Predestination

[dennis777]

Romans 9
amplified bible

verse 3
Paul wanted the Israelites to be saved from their sins.

verse 4
God chose the NATION israel to do certain tasks:
to carry forward the PROMISEs concerning Abraham.
to bring the scripture, temple worship, and Messiah into the world.

verse 6
NOT ALL of the elect nation got saved from their sins.
Only a Few (a remnant) were saved.

verse 7
God chose certain individuals within the elect nation to fulfill the PROMISE.

what Promise??
verse 4
certain covenants were made concerning Abraham, Issac and Jacob/Israel, and David, etc
Judah would be the tribe to bring the Messiah into the world.

verses 8, 11, 12,
certain ones (not all) of Abe's descendants were chosen to carry the PROMISE forward, and fulfill prophecies, and to do SERVICE FOR GOD (bring the scriptures and Jesus into the world).

verses 12, 17, 21
Predestination is to SERVICE, not to salvation and/or damnation.

God USED certain individuals (and nations) to do certain things (jobs, service, ministries, examples, lessons, etc)

BUT!
The Bible NEVER says that any individual (or nation) is predestined (elected , chosen) for salvation (or damnation).

Calvin made horrific mistakes.
When he wrote his INSTITUTES, he was a young, im-mature believer, and a Catholic-trained lawyer.

dennis777

 

[Erinwilcox]

You still didn't answer my question. If God predestined some to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, then obviously there are some whom God did NOT predestine to be conformed to His image. Even if you don't think that you're talking about salvation, only those who are Christians can/will be conformed to Christ's likeness. You are still left with some that God did not predestine to be conformed to Christ (can a non-believer be conformed to Christ?!?). So did God predestine people before or after they "made the choice to believe."?

 

[Reformationist]

In the Bible, "predestination" is always "to benefits/blessings which accompany salvation".

Predestination is not to salvation/damnation.

This is a pointless distinction. First off, there is no one that is ever predestined by God to "the benefits/blessings which accompany salvation" that is not ultimately saved. Secondly, what's the point in distinguishing between the "benefits that accompany salvation" and "salvation" being that God delivers both salvation and the benefits that accompany salvation to those that He has predestined to receive them? As I said, such a distinction is unnecessary in this context.

God has promised us MORE than salvation from DEATH (the wages of sin is Death).
God has promised us MANY benefits which accompany salvation from sin and Death, such as adoption into God's family, sanctification, glorification, golden streets, rewards for service, son-ship, Marriage and a Bridegroom, the Marriage Supper, etc

All of these are aspects of salvation so, once again, your proposition is superfluous.

Calvin was wrong.

It seems that many people on this MB suffer from the Jesse Jackson syndrome. You know, the "if I say the same thing over and over again it will start to be true" disease.

I recommend Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?".

Recommending something by Dave Hunt....that speaks volumes all on its own.

 

[dennis777]

Ephesians 1
amplified bible

verse 4
God chose us that we should be holy and set apart for God and blameless in His sight.

verse 5
God fore-ordained us to be adopted

God could have saved us from Death, without adopting us as His children.
God could have saved us from Death , without making us "set apart for God and blameless in His sight".

Predestination applies to service/blessings/benefits/jobs/examples/lessons.
Predestination/Election/Chosen never applies to salvation/damnation.

verse 11
God Chose us (Saints) in accordance with His purpose
verse 12
so that we who first HOPED in Christ................

HOPE?
what about Calvin's "Perseverance of the Saints"?
Who needs HOPE?......if we can't do anything to affect our salvation/damnation, and we can't lose our salvation after we get it, and if we're non-elect, there's no HOPE for us???????

Calvinism doesn't make any sense!

Calvin didn't like what the Bible said, so he twisted the Scriptures.

Calvinism is a libel/slander against God's good Character.

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

Calvin's Jesus/God preached "Love your enemies. Love ALL people."
Yet , he didn't love ALL people. He hated the Many, and loved only a Few.
He didn't practice what he preached.
And since I'm obeying his Preaching, and I'm loving ALL people, ............that means, I'm more Loving and righteous than Calvin's Jesus/God.

The Truth is: Jesus/God (of the Bible) loved all people, even His enemies. And He commanded that we walk as He walked, and Love as He Loved.
We MUST love all people, even Calvinists!

dennis777

 

[dennis777]

Ephesians 1
amplified bible

verse 12
we who first HOPED in Christ.........

Who needs HOPE?......if we have Calvin's "Perseverance of the Saints"?

The Elect can't avoid Heaven and Christ and salvation.
The non-elect can't avoid hell and satan and damnation.

Who needs HOPE?

Calvin was wrong.

"Whosoever" will believe and repent---will be saved.
God foreknew all those who would choose Christ, and He elected/chose/predestined those "whosoever" people to be the recipients of certain blessings/benefits.

dennis777

 

[RapeOfAngels]

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.

Once again you set up a logical fallacy. I'm not telling God what He is or is not able to do. What I'm saying is that, the claim that man's free will regulates a sovereign God's ability to achieve what He purposes is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Simply put, it is incongruous to claim that God is sovereign and attempts to achieve a purpose but man's free will frustrates His ability to do so.

Well I can only see a contradiction in play if you are assuming (and insisting on) a certain definition of sovereignty. If we depart from such definition, then it is obviously true that we will contradict it, but this is trivial. If this is your argument, then it hardly answers the point that you are telling God what he is allowed to do. You are indeed telling him how to behave- by insisting on a certain definition of his sovereignty.

Lets imagine that God creates free creatures, and this freedom is involved in salvation. Man's will, may well frustrate God's will, (in a way), but that this happens (or rather, that it can happen) is itself the will of God. The situation is ultimately in accordance with the will of God.

Now why can't God be sovereign in the way described? Why couldn't God choose to be sovereign in that way? Can you see anything contradictory about it?

God isn't allowed to do it, because it conflicts with your own definition of God's sovereignty?


And also, what do you make of-

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37)

Doesn't this suggest that God's will is sometimes frustrated by man's will?

 

[RapeOfAngels]

I have three children and I am neither their creator nor their Lord and Master so your analogy is a far cry from the generous way you describe it as "not a perfect representation." More accurately, it is a pitiful analogy you offer here.

I am not suprised that you say this, as I imagine you don't like the conlusion of the analogy! But what did I say? I said that it was the most relevant analogy that you could find. (I believe.) Even if you are right and it is a "pitiful" analogy, it is still better than what is given by Paul, if that is being used for what you claim.

Additionally, the point of the Potter/clay analogy is to show you... that man is created for GOD'S purposes and it is God's divine perrogative to create as He sees fit, whether you feel it is fair or not.

Paul is trying to answer a certain objection. He is involved in argument. What he is saying, will not "show" anything if it involves a logical fallacy. And it certainly does involve a fallacy, if it is saying what you claim.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

It wasn't a waste of time. The performance of miracles by God, or an agent of God, in the face of the hardness of man's heart serves to increase His guilt before a merciful God.

OK. So Jesus had a knowledge that they wouldn't repent.

However, those verses do suggest that the people had the ability to turn to God.

If miracles should have been enough to get them to repent, then presumably they had the ability to become Christian. Jesus doesn't say, "if these miracles had been performed, and the people were elected by God, in Tyre and Sidon, then they would have repented. For miracles to be at all relevant, then people must have the ability to make a free choice and believe.

 

[Reformationist]

Well I can only see a contradiction in play if you are assuming (and insisting on) a certain definition of sovereignty. If we depart from such definition, then it is obviously true that we will contradict it, but this is trivial.

ROA, when I speak of "sovereignty" in a discussion about God it has a definitive meaning. I don't employ it in the way that we water down the meaning in relation to sovereign nations or sovereign rulers. Those are sovereign only in the sense that they do not answer to the authority of another government. When using the word "sovereign" in the context of it being an attribute of God, it takes on a much fuller meaning. God's sovereignty refers to His ultimate authority as well as His invincible will. IOW, God not only makes the rules, He has the ability to ensure His decretive will comes to pass. Were you using the word "sovereign" in a different sense?

If this is your argument, then it hardly answers the point that you are telling God what he is allowed to do. You are indeed telling him how to behave- by insisting on a certain definition of his sovereignty.

Once again you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. It is not I who am limiting what God is able to do. It is the nature of God that limits how He can "behave." God is incapable of doing certain things because those things are completely contrary to His nature. It is completely incongruous to claim that God is sovereign but does not employ His sovereign ability to accomplish His purpose. The Bible explicitly states that God accomplishes all that He purposes.

Lets imagine that God creates free creatures, and this freedom is involved in salvation. Man's will, may well frustrate God's will, (in a way), but that this happens (or rather, that it can happen) is itself the will of God. The situation is ultimately in accordance with the will of God.

LOL! Don't you see how inane such a scenario is? The scenario you set up requires that we give validity to the idea that it is God's will that man's will would frustrate God's will.

Now why can't God be sovereign in the way described? Why couldn't God choose to be sovereign in that way? Can you see anything contradictory about it?

God isn't allowed to do it, because it conflicts with your own definition of God's sovereignty?

It's not about permission so your incessant need to keep repeating that God is/is not "allowed" to do something is becoming monotonous. It isn't my definition of sovereignty that your ridiculous scenario contends with. It's what sovereignty means. You're acting as if it is valid to apply self imposed impotency upon God's sovereign nature. It's a violation of the law of non-contradiction ROA. This means that God cannot be completely sovereign and impotent against man's will at the same time and in the same respect. It is a violation of the clear meaning of sovereign to contend that God sovereignly imposes upon Himself some level of impotency.

And also, what do you make of-

Doesn't this suggest that God's will is sometimes frustrated by man's will?

That is not a reference to the decretive will of God so it is a non-issue. I don't deny that man naturally rebels against the will of God. I am merely contending that if God decrees that something shall come to pass, it will. And, as to the verse you cite, you should first realize that though God had revealed Himself to the Jews, their rejection of Him was providentially purposed by God so that salvation would be spread to the Gentiles as well.

 

[Reformationist]

OK. So Jesus had a knowledge that they wouldn't repent.

However, those verses do suggest that the people had the ability to turn to God.

You argue against a point which I never made. Man's inherent inability to repent stems directly from their total disdain for God. IOW, they are unable to repent because they lack all desire to do so.

Therefore, your distinction between man's inherent disinclination to repent and his inability to do so is, once again, a distinction without a difference:

Romans 8:7
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.

The Greek word here that is represented as "cannot" is dunamai, which means "to be capable of doing something." This verse is explicitly stating that man is incapable of submitting to God because of his hostility towards God.

 

[dennis777]

Cain murdered Abel.

Before the murder, Cain brought an un-acceptable sacrifice to God. And Cain knew how to make an acceptable sacrifice, but he didn't do it.

God told Cain: "Iif you do well, will you not be accepted?"
Gen 4;7 amplified bible

This story proves that God has revealed to Cain (and us) "How to do well", and it is our choice "to do well (or not to do well)".
And, God is waiting on us to make the "Right" choice.

God does not fuss at God, if Cain does NOT well.
God fusses at Cain, when Cain does NOT well.

If Cain was pre-destined (by God) to Damnation and un-belief and Doom, then God would be an idiot to fuss at Cain for Cain's non-performance. Why should God waste His time, fussing? It does no-one any good!

Thru-out the Bible, God rails at the wicked, and tries to persuade the wicked, to believe and repent. God sent His Prophets , century after century, to preach to the wicked. Why did God rail at the wicked for their un-belief? If they were pre-destined by God to un-belief?

Calvinism doesn't make any sense!

dennis777

 

[oworm]

That isn't "foreknowledge". What you are talking about is "middle knowledge".

You,ve been watching the "Lord of the Rings" haven't you?

 

[oworm]

Calvinism doesn't make any sense!

Yeah it sounds foolish doesnt it? The same has been said of the message of the cross................. forgive my Americanism but............................. "Go figure"

 

[RapeOfAngels]

ROA, when I speak of "sovereignty" in a discussion about God it has a definitive meaning. I don't employ it in the way that we water down the meaning in relation to sovereign nations or sovereign rulers. Those are sovereign only in the sense that they do not answer to the authority of another government. When using the word "sovereign" in the context of it being an attribute of God, it takes on a much fuller meaning. God's sovereignty refers to His ultimate authority as well as His invincible will. IOW, God not only makes the rules, He has the ability to ensure His decretive will comes to pass. Were you using the word "sovereign" in a different sense?

With regard to God having the, "ability to ensure His decretive will comes to pass", I agree with that. (Within what is logically possible.) God's sovereignty, as you have defined it here, I believe is no problem to free will being involved in salvation. The reason, is that God's "decretive" will can be that man has free will, and that this freedom is involved in salvation.

Something I wish to point out, is that just because God has the power to do something, does not mean that God has to do that something. God's will is in control of his omnipotence, not the other way around. I believe God could choose to create an entirely determined universe where he has direct control over every event. But that doesn't mean that God has to create such a universe. God is free to delegate freedom, (and some control), to creatures that he creates.

You have previously claimed that there is some contradiction between God's sovereignty and free will being involved in salvation. As you yourself have defined God's sovereignty, I don't think your claim is true. So, can you explain the alleged contradiction?

LOL! Don't you see how inane such a scenario is? The scenario you set up requires that we give validity to the idea that it is God's will that man's will would frustrate God's will.

We lets be precise about this. It would involve that it is God's will that man has the ability to go against God's preceptive will. (i.e. What God desires for man, what God has commanded man.) I can't see any problem with this. If you think there is a problem here, then you need to explain yourself.

My impression is that your comment is a straw man. Your aren't really trying to address the issue.

We aren't talking about God's decretive will being frustrated. And I am not exactly trying to say that it is, "God's will that man's will would frustrate God's will". I am saying that God's will could be that man have the ability to frustrate God's will, (in a certain way). The only sense in which your comment is correct, is that God would be creating a situation where it is possible for his preceptive will to be frustrated. But it isn't that God wants man to frustrate his preceptive will.

I think it is entirely plausible that God could want to create such a situation. Why? Because if God wants to create free creatures, there is simply no way to avoid it. (On an incompatibilist view of freedom.)

 

[RapeOfAngels]

Once again you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. It is not I who am limiting what God is able to do. It is the nature of God that limits how He can "behave." God is incapable of doing certain things because those things are completely contrary to His nature. It is completely incongruous to claim that God is sovereign but does not employ His sovereign ability to accomplish His purpose. The Bible explicitly states that God accomplishes all that He purposes.

And?

In a situtation where human freedom is involved in salvation, God's overriding intention, is obviously going to be that people have a free choice. And he will use his sovereign ability to accomplish this purpose. Duh!

It's not about permission so your incessant need to keep repeating that God is/is not "allowed" to do something is becoming monotonous. It isn't my definition of sovereignty that your ridiculous scenario contends with. It's what sovereignty means. You're acting as if it is valid to apply self imposed impotency upon God's sovereign nature. It's a violation of the law of non-contradiction ROA. This means that God cannot be completely sovereign and impotent against man's will at the same time and in the same respect. It is a violation of the clear meaning of sovereign to contend that God sovereignly imposes upon Himself some level of impotency.

We aren't talking about God being "impotent". God could intervene in creation at any time, and remove free will. But why on earth does God have to do so? If that isn't God's purpose, then he isn't going to do it, and we have free will.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37)

Doesn't this suggest that God's will is sometimes frustrated by man's will?

That is not a reference to the decretive will of God so it is a non-issue. I don't deny that man naturally rebels against the will of God. I am merely contending that if God decrees that something shall come to pass, it will.

Well I wasn't talking about the decretive will of God being frustrated. The decretive will of God is obviously never going to be frustrated.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

OK. So Jesus had a knowledge that they wouldn't repent.

However, those verses do suggest that the people had the ability to turn to God.

You argue against a point which I never made. Man's inherent inability to repent stems directly from their total disdain for God. IOW, they are unable to repent because they lack all desire to do so.

Therefore, your distinction between man's inherent disinclination to repent and his inability to do so is, once again, a distinction without a difference

??

I guess I will change what I said-

OK. So Jesus had a knowledge that they wouldn't repent.

However, those verses do suggest that the people had the ability AND COULD WELL HAVE HAD THE DESIRE to turn to God, without unconditional election being in play.

 

[enegue]

Hi guys,

Dmckay presented an excellent argument back here that gave clear biblical support for the notion of predestination. However, it ain't worth a hill o' beans as far as the Gospel is concerned.

From the point of view of the Father, he knows the end from the beginning, so he knows exactly those who are his. However, from our point of view, we know nothing:
And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
-- Matthew 20:23

I can say with 100% certainty that I was predestined to write this post. How? Because it's done. God didn't make me do it. It was done of my own volition. He knew I would do it because he is not bound by time and space. For God this creation is like a film with all the frames played at the same instant. For us though, we don't know what's on frame 2334 until frames 1-2333 have passed through the projector.

Who *are* the elect? Freddy Bloggs down the street, or the beggar on the corner, or the wino in the park? Who knows? I guess we'd better consider the Gospel is meant for ALL men...... just in case.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[Dmckay]

Hi guys,

Dmckay presented an excellent argument back here that gave clear biblical support for the notion of predestination. However, it ain't worth a hill o' beans as far as the Gospel is concerned.

From the point of view of the Father, he knows the end from the beginning, so he knows exactly those who are his. However, from our point of view, we know nothing:
And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
-- Matthew 20:23

I can say with 100% certainty that I was predestined to write this post. How? Because it's done. God didn't make me do it. It was done of my own volition. He knew I would do it because he is not bound by time and space. For God this creation is like a film with all the frames played at the same instant. For us though, we don't know what's on frame 2334 until frames 1-2333 have passed through the projector.

Who *are* the elect? Freddy Bloggs down the street, or the beggar on the corner, or the wino in the park? Who knows? I guess we'd better consider the Gospel is meant for ALL men...... just in case.

Cheers,
enegue

This is exactly why those who hold to T.U.L.I.P. or Calvinism or just plain Predestination still preach the Gospel to all men. We don't know who the Elect are. Yes, there may be some who hold to a hyper-Calvinist position and think that they shouldn't share the Gospel with anyone, but they will have to answer to G-d for their non-Biblical practices.

However, your view that G-d based His selection of the Elect on the basis of His foreknowledge of what we would do down the road, i.e. accept the offer of salvation when we hear it, is to put man's will over the sovereignty of G-d. It also ignores completely the example that Paul gives in Romans when illustrating election of G-d chosing Jacob over Esau before they were born and not on the basis of anything that they had done, or would do. That is why Paul includes his discussion of the pot complaining to the potter as to why he was made for a less noble purpose.

 

[enegue]

However, your view that G-d based His selection of the Elect on the basis of His foreknowledge of what we would do down the road, i.e. accept the offer of salvation when we hear it, is to put man's will over the sovereignty of G-d.

Yes, because that's what he has *chosen* to allow.

The best example of this in Scripture:
And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
-- Luke 22:41-44

If you claim that man is unable to exercise his will over God's, then what's this all about? Why is there turmoil and conflict within Jesus concerning what the Father is asking? The stress on Jesus' mind and body of choosing his Father's will over his own is clear. He was in agony.

Jesus' words of submission, nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. are followed by the visitation of an angel to strengthen him. There was no visitation before the declaration to soften the stress and remove the risk of him faltering or failing. It happened afterwards as a consequence of the path he had *chosen*. This was a *real* choice. The Father had placed the fate of the whole of creation in the hands of one man.

Cheers,
enegue