3 Questions

EmSw said:

What have I created that isn't accurate?

Click to expand...

To begin with, there's your description of the meaning of Calvinism and of predestination. Then, who here IS a "Calvinist"-- if that matters. It appears to matter only to you; everyone else has been addressing the theological issues themselves.

You, on the other hand, do not claim to be a Calvinist, but you speak just like one.

Click to expand...

No, I don't. I disagree with Calvinism on many points of belief and practice, which is easily proven. It's only on predestination that there is anything close to convergence and I'm not in step with Calvin's particular view on that topic anyway.

EmSw said:

I have asked these questions on other threads, but didn't receive any answers. So, I started this thread to get other's ideas concerning these questions. Thanks.

1. According to Calvinistic thought, does predestination exist?

2. According to Calvinistic thought, did God predestine everything?

3. According to Calvinistic thought, does God's predestination change?

Click to expand...

Predestination is just a word that means to predetermine something. Theologians have turned into big theological construct. It's just a simple word.

EmSw said:

Patmos has given the Canons of Dort in another thread. Please read it so you may see what Calvinists actually believe. Predestination is the FIRST HEAD OF DOCTRINE for Calvinists.



Have you read and agree with the Canons of Dort concerning predestination?

Click to expand...

As I have said before, it's only on Election and Eternal Security that I sympathize with Calvinists. I disagree with them on about a dozen other issues of importance that mark them as "Calvinists." And I am not committed to Predestination anyway. Rather, I find the arguments in favor of it to be stronger than those in favor of Free Will.

Butch5 said:

Predestination is just a word that means to predetermine something. Theologians have turned into big theological construct. It's just a simple word.

Click to expand...

and "Trinity" means three of something, anything.

No, these words have specific meanings when used in Christian theology. Predestination refers to God choosing individual humans for salvation. It does not mean that he decided that the Cubs will win the World Series this year or that you're going to have the flu in a couple of months.

Albion said:

and "Trinity" means three of something, anything.

No, these words have specific meanings when used in Christian theology. Predestination refers to God choosing individual humans for salvation. It does not mean that he decided that the Cubs will win the World Series this year or that you're going to have the flu in a couple of months.

Click to expand...

That's what theologians would have you believe. However, Paul's readers weren't familiar with theologians. The word was simply an ordinary word in Paul's day and his readers would understand it as an ordinary word. It's theologians who have added the baggage to the word.

Butch5 said:

That's what theologians would have you believe.

Click to expand...

Of course. And physical scientists mean something specific when they refer to a "base," even though it can mean a spot on a baseball diamond if used in a different context.

Albion said:

Of course. And physical scientists mean something specific when they refer to a "base," even though it can mean a spot on a baseball diamond if used in a different context.

Click to expand...

Umm Yeah? Paul was writing to 1st century Greek speaking people. It doesn't matter what meaning theologians have given to the word, it's not what Paul meant. He used a normal everyday word that his readers would have been familiar with. He didn't expect them to import some theological concept that would be added hundreds of years later. That this happens is one of the reasons that there is so much confusion in Christianity. People define terms as they like and then impose that idea on the text of Scripture.

Butch5 said:

Umm Yeah? Paul was writing to 1st century Greek speaking people. It doesn't matter what meaning theologians have given to the word, it's not what Paul meant.

Click to expand...

Paul didn't mean anything by the term. He didn't use the term.

Albion said:

Paul didn't mean anything by the term. He didn't use the term.

Click to expand...

Paul didn't use this word?

ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς· (Rom. 8:29 BGT)

Albion said:

and "Trinity" means three of something, anything.

No, these words have specific meanings when used in Christian theology. Predestination refers to God choosing individual humans for salvation. It does not mean that he decided that the Cubs will win the World Series this year or that you're going to have the flu in a couple of months.

Click to expand...

NO, that is definitely not correct. Predestination does mean that God decided who will win and that before the foundations of teh world were ever laid. Read Calvin and also Augustine, the major experts on predestination. I could sent you quote after quote when Calvin for example, emphasizes that God predetermined absolutely everything, right down to the smallest detail.

Hoghead1 said:

NO, that is definitely not correct. Predestination does mean that God decided who will win and that before the foundations of teh world were ever laid.

Click to expand...

That's one version of predestination, true. But it's only one.

God does not have to predestine to be what something already is. Men are born sinners, God does not have to predestine them to be sinners. Adam and Eve bore children AFTER they sinned. As with all other living things, God created them to bear after their own kind. Sinners cannot produce sin-less children. No need for God to predestine sinner to be sinners, it's their natural state of being.

What God predestines is by design, actual conscious intent. He has a reason for what He predestines, whether we see it (or can see it) or not.

The problem here is that you are trying to cast too broad a net, and you are not listening to what others are telling you. If you want to know what Calvinists believe, ask Calvinists. Don't ask non-Calvinists, they don't know and they will just create a lot of noise trying to drown the Calvinists out.

nobdysfool said:

God does not have to predestine to be what something already is. Men are born sinners, God does not have to predestine them to be sinners. Adam and Eve bore children AFTER they sinned.

Click to expand...

I almost pressed the "like" button when I read that. Then I thought of posting a thumbs-up or hands clapping emoticon. Then I thought, "They'll never get the point--and don't want to hear the point--anyway."

If you want to know what Calvinists believe, ask Calvinists. Don't ask non-Calvinists, they don't know and they will just create a lot of noise trying to drown the Calvinists out.

Click to expand...

Exactly so. Despite a claim of some consensus on the three questions, few of the respondents actually DID answer them and most pointed out that the questions were invalid in one way or another. Of course, the writer of the OP could have done the obvious thing right up front if a poll of Calvinists was the real objective. By that I mean...post the questions on the REFORMED forum.

Albion said:

I almost pressed the "like" button when I read that. Then I thought of posting a thumbs-up or hands clapping emoticon. Then I thought, "They'll never get the point--and don't want to hear the point--anyway."

Click to expand...

But, you not only heard it, you GOT it. I'll accept a virtual hand clap, thumbs-up any day! The fact is, that point right there seriously undercuts his premise.

Exactly so. Despite a claim of some consensus on the three questions, few of the respondents actually DID answer them and most pointed out that the questions were invalid in one way or another. Of course, the writer of the OP could have done the obvious thing right up front if a poll of Calvinists was the real objective. By that I mean...post the questions on the REFORMED forum.

Click to expand...

Hence my remark that he is attempting to cast too broad a net.

nobdysfool said:

Hence my remark that he is attempting to cast too broad a net.

Click to expand...

I remember you saying that, but I wonder if it's just this or, if it's that he has a certain outcome in mind and is determined to make it come true somehow or other. If that's the case, doing the obvious thing and asking Calvinists (!) (i.e. going on the Reformed forum with the questions) would be out of the question.

Albion said:

I remember you saying that, but I wonder if it's just this or, if it's that he has a certain outcome in mind and is determined to make it come true somehow or other. If that's the case, doing the obvious thing and asking Calvinists (!) (i.e. going on the Reformed forum with the questions) would be out of the question.

Click to expand...

I think you're hit the nail squarely on the head. He definitely has a certain outcome in mind, and he will stop at nothing to try to make it come out that way. He wants his already-decided-on out come to prevail, and he'll keep flogging this horse, no matter what.

I think we all know what is going on when one keeps doing the same thing, over and over again, each time expecting a different result....

EmSw said:

I have asked a Reformed member of this forum a separate question a number of times and didn't get an answer; he was very quiet about giving an answer. I don't have a problem with his silence, but wondered why he didn't want to answer.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you are talking about me. For that reason I'll go ahead and answer you now since I'm leaving the forum - if I can resist staying.

Since you're wondering - I'll tell you why I didn't answer the question before.

The answer is threefold.

1. You are a trouble maker IMO and casting pearls before swine, as it were, is not a wise thing to do. I have done it in the past with you and I was trying hard to have learned my lesson.

2. You were making such a fool of yourself jumping up and down like a little child looking for attention. I was enjoying the spectacle of no one engaging you post after post and your rather childish reaction to that fact.

3. The question itself is silly in light of where you were obviously going with it. You are quite transparent sometimes.

You often say and ask really silly things without thinking them through first as well and I can hardly wait to see what's going to be next.

EmSw said:

Here is the question I asked - Did God predestine you to be a lost sinner?

Click to expand...

In light of my answer to one of your other questions concerning God's predestination of all things --- the obvious answer coming from me is a firm YES.

EmSw said:

Since everyone is/was a lost sinner, and Calvinist believe predestination exists, is it not correct to think God predestined everyone to be a lost sinner? Also, wouldn't this be the case since the belief exists that God predestined everything?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course it would - as anyone can see.

You think that you are baiting a trap for Calvinists. But what you are really doing is fixing to say some more really silly things which will lack, as usual, any semblance of logic.

EmSw said:

Maybe some of you can see the problem here if we include number three above. Since the consensus view is that God's predestination does not change, how does anyone claim they were predestined to salvation, AFTER BEING PREDESTINED TO BE A LOST SINNER?

Click to expand...

You put this in caps as if you were dropping some kind of profound logical bombshell. You are not.

Every thinking person can see where you go wrong here.

"Predestination" comes from before the foundation of the world. God doesn't predestine salvation from sin after He predestines that sin. He does it at the same "time" (if indeed that concept even applies) namely before the world began.

EmSw said:

Since I am not assuming anything here, after asking their thoughts on the three questions, I believe it is safe to say God's predestination does change. If not, then we have a boat-load of predestined lost sinners who falsely claim to be saved.

If, God's predestination can be changed, per the example above, we can safely say no predestination, to election, to salvation, to justification, and to glorification, is exempt from change also.

I would like to hear some feedback on this, WITHOUT ANY CRITICISM OF ANY PERSON. Please, let's be civil and discuss the topic only. Thanks.

Click to expand...

It's safe to say no such thing.

Sorry I haven't resisted the temptation to be critical of you. It's just that you give a person so much to work with.

God predestined that I have a few more hairs on my head at 30 than at 70. I may have been predestined to have one hundred thousand at 70 whereas I was predestined to have two hundred thousand at 30.

I may have been predestined to be slim at 20 and I may have been predestined to be a bit more pudgy at 70.

I may have been predestined to be lost at 13 years old and saved at 30.

So what?

Where does this undermine the belief that God predestined all things that happen in His creation to happen just as they happen?

I suppose you believe that because God predestined that Christ be dead on Saturday morning He couldn't also have predestined that Christ be alive on Sunday morning. Do you really believe such things?

Are you really unable to grasp what everyone else can see?

Undoubtedly you were predestined to not be given wisdom before today. But that doesn't mean that you were not also predestined to have insight tomorrow.

Hence - we keep trying to get through to you and will only stop when hitting our head against a wall starts to give us a headache. I have reached that point with you and a few other armchair theologians here in the forum.

That's why I'm finally leaving for good if I can resist coming back for more.

If I leave - I was predestined to leave.

But that doesn't mean that you will not be reached at sometime in the future by another preacher of the gospel - if indeed it was predestined to happen that way.

My prayer for you is that you will rest in the finished work of Christ at Calvary as your only hope of salvation sometime before you die.

From my many conversations with you I have clearly seen that you have not yet done so.

On various kinds of Election, Calvinist R C Sproul writes:

"....Here Brunner argues passionately, though not coherently, for “single” predestination. There is a decree of election, but not of reprobation. Predestination has only one side—election. In this context, double predestination is “avoided” (or evaded) by the dialectical method.

The dialectical method which sidesteps logical consistency has had a pervasive influence on contemporary discussions of double predestination. A growing antipathy to logic in theology is manifesting itself widely. Even G. C. Berkouwer seems allergic to the notion that logic should play a role in developing our understanding of election...."

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

For once, after viewing this short thread, I find myself agreeing with a Calvinist, although I am aware not many post modern Calvinists agree with Sproul, Canons of Dort or Westminster Confessions. Amusingly, Sproul continues with his own dialectic on "equal ultimacy"!

In this short thread it is stunning to see the dialectical method, denying that 'predestination' is not the rock on which Calvinism stands (or falls). May I suggest readers refer to a well known Calvinist who is not afraid to say it like it is:-

Predestination: the Heart of the Gospelby Rev. Herman Hoeksema
1. Our Approach to the Doctrine of Predestination
Rev. Herman Hoeksema
We believe, as Reformed churches, and emphatically, as Protestant Reformed Churches, in the truth of sovereign predestination, which, briefly, means to us that God sovereignly determines the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate.

http://www.reformedspokane.org/Doctrine_pages/Calvinism & Sovereign Grace/Five Points/Predestination Heart of Gospel/Predestination_Heart_of_Gospel.html