Does God believe for us?

[Theo1689]

Got ya, not only did God believe for you( elected) Looks like He repented for you too. That was a promise to Israel which you have twisted to mean what it doesn’t.

A common (straw-man) criticism of Calvinism is that Calvinists allegedly believe "God believes for us". We don't believe that, and to date no critic has ever been able to quote a Calvinist who actually believes that.

The above poster apparently has me on ignore, so he refuses to answer my questions, but since others have also repeated the same (fallacious) criticism, perhaps there will be some who will address this.

1) Since no Calvinist has EVER taught "God believes for us", and in fact we explicitly DENY it, how is it not dishonest for critics to keep claiming it's our belief?

2) Since it is not something we believe or teach, but apparently comes from rationalization on the part of the critic, why wouldn't it be more honest and charitable to instead assert, "Calvinists don't explicitly teach this, but this seems to be the logical conclusion according to my personal opinion"?

3) Not only do I disagree with the argument, I don't even UNDERSTAND the argument. How does one get from "God gives us faith", to "God believes FOR us"? I honestly don't understand this gross non sequitur.

4) How does one get from "God elected us", to "God believes FOR us"? Again, I don't understand this gross non sequitur.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Does God believe for us?​

No. However, what He does do is free us and enable us to believe[John 6:29, Philippians 1:29], but He does not believe for us.

 

[Manfred]

A common (straw-man) criticism of Calvinism is that Calvinists allegedly believe "God believes for us". We don't believe that, and to date no critic has ever been able to quote a Calvinist who actually believes that.

The above poster apparently has me on ignore, so he refuses to answer my questions, but since others have also repeated the same (fallacious) criticism, perhaps there will be some who will address this.

1) Since no Calvinist has EVER taught "God believes for us", and in fact we explicitly DENY it, how is it not dishonest for critics to keep claiming it's our belief?

2) Since it is not something we believe or teach, but apparently comes from rationalization on the part of the critic, why wouldn't it be more honest and charitable to instead assert, "Calvinists don't explicitly teach this, but this seems to be the logical conclusion according to my personal opinion"?

3) Not only do I disagree with the argument, I don't even UNDERSTAND the argument. How does one get from "God gives us faith", to "God believes FOR us"? I honestly don't understand this gross non sequitur.

4) How does one get from "God elected us", to "God believes FOR us"? Again, I don't understand this gross non sequitur.

What I have seen from critics on this forum is nothing more than childish behavior.
Why do they have you on ignore - Because they are unable to address truths like this OP of yours. They would rather prefer to just believe what they believe no matter what the truth really is.

I had one of the critics recently keep telling me, that I was wrong when I told him I do not believe what he said I believed. I explained my belief, and was told again that I was wrong and believed differently, after the third time, he ignored me.

I do not think it is truth they are after, but rather self glorification and they will go to all lengths to protect self and their part they play in the story of their salvation.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What I have seen from critics on this forum is nothing more than childish behavior.

??

 

[Stephen]

Looking through his objection, it is more nuanced than the title.

If you are “lucky “and win the lottery of heaven and are picked, while others are denied, no problem. then Calvinist don’t have to believe, repent, nor have faith they won heavens lottery because God repented , believed, and has faith for them.

If you were elected without any belief ( faith) from you then that is exactly what happened that God believed for you.

If God gifted you faith before you believed then it would be God’s faith not your faith.

If you truly believe you were elected before you believed then you have God believing for you

If you believe you were gifted faith before you believed in the finished work of Jesus then it isn’t your faith it is God’s faith

The parts of his argument objected to in this thread were not claims about what Calvinism teaches, but rather what he claims are inevitable conclusion from what Calvinism teaches.

Are his facts correct? Does Calvinism teach that the saints (and only the saints)

• were elected without regard to any personal efforts, a.k.a. "luck". (True, I think)
• were elected long before they had any faith or belief? (True, I think)
• were gifted "faith" by God before they believed? (Nonsensical, as the questioner equates "faith" and "belief")

I don't believe these are factual in the biblical sense, but I don't think the factual side of his argument has been challenged by his Calvinist opponents.

And then secondly, are the conclusion valid:

1. If you are “lucky “and win the lottery of heaven and are picked then you don’t have to believe or repent
2. If you are “lucky “and win the lottery of heaven and are picked then God is the one who repented , believed, and has faith.
3. If you were elected without any belief from you then God believed for you.
4. If God gifted you faith before you believed then it would be God’s faith not your faith.

As I read through the discussion (and forgive me if I missed a post), I think

• Charge number 1 hasn't been addressed.
• Charge number 2-4 are nonsensical but I don't think a Calvinist has said why they are nonsensical in a way that doesn't violate Calvinist teaching.

For example, in regards to gifting the saints faith, my understanding is that God gifted the saints faith by being faithful to promises previously made. In this case, it is God's faithfulness (not his "faith") to his promises that gives the saints "faith". I don't know how a Calvinist would address his objection.

His objections are based come from a place where things occur in a sequence of events, in that the necessary conditions for election are that the believer possess "faith" and "repentance". One of the difficulties of Calvinism is that "election" occurs in eternity past long before thinks like faith and repentance are present in the believer.


However, I'm not a Calvinist nor an Arminian so none of this matters to me, I just hate to see the argument misunderstood and unaddressed as it provokes hostility on both sides and creates negative attitudes towards one another which results in un-Christlike discussion.

 

[christ_undivided]

Looking through his objection, it is more nuanced than the title.



The parts of his argument objected to in this thread were not claims about what Calvinism teaches, but rather what he claims are inevitable conclusion from what Calvinism teaches.

Are his facts correct? Does Calvinism teach that the saints (and only the saints)

• were elected without regard to any personal efforts, a.k.a. "luck". (True, I think)
• were elected long before they had any faith or belief? (True, I think)
• were gifted "faith" by God before they believed? (Nonsensical, as the questioner equates "faith" and "belief")

I don't believe these are factual in the biblical sense, but I don't think the factual side of his argument has been challenged by his Calvinist opponents.

And then secondly, are the conclusion valid:

1. If you are “lucky “and win the lottery of heaven and are picked then you don’t have to believe or repent
2. If you are “lucky “and win the lottery of heaven and are picked then God is the one who repented , believed, and has faith.
3. If you were elected without any belief from you then God believed for you.
4. If God gifted you faith before you believed then it would be God’s faith not your faith.

As I read through the discussion (and forgive me if I missed a post), I think

• Charge number 1 hasn't been addressed.
• Charge number 2-4 are nonsensical but I don't think a Calvinist has said why they are nonsensical in a way that doesn't violate Calvinist teaching.

For example, in regards to gifting the saints faith, my understanding is that God gifted the saints faith by being faithful to promises previously made. In this case, it is God's faithfulness (not his "faith") to his promises that gives the saints "faith". I don't know how a Calvinist would address his objection.

His objections are based come from a place where things occur in a sequence of events, in that the necessary conditions for election are that the believer possess "faith" and "repentance". One of the difficulties of Calvinism is that "election" occurs in eternity past long before thinks like faith and repentance are present in the believer.


However, I'm not a Calvinist nor an Arminian so none of this matters to me, I just hate to see the argument misunderstood and unaddressed as it provokes hostility on both sides and creates negative attitudes towards one another which results in un-Christlike discussion.

1. Would you consider the implication of "luck" to be an accurate depiction?
2. If you judge the process by the end result, then what difference is there in the end result?

 

[Theo1689]

Are his facts correct? Does Calvinism teach that the saints (and only the saints)

• were elected without regard to any personal efforts, a.k.a. "luck". (True, I think)

It has nothing to do with "luck". Luck is random chance.
We were not elected by God randomly. We were specifically and intentionally chosen.
I would assert that the non-Calvinist view is the "luck" view, since God has no control over who gets elected, and He simply "gets what He gets".

• were elected long before they had any faith or belief? (True, I think)

That's what the Bible teaches. God chose us before the fundation of the world, and wrote our names in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world.

• were gifted "faith" by God before they believed? (Nonsensical, as the questioner equates "faith" and "belief")

I don't believe these are factual in the biblical sense, but I don't think the factual side of his argument has been challenged by his Calvinist opponents.

Calvinists make a distinction between logical order and temporal order.
Logically, one must be given faith in order to believe.
But there is no temporal "delay" between being given faith, and believing.

And then secondly, are the conclusion valid:

1. If you are “lucky “and win the lottery of heaven and are picked then you don’t have to believe or repent

Calvinists believe that one must believe and repent. There is no salvation without faith and repentance. We simply believe God gives us our faith (Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 Cor. 4:7), and repentance (Acts 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25). But WE are still the ones doing the believing and repenting.

1. If you are “lucky “and win the lottery of heaven and are picked then God is the one who repented , believed, and has faith.

This is nonsense.

1. If you were elected without any belief from you then God believed for you.

This is nonsense.

1. If God gifted you faith before you believed then it would be God’s faith not your faith.

This is nonsense.
When someone gives you a gift, it becomes yours.
If you give someone else a gift, it becomes theirs.

As I read through the discussion (and forgive me if I missed a post), I think

• Charge number 1 hasn't been addressed.
• Charge number 2-4 are nonsensical but I don't think a Calvinist has said why they are nonsensical in a way that doesn't violate Calvinist teaching.

Explain to us all why God giving us faith means God is the one doing the believing.
That's nonsensical.

His objections are based come from a place where things occur in a sequence of events, in that the necessary conditions for election are that the believer possess "faith" and "repentance". One of the difficulties of Calvinism is that "election" occurs in eternity past long before thinks like faith and repentance are present in the believer.

The Biblical authors go into great detail to emphasize that our election is NOT based on anything we do (John 1:12-13, Rom. 9:11-13, Eph. 2:9, Tit. 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:;1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Stephen]

1. Would you consider the implication of "luck" to be an accurate depiction?

The definition of "luck" is "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions", so the answer is YES.

2. If you judge the process by the end result, then what difference is there in the end result?

If you judge the process exclusively by a narrow "end result" then the answer is NONE. However the definition of "end result" may be different between observers. For example

• If I have a production process that is required to put out 1,000 in spec. widgets per day and the process meets that requirement, then I can say the process is great.
• If the end result also entail that it produces 9,000 out of spec widgets per day, then perhaps the process needs some work.
• If I need to use minerals that are produced via chattel slavery, then perhaps my process needs some work.

 

[christ_undivided]

The definition of "luck" is "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions", so the answer is YES.

You're only considering man's perspective. (Calvinism) from God's perspective, it is never luck. It is purpose. Your use of "luck" is self serving.

If you judge the process exclusively by a narrow "end result" then the answer is NONE. However the definition of "end result" may be different between observers. For example

• If I have a production process that is required to put out 1,000 in spec. widgets per day and the process meets that requirement, then I can say the process is great.
• If the end result also entail that it produces 9,000 out of spec widgets per day, then perhaps the process needs some work.
• If I need to use minerals that are produced via chattel slavery, then perhaps my process needs some work.

I can agree with your characterization but the end result is still the same. It just "looks/is messy"

There are two goals you're considering.

1. The process must be fair.
2. The process must be efficient.

This where we introduce our bias. Do you believe God is always fair and always efficient?

I believe we can agree that life is messy.

 

[Stephen]

It has nothing to do with "luck". Luck is random chance.
We were not elected by God randomly. We were specifically and intentionally chosen.
I would assert that the non-Calvinist view is the "luck" view, since God has no control over who gets elected, and He simply "gets what He gets".

If you were elected or rejected before you even existed, from your perspective, your election or rejection was purely random chance. Whether God is rolling the dice or not is irrelevant to the human observer.

Explain to us all why God giving us faith means God is the one doing the believing.

I didn't assert such a thing. I even went so far as to say the opposite.

 

[Stephen]

You're only considering man's perspective. (Calvinism) from God's perspective, it is never luck. It is purpose. Your use of "luck" is self serving.

Please dispense with lame accusations like "self serving".

We agree that if a person was elected before they were born, then to that person it was pure luck.

If your means of addressing the claim is that one needs to look at it from God's view, then note the magnitude of your claim i.e. that what you are claiming is "God's perspective". When making such a claim, a substantial amount of evidence and a consistent theme throughout the bible should be provided to back that claim.

I can agree with your characterization but the end result is still the same. It just "looks/is messy"

There are two goals you're considering.

1. The process must be fair.
2. The process must be efficient.

This where we introduce our bias. Do you believe God is always fair and always efficient?

I believe we can agree that life is messy.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. However, within the Calvinist framework, the product was accepted or rejected before it was even produced. The conclusion being that the process is intentionally producing bad product and that each and every bad product was specifically intentionally produced.

 

[christ_undivided]

Please dispense with lame accusations like "self serving".

We agree that if a person was elected before they were born, then to that person it was pure luck.

No. I disagree. The argument is "sound" that God does as He pleases and there is purpose to those choices. Man can consider it "luck" if he wants but who really cares what we think? Does God consider our council valuable?

"Self serving" is just an expression used to denote an argument with only ourselves in focus.

If your means of addressing the claim is that one needs to look at it from God's view, then note the magnitude of your claim i.e. that what you are claiming is "God's perspective". When making such a claim, a substantial amount of evidence and a consistent theme throughout the bible should be provided to back that claim.

Do you accept the viability of such an argument? Or have you already determine it is impossible? What really matters is how God's views anything. His views are everlasting. Our views die with us.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. However, within the Calvinist framework, the product was accepted or rejected before it was even produced. The conclusion being that the process is intentionally producing bad product and that each and every bad product was specifically intentionally produced.

Like I said, you're assuming that God must be efficient in all things. If God wants to make what you consider a "mess", who are you to argue with God? You call it "bad product".

Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

 

[HealTheLand]

.... His views are everlasting. Our views die with us.



Like I said, you're assuming that God must be efficient in all things. If God wants to make what you consider a "mess", who are you to argue with God? You call it "bad product".

Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

.... 1000 years are as one day with God. could begin to to make (eventually, if we are seeking truth, or more open to learning more / or just wondering about) one begin to wonder exactly how long H. would / could actually be....

everlasting = (could) equal 1 million years... a long -- unforseen -- time (of trouble). 1000 goes into one million -- how many times? each 1000 equaling -- 1 day -- to God. some thoughts....

 

[Stephen]

No. I disagree. The argument is "sound" that God does as He pleases and there is purpose to those choices. Man can consider it "luck" if he wants but who really cares what we think? Does God consider our council valuable?

Yes God cares what you think. That is the point of prayer. If you pray for something or someone, you are approaching the throne of grace under the assumption that God cares what you think.

Do you accept the viability of such an argument? Or have you already determine it is impossible? What really matters is how God's views anything. His views are everlasting. Our views die with us.

The argument is viable if it
a) doesn't contradict the bible
b) is a consistent theme through the bible

A tiny few verses invariably in the New Testament that could be understood other ways doesn't meet the standard of "God's perspective".

Like I said, you're assuming that God must be efficient in all things. If God wants to make what you consider a "mess", who are you to argue with God? You call it "bad product".

I don't think I assumed "God must be efficient". At the time efficiency was being discussed, a general process and end result was in view. Now that we are talking about the Calvinistic view of God's production process, the objection to the Calvinist view is that God is described as intentionally and specifically producing persons who are "bad product". "Inefficient" is not one of the judgments I would have of the process as the process is producing exactly what it was intended to produce. As I believe human beings aren't widgets but rather made to be in the image of God, my judgments of the process is that it is intentionally cruel, intentionally capricious, and intentionally producing evil.

Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Let's read the context to determine the point Paul is making and examine the scriptures he uses to back up that point.

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:​

​

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;​

and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” (Hosea 2:23)​

​

26 and,​

​

“In the very place where it was said to them,​

‘You are not my people,’​

there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”(Hosea 1:10)​

Note Paul's scripture references to make his point (Hosea 1 and 2). In Hosea, the reason Israel (the 10 tribes) were vessels of wrath is because the nation had a long history to get there. Hosea married Gomer as a sign of that fact in Hosea 1. Through the whole book God is desperately reaching out to these people and trying to restore them as his people. This is in complete contradiction to the idea that they were destined to be destroyed in eternity past, rather they were destined to be destroyed once God determined he could no longer reach them.

(not to mention that Hosea is concerns a nation and has nothing to do with specific random individuals)

 

[christ_undivided]

Yes God cares what you think. That is the point of prayer. If you pray for something or someone, you are approaching the throne of grace under the assumption that God cares what you think.

Okay. Do you always get what you are concerned about? Your appeal to influencing God is limited.

I don't think I assumed "God must be efficient". At the time efficiency was being discussed, a general process and end result was in view. Now that we are talking about the Calvinistic view of God's production process, the objection to the Calvinist view is that God is described as intentionally and specifically producing persons who are "bad product". "Inefficient" is not one of the judgments I would have of the process as the process is producing exactly what it was intended to produce. As I believe human beings aren't widgets but rather made to be in the image of God, my judgments of the process is that it is intentionally cruel, intentionally capricious, and intentionally producing evil.

Okay. I was dealing with you analogy. If you're made in the image of God, then why do you die? How does death reflect the image of God in humanity? I can accept an answer that deals with carrying certain characteristics in common with God but there are plenty of characteristics that we do not share with God.

I say this because such arguments are limited in their application. As much as anti Calvinists like to argue about the perceived fairness of God. God still judges men guilty and punishes man. Equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal outcome. We are still "stuck" with the argument of "why hast thou made me such".

I'm open to criticism. As many years as I've studied, I've never gotten past these facts. Not all men are treated equally. Not all men have equal opportunity. Not all men have the same counter-argument to the just measure of damnation dispense to men.

Let's read the context to determine the point Paul is making and examine the scriptures he uses to back up that point.

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:​

​

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;​

and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” (Hosea 2:23)​

​

26 and,​

​

“In the very place where it was said to them,​

‘You are not my people,’​

there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”(Hosea 1:10)​

Note Paul's scripture references to make his point (Hosea 1 and 2). In Hosea, the reason Israel (the 10 tribes) were vessels of wrath is because the nation had a long history to get there. Hosea married Gomer as a sign of that fact in Hosea 1. Through the whole book God is desperately reaching out to these people and trying to restore them as his people. This is in complete contradiction to the idea that they were destined to be destroyed in eternity past, rather they were destined to be destroyed once God determined he could no longer reach them.

"Open Theism"?

I'm not an open theist but I understand the arguments and have dealt with them extensive. I can somewhat accept that the future isn't exhaustively determined. However, there is no denying that God has irrevocably foreordain many many things concerning this life we live. If you study the underlying languages of the Scriptures, foreknowledge is God's purpose in creation. Foreknowledge is power. God's power to bring about His will.

Foreknew, Foreordained.

Is you argument that God foreknew and foreordained the elect in knowing Jesus Christ? Those purposed to be conformed to the image of His dear Son?

(not to mention that Hosea is concerns a nation and has nothing to do with specific random individuals)

The people of God are a nation. A royal priesthood. The Israel of God. He is a Jew who is one inwardly. The heir of Abraham is Jesus Christ. The faithful are the descendants of Abraham. There has never been a Jew established in anything other than faith. Some of the natural seed of Abraham stumbled but they were never the end purposed for "Israel". There is no Calvinism without covenant theology. I know there are some that try to argue differently but there is so much lost in their doctrines. They will never understand the full teaching of Calvinism.

 

[armylngst]

If you were elected or rejected before you even existed, from your perspective, your election or rejection was purely random chance. Whether God is rolling the dice or not is irrelevant to the human observer.

What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter whether or not it is relevant to a human observer. God snaps His fingers and that human observer ceases to exist. It doesn't matter. Since when did God cease to matter in your worldview? God is the only thing that matters.

 

[Manfred]

If you were elected or rejected before you even existed, from your perspective, your election or rejection was purely random chance. Whether God is rolling the dice or not is irrelevant to the human observer.

Of course there is purpose in God's election, whether you want to believe it or reject it.

 

[Reformedguy]

If you were elected or rejected before you even existed, from your perspective, your election or rejection was purely random chance. Whether God is rolling the dice or not is irrelevant to the human observer.



I didn't assert such a thing. I even went so far as to say the opposite.

Because one does not know why He was elected does not mean it was by random chance.There is no random chance with a omniscient creator. The accusation is silly.

 

[Stephen]

What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter whether or not it is relevant to a human observer. God snaps His fingers and that human observer ceases to exist. It doesn't matter. Since when did God cease to matter in your worldview? God is the only thing that matters.

The question is idiotic as nobody claimed that God ceased to matter.

Of course there is purpose in God's election, whether you want to believe it or reject it.

Nobody said that God doesn't have purpose in election.

Because one does not know why He was elected does not mean it was by random chance. There is no random chance with a omniscient creator. The accusation is silly.

What accusation are you addressing?

 

[Reformedguy]

The question is idiotic as nobody claimed that God ceased to matter.



Nobody said that God doesn't have purpose in election.



What accusation are you addressing?

Yours