Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The point is not about adding predestination, but about grammatical construction.Hello QED,
Per Ephesians 1:1-14 all we can ascertain is that God chose the "faithful in Christ Jesus". From our perspective the Gospel message from Jesus in Mark 16:16 pertains - the promise is to those who believe. Why do you add to that with your predestination
Gr: prognosis (used only of divine foreknowledge) - Ac 2:23, 15:18; 1 Pe 1:2,Could you give a few examples of this? It caught my interest
Ask God! But he doesn't punish them for not repenting. If anything there, it is for rejecting him. But they were guilty before that. Born in sin.Mark,
Why would God command all people everywhere to repent
if He knows it's not possible?
Would you ask a 5 year old child to write a thesis on justification?
No. Because you know it's not possible for him to do so.
So since he cannot do this - do you punish him?
What I asked was this: "Which theology states that our will is dependent on coercion? Can you cite it?" I didn't ask you to cite something from the Bible. I wanted a citation, perhaps an excerpt from some confession or denominational statement, that states that our will is dependent on coercion. Since you didn't do so, but continuing upon a false premise, with "So..." the rest of your post does nothing to further the discussion as it had gone.Can't remember what I was to cite...
I think it was compatibilist free will, which will not be found in the bible because it doesn't exist in the bible.
So...
I had all this answered so well, so thoroughly, so witty! Hit Post Reply and closed the window before I realized I wasn't online. Guess you'll have to take my word for it that I solidly trounced your objections, haha!A. Determinism
The view outlined in the introduction of this article when we quoted from the Belgic - and Westminster confession can be taken as our definition of determinism. More accurately, it can be described as theological determinism. Stated in simple terms, theological determinism can be defined as:
God providentially determines everything that comes to pass, including human choices [5].
B. Indeterminism
Indeterminism is basically the negation of determinism. In the context of theological determinism, we can define it as such:
God does not providentially determine everything that comes to pass, [or at least not all human choices].
C. Moral responsibility
A person is morally responsible for a given action if and only if that action is morally significant. An action is morally significant if it involves "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong". It is morally significant if a person deserves blame or praise for their action. Bad actions deserve blame, whereas good actions deserve praise [6].
D. Compatibilism
Compatibilism is the thesis that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. This is the Calvinist position.
It means God has granted us the ability to act freely (that is, voluntarily without being coerced into doing something we don't want to do), but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, voluntary choice (to choose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism.
That we act according to our nature and desires is Scriptural (Luke 6:42-45), but we'll get to that later.
E. Incompatibilism
Incompatibilism is the denial of compatibilism. It is the thesis that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility: If human agents are determined, they cannot be blamed for anything that they choose to do.
F. Free will
Someone has free will if they have the power or ability to make morally responsible choices.
Bignon notes that this definition importantly says nothing about the choices being determined or not. Free will does not necessitate indeterminism. Free will can be used by both determinists and indeterminists to refer to what they take to be morally responsible choices and actions [7].
For example, Calvin, in examining the question of free will, says that if we mean by free will that fallen man has the ability to choose what he wants, then of course fallen man has free will [8].
G. Libertarianism (libertarian free will)
Libertarian free will is the ability to make free choices that are not determined by prior conditions. It is the sort of free will that persons must have if incompatibilism is true: it is a free will that is not determinist, and it is the sort of free will that Calvinists must reject.
source: Calvinism, human free will, and divine sovereignty explained
I like the following explanation and why it doesn't work...put simply, IF GOD determines everything, that would include YOUR CHOICE of something.
IOW, of course it's what you desire, God makes you desire it.
Compatibilists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the sense that they are “doing what they desire.” However, this appears to be an insufficient explanation to maintain any sense of true freedom considering that compatibilists also affirm that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God. (i.e. WCF: “God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass.”)
This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires (i.e. “voluntary”). Given the long-held Calvinistic belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God’s decree on which human freedom might be based.
Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God’s desire in the matter (i.e., God’s desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God’s decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.
This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist’s argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When you define freedom in terms of ‘doing what one wants to do’, it initially appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices.
source: Why the Theory of Compatibilism Falls Short
But why are you beating your dog? JKSo if I beat up my dog every day, I am JUST in doing so because I'm his master?
Could we define JUST please?
It means GIVING TO EVERYONE WHAT THEY DESERVE.
If God made a plan for me to become saved because He knew Adam would fall,
and I decide NOT to take advantage of it and end up in hell - that is justice.
If God arbitrarily decides who is to be saved or damned - that is NOT justice.
As to the beginning of your statement above, IF God decides ALL, you are NOT freely choosing.
Because your preference has been decided for you by God - and not by your circumstances.
I wonder why works was such as issue with you. I wonder if you went to a holiness church that could damage persons.
Only God could make demands of us -- not persons or churches.
Because, if so, the demands become burdensome, but God's commandments are not burdensome. As Jesus stated.
Choosing God is an act of the will - it's not a feeling we get (although sometimes the Holy Spirit does kick-in).
God does not make us obey...He wants us to obey out of love for Him.
The obedience does not have to be perfect.
We do our best,
Jesus does the rest.
I'm sorry you felt this way and believe it was due to incorrect teaching of the NT doctrine.
I know that we can feel secure of our salvation, as long as we're kneeling at the foot of the cross.
I had an epiphany. Jesus just presented Himself to me.
I think God reveals Himself to everyone, but then we have the responsibility to respond NO or YES.
It's this response that will justify God's refusal of us at the judgment.
When we stand before God, will we say that we're saved because He saved us?
Or can we say that we're saved because we accepted His love?
I'm reminded of the washing of the feet.
Peter wanted to refuse the washing...he was, in effect, refusing God's love.
Jesus told him that he must accept or Peter would not belong to Him.
In the end Peter said YES.
This is how I understand God's revelation and our reply.
Then is not faith the work of God? It is the Spirit of God in us that generates saving faith, not the will of man.I agree.
Faith is a gift.
Eph 2:8 ... it is an accepted fact that the gifts are: Grace, Faith, Salvation
God's decree is the only warrant for choice. God is the source of all reality.Agreed. We are enabled to obey.
But how can you speak of CHOICE if you believe God predestined everything?
Agreed. The first cause can have no cause.
LOL
This is true. No one really understands quantum theory. I'm at the top of the list!
In fact, I'm not qualified to continue with this conversation.
The notion that God choosing "arbitrarily" is the only alternative to basing his choice on our decision to reply YES, is false. I don't see anything in Calvinism, Reformed Theology, nor anything in the Bible to even consider that. Where did that come from? God does nothing arbitrarily.Nothing drilled into me by secular sources.
I'm just interested in theology - understanding God.
I will say that I've attended two denominations and am familiar with a 3rd and they agree on the fact that God does not choose arbitrarily,
but based on our decision to reply YES to Him.
Your post here doesn't make much sense to me. Why should God be considered unjust by not telling us HOW he picked?Unconditional Election does not allow us to know HOW God picked.
Is this a just God in your opinion?
You might reply that God can do as He pleases...
BUT does this make Him a JUST God as is explained throughout the bible?
Thanks! I didn't find it that convincing. Btw Ac 15:18 is gnōstos, gnōrimos.Gr: prognosis (used only of divine foreknowledge) - Ac 2:23, 15:18; 1 Pe 1:2,
proginosko - (used of divine foreknowledge) Ro 8:29, 11:2; 1Pe 1:20
Wait. I thought, by Church Fathers, you were referring to the early church after the Bible was written. What ARE you talking about now, with this Apostolic succession?I would say yes.
How else can we know the truth?
Our authority is the bible.
But WHO wrote the bible?
Who compiled the gospels and letters that were to comprise it?
If you don't trust the Church Fathers, you can't trust the bible.
What's to be convincing. . .they are simply the verses where the words are used.Thanks! I didn't find it very convincing. Btw Ac 15:18 is gnōstos, gnōrimos.
I didn't bring up foreknowledge, you did.
Ahh so you predestined her to get married according to your foreknowledge of what you would do. RidiculousPrecisely, just as I gave my daughter my mother's wedding ring because I was going to do so since the day she was born.
per wikipedia: "Calvinism (also called the Reformed Tradition, Reformed Protestantism, Reformed Christianity or simply Reformed) is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice set down by John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians. It emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the authority of the Bible."what's a Calvinist?
Pretty obviously, you are taking @Clare73 wrong any way you can, even without any good reason for doing so. And you call her ridiculous?Yes when I quoted 1 Peter 1:2. Are you implying that Peter’s choice to use the word foreknowledge was meaningless?
Ahh so you predestined her to get married according to your foreknowledge of what you would do. Ridiculous
Just because it’s only used twice in the Bible in reference to God doesn’t mean that the word only applies to God. Everyone who reads the prophecies has foreknowledge. The wise men who sought Jesus at His birth were seeking Him according to the foreknowledge God had revealed thru the prophecy in Micah.No, Biblically, "foreknowledge" (prognosis)
is used only of God, and
it refers to him knowing his actions, it does not refer to him knowing others' actions.
Scripture does not refer to God knowing what is going to happen (foreknowledge) apart from his own actions.
100%He is omniscient and omnipresent He knows everything that will take place even if it’s not from His own actions.
No the statement Peter wrote was “who were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God”. Her interpretation mandates that they were chosen according to Him choosing them in the future. That means He chose them twice? God says: “I’m going to choose these people in the future so I’ll choose them now”. If He chose them before creation He would have no reason to choose them in the future. How is that not ridiculous?Pretty obviously, you are taking her wrong any way you can, even without any good reason for doing so. And you call her ridiculous?
Amen, sin is not an action of God and He’s known all the sins we would commit before creation.100%
Amen, sin is not an action of God and He’s known all the sins we would commit before creation.
@Clare73 said no such thing! She said words to the effect that the term "foreknowledge" in scripture is indicative of his actions.Just because it’s only used twice in the Bible in reference to God doesn’t mean that the word only applies to God. Everyone who reads the prophecies has foreknowledge. The wise men who sought Jesus at His birth were seeking Him according to the foreknowledge God had revealed thru the prophecy in Micah.
Are you suggesting that God doesn’t have foreknowledge of what will take place apart from His own actions? He is omniscient and omnipresent He knows everything that will take place even if it’s not from His own actions.
She specifically said that He chose us according to His foreknowledge of what He would do not what we would do.@Clare73 said no such thing! She said words to the effect that the term "foreknowledge" in scripture is indicative of his actions.
You know better than this! Have a little respect!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?