Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined

Ok. Why does He only show mercy to some?

 

It's His prerogative . It's the Lord's sovereign right to do whatsoever He wants with anyone of His creation . He is under obligation to no one . We all deserve condemnation remember .

Romans 9;14,15 : Are we saying , then , that God was unfair ? Of course not ! For God said to Moses , "I will show mercy to anyone I choose , and I will show compassion to anyone I choose." ( NLTse )

 

I read Romans 9 to be Paul demonstrating God's grace to the Gentiles. Even though Israel was God's chosen people to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and temple service and the promises, He extended grace to the Gentiles as well. "I will call those who were not My people, My people".
He did this because He is sovereign and shows mercy to whom He wills.

I don't see this chapter as speaking about God choosing only certain individual people to salvation, but offering grace and salvation to the Gentiles as well, even though Israel was the "chosen" people.

 

You Calvinists can't even agree with each other. I'm glad I'm not a Calvinist!

 

I'm not a Calvinist. That's why we don't agree.

 

When Calvinists can't even agree on "predestination" and "double predestination" then how does a non-Calvinist know which is true? Anyone who is non-Calvinist pretty much understands and agrees that "double predestination" is not biblical--that "predestination" is based on the "foreknowledge" of God. Some Calvinists follow the teachings of John Calvin, some follow the teachings of Arthur Pink, some follow James White, some follow Spurgeon, etc. This is confusing for the non-Calvinist who simply wants to follow "what saith Scripture"

I'm not saying that non-Calvinists always agree on every point of doctrine, but when a Calvinist can't agree on one of their main teachings, it appears rather odd since they say they all follow the teachings of John Calvin (and I know some Calvinists don't follow Calvin) and his interpretation of the Scripture.

 

This is a very profound question, and there is no simple answer. One might just as well ask why God knowingly allowed sin? I think the best we can do is speculate, as Paul did in Romans 9 (although it could be argued that Paul was not speculating but stating the truth). I've speculated elsewhere about this. For example, God cannot reveal many aspects of His character to the objects of His mercy without also having objects of wrath. God cannot have objects of wrath without sin. And so on.

 

1. Fallible men will continue to disagree among themselves, for this is amply demonstrated in redemptive history.

2. But why the constant focus on Calvinists? Are we the only ones who wrestle with Scripture? Are we the only ones who must systematize? Are we do only ones who have disagreed among ourselves?

3. Linda, frankly speaking, the implications of your questions and several of your posts, reveal that your mind is already set against what is commonly called Calvinism.

4. No well-bred Calvinist follows the teaching of John Calvin. We follow the teaching of the Scriptures. But non-Calvinists do not like to hear this. They insist on telling us who we really follow.

5. I came to the doctrines of grace without even reading Calvin.

6. BTW, if we follow the teachings of John as you averred, we would not be here on BB, for we would not be Baptists, because Calvin believed in and defended infant baptism.

7. I kindly suggest that you make more informed statements.

soli deo gloria.

 

Run that one by me again---I read it three times and I still don't understand what you said--especially when you said that Paul "speculated" in Romans 9. Did Paul "speculate" anywhere else?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

 

Linda,

1. Why do non-Calvinists disagree even among themselves? You have SDA, JW, Pentecostals and so on. Do you subscribe to everything they believe? Of course not, for you will not be a Baptist.

2. But they are non-Calvinists who can't agree either.

3. The assumption is obviously our human limitations, which proves exactly that, our limitations, so we must bear with each other, as long as the essentials are not threatened.

 

Here is the passage in Romans 9 I'm talking about...

This is part of Paul's answer to...

 

Then why call yourself a Calvinist or Reformed--why not just call yourself a born again, blood-washed Christian--or a Biblicist?

 

eye's of the lord

Genesis 6: 5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 16:9
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."

This why God has hidden the truth from the wise and the learned. They are always finding ways around the truth instead of believing in them. We are not to make the scripture match our doctrine, but our doctrine should match the scripture.

We study greek and hebrew and aramaic to find a word that we like that best suits are understading not realizing the word we replaced it is also is the meaning of that word in our language. One word in thier language can mean many things in English we can't dismiss one of the meaning because it doesn't match our doctrine.

Jesus problem was ever hardly with the sinners, it was mostly with the teachers of that day.

 

The same reason a person calls themselves a Baptist. It describes something about what you believe.

 

I can certainly see brother swaimj's objection. Moral choice does not/is not sovereign over God. God is omnipresent/omnitemporal. God is present in all time. With God, He is present at the end of time, currently. Looking at the doctrine of free moral agency/sovereign God, we can certainly see the tension in scripture between such doctrine. God is sovereign.... completely. Men's choices determine their destiny. God's providence will always determine men's choices.
I think where we have difficulty with this is in our understanding/lack of understanding of time. Time is created for man. God is the Creator who created time and is therefore not bound by the time He created. Ok, now I'm confused. :laugh:

Not really though..... I still believe that God is absolutely sovereign. With God all of this is a done deal. He is "sitting" at the consumation of all "time." He "Is."

 

ReformedBaptist responded to me thusly:

How have you not proved it? You have not proved it because you answer with non-answers such as these. Your refusal to give a concrete answer to the question of the difference between God's sovereignty and His absolute sovereignty shows that you have not really thought through the language that you are using. You are seems to be parroting words without understanding them.