Predestination and Election

[bleitzel]

Rather, we know that the few chosen of the many called were selected by God, not by their own wills.

It's saying both & his point in saying it is to point out that our salvation is entirely a matter of God's will & not in any way our own.
On one level

I couls spit out one line mantras as well as you can but that won't really help the debate process along any.

Rick, concerning Paul's words in Rom 9 about choosing whom He will you said "It's saying both & his point in saying it is to point out that our salvation is entirely a matter of God's will & not in any way our own." But Paul's point certainly does not have anything to do with him saying salvation is a matter of God's will & not in any way our own. It doesn't follow from the text. Paul is overcoming an objection to his Gospel message, not preaching this new doctrine of predestined-some.

Let's review:
Paul's argument starts in Rom 1:16-17

16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
​

He's saying that the new understanding of God's eternal plan is that the law was just to point us to righteousness through faith. Not that the law failed, actually God's intent for the law was not for us to achieve perfection through our obedience to it but rather for us to realize our imperfection up against it and throw ourselves at His feet for mercy. But the Jews, who lived by the law for centuries and did believe in attaining redemption through the law, had a hard time hearing this! So Paul goes on discussing the law and how perfect righteousness can never come through it in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, and 9. And along the way he gives several illustrations to make his point and overcomes several main objections the Jews have against this teaching, some by using everyday understanding like how a marriage works in Ch.7 and some by using the scriptures like the picture of Abraham in Ch. 4 and Adam in Ch. 5.

Here in Ch. 9 Paul is overcoming another objection, like I said above, about the Jews protesteing then that if Paul is correct, does this mean God has forsaken them? Has God's word, His promise to the Jews failed? But nowhere does Paul slip into a theory about God predestining some and not others. You misunderstand the analogy that he's using in Ch 9.

 

[bleitzel]

You guys ... even the thorns and thistles, they indicate the prior condition of the soil. Turn over bad soil all you want, and it won't get better.

It's actually critical to the Apostle's argumentin Heb 6:7-8. It's critical. Why? Because the Apostle is arguing to them to stop tilling bad soil!

What's his reasoning? That the soil will get better if they till it more?

Please. His argument accurately points out that these things are indicators of the soil, the tilling simply reveals what's already there.

So back at you: "tell us why and how we can scratch-out Heb6:7-8...." You're scratching away at its reasoning, at its analogy. Accept the analogy and the Apostle's argument works. Reject the analogy and you'll keep on chasing after those recrucifying Christ.

Heymikey, I love you as a brother in Christ, but if you read this:

Hebrews 6:7-8
7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
​

And get from it that Paul is arguing to stop tilling soil that produces thorns, then there's really no hope for you. If you can't plainly see that we are the land, rain is God's grace/The Gospel, and the crop is our response to His grace, then what can we say? Up is down and down is up. Blessed is cursed and cursed is blessed. Let me ask you, what color is the sky? How about grass? Communication is not trickery. If I need to communicate an idea, a thought to you I can use the spoken word, the written word, hand gestures, smoke signals, whatever. But if you don't understand simple communication, what's the use of me trying?

Paul says it simply, land that produces fruit is blessed, land that produces thorns is in danger of being cursed. Paul doesn't say or mean that the land itself is predestined to bear either fruit or thorns, and by God shedding His grace on the land we will eventually see that for which the land was predestined. Sheesh. How can you stand this form of logic???

 

[bleitzel]

I don't understand what you mean. Why would they attend a feast unwillingly unless coerced?

They didn't attend the feast unwillingly. Why would you say this?

Your mistake is in thinking that if a choice is predestined, it isn't realy a choice.

Now there's two sides to that, my view and God's view. Obviously, in my view if I think I have a choice about something but the outcome is predetermined, then I really have no choice. In God's view, the Arminians argue that things could be predetermined by Him and yet still be a choice to us, but this is queationably tenable. Most people reject this logic. So they fall back unto the first position, that all things are predetermined. But the good news is that there is a third option, things aren't really predetermined at all!

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
You guys ... even the thorns and thistles, they indicate the prior condition of the soil. Turn over bad soil all you want, and it won't get better.

It's actually critical to the Apostle's argumentin Heb 6:7-8. It's critical. Why? Because the Apostle is arguing to them to stop tilling bad soil!

What's his reasoning? That the soil will get better if they till it more?

Please. His argument accurately points out that these things are indicators of the soil, the tilling simply reveals what's already there.

So back at you: "tell us why and how we can scratch-out Heb6:7-8...." You're scratching away at its reasoning, at its analogy. Accept the analogy and the Apostle's argument works. Reject the analogy and you'll keep on chasing after those recrucifying Christ.​

You're missing the point, Mike. ONE soil is tilled, it can produce EITHER good fruit OR bad fruit. This "connects" with what Peter said in 2:1:5-10. Peter lists the godly fruits that the saved will HAVE (they're not optional). Then Peter presents a man who WAS ONCE purified (can only mean "was saved"), but now has FORGOTTEN that purification and LACKS the godly qualities.

Against that man, Peter says: "Therefore be all the more diligent about your calling and election, that you not stumble ('ptaio' become WRETCHED); in THIS way the gates of Heaven will be abundantly provided to you."

There is no "abundant-for-the-righteous", and "sparse-for-the-wicked"; it's "abundant", or not at all.

Peter literally says "Judge your position in Christ by the fruits you have, that you get into Heaven."

Same thing as Paul said, in 2Cor13:5 (contrast "adokimos" there, with 1Cor9:25-27, where Paul clearly said that HE HIMSELF could become unsaved!)

 

[MamaZ]

They didn't attend the feast unwillingly. Why would you say this?

Now there's two sides to that, my view and God's view. Obviously, in my view if I think I have a choice about something but the outcome is predetermined, then I really have no choice. In God's view, the Arminians argue that things could be predetermined by Him and yet still be a choice to us, but this is queationably tenable. Most people reject this logic. So they fall back unto the first position, that all things are predetermined. But the good news is that there is a third option, things aren't really predetermined at all!

So things just happen for no reason as God sits on His throne and reacts to human beings choices? So there isn't a Spiritual and human life around us? It is more like the big bang theory?

 

[nobdysfool]

So things just happen for no reason as God sits on His throne and reacts to human beings choices? So there isn't a Spiritual and human life around us? It is more like the big bang theory?

Evidently that's what they believe. They recoil at the idea of a God who knows what they will do before they do it, what they will choose, what they will say, where they will go, etc. They want a measure of control over their own lives, so they postulate a God who only infrequently intervenes, but otherwise lets them do as they will. They give lip service to "He is Lord of All", and "the Sovereign Lord", but then invent theories that leave the important choices to man. They deny man's true condition before God, and they deny God's absolute right to do with His Creation as seems good to Him. They try to saddle God with a human concept of Justice. They make Him reactive instead of pro-active. If God is only reacting to what men do, then men are actually in control and in the "driver's seat". Too bad they cannot see the depth of their errors, and instead accuse those who point those errors out of being in error.

 

[MamaZ]

I think also it boils down to people believing men still have dominion as Adam did.. Which we all know was lost when Adam sinned. Now sin and death have dominion unless one is born again.

 

[heymikey80]

You guys ... I'm not missing the point.

Nobody expects trucking in good soil is part of tilling. Tilling is simply turning over the ground to encourage better growth.

Bad land doesn't respond to tilling. Y'don't make bad land good by tilling it. You simply expose it for what it is.
The Apostle is saying not to try to make something out of the soil that it isn't.

Trying to press in that I'm denying it's an allegory of -- something you can't even agree on -- is really silly. It's an illustration. My response to a superspiritualized attempt to allegorize the illustration? "I don't care to."

And trying to pile-on interpretations from two other letters from two other people in quite different contexts to figure out what the Apostle means here to the Hebrews -- it's prooftexting. It's grabbing at other meanings elsewhere. I'm looking here. If you don't have a meaning here that you can say the Apostle is aware of and talking about here, then you're not working from an exegetical argument.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Evidently that's what they believe. They recoil at the idea of a God who knows what they will do before they do it, what they will choose, what they will say, where they will go, etc. They want a measure of control over their own lives, so they postulate a God who only infrequently intervenes, but otherwise lets them do as they will. They give lip service to "He is Lord of All", and "the Sovereign Lord", but then invent theories that leave the important choices to man. They deny man's true condition before God, and they deny God's absolute right to do with His Creation as seems good to Him. They try to saddle God with a human concept of Justice. They make Him reactive instead of pro-active. If God is only reacting to what men do, then men are actually in control and in the "driver's seat". Too bad they cannot see the depth of their errors, and instead accuse those who point those errors out of being in error.

Speak of misrepresentation.
I remember enough of my protestant days to know that not a single one of these characterizations is correct. It surely does not apply to what Ben has been saying.
It is the very extreme opposite position of yours which is why you cannot understand what Ben is trying to explain.
Your position as Calvinists and the extreme opposite position you portray are both outside of what Scripture actually states. As long as either of you place your own presuppositions over scripture you will never understand what scripture has meant since the beginning.

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,

Speak of misrepresentation.
I remember enough of my protestant days to know that not a single one of these characterizations is correct. It surely does not apply to what Ben has been saying.
It is the very extreme opposite position of yours which is why you cannot understand what Ben is trying to explain.
Your position as Calvinists and the extreme opposite position you portray are both outside of what Scripture actually states. As long as either of you place your own presuppositions over scripture you will never understand what scripture has meant since the beginning.

Actually, I am only stating the end result of the logic they employ. I stated things in a way that I know they won't accept, not because I believe that they actually believe it as I've said it, I am taking the logic to its ultimate extent, to try and jar their thinking. You of all people should be able to see the contrast. They accuse Calvinists of all sorts of ridiculous errors that Calvinists do not believe or teach. This is sauce for the goose.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Actually, I am only stating the end result of the logic they employ. I stated things in a way that I know they won't accept, not because I believe that they actually believe it as I've said it, I am taking the logic to its ultimate extent, to try and jar their thinking. You of all people should be able to see the contrast. They accuse Calvinists of all sorts of ridiculous errors that Calvinists do not believe or teach. This is sauce for the goose.

but that only works if that is what you believe is the opposite of your view. It is not the opposite or extreme of their view, or has anything to do with logical extent of their view.
What is to your advantage relative to Calvinism is your disadvantage relative to their own opinions. Calvinism is the ONLY systematized theological view that has been formulated since the Reformation. The others that bear a name are not nearly as systemized, such as Lutheranism, or Methodism and for the most part on any forum, it is the individuals personal opinion which is not better or worse than Calvin's personal opinion or any of the evolved improvements since then.
You are absolutely correct that they are misrepresenting Calvinism. But they have represented what scripture has always meant on this point even though if extended, they do not agree with scripture, as Ben does not, regarding Christ's purpose and victory over death on the Cross or the Incarnation specifically. In doing so, they appear to misrepresent Calvinism.
That is why I stated earlier that you cannot disprove each others view. Neither of you are using scripture as your authority nor are you coming from the same paradigm. You use Calvin or whatever better understanding you can make personally, over against their own personal opinion. Man has tried that long before the Reformation ever happened and every single one of them failed to improve on the original, outdo what the Holy Spirit gave from the beginning.