God's plan is so perfect, so complex, shortsighted Arminians and Calvinists just can't fathom it.

[Fastfredy0]

Is that really why, or was this indefensible:
One could be given faith and sealed concurrently.-FastFreddy0

What would Sherlock say about this?

Forensically its impossible faith and sealing (regeneration) are concurrent as belief comes first, then salvation:
31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31 NKJ)

To illustrate with a Sherlockian analogy "a cake is not found baked before cooked in an oven my dear Watson."

Could it be deduced a certain inability to prove your "concurrent theory" might have led to the "ending the conversation."

I found your had superior prose but the subject matter of the thread seems obtuse and I couldn't follow your reasoning so I left the conversation to others with more patience.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I found your had superior prose but the subject matter of the thread seems obtuse and I couldn't follow your reasoning so I left the conversation to others with more patience.

I don't post for patience, I post for debate, for logical challenges to my proposition. Have a nice day.

 

[Tenchi]

On the contrary, this entire thread proves it.

No, it doesn't. How could it when my most rudimentary challenge to your view you've been unable even to understand? If my simple objections confound you, what more the intricate and sophisticated soteriological systematics of Calvin and Arminius?

Hiding in plain sight was the key Calvin and Arminius missed.

Oh, goodness. Really? You actually believe you've seen what they, and all the prodigious thinkers after them who've subscribed to their views, missed? You don't appear to have a good, comprehensive understanding of their views so how, then, can you claim to "see" better than they have?

there are two versions of everyone born since the foundation of the world.

In God's Omniscience (He knows all things), before He created....He knew Satan would rebel and deceive Adam and the fall would occur. He saw what happened to everyone who came into existence in the fallen realm.

He also knew a version of everyone BEFORE they were fallen. When these "woke up" God revealed His love for them. Some responded immediately with love. Some were neutral, thinking "so what's next". Some responded with terror knowing they were evil.

God then selected those who responded with love, and in a separate "foreknowing" God enjoyed life with these infinitely.

Are you familiar with the principle of Occam's Razor? Given your explanation above, it seems you aren't. The principle asserts that a viewpoint that multiplies explanations unnecessarily in order to establish itself is, more likely than not, false. In other words, if there are two explanations of a thing (an event, or state-of-affairs, or belief), one complex and the other, simple, if the simple explanation adequately explains the thing, it is generally to be preferred over the complex explanation. Your "two versions" explanation above adds unnecessary (and bizarre) complexity to the job of explaining God's sovereignty and Man's free agency and therefore rings false.

In any case, your statements above are:

There are two versions of every person.

Where is this stated in God's word? Where is this in evidence in reality?

God is omniscient therefore He knows a fallen version of every person and a not-fallen version.

Where is this found in God's word? Is there any evidence for this assertion in reality?

The not-fallen version of people who choose God are selected by God for salvation in the fallen version of themselves.

This all sounds like a very clumsy and badly understood version of Molinism's divine "middle knowledge." On Molinism, God knows everything that could, would and will happen. These three "moments" of knowledge constitute a very general structure of God's natural knowledge (what God knows as a consequence of His omniscient nature). Middle knowledge is counter-factual which is to say it is what would have happened had the actual state-of-affairs been different. It is, essentially, hypothetical knowledge that is counter to the facts but still contains truth (counter- factual knowledge).

For example, imagine Bob who drinks milk straight from the milk carton that he's taken from the fridge. This is what Bob has actually, in reality, done. But God knows all the possible counter-factual, middle knowledge circumstances where, for whatever reason, Bob doesn't drink straight from the milk carton. Maybe Bob's wife interrupts him in the middle of bringing the carton to his mouth and insists he use a glass to drink the milk, which he does. Maybe, as the carton nears his mouth, Bob smells that the milk has gone sour and doesn't drink from the carton at all. Maybe Bob sees in the fridge that there is a can of pop and drinks that instead of the milk. Whatever Bob might have done were the circumstances different, God knows as "middle knowledge," a counter-factual to the actual state-of-affairs.

Though this middle knowledge isn't what Bob actually did, it is what he certainly would have done if the situation had been different in this way, or that. So, although middle knowledge is contrary to the fact of what Bob actually did, it is still the truth about Bob insofar as it is what he would have done given a different set of circumstances.

It's important also to understand that Molinism doesn't propose that God is "looking down the corridors of time" and "seeing," or perceiving what Bob actually does, but, rather, God has always known innately what will happen; He doesn't have to act to obtain knowledge by "looking down the corridors of time."

Perhaps now you can see how similar your "two versions of people" idea is to Molinism but how seriously lacking your notion is in comparison to the Molinist view.

This "foreknowing" is analogous to reading print where some of the text is highlighted.

Ugh. This is the sort of distortion of God that happens when people try to squish Him into their human frame of reference.

But there was a problem. Many of these would be deceived in a fallen world, and die the death of the wicked. Lest that happen, God Elected these He foreknew to be conformed to the image of His Son.

That is what is implied by these verses:

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? (Rom. 8:28-31 NKJ)

The Bible doesn't offer any ground for your speculation on God's motives for election. Where in this passage from Romans 8, for example, does Paul actually indicate anything that supports your speculation? Paul wrote in the passage that God "calls people according to His purpose," and that He "foreknew" and "predestined" them as well as justifying and glorifying them. At no point, though, does Paul remark on God's motive for doing all this such that you have grounds in his words for your speculation. There just isn't any such ground. At all. You must force upon Paul's words your peculiar ideas, if they are to be connected to what he wrote.

Both Calvin and Arminius missed a simple truth, God didn't "foreknow" everyone, He already knew in His Omniscience who were children of God and who were children of the Devil and who were inbetween.

How do you know they missed what you have understood about God's omniscience? And all those who've come after Arminius and Calvin promoting and refining their views? Have they missed this bit about God's omniscience, too? You haven't offered anything that demonstrates that this is the case.

He only foreknew the Elect and predestined them to salvation.

He did not reprobate anyone. Everyone else has the opportunity to join the elect in salvation, but they must overcome this fallen world or their names will be blotted out of the book of life.

God only foreknew the Elect? He didn't foreknow the non-Elect? How, then, can God be said to be omniscient? If He doesn't know something that is, or will be, He is not omniscient. To be omniscient, after all, is to know ALL, which would include who the non-Elect are/will be.

I agree that God has not forced people by divine fiat into reprobation. Instead, the Molinist view goes like this:

"Molinism argues that God accomplishes His sovereign will via His omniscience. First, God knows everything that could happen. This first moment is His natural knowledge, where God knows everything due to His omniscient nature. Second, from the set of infinite possibilities, God also knows which scenarios would result in persons freely responding in the way He desires. This crucial moment of knowledge is between the first and third moment, hence the term middle knowledge. From the repertoire of available options provided by His middle knowledge, God freely and sovereingly chooses which one will come to pass. This results in God's thrird moment of knowledge, which is His foreknowledge of what certainly will occur. The third moment is God's free knowledge because it is determined by His free and sovereign choice.

By utilizing these three phases of knowledge, God predestines all events, yet not in such a way that violates genuine human freedom and choice." (Kenneth Keathley - "Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach," pg. 152)

Keep in mind that, On Molinism, the "moments" in God's knowledge are not chronological moments but logical ones.

Sherlock would infer from the facts, this is what explains the phenomena we see in the Bible.

Anyone could make the imaginary character called Sherlock Holmes infer anything. He's imaginary. In any case, he isn't necessary - or useful, really - to getting at a better understanding of God's sovereignty and Man's free agency.

Christ and His apostles clearly reveal it in the NT but it requires one be like Sherlock Holmes and fit the Bible pieces together without forcing them to fit a preconceived picture.

Oh, the irony in this quotation! Wow.

 

[Alfred Persson]

No, it doesn't. How could it when my most rudimentary challenge to your view you've been unable even to understand? If my simple objections confound you, what more the intricate and sophisticated soteriological systematics of Calvin and Arminius?



Oh, goodness. Really? You actually believe you've seen what they, and all the prodigious thinkers after them who've subscribed to their views, missed? You don't appear to have a good, comprehensive understanding of their views so how, then, can you claim to "see" better than they have?



Are you familiar with the principle of Occam's Razor? Given your explanation above, it seems you aren't. The principle asserts that a viewpoint that multiplies explanations unnecessarily in order to establish itself is, more likely than not, false. In other words, if there are two explanations of a thing (an event, or state-of-affairs, or belief), one complex and the other, simple, if the simple explanation adequately explains the thing, it is generally to be preferred over the complex explanation. Your "two versions" explanation above adds unnecessary (and bizarre) complexity to the job of explaining God's sovereignty and Man's free agency and therefore rings false.

In any case, your statements above are:

There are two versions of every person.

Where is this stated in God's word? Where is this in evidence in reality?

God is omniscient therefore He knows a fallen version of every person and a not-fallen version.

Where is this found in God's word? Is there any evidence for this assertion in reality?

The not-fallen version of people who choose God are selected by God for salvation in the fallen version of themselves.

This all sounds like a very clumsy and badly understood version of Molinism's divine "middle knowledge." On Molinism, God knows everything that could, would and will happen. These three "moments" of knowledge constitute a very general structure of God's natural knowledge (what God knows as a consequence of His omniscient nature). Middle knowledge is counter-factual which is to say it is what would have happened had the actual state-of-affairs been different. It is, essentially, hypothetical knowledge that is counter to the facts but still contains truth (counter- factual knowledge).

For example, imagine Bob who drinks milk straight from the milk carton that he's taken from the fridge. This is what Bob has actually, in reality, done. But God knows all the possible counter-factual, middle knowledge circumstances where, for whatever reason, Bob doesn't drink straight from the milk carton. Maybe Bob's wife interrupts him in the middle of bringing the carton to his mouth and insists he use a glass to drink the milk, which he does. Maybe, as the carton nears his mouth, Bob smells that the milk has gone sour and doesn't drink from the carton at all. Maybe Bob sees in the fridge that there is a can of pop and drinks that instead of the milk. Whatever Bob might have done were the circumstances different, God knows as "middle knowledge," a counter-factual to the actual state-of-affairs.

Though this middle knowledge isn't what Bob actually did, it is what he certainly would have done if the situation had been different in this way, or that. So, although middle knowledge is contrary to the fact of what Bob actually did, it is still the truth about Bob insofar as it is what he would have done given a different set of circumstances.

It's important also to understand that Molinism doesn't propose that God is "looking down the corridors of time" and "seeing," or perceiving what Bob actually does, but, rather, God has always known innately what will happen; He doesn't have to act to obtain knowledge by "looking down the corridors of time."

Perhaps now you can see how similar your "two versions of people" idea is to Molinism but how seriously lacking your notion is in comparison to the Molinist view.



Ugh. This is the sort of distortion of God that happens when people try to squish Him into their human frame of reference.



The Bible doesn't offer any ground for your speculation on God's motives for election. Where in this passage from Romans 8, for example, does Paul actually indicate anything that supports your speculation? Paul wrote in the passage that God "calls people according to His purpose," and that He "foreknew" and "predestined" them as well as justifying and glorifying them. At no point, though, does Paul remark on God's motive for doing all this such that you have grounds in his words for your speculation. There just isn't any such ground. At all. You must force upon Paul's words your peculiar ideas, if they are to be connected to what he wrote.



How do you know they missed what you have understood about God's omniscience? And all those who've come after Arminius and Calvin promoting and refining their views? Have they missed this bit about God's omniscience, too? You haven't offered anything that demonstrates that this is the case.



God only foreknew the Elect? He didn't foreknow the non-Elect? How, then, can God be said to be omniscient? If He doesn't know something that is, or will be, He is not omniscient. To be omniscient, after all, is to know ALL, which would include who the non-Elect are/will be.

I agree that God has not forced people by divine fiat into reprobation. Instead, the Molinist view goes like this:

"Molinism argues that God accomplishes His sovereign will via His omniscience. First, God knows everything that could happen. This first moment is His natural knowledge, where God knows everything due to His omniscient nature. Second, from the set of infinite possibilities, God also knows which scenarios would result in persons freely responding in the way He desires. This crucial moment of knowledge is between the first and third moment, hence the term middle knowledge. From the repertoire of available options provided by His middle knowledge, God freely and sovereingly chooses which one will come to pass. This results in God's thrird moment of knowledge, which is His foreknowledge of what certainly will occur. The third moment is God's free knowledge because it is determined by His free and sovereign choice.

By utilizing these three phases of knowledge, God predestines all events, yet not in such a way that violates genuine human freedom and choice." (Kenneth Keathley - "Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach," pg. 152)

Keep in mind that, On Molinism, the "moments" in God's knowledge are not chronological moments but logical ones.



Anyone could make the imaginary character called Sherlock Holmes infer anything. He's imaginary. In any case, he isn't necessary - or useful, really - to getting at a better understanding of God's sovereignty and Man's free agency.



Oh, the irony in this quotation! Wow.

These non threaded boards aren't suited for addressing more than one or two ideas at a time. I will answer you in full, in multiple separate posts, when I have time.

 

[Alfred Persson]

No, it doesn't. How could it when my most rudimentary challenge to your view you've been unable even to understand? If my simple objections confound you, what more the intricate and sophisticated soteriological systematics of Calvin and Arminius?

Copy paste the precise "rudimentary challenge" I couldn't understand, putting my misunderstanding right beneath it.
Stay focused. Lets start with that only.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I found your had superior prose but the subject matter of the thread seems obtuse and I couldn't follow your reasoning so I left the conversation to others with more patience.

I apologize if I sounded "superior", that isn't my intention. This is why I prefer the old style bullentin board "threaded view", precise points got their own thread and it kept track of previous statements. Then following a particular point was easy. Now, after a post or two one forgets what was said before and the original point being debated is often forgotten. Even who one is debating with can be confused as users just blur together in one huge thread.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I apologize if I sounded "superior", that isn't my intention.

No need to apologize. I was truthfully commenting on the fact the your stuff is well written; easy to follow.

This is why I prefer the old style bullentin board "threaded view", precise points got their own thread and it kept track of previous statements.

It is difficult at times to follow. Aside: A thread saying Calvinism and Arminianism wrong is maybe too broad a topic *giggle*

Now, after a post or two one forgets what was said before and the original point being debated is often forgotten. Even who one is debating with can be confused as users just blur together in one huge thread.

Very true. Complete agreement.
I generally don't like posts that are over say 300 words... but I'm lazy.
Oh, and everyone prefers posts that agree with their viewpoint

 

[Alfred Persson]