Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Calvinist?

Different choices lead to different actions which lead to different outcomes, which means the world is a very different place....had someone decided to kill Hitler when he was rising to power, etc, etc....

And the objects and events of macro world exist whether you are there to observe, or not.

The definition of omniscience is perfect and complete knowledge, therefore there are no surprises.

Nor is human behaviour that hard to predict. To a Being capable of creating a universe, our behaviour would be no mystery.

I'm not a Calvinist but like you (much more so than when I was younger) tend to question whether people choose to be believers or whether God chooses them. Some people come to God out of the depths of hell on earth where in the natural course of things they should never have a chance. Others are raised in church by good Christian parents and should be a shoo in for salvation but utterly reject the Gospel and become God haters.

It makes one ponder.

It’s a difficult subject to navigate and one which has caused a lot of problems throughout the history of the church. Important issues tend to do so.

I agreed with the Calvinistic view of election for some years. However, it comes with its baggage. I’m learning that any theological view should be scrutinized by running it out to the end of reason. With Calvinism the natural end is to come to the idea of double predestination. Some are born to go to Hell and some to go to Heaven. Then we end up with the question of why Christ had to come and die if the choice was already made.

Romans 9 is used as the end all argument to address individual election. However, with in the context of the chapters that surround it a better understanding of that text is that the analogy of Esau and Jacob is speaking about the Gentiles and Jews rather than individual people. That makes better sense considering that Paul speaks about the two being made one, believing Jew and Gentile together being Spiritual Israel.

As I’ve studies Luther’s/Melancthon’s view it makes more sense. On election they leave scripture in its natural tension. Maybe this can best be seen by considering verses that say such things as God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It is not God’s will that any should perish. All that (the Father) has given me will come to me. No man can come to me unless the Father draws him. These verses stand in tension with each other. I believe that we as humans err when we try to take some of the mysteries that surround the Gospel and insist on understanding them.

Again you anthropomorphize God. You can't comprehend infinity therefore use your limited information base to judge God.

It is actually very clear... you either believe the Bible is without error or you do not... you either believe the Bible contradicts itself or you do not... if it does, we should throw it away as it is truly not from God.... THe Bible clearly states that God wants all to be saved....

The only proper understanding of predestination that does not contradict what the bible says is.... God predetermined the plan of who would be saved... not the individual person.


People like Calvin had some serous misunderstandings... Another example is once saved aways saved.... Apostacy is clearly taught in the bible... THink of this... once saved always saved means you can get saved, then go do anytihng you want the rest of your life... and infact do not do what the Bible says... example.. do not follow Gods commands which we are called to do.... so to get around this, people who believe once saved always saved like to claim the people who do this were never saved... Read Hebrews 5&6

I believe the Bible contains lots of errors. It also contains lots of good stuff and truth. God would like us to be smart enough to tell the difference. Otherwise, why would there be thousands of different denominations, and different versions of the Bible, all of which disagree with each other in some aspects?

After all, God did not write the Bible or determine what should be in it. Nor did Jesus or even Paul or Peter. Some medieval Catholic bishops who lived 300 years after Jesus did, bishops who would probably be considered pretty ignorant today.

As for this predestination stuff, while I have not read all these posts, I think it is hooey. If you believe in it, why wouldn't Judas be considered a "good guy," doing just what God made him do, and without whom we could not have had the crucifixion, resurrection, and Christianity? One could make the same comment about Hitler doing God's will.

Personally, I don't think God wanted Hitler to do what Hitler did. If anyone thinks Hitler did God's will, your God is not my God.

People make Christianity too complicated.

Straw man; there is a big difference between biblical predestination and rationalistic determinism.

Quite circular, if you really think about it.
God must have created evil as well. Created Lucifer knowing he would be full of evil.
Then wanted to sit back and watch the movie play out, knowing the ending?

I am glad that who goes to heaven is determined by God and is not determined by men.

It could just be that evil is the lack of Good. Good being defined by the characteristics and nature of God.

You can if you want but it seems to me to be more productive to simply understand His "soon" may not be ours due to time vs eternity.

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

It may be an overly simple way to put it, "The Lord works strange, and in mysterious ways?

Sako, you are so confused.

I believe that we ‘do’.

Absolute truth and from the beginning, it has been GOD who has worked to rectify our first father’s choice in Gen 3. Anyone who reads the scriptures in its entirety has to recognize that God has sought to save for Himself a people, and those same people have snubbed Him at every opportunity.

Praise God for His grace in Christ and for seeing fit to write a whole book about it!

X2 ...... sorry

Why? What's wrong with what he said?

God tells us He sends a deluding influence on those who wish to believe a lie.

After all, God did not write the Bible or determine what should be in it. Nor did Jesus or even Paul or Peter. Some medieval Catholic bishops who lived 300 years after Jesus did, bishops who would probably be considered pretty ignorant today.[/quote]

Apparently you're not aware of the history of at least the New Testament. The Old Testament was translated into Latin at least 250 years prior to Jesus arrival, so it was not adjusted after that. Consider Doc Rocket's post below. I am posting this without either's permission.



24hourcampfire.com

Originally Posted By antlers
If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.
Answered by Doc Rocket

Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.

However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.

The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.

So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.

The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.

99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.

This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.

So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.

Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.

Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.

So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.

And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.

People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.