[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

I'll get that for ya probably tomorrow...I'm on my son's laptop and my info isn't on here

I do not think Calvin actually developed TULIP. There were later synods. Theodor Beza, his successor/pupil also had something to do with part of it.

Confirmation that Calvin did not develop TULIP explicitly:

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

[Clete]

I'm less interested in when the TULIP was formally put together than I am in the idea that Calvin recanted the views that it is based upon before his death. If that happened, I definately am intersted in reading about the details as to why.

[1Way]

Plus TULIP'S foundation was already laid with the likes of Augustine, so it mattered little who finally came up with TULIP, it is a rather consistent view according to Augustinian (classical Greek) teachings about divine immutability.

But I agree, it would be interesting to hear why Calvin recanted from what was essentially to become Calvinism (as in TULIP). And if he truly did recant, I hope his coffin was well padded for the sake of how many time he would be "rolling over in the grave" as people (generally) attributed to him (even in through name only) a teaching that he understands is false.

[Sold Out]

Clete,

Here's the info you were wanting: (from my study bible)

The Church is like manure. Pile it up, and it stinks to high heaven. Spread it around, and it enriches the world. Sadly, many of God’s people believe the former. They are more interested in “piling themselves up” for the purpose of sanctification than obeying the command of CHRIST to save the world through evangelism (See footnote on II Cor 11:3). Because of this, certain doctrines concerning predestination have emerged. One such system of belief amongst Christians is Calvinism. The followers of John Calvin, a protestant reformer from France during the 1500’s, started Calvinism some sixty years after his death. Calvin began his search for God under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and by the age of twenty-one had mastered the Greek language as well as law. Then three and one half years later at the age of twenty-four he was presented the GOSPEL of CHRIST and was saved. Two years later he sat down and wrote one of the most influential works of the Protestant Reformation, called ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion.’ It was this work that fueled Calvinism. Though his first work (i.e., ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion.’) appeared to emphasize predestination (See footnote on Rom 8:29 & II Thess 2:13), his later commentaries proved he had had a change of mind. An example of this is seen in his comments on I John 2:2,

“Christ suffered for the sins of the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto ALL (emphasis added) men without distinction, His blood being shed, not for a part of the world openly, but for the WHOLE (emphasis added) human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, since without exception He summons ALL (emphasis added) to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”

[Clete]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Clete,

Here's the info you were wanting: (from my study bible)

The Church is like manure. Pile it up, and it stinks to high heaven. Spread it around, and it enriches the world. Sadly, many of God’s people believe the former. They are more interested in “piling themselves up” for the purpose of sanctification than obeying the command of CHRIST to save the world through evangelism (See footnote on II Cor 11:3). Because of this, certain doctrines concerning predestination have emerged. One such system of belief amongst Christians is Calvinism. The followers of John Calvin, a protestant reformer from France during the 1500’s, started Calvinism some sixty years after his death. Calvin began his search for God under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and by the age of twenty-one had mastered the Greek language as well as law. Then three and one half years later at the age of twenty-four he was presented the GOSPEL of CHRIST and was saved. Two years later he sat down and wrote one of the most influential works of the Protestant Reformation, called ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion.’ It was this work that fueled Calvinism. Though his first work (i.e., ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion.’) appeared to emphasize predestination (See footnote on Rom 8:29 & II Thess 2:13), his later commentaries proved he had had a change of mind. An example of this is seen in his comments on I John 2:2,

“Christ suffered for the sins of the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto ALL (emphasis added) men without distinction, His blood being shed, not for a part of the world openly, but for the WHOLE (emphasis added) human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, since without exception He summons ALL (emphasis added) to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”

Okay! Good stuff so far but, which study Bible? And which later commentaries? Do you have any more specific info on this?

[Rolf Ernst]

Reformed peopple don't believe in or study Calvin. We believe in Christ and study the Bible. No man's word has the power to destroy the truths in God's word.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Lee: ...did God know about the possibility of the cross, when he created the world?

Clete: it was just that, a possibility, not a predestined certainty.

Yes, but there's still responsibility, even for a possibility.

Lee: I believe that people get involved in evil, through their motives. God does influence peoples' motives, but I don't think we have to insist that God is the primary cause, the source, of evil motives.

Clete: Then you are not a Calvinist. Calvinism teaches that God predestined absolutely everything, including your motives.

Yes, I am indeed not a full-fledged Calvinist, though the Calvinists I have read tend to waver a bit in this area, saying "allowed" when in the next paragraph they write "ordained," etc. And I don't think I've ever read any Calvinist saying explicitly that God ordains and decides all motives and even thoughts. That's where I drew back! There seems to be Scripture that says the opposite, even, Prov. 16:1.

Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

Lee: How is that unjust? To refine a person, a fire is needed.

Clete: God tests us all the time but that does not require Him to overcome anyone's free will.

But this was in reference to whether God was just in ordaining what happened to Job! I think this shows he was, this was for a good purpose. Now whether God can fail at this, and whether he overcomes free will is another question.

Lee: Then how can God make predictions, that involve human choices, if human free will is left fully intact?

Clete: Same way you can only a lot better because He is not only smarter but has access to a lot more information.

Then God is in complete control, where he makes predictions, and that's definite knowledge of the future, and predestination. And in the area of salvation! As in the verses about "only the remnant," and "all Israel," will be saved.

Lee: How can either of these predictions be certain, if people have full exercise of a free will?

Clete: Well they aren't certain; Jer. 18 says so.

But Jer. 18 only says what will happen under general conditions, not what will happen in a specific situation, Jer. 18 does not tell us whether a given group of people will repent or not, Paul, however, does.

Is "I will make a new heavens and a new earth" also a guess? Or "There will be no more pain." What if people in heaven decide to sin? Couldn't free will ruin it all, and spoil even these … guesses?

It's a lot easier for me as a mere human to predict what a nation as a whole will do…

But I'm wondering if we have solid footing here, not how easy or accurate such predictions might be…

Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The Lord is our God.'

Maybe not? Maybe this won't happen?

Lee: In the warfare worldview, events can cross God's will, frustrate his purpose, and thwart his best plans to save someone.

How is that being truly sovereign, at this moment?

Clete: His sovereignty is not based on what He does do but on what He has the authority and the ability to do.

Yes, but you all are holding that God gave enough control up, for his will to be crossed, thwarted and frustrated. Being able to control it all does not make someone absolutely sovereign, any more than David was absolute king over Israel after Saul's death, with Ishbosheth ruling in Benjamin, he could have quite possibly taken the kingdom, but he didn't, and during that time, he was ruling Judah, but not the other tribes, he was not sovereign over them all...

Blessings,
Lee

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Clete,

Here's the info you were wanting: (from my study bible)

The Church is like manure. Pile it up, and it stinks to high heaven. Spread it around, and it enriches the world. Sadly, many of God’s people believe the former. They are more interested in “piling themselves up” for the purpose of sanctification than obeying the command of CHRIST to save the world through evangelism (See footnote on II Cor 11:3). Because of this, certain doctrines concerning predestination have emerged. One such system of belief amongst Christians is Calvinism. The followers of John Calvin, a protestant reformer from France during the 1500’s, started Calvinism some sixty years after his death. Calvin began his search for God under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and by the age of twenty-one had mastered the Greek language as well as law. Then three and one half years later at the age of twenty-four he was presented the GOSPEL of CHRIST and was saved. Two years later he sat down and wrote one of the most influential works of the Protestant Reformation, called ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion.’ It was this work that fueled Calvinism. Though his first work (i.e., ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion.’) appeared to emphasize predestination (See footnote on Rom 8:29 & II Thess 2:13), his later commentaries proved he had had a change of mind. An example of this is seen in his comments on I John 2:2,

“Christ suffered for the sins of the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto ALL (emphasis added) men without distinction, His blood being shed, not for a part of the world openly, but for the WHOLE (emphasis added) human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, since without exception He summons ALL (emphasis added) to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”

This confirms C. Gordon Olson's appendix that Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement. This study Bible does not say Calvin would disagree with the rest of TULIP (4 point Calvinists are common as well as 5 pointer).

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
Yes, but there's still responsibility, even for a possibility.

Are you just dead set on blaming God for sin or what?
God took a risk that we would hate Him so that it might be possible for us to love Him. The two always go together, otherwise they are both meaningless. But He didn't just flippantly create us on a whim. He thought it out very carefully and made plans based on what He knew could, and perhaps probably would, happen.
God is not stupid and He doesn't play sucker bets. He knows what He is doing now and He knew what He was doing when He created us. I can promise you that things will end up better because He created us than they would have been had He not done so. God has not taken such a great risk that He could possibly end up as anything but the absolute victor in this battle between good and evil. If this were not so, He would not have done it.

Yes, I am indeed not a full-fledged Calvinist, though the Calvinists I have read tend to waver a bit in this area, saying "allowed" when in the next paragraph they write "ordained," etc. And I don't think I've ever read any Calvinist saying explicitly that God ordains and decides all motives and even thoughts. That's where I drew back! There seems to be Scripture that says the opposite, even, Prov. 16:1.

The other four points of Calvinism are wrong for the same reasons. They are logically inconsistent and unbiblical.

But this was in reference to whether God was just in ordaining what happened to Job! I think this shows he was, this was for a good purpose. Now whether God can fail at this, and whether he overcomes free will is another question.

There was never any question as to whether or not God was just. God is just, period. But if God overcomes one's free will then testing is meaningless. What would He be testing if your reaction was predestined by the one giving the test? It makes no sense.

Then God is in complete control, where he makes predictions, and that's definite knowledge of the future, and predestination. And in the area of salvation! As in the verses about "only the remnant," and "all Israel," will be saved.

What? Where did you get this out of what I said? It's not definite knowledge of the future and more than your prediction of tomorrow's whether is definite knowledge. The more information you have the more accurate your prediction about the weather might be but that doesn't mean you absolutely know for certain where and when it's going to rain.
Now, weather isn't the best thing to use as an example because it is one thing that God can indeed absolutly control if He decides He wants to but as long as you don't stretch it to its breaking point, the analogy works well. The point is that when people have a free will, there are things that are not knowable, even by God and thus there are things that simply cannot be predicted with absolute precision.

But Jer. 18 only says what will happen under general conditions, not what will happen in a specific situation, Jer. 18 does not tell us whether a given group of people will repent or not, Paul, however, does.

Jeremiah is talking about a very specific group of people, namely the nation of Israel. And God expect for Israel to repent several times and each time was met with disappointment and He reacted appropriately as Jer. 18 sets forward.
Which specific group of people are you referring to that Paul speaks of?

Is "I will make a new heavens and a new earth" also a guess?

No! Of course not! God is not guessing anyway. You will not win this debate or convince me of anything by using loaded words like "guess".
You have to put some effort into staying on the same page with me here. God cannot know for an absolute certainty what I will do, but He certainly can know what He will do Himself.

Or "There will be no more pain." What if people in heaven decide to sin? Couldn't free will ruin it all, and spoil even these … guesses?

Again, these are not guesses. Man that really burns my backside when you say that. You do understand that if I am right that you aren't simply making emotional points by casting the debate in such terms but that you are insulting the God you serve.
These aren't even predictions much less guesses. These are declarations made by God Himself. The order of things after this creation is ended cannot even be intelligently discussed. We simply do not have a slightest clue what we would be talking about. If God says that there will be no more pain then I cannot but believe Him. And I suspect that we will remain perfectly sinless in spite of our free will in the same manner that God Himself does. The point is we cannot know how; we'll simply have to wait until we get there to find out what God has in store for those who love Him.

But I'm wondering if we have solid footing here, not how easy or accurate such predictions might be…

Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The Lord is our God.'

Maybe not? Maybe this won't happen?

So you are willing to sacrifice the ability to truly love on the alter of your desire for a feeling of solid footing? You know what? Trust God and let the chips fall where they may. Then you won't need solid footing; you won't even need feet. Whether this happens as predicted or not. The point being that if it doesn't happen, it will be because a just and righteous God changed His mind in accordance with changed circumstances that justly warranted such a change of mind. It doesn't make God a liar or a wavering sheet, blowing in the wind; it makes Him alive and reactive to the creation which He loves and has a real relationship with. God is a real person and He really is specifically interested in having a genuine personal relationship with you and me and anyone else who would like to have such a relationship. He really does desire to call us friend. This truth is magnified a hundred fold in the Open View. The genuine personhood of God and the reality of love is its primary presupposition.

Yes, but you all are holding that God gave enough control up, for his will to be crossed, thwarted and frustrated.

Only to a certain point. God will not be ultimately defeated, that much we can know for certain. In fact, if His ultimate defeat was even a possibility then He would not be absolutely sovereign.

Being able to control it all does not make someone absolutely sovereign, any more than David was absolute king over Israel...

That's my line.
Control doesn't make you sovereign, authority makes you sovereign. The ability (power) to control, whether that ability is exercised or not, is certain part of what makes you sovereign, but control and sovereignty are not synonyms.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Reformed people don't believe in or study Calvin. We believe in Christ and study the Bible.

Yeah, you're probably right. They probably just picked the name Calvinism because it sounds so cool and is easy to spell.

[1Way]

Clete!!!

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Yeah, you're probably right. They probably just picked the name Calvinism because it sounds so cool and is easy to spell.

Reformed people like creeds and cathecisms. They are sola scriptura in principle, but influenced by the writings of men (as we all are to some degree).

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

Reformed people like creeds and catechisms. They are sola scriptura in principle, but influenced by the writings of men (as we all are to some degree).

Yes, I don't mean to imply otherwise, in fact, quite the contrary.
My intent was simply to point out how silly a statement it was for someone to suggest that they "don't believe in or study Calvin" when the whole theological system is named after the guy. It's not like anyone is claiming that Calvin was God incarnate or anything. Labels aren't perfect nor are they meant to be, but they sure do help to communicate what one believes and if the label 'Calvinism' fits you generally then you shouldn't be afraid to wear it. If you're ashamed of the label then drop the beliefs it represents; I can guarantee that there's a label somewhere that will fit you; find it, wear it, and stop playing silly little word games.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Lee: Yes, but there's still responsibility, even for a possibility.

Clete: Are you just dead set on blaming God for sin or what?

I just don't see how the Open View avoids this dilemma, either, that's all I'm saying. God created the world, allowing evil, even terrible sin, because he had a greater good in mind, than just a world without any evil, ever. He made that conscious decision, I think we are both saying that. Now the implications have to be worked out! But that's a different question.

Clete: God … knows what He is doing now and He knew what He was doing when He created us. I can promise you that things will end up better because He created us than they would have been had He not done so. God has not taken such a great risk that He could possibly end up as anything but the absolute victor in this battle between good and evil. If this were not so, He would not have done it.

Well, where is that in the Open View, though? The verses that could be mentioned have to be interpreted rather oddly, "No overall or ultimate plan of yours can be thwarted." But that's Job saying that! Maybe he was wrong, as the Open View holds Job was in error in saying God brought the trouble on him.

Lee: I don't think I've ever read any Calvinist saying explicitly that God ordains and decides all motives and even thoughts. That's where I drew back!

Clete: The other four points of Calvinism are wrong for the same reasons. They are logically inconsistent and unbiblical.

Well, let's discuss further…

There was never any question as to whether or not God was just.

Yes, I should have said the question was whether, in the Calvinist view, God is just.

But if God overcomes one's free will then testing is meaningless. What would He be testing if your reaction was predestined by the one giving the test?

I agree, for believers, the tests involve real decisions on our part, though God knows the outcome! That is how God could make an unconditional promise to Abraham, and yet also say "Because you have done this," in offering Isaac, I will multiply you.

How would the Open View explain these two aspects of God's promise to make Abraham a great nation, conditionally, and also unconditionally?

Lee: Then God is in complete control, where he makes predictions, and that's definite knowledge of the future…

Clete: What? Where did you get this out of what I said? … The point is that when people have a free will, there are things that are not knowable, even by God and thus there are things that simply cannot be predicted with absolute precision.

Here is why I said this:

Lee: Then how can God make predictions, that involve human choices, if human free will is left fully intact?

Clete: Same way you can only a lot better because He is not only smarter but has access to a lot more information.

Now I meant real predictions, where you know what will happen. If a prediction will certainly happen, then that's definite knowledge of the future. I really think the Open View tries sometimes to have it both ways, with the "invincible chess master," who can still predict, and fail. I really think if God can be invincible, then … he cannot fail when he steps out and makes a firm prediction.

And God expect for Israel to repent several times and each time was met with disappointment and He reacted appropriately as Jer. 18 sets forward.

Well, then "only a remnant will be saved" and "all Israel will be saved" can fail, too?

There are other ways to interpret the verses where God seems to speak of expectation and disappointment, for example, "I thought" could be "I said" in Jer. 3:7, for instance, well, that's even more literal, and can be taken as a prediction, instead of an expectation, for indeed, Israel will return…

Jeremiah 31:18 "I have surely heard Ephraim's moaning: 'You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the Lord my God.'"

Which specific group of people are you referring to that Paul speaks of?

I believe "all Israel" means all the Jewish people on earth, at some point in the future, they will all, some day, believe. Now how can God predict this, if free will is always to some degree unsure in outcome?

Lee: Or "There will be no more pain." What if people in heaven decide to sin? Couldn't free will ruin it all, and spoil even these … guesses?

Clete: Again, these are not guesses. Man that really burns my backside when you say that.

Well, what are we to call them, Clete? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, let's say "estimates" or something.

You do understand that if I am right that you aren't simply making emotional points by casting the debate in such terms but that you are insulting the God you serve.

I'm not insulted if someone says I'm guessing, when I'm not sure, and I say what I think might happen. I say "Right! I'm not sure."

If God says that there will be no more pain then I cannot but believe Him. And I suspect that we will remain perfectly sinless in spite of our free will in the same manner that God Himself does.

I agree…

The point is we cannot know how; we'll simply have to wait until we get there to find out what God has in store for those who love Him.

Well, we can check and see which view draws the map the furthest, and fits best with the above statement, that's what I would ask here.

Lee: But I'm wondering if we have solid footing here…

Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them ... They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people' …

Maybe not? Maybe this won't happen?

Clete: So you are willing to sacrifice the ability to truly love on the altar of your desire for a feeling of solid footing? You know what? Trust God and let the chips fall where they may. Then you won't need solid footing; you won't even need feet.

This doesn't work, though, Clete. If I don't have solid footing then I may not need it, but I don't have it!

Now how can I not need solid footing? I think you are saying I don't need a full explanation, and I don't, but I do need to know what I can be sure of, when God says it.

Philippians 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

Yes, he will! With no heeltaps.

2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen!

The point being that if it doesn't happen, it will be because a just and righteous God changed His mind in accordance with changed circumstances that justly warranted such a change of mind. It doesn't make God a liar…

Well, I must disagree. If God says "X will happen," knowing that indeed it might not, that's not telling the truth, that's (I'm sorry to say) a lie.

God is a real person and He really is specifically interested in having a genuine personal relationship with you and me and anyone else who would like to have such a relationship. He really does desire to call us friend.

Yes, he does. I believe God's children can really choose, and the more obedient we are, the more real freedom we will have. A paradox! But I think it's Scriptural:

Luke 19:17 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

Lee: … but you all are holding that God gave enough control up, for his will to be crossed, thwarted and frustrated.

Clete: Only to a certain point. God will not be ultimately defeated, that much we can know for certain. In fact, if His ultimate defeat was even a possibility then He would not be absolutely sovereign.

Well, wasn't it possible that no one would choose him?

Lee: Being able to control it all does not make someone absolutely sovereign, any more than David was absolute king over Israel…

Clete: Control doesn't make you sovereign, authority makes you sovereign. The ability (power) to control, whether that ability is exercised or not, is certainly part of what makes you sovereign, but control and sovereignty are not synonyms.

No they are not! But they are similar-nyms…

Similar enough, that I believe you can't have one without the other.

From dictionary.com:

Sovereign:

- One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.

Supreme, and permanent, and authority is not just a title...

Blessings,
Lee

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
I just don't see how the Open View avoids this dilemma, either, that's all I'm saying. God created the world, allowing evil, even terrible sin, because he had a greater good in mind, than just a world without any evil, ever. He made that conscious decision, I think we are both saying that. Now the implications have to be worked out! But that's a different question.

The world could very well have been "a world without any evil, ever". That's just the point. We chose to rebel against God. God cannot be held responsible for our rebellion unless He caused (i.e. predestined) it to happen. In that case it is we who cannot be justly held responsible for the rebellion which we did not willfully choose.

Well, where is that in the Open View, though? The verses that could be mentioned have to be interpreted rather oddly, "No overall or ultimate plan of yours can be thwarted." But that's Job saying that! Maybe he was wrong, as the Open View holds Job was in error in saying God brought the trouble on him.

What exactly is it that you think the Open View teaches that is in conflict with what I've said? No OV theologian I've ever read has ever said that God might end up defeated. On the contrary the Open View presents a God who wins in spite of not knowing every detail of the future, a God who doesn't win because the game is fixed but because He is wiser, more powerful, and more skillful than His enemies.

Yes, I should have said the question was whether, in the Calvinist view, God is just.

I do not see any possibility that a Calvinist type God who punishes sin that He Himself ordained to happen could be considered just.

I agree, for believers, the tests involve real decisions on our part, though God knows the outcome! That is how God could make an unconditional promise to Abraham, and yet also say "Because you have done this," in offering Isaac, I will multiply you.

If God knows the outcome then it is not a test.

How would the Open View explain these two aspects of God's promise to make Abraham a great nation, conditionally, and also unconditionally?

Because part of the promise was conditional and the other wasn't. I'm not trying to be flippant but that really is the answer. Part of God's deal with Abraham included an agreement on Abraham's part and the other was all on God and had nothing to do with what Abraham did.

Here is why I said this:

Lee: Then how can God make predictions that involve human choices, if human free will is left fully intact?

Clete: Same way you can only a lot better because He is not only smarter but has access to a lot more information.

Now I meant real predictions, where you know what will happen. If a prediction will certainly happen, then that's definite knowledge of the future. I really think the Open View tries sometimes to have it both ways, with the "invincible chess master," who can still predict, and fail. I really think if God can be invincible, then … he cannot fail when he steps out and makes a firm prediction.

Ah! Defining terms is always helpful.
When I say prediction, I've got the sort that the weather man makes in mind. They aren't guesses but they aren't prewritten history either. God makes predictions based upon available information and with clearly communicated principles in mind (like the one in Jer. 18). They are not prewritten history, although one might get that impression by their accuracy rate. An accuracy rate, by the way, which only God could possibly attain. In fact, every single prophecy falls into one of four categories.

• 1. It has been fulfilled.
  2. It will be fulfilled.
  3. It has been justly nullified because of changed circumstances as clearly described in Scripture.
  4. It will be justly nullified because of changed circumstances as clearly described in Scripture.

Well, then "only a remnant will be saved" and "all Israel will be saved" can fail, too?

It certainly can! Salvation is predicated on grace received THROUGH faith, if there is no faith, there will be no salvation. Thus as Jer. 18 says, if Israel does evil in God's sight then He will not fulfill the promise He has made to them.

There are other ways to interpret the verses where God seems to speak of expectation and disappointment, for example, "I thought" could be "I said" in Jer. 3:7, for instance, well, that's even more literal, and can be taken as a prediction, instead of an expectation, for indeed, Israel will return…

Jeremiah 31:18 "I have surely heard Ephraim's moaning: 'You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the Lord my God.'"

Yeah sure you can interpret it a hundred different ways. I prefer to take it at face value and except it for what it seems to be saying. There is no reason to do otherwise.

I believe "all Israel" means all the Jewish people on earth, at some point in the future, they will all, some day, believe. Now how can God predict this, if free will is always to some degree unsure in outcome?

He can't and He hasn't. You cannot seriously believe that every single individual Israelite will be saved.
God promised Israel the promise land and the whole generation which received that promise fell dead in the wilderness and that after having witness daily, undeniable, wide spread miracles.
I believe that God knows what He's talking about and that we can take these prophecies as true and believe that they will almost certainly happen. It's not that I'm trying to say that God is no better at this than Nostradamus or anything remotely like that. In fact, all I'm really driving at is simply that prophecy is not prewritten history as some believe and that there is good Biblical reasons why some prophecy have not and will not come true as stated, and that, therefore, prophecy cannot be used to support Calvinism. On the contrary, the Biblical evidence with regard to prophecy supports Open Theism.

Well, what are we to call them, Clete? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, let's say "estimates" or something.

I'm not insulted if someone says I'm guessing, when I'm not sure, and I say what I think might happen. I say "Right! I'm not sure."

Very well, I probably read more sarcasm into your statements than was called for. How about we call them what they are - Prophecies.

Well, we can check and see which view draws the map the furthest, and fits best with the above statement, that's what I would ask here.

Which map would you suggest?

• I Corinthians 9 But as it is written:
  "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
  Nor have entered into the heart of man
  The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."

This doesn't work, though, Clete. If I don't have solid footing then I may not need it, but I don't have it!

Now how can I not need solid footing? I think you are saying I don't need a full explanation, and I don't, but I do need to know what I can be sure of, when God says it.

What you can be sure of is God's righteousness and His justice, His truthfulness etc. I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting simply is that if you require prophecy to be prewritten history in order for you to trust God, you are indeed on sandy soil. There are many prophecies that God has made in the Bible that very simply did not and will not come to pass as stated. The point is that there is a very good, very just, very righteous reason why.

Philippians 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

Yes, he will! With no heeltaps.

2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Amen!

I agree completely. I didn't not intend to suggest otherwise. I should have been more clear.

Well, I must disagree. If God says "X will happen," knowing that indeed it might not, that's not telling the truth, that's (I'm sorry to say) a lie.

That simply is not the case.

• Matt. 16:28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Now did that come true as stated or not?

Did Jesus lie? Of course not! He said what was absolutely the truth based on what God has planned to do with Israel at the time Jesus made this prophecy. Israel, however, hated the One who was to be their King and so God repented of the good with which He intended to bless them and He did not do it. Instead, He cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and thus Jesus' prophecy did not come to pass.

Yes, he does. I believe God's children can really choose, and the more obedient we are, the more real freedom we will have. A paradox! But I think it's Scriptural:

Luke 19:17 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

I encourage you to keep focused on the paradoxes but don't be content to have them remain paradoxes. Keep at them until you figure them out. The places where things don't make sense are usually land marks that lead to the truth. Just ask Johan Kepler .

Well, wasn't it possible that no one would choose him?

Yep! It sure was!
But even if that had happened, God would still be God. It's not like God and Satan are in some cosmic race to see who wins the largest number of souls. If that were the case, Satan would be certain to win (Mat. 7:14). Satan and all those who rebel against God will, in the end, go to a place that they do not want to go to. They will be forced to go and to stay there against their will by the will and power of God. That means, God wins.

No they are not! But they are similar-nyms…

Similar enough, that I believe you can't have one without the other.

From dictionary.com:

Sovereign:

- One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.

Supreme, and permanent, and authority is not just a title...

Yes, as I said, power and being in control (at least to some degree) is part of being sovereign. But to say God is sovereign does not mean that He totally controls every last detail of existence. It just simply does not mean that. In fact, I like the way your dictionary definitions read. God is the highest authority that exists. He is, therefore, sovereign, period.

Resting in Him,
Clete