Understanding Galatians 1:15-16

Yet another complete fabrication based on the conjecture of men without biblical support. Just another pink elephant in orbit around Mars.

Lets accept that an understanding of scripture must be logically consistent with our understanding of all other scripture. But if you play fast and loose with scripture, i.e it does not mean what it says or worse, it means the opposite of what it says, i.e. Lydia was not really a worshiper of Yahweh, such "consistence" provides no check against false doctrine.

Next we have the idea that "how" God accomplishes His purpose is by the means of the conjecture of Calvinism, rather than by the means plainly stated in scripture. Lets say God says something will happen in the future. How does He bring it about, how does He fulfill His prophecy? He causes it to happen at the time and place of His choosing. Let us say Paul had been set aside for presenting the gospel of Christ to the world, i.e. in accordance with Romans 1:1. God had a plan for Paul's life, and at any necessary point or points in his life, God caused certain circumstances to arise. Born into a Hebrew family, raised as a Pharisee, etc, etc. Paul was zealous, even when while strongly for God and opposed to the way. But God knew Paul's heart and knew if the circumstance of the Damascus Road event occurred, how Paul would react. Just as Jesus knew how those in other towns would have reacted, had they seen His miracles. So God brought about Paul's revelation on the Road, and what resulted was absolutely according to God's plan which cannot be thwarted.

This is what happened according to scripture.

 

Reply to Martin,

I see the trees, but I do not see the imaginary forest of Calvinism.
God does as He pleases, but if God pleases to allow His creation to make autonomous choices which alter the outcome of their lives, He can do it because He is sovereign and is not ruled by man-made doctrine. Calvinists use "sovereign" as code for God predestines everything. But that is just another "pink elephant".

God of course can and does intervene and bring about some of our decisions such that is purpose is fulfilled. For example God hardens hearts. He also shapes the lives of those He loves. But none of this requires exhaustive determinism. And scripture teaches, if you do not rewrite it or redefine the meanings of words, that God sets before us a choice between life and death, and begs us to choose life. Scripture does not say what Calvinism claims, that God sets death before some and life before others, with all the decisions being predestined. Just another pink elephant.

 

It is ok to claim your view "just happens to fit into the Calvinist box" but me thinks thou doth protest too much.

God does not change. Now that is an open ended statement. Actually God's attitudes and attributes do not change. That is the actual biblical truth. His purpose from eternity was to choose for Himself a people for His own possession. It does not matter how He makes that choice, any manner fulfills His purpose of choosing.

Was Paul saved in the same manner as Isaiah and Jeremiah? Of course not. Isaiah and Jeremiah "obtained approval" through faith under the Old Covenant. Paul obtained salvation through faith in Christ Jesus under the New Covenant in His blood. And a person does not have to be saved to fulfill being the instrument of God, consider Judas and Pharaoh.

What does "determinate counsel" actually mean? Is it code for exhaustive determinism, God predestines everything. Did you answer the question, does God predetermine everything?

God did not need to know how Isaiah and Jeremiah would respond!! He caused them to respond according to His purpose and plan. That is what the Bible actually says.

As far as God choosing Paul from the womb, did God's choi8ce depend of knowing Paul's choice? Of course not. God brought about the outcome required by His plan for Paul and no plan of God can be thwarted. That is what the Bible actually says.

Which came first, God's choice of Isaiah or Isaiah's choice? God's choice for Isaiah to be a prophet. Does it logically follow that is the order for God choosing someone for salvation? Nope. That sort of thinking is the fallacy of proving "A" and then claiming "B" was proven. I could offer just as illogical an argument that says since God chose Isaiah from the womb, He chooses everyone for salvation from the womb and not before the foundation of the world. Two wrongs do not make a right.

And no one is separating God's predetermined plan and his knowledge beforehand of that plan. No need to claim pink elephants when scripture alone tells us the truth.

 

ROFLOL, Ituttut, we are not saying the same thing. You say God flips supernatural switches to cause people to believe, and I say God saves those whose autonomous faith in Christ He credits as righteousness.

 

God said he does not change, period. (James 1:17, I Sam 15:29).

This statement clearly demonstrates the fallacy of Calvinism. God makes an open ended statement - God does not change - and rather than see it is open ended, Calvinism inserts their made-up ending and claims that is what scripture says, period. God does not change what? To insert "everything imaginable" is adding to scripture. What is the minimum God could be saying? He does not change in His attitudes or attributes. Everyone can agree on that, and there are plenty of supporting verses that specifically address these aspects of immutability. Yes, His method of dealing with people changes, the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. And His purpose does not change. But what Calvinism does is claim God cannot learn, because that would be a change, even though scripture has God saying "now I know" indicating He did not know beforehand. Calvinism claims God cannot react, treat people this way if they do this, and treat people this other way, if that do that. But again, both are consistent with His purpose and do not violate the attribute of immutability.

James 1:17 addresses God's reliability, He can be trusted. The verse does not even address immutability. Why not use actual support for the attribute? You know, God is the same yesterday, today and forever?

And Samuel 15:29 says God does not lie, and we agree on that and does not "change His mind" as a man changes His mind. God does not repent either. He does not change from going in the wrong direction to going in the right direction. But God can change His mind and go from one right direction, say justice, and change and go in another direction, say mercy. This is what scripture says.

If you do not want to get into the method of salvation for the OT saints, then do not say He saved them. Say they gained approval through faith. And therefore God does not need to save people in order to use them as His instrument for His purpose. Your premise is false.

And you did not answer my question does God predestine everything. You can an example of God predestining some thing. We agree on that. It is the scope where we differ. I say some but not all things, and you say ... you will not answer. Never mind the scripture that says our yes should be yes and our no should be no.

And yes I agree God knows beforehand what He has predestined beforehand. So back to the basic question!!!

And then you evade, with a little humor, the issue of proving "A" and then claiming "B" was proved. Why not speak plainly?

No, a pink elephant is not a strawman. A pink elephant is a claim not based on what scripture says, but on an unwarranted inference not specifically addressed or precluded by scrpture. It is assigning the Calvinist ending to God does not change. That is a pink elephant. And if you claim you cannot see it, why it is an invisible pink elephant. You see when you make stuff up, you can evade the truth.