Was Augustine the one who created "Calvinism", and why?

[trulytheone]

Based on Luke 3:16, and Acts of the Apostles 11:15-16, and Romans 8:9, and 1 Corinthians 3:16, and Ephesians 1:13, the most important thing about the word "baptism" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water.

In John chapter 3 Jesus said a person must be "born-again" of the Spirit of God in order to inherit the kingdom of God.

In that same chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus said:

"Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit."

John 3:5

John 3 - NIV Bible - Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus...

 

[BABerean2]

In that same chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus said:

"Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit."

John 3:5

John 3 - NIV Bible - Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus...

How many times is the word "water" used, and how many times is the word "Spirit" used in the passage?

Notice that the word water was used right after Nicodemus asked about childbirth.
When are all humans born of "water"?
Ask a pregnant woman who has had several children, if you are not sure of the answer.
Every human is born of the water of the amniotic fluid from the mother's womb.
However, this birth brings no salvation.

Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Jesus expected Nicodemus to already know about the verse below?

Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

.

 

[trulytheone]

Notice that the word water was used right after Nicodemus asked about childbirth.
When are all humans born of "water"?
Ask a pregnant woman who has had several children, if you are not sure of the answer.
Every human is born of the water of the amniotic fluid from the mother's womb.
However, this birth brings no salvation.

Then how would you know when infants will receive the Holy Ghost? Or are you one of those who believe that they will immediately attain eternal life if they die in infancy?

 

[BABerean2]

Then how would you know when infants will receive the Holy Ghost? Or are you one of those who believe that they will immediately attain eternal life if they die in infancy?

What does the Bible say about receiving the Holy Ghost?

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Based on the text above, the Holy Ghost comes when a person hears the Gospel and believes.

.

 

[trulytheone]

What does the Bible say about receiving the Holy Ghost?

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Based on the text above, the Holy Ghost comes when a person hears the Gospel and believes.

.

If infants were to die, will they attain eternal life or not?

 

[BABerean2]

If infants were to die, will they attain eternal life or not?

If infants die, do they attain eternal life because of their water baptism?

If water baptism saves them, should they be water baptized before they leave the hospital?

If a baby who is water baptized becomes an atheist or an agnostic, do they attain eternal life?

.

 

[Steven Beck]

If God didn't eternally decree all things to occur the way they would, with a purpose, then we are forced to conclude that God comes to know events as they take place. He learns something from what transpires, rather than what he ordained to happen. Even if you claim omniscience, it doesn't have a different conclusion, actually it would be a contradiction, because you cannot know all things and still learn and determine events based on what you foresaw. God no longer is immutable and all-knowing, but has become subject to the law of time and space. Rather than affirming that all events were predetermined and under the providential sovereignty of God, you are forced to conclude that what transpires in time influences God and his actions, and can change his plans. Seems like a power struggle between him and his creation, instead of him ruling all things under him.

The other option is to deny God's real intervention in the world, a kind of deism, where he creates something and abandons it to its contingent and ever-changing course. The fall? Either he made a mistake, he wasn't able stop it, or he sat back and watched it to see what will happen.

This doesn't only conflict with his immutability and omniscience, but also every other attribute of his. His wisdom isn't perfect, his justice isn't objective, his love is conditional, his power is limited, his goodness is influenced, and the list goes on. You have a completely different God if you take a good look at it.


The enslavement in Egypt was predetermined:

"Then the Lord said to Abram, 'Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.'" - Genesis 15:13

So the life and mission of Joseph was predetermined in light of a greater plan that was predetermined through the actions of men and women.



How does 'foreknowledge' help your case? It doesn't contradict predestination, but rather affirms it. Jesus was foreknown and predestined to save sinners. I think you are mistaking 'foreknown' with the term 'foresaw,' they are not the same thing. To 'foreknow" is to know someone beforehand. Whenever the word 'foreknowledge' is used in Scripture, it never refers to anyone's actions or events, but always a person. God foreknows individuals, not just foresees their actions.

It is funny how you affirm Jesus' birth, life, and death was predetermined, but deny everything else was predetermined? How does that work out? How can some part of history be predestined, but not the rest?

Jesus is God so yes the Father and the Son could preplan Jesus' life on earth. However that says nothing about the rest of us humans. Just because God told Abraham that his descendants would live in Egypt for 400 years doesn't mean that was preplanned. God who knows the future knew that would happen. To give an example. Say you had a time machine and went forward to the next horse race meeting and you took notes of who won each of the races then went back to your own time. When those meetings take place in real time you bet on the winners. Now did you preplan on which horses won the races? No you watched and knew. It is passive watching not active planning.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Jonaitis said: ↑
If God didn't eternally decree all things to occur the way they would, with a purpose, then we are forced to conclude that God comes to know events as they take place. He learns something from what transpires, rather than what he ordained to happen. Even if you claim omniscience, it doesn't have a different conclusion, actually it would be a contradiction, because you cannot know all things and still learn and determine events based on what you foresaw. God no longer is immutable and all-knowing, but has become subject to the law of time and space. Rather than affirming that all events were predetermined and under the providential sovereignty of God, you are forced to conclude that what transpires in time influences God and his actions, and can change his plans. Seems like a power struggle between him and his creation, instead of him ruling all things under him.

1) Determinism is based upon 'determinate' foreknowledge.
2) Omniscience is based upon 'indeterminate' foreknowledge.
You need to understand the difference.

The other option is to deny God's real intervention in the world, a kind of deism, where he creates something and abandons it to its contingent and ever-changing course. The fall? Either he made a mistake, he wasn't able stop it, or he sat back and watched it to see what will happen.

God neither made a mistake, nor was He not able to stop it. Rather, God had indeterminate foreknowledge of the event, and therefore had a plan of Redemption ready to set in motion. No determinate foreknowledge is either necessary, nor desired. If God predetermined the fall, then He is responsible for that fall.

This doesn't only conflict with his immutability and omniscience, but also every other attribute of his. His wisdom isn't perfect, his justice isn't objective, his love is conditional, his power is limited, his goodness is influenced, and the list goes on. You have a completely different God if you take a good look at it.

The enslavement in Egypt was predetermined:

"Then the Lord said to Abram, 'Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.'" - Genesis 15:13

So the life and mission of Joseph was predetermined in light of a greater plan that was predetermined through the actions of men and women.

Later in this comment you say foreknowledge is always about people, not events; yet here, what is predetermined is an event ("Then the Lord said to Abram, 'Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.'"), it involves people, but it is definitely an event.

How does 'foreknowledge' help your case? It doesn't contradict predestination, but rather affirms it. Jesus was foreknown and predestined to save sinners. I think you are mistaking 'foreknown' with the term 'foresaw,' they are not the same thing. To 'foreknow" is to know someone beforehand. Whenever the word 'foreknowledge' is used in Scripture, it never refers to anyone's actions or events, but always a person. God foreknows individuals, not just foresees their actions.

It is funny how you affirm Jesus' birth, life, and death was predetermined, but deny everything else was predetermined? How does that work out? How can some part of history be predestined, but not the rest?

You stated:

Whenever the word 'foreknowledge' is used in Scripture, it never refers to anyone's actions or events, but always a person.

Foreknowledge is only used two times in Scripture:

2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Acts

What did this foreknowledge pertain to? Jesus being "delivered" ... an event.

1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,1:2 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. 1 Peter

While this is about Peter, it is also about him being "elect"[ed], (chosen), hence, this too is about an event.

When one normally says,

Whenever the word 'foreknowledge' is used in Scripture, it never refers to anyone's actions or events, but always a person.

It infers the idea that the word in use (here "foreknowledge"), is used at the very least frequently. In this case however, the word "foreknowledge" is only used twice. This is hardly enough usage to set a precedent.

 

[BABerean2]

It infers the idea that the word in use (here "foreknowledge"), is used at the very least frequently. In this case however, the word "foreknowledge" is only used twice. This is hardly enough usage to set a precedent.

Does it matter if the word "foreknowledge" is found 1 time or 1,000 times in scripture?

Who can honestly deny that God foreknows at things?

Why are you attempting to downplay, or deny, God's foreknowledge?

.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Does it matter if the word "foreknowledge" is found 1 time or 1,000 times in scripture?

Who can honestly deny that God foreknows at things?

Why are you attempting to downplay, or deny, God's foreknowledge?

.

I am in no way down playing foreknowledge. But we must understand the difference between indeterminate foreknowledge, and determinate foreknowledge. The former only has the single element of prior "knowledge"; while the latter has two elements; the first element being prior "knowledge", along with the second element of being causal.

For example:

Did God determine Adam to fall (knowledge and causal elements); or did God in His omniscience have knowledge of Adam's fall, without contributing to that fall in a causal manner. If God "determined" the fall, He must be in at least some degree the cause of that fall.


I cannot determine to have a birthday party for a child, without being at some level a cause for that party. But, I could know about a party for that child, and have no part in causing that party.

Maybe you would like to address this topic in this thread ...

Can Calvinism reconcile God ordaining Adam to sin, and still allow Adam to have a free will?

 

[BABerean2]

Did God determine Adam to fall (knowledge and causal elements); or did God in His omniscience have knowledge of Adam's fall, without contributing to that fall in a causal manner. If God "determined" the fall, He must be in at least some degree the cause of that fall.

A man watches a pre-recorded football game with his friend, who has not seen the original game.

When the game starts the man then tells his friend the exact play, and players involved, and time that the game will be won, because the man has foreknowledge.

Did the man cause the play that won the game, because he had foreknowledge?

Is this not the point Steven Beck was making above?

.

 

[Dr. Jack]

A man watches a pre-recorded football game with his friend, who has not seen the original game.

When the game starts the man then tells his friend the exact play, and players involved, and time that the game will be won, because the man has foreknowledge.

Did the man cause the play that won the game, because he had foreknowledge?

Is this not the point Steven Beck was making above?

.

Yes, Steven Beck didn't use the term Indeterminate foreknowledge, but that is what he is describing.

God doesn't predestinate who will be saved, but he had foreknowledge of those who would be saved. Not because He looked down through time, but because He is omniscient.

 

[BABerean2]

Not because He looked down through time, but because He is omniscient.

God does not have to "look down through time", which is a phrase often used by those who call themselves "Calvinists", because He is outside of time and space.

I agree that "omniscient" is an appropriate word.

.

 

[Steven Beck]

God does not have to "look down through time", which is a phrase often used by those who call themselves "Calvinists", because He is outside of time and space.

I agree that "omniscient" is an appropriate word.

.

I agree. Did not Jesus say that for God 1000 years can be 1 day and 1 day a thousand years. Picture a very long train. Point A is the front and Point B is the rear. You are on top of a mountain looking down on the train. Point A is the future for Point B and Point B is the past for Point A. However for you on the mountain the whole train is in the present. God is on the mountain in the continuous present. That is why God's name is "I AM" which I believe is "omniscience"

What about the time before God created the Universe and Time? There was no train.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I agree. Did not Jesus say that for God 1000 years can be 1 day and 1 day a thousand years. Picture a very long train. Point A is the front and Point B is the rear. You are on top of a mountain looking down on the train. Point A is the future for Point B and Point B is the past for Point A. However for you on the mountain the whole train is in the present. God is on the mountain in the continuous present. That is why God's name is "I AM" which I believe is "omniscience"

What about the time before God created the Universe and Time? There was no train.

Allow me to make a point here ...

God needed not look at the train, God created the train, and all that therein is. God can be totally sovereign, and still allow men to have free will. Omniscience gives God the power to intervene anywhere he wishes, without causing man to choose a particular way.

This is the concept that Calvinism cannot comprehend; that God is sovereign, but in that sovereignty, chose to give man freewill, (already knowing what he will do), and God is therefore ready at each juncture of our lives to step in when needed.

 

[Radagast]

What has come to be known as "Calvinism" came from Augustine's attempt to explain how infants could become the "elect" through water baptism.

Neither Paul, Augustine, nor Calvin taught that.

The elect were the elect before they were even born.

 

[Steven Beck]

Allow me to make a point here ...

God needed not look at the train, God created the train, and all that therein is. God can be totally sovereign, and still allow men to have free will. Omniscience gives God the power to intervene anywhere he wishes, without causing man to choose a particular way.

This is the concept that Calvinism cannot comprehend; that God is sovereign, but in that sovereignty, chose to give man freewill, (already knowing what he will do), and God is therefore ready at each juncture of our lives to step in when needed.

When ASKED.

 

[Radagast]

God doesn't predestinate who will be saved, but he had foreknowledge of those who would be saved. Not because He looked down through time, but because He is omniscient.

If you accept omniscience, then you get determinism even if you don't believe in predestination.

If God foresees what will happen, then everything that happens must happen exactly as He foresaw it.

This is the concept that Calvinism cannot comprehend; that God is sovereign, but in that sovereignty, chose to give man freewill

Calvinists believe in free will -- free will of the compatibilist kind, that is.

 

[Steven Beck]

If you accept omniscience, then you get determinism even if you don't believe in predestination.

If God foresees what will happen, then everything that happens must happen exactly as He foresaw it.

That is not even logical. Determinism, is the theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. .. Just because God, an omniscient being, sees something doesn't mean anything is determined. or predestined.

 

[BABerean2]

Neither Paul, Augustine, nor Calvin taught that.

Dr. Ken Wilson's recent book reveals Augustine's view of election.

Augustine had to deny free will in order to justify the baptism of infants, which he claimed were regenerated during water baptism.

.