Predestination??

[heymikey80]

We get back to the old "two pictures of salvation" analogy, don't we?

Picture one says there is a boat, and you have fallen over the side, drowning. Someone on the boat throws you a life-ring, and you swim to get it, hold on and don't let go until you're safe. Without the life-ring being thrown to you, you were most certainly going to drown.

Picture two says that there is a cliff, and you have fallen to the bottom, lying dead as a plank. God must bring you to life, but it is up to you to climb back up. He will help. (There could be a modified Calvinist version of this one two, for example, you don't need to climb or something. I don't know.)

Either picture, one more synergistic than the other, still relies on God to do the saving.

Yes, but that wasn't the point. The point was grace alone; faith alone. But picture #1 has two parties involved: the one throwing, and the one working to reach the ring, hang onto it, and not let go.

It's not grace alone. It's simple as that: it's not. It's grace plus work. The grace didn't save them; it haned out an opportunity for rescue, half a path to salvation once you worked at it.

As you suspected Picture #2 has a second, basic flaw in it. As Scripture uses the illustration:

Eph 2:5-7 "... even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

If we're doing anything, we're simply acting like we're back up there with Christ Jesus. It has nothing to do with trying to climb back up. We are sons; so we act like sons.

 

[ContraMundum]

Yes, but that wasn't the point. The point was grace alone; faith alone. But picture #1 has two parties involved: the one throwing, and the one working to reach the ring, hang onto it, and not let go.

It's not grace alone. It's simple as that: it's not. It's grace plus work. The grace didn't save them; it haned out an opportunity for rescue, half a path to salvation once you worked at it.

As you suspected Picture #2 has a second, basic flaw in it. As Scripture uses the illustration:

Eph 2:5-7 "... even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

If we're doing anything, we're simply acting like we're back up there with Christ Jesus. It has nothing to do with trying to climb back up. We are sons; so we act like sons.

I totally understand we're you're coming from, but again, "grace" needs to be defined before we can agree on just exactly how "grace alone" works. No one (that I know of anyway) in Christianity across the spectrum denies grace alone, even depending on how they define it. That there is obvious responsibility on man (especially in regards to his sanctification) is not denied by anyone (the first Protestant formula called it "The New Obedience", others called it different things but followed suit), so at some stage everyone acknowledges that man must submit to God's law and so forth.

The common factor in both "pictures" given is that God must do the saving. This, we all agree on. It's God's grace alone that must preceed all activity on the part of man. I don't think this places either picture outside of "Sola Gratia", and I don't think it would place man as equal ("back up there") with Jesus Christ. It simply reaffirms God as sole Saviour and without His gracious activity towards us we are hopelessly lost.

 

[heymikey80]

I totally understand we're you're coming from, but again, "grace" needs to be defined before we can agree on just exactly how "grace alone" works. No one (that I know of anyway) in Christianity across the spectrum denies grace alone, even depending on how they define it. That there is obvious responsibility on man (especially in regards to his sanctification) is not denied by anyone (the first Protestant formula called it "The New Obedience", others called it different things but followed suit), so at some stage everyone acknowledges that man must submit to God's law and so forth.

The common factor in both "pictures" given is that God must do the saving. This, we all agree on. It's God's grace alone that must preceed all activity on the part of man. I don't think this places either picture outside of "Sola Gratia", and I don't think it would place man as equal ("back up there") with Jesus Christ. It simply reaffirms God as sole Saviour and without His gracious activity towards us we are hopelessly lost.

I'm not so sure. Grace (unmerited favor) is the actor -- absent our own work -- in our Salvation (rescue) to eternal life. That's really what "grace alone" involves, isn't it? God's grace doesn't simply precede all activity -- it accomplishes all activity absent our work.

I don't see Judaism as being much other than "doing works out of gratefulness to God." The two forms of faith merge into one if we're just responding to God's grace. But to me there's a profound difference. "But if it's of grace, it's not of works; otherwise grace isn't grace."

Works are an indicator whether people are in the sanctification process. They aren't absent. We have the same obligation to the Law everyone else has, and now our insight into this responsibility is enhanced through the Spirit. But is that a new responsibility? I don't think so. It's a new kind of obeying because of our insight.

 

[Reformationist]

Perhaps you could tell me if it was God's will for Lucifer to fall.

Did Lucifer fall? There's your answer. If you're asking for me to define the manner in which it was God's will, it was His decretive will that it come to pass.

 

[Reformationist]

The key passage in thise canon here is those who think they have the ability WITHOUT the help of God. That is correct, God's help is REQUIRED. However we clearly see free will does exist, it was just "weakened" and requires grace to lead the person to Christ.

Um...so man has a will that is free, yet that free will requires the help of God? What would that free will choose "without the help of God?" You acknowledge that grace is necessary to lead the person to Christ so, clearly, you acknowledge that, apart from the grace, the man cannot come to Christ. If that be so, what about that will seems "free" to you? If something about the constituent nature of that will makes it unable to come to Christ, is that a truly "free" will? Also, what does it mean for the will to be "weakened?" What is the result of a will in a "weakened state?"

This same council also teaches that Baptism fully restores Free Will.

To whom does God dispense this "help" that leads to Christ? If it be to everyone without exception, why does it actually lead some to Christ and others it has no affect upon?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

More like "God knew who would choose Him so He gave them the grace to choose Him".

I don't understand how this makes any sense as a definition of the Arminian position. If God knew who would choose Him then why would they need grace to choose Him? If you simply mean that the grace that God gives leads men to choose Him and in dispensing His grace to whomsoever He will, He establishes who will choose Him, well, that would be the reformed position.

Or, for others "God gave us the grace to choose Him, and by His foreknowledge He knew who would do so anyway".

Your use of the term "anyway" implies that the choice for God would be made by man, and known by God, regardless of the dispensation of His grace so I fail to see why the dispensation of His grace is necessary. Seems a bit redundant.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

So why did God need to give them the grace to choose him if they would anyway?

Apparently I'm not the only one that was confused by that.

 

[Reformationist]

Well, the obvious answer is because they were/are dead in their sins, unable to save themselves. He just foreknew, because He is outside of time and it's all happening now. No chronology or Ordo Salutis with God. Weird, eh? But then again, Calvinism is equally as surreal, where God, who is love, is all loving and with the omnipotence to save all lets millions die in Hell because He's just not inclined to save them. Even humans show more compassion.

The unfortunate and illogical methodology employed to reach this judgement fails to take into account the gravity of man's sin against the holiness of God. For someone to say that God is less compassionate than sinful man because He chooses to refrain from saving many that He had both authority and ability to save is to disregard the severity of man's cosmic treason against his Creator. If I sin against you, as bad as that may be, I have merely sinned against a sinner. If I sin against God, against Whom all sin is ultimately perpetrated, I have sinned against a holy and righteous Creator and the magnitude of my transgression is only further pronounced by the holiness of the One against whom I committed the injustice.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Ok, well why then would they deny that we don't have a choice in the matter of our salvation?

Simply because it is not a decision about which any of us were consulted, for it is not an event that is ultimately purposed to glorify any but the Godhead. Did you never have a decision made for you by someone else because they knew it was for your benefit? Did your parents consult you about everything that related to you just because you had the ability to make choices?

 

[Reformationist]

So how then do you explain the fall of Lucifer, or Adam? They were not unregenerate when they sinned.

As the Bible says very little about the affairs of angels, I doubt anyone could offer any substantial biblical support regarding the fall of Lucifer. As to Adam, I myself have started a number of threads to discuss the topic. I have never heard a sufficient explanation, from anyone from any school of thought, as to why Adam, a creation without the inclinations of sinful nature, would even desire something contrary to God's expressed law.

If you learn why, please share it with me.

 

[Reformationist]

So what are you saying here, that it was God's purpose for Lucifer to fall into sin, and for Adam to disobey Him?

Of course. The plan of redemption was not an afterthought.

Why would God command anyone to obey Him if it was His purpose that they should disobey Him?

God is holy and can command nothing less than holiness. He did not force Adam to sin. However, Adam's sin was in accordance with God's providential government of history in the redemption of His elect through the sacrifice of the Son.

 

[cygnusx1]

While we see things in the timeline we are in, God sees things as things that already happened long ago. Think of Predestination as like watching a movie for the second time, you already know what happens so when you see it again, the actors all do exactly as they have already done so the ending is exactly the same. Following Christ is a choice but God has already seen what your final choice will be, just like a movie rerun.

yes and we know who wrote the script!

 

[cygnusx1]

No, this doesn't answer the question. Actually, if God predestined some to salvation and others to damnation, then don't we all have a purpose?

Yes , and as I said already the clearest answer is in 1 Corinthians.

I will quote the passage , the point of God making a clear choice will be underlined , the PURPOSE of God choosing will be in red ... O.K.

1 Corinthians.chapter 1​

18: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20: Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22: For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28: And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30: But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[mlqurgw]

So what are you saying here, that it was God's purpose for Lucifer to fall into sin, and for Adam to disobey Him?

Why would God command anyone to obey Him if it was His purpose that they should disobey Him?

Strange doctrine!

Not strange at all. It depends on your view of God. God commands that we obey Him because it is right to do so but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is His will that we do. We are responsible to obey God not because He wills it but because it is right. He is the Creator and controller of all things. Psa. 14:1 teaches us that sin is shouting back at God No! You will notice the "there is" is in italics. That means it was added by the translators to make it read better but in this case it did exactly the opposite. What the verse is saying is that the fool stands with his fist in the face of God saying no I will not obey you , you have no right to commnd that I do. Sin is a denial of God's right to command not His will. There is no place in the Scriptures that declare that God wants what He cannot have, wishes for what He cannot bring to pass or tries to do something He cannot do. He says, "I am God, there is none beside me." Again He says ," I will do all my pleasure, whatsoever I have purposed it shall come to pass. "


So you see God's commands and God's will are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Christler]

This is a very simple issue though it may in the beginning seem complex.

Good must be able to be identified as Good, this would be impossible without the presence of evil. (like an atom possitve and negative charges)

People argue this topic day in and day out. Which one is right? Is it predestination, or whosoever will?

Guess what? It's Both.
Whosoever will come let him come, but just like anything else in this life, everybody's not going to accept the invitation, it could be an invite to a super bowl party, a bridal shower, or yes an invitation to salvation. Guess what? everybody's not going to be interested in going.

It's also predestination because God knows the choices everybody is going to make in their lifetime before they make the choice, and God still allows them to be born.

People choose there own path in life. Stop blaming God for the foolish decisions of mankind. God gives everyone the same opportunity, everybody does'nt accept it.

can I blame someone else for the Failing grades i made in school. No, I had all the opportunity in the world to do better, it was my choice.
Matthew 13:25-40 Jesus explains this debate by the parable of the wheat, and the Tares. Yes he did sow all good seed, but an enemy sowed all the tares.
Jesus also did'nt allow the tares to be plucked up, or it might harm the wheat. The Good is in need of the evil or else how could we measure what's good, and we need a little oposition in our lives to grow, and overcome in this life.

 

[mlqurgw]

This is a very simple issue though it may in the beginning seem complex.

Good must be able to be identified as Good, this would be impossible without the presence of evil. (like an atom possitve and negative charges)

People argue this topic day in and day out. Which one is right? Is it predestination, or whosoever will?

Guess what? It's Both.
Whosoever will come let him come, but just like anything else in this life, everybody's not going to accept the invitation, it could be an invite to a super bowl party, a bridal shower, or yes an invitation to salvation. Guess what? everybody's not going to be interested in going.

It's also predestination because God knows the choices everybody is going to make in their lifetime before they make the choice, and God still allows them to be born.

People choose there own path in life. Stop blaming God for the foolish decisions of mankind. God gives everyone the same opportunity, everybody does'nt accept it.

can I blame someone else for the Failing grades i made in school. No, I had all the opportunity in the world to do better, it was my choice.
Matthew 13:25-40 Jesus explains this debate by the parable of the wheat, and the Tares. Yes he did sow all good seed, but an enemy sowed all the tares.
Jesus also did'nt allow the tares to be plucked up, or it might harm the wheat. The Good is in need of the evil or else how could we measure what's good, and we need a little oposition in our lives to grow, and overcome in this life.

This doesn't solve the problem at all. It still gives man a reason to boast before God. I did something that others didn't. I accepted the invitation. That man in Hell didn't do what I did. In reality it puts salvation in the hands of men instead of God. Nowhere in the Scriptures is the idea of God predestinating according to forsight.

 

[Bobber]

This doesn't solve the problem at all. It still gives man a reason to boast before God. I did something that others didn't. I accepted the invitation. That man in Hell didn't do what I did. In reality it puts salvation in the hands of men instead of God.

No it doesn't. Consider the following...Im a rich man...I have tickets for a concert...I offer tickets to both two poor men....one accepts and another says no....if the one who goes to the concert later states he did something to earn the ticket I gave him I might give him a piece of my mind later. He did nothing at all...I gave them to him....for him to boast just because he received them of his own free will would be nonsense and I don't know anybody who would do that....they would be thankful to the one who gave him the ticket and would not make such a ridiculous claim....and yet a Calvinist would say his statement would be reasonable to make? Not sure how one could reason like this.

 

[Christler]

This doesn't solve the problem at all. It still gives man a reason to boast before God. I did something that others didn't. I accepted the invitation. That man in Hell didn't do what I did. In reality it puts salvation in the hands of men instead of God. Nowhere in the Scriptures is the idea of God predestinating according to forsight.

it's not a problem, It's TRUTH, and TRUTH does'nt need to be solved.

 

[Jipsah]

No it doesn't. Consider the following...Im a rich man...I have tickets for a concert...I offer tickets to both two poor men....one accepts and another says no....if the one who goes to the concert later states he did something to earn the ticket I gave him I might give him a piece of my mind later. He did nothing at all.

He did all that was needful - he took the ticket. The choice was hsi, the response was his, the action was his. The rich man just stood there. The poor man who heard the concert did so because of his own actions, and the one who did not hear the concert missed it because of his actions.

.for him to boast just because he received them of his own free will would be nonsense

Why? He did what was necessary to hear the concert, the other guy did not. Presumably they both wanted to hear it, but only one did what was necessary. So yeah, he has the right to goon the guy who wanted to go but who, for whatever reason, didn't do what was necessary.

yet a Calvinist would say his statement would be reasonable to make?

So would an Arminian if he weren't trying to prop up a jerry-built doctrine.

 

[ContraMundum]

The unfortunate and illogical methodology employed to reach this judgement fails to take into account the gravity of man's sin against the holiness of God.

But such comments are really rhetorical exaggeration. I don't know if anyone seriously believes Calvinism is that shallow and unsophisticated.

For someone to say that God is less compassionate than sinful man because He chooses to refrain from saving many that He had both authority and ability to save is to disregard the severity of man's cosmic treason against his Creator. If I sin against you, as bad as that may be, I have merely sinned against a sinner. If I sin against God, against Whom all sin is ultimately perpetrated, I have sinned against a holy and righteous Creator and the magnitude of my transgression is only further pronounced by the holiness of the One against whom I committed the injustice.

God bless

For every doctrine regarding the nature and gravity of sin there must need be a doctrine about the nature and magnitude of love. It is easily proven that man's sin is grave and totally seperates him from God, but it is also true that God overturns all evil powers, sin, the Devil and death itself to save His creation.

Therefore, if God has decreed a plan of salvation which entails choice, and then He by His power graciously enables the choice to be made, this is not a plan either against His holiness or against His sovereignty, but rather, is a testimony both to His love and His holiness.

However, if we have a God which extends genuine love only to a select few, which He alone chooses, however mysteriously, we don't have much of a testimony to His love, but rather only to His sovereignty.

What bothers me the most about all this is how much of the teachings of Jesus about the Father's love is left out of discussions on election. We focus on a few passages of Paul, but forget the parables, such as the sower and the seed, the wedding feast, the bridegroom, the prodigal etc etc. Many of these speak of the Father's love, the effect of the word on the heart, the invitation to respond and the like. I think it is wise to take these into context when discussing election.

Glad you pitched in.

BTW- I'm still undecided on the intricacies of the "warm cookie" model. It seems a very good workable model based on scripture, and like yourself, I would add some modifiers to it. More later.