The Strongest Arguments for Predestination

[LaymanPreacher]

If one were to believe in the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible regarding predestination, the strongest argument that they would have would be the case of Judas Iscariot. As it says in Matthew 10:4, Jesus chose Judas to be one of his disciples, even though he was to betray him. And throughout the Gospels, it is reiterated that Judas would betray the Lord and Christ of his life. One could argue a middle of the road stance and say that Judas could have just said no and kept himself from the job, but if that were true, then why didn't he?

Of course, this is an extreme case in what is the argument of free will versus predestination debate. But there are other Scriptures that call upon the evidence, like Romans 8:28-30. In the first verse here says, "We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God; those who are called according to His purpose." There is that idea of being called into the Lord's service that can mean that God calls to him for the Christian ministry. And if you look to the next verse, it says that, "those He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the Image of His Son." So we have the man being called and conformed to the image of a Christian man or woman. It goes on from there in verse 30, saying we will go from being predestined to being called, from being called to being justified, and finally from being justified to being glorified.

Of course there are many more arguments for this doctrine, including a Psalm of David that states that God "knit [him] together in the womb," stipulating that God knew him before he was even born, and therefore must have had a plan for him. One could also look to Jeremiah 1:4-5 for the knowing before one's birth argument, as well as the argument regarding one's calling. The list is endless.

In writing this, I did not intend to place one doctrine over the other; in no way am I saying that predestination is above free will, or vice versa. All I am saying is that there is the question of the depth of one's calling and God's knowledge of one's life that is in needing of answers when put into the Calvinist context. Just as this may raise questions in many of you, it raises many questions within me.

Peace be with my brothers and Sisters. May we find these answers together, and learn and show ourselves approved. Amen.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A very good example of the harmony between predestination and free will is as follows.

100 condemned prisoners are held on death row in a prison. For some reason, an amnesty is given to them, and these prisoners are no longer condemned and they are free to leave the prison. So all the cell doors are unlocked and the guards are instructed not to hinder anyone who wants to go out to freedom.

But after a while, the Justice official comes and finds that none of the prisoners have left the prison, because they are unable to believe that they have been pardoned. He invites all of them to leave the prison, but they do not trust him. They think that it is some kind of trick, so they stay where they are.

So, the official decides to take 50 of those prisoners by the arm and gently lead them out of the prison, while assuring them they are really free and if they allow him to lead them physically out of the prison, they will discover that they are really free. These 50 choose to cooperate with him and they walk to freedom, while the other 50 remain where they are, and the amnesty for them is cancelled so that they will face execution after all.

This explains the doctrine of election, where God elects to save a certain number of condemned sinners. We all started as condemned sinners anyway, so those who are chosen by God to be saved have no more merit than those God does not choose. God is quite free to choose whoever He wants to be saved. If He leaves others in the "prison" to be condemned, He is not being unfair to anyone, because they were condemned anyway. He does not take anything away from them. He merely uses His power of choice to save a number of sinners through his pure grace. If they deserved to be saved, it would be salvation by works and not by grace.

Therefore being saved by grace means that we who are saved did not get what we deserved, which was condemnation, but were given a free gift out of God's grace for us.

Predestination is the act of the Justice official gently leading the 50 out of the prison, and leaving the other 50 behind to their just deserts. The Justice official is not to be blamed for acting unfairly, because the 50 left behind chose not to accept the invitation to freedom.

But the prisoners who were set free did not deserve to be set free. They deserved condemnation and death. But it was through the pure grace of the person who decided to give them an amnesty that enabled them to walk to freedom.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

A very good example of the harmony between predestination and free will is as follows.

100 condemned prisoners are held on death row in a prison. For some reason, an amnesty is given to them, and these prisoners are no longer condemned and they are free to leave the prison. So all the cell doors are unlocked and the guards are instructed not to hinder anyone who wants to go out to freedom.

But after a while, the Justice official comes and finds that none of the prisoners have left the prison, because they are unable to believe that they have been pardoned. He invites all of them to leave the prison, but they do not trust him. They think that it is some kind of trick, so they stay where they are.

So, the official decides to take 50 of those prisoners by the arm and gently lead them out of the prison, while assuring them they are really free and if they allow him to lead them physically out of the prison, they will discover that they are really free. These 50 choose to cooperate with him and they walk to freedom, while the other 50 remain where they are, and the amnesty for them is cancelled so that they will face execution after all.

This explains the doctrine of election, where God elects to save a certain number of condemned sinners. We all started as condemned sinners anyway, so those who are chosen by God to be saved have no more merit than those God does not choose. God is quite free to choose whoever He wants to be saved. If He leaves others in the "prison" to be condemned, He is not being unfair to anyone, because they were condemned anyway. He does not take anything away from them. He merely uses His power of choice to save a number of sinners through his pure grace. If they deserved to be saved, it would be salvation by works and not by grace.

Therefore being saved by grace means that we who are saved did not get what we deserved, which was condemnation, but were given a free gift out of God's grace for us.

Predestination is the act of the Justice official gently leading the 50 out of the prison, and leaving the other 50 behind to their just deserts. The Justice official is not to be blamed for acting unfairly, because the 50 left behind chose not to accept the invitation to freedom.

But the prisoners who were set free did not deserve to be set free. They deserved condemnation and death. But it was through the pure grace of the person who decided to give them an amnesty that enabled them to walk to freedom.

See though? We still have to accept His Grace, and cooperate with him. There is the issue of accepting that Gift that is the reason for us being saved. While we were still once lost, we have to be in cooperation and the will to allow what Christ has destined for us into our lives.

 

[MrPolo]

an amnesty is given to them, and these prisoners are no longer condemned and they are free to leave the prison. So all the cell doors are unlocked and the guards are instructed not to hinder anyone who wants to go out to freedom.

The above part of your analogy is not Calvinistic predestination. In Calvinism, the reprobate are never given any amnesty, nor are there any doors they can go through to freedom. They are "passed over" altogether.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

The above part of your analogy is not Calvinistic predestination. In Calvinism, the reprobate are never given any amnesty, nor are there any doors they can go through to freedom. They are "passed over" altogether.

So what about the ones that were led out, while the rest were left and made to suffer their consequences again?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The above part of your analogy is not Calvinistic predestination. In Calvinism, the reprobate are never given any amnesty, nor are there any doors they can go through to freedom. They are "passed over" altogether.

Every person whether elect or reprobate is given the invitation to come to Christ. It is the elect who are given the ability to accept it.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

Every person whether elect or reprobate is given the invitation to come to Christ. It is the elect who are given the ability to accept it.

For me, it seems weird that God gives it to everybody, but only elects some to accept it.

 

[MrPolo]

Every person whether elect or reprobate is given the invitation to come to Christ. It is the elect who are given the ability to accept it.

I understand that is the Calvinist view. I just don't think your analogy of the prisoner fits that description.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For me, it seems weird that God gives it to everybody, but only elects some to accept it.

The free, unmerited grace of God is foreign to human reasoning. That's why it seems weird to you. But grace would not be grace if anyone deserved it or earned it in any way. The fact that God made an arbitrary choice about who He decided to save and who He passed over is an expression of His grace to those who He saved.

We were all justly condemned anyway, so if God had passed over us, we would have merely got what we deserved.

The wonder of God's grace is that He has given us salvation which we did not deserve.

The problem with human reasoning is that according to it, because God is a God of mercy, He has to save everyone. The reality is that in Adam, He gave the opportunity for the whole of the human race to have eternal life but Adam blew it by casting his lot in with Satan and rebelling against God in the same way that Satan did - by trying to become his own god instead of putting his whole dependence on Him.

It was not the act of eating the fruit that ruined Adam and consequently the whole of mankind, but it was the reason he ate it. He chose to follow Eve instead of keeping the command of God. This is rebellion. Adam was not deceived by the serpent. Eve was. Adam's choice to eat the fruit was a deliberate, knowing choice to turn away from God. He knew that Eve had disobeyed God, nevertheless He followed her in eating the fruit and so ruined himself and the whole of mankind.

We must not ignore God's justice. Rebellion has to be punished. God cannot let mankind off just on a whim of mercy. God must act according to His justice. Adam committed a crime against God and spawned a race of rebels and criminals, therefore God is bound to bring condemnation and punishment in order to be fair and just. If He just saved everyone, all the pure angels in heaven who did not fall with Satan and his fallen angels would have just cause to accuse God of being unjust and not following His own principles of justice. But God is above criticism and accusation, because He has kept to his principles of justice and has found a way in order to satisfy the requirements of justice in order to save an elect group of people.

This is the point of Jesus dying on cross. God's own divine Son was the only person in the universe who could have taken the punishment and satisfied justice. This He did, and justice is satisfied for all those who come to Christ. Therefore the invitation goes out to all to ensure that God is being totally fair on mankind. But not all will accept the invitation, and God, through His foreknowledge and His secret counsel, has made up the list of people whom He destines to save.

A good, thorough study of the Scriptures will reveal that God has chosen a select group of people to be saved. I can provide that proof if necessary, but I might be wasting my time and effort if people are not really prepared to accept and believe what the Scripture literally says about it.

The way we are able to access the truth of God's plan of salvation is through faith, because human reasoning cannot understand why God does the things He does.

The reality is, God did not have to save anyone. He would have been quite just and fair to allow the whole of mankind to go into condemnation and hell. That would have been what we would have justly deserved.

But God decided to send His Son to die for those He elected to saved, and so satisfied the requirements of justice so He could extend His grace and mercy to them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I understand that is the Calvinist view. I just don't think your analogy of the prisoner fits that description.

I don't understand. In what way do you not think that my analogy of the prisoner fits the description? I have read through a number of Calvin's commentaries (Romans, I Corinthians, Isaiah, Acts), and from what he says, the analogy fits.

(addition): I have just read your previous post. Every person, Elect or Reprobate, is given the invitation to come to Christ. If not, then the reprobate could stand up in the judgment and accuse God of not giving him a chance. Romans deals with those who have never heard the Gospel- they are judged on the evidences in creation and their own consciences. What makes a person a reprobate is that they have absolutely no interest in Christ, and even when they hear the Gospel, they choose to turn away from it and keep resolutely to their life of sin.

A reprobate has the ability to read the Bible as well as an elect person. Therefore they both get the chance to see the invitation to come to Christ, but the future of the person is dependent on what he or she does with the information placed in front of them.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

The free, unmerited grace of God is foreign to human reasoning. That's why it seems weird to you. But grace would not be grace if anyone deserved it or earned it in any way. The fact that God made an arbitrary choice about who He decided to save and who He passed over is an expression of His grace to those who He saved.

We were all justly condemned anyway, so if God had passed over us, we would have merely got what we deserved.

The wonder of God's grace is that He has given us salvation which we did not deserve.

The problem with human reasoning is that according to it, because God is a God of mercy, He has to save everyone. The reality is that in Adam, He gave the opportunity for the whole of the human race to have eternal life but Adam blew it by casting his lot in with Satan and rebelling against God in the same way that Satan did - by trying to become his own god instead of putting his whole dependence on Him.

It was not the act of eating the fruit that ruined Adam and consequently the whole of mankind, but it was the reason he ate it. He chose to follow Eve instead of keeping the command of God. This is rebellion. Adam was not deceived by the serpent. Eve was. Adam's choice to eat the fruit was a deliberate, knowing choice to turn away from God. He knew that Eve had disobeyed God, nevertheless He followed her in eating the fruit and so ruined himself and the whole of mankind.

We must not ignore God's justice. Rebellion has to be punished. God cannot let mankind off just on a whim of mercy. God must act according to His justice. Adam committed a crime against God and spawned a race of rebels and criminals, therefore God is bound to bring condemnation and punishment in order to be fair and just. If He just saved everyone, all the pure angels in heaven who did not fall with Satan and his fallen angels would have just cause to accuse God of being unjust and not following His own principles of justice. But God is above criticism and accusation, because He has kept to his principles of justice and has found a way in order to satisfy the requirements of justice in order to save an elect group of people.

This is the point of Jesus dying on cross. God's own divine Son was the only person in the universe who could have taken the punishment and satisfied justice. This He did, and justice is satisfied for all those who come to Christ. Therefore the invitation goes out to all to ensure that God is being totally fair on mankind. But not all will accept the invitation, and God, through His foreknowledge and His secret counsel, has made up the list of people whom He destines to save.

A good, thorough study of the Scriptures will reveal that God has chosen a select group of people to be saved. I can provide that proof if necessary, but I might be wasting my time and effort if people are not really prepared to accept and believe what the Scripture literally says about it.

The way we are able to access the truth of God's plan of salvation is through faith, because human reasoning cannot understand why God does the things He does.

The reality is, God did not have to save anyone. He would have been quite just and fair to allow the whole of mankind to go into condemnation and hell. That would have been what we would have justly deserved.

But God decided to send His Son to die for those He elected to saved, and so satisfied the requirements of justice so He could extend His grace and mercy to them.

The issue I have is why just predestine some? It is grace, and God loves us all--where would free will come in to play?

 

[MrPolo]

If not, then the reprobate could stand up in the judgment and accuse God of not giving him a chance.

According to Calvinistic predestination and what you said earlier that only the elect are given the "ability to accept Christ." My earlier point if I was not clear---the reason I didn't think the prisoner example reflected this is because in the prisoner example, once the door is opened, everyone has the ability to walk out. The lack of trust you said that kept them from walking out does not equate to the "inability" to walk out that Calvin taught. That's how I read the prisoner analogy.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The issue I have is why just predestine some? It is grace, and God loves us all--where would free will come in to play?

The harmony between prestination and free will is one of those mysteries that God has not chosen to reveal clearly to us. Perhaps we should heed the Scripture that the Just shall live by faith and that without faith it is impossible to please God. My Bible says that God predestines those who are to be saved and at the same time they have free will to come to Christ. It's in Proverbs: a man may plan his way (using free will) but God directs his steps. Human reason is unable to work this out, so we are expected to accept it by faith, because God's Word says it.

A high court judge, condemning a prison to death, may have feelings of compassion and love toward the prisoner, but does that mean that he lets the prisoner go without a penalty?

I think you need some further training on the justice of God as well as His love. Sure, He loves mankind, but He has to observe His principles of Justice as well.

God cannot just save everyone. In fact, He doesn't have to save anyone, because all mankind is justly condemned, and God would be well within His rights to stand back and let us all go to condemnation and hell, which is what we all deserve anyway.

But there is a process to be saved, and it involves the narrow gate, which is full conversion to Christ. Outside of Christ there is no hope of salvation. We know that the majority of mankind is rejecting Christ.

So, if God decides, according to His own plans and purposes to save some, who is there to question Him. Does the clay question the potter about why he is made the way he is?

Who are we, who were created by God out of nothing, to question Him in the way He decides to save people?

Calvin was not the first one to put forward this theology. St Augustine says the same things, and the whole of the orthodox protestant church believed it, until Arminius came along and taught that salvation depended on man's ability to choose and to have faith - which is essentially a salvation by works; and Paul taught clearly that our salvation is not by works at all. So any salvation by works is no salvation at all. It is certainly not salvation by God's grace through faith.

Paul teaches in Romans that an elect was saved and the rest were hardened. Read it for yourself.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think it is about time for me to give some proof from Scripture. Either we believe the Bible or we don't. Here are some references to make you think about the doctrine of unconditional election:

"Jehovah has made everything for its own end; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Proverbs 16:4).
Christ is said to be of the wicked "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed" (I Peter 2:8).
"For there were certain men crept in privily, even who they were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 4).
"But these, as creatures without reason, born as mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters thereof they are ignorant shall in their destroying surely be destroyed" (II Peter 2:12).
"For God did put it in their heart to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the word of God should be accomplished (Rev 17:17).
Concerning the beast of St John's vision it is said, "All that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name is not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that has been slain" (Rev 13:8).
And we may contrast these with the disciples whom Jesus told to rejoice because their names were written in Heaven (Luke 10:20),and with Paul's fellow workers "whose names are in the book of life" (Philippians 4:3).

Paul declares that the "vessels of wrath" which by the Lord were "fitted unto destruction" were "endured with much long suffering" in order that He might "show His wrath, and make His power known"; and with these are contrasted the "vessels of mercy, which He afore prepared unto glory" in order "that He might make known the riches of His glory" upon them (Rom 9:22,23).

Concerning the heathen it is said that "God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which were not fitting." (Rom 1:28); and the wicked, "after his hardness and impenitent heart treasures up for himself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." (Rom 2:5).

The Apostle John, after narrating that the people still disbelieved although Jesus had done so many signs before them adds, "for this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them." (John 12:39,40).

I think that this is pretty convincing proof, directly from Scripture, that God predestines His elect to salvation, and hardens and blinds those whom He has decided to leave in their sins and condemnation. To believe anything different is to ignore what the Scripture literally says, and to apply some forced interpretation based on human reasoning philosophy concerning, not the God of the Bible, but some other humanistic god made up out of the imagination.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

I think it is about time for me to give some proof from Scripture. Either we believe the Bible or we don't.

That is a bit harsh. I never said that I did not believe the Bible. Like you said in an earlier post, we have to eventually just trust in God, which I do. However, I do believe this doctrial issue is an interesting one, as both Free Will and Predestination have their Scriptural proofs with which to back them up. For me, the question still remains unanswered regarding Judas: Was he predestined to totally and irrevocably walk down the path of betrayal, or could he have chosen not to at any time and just didn't? The fact that I have questions regarding Lutheran versus Calvinist theology does not mean that I do not believe the Bible.

 

[LaymanPreacher]

I think that this is pretty convincing proof, directly from Scripture, that God predestines His elect to salvation, and hardens and blinds those whom He has decided to leave in their sins and condemnation. To believe anything different is to ignore what the Scripture literally says, and to apply some forced interpretation based on human reasoning philosophy concerning, not the God of the Bible, but some other humanistic god made up out of the imagination.

Not to say that your Scriptural proof did not have merit on the side of Predestination, but here again, to say that those who believe the other side--many of whom can use Scripture just the same to prove their points--are ignoring the Bible completely is harsh. The fact that there is a serious debate in the first place shows that this is one area where the Bible is not clear.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Every person whether elect or reprobate is given the invitation to come to Christ. It is the elect who are given the ability to accept it.

## But if they were not elect, they would not accept. And there is no provision for an election that does not lead to final perseverance. The problem is, that God elects, & God passes over - man has no say in that part of the matter. So if God elects him, he is safe; but if God does not, but passes him over: he is certain to roast.

That seems a bit rough, and not very fair, because it is God & not man who distinguishes the elect from the reprobate. So a multiple murderer may be saved, while someone who has tried hard all his life to serve God, goes to Hell. That is the kind of connection of ideas that bothers people - & such a God does not seem very kind or merciful, but remote & manipulative & hideously unfair

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not to say that your Scriptural proof did not have merit on the side of Predestination, but here again, to say that those who believe the other side--many of whom can use Scripture just the same to prove their points--are ignoring the Bible completely is harsh. The fact that there is a serious debate in the first place shows that this is one area where the Bible is not clear.

This is where I disagree. The Bible is very clear in the quotes that I gave. The problem is that some people want some underlying interpretation instead of accepting the literal words of the Scripture. If the Bible says that the names of the Elect are written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, what other meaning can anyone put to that, except the meaning that is quite clearly expressed - that God has a list of all the people that He is intending to save, and that He made up the list before the world was created?

Again, if the Scripture says that there is a group of people who could not believe because they were deliberately blinded by God so they could not see or understand the Gospel, what other meaning is there except just what was said?

I think that it is not that people cannot see the literal rendering of the Scripture, is more that they don't want to accept it and are playing the "that's your interpretation" card. But the Scriptures I have quoted have no other interpretation than what is literally written.

I have already said that there is harmony between predestination and free will, but it is within the mystery of God's own mind and will and has not been clearly revealed to us. It is not that there is a doubt about the fact that God has a list of His Elect. That is a clear fact from Scripture. But how the harmony between predestination and free will exists, we don't really know because of the simple fact that God has not told us.

There is a problem with those people who put free will in opposition with predestination when actually both are true. If a person believes in predestination without free will, you have fatalism; and if you believe in free will without predestination then you are making salvation totally dependent on the whim of man. Either way, they might as well get a pair of scissors and cut out of the Bible those Scriptures which do not fit into the side they believe in. For example, a person who does not believe in Election, can cut out of the Bible all the Scriptures that support Election because he does not believe them. In other words, he is saying that when God inspired these Scriptures, He was mistaken. Can you see where that is leading to?

Election is a very harsh doctrine and hard to accept, but the Scripture says quite clearly from my quotes that God has created people to show his wrath on those who rebel against Him. This is not an attractive or pleasant doctrine, but it is what the Scripture says, and we either believe the Scripture as it is written or not. The only Scripture that has hidden meanings behind the literal are the apocalyptic books like Daniel and Revelation. But the teachings of Paul are direct and straightforward, and are mean to be taken at face value.

The trouble with some theologies is that a lot of them involve twisted and forced interpretations of Scripture that on their face value are quite direct and straightforward. The Scripture is twisted because the particular theologians do not wish to accept what the Scripture plainly says. It does not fit into their theology, so they would rather adulterate the Scripture than to admit that their theology is a figment of their own philosophy.

Faith comes by hearing and accepting the Word of God. The Scripture says that whatever is not of faith is sin. Faith bases its dependence on the literal words of the Bible. So, not accepting the literal words of the Bible without trying to force some sort of underlying interpretation into them may very well be viewed by God as sin - the sin of unbelief.

 

[Hairy Tic]

The harmony between prestination and free will is one of those mysteries that God has not chosen to reveal clearly to us.

Perhaps we should heed the Scripture that the Just shall live by faith and that without faith it is impossible to please God. My Bible says that God predestines those who are to be saved and at the same time they have free will to come to Christ. It's in Proverbs: a man may plan his way (using free will) but God directs his steps. Human reason is unable to work this out, so we are expected to accept it by faith, because God's Word says it.

A high court judge, condemning a prison to death, may have feelings of compassion and love toward the prisoner, but does that mean that he lets the prisoner go without a penalty?

## God is greater than any High Court Judge - for He is the Creator of those whom He decides, both to create, & to rule in such a way that they cannot avoid being damned. He could be compassionate to them if He so desired - but He does not so desire: He desires, & will effect, their destruction. He does not love them - not if the life of Jesus is any guide. No - He hates them, with an eternal & inextinguishable hatred, & He is going to pour out on their heads "the fury of the Wrath of God Almighty". Not because of any sin of theirs, for they were reprobated before they were created, by an eternal & unchangeable decree, but because He wills it.

How is such motiveless hatred worthy of the God revealed in Christ ?

I think you need some further training on the justice of God as well as His love. Sure, He loves mankind, but He has to observe His principles of Justice as well.

God cannot just save everyone.

## He lacks the Power ? the Love ? the Grace ? the Goodness ?

In fact, He doesn't have to save anyone, because all mankind is justly condemned,

## Only because God loaded the dice against him in the beginning. If God condemns to Hell, who can resist Him ?

and God would be well within His rights to stand back and let us all go to condemnation and hell, which is what we all deserve anyway.

## IOW, we are hypocrites, if we say we love our neighbour, but do not show it; while He does not save all from damnation, & is to be called a God of Love because He saves some when He has power to save all. This is hypocrisy to outdo all hypocrisy. No human hypocrite kis wicked enough to let his neighbour burn to death if he can save him: the very atheists & communists & liberals do as much. Is God so wicked that he cannot be as righteous as an atheist ? The atheist does not set the the fire that endangers his neighbour - but God is the author of the fire of Hell, of the sentence to Hell, of the moral sense that makes men inexcusable for sinning, & thus, liable to Hell, of the decree of reprobation, & of the sin of Adam that brought reprobation into play. He is responsible for reprobation & for all things thereunto related, so He cannot hide behind His Godhead & Glory, & not expect to be judged by the moral standards which He has given.

Otherwise, there is the danger that God's justice & human justice share nothing but the name - so that what man condemns as wicked is holy & good in God's eyes. But that reduces man's ability to judge justly to utter confusion: for Adolf Hitler might in God's eyes be a holy servant of God, while Mother Teresa might be one of the foulest criminals of the last 500 years. There is absolutely no way to tell good from evil, if man's moral sense is so useless, crippled, or perverted that it cannot tell justice from injustice.

The God depicted by Calvinist double geminate reprobation is a sadist, a hypocrite, & a devil. And he is no less all three for being Almighty. If "might is right", then tyranny is justified by its success; so the genocide of Hitler is justified because Hitler had power to do it. This is not the Father preached by Jesus.

But there is a process to be saved, and it involves the narrow gate, which is full conversion to Christ. Outside of Christ there is no hope of salvation. We know that the majority of mankind is rejecting Christ.

## This is not known, nor can it be. To judge from the preaching of Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven is going to be filled with harlots & tax-collectors - both among the lowest of the low - while the "children of the Kingdom" are consigned the place of wailing & gnashing of teeth. Jesus found faith among Samaritans, the occupying troops, & swineherds, all of them unclean groups outside the Law. It was the godly with their Bibles who hated & crucified Him.

So, if God decides, according to His own plans and purposes to save some, who is there to question Him. Does the clay question the potter about why he is made the way he is?

## Pots are not threatened with hell. The analogy is a bad one, like one or two others in the Bible. And the fact that God has no equal to question or resist him, does not make what is ascribed to Him one jot more moral or less wicked. "Don't mess with me, or tell me what to do, or I'll re-arrange your face" is the morality of the bully & the thug.

Who are we, who were created by God out of nothing, to question Him in the way He decides to save people?

## Human beings with a God-given (?) sense of right and wrong, who can see that cruelty and wickedness are as detestable in a god as they are in a man; more so, when that god is said to be good and holy & gracious & merciful. The God who gives a moral sense, cannot expect His own morals to go unjudged by man, because that would be inequitable - and equity goes by what is right, not by strength. Power & equity are different in kind - they belong to unrelated categories; so it is a logical fallacy to argue for one, by adducing the other.

In fact, if might makes right, the Apostles, who were powerless, must have been scoundrels of the blackest dye. As must Jesus; to be strung up on a cross with nails sticking through you & absolutely no control over what is done to you, is to be powerless indeed. Paul's question forgets that at Romans 9:20 or so - he quotes the OT, instead of remembering his excellent words in 1 Corinthians 1:20 ff. But the OT is old hat, its irrelevant & dead. IT has nothing to say about Christ, becausse it is pre-Christian. He has put it to death, on the Cross, & has risen; it has not. So why seek the ways of the Living One, Who now lives for evermore, in a body of dead books. Paul's question is illogical, & unevangelical.

God had no objection to the searching criticisms of Job - far from it; for Job was commended; his orthodox & pious comforters who tried "to justify the ways of God to [Job]" were the ones whom God is shown blaming. It may be that the Trial of Christ is a sign that God is now God the Accused, that He can & should be accused because there are far more reasons to accuse Him than the Jews imagined. It's not too much to speak of God the Sinner, the God Who is punished for His sins upon the Cross. The logic of St. Paul leads in such a direction. On the Cross, He trashed his OT Righteousness; he denied it & crucified it; He denied Himself, just as He requires of His disciples - for the Righteousness of Jesus is entirely different from that of the OT.

Calvin was not the first one to put forward this theology. St Augustine says the same things, and the whole of the orthodox protestant church believed it, until Arminius came along and taught that salvation depended on man's ability to choose and to have faith - which is essentially a salvation by works;

## Jesus taught salvation by works. The Catholic & Orthodox Churches, & the vast majority of Christians for much the largest part of Christian History, have not believed in Protestant soteriology. St Paul's ideas on soteriology were a blip on the radar - he left no school, so his ideas fell dead when he did.

and Paul taught clearly that our salvation is not by works at all. So any salvation by works is no salvation at all. It is certainly not salvation by God's grace through faith.

Paul teaches in Romans that an elect was saved and the rest were hardened. Read it for yourself.

## Then he was wrong, because he imputes iniquity to God. The idea deals with one or two issues of immediate importance to him, but it has catastrophic implications for anything resembling a Christian notion of God. Short-term value is no compensastion for long-term catastrophe.

Besides, there is no way of telling the elect from the non-elect; or of knowing whether any have been elected. Paul may not have found the God who "hardened" Pharaoh morally repugnant - that does not mean this God is not repugnant. A God who blames men for committing the very sin His own action has made inevitable, is detestably unfair. This kind of theology makes God indistinguishable from the devil.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

## But if they were not elect, they would not accept. And there is no provision for an election that does not lead to final perseverance. The problem is, that God elects, & God passes over - man has no say in that part of the matter. So if God elects him, he is safe; but if God does not, but passes him over: he is certain to roast.

That seems a bit rough, and not very fair, because it is God & not man who distinguishes the elect from the reprobate. So a multiple murderer may be saved, while someone who has tried hard all his life to serve God, goes to Hell. That is the kind of connection of ideas that bothers people - & such a God does not seem very kind or merciful, but remote & manipulative & hideously unfair

Whether you think it is unfair or not, that is what the Scripture teaches.

If the whole of the human race is in rebellion and sin because of Adam's rebellion, and is justly condemned to judgment and punishment, what is unfair about that?

The Bible says that we are not saved by our works, so a person can work hard all his life to serve God and still be condemned to hell because he is depending on his own works, or his own righteousness, which, being corrupted by his sinful nature, is repulsive to God.

So, do you think that a prisoner who killed his wife and children and is now on death row, should escape execution because since his crime he has done a lot of work for the other prisoners and for the community, and even has adopted religion? What would you think if he was allowed to go free because of the good things he did? What would the victims think about the justice system?

So, what would we think about the justice of God if we were to share heaven with Judas, Pharoah, Pilate, the Jewish High Priest, Agrippa, Herod (who cut John the Baptist's head off) or the Pharisees who resisted the message of Jesus? All these people did a lot of good for their communities. They were not completely evil. They all supported good government and did much to keep the stability of authority and government in the country. By your estimation you are saying they should escape punishment? Do you think that the names of these people are written in the book of life alongside Peter, John, Paul, Apollos, or any other faithful Christian who put his or her complete dependence on Christ?

Heaven would not be Heaven if truly converted Christians had to share it with those evil people.

So, is God being a fair judge if He punishes evil doers, and is He being unfair if He decides, because of his unmerited grace, to save some of them?

God did not have to save any of us. We all deserved punishment in hell. If He decided not to save anyone, we would only be receiving the just punishment that was coming to us.

So, if God makes an arbitrary decision to save some, then that is a reflection of His grace. The people whom He decides to save are just as evil as the ones left behind. There is nothing in those ones to provide any intrinsic merit in order to persuade God to save them. He just makes an arbitrary decision based on His grace and mercy toward them. So they are saved through God's mercy and predestination.

If He decides to leave others to their punishment, He is just leaving them to what they were going to get anyway, He has done nothing to them that would be unfair, because the fair thing would be for evil people to be appropriately punished. So people are lost because of their own sin. They cannot be lost through God's predestination, because God has done nothing for them. To predestinate someone, God has to do something in and for them. But He has done nothing for the sinners He leaves, therefore, there is no predestination for them.