Predestination and Foreknowledge

[Mark Corbett]

I mean, saying that He is choosing, when He is simply following the choice of men, is to redefine what choice is. God isn't choosing, in your scenario. You've taken the power of choice away from Him and given it to men.

Not at all. That we are able to choose to have faith in God does not negate that God is able to choose us. In fact, God takes the initiative. He chooses to make a way for us to be saved before we even know we need to be saved. God chooses to send His Son to die for our sins. He chooses to work through the proclamation of the gospel to draw us to Christ. And when we do receive Christ, God is still free to choose. Praise God, based on His Word, we know that He always chooses to forgive and to save us when we receive Christ, but that is based on His own plan of salvation.

 

[Mark Corbett]

An honest question for those of you who hold to Calvinist theology. In a recent discussion a Calvinist told me, and I quote, "I don't believe God loves all people." While I strongly and passionately disagree with that statement, I did at least admire his honesty. It seems to me that the statement, while controversial, is consistent with Calvinism. What do you think? Why?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not at all. That we are able to choose to have faith in God does not negate that God is able to choose us. In fact, God takes the initiative. He chooses to make a way for us to be saved before we even know we need to be saved. God chooses to send His Son to die for our sins. He chooses to work through the proclamation of the gospel to draw us to Christ. And when we do receive Christ, God is still free to choose. Praise God, based on His Word, we know that He always chooses to forgive and to save us when we receive Christ, but that is based on His own plan of salvation.

You do realize that faith is a gift, and secondly, that billions of people have lived and died without every hearing the name of Jesus, let alone the gospel, right?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

An honest question for those of you who hold to Calvinist theology. In a recent discussion a Calvinist told me, and I quote, "I don't believe God loves all people." While I strongly and passionately disagree with that statement, I did at least admire his honesty. It seems to me that the statement, while controversial, is consistent with Calvinism. What do you think? Why?

Look it up. Why ask us when you could read His words on the matter?

 

[Mark Corbett]

You do realize that faith is a gift,

There is certainly a way in which faith is a gift. Of course, faith is listed as a gift of the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 12:8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,
10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

But here this seems to be talking about a special kind of faith which is a special gift given to some Christians.

When it comes to saving faith, there are still ways in which it is a gift. I could not have faith if I could not think and I can only think because God has given me that ability, like the ability to see and breathe. My faith is also given as a gift in the sense that God arranged and enabled others to share the Gospel with me, otherwise I would never have been able to have faith. In many ways God influenced me and drew me. Thank God!

But I don't see where the Bible teaches that faith is a gift in such a way that it removes our ability to receive or to reject God's gift of salvation. Of course, that is the normal way gifts work. If a husband works hard, saves money, goes from store to store seeking the best gift, buys a gift and wraps it up for his wife, the wife still is free to receive or reject the gift. She did not work for it. But she still has to receive it. Gifts are not "irresistible". But Calvinism teaches a type "irresistible grace". That is something I do NOT see in the Bible. Rather, I see the Bible frequently speaking as if it is our responsibility and choice to accept or reject God's grace.

You do realize . . . that billions of people have lived and died without every hearing the name of Jesus, let alone the gospel, right?

Although the I think the number of people who have never heard the name of Jesus is often exaggerated, you still make an incredibly important point. This same point is made by Paul in Romans:

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

People need to believe in order to be saved and they need to hear in order to believe. The main effect of this passage should be the same for Christians who are Arminians, Calvinists, or something else. It should motivate us to give and work and be willing to make sacrifices and face dangers and go in order to enable people everywhere to hear the gospel. This is God's plan, and on this we can agree.

 

[Mark Corbett]

For those interested in studying this topic more, I recommend looking into a view called Molinism. I think Molinism is a good explanation of how God's foreknowledge works. However, like all explanations of God's foreknowledge, we need to be humble and cautious because the Bible does not give a lot of detail.

 

[DeaconDean]

DeaconDean, I carefully read your comment and I also read the article which you gave a link to. I think I understand your concern that if God predestines some people for salvation based on foreknowledge of their faith in Christ this would seem to make God a “respecter of persons”. The Bible says God is not a “respecter of persons” (as Acts 10:34 and other passages teach). Therefore, you conclude, conditional election cannot be true.

While I think I understand your argument, and that of the article you gave a link to, I am not persuaded by it for several reasons.

First, when the Bible speaks of God not being impartial (or a “respecter of persons”) it is speaking of God not giving people special treatment because of things like wealth, education, or their position in society. In fact, the article you linked to explicitly acknowledges this:

And, most importantly, in each of these instances it means neither we nor God give special treatment to a person because of his position, merit, wealth, influence, social standing, authority or popularity.​

The Bible does not say that God never treats people differently for any reason connected with the people. In fact, there are many examples where God treats people differently based on something about them. Here are a few examples:

NIV James 4:6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble."

God treats people who are proud differently than He treats people who are humble. The Bible says so.

NIV James 4:2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.

Based on the above verse, at least sometimes people who ask God for things get things that other people do not get because they did not ask.

In fact, throughout the Bible there are MANY examples of God treating people differently in response to something the person does or doesn’t do.

So God is “not a respecter of persons” in that He does not give preferential treatment to the rich and famous. This does not say anything at all about why he chose to predestine some people to become “conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29), but not others.

I want to explore this a little further in another comment, Lord willing.

You evidently have not read any theology deeply enough.

Any theology other than Reformed theology, whether its Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc., predestination and foreknowledge is based upon something an individual will do at some time in their life.

Plain and simple.

Even the doctrine of election makes this perfectly clear (cf. Jn. 15:16)

The main argument of Romans 8:29 is about "foreknown", but people fail to learn Greek.

There is a word before "Foreknew" that forces one to look back at the previous verse.

"to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son," -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

For (eis) is a conjunction that links words and phrases. Why did God "foreknow" certain people? Because He called them first. And because He called them, He foreknew them, and because He foreknew them, He predestinated them: "to be conformed to the image of his Son".

People just don't get it. Predestination in this verse is not about salvation! It's about being "conformed to the image of His Son".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mark Corbett]

You evidently have not read any theology deeply enough.

The quote above is a clear example of an ad hominem attack. In another words, it attacks a person (in this case, me) rather than attacking a person's ideas or arguments. These types of comments are a poor substitute for serious dialog. They tend to create more heat than light. They drag down the level of the discussion. And they are contrary to the guidelines of this forum.

For (eis) is a conjunction that links words and phrases. Why did God "foreknow" certain people? Because He called them first. And because He called them, He foreknew them, and because He foreknew them, He predestinated them: "to be conformed to the image of his Son".

First, I think you probably meant the Greek word hoti (which appears at the beginning of Rom 8:29), not the Greek word eis (which appears nearer to the end of Rom 8:29).

BGT Romans 8:29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·

Second, while there is a logical connection between vs 28 and vs 29, this does not mean that God called people before they were foreknown or predestined. In fact, calling is mentioned again in verse 30, where we see that it comes after predestination but before justification. It seems best to view verses 29 and 30 as an explanation of God's "purpose" mentioned in verse 28. That explains the hoti. Here are the three verses in question:

NIV Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

As far as I know, the suggestion that God's call preceded foreknowledge and predestination is not a normal view for Reformed theology, Arminian theology, or any other theology. But there are a lot of theologies and variations of theology out there, so I could be wrong.

Grace and Peace, Mark

 

[DeaconDean]

The quote above is a clear example of an ad hominem attack. In another words, it attacks a person (in this case, me) rather than attacking a person's ideas or arguments. These types of comments are a poor substitute for serious dialog. They tend to create more heat than light. They drag down the level of the discussion. And they are contrary to the guidelines of this forum.

My apologies, how many systematic theologies have you read?

First, I think you probably meant the Greek word hoti (which appears at the beginning of Rom 8:29), not the Greek word eis (which appears nearer to the end of Rom 8:29).

BGT Romans 8:29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·

Your right, my bad.

But it still does not change the fact.

ὅτι,c \{hot'-ee}
1) that, because, since

Source

It is still a conjunction.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

As far as I know, the suggestion that God's call preceded foreknowledge and predestination is not a normal view for Reformed theology, Arminian theology, or any other theology. But there are a lot of theologies and variations of theology out there, so I could be wrong.

Grace and Peace, Mark

Which shows, you have not studied what Reformed theology, specifically Calvinism teaches.

Glance, rather, read this.

August Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology

The Attributes of God, by A.W. Pink, 4. The Foreknowledge of God

"IV. As this theory is just the opposite in every respect of the Calvinistic theory of personal, unconditional, and eternal Election, it is better to put the two in direct contrast, and to proceed to the proof that the Scriptures teach the latter, and not the former.

The latter theory is that God (who and not man is the one who chooses or elects), of his own purpose (in accordance with his will, and not from any obligation to man, nor because of any will of man), has from Eternity (the period of God's action, not in time in which man acts), determined to save (not has actually saved, but simply determined so to do), [and to save (not to confer gospel or church privileges upon),] a definite number of mankind (not the whole race, nor indefinitely merely some of them, nor indefinitely a certain proportionate part; but a definite number), as individuals (not the whole or a part of the race, nor of a nation, nor of a church, nor of a class, as of believers or the pious; but individuals), not for or because of any merit or work of theirs, nor of any value to him of them (not for their good works, nor their holiness, nor excellence, nor their faith, nor their spiritual sanctification, although the choice is to a salvation attained through faith and sanctification; nor their value to him, though their salvation tends greatly to the manifested glory of his grace); but of his own good pleasure (simply because he was pleased so to choose).

This theory, therefore, teaches that election is:

(1.) An act of God, and not the result of the choice of the elect.

(2.) That this choice is one of individuals, and not of classes.

(3.) That it was made without respect to the action of the persons elected.

(4.) By the good pleasure of God.

(5.) According to an eternal purpose.

(6.) That it is an election to salvation and not to outward privileges.

To the Scriptures alone must we look for the truth upon this subject.

Upon opening them we find that the words Election and Elect are used in various senses.

1. They signify a choice to office whether by man or God.

Luke 6:13. Christ's choice of the twelve Apostles.

Acts 1:21-26. The selection of an Apostle in the place of Judas.

Acts 9:15. Saul is called a chosen vessel.

1 Pet. 2:6-8. Christ is spoken of as the corner-stone, elect, precious that is laid in Zion.

2. The choice of Israel to their peculiar national privilege of being the chosen or separated people of God; as in Acts 13:17. "The God of this people Israel chose our fathers."

3. It is once used for a choice made of' salvation by an individual.

Luke 10:42. "Mary hath chosen the good part which shall not be taken away from her."

4. In a large majority of cases it has reference to the choice to salvation, either in the purpose or act of choice by God.

It is to the doctrine taught in this last class of passages that our inquiries are to be turned.

(1.) Election is an act of God, and not the result of the choice of the Elect.

This is not now an inquiry into the reason of Election; but simply into the agent. Does God choose the elect, whether by his own purpose, or because he foresees that they will believe, or for any other reason? Is election an act of God?

The fact on this point would appear more clearly if we were to exchange the common word choice or chosen with the equivalent word elect.

The following passages are sufficient, though the examples are far more numerous.

John 13:18. "I know whom I have chosen."

John 15:16. "Ye did not choose me, but I chose you" (not to their offices as apostle, but), "that ye should go and hear fruit."

Rom. 8:33. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's chosen ones?"

Rom. 9:15. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy."

Eph. 1:4. "Even as he chose us in him."

Eph. 1:11. "Having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will."

2 Thess. 2:13. "God chose you from the beginning unto salvation."

2. This choice is one of individuals and not of classes.

This position needs to be explained. It is not denied that the Elect are to be true believers, and that true believers are the Elect. The character of the Elect does not, therefore, enter into this question. The issue is simply, does God choose all who shall believe, and are they, as such, his elect? or, does he choose his elect, and will they, as such, believe? Is belief the result of God's election, or is God's election the result of man's faith?

Acts 13:48. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." This is a historical statement made subsequent to the event, not by man's knowledge but by inspiration.

Eph. 1:4, 5. "Even as he chose us in him, . . . having foreordained us unto adoption as sons."

2 Thess. 2:13. "But we are bound to give thanks to God alway for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Here the choice is made to salvation, and the means to salvation, sanctification and faith, are indicated; no prerequisite or means being stated as to Election. It is not as believers that they are elected; but as elected, that they are saved.

Rom. 8:29. "Whom he foreknew he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son." The foreknowledge here is of persons, not of personal acts, not of those whose faith he foreknew, nor, as would be essential to their theory, is it of the class of believers as such. The Arminian theory would require the substitution of the words "as believers" or "you as believers" instead of those which are used.

It is not, therefore, to the class of believers, but to individuals that election refers. But, it may be asked, does it not refer to them in that character? Did not God choose those whose faith he for-saw?

(3.) The third point then to be proved is, that it was not because of any act or merit of theirs, but irrespective of anything but his own good pleasure, that this Election was made.

This is merely a negative form of the same fact stated by the next point affirmatively. It is better, therefore, to unite this with the succeeding one, which is,

(4.) That the election is made through the mere good pleasure of God."

Abstract of Systematic Theology, James P. Boyce, 1858, Chapter 29, Election

So evidently, my first assumption was correct.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Arminian side of the argument goes like this:

"Election Is Christocentric – Arminius felt that Calvin’s doctrine of election was not focused on Christ. Instead, argued Arminius, Calvin’s teaching on election focused too much on God’s sovereign decree. Arminius emphasized that election is first and foremost focused on the Lord Jesus Christ. The only way that a holy God could love sinful humanity was in his Son. Jesus is the head of the Church and the head of election. Ephesians 1:3 begins with this emphasis: that all spiritual blessings come in Christ. We have no salvation, no righteousness, no forgiveness apart from the work of Jesus Christ. The focus of election should always be first upon Jesus.

Arminius’ order of decree for election thus looked this way:

– Appoint Christ as Mediator/Saviour

– Determine to receive into favor those who repent and believe and to reject those who refuse to repent and believe

– Determine to administer the means to repentance and faith

– Determine to save (or damn) particular persons according to foreknowledge of who would (or would not) believe, and persevere in faith, through His grace.

The focus of election thus begins with Christ (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35; Ephesians 1:4; Peter 2:4, 6). Christ (not election) is the foundation of the Church; salvation is by Christ (not election); and the gospel is about Christ (not about God’s decree of election). God gave his Son and loves those who are in his Son.

Election Is Personal And Individual – Obviously, the Bible does teach that certain nations (such as Israel) or people (such as Pharaoh or Paul) were chosen (elected) for God’s sovereign purposes. But many Arminians have taken the notion that election is not personal but corporate. Robert Shank in his book, Elect In the Son, takes this position as has the Wesleyan theologian John Miley.

The Bible teaches that election is of persons and not merely the plan of salvation. Romans 8:29-30; 16:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Ephesians 1:4,5,11; 1 Peter 1:1,2; and Revelation 17:8 along with Luke 10:20 all refer to individual people being the elect of God.

Election Is Conditional – Here is where Calvinist and Arminians divide the most. For Calvinist, election is based on God’s eternal decree and thus salvation is by election. Arminius taught that salvation is by God’s grace through faith and therefore election is by God’s grace through faith. If salvation is based on the condition of faith, so is election. God has unconditionally decreed a conditional election, electing people as believers.

John Wesley wrote, “I believe the eternal decree concerning both the elect and the reprobate is expressed in the words: ‘He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.’ And this decree, without doubt, God will not change, and man cannot resist.”

The conditions for salvation are faith and repentance. Even these, in the mind of Arminius, were not works of men that man can will to be saved but only comes through the grace of God. Arminius stood firm with Calvin and the Reformers that no good works can merit eternal life and that salvation comes through the grace of God alone (sola gratia). Even man in his depraved state comes to faith only by the enabling grace of God. Therefore, from beginning to end, the work of salvation from election to glorification is by the grace of God. Man does not work with God to be saved but we simply submit to the prevenient grace of God to be saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). "

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mark Corbett]

The Arminian side of the argument goes like this:

Thanks for providing summaries of the Calvinist (comment #50) and Arminian (comment #51) views and brief defenses of those views.

 

[roman2819]

Most Christians sooner or later struggle with questions about predestination.

Many Christians don’t like the idea of predestination because it feels unfair. I think the problem is not with predestination itself, but with a lack of understanding about how predestination is related to foreknowledge. Once we understand what the Bible says about predestination and foreknowledge, it is easy to see how predestination is actually a good and encouraging truth which is entirely consistent with God’s justice, love, and even with our free will.

There are two Bible passages which explicitly link God’s foreknowledge with predestination. The first passage is Romans 8:29.

This passage shows us several things about predestination and foreknowledge:
1. The foreknowledge is knowledge related to people, as indicated by the phrase “those whom.”
2. This foreknowledge in some way logically precedes and leads to predestination.
3. The passage does NOT say that God predestines who will have faith.
4. The passage DOES say that God makes a destiny for us whom He foreknew, and that destiny is to become like Jesus.

The second passage which links foreknowledge and predestination is 1 Peter 1:1-2.

This passage shows us some truths similar to the truths we saw in Romans:

1. Being “elect” (which pretty much everyone agrees is the same thing as being chosen or predestined) is based on God’s foreknowledge. That’s what “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” means.
2. The passage does NOT say that God chooses who will have faith.
3. The passage does indicate that election has to do with both sanctification and forgiveness. Sanctification is the process where we become more and more like Jesus, so this is the same thing that Paul described in Romans 8:29 using the words “to be conformed to the image of His Son”.

What Specific Foreknowledge Leads to Predestination?

The Bible does not specifically tell us. We can’t say for sure. But I think it is possible that Paul and Peter were both referring to the fact that God knew ahead of time who, given the right opportunities and circumstances and help from Him, would freely accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

In other words, I don’t think the Bible is teaching that God predetermined who would have faith in Jesus. Rather, I think the Bible is teaching that God knew ahead of time who would have faith in Jesus. Then, based on that knowledge, God made a plan (a destiny, a predestination) for these people that their sins would be forgiven and they would be transformed to become like Jesus, and they would live in glory with God forever.

When you understand predestination in this way, you immediately realize that there is nothing unfair about it. In fact, you see that it is an amazing act of love. Even though we have faith in Jesus, we never could have saved ourselves. We never could have changed ourselves from being sinful people to being people who are like Jesus. But God makes sure this happens for everyone whom He knew would be willing to accept Him.

My destiny is not in doubt, and neither is yours, if you believe in Jesus. Predestination is wonderful! Thank God for predestination! God has chosen our destination, and it’s a really good one!

What Does This Have to Do With Calvinism and Arminianism?

You don’t have to understand the terms “Calvinism” and “Arminianism”. These terms are not in the Bible. However, since many Christians use these terms, you might want to know a little about them. These terms refer to two ways of understanding how predestination works. There’s more to Calvinism and Arminianism than predestination, but predestination is an important part of the issue.

The view I just shared above has a technical name: “conditional election.” This view, which represents my best effort to understand the Bible on this issue, is consistent with Arminianism. That doesn’t mean that I am committed to the full system of beliefs which are related to Arminianism, but it does mean that I lean toward an Arminian understanding of predestination.

Calvinists understand the Bible to teach “unconditional election.” They believe that God chose ahead of time who would have saving faith and who would not, and that God’s choice had nothing at all to do with anything He knew ahead of time about what each person would do or would be like.

Since I Lean Towards Arminianism, How Do I Feel About Calvinists?

I thank God for my brothers and sisters in Christ who are Calvinists. Although we disagree on some points of doctrine, we share a common faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are on the same team! I have been greatly blessed by the preaching, teaching, and writing ministries of men like John Piper and Wayne Grudem, both of whom are Calvinist. For me, learning from them is like eating a fish. You eat the meat and throw out the bones. In the case of these men, I have found them serving up huge amounts of delicious, nutritious fish meat which rarely contains more than a few small bones. They are advancing the work of God, and I thank God for them. I feel the same way about less famous Calvinists I know.

It’s fine to discuss issues like this, and they are not unimportant, but I hope Christians will not divide over issues like Arminianism vs. Calvinism. Sadly, some do. I am hoping we can have a discussion that will be peaceful, respectful, and helpful, even as we may strongly disagree on some issues. I also hope that those who are relatively new to this issue will feel free to share thoughts and questions so that the discussion is not dominated by a few of us who have already thought about this a lot.

Giving Thanks Together

Finally, all of us, Calvinists and Arminians alike, should thank God for His great grace, and specifically, that He made a plan for our salvation and uses His great wisdom and power to ensure that plan succeeds.


This OP is a modified version of a post on my blog.

Thank you Mark for sharing your view in detail. Please allow me to comment on two levels.

Firstly, the words "chosen people" or "Chosen by God", which we tend to interpret factually today, thinking that God handpick or choose who should be saved. However, during biblical times [2000 or more years ago), people were more submissive to God -- much. much more than people today. Back then, they don't say that they chose to believe in Him; instead they said that God chose them. It is a humble way of speaking. To say that they chose to believe in God would have sounded arrogant or inappropriate to them. Today we don't speak that way anymore, and to us, such words sound like God literally choose who to save. But back then, it was really a humble way to say that it was a privilege to be part of God's people or kingdom.

Regarding predestination: Many Christians have been so awed by the word predestination that we forgot about context. Predestination means pre-planned. In biblical context, it means that God has pre-planned to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Paul or Peter were NOT talking about predestination of individuals.

For 2000 years before the apostles' times, Yahweh was God to the Jews only, while other pagan nations worship many pluralistic gods. Even after Jesus' resurrection, the apostles initially thought that redemption was intended for Jews only. Then Peter received a vision about eating unclean food, and they realized God wanted them to preach the gospel to the Gentiles too. Now, this was shocking to the Jews because it went against their tradition which was so rooted in the God of Abraham and Jacob, where Gentiles had no part in their God. As the old order changed, the Jews were displeased, and they demanded that Gentiles followed Jewish customs (many Christian Jews were still practicing circumcision and Sabbath at that time). Amid the hostility, even Peter distanced himself from the Gentiles, and Paul opposed Peter for that. To assure the Gentiles, Paul explained in Ephesians (and Letter of Romans) that God had always predestined (pre-planned) to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Let me explain the following verses while quoting them:

Ephesians 1:12, 13
[12]"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ===> "we, who were the first to hope in Christ" refers to the Jews who had believed in God for 2000 years
[13] And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation ==> The Gentiles, who were previously excluded from Christ, are now included. Notice how Paul used different pronouns "we" [v 12] and "you" [v 13] as he refer to the Jews and Gentiles respectively.

When seen in context, the Bible was not talking about predestination of individuals. Instead, predestination means God has always planned (or pre-planned or predestined or destined) to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Different translations use different words but when we know context, we will not drill into the words technically.

 

[Butch5]

Most Christians sooner or later struggle with questions about predestination.

Many Christians don’t like the idea of predestination because it feels unfair. I think the problem is not with predestination itself, but with a lack of understanding about how predestination is related to foreknowledge. Once we understand what the Bible says about predestination and foreknowledge, it is easy to see how predestination is actually a good and encouraging truth which is entirely consistent with God’s justice, love, and even with our free will.

There are two Bible passages which explicitly link God’s foreknowledge with predestination. The first passage is Romans 8:29.

This passage shows us several things about predestination and foreknowledge:
1. The foreknowledge is knowledge related to people, as indicated by the phrase “those whom.”
2. This foreknowledge in some way logically precedes and leads to predestination.
3. The passage does NOT say that God predestines who will have faith.
4. The passage DOES say that God makes a destiny for us whom He foreknew, and that destiny is to become like Jesus.

The second passage which links foreknowledge and predestination is 1 Peter 1:1-2.

This passage shows us some truths similar to the truths we saw in Romans:

1. Being “elect” (which pretty much everyone agrees is the same thing as being chosen or predestined) is based on God’s foreknowledge. That’s what “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” means.
2. The passage does NOT say that God chooses who will have faith.
3. The passage does indicate that election has to do with both sanctification and forgiveness. Sanctification is the process where we become more and more like Jesus, so this is the same thing that Paul described in Romans 8:29 using the words “to be conformed to the image of His Son”.

What Specific Foreknowledge Leads to Predestination?

The Bible does not specifically tell us. We can’t say for sure. But I think it is possible that Paul and Peter were both referring to the fact that God knew ahead of time who, given the right opportunities and circumstances and help from Him, would freely accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

In other words, I don’t think the Bible is teaching that God predetermined who would have faith in Jesus. Rather, I think the Bible is teaching that God knew ahead of time who would have faith in Jesus. Then, based on that knowledge, God made a plan (a destiny, a predestination) for these people that their sins would be forgiven and they would be transformed to become like Jesus, and they would live in glory with God forever.

When you understand predestination in this way, you immediately realize that there is nothing unfair about it. In fact, you see that it is an amazing act of love. Even though we have faith in Jesus, we never could have saved ourselves. We never could have changed ourselves from being sinful people to being people who are like Jesus. But God makes sure this happens for everyone whom He knew would be willing to accept Him.

My destiny is not in doubt, and neither is yours, if you believe in Jesus. Predestination is wonderful! Thank God for predestination! God has chosen our destination, and it’s a really good one!

What Does This Have to Do With Calvinism and Arminianism?

You don’t have to understand the terms “Calvinism” and “Arminianism”. These terms are not in the Bible. However, since many Christians use these terms, you might want to know a little about them. These terms refer to two ways of understanding how predestination works. There’s more to Calvinism and Arminianism than predestination, but predestination is an important part of the issue.

The view I just shared above has a technical name: “conditional election.” This view, which represents my best effort to understand the Bible on this issue, is consistent with Arminianism. That doesn’t mean that I am committed to the full system of beliefs which are related to Arminianism, but it does mean that I lean toward an Arminian understanding of predestination.

Calvinists understand the Bible to teach “unconditional election.” They believe that God chose ahead of time who would have saving faith and who would not, and that God’s choice had nothing at all to do with anything He knew ahead of time about what each person would do or would be like.

Since I Lean Towards Arminianism, How Do I Feel About Calvinists?

I thank God for my brothers and sisters in Christ who are Calvinists. Although we disagree on some points of doctrine, we share a common faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are on the same team! I have been greatly blessed by the preaching, teaching, and writing ministries of men like John Piper and Wayne Grudem, both of whom are Calvinist. For me, learning from them is like eating a fish. You eat the meat and throw out the bones. In the case of these men, I have found them serving up huge amounts of delicious, nutritious fish meat which rarely contains more than a few small bones. They are advancing the work of God, and I thank God for them. I feel the same way about less famous Calvinists I know.

It’s fine to discuss issues like this, and they are not unimportant, but I hope Christians will not divide over issues like Arminianism vs. Calvinism. Sadly, some do. I am hoping we can have a discussion that will be peaceful, respectful, and helpful, even as we may strongly disagree on some issues. I also hope that those who are relatively new to this issue will feel free to share thoughts and questions so that the discussion is not dominated by a few of us who have already thought about this a lot.

Giving Thanks Together

Finally, all of us, Calvinists and Arminians alike, should thank God for His great grace, and specifically, that He made a plan for our salvation and uses His great wisdom and power to ensure that plan succeeds.


This OP is a modified version of a post on my blog.

Hi Mark, Actually, this whole debate is based on a false premise. That being that God predestines who is saved. When the Scriptures speak of Predestination and Election, these concepts pertain to Israel, not who is and is not saved. This idea that Predestination is about who is and isn't saved came out of the Reformation and is simply a man made idea. It's not from the Bible. The reason there is such a debate about it is because both sides of the debate are wrong. This is why it is never settled. Each side see the errors in the other sides arguments. The Calvinists have their passages and the Arminians have their passages and each side struggles with the other sides passages. However, when Predestination is properly understood as applying to Israel you don't struggle with any passages, they all reconcile nicely. However, so many are so ingrained into the thinking of Reformation doctrine of Predestination that they never really see it any other way.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Hi Mark, Actually, this whole debate is based on a false premise. That being that God predestines who is saved. When the Scriptures speak of Predestination and Election, these concepts pertain to Israel, not who is and is not saved. . . .

Thanks for sharing some thoughts on this.

In Romans 8, it sure seems to me that predestination is talking about who is saved.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Terms like "conformed to the image of his Son", calling us "brothers and sisters", "justified", and "glorified" all seem to be related to salvation, as does the broader context of Romans 1-8.

 

[Butch5]

Thanks for sharing some thoughts on this.

In Romans 8, it sure seems to me that predestination is talking about who is saved.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Terms like "conformed to the image of his Son", calling us "brothers and sisters", "justified", and "glorified" all seem to be related to salvation, as does the broader context of Romans 1-8.

Hi Mark,

A close look at the context shows that Paul begins to address the Jewish believers in the church at Rome in chapter 2 verse 17. He continues this address through to chapter 11 verse 13 where he turns his attention to the Gentiles. In this section there are several indications that Paul is addressing the Jewish believers. For in chapter 4 he speaks of 'Abraham, our father according to the flesh.' So, those in chapter 8 that God foreknew are Jews. The word, proginsonsk is a compound word. Pro means before and ginosko means to know. Literally, it means to before know. Christians often understand this as God knowing future events. However, many don't seem to consider that it actually is referring to God knowing someone or something before, ie. in the past. Paul uses this word of the Jews knowing him in the past in Acts 26. So, when Paul writes of those who God foreknew it is not people in the future it is people in the past, those that God knew before. These would be men like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That this is what Paul is referring to can be seen in his writing, "for we know". The word know is oidemen which carries the idea of knowing through seeing or having perceived. Also, note that, called, predestined, justified, and glorified, are all past tense verbs. These are past completed action. God did call, predestine, justify, and glorify, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and others.

To say this is something in the future doesn't fit the context. How would Paul's readers have perceived something that is future and hasn't happened yet? However, they would have preceived that God had called, predestined, justified, and glorified, men He kndw before such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

An honest question for those of you who hold to Calvinist theology. In a recent discussion a Calvinist told me, and I quote, "I don't believe God loves all people." While I strongly and passionately disagree with that statement, I did at least admire his honesty. It seems to me that the statement, while controversial, is consistent with Calvinism. What do you think? Why?

I think you have to redefine love if we look to the Old Testament and read about how God dealt with non-believers and those who refused to repent, and how He dealt with believing sinners. Can it be said He dealt with them the same? Grace is unmerited divine favor, unmerited being the key word. There is a sense in which can be said that God loves all people, but that sense should not be carried over into a salvation sense. The two theological terms used to make this distinction that I know of are "common grace" and "saving grace", which have distinct and differing meanings.

 

[roman2819]

Thanks for sharing some thoughts on this.

In Romans 8, it sure seems to me that predestination is talking about who is saved.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Terms like "conformed to the image of his Son", calling us "brothers and sisters", "justified", and "glorified" all seem to be related to salvation, as does the broader context of Romans 1-8.

Consider these 2 verses:

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” [Acts 16:31]

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved Romans 10:9

Notice that these verses did NOT say that we have to repent in order to be saved. Does it mean that repentance is not necessary? If I believe that Jesus existed on earth 2000 years ago, am I saved without having to repent of sins? Or if I believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was resurrected and seated at God's right hand now, does it mean I am redeemed even if I don't repent? If I ignore the greater context of Scriptures, it sounds like repentance is not necessary, according to these two verses.

If we ignore context, which many people seem to do so when reading Scripture, we can say anything, everything, whatever we want. Reading words outside context. can take us everywhere, but ultimately. nowhere. However, if we retain and apply the larger context of the Scripture, we will not veer off course or misinterpret.

Although Romans 8:29 does not say explicitly say that God predestined to offer redemption to the Gentiles, however, biblical events and other verses (such as Ephesians 1:12, 13) can guide us to interpret correctly. With context in mind, Paul was really saying that Gentiles were also predestined to be offered redemption, and they were also justified by faith to be conformed to Christ.

When Peter said "you are a chosen people" [1 Peter 2:9], it does not mean that God choose Jason or Susan to be saved. During biblical times, people wouldn't say that they chose to believe God; instead they said that God chose them. It was a humble way of speaking. Back then, people were much more subservient to God, and it would be arrogant or inappropriate for them to say they chose Him. As time changed, languages changed too; today, we don't speak this way anymore, and we tend to misinterpret words (such as chosen and predestined) at surface level, and this ontribute to the confusion on whether God literally handpick the redeemed.

There is really no basis to believe in individual predestination because of insufficient verses and passages in the Bible. Jesus never preached that God chose who to redeem. None of the apostles wrote substantially about individual predestination either. If they had, it would be a different story -- ut they didn't. The handful of verses with the words "predestined" is not sufficient to support a theory or theology, not to mention that they have been misinterpreted.

 

[roman2819]

Hi Mark,

A close look at the context shows that Paul begins to address the Jewish believers in the church at Rome in chapter 2 verse 17. He continues this address through to chapter 11 verse 13 where he turns his attention to the Gentiles. In this section there are several indications that Paul is addressing the Jewish believers. For in chapter 4 he speaks of 'Abraham, our father according to the flesh.' So, those in chapter 8 that God foreknew are Jews. The word, proginsonsk is a compound word. Pro means before and ginosko means to know. Literally, it means to before know. Christians often understand this as God knowing future events. However, many don't seem to consider that it actually is referring to God knowing someone or something before, ie. in the past. Paul uses this word of the Jews knowing him in the past in Acts 26. So, when Paul writes of those who God foreknew it is not people in the future it is people in the past, those that God knew before. These would be men like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That this is what Paul is referring to can be seen in his writing, "for we know". The word know is oidemen which carries the idea of knowing through seeing or having perceived. Also, note that, called, predestined, justified, and glorified, are all past tense verbs. These are past completed action. God did call, predestine, justify, and glorify, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and others.

To say this is something in the future doesn't fit the context. How would Paul's readers have perceived something that is future and hasn't happened yet? However, they would have preceived that God had called, predestined, justified, and glorified, men He kndw before such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Hi Butch5, thank you for sharing that, I would like to share my comments [for Mark] with you too:

Consider these 2 verses:

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” [Acts 16:31]

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved Romans 10:9

Notice that these verses did NOT say that we have to repent in order to be saved. Does it mean that repentance is not necessary? If I believe that Jesus existed on earth 2000 years ago, am I saved without having to repent of sins? Or if I believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was resurrected and seated at God's right hand now, does it mean I am redeemed even if I don't repent? If I ignore the greater context of Scriptures, it sounds like repentance is not necessary, according to these two verses.

If we ignore context, which many people dowhen reading Scripture then we can say anything, everything, whatever we want. However, if we retain and apply the larger context of the Scripture to interpret verses and words, we will not veer off course or misinterpret.

Although Romans 8:29 does not say explicitly say that God predestined to offer redemption to the Gentiles, however, biblical events and other verses (such as Ephesians 1:12, 13) can guide us to interpret correctly, that Paul was really saying that Gentiles were also predestined to be offered redemption, and they were also justified by faith to be conformed to Christ.

When Peter said "you are a chosen people" [1 Peter 2:9], it does not mean that God choose Jason or Susan to be saved. During biblical times, people wouldn't say that they chose to believe God; instead they said that God chose them. It was a humble way of speaking. Back then, people were much more subservient to God, and it would be arrogant or inappropriate for them to say they chose Him. As time change, languages change too; today, we don't speak this way anymore, and we tend to misinterpret words (such as chosen and predestined) at surface level, which contribute to the confusion on whether God literally handpick the redeemed.

There is really no basis to believe in individual predestination because of insufficient context in the Bible. Jesus never preached that God choose who to redeem. None of the apostles wrote substantially about individual predestination either. If they had, it could be a different story, but they didn't. The handful of verses with the words "predestined" are not sufficient to support a theology or theor of individual predestination: and they have been misinterpreted out of context, unfortunately.

 

[DeaconDean]

Thanks for sharing some thoughts on this.

In Romans 8, it sure seems to me that predestination is talking about who is saved.

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Terms like "conformed to the image of his Son", calling us "brothers and sisters", "justified", and "glorified" all seem to be related to salvation, as does the broader context of Romans 1-8.

I disagree.

You see, taking into consideration what the scriptures say, if a person is "predestinated" what are they "predestinated" to?

1. Adoption (Eph. 1:5)
2. An inheritance through predestination (Eph. 1:11)
3. Conformity to the image of the Son (Rom. 8:29)

Do not confuse "election" with predestination.

You are, according to Paul, "elected unto salvation".

"because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:" -2 Thess. 2:13 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.