Predestination??

[Jedi]

We no more choose God than we choose our birth parents.

If this is so, I’m afraid God becomes more vile than even the devil. The God of “predestination” (in this case referring to what is called “determinism,” since there are numerous views of what “predestination” actually is) is a God who could have saved everyone but simply chose not to. What kind of loving God is this?

If a parent had four sick children but only chose to give two of them life-saving medicine while refraining from saving the others, the parent would be sent to jail for his vile conduct. Yet this is exactly the sort of behavior the God of Calvinism (Determinism) does. How can anyone praise such a God? He is like a lifeguard that watches people drown when he could have saved them and for what? His glory? What glory is there in not saving people you could easily save? Further still, this idea runs into big scriptural problems like Romans 2:11 (“For God does not show favoritism”) and 2 Peter 3:9 (“God is not willing that any perish but for all to come to repentance”). According to these two verses, it follows that everything will be done to save as many people as possible, contrary to the Calvinistic doctrine that God could have saved people but simply chose not to.

Further still, if what you say is true, no one truly loves God. Love cannot be forced, else it becomes rape. If what you say is true, God forces people to desire Him, but this desire is not love. If I had the power to control women’s minds so that they longed for me, who could honestly say that these women truly love me? Indeed, they would love me no more than a computer whom I program to say, “I love you” whenever I pushed the power button: it behaves in a certain way only because I made it.

 

[Reformationist]

How does one know if their children are among the elect? Or do they?

Well, despite the accusations that are regularly leveled against those of us who hold to a view of God's sovereign election, i.e., predestination, we believe that all people are the elect of God, until they show themselves to not be. I admit that this is not something that is necessarily easy to determine. I, for one, know quite a few people whom the Lord graciously chose to redeem when they were well into an advanced stage of their life, after their having lived a life of rebellion. Truth be told, many of those people are the ones whose faith is akin to that of the biblical heros. I guess it rings somewhat true that the further into the pit from which God reveals He has pulled a person, the greater their understanding of how gracious their Rescuer has been and, thus, the stronger their faith tends to be.

The bottom line, CD, is that regardless of my children's elective state, I am commanded to raise them as if they are. Not to mention, I am a covenantal Christian and have faith that God has promised to save my household through His covenant with me. I baptized my children because I see them as part of God's covenant with His people. I raise them as believers because I see them as part of God's covenant with His people. If, at some point in their life, they fully and finally reject the Lord of Hosts, I will know that the Lord has not elected them unto eternal life. Either way, it doesn't change my responsibility toward them.

Previously you asked, "what if God didnt pick your baby?" To which I responded by asking for clarification. Let me just say, preemptively, that despite my anguish were my children not to be of God's elect, I do not question God's authority to create as He sees fit. It is His divine perrogative to create as He will, whether I, in my fallen state, recognize that at all times or not. In short, my acknowledgement of God's sovereignty is not contingent upon whether I agree with the decisions He makes, though I admit that I am human and regularly respond to His decisions in unrighteous ways. Hopefully that will clear up my view.

God bless

 

[JimfromOhio]

This is the area that God will not hold me responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination, and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these is to look to God in deepest respect say, "0 Lord, You know all." These issues belong to God's omniscience.

Romans 8:30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:5
he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

Ephesians 1:11
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,

 

[Reformationist]

If this is so, I’m afraid God becomes more vile than even the devil. The God of “predestination” (in this case referring to what is called “determinism,” since there are numerous views of what “predestination” actually is) is a God who could have saved everyone but simply chose not to. What kind of loving God is this?

Tell me Jedi, do you also agree that God "could have saved everyone?" If so, do you believe He actually does save everyone?

If a parent had four sick children but only chose to give two of them life-saving medicine while refraining from saving the others, the parent would be sent to jail for his vile conduct. Yet this is exactly the sort of behavior the God of Calvinism (Determinism) does.

Prior to attacking Calvinism, you should learn its precepts. Reformed Christianity does not teach that God condemns a single one of His children. In fact, we purport the invincible grace of God, against which no rebellion can stand. We align ourselves with the Gospel which emphatically states that all whom God calls will be glorified and He will lose none of them. Where you err, and show your utter ignorance, is that you conclude that Scripture teaches that all mankind without exception are the "children of God." It simply isn't true.

How can anyone praise such a God? He is like a lifeguard that watches people drown when he could have saved them and for what? His glory? What glory is there in not saving people you could easily save?

So you believe that God saves all people without exception? You are a universalist?

Further still, this idea runs into big scriptural problems like Romans 2:11 (“For God does not show favoritism”) and 2 Peter 3:9 (“God is not willing that any perish but for all to come to repentance”). According to these two verses, it follows that everything will be done to save as many people as possible, contrary to the Calvinistic doctrine that God could have saved people but simply chose not to.

LOL! Pray tell, if "everything will be done to save as many people as possible" who shall not be saved? For what is not "possible" to an omnipotent God?

Further still, if what you say is true, no one truly loves God. Love cannot be forced, else it becomes rape. If what you say is true, God forces people to desire Him, but this desire is not love.

Once again you show your ignorance. No Calvinist purports that God forces His creation to love Him or desire Him. Tell me, did God "force" you to come into existance? Is that how you'd phrase His sovereign role in your creation? Should God be despised for His gracious and merciful act of creation?

If I had the power to control women’s minds so that they longed for me, who could honestly say that these women truly love me? Indeed, they would love me no more than a computer whom I program to say, “I love you” whenever I pushed the power button: it behaves in a certain way only because I made it.

Uh...yeah. You show contempt for a doctrine of which you lack any semblance of comprehension. Try finding out what Calvinism actually purports before you reveal your foolish and unschooled disdain for it.

At least then your objections might have some credibility. As it is, they sound like the ramblings of a silly child.

 

[OldGoldBeard]

Here are some passages from Scripture pertaining to predestination, with brief analysis afterwards:
II Kings 19: 25 “Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from the days of old what now I bring to pass…”

**Obvious



Psalm 49: 15 “Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol.”

** “Appointed” implies predestination



Psalm 139 3-4, 15-16 “You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord, you know it completely… My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.”

**Obvious



Proverbs 16: 4 “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”

**Obvious



Isaiah 42: 9 “See, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them.”

**May imply that not all things are preordained, but “declare” should be taken in the sense that God declares what is to happen to the prophets, not that he declares new things to occur.



Isaiah 48: 3, 5 “The former things I declared long ago, they went out from my mouth and I made them known; then suddenly I did them and they came to pass… I declared them to you from long ago, before they came to pass I announced them to you…”

**Obvious



Isaiah 49: 1 “… The LORD called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me.”

**Obvious



Jeremiah 1: 4-5 “Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’”

**Obvious



Jeremiah 10: 23 “I know, O LORD, that the way of human beings is not in their control, that mortals as they walk cannot direct their steps.”

**A little tricky because it seems to infringe on free will, but can be argued down.



Jeremiah 38: 17-18 “Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of hosts, the God of Israel. If you will only surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon, then your life shall be spared, and this city shall not be burned with fire, and you and your house shall live. But if you do not surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon, then this city shall be handed over to the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and you yourself shall not escape from their hand.’”

**Obvious free will



Lamentations 3: 37 “Who can command and have it done, if the Lord has not ordained it?”

**Obvious



As for the role of evangelism, here's my take: [font=&quot]These situations are always a bit difficult to sort out, so let's clear two basic things out of the way first. First, God is omniscient. He knows everything that will happen before time, including the outcome of the illness/unemployment/marriage, etc AND the fact that the person seeking an injunction (if you will) will pray. Second, prayer does have power. There are countless examples of miracles being granted after prayer, from Elisha to Hezekiah to Christ to Simon Peter. Hezekiah's case is perhaps the most salient example. He was badly ill, and when he called in Isaiah for consultation, Isaiah told him to put his house in order, for the Lord had decreed that he would die. When Isaiah left, Hezekiah wept and prayed to the Lord. Isaiah immediately returned and told him his prayer had been granted and he would recover.

Now, getting back to the omniscience. God definitively knows everything that will ever happen in the past, present, and future of this world and nothing will change that plan. The plan is utterly perfect and flawless and cannot be changed. However, God, in his omniscience, knows everything that would happen if any single action preordained in this plan were not to occur, or to occur differently. Therefore, when we pray for someone, we fulfill God's plan, because that plan includes our prayer and any intervention God may make on our behalf. In other words, a person who may die without our prayer may be healed by God because of that prayer even though God has known all along that that person will not die.

Without our prayer, there would potentially be a different outcome, though we obviously have no way of knowing that. There's another example from scripture that supports this assertion. In the Old Testament, Elisha came to a king (I want to say Josiah, but I am not entirely sure) who was besieged by another nation (again, I can't completely remember, though it may have been the Assyrians. I believe Hazael was the opposing king.) Elisha instructed Josiah(?) to shoot one arrow out the window of his tower. Then, the king was to take another arrow and slap the floor with it. Josiah struck the floor three times, then handed the arrow back to Elisha. Elisha lamented the king's decision, saying "Better for you if you had struck the floor four or five times. Had you struck the floor four or five times, you would have defeated the Assyrians five times and destroyed them utterly. But because you have struck the floor only three times, you will defeat them only three times" (paraphrased.)

[/font]

 

[Catholic Dude]

Reformationist-

Well, despite the accusations that are regularly leveled against those of us who hold to a view of God's sovereign election, i.e., predestination, we believe that all people are the elect of God, until they show themselves to not be. I admit that this is not something that is necessarily easy to determine. I, for one, know quite a few people whom the Lord graciously chose to redeem when they were well into an advanced stage of their life, after their having lived a life of rebellion. Truth be told, many of those people are the ones whose faith is akin to that of the biblical heros. I guess it rings somewhat true that the further into the pit from which God reveals He has pulled a person, the greater their understanding of how gracious their Rescuer has been and, thus, the stronger their faith tends to be.

But the quality of outward signs can be deceptive. Many people live "good" lives on the outside but the state of their soul is not accurately indicated. In fact another question is, is it fair to judge outward actions based on a single moment in time? And as you said people have come even at the last moment of their life indicating that the track record of that person means nothing.

The bottom line, CD, is that regardless of my children's elective state, I am commanded to raise them as if they are. Not to mention, I am a covenantal Christian and have faith that God has promised to save my household through His covenant with me. I baptized my children because I see them as part of God's covenant with His people. I raise them as believers because I see them as part of God's covenant with His people. If, at some point in their life, they fully and finally reject the Lord of Hosts, I will know that the Lord has not elected them unto eternal life. Either way, it doesn't change my responsibility toward them.

So it is your duty to raise child in the faith even if their set destiny were to be hell? In terms of the promise you stated, if their path is already sealed then there cant be a promise, unless your saying that every christian family who does what you do is guaranteed to give birth only to elect children.

But what about Jacob and Esau? They did nothing and their parents had no influence on the situation.

Previously you asked, "what if God didnt pick your baby?" To which I responded by asking for clarification. Let me just say, preemptively, that despite my anguish were my children not to be of God's elect, I do not question God's authority to create as He sees fit. It is His divine perrogative to create as He will, wether I, in my fallen state, recognize that at all times or not. In short, my acknowledgement of God's sovereignty is not contingent upon whether I agree with the decisions He makes, though I admit that I am human and regularly respond to His decisions in unrighteous ways. Hopefully that will clear up my view.

What is the need for your anguish if God's decree is perfect?

But then again, are children a blessing? Why would God allow an elect to have children that were predestined to hell?

 

[Reformationist]

But the quality of outward signs can be deceptive.

I completely agree. For this very reason, I contend that we are only able to truly have assurance our own salvitic state, and even that assurance may ebb depending upon the manner in which we nurture our relationship with our Lord. However, with the Apostle, I am confident that the Lord will finish what He starts and I believe that He has established a covenant with my household.

In fact another question is, is it fair to judge outward actions based on a single moment in time?

I don't understand what you mean here.

And as you said people have come even at the last moment of their life indicating that the track record of that person means nothing.

Well, I am not aware that I said that any such thing was indicated but I will say that a person's track record surely doesn't stop God from saving someone if He purposes to do so. Paul is a perfect example of that.

So it is your duty to raise child in the faith even if their set destiny were to be hell?

I have no clue whom God has decreed to reprobate so what is your point? I think I was quite clear that God has not made the identity of His elect public knowledge so my job is to deal with all people as if they are the elect of God, for insofar as my finite knowledge is concerned, they very well may be.

In terms of the promise you stated, if their path is already sealed then there cant be a promise, unless your saying that every christian family who does what you do is guaranteed to give birth only to elect children.

So you are contending that if God has foreordained, that is, ordained before the foundations of the world, that you CD, will be saved, then His promise to you that you will be saved is worthless or nonexistant? If that is not your contention, why must I assume a different course for my children? If He has ordained that they be saved from the foundations of the world then He will assure they come to faith and He will keep His promise to save them.

I don't know that God has guarenteed to save every child of every believer. Regardless, once again I ask you, shall I fail in my responsibilities as a parent to my child simply because I have no assurance of their election?

But what about Jacob and Esau? They did nothing and their parents had no influence on the situation.

Isaac did not raise his children as believers???!!! Pray tell, where did you read such a thing?

What is the need for your anguish if God's decree is perfect?

Do you always respond in perfect faith to the things that come to pass though you know they come to pass by the perfect decree of God? In answer, though God is perfect, I certainly am not. I didn't say anguish was the proper response. I merely acknowledged that I imagine it would be my response.

But then again, are children a blessing? Why would God allow an elect to have children that were predestined to hell?

Again, I have never stated that He does so. Additionally, I could only speculate as to the answer to that question. I imagine that it would teach us much about the authority and providence of God were we to face the struggle of having non-believing children. Look at God's dealings with Job. God made it clear that He needn't answer to Job for the things He brings to pass. Was God unrighteous for loosing satan upon Job's family and property and health? God Himself called Job a "blameless and upright man." Despite that, God loosed the devil upon him and allowed the death of Job's children and the loss of his property and health. Why would God do that to a man He had graced as His servant? That is revealed to us in the latter portion of Job:

Job 42:5,6
I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”

Job's response is one of Hebrew tradition. This means that his knowledge of God, due to all that had come to pass, was even deeper now than it was before. His response to the majesty of God in spite of all of the trials he had recently endured? He repented. He saw the wickedness of his soul when compared to the mere reflection of God's majesty. He realized he had no right to question God's authority to do as He would with His creation.

You ask, "Why would God allow an elect to have children that were predestined to hell?" My best answer is that they, like Job, would come to truly see the majesty of God instead of assuming that their superficial submission to God's authority equated to true faith. Tell me something CD, how would you feel toward God if He decreed to take your children from you as He did Job's? Would you be able to proclaim, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.” Would you honor God for your loss? Do you think maybe, just maybe, getting through such an event would be a sanctifying experience and lesson on truly trusting God?

God bless

 

[Jedi]

Tell me Jedi, do you also agree that God "could have saved everyone?" If so, do you believe He actually does save everyone?

I do not agree with this idea that God could have saved everyone for the reason that some people refuse to be saved. As C.S. Lewis writes, “The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.' There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy--that is, to reality. We see it easily enough in a spoiled child that would sooner miss is play and its supper than say it was sorry and be friends" (The Great Divorce, 71). God could not save everyone without contorting their wills, which, ultimately, means He would not be saving them but at best, a mere shadow of who they really are.

Prior to attacking Calvinism, you should learn its precepts.

I already have and since there are different types of Calvinism, I specified the sort I’m attacking: five-point Calvinism (determinism). Nowhere did I mention “Reformed Christianity.”

Reformed Christianity does not teach that God condemns a single one of His children. In fact, we purport the invincible grace of God, against which no rebellion can stand. We align ourselves with the Gospel which emphatically states that all whom God calls will be glorified and He will lose none of them. Where you err, and show your utter ignorance, is that you conclude that Scripture teaches that all mankind without exception are the "children of God." It simply isn't true.

This is really nothing more than dancing around the question. You’ve only rephrased the question from “why didn’t God save everyone possible” to “Why didn’t God call everyone possible to be his children (when only those He calls as His children are saved)?” I’d suggest you do away with the personal attacks and answer the question instead of rephrasing it.

So you believe that God saves all people without exception? You are a universalist?

Nope. Scripture is very clear that some are not saved, but this is always their choice (see my quote of C.S. Lewis to explain my position).

Once again you show your ignorance.

Your next quote makes this statement rather ironic, but again, thanks for the personal attacks.

No Calvinist purports that God forces His creation to love Him or desire Him.

Tell that to the avid Calvinist in my Philosophy of Religion class.

Further still, God forcing people to Himself is exactly what "irresistable grace" is all about (one of the five points of Calvinism). This is coupled with "total depravity," another point in five-point Calvinism, that describes humanity as being completely inable to do good on their own accord and therefore lacking the ability to choose God of your own accord. There's also "unconditional atonement" and "limited grace" that all fall into line in support of the idea that God forces people to Himself. For a nice diagram, please see: http://www.cresourcei.org/tulip.html

Where you pulled this comment of yours from, I have no idea.

Tell me, did God "force" you to come into existance[sic – existence]? Is that how you'd phrase His sovereign role in your creation? Should God be despised for His gracious and merciful act of creation?

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges here. For God to give me a choice at all, I must first exist. For me to exist at all, I must first be created. This is not the same as God forcing me to accept or reject Him (a violation of my ability to choose). It is one thing to give birth to a son; it is quite another to rape him.

Uh...yeah. You show contempt for a doctrine of which you lack any semblance of comprehension. Try finding out what Calvinism actually purports before you reveal your foolish and unschooled disdain for it.

First off, there are different forms of Calvinism (not all “Calvnistic” theologies support five-star Calvinism). This is something you don’t seem to take into account. Secondly, I’m a theology major (philosophy minor) nearing graduation – I think I’ve had some “schooling” in this field. Your display here has been rather childish, being very quick to accuse the other party of ignorance and foolishness. Needless to say, I’m not impressed with your attempted defense.

 

[mlqurgw]

I do not agree with this idea that God could have saved everyone for the reason that some people refuse to be saved. As C.S. Lewis writes, “The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.' There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy--that is, to reality. We see it easily enough in a spoiled child that would sooner miss is play and its supper than say it was sorry and be friends" (The Great Divorce, 71). God could not save everyone without contorting their wills, which, ultimately, means He would not be saving them but at best, a mere shadow of who they really are.

So am I correct if I say that you are malking the will of man that which controls God?

I already have and since there are different types of Calvinism, I specified the sort I’m attacking: five-point Calvinism (determinism). Nowhere did I mention “Reformed Christianity.”

Perhaps you could explain what you eman by determinism. If you mean that God determines both the means and the ends to accomplish His purpose then I am a determinist.

This is really nothing more than dancing around the question. You’ve only rephrased the question from “why didn’t God save everyone possible” to “Why didn’t God call everyone possible to be his children (when only those He calls as His children are saved)?” I’d suggest you do away with the personal attacks and answer the question instead of rephrasing it.

If God had intended to save everyone they would be saved. God says that He will do all His pleasure and what He has purposed shall come to pass. God doesn't save some because it seems right to Him not to do so. He can do whatever He will with His own. The fact that God leaves some to their own wicked wills doesn't impune God at all. Also, there is a difference between being a child of God and a creature of God. All men are His as His creatures but not all are His children.

Nope. Scripture is very clear that some are not saved, but this is always their choice (see my quote of C.S. Lewis to explain my position).

Most Calvinists I know wouldn't disagree with that statement. Calvinists do not deny that man makes choices but that their choices are determined by their natures. A sinner naturally chooses to sin. What we deny is that man has the inate ability to choose God apart from a work of God in him that enables him to choose God.

Your next quote makes this statement rather ironic, but again, thanks for the personal attacks.

Quote

No Calvinist purports that God forces His creation to love Him or desire Him.

Tell that to the avid Calvinist in my Philosophy of Religion class.

While force may be correct terminology in that God does cause us to believe it carries with it an incorrect connotation. God does not force against the will but simply makes it impossible for us to make any other choice. I willingly chose Christ because God made me see my need of Him. He drags no one kicking and screaming against their wills to Heaven. To imply such a thing is to misrepresent what Calvinists believe.

Further still, God forcing people to Himself is exactly what "irresistable grace" is all about (one of the five points of Calvinism). This is coupled with "total depravity," another point in five-point Calvinism, that describes humanity as being completely inable to do good on their own accord and therefore lacking the ability to choose God of your own accord. There's also "unconditional atonement" and "limited grace" that all fall into line in support of the idea that God forces people to Himself. For a nice diagram, please see: http://www.cresourcei.org/tulip.html

I am familiar with the five points and hold to them all. See my above statements for an answer to the force issue.

Where you pulled this comment of yours from, I have no idea.

If you contend that Calvinism teaches that God forces against the will then you really don't know Calvinism as well as you think.

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges here. For God to give me a choice at all, I must first exist. For me to exist at all, I must first be created. This is not the same as God forcing me to accept or reject Him (a violation of my ability to choose). It is one thing to give birth to a son; it is quite another to rape him.

This is blatant misrepresentation. You are building a strawman.

First off, there are different forms of Calvinism (not all “Calvnistic” theologies support five-star Calvinism). This is something you don’t seem to take into account. Secondly, I’m a theology major (philosophy minor) nearing graduation – I think I’ve had some “schooling” in this field. Your display here has been rather childish, being very quick to accuse the other party of ignorance and foolishness. Needless to say, I’m not impressed with your attempted defense.

I will let Reformationist answer your statements directed at him other than to say your 'schooling" does not impress me. I have not had schooling but know better than to build a strawman so that I can tear it down . That is what you have done.

 

[Normann]

I knew someone would try to explain away the word, (whosoever).

What is there to explain?

To those that preach John Calvin's lies must change the meaning in order to support his false doctrine.

To them, (whosoever) does not mean whosoever!

Duahhh?

Maybe they need a shorter word such as (any)...or (all)!

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.


Let's watch now as they try to explain away these three letter words.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[oworm]

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.


Let's watch now as they try to explain away these three letter words.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Please read the verse within the whole context .It is NOT ANY or ALL in the world context.It is ANY or ALL within the framework of the target subjects, namely the recipients of the letter.
You are clearly twisting scripture to fit your argument. If it is not God's will that any should perish and that ALL should come to repentance in a world context then the very fact that many do infact perish and do not come to repentance suggests that God's will is thwarted. Such a view is anti biblical as scripture is replete with references to God's unchanging decreed purpose.
Also, WHOMSOVER in scripture means exactly that. Whoever cries out for salvation and produces fruit in keeping with repentance will NEVER be turned away. All that do come are elect of God before the foundation of the world and do most willingly come. The gospel is not limited in its effectivness to save those who will come.

 

[Normann]

Makes no difference what scripture or what plain word is used satan always has some other idea to insert to pervert God's word.

According to Calvin it is God's pleasure to torture babies in hell.

John 3:16 has the word (whosoever) in it and from the Greek it means all, any, the whole, and every.

But let's change the meaning of words because if we do not then our language will show that John Calvin was a liar- and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Espada]

According to Calvin it is God's pleasure to torture babies in hell.

Firsly two passages of scripture one from each Testament.

Psalm 51:5

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

it is all very well trying to use emotive terms like babies, implying that they are innocent of sin, if they are they do not require justification, if they are not they are sinners and are deserving of the same punnishment as everyone else. You are trying to use human arguments and it doesn't work. Surely from what you say all those who have never heard of Jesus deserve the same get out clause as babies as they have not had the chance of redemption.

Do not forget that God has a plan in this, do you think if that baby would have grown into an adult it would have been saved? No. If a child his chosen, they will live at least until they can freely choose Christ.

Look at Romans 9:19 - 28

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But 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?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

It is not up to us to say to God "it isn't fair" but it is God who makes some of us for salvation and others for damnation. I do not choose to question why God chooses me over another, I do not claim to be worthy of that.

 

[Jedi]

So am I correct if I say that you are malking[sic – making] the will of man that which controls God?

No more than a child controls his father whenever they wrestle. The father refrains from using his full strength because he so values the interaction with his child. Similarly, simply because God can control everything does not mean He must. God has given man freedom to choose, but this in no way controls God.

Perhaps you could explain what you eman[sic – mean] by determinism. If you mean that God determines both the means and the ends to accomplish His purpose then I am a determinist.

Determinism, in this case, is the idea that God decides your fate apart from your will. Before you were born, He thought to Himself “I shall make him go to heaven” or “I shall make him go to hell.” Stronger forms of Determinism assert that everything, even if a branch falls from a tree on to your head, is done by God. The problem with this is very easy to see: it makes God the direct cause of everything, including evil and all of man’s rebellious choices. Ultimately, Determinism makes a mockery of the cross of Christ: God made man sin, then He came down to pay the penalty for that sin to forgive them of what He made them do.

If God had intended to save everyone they would be saved.

Only if this were possible. It is not, simply because (as I said before) some people refuse to be saved. As it is, it’s rhetorical nonsense to say that God can force someone to freely choose Him; the words are there but the meaning is gone. We might as well say God can create a smelly color or a square circle, but this is no limit to God’s power. Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

God doesn't save some because it seems right to Him not to do so.

The question still remains: why does He save some and not others? We would throw a parent in jail for this sort of behavior toward his children. How is it any less vile when we attribute this behavior to God? If God is truly all good, He would save everyone possible (just as a good parent would save as many of his sick children as he could). If God does not save all He can, then the conclusion is grim: God is not all good. This being so, all of morality (having its basis in God) is thrown into utter chaos for if not even God Himself is truly good, by what standard do we measure “goodness?”

The fact that God leaves some to their own wicked wills doesn't impune[sic – impugn] God at all.

Quite right, but this has to be their choice. Calvinism (again, referring to five-point Calvinism) takes that away, placing the choice of their salvation entirely on God. Calvinism takes all ability for goodness away from humans and describes God as saving only some and not all He can, which throws His goodness into question (since an entirely good God would do everything possible to save people, not simply choose some and leave others regardless of their wills).

Also, there is a difference between being a child of God and a creature of God. All men are His as His creatures but not all are His children.

Granted, but as I said before, this really doesn’t solve the problem. Instead of asking “Why doesn’t God save as many people as possible,” the question is rephrased to say, “Why doesn’t God make as many people as possible His children (and thus save them)?” It’s the same question in a different form.

Most Calvinists I know wouldn't disagree with that statement. Calvinists do not deny that man makes choices but that their choices are determined by their natures. A sinner naturally chooses to sin. What we deny is that man has the inate[sic – innate] ability to choose God apart from a work of God in him that enables him to choose God.

You would make the Calvinist in my class very proud.

This response still doesn’t dodge the bullet, though. I might as well say, “See? My computer chooses whatsoever it desires based on the program I put into it.” The reality is that the computer chooses nothing – its decisions are what I told it to decide by programming it a certain way. It is not free and therefore cannot be held responsible for the “choices” it makes (which are really nothing more than the kinds of choices I forced it to make). This really throws morality into chaos. How can we condemn a man for evil if God programmed him that way? He had no choice in the matter. On the same token, how can we praise a man for doing good if his good “decisions” were forced upon him? He could have done nothing else. It makes no sense at all to hold a person morally responsible for actions he does if he could have done nothing else.

Suppose there is a car salesman who takes a customer to the lot and says, “Choose any car you like, but it can only be black.” Though the customer may choose what style of black car he would like, we could not hold him responsible for choosing a black car. In the same way, if a person is so predisposed toward a given type of action (whether evil or good), we cannot hold him accountable for evil nor praise him for good because he carried out such actions any more than we can blame the customer for choosing a black car.

While force may be correct terminology in that God does cause us to believe it carries with it an incorrect connotation. God does not force against the will but simply makes it impossible for us to make any other choice.

Yet the problem still remains: God forces the wills of people toward one position or the other. Whether God forces people against their wills or apart from it, it is still force and the people being forced are thus not responsible for what they were forced to do, leaving them neither accountable for bad nor praiseworthy for good.

I willingly chose Christ because God made me see my need of Him.

But by your own admission, you could have done nothing else, so there is really no choice at all in the matter: God made you do it by forcing your will. Saying, “I willed this to be so” is irrelevant, since what God forced is your will. The only way out here would be to say “But people can reject God even after seeing their need of Him,” but I have yet to see a Calvinist who would admit such a thing.

If you contend that Calvinism teaches that God forces against the will then you really don't know Calvinism as well as you think.

This distinction I’ve seen numerous Calvinists make does them very little, if any, good in escaping the problem of God forcing people to accept/reject Him. The Calvinists have only moved from a God that drags prisoners to Heaven or Hell against their wills to a God who mind controls them into the comforts of Heaven or the miseries of Hell. There is still no love, no moral goodness, no choice, and in fact, no real persons there at all (for if God has to contort and control a person’s will in order to save them, He is really not saving them at all, but at best a mere shadow of who they really are).

This is blatant misrepresentation. You are building a strawman.

Oh, it’s very accurate. I haven’t had anyone here explain to me how God is not forcing people (by your own admission, “Force” is the correct terminology) to accept/reject Him. Simply because God is holding the strings of a puppet instead of holding the leash of a rebellious dog does not make God any less forceful or responsible concerning the fates of human beings.

I will let Reformationist answer your statements directed at him other than to say your 'schooling" does not impress me. I have not had schooling but know better than to build a strawman so that I can tear it down .

And if you had taken any courses in philosophy or theology, you would know that simply stating “straw man” does not do any good. You must explain how it is a misrepresentation of your stance, not merely claim it is. To date, I have not seen this done, so your words here ring hollow.

 

[mlqurgw]

I will ask your patience until I have more time to respond thoughtfully.

Edit: And prayerfully of course.

 

[humbledbyhim]

I recently heard a preacher use Romans 8:29-30 to show that people are predestined to go to heaven and that those people will also be conformed to the image of Christ. The way it was used was to say that all Christians where predestined. Here is the passage.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30 KJV)

I believe that God has chosen some people to be predestined and those people he has also called and will conform those people to the image of His Son. A good example would be Saul of Tarsus. I believe God had a plan for Saul before Saul knew what it was and that God worked in his life to conform Saul into what we all know as Paul.

But I don’t believe that God has predestined all Christians to go to heaven; that would mean that God also predestined people who are not Christians to go to hell. Many verses talk about how God loved the whole world (that means every one of us), why would God predestine someone he loved to go to hell?

The idea of Predestination also makes evangelism seem pointless – why tell anyone about God if he has already chosen the people he wants to go to heaven? That goes against all the verses that tell us to go into the entire world and tell people the gospel.

Well, I think about predestination in this way. God, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Creator knows everything that has and will happen, BUT nothing has or will happen without God's approval or allowance. Therefore God's very nature makes everything that happens a predestination while at the same time allowing it to be our choice. He has ultimate knowledge of how we think, and thus He allows situations around us to be such that we will make the chioce that He knew we would make, while it still being our choice, and not His force. God does indeed predestinate, and we do indeed choose. It's God's nature to do so. The same applies to why God can't lie. It isn't because of morals, it is because everything he says, by His nature, must happen, thus making it impossible for him to lie. These things are not easy to comprehend, but they are not supposed to be: "1 Corinthians 13:12For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as [a]in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand [b]fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been [c]fully and clearly known and understood [[d]by God]." (Amplified Bible)

 

[BrotherSteve]

As I seem to have confused you, let me see if I can explain it from a God centered point of view. We are volitional creatures. That means that even our choice to refrain from choosing a certain way, i.e., not choosing, is synonymous with choosing in a different manner. Of course, we are finite, impotent creatures so our choice to refrain from choosing does not ensure anything comes to pass. However, when we apply this same logic to God, from whom all power omnipotently flows, His choice to refrain from choosing to stop something from coming to pass that He knows would otherwise come to pass is synonymous with Him ensuring that it does come to pass as it naturally would apart from His intercession.

Let's apply it to a practical scenario. We both agree that God could have stopped the tragedy of 9/11 from coming to pass. As far as I know, we also both agree that God knew it would come to pass if He didn't stop it. So, here we have a God who knows that certain things will come to pass unless He intercedes coupled with the knowledge that God has both the power and authority to stop it from coming to pass. Now, we live in reality so we also both know that the tragedy of 9/11 did come to pass. Put all this knowledge together and what we can easily deduce is that though God could have stopped the events of 9/11 from coming to pass, He chose to not stop them from coming to pass. In doing so, He ensured that they would come to pass. In no way do I imply that God was either obligated to stop it from coming to pass or responsible for it coming to pass simply because He could have stopped. What I am saying is that God, in the providential manner of passivity, ensured that the events of 9/11 would come to pass. All of this was decided prior to 9/11. It was ordained that it would come to pass. It wasn't a coincidence that what God knew would come to pass actually did come to pass.

That make it any clearer?

God bless

I agree with what you said - but I would not call that predestination.

What you say is no different than this: "God decided to allow bad people to make bad choices." You are just using a lot of words to say it.

God also allows people to make good choices - like salvation. Just because he knows they will do it doesn't make it predestination.

 

[humbledbyhim]

I agree with what you said - but I would not call that predestination.

What you say is no different than this: "God decided to allow bad people to make bad choices." You are just using a lot of words to say it.

God also allows people to make good choices - like salvation. Just because he knows they will do it doesn't make it predestination.

Well how about we all live according to our understanding of the scripture until Christ reveals the true understanding to us. I mean, that's what we're going to do anyway right?

 

[BrotherSteve]

Predestination: is simply this, God determined be the foundation of the world was laid, that He would give the ones that believe in Jesus Christ, the power to become sons of God.

That doesn't make sense. Belief is something that people do. Predestination can't be conditional on our belief - if it is that is not predestination.

 

[BrotherSteve]

Why do you assume God has predestined some to Hell. Where in the bible doe's it say that. We can't base our theology on assumptions.

I don't - please read what I wrote again. if it appears that I said that it was not my intention.