On the omniscience of God

[Bladerunner]

Are you @Bladerunner?

you talking about my email?

 

[Bladerunner]

Yes, like the tradition of saying Calvinism doesn't promote literally ethical nihilism—even though it most unmistakenly does promote literally ethical nihilism, or call it, moral anti-realism, or moral irrealism. They don't believe ethical propositions bear any truth, that's just the logic of Calvinism simpliciter. It's as clear, to make a perfect parallel (for once), to Mary mother of God. To deny it, is to commit a heresy (Nestorianism), but under Calvinism, with no magisterium, and so no ecumenical Church councils, the promotion of literally ethical nihilism isn't a famous heresy in Calvinism—they don't know what Nestorianism even is. And so can you blame them, for not knowing, what isn't known? This doesn't put the average Roman Catholic who satisfies his Mass obligation and avoids grave matter in any sort of advantage, having a tradition which is full of the detailed exposition of every single heresy that ever popped up in all history. Under Calvinism, there's no record available of that, while in Roman Catholicism simpliciter they are easy to find when you know to look them up. I'm not in any advantage, over the Calvinist, because of this searchable record of known heresies, knowing about Nestorianism, and recognizing that Mary mother of God (we celebrated Mary mother of God on January 1st with the first non-Sunday Mass obligation of 2025) is logically required unless you commit the heresy of Nestorianism.

So Mary mother of God is required, with syllogisms. It's not like the Apostles went around calling the Blessed Virgin "Mother of God"—the problem is that, what they did teach, requires Mary mother of God, through syllogisms. As simple as twice two is four. The Bible doesn't say four. But the Bible does say Twice Two Is. So therefore it HAS to be four. No Other Option.

Calvinism promotes and supports and sustains and substantiates and corroborates and confirms and demonstrates and shows and proves and reveals and teaches and believes and cosigns and approves and defends and coheres with and is inhered by literally ethical nihilism—moral anti-realism and or moral irrealism. With the same syllogistic pressure which promotes Mary mother of God, and the Trinity against Arianism, because it's the only other option, when considering the Apostles' precedence, case law, and common law.

What I mean is Mary mother of God is promoted by and supported by and sustained by and substantiated by and corroborated by and confirmed by and demonstrated by and shown by and proven by and revealed by and taught by and believed by and cosigned by and approved by and defended by and coheres with and inheres Twice Two Is.

The only other option for Twice Two Is is Four, and that's a capital F, because it's Apostolic, and Apostolic means from Jesus. Even though the Apostles never said Four, they all said Twice Two Is. We KNOW they said Four. We know that Jesus says Four, capital F.

No other option.

bunch of Hog Wash. Calvinism is within the beholder, not the RCC.

 

[Bladerunner]

Are you @Bladerunner?

I am sorry, guess I do not understand the question. what do you mean by '@Bladerunner'?

 

[Bladerunner]

Are you @Bladerunner?

JudgeRightly, I don't know how to answer that.

 

[Derf]

JudgeRightly, I don't know how to answer that.

It wasn't aimed at you, just a passing swipe.

 

[Idolater]

you lost me at comparing Calvinism to Mary Mother of God. Maybe you can restate and be more specific in what you are trying to convey, without trying to insert unrelated doctrines that you are trying to promote.

Not Calvinism with Mary mother of God (which is just not being a Nestorian). Calvinism with tolerating abortionist "doctors" dismembering babies in the womb, because Calvinism doesn't harbor moral obligations, so Calvinism doesn't evaluate babies dismembered in the womb by abortionist "doctors" any differently from oldsters going softly into the night peacefully in their sleep. In either case their soul's eternal destination was chosen by God before their conception. So same difference, to Calvinism. And it's syllogistic, no Calvinist approves what I am saying, it's the same way that the Bible doesn't say Mary mother of God. But syllogistically, twice two is four. Every single time.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You clearly did not listen to what was played in the video.

You did not listen to the words Dr. White himself said, that were recorded, and then played back for all to hear.

Here is what he originally said, verbatim (yes, I went and looked for the exact quote):

Dr. White: "I think God's probably consistent here and, uh, He's going to have elect infants, and then there are others who will not be, and I don't know what basis to put that on other than the same basis of all the rest of us."

That means some babies will go to heaven, and other babies will go to hell, according to his view.

Actually I did and my response was not aimed at that.

Are you @Bladerunner?

you talking about my email?

I am sorry, guess I do not understand the question. what do you mean by '@Bladerunner'?

JudgeRightly, I don't know how to answer that.

@Bladerunner @Crede please go read who I am responding to, and try not to respond to someone's posts to someone else as though they were addressed to you.

 

[Derf]

Not Calvinism with Mary mother of God (which is just not being a Nestorian). Calvinism with tolerating abortionist "doctors" dismembering babies in the womb, because Calvinism doesn't harbor moral obligations,

I think they do. They will all claim "man's responsibility". They're just inconsistent with their "all things are decreed by God" tenet.

so Calvinism doesn't evaluate babies dismembered in the womb by abortionist "doctors" any differently from oldsters going softly into the night peacefully in their sleep. In either case their soul's eternal destination was chosen by God before their conception. So same difference, to Calvinism. And it's syllogistic, no Calvinist approves what I am saying, it's the same way that the Bible doesn't say Mary mother of God.

So no Catholic approves what you are saying?

But syllogistically, twice two is four. Every single time.

The mother of God phrase carries with it additional meaning, like, for example, that a mother has to precede her offspring. Mary did not precede God. So she is not a mother to God in any of the ways we use the term, except in Jesus' humanity. The term is usually used to honor Mary above the normal honor due a mother of a famous or righteous person, and certainly honor is due her. But the honor appears to us outsiders to be even above the honor afforded God. Thus the cart is above the horse, to butcher a phrase.

 

[Idolater]

I think they do. They will all claim "man's responsibility". They're just inconsistent with their "all things are decreed by God" tenet.

And that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, except I'm just taking a step back, zooming out from individual evils to their tenet that the Elect are Unconditionally chosen. There's no way to change that choice. And that is the same as twice two being equal to four, as far as moral obligations go.

So no Catholic approves what you are saying?

The mother of God phrase carries with it additional meaning, like, for example, that a mother has to precede her offspring. Mary did not precede God. So she is not a mother to God in any of the ways we use the term, except in Jesus' humanity. The term is usually used to honor Mary above the normal honor due a mother of a famous or righteous person, and certainly honor is due her. But the honor appears to us outsiders to be even above the honor afforded God. Thus the cart is above the horse, to butcher a phrase.

Just check out Nestorianism to see the error in denying Mary mother of God is all.

The syllogism proving Calvinism promotes moral nihilism is as follows.

Being of the Elect entails you can do nothing to change the eternal destination of your soul.

Being reprobate entails you can do nothing to change the eternal destination of your soul.

Being unable to change the eternal destination of your soul entails you have no moral obligations.

 

[Bladerunner]

It wasn't aimed at you, just a passing swipe.

No, I need to know...why the swipe....No, I have no website, youtube channel. All I do is christian forums and give the WORD of GOD to those who would listen.

 

[Right Divider]

No, I need to know...why the swipe....No, I have no website, youtube channel. All I do is christian forums and give the WORD of GOD to those who would listen.

We already have the Word of God, so no thanks.

 

[Lon]

No, I need to know...why the swipe....No, I have no website, youtube channel. All I do is christian forums and give the WORD of GOD to those who would listen.

He was saying you two type/think alike. It used to be a more common question when some of the posters on TOL had two or three aliases. In any sense that one poster posts like another, it heralds back to those days.

 

[Bladerunner]

We already have the Word of God, so no thanks.

that is a matter of opinion.

 

[Bladerunner]

He was saying you two type/think alike. It used to be a more common question when some of the posters on TOL had two or three aliases. In any sense that one poster posts like another, it heralds back to those days.

ok, No its just me, myself and I.

 

[JudgeRightly]

He was saying you two type/think alike. It used to be a more common question when some of the posters on TOL had two or three aliases. In any sense that one poster posts like another, it heralds back to those days.

Not even close!

I was simply wondering why Crede was responding to a post directed at Bladerunner.

And then Bladerunner, seeing my mention of him, seems to think I was asking him something.

Just pay attention people!

It's not hard! I promise!

 

[Clete]

No, you have not...what you have been speaking of is that Babies who die are condemned to Death and Hell. Yet, Jesus teaches in so many places that young children even babies are innocent and become martyrs These martyrs are in heaven. Now I gave you many verses to support each and every point of Calvinism that are in the Bible...Yet, you have given me no verses that support your view.

You don't get it. It isn't us that believe that God predestines babies to go to Hell, it's Calvinists! It is your own doctrine that you're arguing against, not ours!

Calvinism DOES NOT teach that babies are innocent! It teaches that they are all born in sin and totally depraved! Calvinism likewise teaches that the elect are not saved because they are innocent nor because they believe nor for any other reason. Calvinism teaches the opposite! It teaches that people believe because they are elect, not the other way around! And, in a manner consistent with that teaching they also teach that if a baby dies then whether it will end up in Heaven or Hell depends on whether or not the baby happened to have been one of the elect and upon NOTHING ELSE!!!!

​

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)​

​

“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)​

​

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)​

​

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

​

"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion Book 5, Chapter 21, paragraph 5)​

 

[Clete]

Your definition of "just" is your demand that God offer the same grace to every single individual. If you were to spend as much time as you do in your detestation for the sovereignty of God and instead consider what some Calvinists have to say then you might ask yourself if your definition is what you think it is. It would serve you well to lay aside your traditions for a brief moment and consider the possibility that Calvinism might offer some valid arguments.

John 6:37-40 (NKJV) - All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The result of all Father gives to the Son WILL come to the Son. As a result of coming to the Son they WILL be raised up on the last day. If you want to make the claim that all of humanity is drawn to the Son then you can't escape universalism because all who are drawn WILL be raised up. If you want to make the claim that the drawing can be resisted, where did you derive that from the text, or are you simply demanding that the text should say what you want it to say?

Any Calvinist commentator can walk through texts like this and let it say what it says without inserting tradition or philosophy. Funny how that works.

Okay, I ran out of time the other day and so have been spending the last few hours catching up and so wanted to spend some time responding to the use of John 6 as a proof text for predestination, which it definitely DOES NOT teach!

So, first of all, verses 37-40 is Jesus claiming to be God, primarily, and verse 40 in particular is just a restatement of John 3:16. The proof that the passage is not talking about predestination is the whole rest of the chapter where is it completely obvious that Jesus is talking to and about His disciples - not every believer that will ever exist! More than that, throughout the whole rest of John's gospel, belief is consistently presented as the human response to the gospel that triggers the Father's giving someone to His Son (e.g., John 3:16, 5:24, 20:31). In other words, it is not valid to rip four verses from their context and simply pretend like it's talking about everyone having been predestined and calling that proof. It barely qualifies as even an argument, much less proof.

The other parallel passage that Calvinist love to quote is John 15:16

John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you....​

Where, again, Jesus is talking about His disciples and in the case of John 15, specifically the twelve apostles and NOT every believer that will ever exist. Note what Jesus says in the last portion of John 6....

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”​

​

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”​

​

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”​

​

70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.​

In short, the bible interprets itself and there is no hint here of the exhaustive and arbitrary predestination of every believer that will ever exist that Calvinism teaches. Such things have to be brought to the text in an a priori fashion and read into the text.