Calvinism, explained.

[alexandriaisburning]

Surprised anyone would say such a thing.
God does not have to create something to have knowledge of it.
For what then is 'foreknowledge, or foreknowing', the meaning is lost, do you understand?

If God doesn't have to have knowledge of something in order to create it, please describe how that is possible. How can God have knowledge of no-thing (that which doesn't exist), but still create some-thing?

"Foreknowledge", philosophically, is really just accommodation of language (or, more accurately, terrifically inaccurate usage of language) to describe God's sovereignty in relation to the universe. It cannot be philosophically pressed to describe the actual nature of God's "knowledge" of the universe because, as I've already shown, such language leads to ridiculous and heretical conclusions regarding the nature of the universe.

None of these necessary conclusions, of course, stop the Reformed from diving face-first into absurdity

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Actually, I think you're the one bloviating here. You seem to be overly impressed with your own philosophical ramblings, and wish to look down your nose at those who don't seem to "get" your ramblings. As if you knew anything substantial of such things. I'll stick with God's Word, and let Him illuminate my mind as to what He wishes me to know.

So you won't engage the questions, either?

 

[GillDouglas]

If God doesn't have to have knowledge of something in order to create it, please describe how that is possible. How can God have knowledge of no-thing (that which doesn't exist), but still create some-thing?

"Foreknowledge", philosophically, is really just accommodation of language (or, more accurately, terrifically inaccurate usage of language) to describe God's sovereignty in relation to the universe. It cannot be philosophically pressed to describe the actual nature of God's "knowledge" of the universe because, as I've already shown, such language leads to ridiculous and heretical conclusions regarding the nature of the universe.

None of these necessary conclusions, of course, stop the Reformed from diving face-first into absurdity

You might be right if God was limited as we are, yet He exists outside of time in eternity. You're trying to put human restriction and limitation on the All-knowing Creator.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Some say clean up your life, sanctify yourself first to let God clean the inside, but God, not men, cleans up the inside first so then the outside may become clean.

God does do that for those who come to Him in faith.

Not as part of some pre-process of regeneration that brings someone to faith.

You have it backwards.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Many are chosen, but not all.

The essence of the Bible, or underlining story, is the redemption of sinners. Since we know that God is sovereign in all things and men are unable to save themselves, it is safe to say that it is God who saves men and He is sovereign in choosing who is redeemed. Our salvation flows from the fountain of God's mercy and He adopts us, not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but rather He surely gives to some what He definitely refuses to others. The Divine will never made dependent on the creatures will for its determinations, all who are and will be His are rightfully so by His plan alone. By His decree he has determined some to everlasting life out of His mere grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, according to His will. The rest are passed by to be left in their natural state to the praise of His glorious justice, all for His glory.
Since God has chosen some and not others to eternal life, it is plain to see whom the primary purpose of Christ's work was intended for. Not all men, but His Elect.

What would be the need for Jesus Christ to die for the sins of all of mankind? Please note the word 'all'.

Why would not Christ have only died for the chosen (or as you would say elect).

 

[alexandriaisburning]

You might be right if God was limited as we are, yet He exists outside of time in eternity. You're trying to put human restriction and limitation on the All-knowing Creator.

No, I'm not talking about human inability. I'm talking about purely logical impossibilities.

But even if we admit that this aspect of God's nature cannot be understood (which I completely admit), I find it interesting, but also extremely contradictory, that you would make such dogmatic theological claims based on your understanding of God's knowledge, but then throw up your hands and cry "mystery!!!" when the most basic philosophical challenge is presented. Have you actually thought through the logical implications of your theology, or are just rehearsing what you've been instructed to believe?

 

[GillDouglas]

No, I'm not talking about human inability. I'm talking about purely logical impossibilities.

But even if we admit that this aspect of God's nature cannot be understood (which I completely admit), I find it interesting, but also extremely contradictory, that you would make such dogmatic theological claims based on your understanding of God's knowledge, but then throw up your hands and cry "mystery!!!" when the most basic philosophical challenge is presented. Have you actually thought through the logical implications of your theology, or are just rehearsing what you've been instructed to believe?

What's the logical implications of my theology, exactly? Will I lose my salvation if I don't get it right!? I'm not rehearsing anything, just noting/sharing what I understand regarding God, His creation, our salvation, etc. by way of studying and reading the Bible. I'm still a fairly young Christian for a 35 year old, and have much to learn but I believe I have a strong grasp in regard to Soteriology.

I still disagree with you that God did not plan anything. It's as if you believe He just snapped His fingers and hoped for the best.

 

[GillDouglas]

What would be the need for Jesus Christ to die for the sins of all of mankind? Please note the word 'all'.

Why would not Christ have only died for the chosen (or as you would say elect).

Unless I am misunderstanding you, we are in agreeance here. Armenians believe Christ died to save all men. Calvinists believe Christ died for all saved men, only. So Calvinists subscribe to the doctrine of Limited Atonement (The 'L' in TULIP), limiting Christs work to the Elect. The difference is Armenians would limit the power of Christ's sacrifice, since all men are NOT saved, it dimishes His saving work.

 

[sdowney717]

Unless I am misunderstanding you, we are in agreeance here. Armenians believe Christ died to save all men. Calvinists believe Christ died for all saved men, only. So Calvinists subscribe to the doctrine of Limited Atonement (The 'L' in TULIP), limiting Christs work to the Elect. The difference is Armenians would limit the power of Christ's sacrifice, since all men are NOT saved, it dimishes His saving work.

AFAIK many Arminians also believe salvation can be lost.
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/arminians.html

 

[sdowney717]

Calvinist's will affirm that Christ died to save His people from their sins.
Scripture says God gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life.
That is true. In reality, Christ dies so that believers in Him will not perish in hell. So he dies for believers, not for unbelievers.
His death does not help unbelievers at all. His death accomplishes salvation only for believers.
All unbelievers will die in their sins, if they do not believe in Christ.

Can anyone think of a benefit to unbelievers of Christ's death for them?

 

[sdowney717]

John 5, Jesus tells us He gives life to whom He wills.
21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

And for unbelievers, Christ says they do not have God's word abiding in them, v38, This is why they do not believe in Christ.
See they have not been drawn to Christ by the Father and so then have not been taught by the Father about Christ the Son As John 6:43-45 says.

37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

In order to believe in Christ, we must first have God's word abiding in us. The kingdom of God is within you type idea.
We do not learn the TRUTH of Christ that results in a saving faith by natural means, God must draw and teach us that. AND if He does not choose to do this for someone, they will not believe in Christ.

AND if He does do this for someone, then they will believe in Christ.
There is no learning and choosing on our own, we are not free agents.
Unbelievers minds are blinded by Satan, God must shine His light in the heart for someone to believe in Christ, as 2 Corinthians 4 says.

 

[GillDouglas]

Calvinist's will affirm that Christ died to save His people from their sins.
Scripture says God gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life.
That is true. In reality, Christ dies so that believers in Him will not perish in hell. So he dies for believers, not for unbelievers.
His death does not help unbelievers at all. His death accomplishes salvation only for believers.
All unbelievers will die in their sins, if they do not believe in Christ.

Can anyone think of a benefit to unbelievers of Christ's death for them?

IF you asked 100 Christians this question, I'm sure 95 would say 'yes, of course: salvation!'. This is an understandable response because its not narrow or elitist as Calvinists are often called, but we do wish that all others could enjoy the forgiveness of sins that we enjoy. But it is unhealthy to say that Jesus tasted death for everyone and then not to truly know what Jesus accomplished on the Cross when you consider why the heck is everyone NOT saved. Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, not the world.

 

[sdowney717]

Many will say Christ died for all men, and the only way that line of reasoning works is if all men are free with God having no part to play in changing their evil heart of unbelief. But scripture teaches the mind is blinded by Satan for unbelievers. So how are they free to see and believe?

2 Corinthians 4
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe,
lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Satan does not stop God from shining His light wherever He wishes, as some do believe since they are born of God.
A slave does not free himself, nor can a blind man open his own eyes.

 

[sdowney717]

https://www.monergism.com/blog/can-christian-lose-his-or-her-salvation
Good read to further understanding our salvation as our faith is gifted to us and so we then persevere in faith till the end.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

What's the logical implications of my theology, exactly? Will I lose my salvation if I don't get it right!?

By "logical implications", I mean the necessary conclusions that you must come to if you follow your own logic through to its ultimate ends.

but I believe I have a strong grasp in regard to Soteriology.

You mean, "in regard to Reformed Soteriology"...

I still disagree with you that God did not plan anything. It's as if you believe He just snapped His fingers and hoped for the best.

Lol, no, I never said that. My question is about the necessary logical ordering of "knowledge" and the objects of knowledge. I still do not understand how you can affirm that God has knowledge of no-thing.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Can anyone think of a benefit to unbelievers of Christ's death for them?

Um, resurrection, for starters!

 

[GillDouglas]

By "logical implications", I mean the necessary conclusions that you must come to if you follow your own logic through to its ultimate ends.

It makes sense to me that God set in motion His perfect plan from eternity all things from the beginning to end, as we understand it.

You mean, "in regard to Reformed Soteriology"...

I am a member of an OPC (Othordox Presybetrian Church) and the running joke is OPC actually stands for 'Only Perfect Church'. Of course I'm reformed!

Lol, no, I never said that. My question is about the necessary logical ordering of "knowledge" and the objects of knowledge. I still do not understand how you can affirm that God has knowledge of no-thing.

God has knowledge of ALL things, doesn't He?

 

[GillDouglas]

Um, resurrection, for starters!

Resurrection is for believers, exclusive members only!

 

[alexandriaisburning]

God has knowledge of ALL things, doesn't He?

All things that exist, yes. Hence my assertion that God cannot have knowledge of no-thing, that which doesn't exist.

So the question still remains, how can God have exhaustive foreknowledge of that which doesn't exist? Such an assertion is patently absurd. It is akin to suggesting that God could cease to exist. The very formulation of the statement reveals broken logic and flimsy philosophical execution.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Resurrection is for believers, exclusive members only!

So you're an annihilationist?