Discussion Predestined.

rdclmn7 said:

The best approach to such disputes is to see common ground and make sense of it. The other part of the equation is to find a better series of definitions that make it possible to settle all issues.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of common ground, so much so that a number of different conclusions can and have been reached. As far as "better definitions" that will "settle all issues", maybe another few millennia of trying will finally prove fruitful in that regard

It has also been suggested 1) that such things are a mystery of sorts and, as such, are truly beyond us due to the limitations of our present existence and/or 2) that God has intentionally left us with enough information to understand that both are true, but not enough information to understand how it all works together (which causes me to once again consider #1 ) You continue:

rdclmn7 said:

Predestination is collective..............

Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain I understand what you mean, but please elaborate anyway.

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

The "whosoever will" of verses such as John 3:16 seem clear enough. Just in case you haven't noticed, I'm a Calvinist, but I don't understand why you believe that "predestination" is a dangerous topic. It's a truth that God teaches us in the Bible, yes?

Beyond that, no one can 'know' for sure if someone is "predestined" by God or not. I was staunchly Arminian for about the first 10 years of my Christian life. When I talk to people about the Christian faith (witness), I don't talk about "predestination", I tell them about Jesus and Him crucified, about how and why I became a Christian and about how they can become one too, just like I did when I was an Arminian.

I should stop and let you explain what you mean again, IOW, why you believe that "predestination" is "dangerous". Why would anything that God teaches us in the Bible be dangerous to know?

Thanks again!!

--David
p.s. - I need to get up awfully early tomorrow, so it may be tomorrow night before I can get back to you.

rdclmn7 said:

Its only dangerous in the sense that it divides the body.
There was no such debate within the early church, only since the reformation do we see such a debate.
It creates problems for those that would otherwise refrain from imposing their will on the masses.

Click to expand...

You forget St. Augustine (mid-4th to early 5th centuries). Calvinism is rightly called "Augustinianism" for a very good reason.

That said, the Bible remains a 1st Century piece of literature that contains both extensive teaching about predestination AS WELL the word itself (unlike the "Trinity"). That God makes "choices" concerning us is an undeniable Biblical fact (well, unless one uses scissors like Jefferson did )

Do you really read a passage like Ephesians 1:4-6 and get the sense that God is trying to divide the body of Christ? I realize that God being everywhere and seeing and knowing everything about us (and that "from before the foundation of the world") is unnerving to the unsaved, but reading through passages like Psalm 139 and realizing how intimately involved God is in our lives is nothing but a great source of comfort and joy to me (as I'm sure it is to you).

Who do you believe is "imposing their will on the masses" by the use of teaching concerning predestination?

Thanks!

--David

Predestination is simple.

Those who receive Jesus and are born again are predestined to a great and wonderful future with God.

Those who reject Jesus are predestined to a (to say the least) not so wonderful future separated from God.

There is universalism view, that simply saying that soon or later everybody will be with CHRIST because simply JESUS loves all humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

soon / later maybe defined at several eons ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon

so why need to convert them to christians ? few reasons:
1. We don't want them to spend eons somewhere else. we want them to be with Christ as soon as possible (after death) and
2. in earth be a maximal person to benefits kingdom of GOD to receive lots of Crown later on
3. simply as act of worship.
4. in earth, to build relationship with Christ as soon as possible.

so at the end, everybody is predestined with CHRIST, as the lowest, the very lowest predestination.

so what the max predestination ? to do GOD's will at every single context imaginable. This is what bible say work on your salvation. It's different context after all. I believe for every unit (individual, group, church, cell group, denomination, country, state, etc)... GOD has best scenario plan, and worst scenario plan.

GOD is GOD... HIS brain can compute permutation and combination beyond today's computer power. So HE has in his mind any single scenarios. I call it predestined as well.

Can humanity choose all GOD's permutation n combination ? i don't think so. If you today become doctor, i don't think you are omnipresence enough to be lawyer, president, pastor at the same time. We have only 120 years max.

So whatever the best path humanity has under GOD's grace, sure it's already in GOD's mind. It's predestined, only our free will cannot choose all of them.

So to conclude, it's predestined and it's free will as well.

de1929 said:

There is universalism view, that simply saying that soon or later everybody will be with CHRIST because simply JESUS loves all humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation
so at the end, everybody is predestined with CHRIST, as the lowest, the very lowest predestination.

Click to expand...

Hi de1929, so Wikipedia is correct and the Bible, in context, and the church, are both wrong Universalism can only be "proven" by the Bible if you pull certain verses out of context. It's like the famous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, saying that one of the reasons she became an atheist is because the Bible itself says, "there is no God". You know what, she's correct, it says that several times, but that is clearly 'not' what is meant when it uses that phrase. (i.e. Psalm 14:1; Isaiah 45:5)

de1929 said:

This is what bible say work on your salvation.

Click to expand...

When you work "out" your body, you are working out something that you are already possess. Likewise, when Philippians 2:12 instructs us to "work out our salvation", St. Paul is not telling us to work "ON", or work "AT", or work "UP", our salvation (as if it was something that the Christian still needed to obtain), rather, we are to work "out" what we already possess in Christ (John 5:24, 2 Corinthians 5:17). In fact, there is no "working out" of our salvation, IOW, no "growing in Christ", until we 'are' Christians, indwelt by the HS and in possession of the mind of Christ. Christianity doesn't make sense to the unsaved who see it as foolishness. Until we are Christians, we are "natural" men and women (see 1 Corinthians 2:12-16).

Yours and His,
David

Sorry, I shouldn't post what I really believe about the reformation, so I am deleting it.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi de1929, so Wikipedia is correct and the Bible, in context, and the church, are both wrong Universalism can only be "proven" by the Bible if you pull certain verses out of context. It's like the famous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, saying that one of the reasons she became an atheist is because the Bible itself says, "there is no God". You know what, she's correct, it says that several times, but that is clearly 'not' what is meant when it uses that phrase. (i.e. Psalm 14:1; Isaiah 45:5)



When you work "out" your body, you are working out something that you are already possess. Likewise, when Philippians 2:12 instructs us to "work out our salvation", St. Paul is not telling us to work "ON", or work "AT", or work "UP", our salvation (as if it was something that the Christian still needed to obtain), rather, we are to work "out" what we already possess in Christ (John 5:24, 2 Corinthians 5:17). In fact, there is no "working out" of our salvation, IOW, no "growing in Christ", until we 'are' Christians, indwelt by the HS and in possession of the mind of Christ. Christianity doesn't make sense to the unsaved who see it as foolishness. Until we are Christians, we are "natural" men and women (see 1 Corinthians 2:12-16).

Yours and His,
David

Click to expand...

hmm... JESUS always correct, and surely wikipedia is nothing. But again, because i am a wof, charismatics, we sometimes think differently with calvisnist, who enthrone context-is-the-king when reading bible.

so surely i am not abiding to context, but don't get me wrong, JESUS is still king of king, and I already received JESUS as savior, and baptist as well. in short, i am a charismatics / pentecostal / wof individual ...

I am OSAS believer, so work on / at salvation is pretty much only as act of collecting crowns to give back to CHRIST later on. I don't wanna jot down to gramatical error. I fully support joseph prince gospel of grace... sorry for all the miscommunication caused, and thanks for bring it up, so readers know who am i.

de1929 said:

hmm... JESUS always correct, and surely wikipedia is nothing. But again, because i am a wof, charismatics, we sometimes think differently with calvisnist, who enthrone context-is-the-king when reading bible.

so surely i am not abiding to context, but don't get me wrong, JESUS is still king of king, and I already received JESUS as savior, and baptist as well. in short, i am a charismatics / pentecostal / wof individual ...

I am OSAS believer, so work on / at salvation is pretty much only as act of collecting crowns to give back to CHRIST later on. I don't wanna jot down to gramatical error. I fully support joseph prince gospel of grace... sorry for all the miscommunication caused, and thanks for bring it up, so readers know who am i.

Click to expand...

My experience with calvinists is that context is their greatest enemy, yet they like to use the word "context" as a game-card, but completely apart from the actual meaning of the word, just as they have to change the meaning of so many of the words of the Bible often to mean the opposite of it's actual meaning, like when they change "all" to mean "only calvinists," and God's infinite love into damning hatred.

jiminpa said:

My experience with calvinists is that context is their greatest enemy, yet they like to use the word "context" as a game-card, but completely apart from the actual meaning of the word, just as they have to change the meaning of so many of the words of the Bible often to mean the opposite of it's actual meaning, like when they change "all" to mean "only calvinists," and God's infinite love into damning hatred.

Click to expand...

actually everybody does ... joseph prince also likes to quote hebrew original, gave some reasoning why it is why, connecting some dots, and construct a priori, dogma or simply a teachings.

for me pretty much if i am blessed and i can grow by the teachings (either by experts or my own rhema), then i treasure it. if bring condemnation, then i discard.

i think it gives clear understanding why at the end days people likes to hear only they likes to hear (2 Tim 4:3)... maybe if we connect 2 Tim 4:3 with Habakuk 2:13 for the earth will be filled with knowledge of glory of GOD, i can (my own context) easily conclude that people are getting smarter to know which one is "old school" and which one is "new wine". people can sense, alert or understand which teachings are best for their own condition. In as much, people likes to hear only what they likes to hear.

shall i discard sound doctrine ? habakuk 2:13 can be translated as new day come every morning, better doctrines also comes every morning, to equip body of CHRIST better than old doctrines.

de1929 said:

hmm... JESUS always correct, and surely wikipedia is nothing. But again, because i am a wof, charismatics, we sometimes think differently with calvisnist, who enthrone context-is-the-king when reading bible.

so surely i am not abiding to context, but don't get me wrong, JESUS is still king of king, and I already received JESUS as savior, and baptist as well. in short, i am a charismatics / pentecostal / wof individual ...

I am OSAS believer, so work on / at salvation is pretty much only as act of collecting crowns to give back to CHRIST later on. I don't wanna jot down to gramatical error. I fully support joseph prince gospel of grace... sorry for all the miscommunication caused, and thanks for bring it up, so readers know who am i.

Click to expand...

Hi again de1929, you brought up "Universalism". I know of no church/denomination within Christendom anywhere in the world, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, etc., that teaches that 'everyone' will be saved. I believe the Unitarians do, but they are not a Christian denomination.

Joseph Prince Ministries teaches that Jesus Christ is the 'only' way to God. Here is part of what is said on the Joseph Prince Ministries website's Q & A:

I also watched a very short YouTube video by Joseph Prince on 1 Corinthians 15:22 rebuking Universal Salvation and expounding upon our need to take Scripture "in context" so that we can be careful to understand what it's actually teaching. Here is the one minute long excerpt:


It's also clear from the Statement of Faith (We Believe) at Joseph Prince Ministries, and from Pastor Prince himself, that the Bible is considered to be the inspired word of God and as such is extremely highly regarded. Statement 2 from the "We Believe" portion of the ministry website says this:

I realize this is somewhat different than your stated position and belief concerning the Bible, but since you said that you hold Joseph Prince and his ministry in such high regard, perhaps it would be worth your time to find out why he holds the Bible in such high regard, yes?

Yours and His,
David

jiminpa said:

My experience with calvinists is that context is their greatest enemy, yet they like to use the word "context" as a game-card, but completely apart from the actual meaning of the word, just as they have to change the meaning of so many of the words of the Bible often to mean the opposite of it's actual meaning, like when they change "all" to mean "only calvinists," and God's infinite love into damning hatred.

Click to expand...

Hi jiminpa, I am a Calvinist, but I have never seen the Biblical word "all" used to mean "only Calvinists" by any Calvinist I know or know of. Please tell us who's saying this because, quite frankly, as a Calvinist, I want to know.

Here is a quick excerpt by John Calvin himself from his Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4 concerning the salvation offer to "all men":


So you can see that John Calvin himself is not saying that "all" means "only Calvinists"! Rather, "all" (according to Calvin) means "all without exception".

I would also appreciate knowing who among the "Calvinists" is teaching that "God's infinite love" is actually a "damning hatred". Once again, though I have been a Calvinist for more than 20 years, I have never heard anyone who is part of the Reformed faith say anything remotely close to that.

Finally, as far as "context" is concerned, Joseph Prince, in the one minute video above, does a pretty good job of expressing the need to read the Bible "in context" to correctly understand what the word of God is actually saying, and I, as a Calvinist, am in complete agreement with what he has to say.

If you want to find out what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches and what we actually believe, why not stop by Semper Reformanda's, ASK A CALVINIST, here at CF and ask as many questions as you'd like.

Yours and His,
David

St_Worm2 said:

Hi again de1929, you brought up "Universalism". I know of no church/denomination within Christendom anywhere in the world, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, etc., that teaches that 'everyone' will be saved. I believe the Unitarians do, but they are not a Christian denomination.

Joseph Prince Ministries teaches that Jesus Christ is the 'only' way to God. Here is part of what is said on the Joseph Prince Ministries website's Q & A:

Is Jesus Christ the only way to heaven? What must I do to be saved and have eternal life?
We believe that salvation is through believing in Jesus and Jesus alone. In John 14:6, the Bible tells us very clearly that Christ is the 'only' way to God and eternal life, and in Romans 10:9–11, the Bible tells us how to be saved and have eternal life: Believe in our hearts that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the grave, and confess with our mouths that He is our Lord and Savior.

The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and in and of ourselves, we have no way to escape the punishment for sins. However, our God is a good God, and He is love (1 John 4:8, 16). And because He loves His people so much, He Himself provided a way out of hell (Matthew 5 and Mark 9) and into everlasting life (John 3:16).

So Jesus Christ came to take our place on the cross, to bear the full weight of God's wrath and punishment for all our sins on His own body, and to die our death. Only Jesus Christ, the perfect and sinless Son of God (Hebrews 4:15), can fully satisfy the righteous demands of God's holiness when paying for our sins.

Hence, it is only through our believing in Jesus and His perfect finished work that we can be saved, step boldly into the presence of our heavenly Father (Hebrews 4:16), and expect abundant life on earth (John 10:10) and a glorious future in heaven. There is no other way, and people must make that decision to accept what Jesus has done for them to be saved. (Acts 4:12)
​

I also watched a very short YouTube video by Joseph Prince on 1 Corinthians 15:22 rebuking Universal Salvation and expounding upon our need to take Scripture "in context" so that we can be careful to understand what it's actually teaching. Here is the one minute long excerpt:

It's also clear from the Statement of Faith (We Believe) at Joseph Prince Ministries, and from Pastor Prince himself, that the Bible is considered to be the inspired word of God and as such is extremely highly regarded. Statement 2 from the "We Believe" portion of the ministry website says this:

• The Bible is God’s Word. It is inspired and accurate. It is our perfect guide in all matters of life.

I realize this is somewhat different than your stated position and belief concerning the Bible, but since you said that you hold Joseph Prince and his ministry in such high regard, perhaps it would be worth your time to find out why he holds the Bible in such high regard, yes?

Yours and His,
David

Click to expand...

what is the definition of "stated position" ? there are a lot of mysteries that cannot be preached in pulpit for various reasons. Here is not pulpit. Here is open forum. I also hide my real identify. In other word, assume you see me in real person, expect 2 have different answers. why... well a lot of reasons. I am here not to establish a doctrine that this is correct and this is not... that's the fruit of the knowledge of good or bad... exactly the same thing that adam / eve eat.

did i have secret conversation with joseph prince about universalism ? no comment
did joseph prince approves universalism ? no, like you quote 100% correct. no church including JP agreed with universalism

why there are things cannot be preached in pulpit ? because is not as simple as "yes" and "no". wow ... remember what happen when brian houston say something like this about LGBT issues ? welcome to year 2015.

so what is my answers. i can give you 2 answers that are inconsistent to each others:
1. if i preach in church: i tell standard things
2. if i try to reach out atheist or people that thinks GOD hates humanity: i use universalism approach to gather lost sheeps. wow did i manipulate people ? what if they talk to real pastor and found out exactly like no 1... well that's another problem. GOD's grace is sufficient for every single event human can imagine.

i am glad we have this conversation david.

de1929 said:

what is the definition of "stated position" ?

Click to expand...

Hi de1929, I was referring to this statement of yours from an earlier post:


To say that "context is the king" to me means that the words of the Bible and what they mean should be considered of utmost importance to us as Christians. That is certainly true of me as I consider the Bible to be my regula fidei or "rule of faith", what Pastor Prince calls, "our perfect guide in all matters of life". Pastor Prince also calls the Bible "inspired" and "accurate" as well, which means he believes the Bible is made up of God's words, not man's, just like I do. From what I could tell from listening to him, I think it would be safe to say that he "enthrones context-is-the-king" where the Bible is concerned too. Is he a Calvinist?

Thanks!

Talk to you soon (Dv).

--David

St_Worm2 said:

Hi de1929, I was referring to this statement of yours from an earlier post:

"i am a wof, charismatics, we sometimes think differently with calvisnist, who enthrone context-is-the-king when reading bible."​

To say that "context is the king" to me means that the words of the Bible and what they mean should be considered of utmost importance to us as Christians. That is certainly true of me as I consider the Bible to be my regula fidei or "rule of faith", what Pastor Prince calls, "our perfect guide in all matters of life". Pastor Prince also calls the Bible "inspired" and "accurate" as well, which means he believes the Bible is made up of God's words, not man's, just like I do. From what I could tell from listening to him, I think it would be safe to say that he "enthrones context-is-the-king" where the Bible is concerned too. Is he a Calvinist?

Thanks!

Talk to you soon (Dv).

--David

Click to expand...

hmm... i have few Wof preachers that i use to enrich myself spiritually, so i am not abound to 1 preachers. I have benny hinn, crefflo dollar, TD jakes, joyce meyer, joel osteen, kenneth copeland, and some preachers. including local (south east asia is my "local") preachers such as kong hee, joseph prince, pdt niko, etc...

these preachers sometimes also don't agree to each others, benny hinn once said we are "little gods" sure got attacks from everybody even from wof camps, but i understand deeply what he wanted to deliver, so pretty much i understand the points.

so to answer ur questions, is JP calvnist ? maybe yes, maybe not, but he is labeled as grace preacher, not calvinis preachers. i am okay with him as long as HE still agree with some of my terms. my terms a lot, which is better reserved next time.

about calvinism ? i always think they are traditional christian (including protestant) compared to charismatics. also calvinism i mean is this wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

what's the relationship calvinism with context-is-the-king above ? context-is-the king is the paraphrase that i use to refer to something in christian circle. It is to display that, preacher from protestant line has to abide to preapproved context from protestant denomination, or else the preachers will be outcasted. In as much, if the protestant preachers got some rhema (e.g. from wof preachers) it does not gonna work in protestant circle. if he push wof teaching into protestant circle, shall i explain what's gonna happen ?

St_Worm2 said:

Hi jiminpa, I am a Calvinist, but I have never seen the Biblical word "all" used to mean "only Calvinists" by any Calvinist I know or know of. Please tell us who's saying this because, quite frankly, as a Calvinist, I want to know.

Here is a quick excerpt by John Calvin himself from his Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4 concerning the salvation offer to "all men":

"There is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception" Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (pp. 54–55). Bellingham, WA​

So you can see that John Calvin himself is not saying that "all" means "only Calvinists"! Rather, "all" (according to Calvin) means "all without exception".

I would also appreciate knowing who among the "Calvinists" is teaching that "God's infinite love" is actually a "damning hatred". Once again, though I have been a Calvinist for more than 20 years, I have never heard anyone who is part of the Reformed faith say anything remotely close to that.

Finally, as far as "context" is concerned, Joseph Prince, in the one minute video above, does a pretty good job of expressing the need to read the Bible "in context" to correctly understand what the word of God is actually saying, and I, as a Calvinist, am in complete agreement with what he has to say.

If you want to find out what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches and what we actually believe, why not stop by Semper Reformanda's, ASK A CALVINIST, here at CF and ask as many questions as you'd like.

Yours and His,
David

Click to expand...

Um, while I have heard of Joseph Prince, I have no idea who he is or what he has to do with a discussion of the reformation versus the Bible.

Next, I was a little off. I was referring specifically to 2 Peter 3:9 where "any" is changed in most of calvinism to "any calvinist," code worded as, "any elect," but since only calvinists are not complete heretics, only calvinists are among the "elect." And yes that is what any follower of the TULIP model must believe, since if the calvinist version of "grace," which is not Biblical grace, is irresistible, and God's goodness was completely overcome by one evil act, (again, opposed by the explicit word of scripture), then God only loves a very tiny few enough to so much as give them a finger in assistance from an eternity that they are completely powerless to even desire to escape and have absolutely no choice in, while He hates the rest too much to even allow them to know of the eternal pain of their destiny. Those are just the most blatant examples of how TULIP and the Bible are completely incompatible ideologies with no actual common ground. The god of TULIP is more evil and murderous than the devil of the Bible.

Now, perhaps you are not a TULIP calvinist.