Bible Study Predestination and Election in the Bible

[Nathan]

Was God obligated to send Jesus? Did God have to deliver anyone, or could God have simply given man a moral law and condemned him when he chose to disobey it? Believe it or not, Calvinists believe in free will. We just believe that fallen man will always exercise his free will to choose evil ... just like the first three chapters of Romans make such a big deal about. That is where GRACE comes in. The problem is, many seem to be starting from a position that GOD MUST SAVE EVERYONE! From there it is only those who can sucessfully thwart the will if God that condemn themselves. If God MUST save, then it seems that "grace" isn't really "grace", is it?

That is the reason behind my questions and the purpose to my challenge to your aparent "given assumptions".
You want to talk about whether God "chooses to reject some people", but really need to start with "Does God owe anyone, salvation?"
Without that foundation, you are not discussing Reformed Theology.

Yes, God had to send Jesus. It would be unjust if He did not. God 'designed'(planned) it to where man could not fully obey a moral law - therefore in order to be just, He had to provide a way of obedience. Where there is no choice there cannot be obedience/disobedience. Example - in total darkness there can be no light.

Thank you for explaining the free will thing. That does help me understand your point of view. If fallen man will always exercise free will to choose evil then they are rightly condemned. I do believe there are those who will choose this. But that's just it, its their choice.

I do not believe that God must save everyone. I come from the understanding that God must provide a way to everyone. There is a huge difference between the two thoughts.

God does not owe anyone salvation. But in order for Him to be just He has to provide it, allow a way, to everyone.

 

[atpollard]

I was answering your question of Scripture that explicitly states God will not send sinners to hell just because He wants to. Or as you put it, "God has every right to save no one and send each and every human being to Hell for the sins they have committed, and God would still be Holy, Just and Good in doing so."

"God will not send sinners to hell just because He wants to."
"God has every right to save no one and ... still be Holy"

Are these two really equivalent?
You may have answered what you thought I was asking, but you did not answer what I was actually asking.
(Technically you did, but the verses supported my point. A JUST God will punish sin.

So the actual question is not what God wants, but what God is obligated to do by his Holiness, Justice and Goodness:

"God has every right to save no one and send each and every human being to Hell for the sins they have committed, and God would still be Holy, Just and Good in doing so."

 

[Nathan]

Yes, God had to send Jesus. It would be unjust if He did not. God 'designed'(planned) it to where man could not fully obey a moral law - therefore in order to be just, He had to provide a way of obedience. Where there is no choice there cannot be obedience/disobedience. Example - in total darkness there can be no light.

Thank you for explaining the free will thing. That does help me understand your point of view. If fallen man will always exercise free will to choose evil then they are rightly condemned. I do believe there are those who will choose this. But that's just it, its their choice.

I do not believe that God must save everyone. I come from the understanding that God must provide a way to everyone. There is a huge difference between the two thoughts.

God does not owe anyone salvation. But in order for Him to be just He has to provide it, allow a way, to everyone.

Does Calvin say that God provides a way for everyone?

 

[Nathan]

"God will not send sinners to hell just because He wants to."
"God has every right to save no one and ... still be Holy"

Are these two really equivalent?
You may have answered what you thought I was asking, but you did not answer what I was actually asking.
(Technically you did, but the verses supported my point. A JUST God will punish sin.

So the actual question is not what God wants, but what God is obligated to do by his Holiness, Justice and Goodness:

"God has every right to save no one and send each and every human being to Hell for the sins they have committed, and God would still be Holy, Just and Good in doing so."

Yes, a just God will punish sin - but He can only do so if there is a choice of not having sin. That is where the "just because He wants to" comes into play.

The passages I quoted say so explicitly. That God, because He is just and holy, has to act justly.

Job 34:10-12
“Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:

far be it from God that he should do wickedness,

and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.

For according to the work of a man he will repay him,

and according to his ways he will make it befall him.

Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,

and the Almighty will not pervert justice.

It is quite plain. God is stating that it would be "wicked" to not punish sin. There can be no sin where choice is not allowed. God confines us in sin, so that we cannot escape not sinning, but if it was left there - we would have no choice.

So God, before confining all in sin, provided the "choice" in Jesus the Christ. That is the only true choice we have. Therefore, if man rejects Christ, then he must also suffer the condemnation of the other sins he has committed.

 

[atpollard]

Not one of us will nor have ever died for Adam's sin, we have plenty of our own so that every one of us deserve eternity in the Lake of Fire. Rom 3:10&23)

I agree that we all earn damnation and eternal punishment on our own.
I would only point to

Genesis 3:17-19
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

I take that as a curse on all mankind that from that time forward, people will die of old age rather than live forever in our Earthly bodies.
This is reinforced by:

Romans 5:13-14
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

So I think this is a reference to physical death, which is our 'birthright' rather than eternal death that we earn for ourselves.

 

[Nathan]

"God will not send sinners to hell just because He wants to."
"God has every right to save no one and ... still be Holy"

Are these two really equivalent?
You may have answered what you thought I was asking, but you did not answer what I was actually asking.
(Technically you did, but the verses supported my point. A JUST God will punish sin.

So the actual question is not what God wants, but what God is obligated to do by his Holiness, Justice and Goodness:

"God has every right to save no one and send each and every human being to Hell for the sins they have committed, and God would still be Holy, Just and Good in doing so."

Here is the short answer

Your statement is incorrect simply because you leave out "without providing a choice".

 

[atpollard]

Yes, a just God will punish sin - but He can only do so if there is a choice of not having sin.

I am not sure that is true.
Do you have a verse on the "but He can only do so if there is a choice of not having sin"?

I think of Man's Criminal Law. A child born with fetal alcohol syndrome may be incapable of empathy and impulse control and be destined to some day kill another human being in a fit of rage. They know wrong from right, but they are mentally damaged from before birth. Should they be released and not imprisoned because they had no choice? Is a world of sociopaths running free more JUST than imprisoning mentally defective murderers? It is dangerous to judge God by Human standards or logic, so this is just a fleeting "thought". But it makes me wonder about your actual statement about what God can and cannot do.

Punishing sin is "Just", not "Unjust". I can't think of a scripture with an "unless".

 

[Nathan]

I am not sure that is true.
Do you have a verse on the "but He can only do so if there is a choice of not having sin"?

I think of Man's Criminal Law. A child born with fetal alcohol syndrome may be incapable of empathy and impulse control and be destined to some day kill another human being in a fit of rage. They know wrong from right, but they are mentally damaged from before birth. Should they be released and not imprisoned because they had no choice? Is a world of sociopaths running free more JUST than imprisoning mentally defective murderers? It is dangerous to judge God by Human standards or logic, so this is just a fleeting "thought". But it makes me wonder about your actual statement about what God can and cannot do.

Punishing sin is "Just", not "Unjust". I can't think of a scripture with an "unless".

Yes. The passages that say God is a "just" God. But:

Romans 4:15 - For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Romans 5:13 - for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

If there is no law, then there is no sin. If there is no sin, there can be no punishment for it. Where there is law, there has to be a choice to obey or not.

 

[atpollard]

Your statement is incorrect simply because you leave out "without providing a choice".

Romans 9:10-13
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Does this sound like Esau had a choice?

Romans 9:16-18
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.

Does this sound like Pharaoh had a choice?

Romans 9:19-23
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?
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

My question as well ... "Does God not have the right?" ... and you say "No."

 

[Nathan]

Romans 9:10-13
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Does this sound like Esau had a choice?

Romans 9:16-18
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.

Does this sound like Pharaoh had a choice?

Romans 9:19-23
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?
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

My question as well ... "Does God not have the right?" ... and you say "No."

Those passages talk about God purpose for mankind, not eternal life/eternal death.

The "vessles" Paul speaks of are Jews and Gentiles. Yes, God created the Jews for glory(covenants) and the Gentiles for destruction(sinfulness). But what is often neglected is that those vessles of destruction are being shown patience, and later Paul goes on to say they are used to be shown mercy in order to make the Jews jealous.

Now, if God prepared them for destruction - is He changing His mind by showing them mercy? No.

God has all the right of the world. But in order for Him to be Just - He must provide a choice.

 

[atpollard]

deleted.

 

[Nathan]

I often see that passage in Romans used as proof text for eternal predestination of destruction of the soul of man.

Seems to me, if that were the case, there would be more passages like it? That's kind of a serious thing I would think.

 

[Nathan]

Here is what I think should be asked before anyone can determine predestination(from an Calvinistic or Armenian point of view). They must be answered from the perspective of those outside of Christ.

Is sin a choice?

Is it possible for any human not to sin?

*Is there punishment where there is no sin?

 

[Butch5]

Based off the other thread going on here, Eternal Life and Salvation in the Bible, we have a lot of talk of predestination and election in how it relates to salvation and eternal life. It sparked some interest in me, and it seems to be something a lot of other people are interested in also. Its interesting because I have heard several different radio programs talking about it this week.

So I figured we could look at it from a Biblical study perspective. Dig into the different passages that talk about it, and look at the different meanings of the words used in those passages. Not so much about speculation, but just serious study of what was written about the subject. I am sure there are a lot of rabbit trails that can be run down, but surely we can at least compile a list of the different passages that deal with this topic.

I'll start with the one I know of. I am not sure if it is the most popular one when people think of predestination and election, but it seems to be the one that lays out the process.

Romans 8:22-30
For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

I'll start it off with just some simple observations. For one we cannot just look at the word predestination without looking at the entire passage. It seems that Paul was encouraging believers, letting them they are not alone in seeing all the bad stuff around them - letting them know there is hope. Defining hope as something that is not seen - not had already, but waited for. Also encouraging them that while they are still waiting with hope for this 'event', that the Spirit is in us and helps us.

Then......it gets into the 'deep' things of God by letting us know that God has a plan and purpose - even when we do not understand what it is. It really seems to me that Paul is letting them know that by knowing God has this plan, and the end of it is 'glorification' for us - which will be the adoption as sons and redemption of our bodies - that we can use this knowledge for our hope.

To me, this passage says nothing more than God knows the beginning and end, and His plan will work out just as He wants it. But the passage clearly states, with multiple words, that we have to wait for this and be patient for it - setting our hope on it.

I have heard several times that this is looked at as a thing already done, here and now. I can see that through faith, that God will do it, but Paul really seems to be saying "wait for it.....wait for it.....wait for it......"

Your thoughts?

Hi Nathan,

I'll give you my thoughts on the passage. I believe this passage is generally misunderstood, mainly for the reason you alluded to, context. Firstly, I would submit that Romans is an entire letter and should be viewed that way. As such I would point the reader back to chapter 2 where Paul turns his attention to the Jewish (Israel) believers at Rome. This section that you posted in part of this address to the Jewish (Israel) believers that begins in chapter 2 verse 17 and continues to chapter 11 verse 13 where Paul turns his attention to the Gentiles. There are several references in this section that indicate Paul is addressing Jewish (Israel) believers. Verses 29-30 are what some refer to as the "golden chain of salvation." I believe this idea comes from people imposing their own idea on the text and is not what Paul is suggests. As you suggested in the OP Paul is encouraging these believers to persevere. In verse 28 he writes,

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Rom. 8:28 KJV)

The word translated "know" is the Greek word "oida" which comes from "eido". It carries the idea of having perceived something or having seen. Paul acknowledges that these Jewish (Israel) believers have perceived that God works all things together for good to those who love Him. How would these Jewish (Israel) believers have perceived this. Where would they have gotten this idea that God works all things together for good to those who love Him? They would know from their history. It can be seen in Jewish (Israel) history. Take David for instance, He was a man after God's own heart and God worked a lot of things for David's good. This is what Paul is talking about in verses 29-30. When Paul writes about those God foreknew, he is writing about those who loved God in the past. Men like, David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. These men God predestine, call, justify and glorify. This is why Paul uses the past tense. All of the verbs in verses 29 and 30 are in the past tense. That's because Paul is taking about the past. He's talking about men who loved God in the past, men that God knew before (foreknew). The word translate foreknew is a compound word, literally it's before-know.

We know further that Paul is talking about these men who loved God in the past and not some "golden chain of salvation" by reading on in the letter. As Paul continue this line of discussion with these Jewish (Israel) believers we find these words in Romans 11.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,1 (Rom. 11:1-2 KJV)

This shows us that those who God foreknew were Israelites. I think this is lost on some because too often the verses are taken as proof texts rather than read within the context of the whole letter. After Paul makes his statement about God working all things together for good to those who love Him and saying that God predestined, called, Justified, and glorified them, he goes on to describe how God did this. Chapters 9 -11 layout God's plan. He explains how God chose Abraham and gave him a son. That son was the one through whom the promise would come. That son, Isaac, then had a son that God chose which was Jacob. He further explains the plan through chapters 10 and 11.

It is this that I submit is the doctrines of predestination and election and not the idea that God chose to save some before the foundation of the world or that God looked down the corridors of time and choose those who would choose to believe. Rather it is that God chose Abraham and the Jewish people to be a conduit through which He would save mankind.

 

[Jim Parker]

However, since a core of the belief in 'Predestination and Election' is a "red herring",

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I didn't say that.
That is a distortion of what I said which makes you statement another "Red Herring" logical fallacy.

I guess I have nothing to offer here. Have fun debating the Arminian view of Calvinism.

Since the Armenian view is not the only alternative to Calvinism, you have uses a "Straw Man" logical fallacy in your attempt to support the monster god of Calvin. (That was the logical fallacy of using mockery ["monster god"] rather than real data. )


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[atpollard]

Christianity would be OK ... if it wasn't for the people.
[I need a time out]

 

[Jim Parker]

(7) For there is no partiality with God. Romans 2:11

God is just and fair in how He deals with everyone.
God loves everyone.
God desires all men to come to repentance so that none perish.
God judges fairly according to each one's deeds.

God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:
eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath.
Romans 2:6-8

• eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
• those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath.

JLB

Exactly.

God gives man free will and then lets us have what we insist on having; an eternity in intimate union with Christ (eternal life) or an eternity separated from Christ. (Second death.)

We get to pick.

iakov the fool

 

[Nathan]

Hi Nathan,

I'll give you my thoughts on the passage. I believe this passage is generally misunderstood, mainly for the reason you alluded to, context. Firstly, I would submit that Romans is an entire letter and should be viewed that way. As such I would point the reader back to chapter 2 where Paul turns his attention to the Jewish (Israel) believers at Rome. This section that you posted in part of this address to the Jewish (Israel) believers that begins in chapter 2 verse 17 and continues to chapter 11 verse 13 where Paul turns his attention to the Gentiles. There are several references in this section that indicate Paul is addressing Jewish (Israel) believers. Verses 29-30 are what some refer to as the "golden chain of salvation." I believe this idea comes from people imposing their own idea on the text and is not what Paul is suggests. As you suggested in the OP Paul is encouraging these believers to persevere. In verse 28 he writes,

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Rom. 8:28 KJV)

The word translated "know" is the Greek word "oida" which comes from "eido". It carries the idea of having perceived something or having seen. Paul acknowledges that these Jewish (Israel) believers have perceived that God works all things together for good to those who love Him. How would these Jewish (Israel) believers have perceived this. Where would they have gotten this idea that God works all things together for good to those who love Him? They would know from their history. It can be seen in Jewish (Israel) history. Take David for instance, He was a man after God's own heart and God worked a lot of things for David's good. This is what Paul is talking about in verses 29-30. When Paul writes about those God foreknew, he is writing about those who loved God in the past. Men like, David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. These men God predestine, call, justify and glorify. This is why Paul uses the past tense. All of the verbs in verses 29 and 30 are in the past tense. That's because Paul is taking about the past. He's talking about men who loved God in the past, men that God knew before (foreknew). The word translate foreknew is a compound word, literally it's before-know.

We know further that Paul is talking about these men who loved God in the past and not some "golden chain of salvation" by reading on in the letter. as Paul continue this line of discussion with these Jewish (Israel) believers we find these words in Romans 11.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,1 (Rom. 11:1-2 KJV)

This shows us that those who God foreknew were Israelites. I think this is lost on some because too often the verses are taken as proof texts rather than read within the context of the whole letter. After Paul makes his statement about God working all things together for good to those who love Him and saying that God predestined, called, Justified, and glorified them, he goes on to describe how God did this. Chapters 9 -11 layout God's plan. He explains how God chose Abraham and gave him a son. That son was the one through whom the promise would come. That son, Isaac, then had a son that God chose which was Jacob. He further explains the plan throguh chapters 10 and 11.

It is this that I submit is the doctrines of predestination and election and not the idea that God chose to save some before the foundation of the world or that God looked down the corridors of time and choose who those who would choose to believe. Rather it is that God chose Abraham and the Jewish people to be a conduit through which He would save mankind.

Thanks for your thoughts. Very nice to read them

I was just talking with a coworker this morning how the book of Romans often seems difficult to read but it's generally because people try to break it up, but when you do you loose perspective of what Paul is saying.

 

[Butch5]

Thanks for your thoughts. Very nice to read them

I was just talking with a coworker this morning how the book of Romans often seems difficult to read but it's generally because people try to break it up, but when you do you loose perspective of what Paul is saying.

You're welcome. I agree! I think too, that many don't make the distinction of who Paul is addressing and when. I think it makes a big difference in how we understand what he's saying

 

[JLB]

In the case of who a sinner is, no! In the case of the doctor, yes. The saved will by happenstance fall into sin. (Romans 3:10 & 23)

The saved will indeed sin, and if the saved confesses their sin, they will be forgiven.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10


If the saved [by faith] person continues in a sinful lifestyle, and refuses to turn back to God in repentance [wanders from the truth] ,
[become lost: as the sheep], then the saved by faith person, has returned to being a sinner: as a pig returns to the wallow from which it was cleansed... and is in need of repentance as a sinner.

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” 2 Peter 2:20-22

Those saved ones, who return to practicing the works of the flesh,after having been warned over and over, are in danger of not inheriting the kingdom of God.

...just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21



JLB