What's new
Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • We have just installed new software to help eliminate spam. If you experience any issues logging in or creating a new account, please use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page and we will assist you. Thank you!
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

Predestination and Calvinism

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Wasn't He talking to His disciples rather than mankind in general?
You are correct. That was election of his disciples and not election of believers.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I don't think anyone has an issue with God knowing/foreknowing who the non-elect are. If He Himself chose the elect, He'd quite obviously know who the non-elect are. The issue is over whether God predetermines/predestines the non-elect to condemnation by His determinate counsel even before the foundation of the world - or not.

Scripture to support the predetermined/predestined condemning of the non-elect has been limited to just Rom 9:17-23 - if there are more passages elsewhere, please cite them. But if this is the only passage on which double predestination has been based on, then there should be reconsideration to its interpretation.

The entire passage deals with all being utterly dependent on God's mercy alone. Now, the very concept of mercy comes up only after one is consigned to condemnation, not before - for how can one be shown mercy if he has done nothing guilt-worthy to be condemned in the first place. And once a person finds himself in that state of condemnation dependent on just God's mercy, he is no longer entitled to anything - God is sovereign and is not obligated to show mercy to this person. If God so does show mercy, this person shall have eternal life in accordance with God's will - if God does not show mercy, this person shall face God's just wrath for his own guilt-worthy transgressions.

It is in this sense that it is written, from the same lump one is made unto honour and the other unto dishonour. If you want to read double predestination into this, you'd read it as "from the same lump of mass before one's birth" - but if you don't want to read double predestination into this, you'd read it as "from the same lump of guilty condemned people after their own transgressions".

Moses and Pharaoh are both transgressors before God, both deserving condemnation in accordance with God's Law. It is at this point that God sovereignly chooses to have mercy on Moses and not on Pharaoh - resulting in Moses being sanctified to walk as per God's will and Pharaoh drifting further apart, for God's mercy begins His good work in His vessels of mercy unto honour. But there is God's longsuffering to withhold His just wrath towards Pharaoh until his sins are finished (James 1:15) and he is completed for destruction.

The expected objection is why God 'still/furthermore/yet' finds fault - not over why God found fault in the first place. Why does God find fault with people's disobedience when He has sovereignly willed them to be vessels of wrath (after first their transgressions amounting to their condemnation and God not willing to show mercy upon these). For If God had willed them to be vessels of mercy, then wouldn't they have been spared God's just wrath - so isn't it unfair to hold them responsible for God's decision. Which is what Paul defends by saying God is entitled to make that sovereign choice of whom to have mercy upon, given that all are the same lump of equally undeserving transgressors.

And note, it is the vessels of mercy that are "afore prepared unto glory". It would be our assumption to extend the same to the vessels of wrath when Scriptures make no such mentioning.

All this is to show that the doctrine of single predestination would conform to Scriptures while double predestination is a result of human assumptions. I'd think people should be happy to reject double predestination at the first instance of a biblical reconciliation without it, given its implications of a God who weeps for the perishing of the very people He intentionally created to perish.
I provide brief details of my understanding of single predestination to salvation at #541.
 

Deborah13

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
14,684
Christian
Yes
Yes, it is a horrifying thought. However, I see a different picture in Scripture:
We know these details from Scripture:
Mat 22:14 for many are called, and few chosen.'
This parable was spoken to the Jewish leaders. WHY were certain ones not chosen to remain at the marriage feast? Did God not call them? Did some get a different call than the others?
Mat 22:9 be going, then, on to the cross-ways, and as many as ye may find, call ye to the marriage-feasts.
But there are some there that do not belong there, even though they think they do.
Mat 22:11 `And the king having come in to view those reclining, saw there a man not clothed with clothing of the marriage-feast,
Was it God who did not cloth him properly, or God who chose not to cloth him properly?
Mat 22:12 and he saith to him, Comrade [clansman], how didst thou come in hither, not having clothing of the marriage-feast? and he was speechless. [added from Strong's definition]
The Jews believed that they and only they were the chosen, peculiar, people of God, it was their inheritance and just because they were of Israel they held this special designation. However, here Jesus makes it plain to them that will not be enough, they must be wearing the robes of righteousness, and that robe is only obtained through belief in Jesus as their Redeemer.
Paul says,
Rom 9:6 And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who are of Israel are these Israel;
Rom 9:7 nor because they are seed of Abraham are all children, but--`in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee;'
Rom 9:8 that is, the children of the flesh--these are not children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed;


I don't see anything in these scriptures that eludes to individual people being predestined to be in God's chosen, peculiar, group of people. What I do see is that when God's calls, with the Gospel, those who respond by receiving the covering of the blood of the Lamb are given a robe of Christ's righteousness to wear to the marriage feast of the Lamb. But each one needs to actually wear it, just as we are to wear the full armour of God with the breast plate of righteousness.
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
13,384
Gender
Female
Mat 22:14 for many are called, and few chosen.'
This parable was spoken to the Jewish leaders. WHY were certain ones not chosen to remain at the marriage feast? Did God not call them? Did some get a different call than the others?
Mat 22:9 be going, then, on to the cross-ways, and as many as ye may find, call ye to the marriage-feasts.
But there are some there that do not belong there, even though they think they do.
Mat 22:11 `And the king having come in to view those reclining, saw there a man not clothed with clothing of the marriage-feast,
Was it God who did not cloth him properly, or God who chose not to cloth him properly?
Mat 22:12 and he saith to him, Comrade [clansman], how didst thou come in hither, not having clothing of the marriage-feast? and he was speechless. [added from Strong's definition]
The Jews believed that they and only they were the chosen, peculiar, people of God, it was their inheritance and just because they were of Israel they held this special designation. However, here Jesus makes it plain to them that will not be enough, they must be wearing the robes of righteousness, and that robe is only obtained through belief in Jesus as their Redeemer.
Paul says,
Rom 9:6 And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who are of Israel are these Israel;
Rom 9:7 nor because they are seed of Abraham are all children, but--`in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee;'
Rom 9:8 that is, the children of the flesh--these are not children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed;


I don't see anything in these scriptures that eludes to individual people being predestined to be in God's chosen, peculiar, group of people. What I do see is that when God's calls, with the Gospel, those who respond by receiving the covering of the blood of the Lamb are given a robe of Christ's righteousness to wear to the marriage feast of the Lamb. But each one needs to actually wear it, just as we are to wear the full armour of God with the breast plate of righteousness.
Very good Deborah.
I'd just like to emphasize Mathew 22:12
Being chosen does certainly depend on what you're wearing.
We are to wear Christ, so that the Father will see Him, and not us. We will "wear" Christ at the Judgement seat of Christ.
Isaiah 61:10
Romans 13:14
Galatians 3:27

Wondering
 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
13,384
Gender
Female
Wondering,

Yes, it is a horrifying thought. However, I see a different picture in Scripture:

We know these details from Scripture:
  • Jesus said, 'Many are called, but few are chosen' (Matt 22:14 ESV).
  • Acts 13:48 (ESV) confirms that 'as many as were appointed to eternal life believed'. So, from God's point of view, only the elect will believe.
  • However, the Lord is 'not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance' (2 Pet 3:9 NIV). We obtain a similar message from 1 Tim 2:4 (NIV) that God our Saviour 'wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth'. So, God's desire is not for a certain limited number to be saved but his desire is for 'all people to be saved'.
  • Therefore, 'God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son' (John 3:16 NIV).
  • Why was this? That Jesus would be 'the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2 ESV). Jesus' death appeased the wrath of God (propitiation) for all people, but all people are not saved. How come?
  • So God has provided salvation for all, but how do people receive it? 'Now he commands all people everywhere to repent' (Acts 17:30 ESV) and believe (Acts 16:31 (ESV).
It would be outrageous for God to command all people to be saved and not make salvation available for all people.

We know that God is not the creator of evil (sending the damned to hell) because God is the good God and not the evil God:
  • Psalm 25:8 (ESV), 'Good and upright is the LORD; therefore he instructs sinners in the way'.
  • Psalm 136:1 (ESV), 'Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good'.
  • Psalm 100:5 (ESV), 'For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures for ever, and his faithfulness to all generations'.
  • Mark 10:18 (NIV), '"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone"'.
Richard Bargas (2006) has written an article that does not support double predestination, 'Double trouble: Is double predestination biblical?'

Oz
Hi Oz,
I think the wording of my post no. 539 may not have been clear.
I believe we are agreeing with each other.

I also believe that God is not the creator of evil.
What I meant is that people who believe in double predestination are asserting that God is responsible for everything since He predestines everything. If this is true, then we would have to hold Him responsible for all the evil committed by people since they had no choice to do otherwise.

This is what I meant. I believe you agree.

I also agree that God desires for ALL to be saved, although not all will be because they will refuse God's offer of salvation.

Wondering
 

Jim Parker

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
11,259
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
What I meant is that people who believe in double predestination are asserting that God is responsible for everything since He predestines everything. If this is true, then we would have to hold Him responsible for all the evil committed by people since they had no choice to do otherwise.
That is a clear view of the problem.
If man has no free will and God is completely sovereign over everything that happens then no man is guilty of any sin because God predestined all men to sin.
And because no man can resist God's sovereign will, God is responsible for all of man's sins.
Therefore, God is guilty of all the sin of mankind because He willed it and He is totally unjust to punish any human being for what He, God, forces every man to do.

Imho

iakov the fool
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Mat 22:14 for many are called, and few chosen.'
This parable was spoken to the Jewish leaders. WHY were certain ones not chosen to remain at the marriage feast? Did God not call them? Did some get a different call than the others?
Mat 22:9 be going, then, on to the cross-ways, and as many as ye may find, call ye to the marriage-feasts.
But there are some there that do not belong there, even though they think they do.
Mat 22:11 `And the king having come in to view those reclining, saw there a man not clothed with clothing of the marriage-feast,
Was it God who did not cloth him properly, or God who chose not to cloth him properly?
Mat 22:12 and he saith to him, Comrade [clansman], how didst thou come in hither, not having clothing of the marriage-feast? and he was speechless. [added from Strong's definition]
The Jews believed that they and only they were the chosen, peculiar, people of God, it was their inheritance and just because they were of Israel they held this special designation. However, here Jesus makes it plain to them that will not be enough, they must be wearing the robes of righteousness, and that robe is only obtained through belief in Jesus as their Redeemer.
Paul says,
Rom 9:6 And it is not possible that the word of God hath failed; for not all who are of Israel are these Israel;
Rom 9:7 nor because they are seed of Abraham are all children, but--`in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee;'
Rom 9:8 that is, the children of the flesh--these are not children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed;


I don't see anything in these scriptures that eludes to individual people being predestined to be in God's chosen, peculiar, group of people. What I do see is that when God's calls, with the Gospel, those who respond by receiving the covering of the blood of the Lamb are given a robe of Christ's righteousness to wear to the marriage feast of the Lamb. But each one needs to actually wear it, just as we are to wear the full armour of God with the breast plate of righteousness.
Deborah,

Regarding Matt 22:14 (ESV), 'Many are called, but few are chosen'. The fact that it is included in NT Scripture doesn't indicate it's intended only for a Jewish audience. This parable of the wedding feast applies to humanity.

Ellicott's commentary on this verse does not agree with your interpretation:
Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.
(14) Many are called.—(See Note on Matthew 20:16.) The “calling” answers, both verbally and in substance, to the “bidding” or invitation of the parable. The “chosen” are those who both accept the invitation and comply with its condition; those who, in the one parable, work in the vineyard, and in the other, array themselves with the wedding garment of holiness. The “choice,” as far as the parable is concerned, appears as dependent upon the answer given to the calling. The further truth of an election “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1Peter 1:2) is not here within view, but it follows necessarily on the assumption of that foreknowledge. The “choice,” which in the parable comes as the close of all, must be thought of as having been present to the mind of the All-knowing from all eternity. No one can fix time limits for the thoughts of God, and say that at such a time a purpose came into His mind as it comes into the minds of men. We are compelled in such matters to use anthropomorphic language, but we should remember, as we do so, its necessary limitations. (source)
And neither do I.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Hi Oz,
I think the wording of my post no. 539 may not have been clear.
I believe we are agreeing with each other.

I also believe that God is not the creator of evil.
What I meant is that people who believe in double predestination are asserting that God is responsible for everything since He predestines everything. If this is true, then we would have to hold Him responsible for all the evil committed by people since they had no choice to do otherwise.

This is what I meant. I believe you agree.

I also agree that God desires for ALL to be saved, although not all will be because they will refuse God's offer of salvation.

Wondering
Wondering,

What I wrote in #541 was meant to be in agreement with your assessment in #539. What we have to be careful about with parables is that they are not meant to provide minute details of each part of the story. The general principle of a parable is that there is one main point to be made.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
That is a clear view of the problem.
If man has no free will and God is completely sovereign over everything that happens then no man is guilty of any sin because God predestined all men to sin.
And because no man can resist God's sovereign will, God is responsible for all of man's sins.
Therefore, God is guilty of all the sin of mankind because He willed it and He is totally unjust to punish any human being for what He, God, forces every man to do.

Imho

iakov the fool
Well stated, Jim. It becomes horrific when specifics are mentioned such as the activities of paedophiles, the horrors of what ISIL are doing, all by the sovereign hand of the good God - if God foreordains all the evil in the world.

Oz
 

Jim Parker

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
11,259
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Well stated, Jim. It becomes horrific when specifics are mentioned such as the activities of paedophiles, the horrors of what ISIL are doing, all by the sovereign hand of the good God - if God foreordains all the evil in the world.

Oz
Coincidentally, it seems to be a fundamentalist Muslim belief as well: " insha'Allah" means "Allah wills it" and it applies to everything.
Hmmmmm.................
jim
 
B

beloved57

Guest
Ozpen

Jesus' death appeased the wrath of God (propitiation) for all people,
Can't mean all people without exception since some people are under Gods Wrath Jn 3:36
 
B

beloved57

Guest
Perhaps it was not the wrath of God that needed to be appeased.
Did Jesus die for our sins to save us from God?
You're evading the comment. How is Gods Wrath appeased for them that are under His Wrath?
 

Jim Parker

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
11,259
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
You're evading the comment. How is Gods Wrath appeased for them that are under His Wrath?
The question assumes that God's has wrath and it needed to be appeased.
I don't think that is correct.
I don't think that God was so ticked off at mankind, because man regularly fails to be perfect, that He killed His only begotten son in order to get over His anger.
In fact, I don't think anything that man does is of such great significance that it causes an emotional response in God.
 

JohnDB

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
7,623
Gender
Male
I don't think that anyone is promoting Universalism nor would they on this forum. Especially the ones in this thread as I believe i have seen each and every one of these members argue against such a thing at some point.
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Ozpen

Can't mean all people without exception since some people are under Gods Wrath Jn 3:36
The wrath of God abides on that person because he/she has not sought forgiveness from the Lord who appeases the wrath of God (1 John 2:2 ESV).

Oz
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Coincidentally, it seems to be a fundamentalist Muslim belief as well: " insha'Allah" means "Allah wills it" and it applies to everything.
Hmmmmm.................
jim
Hmmmmm indeed! :hug

What do you think this says about both views of God?

Oz
 

OzSpen

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
4,737
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Perhaps they had similar sources of inspiration.........
I wouldn't be so brazen as to suggest that. However, it could relate to faulty interpretation by both.

I'm going to stick with the content of Psalm 145:9 (ISV): 'The LORD is good to everyone and his mercies extend to everything he does'.

Oz
 

Jim Parker

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
11,259
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I wouldn't be so brazen as to suggest that. However, it could relate to faulty interpretation by both.
One perspective is that, at its beginning, the Church was based on the Faith.
Then the devil invented theology.

iakov the fool
 

Initial Site Debt

Total amount
$804.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Top