Predestination

[glorydaz]

As the Kingdom was prepared for the Sheep from the foundation, so likewise was the everlasting fire for the goats.

Matt 25:


33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Each of us was born with a place prepared for us, destined..

The KINGDOM was prepared for those who choose life, and the everlasting fire was prepared for those who reject it....we are told to choose life.

Those who choose life are predestined to be conformed into the image of the Son.

 

[savedbygrace57]

gloryd:

The KINGDOM was prepared for those who choose life,

No it wasnt, it was prepared for them Chosen by God..

 

[mondar]

Another error of Calvinism consists of first believing the philosophies of men cursed by God (Mani and Saint Augustine), changing the dictionary to agree with their teachings, and then giving the new definitions to the Bible.

Not only does the lack of grace and charitableness continue, but so does the lack of knowledge of simple historical fact. The concept that Augustine borrowed from Mani has been debunked long ago, but Pelagians like Vince repeat the same errors ad infinitum.

For instance, the Hebrew and Greek words translated "all" really do not mean each and every last single one without exception, EVERY TIME. But the word "all" never means "the elect," either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek, or in the dictionary. In addition, it never means "some." And it never means "a minority." A related Calvinist error is the doctrine that "all" can NEVER mean every one.

And now comes the shift to straw man argumentation. No Calvinist ever said "all means the elect." There is a thread started by SBG that says all does not mean "all men without exception." Read the thread.

However, God is able to deal with that. In John 1:9, God states that Jesus is "... was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world." And in Acts 17:30, we are told that "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,"

Again you continue to ignore what has been said and continue not to respond except to repeat the same old tired refuted arguments over and over. The word "every" in 1 John 1:9 is pas. Pas does not mean all men without exception. Otherwise you would have universalism.

Acts 17:30 does prove that God demands repentance of all men everywhere. That is a universal that creates human responsibility, but it is not a universal provision of grace.

 

[Vince]

"The concept that Augustine borrowed from Mani has been debunked long ago"

Uhm, No. Not only was Saint Augustine the greatest of the Manicheaen philosophers, but after his forced conversion to Catholicism, he still cited Mani as a source.

And Savedbygrace, the very verse you quoted shows that you are mistaken. Jesus stated that Hell was created for the devil and his angels, NOT for people. It was not, and still is not, God's will for anyone to go to Hell. The very verse you quoted shows that people are not predestined to Hell.

 

[mondar]

"The concept that Augustine borrowed from Mani has been debunked long ago"

Uhm, No. Not only was Saint Augustine the greatest of the Manicheaen philosophers, but after his forced conversion to Catholicism, he still cited Mani as a source.

If what you say had any truth, you would have put a direct quote of Augustine (after his conversion) quoting Manichean philosophers. Again, what you are doing is repeating the same old errors that have been debunked long ago.

In fact, anyone that knows anything about Augustine, would scoff at your statement that he was "the greatest of the Manichean philosophers." He was a teenager when he studied Mani, and was not even known as a Manichean philosopher of any renown, let alone the greatest Manichean philosopher. Your statements are nothing but the wild ranting of someone who has never reaed actual historians.

 

[mondar]

This seems to be speaking of the Jews as a people. Individuals, even in the OT, did believe and were saved.

The "revealed" arm of the Lord is the Lord Jesus Himself. Blindness and the hardening of the heart are related - they are a punishment to the unbelievers.

Jesus declares He is God manifested to man, come as a light into the world so that by believing in Him man would not remain in darkness. Whosoever believes should not abide in darkness.

Isaiah believed. So did David, Joshua, etc. They could and did.

Let me address your statements in reverse order...

GD, what text says that Isaiah, David, and Joshua could believe? Now I already know you will answer this question by pointing to texts that say they did believe. I do not question that they did believe. The question involves a denial of original sin, and if they "could" believe.

The several "light of the world" passages... The term "world" does not refer to all men without exception.

Concerning your statement that John 12 refers only to Jews... While that is true, God hardened Pharoah's heart. Romans 9 makes it clear that this process also refers to Gentiles (see Romans 9:24). Also, Romans 1 is clear how the process of hardening works. God restrains sin, but then he "Gave them over." So then, the process of hardening has to do with God no longer restraining sin.

 

[francisdesales]

If what you say had any truth, you would have put a direct quote of Augustine (after his conversion) quoting Manichean philosophers. Again, what you are doing is repeating the same old errors that have been debunked long ago.

In fact, anyone that knows anything about Augustine, would scoff at your statement that he was "the greatest of the Manichean philosophers." He was a teenager when he studied Mani, and was not even known as a Manichean philosopher of any renown, let alone the greatest Manichean philosopher. Your statements are nothing but the wild ranting of someone who has never reaed actual historians.

Agreed. Where do people get this stuff from? Forced to convert? Ridiculous, anyone who has read his conversion story will find that idea lunacy. Augustine wrote a number of tracts against Manicheanism...

Regards

 

[Vince]

Francisdesales, I remember you!

On another forum, you challenged my statement that Saint Augustine was a murderer. So after I assembled evidence of how he had organized mobs to murder the Donatists, you defended those murders. I also wrote about how the Inquisition justified torture and murder from the writings of Saint Augustine.

In addition to unconditional election, murder, and torture, Saint Augustine blended the pagan doctrines of statue worship, infant baptism, and prayer to the dead into Christianity, in an attempt to carry out Mani's goal of forming a new and better religion. Although he favored Mani's doctrine of a powerful priesthood, that false doctrine had already been forced onto Christianity.

You Calvinists better get your noses out of the philosophy books and take a look at what evil allies you have.

 

[mondar]

Agreed. Where do people get this stuff from? Forced to convert? Ridiculous, anyone who has read his conversion story will find that idea lunacy. Augustine wrote a number of tracts against Manicheanism...

Regards

Heh, hello Francis. Maybe Vince reads his history in some Dan Brown novels.... ; ).

 

[Vince]

Mondar, neither I nor anyone else should be studying the works of men cursed by God. John Calvin did, and five centuries later, Christianity has still not recovered from the harm he did.

A few posts back, you were scorning about my statements that Saint Augustine cited Mani as a source, even after he converted to Catholicism. Wikipedia says "Examples of surviving portions of his [Mani's] works include: the Shabuhragan (Middle Persian), the Book of Giants (numerous fragments in many languages), the Fundamental Epistle (quoted in length by Saint Augustine)..."

There are reasons why the Catholic Church, drunk with the blood of the saints, regards Saint Augustine as a hero. I never have, and I never will, study the writings of such a wicked man. Infant baptism, idolatry, worship of the dead, Mary worship, unconditional election, and murder were all blended into Christianity by this great false prophet.

When I turned to Christ from the wickedness of the Catholic Church, I came out from among her, just as God commanded me to do.

 

[mondar]

You Calvinists better get your noses out of the philosophy books and take a look at what evil allies you have.

LOL, I have nothing against francisdesales as a person, I dont even know him in person though. I don't want to speak for him, but I would be so shocked...... I would literally sit behind my screen with my mouth hanging open and would be speechless if he actually thinks of me as a theological "ally."

I must admit to chuckling when I read what you wrote... Until the arrival of francis, I was a heretic believing the lies of Satan. Now suddenly you and I should be good ole homies and be allies against Francisdesales?

OK, lets get em....
Mondar fires a few arrows at Francisdesales...

D ----> ----> ---->

 

[glorydaz]

gloryd:



No it wasnt, it was prepared for them Chosen by God..

So you say man, himself, has nothing to do with it?
[quote="Matthew 25] 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.[/quote]

 

[Oats]

Honestly this whole A&T section can seem so devoid of Love sometimes...2



I've changed my view slightly on this subject. We often try to bring the aspect of eternity down to a level to be understood by human beings. It just ain't gonna happen.


Remember that predestination and freewill are human terms. So they can't fully express the immensity of our Lord and Father God.

This world is a shadow of eternity (A shadow of the things to come)


So my view is that we can indeed make decisions and God does indeed have everything in his will.

Or his plan-- God forgive me for being presumptuous but if God plans something to go right it will.

We are in his world so our wills are limited.

But Jesus clearly states we have the power to believe. And that is freewill.

But since God is eternal all of his actions are-- so they act accordingly. His actions have taken place, are taking place, and will take place.


It's much too difficult to cut down to pure theology or doctrine.

Our duty is to believe, it is not to out smart our Lord and Father God-- he knows all.

Remember

Watch!

 

[thecounsellors]

I think Paul believed he was saved but I do not think he believed he was predestined for salvation or at least that he could know that he was predestined.
I think this because he says:

1 Corinthians 9:27
No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

 

[mondar]

Monday, neither I nor anyone else should be studying the works of men cursed by God. John Calvin did, and five centuries later, Christianity has still not recovered from the harm he did.

I see no problem reading the Early Church Fathers. The ECFs had some good things to say, but they also had some errors. The problem here is that you see the ECFs as Roman Catholic. This is an assertion you cannot prove. Show me where the ECFs taught the bodily assumption of Mary. Show me in the ECFs where they taught the infallibility of the Popes when they speak ex-cathedra and then I will believe that the ECFs were Roman Catholic. The ECF were in fact the ECFs. They were not Roman Catholic, they were not Reformed Baptists, and they were not Arminian Fundamentalists. (I find the Arminian Fundamentalists claiming they were more like the Donatists---- Your not even a Donatist). The problem is that you bring your own theological dogmas and try to make the Ancient Church Fathers say what fits your dogma. Therefore you draw this wild eyed conclusion that Augustine must have been a devil. Well, certainly I would agree he was not infallible, but he was not a devil. Just let Augustine be Augustine.

Also, I don't agree that all men's works are cursed by God. That is a position not taught in the scriptures. The writings of past men are no more good or evil then any other book in the book store today. Also, while I affirm sola scruptura, I would not agree that the proper view of the Christian life is that you go out and sit down with just you, your bible, and God. God gave the Church men with spiritual gifts... teachers, pastors, etc. These men are gifted men, and there for a reason. They should be heard in as much as they properly teach and practice scripture. I agree scripture is the only infallible and innerrant authority, but I do not agree that is it the only thing in Christianity that God gave us. You seem unbalanced in your view of scriptural authority. We affirm sola scriptura, not solo scriptura. Or maybe we differ on our view of authority.

A few posts back, you were scorning about my statements that Saint Augustine cited Mani as a source, even after he converted to Catholicism. Wikipedia says "Examples of surviving portions of his [Mani's] works include: the Shabuhragan (Middle Persian), the Book of Giants (numerous fragments in many languages), the Fundamental Epistle (quoted in length by Saint Augustine)..."

OK, I found the quote from wiki you are referring to where Augustine quotes the work of Mani called "Fundamental Epistle." If you click on the "Fundamental Epistle" link, you will see that Augustine quoted Mani before his conversion. Read this wiki link and notice that the article says "before converting to Christianity."
Fundamental Epistle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one denies that Augustine was a disciple of Mani in the lowest order. The problem is that you are asserting that Augustine was not drawing on scripture, but on the Manichean philosophy that he later renounced and refuted.

There are reasons why the Catholic Church, drunk with the blood of the saints, regards Saint Augustine as a hero. I never have, and I never will, study the writings of such a wicked man. Infant baptism, idolatry, worship of the dead, Mary worship, unconditional election, and murder were all blended into Christianity by this great false prophet.

When I turned to Christ from the wickedness of the Catholic Church, I came out from among her, just as God commanded me to do.

You talk of the Catholic view of Augustine here. It is interesting to me that you view Augustine as a Roman Catholic. Your views of Augustine are in a way, very Catholic. Actually, you and Francisdesales agree in places... you both think Augustine was Roman Catholic. The difference is that you think that makes him a bad guy, and Francis things that makes him a good guy. You two have some similarities, but I am different. I dont think Augustine was Roman Catholic, and he was not Calvinist or Reformed Baptist. Augustine never wrote about Mary worship, he did not support idolatry after his conversion. On the other hand he support the state Church, he had a view of baptismal regeneration and the bodily presence (but not transubstantiation). He was not a Roman Catholic, but he is not a Calvinist. He was an ancient man who wrote against Manicheans, Arians, and Pelagians, and other groups. He was no Satan, he was not a reincarnation of Jesus, he was Augustine. Why not let Augustine be Augustine?

You claim to have been converted from Catholicism, but what are you converted to? If you now believe in sola gratia (Salvation by grace alone) (I assume). Should not your attitude be one of love and grace toward Catholics. I am not asking you to agree with Catholic or Calvinist theology, but to extend some grace to those who differ from your opinions. If God extended grace to you, why do you refuse to extend grace to others? you really do not have to call Roman Catholics all the names you do.

 

[Vince]

Mondar writes: "Until the arrival of francis, I was a heretic believing the lies of Satan. Now suddenly you and I should be good ole homies and be allies against Francisdesales?"

I never made any such statements, and a search of my threads will show no such statements.

I hope you folks reading this will see that Calvinism is a religion of fear and accusations.

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales, I remember you!

On another forum, you challenged my statement that Saint Augustine was a murderer. So after I assembled evidence of how he had organized mobs to murder the Donatists, you defended those murders. I also wrote about how the Inquisition justified torture and murder from the writings of Saint Augustine.

I'm sorry, but I don't remember you making such statements, much less proving anything. I find it very difficult to believe that St. Augustine organized mobs and murdered anyone. And I find it very odd that the "Inquisition" had to read anything about the writings of Augustine to justify anything, secular courts were even worse at the time. People PURPOSELY blasphemed just so that they COULD get out of the secular court system and be tried by more "humane" Inquisition officials. You are being anachronistic...

In addition to unconditional election, murder, and torture, Saint Augustine blended the pagan doctrines of statue worship, infant baptism, and prayer to the dead into Christianity

More baloney. The first, we never did. The second, infants were baptized hundreds of years before Augustine was born, and the last practice was even part of the Jewish faith before Christ became incarnate.

What I fear is that Augustine is the bullseye for your "pre-Calvinism" hatred. While it is true that Augustine pushed the limits of the Church's teachings on "mass damnatia", the Church corrected his personal teachings. It doesn't follow that EVERYTHING that Augustine taught was false, and CERTAINLY not things ALREADY taught long before Augustine willingly became Catholic... Such statements corrupt any other opinions you might have on the subject matter, as anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the Church Fathers will laugh at such ideas....

Which was my point of entering this discussion, to disagree with that silly idea that Augustine was forced to become Catholic AND was a source of Manichean teachings in the Church. Both ridiculous charges.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Heh, hello Francis. Maybe Vince reads his history in some Dan Brown novels.... ; ).

Or Jack Chick. But the source appears to be a hatred of things Calvinistic - and Augustine is seen as the "source" by some of such teachings.

I'll respond to your "arrows" later, I got to teach a class on "The Fall of Man" shortly...

Regards

 

[Vince]

Meanwhile, the Greek word translated "grace" is "charis," (pronounced Kare iss) and means "graciousness." It is related to the Greek word for "kindness." A common definition of grace is "unmerited favor."

One reason why irresistible grace was not invented until the seventeenth century is that the dictionary does not allow it. "Grace" does not refer to a "force." It refers to "kindness." When God tells us that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, He means that the loving-kindness of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Force is not involved.

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells Christians that it is by God's unmerited favor they are saved through faith. The passage goes on to explain that their salvation is not the result of good works, so they have nothing to boast about. Nothing is said about force.

 

[mondar]

Meanwhile, the Greek word translated "grace" is "charis," (pronounced Kare iss) and means "graciousness." It is related to the Greek word for "kindness." A common definition of grace is "unmerited favor."

One reason why irresistible grace was not invented until the seventeenth century is that the dictionary does not allow it.

Sheesh, Vince, any thinking person is going to wonder how a 20th century dictionary even relates to a 17th century term. Also, you totally missed the history behind the term "irresistible grace." The reason the term did not surface until the 1600s was because the Remonstrants had not yet made the protest. I, personally, do not think TULIP is the best teaching tool to get people to understand protestant theology. This does not mean I think TULIP is wrong, but it needs to be accompanied with other teaching so that the history of the terms are understood.

The term "irresistible grace" did not come into being until the very early 17th century because the Remonstrants and not made their protest until the 17th century. The TULIP acrostic was the Calvinist response to the Remonstrants. If the Remonstrants had not made their protest, then how could Calvinists respond in the 16th century?

This is much like your distortion of history with Augustine.

"Grace" does not refer to a "force." It refers to "kindness." When God tells us that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, He means that the loving-kindness of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Force is not involved.

This totally muddies the waters of the issue of "Irresistible Grace." You are off on a tangent that has nothing to do with "Irresistible Grace." Another way to describe the issue would be to use the terms "insufficient grace" vs "sufficient grace." Of course you view is that Gods grace is insufficient to save man, and that man must make a contribution, or at least agree to God's grace. Of course this does not clear up the issue that you are muddying and spreading misunderstanding.

The issue concerns what is is normally called "prevenient grace." Now people in differing theologies have different views of prevenient grace. In Arminian/Catholic theology, prevenient grace is resistible. In Arminian/Catholic theology, God draws men to Christ, but not sufficiently powerful that men cannot resist. In Calvinist theology, since we see prevenient grace as being regeneration, we see it as powerful, and totally the work of God. God changes the nature of man in regeneration. In Arminian theology, man is dead in his sins, but by a prevenient work of grace, man has his free will restored. In Calvinist theology, since regeneration is the prevenient work of grace, man responds. He always responds. Gods work does not fail.

Let me quote a text. (all texts ASV)

John 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
How many that the Father gives will come to Christ.... a few? some? half? a lot? most?

39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Notice the repeated phrase "and I will raise him up on the last day." It is in both these verses. In verse 40, it is clear that the phrase refers to those who believe. Those raised up, have eternal life.

Out of those given by the Father, how many will Christ loose? a few? some? half? a lot? most?

The method of Christ accomplishing this work of grace is found in verse 44.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
First, notice the same term "come." No man can come to Christ. This is the same term found in verses 37, and 39-40. This is a universal also... how many can "come?" a few... some.... half.... a lot? Or "no man"

Then the question is if no man can come to Christ.... how are the people at the end of the verse saved? Notice the same phrase "I will raise him up on the last day" occurs also in verse 44. That same phrase in verse 40 talks about only people of faith. IT speaks of eternal life. So then, in this text, since no man can "come" and those drawn, are drawn to eternal life, and Christ will loose none of them, then how can we say that Gods grace in drawing men is insuffucient to bring them to salvation? How can we say that God's grace is resistible.

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells Christians that it is by God's unmerited favor they are saved through faith. The passage goes on to explain that their salvation is not the result of good works, so they have nothing to boast about. Nothing is said about force.

Have you ever heard the phrase "non-sequitur?" "Force" is not the issue of irresistible grace. The issue is sufficiency. Is Gods grace sufficient in and of itself? Or does man have to add something? What you are arguing for is the insufficiency of Christs redemptive shed blood.

In Ehesians 2:8, irresistable grace can be seen in the grammar. The word "work" is neuter in greek. A neuter must take another neuter as anticedent. Since there is no neuter, the phrase "by grace you are saved through faith" is the anticedent. So then, faith is a part of Gods grace. It is not a human work, or of human merit. It is actually your theology that preaches mans meritorious works in faith. And that is a violation of the grammar of verse 8.