Predestination is not the issue, regeneration is

[Butch5]

Galations 4 points to Abraham as the father of faith but those of the promise are born of grace also which is thru Sarah and not thru Hagar law. Those who are born of the promise have a spiritual inheritance not associated with Judaism.

The promises are those made to Abraham. I don't know what a spiritual promise is, but according to Scripture the Christian's hope is the hope of Israel.

 

[FireDragon76]

Which one do you think was justified? Note that is just justified. Not even at the point where this thread starts, or that which the thread is about.

What makes you think both were not justified? Just because one expressed gratitude explicitly, and the other did not? People do not always express their feelings, that doesn't mean they don't have them.

From the Lutheran POV, both have faith because both were baptized and have not rejected that faith they were given. One student struggles, however, to realize what that means in the context of his vocation, and his faith in the beginning of the film is immature, perhaps he has neglected it. That does not mean he is not justified by God, in the sense Protestants usually talk about (that he is accepted by God). God was still working in his life according to the promises made in his baptism.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What makes you think both were not justified? Just because one expressed gratitude explicitly, and the other did not? People do not always express their feelings, that doesn't mean they don't have them.

From the Lutheran POV, both have faith because both were baptized and have not rejected that faith they were given. One student struggles, however, to realize what that means in the context of his vocation. That does not mean he is not justified by God, in the sense Protestants usually talk about (that he is accepted by God). God was still working in his life according to the promises made in his baptism.

Now yor adding to the film. There was no baptism in it. There was no outline of faith given except the suggestion to do all things for God. What I saw was someone trying to fit in to a group of people that didn't like his uncles methods. But I don't want to discuss a movie that was 99 1/2 % about business training.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm pretty sure he was baptized because he was going to a Lutheran college, and at the time it was normal for only Lutherans to do so. It is typical for Lutherans to be baptized as an infant, though we also perform baptisms on adults if they have not had a valid baptism already.

The fact you see the movie only about business training shows that you don't understand Lutheranism. Everything is spiritual for us, including the ethics of running a business. Our faith informs every part of our life, hopefully. That is what we mean by sanctification, that we don't leave the gift of grace in a religion sized box.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

To my knowledge these are the only uses of the term in the NT. Mat 19:28 and Titus 3:5 is a related word that is commonly translated renewal. In 1 Peter it refers to our rebirth through Jesus' resurrection. It's thus the same as being born from above in John 3:5. I'd say it's close to Reformed usage, though without the specific Reformed ordo salutis.

Would you say baptism or confirmation is the receiving of the spirit?

 

[hedrick]

Would you say baptism or confirmation is the receiving of the spirit?

Both John (3:5) and Paul (Rom 6) would say baptism. Of course the Protestant concept of sacrament may not be identical to yours. For me baptism makes visible the reception of the Holy Spirit.

The Presbyterian tradition doesn't even have confirmation. The PCUSA has in the last few decades started using the term, but I think that's because we have no many members from other backgrounds that parents expect it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Both John (3:5) and Paul (Rom 6) would say baptism. Of course the Protestant concept of sacrament may not be identical to yours. For me baptism makes visible the reception of the Holy Spirit.

The Presbyterian tradition doesn't even have confirmation. The PCUSA has in the last few decades started using the term, but I think that's because we have no many members from other backgrounds that parents expect it.

To me baptism is in answer to what has already taken place; a voluntary inactment of a public contract with Him that has taken hold of the new believer in answer to His call to die to sin and live to Him. But I'm losing site of the conversation with all these terms floating around. I'll just add this verses to what I was talking about earlier of double receiving of the Spirit if anyone is interested. Not sure if it's still on topic or not. I'll leave ya'll to get back on topic.

The difference can be seen at the time of the early church in these verses too. Sanctification brings about spiritual understanding but for growth in the church there is a mantle of power needed.

Luke 24:45-49
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”​

Their minds were opened so understanding of the scriptures was given to them. But to be effective witnesses they needed to wait to be clothed with power from on high.

 

[roman2819]

There's hundreds of threads on these forums about predestination. People asking questions, leaning this way or that, talking about "predestination vs free will", etc.

There's nothing really wrong with discussions about predestination, but predestination is not really the important thing to talk about.

Regeneration is.

The reason Calvinists believe in predestination is because they believe in:
monergistic regeneration

If you want to study predestination and settle your mind about it, study regeneration instead.

Study the difference between monergistic and synergistic regeneration. It will give you a more full understanding of predestination. Talking about predestination with no mention of regeneration is a bit like talking about addition/subtraction with no mention of the numbers themselves. Sure, you can understand the concept of addition/subtraction without actual numbers, but the context would be lost on you.

The reason Calvinists believe in predestination is because (aside from seeing it taught in the Bible) it's the only thing that makes sense if regeneration is monergistic.

synergistic regeneration
If people are responsible for changing their own hearts or have some part to play in their own heart-change from saying "No" and rejecting the gospel/Christ, to saying "Yes" to the gospel/Christ, then regeneration is synergistic (the result of effort from both God (who offered salvation) and you (who wised up and accepted the offer)), then predestination was not necessarily settled by God in eternity past and therefore your fate is/was determined by your free will.

Monergistic regeneration
But if the bible teaches that regeneration is monergistic, that means God alone is the cause of our conversion, our heart-change. It means God alone is to be credited for when a person says "no" to Christ, but then suddenly says "yes" to Christ. It means God alone is to be credited for when a person who is unwilling to repent and believe, suddenly becomes willing to repent and believe. If God alone is responsible for this free gift of grace, that means somewhere, in eternity past, God decided who to do this to. Bob but not John. Jason but not Jimmy. It means God somewhere in the past decided to save some people by grace but leave others (justly) in their sins.

So the question is, do you take some of the credit for your willingness to repent and believe? Or do you give God all the credit for the reason you did what your unbelieving neighbor won't do?

If you're a person who is new to entertaining these topics and studying them to try to figure out the truth, stop studying predestination and study regeneration instead.

Many Christians have been so awed by the word Predestination that we forgot about context. Predestination means pre-planned or chosen or destined. In 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 thought that redemption was only 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. When Gentiles started to believe, the Jews were displeased and demand that Gentiles followed Jewish customs (many Christian Jews were still practising 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. As such, we need not be thrown off track when we see words such as chosen, destined or predestined. When Paul or Peter said Gentiles are a chosen people, it means that God had chosen to offer them eternal life too; the apostles were not saying that each believer was/is chosen.