Bible Study Predestination and Election in the Bible

[th1b.taylor]

I think the second one.
But I'm asking -- I'm not sure of this.
But couldn't it be the first one too?
Destined for BIG things, not like we'd have to worry if it were us or not.

And I agree.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not starting an argument, but what does "God wills" mean? How can the God who speaks something and it springs into existence, wish/desire an event that does not come to pass? Does that not begin to step on the toes of 'omnipotent'?

Like I said, I am not attempting to convince you or start an argument. I just wondered how YOU reconcile that or what you mean by the "will" of God.

Atpollard,
I'm not a Calvinist so for me it's easy to understand this.

God wills, or wants, all men to be saved. Will is equivalent to Want, or desires.

If you check you'll find that almost every bible translates the word as Want or Desire, not Will
1 Timothy 2:4

If "will" meant the mental force of wanting something and causing it to happen through sheer power, then it would stand to reason that ALL men are saved through God's will.

Since we know that belief is necessary for salvation and not every person is saved, then we can know that the correct translation is Want or Desire.

God desires that all men be saved, but not all will be since they must choose to be saved.
1 Timothy 4:10
John 3:17

 

[GodsGrace]

atpollard

Looked up 1 Tim 2:4

Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

New Living Translation
who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.

English Standard Version
who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Berean Study Bible
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Berean Literal Bible
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

New American Standard Bible
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

King James Bible
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

International Standard Version
who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully.

NET Bible
since he wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

New Heart English Bible
who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.

 

[Papa Zoom]

PZ
If God DOES have two wills, it's still only one will...

If HE WILLS to also have Permissive Will, isn't this still under His SOVEREIGN WILL??

His S.W. covers all...
God's sovereignty is found in Job 38:4

I totally agree. 100 percent. (that was redundant of me).

 

[Papa Zoom]

Sorry PZ
I answered the first post of yours before I read this.
Looks like we agree...

lol and I forgot I said this after.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Anyway, there are no new prophecies so my idea wouldn't even count anymore.

Not yet.....
Acts 2
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord comes:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not yet.....
Acts 2
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord comes:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Hi CWB

You're right, of course.
But did you have to remind me??
When I get to eschatological scripture, I zoom right over it, just like Papa would do...
JK
(but not that I know nothing of eschatology)

 

[Papa Zoom]

Hi CWB

You're right, of course.
But did you have to remind me??
When I get to eschatological scripture, I zoom right over it, just like Papa would do...
JK
(but not that I know nothing of eschatology)

Well played! Well played!

 

[Jim Parker]

My only point was that it was whom He "foreknew"... which was a response to this remark you made.
Please consider that before man was created, God foreknew those He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.
That's the only point I was making.
I was not suggesting that they were predestined to salvation.
I'm on the other side of that "belief".
JLB

Ah SO des ka!
I mistook your meaning.

iakov the fool

 

[Nathan]

How come some covenants are unilateral and unconditional unless God made the decision to achieve His purpose no matter what?

It is all apart of His plan I believe. I think the different covenants were different aspects of the totality - ending with the New. As in, they all pointed to the "New Covenant". Each building upon the other.

Adamic - Mankind sinned and God provides forgiveness for that sin. It points to the New covenant by declaring all mankind is confined under sin.

Noahic - God declared He would never completely wipe out mankind again. It was specific to a 'flood', but it represented total annihilation.

Abrahamic - God declares He will raise up a people, a 'nation'. This is representative of all people who receive faith and walk in it. *side note: I have always been enamored with how this covenant was 'ratified'.

Palestinian - God declares that He will give His people a land. A place to 'live' and 'dwell'. This is representative of the new life in Christ.

Mosaic - God gives the "Law". All of it. Everything that encompasses His desire for the people. The 10 Commandments being the 'main' body. This is representative of God giving all believers in Christ His desire, written upon their hearts. *side note: it is good to notice the distinction between the main body, 10 commands, and the rest of the law. The 10 are placed inside the ark, the others are on the side. In Christ we have the 10 written on our hearts, and Christ fulfilled the rest - finishing the work on the cross.

Davidic - God declares that David's 'seed' would rule and reign, and the lineage would last forever. This is representative of Christ Himself.

New Covenant - The forgiveness of sin and the continual forgiveness of sin for all that are in Christ. All in Christ will receive eternal life. We receive this life through faith, the same faith as Abraham. All in Christ will live in the new earth. In that new earth we will live in harmony with God and each other, through the law written on our heart. This will all take place for those in Christ, Who is eternal and His kingdom will never end.

There is a lot more details in all of that, but that's the condensed version. These were real covenants, and they had/have real implications for when they were made, and continue till the end comes. But they were all a foreshadow of things to come. They were all truly "predestined" by God and the end result is not conditional on us because it will all come to pass.

You can break each one down into the form of what God requires of believers vs the ones that He fulfills without our role. That is a very good study to do. Gives insight into the New Covenant and our roles vs His role in it. Its hard to adequately describe all of this with the proper words to, so feel free to break them down if you wish for further details. If I tried to do it in this single post it would be way too long.

 

[reba]

Not yet.....
Acts 2
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord comes:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

 

[JLB]

It is all apart of His plan I believe. I think the different covenants were different aspects of the totality - ending with the New. As in, they all pointed to the "New Covenant". Each building upon the other.

The New Covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant that has been "refreshed" or "renewed".

IOW it's not a brand new Covenant.

The law was added to this Covenant temporarily, until the Seed should come.

The Lord who made Covenant with Abraham became flesh, and fulfilled His part of blood letting.

Abraham's part was circumcision.



JLB

 

[Nathan]

The New Covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant that has been "refreshed" or "renewed".

IOW it's not a brand new Covenant.

The law was added to this Covenant temporarily, until the Seed should come.

The Lord who made Covenant with Abraham became flesh, and fulfilled His part of blood letting.

Abraham's part was circumcision.



JLB

Are you saying we circumcise ourselves(spiritually) like Abraham did physically? No worries if not. I just knind of got the impression for some reason

 

[JLB]

Are you saying we circumcise ourselves(spiritually) like Abraham did physically? No worries if not. I just knind of got the impression for some reason

Any circumcision we undergo in Christ, is made without hands, by Him.

 

[Nathan]

I thought about this more over the weekend. I had a thought that seems obvious, but I thought I would run it by you all to see what you make of it. I believe we have, for the most part, almost all come to the conclusion that God does predestine people. I think the division lies with the idea of strictly salvation vs purpose(role) in some aspect of the plan of salvation.

I tried to be as clear as I can with my thoughts. Please read them carefully before assuming I am saying something. One thought leads to another.

So I would like to revert back to the quote by John Macarthur;

So he’s starting to talk about salvation here, and he starts with election. Back in eternity past, God chose who would be saved, and He did it, verse 2 says, according to His foreknowledge. Foreknowledge doesn’t mean that everybody acts independently, and God way back looked ahead and saw what they were going to do, and said, “Oh, so that’s what they’re going to do; if that’s what they’re going to do, this is what I’ll do.” Foreknowledge is a predetermined relationship. “Fore” means before we were ever born, before we ever had a choice, before we ever did or didn’t do anything, God predetermined to know us, in the same way that He says, “Israel only have I known.” It doesn’t mean that they’re the only people on the planet that He knows, it means they’re the only ones with whom He has personal relationship.

It might seem simple, but here was my thought. If God chose us, before we were born, for salvation - wouldn't He have also known that we would have believed in Him? In other words, if God knew we would be born, wouldn't Him being God then have also known we would believe? Yet again in other words, would God only look to the fact we would be born - then no further - and base predestination on that?

It really doesn't make sense to me. If God knew we would be born, He would also know how we would respond to His call. So, if Macarthur is correct, then that means we have zero choice in salvation - one way or the other. It would also mean that not only does He predestine some to salvation, but others to hell - before they had done anything wrong. I cannot see how you can have one be true without the other being true. So - the end of the thought is - some humans will go to hell not based off sin, but rather based off the fact God wants them there.

You don't read that anywhere in the Bible. Man is specifically judged off what they do, not because they are predestined to go. So I cannot see how Macarthur's thoughts can be true.

Unless, of course, you throw in a third wheel of thought. That there are "some" that are predestined, and the rest get to choose between Christ and hell. If that's the case, I would love to see where that distinction is made, between those predestined and those who come to believe on their own choice. I have never seen the word "some" before predestined - distinguishing them apart from "others" who believe on their own.

I'd love some input on this.

 

[GodsGrace]

I thought about this more over the weekend. I had a thought that seems obvious, but I thought I would run it by you all to see what you make of it. I believe we have, for the most part, almost all come to the conclusion that God does predestine people. I think the division lies with the idea of strictly salvation vs purpose(role) in some aspect of the plan of salvation.

I tried to be as clear as I can with my thoughts. Please read them carefully before assuming I am saying something. One thought leads to another.

So I would like to revert back to the quote by John Macarthur;



It might seem simple, but here was my thought. If God chose us, before we were born, for salvation - wouldn't He have also known that we would have believed in Him? In other words, if God knew we would be born, wouldn't Him being God then have also known we would believe? Yet again in other words, would God only look to the fact we would be born - then no further - and base predestination on that?

It really doesn't make sense to me. If God knew we would be born, He would also know how we would respond to His call. So, if Macarthur is correct, then that means we have zero choice in salvation - one way or the other. It would also mean that not only does He predestine some to salvation, but others to hell - before they had done anything wrong. I cannot see how you can have one be true without the other being true. So - the end of the thought is - some humans will go to hell not based off sin, but rather based off the fact God wants them there.

You don't read that anywhere in the Bible. Man is specifically judged off what they do, not because they are predestined to go. So I cannot see how Macarthur's thoughts can be true.

Unless, of course, you throw in a third wheel of thought. That there are "some" that are predestined, and the rest get to choose between Christ and hell. If that's the case, I would love to see where that distinction is made, between those predestined and those who come to believe on their own choice. I have never seen the word "some" before predestined - distinguishing them apart from "others" who believe on their own.

I'd love some input on this.

Hi Nathan,
Your post no. 170 is a very good Reader's Digest version of the Covenants.
As far as MacArthru --- I don't know him and what he says up there in this post is very confusing to me.

I don't really understand what he's saying.
Because I foreknow something, does not mean I can change it or wish to or cause it.

This is even demonstrated in sci fi movies. A person tries to change the future, but CANNOT. It has already happened in time, it cannot be changed.

The real question would become this: If God foreknows that a person will be doomed to be lost, why make that person be born? Isn't He a good God? So He ALLOWS that person who will be lost to be born anyway? Why?

Chew on that for a while.

 

[Nathan]

Hi Nathan,
Your post no. 170 is a very good Reader's Digest version of the Covenants.
As far as MacArthru --- I don't know him and what he says up there in this post is very confusing to me.

I don't really understand what he's saying.
Because I foreknow something, does not mean I can change it or wish to or cause it.

This is even demonstrated in sci fi movies. A person tries to change the future, but CANNOT. It has already happened in time, it cannot be changed.

The real question would become this: If God foreknows that a person will be doomed to be lost, why make that person be born? Isn't He a good God? So He ALLOWS that person who will be lost to be born anyway? Why?

Chew on that for a while.

That's kind of my thoughts also, but just a different angle. Not so much the good vs 'mean' side of looking, not that He allows the person to be born, but judges them before they are born.

I have never read a single passage where a person is judged before they are born. Sure, God does know who will do what in the end, but we always read that they are judged then - after they live their life.

MacArthur is stating that God decides before("fore") a person is born whether that person will be made to believe in Christ and made to be saved. But you can't have that without having the opposite of making people unable to believe and making them be eternally lost.

I think the idea of this comes from the passage in Romans which talks about vessels God makes, but that passage was an example Paul used to describe Gods plan for the Jews and Gentiles.

In context at least.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's kind of my thoughts also, but just a different angle. Not so much the good vs 'mean' side of looking, not that He allows the person to be born, but judges them before they are born.

I have never read a single passage where a person is judged before they are born. Sure, God does know who will do what in the end, but we always read that they are judged then - after they live their life.

MacArthur is stating that God decides before("fore") a person is born whether that person will be made to believe in Christ and made to be saved. But you can't have that without having the opposite of making people unable to believe and making them be eternally lost.

I think the idea of this comes from the passage in Romans which talks about vessels God makes, but that passage was an example Paul used to describe Gods plan for the Jews and Gentiles.

In context at least.

I think you're talking about Romans 9.
Whatever reason Paul used it for, it also applies to us.
It's the passage that talks about Pharaoh and Moses. This is the passage that has made me believe that SOME VERY SPECIAL persons were made to be hard of heart, for instance, for a VERY SPECIFIC purpose. I cannot reconcile their free will with God's Will - although some on this post have made good attempts at explaining it. It does seem to me that SOME do not have a choice. I could be wrong - I'm not insisting on this.

I spoke to someone who teaches theology and he said that God only KNOWS but does not MAKE to have a hard heart, for instance. (this is a priest of the RCC - we're "friends" so he takes the time to explain things to me).

If MacArthur is stating that God makes a person to believe, then that is Calvinism, and, as you must know, I don't like any aspect of Calvinism.

Anyway, you listen to all these people and each one has a different idea and it could get confusing.

 

[JLB]

So I would like to revert back to the quote by John Macarthur;

So he’s starting to talk about salvation here, and he starts with election. Back in eternity past, God chose who would be saved, and He did it, verse 2 says, according to His foreknowledge. Foreknowledge doesn’t mean that everybody acts independently, and God way back looked ahead and saw what they were going to do, and said, “Oh, so that’s what they’re going to do; if that’s what they’re going to do, this is what I’ll do.” Foreknowledge is a predetermined relationship. “Fore” means before we were ever born, before we ever had a choice, before we ever did or didn’t do anything, God predetermined to know us, in the same way that He says, “Israel only have I known.” It doesn’t mean that they’re the only people on the planet that He knows, it means they’re the only ones with whom He has personal relationship.

MacArthur seems to make up his own definitions, then proceeds with his explanation, using his own definitions.

It might seem simple, but here was my thought. If God chose us, before we were born, for salvation - wouldn't He have also known that we would have believed in Him? In other words, if God knew we would be born, wouldn't Him being God then have also known we would believe?

Your explanation, if I understand you correctly, seems to line up with what Paul says in Ephesians.

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 before the foundation of the world.


Through His foreknowledge God saw those who were in Christ, and He chose them... having predestined those whom He saw were "in Him", to adoption as sons.

The only question now, would be, how does one come to be "in Christ".

They make the choice to believe.



JLB

 

[Nathan]

Yea, that whole section of Romans can be hard to digest. Paul covers a lot of ground and asks a lot of questions. What happens is we try and break it down into bite sized pieces, but when we do, we loose the whole context of it.

The whole point that Paul was making was how God is fulfilling His plan through the different events we see in the OT that seemed odd in a way, but showed Gods divine nature.

If you look closely at it then you'll see that it doesn't talk about specific individual redemption vs exclusion, but rather the contrast between Jew and Gentile.

Seeing how we know God has indeed provided grace and mercy to the Gentiles, we can see that dialog was talking about the overall plan of God. In fact, that's where Paul winds up at the end of chapter 11 before going into the results of