predestined

[SayaOtonashi]

So free will isn't a illusion? It''s just has a person who can't always go to a place of worship I try to study often. So sometimes things like predestination get me confuse. It makes it sense at times we don't have a real choice to repent if God already knows who will do it. But free will is not a illusion and one can repent and change.

 

[Radagast]

It''s just has a person who can't always go to a place of worship I try to study often.

In that case, please please please study from Christian sources (not anti-Trinity ones).

Read quality books. If you listen to YouTube, listen to sermons from respected pastors.

 

[Oldmantook]

Took this is what I was responding to:

“The Reformed model has nothing to do with what choices man makes since man is reprobate.”

Which evokes the question....Is it your understanding in Reformed doctrine that we don’t make any choices?

Let’s clear that up.

Did you bother to read the link. If you did, explain your understanding of it since it appears to me that you did not even comprehend it.

 

[redleghunter]

Actually, I don't think anybody does believe that, but you're more than welcome to argue against a nonexistent position.

That’s a keeper. Lol.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not complicated, a child could understand.

You mean it’s so easy even a caveman could understand? Sorry could not resist with your avatar.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't know why you feel insulted... I'm honestly sad you feel this way .. These were sincere questions... But please report me, then maybe I'll know where I have been wrong ..

Well here’s a comment. You made an assertion without evidence and then repeated not once but twice.

Pony up with your evidence.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe that God predestined according to his foreknowledge. He knew how Pilate was, actually Jesus even presented to him the gospel, and gave him a chance out, but Pilate choose the other way and God used that. I don't think God predestined in the way of affecting peoples free will, but uses peoples choices of free will to get His will done.

How does that work when predestined and foreknowledge are in the same sentence and don’t mean the same thing?

 

[mark kennedy]

You mean it’s so easy even a caveman could understand? Sorry could not resist with your avatar.

Ugh! Says the caveman.

 

[mark kennedy]

How does that work when predestined and foreknowledge are in the same sentence and don’t mean the same thing?

In Romans 8:29 Its the same word, the literary style is call a paralellism, repetition for the sake of emphasis, Provetbs uses a lot of them. Basically it's what God predetermined from the foundation of the world, he has accomplushed in Christ. Everyone thinks the predestination is about them, it's not, it's about Christ. He has now done what he always intended, it's not all about us, sometimes the gospel is about Jesus, not just us getting saved.

 

[redleghunter]

I won't go into it, because it's been done so many times allready in other threads.

?

 

[redleghunter]

Redleghunter, you have still not answered this.

Sure I did. I ask you to prove your claim. You did not.

Show me and link me to a quote from Augustine.

 

[redleghunter]

Here is somewhat of what I meant concerning the similarities of Calvinistic double predestination and Gnostisism.

‘Classes’ of People: A Relationship Between Gnostic and classical Calvinist/Arminian Understanding of Election? Appropriated from J. Kameron Carter

Hope you are having fun. That link is a joke. It’s someones blog page with no scholarship.

The blogger even said what he wrote was an assertion based on an idea.

I’m kind of wondering. Is that your blog?

 

[Jonaitis]

I once said at church after the preaching service (we have open discussions on the sermon), that God's love doesn't end with us. If we were the sole object of God's love, then he would be an idolater. He must do all things for his glory, which he truly loves, and it is in that we are blessed. It seemed I offended one member who thought that sounded very egotistic for God to be that way. That God loves himself more than us, and loves us in reference to himself and his glory.

Calvinism should never end with us, but the sole glory of God. Yes, our chief end includes our enjoyment in him, but his glory, as Piper controversially once stated, is what we relish our enjoyment on. He is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him. I am convinced that such a statement is very biblical.

I am also convinced that the truest doctrines in every page of Holy Writ will always give the greater glory and praise to the persons and work of God. If it fails to aim at that, if it fails (as Augustine said) to teach us to love him more and our neighbor, then it is likely false and unbiblical.

I believe that discussions on a topic like this should be accompanied with carefulness, thoughtfulness, and prayerfulness. Learn so that you may know your God!

 

[redleghunter]

Have you seen this other mainstream interpretation : Corporate election - Wikipedia

It’s mainstream?

 

[redleghunter]

To me the word 'church' in the intro paragraph simply means all believers. So, it fits Eph 1:13-14 fine. Is there a place in these beginning sections you see as wrong? --

"Election is first and foremost centered in Christ: "He chose us in him" (Ephesians 1:4a).[6] Christ himself is the elect of God.[7] Regarding Christ, God states, "Here is my servant whom I have chosen" (Matthew 12:18; cf. Isaiah 42:1, 6).[8] God audibly declared to Christ's disciples, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" (Luke 9:35)[9] The Gospel writer John says, "I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One" (John 1:34, Today's New International Version).[10] The apostle Peter refers to Christ as "the Living Stone . . . chosen by God and precious to Him" (1 Peter 2:4; cf. v. 6).[11] Therefore, Christ, as the elect of God, is the foundation of our election.[12] Through union with Christ believers become members of the elect (Ephesians 1:4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13).[13] No one is among the elect unless they are in a living faith union with Christ.[14]

Election is primarily corporate
"New Testament theologian Ben Witherington remarks that apart from the word election (eklektos) occasionally being used to apply to the king in the Old Testament, election in the Old Testament is predominantly applied corporately to a people, not to individuals. The Hebrew word for "elect" (bahir) is normally used in the plural, and thus refers collectively of Israel. While there are times in Scripture where God chooses individuals for a specific historical task or purpose (e.g. Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1), these are passages that have nothing to do with God deciding who will be saved, thus, they are of no relevance to this topic. The corporate concept of election in the Old Testament is the context which one must view the references to election in the New Testament.[15]

"Professor William Klein concluded that the New Testament writers "address salvific election in primarily, if not exclusively, corporate terms. In other words, God has chosen an elect body to save."[16] The elect are identified corporately as: "the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12; cf. 1:22-23; 2:16; 3:6; 5:23, 30), "members of God's household" (Ephesians 2:19),[17] "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession" (1 Peter 2:9; cf. 2:10).[18] Thus, election is primarily corporate and only embraces individuals (secondarily) who identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the church—God's new covenant community.[19]

"New Testament scholar Brian Abasciano says that the Bible's teaching regarding "corporate election unto salvation is even more nuanced than simply saying that the group is elected primarily and the individual secondarily."[20]

"More precisely, it refers to the election of a group as a consequence of the choice of an individual who represents the group, the corporate head and representative. That is, the group is elected as a consequence of its identification with this corporate representative. The same may be said of individuals. They are chosen as a consequence of their identification with the people, and more fundamentally, with the individual corporate head. Thus,

'God chose the people of Israel in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:6-8). That is, by choosing Jacob/Israel, the corporate/covenant representative, God also chose his descendants as his covenant people. . . . The covenant representative on the one hand and the people/nation of Israel on the other hand are the focus of the divine covenantal election, and individuals are elect only as members of the elect people. Moreover, in principle, foreign individuals who were not originally members of the elect people could join the chosen people and become part of the elect, demonstrating again that the locus of election was the covenant community and that individuals found their election through membership in the elect people.'

"This notion of election is rooted in the Old Testament concept of corporate solidarity or representation, which views the individual as representing the community and identified with it and vice versa.[21]

....(continues at site)
Corporate election - Wikipedia

Notice how in that last quoted paragraph, this fits perfectly how we are to "love one another" as the central command to us from Christ. We are not isolated individuals, but instead we are together in a profound way: "Love one another as I have loved you."

You can’t say us means church in the same passage and change us to individuals when it is convenient. He is addressing individuals.

 

[zoidar]

Sure I did. I ask you to prove your claim. You did not.

Show me and link me to a quote from Augustine.

I wrote you this in post 231: "Sorry I might have been wrong. He believed that the elect would perservere to the end, but that one could be justified by grace and still not be among the elect. Also he believed we can never know if we are among the elect."

ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS and
ON THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE
St. Augustine
ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS and ON THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE

I HAVE now to consider the subject of perseverance with greater care; for in the former book also I said some things on this subject when I was discussing the beginning of faith. I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? For if any one have continence, and fall away from that virtue and become incontinent,—or, in like manner, if he have righteousness, if patience, if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was continent, or he was righteous, or he was patient, or he was believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. But how should he who Has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only by persevering that any one shows himself persevering,— and this he has not done? But lest any one should object to this, and say, If from the time at which any one became a believer he has lived—for the sake of argument—ten years, and in the midst of them has fallen from the faith, has he not persevered for five years? I am not contending about words. If it be thought that this also should be called perseverance, as it were for so long as it lasts, assuredly he is not to be said to have had in any degree that perseverance of which we are now discoursing, by which one perseveres in Christ even to the end. And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years' standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the stedfastness of his faith.

Well here’s a comment. You made an assertion without evidence and then repeated not once but twice.

Pony up with your evidence.

Hope you are having fun. That link is a joke. It’s someones blog page with no scholarship.

The blogger even said what he wrote was an assertion based on an idea.

I’m kind of wondering. Is that your blog?

Thanks for asking for evidence! No, it's not my blog. I didn't link it to prove anything, but to show what I meant. I don't have any first hand sources. What I got is this from David Bercot:

54:20-56:05

?

Look if you want to discuss Eph 1 you have to start a new thread. There have been many discussions on other threads on Eph 1. I'm not really looking forward of discussing it again, because it has led nowhere.

 

[Radagast]

So free will isn't a illusion?

There are different meanings of the phrase "free will." What do you mean by the phrase?

 

[JacksBratt]

But Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. He exorts sinners to turn, repent and be saved. If this is His will, then it is a contradiction to believe that He would predestine some to hell.

I can go into a restaurant and pay the owner for every meal ordered that day. I can tell everyone there that I have done so... However, some will decide that they don't like the food there and not eat a meal.

Christ paid the price for the sins of the world. Only those that acknowledge Him and accept salvation will be granted it.

This only means that the sins are paid for... they are only forgiven is asked.

Yes but calvinism has it that God is more than an observer, but that he is calling the plays before they happen. In Calvinism, Gods sovereign will is always operating and free will is rather dubious to reconcile for the outside observers.

Good for Calvinism..... I bet that there are a lot of views out there with fancy names........ Your point?

 

[JacksBratt]

Is the other guy who knows what will happen Bill Belichick?

No, Probably Terry Bradshaw or Joe Namath...Possibly Tim Tebow

 

[zoidar]

Well here’s a comment. You made an assertion without evidence and then repeated not once but twice.

Pony up with your evidence.

The reason I asked Mark to explain the difference, was because I wanted to start a discussion, not to prove I was right. I wanted to discuss where Calvinistic ideas are related to Gnostic ideas. I see no aggression in my posts, I never said anything about Calvinism being the same as Gnosticism, yet I was called being slander, which I felt was totally unjust. Neither did I say that Gnostic ideas allways have to be wrong. Some ideas may fit well with Christianity.