A troublesome verse for the Calvinist

[Clare73]

I'd like to advise both you and @Mark Quayle that a doctrine CANNOT be based on only one scripture...
and sometimes even on more than one.

You could find out about this in exegesis or hermeneutics.

Neither exegesis nor hermeneutics has the authority to determine how many times God must say it in his word before it is true, Jn 15:26 being a good example.

 

[GodsGrace101]

By being in some way better than those who did not believe. WHY did you believe?

Are you moved by God's grace and decide to believe, and THAT is faith?

See, continuing my last comment— if you decide to believe by your own integrity and will power and free will, then it is not grace. I call that works. You, being better than someone else, chose to do what they did not.

You can call it what you like MQ.
But Paul, who wrote the theology of Christianity, does not agree with you.

Romans 11:6
6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Galatians 2:16
16Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

We can know a lot about the why. It was God's decision to whom to show mercy, and not based on whether they would choose him.

I never implied otherwise.

This much I agree with wholeheartedly, though I think it is impossible to quite put into human language, but yes. In fact, it is a mainstay of my logic concerning his sovereignty.

What in the world? Why do you say this? Or are you being like some of these others who think since Calvin was the devil that I must be related? —these whose antagonism instructs them that if I don't believe what they do that I don't believe Scripture? —these whose logic says that since I stopped responding to them, they have proven Calvinism is false?

I don't know what you're talking about due to lack of syntax,,,
however, I'd say that you do the same.

And Calvinnism is false.
We can be sure of this because for 1,500 years the church did not believe in predestination.

You seem to think you are defeating some line of reasoning that I have with this...

??

 

[GodsGrace101]

That's not exactly accurate. They believe God knows all things past, present, and future. That's foreknowledge. Secondly, to say Calvinists are not Christians is not wise because it is a secondary issue.

I'm not debating this.
It's like debating whether or not water is wet.

And I NEVER said Calvinists are not saved.
That's for God to know, not me.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Mark has it exactly correct.

She is saying that divine foreknowledge (prognosis), as used in the NT, always refers to God knowing what he will do.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You mean like your post #64?



You mean that I don't agree with the notion that Scripture does not present a doctrine unless it is stated exactly verbatim wherever it appears, as in Jn 8:57 and Ac 13:48?



Nor do I respond well to loose handling and limited understanding of the Scriptures, as well as self-made and self-serving rules.

You responded exactly as I knew you would...
No use posting to you.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Then it falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that assertion if it is to have any merit beyond personal opinion..

I suggest you study it all on your very own.
Nothing can convince you like your own brain.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Neither exegesis nor hermeneutics has the authority to determine how many times God must say it in his word before it is true, Jn 15:26 being a good example.

Study some theology.

 

[Clare73]

You responded exactly as I knew you would...
No use posting to you.

I responded with the facts of my argument. . .and it appears you cannot Biblically address them. . .which puts me in agreement with your decision.

 

[Clare73]

I suggest you study it all on your very own.
Nothing can convince you like your own brain.

Sounds a lot like you cannot Biblically demonstrate your assertion.

 

[Clare73]

Study some theology.

Study some Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of any error.

You have to do more than just assert your opinion out here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've never heard of this before.
God foreknows EVERYHTING.

Don't your last two sentences conflict?

Indeed he 'foreknows' everything, because he 'fore'causes everything. @Clare73 does not deny his omniscience, but makes the point that the term "foreknow" in its various forms is referring to what He will do, as opposed to referring to what his creatures will do. There is no conflict.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Indeed he 'foreknows' everything, because he 'fore'causes everything. @Clare73 does not deny his omniscience, but makes the point that the term "foreknow" in its various forms is referring to what He will do, as opposed to referring to what his creatures will do. There is no conflict.

What you just stated makes no sense.

If God foreknows EVERYTHING...
He foreknows what He will do and what His creatures will do.

No need to complicate a simple idea.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Indeed he 'foreknows' everything, because he 'fore'causes everything. @Clare73 does not deny his omniscience, but makes the point that the term "foreknow" in its various forms is referring to what He will do, as opposed to referring to what his creatures will do. There is no conflict.

Foreknow means foreknow.
It's only the reformed that seem to have problems understanding simple words.

Maybe because words have to be twisted to suit their paradigm.

They require pages of explanation as to what free will means. A 5 year old could explain it.
Ditto for ALL, WORLD, EVERYONE, and so on.

Jesus made it so easy.
Calvin made it so difficult.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinists don't call it foreknowledge - which every Christian believes.

They believe in predestination of EVERYTHING (as you've stated above).

I find a logical contradiction in the bald notion that anything can happen apart from God having —in one way or another— caused it. I could live with that contradiction if Scripture claimed that something can happen apart from God's causation, but I can't find any Scripture claiming that anything can happen apart from God's causation, and in fact, quite a lot of it claiming just the opposite.

 

[Clare73]

And Calvinnism is false.
We can be sure of this because for 1,500 years the church did not believe in predestination.

And for 1500 years, the church likewise did not believe
Eph 2:8-9: salvation. . .through faith, not by works, and
Ro 8:28: justification apart from works/lawkeeping.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What you just stated makes no sense.

If God foreknows EVERYTHING...
He foreknows what He will do and what His creatures will do.

No need to complicate a simple idea.

Oh good. So you've joined forces with JAL, who also doesn't know how to add, "to me", to the statement, "makes no sense".

Nobody is saying that he doesn't foreknow (in the English sense) what his creatures will do. Seems like you are sidestepping the point. Again: @Clare73 was not saying that he doesn't foreknow everything, but that the Biblical use of the term "foreknow" has to do with what HE will do, as opposed to knowing what WE will do. (Again, she is not saying that he doesn't know what we will do. Haha! After all —he causes that too !)

 

[Clare73]

What you just stated makes no sense.

If God foreknows EVERYTHING...
He foreknows what He will do and what His creatures will do.

No need to complicate a simple idea.

It's not about simple and complicated.

It's about whether the NT presents God's foreknowledge as being in regard to what man is going to do--which the NT does not. . .
and whether that "foreknowledge" is God's basis for election--which it is not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You can call it what you like MQ.
But Paul, who wrote the theology of Christianity, does not agree with you.

Romans 11:6
6But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Galatians 2:16
16Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Paul makes my whole point, and disagrees with you. If it is Grace, it is entirely by God's doing, and not by anything we can contribute. To say that since Paul says salvation is by grace alone and not the work of man, that therefore your contribution by the will of man is not a claim to works, is —well, let's just say, 'circular'.

I don't know what you're talking about due to lack of syntax,,,
however, I'd say that you do the same.

And Calvinnism is false.
We can be sure of this because for 1,500 years the church did not believe in predestination.

That's bad logic too, but nevermind: WHAT makes you think the church did not believe in predestination? From what I can tell, you don't even know what predestination IS! After all, Paul certainly believed in it!

??

??

 

[Clare73]

Foreknow means foreknow.
It's only the reformed that seem to have problems understanding simple words.

"Understanding simple words" in the NT is determined by the NT's usage of them.
For example, "spiritual" in Paul does not mean non-material, non-corporeal, or non-physical as it does elsewhere.

Maybe because words have to be twisted to suit their paradigm.

Or because words have to be understood according to the NT's use of them, as in "spiritual."

They require pages of explanation as to what free will means. A 5 year old could explain it.

Not really. . .the Bible's presentation of free will is not the philosopher's notion of free will.
To the philosopher, free will is the power to make all moral choices.
In Scripture, man does not have the power to make all moral choices, he cannot choose to be always sinless in thought, word and deed.

Ditto for ALL, WORLD, EVERYONE, and so on.

Both "all" and "world" can mean either
all with exception (including every man), or
all without distinction (including every group).

The right one must be understood if Scripture is not to contradict itself.

"Everyone" does not have more than one meaning.

Jesus made it so easy.
Calvin made it so difficult.

Jesus didn't write anything. . .your issue is with the writers of Scripture. . .who are to be understood in consistency, not in contradiction.