Predestination and Election

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
The field can only produce according to it's condition, Ben. Any farmer can tell you that. And this farm boy will tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. Bad soil cannot produce good fruit. Check with any farmer. But be prepared to be embarrassed if you try to tell him that bad soil can produce good crops.​

In Jesus' parable, soil is CALLED "bad", if they fall to temptation/affliction/persecution, and it's CALLED "good" if they persevere. You're perceiving it to say they fall BECAUSE they're bad, and persevere BECAUSE they're good soil.

The connection to Heb6:7-8 is valid; same analogy, "soil" and "bearing fruit". But clearly established is that the tilled field can yield either fruit or thorns. If fruit, it is blessed, if thorns it is cursed and burned.

One field; one soil; one tilling. But either crop can occur...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
You only grabbed at one part of the difference.

First, "holding fast" is not simply holding long. So you're not even addressing that first thing -- that receiving with joy has zero relevance to the lock-hold Jesus talks about saved believers having.​

It has full relevance to me, because saved-believers DID receive with joy and BELIEVE, but succumbed to temptation/affliction/persecution.

Quote:
And did you notice: Jesus didn't say they believed at all? Absence of mention isn't mention of absence, but it is definitely not Jesus' focus as to the difference here.​

In saying "hold it fast and bore fruit", can mean nothing else but "believe". You know that...

QUote:
Jesus focused on an honest and pure heart as the significant difference here. The others had no root -- there was no lock-hold on what they heard, and it had an eventual result in their release from what they heard.​

Have they no root BECAUSE they fall? Or do they fall BECAUSE God GAVE them no root? The connection with Heb6:7-8 is valid. Their falling is CAUSE of cursed/burned/called-bad-soil, just as the others' persevering is CAUSE of blessed/called-good-soil.

Even if you do not agree with what I just said, I think you will be hard pressed to call it "clear Scriptural error".

QUote:
Where does that heart come from?​

Please read 2Tim3:15, and tell me where a believing heart comes from.

"Since childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures that are able to give you the wisdom that leads to saving-faith in Christ Jesus."

Did Paul forget to mention "Oh I mean if you're SOVEREIGN-PREDESTINED"?

 

[DeaconDean]

Please read 2Tim3:15, and tell me where a believing heart comes from.

Please read Psa.51:10 and tell me where it comes from.

And I guess the Bible lies to us when it says:

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee," -Psa. 65:4 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[bleitzel]

And I guess the Bible lies to us when it says:

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee," -Psa. 65:4 (KJV)

Forgive me for barging in but it would seem to me that Bible is lying to us, except it doesn't go on to say 'and cursed is the man whom thou does not choosest, and do not causest to approach unto thee,'

And anyways, it is curious to use Psa. 65 in your proof anyways because just two versus before, in vs. 2 it says He will cause ALL men to come to him... So are you a Universalist?

 

[DeaconDean]

So are you a Universalist?

Obviously you don't know me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by DeaconDean:
Please read Psa.51:10 and tell me where it comes from.

And I guess the Bible lies to us when it says:

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee," -Psa. 65:4 (KJV)​

Excellent, Dean! Thank you for citing Scriptures. And though we do not always agree, I always admire your enthusiasm. Surely God is pleased with you (even if you're not always "spot on" with Scripture).

Let's discuss the context of Psalm 51:
"Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; according to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me." Sounds like he's CONVICTED, and asking forgiveness.

"I have sinned against You, and done evil in Your sight; You are justified when You speak, and blameless when You judge. ...Purify me, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow. ...Create in me a clean heart O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me."

Does this sound like something God did BEFORE he repented? It does not. It aligns with 1Jn1:9, "If you CONFESS your sins, He is faithful and just to forgive your sins and to forgive you from all unrighteousness."

So we see that Psalm 51 endorses "REPENT and ask forgiveness and THEN God will create in you a new heart and spirit." 100% "Responsible Grace", not "Sovereign Predestination".

Continuing, verse 11:
"Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me, restore to me the joy of Your salvation and sustain me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach sinners Your ways, and they will be converted to You." Does that fit with "all those SOVEREIGNLY-PREDESTINED, will turn to God? No! The teaching will convert them to God!

100% "responsible", zero "predestined".

The footnoted cross-reference to 11b ("do not take away Your Holy Spirit"), is Isaiah 63:10,11:
"In their (House of Israel) affliction, He was afflicted; and the angel of His presence saved them. In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, and He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.

But they rebelled and grieved His holy Spirit; therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them, then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses --- where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock?"

They rebelled and turned from God, and He then turned away from them.

Psalm 51:10 also connects (footnoted cross-reference) to Ezekiel 18:31-32:
"Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed, amd make yourselves a NEW HEART and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? For the Lord God declares: 'I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies --- so REPENT and LIVE!' "

What do you see in those words, Dean? SOVEREIGN PREDESTINATION (God's choice)? Or 100% man's choice? Is there any way to deny "MAKE YOURSELVES A NEW HEART"?

I humbly suggest, your position is ruined.

You also cited Psalm 65:4; "Blessed is the one whom Thou dost choose, and bring near to Thee, to dwell in Thy courts." By footnote cross-reference, this connects to Psalm 33:12:
"Blessed is the nation whose God i sthe Lord, the people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance. The Lord looks from Heaven; He sees all the sons of men; from His dwelling place He looks out, on all the inhabitants of the Earth. He fashions their hearts together, He understands all their works. ...Behold the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him, on those who hope for His lovingkindness, to deliver their soul from death and to keep them alive in famine. Our soul waits for the Lord, He is our help and our shield. For our heart rejoices in Him, because we trust in His holy name. Let Thy lovingkindness O Lord be upon us, according AS WE HAVE HOPED in Thee."

Psalm 65:4 also is crossed to Psalm 4. "Sons of men, how long will my honor become a reproach? How long will you love what is worthless and aim at deceptions? Know that the Lord has set apart the godly man for Himself; the Lord hears when I call to Him. Tremble, and do not sin; meditate in your heart upon your bed and be still. Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and trust in the Lord..."

Verse by verse, men trust in God, and turn from their wickedness towards Him, and He receives those who seek and revere Him. THIS is the "impartiality" of which Peter spoke, in Acts10:34-35; God receives those who revere Him and pursue righteousness, rather than God CAUSES the few-elect TO DO righteousness.

Do you accept now that God's position is respondent to men's faith, rather than initiator?

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by NBF:
The field can only produce according to it's condition, Ben. Any farmer can tell you that. And this farm boy will tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. Bad soil cannot produce good fruit. Check with any farmer. But be prepared to be embarrassed if you try to tell him that bad soil can produce good crops.​

* * *

The connection to Heb6:7-8 is valid; same analogy, "soil" and "bearing fruit". But clearly established is that the tilled field can yield either fruit or thorns. If fruit, it is blessed, if thorns it is cursed and burned.

One field; one soil; one tilling. But either crop can occur...

... indicating the prior condition of the soil.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
... indicating the prior condition of the soil.​

How? ONE tilled soil, can yield EITHER thorns or fruit. Zero "prior-condition".

Theologically, it is perfectly sound to understand Luk38:13-15 as saying "they are CALLED 'good soil' BECAUSE of their faithful perseverance, and the others are CALLED 'bad soil' BECAUSE they fell".

Theologically, it is not sound to impose a DISPOSITION by the tiller of the soil towards "fruit-producing" or "thorn-producing".

The FRUIT, determines the RESPONSE --- cursing or blessing.

The only possible response towards keeping "predestination", is to assert "Heb6:7-8 does not apply to Jesus' parable"; which has been tried, but no grounds have ever been presented.

Give us the grounds, Mike --- tell us why and how we can scratch-out Heb6:7-8....

 

[bleitzel]

... indicating the prior condition of the soil.

Heymikey, God is the tiller, and the tilling represents His redemption of our sins. But we are the soil, we can either accept the seed and produce good fruit or reject the seed and bear bad fruit.

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, your complete ignorance of agriculture offers you no refuge. You are wrong, and have been proven wrong. Not just by me, or Fru, but by others as well. Soil condition determines the fruit produced. That is irrefutable FACT, unless you want to be like Bleitzel, and interpret parables in "parable land", which is Mr. Rogers Theology. Prepared soil is soil that produces good fruit, and prepared soil is neither rocky or thorny. Prepared soil is also maintained soil. Unprepared soil neither produces good fruit, nor can it sustain good fruit. This is Agriculture 101, and Jesus knew that even better than I do. You will never convince this farm boy that you are right, because I can see the error standing out in stark relief in your posts, due to your abject ignorance of agricultural principles. You are not correctly dividing the Word of Truth here, and need to quit making a fool of yourself.

 

[bleitzel]

NBF, you can argue exact soil science if you wish but that does not change the parable giver's intent in His telling of the story. That's why it's a parable, a story that is given to illustrate a teaching. Jesus Himself went on to completely explain His own teaching because it was obvious that some of His listeners were missing the point. Maybe they were getting caught up in agriscience and weren't understanding the Saviour's message. Like 'Can't see the forest for the trees'

 

[nobdysfool]

NBF, you can argue exact soil science if you wish but that does not change the parable giver's intent in His telling of the story. That's why it's a parable, a story that is given to illustrate a teaching. Jesus Himself went on to completely explain His own teaching because it was obvious that some of His listeners were missing the point. Maybe they were getting caught up in agriscience and weren't understanding the Saviour's message. Like 'Can't see the forest for the trees'

But Jesus would not put forth in an agricultural context something that ran counter to those principles. Doing so would undermine His point. You are misinterpreting what He was saying, to uphold the false idea that you must 'do' something in order for God to save you.

 

[bleitzel]

But Jesus would not put forth in an agricultural context something that ran counter to those principles. Doing so would undermine His point. You are misinterpreting what He was saying, to uphold the false idea that you must 'do' something in order for God to save you.

Why do you say what Jesus would and wouldn't do? If the parable wasn't clear enough for you then He goes on to explain it in further detail. Later on in Luke 13 vs. 32 Jesus says: "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' Now why would Jesus tell someone to speak to a fox? It is obvious to any one who lives in the countryside that a fox cannot understand or speak?

And you said that I think I must do something for God to save me. Let me try to correct you in what I believe. I belive we have a test of wills, our selfish sinful ego that says we can do it ourselves, and our humble, God-focused will that says we can't do it for ourselves. God offers us redemption of our sins. Now we owe him for what we have done but He is willing to forgive that debt, IF we surrender our egos and say that we CANNOT do anything to earn salvation. So unlike your characterization of my beliefs, I believe that we cannot earn salvation, we can only surrender to Him.

Luke 14:11 "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted"
​

And lastly NBF let's look at Luke 13 5:9.

5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
6Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' 8" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "
​

So let's see. Jesus says, unless you repent you too will all perish. He doesn't say that unless God has predestined you all to repent you will perish, nope. Then He directly goes on to preach a parable wherein a fig tree, representing us, has been planted and cared for but yet still refuses to bear fruit. Now the owner of the garden wishes to cut down the tree for it's lack of fruit but decides to withhold his judgement for another season.

So, if we follow your guidance that Jesus would never give a parable to an agrarian audience that runs contrary to the laws of physics, then we must conclude that the tree was made to be condemned from the first. Since a tree cannot determine its own soil. A tree doen't CHOOSE to give bad fruit! God, or the owner of the garden must have caused the tree to be planted in a bad area, or wasn't watered or fertilized enough. So the owner threatens to cut the tree down for its lack of good fruit. What?!?! I thought the tree couldn't do other than what it was destined for?!?!? Why then would the owner say "I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down!" Didn't the owner (God) already know what fruit, or lack thereof, to expect from the tree?!?!?

Or, we could look at Jesus' context in the preceeding verse where he admonishes us to repent. Then we can see how we are the trees bearing bad fruit, and if we don't wake up and bear good fruit he might lose his patience and cut us down! Now NBF, you're a smart guy, you tell me which understanding of the parable is correct? (Be careful not to slip into Bert and Ernie theology!)

 

[frumanchu]

In Jesus' parable, soil is CALLED "bad", if they fall to temptation/affliction/persecution, and it's CALLED "good" if they persevere. You're perceiving it to say they fall BECAUSE they're bad, and persevere BECAUSE they're good soil.

If you want to pursue this ridiculous hermeneutic, you must admit the fact that in the verse the soil is CALLED "good" BEFORE the yield is stated.

All the linguistic legerdemain can't change the facts of nature and the clear understanding the original audience (and anyone with a shred of understanding about agriculture) would have of the nature of the soil in relation to the fruit it produces.

Ben, your position on this is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. You are claiming that the fruit confers the nature upon the soil rather than revealing it. Such violates common sense and plain logic.

The sad thing is that simply acknowledging this fact doesn't give support to the Calvinist position. It simply removes one of your more frequently cited prooftexts. But you don't see us posting polls about this verse and claiming that you can no longer use this text...we simply consistently and repeatedly point out your error in the hopes that a wave of sense will wash over and you will realize and acknowledge your error so we can move on to more important passages of Scripture.

 

[Ben johnson]

One soil is tilled, and can produce either good fruit, or thorns, in Heb6:7-8. The only defense against "fruit determines soil-label" of Lk8:13-15, is to contend that "Heb6:7-8 does not apply".

But this does not remove what was said in Heb6:7-8 (requiring a second defense of "Oh it applied to a different DISPENSATION").

God does not determine soil-type; if a saved-person falls, then he is called "bad soil".

God is no respecter of persons (is not partial); but in every nation he WHO fears God AND does right, God welcomes.

God receives faith, not initiates it. Heb11:6...

 

[Rick Otto]

God receives faith, not initiates it. Heb11:6...

Faith is a gift of God.
Ephesians 2:4-10 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Obviously (by definition alone) grace is not of ourselves. Paul is iterating that faith is also a gift.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
Faith is a gift of God.
Ephesians 2:4-10 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Obviously (by definition alone) grace is not of ourselves. Paul is iterating that faith is also a gift.​

Hi, Rick. We've discussed Heb11:6: "Without faith it is impossible to please God; for he who COMES to God must believe God IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

God's position is receiving those who come by faith.

In Eph2:8, what does "THAT", modify? The word "faith" is included in a prepositional phrase; in no sense can it be any kind of subject, second-subject, etcetera. New American Standard footnotes "that", with "that salvation" --- clearly, the whole opening phrase is the subject.

"By grace through faith have you been saved."

That salvation.

Five modifiers of the one subject are written into the text, two contained IN the subject.

(That salvation) by grace
(That salvation) through faith
(That salvation) not of yourselves
(That salvation) gift of God
(That salvation) not by works

Robertson says "Grace is God's part, faith is ours" --- this aligns with Peter's words in 1:1:9, "Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls."

Was Robertson wrong? A doctoral level Greek instructor? Yet, the proof is not in his accreditation; but rather, in Scripture. This is why the average person can understand Scripture --- understanding is not confined to degreed seminarians, Greek scholars, Bible experts. It was written for average people to understand.

This is not said to disrespect you or imply any lack of cognizance --- I'm well aware of the Scriptures that form the framework for "Predestination" and "Sovereign election". The presentation of Predestination is convincing. I simply do not find the verses which found Calvinism (4 passages) consistent (in that understanding) with the whole, but "Responsible Grace" harmonizes all of it. For instance, why would Jesus call me "wise", who believe Him, and unbelievers "foolish"? How can men be wise or foolish for what God DECIDED? (Matt7:24-27) But if men CHOOSE wisely, or CHOOSE foolishly, that makes perfect sense.

So grace is not of us, it is all of God; but if faith is also of God (and not of us), then why the Cross? Jesus died that all WHO see Him AND believe, be saved. Once again Jesus' words align with "personal responsibility": "You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who do NOT see, and yet believe." There's no way that "predestined-belief" fits that; but CHOSEN belief, does --- unseen belief is BETTER than seen belief, and that is only possible if men choose. (Jn20:29)

This is borne out throughout Scripture. "Begottenness", "sonship", is all of God and nothing of us (Jn1:13); but what does verse 12 say? "Belief" and "receiving Christ" precedes our becoming-adopted-sons. That aligns with "Grace is from God, faith is from us." Perfectly aligns.

Whether we come to agreement or not, Rick, at least I think you're beginning to see that people who hold to "Responsible Grace", do so because of Scripture, while we have seen how "Predestined-Election" begins with Scriptures. We participate in debates, to discuss which view(s) are closer to Scripture.

 

[Rick Otto]

How can men be wise or foolish for what God DECIDED?

The same way they can be wicked when executing His will.
Ac 2:23 - Show Context Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: clearly, the whole opening phrase is the subject.

--- clearly, the whole opening phrase is the subject

So then all of its contents are "not of ourselves".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
The same way they can be wicked when executing His will.
Ac 2:23 - Show Context Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: clearly, the whole opening phrase is the subject.​

Hi, Rick. God did not choose for their hands to be wicked; Jesus was predestined, God exploited the men's own wickedness (by putting Jesus in a place and time where wicked men WOULD crucify Him).

Please tell us how a man WHO believes can be called "wise" (if it's God's sovereign choice), while another man who will NOT believe can be called "foolish" (if that is also God's sovereign choice)?

It's the same perspective as in John20:29; how can "unseen faith" be better than "seen faith", if both faiths are God's sovereign choice?

Quoted by Ben:
--- clearly, the whole opening phrase is the subject

Quoted by Rick:
So then all of its contents are "not of ourselves".​

The gift, is not of men, but all of God (John1:13); sufficient and complete by Jesus on the Cross.

But receiving the gift, is by believing and receiving Jesus (Jn1:12).

How do you take 1Pet1:9 ("receiving as the OUTCOME of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls"), and change it into "faith is God's choice, not yours"?

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Ben johnson;

Quoted by RickOtto:
The same way they can be wicked when executing His will.
Ac 2:23 - Show Context Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: clearly, the whole opening phrase is the subject.
​

Hi, Rick. God did not choose for their hands to be wicked; Jesus was predestined, God exploited the men's own wickedness (by putting Jesus in a place and time where wicked men WOULD crucify Him).

Passive control is still control. Exploiting requires choosing what & whom to exploit. Knowing the future He created requires knowing in intimate detail - no guesswork, no accidents, no random chance. Determinate Council isn't improvisation.

Please tell us how a man WHO believes can be called "wise" (if it's God's sovereign choice), while another man who will NOT believe can be called "foolish" (if that is also God's sovereign choice)?

Anything God makes can be called what God makes it.

That's enough questions for one post. Don't get too busy with too many questions, please. It simply distracts & confuses issues, thanks.