Predestination and Calvinism

[Jim Parker]

If Jesus gave himself as a ransom for "all"....then no person will go to hell.

Jesus ransomed the human race from DEATH (the grave), not from hell.
Anyone who wants to go to hell is totally free to do so but NO ONE will remain in the grave after the resurrection.

But as we know some people will go to hell....so Jesus wasn't a ransom for all.

Going to hell is the result of an individual's personal, free will, choice to reject God's gift of eternal life in Christ.
Jesus was and is and will always be a ransom for all.
Anyone who desires eternal life need just believe in Him. (And act like they believe)

Jesus said at John 5:28-29 (NKJV)…
the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—
those who have done good, to the resurrection of life,
and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

And Paul said at Ro 6:2-10 (NKJV) (God) 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, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;
but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

You are using the wrong nuance of the word all.

Translation: I don't use John Calvin's heretical "nuance" for the word "all."
Neither did Paul.


Iakov the fool

 

[Cygnus]

Jim, you like so many others who find fault with Calvin's theology, fail to make a difference from the Elect, those chosen by God before the world came about and those who come thru the General Call of the Gospel by Evangelists. They are the ones who can make a choice to accept God's grace and be saved, or not.

Are you saying some people are predestined and will come to Jesus...while some hear the salvation message...good news...and although not predestined become saves?

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim, you like so many others who find fault with Calvin's theology, fail to make a difference from the Elect, those chosen by God before the world came about and those who come thru the General Call of the Gospel by Evangelists. They are the ones who can make a choice to accept God's grace and be saved, or not.

You are correct. I don't think there's a difference.
I believe that:
God wishes all to be saved. Jhn 3:16; 2Pe 3:9; 1 Tim 2:3-4
God draws all men unto him. Jhn 12:32
But, "whosoever" believes is saved and "whosoever" does not remains under condemnation.

Iakov the fool

 

[Cygnus]

Translation: I don't use John Calvin's heretical "nuance" for the word "all."
Neither did Paul.


Iakov the fool

Yes, I know. You use the Arminianism heretical "nuisance" fo the world all.

 

[Cygnus]

You are correct. I don't think there's a difference.
I believe that:
God wishes all to be saved. Jhn 3:16; 2Pe 3:9; 1 Tim 2:3-4
God draws all men unto him. Jhn 12:32
But, "whosoever" believes is saved and "whosoever" does not remains under condemnation.

Iakov the fool

Your theology fails when on sees what the decision is based upon.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes, I know. You use the Arminianism heretical "nuisance" fo the world all.

HAH! The canned response to a Calvinist who can't refute the obvious:"You're ArMINian!"
If Arminius thought that the word "all" mean "all" and not "some," then I agree with him on that one point.
Thanks for the chuckle.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Your theology fails when on sees what the decision is based upon.

You just said nothing again.
Please explain what you mean.

 

[Cygnus]

You just said nothing again.
Please explain what you mean.

Can you show me a single verse that says we choose Jesus? Just one?

 

[childeye]

I don't value either one over the other. God gave us both.
It is just that people are foolish to base their decisions on emotions yet, that is what is promoted. How often have you heard someone ask, "What do you feel we should do about _____?" That is directing people to their emotions to choose a plan of action. That's what car salesmen do.
The question should be, "What do you THINK we should do about _____?" That directs you to your reasoning capacity. (Assuming that the "you" in question actually has such a capacity since our school systems tend to punish people who actually dare to think.)
How much more aught we use our intelligence to determine the course of action most pleasing to God rather than consulting the lusts of the flesh?
Emotions arise from the flesh.
Reason rises from the intellect.
Which one do you think God wants us to base our lives on?

iakov the fool

I don't construe feelings that are carnal based with feelings that are spiritually based, nor do I construe reasoning that is carnal based with reasoning that is spiritually based. There is a distinction to be made in both.

Reasoning is simply a mechanism that weighs and measures back and forth in a pro and con exercise of mental deliberation. The efficacy is dependent upon valid information or knowledge of Truth. The pros and cons are actually predetermined by what the mind perceives as success and failure, or good and bad. The view of what is good or bad in servitude to the flesh is based on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. The view of what is good and bad in servitude to the spirit involves putting one's self in someone else's shoes. Hence the Spirit of God is empathy, the spirit that feels or experiences the pleasure and pain of others. The spiritual mind factors in how our actions will affect others, while the carnal mind does not.

As pertains to knowledge, it can get quite complicated as to what is right and wrong behavior. The pleasure of others is not always beneficial for them, and godly wisdom is necessary to determine what is right and wrong. But without empathy none of that matters. If we claim empathy as a product of our own will, then obviously we become vain and unthankful for God's Spirit.

 

[Jim Parker]

Can you show me a single verse that says we choose Jesus? Just one?

Oi veh! (again)
Unfortunately, the scriptures were not written to satisfy every random felt need for a specific verse containing the words like; "choose Jesus."
But the concept is explicitly spelled out for us.
Jos 24:14-15 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
That is the scripture telling us to choose to serve the Lord (and Jesus is the Lord) or to choose something else.

 

[Jim Parker]

Reasoning is simply a mechanism that weighs and measures back and forth in a pro and con exercise of mental deliberation.

Yes.
I'm simply saying that reason should be used when making choices rather then emotions because reason is the proper tool.

 

[childeye]

Yes.
I'm simply saying that reason should be used when making choices rather then emotions because reason is the proper tool.

I see, you're saying don't make impulsive emotional decisions you may regret. Been there, done that.

 

[Chopper]

Are you saying some people are predestined and will come to Jesus...while some hear the salvation message...good news...and although not predestined become saves?

Exactly. You see, Calvin's TULIP is right on except for the "whosoever will". If you look closely at what Calvin proposed, God chose certain people to be saved and all others will be lost. That cannot be true according to the Word of God. Even John 3:16 proves that others can be saved....I added to Calvin the "General Call of the Gospel" whereby the Gospel call goes out over the world and unlike predestination of the Elect who are chosen, many will be saved thru the General Call. They have a choice to either accept Christ or decline the offer of grace.

 

[Chopper]

You are correct. I don't think there's a difference.
I believe that:
God wishes all to be saved. Jhn 3:16; 2Pe 3:9; 1 Tim 2:3-4
God draws all men unto him. Jhn 12:32
But, "whosoever" believes is saved and "whosoever" does not remains under condemnation.

Iakov the fool

Ok, but there is a difference, a BIG difference in my theology. I won't think ill of you if you don't agree with me, I love you just the same. We just have different interpretations, and that's Ok. We'll both be corrected when we get to Glory probably.

 

[WIP]

There is getting to be too much opinion flying around with no Scriptural support. Please review the Forum Guidelines for posting in this, the A&T forum.

 

[Cygnus]

Exactly. You see, Calvin's TULIP is right on except for the "whosoever will". If you look closely at what Calvin proposed, God chose certain people to be saved and all others will be lost. That cannot be true according to the Word of God. Even John 3:16 proves that others can be saved....I added to Calvin the "General Call of the Gospel" whereby the Gospel call goes out over the world and unlike predestination of the Elect who are chosen, many will be saved thru the General Call. They have a choice to either accept Christ or decline the offer of grace.

You had mentioned..."They have a choice to either accept Christ or decline the offer of grace."

The question is, what is that choice based upon? My feeling is that choice is based upon life experience. What you did, who you met, where you grew up....happenstance.

So I ask... what is that choice based upon?

 

[ivdavid]

My objection is to the notion held by various Calvinists who take God's sovereignty to the point that man has no free will at all and all that man does is done because God caused him to do it.

I would object to that too. And I don't think calvinism holds God to have caused all that man does (some who claim to be calvinists might though).

What you and I both are objecting to, is the taking away of human responsibility and accountability - which denying freewill seems to do. But what if I could deny freewill (we'll have to agree upon what we mean by it first), and uphold that the ones saved are by God alone with no cooperation from them, and that God causatively works out good works in His people, and yet hold man alone to be responsible and accountable for his perishing with no blame on God for sin in the world - as a belief system. Do not be quick to state that these premises cannot co-exist - perhaps a discussion on its logical validity would see us make progress. But if these premises are shown to co-exist, would you still have an issue with these doctrines? I uphold these because without compromising, it upholds All glory to God Alone. In a synergistic model, there is Almost all glory to God and infinitesimally small glory due to man too, glory being the manifestation of the attributes of virtue.

If man has no free will then Judas was not guilty of betraying Christ; rather, God is guilty of making Judas a betrayer just as He is guilty of making Adam a sinner and Cain a murderer.

If I say man has no freewill, it does not make it the same as me saying man has no will.
If man had no will to exercise at all, then All his acts had to have been willed by another, the only other cause being God, therein validating your objections - but that is not what I'm saying.
What I am saying is that man does have a will, which he himself does exercise, but which is not free because it is corrupted and bound by sin in the flesh.
And given that man in the flesh is accountable and responsible for all his acts in the flesh - he cannot deny blame for all his sinful acts in the flesh.
And since God is not the cause of sin in the flesh, He is not to be blamed for any of these sinful acts of man.

 

[ivdavid]

It was not whether either child had done anything but that Esau would not produce the line which led to Jesus and, therefore could not be used for God's purpose. Jacob would produce that line, thereby fulfilling God's purpose, and, therefore, he was chosen.

It appears to me that God chose the line which He knew would yield the desired results.

But what is the desired result - it is Christ being born in a human lineage. And how will this desired result be yielded - by God determining/choosing one lineage from among many and continuing through that line, working out this result. Then Why does God have to know which line would yield this result for Him to then choose based on that knowledge - when this desired result itself is yielded only by God's choosing in the first place? What of this requires more elaboration? Why are you evading this question and circling back to simply stating what you've already stated?

Again, you have improperly applied the concept of time (what precedes what) to God.

That's such an unfair evasion. I never alluded to time ever. And why do you suddenly restrictively bind the function of "precedes" into the concept of space-time - "precedes/follows" needn't be just functions of time, they denote an ordering of events which can exist outside of space-time for God. In your earlier quote above, you mention God "knowing" the end result based on which he "therefore chooses" - this is logic, God is logical, Cause preceding Effect and Grounds preceding the Consequent are tenets of logic, which you yourself have applied to God there. It is in this sense that I worded these - what are the grounds and consequent, or what is the cause and effect and which of these tenets is to be applied to God in His electing a lineage? I really am not interested in knowing how this fits into space-time - I cannot wrap my mind around that at all. So could you please respond to my earlier questions in this sense alone - why must God's choosing be a consequent to the grounds of the end-result, when God Himself is the cause of the end-result? I doubt this can be worded any better.

 

[Chopper]

Good morning Cygnus. To answer your question, I'll answer with the two groups or classes of Believers that make up the Family of God. The Scriptures that I'll use are found in John 17, Jesus' high priestly prayer. The first group is the Elect of God predestined by God Himself to be His Remnant....

John 17:6 "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word."....These, I believe, were the Disciples, at this point in time. Look at Ephesians....

Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us 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 unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

Predestination in the New Testament (Covenant) started with the Disciples. Actually, John the Baptist was the last chosen one of God in the Old Testament (Covenant). These two "groups" are either "chosen" by God Himself before the world began and before the person was born like Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) or the choice belongs to the person who hears the Gospel message.

Lets look at what I term as the "General Call of the Gospel" and those who come to Christ as a result of the Gospel preached...
Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

You asked, "So I ask... what is that choice based upon?" The answer is Romans 10:9. A persons "choice" is based upon hearing the Gospel. We both know that the Holy Spirit of God is responsible for drawing a sinner to make a choice upon hearing the Gospel preached to him/her.

Back to John 17....
John 17:20 "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

So, here in Verse 20 we see the "Elect" of God, given to Jesus Christ so that they would learn from Him, and now they are the Evangelists and go out to spread the "Call of the Gospel" and those who believe by their own "choice" will be saved and become a part of the family of God, as it says in Verse 21.

 

[Chopper]

Lets look again at Calvin's TULIP. (actually someone else coined that)

T - Total depravity (no one is capable of saving oneself).
U - Unconditional election (God's choosing of the saved isn't conditioned by anything in them).
L - Limited atonement (Christ's atonement is adaquate to save all people but is efficient for God's elect only).
I - Irresistible grace (the sovereignly given gift of faith cannot be rejected by the elect).
P - Perseverance of the saints (those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith).

Since I'm a student of Calvinism, I will add some information that isn't in the basic TULIP.
U - Unconditional election....isn't conditioned by God looking into the future and seeing who will respond to the Gospel.

L - Limited atonement....Calvin sees no one else saved other than the elect. I ADD, the "General Call of the Gospel" to include those of whom Christ's atonement is adequate for, 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 reason that I have posted TULIP is because some folk have misquoted Calvin.