Featured Cals, What does God really intend?

To the contrary, the Reformers counted contingent second causes as part of God's eternal decree.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Whether necessarily (laws of nature), freely (the choice of second causes), or contingently (if / then), all things come to pass immutably and infallibly according to the Reformers ("Calvinists," if you must).

Of course we make choices and are in no way forced to do so. No one forced the Jews to have Jesus arrested and crucified. They did so freely. Yet it was all part of the Plan that was ordained "before the foundation of the world." Every act of every creature is not only foreknown, but foreordained according to Calvinism.

Oh, and my apologies for quoting the Westminster Confession rather than the London Baptist Confession - I'm still "in transition," a questioning Presbyterian giving Baptist theology a hard look. :flower:

-Robin

 

I think that's possible, that He created a world in which I have a choice to make about whether to help my wife with the dishes or berate her for not doing them...he knows all the options I have before me, and what actions he might take as a result of each of my choices...BUT I would say he also knows which choice I will make.

So... If Lucifer & Eve do not rebel, God's plan in that scenario still leads to his desired end? What about the opposite? ALL the angels rebel, all the people rebel, and no person EVER turns to God of their own choice? This possibility also does not jeapardize God's eternal plan?

If God knows all, how is it that you are not saying he knows what our future free choices will be?

I would agree with this.

...and this

The difficiency of not knowing all things, which I believe the bible teaches he does.

-I agree. Everybody will admit God COULD create beings that he controls completely that have no freedom of choice whatsoever...the question is what DID he create? On the flip side, Some Calvinists might argue that God WOULD NOT, maybe even COULD not create creatures with totally free wills because that would be considered something against his character (soveriegn), akin to becoming less sovereign, and would therefore be as unheard of as God breaking a promise (another thing that would go against his character).

 

That may be a scenario which is, not, in fact, possible or in some parlance feasible for God to create and still remain true to his desired purpose. No such potential World may exist.

 

I did not accuse Calvinists of doing something, misinterpreting scripture, that is different from what others do which is also misinterpret scripture.

What I said is "everything" in context is the intended meaning of everything. If I say I took everything out of the room, it does not mean I took the light or air or volume out of the room, but simply the furnishing, i.e. chairs, pictures, bed, etc.

Our difference is that I believe I use the same rules everywhere. I do not apply an "out of context" meaning to alter the message. But I believe Calvinism does not apply consistent rules, it picks and chooses to misrepresent the contextual message.

For example in John 12:32, "all" does not mean every imaginable person that every lived. No, the idea is those who behold, i.e. understand that Christ died for them, will be drawn. Faith comes from hearing, so "all" is qualified by the context. This is the Calvinist understanding.

However in another verse "everything" means everything imaginable, rather that accepting the contextual limits. In 1 John 3:20 God knows all things, i.e. what is hidden in our heart that condemns us. This would apply the same rule of interpretation that Calvinism use in John 12:32.

However if you rip the snippet out of context, you can claim scripture says God knows everything imaginable. Perhaps He does, but you cannot support that premise contextually from 1 John 3:20.

 

What your WCF quote says is that God's foreknowledge determines what happens, even though it appears to be caused by necessity, or the free choice of people, or a contingent action. Thus it says the opposite of what you seem to claim it says.

Bottom line, Calvinism says God directs and foreordains the actions we seem to choose, thus nullifying the meaning of choice and of if/then covenants because God has ordained what we will "freely" choose.

 

Brilliant!

 

is your question: How can God be creative and all knowing in absolute sense?

Answer BECAUSE He is God!

 

Okay then, here's a question I sincerely want non-Calvinists to answer:

If Almighty God foreknows that something terrible and evil is about to happen, is there any chance that it won't?

If the answer is yes, then He has no true foreknowledge. He foresaw only a possibility, but didn't know the outcome in advance. A yes answer denies His foreknowledge.

If the answer is no, then it must be that God chose not to intervene in order to prevent the evil calamity.

This is one of the reasons I lean towards Calvinism. It exalts God as all-knowing and all-sovereign, having chosen all that comes to pass, not just according to His foreknowledge, but according to His eternal purpose. The universe is unfolding exactly the way its Creator intended. Otherwise He is not Lord, He is not Almighty, nor is He all-knowing.

I find that what semi-Pelagians and Arminians object to is not so much the doctrine of "particular (limited) atonement" as it is the doctrine of "total depravity." It is the idea that sinners are helpless and incapable of faith. But isn't faith the "that" thing being referred to in Ephesians 2: 8?

By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves...

 

:applause::applause::applause:

 

WHY does he need to creat even though a possibility? Does he require to have that in order to be fully God?

Wsa the Cross of Christ a future event "fixed" into real time to come by Sovereign God, or could jesus have been killed off early, died at birth, refused the Cross etc?

 

Doesn't the fact of God being perfect in all that He does mean that this was ONLY way could have created it anyways? As he would have made it per His Will, according to what is the best way?

 

Oh....criminy...yes, that is always how I took it to mean. I had not quite grasped what Sidekick's intent was with that particular question. I guess I kind of just thought he was randomly throwing in a "proof-text" and surrounded it with a rather awkward sentence :type: in order to create a purpose for having placed it there. :laugh: I had no idea he was trying to convey that "That" was referring to "Faith" and not "Salvation"...Well, now his particular choice in diction makes more sense....:thumbsup:
I had never even heard of the idea of defining the "gift" as being faith....Interesting little quandry. I guess my immediate answer would be...no, it's salvation, not faith....But I don't think I've ever even thought twice about that before.

 

Hos, that seems to actually be the common interpretation of those on bb holding to total depravity. Hence the frequent arguments over man having capacity for faith on his own, or if it must be granted by God individually. I

 

Just was asking if you hold to the cross of Christ to have been a "fixed" event in history by God, in that he already knew what/when jesus would die, as his death HAD to happen, in order for God to save and redeem sinners?