Did God Predestinate some to Hell/Wrath ?

[smaller]

I believe you and I have discussed this before and you were so stuck on man's doctrine that we went nowhere. Five Point Hyper-Cakvinism can stand in the pure light of all scripture no more than can Amenianism.

Calvinism has nothing to do with it. Calvin did not write the scriptures that cite that the mind of unbelieving mankind is blinded and held as "captives" to the spirit of disobedience. You'll find this nowhere in Calvin's sights, he was that blind himself. Calvin made the same mistake that freewillers make. He utterly FAILS to differentiate between the captive and the captor. Freewill postures don't even SEE the fact of spiritual captivity by that spirit of disobedience.

And even fewer see that it was GOD HIMSELF who bound all men to disobedience to begin with.

Romans 11:
32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Same as here:

Romans 11:
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

Same as here:

Mark 4:
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

When believers can't see the open distinction between the captor, the THIEF, the obvious culprit, they FORGOT from whom they were freed. And when they blame and accuse blinded unbelievers on the basis of freewill, such are in fact "the devils tool" in making such claims.

Jesus came to set captives free. Not blame and accuse them for being blinded captives.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Yes and you approach the Bible with a preconception, learned where no one knows, and then cast the rest of scripture aside when you extract enough verses from their context to "prove" your point and Bible study cannot be done that way without error.

I never said Calvin said anything, most of Hyper-Calvinism he would be very ashamed of.

 

[smaller]

Yes and you approach the Bible with a preconception, learned where no one knows, and then cast the rest of scripture aside when you extract enough verses from their context to "prove" your point and Bible study cannot be done that way without error.

I never said Calvin said anything, most of Hyper-Calvinism he would be very ashamed of.

There is no "preconception here" but fact of scripture.

2 Corinthians 4:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Calling blinded in mind captives of the "god of this world" freewillers seems quite blind to their obvious condition of fact, under a superior to themselves, blinding entity that is not them who holds them captive.

You see only one. I see, obviously TWO parties who are not the same.

Where then is the preconception and what is the obvious?

 

[th1b.taylor]

There is no "preconception here" but fact of scripture.

2 Corinthians 4:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Calling blinded in mind captives of the "god of this world" freewillers seems quite blind to their obvious condition of fact, under a superior to themselves, blinding entity that is not them who holds them captive.

You see only one. I see, obviously TWO parties who are not the same.

Where then is the preconception and what is the obvious?

I made my point and I will not give you the slug fest you are looking for so, may God bless.

 

[smaller]

I made my point and I will not give you the slug fest you are looking for so, may God bless.

Slug fest? Preconception? Is this what passes for observing scriptural facts or is it someone's preconceptions being trampled by the obvious and then an unfair reaction?

I think that answer is quite obvious.

 

[WIP]

 

[OzSpen]

I said the word used in Heb 6 is not the same as apostasy. And it's not. They have similar but not exactly the same meaning. You can apostate from marraige. It's often called divorce. Or you can fall away from marraige. It's often called breaking up with your fiancee. But that's not even the main point of our disagreement. The issue is the Text doesn't say they fell away from (or apostated from) salvation or Christ. People assume that idea into the Text. Similar to how you assume I (and others) are not back-quoting.

chessman,

The fact is that there are a couple Greek words meaning apostasy and parapiptw is one of them. That's the word used in Heb 6:6 (ESV). You cannot get away from the fact that parapiptw is given a meaning of apostasy by Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon. Parapiptw is built on the root word, piptw.

I know that other scholars are of the view that this word, that appears only this one time in the NT, means to offend, to fall, to sin, and not to mean to fall away (Michaelis in Kittel & Friedrich's, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol 6, p. 171). The word appears 8 times in the LXX.

However, another substantive Greek word study gives the meaning of parapiptw as fall beside, fall away. Piptw is used in

'the figurative sense peculiar to the NT, to lose salvation, and so, to go to eternal destruction ... in the Gospels, Paul, Heb. and Rev....
Apart from Rev. 2;5 and probably Rom. 11, the thought behind all these passages where piptw is used is of the incurring guilt and the consequent loss of salvation, rather than of a mere failure from which recovery can be made. It is a catastrophic fall, which means eternal ruin. If it were not so, all the warnings against falling would lose their threatening urgency. To fall into sin and guilt, as an expression of a total attitude, is to plunge into irrevocable misfortune' (Bauder in Colin Browen, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 1, pp. 608, 610, 611).​

Therefore, based on Greek etymology of the word, I will not buy into the idea that parapiptw does not mean apostasy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

An evangelical Arminian, J C Thibodaux, responded to John Piper's promotion of double-predestination, i.e. the redeemed are predestined to salvation and the damned are predestined to wrath, in his article, ‘Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian. In this article, he wrote:

Again, per 5-point Calvinism, if you’re not among those elected to salvation, tough beans. God hasn’t chosen you, Christ didn’t die for you, and the Holy Spirit most certainly won’t regenerate you. You are lost without remedy, condemned already beyond repair, there isn’t a single ray of hope, and you never had a prayer. The accessibility of salvation to you is absolute zero. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. So how can a person to whom salvation isn’t even remotely applicable have any sort of “opportunity” to be saved?

Put even more simply, if Christ didn’t die for the forgiveness of one’s sins in any sense, then there can never be an “opportunity to be saved” for him, because there is no way to be saved unless Christ died to forgive his sins.

Such doublespeak is strong cause to question Piper’s personal theology. If his determinist views are so repugnant that he has to “balance” them with concepts that flatly contradict his doctrine, then he’s essentially embraced cognitive dissonance. If you reject universalism, but believe that God still genuinely offers salvation to all men, then which is more consistent and less convoluted to believe?

1. Christ died provisionally for the sins of all, such that any who believe in Him will be forgiven.

2. Or Piper’s view, where if you’re not one of the elect, you’re given an “opportunity” that you can’t possibly take, to accept an “offer” of salvation from God that isn’t really His will that you accept, just so you’ll have a “chance” to obtain faith that isn’t even accessible to you, wrought by a Savior who didn’t die to forgive your sins, but whose death fortunately did provide “grace” that will inevitably backfire and condemn you even more.​

Makes perfect sense. Where do I sign?​

I've signed up to #1 because of its biblical support (which I'll post in the next entry).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

If God predestined some to the wrath of hell, then Jesus did not die for them, i.e. Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world.

We have biblical evidence to counter that view (and so torpedo the teaching that God predestines people - most - to wrath):

John 4:42 (NIV): “They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'”

Acts 2:21 (NIV): “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 5:6 (NIV): “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.”

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (NIV): “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV): “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

1 Timothy 2:5-6 (NIV): “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men – the testimony given in its proper time.”

1 Timothy 4:10 (NIV): “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”

Titus 2:11 (NIV): “For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.”

Hebrews 2:9 (NIV): “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV): “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

1 John 2:2 (NIV): “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (Please note the contrast of ‘ours’ and ‘the whole world’.)

1 John 4:14 (NIV): “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”

I was helped with the listing of these Scriptures by Ron Rhodes’ excellent article in support of unlimited atonement. ‘The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement‘ (Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries). Another article in support of unlimited atonement is Robert P Lightner, ‘The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement’.

So the teaching on unlimited atonement is very biblical. Also, the founder of Calvinism, John Calvin, believed in it. See: Did John Calvin believe in limited atonement?

See my article: Does the Bible teach limited atonement or unlimited atonement by Christ?

Oz

 

[smaller]

Every christian adhere's to limited atonement and predestination to the LoF. Most don't even realize they hold such positions, but they do.

How so? ZERO believers of any kind that I'm aware of think Jesus atoned for devils. So there is an entire entity class that does not have any "atonement." Atonement is therefore "limited" is it not? Of course. Very much so in the case of the spiritual opposition movement.

So, are these same predestined to hell/the LoF? Again, of course.

Let's start with the easy stuff where everyone actually DOES agree. Yes, there IS limited atonement and yes, there IS predestination to hell regarding those parties.

That's why these kinds of conversations can be somewhat lame, because they fail to find agreement on the easy stuff and then make mountains out of mole hills on the same topics, not factoring in that there is no such thing as 'unlimited atonement' to start with and there IS predestination to hell, all the while such claimants claim their not to be. That's why it's LAME.

Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Will everyone on the "unlimited atonement" and "non-predestination to hell" at LEAST concede this much truth? When they do both of their positions are then quite false to that extent.

When these subjects are discussed, it should be recognized that only "mankind" is being discussed.

Where it gets tricky is when the parties are "overlapped."

 

[chessman]

Will everyone on the "unlimited atonement" and "non-predestination to hell" at LEAST concede this much truth?

When's the last time you've seen someone change their mind on an issue here, no matter the evidence presented to the contrary of their view???

 

[JLB]

Perhaps you are missing the obvious? "As" moves the matter to an internal working, not a literal serpent or literal wolves. Hard to discuss the above kind of logic when the statement is both denied and affirmed.

An "internal" working?

How does an idiomatic, non literal reference used to describe His "sheep" being sent out to be among the devil's "wolves", get twisted around to mean an "internal" working.

Furthermore, according to Romans 7:22, the "inner man" delights in the law of God.

For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. Romans 7:22

Wolves are an internal matter, scripturally:

Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Yes, the enemies people who are false prophets are wolves in sheep's clothing and do not belong to Christ, but belong to the devil.


Jesus doesn't send these out, but sends out "His sheep".



JLB

 

[JLB]

Jesus affirms the inward location of the serpent, here:

Mark 4:
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Yes the devil comes to steal the word out of the hearts of those who don't believe.

They are not believers.

Satan "comes" from where he is to where the person is to steal the seed, because He does not reside in their flesh.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Perhaps you are missing the obvious? "As" moves the matter to an internal working, not a literal serpent or literal wolves. Hard to discuss the above kind of logic when the statement is both denied and affirmed.

Again this doesn't say they were both serpents and doves.

They were to be as "wise" as a serpent and "harmless" as doves.

Just as the were lambs among wolves, not both lambs and wolves.



10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” Luke 11:10-13


Your claim that Christians have Satan in them is unbiblical.



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

When's the last time you've seen someone change their mind on an issue here, no matter the evidence presented to the contrary of their view???

I have seen a few admit to movement at the station and thanks for that insight that had not been considered previously. Change is a slow process for some, as I've found through 34 years as a professional counsellor and counselling manager.

Oz

 

[smaller]

When's the last time you've seen someone change their mind on an issue here, no matter the evidence presented to the contrary of their view???

Most answers from scripture are openly obvious. Whether anyone agrees or not really doesn't matter to what is in writing.

Romans 11:8
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

If any reader can't see "them" and "the spirit of slumber" I really don't know what to say other than they miss the obvious. Whether they see or agree or not may very well depend on what God has given them as well. So who am I to say otherwise?

 

[smaller]

An "internal" working?

How does an idiomatic, non literal reference used to describe His "sheep" being sent out to be among the devil's "wolves", get twisted around to mean an "internal" working.

You wouldn't be the first person to see "idioms" meaning "it's not real."

Yes, the wolves are "internal" just as the "serpent" is also, "internal."

Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[chessman]

based on Greek etymology of the word, I will not buy into the idea that parapiptw does not mean apostasy.

Etymology means the study of the word's origin.

Etymologically the word in Heb 6:6 originated from two distinct an unambiguous words. From pará, "from close-beside" and píptō, "to fall"– properly, fall away, after being close-beside; Just like it says. This is not rocket science.

On the otherhand, the origin of apostasy is derived from apó, "away from" and histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing." Again, not rocket science to understand. Nor to understand the slight differences in the words.

Buy into it or not, facts are facts.

 

[JLB]

You wouldn't be the first person to see "idioms" meaning "it's not real."

The reality the non literal idiom refers to is real.

The Sheep He sends out are His disciples.

The wolves that they are sent among are unbelieving Jews, whom the disciples are sent out to convert.

16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. Matthew 10:16-17


JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Etymology means the study of the word's origin.

Etymologically the word in Heb 6:6 originated from two distinct an unambiguous words. From pará, "from close-beside" and píptō, "to fall"– properly, fall away, after being close-beside; Just like it says. This is not rocket science.

On the otherhand, the origin of apostasy is derived from apó, "away from" and histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing." Again, not rocket science to understand. Nor to understand the slight differences in the words.

Buy into it or not, facts are facts.

I have provided you with the biblical evidence that parapiptw in Heb 6:6 means apostasy. As much as you try to duck and weave around that, the Greek language does not support what you are doing.

We know this from Heb 10:32-36 (ESV):

But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.​

The 'enlightened' ones of Heb 6:4 (ESV) have a parallel experience of salvation with those who 'were enlightened' in Heb 10:32 (ESV). They 'have need of endurance' to do 'the will of God' (Heb 10:36 ESV), which those of Heb 4:4 (ESV) did not have. Both groups were 'enlightened' - same word.

Bye,
Oz