Calvinist Doctrine: Biblically Warranted?

[dcyates]

How do Calvinists interpret texts like 2 Kings 20.1-6, Jeremiah 3.6-7, and 18.7-10 (just for a few examples) in light of their "classical" position regarding God's perfect and complete foreknowledge?

 

[twin1954]

How do Calvinists interpret texts like 2 Kings 20.1-6, Jeremiah 3.6-7, and 18.7-10 (just for a few examples) in light of their "classical" position regarding God's perfect and complete foreknowledge?

What do you think the "classical" position regarding foreknowledge is? Do you suppose that God actually reacts to men? If He does then He changes and cannot be trusted.

 

[dcyates]

What do you think the "classical" position regarding foreknowledge is? Do you suppose that God actually reacts to men? If He does then He changes and cannot be trusted.

Don't those texts strongly suggest that God does indeed react to men? It sure looks like that to me. And I don't understand how you infer untrustworthiness to God just because he changes. Of course he changes; Scripture testifies to it. When it speaks of God being angry, is he always angry? When it speaks of God feeling joy, is he always rejoicing?

Finally, I understand the "classical" position concerning God's foreknowledge to be that it is both perfect and complete, consisting of all future events.

 

[Eddie L]

If God is to interact with us, He has to condescend to us in order for us to make sense of His interaction. He is not one of us, in that He thinks of one thing at a time, or exists in one place at a time, or comprehends matters from some start to some finish.

We process things according to the brain we've been designed to think with. We can't imagine that our thought process and God's is anything alike. YET, He interacts with us, and when He does, He has do so in a way that we can comprehend.

The Bible speaks to us on multiple levels. Sometimes it explains the background. It addresses some of God's complexity, or reveals something of His working behind the scenes. But if God is going to communicate with us and fulfill some purpose with this creation, there are times that the Bible communicates God's working to us in more "human-like" terms.

It is the same way when we talk to infants or toddlers. We may know where we're going, but in order for our youngsters to learn, we address them with one step at a time.

We need to keep that in mind when we read passages that suggest that God changes or that He repents. Even in the book of 1 Samuel, when God expresses that He repents that He made Saul King, we are reminded a few verses later that "for he is not a man, that he should repent". I think this is some pretty careful wording to make sure that we don't get it in our heads that we can understand God or that He is along for the ride to change with us.

Practically, that news was very bad for Saul. God had decreed Him king and was now decreeing him NOT king. Theologically, we can conclude that God sovereignly decreed that He would express regret over appointing Saul. He ordained His own interaction with creation.

That in no way suggests that God learns, changes, or alters course. It means that He ordained as Sovereign that in His interaction with man that He would change course.

If we can't fully wrap our minds around that, why would we be surprised? Who can fathom the mind of God? He is not contained by a brain like ours, so how can His thinking resemble ours? And since we are contained in our brains, how could we fathom anyone who isn't?

 

[dcyates]

If God is to interact with us, He has to condescend to us in order for us to make sense of His interaction. He is not one of us, in that He thinks of one thing at a time, or exists in one place at a time, or comprehends matters from some start to some finish.

We process things according to the brain we've been designed to think with. We can't imagine that our thought process and God's is anything alike. YET, He interacts with us, and when He does, He has do so in a way that we can comprehend.

The Bible speaks to us on multiple levels. Sometimes it explains the background. It addresses some of God's complexity, or reveals something of His working behind the scenes. But if God is going to communicate with us and fulfill some purpose with this creation, there are times that the Bible communicates God's working to us in more "human-like" terms.

It is the same way when we talk to infants or toddlers. We may know where we're going, but in order for our youngsters to learn, we address them with one step at a time.

We need to keep that in mind when we read passages that suggest that God changes or that He repents. Even in the book of 1 Samuel, when God expresses that He repents that He made Saul King, we are reminded a few verses later that "for he is not a man, that he should repent". I think this is some pretty careful wording to make sure that we don't get it in our heads that we can understand God or that He is along for the ride to change with us.

Practically, that news was very bad for Saul. God had decreed Him king and was now decreeing him NOT king. Theologically, we can conclude that God sovereignly decreed that He would express regret over appointing Saul. He ordained His own interaction with creation.

That in no way suggests that God learns, changes, or alters course. It means that He ordained as Sovereign that in His interaction with man that He would change course.

If we can't fully wrap our minds around that, why would we be surprised? Who can fathom the mind of God? He is not contained by a brain like ours, so how can His thinking resemble ours? And since we are contained in our brains, how could we fathom anyone who isn't?

Re: God not being a man, "that he should change his mind" (1 Sam 15.29).

All your points are well-taken, Eddie L. But where you say:

I think this is some pretty careful wording to make sure that we don't get it in our heads that we can understand God or that He is along for the ride to change with us.

I think it's safe to say that this sentence is pretty much the turning point in your post where you and I would go from being in general agreement with each other to where we differ. In 1 Sam 15, we have two occasions where we're told that God regretted having chosen Saul as king of Israel (vv. 11, 35), and one in the middle of the other two where we're told that God doesn't change his mind (v. 29). Now, I'm not saying that we should employ some form of democratic principles to our interpretation of the Bible, and that since it's effectively "two-to-one" here that the "ayes" have it. But, I will say I find it interesting that in the face of this, Calvinists nonetheless contend that we should somehow force the otherwise plain meaning of the two instances so that they conform with the perceived intention of the one.
As always, context determines meaning, so when we ask ourselves, "What's going on here?" we see that in response to God's declaration that he's taking the crown from Saul, we have two reactions from the two main characters in the story: Samuel is distressed and cries out to God all night; and Saul admits that he's sinned, begs forgiveness, and grasps Samuel's cloak as the prophet turns to leave to the point where he tears it.
And what is God's reaction to these pleadings? He essentially says, "Look, Saul -- and Samuel, you may as well listen up, too -- I've made my decision here and, whereas things like praying all night and begging for forgiveness may have swayed most men, I'm not like most men, and I'm not changing my mind on this."

Given the overall context of the passage itself, doesn't that sound like a more plausible interpretation of it than saying, "Here we should read the text as being figurative. Now we should take it literally. And here we should understand it figuratively again"?

 

[student ad x]

Re: God not being a man, "that he should change his mind" (1 Sam 15.29).

All your points are well-taken, Eddie L. But where you say:

I think it's safe to say that this sentence is pretty much the turning point in your post where you and I would go from being in general agreement with each other to where we differ. In 1 Sam 15, we have two occasions where we're told that God regretted having chosen Saul as king of Israel (vv. 11, 35), and one in the middle of the other two where we're told that God doesn't change his mind (v. 29). Now, I'm not saying that we should employ some form of democratic principles to our interpretation of the Bible, and that since it's effectively "two-to-one" here that the "ayes" have it. But, I will say I find it interesting that in the face of this, Calvinists nonetheless contend that we should somehow force the otherwise plain meaning of the two instances so that they conform with the perceived intention of the one.
As always, context determines meaning, so when we ask ourselves, "What's going on here?" we see that in response to God's declaration that he's taking the crown from Saul, we have two reactions from the two main characters in the story: Samuel is distressed and cries out to God all night; and Saul admits that he's sinned, begs forgiveness, and grasps Samuel's cloak as the prophet turns to leave to the point where he tears it.
And what is God's reaction to these pleadings? He essentially says, "Look, Saul -- and Samuel, you may as well listen up, too -- I've made my decision here and, whereas things like praying all night and begging for forgiveness may have swayed most men, I'm not like most men, and I'm not changing my mind on this."

Given the overall context of the passage itself, doesn't that sound like a more plausible interpretation of it than saying, "Here we should read the text as being figurative. Now we should take it literally. And here we should understand it figuratively again"?

dyc, what are you suggesting? Jumbling up a few things and neatly letting God be like men? Far be it for me to suggest Greek, but you should read Greek, Old Testament & New, then know yourself & God.

 

[dcyates]

dyc, what are you suggesting? Jumbling up a few things and neatly letting God be like men? Far be it for me to suggest Greek, but you should read Greek, Old Testament & New, then know yourself & God.

I'm not saying God is like men. But I'm saying he isn't like the Platonic god, either. He's the God of the Bible, not the god of Platonic thought.

(Btw, I read both Hebrew and Greek.)

 

[student ad x]

I'm not saying God is like men. But I'm saying he isn't like the Platonic god, either. He's the God of the Bible, not the god of Platonic thought.

(Btw, I read both Hebrew and Greek.)

Good. Why are you here?

 

[dcyates]

Good. Why are you here?

To serve God and enjoy him forever.

 

[student ad x]

To serve God and enjoy him forever.

Kinda sounds like a catechism.

 

[dcyates]

Kinda sounds like a catechism.

Oh really? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Eddie L]

I answered your OP, dycates. You don't like the answer, maybe, but you've had one.

 

[dcyates]

I answered your OP, dycates. You don't like the answer, maybe, but you've had one.

Eddie, the question is:
"How do Calvinists interpret texts like 2 Kings 20.1-6, Jeremiah 3.6-7, and 18.7-10 (just for a few examples) in light of their 'classical' position regarding God's perfect and complete foreknowledge?"

I don't know how you can think you've answered the question when, not only did you NOT interpret either of these texts in light of your Calvinist theology, but you didn't even mention them!

 

[Eddie L]

Eddie, the question is:
"How do Calvinists interpret texts like 2 Kings 20.1-6, Jeremiah 3.6-7, and 18.7-10 (just for a few examples) in light of their 'classical' position regarding God's perfect and complete foreknowledge?"

I don't know how you can think you've answered the question when, not only did you NOT interpret either of these texts in light of your Calvinist theology, but you didn't even mention them!

I don't need to mention them, because from the perspective of God interacting with creation we take them as they are written. However, understanding that God ordains His own interaction with creation, though, and understanding that He has to condescend to interact with us, we don't infer from those passages that God does not know the future.

That's your answer, and it is the only one there is, and you're beef isn't with Calvinists, but every orthodox Christian.

I'm not interested in discussion OT with you, but you got your answer.

 

[Look Up]

*staff edit*

I am traveling and happened upon your post. My circumstances at present hinder my ability to respond, and I regret that your OP has been little addressed, though I think some response has been offered.

However, your comment above suggests your OP question is disingenuous. Or at least it suggests no answer I might give would be taken as evidence that a calvinist answer is either possible or intellectually viable.

Of course your OP question and its kind has been around a long time and is discussed in various systematic theology volumes and commentaries written from a calvinist perspective, so answers are available elsewhere if you become truly interested.

And the answer, I think, lies in systematic theology--that is here in a harmonization of a wide spectrum of Scripture, where everybody has a harmonization model of one sort or another. I am otherwise not convinced further discussion at present could be profitable.

 

[dcyates]

I don't need to mention them, because from the perspective of God interacting with creation we take them as they are written.

No, that's just it, Eddie, you don't read the text as it's written. Rather, you read it through your Calvinist lenses. (No, scratch that. They're not just Calvinist glasses, they're swimming goggles, which you're wearing underneath your tulip-covered swimming cap, and are on so tight, it will only be with great effort that you'll be able to rip them off so as to see Scripture for what it really says.)

However, understanding that God ordains His own interaction with creation, though, and understanding that He has to condescend to interact with us, we don't infer from those passages that God does not know the future.

Why not? Especially when that's exactly what the text indicates over and over again. Of course God ordains his own interaction with creation. (Who ELSE is going to "ordain" his interaction with creation?!?). No one is arguing against that. But that said, nowhere does the Bible say that God ordains OUR interaction with his creation.

That's your answer, and it is the only one there is, and you're beef isn't with Calvinists, but every orthodox Christian.

Strictly speaking, my argument isn't even with Calvinists but with CalvinISM. And I don't care if every single person on earth is a rigidly cast in stone, full five-point, super-duper, rama-lama-ding-dong, hyper-Calvinist and I'm completely all by myself here, if the Bible doesn't warrant Calvinist doctrine, then it simply doesn't warrant Calvinist doctrine -- and therefore I'm against it.

I'm not interested in discussion OT with you, but you got your answer.

If I got anything of an answer, we'd be discussing that right now. But I didn't. Not only have I not received an answer here -- in a forum called "Ask a Calvinist" in the Semper Reformanda room!!! -- but I've asked this question in two other threads as well, probably totalling over a dozen times, and all I got was one, single half-hearted effort that dealt with only one of the Bible texts I cited, but which really only amounted to a parroting of Calvinist doctrine IN SPITE of the clear meaning of the text. As I've said elsewhere, I can only conclude I'm not getting an answer because Calvinists simply CANNOT answer the question. (Not without at the same time essentially denying their Calvinism anyway.)

Btw, what's the matter with the OT? Is it not part of inspired Scripture?

 

[Hammster]

What the OP has done is akin to a Oneness person posting

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

And asking a Trinitarian to exegete it. And when the Trinitarian gives Scriptural support for the Trinity from other places in Scripture, the Oneness person says that the Trinitarian cannot support their view because of this one text.

Eddie gets the prize.

 

[dcyates]

What the OP has done is akin to a Oneness person posting

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

And asking a Trinitarian to exegete it. And when the Trinitarian gives Scriptural support for the Trinity from other places in Scripture, the Oneness person says that the Trinitarian cannot support their view because of this one text.

Eddie gets the prize.

The difference here is that I'm not the one who's discounting the evidence of a mountain of texts for the sake of the apparent meaning of a few. Calvinism, on the other hand, takes a few instances (out of context) where it appears to indicate that God is immutable and that his foreknowledge of all future events is perfect and complete (à la Plato) and then demands that the rest of the Bible be interpreted through that Calvinist prism.
The one and only time that anybody here brought up any text from Scripture (Eddie L and 1 Sam 15), I dealt with it head on. Now will somebody PLEASE answer the question?!?!

Tell you what, Hammster, answer the question. (And do I have to add that you will only have answered it by actually addressing the three texts to which I refer in the OP? To be on the safe side, let me add that you will have answered the question only if you actually address the three texts to which I refer in the OP. Okay?) And then, after you have, you can hit me with your best three Bible texts that you think support a Calvinist understanding of God, and ask me the same question. I promise you -- let me repeat, I PROMISE YOU -- I will answer it and will do so by ACTUALLY addressing the texts you cite.

In fact, this challenge applies to every Calvinist here. But the only stipulation is that you first have to answer my question, then I'm happy to answer yours.

This way, perhaps we'll allow the truth of the Bible to "get the prize." (Sorry, Eddie, but don't unlock your trophy case just yet.)

 

[dcyates]

I am traveling and happened upon your post. My circumstances at present hinder my ability to respond, and I regret that your OP has been little addressed, though I think some response has been offered.

However, your comment above suggests your OP question is disingenuous. Or at least it suggests no answer I might give would be taken as evidence that a calvinist answer is either possible or intellectually viable.

No, no, by all means, have a crack at it, LU. I have dedicated my entire adult life to the study of Scripture; I desperately want my beliefs to be as accurately informed by the Bible as is humanly possible. If I'm wrong here, I genuinely and sincerely want to know it. Go ahead. Correct me. But you have to do so through a proper interpretation of Scripture.

Of course your OP question and its kind has been around a long time...

Really? If that's so, then I imagine it would be a relatively simple matter to answer my question. Have at 'er, my friend.

...and is discussed in various systematic theology volumes and commentaries written from a calvinist perspective, so answers are available elsewhere if you become truly interested.

No, LU, I told Patrick earlier that I didn't want to be directed elsewhere. I want YOU to answer the question. And, naturally, if you want to do so by referring to any (or all!) of these "various systematic theology volumes and commentaries written from a calvinist perspective" that you're talking about, then be my guest. But please, YOU have to provide the quotes and citations. Simply telling me to read Norman Geisler or Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology books -- all 1664 and 1291 pgs respectively -- or all 22 vols of Calvin's Commentaries just doesn't help me.

And the answer, I think, lies in systematic theology--that is here in a harmonization of a wide spectrum of Scripture, where everybody has a harmonization model of one sort or another. I am otherwise not convinced further discussion at present could be profitable.

Wow! That was fast! The usual pattern so far has been that a Calvinist will spend at least a few posts evading and otherwise avoiding the question before they say something like "any further discussion will not be profitable." Here you BEGIN with a response like that!
Don't run away so soon, LU. At least stick around for the fun of seeing me eviscerated by all your brilliant fellow Calvinists that I've been promised will show up eventually. Right, Hammster?

(Btw, systematic theology blows chunks! They always end up employing categories not found anywhere in Scripture. Everything is all neat and tidy and wrapped up in a pretty pink box. No, thank you. The Bible is literature and employs brilliantly structured narrative; it's anything BUT a "systematic" theology.)

 

[drstevej]

Don't those texts strongly suggest that God does indeed react to men? It sure looks like that to me. And I don't understand how you infer untrustworthiness to God just because he changes. Of course he changes; Scripture testifies to it. When it speaks of God being angry, is he always angry? When it speaks of God feeling joy, is he always rejoicing?

Finally, I understand the "classical" position concerning God's foreknowledge to be that it is both perfect and complete, consisting of all future events.

James 1:11 says... For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed.

Does the sun actually rise ??? Or does it appear to rise from the human view point?

Ponder: How might this case help explain your issues?