Bible Study John Calvin's Predestination.

[smaller]

Though every scripture is true if one takes the other 20 or so that APPEAR to oppose or contradict these and fails to see how this coin has two aspects or sides, then one is stuck picking one side OR the other and such is the war and division of the body started 500 years ago by this man.

There have been numerous disputes in christiandom, virtually non stop. Calvin saw what he saw no differently than Martin Luther saw when he read "the just shall live by faith" and challenged the status quo works salvation camps. These are not new things.

Freewill and works camps don't handle the predestination/Divine Sovereignty scriptures very well, imho.

One of the main errors (and accusations) of the Calvinist is that Orthodoxy and Arminianism teach that men can choose salvation or not and that is a terribly deceptive misunderstanding. Unlike Pelegius who taught this heresy, Arminius taught and knew that ONLY GOD decides who is saved and who is not.

In the here and now, yes. A remnant. That doesn't mean God in Christ just completely abandons anyone. Just as God did not abandon unsaved Israel from Romans 11 and that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all men. Calvin's posture is that the Gospel really isn't for all mankind, but has to be preached to all mankind to 'reach' the elect. I don't find much support for that angle myself. But I do agree that only God in Christ can draw any person to Christ, in the final analysis.

None of us are dealing for forensic or empirical subject matter in these engagements in any case, as to who is saved and who isn't i.e. exactly none of it can be "proven" by those methods. As far as I can tell faith is something that is taken up on a purely individual and purely subjective basis. I could care less what some "sects" authority might present in these matters myself, particularly if they are adverse to me because I ain't in their religious club.

Even if a person appears to exhibit faith all men have sinned and God OWES no man anything. What Arminius was saying is that upon God's initiation (prevenient grace) then man must choose to submit to His Lordship or reject His offer and remian lord of his own life. He was saying God does not CREATE men condemned (we achieve that without His help). Let me give you the Bible's very first example:

I've already pointed out the rather extreme logic that people employ in any of these postures because they are all missing a massive component to these issues. And that is that there is another party that is not mankind, involved with mankind, even in their minds and hearts, that blinds peoples minds to the Gospel. That would be Satan (or his own), the god of this world, as shown quite openly in Mark 4:15, (and all the other seed parables), Acts 26:18, Romans 11:8, 2 Cor. 4:4, 1 John 3:8 etc. etc. I've written on this subject extensively here and yet few are even able to perceive that their basis of understanding is void OF FACTS if there is no accurate accounting of the parties to the drama and they are instead entirely mancentric.

So I just say...where is there accurate accounting? There is none to be had in either Calvin's or Arminius formulas on this particular count and that is a rather HUGE error in their sights.

In the story of Cain, his sacrifice was insufficient (no shed blood from fruits and vegies)...Cain gets mad at Abel (like a Jerry Springer guest)...then BY GRACE God audibly speaks to Cain and tells him "If you go and do it right will it also not go well with thee?"

In that account sin IS presented as a PREDATOR. An ADVERSARY to mankind. And that is exactly true. Sin is also demonic or "of the devil" our adversary, if you please. So, yeah, again there is more going on here than just "Cain" the individual. I've shown this dynamic many times. Where the Word of God is sown, Satan is COMPELLED to resist Gods Word and does so in the hearts of MAN.

This means there are TWO parties involved in this gig. Man and devil. Jesus couldn't have made His Position on these matters any clearer in the Gospels. But few get the "math" on it. We have to be able to count to TWO when we read the scriptures as scripture speaks in STEREO.

At the same time He warns Cain (BY GRACE from love) that if he does not then sin awaits....

Notice that Cain (after Adam) is NOT automatically a condemned man without capability or hope! God BY GRACE has offered him the solution and warned him of the consequence of standing in his pride and self-will.

Now Cain was quite able of "go and do it right" and had he done so it WOULD HAVE gone well with him as well as Abel, OR ELSE God who CANNOT lie would not have offered him the reward (God is not a man that He should lie). Now God, foreknowing (not causing) exactly the choice Cain was going to make...still gave him the opportunity...therefore when Cain chooses to disregard God's word and do what was right in his own eyes as if he was his own lord, he was TRULY without excuse.

And the above account is what I might consider the typical void presentation of what is really going on. There was no such person as just Cain, ALONE, in the eyes of scriptures. And this is also the case with all of us. Our sin, yes OURS is in fact of the devil just as Cain's was. So, who's got reality on these subject matters when they are blind of having a full accounting of the parties? I say good luck with all of that blindness 'cause it ain't goin far.

Now I must admit I have never read the works of Jacob Arminius but cut my Christian teeth being convinced of Calvinism and learning all the arguments to defend that position and then one day after a long discussion with a man that was Antiochian Orthodox I took the man at his challenge. It was this:

Prayerfully simply read from Genesis to Revelation and forget ignoring the opposing scriptures or re-interpreting them by your doctrine and just read ALL God says on this issue and accept ALL OF IT for simply what He says not what your teachers have told you it means...and then just trust the Holy Spirit to bring you to the truth.

I'd like the say the Holy Spirit has brought me the OPENLY OBVIOUS. It's even more pronounced when few can see it or perceive the simplicity of it when it's plastered all over the scriptures to see.

I did that and after a month or so of fighting Him I threw in the towel and ran from Calvinism as fast as I could.

Just to clarify, I would consider myself even more determinist than Mr. Calvin.

 

[Jim Parker]

re you implying by this statement of yours,
"even the T of Tulip (if taken as absolute incapability) is on error both with scripture and with what the Apostles taught the next generations of leadership." That there is a way that a person can be saved by himself apart from God's plan of Salvation?

Your question assumes that "total depravity" is an essential part to God's plan of salvation.
It is not. Total depravity is a departure from the consensus of the church's historic teaching, not a core essential.
Total depravity is a denial of man's free will in that it includes the notion that man is incapable of doing anything but evil.
That's not what the church has taught based on the same scriptures that Calvin used.

Justin Martyr wrote: For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; ANF Vol. I, p. 165).

Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith: Now all such expression demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; ANF Vol. I p. 520).

Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; NPNF Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24).

Gregory of Nyssa, in his catechetical lectures, taught: For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, MPG 47, 77A; in Gabriel 2000:27).

John of Damascus, an eighth century Church Father famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early Church. John of Damascus explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (NPNF Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60).

Saint John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, wrote: Of the rational beings created by Him and honored with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).


ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers.
MPG = Migne’s Patrologia Graecae
NPNF = Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

 

[smaller]

smaller, where are you coming up with a belief like this? You said, "IF God had/has totally depraved children, IS that a reflection of their Father?

Follow the reason trail Chopper. I cited Deut. 14:1 and Psalm 82:6, that shows/tells us that Israel are Gods children. Jesus affirms this in the Gospels in Matt. 23:9. I also cited "how" Gods sees Israel in:

Numbers 23:21
He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.

Total depravity is off the table unless and until we bring the ADVERSARY into the picture. THEN we can see total depravity in it's TRUEST scriptural sense, personified by THAT bad actor. To make total depravity spin around only on man is just the blindness of Calvin's own sights in failing to that that fact into account. And he couldn't take it into account because he himself was in fact blinded to it.

Divinely blinded I might add. That's what happens when Gods Word comes to any person. Mark 4:15.

 

[Runner]

Now I must admit I have never read the works of Jacob Arminius but cut my Christian teeth being convinced of Calvinism and learning all the arguments to defend that position and then one day after a long discussion with a man that was Antiochian Orthodox I took the man at his challenge. It was this:

Prayerfully simply read from Genesis to Revelation and forget ignoring the opposing scriptures or re-interpreting them by your doctrine and just read ALL God says on this issue and accept ALL OF IT for simply what He says not what your teachers have told you it means...and then just trust the Holy Spirit to bring you to the truth.

I think this is a critical point for many divisive doctrines. The problem, as your post suggests, is that insisting upon a theology that harmonizes every word in the Bible inevitably forces one into pounding round pegs into square holes and having a lot of pieces left over. What you end up with, in my experience, is either a mere illusion of harmony or a theology that looks like it was designed by Rube Goldberg (look him up if you don't know who he was, because he was a hoot).

I happened to listen this morning to The Christian Worldview. The guest, a well-known author, was expounding on predestination and specifically Romans 8:29. He took the Calvinist position, and there is no denying that verses like Romans 8:29 support this. But the more he spoke, the less plausible it sounded for the reason you are suggesting. When one views the Bible as a whole, the large themes and the overall message, does the Calvinist view really seem to "fit"?

One's view of predestination seems huge to me. If everyone does not have a full and fair opportunity at salvation, the Creator is a very different being than if everyone does have a full and fair opportunity. One who holds the Calvinist view does not merely "believe in predestination" - he or she has a radically different view of God and of the world than does someone who believes everyone has a full and fair opportunity at salvation. As I read the Bible as a whole, the notion that the entire plan from before the foundation of the world was for only the predestined "elect" to have the opportunity for salvation just doesn't seem to fit; it certainly doesn't seem consistent with the character of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels.

Saying that you are "trusting the Holy Spirit to bring you to the truth" leaves you open to the charge that you are picking and choosing what to believe, reinventing Christianity to suit yourself, etc., etc. But even those who claim to be the most strict of literalists and inerrantists must pick and choose (or creatively "explain away") in order to arrive at a coherent theology. Along the lines of what you are suggesting, I don't see my own beliefs as "picking and choosing" or "reinventing" any more than do the most strict of literalists and inerrantists; I see them as flowing from reading the Bible as a whole, focusing on the broad themes and overall message, as opposed to getting so lost in the trees I can no longer see the forest. To allow Romans 8:29 and a handful of even more ambiguous verses determine my entire view of God and mankind is just not something I'm willing to do.

A book on Eastern Orthodox theology that I happen to be reading at the moment states, "But for Eastern Orthodoxy it is in prayer and worship of God that our faith is defined and refined. ... The centrality of prayer and worship prevents us from narrowing down our faith to some human construction, however magnificent." I see Calvinism as one of numerous "magnificent human constructions" that we should respect but not allow to define our faith.

 

[Deborah13]

And do not forget to complete Paul's though by going to verses 13 and 14 of Ephesians 1 where he concludes this discussion. Taken alone these early verses can be misconstrued.

I don't know that I can explain these verses very well. Please feel free to critique.
Eph 1:11 in whom also we did obtain an inheritance, being foreordained according to the purpose of Him who the all things is working according to the counsel of His will,
Gal 3:18 for if by law be the inheritance, it is no more by promise, but to Abraham through promise did God grant it .
Eph 1:13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth--the good news of your salvation--in whom also having believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, [Romans 4:11, Gal. 3:14]
We hear the Gospel, we believe by faith, then we are sealed with the Holy Spirit. We believe by faith just as Abraham did. God granted, through His grace and mercy, that it should be this way, it was His plan from the beginning.
Eph 1:14 which is an earnest [pledge] of our inheritance, to the redemption [deliverance] of the acquired possession, to the praise of His glory. [Romans 8:15-17, 1Peter 2:9]
By God giving us the Holy Spirit we can look forward to our resurrection and life in eternity with God. We were bought by the blood of His Son, the Christ, sealed/stamped/marked, as one of His.
Gal 4:6 and because ye are sons, God did send forth the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, `Abba, Father!'

 

[Cygnus]

One's view of predestination seems huge to me. If everyone does not have a full and fair opportunity at salvation, the Creator is a very different being than if everyone does have a full and fair opportunity.
.

Where does the bible say God has to save anyone.....or gives everyone a full and fair opportunity to become saved?

 

[Runner]

Where does the bible say God has to save anyone.....or gives everyone a full and fair opportunity to become saved?

Did I suggest somewhere that the Bible says God has to save anyone? Regarding a "full and fair opportunity," certainly a plausible Scriptural argument for universal salvation, which goes considerably beyond a "full and fair opportunity," can be made. See https://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univ3.html. I'm not promoting universalism, merely making the point that a Scriptural case for the entire spectrum of beliefs can be made.

What I said was, a Creator who predestines an elect subset of humanity for salvation is very different from a Creator who affords all of humanity a full and fair opportunity for salvation. One who accepts predestination views the Creator and humanity very differently from one who does not.

One of the standard justifications for predestination, of course, is that we all deserve damnation and thus should be thankful that God saves anyone. God is a transcendent being whose ways are not our ways, but when a doctrine doesn't hang together logically, is inconsistent with the character of Jesus as revealed in the Bible and is, frankly, intuitively repulsive, I would need to see a Biblical argument far more convincing than Calvinists can make before I'd accept it.

 

[turnorburn]

Who are the Elect?

I Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 

[Malachi]

Who are the Elect?

The term elect is used in various ways in Scripture. But "the elect" are the chosen of God, and if all would repent and believe, all would become the elect -- chosen to become just like Christ for eternity. Perfected and glorified.

Elected for what is the critical issue. If some are elected for salvation, that automatically nullifies the finished work of Christ for all humanity, and also God's offer of eternal life to all humanity. It also means that others are elected to Hell.

However, if election applies to those who have believed and must be ultimately transformed (body, soul, and spirit) then what God is saying is that "I have chosen you not to just escape Hell, but to resemble Christ perfectly -- to be children of light who literally radiate light, and are free from sin and imperfection." Thus Christ will be "glorified in His saints" (2 Thess 1:10).

 

[Malachi]

Total depravity is a denial of man's free will in that it includes the notion that man is incapable of doing anything but evil.

Very true Jim. Total depravity is a denial of Bible truth, and if one begins with false premises, it leads to false conclusion.

The Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity fails to take into account two very powerful truths: (1) the POWER of the Gospel unto salvation and (2) the POWER to the Holy Spirit when the Gospel is preached to bring conviction upon sinners, and to convince them that the Gospel is indeed true and they are indeed sinners on their way to Hell.

 

[turnorburn]

I've always believed this verse explains Gods Elect..

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Here's another passage in..

Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

 

[Chopper]

I read Ephesisns like this....
Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us [the seed of Abraham] in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us [the seed of Abraham] unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

Gal_3:16 and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, `And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, `And to thy seed,' which is Christ;
Gal_3:29 and if ye are of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise--heirs.

I have always considered Abraham being the first of the Elect. So I agree to your statement, "[the seed of Abraham]" Thank you for the reminder.

 

[Chopper]

(Are you saying) That there is a way that a person can be saved by himself apart from God's plan of Salvation?

Not at all! I believe I made that clear when I pointed out the the error/judgment/accusation of Calvinists against Arminians in this post.

"One of the main errors (and accusations) of the Calvinist is that Orthodoxy and Arminianism teach that men can choose salvation or not and that is a terribly deceptive misunderstanding. Unlike Pelegius who taught this heresy, Arminius taught and knew that ONLY GOD decides who is saved and who is not. Even if a person appears to exhibit faith all men have sinned and God OWES no man anything. What Arminius was saying is that upon God's initiation (prevenient grace) then man must choose to submit to His Lordship or reject His offer and remain lord of his own life."

God's plan of salvation IS that we must accept or receive Christ. I am saying that after God initiates via the word of the Spirit that salvation is available to us He requires our initial cooperation of intent. I gave Cain as the first example from Scripture. Even though Cain had offered and inadequate sacrifice God's love was greater then his self-willed attempt and God by grace (because He owes no man anything) in His love even for Cain, initiates the opportunity for Cain to do it right. He explains what He requires and the consequence of not complying. Cain chooses his way over Yah's way and thus the Consequence.

The same scenario is found over and over throughout the Bible. Take John 1 for another example (I could use the example of Abraham, a case in Matthew, Paul in Ephesians 1, Revelations, etc., to show other examples)...In John 1 the Holy Spirit, by grace, reveals Jesus Christ to be none other than the Word of God (the Memra of YHVH as the Jews understood Him, or YHVH manifest, incarnate in the man Messiah Jesus)...He describes this one (the very brightness of His glory, the visible image of the invisible God)...He explains how He dwells among us (as promised in Zechariah 2 and other places)...to dwell here (skeenoo...to pitch tent) means that God Himself is tabernacling among men...The Holy Spirit though John tells us of God's plan/intent in verse 12....it says

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

So a plenary reading of the text shows us that after this revelation of Jesus as the Christ "as many as received Him" are given the right or power (the same word means either in Hebrew/Aramaic which is how they think), "to them He gave"

So the initiation precedes the opportunity (for why would one need a physician if they did not know they were sick) and then receiving precedes the giving....TO BECOME! Obviously before this they were not something that now they are....what is that? The children (or sons) of God.

He then goes on and tells us this being born from above (made a new creature after the last Adam, Christ) is neither a matter of Genealogy (blood), not as result of sexual intercourse (the will of the flesh), nor of the will of man (our choice to BE a child of God like some practice today...just say a prayer), but of God (through "re"-generation or the New Birth)

So this IS God's plan...notice clearly what it does not say:

It DOES NOT say that those born of God (His children/sons already) are those who will receive Him....

He initiates, we respond (He sees the heart not the outer behavior), then He saves or does not save....

Now people can call this a form of semi-Pelegianism if they wish (theologically being influenced by Calvin) but there is no such thing...even as Augustine himself pointed out one in error extreme makes it so much free will God's grace has nothing to do with it (Pelegianism) and the other in error extreme makes it so much God's grace man has no responsibility (God made me do it...whatever that may be...pure Calvinism)

So I qualified what I meant regarding the T....I said it is in error if it is taken to mean "absolute incapablity"....that simply is NOT Biblical OR what the Apostles went on to teach (which IMO provides a great witness)...and was never the teaching of any in the church until after Augustine's position against Pelegius was misunderstood by some....

Hope that helped and feel free to question or disagree my dear brother....

In His love

Paul

Thank you for your explanation. You had me worried there for a minute.

 

[Jim Parker]

Where does the bible say God has to save anyone.....or gives everyone a full and fair opportunity to become saved?

Two Good questions.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has to save anyone.
It says that He saves because of His love for the world.
And it says that whoever believes has eternal life.
John 3:16 (RSV) For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Jesus also said: John 7:37b-39 "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, 'Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'" Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

 

[Malachi]

Where does the bible say God has to save anyone.....or gives everyone a full and fair opportunity to become saved?

Not "has to" but "wants to". There are plenty of verses to support that starting with John 3:16. As to opportunity, God gives not one but several opportunities to all sinners. Sometimes those opportunities appear as natural disasters of vast proportions.

 

[Jim Parker]

Where does the bible say God has to save anyone.

Of course the Bible says nothing of the sort. God doesn't have to do anything.

or gives everyone a full and fair opportunity to become saved?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
"The world" meaneth "everybody" and "whosoever" meaneth "anybody."

iakov the fool 2

 

[Tony Hyman]

I believe that if we are "in Christ " Eph I:4 then all those in Christ are elected or predestined by default .Here is an opinion on the difference between Calvin and Barth "According to Barth , the Lutheran and the Reformed doctrines of election have weakened the connection between Christ and election .In that doctrine Christ is seen only as the executor of election, not as its foundation...In a certain sense, the debate centers around the exegesis of Eph 1:4. Barth judges that there can be certainty only when this verse is understood to mean that Christ is not only the executor but also the foundation of election, because the decision of election is taken in Him and thereby all men have been elected in Him.
Only then is certainty possible, only then can there be a knowing unmarred by threat.In the revelation of Christ the fact of election of all men has been revealed."(Berkouwer,The Theology of Karl Barth 286.)Bob Utley in turn simply puts it as "The goal of predestination is holiness and not privilege."in his commentary of Eph.1,4 (Utley,ibiblio.ca).This is in line with John 3,16 as long as all believers are "in Christ".

 

[Malachi]

"The goal of predestination is holiness and not privilege

That what I have been saying all along, except holiness leads to perfection, and ultimately it is Christ who perfects His saints.

 

[Jim Parker]

all those in Christ are elected or predestined

Predestined to what?
Chapter and verses please.

 

[Malachi]

Predestined to what?
Chapter and verses please.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29).