Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[urroner]

Prevent what? Prevent people from rejecting God's love?

But it seems that in the Calvinistic POV, God rejects our love, even if it's the best we can do.

If the purpose is to gather those who are willing to follow/love him based on the situation we are in (on earth) then God is doing exactly what he wanted, and gathering exactly those who want him, which appears to be his goal.

So part of His goal is to damn a lot of people to Hell, eternal torment, and endless suffering. Sounds interesting. For what purpose does that serve?

Preventing people from rejecting God's love, would lead to gathering people who aren't really interested, but have selfish reasons for loving God (which is't really love), which would be counter productive to God's plan.

So, what is God's plan to do with those people He chose to save and with those whom He chose to damn to Hell? What is the eternal purpose of either of those groups?

[Calm]

It all goes back to the two assumptions: 1) knowing the future means it is determined and cannot be changed and thus there is no free will and 2) God cannot create a free will individual out of nothing, iow if he is the only source, he is fully responsible.

daniel, as far as I can tell you reject both of these assumptions so anyone arguing from this basis is going to be nonsense to you.

However, the concept that God has created beings that are destined for damnation and some that are destined for heaven seems to force the assumption that the future is determined at the very least. Do you agree with that?

[Stone holm]

daniel, as far as I can tell you reject both of these assumptions so anyone arguing from this basis is going to be nonsense to you.

However, the concept that God has created beings that are destined for damnation and some that are destined for heaven seems to force the assumption that the future is determined at the very least. Do you agree with that?

Destined?

[jwhitlock]

Several years ago, a Calvinist defended his belief that little babies who died immediately after drawing a single breath, were also damned to Hell simply because they were human and, he used Romans 5:12, therefore that child was a sinner, because the verse said "...for that all have sinned..." He went on to say that when the Bible uses the word "all," it means "all" or IOW everybody who has lived...period. The Bible said so.

So I asked him when did that baby sin before it died. Did it sin during the process of being born? Did it sin simply because it drew that single breath before it died? What law of God did it transgress? The only way he basically responded, IIRC, was to by using the tautology of "All means all, it means everybody who has ever lived."

So, I decided to look up at the use of the word "all" in the scriptures and found the word in the following scriptures:

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,

So all Judæa came out to see John the Baptist. Interesting. Did that include everybody, even all the sick and all the children who lived in Judæa....everybody. I don't think so, but I could be wrong.)

Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

So not only did

all

from Judæa come out to come unto him, but they

all

confessed their sins and

all

were baptized of him.

Acts 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

So Paul knew

all

the Jews. That's a lot of people to know, especially those he never met.

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

So when Luke said he had "

perfect understanding of all things from the very first

," is he saying that he had a

perfect understanding

of quantum dynamics or even a

perfect understanding

of God? Knowing

all things

is pretty tough, but to know it

all perfectly

is even harder.

So when the Bible says "all," does it mean "everybody?"

He did say that in that particular case it meant "everybody." I asked him for evidence that it meant what he said it meant. The only proof he offered was to say that the context was proof enough. IOW, his only proof was his own interpretation of it.

Excellent point!

[danielwoods]

He is talking about the logical implication of the traditional view that God has perfect foreknowledge before creation occurs.

By creating mankind as he conceived him, it is not God's thought that controls men, but the nature he conceived for them...much like a programmer conceives a program, then writes it up and runs it.

It all goes back to the two assumptions: 1) knowing the future means it is determined and cannot be changed and thus there is no free will and 2) God cannot create a free will individual out of nothing, iow if he is the only source, he is fully responsible.

Right, those two assumptions are being used.

[danielwoods]

But it seems that in the Calvinistic POV, God rejects our love, even if it's the best we can do.

I don't claim to be representing Calvinism. However, I think a Calvinist would say that God never rejects our love, because the fact that we want to love him means we are one of the elect. Because those who reject God's love don't even want to love him.

So part of His goal is to damn a lot of people to Hell, eternal torment, and endless suffering. Sounds interesting. For what purpose does that serve?

So, what is God's plan to do with those people He chose to save and with those whom He chose to damn to Hell? What is the eternal purpose of either of those groups?

Again, not representing Calvinism.

However, I call it the cost of doing business. In essence, the only way to get a free will love is that some don't choose God, they choose death. It is sad, but it is their choice.

[danielwoods]

daniel, as far as I can tell you reject both of these assumptions so anyone arguing from this basis is going to be nonsense to you.

However, the concept that God has created beings that are destined for damnation and some that are destined for heaven seems to force the assumption that the future is determined at the very least. Do you agree with that?

No. Not determined in the sense of predestined or pre-determined ( in the sense that you or I have no choice in the matter).

I rest on the phrase, "Those he foreknew he also predestined..." which means that it's not a straight predestination that Calvinism seems to teach. Rather, it seems to allow for our freedom of choice.

[urroner]

So, let me try to understand where you are coming from. I'm trying really hard, but that's really hard to read the whole thread when I typically have only 15 or so minutes a day to read this board and they're not consecutive minutes.

1. You are not Calvinistic.

2. Men have the free will to choose whether to follow God or not.

I trying really hard to understand your position. (BTW, man = anybody")

1. Can man only come to God if God calls him, otherwise the man is eternally lost>

2. If God calls a man to come to Him, can the man refuse to come?

3. If a man doesn't accept Christ in this life, is there any hope for him?

4. Do you believe that "Ninja Rap" by Vanilla Ice can be sung way too much by kids after watching The Ninja Turtles for the billionth time?

[urroner]

Okay, one more question,...for now.

I understand only too well the concept that knowing the future perfectly doesn't mean that those in the future are forced to do what has been seen.

Here's the question, once God has seen the future, can He do anything to change that future or is He "forced" to continue to "walk" down the path that He has seen? When I say "forced," I mean that He chooses to walk that path or does He see many different possibilities for the future timeline.

[Calm]

I don't claim to be representing Calvinism. However, I think a Calvinist would say that God never rejects our love, because the fact that we want to love him means we are one of the elect. Because those who reject God's love don't even want to love him.

So I know I am one of the elect because I believe I love God and I don't reject his love for me? Is that belief enough to know or could I be fooling myself?

I believe I understand the Calvinist (and others who hold a similar position) position on the fate of mankind, but I don't believe I've ever been told an answer (or one that has stuck with me, my memory being what it is) on how I can know whether or not I am one of the elect without any doubt (so it is not wishful thinking or delusion that convinces me) or how to tell who are the elect for others.

I can understand if God chooses not to allow us to know if others are elect or not, but it seems to me on the principle that God will save who he will save and damns who he will damn that this implies that he would in some way definitely inform individuals when they are his elect.

Edited August 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

So, let me try to understand where you are coming from. I'm trying really hard, but that's really hard to read the whole thread when I typically have only 15 or so minutes a day to read this board and they're not consecutive minutes.

1. You are not Calvinistic.

2. Men have the free will to choose whether to follow God or not.

I trying really hard to understand your position. (BTW, man = anybody")

1. Can man only come to God if God calls him, otherwise the man is eternally lost>

Yes, many are called few are chosen.

2. If God calls a man to come to Him, can the man refuse to come?

Yes.

3. If a man doesn't accept Christ in this life, is there any hope for him?

Depends on his knowlege of the truth. God is just. He judges based on what we know. Heb. 9:"²⁷ And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

4. Do you believe that "Ninja Rap" by Vanilla Ice can be sung way too much by kids after watching The Ninja Turtles for the billionth time?

YES!

Okay, one more question,...for now.

I understand only too well the concept that knowing the future perfectly doesn't mean that those in the future are forced to do what has been seen.

Here's the question, once God has seen the future, can He do anything to change that future or is He "forced" to continue to "walk" down the path that He has seen? When I say "forced," I mean that He chooses to walk that path or does He see many different possibilities for the future timeline.

Nope. He sees all and knows all at once. God sees what is in a man's heart.

[danielwoods]

So I know I am one of the elect because I believe I love God and I don't reject his love for me? Is that belief enough to know or could I be fooling myself?

I believe I understand the Calvinist (and others who hold a similar position) position on the fate of mankind, but I don't believe I've ever been told an answer (or one that has stuck with me, my memory being what it is) on how I can know whether or not I am one of the elect without any doubt (so it is not wishful thinking or delusion that convinces me) or how to tell who are the elect for others.

I can understand if God chooses not to allow us to know if others are elect or not, but it seems to me on the principle that God will save who he will save and damns who he will damn that this implies that he would in some way definitely inform individuals when they are his elect.

I will let John answer.

"⁹ If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

¹⁰He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

¹¹ And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

¹² He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

¹³ These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

¹⁴ And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

¹⁵ And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him."

(1 John 5:9-15)

Only the elect will worry about whether or not they are the elect or not.

[cdowis]

I rest on the phrase, "Those he foreknew he also predestined..." which means that it's not a straight predestination that Calvinism seems to teach. Rather, it seems to allow for our freedom of choice.

The Bible can be made to say almost anything. Your post above.... I rest my case.

That is why we need living prophets.

[bluebell]

Again, not representing Calvinism.

However, I call it the cost of doing business. In essence, the only way to get a free will love is that some don't choose God, they choose death. It is sad, but it is their choice.

What is so confusing for me about Calvinism is that for that belief system, it ISN'T their choice.

[Vance]

Prevent what? Prevent people from rejecting God's love?

Yes, or doing evil, murdering people, etc.

If the purpose is to gather those who are willing to follow/love him based on the situation we are in (on earth) then God is doing exactly what he wanted, and gathering exactly those who want him, which appears to be his goal.

It makes no sense. If God is omniscient, and knows how or what to do to keep people from rejecting him and doing evil and if he doesn't to it THEN he is responsible for that rejection and evil.

Preventing people from rejecting God's love, would lead to gathering people who aren't really interested, but have selfish reasons for loving God (which is't really love), which would be counter productive to God's plan.

Not if he changed what he put into their will. He can change their will because he made it. He could change it so that they voluntarily and whole heartedly accept and love him and to never desire to do evil. And he could do it without impeding their free will IF HE WANTED TO, (at least according to you). But because he doesn't prevent the evil that he knows will happen unless he does something that he knows will prevent it, then He is responsible for ALL EVIL. That is the conclusion your theological presumptions lead to, even though you don't want to see it.

[stemelbow]

Unfortunately I've never heard of this particular "traditional Christian position" maybe you can tell me where it comes from?

Under this idea (that God's thoughts control our life) means that Jesus was responsible for Judas' betrayal, since he knew before hand that it was going to happen.

Of course this isn't what I believe, nor do I think that our freedom is superfluous.

I know you don't. I'm just following the logic of the traditional Christian position to its conclusion here. The conclusion that you reject is inescapable, logically speaking. But, as I said previously, anyone can put aside the logic and reject the conclusion, illogically. I welcome that in fact--I think it'd be terrible if traditional Christians went on believing as they do even while accepting the logical conclusion of their beliefs. I'm just pointing out the problems with your position--which problems have been known and recognized for centuries before me. Denying it without any logical line of reasoning as has been the case here, is tobe expected.

Peace to you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree it "sounds like" God was missing something. In our existence, we have bouts of loneliness and other things that affect us that don't affect an infinite being. So from our perspective, it "sounds like" he did it out of loneliness but I don't think that could be supported using scripture.

Well, what ever it is, even if the scriptures says "he created us out of love" the way you are saying it the only logical conclusion is that he was lonely or he needed something else. Which is partically why I reject your theology. And you can try and tell me all day long that your theology doesn't preach that. That is fine. I am saying for me that he how I see it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I should have put a smiley on my last post, to show that I was writing from a Calvinist point of view that I don't fully embrace!

Personally, I don't see God 'damning' anyone, only people choosing to reject God.

Of course I get that. And I view it the same way. That they reject God of their own free will. But in Calvinism there is no free will to reject God.

[mfbukowski]

It's only a contradiction if foreknowledge equals control.

In the end, we have a mystery either way.

LDS: Origin of the design of intelligences (why are they the way they are?) Mystery

Orthodoxy: Origin of Free Will and Evil, in light of Ex Nihilo Mystery

But here's the difference in what you are pointing out:

They mystery of the origins intelligences is a mystery because it is UNKNOWN and unknowable.

The problem of free will vs ex nihilo, as presented here, is a CONTRADICTION. The problem in this case is apparently a contradiction.

In one case the mystery arises out of a lack of information, in the other case presented, there is a central contradiction in the explanation itself.

Big difference.

[danielwoods]

The Bible can be made to say almost anything. Your post above.... I rest my case.

That is why we need living prophets.

How does a living prophet differ from what the Bible says here?

[danielwoods]

What is so confusing for me about Calvinism is that for that belief system, it ISN'T their choice.

Right. I would disagree with that aspect of Calvinism if that is in fact what they believe.

[mfbukowski]

4. Do you believe that "Ninja Rap" by Vanilla Ice can be sung way too much by kids after watching The Ninja Turtles for the billionth time?

That's the kind of question which should be carved into stone and put on Mt. Rushmore just to give scholars of the future an excuse to continue receiving pay checks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1. You are not Calvinistic.

It does make it hard when Calvinists don't even come to this thread to defend their own beliefs. I mean I know they have made some posts and I will give them the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they are really busy right now.

[danielwoods]

Yes, or doing evil, murdering people, etc.

It makes no sense. If God is omniscient, and knows how or what to do to keep people from rejecting him and doing evil and if he doesn't to it THEN he is responsible for that rejection and evil.

Not if he changed what he put into their will. He can change their will because he made it. He could change it so that they voluntarily and whole heartedly accept and love him and to never desire to do evil. And he could do it without impeding their free will IF HE WANTED TO, (at least according to you). But because he doesn't prevent the evil that he knows will happen unless he does something that he knows will prevent it, then He is responsible for ALL EVIL. That is the conclusion your theological presumptions lead to, even though you don't want to see it.

When have I said that God could manipulate their free will if he wanted to?

What I have said repeatedly is that by the very creation (and definition of a moral free will) of a free will, if he controlled it, he wouldn't have created a will that is free.

Thrusting your assumptions onto my theology doesn't make my theology illogical. You assume God can't create a free will out of nothing. I don't. You assume that, therefore God must be responsible for evil. I would agree if God wasn't able to create a free willed being out of nothing.

[danielwoods]

I know you don't. I'm just following the logic of the traditional Christian position to its conclusion here. The conclusion that you reject is inescapable, logically speaking. But, as I said previously, anyone can put aside the logic and reject the conclusion, illogically. I welcome that in fact--I think it'd be terrible if traditional Christians went on believing as they do even while accepting the logical conclusion of their beliefs. I'm just pointing out the problems with your position--which problems have been known and recognized for centuries before me. Denying it without any logical line of reasoning as has been the case here, is tobe expected.

Peace to you.

I have to disagree that you are following any logic from a traditional Christian perspective. Seems you're changing it based on your own assumptions.