Why I Don't Believe in Predestination

[thessalonian]

Thess, why don't you tell us the position of the RCC on Open Theism?

[\quote]


Do you mean as far as an official statement against it? To my knowledge the heresy has not been a big problem in the Catholic Church. It is more of a protestant phenomena. Not saying there haven't been Catholics who hold to it's various degrees. But it hasn't been a wide enough heresy to receive alot of attention. The only way I can answer you is in affirming what I have been taught and what the Catechism teaches. That there is one omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God. That is that he knows ALL THINGS and sees them as if they happen today. He even knows what would happen if man chose another path. Thus he could tell the Ninevites "40 days and you will be destroyed" and it was true because it was the path they were on. In reading some proofs in a Catholic theology book recently the author went to great lengths to show that anything that is not knowable by God is greater than God. This is of course impossible. If something is not knowable by him then it bounds him as finite in that knowledge and he is no longer God.

 

[thessalonian]

The word "tradition" in the catholic church is just a smokescreen for the notion that their doctrine is infallible and therefore, cannot be changed. If they could admit they were fallible, then tradition wouldn't matter one iota. Only following the Word of God would be supreme at all times.

Heidi, perhaps you can tell me where you are off and unbiblical in what you teach. You must be off somewhere. The scriptures tell us the truth is knowable. So help me out here. Where are you wrong? Your fallible, right?

 

[DivineNames]

In other words- you are running away.

If you aren't able to debate the issues involved in the article then perhaps you shouldn't waste time by posting the link.

I'm willing to post about fundamentals of the faith, just not the deeper things of the word which you have no hope of grasping.

Yeah right. If a Christian were to respond to that article I seriously suspect that you would run away from the debate as fast as you could, just as you are running away from me.

The issues in question, such as the "problem of evil", are not really even what you would describe as Biblical issues. This is a matter of philosophy of religion. To talk about the "deeper things of the word" is a rather pathetic excuse! (lol) :-D

 

[DivineNames]

lol, you didn't read the link...did ya!

Not all of it actually. The last time you sent me to a link, it didn't have an answer.

So if you think there is an answer to this point then please explain.

We aren't psychic. If you have an answer to the point I made, then you need to explain yourself.

I guess JM likes to pretend that he has some answer to what is being said. :silly:

 

[DivineNames]

You have to keep in mind, I responded "so what" when the open theist/UR folks claimed God was the author of sin. I don't remember saying God was the author of sin

"Gods foreknowledge determines what that will it is going to be."

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 59&start=0


The impression I get from this, is that you are saying that God determines everything we do. Did I misunderstand you?

 

[JM]

I consider these doctrines of Grace to be deeper truths of the Christian faith and only debate them with Christians as I posted before.

In other words- you are running away.

If you aren't able to debate the issues involved in the article then perhaps you shouldn't waste time by posting the link.

No he's simply agreeing with Jesus not to throw pearls where they'll be trampled on.

Yah, something like that Heidi. I believe a Christian is Spirit lead and the mind is enlightened by the Holy Spirit to the deeper things of God while they "study to shew thyself..." Jesus did tells us not to cast our pearls before unbelievers. This may sound harsh and “unchristian†but Paul writes, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and "what communion hath light with darkness?†and “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.†What answer could a unbeliever accept, they are unbelieving.

Peace.

 

[Drew]

DivineNames posted an argument showing the problems of pre-destination. I found the argument compelling and expressed it in a more "formalized" way. We have heard nothing in response - the silence is telling. One can talk about casting pearls before swine and / or take comfort in an implicitly shared hope (among believers in full-on pre-destination) that if the issue is ignored it will go away.

In the end, it is the readers who will judge. I certainly would not expect people to believe in a position espoused by those who, when legitimately challenged, simply refuse to engage the subject.

People are probably a lot smarter than we think. When a straightforward objection to pre-destination is raised whether by a non-believer or a believer (I understand that DN is not a Christian whereas I am) and that objection goes unanswered, one can probably predict what people will think.

It is true that light has no communion with darkness. However, it is not much of a stretch to see "light" as a metaphor for a willingness to pursue truth - to engage in full and open discussion / debate with no hiding from the tough questions. Under the light of such inquiry, the borders of ignorance are pushed back, and we all benefit. When perfectly clear and valid questions are ignored and people resort to rhetoric, refusing to answer questions simply because the questioner belongs to a certain category (e.g. unbeliever), this is when the darkness starts to fall.

 

[mutzrein]

DivineNames posted an argument showing the problems of pre-destination. I found the argument compelling and expressed it in a more "formalized" way. We have heard nothing in response - the silence is telling. One can talk about casting pearls before swine and / or take comfort in an implicitly shared hope (among believers in full-on pre-destination) that if the issue is ignored it will go away.

In the end, it is the readers who will judge. I certainly would not expect people to believe in a position espoused by those who, when legitimately challenged, simply refuse to engage the subject.

People are probably a lot smarter than we think. When a straightforward objection to pre-destination is raised whether by a non-believer or a believer (I understand that DN is not a Christian whereas I am) and that objection goes unanswered, one can probably predict what people will think.

It is true that light has no communion with darkness. However, it is not much of a stretch to see "light" as a metaphor for a willingness to pursue truth - to engage in full and open discussion / debate with no hiding from the tough questions. Under the light of such inquiry, the borders of ignorance are pushed back, and we all benefit. When perfectly clear and valid questions are ignored and people resort to rhetoric, refusing to answer questions simply because the questioner belongs to a certain category (e.g. unbeliever), this is when the darkness starts to fall.

Can you pse ID which was DN's post & your formalisation that you refer to.

 

[Drew]

Can you pse ID which was DN's post & your formalisation that you refer to.

Most certainly, my fellow member of the Commonwealth. DN posted the argument twice on page6 (the first time about 40 % of the way down, the second, about 70 % of the way down). I "re-worked" it on page 8, about 70% of the way down. As far as I can judge, no one has given a (serious) response to it. The relevant text is 1 Corinthians 10:13.

 

[mutzrein]

Drew - This is probably not what you are looking for but I will give my view on predestination - if only in part.

I stand as one who believes in predestination as far as God choosing his children is concerned. But I believe that I stand apart from those within Christendom in general in respect to God ‘causing’ everything that happens to his children to happen. The predestination I believe is our spiritual birth, ie being born of the spirit or born again – which is eternal life. However many extend this (and misinterpret it) to mean our ‘salvation’ and say that because we are ‘saved’ (ie been given eternal life) we cannot be lost or unborn or lose our salvation or however you want to put it.

Having been given eternal life means just that. It is not a guarantee that we will make it to heaven. But since it is the gift of God (and God does not take gifts back) he makes us accountable for the gift. Those who remain in faith and walk according to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap their eternal reward. However those who go back to trying to achieve a ‘righteousness’ that is not of God, by what they do (ie trying to achieve their goal by human effort) are in danger of eternal punishment. In doing so they are denying that righteousness can only come through Christ and therefore the Spirit which has been given them is blasphemed and Christ’s atonement has been trampled on.

Inasmuch as our physical birth is brought about without our determination, so it is with our spiritual birth. However, once born of the spirit, this does not remove us from being subject to the flesh. All of mankind is subject to the flesh and God does not predetermine our responses to it. He has given us accountability for the gift of life but that does not deny that He has given us all that we need in order to walk according to his will.

From the day a child is born, it is necessary for both child and parents alike to interact for the growth and well being of the child. There are three attributes that contribute to the well being of a child that governs its destiny.
Firstly: To nurture the child
Secondly: To teach the child
Thirdly: To give comfort and security to the child
For the child to reap the benefits of its parent’s guidance, it is necessary for the child to remain under the discipline of the parents. And so it is with all who have been born of the Spirit. We must live by the Spirit and not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other. And so to grow in the Spirit and produce fruit that lasts, we must die to the sinful nature of the flesh.
The understanding of death to the flesh, and life in the spirit, seems to be one of the most elusive comprehensions of Christendom.

I’ve probably gone a bit off topic here but if you have any questions about any of this, fire away.

 

[Drew]

Hi Mutzrein:

Thanks for your answer. Although you did not say this explicitly, I understand you as believing that, through the pre-destining actions of God, some are given the chance to achieve eternal life in heaven (although they may end up not attaining it). By implication, some are presumably not even given this chance (is this your view?).

My problem with the brand of Calvinism that I read about on many of these forums is not so much this issue of election of only some, as it is the combination of this with the view that non-elect are born with a literally irrestistable inclination to sin - they have no choice but to sin. I believe that this is the "total depravity" prong of the TULIP view.

This picture seems inconsistent with the notion of a loving God since, it amounts to "pre-programming" humans to sin, not giving the non-elect a way of escape, and consigning the non-elect to an eternity in hell.

I am, frankly, mystified that anyone could believe such a thing.

Now, as always, I am totally open to being told that I misunderstand the relevant doctrines - total depravity, limited atonement etc. But, to my recollection, no one has claimed that my understanding of these doctrines has been incorrect, rather they seem to be claiming that this is what the Scriptures teach, whether "we like it or not". I have not found the Biblical arguments convincing at all - while consistent with a Calvinist reading, all the texts I have seen are "open" to other interpretations as well.

By the way, I suspect that many of the Calvinists in this forum may take a rather dim view of some your statements. You appear to deny "full-on" predestination of every event in the universe, and you also seem to believe that people who are "chosen" may not actually wind up in heaven.

Prepare to be excoriated, ye heretic!!! :D

 

[DivineNames]

Jesus did tells us not to cast our pearls before unbelievers. This may sound harsh and “unchristian†but Paul writes...

Did Jesus tell you to pretend that you have some answer to a point when you don't? :wink: As for "pearls", well lets look at the kind of nonsense that you Calvinists come out with-

since none of knows if we are called or not then salvation is open to anyone who wants it.

I have my doubts that you Calvinist devil worshippers actually possess much in the way of wisdom...

 

[JM]

DN, ask your question once again with this as a quote, I'll answer you.

JM

 

[DivineNames]

DN, ask your question once again with this as a quote, I'll answer you.

JM

What?

 

[Heidi]

Jesus did tells us not to cast our pearls before unbelievers. This may sound harsh and “unchristian†but Paul writes...

Did Jesus tell you to pretend that you have some answer to a point when you don't? :wink: As for "pearls", well lets look at the kind of nonsense that you Calvinists come out with-

since none of knows if we are called or not then salvation is open to anyone who wants it.

I have my doubts that you Calvinist devil worshippers actually possess much in the way of wisdom...

First of all, a Christian is not a Calvinist because he doesn't worship Calvin. Calvin was a fallible human being who was right sometimes and wrong sometimes just like the rest of us. So what matters is what the bible teaches. So we need to leave Calvin out of it.

But what people who believe we have free will believe is that some people are simply born with more intelligence, wisdom, discernment, etc. than others and the rest are too stupid to come to Christ. Not only is that the opposite of what the bible teaches, but it is not an equitable system whatsoever. It also exalts the human being which increases his sin of pride. So since it contradicts the word of God, it is from the devil, period. :evil:

 

[DivineNames]

DN, ask your question once again with this as a quote, I'll answer you.

JM

Do you want to answer points made/questions?

A couple of them-

Your arguements are delt with, the who's, why's, what's, when's and where's in the link below. If you don't read it, why should anyone read it for you?
http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

The author appears to be taking the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. Yes, if you are willing to do that, God can do anything at all and it is "good" by definition. It would be a contradiction for God to have done something evil.

The problem is that the "goodness" of God becomes completely meaningless.

(The author does mention God's "nature", which may actually result in the first horn, (and damage what he is saying), but it is clear enough I think that the author is taking the second horn of the dilemma.)

Your arguements are delt with, the who's, why's, what's, when's and where's in the link below. If you don't read it, why should anyone read it for you?
http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

If you take the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, then there is nothing to stop God from being a liar. Indeed, it would be perfectly good for God to be a liar!

So God may have lied to the Christians. God may not be sending you to heaven, he may actually intend to burn you all in hell!

JM, if God burns you in hell after having lied to you, would God be perfectly good? Would the torture of millions of Christians for ALL ETERNITY be for the "glory" of God? His righteous judgment?

 

[JM]

No, that'll work DN. Thank you for re-posting. I'll post as soon as I'm able, I'm working right now and tomorrow is Good Friday.

JM

 

[mutzrein]

Hi Mutzrein:

Thanks for your answer. Although you did not say this explicitly, I understand you as believing that, through the pre-destining actions of God, some are given the chance to achieve eternal life in heaven (although they may end up not attaining it). By implication, some are presumably not even given this chance (is this your view?).

My problem with the brand of Calvinism that I read about on many of these forums is not so much this issue of election of only some, as it is the combination of this with the view that non-elect are born with a literally irrestistable inclination to sin - they have no choice but to sin. I believe that this is the "total depravity" prong of the TULIP view.

This picture seems inconsistent with the notion of a loving God since, it amounts to "pre-programming" humans to sin, not giving the non-elect a way of escape, and consigning the non-elect to an eternity in hell.

I am, frankly, mystified that anyone could believe such a thing.

Now, as always, I am totally open to being told that I misunderstand the relevant doctrines - total depravity, limited atonement etc. But, to my recollection, no one has claimed that my understanding of these doctrines has been incorrect, rather they seem to be claiming that this is what the Scriptures teach, whether "we like it or not". I have not found the Biblical arguments convincing at all - while consistent with a Calvinist reading, all the texts I have seen are "open" to other interpretations as well.

By the way, I suspect that many of the Calvinists in this forum may take a rather dim view of some your statements. You appear to deny "full-on" predestination of every event in the universe, and you also seem to believe that people who are "chosen" may not actually wind up in heaven.

Prepare to be excoriated, ye heretic!!! :D

LOL - Yes I'm a heretic but unlike all those other heretics with spurious doctrines, I'm right. ;-) Of course there is much I don't know, but what I do know I cannot be moved on. And, by the way, I don't adhere to anyone's brand of theology - Calvanist or otherwise. If I believe the same as someone else, good for them and good for me. If not it is still good for me because I live according to the light God has given me. I cannot live on second-hand doctrine.

So, what I am saying is this. There are two birthrights. The birthright of the flesh and the birthright of the Spirit. We are all born of the flesh so we all have a birthright of the flesh. However, there are some who are given the birthright of the Spirit. Those who have been given the Spirit are still subject to the flesh but since thay have been given the Spirit they are called to walk according to the Spirit and not the flesh. Now there will always be a wrestle between the Spirit and the flesh since the flesh is inescapable. But, if we walk in the Spirit we will die to the flesh. This is perhaps one of the most elusive and misunderstood concepts in Christendom today and not something that can be covered in a line or two.

Since Adam sinned and was barred from the tree of life, all men are born in sin and therefore, but for the grace of God, are also destined to perish. Their birthright is the flesh and when they die, if they have not been given eternal life, they return to the dust from whence they came. The only hope that man has, in terms of eternity, is through Christ. Those to whom life is given, a new birthright is given. The birthright of the Spirit.

Now we are all born in the flesh. God chooses to give some eternal life. This precious gift is something that we are accountable for. As His children, God has given us all we need to do his will. Some, however turn back to trying to achieve a righteousness which is not of faith but through their own efforts. Now when Jesus judges men, he will judge those to whom He has given life. Those who have walked in faith in the righteousness of God, to eternal reward and those who have wallowed in self righteousness to eternal damnation. Now you will notice that I said that He judges those to whom He has given life. Those who are not the 'elect' (for want of a better word), ie those who have not been given eternal life, are not judged. They perish so they are not sent to hell and punished eternally for no fault of their own.

So, I wholeheartedly believe in a righteous God. He does not send those who have never been born again to eternal punishment. They are just destined to die. Their reward is an earthly reward according to their birthright. But those who have been born of the Spirit will receive an eternal reward according to their birthright.

Anything else I need to cover? Please ask.

 

[JM]

I wasn’t going to respond to DN’s posts for a few reasons, some of them stated, but after rethinking the issue I see a need to clarify the point I was trying to make. The so-called “Calvinists†understood what I was getting at, others did not, so here we go…once again.

When the author gives the answer, “So what?†to the question of whether or not God is the author of sin, I don’t believe he’s making a case that God is in fact the author of sin. As a Christian reforming my mind to the Bible, I have to admit that sin was decreed to exist by God, yet, it’s origin is a mystery [“as we only see through a glass darklyâ€Â]. The unfaithful and the unbeliever have a hard time grasping this fact, God doesn’t explain the origin of sin and with holds knowledge from man which is why this kind of discussion can lead to frustration, bearing no fruit. Sin is not from God but we can’t exclude it from God’s divine counsel and plan. To understand sin we need to understand the fall of man. Man fell for eating of the fruit of the garden. Herman Bavinck wrote: “To know good and evil is to become the determiner of good and evil; it is to decide for oneself what is right and wrong and not submit to any external law. In short, to seek the knowledge of good and evil is to desire emancipation from God; it is to want to be ‘like God.’†The London Baptist Confession of 1689 reads, “The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.( Romans 11:32-34; 2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Chronicles 21:1; 2 Kings 19:28; Psalms 76;10; Genesis 1:20; Isaiah 10:6, 7, 12; Psalms 1:21; 1 John 2:16 )â€Â

I don’t believe God forced men to sin, He simply withheld His restraining hand, which allowed man to fall. God didn’t have to restrain sin and He still doesn’t, but He does.

It’s difficult to explain in such a way an unbeliever will understand…what we can know…

We can know the fall of man thru Adam wasn’t an accident and was ordained by God [“foreknown indeed (as a sacrifice for sin) before the foundation of the world,†1 Peter 1:20.] The apostle Paul’s revelations agree when he writes about “the eternal purpose†in Jesus Christ our Lord, Ephesians 3:l1 and Hebrews 13:20. We have a totally valid conclusion since we find the plan of redemption is found in eternity, that the fall of man finds it’s origins in eternity. There would be no need to have a plan for redemption if redemption of a peoples wasn’t necessary.

We can know that redemption is based upon free Grace from God in eternity. We can know that God’s glory is found in His creation which was brought out of nothing and also in the redemption of mankind.

We can know the reason for allowing the fall, “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.†Romans 11:32 God gave consent for Adam and Eve to be tempted and fall, and then forgive that sin for His own glory. Allowing the fall and authoring the fall are different and from our finite position as believers it seems the fall was allowed in order to show what free will would do. As John Nelson Darby wrote, “freewill is sin.†Any will outside that of God’s is sinful.

We can know that sinful acts are permitted and good works are made certain by God’s decrees, “God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )†LBCF 1689 Examples of deliberately sinful acts resulting in good are Joseph being solid into slavery Gen. 45 – 50, Pharoh’s heart being harden Ex. 4:21; 9:12, Shimei cursing David 2 Sam. 16, Saul killing himself 1 Cor. 10, and the murder of Christ resulting in good.

Ok, now I can look at what you wrote…

The author appears to be taking the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. Yes, if you are willing to do that, God can do anything at all and it is "good" by definition. It would be a contradiction for God to have done something evil.

The author is placing the burden on those who object to find a reason why God can’t be the author of sin, that’s it, short and sweet. What I believe Cheung to be saying is that your claim that predestination makes God the author of sin is a tradition and not Biblical at all. God knew what mankind would be like and created us anyway. A quote from the work, “One example is the relationship between divine sovereignty (X) and human responsibility (Y). By themselves, there is no contradiction between the two, whether actual or apparent. However, the two will appear to contradict once you impose the premise "responsibility presupposes freedom" (Q). All of a sudden, it appears that X contradicts Y. In fact, if Q is true, then this would be a real contradiction, and not only an apparent one. But once we realize that Q is false, even the appearance of a contradiction disappears. The key, then, is to correctly understand what Scripture says, and to avoid adding to it false ideas that do not come from Scripture at all.â€Â

The problem is that the "goodness" of God becomes completely meaningless. (The author does mention God's "nature", which may actually result in the first horn, (and damage what he is saying), but it is clear enough I think that the author is taking the second horn of the dilemma.)

I agree. When you delve into the decrees of God you are left without an answer and humbled, the infinite vs. the finite. Man should be humbled by knowing he is not permitted to know certain truths of God and this knowledge is understood by faith. This makes it difficult for the unbeliever to understand because they don’t trust God.

If you take the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, then there is nothing to stop God from being a liar. Indeed, it would be perfectly good for God to be a liar!

Yes, I know. This is what happens in Islam, Allah is a liar; he can do anything he wants including telling lies. The Christian is not faced with this problem. Our God cannot do anything contrary to His nature.

So God may have lied to the Christians. God may not be sending you to heaven, he may actually intend to burn you all in hell!

This is what happens when you miss the point of the teaching, and jump to conclusions based upon a first year study of philosophy. After re-reading much of Cheung’s book [as well as his Systematic Theology] in the context of the study I’ve done/continue to do, Cheung wouldn’t be a good place to start as an unbeliever. The context of Cheung’s work in the Reformed Church can only be understood in light of the theological progress made before and found in the works of Calvin, Kyper, Bavinck, Berkhof, etc. and that's probably why Bill or the other Calvinists on this forum haven't really responded. I've restated for clarity what I believe at the top setting Cheung's work aside for now.

JM, if God burns you in hell after having lied to you, would God be perfectly good?

God cannot lie and man is pnished for his actual sin, not his sinful nature. The problem is, the sinful nature always results in actual sin. “For all have sinned…â€Â

Would the torture of millions of Christians for ALL ETERNITY be for the "glory" of God?

This question doesn’t make sense, Christian are believers and will not surfer the wrath of God because Christ died in the place as a substitution.

His righteous judgment?

Yes.

 

[ArtGuy]

“One example is the relationship between divine sovereignty (X) and human responsibility (Y). By themselves, there is no contradiction between the two, whether actual or apparent. However, the two will appear to contradict once you impose the premise "responsibility presupposes freedom" (Q). All of a sudden, it appears that X contradicts Y. In fact, if Q is true, then this would be a real contradiction, and not only an apparent one. But once we realize that Q is false, even the appearance of a contradiction disappears. The key, then, is to correctly understand what Scripture says, and to avoid adding to it false ideas that do not come from Scripture at all.â€Â

This pretty much destroys the notion of responsibility, then. Consider the following:

I sneak into your house and inject you with a drug that paralyzes you. I then drag a bound and gagged person into your room and stick him on the floor. I place a gun into your limp hand, and use your finger to pull the trigger, thus killing the bound man.

Did you possess freedom of action? Were you responsible?

Assuming your answers are "no" and "yes", could you please define "responsibility" in the sense that you understand it? Because the definition of responsbility as most understand it requires freedom of action. Asking if one can be responsible without being free is like asking if one can be a lemon without being a fruit. The question simply has no meaning, unless you're crafting alternative definitions for the terms.