What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. 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!

Predestination and Calvinism

ivdavid said:
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.
Click to expand...

I provide brief details of my understanding of single predestination to salvation at #541.
 
OzSpen said:
Yes, it is a horrifying thought. However, I see a different picture in Scripture:
We know these details from Scripture:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Deborah13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
OzSpen said:
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
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Deborah13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

And neither do I.

Oz
 
wondering said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Jim Parker said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
OzSpen said:
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
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, it seems to be a fundamentalist Muslim belief as well: " insha'Allah" means "Allah wills it" and it applies to everything.
Hmmmmm.................
jim
 
Ozpen

Jesus' death appeased the wrath of God (propitiation) for all people,
Click to expand...

Can't mean all people without exception since some people are under Gods Wrath Jn 3:36
 
Jim Parker said:
Perhaps it was not the wrath of God that needed to be appeased.
Did Jesus die for our sins to save us from God?
Click to expand...
You're evading the comment. How is Gods Wrath appeased for them that are under His Wrath?
 
beloved57 said:
You're evading the comment. How is Gods Wrath appeased for them that are under His Wrath?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
beloved57 said:
Ozpen

Can't mean all people without exception since some people are under Gods Wrath Jn 3:36
Click to expand...

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
 
Jim Parker said:
Coincidentally, it seems to be a fundamentalist Muslim belief as well: " insha'Allah" means "Allah wills it" and it applies to everything.
Hmmmmm.................
jim
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm indeed! :hug

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

Oz
 
Jim Parker said:
Perhaps they had similar sources of inspiration.........
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top