Predestination: Concept or Doctrine

[Van]

To say what you say is much more speculative: no text that says Christ was anointed before the world existed.

Holdon, Christ had to be anointed to be the Christ. 2 plus 2 is four. It is like saying the Anointed One had to be anointed to be known has the Anointed One. Christ had to be the Christ to be known as the Christ. The Messiah had to be the Messiah in order to be known as the Messiah. 2 plus 2 is four.

 

[holdon]

Holdon, Christ had to be anointed to be the Christ. 2 plus 2 is four. It is like saying the Anointed One had to be anointed to be known has the Anointed One. Christ had to be the Christ to be known as the Christ. The Messiah had to be the Messiah in order to be known as the Messiah. 2 plus 2 is four.

Yes, 2 x 2 = 4. Was Christ Man before He came into this world?

 

[Van]

Nope, he became flesh. So the preincarnate Son of God, the Word was consecrated (anointed) spiritually to be the Christ before He, the Word, came into the world. See Philippians 2:6-11.

If you now see that Christ was chosen as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world, lets move on to the implications of this fact. God arranging the fall. Why do you believe He did not and on what passages do you base your belief.

 

[holdon]

So the preincarnate Son of God, the Word was consecrated (anointed) spiritually to be the Christ before He, the Word, came into the world.

Well, I don't see "consecrated (anointed) spiritually" in Phil. 2:6-11.

You have invented a new term I think: "anointed spiritually". Is that an imaginary anointing as opposed to a real one?

And no, I don't see that "Christ was chosen as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world". How could I? It's not there, nor anywhere. Sorry.

 

[GenemZ]

What does scripture say? Acts 4:23-28 indicates their actions were dictated by God.

If God so desired, he could have had Bill Clinton be in charge instead of Herod, and Jimmy Durante instead of Pontius Pilate. There would have been quite a different outcome if God had.

Acts 17:26 niv
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."


Now? Herod and Pilate? God did not ordain these men's choices. Instead, God preordained that these men would be in control of the situation because God knew how they would choose.

There is a big difference when it is seen that way. God wanted Jesus sacrificed. So God made sure that only certain ones who would choose that way would be in control of the situation.

And so can their guilt for these acts carried out under the guiding influence of God be added to the wrath they face if they did not obtain mercy?

They made their own choices. God just made sure that they would be living at that time and there to make those choices. God can judge them on tha basis of their choices for that reason.

What does scripture say. We will be judged based on what we know, and so to the extent they were ignorant (Acts 3:17-18) they will not be punished.

Yet, for wrongdoing they still will be punished.

Luke 12:47-48 (New International Version)
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

What is Paul's answer to the question given in Romans 9:19? Is it not "Do not judge God" for He will sort out how to give these folks perfect justice after He uses them or endures them to bring the gospel to the lost.

Romans 19:19-20 niv
"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "

The reason no one can complain against God, is because the way that God uses to mold us (in attempt to mold our character) is the same for all men.

Now, if someone grows mean and bitter? And, another who faced the same type of molding (testing of the heart) turned out sweet and kind? Can one blame God for turning out bad? By saying that if God had only left them alone (not put them through the trials that come our way) that they would not have become bitter and mean? That it is now God's fault?

We who grow in grace and truth testify against those who reject God's provision in the "molding" process. No man is with excuse! For all men are placed on the same Potter's Wheel in this life. That is why no one can fault God. Who can resist his will to have us face testings? Job, if he were another person, could have easily ended up cursing God. And, blaming God for it for allowing Job to go through what he had. Blame God!

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

No. Emphatically no, that's not what it says. God foreknew Christ before the foundation of the world. That's what the text says.

Your inference that God (!) had planned sin to enter this world cannot be based on this text.

The "foreknown" of v.20 refers back to the last noun in v.19: Christ.

This is how NET bible has it:
1:19 but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, namely Christ.
1:20 He was foreknown36 before the foundation of the world but37 was manifested in these last times38 for your sake.

This is what Robertson commented on it:
Who was foreknown indeed (proegnwsmenou men). Perfect passive participle (in genitive singular agreeing with Cristou) of proginwskw, old verb, to know beforehand (Romans 8:29; 2 Peter 3:17). See prognwsin qeou in verse 1 Peter 1:2. Before the foundation of the world (pro katabolhß kosmou). This precise curious phrase occurs in John 17:24 in the Saviour's mouth of his preincarnate state with the Father as here and in Ephesians 1:4. We have apo katabolhß kosmou in Matthew 25:34 (kosmou omitted in Matthew 13:35); Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8. Katabolh (from kataballw) was originally laying the foundation of a house (Hebrews 6:1). The preincarnate Messiah appears in the counsels of God also in 1 Corinthians 2:7; Colossians 1:26; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:9-11; Romans 16:25; 1 Timothy 1:9.

God, being omniscient, never learns anything. He always knew all things. Past, present, and future. Simultaneously! If that were not the case? Then he does not know all things!

That does not mean that Jesus existed in the flesh before the foundations of the world. It simply means, God knows. And, what God knows will be so, is seen by God as being so!

That's God for you!

Jesus was seen as being slain in time before the foundations of the world! God saw it already as being done. That is why OT saints could fellowship with God before Jesus paid for our sins. Their sins were not yet paid for (in time). But, God saw what was to be, as already being done.

Before man was created, God already had his plan for redeeming man, whom he knew would fall. Hence, Jesus was slain (in God's mind) before the foundations of the World. For it was God's plan already known to God.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Holdon, The only reason to be chosen in Him is that He was chosen.

We are chosen in Him.
If He was not chosen, we would not be in Him.
There is no reason I can think of why we would be chosen in Him except for the purpose of being redeemed by our Redeemer. Otherwise the verse would just say we were chosen, and that is not what it says or means.

Its more to it than that, I believe. And, I will try to keep it short.

It does not mean that we were chosen to be saved, when it says we were chosen in Christ. It means , because God knows all who will believe, that we were chosen out of all who will believe to be in Christ. To be his Bride.

Where was the woman before the Lord put Adam into a deep sleep? She was "in Adam." We are chosen to be the Bride of Christ. We are now seating with Him in the heavens! But, we are here, as well. The real you and me (resurrection body) is yet to be. What we are to be is now hidden in Christ! Just like the woman was hidden in Adam!

Colossians 3:3 nasb
"For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God."

What has died (from God's perspective) is our body! We have been crucified with Christ.

Galatians 2:20 niv
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. "

Our new self is now hidden in Christ! The Bride is yet to be revealed!"

Moses was not chosen to be the Bride. Nor was John the baptist! John died before the Church age began!

Matthew 11:11 niv
"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. "

All of us in the Church age will be as Christ is! His body is the highest level over all creation! Only the Bride will be bone of his bone, and heavenly flesh of his heavenly flesh! John the Baptist will be resurrected as an OT saint. Not as the Bride. The Jews of the OT were promised a New Earth. We have been promised a home in Heaven. That is because we have been CHOSEN IN CHRIST JESUS! Not all who believe have been so chosen.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Van]

Well, I don't see "consecrated (anointed) spiritually" in Phil. 2:6-11.

You have invented a new term I think: "anointed spiritually". Is that an imaginary anointing as opposed to a real one?

And no, I don't see that "Christ was chosen as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world". How could I? It's not there, nor anywhere. Sorry.

Holdon, you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to agree with the obvious. Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. Christ means Anointed One. Therefore Christ was anointed before the foundation of the world. Now what existed before creation? Only God. Is God material or spiritual? Spiritual. Therefore when the word was consecrated as the Lamb of God, it was a spiritual anointing.

Folks the case is made, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. 2 Timothy 1:9 says God saves us according to His purpose and grace granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. Acts 4:27-28 says God anointed Jesus which makes the preincarnate Word the Christ, and that Christ's crucification was part of God's predestined plan. Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world. Therefore God plan of redemption in Christ, which included Christ's death of the cross, existed before the foundation of the world. And we would not need a Redeemer if the fall had not be envisioned.

 

[holdon]

Holdon, you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to agree with the obvious.

I hope I have demonstrated that I am unwilling, and will be unwilling, to agree with a caricature of Scripture as presented by you. You have wilfully ignored my warnings, continue to throw verses of Scripture together and then pull out of that mess sentences that do not reflect the truth of Scripture.

Now, a wrong presentation of God's Words has been known from the beginning, (see Gen 3) and it became the fall of Man.... when he detected not the deception... and pursued his own pride.

Therefore God plan of redemption in Christ, which included Christ's death of the cross, existed before the foundation of the world. And we would not need a Redeemer if the fall had not be envisioned.

Just say it loud and clear: God set up the Fall.

I cannot agree with such a blasphemous and dishonoring thought.

 

[depthdeception]

But if I ask others to judge for themselves, then I am not committing the act of their interpretation.

But in the post to which I have been referring, you were not asking for others to judge for themselves--you absolutized your own interpretation by claiming it was the "plain meaning" of Scripture. Why don't you just take back what you said and move on?

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.

This is fine, but you are still left with an interpretation which imposes your (or your community's) presuppositions upon the text. In effect, you "fill in the gaps" of what Paul said with what you think Paul said and this becomes "authorial intent."

[qupte]
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.
[/quote]

Yes you did. The quicker you admit to this and recant your statement, the quicker we can all get on with this thread.

But rather than admit he distorted my position, he asks that it be made a monument. OK.

Well, at least we get something out of it.

 

[Van]

But in the post to which I have been referring, you were not asking for others to judge for themselves--you absolutized your own interpretation by claiming it was the "plain meaning" of Scripture. Why don't you just take back what you said and move on?

Why can't you present what I said instead of a distortion. Here is what I said:

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.

Note my reliance upon the independently discerned plain meaning, not my home brew.

This is fine, but you are still left with an interpretation which imposes your (or your community's) presuppositions upon the text. In effect, you "fill in the gaps" of what Paul said with what you think Paul said and this becomes "authorial intent."

This again just represents your mistaken presuppostions, and definitional argument, twaddle for short. Lack of perfection in communication does not demonstrate lack of sufficiency. When I reach an understanding of what Paul said, I could be one hundred percent on target. You assertion that my understanding is necessary misaligned is without merit. If many people come to the same understanding independently, it is strong evidence that the meaning is discernable. I watched the superbowl, and concluded the referees unduly influenced the outcome. In discussions the next day, the only people who disagreed were steeler fans. But the group that agreed with me included steeler fans and non-steeler fans. Point to consider. Maybe your one size fits all mantra should be revised. Maybe we can study the Word of God and discern its plain meaning. Not perfectly, but sufficently for God's purpose.
The Ol nobody can know anything mantra is a fallacy. Whoever asserts it is true cannot know that it is true, because they can know nothing.

 

[cygnusx1]

It is clear , at least to me , that marriage was created from the beginning as a type , of Christ and the Church , hence the fall of Adam was in no way a surprise to God , and Adam's relationship to Eve (marriage) was a shadow of the unity between Christ and His Church , pre-fall!

I think the real strength of Reformed Soteriology (Calvinist and Puritan) is the way it understands the importance and centrality of Covenant.

God's Covenant (promise) is varied and at it's most sublime is the Covenant between Father Son and Holy Spirit .

The Salvation of mankind is no after thought , the Son of God is "slain from the foundation of the world" pre-fall !

God covenanted with His Only Begotten Son to grant Him a people if He would obey to the point of death.

The Church is not an idea that God arrived at subsequent to creation ....in the beginning He set Christ up and His delight was with the son's of men (Proverbs 8) .....
remember even marriage (Adam and Eve) is based upon Christ and the Church , not the other way about , this shows us that God has a plan , His plan is Christ as the head of His Church , the redeemed , and that this Covevnant is from Eternity and is therefore unconditional and certain of being fulfilled.

Where other theologies stress human accountability and a conditional view of the Covenant , Calvinists see God's Covenant and Plan as being beyond failure of any kind.

 

[Van]

RT is also divided about whether God arranged the fall. God arranged the fall. Christ was known before the foundation of the World, and God's predestined plan was for Christ to be slain as the propitiation of the whole world. The plan was for Christ as the lamb of God, to pay the price to ransom us all from the bondage of sin, the just for the unjust. When the Word was anointed as the Christ, He was consecrated for the purpose of being our Redeemer, thus we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

 

[cygnusx1]

RT is also divided about whether God arranged the fall. God arranged the fall. Christ was known before the foundation of the World, and God's predestined plan was for Christ to be slain as the propitiation of the whole world. The plan was for Christ as the lamb of God, to pay the price to ransom us all from the bondage of sin, the just for the unjust. When the Word was anointed as the Christ, He was consecrated for the purpose of being our Redeemer, thus we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

I take it you mean the order of the decrees , supra / infra ... because I know of no Reformed Teaching that denies the fall was part of God's plan.

 

[Van]

Yes but the issue is did God arrange for the fall? Look at this way. If God plans for something to happen, it will happen and no other alternate outcome is possible. No plan of God can be thwarted. Since the Word was anointed before creation, becoming the Christ (1 Peter 1:20) God's purpose in anointing must also have existed before creation. When God anointed the Word, His purpose was to consecrate the Word to be the Redeemer, to die as a perfect sacrifice as the Lamb of God (Acts 4:27-28). Therefore, God's purpose and predestined plan included the fall. God did not only know beforehand it would occur, because Christ was predestined to be crucificied by wicked hands, God had established that the Fall would occur. He created a test of Adam's conditional covenant with God - if you eat of it you shall surely die - knowing that Adam would fail the test because He can know the motivations of the heart, in this case Adam's. So God did not only permit the fall, but He arranged it, for His purpose and plan. Therefore, from God's perspective, the Fall is a good thing because it fulfills a part of God's plan for creation.

 

[holdon]

the Fall is a good thing .

Horrible wickedness!!!

 

[Van]

The fall was a good thing from God's perspective, not mankinds, for many are called but few are chosen.

 

[depthdeception]

This again just represents your mistaken presuppostions, and definitional argument, twaddle for short.

Yet you have not sufficiently shown that what I am saying is twaddle. You may not agree with my assessment, but you have yet to provide a compelling response to my criticisms.

Lack of perfection in communication does not demonstrate lack of sufficiency.

Not necessarily, no. However, where there is a lack of perfection of communication, there must be a concommitent epistemic humility about the nature and content of one's communication.

When I reach an understanding of what Paul said, I could be one hundred percent on target.

You're right. But there is no way in which you could know that you are "one hundered percent on target." This is why our interpretation of Scripture must be humble and we must not assume that our interpretation is the "plain meaning" of Scripture when we know that our interpretations are subject to personal prejudices, presuppositions, etc.

You assertion that my understanding is necessary misaligned is without merit.

I never said it was necessarily misaligned. I have only said that your belief that the "plain meaning of Scripture" is equivalent with your interpretation of Scripture is misaligned and epistemically/hermeneutically arrogant.

If many people come to the same understanding independently, it is strong evidence that the meaning is discernable.

No one comes to the "same understanding" independently. Shake off your blind, modernistic, and individualistic conception of "knowledge." We are all interconnected epistemically and existentially. There is no way in which to "know" independently.

For example, the very translations which we read of the Scriptures are influenced by the thoughts and beliefs of those who created the translation. So every time you read the Scriptures, you are--by default--entering into the beliefs of those who have come before you.

I watched the superbowl, and concluded the referees unduly influenced the outcome. In discussions the next day, the only people who disagreed were steeler fans. But the group that agreed with me included steeler fans and non-steeler fans. Point to consider.

Thank you for proving my point. Interpretation is contextual--we interpret that which we believe, and that which we believes drives the interpretive conclusions which we reach.

Maybe your one size fits all mantra should be revised.

I have never advocated any such thing, only epistemic humility.

Maybe we can study the Word of God and discern its plain meaning. Not perfectly, but sufficently for God's purpose.

I agree that we can discover meaning, but not the absolute, objective meaning which you believe people are capable of accessing in the Scriptures.

The Ol nobody can know anything mantra is a fallacy. Whoever asserts it is true cannot know that it is true, because they can know nothing.

This is not what I advocate. I have only suggested that we cannot "know" anything in the absolute, objective sense that modernism sought. We can only know from within the contexts we live. Therefore, all that we "know" will inevitably be--in a very real way--a reflection of who we are and where we live.

 

[depthdeception]

The fall was a good thing from God's perspective, not mankinds, for many are called but few are chosen.

How, exactly, was it a "good thing" from God's perspective?

 

[Van]

This is why our interpretation of Scripture must be humble and we must not assume that our interpretation is the "plain meaning" of Scripture when we know that our interpretations are subject to personal prejudices, presuppositions, etc.

Yet another distortion. No one but DD ASSUMED that my home brew was the plain meaning. I was confident others would arrive at the same place. DD appears to be operating under the delusion that he alone understands the limits of knowledge, he is humble and others are ignorant. Twaddle.

No one comes to the "same understanding" independently. Shake off your blind, modernistic, and individualistic conception of "knowledge." We are all interconnected epistemically and existentially.

Yet more distortion, more self-serving mischaracterization, more twaddle. Of course we do. Say I am given a problem, what does 2 plus 2 equal? I come up with four. Now a small girl in China is given the same problem and she comes up with four. Did I influence her decision? Nope. Now say I read a passage and after study conclude the best understanding is XYZ. If a person in China reads the same passage and comes up with the same understanding, what we have is an indication of the plain meaning of the text. Yes we must share common understandings of words and sentence structure, but the ideas are independent of the building blocks used to construct the communication. So independence refers to a lack of my influence on her conclusion, and has nothing whasoever to do with our common understanding of the building blocks of communication. To blur the distinction is twaddle, proving A and asserting B has been demonstrated.