Some thoughts on Predestination

[Clare73]

I want to tell you a short story, a summary, so to speak, of a much longer story.

The Lord of the Rings was written by a Catholic, it reflects both unconsciously and consciously his Catholic beliefs. In it there is a ring, it is beautiful, unadorned, plain gold, with some writing that is visible only when the ring is warmed by a fire or other source of heat as hot as a fire. The writing does not matter for my purposes here. What matters is that the ring gives the power to dominate and control the will of others. To mould them and make them fit whatever pattern the wearer of the ring desires, some can resist it, most cannot. The ring is a creation and as such has limitations. It is not almighty, just very mighty. On the finger of a good person the ring would make others good but it would do so according to the will of its wearer. Those dominated by it would be unaware of its influence, though at some level they may have a feeling that something was amiss, something not quite as God intended.

As the story progresses it becomes obvious that the ring is itself a power, its wearer is influenced by it, drawn into the idea of dominating for good if the wearer is good or for evil if the wearer is evil and intends evil. It is very subtle, at first.

The author slowly and inevitably shows that dominating is in itself evil. Wholly evil, even if it is for what the wearer sees as good. The evil arises from the desire to dominate what God has made free. To control the will of those whom God made free. The evil of the ring is total, it is so fundamentally evil that it is accursed. Though those who use it never suspect it. It is evil because it seeks to undo what God did. To order the world by domination and control when God intended it to be ordered by freedom.

That is sufficient for now. Maybe it is too obscure to be useful.

Did not Jesus say that freedom depended on truth (Jn 8:32), so that
God intended the world to be ordered by truth, it being necessary for freedom?

But I hear you. . .and respect your wish. . .(until I forget).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Contradiction of terms? "unconditional love for all humanity" and "election of only some."

Election is ... wait for it ... both for all and for some. You knew it, I know

This is my opinion, it is fallible, it is somewhat strongly associated with official Church teaching but it is how I explain and see it, I may be wrong.

God elects all, as God saves all, it is only those who receive election who also will receive salvation, freedom is so fundamental in human creation that to subvert it is to subvert God's work. Those who actually do subvert it may be waking a road from which no return is possible. To dominate others by whatever means it is possible to do so may be entry in through the wide gate and onto the wide road irreversibly.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Xeno.of.athens said:
There is a kind of malice in deliberately and determinedly both extending an invitation and arranging matters - either externally or internally - so that the recipient cannot accept. But much more significant is that the scriptures contradict the idea of an invitation extended that is desired to fail.

Mark Quayle said:
I expect you mean, "designed" to fail.

Nope, desired to fail, that is what I mean.

The Bible verse commonly cited as expressing God's desire for all people to be saved is 1 Timothy 2:4, which states, "God our Savior, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." This verse highlights the compassion and mercy of God, who desires not only to save humanity but also to bring them into a deeper understanding of the truth. And while God desires all to be saved, ultimately each person has the free will to choose whether to accept or reject God's offer of salvation.

So, you mean, "But much more significant is that the scriptures contradict the idea of an invitation extended that is desired to fail." I'm not sure the word "desire" is applicable there. I don't honestly know what it means for God to desire, or to want. I can't conceive of him being incomplete in any way, or lacking anything. We can argue what 'want' means, when he "wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth", but I don't see the warrant for introducing the concept into wanting the invitation to fail, in either of our systems of thought. I can see, planning for the invitation to fail, or, decreeing that it will fail. But I see no ambivalence or lack of finality in anything God does.

So to me, the question must become, "Do the scriptures contradict the idea of an invitation extended that is designed to fail?" Because to use '"desired" to fail' misrepresents at least my POV, and, I'm thinking, also misrepresents Calvinism and Reformed theology. It also misrepresents our POV in the usual way that arminianistic believers misrepresent us, in that it poses only the question of God's intent being that they be reprobate, and not his PRIMARY purpose in their reprobation: That God made them for HIS purposes, not theirs, but they have willfully rejected the knowledge of the truth, fulfilling their objective, and God's use for them. He owes neither the reprobate nor his elect anything. His mercy to the elect has no bearing on whether he is being unfair in his justice on the reprobate.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Alas, you would say that, it is almost as if you believe you can have a POV other than a creaturely one. And do not posit that scripture reveals God's POV on this matter and your view, expressed in your post is the God's eye POV. Remember ....

Ha! I could only wish my POV was the same as God's. No, I am bound temporally just as you are, and my POV is human. But I try to be mindful of the tendency to define all things according to human POV. One of the obvious differences is the assessing of time as currency in God's doings. I am skeptical of EVERYTHING I hear humans say and think, to include what I say and think. (I'm even skeptical of that last sentence!)

The Bible verse commonly cited as expressing God's desire for all people to be saved is 1 Timothy 2:4, which states, "God our Saviour, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." This verse highlights the compassion and mercy of God, who desires not only to save humanity but also to bring them into a deeper understanding of the truth.

This verse has been debated ad infinitum. It doesn't prove to me what you take it to mean. But I can see what you are saying, or better, why you are saying it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't honestly know what it means for God to desire, or to want.

Set aside the doubts that doctrines from 5 centuries ago bring, listen to God as he speaks in the scriptures, "God our Saviour ... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ, ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.​

1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

1 Timothy 2:3-4 NASB

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Whoever reads this thread, take some time and watch this telling of the gospel of saint John. It is from the Bible Societies. It is helpful for this question we have before us here. It helps by showing visually how Jesus preached. How he was in crowds, with ordinary people and Pharisees, with Sadducees and farmers. It shows how his words are addressed to all, even to those who openly opposed him. It shows how even the hard hearted, who Jesus knew would not accept his message, were given an opportunity to do so and along with them the many hidden in the crowd who would also later cry out "crucify him" hear the message. Some among them heard and did not condemn him. We cannot see them, their thinking is not revealed to us. Jesus shows no sign of seeking out only those he could, in theory, foretell and know will accept.

One could easily create a theology around his preaching that would make him intend to be heard effectually only by those who would later prove to be among the saved. One can treat the sermons as if they are presented with the intention of only effectually calling the few. But the example his preaching and teaching sets, denies this, in the written gospel, it denies it, in the video with visuals, it visually denies it. The words of saint Paul in 1 Timothy 2:4 are the truth, we can see in the preaching, God really does desire all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. But one can create a theology that contradicts this truth and deals with an invisible calling and a restricted desire that is effectual only for the few, who one, by theological reasoning, believes are the few who are called.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Set aside the doubts that doctrines from 5 centuries ago bring, listen to God as he speaks in the scriptures, "God our Saviour ... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ, ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.​

1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

1 Timothy 2:3-4 NASB

Doctrines from 2000 years ago is what I go by. Nor do I assume to know what it means for God to 'want' something. I didn't learn what I believe from Calvinists nor the Reformed. This I have learned, that God is not like us.

 

[Clare73]

Election is ... wait for it ... both for all and for some. You knew it, I know

No, I didn't know. . .and still don't.

This is my opinion, it is fallible, it is somewhat strongly associated with official Church teaching but it is how I explain and see it, I may be wrong.

God elects all, as God saves all, it is only those who receive election who also will receive salvation, freedom is so fundamental in human creation that to subvert it is to subvert God's work. Those who actually do subvert it may be waking a road from which no return is possible. To dominate others by whatever means it is possible to do so may be entry in through the wide gate and onto the wide road irreversibly.​

 

[Dan Perez]

Christians discuss this topic a lot and are not constrained in how to think about it but in general we can agree with Catholics that God knows everything and yet God also enables free will as this is His own sovereign choice that mankind should have free will.

It is free will that makes this whole thing its own problem without pinning the blame for sin on God. No one can say that God made him take God's name in vain, and no one can say that God left them with no other viable choice but to take God's name in vain. And while it is true that I and about 22 million of my friends hold this view - it is also true that many other Christians hold that view as well.

I believe that Adam and Eve are the ONLY HUMANS that had FREE WILL and also Angels in Jude 6 .

Today all humans are under the sway of the god of this world , Satan .

1 Cor 2:14 that the carnal man receives NOT the things of nthe Spirit of God , for it is foolishness to him , and can not know it because it is being spiritually discerned !!

I believe that today there is NO FREE WILL at all !!

dan p

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that Adam and Eve are the ONLY HUMANS that had FREE WILL and also Angels in Jude 6 .

You have free will you are free to believe that if you wish.

What I find in the Bible is that God supernaturally draws all mankind to Himself - and that supernatural act of God enables all "the choice" that depravity disables when it comes to accepting or rejecting the Gospel.

I believe that today there is NO FREE WILL at all !!

dan p

You have free will - you are free to believe that if you wish. I do not believe it.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic teaching on predestination holds that God has predestined certain individuals for salvation, but this does not negate the freedom of human choice or the importance of individual efforts to attain salvation.

sounds a bit confused/confusing if you mean God has "predestined some individuals for salvation and predestined others for hell" while claim that individuals have full freedom of choice when it comes to accepting or rejecting the gospel

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Doctrines from 2000 years ago is what I go by. Nor do I assume to know what it means for God to 'want' something. I didn't learn what I believe from Calvinists nor the Reformed. This I have learned, that God is not like us.

Reformed, Calvinist, doctrines of grace, none of these were preached by the Lord, Jesus Christ, two thousand years ago. None of them were preached any time by the Church that the Lord founded in the one thousand five hundred years between the earthly sojourn of Jesus Christ and the beginning of the Protestant revolt. None of them has been taught by the Church since the protestant revolt started around 500 years ago.

But all of them have been preached by some, propagated with evangelical zeal by some, proclaimed in forums, on streets, in houses, and in church buildings by some since around 500 years ago. And, good sir, you are one among the proclaimers of "the doctrines of grace, Calvinism, the Reformed faith".

 

[BobRyan]

Reformed, Calvinist, doctrines of grace, none of these were preached by the Lord, Jesus Christ, two thousand years ago.

Here is common ground for all denominations. No matter how many other ways we may have for evaluating, understanding Christian doctrine the one that all groups agree with is that the Bible is the Word of God. So then when we make our case based on what we find in it (in the case above - what we find Jesus teaching the Gospel accounts -- and we could add the Epistles as well ) - it is relying on common source documents, and arguments where all can be expected to value the source that declares Truth.

When Paul goes to the Greeks in Acts 17 - he cannot quote Peter, or Christ, or John, and he cannot just start off reading the Hebrew Bible since the greeks did not accept it as an authoritative source. He needed common ground.

In Christianity that common ground (no matter the tradition) that is accepted across the board - is the Bible.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

sounds a bit confused/confusing if you mean God has "predestined some individuals for salvation and predestined others for hell" while claim that individuals have full freedom of choice when it comes to accepting or rejecting the gospel

God predestined exactly one to inherit the kingdom, he is the Lord, Jesus Christ. And the Lord, Jesus Christ, is more than a single man; he has a body, he has a people, he has a Church. All who are in Christ inherit the Kingdom because they are IN Christ. These are the elect, the saints, the holy priesthood, the missionaries sent to proclaim the good news of the Lord, Jesus Christ, to the world and to increase the body of Christ until his kingdom fills all the earth - like that stone that was cut from a mountain (without human hands cutting it free) and that struck the feet of the great image that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about, that stone grew into a great mountain that filled all the earth and it is the kingdom, the Church, the body of Christ.

Daniel 2:26-47

26 Is this true? the king asked of Daniel. Canst thou, Baltassar, tell me the dream and its meaning both?​

27 And Daniel spoke out in the royal presence, Never wizard or sage, never diviner or prophet, that can give the king’s grace an answer!​

28 But there is a God in heaven, king Nabuchodonosor, that makes hidden things plain; he it is that has sent thee warning of what must befall long hence. Let me tell thee what thy dream was, what visions disturbed thy sleep.​

29 As thou wast lying there abed, my lord king, thy thoughts still turned on future times; and he that makes hidden things plain revealed to thee what the pattern of those times should be.​

30 If the secret was disclosed to me also, it is not that I have wisdom beyond the wont of living men; I was but the instrument by which the meaning of it was to be made known, and a king’s thoughts unravelled.​

31 A vision thou hadst of a great image; what splendour, how terrible an aspect it was that confronted thee!​

32 Of fine gold the head, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze;​

33 of iron the legs, and of the feet, too, part was iron, part was but earthenware.​

34 And as thou wert watching it, from the mountain-side fell a stone no hands had quarried, dashed against the feet of yonder image, part iron, part clay, and shattered them.​

35 With that, down came iron and clay, down came bronze and silver and gold; chaff of the threshing-floor was never so scattered on the summer breeze. They were gone, none knew whither; and stone that had shattered image grew into a high mountain, filling the whole earth.​

36 So much for the dream, and now we that know the secret of it✻ will tell the king’s grace what it means.​

37 Thou hast kings for thy vassals; royalty, power, dominion and great renown the God of heaven has bestowed on thee;​

38 every haunt of man and wild beast and flying bird he has given over to thee, all alike he has made subject to thee; the head of gold, who else but thou?​

39 Another and a lesser empire must follow thine, one of silver, then another of bronze, still wide as the world;​

40 then a fourth, of iron, breaking down and crushing all before it, as iron has power all-conquering, all-subduing.✻​

41 But feet and toes of the image were part iron, part clay; this fourth empire will be divided within itself. Foundation of iron there shall yet be, from which it springs; sure enough, in the feet thou sawest, earthenware was mixed with true steel.​

42 Yet was true steel mixed with base earthenware, token that this empire shall be in part firmly established, in part brittle.​

43 Iron and clay mingled; race of the conquerors shall be adulterated with common human stock; as well mix clay with iron!✻​

44 And while those empires yet flourish, another empire the God of heaven will bring into being, never to be destroyed, never to be superseded; conqueror of all these others, itself unconquerable.​

45 This is that stone thou sawest none ever quarried, that fell from the mountain-side, bringing clay and iron and bronze and silver and gold to nothing; this was a revelation the king’s grace had from the most high God himself of what must come about; true was thy dream, and this, past doubt, the meaning of it.​

46 With that, king Nabuchodonosor bowed down face to earth, and made Daniel reverence; ay, he would have sacrifice offered to him, and incense,​

47 and with these words greeted him: Doubt is none but this God of yours of all gods is God, of all kings the master; he it is brings hidden things to light, or how couldst thou have read the secret?​

 

[BobRyan]

God predestined exactly one to inherit the kingdom, he is the Lord, Jesus Christ. And the Lord, Jesus Christ, is more than a single man; he has a body, he has a people, he has a Church. All who are in Christ inherit the Kingdom because they are IN Christ.

2 Peter 3 - "God is not willing that ANY should perish but rather that ALL should come to repentance".

At every point in time in the NT there would always be those inside the church and those outside the church that at some future point would be inside the church, as well as those who did not exist but one day would exist and be lost for a while and then later be saved.

There was never a point where God would say "only these currently in the church are predestined for heaven"

In fact - not everyone in the church even - will go to heaven.
Not everyone who is saved today inside the church - will still be saved tomorrow.
Not everyone lost today inside the church - will still be lost tomorrow.

Using "today" and "Tomorrow" in a very loose fashion in this case.

 

[Clare73]

Reformed, Calvinist, doctrines of grace, none of these were preached by the Lord, Jesus Christ, two thousand years ago.

Jesus Christ lived, preached and died under the Old Covenant. He did not give us full New Covenant revelation because so much of it depended on the cross at the end of his life. The completion of Jesus' New Covenant revelation was given to the apostles.
It's a misunderstanding to view authoritative apostolic teaching as an addition to Jesus' doctrine rather than the completion of his doctrine.
We would know nothing of the body of Christ, his bride the church (Eph 5:30-32), or
of the born again's being foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified (past tense, done deal, forever settled in heaven), or
our sharing in Christ's own eternal inheritance (Ro 8:17), etc., apart from authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

To relegate the apostolic doctrines of grace to a lesser status than Christ's preaching is to measure the word of God with a human ruler.
It's all the word of God, enjoying the same authority of the word of God, and is to be received and believed as the word of God.

None of them were preached any time by the Church that the Lord founded in the one thousand five hundred years

Such a serious castrating of the word of God would be an egregious mistake requiring a serious reformation.
Thank God he didn't abandon his church but provided it for her!

between the earthly sojourn of Jesus Christ and the beginning of the Protestant revolt. None of them has been taught by the Church since the protestant revolt started around 500 years ago.

But all of them have been preached by some, propagated with evangelical zeal by some, proclaimed in forums, on streets, in houses, and in church buildings by some since around 500 years ago. And, good sir, you are one among the proclaimers of "the doctrines of grace, Calvinism, the Reformed faith".

Count me in as a prclaimer of the authoritative apostolic doctrines of grace!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Count me in as a prclaimer of the authoritative apostolic doctrines of grace!

That is not possible.

 

[Clare73]

That is not possible.

Are not all things possible with God, including me as a proclaimer of the authoritative apostolic doctrines of grace?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are not all things possible with God, including me as a proclaimer of the authoritative apostolic doctrines of grace?

Making a 4 sided triangle isn't possible.
Nor is making a 2 sided square possible.
Nor is it possible to find integer factors for a prime number.
These are impossibilities, even for God.

 

[Chaleb]

foreknowledge in predestination,

God does not "pre-destine" anyone to go to hell., as if He did then the Cross would not be a Gift. It would be selective.
If that is true then God is choosing favorites out of a world of sinners, as "all have sinned".

The NT teaches that God is "no respector of persons"....so, if he chose some for hell and others for heaven, Then God is respecting some and not others.


God told us that we are to BELIEVE.
And believing is : choice.... Choice is free will, being exercized.