Predestination

[mark kennedy]

You mean like I did in a post on this thread immediately preceding one of you comments to me?
It seems you’ve been lecturing me about something I have not done and, indeed, have made sure I could not be accursed of.

No disagreement with me. Never has been.

I have a few differences with it also. Not in the area we have been talking about however.

I have answered the O.P. in a way that you would agree with. Would that you had read all of my posts and not singled me out and jumped to wrong conclusions about my beliefs.


As you wish. It would be nice though if you admitted your mistake and even perhaps address what I said in post #155 as a fore instance.

God talks all through the scriptures about predestining or ordaining to happen any number of things and events and types of things and events other than those things related to our salvation.

Aside for the fact that you have wronged me in your assumptions about what I believe and teach - IMO, your limiting any discussion about predestination to the passages where God used that exact word is simply preposterous and purposefully argumentative as well.

Of course those particular scriptures are where we have always wanted to go with the thread. I just thought that establishing some basic core doctrines first would help us to discuss those verses without as much misunderstanding as is usual.

I think it's a real shame that you "derailed the thread" in order to unfairly,and with misguided assumptions, unload on me.

My point has been quite simple. As you and I obviously agree about - God ordains or predestines all that come to pass (and yet without being the author of sin nor doing violence to the will of men).

Therefore, since the salvation of some men comes to pass, the answer to the O.P.'s question is a simple yes.

How and why God so predestines that salvation is a question to be discussed. The correct answers require that both Calvinists and Arminians give a little.

But you, being an avowed Calvinist - seem to have illustrated that we simply cannot get there on a thread like this because of assumptions and straw men on both sides of the issue.

For a guy who keeps dunping me on the topic you have a great deal to say to me and about me. You haven't the slightestest interest in how the word is used in the New Testament so you get to make it up as you go along. Then you take a swipe at me over the Westminster Confession, not only is your source being quoted out of context, you don't even quote the whole sentence. Now you want me to chase your argument through the rest of the thread, I've chased circular arguments before, no thanks.

Whatever your into it's not predestination, you've actually shown little interest.

 

[His student]

...not only is your source being quoted out of context, you don't even quote the whole sentence.

Didn't even quote the whole sentence? It doesn't get much more "whole" than this.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)"
AND,
"Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, and yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.......God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

I'm "into" predestination exactly as it is laid out for us in the Westminster Confession.

I.e. - "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18)"

You just don't want to agree that establishing an overall statement such as that on the subject is the logical starting point to discussing predestination as it pertains to salvation in particular. The Westminster Confession writers obviously thought otherwise - because that's exactly how they did it in chapter 3 before proceeding on to a discussion of the working parts of the falling out of what has been predestined in relationship to the salvation of men.

I expected some static here. I just didn't expect it from a fellow advocate of the Westminster Confession.

That's OK with me at this point. I just don't know why you can't simply admit that you had me wrong and that all of this has been for naught.

Once we drop this dialog about your false assumptions as we are about to do - everyone from both sides can return to beating their pet straw men until the thread runs out and then we'll wait for the next thread on the subject and start all over again.

I think it's a shame. I wish you hadn't hijacked the thread.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I bet you think all these verses are about you, don't you don't you? (With apologies to Carly Simon.)

Yes...they do speak of me and everyone else who calls on the Lord by a God given faith.
If the verses do not speak of you,repent and believe the gospel ,there is still time.

 

[His student]

Yes...they do speak of me and everyone else who calls on the Lord by a God given faith. If the verses do not speak of you,rent and believe the gospel ,there is still time.

That's absolutely right on. They apply to everyone who is born again.

The golden chain found in Romans 8 should leave no doubt whatsoever for those who believe the scriptures concerning the predestination of individual salvation experiences.

 

[renniks]

Yes...they do speak of me and everyone else who calls on the Lord by a God given faith.
If the verses do not speak of you,rent and believe the gospel ,there is still time.

The verses in question are first about the OT saints, IMO. It's Paul looking backwardsq

Yes...they do speak of me and everyone else who calls on the Lord by a God given faith.
If the verses do not speak of you,rent and believe the gospel ,there is still time.

You need to take a closer look... Why is it all in past tense? And then when it speaks to you it says what should we say in response to these things?

 

[renniks]

Yes...they do speak of me and everyone else who calls on the Lord by a God given faith.
If the verses do not speak of you,rent and believe the gospel ,there is still time.

It's also highly ironic that you would say that they apply to me... As a calvinist you have no idea whether that is true or not.

 

[mark kennedy]

Didn't even quote the whole sentence? It doesn't get much more "whole" than this.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)"
AND,
"Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, and yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.......God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

I'm "into" predestination exactly as it is laid out for us in the Westminster Confession.

I.e. - "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18)"

You just don't want to agree that that establishing an overall statement such as that on the subject is the logical starting point to discussing predestination as it pertains to salvation in particular. The Westminster Confession writers obviously thought otherwise - because that's exactly how they did it in chapter 3 before proceeding on to a discussion of the working parts of the falling out of what has been predestined in relationship to the salvation of men.

That's OK with me at this point. I just don't know why you can't simply admit that you had me wrong and that all of this has been for naught.

Once we drop this dialog about your false assumptions as we are about to do - everyone from both sides can return to beating their pet straw men until the thread runs out and then we'll wait for the next thread on the subject and start all over again.

I think it's a shame. I wish you hadn't hijacked the thread.

Ok. I've already looked it up I don't need you to cot and paste it. The WC tells us God ordained the saved and unsaved before creation, to that I say ok fine, vut how they know that would be a miracle of omniscience way beyond my depth. Other then that I qualified the definition with biblical proof texts and qualified source matetial which you promptly ignored. You want me to day I wad wrong about you which I wasn't, so you keep chasing it in circles.

Now I've spent a lot of time on predestination and uncovered a tresure trove of resources. We won't get to that because you want to make it a contest. Your loss, it really is a fascinating topic.

 

[His student]

Now I've spent a lot of time on predestination and uncovered a tresure trove of resources. We won't get to that because you want to make it a contest. Your loss, it really is a fascinating topic.

There are lots of other people to share your treasure trove with even if we have chased many of them off with your hijack of the thread.

I'm sure that most of them would enjoy and benefit from your insights.

I promise to keep out of it until at least page 12 if the thread lasts that long - that is if you'll promise not to go off on me again with assumptions about things I don't believe - when I make a comment.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

It's also highly ironic that you would say that they apply to me... As a calvinist you ave no idea whether that is true or not.

That is why I posted......IF

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

That's absolutely right on. They apply to everyone who is born again.

The golden chain found in Romans 8 shwould leave no doubt whatsoever for those who believe the scriptures concerning the predestination of individual salvation experiences.

As you know many will go to great lengths to attempt to find loopholes around this blessed truth, but it stands firm.
All the objections are the places where they error and depart from the truth.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

The verses in question are first about the OT saints, IMO. It's Paul looking backwardsq

You need to take a closer look... Why is it all in past tense? And then when it speaks to you it says what should we say in response to these things?

It is all in the past tense because God settled this in eternity past. 2 tim1:9...
The rest of the chapter is filled with thanks and praise to God for His electing love and mercy.

 

[mark kennedy]

There are lots of other people to share your treasure trove with even if we have chased many of them off with your hijack of the thread.

I'm sure that most of them would enjoy and benefit from your insights.

I promise to keep out of it until at least page 12 if the thread lasts that long - that is if you'll promise not to go off on me again with assumptions about things I don't believe - when I make a comment.

You seem to have mistaken candor with excitement. I only regard bibical authority in matters of doctrine and have little patience for speculation. If you want to discuss predestination, try what God has expressly predestined without going beyond what has been revealed in the New Teatament witness.

For example. Paul goes on for 2 1/2 xhapters on the sinful state of Jew and Gentile alike. Then he breaks through with a decisive and definitive 'but now', the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ (Rom. 3, 21,22). That's revealed not realized, the righteousness of God in Christ. This righteousness was clearly predestined before the foundation of the world.

If ypu can't support what your saying biblically I'm going to call you on it. If you quote something out of context or misrepresent content I do double check as you have learned.

 

[renniks]

It is all in the past tense because God settled this in eternity past. 2 tim1:9...
The rest of the chapter is filled with thanks and praise to God for His electing love and mercy.

Yes, but not in the way you see it. We are to praise God for his mercy and faithfulness, yes, this is Paul's major theme.
As for those who God foreknew... in Romans 11:2, Paul is simply referring to saints of old in former times who loved God and were known by Him. Paul said, “The man who loves God is known by God” (1 Cor. 8:3).
They were foreknown (previously known) by God, as in they had an intimate personal relationship with God in the past.
Not this idea that God randomly chose them for salvation, but that God “had acquaintanceship” with the Israelites of the past. So, it was not “mere Divine pre-knowledge” of certain individuals, but a real intimate “pre-acquaintanceship.”
And because we have knowledge of how God knew these men in the past, we can have confidence that God will be faithful to us.
It is specifically an observation about those who love God....those who are in Christ.
It is these who God previously knew, Israelites who loved God in the past, who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make the way for His coming. Notice Paul says that Christ "would be the firstborn of many brethren" with shows us that at this point, Paul is still pointing to those who came before Christ.
As Pastor and author Tim Warner describes:

“Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David. The term “foreknew” does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb “proegnw” is the word for “know” (in an intimate sense) with the preposition “pro” (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past…Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: “For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.” The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [7]


“For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”

This does not sound like Paul is talking about something that has already happened, does it?
Again, this is Paul's theme through much of Romans:“But as for Israel He says, ‘All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” (Rom. 10:21-11:2)

In short, what Paul is getting at is this: If God was this faithful to his people in the past, he will also be faithful to us. He is not laying out a system of how God picks some for salvation and some for damnation, nothing could be farther from his mind. We are God's elect, if we are in Christ, and can have confidence that he will never leave us or forsake us.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Yes, but not in the way you see it. We are to praise God for his mercy and faithfulness, yes, this is Paul's major theme.
As for those who God foreknew... in Romans 11:2, Paul is simply referring to saints of old in former times who loved God and were known by Him. Paul said, “The man who loves God is known by God” (1 Cor. 8:3).
They were foreknown (previously known) by God, as in they had an intimate personal relationship with God in the past.
Not this idea that God randomly chose them for salvation, but that God “had acquaintanceship” with the Israelites of the past. So, it was not “mere Divine pre-knowledge” of certain individuals, but a real intimate “pre-acquaintanceship.”
And because we have knowledge of how God knew these men in the past, we can have confidence that God will be faithful to us.
It is specifically an observation about those who love God....those who are in Christ.
It is these who God previously knew, Israelites who loved God in the past, who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make the way for His coming. Notice Paul says that Christ "would be the firstborn of many brethren" with shows us that at this point, Paul is still pointing to those who came before Christ.
As Pastor and author Tim Warner describes:

“Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David. The term “foreknew” does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb “proegnw” is the word for “know” (in an intimate sense) with the preposition “pro” (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past…Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: “For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.” The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [7]


“For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”

This does not sound like Paul is talking about something that has already happened, does it?
Again, this is Paul's theme through much of Romans:“But as for Israel He says, ‘All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” (Rom. 10:21-11:2)

In short, what Paul is getting at is this: If God was this faithful to his people in the past, he will also be faithful to us. He is not laying out a system of how God picks some for salvation and some for damnation, nothing could be farther from his mind. We are God's elect, if we are in Christ, and can have confidence that he will never leave us or forsake us.

No this explains how God saves His elect sheep

 

[renniks]

No this explains how God saves His elect sheep

Well that's your opinion. .. but other scholars interpret it differently.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Well that's your opinion. .. but other scholars interpret it differently.

Not really. It is the text quite clear and unbreakable.

 

[renniks]

Not really. It is the text quite clear and unbreakable.

Like I said, look deeper... you didn't interact with what I wrote at all.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Like I said, look deeper... you didn't interact with what I wrote at all.

No where does Paul mention previous saints.
He is explaining how God calls both Jew and Gentile.
Your whole post was made up fiction by those who hate the grace of God.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Chapter 9-11 stay on this point.

 

[renniks]

No where does Paul mention previous saints.
He is explaining how God calls both Jew and Gentile.
Your whole post was made up fiction by those who hate the grace of God.

Does any Christian "hate the grace of God."? I don't think so. But some of us realize that we are not deserving of grace any more than any other human, and we believe that grace truly is offered to all. Romans 9-11 confirms that grace if for all, not just for people of a certain race.