predestination

[Mark the Builder]

Does God predestine according to foreknowledge? Romans 8:29 -- "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son . . ." and 1 Peter1:1-2 -- ". . . who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father . . ."

At first glance these verses would indicate that God foreordains based on his foreknowledge. But the word yada carries the connotation of a very positive and intimate relationship. Or perhaps a looking with favor upon or loving someone. It's even used of sexual relations. So my thought is that God simply doesn't have a neutral advance knowledge of what someone will do, rather it seems to be more of an affirmative choice of a particular person. So foreknowledge as used in the Scripture is not the grounds for predestination but rather a confirmation of it.

The question that always comes up from the Arminian camp is if God does predestine certain individuals to be saved then someone might desire to be saved but wouldn't be permitted to because they've not been chosen.

And the Calvinists argue that would never happen because someone cannot even desire to be saved without divine enablements.

 

[Gamecock]

Does God predestine according to foreknowledge? Romans 8:29 -- "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son . . ." and 1 Peter1:1-2 -- ". . . who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father . . ."

At first glance these verses would indicate that God foreordains based on his foreknowledge. But the word yada carries the connotation of a very positive and intimate relationship. Or perhaps a looking with favor upon or loving someone. It's even used of sexual relations. So my thought is that God simply doesn't have a neutral advance knowledge of what someone will do, rather it seems to be more of an affirmative choice of a particular person. So foreknowledge as used in the Scripture is not the grounds for predestination but rather a confirmation of it.

The question that always comes up from the Arminian camp is if God does predestine certain individuals to be saved then someone might desire to be saved but wouldn't be permitted to because they've not been chosen.

And the Calvinists argue that would never happen because someone cannot even desire to be saved without divine enablements.

It is dangerous to build a doctrine on 1 verse. Calvinism is found throughout scripture!

Rom 9:16 So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the Word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Matt 20:15 "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?"

And most impressive:
John 6:35-40 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives to me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me; and this is the will of Him who sent me, that I shall lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[Mark the Builder]

[i][QUOTE=Gamecock]It is dangerous to build a doctrine on 1 verse[/i]

.

Tell me, what did your other verses have to do with predestination? And what specifically does John 6 have to do with predestination? I realize the issue you're directing your thoughts to was Calvinism at large, but the question remains -- "Does God predestine according to foreknowledge or does he predestine in the purest sense by choosing beforehand for some to receive salvation while leaving others out?"

And if you insist on other Scriptures regarding election to build a doctrine from -- how about Romans 9:10-16 -- "Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad -- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls -- she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

So again, the question is not Calvinism vs. Arminianism, rather if God does predestine, does he do it according to his foreknowledge of who will and will not accept salvation anyway?

And if He does what exactly are all the implications of such a predetermined destiny? For example -- "How does this effect free will?" "Did Jesus die for all or just those who were determined would come to salvation?" "The call to salvation, is it universal?" etc., etc., etc.

 

[Ragman]

the problem with predestination, as it is commonly explained, is that it is described as a predestination of "some" for salvation in Christ and some for "exclusion" from Christ, which is a denial of the divinity and/or humanity of Christ.

You raise the question, "Did Jesus die for all or just for those who were determined would come to salvation?" I ask "Was the Jesus who died the One by whom all things came into being and the One in whom all things are held together?" or "Was He just a perfect sacrifice?" If we say the first, He was the One by whom and in whom all things exist, then His death is not only "for" all humanity but "affects" all humanity (i.e. all men die in Christ 2Cor. 5:14). If we say the 2nd then He need not be God at all, only sinless in order to fulfil the legal requirements of a just, rulekeeping God.

RM

 

[Mark the Builder]

Then how do you deal with the Romans 9 passage? Romans 9:19-22 -- "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath -- prepared for destruction?"

I think something that we forget is that God is a divine despot. He does as He pleases and no man can stay Hand. We abhor the thought that God would create some for the sole purpose of displaying his glory through their destruction but we don't bat an eye that He would create some blind in order that the glory of God might be revealed in them through healing.

 

[Ragman]

Then how do you deal with the Romans 9 passage? Romans 9:19-22 -- "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath -- prepared for destruction?"

I think something that we forget is that God is a divine despot. He does as He pleases and no man can stay Hand. We abhor the thought that God would create some for the sole purpose of displaying his glory through their destruction but we don't bat an eye that He would create some blind in order that the glory of God might be revealed in them through healing.

Certainly, but one question at a time:

"Was the Jesus who died the One by whom all things came into being and the One in whom all things are held together?" or "Was He just a perfect sacrifice?" If the first, how are the "all things" that exist in Him affected by His life, death, resurrection, ascension and continuing to be the "God-Man" sitting at the right hand of God?

 

[Mark the Builder]

Absolutely God is over all and in all -- even the unsaved. There is no question as to God's sovereignty in creation. Why would you question His sovereignty over election? He certainly had all things in mind when he died on the cross -- the all things being his ultimate plan which includes those he has chosen and those he has rejected.

 

[Ragman]

Absolutely God is over all and in all -- even the unsaved. There is no question as to God's sovereignty in creation. Why would you question His sovereignty over election? He certainly had all things in mind when he died on the cross -- the all things being his ultimate plan which includes those he has chosen and those he has rejected.

Mark:

I appreciate your response, but the question was not if God is sovereign over creation, but:
"Was the Jesus who died the One by whom all things came into being and the One in whom all things are held together?" or "Was He just a perfect sacrifice?" If the first, how are the "all things" that exist in Him affected by His life, death, resurrection, ascension and continuing to be the "God-Man" sitting at the right hand of God?

The question is not regarding sovereignty but connection.

Thanks,
RM

 

[Mark the Builder]

I'm not sure of your line of thought here or how I can make my response more clear. You are referencing Col. 1:17 and I'm uncertain of what your point is!

Again I say that within the plan of God and the death of Jesus Christ on the cross encompasses the 'all things' to which you are referring to.

The connection is made within God's sovereignty. He created all things (which is the intent of the Col. 1 passage that you quote). In His creation He shows His sovereignty. In His choice of whom He elects He displays His sovereignty as well. So even those who who don't receive salvation are still apart of God's plan.

Please clarify your position because your arguement from silence is less than compelling.

Thanks. Mark

 

[Ken]

Mark... just a quick point... Gamecock is also a Calvinist..(look at his sig line).... you critiqued him for bringing up verses that you say had nothing to do with predestination (one of which was Ro. 9:16)... and then you go on to quote the very same verse!! LOL!!! I think you got off to a bad start with him because it seemed as if he was challenging the doctrine by his first sentence, when in reality, he was just maintaining that the doctrine of God's personal elective knowledge of individuals is found in numerous places in Scripture....

Blessings

 

[sowellfan]

I'm not sure how to interpret the scriptures that seem to agree with Calvinism, because there are just as many that say that the choice belongs to man. I've always figured that maybe the predestination stuff essentially means that God, having perfect knowledge, knows what choices I will make, but that they are still my choices.

My larger point is that I think the whole debate is somewhat pointless. Sure, God *may* be making decisions up there in heaven about whether I'm going to live for Christ or not. On the other hand, maybe some translations got goofed up and it's truly up to me, the ultimate free lunch, if you will - all I've got to do is grab it (essentially how it's presented in John 3:16).

Either way, a plain reading of scripture makes it clear to me that God at least expects me to *PRETEND* that I have a free will. I had a Presbyterian acquaintance/friend, and he was an obnoxious Calvinist. When we'd have Bible studies, if someone so much as mentioned that 'someone makes a decision', or 'someone chooses to do something', he would get up on his high horse and go on about how everything is predestined and people can't make decisions for themselves. That's also how he excused the smoking, the drinking, etc. "Well, if it wasn't God's will for me to <smoke this cigarette, drink this whiskey>, I'd stop doing it, wouldn't I? After all, a person can't turn away from sin without the divine help of God.".

So, while the debate is interesting, after it's all over I don't see how which side is correct should affect our lives. We are still expected to live for God. If people keep emphasizing how it's impossible to make a choice for God without his direct intervention, it makes it easy to disassociate themselves from their actions. And that is not what Paul & the other writers of the New Testament had in mind, IMHO.

 

[Mark the Builder]

Mark... just a quick point... Gamecock is also a Calvinist..(look at his sig line).... you critiqued him for bringing up verses that you say had nothing to do with predestination (one of which was Ro. 9:16)... and then you go on to quote the very same verse!! LOL!!! I think you got off to a bad start with him because it seemed as if he was challenging the doctrine by his first sentence, when in reality, he was just maintaining that the doctrine of God's personal elective knowledge of individuals is found in numerous places in Scripture....

Blessings

Point well taken. After reading what I wrote I was a bit embarrassed but I couldn't figure out how to change what I had said. What I meant to say was that the scriptures Gamecock was citing had nothing to do with the question of foreknowledge not predestination. My bad. Perhaps I'll learn all the in's and outs of how to work this web-site. To Gamecock -- many apologies.

But I'm still truly wondering about the issue of foreknowledge within the realm of predestination. Can one be a true Calvanist and still hold to a view of predestination according to foreknowledge?

 

[Ragman]

I'm not sure of your line of thought here or how I can make my response more clear. You are referencing Col. 1:17 and I'm uncertain of what your point is!

Again I say that within the plan of God and the death of Jesus Christ on the cross encompasses the 'all things' to which you are referring to.

The connection is made within God's sovereignty. He created all things (which is the intent of the Col. 1 passage that you quote). In His creation He shows His sovereignty. In His choice of whom He elects He displays His sovereignty as well. So even those who who don't receive salvation are still apart of God's plan.


Thanks. Mark

My question is "how are all things affected by the life, death, resurrection, ascension and continuing humanity of the Son of God 'in whom' all things consist?"

John 1:3 makes it clear that nothing was made that had been made that was not made "through Him". Col. 1:16 carries the Son's role in creation further that not only were all things created "through Him" but they were made "for Him". And in vs. 17 the writer of Colossians says that all creation that were created through Him and created for Him is now and has always been held together "in Him". For it was through His incarnation that (v.20) it pleased the Father to reconcile these same "all things" whether they be in heaven or in earth.

So, my question is "how are all things affected by the life, death, resurrection, ascension and continuing humanity of the Son of God 'in whom' all things are held together?"

Thank you,
Ragman

 

[Blueberry Sponge]

I'm not calvinist but here are some considerations that might be relevant.

foreknowledge (proginosko, prognosis) can simply mean prior knowledge such as:

... the Jews which knew me from the beginning... Acts 26:5

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son... Romans 8:29

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew... Romans 11:2

[Christ] who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world... 1 Peter 1:20

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before... 2 Peter 3:17

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God... Acts 2:23

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God... 1 Peter 1:2

I think each one of these occurrences of proginosko/gnosis can be understood as simply "prior knowledge". Gnosis can certainly mean more than head knowledge (And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son... Matthew 1:25) but I don't think it's called for in the foreknowledge passages. I don't think 1 Peter 1:20 should have been translated "foreordained" in the KJV since it's not a literal translation of the word.

 

[Chappie]

Then how do you deal with the Romans 9 passage? Romans 9:19-22 -- "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath -- prepared for destruction?"

I think something that we forget is that God is a divine despot. He does as He pleases and no man can stay Hand. We abhor the thought that God would create some for the sole purpose of displaying his glory through their destruction but we don't bat an eye that He would create some blind in order that the glory of God might be revealed in them through healing.

There is a world of difference between being blind in this life and being tortured for all eternity. God is glorified in healing a blind man, he is not when he tortures others for eternity in order to show his mercy to some so called elect.... If i could choose between blindness in this life and eternal life with God, well..... I will take eternal life...

 

[frumanchu]

But I'm still truly wondering about the issue of foreknowledge within the realm of predestination. Can one be a true Calvanist and still hold to a view of predestination according to foreknowledge?

I would have to say no because a)you would not be consistent in your doctrine, and b)Unconditional Election does not allow for election according to foreseen faith because that makes faith a condition for election (faith is the condition for salvation, not for election).

Calvinism centers in large part around the doctrine of total depravity. If election occurs according to foreseen faith, but man cannot come to faith without the work of the Holy Spirit, then it still returns to the point of God making the elect "electable" by bringing them to faith.

 

[Ben johnson]

Then how do you deal with the Romans 9 passage? Romans 9:19-22 -- "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath -- prepared for destruction?"

I think something that we forget is that God is a divine despot. He does as He pleases and no man can stay Hand. We abhor the thought that God would create some for the sole purpose of displaying his glory through their destruction but we don't bat an eye that He would create some blind in order that the glory of God might be revealed in them through healing.

I've written a text on OSAS; and there is a large section on Romans 9. Would you be interested in what it has to say?

 

[drstevej]

I've written a text on OSAS...

I prefer the OJSG designation (Once Justified, Surely Glorified).

When did you get to be a Senior Moderator ???
Are there any Calvinist Moderators ???

 

[Patristic]

I think something that we forget is that God is a divine despot

You do understand that the Greek word from which despot is derived speaks of a ruler who reigns in opposition to the natural order and is virtually always unjust?

 

[Mark the Builder]

You do understand that the Greek word from which despot is derived speaks of a ruler who reigns in opposition to the natural order and is virtually always unjust?

Where exactly did you get your information? A despot can be any ruler that has absolute authority. And of course, if you want to look at the human despots that have reigned, the vast majority of them would have been unjust. The difference is that God is a divine, benelovent, despot. That should be a given.

So I take it then that you disagree with the thought of God being despotic? God stands outside of time and history and He is completely un-influenced. He does exactly as He pleases. And yet He is completely loving and at times He even accomadated the actions of His people, even though they were wrong (polygamy).

My issue is that our view of God seems skewed greatly by our perception, our upbringing, the preaching we've sat under, etc., etc. We can't comprehend a God who could receive glory for creating someone who perhaps was never intended to receive salvation. We consider God to be glorified only by the sucess of the life, never the failure.

I've wrestled greatly with this whole issue and I'm not sure that I've arrived at the truth. However, coming from a very strict Arminian background, I can tell you that my view of God as an Arminian is greatly less than my view of God as a Calvinist. As an Arminian I placed so much emphasis on me -- my life, my decisions, my choices, my salvation. Whereas my Calvinistic approach emphasizes God -- God's character, God's will, God's choice, God's salvation. I find myself resting more on God's abilities instead of my own. Best of all it sure feels good to feel secure after 30 years of feeling insecure in my relationship with Christ.

mark