Predestination??

[BrotherSteve]

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'm not doubting what you say - but this statement seems contrary to what others have said about predestination.

 

[seekingpurity047]

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

Ok... i think it's YOU who takes the word "whosoever" and turns it into some free will mumbo jumbo. This is an illogical conclusion. The word whosoever means exactly that, WHOSOEVER.

All the elect are all the ones who will believe the gospel.
All the ones who will believe the gospel are "whosoever believes in Him".
Therefore, all the elect are "whosoever believes in Him".

Simple deductive logic,

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Reformationist]

I do not agree with this idea that God could have saved everyone for the reason that some people refuse to be saved.

And this the saddest news of all...

Tell me, do you believe that God intended, and purposed the work of Christ, to accomplish that which you say was impossible due to the refusal of man?

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.

Well, "contort" is definitely one way of putting it. An incorrect way but, a way nontheless. Natural man's will is wholly opposed to God. If God did not do as He said, i.e., take out the heart of stone (nature aligned against God) and replace it with a heart of flesh (pliable nature that desires to serve God in love), then man would never desire the things of God, for as Scripture says, they are but foolishness to him in his natural state.

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.”

The fact that you make such a distinction between reformed Christianity and Calvinism shows, quite clearly, that you do not know its precepts. Additionally, and I offer this only for your edification, there is no need to define that you attack "five point Calvinism" as, in truth, that is the only Calvinism. Just because some people accept certain portions of Calvinistic doctrine doesn't make them Calvinists with different views. If it is to be called Calvinism, it must be what Calvin taught. Were we to engage in the nonsense of divorcing ourselves from the man whose views formulated the ideas of our faith (truth is these views have been propagated since the inception of man) we may as well call ourselves Lutherans.

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.

LOL! It's not a "personal attack" to say that you are ignorant of that which you attack. The points you make show that to be true. Additionally, I danced around nothing. It is paramount to a proper understanding of the work of Christ to acknowledge the difference between those whom He died for, His people, and those in the world who are left to their own wicked devices. As to why God did not call all to be His children, the most biblically supported answer I can offer is given in Romans 9:21-24 coupled with my own knowledge that the fruit of redemption that God purposed in the death of His Son was a pleasing aroma to Him and, thus, He accomplishes it without fail.

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).

If the application of God's grace in salvation is the product of our choice then you, and C.S. Lewis (if he purports such anthropocentricity), espouse nothing less than a cooperative effort between the Savior and the saved wherein both deserve credit for their contribution. In essense, the work of the Lord Himself is impotent unless man couples with it his own freely willed choice. Truly pitiful.

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

Tell him yourself. Just because someone purports something under the banner of Calvinism doesn't make it an accurate reflection of the tenents of Calvinism.

Further still, God forcing people to Himself is exactly what "irresistable grace" is all about (one of the five points of Calvinism).

Actually, the invincible grace of God rests on His loving work of regeneration, not on His omnipotency. Yet again you show your ignorance of the teachings of Calvinism. God gathers unto Himself those He has foreordained unto eternal life but does so in such a way as to bring no violence to their nature but, instead, make them most willing to come.

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 well acquainted with the points of the TULIP. They do not encompass all of the teachings of Calvinism and I pray that you are not so shortsighted as to think as much. For your edification, some better ways of expressing the views taught in the TULIP are as follows:

Radical corruption, Sovereign election, Definite atonement, Invincible grace, and Preservation of the saints.

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

Ironically, I wonder the exact same thing about your comments.

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.

I see now. You should have mentioned that consider the plans of God worthless unless they revolve around your choices. That would have saved me a good bit of confusion.

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.

No. There are different belief systems that assume the name, or part of the name, Calvinism. What you contend is akin to saying that their are different forms of a single belief system. Calvinism, by its very nature, excludes all points of view which are not Calvinism. You'd think a "theology major" would recognize such a simple concept.

Secondly, I’m a theology major (philosophy minor) nearing graduation – I think I’ve had some “schooling” in this field.

If the acumen you display here is indicative of the "schooling" you paid for, well, I don't think you got your money's worth. Either way, my reference to your unschooled disdain referred to your clear lack of knowledge of what is actually taught in Calvinistic faiths. Your self assumed expertise in matters of faith is not made credible by the fact that you are a "theology major." Rarely have I encountered "theology majors" who knew as much of God as they thought they did.

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.

That's fine. I'm not here to impress you. As to my accusations, it's actually rather simple. Don't spout off in a manner that shows your ignorance of what is taught in the doctrines of grace and I won't accuse you of ignorance.

Again, pretty simple concept.

 

[Reformationist]

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

What is there to explain?

Well then, for we who are blinded by the magnificence of your intellect, tell us who the "whosoever" is that we are trying to explain away.

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

Normann, please, lend your amazing deductive powers to this statement that I, too, may understand it. The part that is throwing me off is that whole, sticky CONTEXT thing. I know to someone of your stature such petty things as context would mean very little. After all, why consider anything that may actually affect the meaning of Scripture, right. So, when the Peter says that the Lord is not slack concerning His promise TOWARD US, of what promise was He referring?

Please oh wise one. Lend me your knowledge. I wouldn't want you thinking I was trying to explain anything away.

 

[Reformationist]

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.

I daresay that I'm relaying a bit more than that so I am a bit disappointed that that is what you gleaned from my efforts.

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

Steve, maybe you could help me out and show me the verses that represent people choosing to be saved, as if "salvation" is this option that simply sits out there awaiting people to choose it. Hmm....maybe salvation is similar to picking teams for dodgeball. Anyway, I look forward to your reply.

God bless

 

[calidog]

If someone trys to use the following:
"God loves (phileo) the world in a different way than he loves (agape) the church" as a basis, it is incorrect. The same word for love (agapeo) is used in the bible for both. For God so loved the world the same way as Christ so loves the church.

 

[calidog]

That is a common but very naive interpretation you heard. It happens because people tend not to read things in context or follow the flow of Paul's argument in Romans.

What Paul meant was:

For those Jews God had known in the past, he predestined to be conformed to the death and resurrection of Jesus when Jesus came to them.

It is not a statement about God choosing who his people would be but a statement about what he provided for his people the Jews.

romans 9:24 Even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the gentiles?

 

[Reformationist]

If someone trys to use the following:
"God loves (phileo) the world in a different way than he loves (agape) the church" as a basis, it is incorrect. The same word for love (agapeo) is used in the bible for both. For God so loved the world the same way as Christ so loves the church.

The "world" and "the church," at least in John 3:16,17 are the same, insofar as the church in question are believers. With that in mind, God loves both the same, for they are the same people.

God bless

 

[calidog]

I have read it. You have read into it.

The elect are those who are united with the Elect One of God. Christians.

Paul was writing to Jewish Christians and reminding them that Christ was the end and goal of the Law.

now read chapter nine

 

[Jedi]

Tell me, do you believe that God intended, and purposed the work of Christ, to accomplish that which you say was impossible due to the refusal of man?

Nope. I believe the cross of Christ is intended to save everyone who is willing to accept it, not save everyone regardless of their responses to God.

Natural man's will is wholly opposed to God.

Can you please show me where the text supports this idea? I must agree with C.S. Lewis again when he stated that he did not believe in the doctrine of total depravity for two reasons: first, experience shows us much good in human nature (even nonbelievers), and second, if we were truly totally depraved, we should not know we were totally depraved (i.e. we would not know good to say that we are without it).

The fact that you make such a distinction between reformed Christianity and Calvinism shows, quite clearly, that you do not know its precepts.

Hardly. When dealing with doctrines, it is incumbent on us to be precise. “Reformed Christianity” or “Calvinistic Christianity” needs to be qualified, since not all “Calvinistic” theologies support five-point Calvinism. It’s merely a matter of being precise.

Additionally, and I offer this only for your edification, there is no need to define that you attack "five point Calvinism" as, in truth, that is the only Calvinism.

Perhaps to you, but I’m afraid there are plenty of schools of theology out there that are considered “Calvinistic” without submitting to full-blown, five-point, Hyper-Calvinism. Like it or not, the distinction needs to be made.

Just because some people accept certain portions of Calvinistic doctrine doesn't make them Calvinists with different views. If it is to be called Calvinism, it must be what Calvin taught.

And these people would say they’re following what Calvin taught, just not all of what Calvin taught. They are Calvinists, but not in the most extreme sense of the word. I remember Calvin also burned at the stake the opposing party of a debate simply because they lost. I suppose if you do not follow everything Calvin taught, even the things taught by example, you aren't a Calvinist either, eh?

LOL! It's not a "personal attack" to say that you are ignorant of that which you attack.

There’s no intellectual point in typing such negative personal comments. They have nothing to do with the subject matter, so yes, they are personal attacks. Any negative comment aimed at the other party is.

The points you make show that to be true.

Haha, what a pitiful defense. “But it’s true that you’re stupid” doesn’t magically turn the comment into something other than a negative description of the other party.

Additionally, I danced around nothing.

Rephrasing the question instead of answering it is precisely that.

As to why God did not call all to be His children, the most biblically supported answer I can offer is given in Romans 9:21-24 coupled with my own knowledge that the fruit of redemption that God purposed in the death of His Son was a pleasing aroma to Him and, thus, He accomplishes it without fail.

Oh, Romans 9. That misunderstood passage. Nowhere in that whole chapter is salvation ever a topic. Even if you abused it that way, it still gives no adequate answer as to how God could possibly remain entirely good and not save as many people as He can.

If the application of God's grace in salvation is the product of our choice then you, and C.S. Lewis (if he purports such anthropocentricity), espouse nothing less than a cooperative effort between the Savior and the saved wherein both deserve credit for their contribution. In essense[sic – essence], the work of the Lord Himself is impotent unless man couples with it his own freely willed choice. Truly pitiful.

What is pitiful is that you’re trying to portray the accepting of a gift as “work.” When Christmas morning comes, how many people think to themselves, “Oh, drat! I must work for all those gifts by accepting them! What a stressful day this is?” Give me a break. Accepting a gift does not mean the recipient all of a sudden magically deserves it. A gift of grace accepted is still a gift of grace. Calvinists remind me of the Pharisees whenever they try to pull this trick off: wanting to label even receiving a gift work. Haha, it’s laughable.

Tell him yourself. Just because someone purports something under the banner of Calvinism doesn't make it an accurate reflection of the tenents of Calvinism.

Seems to me already all the Calvinists can’t seem to get along. If you’re rejecting things that are essential to Calvinism and he is not, who am I to believe is the true Calvinist?

Actually, the invincible grace of God rests on His loving work of regeneration, not on His omnipotency. Yet again you show your ignorance of the teachings of Calvinism. God gathers unto Himself those He has foreordained unto eternal life but does so in such a way as to bring no violence to their nature but, instead, make them most willing to come.

You’re really trying to make a brick appear soft here with your words. “Make them most willing to come” = “force them through mind control.” Your tyrannical God still forces Himself upon people. Simply because he makes them all puppets instead of unwilling dogs on leashes does make Him any less forceful in the raping of humanity.

I am well acquainted with the points of the TULIP. They do not encompass all of the teachings of Calvinism and I pray that you are not so shortsighted as to think as much.

From what you were saying, I was beginning to doubt that.

I see now. You should have mentioned that consider the plans of God worthless unless they revolve around your choices. That would have saved me a good bit of confusion.

Hardly, but thanks for the straw man. Not all of God’s desires come to pass (unless you wanted to actually say that God ordained sin, which I’ve heard Calvinists say before, just to add to the evil of Calvin’s God), so it should be readily apparent that not all of God’s plans (insofar as God’s plans are in sync with His desires) come to fruition. Is this idea a shock to you? While not all of God’s plans center on human choice, some very important plans (e.g. the salvation of each individual) does.

No. There are different belief systems that assume the name, or part of the name, Calvinism. What you contend is akin to saying that their are different forms of a single belief system. Calvinism, by its very nature, excludes all points of view which[sic – view, which] are not Calvinism. You'd think a "theology major" would recognize such a simple concept.

Yes. You sound like one of those little hillbilly Christians that supposes if everyone does not agree with his theology 100%, they are not Christians, using the mentality "I am a Christian, if they do not believe as I do, they must not be Christian." I’m sorry to burst your little Nazi-like bubble, but there are plenty of people who hold to Calvinistic theology but do not subscribe to all five-points of traditional Calvinism. Perhaps if you went to school some time, you would realize this.

If the acumen you display here is indicative of the "schooling" you paid for, well, I don't think you got your money's worth.

Again, more personal attacks. Just like a little child. It’s annoyingly cute.

Either way, my reference to your unschooled disdain referred to your clear lack of knowledge of what is actually taught in Calvinistic faiths. Your self assumed expertise in matters of faith is not made credible by the fact that you are a "theology major." Rarely have I encountered "theology majors" who knew as much of God as they thought they did.

Of course this would be the case whenever they run into Calvinistic Hitlers who view everyone who disagrees with them as “foolish,” “ignorant,” or “uneducated.” There’s just no winning with some people. Instead of actually showing how anything I’ve presented is actually wrong, you’ve spent more time making personal slams: the mark of a true amateur.

Even to date, you have yet to answer how your tyrannical God is somehow entirely good by leaving some people to rot when He could have easily saved them. A lifeguard or parent who acted in such a way would be thrown in jail – exactly what should happen to the neglectful God of Calvinism. He is guilty of failing to render aid to the very people He created. No good God would ever be guilty of this.

 

[calidog]

I agree with basically every point that you have here. It would be easier to understand, however, if we didn't have so many different theories and ways of interpreting the Bible.

we can interpret it ourselves; no need for an interpreter.

 

[calidog]

"
Again, this is an unfortunate misinterpretation of Scripture. Jesus did not die so that anything might come to pass. Jesus' death ensures that all for whom He died will inherit eternal life.



The Bible is explicit that all for whom Christ died will be redeemed and that He will lose none of them. Therefore, if someone does suffer eternal perdition, we can either assume that Christ did lose them, an unbiblical notion, or that they were never His to begin with. Then, in the proper mode of understanding the implicit in light of the explicit, we learn that those who go out from the family of God, never to return, were ordained to do so that it may be revealed that they were never truly of the family of God.

God bless

Who did Christ die for?

 

[edie19]

Who did Christ die for?

For those people given to Him, Jesus the Christ, by God the Father.

John 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. . . . .
John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

 

[calidog]

According to whom? Strong's defines the word as it is used in John 3:16 as "believers only":



8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Who is Strong? Only one greek word is used "kosmos". Strong gives the english definition for the single word. How does Strong further define it's use in context?

 

[Reformationist]

Nope. I believe the cross of Christ is intended to save everyone who is willing to accept it, not save everyone regardless of their responses to God.

Well, the view that God meant to save everyone "regardless of their response" is not one that either of us espouse so for the sake of coherent discussion let's go ahead and dispense with that little strawman, okay? In the meantime, maybe you can explain to me why some people are willing to "accept the Cross," whatever that means, and some are not?

Can you please show me where the text supports this idea?

Which text? Holy text? Sure:

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

I must agree with C.S. Lewis again when he stated that he did not believe in the doctrine of total depravity for two reasons: first, experience shows us much good in human nature (even nonbelievers)

What "good" is this of which you speak, being that whatsoever is not ultimately predicated by faith in Christ and a desire to obey Him in all our ways is sin? Do you speak of civic righteousness? This is no more than a sign of God's mercy and benevolence upon man. You seem to make the erroneous assumption that the "total" in "total depravity" refers to depth rather than extent. Man, by the grace of God, is not as bad as he could possibly be. No one here espouses utter depravity in even fallen man. What we contend is that the corruption has pervaded every aspect of his being and no part of him remains untouched by sin.

and second, if we were truly totally depraved, we should not know we were totally depraved (i.e. we would not know good to say that we are without it).

I don't understand this point so I could not comment on it.

Hardly. When dealing with doctrines, it is incumbent on us to be precise. “Reformed Christianity” or “Calvinistic Christianity” needs to be qualified, since not all “Calvinistic” theologies support five-point Calvinism. It’s merely a matter of being precise.



Perhaps to you, but I’m afraid there are plenty of schools of theology out there that are considered “Calvinistic” without submitting to full-blown, five-point, Hyper-Calvinism. Like it or not, the distinction needs to be made.

This will be the last time I comment on this point you seem to want to press and I hope this will be the last time you intend to share such an illogical view. Just because someone uses the term Calvinism in the label they apply to themselves doesn't make it "a form of Calvinism." Hyper-Calvinism, if you actually know what that is, is, in fact, a heinous view an completely unlike Calvinism. "4 point Calvinism" is not Calvinism either because Calvinism includes within it all five views of the TULIP, and much more.

And these people would say they’re following what Calvin taught, just not all of what Calvin taught.

If they do not follow all of what Calvin taught then they don't follow what Calvin taught. It's actually a pretty simple concept. Maybe you'll pick up on it this time.

Even if you abused it that way, it still gives no adequate answer as to how God could possibly remain entirely good and not save as many people as He can.

It must be the utter ridiculousness of your view that makes comments like these make sense to you. "As many people as He can?" He's God. Maybe you forgot that. Who is it that God could not save were He to purpose it? Oh that's right....according to you, it's anyone who simply refuses Him. So much for a sovereign God that accomplishes all that He purposes.

Even to date, you have yet to answer how your tyrannical God is somehow entirely good by leaving some people to rot when He could have easily saved them. A lifeguard or parent who acted in such a way would be thrown in jail – exactly what should happen to the neglectful God of Calvinism. He is guilty of failing to render aid to the very people He created. No good God would ever be guilty of this.

In my opinion, the above quote more or less summarizes what is clearly your opinion. You have clearly come to the conclusion that because any God that is actually a good and righteous God would be obligated to save anyone He could, the fact that He doesn't shows that He can't. As unbiblical as universalism is, it is far less repulvise than the tripe you spew. At least universalists believe that God is capable of saving everyone. Your pitiful shadow of a god is regulated by the will of the creation. Tell you what, you go ahead and worship that god. I'll continue to acknowledge that the God of Scripture is holy and righteous and omnipotent and He saves all whom He purposes to save and never fails.

 

[calidog]

For those people given to Him, Jesus the Christ, by God the Father.

John 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. . . . .
John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Jesus is praying for His own (believers). Did He die for them only?

 

[Reformationist]

Who did Christ die for?

For all whom the Father has given the Son, all whom He will raise up on the last day.

God bless

 

[seekingpurity047]

Jesus is praying for His own (believers). Did He die for them only?

Yes.

 

[cygnusx1]

For all whom the Father has given the Son, all whom He will raise up on the last day.

God bless

Amen Brother !!!

It occurs to me that many get upset about God's Sovereignty and say "man is not a puppet"

yet , they don't mind if God is a big puppet!!

 

[Reformationist]

Who is Strong?

Really? Dr. James Strong (1822-1894) was Professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary and is best known for his exhaustive work in biblical interpretation. He is the author of Strong's Concordance.

God bless