Does God already know who is going to be saved and who won't?

[Benedicta00]

Quote:
Well, that's a very man sovereign idea of God's plan. I'm truly sorry that you feel that God is so impotent that He can't even bring His own desires to pass.

Mans leaning to his own understanding.

The truth is that God is so omnipotent that He can give man total freewill, stand the pain He experiences from those who will choose not to believe everything about Him, and suffer all the pain of their just sentance on Himself in substitution. It was His freewill choice to do it this way.

Very well said and hang in there.

 

[Curt]

Very well said and hang in there.

Thanks for the encouragement, and lets all hang in there. The more the better, and God wants us to keep putting His truth out there. Who knows when that light will come on.

 

[daphndon]

But that is just the thing we aren?t depraved. We were not destroyed, we lost grace, fellowship and communion with God and sin entered the world so we are now influenced by it.

Does it make a whole lot of sense that God would have us receive the punishment and penalty of Adam when we bare NO personal guilt in the fall and not give us all a way of salvation? It is like me cutting off your legs with out your consent and condemning you for not being able to run. That is not a sovereign God, that is a sicko God that you describe.

And you also can not have it both ways; either you are born dead in sin spiritually dead and corrupt or your not. Where does this leave babies and mentally handicapped? Their dead, they can?t be both dead and not culpable of sin under your paradigm all at the same time. You would either have to condemn them or change you stand that we are all born corrupt if you believe God gives them salvtion.

Sorry, I don't agree with any of that. My beliefs are quite different from yours. But God bless you anyway.

 

[Benedicta00]

Sorry, I don't agree with any of that. My beliefs are quite different from yours. But God bless you anyway.

Our beliefs aren’t that different. We just view things differently.

We believe that those who are born again and who persevere til the end are sheep and the elect, we believe that God chooses us, us not him and we are incapable of response unless God grants us grace to do so.

We believe many of the same things, but I don’t believe in putting God in a box limiting his power by saying that he isn’t sovereign just because someone has the freedom givien them by God to reject the gift of faith.

There is just no evidence left by the early Church nor is there any biblical evince that says God purposely withholds grace so a soul will perish for the purpose of showing his glory. I mean for 1500 years no Christian believed this or interpret this from scripture. It is only been in the last 500 or so years this is being accepted as biblical teaching. Don’t you find that odd? You can read the ECF, they didn't teach this at all.

Not even after the reformation were they many who believed this. It was only and still is a radical minority of Christendom who accepts this as truth.

 

[Reformationist]

Our beliefs aren?t that different. We just view things differently.

Trust me, your beliefs are very different.

We believe that those who are born again and who persevere til the end are sheep and the elect, we believe that God chooses us, us not him and we are incapable of response unless God grants us grace to do so.

Sure, we share that in common. However, those generalizations are where the commonality ends. You see, we (daphndon and I) believe that those who persevere until the end do so because they're the sheep and the elect. We believe that God chooses us according to His own purpose in election. You have regularly acknowledged that you believe God elects us unto salvation based on His omniscient ability to see the choice that we make. And last, but most certainly not least, we believe that when God grants us the grace to respond in faith we do respond in faith. We also believe that God continues to grace us with salvitic faith and preserves us from losing that salvation.

So, from a cursory inspection it may appear that Catholics Christians and reformed Christians share many points of doctrine but a deeper study will show clearly that these doctrines are not similar at all.

We believe many of the same things, but I don?t believe in putting God in a box limiting his power by saying that he isn?t sovereign just because someone has the freedom givien them by God to reject the gift of faith.

Michelle, we don't "limit His power" either. This is ad hominem as well as innaccurate. We acknowledge that God's purpose, NOT POWER, is limited. The problem, as I see it, is that you'd rather believe that God wants something to come to pass but doesn't ensure that it does just so you can protect your precious "free will." I have never understood why God would do such a thing, especially in light of the fact that Scripture indicates that God accomplishes ALL His holy will:

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Even if your theory made sense, do you honestly believe it is more important to God that you have the ability to make an autonomous choice and very likely burn in hell because of that freedom than to ensure that those whom He loves so desparately and created in His image are with Him? Not only is the concept of God not accomplishing His will contrary to all of Scripture, it doesn't even make sense. Why would a sovereign, holy, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, merciful, righteous Judge and Creator who, IN ALL THINGS, seeks first HIS OWN glory set Himself up for disappointment?

God bless

 

[de Unamuno]

Fascinating stuff, everyone. Before I jump in here, I will say that the material effect of Predestination versus Free Will (if that is an accurate comparison) is really moot. That is, to a Calvenist, everyone who thinks they are saved, and everyone who thinks they are not saved, are ultimately the same people that any other Christian would believe are saved/not saved. So let's all take a pill.

Yes, I know that it raises serious questions about the heart of God, and the justice of God, but that still doesn't change the end result, so take another pill.

So, with that said, some things that bother me:

If you mean "do we freely make the choices we make according to our nature and those choices are not forced by God" then yes, we freely make choices. However, man is never completely "free." In his unregenerate state he longs ONLY to do the will of his father, satan. So, that's what he does.

Don, your example does not seem to allow for real free will of any kind. Maybe a kind of will, but certainly not a free will if that will is ultimately limited by a nature which he did not decide. So the poor guy may decide left, right, up or down, but he has no ability to really accept God or reject Him on his own volition. Merely by virtue of the poor b******'s own (unrequested/unwilled) creation, God's will was imposed upon him that he should never accept him. God created a man specifically to burn in Hell. He is omnipotent, so he could have NOT created the little guy. But instead he chose to create him for the specific purpose of rotting in the eternal garbage disposal?

You could argue that he didn't directly create the dude, but that he was simply decended from other sinners. But then God is still responsible for the first sinner in the chain of sinners. So he is responsible for ALL sinners that result from the first, and including the first, because NONE of them chose to be created.

Help, I'm admittedly a little scared of that God. Please explain.

LOL! "So omnipotent that He can give man total freewill?" That is a complete oxymoron. If God has all power then man is not autonomous.

I see that the ability to decide Coke or Diet Coke is really very gracious, but isn't it a more grevious action to cap our free will at whether or not we want to cook in the everlasting barbeque? I'm kidding... ok, I'm not kidding.

A lot of these arguments seem to rely on God's omnipotence and his unwillingness to allow his creation to freely accept or freely reject him. Surely an omnipotent being can allow anything. Why can he not allow his creation to freely choose him? If you argue he cannot allow this, then he is truly not omnipotent. Because omnipotent does not mean "exercises total power" but actually means "has the power to do anything". If he cannot allow free will, then he is not omnipotent because he lacks the power to allow free will. However, if you would argue that he could allow free will, but that he can't bear the rejection, not only do you have to prove why he simply can't handle rejection, but even if you could, then he is still not omnipotent.

I would propose that an omnipotent God could allow free will because, although he "has the power to do anything" (included in that is the power to create free will beings) he chooses to restrain himself so that those beings could freely choose or deny him. Because he is omnipotent, the rejection hurts, but it is still his will, and he can still claim omnipotence.

So you will say, "why would God create a plan that is surely going to result in his rejection and disappointment"? The answer, I would propose, is that God is also pure love. The only fathomable reason for creating the universe is to share in that love. I welcome other theories here. But let's assume mine is right for now. God created man to share in that love, but to truly share it, one must choose that love freely. Otherwise, it is, at best, a form of egotistical worship, but cannot be a true gift of self. So, according to this plan, His goal is to have a human (not all, not most, not even many), as a separate entity from himself, to choose his love and reciprocate. Obviously a great many loving humans is nice, but one human, acting of totally free will to love God, is glorious enough to justify all of creation. Is it not?

The next area I see logic failing is that the plan didn't fail. You would ask, "Why would God execute a plan only to see it fail?" The answer is free will. Free will, together with God's self-restraint to allow free will, is the wild card in the deck. When I say "wild card", I mean that God can anticipate our choices, plan according to those choices to create any desired outcome, but he chooses to allow (or, possible, to sometimes prohibit) us to make those choices, even if they are choices against him. Again, he is in total control. Fully omnipotent. His goal is to make a truly loving person. You cannot create one person with true free will and realistically expect them to choose you. You have to build a bigger story with room enough (physical and temporal) in it to give all people a chance.

However, he knows the plan in its entirety. He knew eons before Adam ever existed that Adam would reject Him. He also knew about Jesus, and Don and Michael Jackson. He knew that his creation, with the gift of free will, would necessarily reject his gift. Why else would he set up Adam with those stupid trees just mocking the poor kid Surely in his omniscience he knew what would happen, but yet he created the world anyway. He created a world destined to fall because he built the world to rise again. Either that, or he is one sadistic dude. You cannot offer free will and expect everything to be ok. Humanity has to learn for themselves why we would choose him or reject him. The story is not over, and it seems you have already closed the book.

Sorry for the novel. Thoughts?

(I would request that you answer to whole paragraphs, not point-by-point, or we'll be here forever.)

Are we really doing this again?!

Blessings,

-jerrod

 

[Jedi]

Because omnipotent does not mean "exercises total power" but actually means "has the power to do anything".

At first, I defined omnipotence the same way, but this is not how the Bible describes God’s “omnipotence.” If we wanted to say that God can do anything, then He could even accomplish things that are, by definition, impossible. Some examples of this might include creating a triangle with only two sides, creating two mountains without a valley in-between, creating a perfectly round square, and so forth. These things, by definition, cannot be done because of the necessary truths involved. If God could do “anything,” then He could also create a world full of free will but without allowing for any evil to be chosen (a contradictory world, since a world without the freedom to choose evil is not truly “free” to make up their own decisions). One of the most convincing proofs that the Biblical definition for ominipotence differs from that of “being able to do anything,” is that we read in Hebrews 6:18 that “it is impossible for God to lie.” So here we have a limitation of God as revealed within scripture, that is, a limitation not allowing for contradiction (God against God). Since, therefore, we have a clear limitation of God, it is better to understand the Biblical presentation of God’s omnipotence in being defined as “Being able to do anything possible.” God, being unchangeable, cannot contradict Himself, since that would require a change in His nature. This does not mean that the God of the Bible is not omnipotent; rather, it demonstrates the need to specify our definition of “omnipotence.”

I do like your distinction between having absolute power, and then having to exert that power constantly. Simply because God has all authority does not mean He must therefore enforce it, even if it is against His will to do so.

Other than specifying what we mean by “omnipotent,” I very much agree with your reply. God may know the choices we will make, but that knowledge of our choices does not, itself, make our choices; they are still ours. To be quite honest, I do not know how free will really works when we get into the nitty-gritty. Does God give “wills” away at random, and by chance one person gets a will that favors God and another man gets one that despises Him? That doesn’t seem like a very likely scenario, since God would then be condemning people based on a random giving out of wills. On the other hand, God cannot be picking and choosing which wills He is going to give people, or else He is playing favorites (contrary to Romans 2:11) and condemns people because He gave them a will that despises Him. The problem we have, as humans, in understanding this is that the only way for us to create “intelligence” is by method of programming: giving a particular creation the commands of “if this happens, you do this.” This is not free will, however: it’s programming, and since this is the only way we can understand how things can make decisions, humans understanding how a creation with free will makes decisions seems, to me, impossible. It seems to be a part of us as creations that we will have to leave to the incomprehensibly vast understanding of our Creator.

 

[Reformationist]

Don, your example does not seem to allow for real free will of any kind. Maybe a kind of will, but certainly not a free will if that will is ultimately limited by a nature which he did not decide.

I imagine that my example excludes the possibility of real free will because I don't believe there is such a thing for created man after the Fall. The "kind of will" that you allude to is what I'd call the free agency of mankind. That is, the choices we make are the product of our own willed volition and not the product of external coersion.

So the poor guy may decide left, right, up or down, but he has no ability to really accept God or reject Him on his own volition.

Kind of takes the focus of our salvation off our decision and puts it on the sovereign plan of God and the mercy of His grace in regenerating us, doesn't it?

Merely by virtue of the poor b******'s own (unrequested/unwilled) creation, God's will was imposed upon him that he should never accept him. God created a man specifically to burn in Hell. He is omnipotent, so he could have NOT created the little guy. But instead he chose to create him for the specific purpose of rotting in the eternal garbage disposal?

I admit I am chuckling at your verbiage because it shows a clear bias. You seem to start with an incorrect foundational perspective of God's sovereign and monergistic act of creation. First, and foremost, we must acknowledge that God's primary goal in EVERYTHING He does is His own glory. Second, we must acknowledge that God was under no obligation to create us in the first place, much less create us, as He did, in a relationship of such harmony. Had God deemed that He would receive the most glory from creating us as objects of His wrath from the start then He would have done that. Fortunately for us He decreed that He would be most glorified in creating man in harmonious fellowship with Him, providentially ordaining their Fall through the means of their own sinful choice, and then mercifully redeeming a chosen people from amongst the mass of those who deserve His wrath. The problem with your analysis of my views is that you keep putting the focus on whether or not God's plan was fair to the creation, whether or not the creation asked to be created that way, whether or not the creation deserves to suffer being that he was created that way, whether it would have been better to just NOT create the "little guy." Your objections are essentially the same as those that Paul, the teacher par excellance, raises in Romans 9, "If God doesn't elect us based upon the decisions we make and the works we do then isn't He being unrighteous (Rom 9:11-16)," and "If God creates someone just to show His power and make His wrath known then isn't He being unfair (Rom 9:17,18)," and "If He created someone that way then why is He blaming them? He's the omnipotent One. All they could do was be exactly like He created them. If He condemns them for being exactly like He created them then He's not being fair (Rom 9:19-21)." Paul's overall reaction to these types of questions which insinuate a lack of holiness in God if He does something that we don't understand is simply "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? (Rom 9:20)"

You could argue that he didn't directly create the dude, but that he was simply decended from other sinners. But then God is still responsible for the first sinner in the chain of sinners. So he is responsible for ALL sinners that result from the first, and including the first, because NONE of them chose to be created.

I wouldn't make that argument. God creates every person.

I see that the ability to decide Coke or Diet Coke is really very gracious, but isn't it a more grevious action to cap our free will at whether or not we want to cook in the everlasting barbeque? I'm kidding... ok, I'm not kidding.

de Unamuno, I hope, by this point, you understand how much I respect your knowledge and graciousness in these discussions. So, with that in mind, I pray that it doesn't offend you when I tell you that the biggest problems I see with your approach to Scripture is that you seem to need for God's plan to be focused around the creation rather than the Creator. Unless, and until, you resign yourself to submitting to the understanding that the proper interpretation of the Gospel must first and foremost focus on the glory of God you'll continue to see God as unrighteous if He creates someone without a possibility of salvation.

A lot of these arguments seem to rely on God's omnipotence and his unwillingness to allow his creation to freely accept or freely reject him. Surely an omnipotent being can allow anything. Why can he not allow his creation to freely choose him? If you argue he cannot allow this, then he is truly not omnipotent. Because omnipotent does not mean "exercises total power" but actually means "has the power to do anything". If he cannot allow free will, then he is not omnipotent because he lacks the power to allow free will. However, if you would argue that he could allow free will, but that he can't bear the rejection, not only do you have to prove why he simply can't handle rejection, but even if you could, then he is still not omnipotent.

Before I get ahead of myself, what, exactly, do you mean when you say that man has "free will?" Does that mean that man's decisions are autonomous? Self determined? Not influenced by any factor whatsoever? Not forced by God?

I would propose that an omnipotent God could allow free will because, although he "has the power to do anything" (included in that is the power to create free will beings) he chooses to restrain himself so that those beings could freely choose or deny him. Because he is omnipotent, the rejection hurts, but it is still his will, and he can still claim omnipotence.

But why? That is my biggest problem with the Catholic view of God? I am continuously forced to ask why God would do such silly things like set Himself up for disappointment and restrain Himself from bringing His desires to pass for the purpose of bringing glory to His creation rather than Himself. I often hear your fellow Catholics say things like, "It does glorify God when the creation freely picks Him." How? Believe me, I can understand how an autonomous decision to embrace Him would please Him, but, I have no clue how you can justify saying that the glory for an autonomous choice to embrace God goes to God. On the contrary, that type of scenario brings glory to no one except the maker of that decision.

So you will say, "why would God create a plan that is surely going to result in his rejection and disappointment"? The answer, I would propose, is that God is also pure love. The only fathomable reason for creating the universe is to share in that love.

de Unamuno, God's love is pure but God is not purely love, at least not in the universal sense. To imply otherwise is to turn love into something arbitrary. Was it a loving action for God to kill 185,000 people in one night? Is it a loving action to instruct His chosen people to annhilate entire kingdoms, to include the children? Sin is offensive to God, no doubt. However, He is never disappointed. His plan is perfect in every way. There's a saying in the reformed community that goes "God knows every contingency but nothing contingently." You see, God knows the means as well as the ends because He ordains those means. He needn't steamroll man for His will to be done. His providence is grounded in His grace, not His omnipotent power.

de Unamuno, in all honesty, the biggest point of disagreement between our beliefs that inevitably leads to every other theological variance is the result of the Fall. So long as you and I continue to have a different view of the effects of the Fall upon the nature of man our views are going to continue to diverge.

I welcome other theories here. But let's assume mine is right for now. God created man to share in that love, but to truly share it, one must choose that love freely. Otherwise, it is, at best, a form of egotistical worship, but cannot be a true gift of self. So, according to this plan, His goal is to have a human (not all, not most, not even many), as a separate entity from himself, to choose his love and reciprocate. Obviously a great many loving humans is nice, but one human, acting of totally free will to love God, is glorious enough to justify all of creation. Is it not?

The next area I see logic failing is that the plan didn't fail. You would ask, "Why would God execute a plan only to see it fail?" The answer is free will. Free will, together with God's self-restraint to allow free will, is the wild card in the deck. When I say "wild card", I mean that God can anticipate our choices, plan according to those choices to create any desired outcome, but he chooses to allow (or, possible, to sometimes prohibit) us to make those choices, even if they are choices against him. Again, he is in total control. Fully omnipotent. His goal is to make a truly loving person. You cannot create one person with true free will and realistically expect them to choose you. You have to build a bigger story with room enough (physical and temporal) in it to give all people a chance.

However, he knows the plan in its entirety. He knew eons before Adam ever existed that Adam would reject Him. He also knew about Jesus, and Don and Michael Jackson. He knew that his creation, with the gift of free will, would necessarily reject his gift. Why else would he set up Adam with those stupid trees just mocking the poor kid Surely in his omniscience he knew what would happen, but yet he created the world anyway.

I have to admit that none of this seems even remotely biblically accurate or logical.

He created a world destined to fall because he built the world to rise again.

I agree.

Either that, or he is one sadistic dude. You cannot offer free will and expect everything to be ok. Humanity has to learn for themselves why we would choose him or reject him. The story is not over, and it seems you have already closed the book.

It's not over for us but it's not still being written either. This story was completed before the first page was read.

Are we really doing this again?!

Blessings,

-jerrod

LOL! Looks like it.

God bless,
Don

 

[Benedicta00]

Trust me, your beliefs are very different.

They are different yes, but not much as you think. That is the problem, you want to believe they are different but they aren't so much that they couldn't be reconciled.

Sure, we share that in common. However, those generalizations are where the commonality ends. You see, we (daphndon and I) believe that those who persevere until the end do so because they're the sheep and the elect. We believe that God chooses us according to His own purpose in election. You have regularly acknowledged that you believe God elects us unto salvation based on His omniscient ability to see the choice that we make. And last, but most certainly not least, we believe that when God grants us the grace to respond in faith we do respond in faith. We also believe that God continues to grace us with salvitic faith and preserves us from losing that salvation.

And that is the core difference, Don. The beliefs are one of free will and irresistible grace.

So, from a cursory inspection it may appear that Catholics Christians and reformed Christians share many points of doctrine but a deeper study will show clearly that these doctrines are not similar at all.

The premise is what is different, BTW, where does your come from?

Michelle, we don't "limit His power" either. This is ad hominem as well as innaccurate.

NO it is not. Where I have personally attacked a person and not aargument?

We acknowledge that God's purpose, NOT POWER, is limited. The problem, as I see it, is that you'd rather believe that God wants something to come to pass but doesn't ensure that it does just so you can protect your precious "free will." I have never understood why God would do such a thing, especially in light of the fact that Scripture indicates that God accomplishes ALL His holy will:

Ask Adam and Eve.

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

How does this somehow make free will incorrect? This does not show that He took freedom away. Where is THAT verse, that’s the one I am looking for.

Even if your theory made sense, do you honestly believe it is more important to God that you have the ability to make an autonomous choice and very likely burn in hell because of that freedom than to ensure that those whom He loves so desparately and created in His image are with Him?

Do you really think the only way he doesn't fail and is not sovereign is because he chooses who to save and who to damns? Do you think the only way He is glorified is not save? What merit is in that?

Not only is the concept of God not accomplishing His will contrary to all of Scripture, it doesn't even make sense. Why would a sovereign, holy, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, merciful, righteous Judge and Creator who, IN ALL THINGS, seeks first HIS OWN glory set Himself up for disappointment?

If His will is for us to accept the gift of salvation freely how is he not accomplishing that? How is He being disappointed? Can you explain to me why God would only be a success if he CREATED some for the sole purpose of watching them be ****** to say he is glory? Can you explain this to me? Is God in a box? Is he limited on what he can and can’t do?

 

[de Unamuno]

Reformationist,

I see you're point. We disagree as to the nature of God. It seems the Predestinationalist (word?) view denies some of the basic tenets of my theology. Keep in mind that my theology is not totally reliant on scripture, so I am somewhat immune to your kryptonite versus:

1) God, in Trinitarian form, exists as a perfect, self-contained entity of love. It is from that love, not an unfathomable or suspect wrath, that He created man.

2) He created man with true free will, meaning man retains the capacity to choose God or to not choose God... or in a broader (but lesser) sense, to choose God's morality (this leaves at least some hope for non-Christians, for example), but a Catholic would never claim guaranteed salvation for himself, let alone a non-Christian.

3) God is omnipotent, and is not hindered by man's free will, but allows it and is glorified by it.


Just to address the scripture passages you pointed out, and to offer an alternative interpretation....

The context of Romans 9 is that Paul needed to assuage the fears of the gentiles that God's chosen people, the Jews, were not saved per God's original promise to them. This seemingly unkept promise threatened even the gentiles who claimed to believe in God but seemed to have no guarantees of salvation. That is the prime motivator for Chapter 9. Not to support a false claim to total and absolute divine predestination, but to point out that God, in his omnipotence, had the power to lift some up and to push some down in order to show example (e.g. Pharaoh). He does not say "all", nor should the chapter be interpreted in such a way. By Paul's saying we cannot choose God, he is talking about having the ability to choose to accept or reject him, the gift of free will. God, through his mercy, must first grant us that gift to choose, or he revokes it to make special points. It is not a two bucket scenario of people he damns or people he saves.

He grants blessing to us, to the vast majority of us that he doesn't need to use for an example, to be able to choose him. That doesn't me we have to choose him, and in the context of the rest of Romans (and the rest of the Bible), it is painfully clear that we can choose to enter into his church by our own volition. He simply turns off that right for some, but nevertheless, Paul says that he still "has endured with much patience" with his vessels of wrath.

In my Catholic opinion, you are reading the scriptures as someone who cannot see time from God's perspective. God knows who will choose him and who will turn away from him well before that person exists, yet he still allows that person to be made. That carries a certain tone of predestination, and in that sense actually implies that you will do exactly what you were made to do, but it is entirely different than Calven's theory in that an act of will that God foresaw is still allowed at some point in the person's life.

I anxiously anticipate your skepticism

In Him,

 

[Reformationist]

They are different yes, but not much as you think. That is the problem, you want to believe they are different but they aren't so much that they couldn't be reconciled.

Our views can never be reconciled because they are different. The only way to reconcile them is to change them. Now, you and I may be reconciled but different views cannot be reconciled without changes.

And that is the core difference, Don. The beliefs are one of free will and irresistible grace.

Well, you're certainly free to believe that's the core difference. I think it goes a bit deeper than that myself.

BTW, where does your come from?

Where does my premise come from? I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking why I believe what I believe?

Ask Adam and Eve.

Wow. That's deep Michelle. What exactly should I ask Adam and Eve?

How does this somehow make free will incorrect? This does not show that He took freedom away. Where is THAT verse, that?s the one I am looking for.

Michelle, as usual this is becoming quite tedious. Why must it always be about you? I posted those verses because they focus on the sovereignty of God. It wasn't about the freedom of man. The verses clearly point out that God accomplishes all His holy will and that none will stay His hand. Therefore, if He stays His hand it's not because of the counsel of His creation but because it was according to His divine purpose in election.

If His will is for us to accept the gift of salvation freely how is he not accomplishing that? How is He being disappointed?

Come on Michelle. You have said, numerous times, that God is disappointed because so many of the people He so desparately loves reject Him and burn in hell. Are you denying that now? Look, if God equally desires the salvation of all mankind and some people reject Him don't you think that He is disappointed? Or do you think He stops loving someone after they reject Him?

Can you explain to me why God would only be a success if he CREATED some for the sole purpose of watching them be ****** to say he is glory?

I never said that is anyone's sole purpose nor did I say that's the only way God would be a success so what's your point?

Can you explain this to me? Is God in a box? Is he limited on what he can and can?t do?

Yes God is limited on what He can and can't do but, regardless, you have, once again, missed the forest for the trees. My position is NOT that God is limited in what He can and cannot do but rather in what He does do.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist,

I see you're point. We disagree as to the nature of God.

I agree. I think we vary on our understanding of man's fallen nature as well.

It seems the Predestinationalist (word?) view denies some of the basic tenets of my theology. Keep in mind that my theology is not totally reliant on scripture, so I am somewhat immune to your kryptonite versus:

1) God, in Trinitarian form, exists as a perfect, self-contained entity of love. It is from that love, not an unfathomable or suspect wrath, that He created man.

I agree with this. I don't think love was the only motivation but I believe it was equally as predominant. I think God's desire for glory also motivated Him.

2) He created man with true free will, meaning man retains the capacity to choose God or to not choose God... or in a broader (but lesser) sense, to choose God's morality (this leaves at least some hope for non-Christians, for example), but a Catholic would never claim guaranteed salvation for himself, let alone a non-Christian.

As to this, let me clarify that the reformed view, in case you're not familiar with it, is that man is naturally free to choose to either accept or reject the Lordship of Christ. Due to the Fall, however, he is morally enslaved to sin and therefore not free to submit to Christ. I think the Bible is clear about this in many places. For instance:

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

3) God is omnipotent, and is not hindered by man's free will, but allows it and is glorified by it.

I would agree with this. I do have one question though. If man's will must be allowed to be free then it's not really completely free, wouldn't you say? You don't believe that man's will is autonomous, do you? It's still subject to God, right?

The context of Romans 9 is that Paul needed to assuage the fears of the gentiles that God's chosen people, the Jews, were not saved per God's original promise to them. This seemingly unkept promise threatened even the gentiles who claimed to believe in God but seemed to have no guarantees of salvation. That is the prime motivator for Chapter 9. Not to support a false claim to total and absolute divine predestination, but to point out that God, in his omnipotence, had the power to lift some up and to push some down in order to show example (e.g. Pharaoh). He does not say "all", nor should the chapter be interpreted in such a way. By Paul's saying we cannot choose God, he is talking about having the ability to choose to accept or reject him, the gift of free will. God, through his mercy, must first grant us that gift to choose, or he revokes it to make special points. It is not a two bucket scenario of people he damns or people he saves.

Okay. Let's see. What you're saying is that the Gentiles feared for their salvation because they believed the Jews, who were God's chosen and holy nation, weren't saved? In essence, if the Jews weren't saved, how could the Gentiles be, right? So, you're contending that God will override the free will of some people, e.g., Pharaoh, to prove a "special point" but He does not do this with everyone? And what is that point, that we are helpless in our fallen state and that without His grace we are incapable of choosing Him?

Let me get this straight. In the first section (vv. 1-5) Paul is lamenting the fact that his countrymen "according to the flesh," i.e., the Israelites, God's covenant people, "to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" have rejected the Savior. Are we okay at this point?

Then, in vv. 6-9, Paul reassures us that it's not that God's word hasn't had the effect that He intended it to have. On the contrary, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, In Isaac your seed shall be called." So, essentially, Paul has just told us that just because someone is born, of the flesh, into the covenenant community of God's people, the Israelites, that isn't what gives them a place in God's family. Paul tells us that God has not made His eternal covenant with all of the visible nation of Israel, but rather is specific in His election, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."

Then, as is his teaching style, Paul goes on in vv. 10-13 to give us a perfect example of God's sovereign election. Here we have two brothers. In fact, two twin brothers. Paul clearly tells us that the method of election that God used was for the purpose of showing the world "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls." Now, I've heard the Catholic explanation of these verses. I've heard that God "looked at time and saw that Jacob was going to freely choose Him so He chose Jacob over Esau." There's one glaring problem with this view. If God was desiring to show the world that His plan is according to His own purpose in electing and setting apart a people for Himself then it cannot be based on Jacob's actions, at any point in time. If it was based on Jacob's actions then all the world would think was that God chooses us because we deserve to be chosen because we make the right decision. Who is glorified in that scenario? I hope you're honest enough to admit that it would be man, not God. Also, that completely destroys the obvious intent of Paul's rhetorical question in verse 14. Think about it de Unamuno. If all Paul was saying in vv. 10-13 was that God chose Jacob based on foreseeing Jacob's actions then it would be completely illogical for him to anticipate the objection he raises in verse 14:

Romans 9:14,15
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

Clearly, the ONLY way that his anticipated objection makes any sense, whatsoever, is if vv. 10-13 mean that God chose Jacob based NOT on Jacob's forseen actions but, rather, upon the divine purpose of God in election.

He grants blessing to us, to the vast majority of us that he doesn't need to use for an example, to be able to choose him.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that God's entire purpose in blessing us is so that we are able to choose Him? Did God do nothing to ensure that we would choose Him? If not, was there the possibility, since all had the ability to reject Him, that all would reject Him? Or is it mere luck that we didn't all reject Him and make the entire plan of God a waste of His divine effort?

That doesn't me we have to choose him

Here's the thing de Unamuno, if we reduce God's plan to merely something that enables us to be saved but does not ensure that we are saved then you must admit that two possibilities were viable. First, that everyone would accept Him as Lord and Savior and be saved and, second, that no one would. Do you concede either of those possibilities?

and in the context of the rest of Romans (and the rest of the Bible), it is painfully clear that we can choose to enter into his church by our own volition.

But I don't deny that we choose to enter His church by our own volition. However, I am curious what you attribute as the reason that some choose to willingly enter into servitude to the Lord and some reject it. Any opinions?

He simply turns off that right for some

So you don't disagree with God's omnipotent reprobation, you just feel that it's not a universal execution of His sovereign power. Is that what you're saying.

but nevertheless, Paul says that he still "has endured with much patience" with his vessels of wrath.

I'm not clear why this is a "nevertheless" but why do you think He endured them?

In my Catholic opinion, you are reading the scriptures as someone who cannot see time from God's perspective. God knows who will choose him and who will turn away from him well before that person exists, yet he still allows that person to be made. That carries a certain tone of predestination, and in that sense actually implies that you will do exactly what you were made to do, but it is entirely different than Calven's theory in that an act of will that God foresaw is still allowed at some point in the person's life.

As I said to Michelle, the point of contention between our views is NOT whether God allows for an act of our will but, rather, what it is that determines what that act will be. If one views unregenerate man as morally capable of submitting to God then it logically follows that God would base His choice of someone on their freely willed action. Aside from the fact that this makes God's entire plan contingent upon the will of man rather than on the merciful grace of God, it also does violence to much of Scripture.

Think of my ealier example of Jacob and Esau. Common Jewish custom was that the older son, in this case Esau, would inherit all the blessings by virtue of his station as the oldest son of his father. Now, God's plan certainly included the freely willed actions of Esau in selling his birthright, that I do not deny. However, just because Esau's action of selling his birthright for a bowl of soup ushers in God's sovereign plan of election in choosing Jacob over Esau as the recipient of His blessings doesn't mean that that freely willed action of Esau's wasn't in perfect accordance with God's eternal plan. God's plan wasn't based upon the actions of His creation. On the contrary, our actions are in accordance with His plan because it is His effectual grace that providentially manifests His plan.

Again, if Scripture is not saying that the conditions upon which God's plan is based are found in God alone and not in the actions, foreseen or otherwise, of His creation then the subsequent objections Paul raises in vv. 14, 19, and 30 make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

God bless,
Don

 

[de Unamuno]

I would agree with this. I do have one question though. If man's will must be allowed to be free then it's not really completely free, wouldn't you say? You don't believe that man's will is autonomous, do you? It's still subject to God, right?

Certainly our gift of free will is only truly free if we have unlimited ability to choose. Free will is part of the nature God created us with, and is dependent on him to exist, but is not affected by his will after that. So the existence of will is dependent on God, but the will itself is truly free of God.

Let me get this straight. In the first section (vv. 1-5) Paul is lamenting the fact that his countrymen "according to the flesh," i.e., the Israelites, God's covenant people, "to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" have rejected the Savior. Are we okay at this point?

We are.

...There's one glaring problem with this view. If God was desiring to show the world that His plan is according to His own purpose in electing and setting apart a people for Himself then it cannot be based on Jacob's actions, at any point in time.

Not true. God wants to show the world an example. God knows that Jacob's actions will facilitate that perfect situation. God knew Jacob's place in the story from the moment he created the universe. That doesn't detract from Jacob's free will at any point, rather Jacob's choices make him an integral part of God's story.

Romans 9:14,15
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

Clearly, the ONLY way that his anticipated objection makes any sense, whatsoever, is if vv. 10-13 mean that God chose Jacob based NOT on Jacob's forseen actions but, rather, upon the divine purpose of God in election.

Again, not true. Jacob's act of will and God's reaction to that volition, are simply two separate tools (like a hammer and a nail) that God uses to tell his story. The "anticipated objection" comes from people who look at God's plan just like you are looking at it, not as a perfect act of thought and plan (independent of time), but as a linear sequence of events in human chronology... so man-centric of you, Don God does not see the world in that way, and Paul is trying to express the metaphysical to these people.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that God's entire purpose in blessing us is so that we are able to choose Him? Did God do nothing to ensure that we would choose Him? If not, was there the possibility, since all had the ability to reject Him, that all would reject Him? Or is it mere luck that we didn't all reject Him and make the entire plan of God a waste of His divine effort?

Aha! Again you show your man-centric view of time and events. Whether you know it or not, you are trying to depict the past and future as an unfolding story where the end is unclear... even to God! The key is that you use the word "possibility" as if God isn't sure of the outcome of his choices. Remember that God knows from the moment of creation the numbers of people who will fall and the numbers who will accept him. God does not roll the dice, but he does understand that free will requires a world that is imperfect. I would further argue that he is trying to maximize the number he saves within this "plan of free will", and this is certainly backed up in scripture. Ever seen The Matrix? Lot's of gospel in that movie... and it deals with metaphysical issues like this... I digress.

Here's the thing de Unamuno, if we reduce God's plan to merely something that enables us to be saved but does not ensure that we are saved then you must admit that two possibilities were viable. First, that everyone would accept Him as Lord and Savior and be saved and, second, that no one would. Do you concede either of those possibilities?

Again, there are no possibilities with God. His plan is sound because he manufactured it from end to end. It's not the neat little package you might expect because he has to account for free will to swing us wildly away from him and then to lead us slowly back... closing the gulf of original sin.

But I don't deny that we choose to enter His church by our own volition. However, I am curious what you attribute as the reason that some choose to willingly enter into servitude to the Lord and some reject it. Any opinions?

I do not see this free choice in your examples. See my other thread.

So you don't disagree with God's omnipotent reprobation, you just feel that it's not a universal execution of His sovereign power. Is that what you're saying.

I believe that if he exercises that power AT ALL, then it is applied in only a very limited number of cases. I would suggest that many of the cases where you would cite predestination, he is actually allowing certain anticipated acts of volition in order to tell a larger story.

As I said to Michelle, the point of contention between our views is NOT whether God allows for an act of our will but, rather, what it is that determines what that act will be. If one views unregenerate man as morally capable of submitting to God then it logically follows that God would base His choice of someone on their freely willed action. Aside from the fact that this makes God's entire plan contingent upon the will of man rather than on the merciful grace of God, it also does violence to much of Scripture.

Think of my ealier example of Jacob and Esau. Common Jewish custom was that the older son, in this case Esau, would inherit all the blessings by virtue of his station as the oldest son of his father. Now, God's plan certainly included the freely willed actions of Esau in selling his birthright, that I do not deny. However, just because Esau's action of selling his birthright for a bowl of soup ushers in God's sovereign plan of election in choosing Jacob over Esau as the recipient of His blessings doesn't mean that that freely willed action of Esau's wasn't in perfect accordance with God's eternal plan. God's plan wasn't based upon the actions of His creation. On the contrary, our actions are in accordance with His plan because it is His effectual grace that providentially manifests His plan.

You may be correct there, but I think our real disagreement comes from your view of time, but more so what you think God's view of time would dictate. God is not mapping out a plan that depended on Esau's actions. He has told a story, the entirety of which was planned in the very same instant of pure thought, a story that we are now living out in linear chronology. All human decision was foreseen and allowed, all at the same time, and built into the larger story of salvation. His plan was not contingent upon Esau's actions - that would be linear thinking - but rather God anticipated and used those actions, allowing Esau's free will, but still perfectly executing his overall plan.

Thanks Ref... This is really good stuff. My head hurts though.

-jerrod

 

[Reformationist]

Certainly our gift of free will is only truly free if we have unlimited ability to choose.

Do you believe we have an unlimited ability to choose?

Free will is part of the nature God created us with, and is dependent on him to exist, but is not affected by his will after that. So the existence of will is dependent on God, but the will itself is truly free of God.

So man's will is autonomous?

We are.

Good.

Not true. God wants to show the world an example.

An example of what?

God knows that Jacob's actions will facilitate that perfect situation.

Does God just know that Jacob's actions would facilitate that perfect situation or did He ensure they would facilitate the perfect situation because He sovereignly governed them? You make it sound as if God set up creation and then just prayed that things would work out like He wanted them. If all God could do was know, but not ensure, that Jacob acted in accordance with His plan then God's plan was completely subject to whether or not Jacob made certain choices. Is that actually what you think? Is God nothing more than a fortune teller? Don't you believe that God's plan will work out EXACTLY as He originally planned because He makes sure they work out that way? Do you think the success of God's plan is dependent upon whether Jacob was obedient or would you say that it's more biblically accurate to acknowledge that Jacob acted in accordance with God's perfect plan because that is exactly the result of God's efficacious grace, obedience? IOW, God, through His grace, ensures that His plan works out exactly the way He wants?

God knew Jacob's place in the story from the moment he created the universe.

HOW??!!! Did God just know what Jacob's place in the story would be from the beginning or did He ordain what Jacob's place would be from the beginning? Goodness de Unamuno, I'm having a really hard time not lumping you in with the rest of the Catholics who paint God as some bystander to the manifestation of His plan. God does a whoooole lot more than just know how things will work out. He ensures that things will work out exactly as He had always planned that they would. Do you disagree?

That doesn't detract from Jacob's free will at any point, rather Jacob's choices make him an integral part of God's story.

Despite my ealier surprise at your level headed approach to the Gospel I can't help but think someone else is using your login to post messages. You're focusing on Jacob's role in God's "story" when you should be focusing on the fact that Jacob is acting according to God's divine ordination of His plan.

Again, not true. Jacob's act of will and God's reaction to that volition, are simply two separate tools (like a hammer and a nail) that God uses to tell his story. The "anticipated objection" comes from people who look at God's plan just like you are looking at it, not as a perfect act of thought and plan (independent of time), but as a linear sequence of events in human chronology... so man-centric of you, Don God does not see the world in that way, and Paul is trying to express the metaphysical to these people.

jerrod, I am literally shocked at the change in your approach to the Gospel. I am not even sure how to continue this. I'd hate to do something to offend you, especially after so many wonderful exchanges. In light of that I am not sure I should continue. I think your posts have become the Catholic token response to the Gospel that His plan hinges on man's actions.

In the interest of maintaining this wonderful, though new, experience of godly debate between the two of us, I beg your leave for a little while.

God bless,
Don

 

[de Unamuno]

Catholic token responses? Huh, I don't think I've been a Catholic long enough to even know what a token response would sound like. This is purely based on logic. I must say that I'm happy my logical responses sound Catholic, though. Thank you. It took Catholics theologians 2,000 years to get this deep in scripture, and I have matched them in mere months!

I agree this might be a good time to stop for now. My logic seems to contradict your logic, so one of us is missing something or presupposing something we shouldn't. I'll see if I can't research Calvin a bit more to enlighten myself.

Peace be with you,

-jerrod

 

[Benedicta00]

Our views can never be reconciled because they are different. The only way to reconcile them is to change them. Now, you and I may be reconciled but different views cannot be reconciled without changes.

The only thing you would have to change is YOUR understanding of them. God does not choose us, we chose Him. He affords us the grace to respond to His grace, with out His grace, we would only choose our will because we are natural carnal beings with out God in our lives we are not capable. The point of disagreeing is when you have to make God creating ****** people just so you can say He is sovereign and glory. That is where we disagree. You have to say a person was created for hell to make your paradigm work.

Well, you're certainly free to believe that's the core difference. I think it goes a bit deeper than that myself.

Because you don't want to accept what we really believe objectively.

Where does my premise come from? I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking why I believe what I believe?

I am asking who thought this whole paradigm up because it was no taught in the first 1500 years of Christianity nor can this be gleaned from scripture unless you are reading it with this paradigm in mind FIRST and have been fully indoctrinated into this belief.

Wow. That's deep Michelle. What exactly should I ask Adam and Eve?

Why did God allow them to choose against Him? Was He not powerful enough to control their choices? Or did He control their choice and made them sin? For what reason would God create mankind just to have them fall away?

Michelle, as usual this is becoming quite tedious. Why must it always be about you?

It's not and you know it isn't.

I posted those verses because they focus on the sovereignty of God. It wasn't about the freedom of man.

And WE DO NOT DISAGREE! Stop trying to make us out to be something we are not. You can try to tell yourself this all you want but it still won't make it true.

We completely understand that unless God affords the grace, we would not responded to Him at all. It is never about us but all about HIM.

The verses clearly point out that God accomplishes all His holy will and that none will stay His hand. Therefore, if He stays His hand it's not because of the counsel of His creation but because it was according to His divine purpose in election.

Where does it say that it is about His divine purpose of election?? It says that He is God and does what He wills and what he wills, he will do. Do you see how you are reading this into it? Where does it say that he chooses some and does not choose all??

Come on Michelle. You have said, numerous times, that God is disappointed because so many of the people He so desparately loves reject Him and burn in hell.

Don, you really aren't on the same page about this at all. God knows before hand who will turn from Him and who will not. Is He disappointed? I don't know His mind. But I do know this; those who take the path of evil, He brings a greater good from their rebellion. This is a mystery to us that we may never see this side of heaven the good that He brought from their evil. He allows evil so that he may bring a greater good from it. He does not ordain evil. So is He a failure because He does not ordain evil but allows man to choose it freely? Oh my goodness, no! He brings a greater good from every evil and always will, that is the sovereign God that I know. He does not allow evil to trump Him. But you know what? It takes a level of trust to know that even in the darkest hour He is doing good with the evil we experience. It takes a level of trust to know we may never even see the good this side of heaven.

Are you denying that now?

I have no memory of it but I know that I have a greater understanding of what I believe right now and am explaining this to you NOW in the correct way it needs to be explained to you.

Look, if God equally desires the salvation of all mankind and some people reject Him don't you think that He is disappointed? Or do you think He stops loving someone after they reject Him?

We believe there are children of God and children of the devil. Those who do evil are the children of the devil. They are not of God, does God love them? In so much as they have breath in their body and was created by God's own hands. Their life was created by God, not the devil, so He loves them to that extent but does not love the evil they do. As long as there is breath in their body they still can turn from evil and repent. Do you disagree that when a sinner repents, nothing they have done is beyond redemption? As the bible says, no one will have an excuse when they stand before Him. God, because this person has a breath left in his body calls the person to repent but does not afford Him any extraordinary, special, or additional graces that would ensure Him to repent, He leaves him to himself and allows him to be handed over to the evil that sin has brought to his soul. When in a state of unrepentant mortal sin the soul is non existent. Only the life of God in us, is what makes us alive in Christ. If you have no grace, you are not really alive, you are spiritually dead. Not in the way you believe this term to mean (unregenerated) but in the sense that they are physically alive but if they should die in this state of unrepentence and indifference to the Holy Spirit they will perish, they will be dead for all eternity. Does God love them, no, not because of an emotional reason but because God is existence Himself and He can not love what does not exist.

I never said that is anyone's sole purpose nor did I say that's the only way God would be a success so what's your point?

Well other Calvin believers have but I do not naturally assume that they are representing their beliefs correctly or doing them justice. They may just not know how to explain it any better than that.

Yes God is limited on what He can and can't do but, regardless, you have, once again, missed the forest for the trees. My position is NOT that God is limited in what He can and cannot do but rather in what He does do.

Okay. But do you believe God is not limited to human understanding and human explanations? He can do things that we may never understand this side of heaven.

 

[Benedicta00]

jerrod, I am literally shocked at the change in your approach to the Gospel. I am not even sure how to continue this. I'd hate to do something to offend you, especially after so many wonderful exchanges. In light of that I am not sure I should continue. I think your posts have become the Catholic token response to the Gospel that His plan hinges on man's actions.

The Catholic token response is not this. This is how you are interpreting the Catholic token response.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

jerrod, I am literally shocked at the change in your approach to the Gospel. I am not even sure how to continue this. I'd hate to do something to offend you, especially after so many wonderful exchanges. In light of that I am not sure I should continue. I think your posts have become the Catholic token response to the Gospel that His plan hinges on man's actions.

Probably a good idea to not continue. After all, you and I have discussed this many times, and you still think this is the Catholic position, when its not. It is an unfair simplification of the Catholic position. We very much believe in predestination, we just don't believe that God creates someone with express purpose of burning them in Hell forever, and then expects to be called a loving God.

 

[Lady_Swamp]

If God have arranged everything, and we don't have free will, what's the reason for him to creat us?
I think God has given us the freedom to choose.

 

[Benedicta00]

we just don't believe that God creates someone with express purpose of burning them in Hell forever, and then expects to be called a loving God.

or if this is the only way He is sovereign or can be shown glory.