How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[zoidar]

And leads to, or at least suggests relevance to what Jesus said, about cleaning the house, and the demon returns and finds it empty, and brings seven worse with him, to inhabit the house with him. Matthew 12:44,45

Those are some scary verses.

 

[Receivedgrace]

Shallow argument. There's a huge difference between 600 million Muslims vs 600 million Christians.

So any Christian who disagrees with you on a doctrine such as Continuationism is lying about what the Holy Spirit taught him?

Have you considered the possibility that most of us don't hear the Holy Spirit loud and clear, by reason of spiritual immaturity?


I demonstrated that cessationism tortures 1 Cor 13:8-12. You've repeatedly ignored that analysis.

You seem to think that you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture, at least with respect to several major doctrines. As a result, you're unwilling to objectively evaluate other interpretations. Honestly, I'd prefer to abstain from any further discussion with you.

Muslims number in the billions. They actually dwarf the number of charismatics you cite. And yes, their doctrine is the doctrine of devils.

No, I'm saying the Holy Spirit did not teach continuation-ism.

Argument based on nothing more than wishful speculation. Man's fascination with magic is quite substantial. Recall the men of Scheva?

Your analysis is simply wrong based on the whole of biblical context.

There are no other valid interpretations on this matter.

I only engage in discussions on this subject because of the severe consequences of folks believing they have something they do not actually possess. Any belief regarding soteriology no matter how ardently held if it is not biblically sound leads to sever consequences. Calvinism, Catholicism and all the Eastern religions that hold to a false gospel are doomed to eternal condemnation.

 

[JAL]

Your analysis is simply wrong based on the whole of biblical context.

So that's your rebuttal? Ok, guy.

 

[zoidar]

Gr: prognosis (used only of divine foreknowledge) - Ac 2:23, 15:18; 1 Pe 1:2,
proginosko - (used of divine foreknowledge) Ro 8:29, 11:2; 1Pe 1:20

Revisting an old thread.

Proginosko is not only used of divine foreknowledge. Is there a difference between the words prognosis and proginosko other than being different parts of speech?

“So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known (proginosko) about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.
— Acts 26:4-5

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand (proginosko), be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
— 2 Peter 3:17

 

[Clare73]

Revisting an old thread.

Proginosko is not only used of divine foreknowledge. Is there a different meaning of prognosis and proginosko?
“So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known (proginosko) about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.
— Acts 26:4-5
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand (proginosko), be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
— 2 Peter 3:17

Yes, as I stated, proginosko is used not only of Gods foreknowledge, but also of human foreknowledge (2 Pe 3:17).

Both mean "knowing in advance," but prognosis is used only of divine foreknowledge.

Thanks! I didn't find it that convincing.

The only thing convincing is when prognosis in the NT is asserted to mean man knowing in advance, instead of God knowing in advance.
Usage of words in the NT shows us their actual meanings in the NT. . .for example, the word "spiritual," which in the NT is not used to mean immaterial, non-physical, non-corporeal, but is used to mean the province of the Holy Spirit.

Btw Ac 15:18 is gnōstos, gnōrimos.

Yes, I quoted it not as a usage of the word prognosis itself, but as a general description of prognosis as referring to God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Revisting an old thread.

Proginosko is not only used of divine foreknowledge. Is there a difference between the words prognosis and proginosko other than being different parts of speech?

“So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known (proginosko) about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.
— Acts 26:4-5

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand (proginosko), be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
— 2 Peter 3:17

Yes, as I stated, proginosko is used not only of Gods foreknowledge, but also of human foreknowledge (2 Pe 3:17).

Both mean "knowing in advance," but prognosis is used only of divine foreknowledge.

The only thing convincing is when prognosis in the NT is asserted to mean man knowing in advance, instead of God knowing in advance.
Usage of words in the NT shows us their actual meanings in the NT. . .for example, the word "spiritual," which in the NT is not used to mean immaterial, non-physical, non-corporeal, but is used to mean the province of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I quoted it not as a usage of the word prognosis itself, but as a general description of prognosis as referring to God.

I think it is worth noting that even if one rejects Clare's use of "foreknowledge", which is attested to by so many others, scholars, etc, one still has the task of bypassing the simple logic that if God causes it, then of course he knows it. And so far I've seen no evidence that there is anything that God does not, knowing ahead of time what will transpire if only by his omniscience, cause it to come to pass by even deistic creation. Thus, the only reasonable way to explain how he knows, is because he causes. Not just 'foresight'. Nobody yet has been able to demonstrate the ability of our human construction —"chance"— to explain anything except our ignorance. And nobody yet has been able to show how the notion of "other limited first causes" makes sense. There can be only one first cause.

 

[zoidar]

Yes, as I stated, proginosko is used not only of Gods foreknowledge, but also of human foreknowledge (2 Pe 3:17).

Both mean "knowing in advance," but prognosis is used only of divine foreknowledge.

The only thing convincing is when prognosis in the NT is asserted to mean man knowing in advance, instead of God knowing in advance.
Usage of words in the NT shows us their actual meanings in the NT. . .for example, the word "spiritual," which in the NT is not used to mean immaterial, non-physical, non-corporeal, but is used to mean the province of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I quoted it not as a usage of the word prognosis itself, but as a general description of prognosis as referring to God.

Do you make a distinction between God's foreknowledge and divine foreknowlegde? In that case what would be the difference?

 

[zoidar]

I think it is worth noting that even if one rejects Clare's use of "foreknowledge", which is attested to by so many others, scholars, etc, one still has the task of bypassing the simple logic that if God causes it, then of course he knows it. And so far I've seen no evidence that there is anything that God does not, knowing ahead of time what will transpire if only by his omniscience, cause it to come to pass by even deistic creation. Thus, the only reasonable way to explain how he knows, is because he causes. Not just 'foresight'. Nobody yet has been able to demonstrate the ability of our human construction —"chance"— to explain anything except our ignorance. And nobody yet has been able to show how the notion of "other limited first causes" makes sense. There can be only one first cause.

I think God knows because He is God. I don't see a reason or think we can really know how God knows all. I mean God also knows all the "what ifs", if I was born in China or if I made a "career" out of stealing.

 

[Clare73]

Do you make a distinction between God's foreknowledge and divine foreknowlegde? In that case what would be the difference?

There is only one divine being; i.e., God. If it's divine, it's God's.

The distinction that is involved is in the nature of God's foreknowledge; i.e.,
it is not God looking down the corridors of time to see what man is going to do, and then basing his plans on man's actions,
rather it is God foreknowing what he is going to do because he has decreed from before the foundations of the world that he shall do it and, therefore, it shall happen. . .which is why he knows the future. . .it is his doing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think God knows because He is God. I don't see a reason or think we can really know how God knows all. I mean God also knows all the "what ifs", if I was born in China or if I made a "career" out of stealing.

The only valid "what ifs" are the ones God mentions, and even those are 'rhetorical' (I say, for lack of a better word). That is to say, God poses a 'what if', even sometimes as though it is what indeed will happen, and if things go that way, then in fact it will happen, but for eg, Ninevah does instead repent, and God relents from causing the disaster he had planned. But it is silly to say that he had not planned for Ninevah to repent, nor had expected them to repent. He even caused them to repent.

As you probably know by now, I don't see a principle of chance, randomness or even 'possibility' as such. And I hope you don't just discard what I say to you out of hand, knowing what I think already. Part of the meaning of First Cause, or logically corollary to 'first cause', is the fact that no principle or fact comes externally to first cause. Maybe better said, nothing happens that doesn't logically descend from his causation. Thus he is not subject to chance. Chance does not happen to him nor his works. So 'what if' probabilities are just our way of guessing.

 

[zoidar]

The only valid "what ifs" are the ones God mentions, and even those are 'rhetorical' (I say, for lack of a better word). That is to say, God poses a 'what if', even sometimes as though it is what indeed will happen, and if things go that way, then in fact it will happen, but for eg, Ninevah does instead repent, and God relents from causing the disaster he had planned. But it is silly to say that he had not planned for Ninevah to repent, nor had expected them to repent. He even caused them to repent.

As you probably know by now, I don't see a principle of chance, randomness or even 'possibility' as such. And I hope you don't just discard what I say to you out of hand, knowing what I think already. Part of the meaning of First Cause, or logically corollary to 'first cause', is the fact that no principle or fact comes externally to first cause. Maybe better said, nothing happens that doesn't logically descend from his causation. Thus he is not subject to chance. Chance does not happen to him nor his works. So 'what if' probabilities are just our way of guessing.

What you say would be true if we lived in a purely material, mathematical world. How can you be so sure thing's that are spiritual works the same way?

 

[zoidar]

There is only one divine being; i.e., God. If it's divine, it's God's.

The distinction that is involved is in the nature of God's foreknowledge; i.e.,
it is not God looking down the corridors of time to see what man is going to do, and then basing his plans on man's actions,
rather it is God knowing what he is going to do because he has decreed from before the foundations of the world that he shall do it and, therefore, it shall happen. . .which is why he knows the future. . .it is his doing.

I know you have said something along the lines of making God small. I kind of get that feeling when you say God knows it because He decreed it. Didn't God know it before He decreed it?

 

[Clare73]

I know you have said something along the lines of making God small. I kind of get that feeling when you say God knows it because He decreed it. Didn't God know it before He decreed it?

He decreed it before the foundations of the world.

How could he decree it without thinking of it?

For all we know, (in human terms) there may have been multiple ways to accomplish his purpose,
but in his infinite wisdom he chose and decreed the one we have.

 

[zoidar]

He decreed it before the foundations of the world.

How could he decree it without thinking of it?

For all we know, (in human terms) there may have been multiple ways to accomplish his purpose,
but in his infinite wisdom he chose and decreed the one we have.

I'm of the understanding even if God didn't decree anything, He would still know everything, because He is God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What you say would be true if we lived in a purely material, mathematical world. How can you be so sure thing's that are spiritual works the same way?

TL;DR: See the conclusion at bottom of this long post, under the word, : SO : , if you are pressed for time.

I assume you mean "things that are spiritual", the 'spirit world', which is not at all the same thing as Heaven, nor, specially, God's particular economy of operation.

I suppose I could say that if it is true in a purely material, mathematical world, then even the impinging of spiritual reality on the material world still cannot undo the fact of it, since this remains material. But this material world is (in mathematical terms) a subset of the spiritual, and not the other way around. And I can pretty confidently say that mathematical truth applies to the spirit world, just as surely as to the material world. At least, logical truth does, and logic is math-based. Now, the assumptions we make in our computations —that's another matter.

Disclaimer: When I say a thing is absolutely true, I don't necessarily mean it is 'brute fact'; I only mean it applies universally to all creation. Only God is 'brute fact'.

As I have mentioned before, we temporal beings use concepts and language to convey and organize our thought. We do indeed have a way of trusting our concepts beyond what is warranted and our words often mislead even (or maybe specially) the one who is speaking. But there are principles behind what we say, which principles we try to describe, however poorly we understand them. Mathematics is absolutely true; OUR mathematics, however, may contain some false assumptions. Pure logic is absolutely valid in any realm. Our assumptions used in logic —not so much.

So, also, in the spirit realm, cause and effect holds valid, but time passage, not necessarily. But in our logic, if we want to think time passage does not hold valid in the spirit realm, we negate it in our minds, which is in itself an assumption beyond what we can know. Maybe the best we can say is that it is likely that sequence of events does not appear the same to the spirit world as it does to us.

Hypotheticals are an odd breed. "What if" is a particularly human expression. We pride ourselves on our ability to think abstractly, not realizing how we trust the concepts we use to do so. You have heard even here on this site such logical self-contradictions as "Can God make something so big he cannot pick it up?" To me, the notion of mere chance, (and particularly easy to prove is the notion that chance can cause anything), is another equally self-contradictory abstract concept. But some people posing questions that assume causation by chance consider them absolutely valid.

: SO :
What does happen is all that does happen, here and in your 'spiritual things'. Our descriptions of them, and our playing with them abstractly in our minds —not so much. We say "what if" because we like to think our ability to abstract, is of some authority over fact. It is not. Also note, that even when God speaks to us in hypotheticals, it is usually, maybe always, in his posing to us a choice for us to make. It is not an absolute statement that either 'option' is actual.

 

[zoidar]

TL;DR: See the conclusion at bottom of this long post, under the word, : SO : , if you are pressed for time.

I assume you mean "things that are spiritual", the 'spirit world', which is not at all the same thing as Heaven, nor, specially, God's particular economy of operation.

I suppose I could say that if it is true in a purely material, mathematical world, then even the impinging of spiritual reality on the material world still cannot undo the fact of it, since this remains material. But this material world is (in mathematical terms) a subset of the spiritual, and not the other way around. And I can pretty confidently say that mathematical truth applies to the spirit world, just as surely as to the material world. At least, logical truth does, and logic is math-based. Now, the assumptions we make in our computations —that's another matter.

Disclaimer: When I say a thing is absolutely true, I don't necessarily mean it is 'brute fact'; I only mean it applies universally to all creation. Only God is 'brute fact'.

As I have mentioned before, we temporal beings use concepts and language to convey and organize our thought. We do indeed have a way of trusting our concepts beyond what is warranted and our words often mislead even (or maybe specially) the one who is speaking. But there are principles behind what we say, which principles we try to describe, however poorly we understand them. Mathematics is absolutely true; OUR mathematics, however, may contain some false assumptions. Pure logic is absolutely valid in any realm. Our assumptions used in logic —not so much.

So, also, in the spirit realm, cause and effect holds valid, but time passage, not necessarily. But in our logic, if we want to think time passage does not hold valid in the spirit realm, we negate it in our minds, which is in itself an assumption beyond what we can know. Maybe the best we can say is that it is likely that sequence of events does not appear the same to the spirit world as it does to us.

Hypotheticals are an odd breed. "What if" is a particularly human expression. We pride ourselves on our ability to think abstractly, not realizing how we trust the concepts we use to do so. You have heard even here on this site such logical self-contradictions as "Can God make something so big he cannot pick it up?" To me, the notion of mere chance, (and particularly easy to prove is the notion that chance can cause anything), is another equally self-contradictory abstract concept. But some people posing questions that assume causation by chance consider them absolutely valid.

: SO :
What does happen is all that does happen, here and in your 'spiritual things'. Our descriptions of them, and our playing with them abstractly in our minds —not so much. We say "what if" because we like to think our ability to abstract, is of some authority over fact. It is not. Also note, that even when God speaks to us in hypotheticals, it is usually, maybe always, in his posing to us a choice for us to make. It is not an absolute statement that either 'option' is actual.

Atheists may hold to chance as causation. Christians don't, not most of us anyway, but we believe in free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm of the understanding even if God didn't decree anything, He would still know everything, because He is God.

God spoke it all into existence: "Let there be..." That is decree. If he had not decreed it, there would not be it, to know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Atheists may hold to chance as causation. Christians don't, not most of us anyway, but we believe in free will.

No. Atheists by and large do not hold to chance as causation. As for Christians, there may be some that hold to absolute causation that have not put 2 and 2 together, still holding to freewill, but the majority, in spite of their use of the term, "free will", only mean by it, "actual choice". They don't mean 'uncaused' or 'libertarian' free will. After all. The huge majority of Christians, or so I think, believe in God's sovereignty and God's omnipotence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Atheists may hold to chance as causation. Christians don't, not most of us anyway, but we believe in free will.

Christians that hold to 'libertarian' or 'uncaused' free will are logically invoking causation by chance, whether they realize they are doing so or not.

 

[zoidar]

No. Atheists by and large do not hold to chance as causation. As for Christians, there may be some that hold to absolute causation that have not put 2 and 2 together, still holding to freewill, but the majority, in spite of their use of the term, "free will", only mean by it, "actual choice". They don't mean 'uncaused' or 'libertarian' free will. After all. The huge majority of Christians, or so I think, believe in God's sovereignty and God's omnipotence.

I'm quite sure most Christians do believe in free libertarian will, most have just not put that much thought into it. But if you would ask them if they believe all that happens is predetermined or if there is free will they would go with free will.

I believe in libertarian free will and God's sovereignity and omnipotence. They are not exclusive. You should check what the words sovereign and omnipotent mean.