Why Do Calvinists Think They Have Superior Theology?

God's will is not contingent upon man's, so there's no if/then which dictates Gods sovereign will. Furthermore it is, to my notion, error to speak of God being constrained by time like he has to look down so corridor of time. He exists outside of time so he is not dependent upon time for his choices.
Absolutely correct observation! God dwells in the "Eternal Present" so he doesn't have to "Look down through the annals of time" with a telescope or whatever to see what will take place. The reason I used the phrase is because this is typically how non-Calvinists try to define foreknowledge, election, and predestination so I borrowed their phrasing in order to make my point.

Seeing God in the "Eternal Present" places an entirely different perspective upon Romans 9:21-23 don't you think? Perhaps a little more "Calvinistic" than I would care for personally but we have to deal with it nonetheless right?
 
Hmm…. If God looks down the tunnel of time to determine His plan, not only is God dependent on man’s future choice, he is learning and then conforms his plan to man’s future decision.
Actually, I am not the one who came up with the word “conform.” It comes from those who believe that God looked down that tunnel. You call it “bloviations,” I’m just tracing the trail (“quoting”) theologians.
NO, like any bloviating hyper-Cal...you're trying to impose your understanding of things as what is real. You're building straw man arguments. Nobody is saying God is looking down a tunnel of time but you. He already knows and allows it to play out...not that he willed it that way. Otherwise, he really isn't willing that people shouldn't perish, and that all should come to repentance, making him a liar.
 
Back to the phrase “God conforms…”

You may not believe that God conforms… unfortunately, the theology you just presented has become like a wildfire. Theologians have been teaching that God’s foreknowledge is “looking down the tunnel of time…” This theology is expressed…


Here…..

WHEN GOD DISCOVERS: Scripture consistently portrays God’s knowledge as conforming to the ways things really are …. https://reknew.org/2016/03/when-god-discovers/





And here….

A SUMMARY OF ARMINIAN THEOLOGY: it is especially foreknowledge of the faith of believers that is in view as that to which the divine election conforms. http://evangelicalarminians.org/the...nian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/



Now, it has permeated Christian thought…

GOD LEARNS AND ADAPTS (aka conforms) “The majority of adults in the United States believe that God both learns and adapts to different circumstances.” https://thestateoftheology.com
 
NO, like any bloviating hyper-Cal...you're trying to impose your understanding of things as what is real. You're building straw man arguments. Nobody is saying God is looking down a tunnel of time but you. He already knows and allows it to play out...not that he willed it that way. Otherwise, he really isn't willing that people shouldn't perish, and that all should come to repentance, making him a liar.
Well… I went to a Fundamental Baptist College in the 1980s and there was plenty of “tunnel of time” talk.

It was a popular view among fundies in the 1970s & 1980s
 
The loaded language that God "conforms" to the will of man is the caricature and misleading characterization of people's beliefs that are as you describe.
Caricature or not, the hallmark of semi-Pelagianism or semi-Augustinianism is that the divine will cooperates with the human will in the act of conversion.

And that is basically the dictionary definition of synergism, which is the fundamental basis of semi-Pelagianism or semi-Augustinianism.

(Semi-Pelagianism says that a person first moves toward God in an act of free will, in response to which God extends grace. The only difference between that and semi-Augustinianism is whether the person or God makes the first step. They are both synergistic--God co-operating with the human will to bring about salvation.)
 
You're building straw man arguments. Nobody is saying God is looking down a tunnel of time but you.
I've heard plenty of "God looks down the corridors of time" talk over the years.

The issue is not whether God is bound by time or not. Either way he knows all things. The issue is whether he is responding to events that he observes (synergism), or making them happen by divine decree (monergism).
 
Well… I went to a Fundamental Baptist College in the 1980s and there was plenty of “tunnel of time” talk.

It was a popular view among fundies in the 1970s & 1980s
I went to Maranatha Baptist Bible College in the early 1980s...I started at Fellowship Baptist College in E. Peoria, IL in 1980...a split off of BBC in Missouri. Both strong IFB colleges at the time. I never heard one word about "tunnel of time." Sounds like you got stuck at HAC! LOL
 
I went to Maranatha Baptist Bible College in the early 1980s...I started at Fellowship Baptist College in E. Peoria, IL in 1980...a split off of BBC in Missouri. Both strong IFB colleges at the time. I never heard one word about "tunnel of time." Sounds like you got stuck at HAC! LOL
I was at MBBC 1984-1988.

I heard it plenty of times. You slept through chapel 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
I was at MBBC 1984-1988.

I heard it plenty of times. You slept through chapel 🤷🏻‍♂️
I was there in 1982-83. I hardly slept through chapel. And you're being, once again, bloviating fool. If you were there then, you should have known a lot of my friends....Mark Pilgar, Ernie LaSalle, Dave Abbott, Larry Simon, Cristina Cobb (now Simon...married Larry), Judy McVey, Debbie Finup, Heidi Ness, Hector Crespo, Rhoda Skerrye, Shelia Heflin, Jon Kincaid, and several others I could name. Dr. Larry Oats was from my home church in Illinois. Professor Kerr is a distant cousin from what I am told.
 
I was there in 1982-83. I hardly slept through chapel. And you're being, once again, bloviating fool. If you were there then, you should have known a lot of my friends....Mark Pilgar, Ernie LaSalle, Dave Abbott, Larry Simon, Cristina Cobb (now Simon...married Larry), Judy McVey, Debbie Finup, Heidi Ness, Hector Crespo, Rhoda Skerrye, Shelia Heflin, Jon Kincaid, and several others I could name. Dr. Larry Oats was from my home church in Illinois. Professor Kerr is a distant cousin from what I am told.
If both y'all went to MBBC, it seems the two of you would have theology similar to the great Doctor Bob and you would both be sporting Bow Ties! :LOL:

If my theology continues to progress the way it has, perhaps I better start learning how to tie a bowtie, become a cigar aficionado, and do reformed guys drink Scotch or Cognac? I guess it depends upon whether you identify more with Geneva or with John Knox in Scotland? :ROFLMAO:
 
[I knew] Hector Crespo, Jon Kincaid, Dr. Larry Oats (sat on my ordination committee)

Hershberger was my doctrine teacher and was essentially the only Calvinistic influence on staff at the time.
 
If both y'all went to MBBC, it seems the two of you would have theology similar to the great Doctor Bob and you would both be sporting Bow Ties! :LOL:

If my theology continues to progress the way it has, perhaps I better start learning how to tie a bowtie, become a cigar aficionado, and do reformed guys drink Scotch or Cognac? I guess it depends upon whether you identify more with Geneva or with John Knox in Scotland? :ROFLMAO:
My theology is probably closer to Grif's than most know. I know that Mr. Hershberger was pretty Calvinistic in his doctrinal stance. But, I also know that the Doctrines book that we were assigned to buy was Calvinistic in nature. Bancroft's Christian Theology is what it was. I have it sitting right here by me. I can't remember if I had Dr. Thomas Strouse or Dr. Richard Weeks as my Doctrines professor.
 
Last edited:
FSSL...since we went to the same Bible college...let me know who you are. I give my word that nobody else will ever find out. I'd be interested in getting to know just how close we are on a lot of things. I think you've got my contact info on the registration here. Drop me an email....or, if you'd rather, I'll give you my phone # via email. It never hurts to have more Christian friends. :)
 
Dr. Thomas Strouse or Dr. Richard Weeks as my Doctrines professor.

I had Strouse for Missionary Methods. I would assume that he and Weeks were not Calvinistic. It was all about the “Trail of Blood” in those days
 
Do you define “foreknowledge” as “to know beforehand?”
If foreknowledge, of the garden variety Calvinistic sort, means God will infallibly bring to pass all that He has decreed, down to the tiniest detail, how does that definition comport with the idea that God isn't responsible for sin?
 
If foreknowledge, of the garden variety Calvinistic sort, means God will infallibly bring to pass all that He has decreed, down to the tiniest detail, how does that definition comport with the idea that God isn't responsible for sin?
The garden variety Calvinistic sort is "Fore-Loved" meaning God knew, loved, and chose before the foundation of the world.

God decrees but is either active or passive what comes to pass. God actively decrees the election of his own and passes over everyone else. God does not actively decree sin or the reprobation of the non-elect.
 
The garden variety Calvinistic sort is "Fore-Loved" meaning God knew, loved, and chose before the foundation of the world.

God decrees but is either active or passive what comes to pass. God actively decrees the election of his own and passes over everyone else. God does not actively decree sin or the reprobation of the non-elect.
I'm just A Layman 😉, so if you don't mind go slow for me, but in the scheme of my understanding that God decrees everything that comes to pass, how does his decreeing of every tiny event sovereignly to come to pass avoid the logical implication that He is not responsible for sin? I say this as somebody who long ago gave up on trying to figure this out, and lean calvinistically, but literally cannot understand the logical implications of the degree of sovereignty that Calvinism implies when it says that he decrees everything that comes to pass.
 
I'm just A Layman 😉, so if you don't mind go slow for me, but in the scheme of my understanding that God decrees everything that comes to pass, how does his decreeing of every tiny event sovereignly to come to pass avoid the logical implication that He is not responsible for sin? I say this as somebody who long ago gave up on trying to figure this out, and lean calvinistically, but literally cannot understand the logical implications of the degree of sovereignty that Calvinism implies when it says that he decrees everything that comes to pass.
Me too! :LOL:

But I am currently in Seminary getting smarter with each passing minute! :ROFLMAO:

Here is an excerpt from my "Decrees of God" paper where God's directive and permissive will are discussed. Perhaps it will be of help and I value any feedback you may have. The "Ibid" references are from the Moody Handbook of Theology which was the textbook for the course.

God Decrees According to His Sovereign Will​

God’s decrees are and will be accomplished according to both the directive and permissive will of God. According to the directive will, God is active in his creation bringing about what comes to pass. He is the Creator, and by him all things are made (Jn 1:3). All things are under his control and by him, all things consist (Col 1:16, 17). By him kings and governments are established and cast down (Dan 2:21), and the saints are elected according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph 1:4-5).[1]

God’s will is not frustrated by the actions of sinful men. He is perfect in his foreknowledge and therefore sees all things and knows not only every possible scenario, but the exact path and direction any person will take (Job 23:10). God does not sin, is not the author of sin, nor does he lead or cause others to sin. He does, however, use the actions of sinful men to accomplish his ultimate plan and purpose. God works passively at times through his permissive will whereby he allows certain events to take their course without his intervention. The fall of Adam is therefore within the scope of God’s decree and accomplished according to his permissive will. God is glorified while Adam was responsible and accountable for his sinful actions.[2] The same may be said of Joseph’s brothers who sold him into slavery. They meant it for evil, but God used it for good to preserve the sons of Israel in the land of Egypt during a time of famine and want.

The Topic of Election is Unavoidable​

The elephant in the room may as well be addressed. The scriptures are clear that God actively and deliberately chooses those who are his according to his directive will (Jn 6:37, 44; 15:16; Eph 1:4-5, 11; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pet 2:9). It has already been stated that God does not tempt or lead anyone to sin (Jas 1:13). Therefore, God does not actively choose anyone for condemnation or cause their reprobation. He simply passes them over and leaves them to their appointed end (Ez 18:20; Jn 3:36; 8:21, 24). The elect therefore receives mercy and the non-elect receive justice. No one receives injustice.[3]

Mankind is dead in sin (Eph 2:1) and subject to God’s divine wrath and judgment (Jn 3:36; Rom 1:18; 1 Th 2:16). They stand condemned because of sin against a holy, righteous, and just God. All saved are elect of God and all who are not shall perish in the lake-of-fire of their own free will. God’s sovereignty does not negate a man’s responsibility to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30).



[1] Ibid, 211.
[2] Ibid, 211.
[3] MacArthur, John, Phil Johnson, Richard Mayhue, Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation, Retrieved 8/4/2022 at: https://www.gty.org/library/article...stination-the-sovereignty-of-god-in-salvation.
 
Me too! :LOL:

But I am currently in Seminary getting smarter with each passing minute! :ROFLMAO:

Here is an excerpt from my "Decrees of God" paper where God's directive and permissive will are discussed. Perhaps it will be of help and I value any feedback you may have. The "Ibid" references are from the Moody Handbook of Theology which was the textbook for the course.
You stated in your essay”The scriptures are clear that God actively and deliberately chooses those who are his according to his directive will (Jn 6:37, 44; 15:16; Eph 1:4-5, 11; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pet 2:9).”

Off topic here, but is it Scripture or Scriptures, and also should it be capitalized? Also, isn’t he (as in God) supposed to be capitalized, or does it not matter?
 
Back
Top