What do you believe in?

[GrayAngel]

Yes, I believe what the Bible says.

Have you read the context of your soundbite?

Romans 9:30-32 closes up the point of the comments made above, by saying, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone...”

It is clear from the context of the passage that Paul did not mean this to say that God dictates every thought and decision of man to the point that their choices are irrelevant. This closing statement clarifies that the contrast he is actually making is that the Israelites are not accredited any more righteousness over the Gentiles because of their history of trying, but that God, in His sovereignty, can incorporate the Gentiles into His promises, and it isn't the place of the Israelites to challenge that decision.

The definitive statement here is that faith, not works, matter. The fundamental issue making the statement necessary is that faith is a choice, not forcefully designed into us, as you argue.

The context does not change the question. They didn't ask why God allows Gentiles to be saved. Look through the context again.

Paul wasn't just talking about Gentiles and Israel. He also goes through old testament history, showing how God chose some people as objects of wrath, while others He loved.

Romans 9:13-21 - Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

You see, in context, Paul mentions these people, such as the Pharaoh, who were destined ("raised up") for destruction. Paul, knowing they'd object just as you have, answered their question ahead of time:

"Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"

"Why did you make me like this?"

Paul answers that some, like Esau and Pharaoh, were designed for "common use" and others, God's elect, for "special purposes." And that God is the creator, and He has the right to create us for whatever purpose He desires.

 

[Skala]

It should be a red flag to us when our objection is the same objection Paul anticipated.

When it is, you know you're understanding the meaning of the passage correctly

 

[cubinity]

The context does not change the question. They didn't ask why God allows Gentiles to be saved. Look through the context again.

Paul wasn't just talking about Gentiles and Israel. He also goes through old testament history, showing how God chose some people as objects of wrath, while others He loved.

Romans 9:13-21 - Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

You see, in context, Paul mentions these people, such as the Pharaoh, who were destined ("raised up") for destruction. Paul, knowing they'd object just as you have, answered their question ahead of time:

"Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"

"Why did you make me like this?"

Paul answers that some, like Esau and Pharaoh, were designed for "common use" and others, God's elect, for "special purposes." And that God is the creator, and He has the right to create us for whatever purpose He desires.

Okay. Arguing against the stream only draws more criticism, and apparently not the constructive kind. So, let's further discuss this meaning, and perhaps you can help me better understand how it makes sense with the rest of the story the Bible tells about me.

Here are my questions:

If God raised me up to be an object of His wrath, how can I be saved?
If God created me speifically to give me eternal life no matter what, then from what have I been saved?
If God raised me up specifically to fail, how can I consider anything about that merciful?

Genuinely, I'm asking for clarification on this particular doctrine. If it is true, I want your help in getting me to a place of understanding how it fits in with the rest.

Thanks for your patience with me. I know I can be pretty slow sometimes.

 

[RobertZ]

If God raised me up to be an object of His wrath, how can I be saved?

You cant.

If God created me speifically to give me eternal life no matter what, then from what have I been saved?

From eternal condemnation.

If God raised me up specifically to fail, how can I consider anything about that merciful?

When those whom have been saved are taken into consideration.

 

[cubinity]

You cant.

Okay. Then, who can be saved?

From eternal condemnation.

What eternal condemnation?
Considering God created me specifically to give me eternal life, no matter what.

When those whom have been saved are taken into consideration.

What were they saved from?
Considering that God created me specifically to give them eternal life, no matter what.

Just to be clear, these are genuinely my concerns about this doctrine, and why I am having trouble getting it to fit with the overall Gospel message. I am not trying to be a smart aleck, or weave some preconceived trap. I genuinely just don't get it.

 

[98cwitr]

Okay. Then, who can be saved?

It's not really 'can be,' but 'are.'

Those whom God has chosen; the elect.

What eternal condemnation?
Considering God created me specifically to give me eternal life, no matter what.

The eternal condemnation via God's Wrath for the non-elect. If God created you for salvation, then there is no condemnation for you.

What were they saved from?
Considering that God created me specifically to give them eternal life, no matter what.

They (the elect) are saved from the Wrath of God. All are deserving of Hell, and all have sinned and fall short from the glory of God. Yet by the blood of Christ the elect have been redeemed, through faith by the Power.

 

[Skala]

Let's not leave sin out of the equation. The Bible tells us that God is just, and those in hell are receiving justice for the sins they committed. The reprobate, I don't think, are not simply sent to hell by a decree with no reference to the justice that is owed them for their crimes.

Every single person in hell deserves to be there.

Every single person in heaven deserved hell, but was mercifully saved from it.

 

[cubinity]

Okay.
I feel as though I am beginning to understand.
I do still have some questions...

I fully accept that we are all indicted as sinners, found guilty, and thus worthy of the just punishment of eternal hell.

The questions I have about predestination particularly in regards to this conviction of guilt are:

Is the conviction a response to what I did, or did the conviction come down arbitrarily from God, regardless of whether I sinned or not?

If there is no chance, regardless of my choices, to be saved, then why should I be a Christian?

If there is no chance, regardless of my choices, to be saved, then what good news exists in the Gospel for me?

If I was never God's heir, then what am I? (Right now, I would feel equated to a domestic pet if I was made to believe this)

If I was never God's heir, then what justice is there in giving me all of the faculties He gave to His heirs, particularly eternal existence?

If I was never God's heir, and hell is not in response to my sin, then what makes hell just?


Also, I fully accept that there is an election to sainthood, in spite of my worthiness only to burn in hell. I appreciate that the elect do not face that fate, but are actually considered blameless heirs to God for all eternity.

The questions I have about predestination particularly in regards to the election to sainthood are:

Was the election to sainthood what saved me, or was Jesus' death on the cross what saved me from the hell I deserved?

Did the election come in response to anything I did, or was it arbitrarily God's decision?

Was I ever at risk of not being elect?

Was I ever at risk of going to hell?

If I, a saint, elect from the beginning, not in response to what I'd do in my future, then in what capacity did Jesus' death effect me at all?

If I am elect, and thus never at risk of hell, regardless of my choices, then why should I be a Christian?

If I am elect, and thus never at risk of hell, regardless of my choices, then what good news exists in the Gospel for me?

If I am elect, and was thus never at risk of going to hell, then from what was I saved? For what do I have to be thankful? (At this point, the only answer I can think of is: "I'm thankful I'm not like the other guy." And, somehow, that just doesn't seem Christ-like)


Again, I want to emphasize that I am genuinely asking, and thus genuinely interested in the answers. I keep saying that because I have been so far accused of feeling ways I don't feel, and rejecting things I'm not rejecting, but honestly trying to understand more clearly. Thank you in advance for you insight.

 

[Skala]

Brother, I don't have time to answer all of your questions right now, but hopefully I can answer some of the important ones!

If there is no chance, regardless of my choices, to be saved, then why should I be a Christian?

It seems you think that sinners are saved irregardless of their choices. That is not true. God uses means to accomplish his ends. Sinners are saved by choosing to trust in Jesus Christ, or not. The question is, who will do this? I think the Biblical answer is: The elect will.

"My sheep hear my voice, and follow me". Notice, they are sheep already, that's why they follow Jesus. You don't become a sheep by believing, but rather, you believe if you are a sheep. The proof of this is in John 10 where Christ says "But you do not believe because you are not my sheep"

Consider Christ's real life example that he is drawing on. If a Shepard calls for his sheep, his sheep will respond. Other people's sheep will not respond. Hence Jesus is saying "You are not my part of my flock, that's why you don't believe in me (follow me)".

"If there is no chance, regardless of my choices, to be saved, then what good news exists in the Gospel for me?"

The thing is, only God knows who the elect are. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us to try to "guess" what we are and then act on that basis. God commands us to repent and believe. That goes for elect and non elect. The divine imperative is not to sit around wondering, but to obey.

The elect will obey, why? Because they want to obey. Because they are born again.

Was the election to sainthood what saved me, or was Jesus' death on the cross what saved me from the hell I deserved?

There isn't really a need for the "or". It's all the same thing. Consider these verses:

Mat 1:21 His name is Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.

John 11:51-52: His death will gather into one all the children of God who are scattered abroad.

John 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours

These verses are clear to me that there already existed a "People" that God had in mind that He intended to save through Christ's death. His death will "gather the children of God" and Christ came to save "his people" and Christ says "I don't pray for the world, but for the ones you have given me. They are yours (The Fathers).

So the answer is: Both. You are saved because God chose you to have grace on you, and he saved you through the finished work of Jesus Christ. In time, during your life, God orchestrated things so that in your life, you would be exposed to the gospel message, and God worked through that to change your heart and take off the blindfold and bring you to the knowledge of the truth.

Salvation is all of God and all of grace!

Was I ever at risk of not being elect?

Was I ever at risk of going to hell?

No, because God cannot have planned wrongly. Thus God could not change his mind. He has no shadow of turning in him. What he decrees is a perfect plan. And it will be brought to pass. He is infinitely wise and does not fail.

"Did the election come in response to anything I did, or was it arbitrarily God's decision?"

The Bible never says that it was due to what you did, but rather, it is based on and predicted on the good pleasure of God's will, and it is his own purpose and plan.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Etc

I hope these short answers go a little ways in helping you my friend Let me know if I can do anything else for ya.

 

[GrayAngel]

Is the conviction a response to what I did, or did the conviction come down arbitrarily from God, regardless of whether I sinned or not?

The Bible says that we were born into sin, as the enemies of God. We start off with no knowledge or love for God, and we have the sin nature we've enherited from Adam. So before we even had the chance to do anything, we were already sinful. But any of us who have lived long enough will start showing their sin in what they do: we're all guilty. You don't have to teach a child how to lie, how to covet, how to hit other kids. These things come naturally do them.

If there is no chance, regardless of my choices, to be saved, then why should I be a Christian?

What you're thinking is that once you're predestined, you don't have to do anything. But that's not the case. God wouldn't predestine somebody He knew wouldn't come into the faith. If you accept Christ's sacrifice and walk with Him, it's because God called you, and no one can deny His call.

To become a saved, one must be a Christian, but we are unable to create faith in our own hearts. God must enable them for that to happen.

John 6:44 - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them at the last day." (Jesus)

If there is no chance, regardless of my choices, to be saved, then what good news exists in the Gospel for me?

As a believer, the good news is that God chose you. You don't have to worry about Hell, because Christ took the price of your sins on Himself.

But if you're not a believer, then there is no good news for you. The Gospel is good news only for those who believe and are saved.

If I was never God's heir, then what am I? (Right now, I would feel equated to a domestic pet if I was made to believe this)

You don't have to worry about that if you're a believer. Everyone who accept's Christ's salvation is saved. You could only accept it if you were predestined. The only exception is the case of the fallen, such as Judas. Live as if you had free will (we are under the illusion of it), and avoid letting yourself fall away from the faith. This is what I believe the Bible means when it says to "work out your salvation."

If I was never God's heir, then what justice is there in giving me all of the faculties He gave to His heirs, particularly eternal existence?

The unsaved may have eternal existence, but it's not true life. Life with God is life more abundant. Life without God is not life at all.

If I was never God's heir, and hell is not in response to my sin, then what makes hell just?

What makes you think that Hell is not a response to your sin? Without God, we're all bound for Hell. But God chose some of us to save us from that.

Also, I don't believe that Hell is the same for everyone. The Bible occasionally talks about how Hell is better or worse for certain people, based on their actions. After we die, we either go to Heaven or Hell. Our actions cannot help us there. However, after we get to our destination, there's a second judgement. For the damned, God decides how severe their punishment should be, based on their actions. But for the saved, God chooses how richly to reward us, depending on how well we served Him.

Also, I fully accept that there is an election to sainthood, in spite of my worthiness only to burn in hell. I appreciate that the elect do not face that fate, but are actually considered blameless heirs to God for all eternity.

The questions I have about predestination particularly in regards to the election to sainthood are:

Was the election to sainthood what saved me, or was Jesus' death on the cross what saved me from the hell I deserved?

It's not an either or. Both go together. You will never find a predestined person who does not accept Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Christ's death opened the gates of Heaven. Those who were predestined walk through the gates.

Did the election come in response to anything I did, or was it arbitrarily God's decision?

God's election was not a response to anything. God is sovereign. He chooses all kinds of people to be saved, whether prostitutes, tax collectors, or murderers (such as Paul). God doesn't look at us, see who is most deserving, and save them.

Was I ever at risk of not being elect?

God chose the elect before the creation of the world. So no.

Was I ever at risk of going to hell?

Depends on what your definition of risk is. Without God, Hell would have been enevitable for all of us. But God had a plan in mind from the beginning to save certain people. So if you're an elect, you were in God's hands all along.

If I, a saint, elect from the beginning, not in response to what I'd do in my future, then in what capacity did Jesus' death effect me at all?

God cannot intermingle with evil. As sinners, we could never come close to God. But Christ's sacrifice openned the doors for us, so that God could see us without our sins, and He could wash us up and let us in.

If I am elect, and was thus never at risk of going to hell, then from what was I saved? For what do I have to be thankful? (At this point, the only answer I can think of is: "I'm thankful I'm not like the other guy." And, somehow, that just doesn't seem Christ-like)


Again, I want to emphasize that I am genuinely asking, and thus genuinely interested in the answers. I keep saying that because I have been so far accused of feeling ways I don't feel, and rejecting things I'm not rejecting, but honestly trying to understand more clearly. Thank you in advance for you insight.

We are thankful because God chose us. We never did anything to deserve it, but He gave Himself freely to us anyway. It's not just that you're not the other guy, but that God saved you even when He had the right to leave you in the same sinking boat as the other guy.

BTW, you don't seem slow to me.

 

[cubinity]

Brother, I don't have time to answer all of your questions right now, but hopefully I can answer some of the important ones!

Oh, thank you! When asking from others, I try to be content with anything I get, and you, here, have given quite a bit.

If I may, I wish to continue to ask questions; to prod around this doctrine, to better understand it.

It seems you think that sinners are saved irregardless of their choices. That is not true. God uses means to accomplish his ends. Sinners are saved by choosing to trust in Jesus Christ, or not. The question is, who will do this? I think the Biblical answer is: The elect will.

"My sheep hear my voice, and follow me". Notice, they are sheep already, that's why they follow Jesus. You don't become a sheep by believing, but rather, you believe if you are a sheep. The proof of this is in John 10 where Christ says "But you do not believe because you are not my sheep"

Consider Christ's real life example that he is drawing on. If a Shepard calls for his sheep, his sheep will respond. Other people's sheep will not respond. Hence Jesus is saying "You are not my part of my flock, that's why you don't believe in me (follow me)".

The sheep example is certainty something Jesus used often!

Above, you state that "Sinners are saved by choosing to trust in Jesus Christ, or not."
That line raises some questions for me, since we are talking about predestination, which is almost consistently contrasted against free will.

My overarching question on this matter is: Do we, as sinners, really have a choice?
In other words, can a non-elect choose to join Jesus' sheep, and in doing so gain the benefit of being one of Jesus' sheep?
On the other hand, can an elect choose to leave Jesus' sheep, and in doing so suffer the eternal torment reserved for the non-sheep?

The thing is, only God knows who the elect are. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us to try to "guess" what we are and then act on that basis. God commands us to repent and believe. That goes for elect and non elect. The divine imperative is not to sit around wondering, but to obey.

The elect will obey, why? Because they want to obey. Because they are born again.

Along the same lines as the questions above:
Do the elect always obey, without fail?
Do the non-elect never obey, without fail?

As I think about these comments, I am taken back to the sermon on the mount, when Jesus said:

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will [m]know them by their fruits.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Wow. That certainly is a heavy teaching. I guess where one stands on predestination must really shape what this teaching really means.

From my perspective right now, I would guess that a predestinationer reads this passage and says, "There is no decision being made by the elect in this passage. It is simply a statement by Jesus on the reality of what an elect person would do vs. a non-elect person. The elect will do the will of His Father who is in heaven, and will enter. The non-elect will not."

However, when I take in the entire context of the Sermon, it strikes me as a guy instructing people on what to do, and inviting Him to follow that instruction. Perhaps it is me reading my preconceived notions into it, but doing so, especially after God has already instructed His elect on how they ought to behave through Moses, indicates to me that the speaker believes His hearers have a choice to follow or not, and that the choice they make will actually effect their future results.

There isn't really a need for the "or". It's all the same thing. Consider these verses:

Mat 1:21 His name is Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.

John 11:51-52: His death will gather into one all the children of God who are scattered abroad.

John 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours

These verses are clear to me that there already existed a "People" that God had in mind that He intended to save through Christ's death. His death will "gather the children of God" and Christ came to save "his people" and Christ says "I don't pray for the world, but for the ones you have given me. They are yours (The Fathers).

So the answer is: Both. You are saved because God chose you to have grace on you, and he saved you through the finished work of Jesus Christ. In time, during your life, God orchestrated things so that in your life, you would be exposed to the gospel message, and God worked through that to change your heart and take off the blindfold and bring you to the knowledge of the truth.

Salvation is all of God and all of grace!

Hmm. Interesting.

It occurs to me that I have always believed, based on the overall context of the Bible and its message up until this point, that the "people" were the Jews/Israelites.

I know it sounds, I don't know, racist, to say things like that. But until Paul's push to incorporate the Gentiles, the Bible is centered around the Jews as God's chosen people.

Is there no chance those are the people Jesus is referring to here?

No, because God cannot have planned wrongly. Thus God could not change his mind. He has no shadow of turning in him. What he decrees is a perfect plan. And it will be brought to pass. He is infinitely wise and does not fail.

So, while I totally agree with you that God couldn't have planned wrongly nor failed, I think I'm asking a different question than that.

The Gospel is that I have been saved? Yes?
Well, if I was never in any danger, then from what have I been saved?

That's the tricky part for me. Because, in my understanding, I couldn't have been saved from something that was never a possibility.

Furthermore, if all the people for whom Jesus died were never in any danger to begin with, then that, at least to me at this time, would render Jesus' death as vain.

I know that can't be right that Jesus died in vain, which is exactly why I want to know the true way to approach this. If predestination is the true way, I don't want to just reject it because I don't understand it. You know?

The Bible never says that it was due to what you did, but rather, it is based on and predicted on the good pleasure of God's will, and it is his own purpose and plan.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Etc

When you say that God saved me (from what, I'm still not clear) just because He wanted to (according to His pleasure), that sounds really great.

However, to say the other: God condemned me to eternal damnation just because He wanted to (according to His pleasure), that sounds really awful.

Maybe this is where theology, particularly this doctrine, really misses the mark for me. Please, let me explain why, knowing that I mean not disrespect in saying so:

Evil exists. There is no denying that. God is good. The Bible says that explicitly. God is able to control every detail. There is no denying that, either.

So, to explain the existence of evil, in light of a good God, I have often heard it said that while He is able to control every detail, He has allowed things to happen, and He allowed their consequences, regardless of what He may have ideally wanted.

This explanation works well with the explanation for why we creative and decisive humans exist in the first place. I have heard it said that we were given the freedom to sin so that when we chose not to--when we chose instead to glorify God through praise--our praise would be genuine and not forced.

To achieve this goal--genuine praise--He had to make a creation that was not micro-managed by His own will, but had the faculty of its own will. By using that will to choose God, God gets precisely what He always wanted: genuine praise.

Granted, the Bible teaches us that no one chooses God. We all choose sin.
That's where Jesus' role comes in. As Savior, He delivers us from the sin we chose, cleanses us, and restores our relationship with God, as we now choose Him.

Therefore, when God saves according to His good pleasure, He is saving according to His desire for genuine praise. When He is condemning for His good pleasure, it is also because He was looking for genuine praise.

Anyway, that's been the story I've known all my life. I'm open to have any of those notions challenged with respectful questions, just as I'm actively questioning a new way to look at these things.

I hope these short answers go a little ways in helping you my friend Let me know if I can do anything else for ya.

Yes, they definitely helped a lot. Thank you!

 

[cubinity]

Hey, GreyAngel. Thank you for the time you took to respond.
I hope you don't mind if, as I read through your post, I jot down a few thoughts of my own.
God bless.

The Bible says that we were born into sin, as the enemies of God. We start off with no knowledge or love for God, and we have the sin nature we've enherited from Adam. So before we even had the chance to do anything, we were already sinful. But any of us who have lived long enough will start showing their sin in what they do: we're all guilty. You don't have to teach a child how to lie, how to covet, how to hit other kids. These things come naturally do them.

I too believe we inherit sin through Adam.
Was Adam elect? I wonder sometimes...

What you're thinking is that once you're predestined, you don't have to do anything. But that's not the case. God wouldn't predestine somebody He knew wouldn't come into the faith. If you accept Christ's sacrifice and walk with Him, it's because God called you, and no one can deny His call.

To become a saved, one must be a Christian, but we are unable to create faith in our own hearts. God must enable them for that to happen.

John 6:44 - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them at the last day." (Jesus)

I agree that God calls, and that God draws, but not that no one can deny His call.
The way I'm thinking about it is this:
You don't call (draw) things that can't disobey.
You demand. You script. You program.
Vocabulary like call and draw indicate to me that the follower has a choice.

As a believer, the good news is that God chose you. You don't have to worry about Hell, because Christ took the price of your sins on Himself.

But if you're not a believer, then there is no good news for you. The Gospel is good news only for those who believe and are saved.

Again, I am struggling with the vocabulary.
The Bible says that God chose me.
Was the choice random?
Was there not at least some reason for His decision?
From what group did He choose me?
Why didn't He choose the others in that group?
How is it good news that I have been chosen, at random, but someone else was not?
It is not a matter of worrying about hell for me, it is a matter of understanding from what I have been saved.
If I was never in danger of hell, then on what basis can it be understood that I have been saved from it?

You don't have to worry about that if you're a believer. Everyone who accept's Christ's salvation is saved. You could only accept it if you were predestined. The only exception is the case of the fallen, such as Judas. Live as if you had free will (we are under the illusion of it), and avoid letting yourself fall away from the faith. This is what I believe the Bible means when it says to "work out your salvation."

An elect can fall away?
Please, go further with that.
It is a part of this entire thing I haven't considered, mainly because I thought the whole doctrine hinged on that not being possible.
How is possible that something God chose can end up "fall away from the faith?"

The unsaved may have eternal existence, but it's not true life. Life with God is life more abundant. Life without God is not life at all.

No questions there.

What makes you think that Hell is not a response to your sin? Without God, we're all bound for Hell. But God chose some of us to save us from that.

If hell is a response to my choice (to sin), and it was a part of God's original plan, then why is it not understood that the rest of the original plan, namely the part about the elect getting saved, not also a response to my choice (to believe)?

It's not an either or. Both go together. You will never find a predestined person who does not accept Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Christ's death opened the gates of Heaven. Those who were predestined walk through the gates.

So, Jesus' death on the cross was not an offering for the sins of the world, but only for a select few.

I'm having a difficult time reconciling that notion with John 3:16. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

God's election was not a response to anything. God is sovereign. He chooses all kinds of people to be saved, whether prostitutes, tax collectors, or murderers (such as Paul). God doesn't look at us, see who is most deserving, and save them.

So, if I'm understanding your description of this doctrine correctly, God made a bunch of evil people that He designed to specifically dump forever into eternal torment, simply for His own pleasure. And then, at random, He plucked up a few of them and let them be His heirs.

Seriously, I'm not mocking or negating anything. I'm simply trying to understand what you are describing. Does this paraphrase accurately represent what you are describing?

God chose the elect before the creation of the world. So no.

The timing of the choice does not tell us anything about cause and effect if we believe that God operates outside the confines of time. No?

Depends on what your definition of risk is. Without God, Hell would have been enevitable for all of us. But God had a plan in mind from the beginning to save certain people. So if you're an elect, you were in God's hands all along.

Again, if I'm understanding your description of this doctrine correctly, God made a bunch of evil people that He designed to specifically dump forever into eternal torment, simply for His own pleasure. And then, at random, He plucked up a few of them and let them be His heirs.

God cannot intermingle with evil. As sinners, we could never come close to God. But Christ's sacrifice openned the doors for us, so that God could see us without our sins, and He could wash us up and let us in.

If God could not intermingle with evil, how was He capable of making us evil?

We are thankful because God chose us. We never did anything to deserve it, but He gave Himself freely to us anyway. It's not just that you're not the other guy, but that God saved you even when He had the right to leave you in the same sinking boat as the other guy.

He didn't just have the right. Based on my understanding of what you described, He built us to sink with that ship, and I just happened to get the luck of the draw when He randomly scooped up a few of us.

That doesn't make me feel very thankful. It just makes me feel lucky.

BTW, you don't seem slow to me.

Thank you. That's nice of you to say. I feel slow, especially when talking about stuff like this, which I clearly don't understand very well.

 

[GrayAngel]

I too believe we inherit sin through Adam.
Was Adam elect? I wonder sometimes...

We don't have any reason to believe Adam wasn't elect, and from what was written about him, I would think he was an elect. He and his children served God, and his children learned from their parents to make generous sacrifices to their God. Also, the promise was given directly to them, that God would send an ofspring of Eve, who would be their Messiah.

I agree that God calls, and that God draws, but not that no one can deny His call.
The way I'm thinking about it is this:
You don't call (draw) things that can't disobey.
You demand. You script. You program.
Vocabulary like call and draw indicate to me that the follower has a choice.

To say that God's call can be ignored is to castrate Him of His sovereignty. Nowhere in the Bible do we see the Father call someone, and that person doesn't answer. Every time God calls, they listen, whether Moses or Saul.

The natural response to hearing from God is to seek after Him. It's not that He's grabbing you by the arm and forcing you to listen, but that we want to listen. But God does not call everyone.

Again, I am struggling with the vocabulary.
The Bible says that God chose me.
Was the choice random?
Was there not at least some reason for His decision?
From what group did He choose me?
Why didn't He choose the others in that group?
How is it good news that I have been chosen, at random, but someone else was not?
It is not a matter of worrying about hell for me, it is a matter of understanding from what I have been saved.
If I was never in danger of hell, then on what basis can it be understood that I have been saved from it?

God didn't take a pile of hay, and see who would draw the short straws. He chose us deliberately, because He wanted us. Why He wanted us, I can't say. But His love for us is as a father towards his son.

An elect can fall away?
Please, go further with that.
It is a part of this entire thing I haven't considered, mainly because I thought the whole doctrine hinged on that not being possible.
How is possible that something God chose can end up "fall away from the faith?"

No, I don't think Judas was an elect. He was accepted into Jesus' ranks, with the full knowledge of his betrayal. It was necessary to make the OT prophecy come true, which states that the Messiah would be sold out for money. (If you want me to, I can find it for you.)

I believe that the fallen were never saved, but that they were destined to fall, like the seeds that grew in the thorns.

If hell is a response to my choice (to sin), and it was a part of God's original plan, then why is it not understood that the rest of the original plan, namely the part about the elect getting saved, not also a response to my choice (to believe)?

This is actually a thoughtful response. But this is what I believe. The Bible says that God chose us, having nothing to do with any special qualities within us. But Hell is a punishment for sin, and its severity depends on our actions. (Otherwise, it wouldn't be just.)

So, Jesus' death on the cross was not an offering for the sins of the world, but only for a select few.

I'm having a difficult time reconciling that notion with John 3:16. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

If Jesus' sacrifice took away the sins of the entire world's population, then Hell would be very empty. However, Jesus' sacrifice is only offered for those who would accept it. Those who would accept it were chosen to do so.

Today, if you look around the world, there are few places the gospel isn't preached. Christ's salvation is offered, but not accepted, by the world.

So, if I'm understanding your description of this doctrine correctly, God made a bunch of evil people that He designed to specifically dump forever into eternal torment, simply for His own pleasure. And then, at random, He plucked up a few of them and let them be His heirs.

Seriously, I'm not mocking or negating anything. I'm simply trying to understand what you are describing. Does this paraphrase accurately represent what you are describing?

Again, it wasn't random. But God chose us deliberately. He didn't leave it to random choice. If it were, we would thank random chance for our salvation. But it was God who saw us, wanted us, and selected us.

If God could not intermingle with evil, how was He capable of making us evil?

God created Lucifer, just as much as He created John the Baptist. However, God lives in John, not Satan.

He created Satan for His purposes, but he plans on disposing of him when the time comes.

He didn't just have the right. Based on my understanding of what you described, He built us to sink with that ship, and I just happened to get the luck of the draw when He randomly scooped up a few of us.

That doesn't make me feel very thankful. It just makes me feel lucky.

The way I see it, we and the angels were made in reverse of each other. The angels were created perfect, but they can fall. We were created evil, but we can be justified. Out of the two, we are God's crowning achievement.

God designed us this way, and we'll be above even the angels someday. But it wasn't luck that saved us.

 

[cubinity]

Again, thank you for the time and energy in sharing with me your thoughts on this doctrine that has me confused. Please take no offense as I poke around at it with questions...

We don't have any reason to believe Adam wasn't elect, and from what was written about him, I would think he was an elect. He and his children served God, and his children learned from their parents to make generous sacrifices to their God. Also, the promise was given directly to them, that God would send an ofspring of Eve, who would be their Messiah.

No, I suppose we don't.
It does, however, strike me as curious that the sins of the world--the antithesis of God's holiness--would be the product of His elect. I mean, if Adam could not, as you describe below, ignore God's call, then I don't know how to understand the story in that context.

Either God caused Adam to sin, which is a notion my preconceived ideas about God's holiness lead me to reject, or God allowed something to happen that He didn't necessarily care for, which is the idea I currently have, or God is, as you say, castrated of His sovereignty, which my preconceived ideas about His omnipotence lead me to reject.

To say that God's call can be ignored is to castrate Him of His sovereignty. Nowhere in the Bible do we see the Father call someone, and that person doesn't answer. Every time God calls, they listen, whether Moses or Saul.

The natural response to hearing from God is to seek after Him. It's not that He's grabbing you by the arm and forcing you to listen, but that we want to listen. But God does not call everyone.

There is not only two options in this matter. There is a third. God is capable, but makes the choice to allow something to happen, even though it does not live up to His ideal, and specifically builds into the system that capacity for unintended results.

I think there is a significant value in praising God for the way He made us, for the faculties He built into us, and for what I perceive as unintended (note: not unforeseen) results.

Just as you say we have no reason to believe Adam wasn't elect, we also have no reason to believe he was not designed to make up his own mind about what he chose to do.

If God created us only capable to obey His every command, then I would agree with you that our ignoring His command would be a sign of His castrated sovereignty (as you put it). But, we have no more reason to believe that God created us only capable to obey His every command than we do to believe Adam was not elect.

I'm sorry. I know I have written these as statements, but I present them as my thoughts on the subject. Consider them content of the question: What do you make of this? Am I missing something?

God didn't take a pile of hay, and see who would draw the short straws. He chose us deliberately, because He wanted us. Why He wanted us, I can't say. But His love for us is as a father towards his son.

There are only two ways to make a decision. Either that decision was a response to something, or it wasn't.

Now, I don't mean to argue, and in this response, I am only presenting my notions. I completely respect that we disagree, and I want to be considerate of our different perspectives on this. So, please bare with me a moment.

Here, you make the argument that God's choice wasn't random, and thus based on something He was responding to (though you don't speculate on what, exactly).

However, below, you say it was not in response to anything, having nothing to do with any special qualities within us (and thus random).

What do you make of that?

No, I don't think Judas was an elect. He was accepted into Jesus' ranks, with the full knowledge of his betrayal. It was necessary to make the OT prophecy come true, which states that the Messiah would be sold out for money. (If you want me to, I can find it for you.)

I believe that the fallen were never saved, but that they were destined to fall, like the seeds that grew in the thorns.

Forgive me. I don't bring this up lightly, but just to clarify what you meant. In your previous post, you wrote, "Everyone who accept's Christ's salvation is saved. You could only accept it if you were predestined. The only exception is the case of the fallen, such as Judas. Live as if you had free will (we are under the illusion of it), and avoid letting yourself fall away from the faith. This is what I believe the Bible means when it says to "work out your salvation.""

Could you explain this statement. I must have misunderstood what you meant by it.

This is actually a thoughtful response. But this is what I believe. The Bible says that God chose us, having nothing to do with any special qualities within us. But Hell is a punishment for sin, and its severity depends on our actions. (Otherwise, it wouldn't be just.)

I'm glad you think this particular response is thoughtful. I fight the urge to think that you therefore mean that none of my other responses are. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Forgive me.

The matter of justice is certainly an important one in this discussion.
I believe the matter of justice resolves itself in how we see the rest, so I will refrain from responding to this point independently.

If Jesus' sacrifice took away the sins of the entire world's population, then Hell would be very empty. However, Jesus' sacrifice is only offered for those who would accept it. Those who would accept it were chosen to do so.

Today, if you look around the world, there are few places the gospel isn't preached. Christ's salvation is offered, but not accepted, by the world.

This raises a curiosity in me.

If accepting the Gospel was hard-coded into us, and rejecting it was hard-coded into everyone else, then what is the point in putting the Gospel forth in a way that is available to all of us?

I mean, why go through the whole sheep and goat sorting, if the sorting is not based on any of the qualities of the things themselves?

I respect that there is a difference between those who obey and those who don't, but what I can't get over is the notion that obedience would be used as an indicator to God as to whether or not we were elect, when He already knew us because He elected us.

I guess that part just seems really circular to me.

God elects you, and knows you, but not because of any special quality about you. Then, He plops you down with a mixed bag of elects and non-elects, stirs the pot, gives you some instructions, and then differentiates between those who obey and those who don't, as if that has anything at all to do with anything.

I'm missing how that makes everything else in the Gospel part of a cohesive, understandable story.

Again, though, while that has been a part of my rejection of it in the past, I am now choosing to maintain an open mind to the doctrine. Perhaps just another way of explaining it is needed. I don't know.

Again, it wasn't random. But God chose us deliberately. He didn't leave it to random choice. If it were, we would thank random chance for our salvation. But it was God who saw us, wanted us, and selected us.

I'm so sorry. This is a point I just really get hung up on.

You say God saw us, wanted us, and selected us. Okay.

What did He see in us that He didn't see in the others? You say nothing.
What did He want in what He saw in us that He didn't want in the others? You say nothing.
If He saw nothing unique in us, and wanted nothing unique about us, then why did He pick us and not the others?

God created Lucifer, just as much as He created John the Baptist. However, God lives in John, not Satan.

He created Satan for His purposes, but he plans on disposing of him when the time comes.

This is a meaningless comparison to me because you are comparing a human with a non-human. You might as well be comparing me to my cat.

I'm sorry, I don't mean any disrespect.

Considering the distinction between the two types of creatures you make below, I cannot derive from this comparison anything meaningful regarding why God chooses one human and not another.

The way I see it, we and the angels were made in reverse of each other. The angels were created perfect, but they can fall. We were created evil, but we can be justified. Out of the two, we are God's crowning achievement.

God designed us this way, and we'll be above even the angels someday. But it wasn't luck that saved us.

If God creates something to be perfect, and then it fails to be perfect, how does that not make God out to be "castrated of His sovereignty?"

I'm not meaning to sound mocking in quoting you like that. I just don't understand how the things you've described are consistent with a sovereign God, but my previous descriptions aren't. Please, try to explain it again, if you are willing.

Even if you are not, I am thankful for the explanations you have given, and I thank you in advance for any you might continue to give. God bless.

 

[Skala]

Above, you state that "Sinners are saved by choosing to trust in Jesus Christ, or not."
That line raises some questions for me, since we are talking about predestination, which is almost consistently contrasted against free will.

My overarching question on this matter is: Do we, as sinners, really have a choice?
In other words, can a non-elect choose to join Jesus' sheep, and in doing so gain the benefit of being one of Jesus' sheep?
On the other hand, can an elect choose to leave Jesus' sheep, and in doing so suffer the eternal torment reserved for the non-sheep

I know it's difficult to understand, but you need to keep in mind that the human will is not totally out of the picture. It exists. It makes decisions. It freely does whatever it wants to do. In this sense, "free will" exists.

So yes, sinners really do have a choice. They really do either choose to accept God, or choose to reject God.

The question is not "do people choose God?", but rather, it is "will any sinner, if left to himself, ever choose God". I think the Biblical answer is no. It takes God's converting grace before anyone will ever submit to God and positively respond to the gospel.

Remember, by nature the gospel is seen as foolishness. By nature the sinner is rebelling against God and cannot understand spiritual things. So he chooses - with his will - to reject God, because in acting in accordance with his nature, rejecting God is what he wants to do.

However, when the spirit moves, and through the gospel message regenerates, enlightens, enables, and removes the blindfold, granting spiritual life (Eph 2), and turning that heart of stone into a heart of flesh, the new nature is granted. The heart is new. The eyes can see. The ears can hear. We are spiritually alive to the things of God (no longer dead).

The natural response of this new nature is that it desires God, it desires holiness, it desires Christ, it desires to repent from sins. So, a person does what he desires. He literally uses his will to choose to follow God and embrace Christ.

The will is not passed by in salvation, it is very much active and involved and participates in salvation.

So really, what you need to realize is that this issue is less about predestination and more about regeneration. What will the unregenerate man do? What will the regenerate man do? What is the natural instinct and inclination of sinners who have stony hearts and are spiritually dead? What is the natural action of the man who has been born again and quickened by the Holy Spirit?

Do the elect always obey, without fail?
Do the non-elect never obey, without fail?

You need to ask the question from a different perspective, God's perspective. Remember, salvation is all of God. It is His doing. His work. Humans are the recipients of salvation. The real question should be:

Does God always succeed in bringing his elect to salvation?
Can God ever fail in bringing his elect to salvation?

That it really. It's pretty simple. Does God fail? Can he fail? I tend to think he has a 100% success rate. He's Almighty God. His plan and purpose cannot be thwarted, none can stay his hand (Job, Daniel 4, etc).

From my perspective right now, I would guess that a predestinationer reads this passage and says, "There is no decision being made by the elect in this passage. It is simply a statement by Jesus on the reality of what an elect person would do vs. a non-elect person. The elect will do the will of His Father who is in heaven, and will enter. The non-elect will not."

However, when I take in the entire context of the Sermon, it strikes me as a guy instructing people on what to do, and inviting Him to follow that instruction. Perhaps it is me reading my preconceived notions into it, but doing so, especially after God has already instructed His elect on how they ought to behave through Moses, indicates to me that the speaker believes His hearers have a choice to follow or not, and that the choice they make will actually effect their future result

You have to understand that as humans we need practical instruction. We need to hear what we can apply to our life and put into action. Jesus preached on practical issues. These imperatives and indicatives do not in any way undo the truth of divine election.

Consider viewing this from two viewpoints simultaneously: God's, and man's

From man's perspective, we are told to obey, submit, trust, repent, believe, etc. Very practical things to put into action in our lives on a personal level.

From God's perspective, he tells us that he is the one that works in us to do his will. He is the one that brings us to Christ. He is the one that spiritually resurrects us.

Ultimately, it's all of God, but practically, from our viewpoint, we are the ones that willingly turn and obey, etc. But at the end of the day, the confession of every saint in heaven will be "It was completely God's doing, He was working in me to produce fruit, not my doing. I cannot take any credit for it"

Hmm. Interesting.

It occurs to me that I have always believed, based on the overall context of the Bible and its message up until this point, that the "people" were the Jews/Israelites.

I know it sounds, I don't know, racist, to say things like that. But until Paul's push to incorporate the Gentiles, the Bible is centered around the Jews as God's chosen people.

Is there no chance those are the people Jesus is referring to here?

Well, regarding the Matt 1:21 quote, you may be on to something, but there's not enough information in the immediate context to absolutely say one way or the other if it was only referring to Jews.

However, in the overall Biblical context, such as the other verses I quoted you, it is absolutely not about Jews only. For exaple, in John 11:51-52, the author makes it a point to say (in the verse prior), that "Jesus didn't die for the nation only, but to gather into one all of the children of God that are scattered abroad". Here, the author makes it a point to distinguish between Christ's "nation" (Israel) and the other children of God scattered abroad. I'm sorry that I did not include that part in my initial quotation. But you can go see for yourself, it's there

Anyways, my point is, we know from the rest of the Bible that Christ came to redeem a people for his own (Eph 5:25, Rev 5:9, Heb 2, etc), so I believe we can safely apply this principle to Matt 1:21.

The Gospel is that I have been saved? Yes?
Well, if I was never in any danger, then from what have I been saved?

That's the tricky part for me. Because, in my understanding, I couldn't have been saved from something that was never a possibility.

Furthermore, if all the people for whom Jesus died were never in any danger to begin with, then that, at least to me at this time, would render Jesus' death as vain.

I know that can't be right that Jesus died in vain, which is exactly why I want to know the true way to approach this. If predestination is the true way, I don't want to just reject it because I don't understand it. You know?

I am not following your logic. If you were never in any danger of hellfire, why did God have to choose to save you? Do you see how if you ask the question differently, the answer is different?

If you weren't guilty and deserving of and in danger of hell, why did God have to show mercy to you?

When you say that God saved me (from what, I'm still not clear) just because He wanted to (according to His pleasure), that sounds really great.

However, to say the other: God condemned me to eternal damnation just because He wanted to (according to His pleasure), that sounds really awful.

I don't think that is accurate brother. God didn't condemn sinners to hell with no reference to their sins which deserve hell. It wasn't solely an arbitrary decree, but it was because sinners are guilty and deserve hell. When God condemns to hell, he is only exacting justice. Justice is a good thing, wouldn't you agree? God is not unjust. Injustice would be evil. We can trust that whoever ends up in hell deserves to be there, because God is just. Nobody will be there that doesn't deserve it.

As for the remainder of your post brother, I would simply say with respect, that the Bible teaches that God is sovereign. He declared the end from the Beginning. He "works all things according to the counsel of his own will". Being reformed, I shy away from the phrase "God allowed", because to me, there is no difference.

If God merely allowed satan to fall, being that God could have stopped satan, or could have never created him in the first place, it means that ultimately God's plan and purpose was for satan to fall. He knew, that if hec reated satan, satan would turn evil. Yet with that knowledge, he created him anyways. And he knew the exact moment when satan would turn evil, yet God didn't strike him down and destroy him moments before it happened. Why not?

So there's really no difference between "God allowing" and "God decreeing". The phrase "God allowing" implies that God is passive in creation, when the Bible says he is acting. He is governing and ruling.

Otherwise, how could Paul promise that all things work together for our ultimate good? Is God simply "allowing" them to work together for our good? Or is God actively bringing it to pass?

 

[GrayAngel]

No, I suppose we don't.
It does, however, strike me as curious that the sins of the world--the antithesis of God's holiness--would be the product of His elect. I mean, if Adam could not, as you describe below, ignore God's call, then I don't know how to understand the story in that context.

Either God caused Adam to sin, which is a notion my preconceived ideas about God's holiness lead me to reject, or God allowed something to happen that He didn't necessarily care for, which is the idea I currently have, or God is, as you say, castrated of His sovereignty, which my preconceived ideas about His omnipotence lead me to reject.

God didn't force the fruit down Adam's throat, but God planned for Adam to do it. God didn't have to put the tree there in the first place, but He knew that Adam, under the influence of Satan and Eve, would disobey Him and eat from the tree.

There is not only two options in this matter. There is a third. God is capable, but makes the choice to allow something to happen, even though it does not live up to His ideal, and specifically builds into the system that capacity for unintended results.

I think there is a significant value in praising God for the way He made us, for the faculties He built into us, and for what I perceive as unintended (note: not unforeseen) results.

Just as you say we have no reason to believe Adam wasn't elect, we also have no reason to believe he was not designed to make up his own mind about what he chose to do.

If God created us only capable to obey His every command, then I would agree with you that our ignoring His command would be a sign of His castrated sovereignty (as you put it). But, we have no more reason to believe that God created us only capable to obey His every command than we do to believe Adam was not elect.

I'm sorry. I know I have written these as statements, but I present them as my thoughts on the subject. Consider them content of the question: What do you make of this? Am I missing something?

How can something foreseen be unintended? If God saw it coming and didn't stop it, then He intended for it to happen, unless He was too weak to stop it. But God is the one who got the ball rolling. So an event He sees coming was one He put into motion in the first place.

I personally do not find the option of God letting us ignore His calling as something comforting or praiseworthy. I prefer to believe that God is in control, and everything works out for His plan.

Biblically, this is what I find. When God stirs someone's heart, they always respond. When God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, Pharaoh responded as God intended him to. And when Jesus preached, all who were elected were saved. There was no choice in this.

Now, you may find God speaking words and people disobey Him, such as when Jesus asked the rich man to give everything he had to the poor. But God speaking in audible words is not the same as God entering into a heart and manipulating it for His purposes. In the case of our hearts, we're either dead in our transgressions (and dead people can't do much), or God gives life to them. The Bible makes it clear that we have no choice in the matter.

Ephesians 2:4-5 - But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

And a little later in the paragraph, we're told that even the faith that saved us was a gift from God:

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

There are only two ways to make a decision. Either that decision was a response to something, or it wasn't.

Now, I don't mean to argue, and in this response, I am only presenting my notions. I completely respect that we disagree, and I want to be considerate of our different perspectives on this. So, please bare with me a moment.

Here, you make the argument that God's choice wasn't random, and thus based on something He was responding to (though you don't speculate on what, exactly).

However, below, you say it was not in response to anything, having nothing to do with any special qualities within us (and thus random).

What do you make of that?

Maybe it's better to view it a different way. Rather than God choosing some of us over others, maybe God created us from the start with that intention. It's not that He created us, and then selected us from a line. Rather, God made us with the intention of saving us.

Forgive me. I don't bring this up lightly, but just to clarify what you meant. In your previous post, you wrote, "Everyone who accept's Christ's salvation is saved. You could only accept it if you were predestined. The only exception is the case of the fallen, such as Judas. Live as if you had free will (we are under the illusion of it), and avoid letting yourself fall away from the faith. This is what I believe the Bible means when it says to "work out your salvation.""

Could you explain this statement. I must have misunderstood what you meant by it.

No problem.

The fallen were never saved at all. Judas, and others like him, were never elected, and God never lived in them. If you ask them, they'll nearly always tell you that they did pray to God, but God didn't answer them.

One thing I wonder is if Judas ever performed any miracles. I would expect that he didn't, but I don't believe the Bible specifically mentions that.

I'm glad you think this particular response is thoughtful. I fight the urge to think that you therefore mean that none of my other responses are. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. Forgive me.

No. That's not what I meant. When debating in these forums, or out in real life, I always encounter the same objections and responses. But every once and a while, I hear something new. I thought your response was interesting.

This raises a curiosity in me.

If accepting the Gospel was hard-coded into us, and rejecting it was hard-coded into everyone else, then what is the point in putting the Gospel forth in a way that is available to all of us?

I mean, why go through the whole sheep and goat sorting, if the sorting is not based on any of the qualities of the things themselves?

I respect that there is a difference between those who obey and those who don't, but what I can't get over is the notion that obedience would be used as an indicator to God as to whether or not we were elect, when He already knew us because He elected us.

I guess that part just seems really circular to me.

God elects you, and knows you, but not because of any special quality about you. Then, He plops you down with a mixed bag of elects and non-elects, stirs the pot, gives you some instructions, and then differentiates between those who obey and those who don't, as if that has anything at all to do with anything.

I'm missing how that makes everything else in the Gospel part of a cohesive, understandable story.

Again, though, while that has been a part of my rejection of it in the past, I am now choosing to maintain an open mind to the doctrine. Perhaps just another way of explaining it is needed. I don't know.

The sheep and goat sorting thing was written to tell us that the fakers will not be accepted in as God's flock. We have people in our ranks, also refered to as wolves in sheep's clothing, who put on the appearance of sheep, but their behaviors are destructive towards the church. They're people who claim to know God, but they don't act like it.

This is why Paul says that faith without works is dead. There are people with the head-knowledge of the gospel, who never have its message sink into their hearts. They remain untransformed.

The elect, however, will live what they preach. Only living trees can bear fruit. God's elect bear the fruits of the Spirit, while others will be severely lacking.

This is a meaningless comparison to me because you are comparing a human with a non-human. You might as well be comparing me to my cat.

I'm sorry, I don't mean any disrespect.

Considering the distinction between the two types of creatures you make below, I cannot derive from this comparison anything meaningful regarding why God chooses one human and not another.

We and the angels/demons have a lot in common, dispite our differences. The God who created both of us are the same. God will not live with evil. When Lucifer became corrupted, God purged him from Heaven. This same God will not let sinful people into His kingdom, but He offered Christ as our sacrifice so that we could be justified and enter in.

If God creates something to be perfect, and then it fails to be perfect, how does that not make God out to be "castrated of His sovereignty?"

Being perfect is to be complete, blameless, and without sin. But it doesn't necessarilly mean you're incorruptable. God created Lucifer, knowing that he would somehow become corrupted and fall, and also corrupting 1/3 of the other angels.

Adam and Eve were also created perfect, but they were corrupted when Satan came and tempted them.

Yet God is sovereign over all of us, even the sinful. As we see in Job, even the Author of Lies himself cannot act outside of God's will. Nothing bad can happen to us, unless God ordains it. And if God ordains it, it is for our good.

 

[joyusdays]

Just out of curiosity, how many people here believe in free will, and how many believe in predestination?

This isn't a debate thread, I was just wondering what the numbers look like and how popular one view is compared to the other.

Most of the "predestination" type may be hanging out in different forums where they feel more evenly yoked, so there may not be as many here.

 

[joyusdays]

I wish I had free will...because if I had free will then I could choose NOT TO SIN instead of needing to be reborn...and thus save myself... alas, I cannot.

Now that is something to chew on...very interesting point.
Do you believe the Holy Spirit has revealed this truth to you through the bible?

 

[stelow]

Spurgeon's wisdom!!!

"The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once.

I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”

I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.

Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.

If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring."

 

[Skala]

That Spurgeon quote hits the nail right on the head