Predestination

[Jonaitis]

Sorry I don't share the Sola Scriptura view of things

This isn't really a sola scriptura issue...

 

[charsan]

It is and a calvinist issue that has slowly crept into Christianity. This better represents my view on the issue:

The Eastern Orthodox view was summarized by Bishop Theophan the Recluse in response to the question, "What is the relationship between the Divine provision and our free will?"

Answer: The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one's own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God's) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

your opinion

Actually it doesn't have to be any opinion, or can work with any opinion , if it is realized that Yahuweh Sovereign Creator knew everything all the time about everyone even before He Created the Earth.
i.e. Since He Knew, Perfectly, everyone's thoughts and hearts and deeds and so on,
"predestined" could easily be applied to His Choice , His Doing Whatever He Pleases to do, with everyone ,
while at the same time everyone's free will, the ability to choose whenever possible,
is not overthrown at all (which might be thought to be unjust by some) ....

everyone gets exactly what they deserve, and

God's Predestination does not change that at all.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

....
It appears from the text above, we were predestined to be saved, to be children of God.

.... and predestined to stay saved also ?

Did God know all our thoughts and deeds and everything in our lives and in our hearts when He 'predestined' us ?

 

[sdowney717]

.... and predestined to stay saved also ?

Did God know all our thoughts and deeds and everything in our lives and in our hearts when He 'predestined' us ?

Almighty God is one of His names and He reigns.
He reigns as that is His choice, and He is Lord God Almighty.
The Lord God Omnipotent reigns.

“We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.

And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!

 

[Jonaitis]

.... and predestined to stay saved also ?

Did God know all our thoughts and deeds and everything in our lives and in our hearts when He 'predestined' us ?

1. Yes. You either have total redemption or no redemption at all. When I say 'total redemption' I mean all that salvation consists of: regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. God carries out a complete redemption of his people, he never half-saves anyone, half-redeems anyone. You either enjoy total redemption in Christ or you don't at all.

2. Yes. God was, is, and will always be personally acquainted with all that we are and with all that we do, not because he saw with a cold glare into the future, but it was in his heart to intmately write each of our unique lives in his plan of redemption.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

 

[redleghunter]

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Now some music to accompany what you posted.

 

[Peter J Barban]

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

This scripture is clear. There is no honest objection except "I don't like your interpretation, so I don't agree."

 

[mark kennedy]

Typical of what?

Was that meant as an insult by the way? I hope not. We were having such a nice conversation. It would be a shame to have to end it.

This reminds me of the many times I've had people who disagree with me and with others say something like "show me the verse where it says that" meaning the "exact" verse or what you are teaching can't be true. I was hoping that you could discuss this issue with a little deeper kind of thinking.

Mine was a simple semantical point. These are the verses where 'predestination' is used:

For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before G4309 to be done. (Act 4:28)

For whom he did foreknow, he G4309 also did predestinate G4309 to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Rom 8:29)

Moreover whom he did predestinate, G4309 them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Rom 8:30)

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained G4309 before the world unto our glory: (1Co 2:7)

Having predestinated G4309 us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (Eph. 1:5)

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated G4309 according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (Eph 1:11)
​

The word has a very simple and specific meaning:

Predestinated (G4309 προορίζω proorizō): From pro and horizo. To predetermine, decide beforehand, in the NT of God decreeing from eternity, to foreordain, appoint beforehand (Outline of Biblical Usage)​

If we can only consider predestination by looking at your 6 verses, we'll have to ignore much of the Word of God when talking about the subject.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

“Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.” Psalm 139:16

I don't see the word "predestination" in those passages. Shall we ignore them when we speak of predestination?

That's from the womb, not before the foundation of the world. It's related but not the same thing.

By the way - Acts 4:28 is one of those 6 places where the exact word occurs. It has no relationship to the predestination of anyone to salvation as do the other ones. - i.e. our adoption as sons, or conformation to the image of God's Son.

I could not disagree more, the prayer covers the conspiracy of Herod and Pontus Pilate against the Son of God. Everything about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus was predestined. They are simply praying the God continue his plan of redemption in spite of the threats being leveled against his church.

Rather it tell us of a particular event that happened in history. It was only one such event so predestined to occur. But it is clear from the scriptures that all events that happen are predestined by God to occur. His omniscience, omnipresence, and aseity all demand that it be necessarily so.

Which is exactly, what I've argued repeatedly, simply has no rational or biblical basis. No where does it say 'everything that happens is God ordained', the notion is borderline blasphemous. No where is there any indication that the rebellion of Satan and his angels or the fall of Adam and Eve were 'God ordained'. Now if you want to get into omniscience, omnipresence, and aseity as formal doctrine let's get on with it, it looks like your concept of those principles needs some work. Your getting into the core elements of the very definition of the nature of God, the first step in any systematic theology. God cannot be the originator or source of sin, so clearly not every event in history is God ordained. It's really as simple as that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Address the post and not poster.
No Goading.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[His student]

Now if you want to get into omniscience, omnipresence, and aseity as formal doctrine let's get on with it, it looks like your concept of those principles needs some work. Your getting into the core elements of the very definition of the nature of God, the first step in any systematic theology.

Those are exactly the core elements that I wanted to get into since they are indeed the first step in any systematic theology. But you'd have no part in establishing those doctrines and discussing their logical ramifications as a useful prelude to discussing predestination with regard to the salvation of any man.

No where does it say 'everything that happens is God ordained', the notion is borderline blasphemous.

You're right. Nowhere does it say that.

As I see things - to not agree that God has ordained all that happens is to present a different God than the sovereign, omniscient, omnipresent, and providentially involved God of the scriptures in Who's Word everything in creation exists and has it's being.

Since you think that saying that everything which happens is predestined to happen is a blasphemous concept - we'll leave it at that. There's wouldn't be much use in any further discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Those are exactly the core elements that I wanted to get into since they are indeed the first step in any systematic theology. But you'd have no part in establishing those doctrines and discussing their logical ramifications as a useful prelude to discussing predestination with regard to the salvation of any man.
You're right. Nowhere does it say that.

As I see things - to not agree that God has ordained all that happens is to present a different God than the sovereign, omniscient, omnipresent, and providentially involved God of the scriptures in Who's Word everything in creation exists and has it's being.

Since you think that saying that everything which happens is predestined to happen is a blasphemous concept - we'll leave it at that. There's wouldn't be much use in any further discussion.

First of all the topic is predestination, not the core elements of the definitipn of God is systematic theology. More imortantly, I said making God the source of sin is borderline blasphemy. My original point that the 6 times oredestination is used in the New Testament it is with regards to salvation..

This whole discussion is basic semantics, a straight forward definition and some cross references. You completely missed the definitions redleghunter posted, you had no intetest but they ehere very good.

'Pro' meaning before and 'horizo', the word we get horizon from. So beyond the vanishing point of our view, which extends only to creatipn, God had a plan to make us holy and adopt us as children. Paul is praising God for his glorious grace, but we didn't get to talk about that, the thread got derailed over the question of God preordaining all events. I make the passing point that God cannot preordain sin and ypu bail.

Ok fine, thanks for the exchange.

 

[His student]

You completely missed the definitions redleghunter posted, you had no intetest but they ehere very good. you had no intetest but they ehere very good.

Not true at all. Good posts.

God had a plan to make us holy and adopt us as children. Paul is praising God for his glorious grace, but we didn't get to talk about that

Didn't get to talk about it? The thread is 9 pages long and growing.

the thread got derailed over the question of God preordaining all events.

My original post was right on track to answer the OP in a way all open minds could agree about.

Nothing would have been "derailed" at all if you hadn't jumped in with an issue with my "blasphemous" doctrine.

If the fact that everything that happens is predestined to happen is established (easy to do if you are willing to approach that subject systematically by looking at some core principles in the scriptures) - the answer to the OP is obvious. The answer is a simple yes.

Until we do that it we will just continue to build page after page of the thread and it will eventually die the death of dozens of other threads dealing with predestination in relation to the salvation of men.

Then someone can start a new thread with a slightly different OP - and here we'll go again.

That's fine with me since no one but you has chosen to engaged me in discussion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not true at all. Good posts.
Didn't get to talk about it? The thread is 9 pages long and growing.

My original post was right on track to answer the OP in a way all open minds could agree about.

Nothing would have been "derailed" at all if you hadn't jumped in with an issue with my "blasphemous" doctrine.

If the fact that everything that happens is predestined to happen is established (easy to do if you are willing to approach that subject systematically by looking at some core principles in the scriptures) - the answer to the OP is obvious. The answer is a simple yes.

Until we do that it we will just continue to build page after page of the thread and it will eventually die the death of dozens of other threads dealing with predestination in relation to the salvation of men.

Then someone can start a new thread with a slightly different OP - and here we'll go again.

That's fine with me since no one but you has chosen to engaged me in discussion.

Someone is always starting a new thread on oredestination, invariably it's being mistaken for fate. Calvinists have a well developed doctrine of oredestination, I've yet to see it addressed the way Calvinists really teaxh, which is a shame because it's actually very intetesting. When I got around to looking the New Testament word I thought the compond of 'pro' and 'horizo' was fascinating. One of those ah ha moments that brings clarity to so many things. The larger context of Eph. 1 and Rom. 8 just took it to a wgole new level for me.

But who cares about insights and expositions, it's more fun to stir up false assumptions and taunt delicate sensibilities.

 

[His student]

But who cares about insights and expositions, it's more fun to stir up false assumptions and taunt delicate sensibilities.

It does seem that way. That's why these threads usually end up that way and even get shut down because of it.

Which, as I have said several times now, is precisely why I tried to approach the subject from a different direction to eliminate that tendency.

Ok fine, thanks for the exchange.

So Mark - before I let you go, I'd like to have you clear up one thing for me if you will.

I don't make the claim to be a "Calvinist" - although I do agree with much or most of what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about God's decrees, providence and such.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is generally considered the most authoritative statement concerning Calvinistic doctrine.

How is that you label yourself a Calvinist when you consider what is arguably the most central statement in the document to be "borderline blasphemy"?

 

[renniks]

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

I bet you think all these verses are about you, don't you don't you? (With apologies to Carly Simon.)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1. Yes. You either have total redemption or no redemption at all. When I say 'total redemption' I mean all that salvation consists of: regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. God carries out a complete redemption of his people, he never half-saves anyone, half-redeems anyone. You either enjoy total redemption in Christ or you don't at all.

2. Yes. God was, is, and will always be personally acquainted with all that we are and with all that we do, not because he saw with a cold glare into the future, but it was in his heart to intmately write each of our unique lives in his plan of redemption.

When does He, according to your thoughts stated in this thread and post,
remove your free will ?

 

[mark kennedy]

It does seem that way. That's why these threads usually end up that way and even get shut down because of it.

Which, as I have said several times now, is precisely why I tried to approach the subject from a different direction to eliminate that tendency.

So Mark - before I let you go, I'd like to have you clear up one thing for me if you will.

I don't make the claim to be a "Calvinist" - although I do agree with much or most of what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about God's decrees, providence and such.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is generally considered the most authoritative statement concerning Calvinistic doctrine.

How is that you label yourself a Calvinist when you consider what is arguably the most central statement in the document to be "borderline blasphemy"?

The Westminster Confession says this:

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (TWC, Book III)
​

Try quoting the whole sentence, God is not the author of sin, which is the same point I made. Obviously, Satan chose open rebellion just as Adam and Eve choose disobedience. Calvinism has never been an affront to free will for example, but rather it is a secondary cause of salvation. What is being expressed there is God's sovereignty, that does not take away from secondary causes but rather establishes them.

Just like the expositions and the exegetical information regarding predestination I expect you will ignore this. You were saying God predestines everything and left that without qualification which is all too common. Now that it's in it's proper context we can never talk about it just like we never talked about New Testament predestination.

I don't know what your trying to get at here but if you bring up predestination I'm going to look at what Paul has to say about it as authoritative. And as far as the Westminster Confession I'm familiar with it, with only an occasional difference like doing no work on Sunday.

 

[His student]

“God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (TWC, Book III)”…………. Calvinism has never been an affront to free will for example, but rather it is a secondary cause of salvation. What is being expressed there is God's sovereignty, that does not take away from secondary causes but rather establishes them…………….. You were saying God predestines everything and left that without qualification which is all too common…………… Try quoting the whole sentence, God is not the author of sin, which is the same point I made.

You mean like I did in a post on this thread immediately preceding one of you comments to me?

I think the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith got it exactly right when they said,

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)"

AND,

"Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, and yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.......God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure."

God uses "means" or "second causes" to bring to pass what He has predestined to occur. Often those means or second causes are the free choices of men either to the good or to the bad.

Predestination in no way negates the free will of men (in so much as the will of the fallen and cursed creation can be free).

It seems you’ve been lecturing me about something I have not done and, indeed, have made sure I could not be accursed of.

Satan chose open rebellion just as Adam and Eve choose disobedience.

No disagreement with me. Never has been.

I'm familiar with it, with only an occasional difference like doing no work on Sunday.

I have a few differences with it also. Not in the area we have been talking about however.

I have answered the O.P. in a way that you would agree with. Would that you had read all of my posts and not singled me out and jumped to wrong conclusions about my beliefs.

If you are asking if God forces some to respond while others are forced to not respond - then, NO - God does not predestine some to salvation and others to Hell.

Now that it's in it's proper context we can never talk about it just like we never talked about New Testament predestination.

As you wish. It would be nice though if you admitted your mistake and even perhaps address what I said in post #155 as a fore instance.

God talks all through the scriptures about predestining or ordaining to happen any number of things and events and types of things and events other than those things related to our salvation.

Aside for the fact that you have wronged me in your assumptions about what I believe and teach - IMO, your limiting any discussion about predestination to the passages where God used that exact word is simply preposterous and purposefully argumentative as well.

Of course those particular scriptures are where we have always wanted to go with the thread. I just thought that establishing some basic core doctrines first would help us to discuss those verses without as much misunderstanding as is usual.

I think it's a real shame that you "derailed the thread" in order to unfairly,and with misguided assumptions, unload on me.

My point has been quite simple. As you and I obviously agree about - God ordains or predestines all that come to pass (and yet without being the author of sin nor doing violence to the will of men).

Therefore, since the salvation of some men comes to pass, the answer to the O.P.'s question is a simple yes.

How and why God so predestines that salvation is a question to be discussed. The correct answers require that both Calvinists and Arminians give a little.

But you, being an avowed Calvinist - seem to have illustrated that we simply cannot get there on a thread like this because of assumptions and straw men on both sides of the issue.