What is the point?

[SPB1987]

If each of our fates is preordained since before time then what is the point? What is the point in anything if we can not choose to accept or reject Christ?

 

[truefiction1]

If each of our fates is preordained since before time then what is the point? What is the point in anything if we can not choose to accept or reject Christ?

Freewill.

 

[SPB1987]

Freewill.

Well I made this thread for Presbyterians to answer because from my understanding they do not believe in free will.

 

[truefiction1]

Well I made this thread for Presbyterians to answer because from my understanding they do not believe in free will.

My apologies, SPB1987, I wasn't aware of this. Thankyou.

 

[SPB1987]

My apologies, SPB1987, I wasn't aware of this. Thankyou.

No problems. See my thread in Exploring Christianity and reply there!

 

[Osage Bluestem]

If each of our fates is preordained since before time then what is the point? What is the point in anything if we can not choose to accept or reject Christ?

We exist to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If each of our fates is preordained since before time then what is the point? What is the point in anything if we can not choose to accept or reject Christ?

Good questions, and I understand the view from which they spring. To the first question, God's knowledge is eternal, immutable, and all comprehensive, while our knowledge at every point depends on his knowledge because we are creatures. Unlike our Creator, as creatures our knowledge is temporal (begins at a point in time), evolving (as we grow and learn, etc.), and limited by time and space and the essence of what we are. Because we are so limited, we do not know the future concerning ourselves and others. For example, we read in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26....

Matt 26:33 Peter answered and said to Him, “Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”

Peter did not know the future and could not conceive that he could or would deny the Lord even once, but Jesus, God in the flesh knew the future, that Peter would in fact deny him not once, but three times!

Now just because the Lord knew Peter would deny him, and even told him so, does that take away from the fact that Peter did exactly that? Does that therefore make Peter's denial meaningless? Or that Peter could do no other, does that reduce anything? No, quite the contrary, I'd say the whole experience had a lasting impact on the rest of Peter's life. Among other things, it led Peter to repentance. When he remembered what the Lord had told him, he wept bitterly.

To answer your second question, Presbyterians do not deny that people make choices, as we read from in the Westerminster Confession...

CHAPTER 9
OF FREE WILL

"1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only." - Confession and Catechisms

Presbyterians affirm what has been labeled in philosophy dealing with determinism and freedom, as "compatibilism". In other terms, we believe in determinism and free will, that both are found in Scripture, and are compatible with one another, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, what might seem like contradiction, is rather a paradox.

Finally, another point, in addressing the second question, I recommend reading: Monergism :: Ordo Salutis to become more familiar with the differences between the Reformed and non-Reformed view of the order of salvation. You see, I do not deny that we choose Christ, but it is only after God chooses, after the monergistic work of God in salvation, after God performs a heart transplant, after he removes the scales from our eyes, THEN we are irresistably drawn to Christ in humble repentance, sometimes responding similar to Peter as mentioned above.

 

[michaeldimmickjr]

Freewill.

Sorry I didn't realize you were only asking Presbyterians. Please forgive me.

In Christ,

Michael

 

[SPB1987]

Good questions, and I understand the view from which they spring. To the first question, God's knowledge is eternal, immutable, and all comprehensive, while our knowledge at every point depends on his knowledge because we are creatures. Unlike our Creator, as creatures our knowledge is temporal (begins at a point in time), evolving (as we grow and learn, etc.), and limited by time and space and the essence of what we are. Because we are so limited, we do not know the future concerning ourselves and others. For example, we read in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26....

Matt 26:33 Peter answered and said to Him, “Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will never be made to stumble.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.”

Peter did not know the future and could not conceive that he could or would deny the Lord even once, but Jesus, God in the flesh knew the future, that Peter would in fact deny him not once, but three times!

Now just because the Lord knew Peter would deny him, and even told him so, does that take away from the fact that Peter did exactly that? Does that therefore make Peter's denial meaningless? Or that Peter could do no other, does that reduce anything? No, quite the contrary, I'd say the whole experience had a lasting impact on the rest of Peter's life. Among other things, it led Peter to repentance. When he remembered what the Lord had told him, he wept bitterly.

To answer your second question, Presbyterians do not deny that people make choices, as we read from in the Westerminster Confession...

CHAPTER 9
OF FREE WILL

"1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only." - Confession and Catechisms

Presbyterians affirm what has been labeled in philosophy dealing with determinism and freedom, as "compatibilism". In other terms, we believe in determinism and free will, that both are found in Scripture, and are compatible with one another, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, what might seem like contradiction, is rather a paradox.

Finally, another point, in addressing the second question, I recommend reading: Monergism :: Ordo Salutis to become more familiar with the differences between the Reformed and non-Reformed view of the order of salvation. You see, I do not deny that we choose Christ, but it is only after God chooses, after the monergistic work of God in salvation, after God performs a heart transplant, after he removes the scales from our eyes, THEN we are irresistably drawn to Christ in humble repentance, sometimes responding similar to Peter as mentioned above.

So once God chooses us we will then have the ability to reject or accept Him? Will he choose all of us or just some of us? What about John 3:16 NKJV: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." If God loved the world, wouldn't he choose to offer salvation to the whole world?

I think I am starting to understand the Presbyterian view a little better now. If I misinterpret or misrepresent anything you have said it was not intentional.

 

[RisingSpirit]

If each of our fates is preordained since before time then what is the point? What is the point in anything if we can not choose to accept or reject Christ?

Whats the point in explaining a mind the meaning of God being past, present and future all at once and all at the same time. Since we're living in time and space, we have trouble challenging the famous question asking by a Zen monk. He asked,"What is the source of your thought?" Common man uses freewill for an excuse by the answer is wrong. The source of the thought proves "Captive will" or "Slaved will" and rules out "free will"

try again.

What is the color of 3?

 

[truefiction1]

Whats the point in explaining a mind the meaning of God being past, present and future all at once and all at the same time. Since we're living in time and space, we have trouble challenging the famous question asking by a Zen monk. He asked,"What is the source of your thought?" Common man uses freewill for an excuse by the answer is wrong. The source of the thought proves "Captive will" or "Slaved will" and rules out "free will"

try again.

What is the color of 3?

The color of 3 is white. And it is not thought that constitutes mystical communion with God, but relationship, freely chosen.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So once God chooses us we will then have the ability to reject or accept Him? Will he choose all of us or just some of us? What about John 3:16 NKJV: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." If God loved the world, wouldn't he choose to offer salvation to the whole world?

Thank you for responding.

God chose us before the foundation of the world, before we were ever born, our choice isn't even a factor of our salvation. Since God chose us, and His will, will be done, we irresistibly "accept" or trust in Him, in God's time. The default position is to reject Him, and that's what we all do, until or unless God will's otherwise. To answer your second question, no, He hasn't chose everyone. And to the third question, even for the non-Calvinist, why would God need to offer salvation to everyone, is God morally obligated, why would He only create a potential for salvation and leave it up to mankind to "seal the deal"? Why would He make the atonement an offer to those He already knows will reject for the entirety of their lives? What's the point of that? According to Calvinists, God doesn't merely create a potential for salvation where mankind could theoretically miss the boat entirely, God is the one doing the choosing and electing, and He has unconditionally accomplished the salvation of all of His elect people, by the substitutional atonement of Christ.

I think I am starting to understand the Presbyterian view a little better now. If I misinterpret or misrepresent anything you have said it was not intentional.

It's all good, you're fine.

 

[SPB1987]

Thank you for responding.

God chose us before the foundation of the world, before we were ever born, our choice isn't even a factor of our salvation. Since God chose us, and His will, will be done, we irresistibly "accept" or trust in Him, in God's time. The default position is to reject Him, and that's what we all do, until or unless God will's otherwise. To answer your second question, no, He hasn't chose everyone. And to the third question, even for the non-Calvinist, why would God need to offer salvation to everyone, is God morally obligated, why would He only create a potential for salvation and leave it up to mankind to "seal the deal"? Why would He make the atonement an offer to those He already knows will reject for the entirety of their lives? What's the point of that? According to Calvinists, God doesn't merely create a potential for salvation where mankind could theoretically miss the boat entirely, God is the one doing the choosing and electing, and He has unconditionally accomplished the salvation of all of His elect people, by the substitutional atonement of Christ.

Okay, so what happens to those who are not chosen? Do they go to hell? What is the Presbyterian view on hell? Is hell a literal place?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Okay, so what happens to those who are not chosen? Do they go to hell? What is the Presbyterian view on hell? Is hell a literal place?

Just like anybody else in any other system, those not chosen are left in their sin to receive their just condemnation.

All give glory to God, either glorifying His mercy, or His justice.

As all are born condemned, nobody gets injustice. Everybody gets justice. SOME receive mercy.

Hell is a literal place in Reformed Theology.

 

[Hardesty]

The root of this question has a focus on man's sovereignty: an individuals free will.
Since all Christians hold to the Apostles Creed we all say :I believe in God the father Almighty maker of Heaven and earth. this means we hold to the sovereignty of God. If God is sovereign, then no one else can be.
Thus we must find the central focus of creation and history is not man(as pagan philosophy might say), rather it is the glory and majesty of God.
So if we start with the throne of God predestination is no problem. If we start with the ego of man, like a child in a high chair throwing a tantrum, the truth will never suit our palate.

 

[RisingSpirit]

The color of 3 is white. And it is not thought that constitutes mystical communion with God, but relationship, freely chosen.

Answered wrong cause that isn't the right answer.

The master sends you back to the meditation hall for another year till you come back with the right answer.

 

[SPB1987]

The root of this question has a focus on man's sovereignty: an individuals free will.
Since all Christians hold to the Apostles Creed we all say :I believe in God the father Almighty maker of Heaven and earth. this means we hold to the sovereignty of God. If God is sovereign, then no one else can be.
Thus we must find the central focus of creation and history is not man(as pagan philosophy might say), rather it is the glory and majesty of God.
So if we start with the throne of God predestination is no problem. If we start with the ego of man, like a child in a high chair throwing a tantrum, the truth will never suit our palate.

If we are predestined then how can man be at fault for our ego?

Let me ask this question....say you are going job hunting and you have been offered two different jobs that have equal pay and benefits. Do you have an actual choice in which job you end up with or did God already predestine you to one?

 

[RisingSpirit]

If we are predestined then how can man be at fault for our ego?

Let me ask this question....say you are going job hunting and you have been offered two different jobs that have equal pay and benefits. Do you have an actual choice in which job you end up with or did God already predestine you to one?

You choose the Job. God predistine the job and now both are happy.

What a happy little group !

 

[ThePottersVessel]

I'm glad I found this thread - it seems like I have many of the same questions as the OP.

When thinking about predestination (is that the proper term Presbyterians use?) I think of my salvation. I am the only saved person in my family. Baring the possibility of my family being saved later in life, does this mean I was chosen and they were not.

I also tend to think of God's foreknowledge as something different than predestination. For example: yes, Peter denied Christ just as foretold, but does this necessarily mean that Peter could have chosen differently but simply didn't?

Also, what does this imply for evangelistic efforts? I was saved after hearing the gospel and, being convinced of my sin and need for Christ's righteousness. Is the Church supposed to broadcast the gospel in order that it might reach one of God's elect? Is it possible that someone could be one of the elect, but never encounter the gospel?

Sorry for the many questions. I am eager to learn and understand =)

 

[SPB1987]

You choose the Job. God predistine the job and now both are happy.

What a happy little group !

If we are predestined then our "choice" is not exactly a choice is it?