Predestination

[Drew]

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.

When Paul talks about "works" in Romans 9:11 he is not talking about "good works" in the general sense, but rather the works of the Law of Moses which mark Jew from Gentile.

So, in a way, this really is an issue of "national works" (if I am right). But in any event, I do not deny that there examples of God making choices about indivduals in Romans 9. If I ever suggested otherwise, my mistake. But the choices Paul describes in the examples in Romans 9 are clearly not "eternal destiny" choices.

Now I say this fully aware that the Law of Moses was not around at the time of Jacob and Esau. And the argument for my position here is more complicated than I can deal with right now.

 

[bleitzel]

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).

Hi Mondar. Oh, I've read plenty of books on Calvinism and Arminianism and I've studied all the important theologians from Augustine on up and I think I understand where Calvinists are coming from. But thanks for recommending the reading.

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.

Well, that's not entirely true. Some Calvinists don't believe that the unreprobate are predestined to eternal damnation by God, but some do. To say that the world of Calvinism is unified on this point would be a gross mis-statement. Hence my allusion to them being predestined to their fate or being reprobate. You, it seems, fall into the latter category.

And I can appreciate how strongly you believe in your viewpoint but to say that mankind is sinful by nature in the way that you mean it is against the biblical record as far as I'm concerned. I do believe that mankind has a sinful nature, but I do not believe that unless regenerated directly by God he is literally dead in his sins and can do no spiritually good thing. Rather, I believe that the Bible teaches us that we were made in God's image and therefore there is some good in us. And that we have both a spiritual nature and a sinful nature within us. When Paul talks about us being dead in our trespasses he is speaking in a way that indicates to us that if we continue on the sinful path we are on, then we shall surely only see eternal death, not eternal life. Unless we turn from our sinful ways, repent and live by the spiritual nature, then we shall never see the kingdom of God. Being 'dead in sins' is to be taken metaphorically, not literally as so many Calvinist teachers would want. But I digress.

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.

Rather, I am completely informed on reformed thinking and would love to show you where it goes astray in this regard. And yes, one of the issues between Arminians and Calvinists has always been corporate vs. individual election but I'm not really interested in the history of debate, I'm interested in the solution. Both sides believe that God has, from before the beginnings of time, predestined some to eternal life and some to eternal death. (Now, you can argue here against double predestination but that point is mostly useless for the sake of our debate.) Both sides believe God does the predestining, they just disagree with how He does it. The Arminians believe that God's electing comes from His foreknowledge of man's future acts while the Calvinists believe God's electing comes soley from His discretive will. So far so good? And each side has terrific proof texts that they can rely on to prove their point. But neither side can 100% effectively prove how the other side is misunderstanding their proof texts. What I mean is, the Clavinists have their proof texts which the Arminians can't rely deny, and vice versa. Neither side has done an effective job disproving the other, all they can do is redirect the debate back to their own heavily relied upon texts. Us lay people are usually left trying to decide which side makes a stronger case, whcich side sounds more feasible to us, because neither can outright disprove the other.

One of the very important lessons you learn if you study logic is to check your premises. Especially if you have what amounts to a stalemate. The predestination debate is such a time-tested stalemate, in fact, that many have gone so far as to call it an antinomy. That neither can be proved or disproved and both must be true because scripture can not be in error.

But is that really the case? Well, if we check our premises, we find that both sides differ on how we're predestined but they both believe in predestination. So what if that's ultimately the error? As it turns out, it is. Most theologians believe that in Ephesians 1, Paul is teaching that we (meaning a select small group of humans) are predestined to blessings in Christ and that Paul infers that there is another, unchosen group. Yet a careful examination of chapter 1, especially verse 11, and a close look at the rest of Paul's letters and his entire ministry reveal just the opposite. Paul was not teaching a message of two distinct predestined groups, one to eternal life, one to eternal death. Rather, his mission, his ministry, his entire life, was to spread the news that salvation is for all men, not just for the Jews.

 

[mondar]

bleitzel,
So you take an outright Pelagian view?

Do you base your view on scripture?

 

[mondar]

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.

Romans 9 does not explicitly state that individual salvation is in view when it speaks of election, but that does not mean that individual salvation is not implicit within the text. I would connect personal salvation and election to Romans 9 with two observations.
1---- Within the context..... Implicit within the text are salvific statements. Paul does this in verse 3 when he says that he "could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ fro my brethren's sake," In fact verse 3 is an interesting combination of the implicit individual issues, and the national issues. What Paul is saying become more explicit as he moves into the next section. in 9:30, Paul writes that the "Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness attained unto righteousness, even the righteousness by faith," Then in 10 one Paul makes the explicit statement that his hearts desire is that Israel be saved." Possibly you could take the word "sotarian" (Gk for saved) as referring to physical deliverance, but that seems to be stretching the context to the breaking point. Of course the famous passage in 10:9-10 also refers to individual salvation. Can we really say that we are delivered physically by our personal righteousness. Did that work for the Roman Christians in the cataracts? Did that work for Steven the Martyr? I think the scripture is way to clear that we are saved unto trials and persecutions and not the easy life.
2---- Outside the context..... Also, important to the text is what other texts say about the covenant relationship. I think a good text to mention would be Galatians 3:6-8. In that text we again see national convenant and election issues. The covenant to Abraham is mentioned in verse 8. It is mentioned as the gospel to the Gentiles. The context begins with the gospel of Christ being crucified in verse 1, and then a complaint that the Galatians did not continue in faith. In this passage, the covenants are directly connected to individual salvation.

So again, while there is a "this worldly" purpose, this does not mean that there is no salvation issues. Election in Romans 9 remains to both.

 

[bleitzel]

bleitzel,
So you take an outright Pelagian view?

Do you base your view on scripture?

The Pelagians believed that man was capable of living a completely sinless life so no, I do not believe in pelagianism. Augustine preached a seemingly opposite theology of man having the inability to do any spiritual good without the regeneration of God, which He only bestows on certain people.

My view of the biblical truth lies in between. Sin certainly entered the world through Adam and all mankind has a sinful nature by which we cannot perfectly carry out God's decrees. We cannot become holy on our own. Likewise, man also has a spiritual nature whereby he has the ability to choose right from wrong and can make right judgements. Man can choose to humble himself before God.

Are you interested in addressing any of the other points of my post?

 

[mondar]

The Pelagians believed that man was capable of living a completely sinless life so no, I do not believe in pelagianism. Augustine preached a seemingly opposite theology of man having the inability to do any spiritual good without the regeneration of God, which He only bestows on certain people.

My view of the biblical truth lies in between. Sin certainly entered the world through Adam and all mankind has a sinful nature by which we cannot perfectly carry out God's decrees. We cannot become holy on our own. Likewise, man also has a spiritual nature whereby he has the ability to choose right from wrong and can make right judgements. Man can choose to humble himself before God.

Are you interested in addressing any of the other points of my post?

bleitzel, are you just making up things now? Please at least look up the doctrine of Pelagianism on Wiki, or read something on it somewhere before trying to say what the term means.

 

[smaller]

Election:

In this present life God DOES PREDESTINE some people to SEE and BELIEVE.

This is THE PREDETERMINED CONDITION of EVERY PERSON prior to their 'election and predestination' to SEE and BELIEVE in God in Jesus Christ:

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

ALL of us THUSLY BLINDED were ENEMIES of GOD.

The question is, does this mean ALL of us were, prior to election/predestination then VESSELS OF DESTRUCTION?

Paul's APOSTOLIC MISSION was delivered to him via the DIRECT WORDS of Jesus to him as follows:

Acts 26:
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Without THAT CALL 'Saul' was PREDESTINED as a BLIND MAN, even a PERSECUTOR of JESUS who had ALREADY DIED and RISEN. How then was SAUL persecuting JESUS?

Saul was a 'natural born' ENEMY just as we ALL were.

BLINDED by the GOD of this world, SATAN.

Only God can CURE this blindess.

The TWO VESSELS are THE BLIND MAN and SATAN.

Satan is assuredly the VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION that was in the SAME LUMP as 'Saul.'

Paul was ELECTED by Jesus for SPECIFIC CALL and SPECIFIC PURPOSE. To DIVIDE the BLINDED from SATAN.

Your call as a BELIEVER is not different than PAUL'S CALL. IF you do NOT know who your enemy is or WHERE that enemy is found, you ARE NOT CALLED or ELECTED, but are 'again' fallen into blindness.

Many are called. FEW are chosen. The CALL goes out into the WHOLE WORLD. In that CALL Satan also shows up. There is the LORD OF DARK BLINDNESS in MAN. Satan is to be BOUND hand and foot and CAST to the outer darkness.

IF you see your BLINDED FELLOW MAN as the vessel of destruction, you are off on a wild goose chase and you do NOT KNOW YOUR REAL ENEMY. Satan has BLINDED you to his PRESENCE as the BLINDER of your fellow man, and even of you for NOT SEEING this fact.

The VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION is the BLINDER who in fact COVERS and BLINDS the minds of ALL unbelievers OF WHOM YOU ONCE WERE.

There is NO account of a VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION 'turning into' a VESSEL OF HONOUR. Vessels of HONOUR are made to SEE THE LIGHT because of the preaching of the GOOD NEWS and GODS ELECTION to CAUSE them to SEE and BELIEVE in HIM.

Saul by NO MEANS 'chose' himself into the position of belief. He was literally STRUCK DOWN by the POWER OF GOD in Christ upon him and his BLINDNESS was removed via DIVINE ELECTION and PREDESTINATION.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Danus]

I used to be against this...not so much anymore


What're your thoughts?

Oats I think ..... what comes to mind when in opposition to predestination is the question of ones future in terms of their salvation. It's the timeless question so many ask themselves; "I'm I saved", or "will I go to haven."

Simply put logically, there is a future. We can't see it. If we could, none of us could face it on our own. We will all die physically. We don't know when and we don't know how. But, we are destined to die. This is an inescapable FACT, and if so then we are also destined to carry with us the condition of our own salvation at the moment of that FACT. So, the only question is, do we believe in faith or not?

In my humble opinion.....Those who have relished the test of faith, they claim in Christ Jesus as their savior, are best equipped to answer this question. Those who have not ....are not and will continue to wrestele with it. Not saying they are not saved....just not sure.

I think it's a good thing that your not so much against predestination as you might once have been.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Jude 1:

4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation

Notice, there a certain men ordained to this condemnation. The men are ordained , men are the direct object of ordained not condemnation.

The word ordained here means to write before time. Its the exact opposite of the writing of those who were designated for eternal blessedness as in lk 10:

20Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

This too was written of old or before time rev 17:8

whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, or of old !

 

[bleitzel]

bleitzel, are you just making up things now? Please at least look up the doctrine of Pelagianism on Wiki, or read something on it somewhere before trying to say what the term means.

From Wikipedia.org under "Pelagianism":

"When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will, Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. "

I think what I said stands.

 

[mondar]

From Wikipedia.org under "Pelagianism":

"When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will, Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. "

I think what I said stands.

bleitzel, please read the entire article. Wiki is not defining Pelagianism by what is stated in your quote. Here is Wiki's definition....

"Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint Human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin."

This is why I asked you if you are Pelagian. You seem to be either denying "original sin," or else denying that "original sin" has any influence in human nature.

What you said does not "stand" but it is very poor.

 

[bleitzel]

bleitzel, please read the entire article. Wiki is not defining Pelagianism by what is stated in your quote. Here is Wiki's definition....

"Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint Human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin."

This is why I asked you if you are Pelagian. You seem to be either denying "original sin," or else denying that "original sin" has any influence in human nature.

What you said does not "stand" but it is very poor.

Ok, Mondar, you're right, I didn't post the entire Wiki definition for Pelagianism. But neither did you. I do believe that man can choose good from evil but I believe that it is only with Divine aid. Yet I believe that God aids all men, not just some, so that anyone can choose right (with His aid). Also, I believe that the consequence of Original Sin is that no man perfectly chooses right, we all sin.

As a side note Mondar, Milkey Way should be Milky Way, and galaxie should be galaxy.

 

[mondar]

Ok, Mondar, you're right, I didn't post the entire Wiki definition for Pelagianism. But neither did you. I do believe that man can choose good from evil but I believe that it is only with Divine aid. Yet I believe that God aids all men, not just some, so that anyone can choose right (with His aid). Also, I believe that the consequence of Original Sin is that no man perfectly chooses right, we all sin.

Come on bleitzel, I posted the definition, you did not. You could not even read the wiki article for a proper context of a definition of Pelagianism. To get the context of the definition you do not need to quote the whole article, but you do need to quote the definition.

Concerning a universal preceeding work of grace, or a special work of grace upon some men, lets take this to the scripture. Would you like to post a text and I will post a text, and then rebuttal? How would you like to discuss a few scriptural texts. I suggest we each select one text for our points of view. Fair?

As a side note Mondar, Milkey Way should be Milky Way, and galaxie should be galaxy.

What does this have to do with me? Where did I misspell the words you quote?

 

[bleitzel]

Come on bleitzel, I posted the definition, you did not. You could not even read the wiki article for a proper context of a definition of Pelagianism. To get the context of the definition you do not need to quote the whole article, but you do need to quote the definition.

It's silly to argue this and I don't know why I'm stooping to it, but I guess it's because of the ludicrous claims you are making, saying that I did not quote the definition, that I did not read the entire article, and that I could not read the article or even get the proper context of the definition of Pelagianism. Mondar, you're making some bold and pretty insulting claims which would be tolerable if they weren't so obviously and laughably untrue. You quoted the first three sentences of the wiki page for Pelagianism, I quoted the 9th. I don't know how you can accuse me of not reading the entire article when it's right out there for everyone to see that I even quoted a line further into it than you did.

Concerning a universal preceeding work of grace, or a special work of grace upon some men, lets take this to the scripture. Would you like to post a text and I will post a text, and then rebuttal? How would you like to discuss a few scriptural texts. I suggest we each select one text for our points of view. Fair?

Well, first of all I would imagine that this would probably be best suited for a new post. Second, given your immediate track record, I'm not sure I would want to spend time bantering back and forth with someone who makes such broadly inaccurate assesments of the other persons' views or quotes. If someone gets so simple a thing as quoting a wiki page incorrect, how can they be relied upon to give an earnest and worthwhile discussion on the meanings of scripture.

What does this have to do with me? Where did I misspell the words you quote?

And speaking of inaccuracies, Milkey Way and galaxie are listed in your profile in your location description. I only noticed them because they are directly under your name on every post you make on these forums.

 

[mondar]

.......saying that I did not quote the definition.......

That is correct, and you are still refusing to admit that Pelagianism is about a denial of original sin and not quoting the definition. Why? Could it be that you recognize that are are indeed Pelagian if you accept the definition accepted by the rest of the world?

Let me again give the definition from Wiki. Here is the very first two sentences.
"Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint Human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. "

Now you are telling me that the first two sentences are not the definition in wiki for Pelagianism? You are telling me that wiki puts the definition under "HISTORY" when it later says....
"Pelagius was opposed by Augustine of Hippo, one of the most influential early Church Fathers. When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will, Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will."

.......and that I could not read the article or even get the proper context of the definition of Pelagianism.....

OK, maybe you read the article, I have no way of knowing. What I do know is that you still are not accepting the definition for Pelagianism. You want to go off on all sorts of little petty personal issues, your insulted, blah blah blah.

.....If someone gets so simple a thing as quoting a wiki page incorrect, how can they be relied upon to give an earnest and worthwhile discussion on the meanings of scripture.

Good point, if you cannot get the definition of Pelagianism correct from a wiki article, how can you do exegesis in the scripture.

And speaking of inaccuracies, Milkey Way and galaxie are listed in your profile in your location description. I only noticed them because they are directly under your name on every post you make on these forums.

I guess I should thank you for pointing out my misspelling, but since I suspect your motive was more of a personal attack, I will pass.

 

[bleitzel]

Wow.

 

[bleitzel]

Here, Mondar, instead of arguing about the true definition of Pelagianism (of which we do not actually disagree, we just keep going around in circles about who quoted what of the wiki page) or for that matter going into Augustinianism, or Semi-pelagianism, or any other doctrine I'll state here and now that I do not fall under any of those categories. I disagree with them all in some substantial measure.

Unlike Pelagianism I believe in Original Sin and it's consequences, and I do believe that God must work in each individual to bring about saving faith. However, unlike so many theologies, I also believe that God does this work in each and every one of us, but many do not respond.

However, this thread is about predestination. The traditional view of predestination of most theologians would be that some are predestined to eternal life and some not, but they differ on how those peoples are actually selected into those two camps. I, on the other hand, take a radically different view that the teachings of the Bible (and notably those of Paul) are grosslyu misunderstood in this regard. Take for example the first part of Ephesians 1.

In the first chapter of Ephesians Paul talks about predestination, about God choosing us in him (Christ). Most theologians assume that Paul is saying that there are some predestined, some chosen, and some not. And I admit, there is some seeming logic to that conclusion. Yet Paul does not specifically say that there are some not chosen. Why? One answer could be that Paul infers it or does not wish to speak of it on this occasion and does speak of it albeit criptically in Romans 9, but are those answers correct?

I would suggest that those answers are short-sighted in view of the full breadth of Paul's works and in view of the times in which he lived. Paul was not teaching that some were chosen and some not, he was teaching the opposite. He already lived in a world that had believed this for centuries, the Jewish world. Paul is teaching something new, that the Gentiles have been chosen also. It's all throughout his letters, it's in Acts, and it's central to Paul's teaching everywhere. Here in Ephesians he's not saying some are chosen and some not, he's assuming you already believe (as his contemporary audience most certainly did) that some are chosen, he's teaching that now the others are also chosen. -Eph 1:11.

 

[savedbygrace57]

rom 9:

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?


20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

With no consideration of sin and doing evil, God in His own Sovereign Right, as A Potter does the with His Clay, made some vessels [ individuals] to Honor, that is the Honor of Eternal Glory as in rom 2:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

And He made some vessels [ individuals] to dishonor, as in their eternal destruction and shame.

Daniel say of them dan 12:

2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Interesting, the word shame here in Dan 12 2 is the same word dishonor in rom 9 21

God makes some men for this eternal or everlasting dishonor based upon His Sovereign desire to do so, not because He foresaw their evil.

 

[mondar]

Unlike Pelagianism I believe in Original Sin and it's consequences,...

You are going to have to explain why you say some of the things below. You are going to assert (at minimum) a semi-pelagian (or possibly Arminian) view when you assert free will. Some Classical Arminians (IE, the Remonstrants and especially the later Westley) have a concept that Original sin causes total depravity, but I still dont see you as saying what they do. You seem to be saying something worse.

and I do believe that God must work in each individual to bring about saving faith. However, unlike so many theologies, I also believe that God does this work in each and every one of us, but many do not respond.

So you believe in a universal work of God that does what? You obviously believe that whatever God does is insufficient to accomplish its work. So then man is ultimately sovereign in salvation. God just throws out a little grace like chicken feed, and only the smarter, or the more spiritually responsive will be saved. God is the little helper that sometimes can provides a little grace that helps some get saved? Also, what scripture do you use to defend a universal work of God that does only a little bit of something so weak that man can overrule the work of God, something you did not define.

However, this thread is about predestination. The traditional view of predestination of most theologians would be that some are predestined to eternal life and some not, but they differ on how those peoples are actually selected into those two camps. I, on the other hand, take a radically different view that the teachings of the Bible (and notably those of Paul) are grosslyu misunderstood in this regard. Take for example the first part of Ephesians 1.

In the first chapter of Ephesians Paul talks about predestination, about God choosing us in him (Christ). Most theologians assume that Paul is saying that there are some predestined, some chosen, and some not. And I admit, there is some seeming logic to that conclusion. Yet Paul does not specifically say that there are some not chosen.

Bleitzel, this is really really bad argumentation. It is an argument from silence. You are arguing that "because Paul did not say X then X must be true." The fact that it is an argument from silence makes it a weak argument, but also the fact that Paul is asserting that some are chosen for righteousness is what is being said. The natural implication is that others are not chosen for righteousness. Notice verse 4....
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
First, we are chosen "in him." To make election a universal work would mean all mankind is "in him." Do you believe the body of Christ is universal?
Second, the result of election is that we are "holy and without blemish before him in love." Again, would you assert that the whole world ends up holy?

Why? One answer could be that Paul infers it or does not wish to speak of it on this occasion and does speak of it albeit criptically in Romans 9, but are those answers correct?

I would suggest that those answers are short-sighted in view of the full breadth of Paul's works and in view of the times in which he lived. Paul was not teaching that some were chosen and some not, he was teaching the opposite. He already lived in a world that had believed this for centuries, the Jewish world. Paul is teaching something new, that the Gentiles have been chosen also. It's all throughout his letters, it's in Acts, and it's central to Paul's teaching everywhere. Here in Ephesians he's not saying some are chosen and some not, he's assuming you already believe (as his contemporary audience most certainly did) that some are chosen, he's teaching that now the others are also chosen. -Eph 1:11.

While some of what you say seems a little vague, you seem to be asserting that Paul is including Gentiles in election. If by this you mean a limited group of Gentiles, that would not refute my position, but rather it would support the idea of the unconditional election of the saved.

On the other hand, my guess is that you are speaking of a universal election, that God chose the entire human race, but that his election is resistible. If that is your position, you seem to badly confuse two issues. The discussion in history about what is resistable is about prevenient (or preceeding grace), not election. Then you drag in issues of predestination and seem to be trying to make predestination a universal and resistible thing also.

bleitzel, all you seem to be doing is muddying the waters. I am sure you are passionate about what you believe, and I am guessing you are some sort of a brother in Christ, and I should be more gentile then I have been, but you need to gain some understanding of the issues, so that when you write, you do not simply muddy the waters. You seem to be learning some things as you go, but then you have to cover your trail and not let on that you did not know something. This is not the place to learn things as you go. It is obvious to me that you really know little about Calvinism and what Calvinists teach. I do not think there is shame in that, most non-Calvinists misrepresent Calvinism badly. Unfortunately, those same people will claim to know all about Calvinism. Please go read a few Calvinists on the issue and then you might speak knowledgably on the issue.

You have my best wishes.

 

[Vince]

Calvinism teaches that there are no "possibilities" in salvation. Either God forces you to be saved, or He forces you to be lost. But does the Bible teach that people have a "possibility" of being saved?

In Jeremiah 36:3, God tells Jeremiah: It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin."

Notice that God's goal in sending Jeremiah was that EVERYONE may turn from his evil way.