Predestination??

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

We "accept Jesus" in the sense that He called and we responded. Like in Matt22:

1 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not come.
4 Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.' 5 But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.
7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.' 10 And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; 12 and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.' 14 For many are called, but few are chosen."
​

The original feast was specifically inviting a group of people. But they did not respond. They were again invited but they refused again. So the King went out to find people who would come, and people did. It turns out some who came didnt come properly so they were kicked out.

In Luke 14:16 we read, "A certain man made a great supper, and bade many." By comparing carefully what follows here with Matthew 22:2-10 several important distinctions will be observed. We take it that these passages are two independent accounts of the same parable, differing in detail according to the distinctive purpose and design of the Holy Spirit in each Gospel. Matthew’s account—in harmony with the Spirit’s presentation there of Christ as the Son of David, the King of the Jews—says, "A certain king made a marriage for his son." Luke’s account—where the Spirit presents Christ as the Son of Man—says, "A certain man made a great supper and bade many." Matthew 22:3 says, "And sent forth His servants;" Luke 14:17 says, "And sent His servant." Now what we wish particularly to call attention to is, that all through Matthew’s account it is "servants," whereas in Luke it is always "servant." The class of readers for whom we are writing are those that believe, unreservedly, in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, and such will readily acknowledge there must be some reason for this change from the plural number in Matthew to the singular number in Luke. We believe the reason is a weighty one and that attention to this variation reveals an important truth. We believe that the "servants" in Matthew, speaking generally, are all who go forth preaching the Gospel, but that the "Servant" in Luke 14 is the Holy Spirit Himself. This is not incongruous, or derogatory to the Holy Spirit, for God the Son, in the days of His earthly ministry, was the Servant of Jehovah (Isa. 42:1). It will be observed that in Matthew 22 the "servants" are sent forth to do three things: first, to "call" to the wedding (v. 3); second, to "tell those which are bidden . . . all things are ready: come unto the marriage" (v. 4); third, to "bid to the marriage" (v. 9); and these three are the things which those who minister the Gospel today are now doing. In Luke 14 the Servant is also sent forth to do three things: first, He is "to say to them that were bidden, Come: for all things are now ready" (v. 17) ; second, He is to "bring in the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind" (v. 21); third, He is to "compel them to come in" (v. 23), and the last two of these the Holy Spirit alone can do!

In the above Scripture we see that "the Servant," the Holy Spirit, compels certain ones to come in to the "supper" and herein is seen His sovereignty, His omnipotency, His Divine sufficiency. The clear implication from this word "compel" is, that those whom the Holy Spirit does "bring in" are not willing of themselves to come. By nature, God’s elect are children of wrath even as others (Eph. 2:3), and as such their hearts are at enmity with God. But this "enmity" of theirs is overcome by the Spirit and He "compels" them to come in. Is it not clear then that the reason why others are left outside, is not only because they are unwilling to go in, but also because the Holy Spirit does not "compel" them to come in? Is it not manifest that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the exercise of His power, that as the wind "bloweth where it pleaseth", so the Holy Spirit operates where He pleases?

 

[cygnusx1]

In Luke 14:16 we read, "A certain man made a great supper, and bade many." By comparing carefully what follows here with Matthew 22:2-10 several important distinctions will be observed. We take it that these passages are two independent accounts of the same parable, differing in detail according to the distinctive purpose and design of the Holy Spirit in each Gospel. Matthew’s account—in harmony with the Spirit’s presentation there of Christ as the Son of David, the King of the Jews—says, "A certain king made a marriage for his son." Luke’s account—where the Spirit presents Christ as the Son of Man—says, "A certain man made a great supper and bade many." Matthew 22:3 says, "And sent forth His servants;" Luke 14:17 says, "And sent His servant." Now what we wish particularly to call attention to is, that all through Matthew’s account it is "servants," whereas in Luke it is always "servant." The class of readers for whom we are writing are those that believe, unreservedly, in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, and such will readily acknowledge there must be some reason for this change from the plural number in Matthew to the singular number in Luke. We believe the reason is a weighty one and that attention to this variation reveals an important truth. We believe that the "servants" in Matthew, speaking generally, are all who go forth preaching the Gospel, but that the "Servant" in Luke 14 is the Holy Spirit Himself. This is not incongruous, or derogatory to the Holy Spirit, for God the Son, in the days of His earthly ministry, was the Servant of Jehovah (Isa. 42:1). It will be observed that in Matthew 22 the "servants" are sent forth to do three things: first, to "call" to the wedding (v. 3); second, to "tell those which are bidden . . . all things are ready: come unto the marriage" (v. 4); third, to "bid to the marriage" (v. 9); and these three are the things which those who minister the Gospel today are now doing. In Luke 14 the Servant is also sent forth to do three things: first, He is "to say to them that were bidden, Come: for all things are now ready" (v. 17) ; second, He is to "bring in the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind" (v. 21); third, He is to "compel them to come in" (v. 23), and the last two of these the Holy Spirit alone can do!

In the above Scripture we see that "the Servant," the Holy Spirit, compels certain ones to come in to the "supper" and herein is seen His sovereignty, His omnipotency, His Divine sufficiency. The clear implication from this word "compel" is, that those whom the Holy Spirit does "bring in" are not willing of themselves to come. By nature, God’s elect are children of wrath even as others (Eph. 2:3), and as such their hearts are at enmity with God. But this "enmity" of theirs is overcome by the Spirit and He "compels" them to come in. Is it not clear then that the reason why others are left outside, is not only because they are unwilling to go in, but also because the Holy Spirit does not "compel" them to come in? Is it not manifest that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the exercise of His power, that as the wind "bloweth where it pleaseth", so the Holy Spirit operates where He pleases?

Amen , thanks for giving out the truth of this parable .............. it is my fav parable , I am glad that one so young can clearly see the fine distinction given to us by The Holy Spirit ........ there is hope for the next generation!

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Amen , thanks for giving out the truth of this parable .............. it is my fav parable , I am glad that one so young can clearly see the fine distinction given to us by The Holy Spirit ........ there is hope for the next generation!

Thanks for the compliment, but I was merely quoting from Arthur W. Pink!
And yes, there is always hope for every generation as long as the Sovereign God is in control! Romans 11:5 says "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Sincerely, Zach Doty

 

[Normann]

Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Shall we change the meaning of "any" in every place in the Bible it is used?

 

[ContraMundum]

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

First we are told that all that the Father gives the Son will come. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that if someone doesn't come, they weren't given, yes?

Then we are told, seven verses later, of man's inherent inability to come apart from this divine impulsion:

John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

And not only this, but a clear distinction is made between the universal imposition of the demands of God's law, which I call the general call of God, and the result of the inward and effectual call of God in reconciling sinners to Himself. We are told that those God calls He ultimately glorifies (Romans 8:28-30). This call is referring to the inward and necessary work of the Spirit in regenerating man unto life in Christ and the invariable result that He will complete the good work He starts in them.

I have no idea why you brought that up. It seems to support any position you like it to. Arminians also believe in the inward call etc etc.

Again, Scripture suffices to address the efficacy of God's call:

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

John 10:27
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

I think this hardly supports an irresistable call. They are already sheep when they hear Him. That's the point.

Judas was not lost. He was never a child of God. He was chosen specifically for the purpose of manifesting God's will in betraying the Messiah.

You've missed the point, and it's probably my fault. Judas was called by Christ personally. He was considered by the Apostles to have shared in their ministry. Whether or not he was regenerated we are not told, but, before pentecost, we are not told about the spiritual state of any of the 12, are we? In fact, St Peter himself was called a Satan, so what exactly was his state? The verses I cited where Christs prays that he has only lost one, Judas, don't agree with the interpretation you've been taught, and in fact, may lead to the overthrow of that interpretation, as the spiritual state of Judas before Satan entered into him is clearly not a doctrine revealed in scripture.

I think this kind of proposition is outside of the boundaries God's revelation.

And I suppose you have come to your conclusions by way of an infallible, enlightened, divine revelation that is based on indisputable ideas?

Good point. The difference is that I acknowledge the mystery and prefer to be silent where scripture is silent. So, I don't allow myself the privilege of claiming infallibility, special enlightenment or any such thing.

Now, if you are critical enough to point out my infallibilty, how about John Calvin's? Or your own. Could you or Calvin be wrong?

CM, how would you define the biblical usage of the term "propitiation?" What I mean is, if someone serves as a "propitiation" for the sins of another, what has been accomplished by their act of propitiation?

I was going to spend the time relaying the pertinent aspects of properly exegeting this passage but have found a site that does so far better than I could hope to do. I ask only that you look at its explanation and consider its points:

1 John 2:2: Universal or Limited propitiation?

Eh, not a very good page, I would say. Kinda shoddy, actually. There's an awful lot of assumptions and clearly the theology is first year theology student- the parrot kind, not the capable kind. In fact, right from the first paragraph the guy is obviously out of his depth. Kinda sad really, because the Reformed commentators I've read on this epistle just don't seem to get it. They really try to cram presumptions into the plain words rather than just accept them by faith. They try to make the "world" smaller than it is, by citing Biblical verses of geographical reference to correlate their position rather than the obvious anthropological application required here. It's disgraceful abuse of the scriptures. The wider witness of Christian history seems to nail this epistle fairly well in its exegetical works.

Brother, try doing your own exegesis, not this guy's eisegesis. I mean, for goodness' sake, he cites AW Pink, who thinks John only ever wrote to Jews and John Gill- who thinks the term "whole world" is about geography here.

Throw this junk in the bin, friend.

(As for the definition of propitiation, it's hardly relevant at this stage- let's just deal with "world" first, eh? If you need to know it, look it up here: http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/ , I'll probably agree with the definition there.)

CM, with all due respect, I have had thousands of conversations with Arminians on this MB regarding this very issue so I am very familiar with the desparity between what they claim to believe and the natural conclusion of their theology.

RF, with equal respect, how about you and I focus on discussing the claims of Jacob Arminius based on his own words, rather than what we read from laymen on the internet. Really, we'll hear all kinds of claims but if we (all of us) don't cite our sources and authorities then we're just spouting personal opinion and we end up critiquing the wrong thing, and wasting time. Seriously, I have yet to see an "Arminian" talk about Arminianism.

Secondly, in defence of your opponents, I would say that they can see the disparity between what you claim to believe and the logical conclusions of your theology.

They may deny the accuracy of such a claim but their theology only serves to support it. Ask an Arminian or if you are one, ask yourself, how many people are saved by the work of Christ alone, apart from their contributory work of accepting His work as meritorious on their behalf. Bottom line, Arminians believe that the work of Christ was intended to save all people without exception and that the self willed response of the person is what determines whether it does so.

Regarding interpreting other's statements- If your bottom line does not equal their opening statement, then you've misunderstood them. I don't think your "bottom line" is in line with their opening statement, so it's just rhetoric to me.

Have a quick look at the Remonstrants statements again, then post a critique.

I am aware of that. However, they also state that God cannot, or will not, save them without their permission. How a creature who is dead in sin ever even thinks to offer that permission is something I've never seen adequately explained.

Well, it's simple. I'll use crass, garden variety logic. If I awake my kids from sleep and tell them to do the dishes, they might not do them, but they have been awoken. They had no capacity to do the dishes while alseep. They didn't and couldn't wake themselves in this wimpy analogy, either.

I've been told that the grace of God precedes their decision to do so but they destroy the logic behind such reasoning by claiming that that same grace is given to all, even those who still reject the work of Christ as salvitic.

Nope. Think about the role of the Holy Spirit, in and through the word and means of grace, and you might get a hint of where they are coming from. (Well, the informed ones, anyway).

That said, it cannot logically be the grace of God which causes the one who is dead in sins to accept the work of Christ as salvitically meritorious. They've merely put themselves back into the same illogical position that Rome is in.

They think the position you hold is far more illogical.

As I said, such a position, while initially God centered, quickly shows its man centered roots in the acknowledgement that the same work of the Spirit which they credit for their converstion was utterly impotent to accomplish the same thing in the lives of all who continue in their spiritual bondage.

Not quite on the money, and think about it- this is a hair's breadth from your position anyway. Question for you- do you participate in your own sanctification or not? Not talking about justification, but sanctification.

Why would we be dealing with that verse??? Is there something in reformed doctrine that you believe avoids dealing with the providential dispensation of God's revelation?

No, no, I think the Arminians avoid dealing with that verse, as I said.

Why do you act as if the issues of God's monergistic work of election and man's responsibility are incompatible in reformed doctrine? We don't deny man's responsbility. Everything we espouse stems forth from God's providence in all matters of history but we don't claim that man is a volitional creature or that God has not ordained to manifest His will through secondary causes, i.e., man's freely willed actions. In fact, one of the most poignant and supportive revelations of our view in the Bible is that of God's sovereign providence in the life of Jacob's son, Joseph. Additionally, I have personally addressed those very issues numerous times. What is it that you have questions about that you feel are not being answered?

The question is simple for me: does man have a responsibility towards his own sanctification or not? Get to that and we'll seehow we go from there.

Care to state your position on the issue?

I have a modified Lutheran outlook, at this stage, but am prepared to change because I don't think anyone has all correct as far as I can tell, which may be my fault and not theirs or perhaps I was right all along and God has not revealed this doctrine fully and we should just shut up about it. I hold: Prevenient grace for all, saving grace only through the means of grace. One will not be saved apart from the means of grace, ordinarily speaking. There are always exceptions (Paul). It's God's perogative to do as He wills. God chose none before the foundation of the world for eternal damnation in Hell (Hell created for Satan and his angels, not man). No one receives grace by foreseen faith or for any merit (there are no merits in man). Why some receive saving grace and not others is in the unsearchable mystery of God, and has not been revealed to man. (I have yet to see the Bible verse that says otherwise).

As previously stated, if one acknowledges that God's election unto salvation is a necessary, and sufficient antecedent to man's redemption then it is likewise stated that a person who lacks that election has been, by default, left to his own devices to be justified before God. This abandonment is His sovereign election unto damnation. Where I think you're getting confused regarding our view is that we don't claim that He elects unto "hellfire" in the same manner as He elects unto salvation. We don't espouse equal ultimacy.

So, you are the same as the Lutheran position of single predestination with a few new bits added in? Not the "God chose men to eternal damnation or to eternal salvation according to His good pleasure" line of the old school High Calvinists?

 

[ContraMundum]

In Luke 14:16 we read, "A certain man made a great supper, and bade many." By comparing carefully what follows here with Matthew 22:2-10 several important distinctions will be observed. We take it that these passages are two independent accounts of the same parable, differing in detail according to the distinctive purpose and design of the Holy Spirit in each Gospel. Matthew’s account—in harmony with the Spirit’s presentation there of Christ as the Son of David, the King of the Jews—says, "A certain king made a marriage for his son." Luke’s account—where the Spirit presents Christ as the Son of Man—says, "A certain man made a great supper and bade many." Matthew 22:3 says, "And sent forth His servants;" Luke 14:17 says, "And sent His servant." Now what we wish particularly to call attention to is, that all through Matthew’s account it is "servants," whereas in Luke it is always "servant." The class of readers for whom we are writing are those that believe, unreservedly, in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, and such will readily acknowledge there must be some reason for this change from the plural number in Matthew to the singular number in Luke. We believe the reason is a weighty one and that attention to this variation reveals an important truth. We believe that the "servants" in Matthew, speaking generally, are all who go forth preaching the Gospel, but that the "Servant" in Luke 14 is the Holy Spirit Himself. This is not incongruous, or derogatory to the Holy Spirit, for God the Son, in the days of His earthly ministry, was the Servant of Jehovah (Isa. 42:1). It will be observed that in Matthew 22 the "servants" are sent forth to do three things: first, to "call" to the wedding (v. 3); second, to "tell those which are bidden . . . all things are ready: come unto the marriage" (v. 4); third, to "bid to the marriage" (v. 9); and these three are the things which those who minister the Gospel today are now doing. In Luke 14 the Servant is also sent forth to do three things: first, He is "to say to them that were bidden, Come: for all things are now ready" (v. 17) ; second, He is to "bring in the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind" (v. 21); third, He is to "compel them to come in" (v. 23), and the last two of these the Holy Spirit alone can do!

In the above Scripture we see that "the Servant," the Holy Spirit, compels certain ones to come in to the "supper" and herein is seen His sovereignty, His omnipotency, His Divine sufficiency. The clear implication from this word "compel" is, that those whom the Holy Spirit does "bring in" are not willing of themselves to come. By nature, God’s elect are children of wrath even as others (Eph. 2:3), and as such their hearts are at enmity with God. But this "enmity" of theirs is overcome by the Spirit and He "compels" them to come in. Is it not clear then that the reason why others are left outside, is not only because they are unwilling to go in, but also because the Holy Spirit does not "compel" them to come in? Is it not manifest that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in the exercise of His power, that as the wind "bloweth where it pleaseth", so the Holy Spirit operates where He pleases?

That's rubbish.

No offence. (But it's not your work, so you shouldn't take offence, you're just being led to a conclusion by this guy, who was led to conclusions by other guys)

The Holy Spirit "compels" us all by convicting us of sin, bringing contrition, and thus, repentance. (Jn 16:8 etc etc) Once convicted of sin and truly repentant, they are willing to "come in". Read the conversions in the Book of Acts without Pink's commentary of leading partisan conclusions and you'll get the picture.

Secondly, he left out one important bit in his reference to the Spirit's work in John 3:8 "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

In other words, election and predestination, and why some are saved and others not will remain a mystery. According to Jesus, anyway.

 

[Normann]

There is no such doctrine taught in the scriptures that God chose out before birth those he wanted to go to heaven.


John 3:16 alone proves this.

 

[Espada]

Two points, God chose the Israelites, anyone disagree there? So predestination is there in the OT, why should it not be there in the NT (which it is).

How about all those who died before Christ's first coming? What about all those who live somewhere where they will not have a chance to hear the gospel, hasn't God basically predestined them to death by nature of their time and place of birth?

 

[ContraMundum]

Two points, God chose the Israelites, anyone disagree there? So predestination is there in the OT, why should it not be there in the NT (which it is).

No one I know disputes predestination, especially for the Jews of old. However, the only predestination I know of in the NT is the predestination to be conformed to the image of Christ through our adoption etc. This of course ties in with election as it says in Ephesians 1 cf 1 Pet 1:2.

I don't think this is disputed here. What is disputed is how and why.

How about all those who died before Christ's first coming? What about all those who live somewhere where they will not have a chance to hear the gospel, hasn't God basically predestined them to death by nature of their time and place of birth?

There's a good question for another thread. I would offer the brief answer that the Gospel has always stood on justification by faith- this is the argument Paul uses in Romans. Abraham was accounted righteous by faith. They believed and had faith in God's promise, we have faith in God's fulfillment of that promise. That's a brief and slack answer but maybe you can go from there.

 

[Espada]

There's a good question for another thread. I would offer the brief answer that the Gospel has always stood on justification by faith- this is the argument Paul uses in Romans. Abraham was accounted righteous by faith. They believed and had faith in God's promise, we have faith in God's fulfillment of that promise. That's a brief and slack answer but maybe you can go from there.

You are correct in some ways but faith comes later, first they need to hear to believe and if they don't hear, they cannot believe. If God places them in a position where they cannot hear, has he not predestined them to death purely by placing them there.

 

[ContraMundum]

You are correct in some ways but faith comes later, first they need to hear to believe and if they don't hear, they cannot believe. If God places them in a position where they cannot hear, has he not predestined them to death purely by placing them there.

There's a number of presumptions in that statement, but that's ok, we all have them.

I prefer to leave that in the mysterious counsel of God. The book of Romans teaches us that God has revealed enough of Himself to all men that they are without excuse, but the Bible often describes the oddest people as believers, who are neither OT Jews or NT Christians. Who knows?

 

[mslpanthers12]

I say God "sets up us for thing" but he gives us freewill to take the choices or whatever. So Its kind of a so so for me

 

[DavetheProphet]

You are correct in some ways but faith comes later, first they need to hear to believe and if they don't hear, they cannot believe. If God places them in a position where they cannot hear, has he not predestined them to death purely by placing them there.

I refuse to believe that my God is responsible for condemning souls to hell because of His choice. I think God gives everyone a way to hear the truth and it is by their choice that at one point or another deprives them of hearing it.

 

[Espada]

I refuse to believe that my God is responsible for condemning souls to hell because of His choice. I think God gives everyone a way to hear the truth and it is by their choice that at one point or another deprives them of hearing it.

So how did those before Christ choose not to hear the gospel, how do those in parts of the world Christianity hasn't reached choose not to hear the gospel. You can refuse as much as you like but in placing them in that position God must have predestined them to death. So far nobody has given an alternative.

 

[JayJay77]

He has not "predestined" certain individuals to hell by simply giving them a place where they would never hear the good news. He said that all are held accountable, for even those who do not hear about Jesus have closed their ears to the praise nature gives God.

 

[Normann]

I refuse to believe that my God is responsible for condemning souls to hell because of His choice. I think God gives everyone a way to hear the truth and it is by their choice that at one point or another deprives them of hearing it.

I agree and so does scripture that everyone has a chance to accept salvation. The terms all, whosoever, any, and whoso are clear that we all have a chance. To spend eternity in hell is because we reject the Blood of Christ of our own will.


God is Love and mercy- love and mercy do not punish men with out an excape route.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[Reformationist]

CM, as your post was long and involved, would you prefer I address it as a whole or focus exclusively on "does man have a responsibility towards his own sanctification or not?"
Thanks,
God bless

 

[heartnsoul]

Wow, what a profound subject to discuss. My gut feeling tells me that our lives our somewhat predestined by God's point of view--only because only God knows our hearts. He created us and lives within us so of course He knows our life and death time..

The tricky part that makes it confusing for all of us is that since we are not God, we have no way of knowing the true hearts of those who may turn to God. So, our job is to soley focus on being a light for others and let those seeds we sow fall where they may.

Are our lives predestined? I believe so from God's perspective. We just need to realize that instead of becoming preoccupied with predestination, our time would be better spent focusing on living our faith so that those who are predestined to love God will end up doing so by the seeds we sew in our walk.

Therefore, in my opinion, predestination doesn't contradict the goals of evangelism. Actually evangelism parallels predestination. Since we don't know the hearts of everyone like God does, the need for evangelism still has its importance and purpose so that the evangelists are able to reach those that are predestined to find, know and love God.

 

[cygnusx1]

I agree and so does scripture that everyone has a chance to accept salvation. The terms all, whosoever, any, and whoso are clear that we all have a chance.

why did you ignore the rest of the chapter you quoted?
You quoted the "whosover" bit and forgot or ignored the bit that says unless 'they' hear the Gospel they cannot believe!
Which in simple terms means that not everyone does have a "chance at salvation" ................. see ;

13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14 But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?

15 And how can people preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring (the) good news!"

16 But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?"

17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

 

[Espada]

Wow, what a profound subject to discuss. My gut feeling tells me that our lives our somewhat predestined by God's point of view--only because only God knows our hearts. He created us and lives within us so of course He knows our life and death time..

The tricky part that makes it confusing for all of us is that since we are not God, we have no way of knowing the true hearts of those who may turn to God. So, our job is to soley focus on being a light for others and let those seeds we sow fall where they may.

Are our lives predestined? I believe so from God's perspective. We just need to realize that instead of becoming preoccupied with predestination, our time would be better spent focusing on living our faith so that those who are predestined to love God will end up doing so by the seeds we sew in our walk.

Therefore, in my opinion, predestination doesn't contradict the goals of evangelism. Actually evangelism parallels predestination. Since we don't know the hearts of everyone like God does, the need for evangelism still has its importance and purpose so that the evangelists are able to reach those that are predestined to find, know and love God.

You are arguing foresight, Paul used the word foreknew, foresight is very different and is scriptually unsound. You are suggesting that the faith God foresees is our work. Look at Eph 2:8-9

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Also Phillipians 1:29

29For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him,

Clearly we receive our faith from God, it is not our work.