Predestination and Calvinism

[JLB]

Wasn't He talking to His disciples rather than mankind in general?

Yes, He was talking to His disciples that He chose to be His Apostles, who would pass on to the next generation the things that He taught them.



JLB

 

[childeye]

Why do you think Calvinism and predestination verse freewill and a persons ability to choose has caused such problems?

There are probably many different answers to this question. The main difference I see, is that on one side of the issue, one is led to conclude that if people don't have a moral/immoral freewill, then mankind would not be responsible for their unrighteousness. While on the other side, one is led to conclude that if people do have a moral/immoral freewill, then mankind would be responsible for their righteousness.

Hence the real problem is that the term "freewill" is an equivocation when applied to the moral/immoral purviews, since it confounds all reasoning by being relative to two opposite absolutes of Light and Dark. That's why anyone who reasons upon it, must end in a contradiction of reasoning, claiming both man's independence from God at the same time as claiming man's dependence upon God. And this is made apparent by the inferences presented in our words, so that they can change from both yeah to nay at any given time so as to reconcile the problem. Matthew 5:37.

Take the term 'hope' for example. There are those who would believe that God wants us to learn to do good, and act righteously towards one another, and they have 'hope' that we can do this, and fix all the wrongs. To them, it is a negative and ungodly attitude that would give in to such a 'despair' so as to not believe that we can make the world a better place if we all would simply choose to do so. But to a person who believes that God is teaching us that we are doomed to failure and death because we must first come to realize that we need Him, so as to give up on ourselves and turn to Him with all our hearts, then such a 'hope' is folly, since it goes against God, based on miscomprehension of His Eternal power and His purpose. To these people, they would 'hope' against such a 'hope'.

All moral/immoral binary terms reverse in meaning according to which theology one holds to be true. Unless this can be grasped, then one side cannot adequately communicate with the other side, since all descriptive words mean the opposite to the other side according to their respective perspectives, and yet this goes unrealized.

 

[JLB]

While on the other side, one is led to conclude that if people do have a moral/immoral freewill, then mankind would be responsible for their righteousness.

Mankind is responsible to choose what is right, as opposed to choosing what is evil.

Mankind has always had a choice.

It's the choice of life or death.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17


Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:16


The final result of our choice(s):

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23



JLB

 

[childeye]

Mankind is responsible to choose what is right, as opposed to choosing what is evil.

My post was about the necessity of addressing the semantic confusion over this issue. Otherwise we end up speaking past one another.

Respectfully, one cannot choose what is right when they see it as evil, nor can they choose life, when they see it as death. Hence we must acknowledge that blindness to the Truth, and knowledge of the Truth, as the sources of our ability or disability to choose correctly. See the prodigal son. Also See Saul/Paul, first willing to kill all those who preach the Gospel, and then being transformed to a servant of the Gospel, willing to die to preach it.

 

[Cygnus]

Those that listen (Faith comes by hearing and Hearing by the word) and realize they need a Savior will seek God's remedy (and they do so in all kinds of forms and religions and philosophies) but those who are sincere (God looks at the heart, the motive) the Father will reveal the Son (the Christ).

Let me zero in and ask about this portion of your post. It still hints at making a decision based upon some sort of decision filter.
Why do some realize while other not? Why would one be sincere while the other not? You seem to make salvation dependent on how sincere a person is.

 

[Cygnus]

Whatever experience we have, that's what God will judge us on. God is a just God and He'll decide our fate in a just manner that we can trust.

I went to church as a child. I heard about God.
At some point you have to decide whether or not you wish to serve Him.
Sometimes it could be a personal encounter; as was my case. Knowing about Him, I prayed to Him.
If a personal encounter never happens, you could still, with your will, decide to follow God.

Seems easy Cygnus. Don't make it complicated.
Romans 10:17-20
Romans 10:17

Wondering

I think I understand your thoughts....You had a personal encounter with Jesus? (making assumption) Your faith meter went off scale and you accepted Jesus. Sounds to me like God called you and brought you on board....

As to you saying this "Whatever experience we have, that's what God will judge us on." Where does the bible teach this? I mean, if it's there I'll accept it.

 

[Cygnus]

Yes. In John 15 Jesus was speaking SPECIFICALLY to the apostles, as evidenced by John 15:27, which I have already posted explaining that the Apostles had been with Jesus for over 3 years, and we were not with Him during His earthly ministry.

Jesus meant for the Apostles to do a very specific work. I know that you know that Apostle means "sent" - they were sent to set up the church, to preach the gospel (the good news), to baptize and make "all nations" know of the work of the Christ.

EVERYTHING Jesus said could also pertain to everyone- but not all things. For instance, we COULD be called to witness and share the word of God. The Apostles were COMMANDED to do this.

Wondering

As you said in your previous post..."Don't make it complicated."

 

[Cygnus]

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3-6

He chose us in Him...that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.

He chose those who chose Christ, which being in His foreknowledge before the foundation of the world.


JLB

JLB, you said above..."He chose those who chose Christ, which being in His foreknowledge before the foundation of the world."

Can you hilight the portion of the verse that says "those who chose Christ". I'm having a proble seeing it.

 

[JLB]

JLB, you said above..."He chose those who chose Christ, which being in His foreknowledge before the foundation of the world."

Can you hilight the portion of the verse that says "those who chose Christ". I'm having a proble seeing it.

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

Those who choose to believe, are in Him.

The way we become "in Him" is to believe.

It's whosoever believes... That have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16



JLB

 

[K2CHRIST]

There are probably many different answers to this question. The main difference I see, is that on one side of the issue, one is led to conclude that if people don't have a moral/immoral freewill, then mankind would not be responsible for their unrighteousness. While on the other side, one is led to conclude that if people do have a moral/immoral freewill, then mankind would be responsible for their righteousness.

Hence the real problem is that the term "freewill" is an equivocation when applied to the moral/immoral purviews, since it confounds all reasoning by being relative to two opposite absolutes of Light and Dark. That's why anyone who reasons upon it, must end in a contradiction of reasoning, claiming both man's independence from God at the same time as claiming man's dependence upon God. And this is made apparent by the inferences presented in our words, so that they can change from both yeah to nay at any given time so as to reconcile the problem. Matthew 5:37.

Take the term 'hope' for example. There are those who would believe that God wants us to learn to do good, and act righteously towards one another, and they have 'hope' that we can do this, and fix all the wrongs. To them, it is a negative and ungodly attitude that would give in to such a 'despair' so as to not believe that we can make the world a better place if we all would simply choose to do so. But to a person who believes that God is teaching us that we are doomed to failure and death because we must first come to realize that we need Him, so as to give up on ourselves and turn to Him with all our hearts, then such a 'hope' is folly, since it goes against God, based on miscomprehension of His Eternal power and His purpose. To these people, they would 'hope' against such a 'hope'.

All moral/immoral binary terms reverse in meaning according to which theology one holds to be true. Unless this can be grasped, then one side cannot adequately communicate with the other side, since all descriptive words mean the opposite to the other side according to their respective perspectives, and yet this goes unrealized.

I really love reading what your posst, childeye. I especially liked your opening paragraph. It does seem that predestination and free will seem to shift the blame resulting in a question of whether God or man is to blame for man's sin. That does seem to cause the arguments, but to me that just means we need to understand that we are sinners, period. The blame is ours, so we needed God to take the blame away.

Other parts I find interesting, but don't reach the same conclusion.

For example, I don't believe just because God wants me to do good and act righteously towards others, that I have the hope that I can do that perfectly. I personally do believe He does want me to act good, but I also see that I can't do that perfectly. So my hope is not based upon being perfect but that with God's help I can be better (through learning from God), and that with God's grace and forgiveness and can be counted as being perfect even though I can't be perfect.

That hope of learning from God and knowing I have forgiveness of my mistakes enables me to feel free while trying to do good, because I don't ever feel condemned by God. So my God given freewill along with my fear of a righteous God causes me to want to do good while understanding that I am not always going to. Thus while I understand that God did know how I was going to be and He made me, it does not change the fact that I need to choose to seek Him. Knowing how great God is (He planned all things) gives me a fear of Him, and that fear causes me to seek Him for advice.

John Calvin wrote, " We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ"

So his conclusion was to seek Christ, and doesn't seeking mean a use of our will to look to Him?

Calvin wrote, "If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth... If wee seek redemption, it lies in his passion, if acquittal, in his condemnation, if remission of the curse, in his cross."

So as I see it, Calvin was clearly saying that we need to seek Jesus Christ, which implies an ability to choose to seek Him. And that doesn't bring despair but strength, dominion, purity, gentleness, and acquittal of our mistakes. And we know that Calvin was a firm believer in predestination. So I don't have a problem with Calvin, but sometimes with Calvinist who think that telling people to seek God contradicts predestination.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think I understand your thoughts....You had a personal encounter with Jesus? (making assumption) Your faith meter went off scale and you accepted Jesus. Sounds to me like God called you and brought you on board....

As to you saying this "Whatever experience we have, that's what God will judge us on." Where does the bible teach this? I mean, if it's there I'll accept it.

Why are you asking if I had a personal encounter with Jesus? I already answered this.

God didn't only call me in any special way Cygnus. He's calling EVERYBODY.

John 3:16 FOR WHOSOEVER BELEIVETH

Romans 1:16 TO EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES

John 1:12 AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM

Romans 1:16 EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES

Titus 2:11-14 SALVATION TO ALL MEN

Regarding the "experience" comment. You brought up the experience idea - I just answered you.
Do you think God will judge us based on someone else's experience??
I mean, if my neighbor down the block doesn't believe, will God judge me on her non-belief??

Wondering

 

[childeye]

I really love reading what your posst, childeye. I especially liked your opening paragraph. It does seem that predestination and free will seem to shift the blame resulting in a question of whether God or man is to blame for man's sin. That does seem to cause the arguments, but to me that just means we need to understand that we are sinners, period. The blame is ours, so we needed God to take the blame away.

I think that what is being missed, is that blame either way is the work of Satan who plays both ends against the middle creating enmity. Hence the Christ, who was sinless, came to destroy the works of Satan by taking our sins upon himself. From my understanding of what freewill means, and what I have read in scripture, Satan believes he has a freewill.

Other parts I find interesting, but don't reach the same conclusion.

For example, I don't believe just because God wants me to do good and act righteously towards others, that I have the hope that I can do that perfectly. I personally do believe He does want me to act good, but I also see that I can't do that perfectly. So my hope is not based upon being perfect but that with God's help I can be better (through learning from God), and that with God's grace and forgiveness and can be counted as being perfect even though I can't be perfect.

As I have already said, anyone reasoning upon freewill will end up in a contradiction of reasoning, where terms change meaning so as to accommodate the contradiction. The term here is 'perfect'. What does it mean when you say it above, and how does it change when you perceive this scripture? Matthew 5:48.

That hope of learning from God and knowing I have forgiveness of my mistakes enables me to feel free while trying to do good, because I don't ever feel condemned by God.

I can't help but point out that the term 'free', as used above, is not what it means in the term 'free' will. The term is changing meaning.

So my God given freewill along with my fear of a righteous God causes me to want to do good while understanding that I am not always going to.

Respectfully, it seems to me that having the spirit of the fear of God factoring into your reasoning, effectively eliminates the existence of a freewill as defined by the dictionary.

Thus while I understand that God did know how I was going to be and He made me, it does not change the fact that I need to choose to seek Him.

Again this is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of 'freewill'. If a person had such a freewill as defined by the dictionary, it could not be a fact that anyone needed to choose to seek Him.

John Calvin wrote, " We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ"

So his conclusion was to seek Christ, and doesn't seeking mean a use of our will to look to Him?

Personally I can't speak for Calvin, but I would point out, that since freewill is an equivocation, it could be concluded through such reasoning that both seeking and not seeking would mean the use of our will, however contrary that appears.

So as I see it, Calvin was clearly saying that we need to seek Jesus Christ, which implies an ability to choose to seek Him.

The way I see it, is If we need to seek Jesus, then we don't have a choice to not seek him. But then, since I don't believe in freewill as defined by the dictionary, I don't equivocate about such things as either or propositions.

It may be helpful to understand my position on this matter by considering that when you say we have a freewill to choose to do either righteousness or unrighteousness, I am seeing a will that has been compromised, so that unrighteousness has become a corruption that otherwise should not be there.

 

[Jim Parker]

17This is My command to you: Love one another.
Was verse 17 for His disciples rather than mankind in general?

Jesus was talking to his disciples but He didn't come just for His disciples; He came to save all of mankind. It is God's desire that no one be lost but that all come to repentance. Therefore, it seems to me to follow that God would also want all mankind to love one another.

iakov the fool

 

[Cygnus]

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

Those who choose to believe, are in Him.

The way we become "in Him" is to believe.

It's whosoever believes... That have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16



JLB

Your doing a good job at showing election.
Not all people are given the gift of faith to believe.

 

[Jim Parker]

Not all people are given the gift of faith to believe.

citation please.

 

[JLB]

Your doing a good job at showing election.
Not all people are given the gift of faith to believe.

Ok.

Please post the scripture that teaches us not all people are given the faith to believe.

My bible says... faith comes by hearing. Romans 10:17

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Everyone who hears the Gospel has faith.

Only those who act in obedience to what they hear, have a living faith that can save them.

Faith without the corresponding act [work] of obedience is dead.

That's why it's called the obedience of faith.

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26



JLB

 

[Cygnus]

Why are you asking if I had a personal encounter with Jesus? I already answered this.

God didn't only call me in any special way Cygnus. He's calling EVERYBODY.

John 3:16 FOR WHOSOEVER BELEIVETH

Romans 1:16 TO EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES

John 1:12 AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM

Romans 1:16 EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES

Titus 2:11-14 SALVATION TO ALL MEN

Regarding the "experience" comment. You brought up the experience idea - I just answered you.
Do you think God will judge us based on someone else's experience??
I mean, if my neighbor down the block doesn't believe, will God judge me on her non-belief??

Wondering

One lesson you gotta learn....many of the words used in the bible have several nuances. The text usually shows just what nuance of the word we should use.

In John alone the word "WORLD" has ten nuaces.
So, to quote bible verses implying the wrong nuance is bad hermeneutics.

Secondly, I'm still trying to understand why one person would be a whosoever and another not. That was from your John 3 16 quote. John 3;16 mentions the world. Which nuance was John using? As an example when John Lennon sang....I'm just sitting here watching the world go by...What was the "world" he was singing about? Was it the same world mentioned in John 3:16?

 

[JLB]

One lesson you gotta learn....many of the words used in the bible have several nuances. The text usually shows just what nuance of the word we should use.

In John alone the word "WORLD" has ten nuaces.
So, to quote bible verses implying the wrong nuance is bad hermeneutics.

Secondly, I'm still trying to understand why one person would be a whosoever and another not. That was from your John 3 16 quote. John 3;16 mentions the world. Which nuance was John using? As an example when John Lennon sang....I'm just sitting here watching the world go by...What was the "world" he was singing about? Was it the same world mentioned in John 3:16?

The context is clear.

World = Not those of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Cygnus]

Jesus was talking to his disciples but He didn't come just for His disciples; He came to save all of mankind. It is God's desire that no one be lost but that all come to repentance. Therefore, it seems to me to follow that God would also want all mankind to love one another.

iakov the fool

As I just showed Wondering...biblical words have several nuances. Can you justify "all" as meaning every single human that has ever lived, is living or will live? Did you choose that particular nuance because you think it fits your particular nuance? The Universalist often take the word "all" out of context trying to make it say everyone is saved. Are you a Universalist?

 

[Cygnus]

Jesus was talking to his disciples but He didn't come just for His disciples; He came to save all of mankind. It is God's desire that no one be lost but that all come to repentance. Therefore, it seems to me to follow that God would also want all mankind to love one another.

iakov the fool

As I just showed Wondering...biblical words have several nuances. Can you justify "all" as meaning every single human that has ever lived, is living or will live? Did you choose that particular nuance because you think it fits your particular nuance? The Universalist often take the word "all" out of context trying to make it say everyone is saved. Are you a Universalist?