Predestination

[squint]

Calvin and reformed schools of thought on matters of predestination are flawed.

Paul shows in Romans 11:25-32 that 'all of Israel' shall be saved, even ENEMIES of the Gospel.

The presentation then that one has to have a 'certain belief' in order to be saved is belied by the fact that God saves Israel for the sake of the fathers of faith, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and nothing that those unbelievers of Israel did.

They are beloved of God even while being enemies of the Gospel.

Romans 11:
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

Paul deploys the term 'are' enemies, not enemies sometime in the future.

If both remnant and and enemies comprise 'all of Israel' which obviously it would, then they are all saved REGARDLESS.

Common forms of understanding predestination (Calvinism/Reformed views) could not address this particular scriptural problem for me. Those understandings are severely faulted.

There are better ways to view these matters.

Paul gives a view of himself in Romans 7:

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

There was Paul. There was evil present WITH Paul.

Paul goes on to describe this exact condition again in Romans 9 again deploying the term ME:

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


It is quite easy to connect this matter.


[Paul AND evil present with Paul]


[Same lump of ME, vessel of honor/mercy AND vessel of dishonor/destruction]


Paul culminates this matter as it pertains to Isreal showing exactly who was with/upon/of Israel that IS NOT ISRAEL in Romans 11:


8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.


It is not hard to connect the dots on these matters.


Evil present, vessel of dishonor, spirit of slumber.


ALL of these were neither Paul nor are they the people of Israel. The understanding courses quite nicely, once seen.


If any 'believer' does not think they have a 'vessel of dishonor' to divide and to turn from, 2 Tim. 2:20-21 will show otherwise.



s

 

[Foghorn]

OK, so splain to me how, if God created all men sinful, it would be just for Him to send anyone to hell-that's eternal torment- for being sinful? What kind of justice is this that I don't understand?

It will do no good for me to explain it, some already have. I would suggest reading the scriptures for yourself, desiring the truth and praying continually.

Can you support your understanding above with scripture? I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks.

 

[Foghorn]

Calvin and reformed schools of thought on matters of predestination are flawed.

Thanks for sharing "your" opinion.

Paul shows in Romans 11:25-32 that 'all of Israel' shall be saved, even ENEMIES of the Gospel.

He does? Even enemies of the gospel? Could you show me please? Thanks.

The presentation then that one has to have a 'certain belief' in order to be saved is belied by the fact that God saves Israel for the sake of the fathers of faith, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and nothing that those unbelievers of Israel did.

They are beloved of God even while being enemies of the Gospel.

So, do you believe every Jew ever born will be saved? Do you believe only some Jews, or do you believe there is a spiritual meaning to it?

 

[Foghorn]

Common forms of understanding predestination (Calvinism/Reformed views) could not address this particular scriptural problem for me. Those understandings are severely faulted.

Could you point out their teachings and then point out and show the flaws and errors please?

Personally I do not see your understanding as scriptural. I believe Calvin's is accurate with scripture. Could you show me how Calvin is flawed, I truly would like to know.

If you see the flaws you really should point them out and show everyone, it's very important and an obligation, right?

 

[fhansen]

Read the scriptures. Sola scriptura!

I have, so did Calvin and Luther who disagreed on double predestination, for one thing, and so have JWs who disagree with everyone else over a whole bunch of things, and Anabaptists are certain their beliefs align with scripture and the list goes on and on of those who read scripture and decide they, exclusively understand it correctly. And nothing I've heard here explains this strange "justice" you mentioned.

 

[Foghorn]

I have, so did Calvin and Luther who disagreed on double predestination, for one thing, and so have JWs who disagree with everyone else over a whole bunch of things, and Anabaptists are certain their beliefs align with scripture and the list goes on and on of those who read scripture and decide they, exclusively understand it correctly.

Ok, so no one understand scripture correctly? So, why then, should I agree with your understanding? Why should you believe you understand it correctly?

It really don't matter if Luther and Calvin agreed on double predestination.

Or what the JW's think, there not Christian.

Your point?

Curious...

 

[Foghorn]

I have, so did Calvin and Luther who disagreed on double predestination, for one thing,

Curious, did you look at my posts #'s 38-39?

Does your bible contain those verses?

 

[Albion]

I have, so did Calvin and Luther who disagreed on double predestination, for one thing, and so have JWs who disagree with everyone else over a whole bunch of things, and Anabaptists are certain their beliefs align with scripture and the list goes on and on of those who read scripture and decide they, exclusively understand it correctly.

What's the point of that observation? Among the various churches that accept Tradition instead of Scripture as their guide, each has its own own idea of what that Tradition is and what it is telling them. Not any different from the SS churches.

Besides, all of that is really off the subject. Sola Scriptura deals with what it is that we trust for guidance, not how we interpret it.

 

[Foghorn]

What's the point of that observation?

I'm curious of the point myself?

 

[Johnnz]

One person's reasons for abandoning his Calvanistic heritage.

[FONT=&quot]"The second reason I left Calvinism is the doctrine of limited atonement. The Calvinists prefer the phrases “definite atonement” or “particular redemption” to the phrase “limited atonement” because they are trying, rightly so, to maintain that the death of Jesus actually accomplished something. I am with them here. But in their system, “accomplishing something” leads to the idea that Jesus never intended to and never did die for the whole human race. He came to die for and to save only the elect (and here I can only say, tongue in cheek, “of course&#8221. Their system of God’s election of some and reprobation of others logically carries them away into such a grotesque notion that Jesus gave himself only for a limited number of people. They honestly don’t think that there is anything wrong with such an idea[/FONT].

The life, death, resurrection and ascension of the incarnate Son/Creator was as wide and deep and large as creation itself. To deny this was simply to deny that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God and the Creator in and through and by and for whom all things were created and are sustained.

[FONT=&quot]My third reason for leaving Calvinism is more pastoral, and has to do with the way Calvinism gave me nothing objectively real to proclaim as divine fact, and thus leaves us with no basis for real assurance. For me, the very heart of Christian living is parrhesia—assurance, confidence, freedom, security—which is rooted in the Father’s eternal and unyielding love, which Jesus himself reveals to us in the Spirit. But how could I hope that Jesus would reveal the Father’s love to a person, in the power of the Spirit, when I could not declare to them that it was absolutely true.

[/FONT]Is there is way to experience real assurance of the Father’s love and of our salvation in Christ when are told that before the foundation of the world God elected some to be saved in grace and others to be damned for the glorification of divine justice? Calvin himself recognized the problem and pointed us in the right direction, only to fall at the last hurdle. Calvin directs us to Christ as the mirror of our election (Institutes III.xxiv.5), so if we struggle with whether or not we are one of the chosen, we are to look to Christ. But, and this is the problem, the mirror of Christ reflects two groups of people, the one’s loved by Jesus’ Father, and the others who are eternally not loved and doomed by the same Father. [FONT=&quot]This is a serious problem.

[/FONT]So, for me the Calvinists’ doctrines of double predestination and limited atonement form a tag team that not only gut-punches our already anxious souls, but fuels our profound anxiety, because it gives us no objective truth to proclaim or to believe. Without objective truth, we can never have unearthly assurance, and we are doomed to live with an assurance that is of our own making. Calvinism leaves us either in denial of our waywardness, for to acknowledge it would be to face “proof” that we are not of the elect, or it leaves us inventing a religious form that we can follow to prove that we are—and self-righteously proud that we are doing so. No thank you.

Is the gospel a theory or a declaration? Is the gospel the news that the Father may have embraced you in Jesus, or is it the news that the Father has embraced you in Jesus forever? Thank God, the gospel is a declaration of a divine fact—you are embraced, included in the trinitarian life of God. And this divine fact carries with it both a promise and a warning. Its promise is this: if you believe that you are included, you will experience the Father’s love. The warning is this: if you do not believe that you are included, you will continue to experience striving, insecurity and fear. In which world do you want to live, the world of the Father’s embrace, or the world of maybe? [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT] Baxter Kruger

John
NZ

 

[Albion]

That makes me feel sorry for Mr. Kruger...and for anyone who loses his faith, for that matter.

What a rude awakening it must have been to learn that the churches that subscribe to works-righteousness generate even more anxiety and uncertainty.

 

[Johnnz]

That makes me feel sorry for Mr. Kruger...and for anyone who loses his faith, for that matter.

What a rude awakening it must have been to learn that the churches that subscribe to works-righteousness generate even more anxiety and uncertainty.

Kruger has not lost his faith. He is an author, speaker and theologian with a grace message far more deeply based than we find in many churches.

John
NZ

 

[Foghorn]

One person's reasons for abandoning his Calvanistic heritage.

[FONT="]"The second reason I left Calvinism is the doctrine of limited atonement. The Calvinists prefer the phrases “definite atonement” or “particular redemption” to the phrase “limited atonement” because they are trying, rightly so, to maintain that the death of Jesus actually accomplished something. I am with them here. But in their system, “accomplishing something” leads to the idea that Jesus never intended to and never did die for the whole human race. He came to die for and to save only the elect (and here I can only say, tongue in cheek, “of course”). Their system of God’s election of some and reprobation of others logically carries them away into such a grotesque notion that Jesus gave himself only for a limited number of people. They honestly don’t think that there is anything wrong with such an idea[/FONT].

Yep, that's one persons reason for abandoning Calvinism alright. To bad he didn't understand some thing and didn't accept the truth on others.

[FONT="]My third reason for leaving Calvinism is more pastoral, and has to do with the way Calvinism gave me nothing objectively real to proclaim as divine fact, and thus leaves us with no basis for real assurance.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lol, that's great! Now I know he wasn't a Calvinist, for he doesn't understand it. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

For me, the very heart of Christian living is parrhesia—assurance, confidence, freedom, security—which is rooted in the Father’s eternal and unyielding love, which Jesus himself reveals to us in the Spirit. But how could I hope that Jesus would reveal the Father’s love to a person, in the power of the Spirit, when I could not declare to them that it was absolutely true.

[FONT=&quot] Sadly there are people who go out into the world and say, "smile, Jesus loves you," or "God loves you." and think that's the gospel.
I wonder who can show me where any of the apostles preached that?

[/FONT]

Is there is way to experience real assurance of the Father’s love and of our salvation in Christ when are told that before the foundation of the world God elected some to be saved in grace and others to be damned for the glorification of divine justice?

There sure is. If you are one of the elect and understood the gospel, it would be obvious.

Calvin himself recognized the problem and pointed us in the right direction, only to fall at the last hurdle. Calvin directs us to Christ as the mirror of our election (Institutes III.xxiv.5), so if we struggle with whether or not we are one of the chosen, we are to look to Christ. But, and this is the problem, the mirror of Christ reflects two groups of people, the one’s loved by Jesus’ Father, and the others who are eternally not loved and doomed by the same Father. [FONT="]This is a serious problem.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It's a problem for people who believe in a gospel of fluff, a prosperity gospel, an emotional gospel.

[/FONT]

So, for me the Calvinists’ doctrines of double predestination and limited atonement form a tag team that not only gut-punches our already anxious souls, but fuels our profound anxiety, because it gives us no objective truth to proclaim or to believe. Without objective truth, we can never have unearthly assurance, and we are doomed to live with an assurance that is of our own making. Calvinism leaves us either in denial of our waywardness, for to acknowledge it would be to face “proof” that we are not of the elect, or it leaves us inventing a religious form that we can follow to prove that we are—and self-righteously proud that we are doing so. No thank you.

This poor man should have looked into these things, instead of seeing them with carnal eyes, he should have studied the word and prayed on these things. Perhaps his state is worse then we think? I dunno?

Is the gospel a theory or a declaration? Is the gospel the news that the Father may have embraced you in Jesus, or is it the news that the Father has embraced you in Jesus forever? Thank God, the gospel is a declaration of a divine fact—you are embraced, included in the trinitarian life of God. And this divine fact carries with it both a promise and a warning. Its promise is this: if you believe that you are included, you will experience the Father’s love.

If someone does not believe they are included, that's a sign that they may not be a believer, or, they don't feel accepted emotionally at the moment, or, many other reasons. Again, this poor man.

The warning is this: if you do not believe that you are included, you will continue to experience striving, insecurity and fear. In which world do you want to live, the world of the Father’s embrace, or the world of maybe? [FONT="]"[/FONT] Baxter Kruger

Baxter, in no other place but the gospel (Calvinism) is there such a powerful blessed assurance.

 

[Foghorn]

That makes me feel sorry for Mr. Kruger...and for anyone who loses his faith, for that matter.

Yes, it is truly sad.
But there are those folks who call themselves a Calvinist (even though they really aren't) and after they are confronted with doctrine (something most people do not like) they have a problem with it, because it's then they have to confront and see the true gospel, and it is then that many leave. Kinda reminds me of the poor rich young ruler........

What a rude awakening it must have been to learn that the churches that subscribe to works-righteousness generate even more anxiety and uncertainty.

Absolutely!

But then again, that's where his heart always was, I suppose.

 

[Foghorn]

Kruger has not lost his faith. He is an author, speaker and theologian with a grace message far more deeply based than we find in many churches.

John
NZ

Really? I wonder if you have a reference? Perhaps a video? Something to read?

 

[Johnnz]

Really? I wonder if you have a reference? Perhaps a video? Something to read?

Perichoresis - Dr C. Baxter Kruger

or just Google his name.

John
NZ

 

[Foghorn]

Perichoresis - Dr C. Baxter Kruger

or just Google his name.

John
NZ

Thanks,

 

[fhansen]

What's the point of that observation? Among the various churches that accept Tradition instead of Scripture as their guide, each has its own own idea of what that Tradition is and what it is telling them. Not any different from the SS churches.

Besides, all of that is really off the subject. Sola Scriptura deals with what it is that we trust for guidance, not how we interpret it.

Doesn't do much good if we don't interpret it right.

 

[fhansen]

Curious, did you look at my posts #'s 38-39?

Does your bible contain those verses?

Sure, around 10 verses out of over 30,000. Here’s one more:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Pet 3:16

Now I don’t intend the message there as harshly as Peter seemed to put it but between those verses and the narrative about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 I think it should be clear that scripture, which was never intended as a theological handbook or catechism, isn’t always so perfectly clear. But here’s another one:

10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Pet 1:10-11

Now for what possible reason would one need to confirm or make their election sure, if almighty God, Himself, alone does the electing?

But these verses actually dovetail nicely with the other myriad scripture verses that tell us what we must do: persevere in doing good, be vigilant, keep oil in ones lamp, invest ones talents, be holy, be perfect, strive as Paul does to attain eternal life, feed the poor, clothe the naked, work out ones salvation, continue to live in the Spirit, refrain from sin, etc, etc., in most cases with dire consequences-the loss of the Kingdom-for those who don’t. Why such admonishments if it’s already a done deal -if one is already elected/predestined unto eternal life-and can know that for certain?

2 Pet 1:10-11 also dovetails well with what I consider to be sound, classic teaching on “predestination”:

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

 

[fhansen]

I'm curious of the point myself?

It should be obvious. Your answer in post #35 to my not agreeing with your theology was "Read the scriptures. Sola scriptura!", and yet I'll tell you that very sincere people, including JWs, who think they're the true Christians by reasoning from scripture alone, interpret scripture in significantly different ways. Scripture, alone, is simply inadequate as an authority because, as the written word, it can't interpret itself or tell you what it means to say.