Predestination??

[cygnusx1]

whosoever what ?


whosoever what ?

whosoever what ?


whosoever what ?


whosoever what ?

I said whosoever WILL!


oH THANKYOU!!!! , I thought it wasn't for those who will not!

 

[Normann]

I am not surprised at the replies on the thread. I was in a false doctrine for 12 years and that's the way they do.

1 John 4:15
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.


Here is the Greek word someone said was nada...

pas, Greek
pas, pas; -->
all, any, every, the whole :- all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), × thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.


IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[BrotherSteve]

Okay. Considering that Scripture is explicit that God accomplishes all that He purposes and nothing can stay His hand, "willing" in this passage must refer to something other than that which God omnipotently decrees, right? For instance, it may possibly refer to the fact that God takes no pleasure in the necessary, and merited, death of the wicked, yes?

Sure, that is a possibility. I would even agree that God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. Which, in my opinion, strengthens the case for God wanting (but not forcing) all to be saved.

Are you familiar with the various ways in which the "will" of God is spoken of in Scripture, i.e., His decretive will, perceptive will, and His will of disposition?

Yeah, and I think we already went over this a bit earlier in this thread...

 

[Reformationist]

Sure, that is a possibility. I would even agree that God does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. Which, in my opinion, strengthens the case for God wanting (but not forcing) all to be saved.

I am often confused when people speak of God "forcing" someone to be saved, as if that is a position that any of us are purporting. It's not so it seems a bit of a moot point. However, since you raised it, let me ask you this: As I'm sure you are familiar with the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, I was hoping you may be able to enlighten as to whether you believed Jesus "forced" Lazarus to live again and, if so, what was Lazarus' role in living again?

Yeah, and I think we already went over this a bit earlier in this thread...

Good. Then I guess I'll not have to repeat myself.

God bless

 

[DavetheProphet]

I am often confused when people speak of God "forcing" someone to be saved, as if that is a position that any of us are purporting. It's not so it seems a bit of a moot point. However, since you raised it, let me ask you this: As I'm sure you are familiar with the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, I was hoping you may be able to enlighten as to whether you believed Jesus "forced" Lazarus to live again and, if so, what was Lazarus' role in living again?

Well, I don't think the idea of being "forced" to be saved has to do with Jesus "forcing" Lazarus up from the dead. Jesus gave Lazarus his life back as a sign of His power and show that He can conquer death. The point of the "force" topic is that Jesus didn't force us to come to Him, otherwise we wouldn't be loving Him, we'd be following orders and conforming to His power. God wanted us to choose Him in love, just like He loves us.

 

[BrotherSteve]

I am often confused when people speak of God "forcing" someone to be saved, as if that is a position that any of us are purporting. It's not so it seems a bit of a moot point. However, since you raised it, let me ask you this: As I'm sure you are familiar with the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, I was hoping you may be able to enlighten as to whether you believed Jesus "forced" Lazarus to live again and, if so, what was Lazarus' role in living again?

The story of Lazarus is no more relavent to our salvation as the story of the woman who had been bleeding for 12 years. Jesus did raise Lazarus from the dead without asking him about it but he also didn't heal the lady until she made the effort to go and touch Him and then He told the lady "your faith has healed you (Mark5:34)."

She had a choice, Lazarus didn't - the same God (out of His goodness) healed them both.

 

[good4u]

No one turns from sin by their own choice - fallen man loves their sin.

Psalm 14: 1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.



John 5:42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you


​

Doesn't sound like someone willing to choose God and willingly turn from sin.

Of course you can TURN from sin, how silly!!!!

Why does Jesus constantly call those he comes in contact with to repentance, if in fact, they could not? What a cruel joke!!!

At the point of salvation you are indeed convicted of your sin by the power of the Holy Spirit as you "see" with spiritual eyes what a sinner you are -- the first step in salvation. God does not absolve you of your responsibility, you must want to turn from a life of sin and follow Jesus. Otherwise, God has not called you to salvation.

Hard hearts who have to much head knowledge here...

 

[good4u]

Clearly there are many, many people that are neither sorry for the sins they commit, nor do they turn from them. In fact, there are a plethora (just wanted to use that word ) of people that don't even acknowledge that their actions are sinful. Tell me, why are you sorry for doing these things when so many others are not? Are you just smarter than they for recognizing the binding authority of God?

Do you understand the convicting power of the Holy Spirit?

Do you understand a harden heart beyond the call of the Holy Spirit?

I am not "smarter" than anyone else just willing to respond to and turn from what God's Spirit has convicted me of namely my sins. But God does reveal to you when you hear and respond to those sins, but the Spirit does not call you forever...

Why do you come and so many do not?

Ahhh....the mystery and sovereignty of God. I do not know, God knows.

 

[Reformationist]

Well, I don't think the idea of being "forced" to be saved has to do with Jesus "forcing" Lazarus up from the dead. Jesus gave Lazarus his life back as a sign of His power and show that He can conquer death.

On the contrary. The physical death which He overcame in the case of His beloved friend was indeed a shadow of the glory of the dispensation of eternal life given to believers. One of the primary lessons in the story of Christ's work in the case of Lazarus was to show us that it is the monergistic work of Christ which delivers us from death, both physical and spiritual. It's a parallel, in case you're not picking up what I'm laying down.

The point of the "force" topic is that Jesus didn't force us to come to Him, otherwise we wouldn't be loving Him, we'd be following orders and conforming to His power.

And as I said, the idea that God "forces" someone to come to Him is not a position that anyone here is purporting so why waste the time arguing against it?

God wanted us to choose Him in love, just like He loves us.

The problem with such a notion, aside from being biblically unsubstantiated, is that unregenerate man, i.e., natural man, is incapable of coming to God in love. His inherent desire is to only rebel against the Law of God. It is only after the Lord has worked in Him by removing his heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh is he inclined to obey and love the Lord, and this is, ultimately, the inescapable result of the invincible grace of God. You speak of man "choosing God in love" as if man can naturally do so despite his exclusively rebellious fallen nature.

Tell me something, if God "wanted us to choose Him in love," why do some people do so and others don't? What is it that makes those who do different?

 

[Reformationist]

Do you understand the convicting power of the Holy Spirit?

I am a believer. That, in and of itself, shows me the power of the Lord to convict a person of their sins and bring them to faith. Why do you ask?

Do you understand a harden heart beyond the call of the Holy Spirit?

I have no clue what you mean. If you mean that there are hearts that are hardened to such a degree that the Holy Spirit is unable to bring them to repentance, I think such an idea does violence to Scripture. The Holy Spirit is God. There is nothing that is beyond His power. There is nothing that is too hard for Him. If He chooses to refrain from bringing a person to faith and chooses instead to leave them to their sinfulness, well, that is a great deal different than claiming that a heart is "beyond the call of God."

I am not "smarter" than anyone else just willing to respond to and turn from what God's Spirit has convicted me of namely my sins.

Why are you willing when they are not? Additionally, the Bible explicitly states that God does not save anyone because of what they do or what they will so your claim of being "willing to respond" is not the basis for God saving you, nor does it regulate His ability to bring you to faith.

But God does reveal to you when you hear and respond to those sins, but the Spirit does not call you forever...

LOL! Really? So what, He calls for a while and then gives up? What about the passages which explicitly state that God will lose none of those He gives to the Son? If man is naturally incapable of coming to the Son apart from being given by the Father, which he is, and God calls someone without giving them to the Son, seems a bit like He'd be setting Himself up for eternal disappointment. No good4u, if God calls, man comes. We are clearly told that all that the Father gives Christ will come to Christ (John 6:37). Additionally, the Bible plainly states that those that He called will be justified and, ultimately, glorified (Romans 8:28-30).

Ahhh....the mystery and sovereignty of God. I do not know, God knows.

Clearly you claim to know. You said, you are "just willing to respond to and turn from what God's Spirit has convicted you of, namely your sins." Why are you willing? What makes you different?

 

[Normann]

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


If you are picked out before birth why do you need to repent?

If you are pre-selected then you will not perish.

Only sinners are at risk, that's why Jesus died...

Romans 5:6
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[cygnusx1]

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

yes to us-ward !!!

If you are picked out before birth why do you need to repent?

because we have sinned.

If you are pre-selected then you will not perish.

Only sinners are at risk, that's why Jesus died...

Romans 5:6
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[ContraMundum]

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


If you are picked out before birth why do you need to repent?

If you are pre-selected then you will not perish.

Only sinners are at risk, that's why Jesus died...

Romans 5:6
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Normann,

I've been watching this thread with some interest for some time, only contributing on occasion.

I am getting the idea that you are in fact objecting to a predetermined eternal destination.

Of course, you are quite correct that there is absolutely no evidence in the Bible to speak of God determining anyone to go to Hell. In fact, the text you cite here (regardless of how the attempt to squeeze it into any theological mould) stands clear against that. Note that those who are determinists need to pile a whole array of human reason, injuring the plain language of many texts, upon the Bible to make their peculiar theory about God fly. We are told of various "types" of "will" and so forth, but in the end, any process of logic could be used against such an idea as theirs, and vice-versa. Human reason is truly a mercenary.

This of course is the problem. You've got two sides of a debate, both speaking beyond the revealed boundaries of the Bible. I've said that a number of times.

Neretheless, you're touching on an interesting point here: if God pretermines some to eternal damnation, then the sinner need not answer any case at the judgment throne. His reply would merely be "I'm here because you chose me to be, you let me remain in my sin, you chose neither to have mercy upon me or give me grace". Of course, determinists have their proof texts, but for such a vital text they have no clear, unambiguous scripture to support that idea. That's why so few determinists believe in "double predestination" these days. Selective salvation really doesn't add up to the plain words of scripture, it has to do injury to many texts, watering them down, casting dark reasoned interpretations on them in order to work.

Likewise, total "freewill" teaching is fraught with errors. It waters down and denies the spiritual depravity of mankind, so clearly found in the scriptures. It denies God's gracious bestowal of faith, seeing faith as something humans do and acquire through their own trials and reasoning. This is not Biblical either. Only the work of God in our life can enable us to have saving faith. It is His initiative in our hearts that makes us believers.

The question for those who hold a freewill doctrine is about the state of man. How far has he fallen? Has he fallen only far enough to still find God, or has he fallen so far as to be God's enemy? If he is the former, then freewill makes perfect sense. If he is the latter, then it makes no sense at all, man's predisposition being to hate God. Likewise, if the latter proves to be the case, at what point does God turn the sinner around, and by what means?

Classical Christian Orthodoxy, that is, pre-Calvinist Protestant (and also Patristic and pre-Thomist Catholic) teaching states that man is completely depraved, at emnity with God, not seeking Him nor able to find God by his own reason or struggle and that God enlightens him through the means of grace, the word of God of the Gospel written, spoken, preached and in the sacraments. Man can resist this enlightenment, and remain in his sin, but he cannot come to faith without it. Thus, traditional, classical Christian orthodoxy states that God alone is responsible for our salvation, and man alone responsible for his damnation.

Note: this means that only God can call, enlighten, justify and sanctify us. Man cannot do this. Man can only respond and recieve. It's God's work in us. However, without the means of grace, God's word is not heard or spread, so the Great Commission becomes more important when we come to this most agreeable understanding of salvation.

If I had more time, I would elaborate more with texts and citations but I'm strapped for time right now.

Normann, thanks for your input.

Reformationist, thanks for yours too.

You're both good men with good heads on your shoulders.

 

[Reformationist]

Note that those who are determinists need to pile a whole array of human reason, injuring the plain language of many texts, upon the Bible to make their peculiar theory about God fly. We are told of various "types" of "will" and so forth, but in the end, any process of logic could be used against such an idea as theirs, and vice-versa.

By your identification of someone citing the various ways in which the Bible speaks of the "will of God" it is clear that I am the one to whom you refer. However, as you labeled such people as "determinists," I think it may be pertinent to point out that such a label carries with it connotations that I are inaccurate when speaking of someone who holds the views that I do. Suffice to say that I certainly do acknowledge that God does determine the end from the beginning, as the Word informs us, however, I do not contend that He does so in a way that does violence to the nature of the thing created.

I pray that you understand, or are at least familiar enough with, my position to know that I do not contend that God forces man to act contrary to his will.

Neretheless, you're touching on an interesting point here: if God pretermines some to eternal damnation, then the sinner need not answer any case at the judgment throne. His reply would merely be "I'm here because you chose me to be, you let me remain in my sin, you chose neither to have mercy upon me or give me grace".

And here is where you prove the accuracy of your claim that "Human reason is truly a mercenary." To claim that the sinner can stand before the throne of God and blame God for his freely and willfully committed sin under the umbrella of not receiving that which was necessary for obedience but NOT OBLIGATED, shows, at the very least, that you do not understand man's position before God. Fortunately for us all, the Word explicitly addresses the common, and anthropocentric, nature of such a supposition:

Romans 9:18-21
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

The objection that Paul preemptively addresses here is man's natural objection to the idea that God holds man accountable even when He does not give man the grace that is necessary for him to obey. Man, and you seem to be an example of such thinking, will naturally cry foul and say, "Hey, how can you hold me accountable. I'm only acting in accordance with the manner in which you made me," or, to bring it closer to home, "I need not answer any case at the judgment throne because You chose me to be, You let me remain in my sin, and You chose neither to have mercy upon me or give me grace." To your objection I offer only the words of the Apostle, as they are fitting indeed, "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'" Simply put, man is accountable for his actions because he freely chooses to commit them. God is not obligated to free man from the bondage of his fallen nature so if He chooses not to, for whatever reason He deems glorifying, we show our arrogance for assuming that we can question God's authority and holiness in judging those who can only act in accordance with their sinful inclinations. One thing you seem not to realize is that unregenerate man's inability to do other than sin stems from his inherent utter lack of desire to do that which is good in the sight of God. Man is a desire driven creature. It is impossible for Him to choose contrary to His greatest desire or inclination when faced with a moral choice.

Of course, determinists have their proof texts, but for such a vital text they have no clear, unambiguous scripture to support that idea. That's why so few determinists believe in "double predestination" these days.

If by double predestination you mean "equal ultimacy" then I would surely agree. However, the reformed doctrine of predestination is, by its very nature, double, though not in the sense of equal ultimacy.

Classical Christian Orthodoxy, that is, pre-Calvinist Protestant (and also Patristic and pre-Thomist Catholic) teaching states that man is completely depraved, at emnity with God, not seeking Him nor able to find God by his own reason or struggle and that God enlightens him through the means of grace, the word of God of the Gospel written, spoken, preached and in the sacraments. Man can resist this enlightenment, and remain in his sin, but he cannot come to faith without it. Thus, traditional, classical Christian orthodoxy states that God alone is responsible for our salvation, and man alone responsible for his damnation.

Aside from the claim that man can, to his ultimate destruction, resist the work of the Spirit, this is exactly the teaching of reformed evangelicalism.

Note: this means that only God can call, enlighten, justify and sanctify us. Man cannot do this. Man can only respond and recieve. It's God's work in us. However, without the means of grace, God's word is not heard or spread, so the Great Commission becomes more important when we come to this most agreeable understanding of salvation.

As you seem like a very articulate poster, I'm curious how you would address a question I have. You stated that, "classical Christian orthodoxy proclaims that man can resist this enlightenment, and remain in his sin, but he cannot come to faith without it." Why is it that the enlightening work of the Spirit can be, and is, resisted by some, yet others willfully embrace it? What is the preexisting definitive difference between those that come to faith and those that remain in sin?

Reformationist, thanks for yours too.

Likewise.

You're both good men with good heads on your shoulders.

Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to your response.

God bless

 

[Normann]

Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

pas, Greek ---> all, any, every, the whole :- all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), × thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[ContraMundum]

By your identification of someone citing the various ways in which the Bible speaks of the "will of God" it is clear that I am the one to whom you refer. However, as you labeled such people as "determinists," I think it may be pertinent to point out that such a label carries with it connotations that I are inaccurate when speaking of someone who holds the views that I do. Suffice to say that I certainly do acknowledge that God does determine the end from the beginning, as the Word informs us, however, I do not contend that He does so in a way that does violence to the nature of the thing created.

I agree- but how does that fit into something created with free will?

I pray that you understand, or are at least familiar enough with, my position to know that I do not contend that God forces man to act contrary to his will.

Yes, but I'd love more elucidation. I know your position, but am not sure I totally understand it.

And here is where you prove the accuracy of your claim that "Human reason is truly a mercenary." To claim that the sinner can stand before the throne of God and blame God for his freely and willfully committed sin under the umbrella of not receiving that which was necessary for obedience but NOT OBLIGATED, shows, at the very least, that you do not understand man's position before God. Fortunately for us all, the Word explicitly addresses the common, and anthropocentric, nature of such a supposition:

<rest snipped>

I know, and I knew you would go where you did with that too. However, St Paul is being rhetorical, as I think is obvious. St Paul is not teaching selective salvation, but teaching that God's predestination is according to His sovereign will. Clearly this text is not about that, but about his predestination and election to privilege, using Israel for an example.

One thing you seem not to realize is that unregenerate man's inability to do other than sin stems from his inherent utter lack of desire to do that which is good in the sight of God. Man is a desire driven creature. It is impossible for Him to choose contrary to His greatest desire or inclination when faced with a moral choice.

No, I fully understand that and agree with it, witht he usual qualifications that you and I would agree upon anyway. Didn't I say as much?

If by double predestination you mean "equal ultimacy" then I would surely agree. However, the reformed doctrine of predestination is, by its very nature, double, though not in the sense of equal ultimacy.

Depends on which Reformed Christian you speak to. I'd like to understand your point of view....could you elablorate a little?

Aside from the claim that man can, to his ultimate destruction, resist the work of the Spirit, this is exactly the teaching of reformed evangelicalism.

As above.

I'm curious as to the caveat you place on resistable grace. I've met too many versions of Reformed to pin this one down. As I see you appear to be more "orthodox" than other Reformed I've come across, I'd like to hear your understanding, and perhaps I can get a grasp of the proper Reformed teaching of this.

As you seem like a very articulate poster, I'm curious how you would address a question I have. You stated that, "classical Christian orthodoxy proclaims that man can resist this enlightenment, and remain in his sin, but he cannot come to faith without it." Why is it that the enlightening work of the Spirit can be, and is, resisted by some, yet others willfully embrace it? What is the preexisting definitive difference between those that come to faith and those that remain in sin?

We are not told. That's the mystery. If we had clear Bible texts about this, I'm sure there would be no dispute.

I'm interested in your response on this question too.

 

[Reformationist]

Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

pas, Greek ---> all, any, every, the whole :- all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), × thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

And you contend that Jesus telling all without exception to come to Him means that man is inherently capable, in his fallen state, of doing so?

Once again, for your edification, explore the difference between "imperative" and "indicative." It will greatly aid you in understanding the Gospel.

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

And you contend that Jesus telling all without exception to come to Him means that man is inherently capable, in his fallen state, of doing so?

Once again, for your edification, explore the difference between "imperative" and "indicative." It will greatly aid you in understanding the Gospel.

God bless

So you think Jesus was really saying all who are capable, come unto me and I will give you rest? Show me and I’m am sincere in my request because I see that this is what causes you to believe Calvinism is biblical, where all means those who are capable. Explain to me why you read the bible in this light.

 

[Normann]

John 15:2
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

So you are picked out before birth and then thrown away?


I guess you will tell me that the word (every) does not mean every.

Like all does not mean all and whoso does not mean whoso!


2 Tim 2:15

Normann

 

[Benedicta00]

"In me" is the key... "remain in me" is a order that we are not to fall away. But I know how this is also being seen; that anyone who is in Christ will remain in Christ and Christ is saying that those who do are those who are the saved as in chosen before hand.

We can play this all day long when reading the bible, looking at it through those kind of glasses so I would like know what makes a person read the bible through that lens in the first place?