• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Predestination

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Trainwreck said:
That's exactly what the point of my post was. We are separated from God (ie hell) if we do not choose to follow him. The point is that it is our choice.

No. You're born separated from God and it is God's divine perrogative to make you a part of His family by applying unto you the merits of the work of Christ. If He chooses to refrain from doing so, you haven't been slighted. You merely get what you deserve for your rebellion.

You, like many others, unfortunately assume that salvation is the byproduct of an agreement between you and God, wherein He contributes His portion of the equation and you yours. The obvious flaw in this is that the Godhead were the sole participants in the establishment of the covenant of redemption and mankind (that would be you in case you're not picking up on that) was the passive recipient of God's graciousness.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
RapeOfAngels said:
But if God's plan includes the free will of man being involved in salvation, then without fail, it comes to pass. THAT is the truth of a sovereign God.

LOL! What a ridiculous statement. That is like saying that satan exerted his free will in afflicting Job. Sure, satan acted in accordance with his corrupt nature, just as unregenerate man's fallen will leads him to sin, but both satan and fallen man derive their limited power from the providential government of God.

Tell me, are you familiar with the doctrine of providence, or as it is also known, concurrence? If not, it is the teaching that man's acts of volition, while freely committed, only serve to manifest the plan of God. This is so poignantly shown in the story of the life of Joseph in the OT. Every single event that he endured, from the unrighteousness of his brothers who sold him into slavery to the blessings bestowed upon him by Pharaoh were ultimately the providential outworking of God's will, as manifested through the actions, even the sinful actions, of "free willed" man. Did those people act "freely?" Well, yes, if by "freely" you merely mean "in accordance with their nature and of their own volition." Were those actions truly free of any controlling influence? Of course not.

You may disagree that God has actually done this, fine. But you have no right to tell a sovereign God that he isn't allowed to do this.

Setting up strawmen is pointless. I don't presume to authorize God to do anything, as all authority is His and His alone. What I do know is that your so called "free will" doctrine is nothing more than a watered down version of the heresy that Pelagius spouted. You have man as the ultimate master of his own destiny. You may not go quite as far in your theology as Pelagius but, just like him, you see man's contribution to his salvation just as pivitol as that of God's contribution. Any theology that includes within its bounderies the idea that God planned for a person to be saved that, ultimately, is not saved should be cast among the swine where it belongs for it is nothing more than an attempt to subjegate the efficacy of God's eternal plan to the whims of a corrupt creation.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
RapeOfAngels said:
I am not sure what Paul is saying in Romans 9.

I'm very familiar with the chapter and would be happy to break it down for you. :)

However, I find it difficult to believe he is saying what you claim, because it would be a blatant logical fallacy. (Weak analogy, for making a comparison with something lifeless.) I don't think that God could make an error like that.

I have no clue of the error to which you refer, nor am I aware that I attributed any error to God. If I did it was certainly not my intent. If not, can you explain what you mean? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Brazell said:
I just have a hard time believing that everything that I may do has already been decided, it would seem to suggest that God has already chosen who will be saved and who will perish, without giving them any sort of choice.

Let's, for the sake of discussion, set aside Scripture which explicitly states that God has decided that very thing. I'm curious if you think God would be within His rights to do what you suggest, i.e., chosen who will be saved and who will perish, without giving them any sort of choice?
 
Upvote 0

Jig

Christ Follower
Oct 3, 2005
4,529
399
Texas
✟23,214.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Reformationist said:
Let's, for the sake of discussion, set aside Scripture which explicitly states that God has decided that very thing. I'm curious if you think God would be within His rights to do what you suggest, i.e., chosen who will be saved and who will perish, without giving them any sort of choice?

God is omniscient. He knows before you are born if you will accept Him or not.

The only thing we can't choose for ourselves is who we are born to, God has to do this. Using the knowledge He has about how we will live our life (for Him or not), could He not place us with a family who He also knows will not turn to Him and vise versa for those who will live for Him?

I gave the example of children born in Muslim/Buddist/Hindu/etc families, and also those American Indians who lived after Jesus's death but before Columbus with no way of hearing the Good News.

Could God have placed these people in their locations and families knowing in advance they wouldn't turn to Him even if they were born in a Christian household?

Just a thought...
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Predestination - Reprobation Contrasted[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
1. [The Scripture] does not teach or imply a double predestination. In an attempt to distinguish between election and reprobation we should use predestination for the elect and foreordination for the reprobate.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. Election and reprobation rest on different grounds: election on the redeeming love of God that undertakes the salvation of the lost; reprobation on the moral necessity to manifest to the universe the nature and consequences of sin in moral personality. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. Means are used of God to fulfil the purpose of election, but God uses no means to fulfil His purpose of reprobation. It is left to sin to run its course and receive its wages. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. The fruits of election are attributable to divine grace, the fruits of reprobation to personal sin. This means that while there is grace to some, there is injustice to none. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. While God finds pleasure in the salvation of the elect, He has sworn by Himself that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God does not need sin or its retribution for His self-manifestation, but its reality in the universe can serve that end. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6. That the elect will constitute a recreation of the race under a new Head is evident, while the retribute are but the branches cut off from the tree of humanity. Christ will be revealed as the Saviour of the world, though many are lost in the process. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Finlayson[/FONT]​
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jig said:
God is omniscient. He knows before you are born if you will accept Him or not.

The only thing we can't choose for ourselves is who we are born to, God has to do this. Using the knowledge He has about how we will live our life (for Him or not), could He not place us with a family who He also knows will not turn to Him and vise versa for those who will live for Him?

Jig, this backward logic is just plain silly, not to mention unbiblical and illogical. Not only do Christians spring forth from families who never embrace the Lord Jesus, there are, likewise, children who never embrace Jesus whose family does submit to God. Additionally to claim that God chooses what to do with us on the basis of what He sees us doing/choosing is to give the creation a reason to boast, something explicitly prohibited in the Gospel. The truth of mankind is that he is fallen to such a degree that, apart from the intercessory, regenerative work of the Almighty, he would NEVER come to faith. To claim that God makes a choice about you based on what He sees you doing violates explicit Scripture, which plainly states that God receives counsel from no one nor does He elect based on anything you say or do. The plan of redemption is grounded firmly AND EXCLUSIVELY in His eternal mercy. The Bible explicitly states that it is NOT based on the works or desire of mankind but, rather, upon the merciful plan of God to set apart a people unto Himself.

I gave the example of children born in Muslim/Buddist/Hindu/etc families, and also those American Indians who lived after Jesus's death but before Columbus with no way of hearing the Good News.

None of which was an accident. It's not as if God fell asleep at the wheel of creation and didn't realize He was creating people who would live their entire lives without ever have heard the message of the Cross.

Could God have placed these people in their locations and families knowing in advance they wouldn't turn to Him even if they were born in a Christian household?

Just a thought...

Once again I'll reiterate, the account of the Gospel must first include a foundation of the Fall and what influence the Fall had upon mankind's constituent nature.

How would you describe the nature of man, including his inclinations, after the Fall?
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
cygnusx1 said:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Predestination - Reprobation Contrasted[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
1. [The Scripture] does not teach or imply a double predestination. In an attempt to distinguish between election and reprobation we should use predestination for the elect and foreordination for the reprobate.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. Election and reprobation rest on different grounds: election on the redeeming love of God that undertakes the salvation of the lost; reprobation on the moral necessity to manifest to the universe the nature and consequences of sin in moral personality. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. Means are used of God to fulfil the purpose of election, but God uses no means to fulfil His purpose of reprobation. It is left to sin to run its course and receive its wages. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. The fruits of election are attributable to divine grace, the fruits of reprobation to personal sin. This means that while there is grace to some, there is injustice to none. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. While God finds pleasure in the salvation of the elect, He has sworn by Himself that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God does not need sin or its retribution for His self-manifestation, but its reality in the universe can serve that end. [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6. That the elect will constitute a recreation of the race under a new Head is evident, while the retribute are but the branches cut off from the tree of humanity. Christ will be revealed as the Saviour of the world, though many are lost in the process. [/FONT]

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Finlayson[/FONT]​
Cyg, if you offer this in an attempt to soften the jagged edges of the biblical teaching of predestination to those who have trouble swallowing it, I applaud you. If, instead, you cite this because you see a marked difference between the reformed doctrine of God's passive predestination of the reprobate to destruction as it is taught under the larger umbrella of double predestination and that of the reprobate being consigned to destruction through God's act of leaving them to sin that it run its course, that being their destruction, I'd have to acknowledge a bit of confusion. It seems rather a distinction without a difference. Am I simply misunderstanding your point? :scratch:

God bless
 
Upvote 0

Forest

Senior Veteran
Jan 3, 2005
3,428
90
In the Forest
✟26,745.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Reformationist said:
Additionally to claim that God chooses what to do with us on the basis of what He sees us doing/choosing is to give the creation a reason to boast, something explicitly prohibited in the Gospel. The truth of mankind is that he is fallen to such a degree that, apart from the intercessory, regenerative work of the Almighty, he would NEVER come to faith. To claim that God makes a choice about you based on what He sees you doing violates explicit Scripture, which plainly states that God receives counsel from no one nor does He elect based on anything you say or do. The plan of redemption is grounded firmly AND EXCLUSIVELY in His eternal mercy. The Bible explicitly states that it is NOT based on the works or desire of mankind but, rather, upon the merciful plan of God to set apart a people unto Himself.

And yet, what happened here with the chosen people...who decided to be an unwilling participant?

Matthew 23:37 (NASB) "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Forest said:
And yet, what happened here with the chosen people...who decided to be an unwilling participant?

Matthew 23:37 (NASB) "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Do you think the rebellion of the Israelites happened outside the bounds of God's providential government of the history of creation?

I offer this to help you answer that question:

Romans 11:1-16
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.


What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8as it is written,

"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day."

And David says,

"Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever."

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

Augustine_Was_Calvinist

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2004
5,496
89
✟6,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Trainwreck said:
That's exactly what the point of my post was. We are separated from God (ie hell) if we do not choose to follow him. The point is that it is our choice.

There is none who choose God while in their sinful state.

Whatever is not done in faith cannot please God.

It is the Lord who seeks out His sheep, and performs the pleasure of His Will as prophecied in Ezekiel 36;

24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

The active Person is God, and those whom God seeks after receive the benefit of God's acts.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dmckay

Guest
Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
There is none who choose God while in their sinful state.

Whatever is not done in faith cannot please God.

It is the Lord who seeks out His sheep, and performs the pleasure of His Will as prophecied in Ezekiel 36;

24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

The active Person is God, and those whom God seeks after receive the benefit of God's acts.
Where did I see that animation that someone posted of a man beating a dead horse?
 
Upvote 0
D

Dmckay

Guest
Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
Obviously you are a Biblical scholar and theolgian of the highest degree, so perhaps you would like to offer something of substance.
I already have, so many times that I have come to realize that there are those here who have made their life's work trying to discredit T.U.L.I.P., Calvinism and any other argument that doesn't put man completely in control.

Just look at some of the arguments that have taken place within this discussion. Like:

RapeofAngels said:
No. Because I am not denying that God has a complete knowledge of the future. I am denying that God can have a knowledge of the future before it actually exists.
And the Response:

RapeofAngels said:
Quote

Originally Posted by: Dmckay

Did you actually think about this statement as you wrote it? You are displaying a pitiful knowledge about the essence and attributes of G-d.

Did you think about your own statement before you wrote it? It doesn't look that way.

I love to discuss and teach theology, but I have given up on vain disputations. Why argue with someone who won't listen to anything that doesn't agree with their opinion?
 
Upvote 0
R

RapeOfAngels

Guest
Reformationist said:
Setting up strawmen is pointless. I don't presume to authorize God to do anything, as all authority is His and His alone. What I do know is that your so called "free will" doctrine is nothing more than a watered down version of the heresy that Pelagius spouted.


If you are claiming that free will being involved in salvation is some threat to God's sovereignty, then there is no strawman. You are telling God he isn't allowed to create in a certain way.

If you accept, that in principle, there would be no problem with free will being involved in salvation, that it wouldn't undermine God's sovereignty, then we agree.

Which is it?
 
Upvote 0

Trainwreck

Active Member
Dec 11, 2005
81
4
43
✟22,722.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is none who choose God while in their sinful state.

It is the Lord who seeks out His sheep, and performs the pleasure of His Will as prophecied in Ezekiel 36;

Well sure, of course he actively seeks out his sheep, which would be everyone on the planet. But the fact is that most choose not to follow. The key there is THEY made the decision not to believe; God did not make that decision for them.
 
Upvote 0

CCWoody

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
Mar 23, 2003
6,684
249
56
Texas
Visit site
✟8,255.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
RapeOfAngels said:
One point I would make, is that we aren't in my view talking about the creative activity purely of God. With libertarian free will, power is delegated to the creature.
I have established a thread to specifically discuss the Biblical nature of the human will: The Fainting Warrior OR why "free" will is useless.

RapeOfAngels said:
When you talk about creation already existing in God's mind, I think that would be perfectly possible if everything were determined by God. But it looks very questionable that God could have "in mind", before creation, the free choice of creatures who aren't yet in existence. The decisions haven't been taken.
Why? Because you have some Biblical support for the idea that God couldn't know the outcome of the choices of his creatures before they are made? I'd sure be interested in it. If this is a non-Biblical based, belief, then I'd like to know what as well.

As it stands, I do have a verse which does demonstrate that the Lord does know prior to what decisions "free" creatures will make: Matthew 11: 20-27

RapeOfAngels said:
If God already has them "in mind" before creation, then it looks as if God is taking those decisions, and that isn't free will.
Well, I agree. There is no such thing as a "free" will, especially in the libertarian sense of the word. But, seeing that discussion is off topic, and I have already devoted a thread to discussing the nature of the will, we can retire there: The Fainting Warrior OR why "free" will is useless.
 
Upvote 0
R

RapeOfAngels

Guest
Reformationist said:
I have no clue of the error to which you refer, nor am I aware that I attributed any error to God. If I did it was certainly not my intent. If not, can you explain what you mean? :confused:

If Paul is saying that God can do whatever he likes with his creatures, then the analogy with a potter/clay would clearly be weak, because of the difference between a living creature and lifeless clay. The most relevant analogy you could find would be parent/child and person/animal. And those analogies would support the opposite conclusion. You don't have an absolute right to do what you want with a living creature. Obviously those analogy do not perfectly represent the situation with God and his creation, but they are the most relevant analogy I believe that you could find.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.