Why I Don't Believe in Predestination

[AVBunyan]

What do you mean by God blessed them?


Are you talking about the members they converted to your denomination?

Why don't you and others try taking some time off from these forums and doing some research - the material and documentation is there to support my statement but it takes reading, reseaching, and relating.

 

[Imagican]

So, by the definition that I understand of 'predestination', the thief on the cross next to Jesus was 'already' chosen by God to join Christ in heaven from the moment of, (or even before?), his conception? In other words, the hearts and minds of man have ABSOLUTELY no bearing on their seeking or finding God or Christ?

So, for one to believe such would certainly make them feel 'special' wouldn't it? Ridiculous. We are saved by GRACE ALONE, but this in NO way indicates that we must be CHOSEN to know God. We know God because we choose to. EVERY one of us. We are ALL given the choice to accept God or deny Him once we've learned of Him.

For anyone that would deny this I have but ONE question: WHY would Christ state that the Word must be spread throughout the ENTIRE world before His return? So that EVEN those that WEREN'T chosen could be teased with what they were NEVER able to have? Ridiculous.

This 'predestination'..........stuff, is nothing more than another way for those who so choose to believe are able to separate themselves from others. One of the 'greatest' gifts that man was given was 'freedom of choice'. Predestination TOTALLY eliminates ANY kind of freedom whatsoever.

The Jews were God's 'chosen', Christ came to bring the Father to ALL men. Not just the ones that 'think' they are special.

 

[DivineNames]

Yes, we've been through this before and you never explained my statement. Since you answered nothing before it appears you are not really interested in learning then I won't waste my time mate - All you are doing is taking pot shots at Calvinism and then running off like your shots are going to convince us we are wrong.

running off? :roll:

In fact, I responded to what you had said. And you didn't reply. If anyone is guilty of "running off", then that would be you.

Again - all I ask is you explain my statement below since none else has yet. Since you believe the God of Calvinism is evil then what about below?

If Calvinism is so evil then why were most of the evangelists, writers, preachers, and missionaries who were Calvinists so blessed and used of God?

If you will not take the time to explain the above after your negative statements about Calvinism then why should I "cast my pearls before swine"? Mat 7:6

Again, do you have any scientific evidence that Calvinists are especially "holy" or "saintly" in comparison with other Christians, and in comparison with the followers of other religions? You are asking me to explain something without actually providing any solid evidence for the claim! Your opinion isn't good enough to support a claim like that, I need to see some evidence.


Even if certain Calvinists were more "holy" than other Christians of the time, I believe that someone did suggest a reason-

It was their aim to make people work until you felt "elected".

 

[DivineNames]

Mr. Divinenames – I’m assuming to you are saying the God of Calvinism is evil. If this is what you are saying then I can say with authority that you are ignorant of what true Calvinism teaches

So Calvinism doesn't teach such things as "Total Depravity" and "Unconditional Election"??

Don't waste my time mate.

Does Calvinism teach those things or not? Or do you think I have an erroneous understanding of those doctrines?

 

[gingercat]

Why don't you and others try taking some time off from these forums and doing some research - the material and documentation is there to support my statement but it takes reading, reseaching, and relating.

I will not make time to do those kind of researches you are talking about. I make assessment from the fruit of everyday life of christianity. Talk is cheap.

Looking at simple fruit is much more effective and biblical; you cannot hide from it.

Take a look at Catholics' report, They are all in favor of their point but hide the negatives!

 

[AVBunyan]

I will not make time to do those kind of researches you are talking about.

That's because you are either lazy or are afraid of what you might find or both.

All you want to do is to be a fruit inspector (easy enough to do) but yet you have no spiritual knowledge by which to judge fruit but your own set of standards which is polluted. You refuse to study or don't know how to study or both.

 

[gingercat]

All you want to do is to be a fruit inspector (easy enough to do) but yet you have no spiritual knowledge by which to judge fruit but your own set of standards which is polluted. You refuse to study or don't know how to study or both.

Thats your opinion and you are entitle to it, but I don't agree with you.

I have been studying the Bible and following enough to know what is good fruit or poluted. It seems you are focusing on you churche's theology and you are the one who is poluted by it. :roll: You seem your are Calvinist more than Christian.

 

[AVBunyan]

I have been studying the Bible and following enough to know what is good fruit or poluted.

OK then - with all your studying then you should be able to tell me...

One more time with feeling...

If Calvinism is so bad thenw hy were most of the evangelists, writers, preachers, and missionaries who were so fruitful and used by God Calvinists?

You folks cannot answer this. All you can do is mock Calvinism but you can't explain the above.

 

[bbas 64]

God hates sin and because of his nature, will judge it.

Yes, God "hates sin" so much that he directly causes ALL THE SIN IN THE WORLD according to you Calvinists!

Good Day, DivineNames

Source for such a silly assertion.. Please

Well if God determines everything, (as many Calvinists seem to believe), then it obviously follows that God has directly caused all moral evil. And some Calvinists, at least, seem happy to admit it.

In a recent thread, JM was saying "So what?" to the idea that God is the "author of sin".

Good Day, Divine Names

Yes, I do understand the view of JM on this issue, but I asked for a source do you have one that I could read as I think you have painted with a broad brush here.

Ok so what, as JM has said. Do you have a verese in Scripture that explictly says "God is not the author of sin"?

What is your view primary causes and secondary causes and causality as a whole.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day AV and JM

Thank you for the kind words.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Drew]

In the context of Matt. 10, Jesus is speaking to His disciples, present and future. The subject is fear ---- fear of those who would impose upon them the ultimate penalty: death. In the case of His disciples, the penalty would be unjust, for they would be persecuted, hunted down and even killed for proclaiming that which was holy and righteous. Jesus then calms their fears. If it is true that insignificant birds with very little monetary value cannot fall out of the sky to their death without the decree of God that it be so, then how much more will the Lord watch over His own, His Elect, who are so valuable that He sent His only begotten Son incarnate to die in their stead? No harm can come to one of His own unless He wills it be so. Furthermore, they are not to be fearful of death, for the enemy has no power over their souls.

I think that this response begs the question at issue. I have argued that the Matt 10:29 text in no way requires an interpretation that God has a will in respect to each and every bird. I have not denied that your view is a possible interpretation- I have just pointed out another interpretation that is also true to the text. You need to show how this second interpretation is not plausible. I do not see that this has been done.

I am aware of the general context in which the reference to the birds is made - Jesus is indeed trying to calm his disciples' fears. But this fact does not really argue against the interpretation that I have put forward. Why? Because the re-assurance lies in the fact that the will of God will prevail - there is simply not enough reason to rule out the possibility that it is God's generalwill is that which will prevail. The "general will" interpretation is still OK since being reassured of this should be enough to comfort the disciples. This text does not require that God have a will in respect to each bird.

I will certainly concede that this text states that no event, no matter how tiny or insignificant, will interfere with God's will being achieved. However, it is a matter of logic that this does not require that every event be pre-determined by God. It is perfectly legit to see this text as allowing all sorts of free variables to be at play. Of course certain variables cannot go certain ways as this would indeed thwart the will of God. But this by no means requires all variables to be fully controlled.

Its like this: There are many ways that God can achieve his general will. So there are indeed many variables that are pre-determined. However, they certainly cannot all be fully free, for that would take away the certainty that his will will be achieved.

The Lord then further expands His reasoning. Not only is the Lord in control of the life and death of every creature, but He is also in control of every hair on every human’s head.

I see no issue of pre-destination here. All I see is a statement about God's omniscience, which I see as conceptually distinct from an issue of pre-destination.

Furthermore, in choosing some sinners as recipients of His mercy and saving grace, He does not ‘look down the corridors of time’ to see what men will do with the Gospel and Christ and then predestine them. Rather, He gives them this glorious destiny before --- PRE ---- they have done either good or evil…..even before their birth.

I am aware of this view.

Let me ask you a direct question:

Do you agree with the following statement: All men are born with an irresistable inclination to sin - they have no choice in the matter in the sense that it is not possible for them to not sin. The wages of sin is eternal suffering in Hell. Some of these men (the non-elect) have no possibility to attain salvation. Consequently a non-elect person comes into the world pre-destined for hell with no possibility of escaping this fate.

If you agree with this statement, you seem to be effectively saying that it is just for God to create a feeling creature that is pre-programmed by some external force for eternal torment. I cannot accept this, since my whole notion of "deserved punishment" for person "X" necessarily entails the possibility that X can choose to avoid the transgression for which he is to be punished.

 

[bbas 64]

In the context of Matt. 10, Jesus is speaking to His disciples, present and future. The subject is fear ---- fear of those who would impose upon them the ultimate penalty: death. In the case of His disciples, the penalty would be unjust, for they would be persecuted, hunted down and even killed for proclaiming that which was holy and righteous. Jesus then calms their fears. If it is true that insignificant birds with very little monetary value cannot fall out of the sky to their death without the decree of God that it be so, then how much more will the Lord watch over His own, His Elect, who are so valuable that He sent His only begotten Son incarnate to die in their stead? No harm can come to one of His own unless He wills it be so. Furthermore, they are not to be fearful of death, for the enemy has no power over their souls.

I think that this response begs the question at issue. I have argued that the Matt 10:29 text in no way requires an interpretation that God has a will in respect to each and every bird. I have not denied that your view is a possible interpretation- I have just pointed out another interpretation that is also true to the text. You need to show how this second interpretation is not plausible. I do not see that this has been done.

I am aware of the general context in which the reference to the birds is made - Jesus is indeed trying to calm his disciples' fears. But this fact does not really argue against the interpretation that I have put forward. Why? Because the re-assurance lies in the fact that the will of God will prevail - there is simply not enough reason to rule out the possibility that it is God's generalwill is that which will prevail. The "general will" interpretation is still OK since being reassured of this should be enough to comfort the disciples. This text does not require that God have a will in respect to each bird.

I will certainly concede that this text states that no event, no matter how tiny or insignificant, will interfere with God's will being achieved. However, it is a matter of logic that this does not require that every event be pre-determined by God. It is perfectly legit to see this text as allowing all sorts of free variables to be at play. Of course certain variables cannot go certain ways as this would indeed thwart the will of God. But this by no means requires all variables to be fully controlled.

Its like this: There are many ways that God can achieve his general will. So there are indeed many variables that are pre-determined. However, they certainly cannot all be fully free, for that would take away the certainty that his will will be achieved.

[quote="Humble Servant":13e22]The Lord then further expands His reasoning. Not only is the Lord in control of the life and death of every creature, but He is also in control of every hair on every human’s head.

I see no issue of pre-destination here. All I see is a statement about God's omniscience, which I see as conceptually distinct from an issue of pre-destination.

Furthermore, in choosing some sinners as recipients of His mercy and saving grace, He does not ‘look down the corridors of time’ to see what men will do with the Gospel and Christ and then predestine them. Rather, He gives them this glorious destiny before --- PRE ---- they have done either good or evil…..even before their birth.

I am aware of this view.

Let me ask you a direct question:

Do you agree with the following statement: All men are born with an irresistable inclination to sin - they have no choice in the matter in the sense that it is not possible for them to not sin. The wages of sin is eternal suffering in Hell. Some of these men (the non-elect) have no possibility to attain salvation. Consequently a non-elect person comes into the world pre-destined for hell with no possibility of escaping this fate.

If you agree with this statement, you seem to be effectively saying that it is just for God to create a feeling creature that is pre-programmed by some external force for eternal torment. I cannot accept this, since my whole notion of "deserved punishment" for person "X" necessarily entails the possibility that X can choose to avoid the transgression for which he is to be punished.[/quote:13e22]

Good Day, Drew

Yes all men love darness none seeks God, and freely choose to sin. You seem to assume " no possibility of salvation" That God has obligated him self, or that men some how deserve a "possibilty" bad assumption.

Predestined for Hell, no it was a big mistake God tries to save them and fails, Jesus died for their sins and they still have to pay again in hell. God has to do nothing for man to go to hell. For man to go to Heaven God must extend his grace which he does as he pleases.

Has not that question been answered long ago:

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay 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?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.



Who art thou to say why hast thou formed me this way???

Does not the potter have power over the clay, to form what so ever he chooses vessles of honour and dishounor? Then show longsufffering to those fitted for wath as to make his riches known to the one prepared for glory.

Of course he does he is the creator...

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[gingercat]

I have been studying the Bible and following enough to know what is good fruit or poluted.

OK then - with all your studying then you should be able to tell me...

One more time with feeling...

If Calvinism is so bad thenw hy were most of the evangelists, writers, preachers, and missionaries who were so fruitful and used by God Calvinists?

You folks cannot answer this. All you can do is mock Calvinism but you can't explain the above.

I dont know if they are doing an honest job spreading the Truth. The way they are doing in the churches at home I doubt that what they say is the whole truth. I am from Okinawa and I know missionaries there without any fruit. They are wasting your churches' money. Look what is going on in the US. I dont see much of the general churches' work here. Plenty of quantity and little quality.

 

[Heidi]

[quote="Humble Servant":d0a00]
In the context of Matt. 10, Jesus is speaking to His disciples, present and future. The subject is fear ---- fear of those who would impose upon them the ultimate penalty: death. In the case of His disciples, the penalty would be unjust, for they would be persecuted, hunted down and even killed for proclaiming that which was holy and righteous. Jesus then calms their fears. If it is true that insignificant birds with very little monetary value cannot fall out of the sky to their death without the decree of God that it be so, then how much more will the Lord watch over His own, His Elect, who are so valuable that He sent His only begotten Son incarnate to die in their stead? No harm can come to one of His own unless He wills it be so. Furthermore, they are not to be fearful of death, for the enemy has no power over their souls.

I think that this response begs the question at issue. I have argued that the Matt 10:29 text in no way requires an interpretation that God has a will in respect to each and every bird. I have not denied that your view is a possible interpretation- I have just pointed out another interpretation that is also true to the text. You need to show how this second interpretation is not plausible. I do not see that this has been done.

I am aware of the general context in which the reference to the birds is made - Jesus is indeed trying to calm his disciples' fears. But this fact does not really argue against the interpretation that I have put forward. Why? Because the re-assurance lies in the fact that the will of God will prevail - there is simply not enough reason to rule out the possibility that it is God's generalwill is that which will prevail. The "general will" interpretation is still OK since being reassured of this should be enough to comfort the disciples. This text does not require that God have a will in respect to each bird.

I will certainly concede that this text states that no event, no matter how tiny or insignificant, will interfere with God's will being achieved. However, it is a matter of logic that this does not require that every event be pre-determined by God. It is perfectly legit to see this text as allowing all sorts of free variables to be at play. Of course certain variables cannot go certain ways as this would indeed thwart the will of God. But this by no means requires all variables to be fully controlled.

Its like this: There are many ways that God can achieve his general will. So there are indeed many variables that are pre-determined. However, they certainly cannot all be fully free, for that would take away the certainty that his will will be achieved.

[quote="Humble Servant":d0a00]The Lord then further expands His reasoning. Not only is the Lord in control of the life and death of every creature, but He is also in control of every hair on every human’s head.

I see no issue of pre-destination here. All I see is a statement about God's omniscience, which I see as conceptually distinct from an issue of pre-destination.

Furthermore, in choosing some sinners as recipients of His mercy and saving grace, He does not ‘look down the corridors of time’ to see what men will do with the Gospel and Christ and then predestine them. Rather, He gives them this glorious destiny before --- PRE ---- they have done either good or evil…..even before their birth.

I am aware of this view.

Let me ask you a direct question:

Do you agree with the following statement: All men are born with an irresistable inclination to sin - they have no choice in the matter in the sense that it is not possible for them to not sin. The wages of sin is eternal suffering in Hell. Some of these men (the non-elect) have no possibility to attain salvation. Consequently a non-elect person comes into the world pre-destined for hell with no possibility of escaping this fate.

If you agree with this statement, you seem to be effectively saying that it is just for God to create a feeling creature that is pre-programmed by some external force for eternal torment. I cannot accept this, since my whole notion of "deserved punishment" for person "X" necessarily entails the possibility that X can choose to avoid the transgression for which he is to be punished.[/quote:d0a00]

Good Day, Drew

Yes all men love darness none seeks God, and freely choose to sin. You seem to assume " no possibility of salvation" That God has obligated him self, or that men some how deserve a "possibilty" bad assumption.

Predestined for Hell, no it was a big mistake God tries to save them and fails, Jesus died for their sins and they still have to pay again in hell. God has to do nothing for man to go to hell. For man to go to Heaven God must extend his grace which he does as he pleases.

Has not that question been answered long ago:

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay 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?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.



Who art thou to say why hast thou formed me this way???

Does not the potter have power over the clay, to form what so ever he chooses vessles of honour and dishounor? Then show longsufffering to those fitted for wath as to make his riches known to the one prepared for glory.

Of course he does he is the creator...

Peace to u,

Bill[/quote:d0a00]

"Freely" choose to sin? Paul said; "Why do I do that which I do not want to do and that which I want to do, I cannot."

Romans 9:11-25 explains perfectly how God's election is supreme. Esau had no more ability to "choose" to love God than Pharoah did. God explains in Romans 9:22-14 exactly why he chose some and not others. But again, the whole key to the "free will" issue is that since none of us knows whether we are called, salvation is open to all and we are all without excuse. We simply respond from what rules us. "A man is a slave to whatever masters him."

 

[Drew]

Hi bbas 64:

I am having difficulty understanding your most recent post, the first 2 paragraphs in particular.

Would you be willing to address the question I posed in my most recent post, which I will repeat as fiollows:

Do you agree with the following statement: All men are born with an irresistable inclination to sin - they have no choice in the matter in the sense that it is not possible for them to not sin. The wages of sin is eternal suffering in Hell. Some of these men (the non-elect) have no possibility to attain salvation. Consequently a non-elect person comes into the world pre-destined for hell with no possibility of escaping this fate.

Does not the potter have power over the clay, to form what so ever he chooses vessles of honour and dishounor? Then show longsufffering to those fitted for wath as to make his riches known to the one prepared for glory.

Of course he does he is the creator...

I am no dummy - I fully understand how the Romans text appears to consitute strong evidence for the notion that God pre-destines some to Hell. However, I have to believe that he (Paul) must mean something else here. Why am I unwilling to accept what appears to be the obvious meaning of this text?

My primary reason is that one overall theme of the Scriptures is the notion of just punishment, punishment in response to (apparently) free acts of sin and disobedience. In the book of Numbers, we have God killing those who rebel against Moses. The very strong implication is the notion that these people "knew better" and still "chose" to sin. I agree that the Numbers text does not rule out the possibility that these acts of disobedience were "pre-determined", but I have reasons for believing that this was not so. I won't go into those reasons here, for the sake of brevity.

At the end of the day, I freely admit that I simply cannot make sense of the idea that the creator "gets to do whatever he wants" to his creatures by virtue of his role as the creator. The Romans text suggests pre-destination to Hell. But we know other things about God - one being that He is certainly not evil. And I hold the following to be self-evident: it is evil to create beings who can feel torment, and essentially pre-destine them to experience an eternity in pain. If you think otherwise, I suspect that we will have reached an unbreachable impasse.

If a person somehow developed the skill to "create" some kind of pet animal and then created a situation where that animal cannot, though any means, escape a fate of eternal pain, we would throw that person in jail so fast his head would spin. And rightly so, IMHO.

 

[Drew]

But again, the whole key to the "free will" issue is that since none of us knows whether we are called, salvation is open to all and we are all without excuse.

Do any of you "Calvinists" (other than Heidi, of course) agree with this statement?

 

[Heidi]

But again, the whole key to the "free will" issue is that since none of us knows whether we are called, salvation is open to all and we are all without excuse.

Do any of you "Calvinists" (other than Heidi, of course) agree with this statement?

What part of that statement do you believe is untrue? The part where salvation is open to all? Or do you think only those who were born intelligent enough to "choose" God can come to God? If so, that contradicts all of scripture. So which part do you think is untrue? :o

 

[Drew]

But again, the whole key to the "free will" issue is that since none of us knows whether we are called, salvation is open to all and we are all without excuse.

Do any of you "Calvinists" (other than Heidi, of course) agree with this statement?

What part of that statement do you believe is untrue? The part where salvation is open to all? Or do you think only those who were born intelligent enough to "choose" God can come to God? If so, that contradicts all of scripture. So which part do you think is untrue? :o

Hello Heidi:

It is possible that I do not understand your position. However, I understand you as believing that a sub-set of all persons are "pre-selected" for salvation by God - there is no doubt that these people will, in fact, be saved. These people simply cannot reject the gift of salvation. By contrast, those who are not "pre-selected" cannot do anything to gain salvation. However, since we do not know which people are pre-selected and which are not, we can conclude that salvation is actually available to all.

If you believe this, then probably we are so far apart on what constitutes a logical position, we probably have to politely agree to disagree.

Is this, in fact, what you believe? Is this part of what the rest of you "Calvinists" believe? (I suspect that no other posters in this thread will agree to this position, but I could be wrong).

 

[JM]

Look up the Scripture.

Whereas the devil (or a person's lust) may be the tempter, and the person might be the sinner, it is God who directly and completely controls both the tempter and the sinner, and the relationship between them. And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil spirits to tempt (1 Kings 22:19–23) and to torment (1 Samuel 16:14–23, 18:10, 19:9). But in all of this, God is righteous by definition.

What do you say to God when He writes, "I bring prosperity and create disaster?" God Himself does what He wants.

The better questions to ask is, why did God allow suffering if He didn't created it? Why would a holy God allow suffering without a purpose? What is the purpose? How is that purpose different if He's not the author or in control of everything?

To finish, "...this matter about the author of sin is just tradition, nothing more."

Peace.

 

[DivineNames]

Yes, I do understand the view of JM on this issue, but I asked for a source do you have one that I could read as I think you have painted with a broad brush here.

Well my statement is going to apply to all Calvinists who believe that God determines everything. Now that may not be all Calvinists, I really wouldn't know how many of them believe that.

Ok so what, as JM has said. Do you have a verese in Scripture that explictly says "God is not the author of sin"?

What? :D

First you say that it's a "silly assertion" to make about Calvinists, and now you seem to be saying, "So what if God is the author of sin?". Do you not realize that you are contradicting yourself?