Did God predestine the Fall?

[dad]

It was referencing the bondage of our will.

No such thing after we are saved. We are then free. So if Paul speaks of those not yet free, try to look at context.

 

[dad]

Neither is mutually exclusive.

False. If we can choose we were not locked into some fate.

 

[dad]

Ephesians 2 Paul tells us we are children of wrath and dead in our sins until God makes us alive in Christ Jesus.

“Wake up, O sleeper,

rise up from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

He is not talking to us who are awake and alive forevermore there. Get a grip. He is talking to folks who need to get saved.

 

[dad]

You mean after God predestined it before the foundation of the world, Christ died for the ungodly and revealed your sinfulness and bringing you under the conviction of sin, then revealed the righteousness of God in Christ.

What He pre destined was salvation and making a way for man to be saved. Otherwise the harvest could have been all gathered long ago.

Then you believe, that's your whole message, your lesson, man decides and everything depends on that. What about what God did and does? I would think that would rate a passing remark that doesn't have to be dragged out of you.

He did it all for us. He paid the ransom. He paid the price. He promised eternal life to as many as will choose/receive Him. How about not portraying God as some monster that has doomed billions (most men) to a torment too horrible to imagine before they were born!?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Why put religious labels on the wonderful ability to chose that God endowed man with? As for your real munster rant...sorry, that sounds like gibberish.

Because the Scriptures are loaded with "religious labels"? From where or what are they based on? Gibberish eh? What a sound scholarly rebuttal, one only need to insert pejorative labels like "monster" and "gibberish" into their conversations to have confidence they are servants of the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[Serving Zion]

Christ on the cross doesn't look like the love of God on display to the outsider either, it appears barbaric and horrific, what kind of love would do such a thing?

That's the problem with the Penal Substitution Atonement doctrine.

It wasn't love that did that to Him, but the men that were unable to endure the light of His presence (John 1:11, Matthew 21:37-39, John 3:20).

 

[Hammster]

That isn't any kind of justice, is it? "Children of wrath" hmmm...

It’s in the Bible.

 

[Hammster]

That’s how Calvinist explain the people who God doesn’t choose.

And scripture. It’s right in there.

 

[Hammster]

Who cares? Jesus gives heaven.

You should care. It helps with humility.

 

[Hammster]

Yes. Before we get saved, if we really loved some lie, and rejected Jesus, I think there is a danger we could sink into it.

Why do you willingly believe lies?

 

[Hammster]

Paul pleaded with people to choose Jesus. He did time for so doing. Since Jesus made it clear we need to choose life and come to Him, our freedom to choose to do so or to reject Him is held up as the basis of our eternal future...hardly irrelevant.

So here is a question for Calvies...are people doomed to hell regardless of whatever (in your mind irrelevant) choices they make, yes or no?

Doomed to hell? You’ll need to explain what you mean by that.

 

[Hammster]

That's the problem with the Penal Substitution Atonement doctrine.

It wasn't love that did that to Him, but the men that were unable to endure the light of His presence (John 1:11, Matthew 21:37-39, John 3:20).

Read Acts 2:23. And Isaiah 53.

 

[mark kennedy]

Paul pleaded with people to choose Jesus. He did time for so doing. Since Jesus made it clear we need to choose life and come to Him, our freedom to choose to do so or to reject Him is held up as the basis of our eternal future...hardly irrelevant.

So here is a question for Calvies...are people doomed to hell regardless of whatever (in your mind irrelevant) choices they make, yes or no?

No, we are all cursed, that is the Pauline doctrine:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
​

You must be born again:

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3-7)
​

I never said there was no such thing as free will or a time of decision, that's a strawman. The emphasis in the New Testament is on what God did and does, not your choice. So far I've yet to see Predestination seriously refuted as a formal doctrine. It would be hard to do since we get the word from Paul:

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. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Eph. 1;11-14)
​

God predestined and foreknew what how we are saved, because righteousness can only come from him. Of course you have a choice, predestination isn't fate, it's the plans and purposes of God that have not changed since the foundation of the world. Who denies that we have a choice whether or not we 'put our hope in Christ', as Paul describes it? The issue here is justification by grace through faith and the washing, renewing and regeneration that comes from the Holy Spirit. Faith is not a work, Jesus being the author and finisher of our faith:

Looking unto Jesus, the author (originator) and finisher (perfecter) of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb. 12:2)
​

I'm told by some that I'm not a very good Calvinist, I can live with that, I've also been told I'm not really a Creationist, I'm not buying that either. But if you want to consider this from the perspective of a solid Calvinist, try this guy:

1. Based on 2 Timothy 2:25–26, how would you describe yourself before God granted you repentance? What language does Paul give to describe our condition?
2. Is there true knowledge of God that does not spring from repentance? Can you think of examples in the Bible?
3. How does the devil ensnare people? And how does God defeat their bondage to the devil? (God May Grant Repentance 2 Timothy 2:24–26 John Piper)

Faith and repentance are gifts of God, just like grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. At some level you have a choice, when did God know what that would be is a pointless question. Salvation is based on a revelation only God can make to you (Romans 3:21-22). I have always been puzzled how people could turn the Sabbath or water baptism into works, yet somehow they manage. What I find absent in your arguments is the gospel, where does the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit fit into your ideas regarding salvation? Everything related to salvation whether justification, sanctification or works of righteousness are gifts of God.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Doomed to hell? You’ll need to explain what you mean by that.

I think that is hyperbole, I don't know of a single Calvinist that is saying you are going to hell because you don't happen to accept TULIP.

 

[MDC]

I think that is hyperbole, I don't know of a single Calvinist that is saying you are going to hell because you don't happen to accept TULIP.

So the doctrines related to “TULIP” aren’t essential in regards to the gospel? If not, why do you defend them? Does the Spirit of God lead to opposing views on this matter?

 

[mark kennedy]

So the doctrines related to “TULIP” aren’t essential in regards to the gospel? If not, why do you defend them? Does the Spirit of God lead to opposing views on this matter?

No, Calvinism is a systematic theology that I am convinced does reflect the gospel and the New Testament witness accurately. I've explored others and generally find merit in Arminian, Catholic and Orthodox systems. But when it comes to controversy like this one, I always end up siding with Calvinists, they simply make a better case biblically. I've always considered myself an evangelical and for the most part never felt the need to embrace systematic theology, that's changed recently. I'm more interested in systematic theology then I ever thought I would be and getting more interested in Calvinism.

The simple truth is most people just don't need a systematic theology, they haven't the time or patience for in depth exegetical studies either. I happen to be interested in exploring systematic theology further, the one I decided on was Calvinism, after exploring Wesleyan theology at length. I've even tried to see what our Catholic and Orthodox brethren have to offer, ultimately finding that I could not reconcile vital principles to those systems. Down through the years it's been the Calvinists who taught me the most and convinced me of the reliability of their systematic approach. I would never try to impose Calvinism on others, walk in the light as you see the light. But I need a systematic theology to further my studies and to organize the doctrines I'm interested in. Calvinism works for me, if you have no need of it, go in peace, I have no problem with you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[redleghunter]

That’s how Calvinist explain the people who God doesn’t choose.

No according to Ephesians 2 we are all children of wrath dead in our trespasses.

 

[redleghunter]

No such thing after we are saved. We are then free. So if Paul speaks of those not yet free, try to look at context.

Dad I was speaking of before our conversion. Can you address that please.

 

[MDC]

No, Calvinism is a systematic theology that I am convinced does reflect the gospel and the New Testament witness accurately. I've explored others and generally find merit in Arminian, Catholic and Orthodox systems. But when it comes to controversy like this one, I always end up siding with Calvinists, they simply make a better case biblically. I've always considered myself an evangelical and for the most part never felt the need to embrace systematic theology, that's changed recently. I'm more interested in systematic theology then I ever thought I would be and getting more interested in Calvinism.

The simple truth is most people just don't need a systematic theology, they haven't the time or patience for in depth exegetical studies either. I happen to be interested in exploring systematic theology further, the one I decided on was Calvinism, after exploring Wesleyan theology at length. I've even tried to see what our Catholic and Orthodox brethren have to offer, ultimately finding that I could not reconcile vital principles to those systems. Down through the years it's been the Calvinists who taught me the most and convinced me of the reliability of their systematic approach. I would never try to impose Calvinism on others, walk in the light as you see the light. But I need a systematic theology to further my studies and to organize the doctrines I'm interested in. Calvinism works for me, if you have no need of it, go in peace, I have no problem with you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

So another wards tulip, in regards to soteriology, isn’t essential doctrine a believer adheres to according to you? Not quite understanding what you said no to. But that’s what I get. Completely disagree with you on this. Calvinism in regards to the doctrines of grace, is the gospel according to scripture. One does not have to go through a systematic study on theology to come to understand and believe these great truths of the gospel. That’s certainly not how the Lord brought me to see these truths. So what merit can Arminianism or Roman Catholic or Orthodox bring to these truths of the gospel? They are completely opposed to the gospel of grace as you can see on many threads on this forum. The Spirit of God does not lead the elect to opposing views regarding essential soteriology doctrine. No believer will disagree with tulip

 

[redleghunter]

False. If we can choose we were not locked into some fate.

You don’t believe God has a say on who is or is not converted?

 

[redleghunter]

He is not talking to us who are awake and alive forevermore there. Get a grip. He is talking to folks who need to get saved.

He’s speaking of everyone’s condition even those who are later converted.