Predestination: Concept or Doctrine

[holdon]

Holdon, I am presenting the God of the Bible.

No, you're not. You're presenting the Persian system, or whatever, but not the God of the Bible if you maintain that God arranged for evil and sin to come into this world.

You are saying scripture does not mean what it says because it does not fit your doctrine.

I am simply explaining that Scripture doesn't say what you say it says. That's all.

I answered the question about Acts 4:27-28, yet you repost as if I had not addressed it.

??? Acts 4:27-28 does not talk about "before the foundation of the world". Please read again.

You have Christ chosen before the foundation of the world but not chosen as redeemer

Where do you see He was chosen as Redeemer before the foundation of the world?

even though 2 Timothy 1:9 says we are saved according the the purpose and grace granted us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world.

Was salvation granted to us before the eternal times, or grace? Which is it?

He elected us in Christ Jesus, came sin or no sin. He predestined us to sonship in Christ, came sin or no sin.

Sin is not a prerequisite for any of His eternal counsels.

 

[cygnusx1]

My words are not hostile nor inflammatory, at least not in intention. Your position is naive in that you are guilty of that which you accuse others. Moreover, it is pathetic in that it arouses my sympathy for you.

I see , More hostile comments!

I think I better just turn the other cheek .

Bless you DD

​

 

[depthdeception]

I see , More hostile comments!

I think I better just turn the other cheek .

Bless you DD

Blessings to you also.

 

[sawdust]

It is true what you say Van , but you will discover few can tolerate anything that is "predestined" especially if it involves the fall of Adam as part of the plan ..........
Many think God cannot see all things and cannot plan anything , this is based upon presuppositions about God and time.

That is most probably because us "few" cannot find one single word in scripture that points to a plan of God for the unbeliever. Not even the lake of fire was planned for men. Did God overlook this fact? Knowing that there would always be unbelievers, He forgot to make arrangements for them in His planning?

The simple fact is the unbeliever reaps what he sows not what God has planned because the Lord has never planned to see anyone lost. He wants all men to be saved, all men! The sad reality is that not all men want saving.

Calvin was simply wrong on this point. God has planned no destiny for the unbeliever only for the believer. The unbeliever reaps the consequences of his own vanity.

It takes a way bigger God to fullfill His own plan when He has to take into consideration the plan of every man and angel that would want to see His plan fail. That makes Him number one, with none to compare, in the heights of genius because His Word will never fail.

peace

 

[Van]

No, you're not. You're presenting the Persian system, or whatever, but not the God of the Bible if you maintain that God arranged for evil and sin to come into this world.

Again I am not asserting any private interpretation. I am referencing scripture and indicating my understanding. Now my view is shared by many scholars. This is what scripture teaches.

I have not addressed your issue, God in your view cannot be the author of what you think is evil, because we have no basis of discussion if you cannot discern from scripture, from the verses I have referenced that my view is valid.

??? Acts 4:27-28 does not talk about "before the foundation of the world". Please read again.

This is deliberate misdirection, indicating you have lost on the merits and now are simply putting up a smokescreen.

Was salvation granted to us before the eternal times, or grace? Which is it?

Folks note the effort to change the subject, to shuck and jive. What does 2 Timothy 1:9 say, we were saved according to God's purpose and grace, granted us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. This sentence is not complicated. It does not say when were were saved. It says whenever we were saved, it was according the God's purpose and grace granted to us in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world. God had decided, had established His purpose to grant us grace in Christ Jesus, whenever we are put into Christ, before the foundation of the world. This purpose and plan of redemption, granted to those placed in Christ, was know and predestined before creation.

Sin is not a prerequisite for any of His eternal counsels.

Yet another assertion of doctrine without any support in scripture.

Folks, scripture is clear, read Acts 4:27-28, Ephesians 1:4, 2 Timothy 1:9 and 1 Peter 1:20. Christ was chosen to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world. How are we saved in Christ Jesus? By the precious blood of the lamb. God accepting His sacrifice, the just for the unjust.

 

[holdon]

Christ was chosen to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world.

Can you ever stick with what Scripture says instead of mixing up stuff together? Because again, you will not find the above statement anywhere in Scripture!

Not in Acts 4:27,28 For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass.
Not in Eph. 1:4 according as he has chosen us in him before the world's foundation
Not in 2 Tim 1:9 and has called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages of time,
Not in 1 Pet 1:20 Christ, foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world

Where do you see that "Christ was chosen to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world" in any of these verses?

If you can't come up with better proof for your statements then stay away, or change your statements to reflect Scripture truth.

 

[Van]

I am presenting the truth of scripture.

Folks, read the passages. In Acts 4:27-28, it says folks were gathered together against God's holy servant Jesus, whom God did anoint. This demonstrates that Jesus was chosen to be the Christ, the Anointed One. Now the gathered folks (like Pilate) were gathered "to do whatever Your [God's] hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." So the predestined purpose of the Christ was to be crucified as the Lamb of God. Note this verse does not say when God chose His Christ to be the Lamb, but it does indicate the Christ was chosen for that purpose.

Folks read the passage and judge for yourselves. Holdon is denying the plain meaning of scripture because it does not conform to his manmade doctrine.

The other passages demonstrate God established His purpose and chose His Christ before the foundation of the world, from all eternity. Therefore, God's purpose in chosing His Christ was to redeem all those placed in Christ, because Christ's shed blood would wash away their sins.

 

[holdon]

Note this verse does not say when God chose His Christ to be the Lamb

See, that's what I'm talking about. I realize it is very hard to deal with the truth when one has been indoctrinated for so long.

The other passages demonstrate God established His purpose and chose His Christ before the foundation of the world, from all eternity.

Again, you're right on so far...

Therefore, God's purpose in chosing His Christ was to redeem all those placed in Christ, because Christ's shed blood would wash away their sins.

But Van! Please! Here you're going off the old tangent again. You make sins the purpose of Christ!!! From which the worsed thought arise: "That God arranged for the Fall"; that the Fall was wanted by God. Hellooo?

 

[Van]

Holdon, just because you do not want to believe God arranged the fall, does not mean it is ok to disregard the plain meaning of scripture. This thread has deteriorated in me saying two plus two adds up to four, and you countering with it says two and two but it does not say four.

Folks, Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world. Christ means the anointed One. The Word, the preincarnate Jesus who would become flesh for us, was anointed before the foundation of the world. God had a purpose in Anointing Word. Acts 4:27-28 indicates that purpose was to be slain as the lamb of God in order to grant us grace in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen in Him, and that means He was chosen as our Redeemer, and therefore anyone subsequently placed in Christ was in effect chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Not individually, but generically.

 

[depthdeception]

I am presenting the truth of scripture.

Give me a break. Your "interpretation" (which is what it is, nothing else) is not "truth" since it is prone to the fraility of human contingency. You are being wickedly naive if you think your particular interpretation perfectly embodies the "truth" of God.

Folks read the passage and judge for yourselves. Holdon is denying the plain meaning of scripture because it does not conform to his manmade doctrine.

But what is the "plain meaning?" Who determines what the "plain meaning" is? The answer is that the very interpreters of Scripture determine it. Therefore, you are guilty of precisely the same thing of which you accuse Holdon.

 

[Van]

Depthdeception - give me a break. Your argument, that we cannot know anything is based on you knowing that we cannot know anything. Since we cannot know anything, you cannot know that we cannot know anything. Got it.

Did I assert that my view of scripture "perfectly embodies" the truth in God's word? Nope. So a strawman. Why are you setting up and knocking down your own views. Give me a break. If you are willing to discuss my views, have at it.

I asked anyone and everyone to just read the passage and decide for themselves what it seems to say. Is that too hard. If it is, why are you reading this?

The difference, folks, is that I have referenced scripture to support my view, Holdon has only made assertions from manmade doctrine. Here is an example of plain meaning. Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. 1 Peter 1:20. Now if Christ was known, then the Word who was with God and was God, was anointed before the foundation of the world. God saves us according to the purpose and grace granted us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. So, according to the plain teachings of scripture, God's purpose in anointing the Word was to grant us grace in Christ Jesus. And God's plan to fulfill that purpose was for Christ to be crucified. Acts 4:27-28.
QED

Holdon's position, or at least the one I discern, is that while Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world, He was not chosen to save us from the effects of the fall. If that seems sound to you fine.

 

[depthdeception]

Depthdeception - give me a break. Your argument, that we cannot know anything is based on you knowing that we cannot know anything. Since we cannot know anything, you cannot know that we cannot know anything. Got it.

Speaking of strawmen...

Did I assert that my view of scripture "perfectly embodies" the truth in God's word?

Actually, you did. Your exact words were, "I am presenting the truth of Scripture." As your posts clearly indicate that you believe the Scriptures to be the "truth" of God, the conclusion is unavoidable that, based upon your statement which I have quoted, you have asserted that what you submitted in the quoted post is the embodyment of God's truth.

I will permit you to retract that previous statement, if you wish. Or this most recent one. One has to be retracted, for at the moment you are being self-contradictory and misrepresenting what you yourself have posted earlier.

Why are you setting up and knocking down your own views. Give me a break. If you are willing to discuss my views, have at it.

I am discussing your views. You believe that there is a "plain reading" of Scripture that is somehow independently accessible to all readers. I believe this conception to be patently false as the "plain reading" of Scripture will inevitably and indellibly be colored by the suppositions and preconceived notions of the reader/interpreter.

I asked anyone and everyone to just read the passage and decide for themselves what it seems to say. Is that too hard. If it is, why are you reading this?

Decide for themselves? How is this consonant with your contention about the "plain reading" of Scripture? Perhaps you should go back and edit your post to read, "my plain reading of Scripture"....

The difference, folks, is that I have referenced scripture to support my view, Holdon has only made assertions from manmade doctrine. Here is an example of plain meaning. Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. 1 Peter 1:20. Now if Christ was known, then the Word who was with God and was God, was anointed before the foundation of the world. God saves us according to the purpose and grace granted us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. So, according to the plain teachings of scripture, God's purpose in anointing the Word was to grant us grace in Christ Jesus. And God's plan to fulfill that purpose was for Christ to be crucified. Acts 4:27-28.
QED

What is your point? By referencing "Scripture" you are doing exactly the same thing as that which you accuse Holdon of doing, only you are attempting to solidify the hegenomy of your thought by appealing to what you believe to be an objectively accessible source of truth. However, as your interpretations of Scripture are indellibly colored by your preconceived notions of truth, the nature of God, etc., you are really only adding one more opinion on top of another.

Holdon's position, or at least the one I discern, is that while Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world, He was not chosen to save us from the effects of the fall. If that seems sound to you fine.

Good.

 

[holdon]

This thread has deteriorated in me saying two plus two adds up to four, and you countering with it says two and two but it does not say four.

Excuse me? Where did I say that?

Folks, Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world. Christ means the anointed One. The Word, the preincarnate Jesus who would become flesh for us,

So far so good.....

was anointed before the foundation of the world

How was He annointed before the foundation of the world? When? I am not sure I can agree this, because I don't see that in Scripture. (manmade doctrine perhaps??)

God had a purpose in Anointing Word.

Again, I don't see that expression in Scripture either: "annointing Word".

Acts 4:27-28 indicates that purpose was to be slain as the lamb of God in order to grant us grace in Christ Jesus.

But it doesn't say "before the foundation of the world".....

Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen in Him,

Correct here.

and that means He was chosen as our Redeemer,

But incorrect here... Must be manmade doctrine that slipped in there, because I don't see it in the divine Book.

 

[Van]

Holdon, I cannot believe you do not know Christ means the Anointed One. Thus the Anointed One was anointed to be called Christ. You can look it up.

 

[Van]

Depthdeception, your attack on the ability of born again believers to arrive at a shared understanding of the word is without merit.

You have been making this same argument for months with no indication of growth.

Claiming to present God's truth by presenting scripture is a far cry from claiming my understanding of God's scripture is perfect. Rather it is a distortion. Your distortion. Your strawman.

Since I did not claim perfection, I do not need to withdrawn your distortion, you do. I will not hold my breath.

I am discussing your views. You believe that there is a "plain reading" of Scripture that is somehow independently accessible to all readers. I believe this conception to be patently false as the "plain reading" of Scripture will inevitably and indellibly be colored by the suppositions and preconceived notions of the reader/interpreter.

Yes, that is what you believe. But not what I believe. I believe born again believers can discern common understandings of God's word, such as the Word was chosen and Anointed before the foundation of the world, based on 1 Peter 1:20. This is not rocket science. Some folks will reject the plain meaning because it does not mesh with previously accepted understandings of scripture. But with study, a shared understanding can be attained. I have experienced this many times. Even when someone sticks to the previous view and posts it ain't so, I believe God will work with him or her and bring them closer to a shared view. I believe God's word is powerful.

What is your point? By referencing "Scripture" you are doing exactly the same thing as that which you accuse Holdon of doing, only you are attempting to solidify the hegenomy of your thought by appealing to what you believe to be an objectively accessible source of truth. However, as your interpretations of Scripture are indellibly colored by your preconceived notions of truth, the nature of God, etc., you are really only adding one more opinion on top of another.

I am reminded of the line from the prison movie, how could you be so obtuse, is it deliberate? If I reference scripture, I am presenting God's truth.

 

[depthdeception]

Depthdeception, your attack on the ability of born again believers to arrive at a shared understanding of the word is without merit.

I do not deny that people are able to arrive a shared understanding of the Scriptures--a "shared understanding" is the precise definition of communication. What I do deny is the notion--one which you have consistently made throughout this thread--that there is some objective interpretation of Scripture that is waiting to be unearthed. Rather, interpretation is an unavoidably embodied act--we all bring to the Scriptures our histories, presuppositions, theological allegiences, etc and no matter how hard we try, these will always shape our readings.

You have been making this same argument for months with no indication of growth.

And how would you identify "growth?" Me moving more towards your position?

Claiming to present God's truth by presenting scripture is a far cry from claiming my understanding of God's scripture is perfect. Rather it is a distortion. Your distortion. Your strawman.

No, it is not, for the very act of presenting Scripture is an act of interpretation. You cannot bifurcate the two, and if you do, you merely speak a litany of empty words, for words without interpretation have no meaning whatsoever. Therefore, my critique of your position still stands.

Since I did not claim perfection, I do not need to withdrawn your distortion, you do. I will not hold my breath.

It is no distortion. You said you were presenting the "truth of God." As I have already shown that the text without an interpretation is dead and meaningless, the only way in which your statement can make any sense is if you are referring to your interpretation of the text.

Yes, that is what you believe. But not what I believe. I believe born again believers can discern common understandings of God's word, such as the Word was chosen and Anointed before the foundation of the world, based on 1 Peter 1:20. This is not rocket science.

It is not rocket science, but it is a process of creating common meanings--you are not "digging up" meanings, as if they objectively and latently exist in the texts. Rather, communities of believers reflect in their interpretation of the texts the very life that they share as beleivers of the common faith. However, this act of "discernment," again, is not so much a discovery as it is a self-reflection.

Some folks will reject the plain meaning because it does not mesh with previously accepted understandings of scripture.

Again, what does "plain meaning" demarcate? Who determines what is "plain meaning" and what is not? Someone has to, as texts do not interpret themselves.

But with study, a shared understanding can be attained. I have experienced this many times.

I do not deny that believers can share common meanings of Scripture. In fact, this is critical to being a community of faith. However, what you are missing is that these "shared" meanings are created by the reflective act of worship and community of the body of believers and are not simply objectively accessed as if the shared meanings exist apart from the community that creates them.

Even when someone sticks to the previous view and posts it ain't so, I believe God will work with him or her and bring them closer to a shared view. I believe God's word is powerful.

To which "shared" view? There are a lot of them... How do you determine which are "right" and which are "wrong?"

I am reminded of the line from the prison movie, how could you be so obtuse, is it deliberate?

I am not being obtuse. I am simply attempting to help make you aware of some large and glaring blindsides of which you are not aware in reference to your understanding of hermeneutics and biblical interpretation.

If I reference scripture, I am presenting God's truth.

Not necessarily. Anyone can quote the words of Scripture. Does this mean they are presenting God's "truth"? Of course not! It is the meanings that are applied to the texts that communicate the message, not the linguistic symbols in isolation to themselves.

 

[holdon]

Holdon, I cannot believe you do not know Christ means the Anointed One. Thus the Anointed One was anointed to be called Christ. You can look it up.

Well, good news for you: you don't have to believe that. (nor did I say anything to the contrary). Christ means anointed indeed. When was He anointed?

 

[Van]

Christ was anointed before the foundation of the world, otherwise He would not have been the Christ, the Anointed One. The Word was known as the Christ before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:20.

Holdon, I have made my point, it is a reasonble view of the referenced scriptures shared by many students of the bible.

 

[holdon]

Christ was anointed before the foundation of the world, otherwise He would not have been the Christ, the Anointed One.

But you could also say the Person we know as the Christ, was the Person foreknown before the foundation of the world. To say what you say is much more speculative: no text that says Christ was anointed before the world existed.

Holdon, I have made my point, it is a reasonble view of the referenced scriptures shared by many students of the bible.

Yes, you have made a point. And that point is certainly shared by many students, (so no shame on you). That point being that God set up the Fall and arranged for evil to come into this world. Point in moral contradiction to His very Essence and not supported by any of His Words.

 

[Van]

No, it is not, for the very act of presenting Scripture is an act of interpretation. You cannot bifurcate the two, and if you do, you merely speak a litany of empty words, for words without interpretation have no meaning whatsoever. Therefore, my critique of your position still stands.

Yes, let it stand as a monument to twaddle.
Is presenting scripture an act of interpretation? Yes and No. If I present the scripture, obviously I think it means something, my interpretation. But if I ask others to judge for themselves, then I am not committing the act of their interpretation. I believe we can discern what the author intended to say to a sufficient degree that study if profitable, and I believe group study in the community of believers aids in coming as close as possible to the author's intended message.

Folks as a reminder I said I was presenting God's truth, and double dee posted that I was claiming my interpretation was the perfect embodiment of God's truth. Of course I did not say or imply any such silly thing. But rather than admit he distorted my position, he asks that it be made a monument. OK.