Predestination

Originally posted by Starrman
Being omniscient entails knowing all there is to know, past, present and future. He would already be aware of who is and who isn't going to hell. Since he knows this and it is all predestined, how is it a choice for us?

If you claim we have that choice, then you are also claiming god is not omniscient.

Originally posted by Starrman
Is that anything to do with Calvin and Hobbes?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'd like to hear some justification for the Calvinist viewpoint. I'd offer some myself but I can't think of any.

Originally posted by Halitose
John Calvin the Reformer of Geneva (and Father of America - that being because most of the early colonists were Calvinists).

Originally posted by Halitose
I personally find Calvin and Hobbes to be the immortal giant of mirth.

Originally posted by Starrman
You and me both 🙂

Originally posted by Halitose
Spaceman Spiff saves the day!!!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I wish the first Calvin had had a sense of humour like that.

Or maybe he was just a bit sick in the head:
http://www.bible.ca/history/eubanks/history-eubanks-31.htm

Hang on, if Calvin followed these:

Unconditional election. This doctrine is more commonly known as arbitrary, individual "predestination" or "foreordination." Calvin asserted that God arbitrarily elected, or chose, certain individuals to be saved before they were even born. This He did merely on the basis of "His good pleasure" - not because of anything they had done; hence, "unconditional election." This number of elect individuals is so fixed that it can be neither increased nor diminished. This doctrine (1) denies man's free will (Jn. 7:17), (2) denies man's role in his salvation (Phil. 2:12; Jas. 2:24), (3) makes God a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34,35), and (4) denies God's desire that all men be saved (I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9; Ezek. 18:23,32). God predestines the saved only in that he predestines them to meet certain conditions (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4-6).

Limited atonement. Since only certain individuals were to be saved, there was no need for Christ to die for the non-elect. Hence, Calvin taught that Christ died to atone for the sins of the elect only. This is plainly contrary to what the Scriptures teach. Christ died for all men, including non-believers (I Tim. 4:10; Tit. 2:11; II Pet. 2:1; I Jn. 2:2).

Irresistible grace. According to Calvin, men are so depraved that they cannot do anything to effect their salvation. This is wholly the work of God. Man has no co-operant part in his salvation. God sends the Holy Spirit to work directly and supernaturally upon the heart of the sinner to work faith and repentance in him irresistibly. The elect, then, are literally forced to be saved. This doctrine is untrue because it (1) denies man's free will (Jn. 7:17), (2) the Holy Spirit can be resisted (Acts 7:51; I Thess. 5:19), (3) the word of God provokes men to repentance (Lk. 8:12; 16:27-31; Rom. 10:17), and (4) God employs human preachers to convert men's souls (Acts 8-10).

What is the point in believing in god at all? Am I missing something?

Originally posted by Starrman
Hang on, if Calvin followed these:

[b]Unconditional election. This doctrine is more commonly known as arbitrary, individual "predestination" or "foreordination." Calvin asserted that God arbitrarily elected, or chose, certain individuals to be saved before they were even born. This He did merely on the basis of "His good pleasure" - not beca ...[text shortened]... souls (Acts 8-10).

What is the point in believing in god at all? Am I missing something?[/b]

Originally posted by Halitose
For a in depth explanation and refutation of Predestination see:

http://www.biblehelp.org/whatsel.htm

Originally posted by Halitose
He is omniscient but not omnibenevolent. If he was omnibenevolent all murders, rapists and er... ehm.. (*Halitose takes aim and lobs boulder at hornets nest*) fornicators would be assured of a place in heaven. We get what we choose.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Benevolent means that he wants good, right? Omnibenevolent means he wants only good, and he wants it as much as it is possible to want good? Is that correct?

Originally posted by Starrman

Calvin's notions have a rigorously absurd quality that remind me of noone so much as Samuel Beckett.