3 Questions

[EmSw]

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?

 

[OzSpen]

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?

Are you a Calvinist who is trying to be a stirrer with these questions?

 

[EmSw]

Are you a Calvinist who is trying to be a stirrer with these questions?

I am definitely not a Calvinist. What do you mean by 'stirrer'? Aren't questions supposed to 'stir' people to answer? What do you say to these questions?

 

[OzSpen]

I am definitely not a Calvinist. What do you mean by 'stirrer'? Aren't questions supposed to 'stir' people to answer? What do you say to these questions?

Using Google will quickly tell you the meaning of a 'stirrer'. I asked, 'What's a stirrer" and found this answer: Cambridge Dictionaries online gave this meaning, 'a person who intentionally causes trouble between other people: He's such a stirrer!' (s v stirrer).

Are you not familiar with this kind of language? It's a common part of Aussie lingo.

I would have thought that the answer to your three questions would be yes, yes, and yes, but some would waiver on #3, depending on your definition of change. Wouldn't a Calvinist understand that God predestined for this change to happen?

Oz

 

[EmSw]

Using Google will quickly tell you the meaning of a 'stirrer'. I asked, 'What's a stirrer" and found this answer: Cambridge Dictionaries online gave this meaning, 'a person who intentionally causes trouble between other people: He's such a stirrer!' (s v stirrer).

Are you not familiar with this kind of language? It's a common part of Aussie lingo.

I would have thought that the answer to your three questions would be yes, yes, and yes, but some would waiver on #3, depending on your definition of change. Wouldn't a Calvinist understand that God predestined for this change to happen?



Oz

I am not an Aussie, and have never heard of a stirrer, except maybe for the small plastic stir stick which stirs creamer in coffee.

Thank you for your answers. I don't know if a Calvinist understands that God predestination changes. I know of one who said His predestination does not change. This is why I am asking the question. I've heard many times I should ask if I don't know what they believe, so I am waiting for their personal answer.

How do you figure I am causing trouble by asking questions? Do you not ask questions?

 

[OzSpen]

I am not an Aussie, and have never heard of a stirrer, except maybe for the small plastic stir stick which stirs creamer in coffee.

Thank you for your answers. I don't know if a Calvinist understands that God predestination changes. I know of one who said His predestination does not change. This is why I am asking the question. I've heard many times I should ask if I don't know what they believe, so I am waiting for their personal answer.

How do you figure I am causing trouble by asking questions? Do you not ask questions?

The American Merriam-Webster provides the definition of 'stir' and states that 'stirrer' is the noun from stir. See 'stir' (Merriam-Webster. S v stir). I provided you with a British definition of 'stirrer' in the Cambridge Dictionary online. I suspect that it is not a word that you hear very often in your American culture. However, please be assured that 'stirrer' is not a word restricted to the wonderful Aussie land Down Under.

How do I sense you could be accused of being a stirrer? I've been around this forum for almost 11 years as a convinced Reformed Arminian and have asked a few questions to make some Calvinists uncomfortable. That's the only reason for my observation.

However, I hope you get answers to your questions from Calvinists. I wish you well.

Oz

 

[EmSw]

The American Merriam-Webster provides the definition of 'stir' and states that 'stirrer' is the noun from stir. See 'stir' (Merriam-Webster. S v stir). I provided you with a British definition of 'stirrer' in the Cambridge Dictionary online. I suspect that it is not a word that you hear very often in your American culture. However, please be assured that 'stirrer' is not a word restricted to the wonderful Aussie land Down Under.

How do I sense you could be accused of being a stirrer? I've been around this forum for almost 11 years as a convinced Reformed Arminian and have asked a few questions to make some Calvinists uncomfortable. That's the only reason for my observation.

However, I hope you get answers to your questions from Calvinists. I wish you well.

Oz

Why would answering my three questions make them feel uncomfortable, unless they have something to hide or fear, or know their answers would somehow cast a shadow on their beliefs?

Matthew 21
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, if we shall say, from heaven; he will say unto us, why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

 

[OzSpen]

Why would answering my three questions make them feel uncomfortable, unless they have something to hide or fear, or know their answers would somehow cast a shadow on their beliefs?

Matthew 21
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, if we shall say, from heaven; he will say unto us, why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

I've been around here a wee bit longer than you and I've seen the many reactions when challenged.

I don't believe I've used the language of 'make them feel uncomfortable'.

Let's wait and see if any take up your challenge. You've had one so far, but without a response to your 3 questions.

Oz

 

[bling]

It seems a yes answer to both question 2 and 3 would not be possible?

Maybe I do not understand “predestination” and how it relates to “Foreordained”?

 

[nobdysfool]

Another term often used by the British, is "He's a mixer, that one".

I would agree that EmSw is a "mixer". He's also a contrarian. But, that's not the point here.

As for these three questions, they have been asked in such a way in the past that he was leading to something, and these questions were the bait. A lot of people are smart enough to not play that game, as that is not how theology and theological questions should be discussed.

1. According to Calvinistic thought, does predestination exist?

What do you mean by "exist"? Predestination is not a thing. Therefore the question is meaningless.

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

In a word, yes.

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

Given the definition of predestination, with the implied certainty of that predestination, the answer would have to be no. If something assumed to have been predestined did not happen, it could not have been predestined to happen as it was assumed. That would imply that what actually happened was what was predestined to happen.

 

[EmSw]

Another term often used by the British, is "He's a mixer, that one".

I would agree that EmSw is a "mixer". He's also a contrarian. But, that's not the point here.

As for these three questions, they have been asked in such a way in the past that he was leading to something, and these questions were the bait. A lot of people are smart enough to not play that game, as that is not how theology and theological questions should be discussed.

Here in Texas, a mixer is used to mix or blend ingredients in preparing food, or, we say a mixer is a machine which mixes concrete before pouring.

Jesus, Peter, and Paul were contrarians.

What do you mean by "exist"? Predestination is not a thing. Therefore the question is meaningless.

I didn't think exist was a problem for most people. Here is what dictionary.com says - to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:

A noun, which predestination is, is either a person, place, or thing. Contrary to your thought, it is a thing; it is not a person nor place. Therefore, the question has meaning.

In a word, yes.

Thank you for a straight answer.

Given the definition of predestination, with the implied certainty of that predestination, the answer would have to be no. If something assumed to have been predestined did not happen, it could not have been predestined to happen as it was assumed. That would imply that what actually happened was what was predestined to happen.

Thank you. You and Marvin agree on this.

 

[nobdysfool]

I didn't think exist was a problem for most people. Here is what dictionary.com says - to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur:

A noun, which predestination is, is either a person, place, or thing. Contrary to your thought, it is a thing; it is not a person nor place. Therefore, the question has meaning.

Then certainly you can provide a photo of what a predestination looks like, since you claim it is a "thing". Is it tall, short, thin, or fat? What color is it? How long does it last?

The way the question is asked, It is clear that the goal here is to eliminate predestination from God's toolbox, so to speak. Yet it is a valid, biblical concept, attributed to God, and cannot be so eliminated.

Why don't you try telling us what predestination IS, in your understanding.

 

[EmSw]

Then certainly you can provide a photo of what a predestination looks like, since you claim it is a "thing". Is it tall, short, thin, or fat? What color is it? How long does it last?

Is it not a noun? Since you claim it exists, please describe it.

The way the question is asked, It is clear that the goal here is to eliminate predestination from God's toolbox, so to speak. Yet it is a valid, biblical concept, attributed to God, and cannot be so eliminated.

I have no power to eliminate anything. You give me too much credit.

I am wondering where the Biblical concept is located. No one so far has found a passage that says God predestines everything.

Why don't you try telling us what predestination IS, in your understanding.

It is a concept conceived by man to confirm his doctrine. Man so badly wants God to conform to man's ideas of what God is, they will blindly believe what they think are mysteries.

 

[Patmos]

I am wondering where the Biblical concept is located. No one so far has found a passage that says God predestines everything.

Calvinist Twin1954 said on my thread in GT that God does NOT predestine anything, only people. God foreordains things!

 

[nobdysfool]

Is it not a noun? Since you claim it exists, please describe it.

I did not claim it exists within the narrow confines of your own post. YOU are the one who said it was a thing. I merely asked you for some empirical proof, and you try to turn it around.

I have no power to eliminate anything. You give me too much credit.

it doesn't seem to prevent you from trying...

I am wondering where the Biblical concept is located. No one so far has found a passage that says God predestines everything.

Unlike your favorite proof texts, it is not located in any one verse. It is mentioned several times by name, but the rest is found by careful study and thought, something which is not often engaged in by non-Calvinists, apparently.

It is a concept conceived by man to confirm his doctrine. Man so badly wants God to conform to man's ideas of what God is, they will blindly believe what they think are mysteries.

That is not a definition, that is a hostile commentary. Try again.

 

[ScottA]

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?

Why "According to Calvinistic thought?"

 

[Patmos]

I am wondering if this thread is predestined to be another mulberry bush.

 

[EmSw]

Why "According to Calvinistic thought?"

Do Calvinists not think this?

 

[EmSw]

I did not claim it exists within the narrow confines of your own post. YOU are the one who said it was a thing. I merely asked you for some empirical proof, and you try to turn it around.

By who's narrow confines do you claim it exists?

I have no proof at all it exists. Do you?

it doesn't seem to prevent you from trying...

How about that, I get to choose as I wish and do things on my own.

Unlike your favorite proof texts, it is not located in any one verse. It is mentioned several times by name, but the rest is found by careful study and thought, something which is not often engaged in by non-Calvinists, apparently.

If it's mentioned several times, then you surely have no problem providing these verses.

That is not a definition, that is a hostile commentary. Try again.

Hostile? Why do you always play the victim?

 

[nobdysfool]

By who's narrow confines do you claim it exists?

I never claimed that predestination exists as a "thing". That was YOUR doing.

I have no proof at all it exists. Do you?

Obviously you think it does, or you wouldn't waste so much time trying to disprove it.

How about that, I get to choose as I wish and do things on my own.

No one ever said you couldn't. But you must also own the results of those choices.

If it's mentioned several times, then you surely have no problem providing these verses.

I could provide them, but there is the principle of pearls to consider

Hostile? Why do you always play the victim?

Not playing a victim, making a cogent observation. Patmos' little cartoon is more of the same. You have no interest in actually discussing the subject, you just want to play games, and have a laugh at our expense.

The laugh will be upon you at the judgment.

If this is the way things are going to go, I have nothing further to say to you.