3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election

[Hammster]

What will do you allege God has apart from his revealed will? Because if people can act contrary to God's revealed will as well as acting in accord with it then what question can one possibly have about this matter if it does not relate to God's revealed will.

Huh? What does that have to do with my question concerning His omniscience?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Huh? What does that have to do with my question concerning His omniscience?

Everything because though it may be true that God knows everything (and I do not doubt that it is true) it is not true that we know everything or that we know what God knows so speculating about predestination as if we did know what will come to pass or how it will or why it will is unhelpful and presumptuous. Moses put it this way:

The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)​

You asked:

How can they choose differently than what God already knows?

I answer: The only things we know about God's will are the things he has revealed so it is not relevant if somebody can or cannot do what is opposed to what we know nothing about. What is relevant is if a man or a woman can do what God commands or forbids. The answer is revealed in holy scripture from the beginning; men and women can disobey God's commandments.

 

[Hammster]

Everything because though it may be true that God knows everything (and I do not doubt that it is true) it is not true that we know everything or that we know what God knows so speculating about predestination as if we did know what will come to pass or how it will or why it will is unhelpful and presumptuous. Moses put it this way:

The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)​

I have no idea what conversation you are a part of. Nowhere did I suggest that we should speculate on what will come to pass.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Everything because though it may be true that God knows everything (and I do not doubt that it is true) it is not true that we know everything or that we know what God knows so speculating about predestination as if we did know what will come to pass or how it will or why it will is unhelpful and presumptuous. Moses put it this way:

The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)​

You asked:

How can they choose differently than what God already knows?

I answer: The only things we know about God's will are the things he has revealed so it is not relevant if somebody can or cannot do what is opposed to what we know nothing about. What is relevant is if a man or a woman can do what God commands or forbids. The answer is revealed in holy scripture from the beginning; men and women can disobey God's commandments.

I have no idea what conversation you are a part of. Nowhere did I suggest that we should speculate on what will come to pass.

The question I responded to and which I included in my reply does ask a question about what God may not have revealed. God, in general, does not reveal what an individual will do so it is irrelevant to ask if a man or a woman can do differently from what somebody alleges God already knows they will do.

 

[Hammster]

The question I responded to and which I included in my reply does ask a question about what God may not have revealed. God, in general, does not reveal what an individual will do so it is irrelevant to ask if a man or a woman can do differently from what somebody alleges God already knows they will do.

It's not irrelevant. The discussion, as it swerved away from the OP, was not about what God may or may not have revealed. The question was, basically, can man do something other than what God knows he will do?

 

[psalms 91]

So what other areas of God's knowledge is fallible?

This is why I dont like engaging you, you are intelligent and capable of understanding what I say so why do you think that Gods knowledge is fallible? Just because you have the choice does not mean you will take it, just like salvation, a choice but not all will avail themselves of it even though we know that it is Gods will that all be saved

 

[Hammster]

This is why I dont like engaging you, you are intelligent and capable of understanding what I say so why do you think that Gods knowledge is fallible? Just because you have the choice does not mean you will take it, just like salvation, a choice but not all will avail themselves of it even though we know that it is Gods will that all be saved

I don't think God's knowledge is fallible.

What I don't understand is why you won't plainly answer the question. Can anyone do anything other than what God knows they will do?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's not irrelevant. The discussion, as it swerved away from the OP, was not about what God may or may not have revealed. The question was, basically, can man do something other than what God knows he will do?

It is irrelevant because neither you nor I nor anybody participating in this thread knows who is elect and who is not except by presumption and presumption is not a virtue praised by God but a fault that the faithful ought to avoid.

 

[Hammster]

It is irrelevant because neither you nor I nor anybody participating in this thread knows who is elect and who is not except by presumption and presumption is not a virtue praised by God but a fault that the faithful ought to avoid.

Where did I say anything about trying to know who the elect are?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Where did I say anything about trying to know who the elect are?

The doctrine of election is scriptural if it is stated that God saves whom he wants and condemns those who sin. What more is there to say?

But if the doctrine of election is expanded to include notions of predestination and reprobation and human knowledge of either of these things or if it is worded in such a way as to make men and women believe that they can or do know such matters even if the knowledge appertains only to themselves then it is not in accord with holy scripture's general teaching and is a heresy.

The WCF says "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." and the underlined bold text in it is heretical.

 

[Hammster]

The doctrine of election is scriptural if it is stated that God saves whom he wants and condemns those who sin. What more is there to say?

But if the doctrine of election is expanded to include notions of predestination and reprobation and human knowledge of either of these things or if it is worded in such a way as to make men and women believe that they can or do know such matters even if the knowledge appertains only to themselves then it is not in accord with holy scripture's general teaching and is a heresy.

The WCF says "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." and the underlined bold text in it is heretical.

How does this answer the question you quoted?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The doctrine of election is scriptural if it is stated that God saves whom he wants and condemns those who sin. What more is there to say?

But if the doctrine of election is expanded to include notions of predestination and reprobation and human knowledge of either of these things or if it is worded in such a way as to make men and women believe that they can or do know such matters even if the knowledge appertains only to themselves then it is not in accord with holy scripture's general teaching and is a heresy.

The WCF says "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." and the underlined bold text in it is heretical.

How does this answer the question you quoted?

Both have to do with human claims to knowledge of what God has not revealed. God has not revealed that specific individuals in this thread are elect and he has not revealed that they will or will not obey his commandments. All claims to know either that one is elect or that one is acting according to God's un-revealed will are speculations that are expressly discouraged in holy scripture.

The theme of this thread is (as its title indicates) 3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election is it not?

 

[Hammster]

Both have to do with human claims to knowledge of what God has not revealed. God has not revealed that specific individuals in this thread are elect and he has not revealed that they will or will not obey his commandments. All claims to know either that one is elect or that one is acting according to God's un-revealed will are speculations that are expressly discouraged in holy scripture.

The theme of this thread is (as its title indicates) 3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election is it not?

There is a link to an article.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is a link to an article.

Yes, I read it. Rather bad straw man creating.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, I read it. Rather bad straw man creating.

No it wasn't. Those are all objections I've encountered. Nothing you've brought up has anything to do with those objections.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No it wasn't. Those are all objections I've encountered. Nothing you've brought up has anything to do with those objections.

That's right; they are all straw men.

 

[Hammster]

That's right; they are all straw men.

How so?

 

[MoreCoffee]

How so?

Is that a serious question?

 

[MoreCoffee]

First straw man: 1. If you believe in election, doesn’t that leave you with the problem of why God doesn’t choose to save everyone? Answer: No, this is an absurd question. It assumes a common and shared understanding of the doctrine of election and that is definitely problematic because the view of election present in the Westminster Confession of Faith is heresy. It is not a doctrine that any Catholic would accept as either biblical or in accord with holy tradition and the teaching of the Church. Thus it is a straw man question/objection designed as a lead in to a Calvinist theological explanation of a heretical doctrine.

Second straw man: 2. But if everything is fixed and certain, why pray, evangelize, or do anything at all? Answer: This is absurd; God is God and his knowledge and purposes are only partly revealed to us in this world so the premise of this straw man question is something that no Catholic would agree to. It is not taught in holy scripture or in holy tradition and the church does not promote such a view of the world, prayer, and evangelisation.

Third straw man: 3. I believe the Bible and I see all the teaching about election, but why do I still dislike it? Answer: Who in their right mind would say "I believe that bible" and in the same breath say "I do not like what it says"? This is boarding of comedic caricature.

 

[Hammster]

Still no answer. You don't seem to want to actually engage. So be it.