A Thought on Predestination (Arminian View)

[jomarc]

I wrestled with predestination even when I heard the explanation from the "Arminian" church that I grew up in.

I was always told... "You get to choose, but God knows beforehand whether you are going to choose Him or not."

When I heard that explanation my late-teen/early adulthood thoughts went something like this. "Well that sure stinks.... you'd think that if He really wanted you to be saved that He'd do something to make sure that you finally chose Him before your life finally ended. I mean after all, He knows the outcome...so you'd think if He were this loving God that the Arminians describe that He'd do some mind-altering "magic" through the Holy Spirit so that He could adjust the horrible fate of this individual that God has created.

So....in my mind, with this Arminian explanation of predestination, God has--in a round-about way--in essence created a person that He knew would not be saved.

Either way.....don't you really do get the same results. God creates people that He knows are not going to be going to Heaven. [Calvinist or Arminian interpretation on what "predestination" means].

So I guess it just all comes down to accepting the Scripture for what It is.

IF I'M WRONG HERE.....PLEASE SET ME STRAIGHT.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Right. Either way not everyone's going to heaven. In my view God is doing no injustice by not saving everyone. Once you understand that all human beings are guilty depraved sinners, then any act of salvation is pure grace and mercy. God could have saved everyone, but God is just, and as Paul declares in Romans, God wanted to demonstrate his wrath as well as his mercy. But again, its not like the wrath is undeserved, we deserve nothing less than the fullness of his wrath.

Now, I don't believe in double predestination. God doesn't create sinners just to send them to Hell. In other words, he doesn't force anyone to go to Hell. Men cannot come to God because they will not come to him, and they will not come to him because they hate him. So God leaves them to their depravity and, consequently, must send them to Hell. But he does them no wrong, he merely leaves them to their lawlessness to the day of judgement. However, from eternity past, God has elected for himself a people from all the peoples of the earth, through which he demonstrates his grace and mercy by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

The great attraction of the reformed view is sovereign grace. Jesus is a REAL savior, who really died for real sinners like you and me. His atonement was not hypothetical, dependent upon some act we would do to receive it. No, Jesus really took our sins upon his own body and drank down the wrath we deserved...he really and truly set us free.

God predestined from eternity to have Christ die for us, to regenerate us with the Holy Spirit, to sanctify us, and best of all, to persevere us by his power until the last day, when ALL of his elect will be fully glorified. Not one single truly saved individual will ever be lost...Jesus has set us free indeed!

Its amazing so many people have such a problem with reformed theology. Honestly, the Arminian view leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If salvation was in any way up to sinners like us, in initiation or maintenance, we'd all go to Hell.

 

[file13]

Either way.....don't you really do get the same results. God creates people that He knows are not going to be going to Heaven. [Calvinist or Arminian interpretation on what "predestination" means].

Exactly. This is the common Calvinist response to these views. I.e. they don't really accomplish what the Arminians think they're accomplishing when trying to defend God's character by putting all the blame on our libertarian free will. They still end up with a God who knows full well that some people He creates are created for hell, and yet He still creates them. Worse, when you consider the fact that He just sits back and let's it happen, we have to ask, what kind of God just sits back and let's a child run into the street knowing He will get killed by a car? How is this a better picture of God when you end up asserting a practically deistic God who's strictly hands off so not to violate your libertarian free will?

The Molinists have a more sophisticated response to this than your standard Arminians, but we would say that it still runs into the same problem and perhaps makes God look even more impersonal by electing possible worlds rather than individuals. But in either case, God still chooses to create hell bound individuals. So we don't really see how this makes God any more noble than a God who decreed it and where people still freely choose to do His will and take the road to hell because they want to live in their sins.

 

[Eddie L]

Jomark,

The dilemma for Arminians that you present is the basis for Open Theism. Open Theists are so concerned about the apparent paradox between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility that they would rather hope that the future is not knowable by God than to change their logic. It's a shame, because they are defending a premise that is not required with all that they have, not realizing that they are giving up on the degree of personal love that God had for them in the process.

The upside is that God's love for His people is more than any of us can fathom, and that love is not diminished at all by our lack of comprehending it.

 

[Foghorn]

I wrestled with predestination even when I heard the explanation from the "Arminian" church that I grew up in.

That's because the Arminian view of predestination is not logical. It's pretty ridicules actually.

I was always told... "You get to choose, but God knows beforehand whether you are going to choose Him or not."

Yep, based on sovereign man.

When I heard that explanation my late-teen/early adulthood thoughts went something like this. "Well that sure stinks.... you'd think that if He really wanted you to be saved that He'd do something to make sure that you finally chose Him before your life finally ended. I mean after all, He knows the outcome...so you'd think if He were this loving God that the Arminians describe that He'd do some mind-altering "magic" through the Holy Spirit so that He could adjust the horrible fate of this individual that God has created.

Well in Arminianism Christ died for all, so, all will be saved right? Arminians hate to admit it but their theology is universalism.

So....in my mind, with this Arminian explanation of predestination, God has--in a round-about way--in essence created a person that He knew would not be saved.

Yes, and in the Arminian theology, Christ's death on the cross, becoming sin and a curse was not effective enough for all He died for, for according to Arminianism He died for all.

Either way.....don't you really do get the same results. God creates people that He knows are not going to be going to Heaven. [Calvinist or Arminian interpretation on what "predestination" means].

Scripture teaches Christ died for those the father has given Him, His sheep. And none of these can possibly not be saved.

So I guess it just all comes down to accepting the Scripture for what It is.

IF I'M WRONG HERE.....PLEASE SET ME STRAIGHT.

Yep. Calvinism.

 

[Verona]

Jomark,

The dilemma for Arminians that you present is the basis for Open Theism. Open Theists are so concerned about the apparent paradox between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility that they would rather hope that the future is not knowable by God than to change their logic. It's a shame, because they are defending a premise that is not required with all that they have, not realizing that they are giving up on the degree of personal love that God had for them in the process.

The upside is that God's love for His people is more than any of us can fathom, and that love is not diminished at all by our lack of comprehending it.

What is an apparent paradox ?

Surly you mean an apparent contradiction which is a paradox.

Either way, if it was not apparent then Man wold not have argued about it since its invention by Augustine.

 

[Verona]

That's because the Arminian view of predestination is not logical. It's pretty ridicules actually.

Yep, based on sovereign man.

Well in Arminianism Christ died for all, so, all will be saved right? Arminians hate to admit it but their theology is universalism.

Yes, and in the Arminian theology, Christ's death on the cross, becoming sin and a curse was not effective enough for all He died for, for according to Arminianism He died for all.

Scripture teaches Christ died for those the father has given Him, His sheep. And none of these can possibly not be saved.

Yep. Calvinism.

Never heard of a sovereign God ?

 

[Verona]

I wrestled with predestination even when I heard the explanation from the "Arminian" church that I grew up in.

I was always told... "You get to choose, but God knows beforehand whether you are going to choose Him or not."

When I heard that explanation my late-teen/early adulthood thoughts went something like this. "Well that sure stinks.... you'd think that if He really wanted you to be saved that He'd do something to make sure that you finally chose Him before your life finally ended. I mean after all, He knows the outcome...so you'd think if He were this loving God that the Arminians describe that He'd do some mind-altering "magic" through the Holy Spirit so that He could adjust the horrible fate of this individual that God has created.

So....in my mind, with this Arminian explanation of predestination, God has--in a round-about way--in essence created a person that He knew would not be saved.

Either way.....don't you really do get the same results. God creates people that He knows are not going to be going to Heaven. [Calvinist or Arminian interpretation on what "predestination" means].

So I guess it just all comes down to accepting the Scripture for what It is.

IF I'M WRONG HERE.....PLEASE SET ME STRAIGHT.

jomarc

One does not have to be either calvinist nor Arminian. Particularly when either one gets so badly misrepresented E.G by foghorn above ( beats me why Christians tell porkies ).


Have a read of a factual comparison of the two primary theological doctrines of Christians today.

The Comparison of
Calvinism and Wesleyan
Arminianism
by


Carl L. Possehl



www onthewing.org/user/Arm_Ar...20Wesleyan.pdf

 

[Foghorn]

Never heard of a sovereign God ?

Yes I have. Do you know what it means?

 

[bsd058]

Jomark,

The dilemma for Arminians that you present is the basis for Open Theism. Open Theists are so concerned about the apparent paradox between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility that they would rather hope that the future is not knowable by God than to change their logic. It's a shame, because they are defending a premise that is not required with all that they have, not realizing that they are giving up on the degree of personal love that God had for them in the process.

The upside is that God's love for His people is more than any of us can fathom, and that love is not diminished at all by our lack of comprehending it.

Open Theists don't recognize that God knowing the future is tied to his very essence.

Isaiah 41:21-24 "Produce your case, says the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and show us what shall happen: let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, you are of nothing, and your work is nothing: an abomination is he that chooses you."

The conclusion of such a verse leads one to believe that if a thing does not know what will happen in the future, that thing is not divine.

 

[AMR]

Jomark,

The dilemma for Arminians that you present is the basis for Open Theism. Open Theists are so concerned about the apparent paradox between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility that they would rather hope that the future is not knowable by God than to change their logic. It's a shame, because they are defending a premise that is not required with all that they have, not realizing that they are giving up on the degree of personal love that God had for them in the process.

The upside is that God's love for His people is more than any of us can fathom, and that love is not diminished at all by our lack of comprehending it.

Indeed. Open theism is an abomination of creating God in the image of man.

For more on this terrible view, the book Beyond the Bounds can be downloaded here:

Beyond the Bounds by John Piper and Justin Taylor Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity - Desiring God

My debate with an avowed open theist is also available here:
http://www.askmrreligion.com/AMR_vs._Enyart_Open_Theism_Questions.pdf

 

[DeaconDean]

Scriptures specifically declare God to be "Sovereign":

"Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;" -1 Tim. 6:15 (KJV)

In the Greek, it reads as such:

"hn kairoiV idioiV deixei o makarioV kai monoV dunasthV, o basileuV twn basileuontwn kai kurioV twn kurieuontwn,"

Of concern here is: "basileuontwn"

According to the New Analytical Greek Lexicon:

"basileuontwn (bas-il-yoo'-o)" -a potentate, sovereign, prince, Lk. 1:52; 1 Tim. 6:15; a person of rank and authority, a grandee, Acts 8:27

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing Company, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, p. 108

God Bless

TIll all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Now I can also provide the exact words of both Jacobus Arminus and John Wesley where they teach that God looks forward in time, sees and knows who will and will not accept and believe and bases His "election" on that knowledge.

And that boiols down to nothing more than our election being based on something that we will do in the future.

That is the core of Arminain/Wesleyan teaching.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[roman2819]

Having read about both Calvinism and Arminism, with all their technicalities, I still prefer what the Scripture says in context:

Regarding predestination: Many Christians are awed by the word predestination that we forgot about context. In biblical context, predestination means that God has pre-planned to offer redemption to the Gentiles; it was NOT about predestination of individuals.

For 2000 years before the apostles' times, Yahweh was God to the Jews only, while other pagan nations worship many pluralistic gods. Even after Jesus' resurrection, the apostles initially thought that redemption was for Jews only. However, Peter had a vision about eating unclean food, and they realized that the Gentiles are invited too. Now, this was shocking to the Jews because it went against their tradition that was so rooted in the God of Abraham and Jacob, where Gentiles had no part in. Upset about the drastic change, the Jews demanded that Gentiles followed Jewish customs (many Christian Jews were still practicing circumcision and Sabbath at that time). Amid the hostility, even Peter distanced himself from the Gentiles, and Paul opposed him for that. To assure the Gentiles, Paul explained in Ephesians (and Letter of Romans) that God had always predestined (pre-planned) to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Let me explain the following verses while quoting them:

Ephesians 1:12, 13
[12]"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ==> "we, who were the first to hope in Christ" refers to the Jews who had believed in God for 2000 years, since the times of Abraham, Jacob and Moses.
Speaking as a Jew, Paul said the pronoun "we" [v 12], and as he referred to the Gentiles, he said "you" [v 13] ==>
[13] And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation ==> The Gentiles, who were previously outsiders, are now included in God's redemption.

When seen in context, the Bible was not talking about predestination of individuals. Instead, predestination means God has always planned -- or pre-planned, predestined or destined -- to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Different translations use different words but when we know context, we will not drill into the words technically.

Regarding the words "chosen people" or "Chosen by God": We tend to interpret factually today, thinking that God handpick or choose who should be saved. However, during biblical times, people were more submissive to God -- much, much more than people today. Back then, they don't say that they chose to believe in Him; instead they said that God chose them. It is a humble way of speaking. To say that they chose God would have sounded arrogant or inappropriate in those times. Today, 2000 years later, times change and languages change too, and we don't speak that way anymore. To us now, "chosen by God" sounds like He literally chooses Jason or Susan. But back then, it was really a humble way to say

 

[DeaconDean]

Having read about both Calvinism and Arminism, with all their technicalities, I still prefer what the Scripture says in context:

Regarding predestination: Many Christians are awed by the word predestination that we forgot about context. In biblical context, predestination means that God has pre-planned to offer redemption to the Gentiles; it was NOT about predestination of individuals.

For 2000 years before the apostles' times, Yahweh was God to the Jews only, while other pagan nations worship many pluralistic gods. Even after Jesus' resurrection, the apostles initially thought that redemption was for Jews only. However, Peter had a vision about eating unclean food, and they realized that the Gentiles are invited too. Now, this was shocking to the Jews because it went against their tradition that was so rooted in the God of Abraham and Jacob, where Gentiles had no part in. Upset about the drastic change, the Jews demanded that Gentiles followed Jewish customs (many Christian Jews were still practicing circumcision and Sabbath at that time). Amid the hostility, even Peter distanced himself from the Gentiles, and Paul opposed him for that. To assure the Gentiles, Paul explained in Ephesians (and Letter of Romans) that God had always predestined (pre-planned) to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Let me explain the following verses while quoting them:

Ephesians 1:12, 13
[12]"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ==> "we, who were the first to hope in Christ" refers to the Jews who had believed in God for 2000 years, since the times of Abraham, Jacob and Moses.
Speaking as a Jew, Paul said the pronoun "we" [v 12], and as he referred to the Gentiles, he said "you" [v 13] ==>
[13] And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation ==> The Gentiles, who were previously outsiders, are now included in God's redemption.

When seen in context, the Bible was not talking about predestination of individuals. Instead, predestination means God has always planned -- or pre-planned, predestined or destined -- to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Different translations use different words but when we know context, we will not drill into the words technically.

Regarding the words "chosen people" or "Chosen by God": We tend to interpret factually today, thinking that God handpick or choose who should be saved. However, during biblical times, people were more submissive to God -- much, much more than people today. Back then, they don't say that they chose to believe in Him; instead they said that God chose them. It is a humble way of speaking. To say that they chose God would have sounded arrogant or inappropriate in those times. Today, 2000 years later, times change and languages change too, and we don't speak that way anymore. To us now, "chosen by God" sounds like He literally chooses Jason or Susan. But back then, it was really a humble way to say

So I take it, you ignored what the scriptures say about what a Christian is actually "predestinated" to?

1. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, -Eph. 1:5
2. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
3. he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, -Rom. 8:29

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[roman2819]

So I take it, you ignored what the scriptures say about what a Christian is actually "predestinated" to?

1. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, -Eph. 1:5
2. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
3. he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, -Rom. 8:29

God Bless

Till all are one.

We need to interpret verses and words in context. To illustrate the point, consider these 2 verses:

Acts 16:31 -- And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household”

Romans 10:9 -- because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

Notice that these 2 verses did NOT say that we have to repent in order to be saved. Is belief without repentance sufficient? If someone says that he believes that Jesus existed, without repent of sins, is he redeemed? Or if he believes that Jesus is the Son of God who was resurrected and seated at God's right hand now, does it mean he is redeemed even if he doesn't repent? If he ignore the greater context of Scriptures, and focus on abovementioned two verses only, he can insist that he is correct.

My point is this: It is not about reading words or verses without considering context. If we ignore context, which many people do when reading Scripture then we can say anything, everything, whatever we want. However, if we apply the larger context of the Scripture to interpret verses and words, we will not misinterpret.

Although Romans 8:29 does not say explicitly say that God predestined to offer redemption to the Gentiles, however, both biblical events and other verses (Ephesians 1:12, 13) can guide us to interpret correctly. Ephesians 1:12,13 was talking about real events, that Jews were the first to believe in God, Gentiles had been excluded all along (since Abraham's or David's time), until recently when the apostles preached to the Gentiles?

About the words "chosen people" or "Chosen by God": When Peter said "you are a chosen people" [1 Peter 2:9], it does not mean that God choose Jason or Susan to be saved ie NOT individual predestination. During biblical times, people wouldn't say that they chose to believe God; instead they said that God chose them. It was a humble way of speaking. Back then, people were much more subservient to God, and it would be arrogant or inappropriate for them to say they chose Him. As time change, languages change too; and today, we don't speak this way anymore. We tend to misinterpret words (such as chosen and predestined) at surface level or literally, which contribute to the confusion that God literally handpick people.

There is really no basis to believe in individual predestination because of insufficient context in the Bible. Jesus never preached that God choose who to redeem. None of the apostles wrote substantially about individual predestination either. If they had, it could be a different story - but they didn't. The handful of verses with the words "predestined" are not sufficient to support a theology or theory of individual predestination. Indeed, too many Christians are so awed by the word "predestination" that we forgot context, which is very unfortunate.

 

[DeaconDean]

We need to interpret verses and words in context. To illustrate the point, consider these 2 verses:

Acts 16:31 -- And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household”

Romans 10:9 -- because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

Notice that these 2 verses did NOT say that we have to repent in order to be saved. Is belief without repentance sufficient? If someone says that he believes that Jesus existed, without repent of sins, is he redeemed? Or if he believes that Jesus is the Son of God who was resurrected and seated at God's right hand now, does it mean he is redeemed even if he doesn't repent? If he ignore the greater context of Scriptures, and focus on abovementioned two verses only, he can insist that he is correct.

My point is this: It is not about reading words or verses without considering context. If we ignore context, which many people do when reading Scripture then we can say anything, everything, whatever we want. However, if we apply the larger context of the Scripture to interpret verses and words, we will not misinterpret.

Although Romans 8:29 does not say explicitly say that God predestined to offer redemption to the Gentiles, however, both biblical events and other verses (Ephesians 1:12, 13) can guide us to interpret correctly. Ephesians 1:12,13 was talking about real events, that Jews were the first to believe in God, Gentiles had been excluded all along (since Abraham's or David's time), until recently when the apostles preached to the Gentiles?

About the words "chosen people" or "Chosen by God": When Peter said "you are a chosen people" [1 Peter 2:9], it does not mean that God choose Jason or Susan to be saved ie NOT individual predestination. During biblical times, people wouldn't say that they chose to believe God; instead they said that God chose them. It was a humble way of speaking. Back then, people were much more subservient to God, and it would be arrogant or inappropriate for them to say they chose Him. As time change, languages change too; and today, we don't speak this way anymore. We tend to misinterpret words (such as chosen and predestined) at surface level or literally, which contribute to the confusion that God literally handpick people.

There is really no basis to believe in individual predestination because of insufficient context in the Bible. Jesus never preached that God choose who to redeem. None of the apostles wrote substantially about individual predestination either. If they had, it could be a different story - but they didn't. The handful of verses with the words "predestined" are not sufficient to support a theology or theory of individual predestination. Indeed, too many Christians are so awed by the word "predestination" that we forgot context, which is very unfortunate.

Again, if you wish, I can supply the Greek definition for the Greek word "predestinate".

I also know about reading scripture "in context".

But it is clear from both, context and the actual definition that " In biblical context, predestination means that God has pre-planned to offer redemption to the Gentiles" is not correct.

If you really take scripture "in context", then you have no re-course than realize what I said is correct.

Predestination is not about "pre-planned salvation" to the Gentiles. A mistake often used by Catholicism. (Example: you come to a fork in the road, you go left. Catholicism: God "predestinted" that you would make that left-hand turn.)

Predestination is the "end-result" of election.

Like I said, read what Christians (Jew and Gentile) are "predestinated" to!

Adoption, inheritance, and conformity.

And if you would really study what Arminianism teaches regarding "predestination, your conclusions are also incorrect. Arminiamism teaches "foreknowledge and predestionation are interlinked. God looks forward in time sees who would or would accept and believe, and "predestinates" based upon that "foreknowledge".

If you like, I can even provide for the exact quote from James Arminius' himself!

Predestination has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "pre-planned" salvation. That is a whole 'nother matter and doctrine.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

I was always told... "You get to choose, but God knows beforehand whether you are going to choose Him or not."

There's a name for that teaching and I'm not sure what it is? Even when I was an Armenian I had troubles with that message. I do not believe that God is looking down some time tunnel to see what little Bobby does.

M-Bob

 

[DeaconDean]

There's a name for that teaching and I'm not sure what it is? Even when I was an Armenian I had troubles with that message. I do not believe that God is looking down some time tunnel to see what little Bobby does.

M-Bob

Sadly, you just confirmed what said.

Sadly, too many Arminians and Catholics, and Orthodox believe it for truth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

As I said: "predestination has nothing to do with "pre-planned salvation to the Gentiles".

Arminian theology and even James Arminius' himself, didn't teach that:

"5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

IV. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere."

Jacobus Arminius, Works, Volume 1, Orations of James Arminius, A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius, Chapter 1, Of Predestination, Section 5, My Own Sentiments On Predestination"

Predestination, according to Arminian theology, is according to "foreknowledge" of "foreseen" faith on mans part. Its about what or something man will do, at some point in time. Arminian theology is a "works based' faith. Plain and simple.

God Bless

Till all are one.