Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Vance]

To create a being that will want to love you. A love that is forced isn't love worth having, but a love that is freely chosen is worth more than anything in the world.

IF God wants all of us to freely love him 100% of the time, why didn't he just create us that way?

[danielwoods]

Why doesn't God want to create a "free willed person" who will be 100% obedient? Don't you want your children to be 100% obedient?

Seems I've answered this. Creating a person with a truly free will means they have the choice which is why he draws us with his love. Obedience comes after he draws us by his love.

I don't care if my kids are 100% obedient. I really want to have a strong loving relationship with them. Love covers a multitude of sin.

[danielwoods]

Why is there a need to create a being that will want to love you. So in this topic of the 5 points how can man give this love if he is not worth anything and God does it all?

I don't think there was a "need" rather a desire. A desire to share.

Obviously man has value, the value equalled to his Son, as he gave his Son to gain us.

[Questing Beast]

Back to the core problem of Existence. How do you explain that all matter, infinite and eternal, is NOT "God"?

Really? I would have to plead that it is self-evident.

If God the Father is simply one of us,

He is not "simply one of us". That is the point of the Plan of Salvation, to become perfected, to become "one with the Father". The caterpillar and the butterfly.

"more intelligent than they all", always existing, never caused, then GtF is not anything more than part of that never caused, always existing matter; intelligence IS matter according to JS.

I smell a logical fallacy -- A is B, therefore B is A.

There are different levels of intelligence. The rock has a different degree of intelligence than a human being.

Fine, but don't stop there! Continue to push on the concept of never created, eternally existing, infinite matter. What exactly does that suggest? It has to be GOD, the whole ball of wax baby Is God.

May I suggest you take a class in basic logic.

GtF is a finite concept in Mormon theology, because GtF arises out of never created, always existing infinite matter. What's to say an even greater god than GtF could not arise out of the same "stuff"? If matter is infinite, there is no way that a "god" arising out of it through eternal progression, could possibly know the "extent" of something that was never created, always existed and is infinite. The brush stroke cannot comprehend the whole infinitely expanding "painting". If the brush stroke creates an image of itself, and it is a glorified human being, that is still only a finite part of the infinitely expanding whole; it is never the whole. So Mormon theology only raises even less answerable questions about "who is God?" If we allow that Existence In The First Place (oh, the limitation of words) Is God, then intelligence all comes from that Source/Cause. We may never know anymore than that about Existence as Cause. But we surely know eternally more about "God" as we discover the Infinite manifestations to us that "God Is"....

See my suggestion above. An argument based on a false premise is flawed, regardless of an attempt at impressive rhetoric.

Put your argument in a syllogism and it will become rather obvious where it falls apart.

If I can put my argument into a syllogism that means it can work. A false syllogism would make it only apparently false.

You have not addressed a single point of what I asserted about Mormon theology being simplistic and necessarily finite, vis-a-vis GtF being part of always existing, never-created matter.

The proposition that Existence Is God transcends all of JS's last theology, the theology that Mormonism has been stuck with for the last 170 years....

[danielwoods]

IF God wants all of us to freely love him 100% of the time, why didn't he just create us that way?

You just described a robot. Not the same as truly free will based love.

[Vance]

Seems I've answered this. Creating a person with a truly free will means they have the choice which is why he draws us with his love. Obedience comes after he draws us by his love.

That is not an answer to the question.

I don't care if my kids are 100% obedient.

I doubt that. You have been painted into a corner by your own logic which now causes you to deny obvious truths.

[bluebell]

While I understand that what you've written above, Bluebell, is a sincere and ''good faith'' effort to understand what you've heard from Calvinist posters here, I see it as quite a reductionist summary.

Of course, I'll leave it to the actual Calvinists to comment on whether your summary accurately reflects their beliefs.

And I think that what appears to me to be an over-emphasis on God's sovereignty and under-emphasis on His selfless, sacrificial love as well as His choosing to limit Himself to allow genuine and effective free will on the part of the people He's created, leads to much more of a deterministic and apparently cruel view of God than is the reality.

I'm basing my understanding about the sovereignty and 'selfishness' of God off of what MrG and djholmes have said.

Djholmes-“The second point would be about God's passion for his own glory. This sounds jarring to many people the first time they hear this but simply put it is the belief that God is not an idolator. In other words he does not put anything above himself. He rightly values himself above all things (being by far the most important) and so the just and righteous thing for him to do is act in a way that reflects his own worth. What that means for creation is that Gods main or overriding purpose is to display his greatness in creation and redemption.”

MrG-“All of mankind exists elect or not for one purpose, to glorify God. The absolute root of calvinist or biblical teaching is a glorious all powerful God who has the right to do whatever He wants with His creation, Romans 9 gives a great explanation.”

I got my understanding of how God chooses who to save from the wiki article on TULIP which MrG said was an accurate reflection of 5 point Calvinism.

"Unconditional election" asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen."

I do believe that the Calvinist Christians who are responding in this thread, believe God to be not only sovereign and just but also tender-hearted, loving, gracious and merciful.

I guess i'm not getting that. MrG said that he doesn't like how God does things, in regards to saving some and not others, and that if it were up to him, he'd do them differently, but that he must believe in the God which he feels has been revealed to him, even if He doesn't like what He does.

I'm not sure how djholmes feels on the issue.

I grew up learning the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Shorter Catechism of which reads: "Q. What is the chief end of man? A. Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.".

And so I identify a lot with the expressed emphasis on our "glorifying God". As with the concept of God's "sovereignty", I find these ideas very honouring to God and personally comforting. If either of these ideas were to be divorced from God's tenderness and sacrificial love, I can see how they would be very harsh and off-putting.

Actually, I've just pulled the Primary Catechism off my bookshelf (which is what very young children learned in Reformed [i.e. Calvinist] church congregations when I was a child) and the first 3 questions there are: "Q. Who made you? A. God made me.; Q. Who is God? A. God is my heavenly Father.; Q. What kind of a Father is God? A. God is a good and loving Father."

I mention this because I think it's important to put a faith system that we're trying to understand into the context of those living it. I think that's what you ARE attempting to do here, but I'm trying to enlarge that context beyond some of the very specific questions and responses that are being exchanged here.

Some well-known Reformed Christian authors and speakers such as Ravi Zacharias, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R.C. Sproule as well as many others have embodied and illustrated the Reformed mindset. If you ever have a chance to read some of their very thoughtful writings it would give further insight into Reformed theology.

Maybe I am completely confused on all of this (which could certainly be the case!), but it doesn't seem like your brand of Calvinism (for lack of a better term) and djholmes and MrG's brand are the same.

I appreciate you trying to explain your beliefs though.

[Vance]

You just described a robot.

Yes, but you have been claiming from the beginning that God can create a robot with free will.

You claimed God could do whatever he wants. So, obviously then, If God wanted to create a "free willed person" that would love Him 100% of the time and be 100% obedient He could do it. So, why didn't he do it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think there was a "need" rather a desire. A desire to share.

Obviously man has value, the value equalled to his Son, as he gave his Son to gain us.

A desire to share. Share what?

[Paloma]

Maybe I am completely confused on all of this (which could certainly be the case!), but it doesn't seem like your brand of Calvinism (for lack of a better term) and djholmes and MrG's brand are the same.

I appreciate you trying to explain your beliefs though.

Bluebell, I do understand how you arrived at your earlier summary, based on comments you read here!

And I can see that it would be most appropriate for either MrG and/or djholmes to respond to your earlier post.

I wonder how much the Calvinism of my upbringing, and of my present understanding of historic Calvinism would differ from theirs. (But I can't help but think we would share a lot of common ground - but probably we would have some impasses too! I'd love to sit down with them and compare thoughts!)

And, while I appreciate my Calvinist roots, I wouldn't describe myself as a Calvinist now but as a Cal-Arminian, since I think we have to put the two theologies together to find a more complete truth. I think each of Calvinism and Arminianism tells only part of the story, each from their own perspectives and emphases. Or we can just lay both aside, and simply take God at His word (even with apparent contradictions) and enjoy His presence ... which is my preference.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Paloma

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, but you have been claiming from the beginning that God can create a robot with free will.

You claimed God could do whatever he wants. So, obviously then, If God wanted to create a "free willed person" that would love Him 100% of the time and be 100% obedient He could do it. So, why didn't he do it?

This gets to the crux of the issue. Why does God just not save everyone? We can't do anything of ourself in the Calvinist lense. I don't see how you can call God loving if he choses to save some and choses to damn others. That is not love at all. That is like looking at 2 of my kids and saying to one. Here you go you get to eat tonight. But you child number 2 you don't get to eat. I am only doing this out of my love for you so you can see how glorious I really am.

[Questing Beast]

So, God sat in dark, and lonely nothingness for eternity, and then, suddenly decided He was going to change that by creating everything from that nothing. What cause Him to change?

There is no change, only opposite states to Existence. The "Void" and "Creation" coexist....

[Questing Beast]

"How did evil exist if all of Creation was sustained by the mind of God?" Rachael Slick, a Christian turned atheist.

This is why I think that a created being by ex nihlo precludes free will. Free agency assumes the existence of a choice -- evil vs good. Her question is that if everything was created by God, where did it that choice for evil come into existence. Anger, hatred,lust, greed would also be part of the creation process ex nihlo.

Bottom line -- the concept of creation ex nihlo requires that God would be the creator of evil.

The core concept is "opposition". "God" Is all things. Nothing exists that transcends "God". Therefore what we perceive as "evil" is as much "God" as good Is. The only predestined feature about opposition is that it leads all of us to Joy. Without the opposition we are by default joyful beings, deriving from the "Mind of God", but without sensibility. A joyful creature cannot be grateful if it is insensible to its condition. So we experience opposition as mortals, so that we will appreciate being joyful immortals. "God" has said that there is no happiness in sinfulness. That is because the opposite to Joy is misery, and happiness or Joy only comes upon the principles of righteousness. "God" has all power, therefore sinfulness and misery are possible with "God" too, but "God" chooses to create so that Joy is the result, the destiny, of all living things....

[cdowis]

This gets to the crux of the issue. Why does God just not save everyone? We can't do anything of ourself in the Calvinist lense. I don't see how you can call God loving if he choses to save some and choses to damn others.

Matt 7 [7] Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

[8] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

[9] Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

[10] Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

[11] If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

So, you are saying that if one asks the Father for salvation, He will give him hell because he was not predestined for salvation.

[cdowis]

The core concept is "opposition". "God" Is all things. Nothing exists that transcends "God". Therefore what we perceive as "evil" is as much "God" as good Is. The only predestined feature about opposition is that it leads all of us to Joy. Without the opposition we are by default joyful beings, deriving from the "Mind of God", but without sensibility. A joyful creature cannot be grateful if it is insensible to its condition. So we experience opposition as mortals, so that we will appreciate being joyful immortals. "God" has said that there is no happiness in sinfulness. That is because the opposite to Joy is misery, and happiness or Joy only comes upon the principles of righteousness. "God" has all power, therefore sinfulness and misery are possible with "God" too, but "God" chooses to create so that Joy is the result, the destiny, of all living things....

Do you accept the doctrine of creation by ex nihlo?

If not, then my post is not addressed to you. If so, I do not see where you answered my question -- did God create evil?

[Questing Beast]

Do you accept the doctrine of creation by ex nihlo?

If not, then my post is not addressed to you. If so, I do not see where you answered my question -- did God create evil?

God made Creation. Nothing in Creation transcends God. "Evil" is an opposite state or condition to good.

I don't use the term "ex nihilo" because it is fallacious. "God" is not nothing. The word or concept of "nothing" when attempted to be applied to "God" is fallacious. Words fail. So the venerable doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" is fallacious, because "God" is not nothing.

Evil is counter to the principles of Joy, therefore evil lends definition, sensibility, to Joy. Without evil there would be no recognition of Joy.

We are all destined to come to recognize that we are created as joyful beings....

Edited August 13, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is no change, only opposite states to Existence. The "Void" and "Creation" coexist....

Er, yeah. There is the creation and the non creation were we exist. Edited August 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Matt 7 [7] Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

[8] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

[9] Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

[10] Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

[11] If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

So, you are saying that if one asks the Father for salvation, He will give him hell because he was not predestined for salvation.

That seems to be the case, only those that are elect will be saved. Even if I am chosed or predestined for hell, I can ask for salvation and I will be denied. Edited August 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Questing Beast]

Er, yeah. There is the creation and the non creation were we exist.

There is no "where" about Existence, it Is....

[Paloma]

That seems to be the case, only those that are elect will be saved. Even if I am chosed or predestined for hell, I can ask for salvation and I will be denied.

In the Calvinist view, you cannot desire or ask for salvation unless God's irresistible grace is at work in you. So you would most certainly not be denied!

[cdowis]

In the Calvinist view, you cannot desire or ask for salvation unless God's irresistible grace is at work in you. So you would most certainly not be denied!

Again, it shows why we need a living prophet. This doctrine clearly contradicts the teachings of Christ --> a child of Heavenly Father is constrained by God Himself from seeking salvation. He does not "ask" because God's irrestible grace will not allow him to do so.

This a demonstration of God's infinite love? I think the prophet Moroni would have a comment on such a doctrine similar to infant baptism.

Edited August 13, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

A desire to share. Share what?

Love/Life/existence in relationship with him.

[LordUther]

Love/Life/existence in relationship with him.

So why this mortality? Why not create us as heavenly creatures to immediately share existence with him? Why did he create us in such a way that would condemn a vast majority of his creation to the burning pits of hell. Because let's be honest here most of the people that will/have ever lived on this planet will never hear of the Christian god, so explain how this merciful god would create a species of life to share his existence with but will do so in a way that an overall majority of them will be damned before they're even born for want of even knowing this god exists. And this god is a loving god you say?

[Vance]

There is no change, only opposite states to Existence. The "Void" and "Creation" coexist....

Ah, but there was a change in something or someone to get God to go from indolence to productivity (for at least 6 days). That is the change I am talking about.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In the Calvinist view, you cannot desire or ask for salvation unless God's irresistible grace is at work in you. So you would most certainly not be denied!

Oh yeah. So then we really don't have a will of our own only that which God created. So why did God not create us so that all of us would return to Him?

Another note it seems you are saying that if you are one of the damned you wont even have the ability to ask for salvation.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram