Predestination

[smaller]

The problem with this reasoning is that if it is otherwise clear, and I suggest that it is, that Paul is focusing on the hardened Jew, it is perfectly legit for Paul to use the literary device of using a "me" that is a prototypical Jew.

Prototypical MANKIND. All have SIN and SIN is 'of the devil.' There again, TWO vessels, same LUMP. There is only ONE other identity with man that is NOT man.

He does the same thing in Romans 7, where the "I" that is tripped up by the Law of Moses, is clearly an I that is a representative Jew.

IF you think that the presence of INDWELLING SIN is unique to JEWS ONLY you are sorely deceived and mistaken.

s

 

[bleitzel]

In response to the very short OP,

Answer 1: Predestination is a word that means foreordained.

(Better) Answer 2: Predestination is the theological teaching held by many to mean that God has, from before the beginning of time, predestined some men to eternal glory and predestined (or reprobated) all other men to eternal destruction.

Those are probably the accepted understandings of the term predestination. I, however, would argue vehemently that neither the Messiah nor the apostles werer ever making the case that some are predestined one way and some the other. Least of all Paul. Paul's 1st chapter in his letter to the Ephesians is a perfect case-in-point. Many theologians point to these verses as positing the predestination doctrine of chosen/un-chosen but flatly ignore the implications of the "also" in verse 11. That "also" changes the entire scope of Paul's message from an chosen/un-chosen one to a chosen/also-chosen one.

It's note some are chosen for eternal glory and some are unchosen. It's some are chosen to be God's direct family (the Jews) and some are chosen to be adopted into God's family (the Gentiles) but either way all are chosen.

Paul's teaching of predestination is wrongly seen as a dividing wall between two distinct groups when it is really a conjoining of the two.

 

[savedbygrace57]

The very point you make shows God does elect, predestine and choose not only MEN, but NATIONS.

GOD CHOSE ISRAEL/JACOB.

GOD did NOT CHOSE Esau/Pharaoh.

Apply the principle to MAN or to NATIONS. It's the same principle.

God does not 'choose' on the basis of the choices of either MAN or of NATIONS.

s

Yes, its absurd how the opposer's of Truth try to make a difference between nations and men, when nations are nothing but a higher concentration of men.

 

[savedbygrace57]

blei:

, however, I would argue vehemently that neither the Messiah nor the apostles werer ever making the case that some are predestined one way and some the other.

You can argue all you want, but it is taught in scripture, you just do not believe it.

Jude 1:

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

What condemnation ?

13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

 

[The_Student]

Well, Anne Hutchinson seemed to have disputed the concept of predestination in the best way possible, and I seem inclined to agree with her antinomianism. If everyone was predestined, why should the chosen even follow God's law in his or her lifetime? Theoretically, the concept may still stand, but in actual application to society, as people saw with the fall of Puritanism, predestination created only unease.

 

[Vince]

Good to have you aboard, Student.

Of itself, predestination is not an evil doctrine. God predestines those who accept Christ to be conformed to His image; they can't go on in their old evil lives because God works in them.

And God predestines those who accept Christ to be adopted as sons. Period. There are no other predestinations. Period.

 

[Vince]

ARE lost people predestined to eternal life? Part 1

Throughout the Gospels and Acts, we see saved Jews and Gentiles who quickly accepted Christ when the Gospel was explained to them. Simon the Pharisee was surprised when Jesus cared about a sinful woman, and Jesus showed him in a parable that because Simon had only been forgiven for a few sins, he didn't understand what it was like for an extremely wicked person to be saved.

Encountering disciples of John the Baptist who had not known that there was a Holy Spirit when they believed, Paul quickly got them straightened out. A certain Jew named Apollos, who only knew the baptism of John, was quickly shown the way of God more perfectly. Cornelius, the Italian officer who was "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always" appears to have been already saved, although I admit that it is debatable. He received the correct Gospel message from Peter immediately upon hearing it. When saved Jews and Gentiles heard the Gospel explained, their response was to accept it immediately.

 

[Vince]

Are Lost People Predestined to Eternal Life? Part 2

Now, look at Acts 13. Speaking in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, Paul addressed "Men of Israel, and you who fear God," showing that there were saved Gentiles in his audience. In the same message, he refers to "Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God," again showing that some of his listeners were saved Gentiles. Afterwards, "many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."

When Jewish persecution began, Paul announced that they would turn to the Gentiles, who were happy to hear this news. "Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

Those Gentiles who were appointed to eternal life were already saved.

 

[bleitzel]

blei:



You can argue all you want, but it is taught in scripture, you just do not believe it.

Jude 1:

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ha ha, nice try. It's not pre-ordained. This passage is only talking about the condemnation being written about, not that they are predestined to it. Check out the NIV translation, it's a bit more modern.

 

[bleitzel]

Good to have you aboard, Student.

Of itself, predestination is not an evil doctrine. God predestines those who accept Christ to be conformed to His image; they can't go on in their old evil lives because God works in them.

And God predestines those who accept Christ to be adopted as sons. Period. There are no other predestinations. Period.

Vince, I don't think that's correct. For example, in Ephesians 1 Paul is talking to a world that already believes in predestination. The Jews believed that they were predestined to be God's sons, His family, and they believed that the Gentiles were just left out in the cold. Too bad, so sad.

But Paul is correcting that errant theology. He's showing that God has chosen all people to be in His family, no one is left out. No one is unworthy. We're all His children.

I believe that's why Paul uses the term "adopted" here in Eph. 1. He's indicating that now the Gentiles have been adopted into the family that was already thought to contain God and the Jews. That's why he says "also" in verse 11, the Gentiles "also" along with the Jews.

 

[savedbygrace57]

blei:

Ha ha, nice try. It's not pre-ordained

Thats exactly what it means. Where does it say it does not mean pre ordain ?

 

[Vince]

ARE Lost People Predestined to Eternal Life? Part 3

"Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

We have seen that this passage refers to Gentiles who had already been saved and converted to Judaism, and that saved Jews, saved disciples of John the Baptist, and saved proselytes had quickly accepted the Gospel when it was explained to them.

The Greek word "appointed," translated "ordained" in the King James Version, refers to soldiers being arranged in position. They were not appointed to these positions until AFTER they were in the army. And no one is appointed to eternal life until AFTER they accept Christ as Savior.

 

[Drew]

The Jews believed that they were predestined to be God's sons, His family, and they believed that the Gentiles were just left out in the cold. Too bad, so sad.

But Paul is correcting that errant theology. He's showing that God has chosen all people to be in His family, no one is left out. No one is unworthy. We're all His children.

I could not agree more with this statement. If people were willing to consider that, in Romans, Paul is concerned with repudiating this notion of Jewish ethnic privilege, so much of the actual text of that book will make a lot more sense.

 

[mondar]

In the blog "reclaiming the mind" Dan Wallace says...

"I think that there may be a false antithesis between corporate and individual election. Proof that God elects corporately is not proof that he does not elect individually (any more than proof that all are called sinners in Rom 3:23 is a denial that individuals are sinners). I embrace corporate election as well as individual election."

He goes on to say....
"… to call Rom. 9-11 the climax or center of the letter is going too far. Such an evaluation often arises from a desire to minimize the importance of the individual’s relationship to God in chaps. 1-8. But the individual’s standing before God is the center of Paul’s gospel.… Individual and corporate perspectives are intertwined in Paul.

Evidence for this can be seen in Romans 9 itself: the examples that Paul uses to show the meaning of election are individuals: Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau, etc. Yet, these very examples—these very individuals—also represent corporate groups. If only corporate election were true, Paul could not have written Romans 9 the way he did."

I would agree with Wallace. We are in Christ, the body of Christ was chosen for certain blessings. But when many go to far, and insert a denial of individual election into the text, that is to go too far. That denial is simply not present.

 

[bleitzel]

In the blog "reclaiming the mind" Dan Wallace says...

"I think that there may be a false antithesis between corporate and individual election. Proof that God elects corporately is not proof that he does not elect individually (any more than proof that all are called sinners in Rom 3:23 is a denial that individuals are sinners). I embrace corporate election as well as individual election."

He goes on to say....
"… to call Rom. 9-11 the climax or center of the letter is going too far. Such an evaluation often arises from a desire to minimize the importance of the individual’s relationship to God in chaps. 1-8. But the individual’s standing before God is the center of Paul’s gospel.… Individual and corporate perspectives are intertwined in Paul.

Evidence for this can be seen in Romans 9 itself: the examples that Paul uses to show the meaning of election are individuals: Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau, etc. Yet, these very examples—these very individuals—also represent corporate groups. If only corporate election were true, Paul could not have written Romans 9 the way he did."

I would agree with Wallace. We are in Christ, the body of Christ was chosen for certain blessings. But when many go to far, and insert a denial of individual election into the text, that is to go too far. That denial is simply not present.

Haven't read Dan Wallace yet (actually, never even heard of him) but to me the question isn't really whether God elects individually or corporately. The much bigger questions is whether we are to believe that some people are elected to blessings and some are elected (or reprobated, however you want to say it) to condemnation.

The point of argument should be whether some are predestined to eternal life and some not, not whether they are chosen individually or corporately.

 

[bleitzel]

I could not agree more with this statement. If people were willing to consider that, in Romans, Paul is concerned with repudiating this notion of Jewish ethnic privilege, so much of the actual text of that book will make a lot more sense.

Outstanding, Drew. In fact, defeating this notion of Jewish ethnic privilege is at the very heart of Paul's entire ministry. When he calls himself the apostle to the Gentiles, he's essentially saying that the Jews already thought they were God's children due to their ethnicity and now he's explaining to the world that the Gentiles are God's children too!

What I would give to be able to go back throughout time and sit down with all the great theologians and ask them to re-read Acts, all of Paul's letters, and even the Gospels from this viewpoint. When you go back and start over everything becomes clear. Calvinism and Arminianism (and so many other -isms) all go away.

And you know what's funny? The conundrum of Jewish ethnic privilege has never gone away from the Jewish peoples. Even today if you survey 100 Jews from all walks of life and ask them what they think about a God who could choose some people to be His people with special blessings and what that means for everyone else, the Gentiles? You'll consistently get two root answers. Either A.) 'Well, it's too bad for the Gentiles but I'm just glad I'm a Jew!' or B.) 'I don't really beleive in all thatchosen people stuff. I mean, how could a God be all loving and pick one group of people over another?'

This conundrum was solved once and for all by Jesus and Paul was proclaiming the resolution of what he called this great mystery to anyone who would listen, and in just about every letter he wrote. Yet for the past 1400 years so many "great" writers have missed it.

 

[Drew]

I would agree with Wallace. We are in Christ, the body of Christ was chosen for certain blessings. But when many go to far, and insert a denial of individual election into the text, that is to go too far. That denial is simply not present.

It is important to understand the fundamental purpose of Romans 9. It is part of a bigger chunk, chapters 9 to 11, which is fundamentally Paul's treatment of how Jew and Gentile have been brought together in the purposes of God. And in Romans 9 Paul is talking about Israel and her plight.

The question of any general theology of individual pre-destination with no reference to Israel in particular is simply not the problem that Paul has put on the table. The problem is Israel and her sad condition:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

And at the end of the chapter, it is clear that Paul is also focused on Israel and what has happened to her:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,

At the beginning of the chapter has Paul given us any reason to expect that he will shortly be giving a general theology of pre-destination. No. It is Israel that is the issue at the beginning.

At the end of the chapter, it is clear that Paul is talking about what God has done to Zion, yes Zion.

And a concluding statement that God has taken action to make Israel stumble, following an opening statement about the sad state of Israel gives us every reason to think that the vessels of destruction are, yes, Jews.

It is the Israel question that is on the table.

Paul concludes with a clear statement that God has done something to Israel that has mad her stumble and not attain righteousness.

He is, of course, giving us every reason to see the vessels of destruction as being hardened Jews (even if they are, of course, each "individuals").

And he has given us no reason to think that he is interrupting the clear flow of an Israel argument to make some kind of general statement about individuals are pre-destined, regardless of their ethnic status.

This is a treatment of Israel, not humanity in general. And this is so even if what has happened to Israel has indeed benefited "vessels of mercy" who are both Jew and Gentile.

 

[mondar]

Haven't read Dan Wallace yet (actually, never even heard of him) but to me the question isn't really whether God elects individually or corporately. The much bigger questions is whether we are to believe that some people are elected to blessings and some are elected (or reprobated, however you want to say it) to condemnation.

There are important issues in the corporate vs individual discussion. I would recommend that you read a Calvinist work, or even a few of them. It might better help you to understand where Calvinists are coming from, and to make more intelligent comments about what Calvinists are talking about (no insult intended here). I am especially referring to your comment ""some people are elected to blessings and some are elected (or reprobated, however you want to say it)." Calvinists do not view Gods actions with the two groups as equal. Election to individual salvation includes God's action of regeneration. God changes the nature of those he has chosen so that they will believe and be justified. God initiates no such action with the unregenerate. He does not supernaturally make them more sinful. Mankind is already sinful by nature. God merely gives opportunity for certain individuals to practice their sinful ways. Such a person would be in Romans 9:17. Pharaoh was raised up, and given a chance to practice his rebellion against God without restraint until God judged him. It is not like God had to change Pharaoah's nature and make him more sinful, his nature was already sinful. The text says God just "raised him up." So then, the reprobation of sinners, and the election of the righteous are not equal. One is active, the other is much more passive.

So then, if it were not for the unconditional and elective grace of God, we would all remain sinners and no one would choose God.

The point of argument should be whether some are predestined to eternal life and some not, not whether they are chosen individually or corporately.

I would certainly not object to discussion the question of individual predestination. But to insist that the corporate vs individual issue has no meaning would be to go against the history of the discussion. My guess is that you are uninformed concerning Reformed exegesis on this issue. It would be good to read a few Reformed works and see where Calvinists are coming from.

 

[mondar]

It is important to understand the fundamental purpose of Romans 9. It is part of a bigger chunk, chapters 9 to 11, which is fundamentally Paul's treatment of how Jew and Gentile have been brought together in the purposes of God. And in Romans 9 Paul is talking about Israel and her plight.

The question of any general theology of individual pre-destination with no reference to Israel in particular is simply not the problem that Paul has put on the table. The problem is Israel and her sad condition:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.

And at the end of the chapter, it is clear that Paul is also focused on Israel and what has happened to her:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,

At the beginning of the chapter has Paul given us any reason to expect that he will shortly be giving a general theology of pre-destination. No. It is Israel that is the issue at the beginning.

At the end of the chapter, it is clear that Paul is talking about what God has done to Zion, yes Zion.

And a concluding statement that God has taken action to make Israel stumble, following an opening statement about the sad state of Israel gives us every reason to think that the vessels of destruction are, yes, Jews.

It is the Israel question that is on the table.

Paul concludes with a clear statement that God has done something to Israel that has mad her stumble and not attain righteousness.

He is, of course, giving us every reason to see the vessels of destruction as being hardened Jews (even if they are, of course, each "individuals").

And he has given us no reason to think that he is interrupting the clear flow of an Israel argument to make some kind of general statement about individuals are pre-destined, regardless of their ethnic status.

This is a treatment of Israel, not humanity in general. And this is so even if what has happened to Israel has indeed benefited "vessels of mercy" who are both Jew and Gentile.

Since I take the position that both individual and corporate election is represented in Romans 9, why would your above statements carry any weight? It appears to me, that you seem to think that if you show that there is corporate election in Romans 9, this means that there is no such thing as individual election? That seems non-sequitur to me. Paul affirms corporate election by using individual election to prove his point about corporate election. Abraham, Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh, and the individuals mentioned are not fictitious people. If individual election were not true, Paul could not be making the points he does Romans 9 on the issue of corporate election. In fact, any exegesis that makes the issue only one of the other, has not done justice to the passage.

Let me illustrate from verse 7. In verse 7, the promise is to Isaac, an individual. The promise that had been given to Abraham to "become a great nation" was to go to Isaac, not Ishmael. Of course the promise included national promises, but the promise was not merely a national issue, but a real historical promise to Isaac. It was the individual Isaac that was chosen or elected (over Ishmael) to become the patriarch of Israel. Without those promises to individuals, the later fulfillment of the national promises could never have occurred.

So then, it would be non-sequitur to say that no promises ever existed to Isaac, and to make that claim based upon the fact that Isaac was promised things of a national character.

Later in Romans 9:11, when the text talks about God's elective purposes standing (on the basis of grace and not works), he was speaking of grace to individuals and not grace to nations. He is also talking about the covenant not being on the basis of the works of the individuals, and is not referring directly to national works.

So then, Drew, to prove your point you must do more then merely point to national issues in the text, I agree that there are national issues. That is not the issue, but the issue is that you must show that individuals are not in view in the context of Romans 9, and that there is no corresponding election of individuals.

 

[Drew]

Since I take the position that both individual and corporate election is represented in Romans 9, why would your above statements carry any weight? It appears to me, that you seem to think that if you show that there is corporate election in Romans 9, this means that there is no such thing as individual election? That seems non-sequitur to me. Paul affirms corporate election by using individual election to prove his point about corporate election.

Well there is indeed both personal election and corporate election in Romans 9. So we agree on that.

I suggest that it is clear that the examples of individual election - Esau, Pharoah, etc. are examples where the "choice" that God has made is not about eternal destiny, but rather about some "this-worldly" purpose.

And that is an easy case to make. Paul tells us what Esau was elected to - to serve Jacob. And Paul tells us what Pharoah was elected to - to resist the liberation of the Jews so that God can perform a great public act of deliverance, namely the exodus.

So while Paul could be (although I do not believe he actually is) giving examples of God making choices about "non eternal destiny" things in support of a coming statement (e.g. in the potter metaphor) about election to an eternal destiny, the examples themselves are not "eternal destiny" examples.

But, yes, there is clearly individual election in Romans 9. But what is less clear is whether there is individual election unto an eternal destiny in Romans 9.

As you know, I do not believe that there is not.