Predestination & Predetermined potential

[StaySalty]

I heard a sermon in which the preacher mentioned that it was God's desire that NONE parish, but ALL be saved by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ through faith and following Him. So this is God's desire, this is what He wants. He wants all people to come into relationship with Him.

Ok.

Then, why does He corner in humanity with the book of Revelations or other prophetic scriptures? Now I know what you're going to say, something along the lines of: "God knows the future, He's already been there, He's not making choices for people He's letting us all make our own choices. Just because He knows what will happen and every choice people will make, doesn't mean He's making the choices for them."

Ok, consider this: hypothetically speaking, humanity rises to the task to accomplish God's desire. The would-be anti-Christ chooses Jesus instead as does the rest of the world. Given this scenario or any similar bright scenario, what would that say about the book of Revelations?

That is, if true and real potential exists for all to be saved as God desires, and the world takes advantage of that opportunity, what is to be made of God's words saying things completely contrary?

If Judas made an entirely different decision, and changed his heart to be for Christ not sinfulness, then what is to be made of the Old Testament scriptures predicting his actions and consequences?

If God has authored the fate of the world, what potential is there for the world to change fates? And if there is no potential for the world to change it's fate, and the book of Revelation is inevitable, then both the desire of God and the purpose of Christ (to be the Savior of the world) fail to meet their highest goal, which is salvation for all. That is, God knew He would never fully get what He desired (that all will be saved) and Christ knew that being the savior of the world would never mean the world was saved. And by His own words, has He not deemed the salvation of the entire world to be an impossibility?

And if He has, then why?

 

[StaySalty]

It is interesting that the rich always seem to narrow their relationships to a few. In our world, a small group of people hold most of the world's wealth. That is the distribution under almost any system of government. And with God, realistically speaking, only a few will enjoy His salvation. Choice can be preached all day long, along with personal responsibility, but as I mentioned in the OP, how can it be denied that God has boxed in the potential for all of humanity to be saved by his own prophetic words?

If there is potential for all to be saved, and all chose to be saved, then the book of Revelation is false. And since God cannot lie, the book of Revelation cannot be false, nor can any other part of the Bible, which means there is no potential for the entire world to be saved despite the sacrifice of Jesus christ.

 

[MrPolo]

So you are saying that because some people are in hell that God hasn't always desired all mankind to be saved?

 

[Ch0rax]

Because God exists outside of time He doesn't experience it as we do. Whereas we can only live in and comprehend the present, God can - I believe - simultaneously see the past, present, and future. I would argue that the "futures" that God sees is based on our choices in the present, not the other way around which is what you seem to presume, i.e. that our future is fixed and therefore our current decisions are also predetermined so as to eventuate into fixed future.

So when God sees that the person who will become the Antichrist, it isn't something that I believe He preordained. A high percentage of humanity will die both in this life and the next on account of this psychopath and that doesn't sound like God's will to me. It is because of the circumstances, life experiences, and choices that the man will make in his present that will lead him to hate God with extreme prejudice and do the things that Revelation and other books describe. The thing that amazes me is that despite the fact that it's all written is that it will still happen.

As an aside, why did Satan even bother tempting Jesus for forty days if He knew that Jesus could never have given into his temptations? How could Jesus understand what it is like to endure temptation if there was never even the slightest chance that He could have sinned? I believe that the fate of mankind literally hung in the balance during those times where Jesus had to make the choice: to do God's will or not? I truly believe that He could have sinned in which case we would have all been screwed.

The hypothetical questions aren't very helpful as what God has revealed is based on what decisions the Antichrist and people in general will freely make in the present that He has foreseen in the future. If the Antichrist had chosen to trust in God in the present, then obviously Revelation wouldn't have been written, as God would already have foreknown (because He is outside of time). The more amazing thing is that God can use man's freewill to accomplish His purpose - with Judas for example, Herod, etc., etc.. It's incomprehensible to me how God works, I just know that He does generally without interfering with man's freewill.

It is God's desire that everyone be saved according to 2 Pet. 3:9, but because one can only want to come into a relationship with God by choice, He has - rightly or wrongly - allowed us that liberty. IMO He can see our futures, but those futures are not predetermined - rather based on the free choices we make in the present. That said, sometimes God will step in and make things happen to accomplish His plans and purpose (e.g. Paul and Jonah). I believe that this is largely small-scale and still involves choice and depending on the level that one decides on, it happens rarely.

I don't pretend to understand it, so it's just my two cents. I don't believe in predestination per sé or the idea of an elected group of people that God chose to save and others He chose not to because I find it to be completely unscriptural if my understanding of their position is correct.

 

[Albion]

It's a complicated and fascinating subject, that's for sure.

But look at it this way--

God 'would have' all to be saved in the same way that you'd have everyone in the world be nice to each other all the time. That's an ideal; it's not a statement of what will be.

But although we, as a whole race, are not capable of attaining to that ideal, God has deigned, out of his mercy and love, to save some nonetheless. This is what we call Election.

And it is not fatalism, in case that is part of what you are thinking here: "If God has authored the fate of the world, what potential is there for the world to change fates?"

God did not script all coming events. He did not decree everything that will happen. Much is left to us to determine and change. Only the matter of our salvation--which is essentially beyond our abilities--is predetermined, and that's what we mean when we speak of Predestination and/or Election.

 

[Cross Reference]

I

t's a complicated and fascinating subject, that's for sure.

But look at it this way--

God 'would have' all to be saved in the same way that you'd have everyone in the world be nice to each other all the time. That's an ideal; it's not a statement of what will be.

But although we, as a whole race, are not capable of attaining to that ideal, God has deigned, out of his mercy and love, to save some nonetheless. This is what we call Election.

And that is where argument begins. He is mine:

What you state is a false concept of election based upon a wrong reasoning of predestination based upon a wrong understanding of the foreknowledge of God. And that is why I am not a Calvinist.

And it is not fatalism, in case that is part of what you are thinking here: "If God has authored the fate of the world, what potential is there for the world to change fates?"

A strawman, to be sure. God didn't author the fate of the world but its creation. Satan authored it fate. Jesus redeemed it from that fate. The righteous are saved because of their faith in a God, revealed to Him by the lives dedicated to Him, whom they believe will redeem them. The ungodly need to hear the gospel and make up their mind to choose life or choose death. Albion, What you say in one thread you contradict in another.

The message of Jesus Christ is a two fold message. 1, evangelize the lost and 2, make disciples of those who have faith in God, who live with a hope. If you don't believe me re-read Paul's encounter on Mars Hill.

God did not script all coming events.

You assume much without knowledge and then proceed to presume upon the absence of it.. God does direct the steps of man, either unto righteousness or unrighteousness. He will even create mischief for the unrighteous to confound their ways. In the "fullness of time" God sent His Son. What time would that be Albion, except when the stage was set, both with the ungodly and the godly, the reprobate and the elect, God sent His Son. God uses both/all to effect His purpose.

He did not decree everything that will happen. Much is left to us to determine and change.

Oh? All of the sudden His foreknowledge and predestination does not mean a thing. Man can change it all. God is not completely Sovereign or perhaps His Sovereignty can be influenced by man's righteousness after all? Hmm? I wonder. What do you think? Oh, that's right, Calvin teaches man must be gifted a special grace to do God's bidding. An unBiblical convoluted teaching for one to explain, to be sure but you may wish to try..

Only the matter of our salvation--which is essentially beyond our abilities--is predetermined, and that's what we mean when we speak of Predestination and/or Election.

The righteous were justified from millinea past. Peace was made with God in their behalf by the Blood shed on Calvary's hill. Jesus did not come to save them but to redeem them, set them free. Sinner's and the ungodly He called-calls to repentence. He said that, not me. Note: "peace" here means the RIGHTEOUSNESS of Jesus Christ. Redemption being the issue, lets not confuse man's righteousness that cannot redeem with that of Jesus Christ whose Blood was pure and the thing needed, which only can.

That is just another reason I am not of Calvin's "theology". Him and those who follow him believe a mis-intrepreted quote from Paul, Romans 3.10 and base their WHOLE reasoning powers upon that mis-step in their understanding, forced upon them to accept or be pronounced a heretic, to be burned at the stake. Calvin did that sort of thing.

 

[Albion]

And that is where argument begins. He is mine:

What you state is a false concept of election based upon a wrong reasoning of predestination based upon a wrong understanding of the foreknowledge of God. And that is why I am not a Calvinist.

As I said before, it doesn't matter to me if you are a Calvinist (I'm not) or if you are not. No one is trying to convert you, nor have we asked you for your testimonial.

The idea has been only that we need to understand the classic understanding of Predestination and Election before attacking it--and attacking it with some specifics instead of simple footstamping, hopefully.

God didn't author the fate of the world but its creation. Satan authored it fate. Jesus redeemed it from that fate.

I think you must have misunderstood the point about fatalism. That's fatalism, a POV about the origin of events; it's not what we mean when we say that something or other is our fate, etc.

God does direct the steps of man, either unto righteousness or unrighteousness. He will even create mischief for the unrighteous to confound their ways. In the "fullness of time" God sent His Son. What time would that be Albion, except when the stage was set, both with the ungodly and the godly, the reprobate and the elect, God sent His Son. God uses both/all to effect His purpose.

That God directs the steps of man, etc. and can cause mischief is beside the point. No one is denying that God is able to do everything, least of all we who also know that he chooses whom he wills. But this is not fatalism. If you don't know what that word implies, look it up. And as for God sending his Son at a particular point in time, we all know and believe this. It neither proves nor disproves the Bible's teaching on Election one way or the other.

The righteous are saved because of their faith in a God

Of course. The question is "How do they get it?"

The message of Jesus Christ is a two fold message. 1, evangelize the lost and 2, make disciples of those who have faith in God, who live with a hope. If you don't believe me re-read Paul's encounter on Mars Hill.

Try staying with the topic here.

The righteous were justified from millinea past. Peace was made with God in their behalf by the Blood shed on Calvary's hill. Jesus did not come to save them but to redeem them, set them free.

This is an opinion--a rather unorthodox opinion BTW.

lets not confuse man's righteousness that cannot redeem with that of Jesus Christ whose Blood was pure and the thing needed, which only can

No one's done that from what I can tell.

That is just another reason I am not of Calvin's "theology". Him and those who follow him believe a mis-intrepreted quote from Paul, Romans 3.10 and base their WHOLE reasoning powers upon that mis-step in their understanding, forced upon them to accept or be pronounced a heretic, to be burned at the stake. Calvin did that sort of thing.

You assume much without knowledge and then proceed to presume upon the absence of it..

Taking random potshots at me or John Calvin is not helpful to the discussion, my friend. And BTW, you are quite mistaken to think that the doctrine we are discussing is based solely upon Romans 3.10. There are many verses that show the truth of election, preseverance of the saints, etc. That's another reason to say again that it's important to know what this is about before denouncing it. However, I think we can say this much now...you seem to think that predestination somehow negates or makes irrelevant Jesus' work. Nothing could be further from the facts.

 

[Cross Reference]

As I said before, it doesn't matter to me if you are a Calvinist (I'm not) or if you are not. No one is trying to convert you, nor have we asked you for your testimonial.

And that is where argument begins. Here is mine:

What you state is a false concept of election based upon a wrong reasoning of predestination based upon a wrong understanding of the foreknowledge of God. And that is why I am not a Calvinist.

As I said before, it doesn't matter to me if you are a Calvinist (I'm not) or if you are not. No one is trying to convert you, nor have we asked you for your testimonial.

The idea has been only that we need to understand the classic understanding of Predestination and Election before attacking it--and attacking it with some specifics instead of simple footstamping, hopefully.

We’ll see. Lets begin. I wrote:

God didn't author the fate of the world but its creation. Satan authored its fate. Jesus redeemed it from that fate.

I think you must have misunderstood the point about fatalism. That's fatalism, a POV about the origin of events; it's not what we mean when we say that something or other is our fate, etc.

Who is we, if not Calvinists? You wrote you (I'm not).

God does direct the steps of man, either unto righteousness or unrighteousness. He will even create mischief for the unrighteous to confound their ways. In the "fullness of time" God sent His Son. What time would that be Albion, except when the stage was set, both with the ungodly and the godly, the reprobate and the elect, God sent His Son. God uses both/all to affect His purpose.

That God directs the steps of man, etc. and can cause mischief is beside the point. No one is denying that God is able to do everything, least of all we who also know that he chooses whom he wills.

There is that “We” again.

God never chose anyone whose will did not line up with His own in the particulars. Rahab, the OT gentile harlot who is in the lineage of Jesus, comes easily to mind. I guess now you would say God gave her ‘special’ faith to believe Him. I will accept that if you can give from the word that God did. Otherwise it is simply conjecture that furthers a theological agenda.

But this is not fatalism. If you don't know what that word implies, look it up.

Who said it was? I didn’t. I was describing “events”. My intent is to demonstrate your theology subjects its adherents to fatalism. Perhaps a better understanding of those events is in order?

And as for God sending his Son at a particular point in time, we all know and believe this. It neither proves nor disproves the Bible's teaching on Election one way or the other.

I know that I do however and again I ask, who is “We”?

The righteous are saved because of their faith in a God
Of course. The question is "How do they get it?"

You don’t know and yet you presume on the message of the gospel? How is it that you [“we”] have built a whole theology without knowing?

The message of Jesus Christ is a two fold message. 1, evangelize the lost and 2, make disciples of those who have faith in God, who live with a hope. If you don't believe me re-read Paul's encounter on Mars Hill.

Try staying with the topic here.

But that is part and parcel of the topic. God does not call anyone He has not predestined, who in His foreknowledge has foreseen the dispositions whose affinities and inclinations are unto Him, when given choices whether to choose Him or “self”? The church is full of the latter group.

The righteous were justified from millennia past. Peace was made with God in their behalf by the Blood shed on Calvary's hill. Jesus did not come to save them but to redeem them, set them free.

This is an opinion--a rather unorthodox opinion BTW.

Really? “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:13 (HCSB)

What does that passage, taken from a Calvin slanted translation, mean, if not what it says? You might now want ask: “How did Calvin miss that one”?

lets not confuse man's righteousness that cannot redeem with that of Jesus Christ whose Blood was pure and the thing needed, which only can.

No one's done that from what I can tell.

Oh? And yet the main thrust of the Calvin argument against those who are not of him is: “Salvation by works”, insisting that is what they advocate.

That is just another reason I am not of Calvin's "theology". Him and those who follow him believe a mis-interpreted quote from Paul, Romans 3.10 and base their WHOLE reasoning powers upon that mis-step in their understanding, forced upon them to accept or be pronounced a heretic, to be burned at the stake. Calvin did that sort of thing. You assume much without knowledge and then proceed to presume upon the absence of it..

Taking random potshots at me or John Calvin is not helpful to the discussion, my friend.

To the contrary, you have instigated my aggressiveness by presenting your theology as, “etched in stone”. However, the potshots are not intended and I apologize that a lot is coming off that way from me.

And BTW, you are quite mistaken to think that the doctrine we are discussing is based solely upon Romans 3.10. There are many verses that show the truth of election, perseverance of the saints, etc.

Again and yet again, who is “we” if you aren’t of Calvin? And I say it is the main verse because you presume on it as fact instead of opinion and that you [“we”]do it, “without repentence”.

That's another reason to say again that it's important to know what this is about before denouncing it.

When it is “known” it cannot be denounced. What has been presented as knowledge, should be.

However, I think we can say this much now...you seem to think that predestination somehow negates or makes irrelevant Jesus' work. Nothing could be further from the facts.

Again, you presume without knowledge or incomplete knowledge: Not in the least and your conclusion only points up my understanding of the results of embracing Calvinistic perspective with the consequence being, you have no choice but to believe that about me. That is tragic.

 

[Emmy]

Dear StaySalty. God made us in His image, He loves us and wants all to accept the Sacrifice of Jesus, and after repenting, exchanging our old nature for a new loving nature, Jesus is the Way to lead us back to God, our original home. We have free will to choose our life-style, following God`s loving advice, ( 10 Commandments) OR going our own selfish and wilful way. God is the Great I AM, He is all-powerful, He can see what each of us has chosen for his, or hers, life-style on this Earth. He knows what some of us are capable of doing/achieving, and then God will guide in the right direction, always with LOVE and encouragement. God never forces or coerces anybody, and all of us are told in His Word to Man, ( the Bible) " Whosoever will may come." If Revelation says differently, let us examine where God is not our loving Heavenly Father, and does not want any of His sons or daughters to return to Him. May I point out, StaySalty, humbly and with love, that Jesus God-Son has given us 2 Commandments, they contain all what God told us in His 10 Commandments: 1) Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds. He made us, we are His own, and His Love for us is endless. 2) Love our neighbour, all others, friend or foe, as we love our selves. This is not easy, but we have a Saviour who will help and guide us, we also have years to become better and better, and we have God, who will forgive us as we forgive others. Sincere greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Albion]

We’ll see. Lets begin. I wrote:

God didn't author the fate of the world but its creation. Satan authored its fate. Jesus redeemed it from that fate.

Who is we, if not Calvinists? You wrote you (I'm not).
There is that “We” again.

By "we" I referred to myself and PT Calvinist, the two who have been debating this with you today. And no, it is by far not the case that everyone who believes in these concepts is a Calvinist. I am not a Calvinist for the reason that there is much that Calvin taught which I disagree with. Nor do I belong to a "Calvinist" church such that it would be correct to call me a Calvinist for that reason alone.

God never chose anyone whose will did not line up with His own in the particulars. Rahab, the OT gentile harlot who is in the lineage of Jesus, comes easily to mind. I guess now you would say God gave her ‘special’ faith to believe Him. I will accept that if you can give from the word that God did. Otherwise it is simply conjecture that furthers a theological agenda.

The answer is that you are again taking Predestination to mean something other than it is. You are wanting to see it as scripting or prearranging events in the lives of individuals. What Predestination (actually Election) refers to is one's standing with God vis-a-vis salvation, not everything else in our lives.

Who said it was? I didn’t. I was describing “events”. My intent is to demonstrate your theology subjects its adherents to fatalism.

But you didn't do that. It doesn't subject its adherents to fatalism. The charge is easy to make, but the facts are quite different.

You don’t know and yet you presume on the message of the gospel?

I DO know. But I am asking you to answer the question because it goes to the meaning of our subject. It's not whether we have the faith. That is not the issue, although you appeared to think it was.

The elect have the faith that saves. There's no issue there. The real issue--assuming that we know this much up to here--is HOW does one get the faith that saves? I ask you for the second time. Answer it and you will know what the heart of the issue is.

God does not call anyone He has not predestined

That's what I'd say.

who in His foreknowledge has foreseen the dispositions whose affinities and inclinations are unto Him, when given choices whether to choose Him or “self”?

Answer this for us--how can it be called predestination if nothing is predestined, i.e. if we have freewill, as you say, we are--by definition--NOT predestined. But you know, I take it, that the Bible does speak of predestining and election.

[/quote]

“Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:13 (HCSB)

If you only knew...that passage doesn't prove either freewill OR predestination since both understand that Jesus calls sinners!

Do you think that he calls anyone who has no sin? There are none such. Once again, it is clear that you are attacking something you don't even understand.

What does that passage, taken from a Calvin slanted translation, mean, if not what it says?

It means exactly what it says, as I explained.

And yet the main thrust of the Calvin argument against those who are not of him is: “Salvation by works”, insisting that is what they advocate.

It is what "they" advocate. With God's permission, to be sure. They'd stipulate that, but it still is up to the sinner to save himself by his own strength, assisted perhaps by sacraments, etc., but by his own good deeds...or be lost.