, why can’t I say that predestination is anthropomorphic too? Then they say that God will absolutely accomplish His will. But if He commands all men everywhere to repent, obviously He isn’t accomplishing His will because not all people repent. Seems like there are too many double standards.

I’m starting to think that pastor Chuck Smith had it right when he said that divine election and human free will is a mystery. No need to get tied up in theological pretzels trying to figure all that stuff out.

Everything was going so well and then those last two sentences!!!!

You want to avoid theological pretzels by turning off your mind.

Blow your brains out to prevent swallowing poison. That is the opposite of a solution! If you're going to appeal to mystery then why drop Calvinism? There's no problem with ANY doctrinal system whatsoever if you're allowed to turn your mind off to keep the contradictions from bothering you. Right?

An appeal to 'mystery' is someone admitting that their doctrine is irrational.

There is NO SUCH THING as an irrational truth!

God is neither omniscient nor does He foreknow everything, at least not in the exhaustive manner that the Calvinists teach and their version of the doctrine of election is just flatly false and can be dropped altogether.

There! Now, every passage you want to point to make perfect sense and there's no need to turn entire passages of scripture into gigantic figures of speech nor is there any need to make an appeal to mystery and we get to keep our minds turned on to boot!

Seriously, Crede. The question isn't whether or not there is a rationally coherent system of Christian doctrine. It does exist and it is being presented to you. The question is whether you're willing to accept it as the truth that it can be established as being.

 

[Clete]

In some sense, you're right, and that's the decretive will.

But the decretive will can surely decree that He's going to exercise His preceptive will, which is His right to Speak to us.

And obv, from places like Genesis 50:20, He can also decree to exercise His permissive will. It doesn't mean in any way that He wants something like the Holocaust to happen. And we can never understand how He can mean something evil for good Genesis 50:20, but apparently,

That's a thing.

So that's where we get permissive will from.

In a sense, the decretive will is the one will. This is according to Calvinism, according to my memory. I've forgotten more about Calvinism than most people ever know about it.

And it's because I AM a Clavinist, properly understood. And that means Roman Catholic. Divine providence, in the Catechism, if you're interested.

There is no such thing as God's "decretive will".

And no, you are not a Calvinist in any sense of the word. The title you're looking for is Augustinian. Calvinism is reformed Augustinian doctrine.

 

[Crede2]

I said "something about your faith", I didn't "question" your faith. Is English your first language?

So to no longer wish to participate in theology, to me, ... kind of says something about your faith, honestly. I don't know what it says about your faith, but it says something about it.

You were questioning my faith and you can’t dance around it, or do you only hear what you want to hear? Like one of those people that sits all home all day and listens to CNN never listening to what others have to say. I bet you voted for Kamala Harris, didn’t you?

 

[Derf]

There is no such thing as God's "decretive will".

And no, you are not a Calvinist in any sense of the word. The title you're looking for is Augustinian. Calvinism is reformed Augustinian doctrine.

You didn't read carefully. He said he was a Clavinist, not Calvinist:

And it's because I AM a Clavinist, properly understood.

 

[Crede2]

Have you seen the movie The Game, yes or no. If not I'll stop harassing you.

No. I have never seen any Michael Douglas movie except for Ant-Man.

 

[Crede2]

Why can't God just decree in advance based on foreknowledge when He's going to exercise His permissive will?

I mean look ahead, see that the Holocaust is going to occur, A.D. 1940, decree (slash choose) then, that He will exercise His permissive will then.

I don’t understand how He can know about something before He decrees to make it. That would mean He learns about a universe that exists, at least theoretically, that He had no prior knowledge of.

 

[Crede2]

People say that about the Flood too. And the Creation.

I don’t think that’s as mysterious . There is scientific evidence to support a young Earth and a world wide flood.

 

[Clete]

I think that's a false dichotomy. You below are going to point out some positive examples and I'm going to add two—negative ones.



And that's also true, agreed. And, I like that analogy, it's vivid and accessible. Helps people like me with zero imagination.



"Double predestination", right. But Judas. We can't necessarily rule out "double predestination", not from just the Bible and plain reason, like Luther said to do. According to Sola Scriptura, there's an argument to be made that double predestination is actually a thing.

It might revolt us. That's a separate issue until you can bring it into discourse, rather than just emoting about it, because we're just not fit to deal with much emotion here, being the anonymous internet discussion board for theology, the most incorrupt platform on the internet for this sort of thing, which is self-curating, a thing never seen before online and anywhere.

Judas was the son of perdition, or whatever he was called. And Paul said that there's another one like Judas coming too. And who even knows what all Revelation is prophesying. These guys who are coming—what are these guys but reprobates? Reprobation really is the double in double predestination. God turns away from you when you're reprobate, it's not that God's steering you around like a grocery cart in a grocery store, going to the produce section. You and God are using the same cart. You don't split up in the store to make shopping more efficient, you stay together. And you go to the produce section, together.

Or, God's like, "Let's get out of here and go Home," but you're like, "No God, I'm going to the produce section."

Maybe sometimes He goes with you. Maybe sometimes, He doesn't. And maybe that isn't His fault, that we're so ...

So what if He looks the other way sometimes.

Genesis 50:20

He decrees when to exercise His permissive will, Genesis 50:20. That's all I'm saying, and I'm asking the question, why. Not. Why couldn't that be the case. It just seems like, you get your cake, and you eat it too. Full sovereignty. Full freedom.

?

Double predestination is just logically consistent Calvinistic (Augustinian) predestination. It is hideous blasphemy.

Judas was in no way predestined to do the things he did. God knew his heart and was using him to "fulfill" (i.e. parallel) certain passages in the Old Testament but there isn't a single syllable of the Old Testament that anyone would point to as an unfulfilled prophesy had he repented and refused to betray Jesus and God would have been completely elated had he done so.

There is NO SUCH THING as God "permissive will". It is not a biblical concept at all and the only reason the term exists at all is to rescue the doctrine of predestination which also is not a biblical concept as taught by Augustine and Calvin.

Finally, the reason it cannot be the case is because God is just. God cannot predestine and actively control everything that happens AND punish people for sin AND be just. You get to pick one or the other. If God is just then these idiotic doctrines are false. If God is unjust then Christianity itself is false and you can go believe whatever you want because God doesn't exist and it no longer matters.

Ideas have consequences.

 

[Derf]

I don’t understand how He can know about something before He decrees to make it. That would mean He learns about a universe that exists, at least theoretically, that He had no prior knowledge of.

Why is that a problem, especially if, when it begins to exist as a concept, it begins in His mind?

 

[Crede2]

Why is that a problem, especially if, when it begins to exist as a concept, it begins in His mind?

So is our universe arbitrary? If He could come up with an infinite number of concepts, why didn’t He go with the one where everyone is saved, or better yet, where nobody sinned at all?

 

[Derf]

So is our universe arbitrary? If He could come up with an infinite number of concepts, why didn’t He go with the one where everyone is saved, or better yet, where nobody sinned at all?

You're still thinking like a Calvinist. God made people to have a choice whether they sin or not, whether they love Him or not. He didn't know who would love or who would sin, but He made a provision for us that would sin, which turned out to be everyone.

 

[Crede2]

You're still thinking like a Calvinist. God made people to have a choice whether they sin or not, whether they love Him or not. He didn't know who would love or who would sin, but He made a provision for us that would sin, which turned out to be everyone.

I’m on board with the idea of provisionalism, which would not make me a Calvinist, at the same time I reject the idea that God learns anything at any point in time.

 

[Bladerunner]

Why can't God just decree in advance based on foreknowledge when He's going to exercise His permissive will?

I mean look ahead, see that the Holocaust is going to occur, A.D. 1940, decree (slash choose) then, that He will exercise His permissive will then.

I mean, look ahead, to when our Lord is nailed to those holy boards. He decrees, the Father, I will exercise My permissive will then. ofc I do not in any way will My Son is put to death, but I will exercise My permissive will then.

But that's a decree, because He's God, and namely God the Father.

I'm just asking why not. Why can't that be the case? Isn't there Scripture proving that God can and has "looked the other way"? Isn't that already a self-evident thing, and I don't have to actually argue that point /premise /premiss? Sometimes God can "look the other way". What if that's just what He decrees? He's not decreeing evil, but He is decreeing that He will look the other way when evil occurs. Why, though? It's not as if the Bible ever addresses this. But Genesis 50:20. Yes or no?

Just seems like we can have our cake and eat it too when it comes to God. And the Bible. And Church. And Communion.

To keep us guessing....who knows why GOD does that He does..Only He knows and even if told, I doubt we would understand it...

 

[JudgeRightly]

I’m on board with the idea of provisionalism, which would not make me a Calvinist, at the same time I reject the idea that God learns anything at any point in time.

So God from eternity past knew what it was like to be a man? Or did He gain that knowledge at the incarnation?

 

[Crede2]

So God from eternity past knew what it was like to be a man? Or did He gain that knowledge at the incarnation?

I would say He knew already since He knows the past, present and future simultaneously.