Logical Problem with Predestination

[shturt678]

Amen they do without a doubt. We have a call to fight the good fight of faith to the end, just as Paul did. But many people see it as being too hard, so they choose to go on the other side and say that we don't do anything. Which, scripture says that we sow to the Spirit, and by that, He does everything through us, as we sow to Him more and more daily, not just once. Then there are people who are on the other side, saying that we do outward works and by that we reach eternal life. That is not the case either. Scripture says, "walk by the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh". In other words, if we don't walk by the Spirit, we are fulfilling the desires of the flesh. It is that simple. But many try to go about it another way.

We just need to back up to Rom.8:13, removing "Spirit" and replace with "spirit" then we are on our way.

 

[Rick Otto]

The thing about predestination is,... you're damned if you do & damned if you don't.

 

[allykelly07]

I don't even understand my own inference so how can I expect others to grasp ... lies on me .... thank you for your patience.

Just remove "predestined" from Rom.8:29 and insert "foreordained" and you will make an ol' old Lutheran very happy.

Ok, but even when I do that, I understand it the same way as when predestined was there.

I don't understand why people call themselves Calvinists, or Lutheran, and it make sense to you. Because rather than just saying that you follow Christ and what He said in His word, you say you follow these set beliefs of a man. So many people set up for themselves certain beliefs that they hold to, and expect others to do the same. But what we should be doing, is upholding just the Word of God, as being the only thing right, rather than our own personal beliefs as being right. Our own beliefs, do not measure up to what God says is the one truth that saves. Not that I am asking you to explain this, but I am asking you to think about what I am saying, and take it to the Word to see if it's true, and if you find that it is in keeping with the word, then what should hold you back from doing it the way God says it's to be done?

 

[allykelly07]

We just need to back up to Rom.8:13, removing "Spirit" and replace with "spirit" then we are on our way.

Do you mean replace The Spirit, with our spirit?

 

[shturt678]

Do you mean replace The Spirit, with our spirit?

First and foremost, until someone refutes or corrects me, I found that contextually and grammatically, put together a good, hopefully valid English Text, to work off of. I use to just get in the Context then find out later, understood the meat of the interpretation, but missed important simple things, if this makes any sense?

YES, our spirit Rom.8:13, "....according to the flesh you are about to die; but if (your) spirit you keep mortifying the doings of the body you shall live." Now I'm happy! Thank you!

Contextually, and even grammatically, Paul never contrast the precious "Holy Spirit" with "Body" and this is what others on this thread insist upon doing due to inferior Texts. Paul is contrasting "body" to "spirit." Yet "spirit" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit (A.V.) but must refer to our own new spiritual nature which, because it is born of the Spirit, is "spirit."

Why others insist upon using the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Godhead as a means in the sense here, beats me??? God uses us contextually here as his means, and not we Him ... to me not that difficult, but??? It is our "spirit" with which we kill the evil deeds that the sin would like to bring about by misusing our eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc. and all the desires in our old nature that need the body and are connected with bodily, guess like ICor.9:27??? Our goal of course is to become "God's Sanctuary" (most render "Temple" and ok with me to a point).

 

[allykelly07]

First and foremost, until someone refutes or corrects me, I found that contextually and grammatically, put together a good, hopefully valid English Text, to work off of. I use to just get in the Context then find out later, understood the meat of the interpretation, but missed important simple things, if this makes any sense?

YES, our spirit Rom.8:13, "....according to the flesh you are about to die; but if (your) spirit you keep mortifying the doings of the body you shall live." Now I'm happy! Thank you!

Contextually, and even grammatically, Paul never contrast the precious "Holy Spirit" with "Body" and this is what others on this thread insist upon doing due to inferior Texts. Paul is contrasting "body" to "spirit." Yet "spirit" cannot refer to the Holy Spirit (A.V.) but must refer to our own new spiritual nature which, because it is born of the Spirit, is "spirit."

Why others insist upon using the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Godhead as a means in the sense here, beats me??? God uses us contextually here as his means, and not we Him ... to me not that difficult, but??? It is our "spirit" with which we kill the evil deeds that the sin would like to bring about by misusing our eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc. and all the desires in our old nature that need the body and are connected with bodily, guess like ICor.9:27??? Our goal of course is to become "God's Sanctuary" (most render "Temple" and ok with me to a point).

I don't believe that's true. If you look at other verses in scripture, like this one... Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

It divides our soul and spirit. Since our soul is what is saved, then it is the spirit of man that is evil and does wrong. Why else would it be divided? One is what saves, and the other, what kills. I don't think you ought to add to the word, because it is capital s for The Spirit of Christ, that we are called to live by, rather than our own spirit, which is meant to be denied.

 

[Albion]

Ok, but even when I do that, I understand it the same way as when predestined was there.

I don't understand why people call themselves Calvinists, or Lutheran, and it make sense to you. Because rather than just saying that you follow Christ and what He said in His word, you say you follow these set beliefs of a man.

Most of these denominational terms started out as words used AGAINST the groups in question...and the term just stuck from popular usage. But the reason they continue on is because there has to be some term that distinguishes one church from another, nothing more than that. I'm sure that if every church in town simply called itself "The Christian Church" or "First Christian Church" or "Redemption Christian Church" no one would know what was going on.

 

[shturt678]

Ok, but even when I do that, I understand it the same way as when predestined was there.

I don't understand why people call themselves Calvinists, or Lutheran, and it make sense to you. Because rather than just saying that you follow Christ and what He said in His word, you say you follow these set beliefs of a man. So many people set up for themselves certain beliefs that they hold to, and expect others to do the same. But what we should be doing, is upholding just the Word of God, as being the only thing right, rather than our own personal beliefs as being right. Our own beliefs, do not measure up to what God says is the one truth that saves. Not that I am asking you to explain this, but I am asking you to think about what I am saying, and take it to the Word to see if it's true, and if you find that it is in keeping with the word, then what should hold you back from doing it the way God says it's to be done?

Being a non-modern Lutheran, I do understand that the Creeds are my yardstick and all those, not just Lutherans, from Luther forward to about 1930 understood the true interpretation of the Word of God, IIPet.1:20, 21. Modern Lutherans view this as "out-dated." They cut and paste part of these works to fit their modern message. So the following difference between "predestined" at Rom.9:29 and "foreordained" is from them collectively, I'm just the dummy, IICor.4;7, that bring their hard work forward, and not very popular at that, i.e., works or me, to say the least.

Rom.8:29, as we are already aware "foreknew" and "foreordained" cannot be the same, now going to prove, their works, not mine, that "predestined" not = to "foreordained" contextually.

Eph.1:5, "having predestinated (Note grammatically, proorisas, as compared to Rom.8:29, morphe in the adjective "conformed" which is not in Eph.1:5) us to adoption through Jesus Christ for himself...." My point, contextually here, it makes no difference whether we render, loosely speaking, "foreordained" or "predestinated." Here the meaning is to fix and establish in advance, in this case already in eternity. My end point with Ephesians: The entire statement regarding our election and predestination is modified by the two closing phrases: "according to the good pleasure of his will" and "for the glory-praise of his grace," thereby bringing the first part of the doxology to a close.

My end point: But we are Christ's brethren only through his incarnation, not back in eternity in Rom.8:29's sense. We are conformed to his image only in so far as he is man and now glorified as man. "Predestined" takes away from this. Rom.8:29, "foreordained" is this conformation to which we are predestined involves the reception of a form that is not just outward resemblance but one that is native to the essence. We are to be copies of Christ, the original: "conformed as the copy of the Son." Again contextually and grammatically, this conformity is not attained until we reach the state of glory: "shall be glorified with him" (v.17); "the glory about to be revealed in us" (vs.18, 19).

Decades ago, I even bit into the lie regarding "predestination," let alone trying to understand this concept ... finally have it dialed in, but took awhile.

 

[allykelly07]

Most of these denominational terms started out as words used AGAINST the groups in question...and the term just stuck from popular usage. But the reason they continue on is because there has to be some term that distinguishes one church from another, nothing more than that. I'm sure that if every church in town simply called itself "The Christian Church" or "First Christian Church" or "Redemption Christian Church" no one would know what was going on.

The point is that they should not go on, because what they have made themselves out to be, is a false church. Believing and teaching people what they want to hear, rather than just what God says. They have made themselves right, and continue to ignore Gods word.

 

[shturt678]

The point is that they should not go on, because what they have made themselves out to be, is a false church. Believing and teaching people what they want to hear, rather than just what God says. They have made themselves right, and continue to ignore Gods word.

Wasn't going to say anything regarding our spirits are evil, etc. but I do like your views for some reason? When I first read it, I thought you were joking, for a point, but then you were not. Just encourage you to eyeball ICor.2:12, just for starters, even the A.V. renders "spirit" and see how evil they really are, when not attached to the world. As far as adding to the Word, minor, I accept your refute and will try and be more careful. Thank you again.

 

[Dale]

To clarify what believers in free will really believe ...


From the Beliefs of the Free Will Baptists, the National Association of Free Will Baptists:

• Salvation – Man receives pardon and forgiveness for his sins when he admits to God that he is a sinner, when in godly sorrow he turns from them and trusts in the work of Christ as redemption for his sin. This acceptance of God’s great salvation involves belief in Christ’s death on the cross as man’s substitute and the fact of God’s raising Him from the dead as predicted. It is a salvation by grace alone and not of works.
• Who Can be Saved? – It is God’s will that all be saved, but since man has the power of choice, God saves only those who repent of their sin and believe in the work of Christ on the cross. Those who refuse in this life to repent and believe have no later chance to be saved and thus condemn themselves to eternal damnation by their unbelief.
• Perseverance– We believe that there are strong grounds to hope that the saved will persevere unto the end and be saved because of the power of divine grace pledged for their support. We believe that any saved person who has sinned (whether we call him a backslider or sinner), but has a desire to repent, may do so and be restored to God’s favor and fellowship. Since man, however, continues to have free choice, it is possible because of temptations and the weakness of human flesh for him to fall into the practice of sin and to make shipwreck of his faith and be lost.

Link:
http://nafwb.org/?page_id=325




*


*

 

[Dale]

From the Beliefs of the Community Free Will Baptist Church
Their explanation supplements the beliefs published by the National Association of Free Will Baptists.




Election.God determined from the beginning to save all who should comply with the conditions of salvation. Hence, by faith in Christ, men become His elect.

Freedom of the Will.The human will is free and self-controlled having power to yield to the influence of the truth and the Spirit or resist them and perish.

Salvation Free.God desires the salvation of all; the Gospel invites all; the Holy Spirit strives with all; and whosoever will may come and take of the water of life freely.

Also,
Presbyterian, Reformed Churches?-Rather than affirming the predestination of specific individuals for grace, as the Reformed Churches do, we believe that when acted upon by the Holy Spirit, and individual has the freedom of will to accept or rejects God's offer of salvation. We do not believe, as we are often accused, in a works oriented salvation, affirming with Paul that faith is not a work (Ephesians 2:8-9). Further, we agree that sinful man is dead in sin, that is, he is unresponsive and insensitive to the work and presence of God unless and until he is acted upon from the outside by the Holy Ghost. Once the individual has experienced this work of grace by the Holy Ghost, it is given that he should persevere in that faith until the end. We hold that whosoever will may exercise his God given freedom of the will to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and in believing, receive everlasting life. (John 3:16)



Link:
Our Beliefs




*


*

 

[Dale]

Rising Spirit in post #53:
"You are stating the Wesleyan position. I have seen no reason to believe in snowy theology."


I'm not really a Wesleyan but let's take a look at that angle.


If we take the struggle among Protestants over predestination and free will to be a struggle between the theology of John Calvin on one hand and John Wesley on the other, where does that leave us?


Quote
Generally speaking, the Calvinist tradition has seen sovereignty through the model of a ruling monarch, whereas Wesley conceived of sovereignty primarily through the model of a loving parent.
End Quote


Which of these two ways of looking at God is most often found in the Scripture? One way that Jesus broke with the Old Testament is when he referred to God as “the Father.” This term for God is found in all four Gospels and it is used frequently. Jesus uses the term Father to refer to God more than a dozen times just in Matthew Chapters Five, Six and Seven.


John Wesley thought of the Christian God as a loving parent rather than a conquering ruler.


This is exactly what Christ taught when he called God “the Father,” or “Our Father,” as he does in the Lord's Prayer.




Link:
http://jamespedlar.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/john-wesley-on-predestination/


*

*

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

There is a logical problem with the Calvinist version of predestination. According to Calvinists, an unsaved person is dead in sin until God zaps them and makes them a Christian. To Calvinists, t he unsaved can't know anything about Christianity.


Here is the question: If the unsaved have no desire for religion, why is there false religion? It seems to me that if the Calvinists are right, there would be those who have no religion and those who have the correct religion. I am not seeing any reason why false religion would arise.


Yet, when we look around, the world is full of false religion. Whatever your religion is, most of the religion in the world is false.


For believers in free will, false religion isn't difficult to explain. God planted a religious impulse in every soul but He did not tell us in detail what to do with that religious impulse.




*


*

I am not a Calvinist. However, this isn't an example of a logical fallacy, because Calvinists themselves don't necessarily declare people damned on the basis of having "false religion." Moreover, people are not solely damned because they are declared damned by God (according to Calvinists); they are damned because they are in a natural (post-fall) state of sin, and the post-fall state of sin naturally consigns people to hell. God's declaration that the reprobate are damned is merely a description of the state in which they find themselves. While Calvinists describe this as "double" predestination (from the divine perspective), they also are able to see (from the human perspective) the difference between the speech-act wherein God's forensic declaration changes the status of a person (changing the sinner to a faithful penitent) and the definitive description of a person who is, of their own fault, in a reprobate status of damnation.

Another way of saying it is that while in the American system a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus when a judge declares them innocent he is not changing their status but when he declares them guilty he is changing their status before the law, in the divine system a person is assumed guilty until declared innocent, and thus the declaration "guilty" does not actually change their status whereas the declaration "righteous" does actually justify them.

 

[allykelly07]

Wasn't going to say anything regarding our spirits are evil, etc. but I do like your views for some reason? When I first read it, I thought you were joking, for a point, but then you were not. Just encourage you to eyeball ICor.2:12, just for starters, even the A.V. renders "spirit" and see how evil they really are, when not attached to the world. As far as adding to the Word, minor, I accept your refute and will try and be more careful. Thank you again.

What I have said is not simply my views, it is the truth. Not that I can't be refuted, but if someone wants to refute me, they should use the word of God, and not their own views. Adding to the word is not minor, Christ said "if anyone adds or takes away to this book, all of the plagues in Revelation will be added to them". So you must be very careful. Your welcome, but I hope you don't just like "my views", but what I am saying as representing what scripture says.

 

[RisingSpirit]

... If we take the struggle among Protestants over predestination and free will to be a struggle between the theology of John Calvin on one hand and John Wesley on the other, where does that leave us?...

​

Wesleyans struggles with Plan B. The Calvinist leave themselves to God's original plans.

Sometimes we say we made a decision we "didn't want to".

But that's not true. Given the circumstances and options, we actually made the decision we did want to !

Just because a choice wasn't ideal doesn't mean it wasn't our choice.

For example: You wake up in the middle of the night, and your house is on fire. Flame everywhere.

You can leap through those flames knowing you'll suffer painful burns. You make THAT decision to save your life.

Still it is your decision. You could have not gone through the flames and died where you were of smoke inhalation.

We ALWAYS have the power to make a contrary decision. Always !

Every choice we make is voluntary.

Sure, God providentially controls and determines circumstances. How we react to those circumstances, though, is on us.

We cannot evade responsibility for our volition by claiming that the options available to us were limited. As humans, our options are ALWAYS limited !

The Reformation view of "free will" ...the Scriptural view of "free will"... being that we're finite creatures with finite [limited] volitional options.

The Lord's providential management of our circumstances doesn't nullify our volitional freedom ... or responsibility !

Whatever choice we make is our preferred choice under given circumstances.

And THAT's how the Most High synchs our will with His predestination. Not by mind control. Instead by tossing situations at us in which He foreknows how we'll respond.

God maintains His sovereignty in all outcomes while we retain our responsibility for the choices we make.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Rising Spirit in post #53:
"You are stating the Wesleyan position. I have seen no reason to believe in snowy theology."


I'm not really a Wesleyan but let's take a look at that angle.


If we take the struggle among Protestants over predestination and free will to be a struggle between the theology of John Calvin on one hand and John Wesley on the other, where does that leave us?


Quote
Generally speaking, the Calvinist tradition has seen sovereignty through the model of a ruling monarch, whereas Wesley conceived of sovereignty primarily through the model of a loving parent.
End Quote


Which of these two ways of looking at God is most often found in the Scripture? One way that Jesus broke with the Old Testament is when he referred to God as “the Father.” This term for God is found in all four Gospels and it is used frequently. Jesus uses the term Father to refer to God more than a dozen times just in Matthew Chapters Five, Six and Seven.


John Wesley thought of the Christian God as a loving parent rather than a conquering ruler.


This is exactly what Christ taught when he called God “the Father,” or “Our Father,” as he does in the Lord's Prayer.




Link:
http://jamespedlar.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/john-wesley-on-predestination/


*

*

Jesus hardly broke with a model of divine sovereignty by calling God "Father" (and it's a myth that Jews never called or call God "Father"). The kingdom of God, after all, is a kingdom with a king.

Moreover, a fatherly model hardly supports the Ariminian view of free will. Sons don't chose their fathers. Fathers (and mothers) create their sons (and daughters). And in adoption, the parents are the ones doing the adopting.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Election.God determined from the beginning to save all who should comply with the conditions of salvation. Hence, by faith in Christ, men become His elect.

Freedom of the Will.The human will is free and self-controlled having power to yield to the influence of the truth and the Spirit or resist them and perish.

Salvation Free.God desires the salvation of all; the Gospel invites all; the Holy Spirit strives with all; and whosoever will may come and take of the water of life freely.

Also,
Presbyterian, Reformed Churches?-Rather than affirming the predestination of specific individuals for grace, as the Reformed Churches do, we believe that when acted upon by the Holy Spirit, and individual has the freedom of will to accept or rejects God's offer of salvation. We do not believe, as we are often accused, in a works oriented salvation, affirming with Paul that faith is not a work (Ephesians 2:8-9). Further, we agree that sinful man is dead in sin, that is, he is unresponsive and insensitive to the work and presence of God unless and until he is acted upon from the outside by the Holy Ghost. Once the individual has experienced this work of grace by the Holy Ghost, it is given that he should persevere in that faith until the end. We hold that whosoever will may exercise his God given freedom of the will to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and in believing, receive everlasting life. (John 3:16)

I don't think anyone debates that this is what freewill Ariminians (Methodist or Baptists) believe.

What we question is how one can simultaneously say "faith is not a work and works do not bring about salvation" while simultaneously saying "the autonomous human will is what ultimately effects human salvation and damnation." How can you possibly say both things at once?

 

[Rick Otto]

What we question is how one can simultaneously say "faith is not a work and works do not bring about salvation" while simultaneously saying "the autonomous human will is what ultimately effects human salvation and damnation." How can you possibly say both things at once?

That's right, this formula puts human will as the deciding factor in salvation leaving God as only making it possible, but the fact remains we don't save ourselves.

 

[Rev Randy]

That's right, this formula puts human will as the deciding factor in salvation leaving God as only making it possible, but the fact remains we don't save ourselves.

Untrue. Both Calvinist and non-calvinist believe God does the saving. God is the deciding factor and it is His will that no man perish.
I agree with the Calvinist up to a point. I do believe God knows all things and we never surprize God. But that's as far as I agree with Calvinist belief. Time will sort it out.