what is Calvinism answer to how God works?

[Mark Quayle]

Better yet, what does it matter what Calvin thinks about good works, and why spend anytime debating it?

Are we really that uninterested in the "weightier matters"?

I'm not a Calvinist, though they think much the same as I do. But what are these "weightier matters" you refer to?

Oh, and who is Calvin? I don't think of him as a Calvinist, lol. He just started the ball rolling.

 

[Apple Sky]

Same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses and their 2 class system. The people who think they are apart of the 144,000 just think they are.

This always makes me laugh when I hear this, as the 144,000 are;

These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They have been redeemed from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless
Revelation 14:1-5

And must belong to the twelve tribes of Israel.

'Do not harm the land or sea or trees until we have sealed the foreheads of the servants of our God.' And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel: From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000, from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000, from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi 12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000, from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000." (Revelation 7:1-8)

But no mention of the tribe of Dan, I wonder why this is ?

 

[biblelesson]

Is the position on Calvinism, that God created people who he would never save, and they will live a short meaningless life only to burn in hell for all eternity with never having even the slightest possibility of avoiding it?

The other position is everyone has a free will choice to choose or reject God, and because they chose to reject, they go to hell and it's their fault.

Suppose you came to the conclusion Calvinism was true all along, are you fine with that, and would it bother you?

And I wanted to give my stance on the matter, I have no idea, and I'm honestly not too concerned I'm more focused on just living the way God would like me to live than figuring out how everything works. If I find out it's true I accept it and move on, I am a believer so I have no reason to be concerned if its true.

But if Calvinism is saying that some believers are not elect and predestined to hell and we HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT IS, and i find that out then yes i would be really concerned.

From the way people are explaining the Calvinism view on election - some saved, some are not, I’m not sure if people are understanding what the gospel says on the subject. Many groups, beliefs twist the meaning of scripture- one reason for this is our understanding of the gospel message does not come from man, our understanding is enlightened by the Spirit.

Without the revelation given by the Spirit, to understand God’s Word, it’s hard to see through wrong teaching- and so we are left with giving our opinions because, without the Spirit’s discernment, we just don’t know.

But, God tells us in His word how He establishes a thing. He says He calls the end from the beginning.
Isaiah 46:10 KJV
“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

He says a thing is established by two or more witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:15 KJV and Apostle Paul quotes this principle
2 Corinthians 13:1 KJV, “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

This principle is established throughout the Bible - events taken place in the Bible are spoken about by more than one prophet, God’s word is being established by His prophets this way - and through this principle or law, God’s word does not come back to Him void, Isaiah 55:11 KJV

So, in consideration of God establishing His word, and the issue of election, God’s salvation plan included selection - of those to be saved, and He established election through Jacob and Esau.

Romans 9:11 KJV
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.

God first made a promise to Abraham that he was the father of many nations and his seed would be blessed (this seed was Christ) whereby all can be saved - of the election.

Because of sin, man could not be saved from hellfire. So, God offered grace as a means of salvation through Jesus, and that grace was established in Abraham.

Second he separated the two covenants (old and new) through Abraham’s two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, Galatians 4:23 KJV, “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.” Man because of Adam’s fall, was in the flesh and could not get out of the flesh due to the law of sin and death. That law could not be overcome. There needed to be a sacrifice for sin - Jesus had to do it to get us from under the curse of the law.

Third God established election through Jacob and Esau.
Romans 9:11 KJV says, For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.”

The establishment of election through Jacob and Esau became a law. God made this law for those he forknew. Some people don’t understand this, but although salvation is by way of grace and not work, God forknew those who would believe, and He selected those - on the same principle as Jacob and Esau, before the were born. He’s not an unfair God. Those he forknew from the foundation of the world, are the ones He conforms to the image of His Son,
and who become the sons of God.

Although He established election before the babies were born (to offer grace freely where there is no sin), the Bible tells us He hated Esau.
Romans 9:12-13 KJV
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What the above verse is telling us is that God forknew Esau, that, although he was the eldest who was supposed to receive the blessing, because he would grow up to be evil, he could not receive that blessing. Jesus had to come through the linage of the man God was pleased with, and it had to be Abraham’s seed, so God made the switch and Jacob received the blessing. Esau was of the flesh, Jacob was of the promise.

This also tells us that those that God forknew from the foundation of the world, He predestined them to be conformed to the image of His son, He chose those He forknew will truly believe on His son and those who believe, He gives the Holy Spirit and makes them children of God.

1 Peter 1:2 KJV
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


Those He forknew from the foundation of the world who will not accept Jesus, those are the ones in the same position as Esau, He cannot predestinate them to be conformed to Jesus.

Romans 8:29 KJV
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

So, if Calvinism is saying God chooses some and don’t chose others, without explaining scripture, then they paint a terrible picture of God!

God is a Beautiful, Lovely God, Whose heart is for all His creation. The Bible says God wants all to be saved, but He does not force anyone. Because He is God, He already knows who will accept His Son.

 

[Hawkins]

Yet that whole construct/description assumes validity to how humans view reality. You speak of probability as if what happens does not depend on God. He is not a fellow-resident within a larger unknowable reality.

Let me throw a bit of a thought-experiment at you: Can you prove that it is possible that something actually CAN happen, besides what does happen? After all, as far as we have seen, nothing except what happens ever did happen. So why should the present be any different? Why should the future be any different?

Yes, you can describe free will mathematically, but that doesn't prove anything except that we believe in chance, which by definition ironically can cause nothing. Fact is, God doesn't just know what will happen, but as logically follows the definition of Self-existent Omnipotent, he causes it to happen. And that doesn't rule out choice. It only makes it sure.

No, you comprehend wrong. Human decisions are subject to influences, though the mathematical expected outcome can still be normalized. The positive and negative influences include such as the guiding of the Holy Spirit (positive) and the temptation of the devil (negative). Free will isn't without influences, but free will still follows the mathematical rule to work with or without such influences. Or else it won't be called "free will" at all. To put it another way, free will is still free will when it is under influences, it still follows mathematical rule to function. Of course, God reserves the right to alter the outcome with manual intervention (if that's what you mean to say), it by no means says God needs (as a necessity) to alter each and every single bit of free will to deliever the outcome. He can just sit back to allow the rule function. It more or less resembles the miracles. God doesn't need to apply miracles (intervention) to maintain everything, everything can follow physical laws to function by itself though at the same time subject to the possibilities of God's intervention (such as parting the Red Sea).

 

[Delvianna]

This always makes me laugh when I hear this, as the 144,000 are;

These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They have been redeemed from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. And no lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless
Revelation 14:1-5

And must belong to the twelve tribes of Israel.

'Do not harm the land or sea or trees until we have sealed the foreheads of the servants of our God.' And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel: From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000, from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000, from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi 12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000, from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000." (Revelation 7:1-8)

But no mention of the tribe of Dan, I wonder why this is ?

I did a whole deep dive into this recently. The tribes that aren't listed all had idolatry issues and it's replaced with Joseph which is... weird since he is the father of Manasseh, and his brother Ephraim isn't listed (also idolatry) but the Father is. So Dan + Ephraim were changed for Levi (usually not listed) and Joseph. This goes against lineage rules for other lists of the tribes. This makes me think Spiritual Israel as a whole (which includes us gentiles grafted in as we would be part of the tribe of Judah due to our covenant with Jesus) and not just biological lineage since it seems to be a perfect list. However, it still doesn't make the JW's correct as they exclude biological Jews which makes NO sense what so ever.... (because they think they are the "true" church)

But also what I think people miss is that the 144,000 are protected. They aren't just "saved" when it comes to salvation, they are protected to live through the tribulation period to be the ones that go into the millennium as a remnant. You have to have sheep at the end of the trib to even separate from. This parallels what happened in (Ezekiel 9:1–7) where God marked and physically protected people as part of the remnant. So it's not even a saved vs unsaved argument... People who aren't protected doesn't mean they aren't saved, it just means they'll die where the protected won't. So Calvinists are wrong if they use the 144,000 as an argument too.

 

[Brother Del]

I'm not a Calvinist, though they think much the same as I do. But what are these "weightier matters" you refer to?

Oh, and who is Calvin? I don't think of him as a Calvinist, lol. He just started the ball rolling.

Ha ha. Is Calvin a Calvinist? Almost certainly he himself would deny it.

 

[Apple Sky]

But also what I think people miss is that the 144,000 are protected.

I used to think that the 144,000 were the babies who King Herod had killed during the birth of Jesus but it can't be if what say is right that 'they will have protection from God during the tribulation.'

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, you comprehend wrong. Human decisions are subject to influences, though the mathematical expected outcome can still be normalized. The positive and negative influences include such as the guiding of the Holy Spirit (positive) and the temptation of the devil (negative). Free will isn't without influences, but free will still follows the mathematical rule to work with or without such influences. Or else it won't be called "free will" at all. To put it another way, free will is still free will when it is under influences, it still follows mathematical rule to function. Of course, God reserves the right to alter the outcome with manual intervention (if that's what you mean to say), it by no means says God needs (as a necessity) to alter each and every single bit of free will to deliever the outcome. He can just sit back to allow the rule function. It more or less resembles the miracles. God doesn't need to apply miracles (intervention) to maintain everything, everything can follow physical laws to function by itself though at the same time subject to the possibilities of God's intervention (such as parting the Red Sea).

Didn't I say it can be mathematically described? But even you said, "with normal distribution". That implies something about causation. the fact that the lines of causation are too vast and complicated for us to decipher doesn't mean that there actually is something we call "chance". It only means that we think that way.

You say, "Or else it won't be called "free will" at all". So what? The fact it is called "free will" doesn't make it free. I've heard it argued that since the dictionary defines "freewill" how it does, that it is therefore a fact! No, it only shows that that is what WE mean by it. And that only shows that we think of it as free. We use most words pretty loosely—"You are free to go"; "Buy two, get one free"; Freely give, freely receive"; "You are free to choose according to your inclinations"; I used to say there is such a thing as free will, by which I only meant that our choices are real, with real—even eternal—results. But people still took me wrong, so I avoid saying there is such a thing. If all you mean by free will is that people are free to do as they wish, that is fine with me. But if you say that free will means that they do things, uncaused to do so, then I disagree.

You say, "...it by no means says God needs (as a necessity) to alter each and every single bit of free will to deliever the outcome." I say he doesn't need to alter it at all. He USES it! Predestination/ determinism/ decree/ creating-ex-nihilo implies that what a person "freely" chooses to do, just like all other things that happen [down to the smallest motion of matter/force/thought], is caused to be what it is, to accomplish God's purposes. God needn't alter anything. WE are the ones who consider some things "natural" and other things "intervention", as though one takes more than the other for God to do. But the fact is, ALL is caused to be what it is by God. Existence itself is miracle, in that sense. You say, "He can just sit back to allow the rule function." Very fact itself is maintained by God. The difference is how WE look at it. God doesn't stop paying attention, nor does he pay more particular attention, to either one.

You say, "...everything can follow physical laws to function by itself...". Well, yes, physical laws are how WE see the usual. But there is no usual, normal, natural, apart from God's doing. When God "rested" on the 7th day of Creation, it doesn't mean he ceased 'exerting'* himself. It only means he ceased from creating at that point.

When you get time, take a good look at the "Attributes of God" —particularly Aseity, Simplicity and Immanence.

*("exerting" is said, there, for lack of a better word, and as human thinking needs it. It doesn't really describe how God does what he does. God doesn't get tired. For him, "act" is not "effort". He doesn't try to do; he simply does.)