Predestination, is it coercive determinism ?

[BornAgainChristian1]

Nah,... you just haven't done your homework, son...


"Verse 16.For God so loved the world,.... The Persic version reads "men": but not every man in the world is here meant, or all the individuals of human nature; for all are not the objects of God's special love, which is here designed, as appears from the instance and evidence of it, the gift of his Son: nor is Christ God's gift to every one; for to whomsoever he gives his Son, he gives all things freely with him; which is not the case of every man. Nor is human nature here intended, in opposition to, and distinction from, the angelic nature; for though God has showed a regard to fallen men, and not to fallen angels, and has provided a Saviour for the one, and not for the other; and Christ has assumed the nature of men, and not angels; yet not for the sake of all men, but the spiritual seed of Abraham; and besides, it will not be easily proved, that human nature is ever called the world: nor is the whole body of the chosen ones, as consisting of Jews and Gentiles, here designed; for though these are called the world, John 6:33; and are the objects of God's special love, and to them Christ is given, and they are brought to believe in him, and shall never perish, but shall be saved with an everlasting salvation; yet rather the Gentiles particularly, and God's elect among them, are meant; who are often called "the world," and "the whole world," and "the nations of the world," as distinct from the Jews; see Romans 11:12, compared with Matthew 6:32. The Jews had the same distinction we have now, the church and the world; the former they took to themselves, and the latter they gave to all the nations around: hence we often meet with this distinction, Israel, and the nations of the world; on those words, "'let them bring forth their witness,' that they may be justified, Isaiah 43:9 (say {b} the doctors) these are Israel; "or let them hear and say it is truth," these are 'the nations of the world.'"

And again {c}, "the holy, blessed God said to Israel, when I judge Israel, I do not judge them as "the nations of the world":" and so in a multitude of places: and it should be observed, that our Lord was now discoursing with a Jewish Rabbi, and that he is opposing a commonly received notion of theirs, that when the Messiah came, the Gentiles should have no benefit or advantage by him, only the Israelites; so far should they be from it, that, according to their sense, the most dreadful judgments, calamities, and curses, should befall them; yea, hell and eternal damnation. "There is a place (they say {d},) the name of which is "Hadrach," Zechariah 9:1. This is the King Messiah, who is, Krwdx, "sharp and tender"; sharp to "the nations," and tender to 'Israel.'" And so of the "sun of righteousness," in Malachi 4:2, they say {e}, "there is healing for the Israelites in it: but the idolatrous nations shall be burnt by it." And that {f} "there is mercy for Israel, but judgment for the rest of the nations." And on those words in Isaiah 21:12, "the morning cometh," and also the night, they observe {g}, "the morning is for the righteous, and the night for the wicked; the morning is for Israel, and the night for 'the nations of the world.'" And again {h}, "in the time to come, (the times of the Messiah,) the holy, blessed God will bring "darkness" upon "the nations," and will enlighten Israel, as it is said, Isaiah 60:2." Once more {i}, "in the time to come, the holy, blessed God will bring the nations of the world, and will cast them into the midst of hell under the Israelites, as it is said, Isaiah 43:3." To which may be added that denunciation of theirs {k} "woe to the nations of the world, who perish, and they know not that they perish: in the time that the sanctuary was standing, the altar atoned for them; but now who shall atone for them?" Now, in opposition to such a notion, our Lord addresses this Jew; and it is as if he had said, you Rabbins say, that when the Messiah comes, only the Israelites, the peculiar favourites of God, shall share in the blessings that come by, and with him; and that the Gentiles shall reap no advantage by him, being hated of God, and rejected of him: but I tell you, God has so loved the Gentiles, as well as the Jews,

that he gave his only begotten Son; to, and for them, as well as for the Jews; to be a covenant of the people, the Gentiles, the Saviour of them, and a sacrifice for them; a gift which is a sufficient evidence of his love to them; it being a large and comprehensive one, an irreversible and unspeakable one; no other than his own Son by nature, of the same essence, perfections, and glory with him; begotten by him in a way inconceivable and expressible by mortals; and his only begotten one; the object of his love and delight, and in whom he is ever well pleased; and yet, such is his love to the Gentiles, as well as Jews, that he has given him, in human nature, up, into the hands of men, and of justice, and to death itself:

that whosoever believeth in him, whether Jew or Gentile,

should not perish, but have everlasting life; See Gill on "Joh 3:15."

{b} T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 2. 1. {c} Ib. fol. 4. 1. Vid. T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2. & Bereshit Rabba, fol. 11. 3. {d} Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 24. 1. Jarchi & Kimchi in Zech. ix. 1. {e} Zohar in Gen. fol. 112. 2. {f} Zohar in Exod. fol. 15. 1, 2. {g} T. Hieros. Taaniot, fol. 64. 1. {h} Shemot Rabba, sect. 14. fol. 99. 4. {i} Ib sect. 11. fol. 98. 3. {k} T. Bab. Succa, fol. 55. 2."

http://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=gill&b=43&c=3

The simple answer is I believe God's word not men's opinion's on it.

 

[98cwitr]

I gave you scripture now your argument is with God not me.

The irony is that I gave you Scripture that proves your viewpoint incorrect.

 

[98cwitr]

Where was I rude? What is rude is expecting somethign you will not do yourself.
Please point me to where you address my reference to Genesis?
I am treating you as a brother. I am being patient but you seem to be playing games. I have no problem with things you say I need to reconcile so I do not need to reconcile them. If you want a conversation treat me with the exact same respect as you appear to be demanding.

post #184.

 

[keltoi]

Getting back to foreknowledge and responsibility. My family has many animals, I know each morning a rooster will crow, the donkey will hehaw, one of the cats will eat its breakfast, regurgitate it, and then re-eat it, and one of the 10 horses will drop something smelly on the ground. Am I responsible for all this?

 

[98cwitr]

Getting back to foreknowledge and responsibility. My family has many animals, I know each morning a rooster will crow, the donkey will hehaw, one of the cats will eat its breakfast, regurgitate it, and then re-eat it, and one of the 10 horses will drop something smelly on the ground. Am I responsible for all this?

No. You didn't create them nor do you know those things via your Omniscience. I don't understand how Omniscience is so difficult to conceptualize.

 

[keltoi]

post #184

Checking .....

You need to reconcile your beliefs with that God decided to put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden before man even existed, with full foreknowledge that man would fall.

My justification is Isaiah 45:7, John 6:37-44, and Romans 9.

I don't see this as being equal to what you required of me.

I wouldn't address my brother as you are addressing me. I hope you understand that.

I don't know how you think I am addressing you, please elaborate and let us work out any problems that are arising.

 

[98cwitr]

Checking .....
I don't see this as being equal to what you required of me.
I don't know how you think I am addressing you, please elaborate and let us work out any problems that are arising.

I think we've reached equilibrium.

To your Genesis verses...my response is this:

While Adam and Eve ate from the tree...God put the tree there. God also created satan to tempt them to eat, all which falls back to His foreknowledge. He could have simply not created them, but He did. Therefore, it is to His Will we are destined to our own nature.

 

[keltoi]

No. You didn't create them nor do you know those things via your Omniscience. I don't understand how Omniscience is so difficult to conceptualize.

When someone else says he is responsible for his children as proof my argument is incorrect please allow me the right to reply likewise.
Omniscience isn't difficult to conceptualise but Rick Otto (I think it was Rick Otto) isn't omniscient yet he used his child's behaviour in this discussion. I am merely using the behaviour and actions of animals that are part of my family as Rick Otto's child is part of his.

 

[Hoghead1]

Myself, Rick Otto, and 98cwitr are talking about predestination (I think the word itself should be thrown out).
BAC, Rick Otto, and 98cwitr seem to be talking about the Trinity (3 persons of the Godhead) which isn't strictly what this thread is about.

Well, that's sure true. What's your problem with predestination?

 

[Rick Otto]

Getting back to foreknowledge and responsibility. My family has many animals, I know each morning a rooster will crow, the donkey will hehaw, one of the cats will eat its breakfast, regurgitate it, and then re-eat it, and one of the 10 horses will drop something smelly on the ground. Am I responsible for all this?

You don't know any of it. You have a reasonable expectation. God knows like a creator, not like an observer educated by experience. God created both the experience the person experiencing, foreknowledge coming from the creative act being a thoroughly considered act, deserving of plan.

 

[keltoi]

I think we've reached equilibrium.

OK.

To your Genesis verses...my response is this:

While Adam and Eve ate from the tree...God put the tree there. God also created satan to tempt them to eat, all which falls back to His foreknowledge. He could have simply not created them, but He did. Therefore, it is to His Will we are destined to our own nature.

How is what I said a problem with this? we have our own nature which freewill is a part of because God gave us freewill.

 

[Rick Otto]

When someone else says he is responsible for his children as proof my argument is incorrect please allow me the right to reply likewise.
Omniscience isn't difficult to conceptualise but Rick Otto (I think it was Rick Otto) isn't omniscient yet he used his child's behaviour in this discussion. I am merely using the behaviour and actions of animals that are part of my family as Rick Otto's child is part of his.

Ok, I can correct.
God is responsible for His adopted children's behavior without being guilty of it.
The Justice system is responsible for crime, but not guilty of it.
It isn't a difficult distinction to make

 

[keltoi]

Well, that's sure true. What's your problem with predestination?

The concept of predestination is a man made construct. We have freewill which God gave us, we are able to accept Christ as saviour and Lord if we choose to, likewise we are able to reject Christ as saviour and Lord if we choose to. Saying things are predestined means God is willingly and knowingly interfering and causing possibly billions of people to be damned to hell. I don't accept that.

 

[Erose]

I'm was born and raised a catholic until I read the bible and noticed all the heresy's I bought into. It was a tough road to admit I was wrong and the bible disagreed with just about everything I believed. The only way I found this out is when I was challenged to read the bible for myself to know that truth. Now you know why I take the stand I take. I belong to a baptist in which I am one of the original founders and we're a little over 11 years old. No church is perfect but as long as all the bible is taught in it's entirety it's a good place to be. Beware just because a church says it's baptist doesn't make it so because we have many around my neck of the woods that are more into feel goodism rather than teach the parts of God's word that convict our hearts.

Sad that you left the only Church that teaches the whole Bible.

 

[Erose]

The concept of predestination is a man made construct. We have freewill which God gave us, we are able to accept Christ as saviour and Lord if we choose to, likewise we are able to reject Christ as saviour and Lord if we choose to. Saying things are predestined means God is willingly and knowingly interfering and causing possibly billions of people to be damned to hell. I don't accept that.

Predestination isn't a man-made construct. What is a man-made construct is the skewed understanding of what predestination means.

 

[98cwitr]

OK.

How is what I said a problem with this? we have our own nature which freewill is a part of because God gave us freewill.

It's not free when we are governed by it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Predestination isn't a man-made construct. What is a man-made construct is the skewed understanding of what predestination means.

Thank you. Also, I believe it is arguably limited to certain areas like salvation, although I personally see it as a cornerstone of all reality.

 

[keltoi]

You don't know any of it. You have a reasonable expectation. God knows like a creator, not like an observer educated by experience. God created both the experience the person experiencing, foreknowledge coming from the creative act being a thoroughly considered act, deserving of plan.

Same for you, however God still gave us freewill and we are responsible for our own actions. Suggesting God is responsible for our behaviour isn't correct.

 

[keltoi]

Ok, I can correct.
God is responsible for His adopted children's behavior without being guilty of it.
The Justice system is responsible for crime, but not guilty of it.
It isn't a difficult distinction to make

No its not a difficult distinction to make. What seems difficult to do is accept responsibility for our own behaviour. When I am in a classroom teaching children I am responsible for them but not for their behaviour. I am responsible for their overall safety. They make choices of their own and can get hurt, they learn the hard way same as we should with God.

 

[keltoi]

It's not free when we are governed by it.

You are governed by your free will?