Double Predestination acceptable...

[Clare73]

Says scripture nowhere.

Scripture is replete with the work of the Holy Spirit in us to faith and sanctification.
I have explained how that works without external force or constraint of the human person.
Feel free to present how it works without your explanation violating the person's preference and choice.

It can't be a free choice if we don't have the option to reject the Spirit's leading.

It's not "leading" so much as it is changing of one's disposition (preferences) within.
They have the "technical" option to object, but in reality not the "practical" option, because they do not prefer rejection (the Holy Spirit having changed their disposition) and, therefore, do not choose it.

And this is where Calvinism gets it wrong.

What does Calvin say that is not in agreement with the following:

Some are chosen for salvation for no other reason than God's sovereign right to choose,
Romans 9:18 - "Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and
he hardens whom he wants to harden."
As in Jacob and Esau:
Romans 9:11-13 - "Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that his purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls. . ."

Romans 9:19- "Some of you (Ted?) will say, "Then why does God still blame us? (i.e., if God determines whose heart is hardened and whose is not, how can God blame anyone for hardening his heart?)
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" (Isaiah 29:16, Isaiah 45:9)'
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use (human waste)?"

Where does Calvin disagree with the above?

Wesley was much closer to understanding how the Spirit works.

And what was his explanation as compared to mine above?

 

[Clare73]

All, as in every person.

However, in speaking to Israel who were God's people exclusively, it more often than not means Gentiles as well as Jews, rather than every person. . .which also agrees, rather than disagrees with

John 6:65 - "NO one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

John 6:37 - "All that the Father gives me will come to me."

John 6:39 - "I shall lose none of all that he has given me."

 

[renniks]

Where does Calvin disagree with the above?

He grossly misinterpreted what those verses were about. They aren't about individual salvation.

 

[renniks]

Some of you (Ted?) will say, "Then why does God still blame us? (i.e., if God determines whose heart is hardened and whose is not, how can God blame anyone for hardening his heart?)

Who is Ted? Why do you feel the need to include an explanation if the verse is self explanatory? The person objecting here isn't Ted. And what the verse says is being said by the hardened Jew who is objecting to God using his rebellion to advance the gospel. The point isn't God hardening the heart. The point is that God did not fail in spite of his chosen people rebelling. Ironic that you have it so backwards.

 

[renniks]

And what was his explanation as compared to mine above?

Prevenient grace includes, according to Wesley, "all that is wrought in the soul by what is frequently termed ‘natural conscience,' ... all the ‘drawings' of ‘the Father,' the desires after God, ... that ‘light' wherewith the Son of God ‘enlighteneth everyone that cometh into the world,' showing every man ‘to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with his God;' all the convictions which his Spirit from time to time works in every child of man."

Wesley described prevenient grace as the porch on a house. It is where we prepare to enter the house.
We must then decide whether to enter the house where justifying Grace awaits.

 

[Fervent]

Predestination in the sense of God arbitrarily selecting some to damn and some to save only makes sense under the view that all are totally depraved and the imago dei is dead. Which is why it's caused such controversy in the Latin descended church where a mistranslated ek lead Augustine to formulate his gnostic pessimism about humanity. After all, if all are totally depraved how can any have merit above another? We need not accept this, though, as it was not the view of the early authors nor has it ever been the dominant view where knowledge of Biblical languages were in tact. Does the Scripture not say that in a man's heart he chooses his way, but the Lord determines his steps?

 

[TedT]

Predestination in the sense of God arbitrarily selecting some to damn and some to save only makes sense under the view that all are totally depraved and the imago dei is dead.

Nope...still seems like a blasphemy against HIS loving kindness and righteous justice...

 

[Fervent]

Nope...still seems like a blasphemy against HIS loving kindness and righteous justice...

In the case that we were all rubbish, it wouldn't be a travesty of justice if God chose to save some and not others. Though I agree the notion of total depravity doesn't reflect God's true character and overstates man's ability since it would mean that man somehow undid God's work.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nope...still seems like a blasphemy against HIS loving kindness and righteous justice...

Not at all. While I disagree with the notion that he 'arbitrarily' chooses some, as if for no particular reason, the fact is that we ALL deserve eternal death. Starting from there, then, is where we see the logistics, that he is merciful to some, rather than unfair to the rest.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In the case that we were all rubbish, it wouldn't be a travesty of justice if God chose to save some and not others. Though I agree the notion of total depravity doesn't reflect God's true character and overstates man's ability since it would mean that man somehow undid God's work.

But that suggests that God's work, (the Bride of Christ), was a finished product, that man undid. Not so.

 

[Clare73]

What does Calvin say that is not in agreement with the following:

Some are chosen for salvation for no other reason than God's sovereign right to choose,
Romans 9:18 - "Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and
he hardens whom he wants to harden."
As in Jacob and Esau:

Romans 9:11-13 - "Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that his purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls. . ."

Romans 9:19-21 - "Some of you (Ted?) will say, "Then why does God still blame us? (i.e., if God determines whose heart is hardened and whose is not, how can God blame anyone for hardening his heart?)

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" (Isaiah 29:16, Isaiah 45:9)'
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use (human waste)?"

Where does Calvin disagree with the above?

He grossly misinterpreted what those verses were about.
They aren't about individual salvation.

They are about individual election to individual salvation, because that is the only kind of salvation there is. . .based on each individual's faith. . .my faith doesn't save you, and your faith doesn't save me. . .there is no "common group faith" to salvation.

And, therefore, Romans 9:19-21 is framed completely in terms of personal election, demonstrating the absolute sovereignty of God in the disposition of men:
some of you
blame us.
you, O man
what is formed
make me like this

Calvin understands it precisely as written.
It is you that does not understand it.

 

[Fervent]

But that suggests that God's work, (the Bride of Christ), was a finished product, that man undid. Not so.

No, it states that the imago dei is God's work. Sin did not destroy the image of God in man, and to suggest it did is to suggest man undid God's work.

 

[Clare73]

It can't be a free choice if we don't have the option to reject the Spirit's leading.

It's not "leading" so much as it is changing of one's disposition (preferences) within.
They have the "technical" option to reject, but in reality not the "practical" option, because they do not prefer rejection (the Holy Spirit having changed their disposition) and, therefore, do not choose it.

And what was Wesley's explanation as compared to mine above?

Prevenient grace includes, according to Wesley, "all that is wrought in the soul by what is frequently termed ‘natural conscience,' ... all the ‘drawings' of ‘the Father,' the desires after God, ... that ‘light' wherewith the Son of God ‘enlighteneth everyone that cometh into the world,' showing every man ‘to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with his God;' all the convictions which his Spirit from time to time works in every child of man."

Sounds an awful lot like working in and changing one's disposition.

Wesley described prevenient grace as the porch on a house. It is where we prepare to enter the house.
We must then decide whether to enter the house where justifying Grace awaits.

Good description of a changed disposition, after which we make the choice of God, or not.
However, since we choose what we prefer, we will freely choose God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, it states that the imago dei is God's work. Sin did not destroy the image of God in man, and to suggest it did is to suggest man undid God's work.

I'm not sure who or what you are referring to that claims sin destroyed the image of God in man.

 

[RickReads]

In the case that we were all rubbish, it wouldn't be a travesty of justice if God chose to save some and not others. Though I agree the notion of total depravity doesn't reflect God's true character and overstates man's ability since it would mean that man somehow undid God's work.

Predestination isn't arbitrary. The Bible says we are chosen. That's part of what's wrong with Calvinism

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure who or what you are referring to that claims sin destroyed the image of God in man.

It's what total depravity presupposes, as written by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Predestination isn't arbitrary. The Bible says we are chosen. That's part of what's wrong with Calvinism

I agree, though I see it as a both/and situation rather than an either/or. God choosing us does not diminish our coming of our free will.

 

[RickReads]

I agree, though I see it as a both/and situation rather than an either/or. God choosing us does not diminish our coming of our free will.

Being chosen has nothing to do with what you believe is free will. It's about God's foreknowledge, He is able to foresee everything that you will choose to do. Many people don't want to believe God has that ability even though the Bible confirms it.

Isaiah 46
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[Fervent]

Being chosen has nothing to do with what you believe is free will. It's about God's foreknowledge, He is able to foresee everything that you will choose to do. Many people don't want to believe God has that ability even though the Bible confirms it.

Actually it does, as God's foreknowledge isn't an empty slate but an intimate knowledge of us. Which is why I say it's a both/and situation because while God selects us prior to us selecting Him that selection does not impose upon our choosing to follow God. God predestines me, and I choose my fate without coersion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
I'm not sure who or what you are referring to that claims sin destroyed the image of God in man.

It's what total depravity presupposes, as written by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Interesting; I don't recall seeing that in what they wrote, but I'll take your word for it. I haven't read much of them in a long time. I personally take the handle 'Reformed', because it is the closest to what I think, not because I have accepted it for mine.

As to the point, though, that sin destroyed the image of God, I can see people poetically thinking that way, but that would be hard to make a certain doctrine of. Over many years, and many arguments, I find little convincing of what anyone says about even what it means to be made in the image of God. Just about the only thing I am certain it means is that we are special to God in a way not even the angels are. And there are certain implications, some of which are not implied in those who are condemned, if they have not the image of God still about them. I can't prove one way or the other. It all sounds to me like speculation.


RickReads said: ↑
Predestination isn't arbitrary. The Bible says we are chosen. That's part of what's wrong with Calvinism

I agree, though I see it as a both/and situation rather than an either/or. God choosing us does not diminish our coming of our free will.

What's wrong with Calvinism? Where does it say that it is merely arbitrary on God's part? We are indeed chosen, is what Calvinism says, and that, for God's own reasons. Not for 'no reason'. That God does nothing without purpose, is thoroughly Calvinistic.

Nor does Calvin, as far as I know, claim that God choosing us diminishes our ability to choose also, everything that we do choose.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Being chosen has nothing to do with what you believe is free will. It's about God's foreknowledge, He is able to foresee everything that you will choose to do. Many people don't want to believe God has that ability even though the Bible confirms it.

Isaiah 46
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Sounds very Calvinistic