predestination

[frumanchu]

Why do you think that that is the main problem that most non reformers have with reformed theology?

Acknowledging that they were dead in their trespasses and not merely sick, that salvation is wholly of the Lord, and that the notion that God is in any way obligated to save or attempt to save a single person (let alone all people) destroys any notion of grace.

And there are millions of us out there Fru; I am not the only one.

Last I checked, truth is not subject to majority opinion. (psst...there are millions of Calvinists).

I may address the rest later, time permitting.

 

[rnmomof7]

From what you just said it almost sounds like we agree. No God does not DO evil, but He only allows it according to the extent of His plan. He did not let the brothers kill Joseph - i.e. He restrained that evil - but He did allow the evil of selling Joseph into slavery so that Joseph's family and much of the known world would be saved by Joseph's work in Egypt. And He meant it all for good. This world would be a much worse place if God was not in control of evil. For then man would sin to his greatest capacity and we would all be Hitlers. But God restrains evil so that we are not as bad as we would be. i.e. Joseph's brothers - wanted to kill him, but only sell him into slavery.

In fact God ordained that event , as it was necessary for the plan of salvation.

Without it the line of Abraham would have died in the famine .

The move to Egypt for Joseph eventually caused the nation of Israel to become enslaved to Egypt ..and fulfill a prophecy .

That too was a necessary event . As their delivery gave glory to God and produced typologies of Christ .

You must remember that even God 'permitting' sin is predestination of it , because God does not intervene .

Remember the prophecy God made to Abraham ?


Gen 15:15**
And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

**
*
Gen 15:16**
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full.

A prophecy of the slavery of the Jews.

 

[Chappie]

In fact God ordained that event , as it was necessary for the plan of salvation.

Double "U" O double "U". Wow!!!! Without the incident involving Joseph and his brothers, God could not have saved anyone. And he said, that's a fact. I wonder where he get's his facts from. Oh! he just made it up. Oh! Perhaps he did not know; we only assert as facts that which can be substaintiated by scripture.....

Without it the line of Abraham would have died in the famine.

Did God say that? Naaaah... He said that. "Without it the line of Abraham would have died in the famine". I can accept that as biblical truth if you can show me where God ran out of manna. Christ took two fish and five loves and feed five thousand, plus women and children. Oh my gosh! God caused it to rain forty days and forty nights, but he could not end one little old famine.

There, I have presented you with just a few options that were availiable to God. He's much smarter than me, think that he could come up with a few more.. The plan of salvation is to save us from sin, to destroy sin, not teach us how to use it.

Murder, rape, gossip, prejudice, intolerance, these are the results when we try to build bassed on evil. God does not create evil for the purpose of building his kingdon. You slander God my friend...

The move to Egypt for Joseph eventually caused the nation of Israel to become enslaved to Egypt ..and fulfill a prophecy .

That too was a necessary event . As their delivery gave glory to God and produced typologies of Christ.

As I have previously demonstrated, you grossly overstept the bonds of scripture when you say that this was necessary if God wanted to accomplish that. You do not have the power to limit God's options.

You must remember that even God 'permitting' sin is predestination of it , because God does not intervene.

With no disrespect intended, but this statement is ridiculous to the point of laughter. Not only does it violate the mechanics of language, your point is not revealed in scripture. It is a projection that is better left alone by intelligent men....

To permit... To allow an event to occur without interfering.
To predestine. To predetermine an event to occur and then cause it to happen.

Remember the prophecy God made to Abraham ?

Gen 15:15**
And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

Gen 15:16**
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full.

A prophecy of the slavery of the Jews.

Prophecy.... To fortell an event before it happens. Can either be caused by predestination, or in God's circumstance be foreknown and not forecaused.

See predestination above...

 

[Chappie]

Acknowledging that they were dead in their trespasses and not merely sick, that salvation is wholly of the Lord, and that the notion that God is in any way obligated to save or attempt to save a single person (let alone all people) destroys any notion of grace.

Dead, spiritually dead. What does that mean Fru? Is it the same as physically dead? Even reformers know that physical death is not what is being discussed here don't they Fru?

OK, spiritual death it is. So how do we describe spiritual death. Kinda like, seperated from God huh Fru?

So now let's have another look at that passage through the eyes of the bible. Scripture demands that we intreprit it as "seperated" from God through sin and trespasses, huh Fru? It does not mean not of this world anymore, comatose, unable to think, reason or respond does it.


It means seperated by obsticles (sin) that we cannot over come. So what did Christ do. He tore down the walls of partition. Remember when Christ died, the vail in the temple was torn from top to bottom. Symbolic of the walls of partition (seperation) being removed by Christ's death.

Last I checked, truth is not subject to majority opinion. (psst...there are millions of Calvinists).

That is the truth. (common ground is beautiful)

Still, I think that you missed my point. My point being, why have so many chosen the idea that reformed theology slanders God as the focus of their to scrutinize it with scripture? I know why it failed the test, but why have so many given it a good look and ran...

 

[Chappie]

Why would God point out the most righteous man to Satan? Would God not be wise enough to know that that act would cause Satan to take notice of Job and make a target out of him? Sounds like He is suggesting Job to me. Read Job's reply to God in ch. 42. Job does not know that the devil was involved in this. He readily admits that Gods purposes, while being difficult to discern will always be worked out. Also Job 2:10 he ascribes all that has happened to God and yet did not sin with his lips.

It sounds like that to you because you already believe that God is just as comfortable doing evil as he is doing good. I believe otherwise because I believe that God hates evil.

I choose my baggage over yours being that the bible really says that God hates evil...

Be well, be blessed...

 

[frumanchu]

Dead, spiritually dead. What does that mean Fru? Is it the same as physically dead? Even reformers know that physical death is not what is being discussed here don't they Fru?

OK, spiritual death it is. So how do we describe spiritual death. Kinda like, seperated from God huh Fru?

So now let's have another look at that passage through the eyes of the bible. Scripture demands that we intreprit it as "seperated" from God through sin and trespasses, huh Fru? It does not mean not of this world anymore, comatose, unable to think or reason does it.

It means seperated by obsticles (sin) that we cannot over come. So what did Christ do. He tore down the walls of partition. Remember when Christ died, the vail in the temple was torn from top to bottom. Symbolic of the walls of partition (seperation) being removed by Christ's death.

You have demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of Reformed theology, and your ability to string together a series of arguments grabbing loose verses here and there is equally puzzling.

That is the truth. (common ground is beautiful)

Still, I think that you missed my point. My point being, why have so many chosen the idea that reformed theology slanders God as the focus of their to scrutinize it with scripture? I know why it failed the test, but why have so many given it a good look and ran...

No, your point was crystal clear. You have a perception that a) an overwhelming number of people have actually studied Reformed theology in depth and reached the same conclusion as you, and b) that this somehow equates to the conclusion being true. Then there's this garbage about Calvinists looking at their own theology and stopping when it gets too close to something they don't like. It is the height of intellectual conceit for you to think that you've figured out more about Reformed theology than those who claim it.

Our conversation in this thread is over, Chappie. Should we meet in another thread I will be more than happy to expose the immense logical and scriptural flaws in your thinking.

Until then, God's blessings be upon you.

 

[Chappie]

You have demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of Reformed theology, and your ability to string together a series of arguments grabbing loose verses here and there is equally puzzling.

If you find me that puzzling, I can see why you are so confused by the word of God.

Battle cry of Reformed Theology, (((((((( THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND US))))))))

Remarkable Ignorance..

No, your point was crystal clear. You have a perception that a) an overwhelming number of people have actually studied Reformed theology in depth and reached the same conclusion as you, and b) that this somehow equates to the conclusion being true. Then there's this garbage about Calvinists looking at their own theology and stopping when it gets too close to something they don't like. It is the height of intellectual conceit for you to think that you've figured out more about Reformed theology than those who claim it.

Even in the face of an explanation, you still choose to hold on to your original misunderstanding. How reformed of you....

Our conversation in this thread is over, Chappie. Should we meet in another thread I will be more than happy to expose the immense logical and scriptural flaws in your thinking.

Well, .... If you fell that that is best. Then run Fru Run...... I feel so misunderstood.. See ya later.

May God bless and keep you....

Until then, God's blessings be upon you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ben johnson]

It means separated by obstacles (sin) that we cannot overcome. So what did Christ do? He tore down the walls of partition. Remember when Christ died, the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom. Symbolic of the walls of partition (separation) being removed by Christ's death.

Excellent! Boldy written in Hebrews6:19-20, 10:19....

I John 1
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Again, excellent! In James1, "God tempts NO ONE" (but each is tempted when he is enticed by his own lust and is overcome; lust births sin, sin brings DEATH; do not be deceived beloved brethren!) God CANNOT do evil; that would violate His nature...

The Calvinist strives to isolate God from man's reprobation --- claiming that "HELL is man's FAULT". I simply do not understand this; if mankind is TOTALLY DEPRAVED, then mankind CANNOT do ELSE than perish. THUS --- salvation, by UNILATERAL IMPOSITION (why is "imposed" a word to which Calvinists object? Don't understand that either...) Very well --- salvation, by UNILATERAL BEQUEATH of a REGENERATED HEART, attributes that salvation ENTIRELY TO GOD'S CHOICE. Conversely, even if by NEGLIGENCE (God IGNORING sinners), the REPROBATE perish ALSO by God's CHOICE.

God made the choice NOT to instill regenerated hearts in the reprobate; thus they have no choice in their salvation or reprobation...

 

[Ben johnson]

Your sources agree insofar as they don't see specific or direct evidence of an "absolutum decretum of personal salvation," but as shown above the language indicates that the appointment or "ordering" was accomplished in the past and its result continues. It is implicit in the verse that the appointment occurred BEFORE the belief and that there is direct relationship between the two.

I disagree; I was told "it establishes no sequence; either the APPOINT precedes BELIEF, or the BELIEF precedes APPOINT". Besides, this is ONE VERSE. I am accused of "JUMPING AROUND alot"; this is true, I DO. When I show that "a believer can FALL from GRACE" and am responded by "fallen-from-grace doesn't mean UNSAVED", then I realize that did not convince; so I try ANOTHER passage to convince. This from the idea that "they all harmonize"...

As I pointed out previously in this post, Robertson does maintain that the appointment unto eternal life PRECEDED the saving faith, and despite your "legerdemain" the text remains soundly in favor of such an understanding.

Robertson plainly states "Luke does NOT assert that their salvation is decreed" --- if Robertson viewed the passage as "appointed by GOD", he would not have said "LUKE ASSERTED NO DECRETUM"...

Where did I EVER state that the Gentiles did not accept it of volition, Ben? You've created a false dilemma in implying I hold that I see volition in one case and not the other.

There is still an area of Calvinism that I do not understand; if their WILL necessarily invariably unavoidably follows their HEART, the heart that is EITHER regenerated by God OR left reprobate by God, how then is it still THEIR VOLITION?

Ben, that is just flat out crazy.

I just don't see how "common" is "condemned". Nowhere does it say (and no Calvinist asserts) that God SHAPES anyone FOR CONDEMNATION. The PE view is that they are condemned by their OWN DEPRAVITY, it is NOT GOD'S FAULT.

That God SHAPES the "honor", says to me that they are SUBMITTED to Him to BE shaped; and the SAME LUMP OF CLAY (how can the same lump be both saved AND unsaved?), is also shaped for common --- is not the common ALSO submitted on His Potter's wheel?

You are implying a necessary relationship where there is none, Ben.

Please read verse 39 at the end of that section: "But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul." -Heb 10:39 (NKJV)

He spends the whole chapter speaking of FALLING FROM SALVATION, then makes a POSITIVE AFFIRMATION (as an ENCOURAGEMENT rather than DICTATE). Identical to Heb6:11. And Philip1:6 (which is FOLLOWED by vs9, a prayer for them to CONTINUE in salvation --- "SO THAT you may approve.... IN ORDER TO BE sincere and blameless until the day of Christ Jesus". How is that NOT a "prayer to continue in salvation"?)

Now please explain to me once again why it is unreasonable to view this passage as being illustrative and hypothetical in light of the fact that the author summarizes the section by stating that it does not apply to them.

Because of the context of ALL of Hebrews; chapter 6 warns against apostasy; ch3 warns against "falling away from the living God"; ch12 warns against "falling short of grace" and "refusing Him who warns from Heaven". Ch10 says "if after having received EPIGNOSIS-KNOWLEDGE of the truth" --- this does not imply UNSAVED KNOWLEDGE; I showed you all the verses where "epignosis" means "SAVED"...

Quit arguing against "PE" and argue against me, Ben. Here I am, a Calvinist, and I'm saying that it DOES NOT MATTER whether you view it to be "THAT FAITH is not of yourselves" or "SALVATION-BY-GRACE-THROUGH-FAITH (as a process) is not of yourselves."

This THREAD is "predestination", Fru; and that Eph2:8 verse is one of the "big ones" used to assert that "salvic-faith is NOT of us but FROM GOD".

At this point I see no reason for anyone to take the position you have on Acts 13:46-48, Rom 9:21-23, or Heb 10. Your sources do not agree with each other, and on the whole do not agree with the majority of past centuries of Biblical scholarship. The Greek language speaks for itself, and it says nothing in your support and much in ours.

Fine, then if you remain unconvinced on those particular passages, perhaps we can come to agreement in other areas of Scripture (this if it's "OK" for me to "jump around" a bit...)

 

[Ben johnson]

--MODERATOR HAT ON--
It's profitable to debate theology; please realize no two people on the planet will agree on everything. If any of you think ANOTHER is "wrong", please allow the other to BE wrong.

Let's lay aside "ruffled feathers" and "angry sarcasm". This benefits no one, and closed a productive thread just a couple weeks ago. This thread can be closed to, if it falls into "words", "ad hominem" and "personal jibes".

Let each of us, you and me, never forget that we EACH claim to be Christians; we are therefore BROTHERS, and SISTERS, in Christ...

---MOD HAT OFF...---

 

[nobdysfool]

The Calvinist strives to isolate God from man's reprobation --- claiming that "HELL is man's FAULT".

Where has any Calvinist ever said that, Ben? That is a completely false charge. That is not what Reformed Theology teaches. Man is responsible for his own depravity, in that he is the one who committed the sin. When God charged Adam with his sin, He also declared the plan of redemption. Doesn't sound too disconnected to me!

I simply do not understand this; if mankind is TOTALLY DEPRAVED, then mankind CANNOT do ELSE than perish.

Apart from God's redemption, that is exactly the case. Man IS Totally Depraved, and deserves HELL, not for depravity, but for sin. Depravity is his condition, sin is what he does.

THUS --- salvation, by UNILATERAL IMPOSITION (why is "imposed" a word to which Calvinists object? Don't understand that either...) Very well --- salvation, by UNILATERAL BEQUEATH of a REGENERATED HEART, attributes that salvation ENTIRELY TO GOD'S CHOICE.

Another true statement! Have you been reading up, Ben?

If by Unilateral, you mean totally of God's doing, then at least you've got the concept. Question is, do you believe it? You should, because that's what God's Word teaches!

Conversely, even if by NEGLIGENCE (God IGNORING sinners), the REPROBATE perish ALSO by God's CHOICE.

God made the choice NOT to instill regenerated hearts in the reprobate; thus they have no choice in their salvation or reprobation...

Now there's where you deviate a little...negligence is the wrong word, has all sorts of wrong connotations for the subject. The Reprobate will perish because God chooses not to save them, as is His Sovereign perogative to do. As for the Reprobates not having a choice, they already chose. They sin, and the wages of sin is death. Paul's illustration of the potter and the clay, which is taken from the Old Testament, is a good illustration:

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? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 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: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Rom 9:20-24) See also Isa 29:16, Isa 64:8

God makes from the same clay both vessels of dishonor (vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; reprobate), and vessels for honor (vessels of mercy, i.e. His chosen), the ones for honor having been prepared unto (or for) glory (salvation) beforehand (Predestination). He makes it clear by saying that they are called, both Jew and Gentile, so He definitely is speaking of people. The point is that God is the one who chooses which any given vessel will be, not the vessel itself. It's a matter of God's choice, not man's choice.

 

[Ben johnson]

Where has any Calvinist ever said that, Ben? That is a completely false charge. That is not what Reformed Theology teaches. Man is responsible for his own depravity, in that he is the one who committed the sin. When God charged Adam with his sin, He also declared the plan of redemption. Doesn't sound too disconnected to me!

That's what I was tryin' to say. Calvinists assert that God does NOT "cause them to be reprobate", they make their own choices (though, their depraved hearts cannot BUT choose reprobation....)

Now there's where you deviate a little...negligence is the wrong word, has all sorts of wrong connotations for the subject. The Reprobate will perish because God chooses not to save them, as is His Sovereign perogative to do. As for the Reprobates not having a choice, they already chose. They sin, and the wages of sin is death. Paul's illustration of the potter and the clay, which is taken from the Old Testament, is a good illustration:

"negligent" is rooted from "neglect" --- to IGNORE. And this is the argument from PE --- that God chooses NOT to regenerate them, He IGNORES them to their CONDEMNATION...

Now, there is ACTION done on the vessels --- for the TIME-HONOR, and the ATIMIA-COMMON (NASV), He MAKES them "honor" and MAKES them "common" --- you have just spent time saying "God does NOT CAUSE THEIR REPROBATION" --- which is it? Does God MOLD some clay REPROBATE, or NOT? I think you and I agree that God does NOT "make them reprobate", but they CHOOSE it by their sinful WILLS.

The very fabric of your position precludes you from understanding that "God MAKES some DISHONOR-WRATH-FITTED-DESTRUCTION".

Besides, the "wrath-destruction" thing, is a "WHAT IF!" Doesn't sound much like DICTATE to me...

I think you would hafta agree that there is "HONOR", there is "COMMON", and there is "what if God ENDURES wrath-destruction".

(Notice the "honor" is MADE, the "common" is MADE, the "wrath-destruction" is ENDURED...)

 

[Received]

Amos 3:6 "If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it"

Not my words, but the Bible's. I do not claim that God is the author of sin, but that all sin that occurs God allows thereby directing it in His eternal plan. Joseph was sold to Egypt and it was meant for evil by his brothers. But God was the one that ultimately allowed that event and meant it for good. Case in point!

The idea behind the word 'calamity' in this context implies not moral evil -- for this calamity is only conditional on man's rebellion, which brought judgement, which God intended as a form of love, for "whom the LORD loves He reproves, even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights." Proverbs 3:12 (NASB).

The end implied by God's allowing calamity was to bring about repentance through judgment! This is sheer love, not evil! Indeed, here is the result:

"Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us." -- Hosea 6:1 (NASB)

As for your latter paragraph, I wholeheartedly agree. God allows the evil of man, and establishes his steps accordingly (Proverbs 16:9); it is an argument from weakness to declare that God must establish the evil; it is an argument from true sovereignty to declare that God establishes the steps of man according to his moral standing.

Do you deny that God is sovereign over Satan.


The Bible tells us He is . If you believe otherwise you have a dualistic theology.

But the implication of sovereignty does not necessarily entail that God forces Satan to act as He does. The end of God for His creatures is love, for He is love. To allow Satan to do what he would freely do (and remember, it was God who told Him not to go too far with Job in different instances) in the hope of bringing about a greater good: this is fatherly action. It is edification through tribulation (James 1)! And what was Job's end?

"I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You." -- 42:5 (NASB)

For God to allow evil to take place without reason is the only evil; but this is not the case, for the evil He allows is due to the intrinsic value of those who do indeed commit it (moral freedom), and in many cases for the edification of those in faith who are afflicted, if not for every man. Evil softens our hearts, the philosophers tell us.

Blessings.

 

[augustine32]

Ben - the question then being can they choose God with their sinful will. I only see from the Bible that man cannot even see the kingdom of God without being born again

received - the point I am making is not that God brings forth evil or that He commits evil acts, but that He in His sovereign plan allows evil to fulfill His purposes i.e. He meant Joseph's slavery for good. Yes, Job's circumstances worked out for good, but he directly attributed everything that happened to God and did not sin with his mouth. We know Satan was at work, but this proves Satan can do no more than God allows. God sees the malice in Satans heart and knows what he would do if fully unleashed, but He only allows the evil that will work out for the good of His people. Please explain Job otherwise.
1. God allows Satan to torment Job
2. Job acribes his situation to God: Shall we accept good and not bad?
3. Job does see God and his situation at the end is better than the beginning.

This shows exactly how God allows evil, but only according to His plan. He does not respond to evil to work good out of it, but allows such as will bring greater faith to us and greater glory to His name.

 

[rnmomof7]

Double "U" O double "U". Wow!!!! Without the incident involving Joseph and his brothers, God could not have saved anyone. And he said, that's a fact. I wonder where he get's his facts from. Oh! he just made it up. Oh! Perhaps he did not know; we only assert as facts that which can be substaintiated by scripture.....

Please do not put words in my mouth . I did not say that this was the ONLY way that God could have preserved the line I said this was the way He ordained to do it.

Gen 50:20**
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

God meant it (planned it)..not God ALLOWED it .

The Hebrew word for meant


Chashab

*Definition



to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count
(Qal)
to think, account
to plan, devise, mean
to charge, impute, reckon
to esteem, value, regard
to invent

This does not mean to know by foreknowledge as you can see.
It was an ordained act of God to preserve the line of Abraham

Did God say that? Naaaah... He said that. "Without it the line of Abraham would have died in the famine". I can accept that as biblical truth if you can show me where God ran out of manna. Christ took two fish and five loves and feed five thousand, plus women and children. Oh my gosh! God caused it to rain forty days and forty nights, but he could not end one little old famine.

The manna came later ...:>))

The manna represented Christ as a typology in the desert .

Each miracle has a specific purpose or point. Because of this act .Joseph had sons in Egypt that were included as part of the 12 tribes.The tribes were in position to become slaves in Egypt and God could preserve them with a series of miracles leading to the "passover" .
God paints with a very broad brush .

You seem to have no problem with God having sovereignty in miracles of the manna or the bread but you mock His sovereignty in taking a son of Abraham and transplanting him, so that the son could be the means of preserving the line , and move the line to the location they needed to be in so that God could preform miracles that redounded to His glory.

There, I have presented you with just a few options that were availiable to God. He's much smarter than me, think that he could come up with a few more.. The plan of salvation is to save us from sin, to destroy sin, not teach us how to use it.

In fact He did come up with one that you do not like .

This action was a part of the plan of salvation , just as was the sin of Judas.
God uses all things for His glory and to fulfill His plan .

He is sovereign over all time and history .

Murder, rape, gossip, prejudice, intolerance, these are the results when we try to build bassed on evil. God does not create evil for the purpose of building his kingdon. You slander God my friend...

Did Judas sin? Was not the entire plan of Salvation based on that sin to come to pass?

The problem with what you are saying is that you make God a hostage to the work of Satan and the sin of men .

Was not Jesus sovereign over the demons ?

The move to Egypt for Joseph eventually caused the nation of Israel to become enslaved to Egypt ..and fulfill a prophecy .


As I have previously demonstrated, you grossly overstept the bonds of scripture when you say that this was necessary if God wanted to accomplish that. You do not have the power to limit God's options.

It is you that limit the ability of God to cause ALL things to work together for the good for those that love Him and are called according HIS purposes

"You must remember that even God 'permitting' sin is predestination of it , because God does not intervene."

With no disrespect intended, but this statement is ridiculous to the point of laughter. Not only does it violate the mechanics of language, your point is not revealed in scripture. It is a projection that is better left alone by intelligent men....

With no disrespect to you I think you need to rethink your theology on this

You believe that God has foreknowledge right ?

If God who is omniscient and omnipresent foresees an event that He does not want to occur He can stop it . By not stopping it he has assured that it will occur ..thus is inaction has predestined it

To permit... To allow an event to occur without interfering.
To predestine. To predetermine an event to occur and then cause it to happen.

Gods inaction is an action . As one Arminian /holiness pastor (not a Calvinist) told me foreknowledge = predestination

Prophecy.... To fortell an event before it happens. Can either be caused by predestination, or in God's circumstance be foreknown and not forecaused.

See predestination above...

In the theology you present God could have shortened the time.. but he chose not to ..thus it was guaranteed to happen ..it was Predestined.

Did you ever address the fact that it was God that led Satan to Job?

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben - the question then being can they choose God with their sinful will. I only see from the Bible that man cannot even see the kingdom of God without being born again

Two views:

Predestined-Election: God regenerates the heart BEFORE the person asks. "Born again CAUSES (or leads invariably to) belief.

Responsible-Grace: God draws ALL MEN to where they CAN believe; those who believe, are born again THROUGH that belief. "For by grace have you been saved THROUGH FAITH (salvic-faith = salvic-belief)

Eph2:1 "When you were DEAD in your sins, He made you alive" --- I perceive this is when we believed, made alive in Him THROUGH our belief...

----------------------
And so this "doesn't get lost in the shuffle" --- Rom9:21-22 speaks of "time" honor and "atimia" dishonor and " skeuos-vessels orge-wrath katartizo-fitted eis-to apoleia-destruction". If God MAKES from ONE LUMP of clay both "saved" (elect) and "unsaved" (unelect), then this contradicts the idea that God DOES NOT REPROBATE. Either He MAKES them reprobate, or He does NOT.

If God does NOT make them reprobate, then the only understanding of "time-atimia" would be, as NASV asserts, "honor-COMMON". (They are both from the SAME LUMP OF CLAY, they are both SAVED.)

Thus God does not MAKE the "orge-wrath-to-apoleia-destruction", He just ENDURES them...

(I submit that His ENDURING, is His patiently waiting for them to REPENT; they will not be able to say "You didn't give us enough TIME"...)

This I see as a "major point" --- if Rom9:21-22 asserts "predestination", then you must agree that God CAUSES their reprobation. But if you cannot say that, then you must agree that this is not predestination...

#1 (God reprobates), #2 (this is not predestination); is there a #3?

 

[Chappie]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that this was the ONLY way that God could have preserved the line I said this was the way He ordained to do it.

Gen 50:20**

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

God meant it (planned it)..not God ALLOWED it .

Please read and understand that what I am about to say is just as logical, reasonable, and scriptural as your analysis appears to be…

You say that God ordained the evil of Joseph’s brothers in order to save many people alive. I say that the evil done was the consequence of Joseph’s brothers own choosing. The products of a sin nature that was brought on by another act of disobedience that God did not ordain, neither did he cause it. That being Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

You ask me to accept that a Holy God that hates evil ordains evil as a means of accomplishing his purposes. What makes a person evil, doing evil? Your theology does not produce a God that uses evil to accomplish a greater Good; it produces a God that does evil to accomplish his purposes. (How human) If that was what the bible teaches, then who am I to question God. But it is not what the bible teaches.

God did not purpose the evil; he purposed the good that he would bring out of it. So, essentially I ask, who are you to assign evil to God that he said he hates so that you can assign salvational predestination to a God that is not a respecter of persons.

Respecter of persons.. To bestow upon one gifts or places of honor that are denied others just as worthy (Unworthy) because of some selfish (self-serving) motive. Unconditional election is selfish and self serving.

This does not mean to know by foreknowledge as you can see.

It was an ordained act of God to preserve the line of Abraham.

Foreknowledge has nothing to do with it. Joseph’s brothers chose to do evil in the sight of God. God chose to cause good to come out of their evil. GOD DID NOT ORDAIN THEIR EVIL, HE ORDAINED THE GOOD THAT CAME OUT OF IT.

The manna came later ...:>))

The manna represented Christ as a typology in the desert .

Oops! My mistake. Oh well, that means that God still had a full supply on hand.

Each miracle has a specific purpose or point. Because of this act .Joseph had sons in Egypt that were included as part of the 12 tribes. The tribes were in position to become slaves in Egypt and God could preserve them with a series of miracles leading to the "Passover" .

So God does cause good to come out of the evil that we choose to do. He does not cause or ordain that evil…

Your purpose here is to acknowledge and honor the sovereignty of God. Yet you steadfastly refuse to apply the mechanics of sovereignty to your understanding. God has the sovereign right to tell us to choose ye this day whom we will serve. He has the sovereign right to allow us to choose, he has the right to allow our choices to stand or to over rule them. Please stop trying to tell me that if God does not ordain every thing that occurs that he is no longer sovereign. I assure you that I can think past it to the truth.

God paints with a very broad brush .

You seem to have no problem with God having sovereignty in miracles of the manna or the bread but you mock His sovereignty in taking a son of Abraham and transplanting him, so that the son could be the means of preserving the line, and move the line to the location they needed to be in so that God could perform miracles that redounded to His glory.

That is not true. At most I mock the fact that you say that God ordained evil (which is punishable) in order to accomplish the move. He used the brother’s evil to accomplish the move. Had the brothers chosen not to do evil, it would have been pleasing to God. He would simply have used other means. Whither we choose to do Good or evil, we cannot thwart God’s ultimate plan, he simply has too many options available to him for us to thwart them all..

In fact He did come up with one that you do not like.

This action was a part of the plan of salvation, just as was the sin of Judas.

God uses all things for His glory and to fulfill His plan.

He is sovereign over all time and history.

Did Judas sin? Was not the entire plan of Salvation based on that sin to come to pass?

The problem with what you are saying is that you make God a hostage to the work of Satan and the sin of men.

Was not Jesus sovereign over the demons?

If God caused Judas to commit this horrendous sin, and then put him in the lake of fire for being obedient, then this God of yours has a serious problem in doing what is right. He calls on us to obey him.

Judas, yes lord. Betray Christ. Yes Father. Judas, yes Lord. What did you do that for? I was just obeying you my Lord. Well, brother, you really messed up this time. Off to hell with ya. You gonna burn for eternity for this one brother… Sounds like this God needs a good shrink huh? I know that this is not what you believe, I’m just putting raw, unadulterated reformed theology in action.

Judas chose to betray Christ because Christ was not living up to the agenda that he had for him. God did not ordain Judas to betray Christ. He did know that he would. So God used it to accomplish his purposes. There were many others wiling to betray Christ. The only thing ordained about Judas betrayal was his ordination as as an apostle that the scriptures might be fulfilled. God ordained that because he knew his heart…

It is you that limit the ability of God to cause ALL things to work together for the good for those that love Him and are called according HIS purposes.

Well, under the influence of scripture, I refuse to attribute evil to God just so I can watch him cause good to come out of it. I say that without sin in the first place, God has all the good that he needs. Without sin, all that is left is good.

With no disrespect to you I think you need to rethink your theology on this

You believe that God has foreknowledge right?

No disrespect received. Still if I rethink it a billion times, I will still hold on to the righteous, just, and holy God revealed to “ME” in scripture. If you find a God there that does evil as comfortably as he does good, you can have him. I love God with all the strength within me, I cringe at the thought of a God that could hate me even before I was born, and would predestine me not to ever love him, and then punish me.

If God who is omniscient and omnipresent foresees an event that He does not want to occur He can stop it. By not stopping it he has assured that it will occur ..thus is inaction has predestined it.

He can stop it, or he can allow it and cause good to come out of it. Anyway, God does not cause good to come out of all sin; he only does that for those that love him.. There goes your God ordaining all evil to produce good…

Gods inaction is an action. As one Arminian /holiness pastor (not a Calvinist) told me foreknowledge = predestination.

Logical to a third grader with a learning disability. That professor has some real problems with comprehension…

In the theology you present God could have shortened the time.. but he chose not to ..thus it was guaranteed to happen ..it was Predestined.

Predestination is proactive, not passive. Your analogy is foolish if for no other reason than that…

Did you ever address the fact that it was God that led Satan to Job?

If I tell someone that you are a wonderful person, does it necessary follow that I am leading them to you to do all kinds of horrible things to you. Out or two possible scenarios, keep that which is good, discard that which is bad.

Be blessed.

 

[frumanchu]

I disagree; I was told "it establishes no sequence; either the APPOINT precedes BELIEF, or the BELIEF precedes APPOINT". Besides, this is ONE VERSE. I am accused of "JUMPING AROUND alot"; this is true, I DO. When I show that "a believer can FALL from GRACE" and am responded by "fallen-from-grace doesn't mean UNSAVED", then I realize that did not convince; so I try ANOTHER passage to convince. This from the idea that "they all harmonize"...

Yes, this is one verse, Ben. Your posts usually cite several verses in support of one point. HOWEVER, it is not necessary that I then attempt to refute those verses all at the same time. I understand the influence Shank has had on you in favoring overall context over immediate context. The problem is that if one applies an incorrect hermeneutical process to several verses, then points to a pattern, then turns around and uses that pattern to argue for the meaning of the individual verses, then you have a circular argument based on a faulty hermeneutical process. In order to address this, I must establish the pattern of inconsistent or incorrect hermeneutical process. If you have a 'wealth of verses' supporting a particular point, and I show an error in one, it doesn't seem to make much difference (unless of course it explicitly and directly contradicts that point). But if I systematically expose a majority of the verses to be likewise subjected to a poor hermeneutical process, then the pattern used to justify the hermeneutical process ('overall context' over 'immediate context') no longer holds. Certainly Scripture must be interpreted in light of other Scripture, but the pattern also holds that we examine complex Scripture in light of simple Scripture.

We are subject to the same hermeneutical scrutiny as you, Ben. There have been a fair number of instances to my recollection where your argument against our position on or interpretation of a verse was ultimately one of our position contradicting the 'overall harmony.' Would you not agree that if I can demonstrate systematically, verse by verse, that the 'overall harmony' you cite is based on faulty hermeneutics and exegesis, that such an argument against our position is no longer valid?

Robertson plainly states "Luke does NOT assert that their salvation is decreed" --- if Robertson viewed the passage as "appointed by GOD", he would not have said "LUKE ASSERTED NO DECRETUM"...

Ben, please don't use quotes in that manner when you are not actually quoting the source. This is only going to create confusion. May I suggest using single quotes when paraphrasing.

Robertson states that he believes the passage "does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency." He says "There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation." He also says that "by no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed."" CLEARLY Robertson feels that the order IS clear and that the appointment DOES PRECEDE the belief. Robertson simply states that the verse does not speak to the issue of the basis of that appointment. It is not explicit in the verse that the appointment was the election of God, and thus Robertson sees no evidence that an "absolutum decretum of personal salvation" is being viewed. NEITHER, as he points out in stating that it does not solve the problem of divine sovereignty vs free agency, does it rule it out. What he does state unequivocally is that the order is non-negotiable...belief followed (and was therefore not the basis of) the appointment. "It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life."

Since your Greek professor indicates that the order ('those who were appointed believed' vs 'those who believed were appointed') is indeterminate, and Robertson is emphatic about the order being determinate ('those who were appointed believed'), I maintain that your sources are in conflict. And all the major translations side with Robertson when rendering it in the English.

The issue left open on this verse is this: What is the basis for this appointment which leads to faith in these men? Robertson maintains concretely that their belief is not what appointed them unto eternal life, for it followed the appointment. They were 'ranged on the side of eternal life' PRIOR TO their belief.

There is still an area of Calvinism that I do not understand; if their WILL necessarily invariably unavoidably follows their HEART, the heart that is EITHER regenerated by God OR left reprobate by God, how then is it still THEIR VOLITION?

Ben, can you provide me with an example of ANY decision you have made which was not according to your desire? I am willing to take the time to explain this if you are seeking to undertand it. I cannot MAKE you understand it, but perhaps I can clear up any misconceptions or logical difficulties you have.

I just don't see how "common" is "condemned". Nowhere does it say (and no Calvinist asserts) that God SHAPES anyone FOR CONDEMNATION. The PE view is that they are condemned by their OWN DEPRAVITY, it is NOT GOD'S FAULT.

To be blunt, just because God makes a bedpan doesn't mean He's the one who craps in it.

That God SHAPES the "honor", says to me that they are SUBMITTED to Him to BE shaped; and the SAME LUMP OF CLAY (how can the same lump be both saved AND unsaved?), is also shaped for common --- is not the common ALSO submitted on His Potter's wheel?

They are 'SUBMITTING to Him to BE shaped??' Can you cite any precedent for this interpretation beyond your own personal view?

"By what right can God lay the blame for their sins on those He has hardened against Himself? Paul answers partially in terms of human experience (vv. 20, 21). It is unreasonable and irreverent for anyone to question the rightness of God’s ways. Potters have every right to do as they please with the clay (Is. 64:8). All belong to “the same lump” (cf. vv. 10–13) of fallen humanity in Adam (5:12–14); all actively sin even before God hardens them in sinning (1:18–28). That God should show mercy to any from the Adamic lump and create vessels of honor from it is the kindness of grace; that others should become vessels for lesser use is a matter of His sovereign prerogative and is itself a display of perfect justice towards them."
New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (Ro 9:19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

He spends the whole chapter speaking of FALLING FROM SALVATION, then makes a POSITIVE AFFIRMATION (as an ENCOURAGEMENT rather than DICTATE). Identical to Heb6:11. And Philip1:6 (which is FOLLOWED by vs9, a prayer for them to CONTINUE in salvation --- "SO THAT you may approve.... IN ORDER TO BE sincere and blameless until the day of Christ Jesus". How is that NOT a "prayer to continue in salvation"?)

No, Ben. He does NOT spend the whole chapter (Heb 10) speaking of "FALLING FROM SALVATION." He speaks of the insufficiency of animal sacrifices (vv1-4), the fulfilling of God's will in Christ's sacrifice (vv5-10), and how Christ's death perfects the sanctified (vv11-18). The author then pastorally sets forth to encourage them in their confession (vv19-25) and show them the greater value of the new covenant over the old by juxtaposing (in a hypothetical manner - "do you suppose") failure to keep the old covenant of works with failing to keep the new covenant of grace and faith (vv26-31). He then from vv32 to the end of the chapter by reminding them of their past perseverance, that confidence in the confession is important and carries with it reward, and that they are "not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul."

So your assertion that the "whole chapter" talks of falling from salvation is not accurate.

Because of the context of ALL of Hebrews; chapter 6 warns against apostasy; ch3 warns against "falling away from the living God"; ch12 warns against "falling short of grace" and "refusing Him who warns from Heaven". Ch10 says "if after having received EPIGNOSIS-KNOWLEDGE of the truth" --- this does not imply UNSAVED KNOWLEDGE; I showed you all the verses where "epignosis" means "SAVED"...

Chapter 6 (specifically 6:4-8) once again is conveyed as an exhortation for believers to prove their faith by their perseverance. The author again (just as in Heb 10), expresses confidence of "better things" concerning them.

In Chapter 12 the author speaks of our lives in faith as a long race in which we may at times become weary or discouraged, weighed down by the sin which so easily ensnares us. Moreover, we must be aware that we WILL be chastened, and that it is for a purpose. Those who are not chastened show themselves to be illegitimate and "not sons." The author then encourages them to renew their spiritual vitality and pursue peace and holiness (v14), the understanding of which is expounded upon in vv15-17. They are to be on their guard against those who receive the Gospel in vain (2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 4:1), roots of bitterness who spreads doubt and disloyalty toward the Lord among the covenant people (see Deut 29:18), fornicators, and those who exchange the truth for lies and like Esau give up the blessings presented to them for earthly things.

This THREAD is "predestination", Fru; and that Eph2:8 verse is one of the "big ones" used to assert that "salvic-faith is NOT of us but FROM GOD".

This will take us right back the idea of causality, which we've discussed before. I don't think I said that I don't affirm the notion that Eph 2:8 indicates faith being a gift from God, only that at the most this verse would simply be seen as inconsequential. The doctrines of "Calvinism" are not built on one or two verses.

Fine, then if you remain unconvinced on those particular passages, perhaps we can come to agreement in other areas of Scripture (this if it's "OK" for me to "jump around" a bit...)

As I explained above, there is method to my madness. Let us reason together.

 

[rnmomof7]

Please read and understand that what I am about to say is just as logical, reasonable, and scriptural as your analysis appears to be…

You say that God ordained the evil of Joseph’s brothers in order to save many people alive. I say that the evil done was the consequence of Joseph’s brothers own choosing. The products of a sin nature that was brought on by another act of disobedience that God did not ordain, neither did he cause it. That being Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

Indeed we all chose to sin. Joseph's brothers made a clear decision to kill the favored child. The issue we have to look at is WHY they freely made that choice .
God makes each one of us. He plans and implements everything about us.

He designed us . He determined your sex , your IQ, your race , your parents etc.

He also designed us to have certain proclivities and preferences .

God knows exactly how you will act under certain circumstances .

God knew that because of the way He had made the brothers that given the opportunity they would rid themselves of Joseph .

God provided the opportunity , he removed his restraining hand and they acted exactly as God knew they would choose.

Man freely chooses his sin , but God is never surprised by it. They have acted in a way that furthers His sovereign plan .

Do you think that God was unaware of the fall before it happened? Was god surprised there too?

The fall cause more than a dent in our nature. Man died spiritually that day . Man would not ever seek God to walk with Him in the garden. Man would instead do just as satan predicted. He would see to be his own god.Man could never seek God or desire fellowship with Him again without an act of Gods grace .

You ask me to accept that a Holy God that hates evil ordains evil as a means of accomplishing his purposes. What makes a person evil, doing evil? Your theology does not produce a God that uses evil to accomplish a greater Good; it produces a God that does evil to accomplish his purposes. (How human) If that was what the bible teaches, then who am I to question God. But it is not what the bible teaches.

Again we come to the point I have to ask you if Satan is Gods equal , Is Ying/yang? Can satan act in anyway without the permission of God {Please take time to really read Job 1}

Satan could not act om Judas until Jesus gave permission

Jhn 13:26**
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [it]. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon.

**
*
Jhn 13:27**
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.


You accuse God

it produces a God that does evil to accomplish his purposes. (How human)

All of creation is about Gods purposes not mine and not yours. All of creation was made for one purpose , that God be glorified.
As the creator and judge God has an absolute right to accomplish His purposes

Then you comment

If that was what the bible teaches, then who am I to question God. But it is not what the bible teaches.

That is what the Bible teaches.

Yes who are any of us to question God?

Rom 9:14**
What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

**
*
Rom 9:15**
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

**
*
Rom 9:16**
So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

**
*
Rom 9:17**
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

**
*
Rom 9:18**
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

**
*
Rom 9:19**
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

**
*
Rom 9:20**
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?

**
*
Rom 9:21**
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]

Amo 3:6**
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

**
*

God did not purpose the evil; he purposed the good that he would bring out of it. So, essentially I ask, who are you to assign evil to God that he said he hates so that you can assign salvational predestination to a God that is not a respecter of persons.

If that be so then to God all creation is a mystery.He has to wait on men to act so he can use it.
God is not a respecter of persons . But you read that out of context.

In this case as in when "all men" PAS or "world "Kosmos

In this case persons is speaking to nations no individuals

The jews thought they had an exclusive relationship with God. Much of the teaching of the NT teaches that God is no longer only the God of the Jews..but of gentiles also. This was spoken after the meeting with Cornelius. And also a revelation on clean and unclean
Now read this in context

*Act 10:34**
Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

**
*
Act 10:35**
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. [/color]

**
*
Act 10:36**
The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

This is a teaching on nations (no longer the Jew only) but all types and Nations

Respecter of persons.. To bestow upon one gifts or places of honor that are denied others just as worthy (Unworthy) because of some selfish (self-serving) motive. Unconditional election is selfish and self serving.

I would hope that you are not calling God selfish or self serving.

You were not made because God was lonely or needed your company. Creation is not about the creature , it is about the creator.

God owes us NOTHING . The belief He does comes from the sin of men .
What I fine most interesting is those that yell choice for man deny the same choice for God.

Do you know the meaning of grace? It is Gods Gods UNMERITED favor

Unmerited , undeserved , unearned..It is a gift He gives not one we deserve or earn.

But the current theology of the church teaches that GOD OWES every man and opportunity to get that grace.

What God owes us all is Hell. That is justice (giving a man what he deserves).
Instead what God gives is mercy (not giving ma what He deserves.)

One can not earn Mercy or it is not Mercy

Foreknowledge has nothing to do with it. Joseph’s brothers chose to do evil in the sight of God. God chose to cause good to come out of their evil. GOD DID NOT ORDAIN THEIR EVIL, HE ORDAINED THE GOOD THAT CAME OUT OF IT.

God knew exactly how they would choose as he made them. This was a part of the plan of salvation laid down before the foundation of the earth.

The manna represented Christ as a typology in the desert .



Oops! My mistake. Oh well, that means that God still had a full supply on hand.

You are very disrespectful in your opinion of God.
I know you do not like Gods choices But until things change He is still God and He still gets to write HIStory His way .

Your purpose here is to acknowledge and honor the sovereignty of God. Yet you steadfastly refuse to apply the mechanics of sovereignty to your understanding. God has the sovereign right to tell us to choose ye this day whom we will serve.

Well actually that was said to the nation of Israel not individuals , but I agree that each individual must choose the question is who will choose.

 

[augustine32]

"Responsible-Grace: God draws ALL MEN to where they CAN believe; those who believe, are born again THROUGH that belief. "For by grace have you been saved THROUGH FAITH (salvic-faith = salvic-belief)"

So are you saying that there then has to be some decision made by man in order for his regeneration? Because then it seems to me that a person would have to have a pretty good grasp of spiritual things in order to believe, yet we are told we cannot see the kingdom of God UNTIL we are born again. I Cor 2:14 The natural (unregenerate) man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, nor can he know them. I think you would have to know them in order to believe in them.

"The idea behind the word 'calamity' in this context implies not moral evil -- for this calamity is only conditional on man's rebellion, which brought judgement, which God intended as a form of love, for "whom the LORD loves He reproves, even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights." Proverbs 3:12 (NASB)."

So it being conditional on man's rebellion means that it might not have occured. So Christ might not have died if man's rebellion was not quite as bad as God intended. Remember you say that man has a free will so they could have chosen not to crucify Christ and then where would all that prophecy about His death have gone. What rnmomof7 has been saying is that if something is foreknown then it is going to happen. That means it is fixed. It can't be fixed by us since we are not alive yet to make our free choices. So who does that leave that was around before the foundation of the world to ordain things? Like I have said before, Arminianism leads to Open Theism because that is the only logical conclusion. To retain mans free will God must have to limit His omniscience so that our choices are not fixed from before the foundation of the world.

Please answer about Christ's death which I have brought up several times. It was predestined by God and implemented by the hands of sinful man. God brought those men together to do those things. Read Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Gentiles were brought together to do what? Whatever God had determined beforehand. What had He determined beforehand to do? Acts 2:23 Deliver Christ over to these men. God did not commit the act of sin in crucifying Christ, but He leads Christ into there hands that they might crucify Him. If you say they had a free choice in the matter then why did God make so much prophecy which might later have proved false? So God determined to deliver Job to Satan by pointing Him out. What else would God expect the devil to want to do to the holiest man alive that God has just pointed out? So God delivered Joseph into the hands of his brothers, not letting them kill Joseph but causing him to be sold into Egypt for it to be used for good. And again He meant it - planned it - not simply responding to the evil that occurs.

Look at Matthew 4:1. Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness for rest and relaxation and the devil happened to show up to tempt Him, right? No. It says He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted. Thus the prayer "lead us not into temptation". God leads into temptation, but He does not tempt as James points out. In each of these cases I am arguing from the greater to the lesser. If these things happened to Christ, then why not Job, Joseph or us.

Look to logic. If there is prophecy then there is foreordination thus limiting your idea of free will. If there is not foreordination then mans free will foils the idea of prophecy. God must have been quite lucky to have everything go the way He said it would while allowing His creatures the free will to change whatever might occur.