Do calvinists believe that God wills them to sin?

[roman2819]

(I add couple of paragraphs at the end to my posting 30 mins ago)

Basically you look at Ephesians 1:5-11, analyse predestination in the way you think, and in doing so, you IGNORE the next 50 verses (Eph 1:12 - 3:20). Paul did NOT explain predestination in the way you did, so it is not valid for you to claim that he is thinking the same as you.

Eph 1:5-11, Paul said "He chose us, predestined us, ... you were included" ... And soon, he said, "you who are Gentiles by birth" [Eph 2:11].
- It is abundantly clear that "You" did not mean individuals, "You" means Gentiles.
- In these 70 verses (Eph 1,2,3), Paul was explaining how God offer redemption to BOTH Jews and Gentiles. The word BOTH appear 3 times. He also elaborated a great deal about inheritance and Holy Spirit to make it known that Gentiles are receiving the same things from God, things which are as good and equal to Jews.

If Paul was writing about individual predestination in 1:4-11 (as you claimed), why would he changed subjects immediately to Gentiles and Jews become one united people under God (1:12-3:20)?
We can trust that Paul was more organized, that he explain stuff consistently. It is just like the way people write letters or reports -- a rational person would not change subjects instantly in adhoc manner.

Additional paragraphs I just add:

You were saying there are many things we do not understand about how God works and we should not be limited in our interpretation. That is true: Even the Scripture does NOT tell us everything, which is what I said in my book "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Will" (2016)". However, not knowing everything certainly does not mean we start adding new stuff according to our analysis. Regarding predestination, the Scripture NEVER explain individual predestination in any substantial manner, not in the least at all. Some people quoted here and there, which are NOT enough to add up to individual predestination. If God chose who to save, the Scripture would have said more about it. Since the Scripture doesn't say, then we should NOT (mis)interpret verses here and there.

I guess my question is :Why do you see Ephesians 1:13-3:20 seperately from Eph 1:13-3:20, where Paul explained elaborately on what God had predestined for both Gentiles and Jews?

In fact, in Ephesians 1,2,3, Paul tried to unravel or explain the "mystery of God's will" [Eph 3:3] regarding redemption, specifically. He was not trying to explain everything about God's will, but He explained His will substantially with regard to predestination. Unknown to everyone (previous generation of Jews or Gentiles), the hidden mystery was God had already pre-planned or predestine to offer redemption to the Gentiles too. There is enough explanation in these 70 verses to explain that from the very beginning (even before the foundation of the earth) God foreknew that He would offer redemtption to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles -- this is what predestination mean in context. It is NOT whether God knows who will choose to believe or reject. Although He knew in advance, but this is NOT what predestination mean in context. And of course, He does NOT choose who will believe.

 

[roman2819]

The Apostle Paul, being familiar with the scriptures and the words of Jesus (as we should be) was thinking of predestination in the way I explained it.

He understood the attributes of God, including such things as omniscience, omnipresence, and His sovereignty. He also understood the contingent nature of our choices in juxtaposition with those attributes and God’s sovereign actions.

I interpret predestination and omniscience the way the scriptures present it.

The fact that a particular example of God’s predestination of a thing is pointed to in a particular scripture does not in any way say that predestination is limited to only that example or any other examples.

I see things the way the scriptures lead me to see them. Scripture interprets scripture.

The contingent nature of everything which happens is all through the scriptures. The pertinent scriptures are too numerous to quote. But here are a few examples.

God not only knows everything that will happen – He also knows everything that would happen if the existing paradigm were different. God often speaks of those things which are not as though they were.

“Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit. David stayed in the wilderness in the strongholds, and remained in the hill country in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not deliver him into his hand.” 1 Samuel 23:11-14

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” Luke 10:13

"And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.” Matthew 11:23

Each one of these simple examples show us that God’s omniscience extends to those things which could have happened had they happened in a different paradigm and, most importantly, had HE chosen to act differently before and during those events.

God had "foreknowledge" of everything that has happened in His creation. Nothing has taken Him by surprise.

There is no “however” to what you say above. The scriptures teach both.

The former is contingent on the latter and that is what I have said.

The choices and actions we make are contingent on the innumerable choices and actions of God.

No creation = nothing but God. No man in the image of God = no fall of creation.

No garden = no tree. No tree = no serpent in the tree.

No command not to eat = no succumbing to temptation by eating from the tree.

No fall = no redemption.

Etc. and etc.

Everything that happens is contingent on so many choices and actions by God at any given time that it is literally true when He says that “in Him we live and move and have our being”.

None of this is to say that God “forces” anyone to make any particular choice. No one I know of, including the most rabid Calvinists, teach such a thing.

I disagree with a number of things current Calvinists teach. But the predestination of all things isn't one of them.

God’s sovereign choice to predestine any particular thing in no way negates the natural laws governing those things.

That is the case whether we are talking about the geological laws involved in the great earthquakes of the Tribulation period or whether we are talking about the choices you and I make.

Quite frankly, when I hear some of the things said by some people concerning God not working all things according to His will, it seems they must be worshipping a different God than the omniscient, omnipresent, providentially controlling sovereign creator and sustain-er of the universe.

I know that most folks, from a simple theological viewpoint, tend to think and pray as if God was only transcendent and not also immanent. From a day to day human position it matters little. We simply pray to a God who is "out there" listening and we wait for His answers to manifest in the creation.

But when this non-scriptural simplistic view of things rubs up against other doctrines such as we are considering here - it often winds up making it impossible for those who hold that simplistic view to understand things like predestination and the sovereignty of God and the like.

(I add couple of paragraphs at the end to my posting 30 mins ago)

Basically you look at Ephesians 1:5-11, analyse predestination in the way you think, and in doing so, you IGNORE the next 50 verses (Eph 1:12 - 3:20). Paul did NOT explain predestination in the way you did, so it is not valid for you to claim that he is thinking the same as you.

Eph 1:5-11, Paul said "He chose us, predestined us, ... you were included" ... And soon, he said, "you who are Gentiles by birth" [Eph 2:11]. And he went on to elaborate a LOT about how God offered redemption to Gentiles too.
- So it is abundantly clear that "You" did not mean individuals, "You" means Gentiles. And he went on to elaborate a great deal about God's redemption offer to Gentiles, that they are receiving the same inheritance and same Holy Spirit.
- In these 70 verses (Eph 1,2,3), Paul was explaining how God offer redemption to BOTH Jews and Gentiles. The word BOTH appear 3 times.

If Paul was writing about individual predestination in 1:4-11 (as you claimed), why would he changed subjects immediately to Gentiles and Jews become one united people under God (1:12-3:20)?
-- We can trust that Paul was more organized, that he explain stuff consistently. It is just like the way people write letters or reports; a rational person would not change subjects instantly in adhoc manner.
-- Of course, you can say Paul did change subject suddenly (as yu have been implying). Well, you can ignore conext and say anything, but right or wrong is another matter.

Additional paragraphs I just add:

You were saying there are many things we do not understand about how God works and we should not be limited in our interpretation. That is true: Even the Scripture does NOT tell us everything, which is what I said in my book "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Will (2016)". However, not knowing everything certainly does not mean we start adding new stuff according to our analysis. Regarding predestination, the Scripture NEVER explain individual predestination in any substantial manner, not in the least at all. Some people quoted here and there, which are NOT enough to add up to individual predestination. If God chose who to save, the Scripture would have said more about it. Since the Scripture doesn't say, then we can be wrong if we (mis)interpret verses here and there.

I guess my question is :Why do you see Ephesians 1:13-3:20 seperately from Eph 1:13-3:20, where Paul explained elaborately on what God had predestined for both Gentiles and Jews?

In fact, in Ephesians 1,2,3, Paul tried to unravel or explain the "mystery of God's will" [Eph 3:3] regarding redemption, specifically. He was not trying to explain everything about God's will, but He explained His will substantially with regard to predestination. Unknown to everyone (previous generation of Jews or Gentiles), the hidden mystery was God had already pre-planned or predestine to offer redemption to the Gentiles too. There is enough explanation in these 70 verses to explain that from the very beginning (even before the foundation of the earth) God foreknew that He would offer redemtption to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles -- this is what predestination mean in context. It is NOT whether God knows who will choose to believe or reject. Although He knew in advance, but this is NOT what predestination mean in context. And of course, He does NOT choose who will believe.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Paul did NOT explain predestination in the way you did, so it is not valid for you to claim that he is thinking the same as you.

It is just as you say. Paul wasn't "explaining" the general doctrine of predestination in that particular passage. No one said that he was. The doctrine of predestination is explained by looking at other scriptures and the doctrines they codify.

Paul was in this passage explaining the predestination of a particular aspect of history however.

We can trust that Paul was more organized, that he explain stuff consistently. It is just like the way people write letters or reports -- a rational person would not change subjects instantly in adhoc manner.

Of course not and no one said that he did. He was explaining this particular example of predestination and he left us with that.

Other scriptures do flesh out predestination vis a vis His omniscience but this just isn't one of them.

I suppose that if you would like me to - I could coin another theology word to explain the correlation of omniscience, sovereignty omnipresence, providential control and the like and leave this word (predestination) for use just only this particular passage.

But since Paul uses the same word several times in different places - it seems best to just use that word when explaining the overall concept and not come up with my own.

...not knowing everything certainly does not mean we start adding new stuff according to our analysis.

Of course not. Nor does it mean we sweep other gained knowledge under the rug simply to placate those who dislike the doctrine of the sovereignty of God for some reason.

Regarding predestination, the Scripture NEVER explain individual predestination in any substantial manner, not in the least at all.

Of course it does. It's all over the place - if you build doctrine systematically a precept upon a precept.

If God chose who to save, the Scripture would have said more about it.

It has given many such examples. But they are never examples of forcing people to believe and be saved or disbelieve and be lost. No one believes He does that. That's a straw man of the first order and often used against Calvinists.

in Ephesians 1,2,3, Paul tried to unravel or explain the "mystery of God's will" [Eph 3:3] regarding redemption, specifically. He was not trying to explain everything about God's will, but He explained His will substantially with regard to predestination. Unknown to everyone (previous generation of Jews or Gentiles), the hidden mystery was God had already pre-planned or predestine to offer redemption to the Gentiles too.

And he explained it well.

Did you feel that I said he was trying to "explain everything about God's will" in that passage?

There is enough explanation in these 70 verses to explain that from the very beginning (even before the foundation of the earth) God foreknew that He would offer redemtption to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles -- this is what predestination mean in context.

There is enough information in those verses and I have never said otherwise.

And, yes I agree, he did explain this particular example of predestination quite well.

It is NOT whether God knows who will choose to believe or reject. Although He knew in advance, but this is NOT what predestination mean in context. And of course, He does NOT choose

You seem to be insinuating that I have said something about the subject of God forcing people to believe or not believe. I have done no such thing.

By the way - the Westminster Confession of Faith - the single most referred to document explaining the Calvinist position on these things doesn't either. In fact it does quite opposite as I have explained many times in this forum.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

"Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

"God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."

The "second causes" and the "means" are often the free choices made by men as explained in the first paragraph cited.

I don't call myself a Calvinist. But it does irritate me that people attack those who do with unfounded charges.

The predestination of everything that happens in God's creation in no ways eliminates natural laws or the free choices made by men (in so far as a fallen and curse man can be "free").