Why I Don't Believe in Predestination

[Drew]

Greetings All:

A very active thread and I know that some questions have been asked of me that I have not answered. I hope to get around to answering all questions. I too have asked questions that have not been answered.

Here's a problem that I see for the Calvinist (the same fundamental problem may actually exist for the Arminian as well).

JM has quoted a lot of verses supporting such things are pre-destination and limited atonement. Let's look at one:

Ephesians 1:5: "Having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. "

Sounds like a clear statement suporting pre-destination, doesn't it? Well, yes, it indeed does. And since we know not all are going to be saved, it seems to support limited atonement, right? Yes it certainly seems to.

Hold that thought.

I now repeat the infamous 2 Kings 20 text:

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "

7 Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. God says Hez will not recover in verse 1. We are told that he indeed recovers in verse 7. Is God not telling the truth in verse 1. If He is telling the truth, the person who believes that God fore-ordains everything has a problem.

How is this answered? Well, in these forums there has been one nonsense answer repeatedly posted by a person who is not involved in this thread. There has, to my recollection, been not a single remotely credible answer to this dilemma forthcoming from those who believe in full-on pre-destination.

And this is as much a part of Scripture as Ephesians 1:5.

I have found one answer that I can at least respect (if not agree with). This person (not a member of the 123 forums) argues that in verse 1, there is an implicit qualifier to the "you will not recover" statement. More specifically, God's real meaning is "you will not recover, unless you turn to me and repent". This person then argues that inferring this additional qualifier is not unreasonable given the whole story of God's dealings with man throughout the Scriptures.

I can respect this view.

However, lets return to Ephesians 1:5. I maintain that one could equally say that the statement "Having foreordained us unto adoption as sons..." really means "Having foreordained us unto a state of potential adoption as sons....", thus taking away the need to see this verse as supporting pre-destination. I, like my Calvinist friend, can argue that the rest of Scripture supports the addition of this unstated qualifier. After all, the scriptures are full of "choose this day....." type of statements, which support the idea that man has some free will.

I think that this "game" is played by many. To me, what's good for the Calvinist goose is good for the Arminian gander....

 

[Drew]

Again, I didn't write that God ordained evreything...he decreed everything.

Please provide a meaningful distinction between the following:

"God ordained X"

"God decreed X"

To me they mean the exaxt same thing.

 

[JM]

My wording was changed and so I corrected it.
____________________________________________________________

Quotes dealing with Hezekiah:

God heals him and adds 15 years to his life. How does God know that, say, in 5 years, some assasin or deranged person stabs the king and kills him?

Or maybe the king falls off a cliff? or whatever?

The point is that how is it that a God, who [according to Open Theists] cannot see the future, can guarantee 15 years to a man's life.

Does God set the times of birth and death? And if so, how can he do so if He doesnt at least know the circumstances that will lead to a person's death?

How can God make such statements if He has no knowledge or control over the circumstances. What is the means of God's foreknowledge anyway? While God knows all that will happen He has also predetermined those things. God's providence is written all over this from chapter 18 - 20.

How would you respond to this rationale? If God knew Hezekiah was going to plead with Him for extended life and if God knew He was going to give Hezekiah the extended life, why did God make the first statement of Hezekiah's death if it was not going to happen?____________________________________________________________

I don't see how I should continue in this thread, I'm the only one answering objections, when I post a question I get nothing in return...as Drew admitted. : My next worry about this thread, is human philosophy will be used, instead of Biblical theology. It's been done before.

 

[DivineNames]

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 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"

I think that what you are saying is incoherent. And your own source, Vincent Cheung, would agree with me-

Contrary to the traditional explanation, God does not say, "Oh no, I am not the author of sin. Although I am the ultimate cause of all things, I distance myself from directly causing evil by establishing secondary causes and free agents.... Instead of giving the popular answer, which is weak, evasive, incoherent and confusing, God unashamedly declares, "Yeah, I do all these things. What are you going to do about it? Who are you to even ask me about it?" When it comes to metaphysics, including God's relationship to human decisions, whether for good or evil, this is how the Bible responds.

Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin, p.8.
http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

Yes, I think I agree with Cheung on this point. What you are saying is, "weak, evasive, incoherent and confusing". The problem here isn't that it is difficult to explain the issue, "in such a way an unbeliever will understand". The actual problem is that what you are saying is simply incoherent. And your own Calvinist source says so! :D

We can know the fall of man thru Adam wasn’t an accident and was ordained by God... We can know the reason for allowing the fall... 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

Lets look at what Cheung says-

I would not say that God permitted Adam to fall, but that God caused it. Many Calvinists would also disagree with me on this.

(Cheung, p.15)

He doesn't agree with you. According to Cheung, God actually caused the fall of Adam. Cheung rejects the idea that God merely "allowed" the fall of Adam.

all Calvinistic and reformed writers would affirm that sin came as a result of God's decree, so that it was determined at least in this sense. The difference is that many say that this is a "passive" or "permissive" decree, whereas my position is that there is no such thing as a "passive" or a "permissive" decree with God, that it is unbiblical and impossible for a divine decree to be "passive" or "permissive."

(Cheung, p.16)

In fact, according to Cheung, what you are saying is both "unbiblical" and "impossible"!

 

[TruthMiner]

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 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"

I think that what you are saying is incoherent. And your own source, Vincent Cheung, would agree with me-

Contrary to the traditional explanation, God does not say, "Oh no, I am not the author of sin. Although I am the ultimate cause of all things, I distance myself from directly causing evil by establishing secondary causes and free agents.... Instead of giving the popular answer, which is weak, evasive, incoherent and confusing, God unashamedly declares, "Yeah, I do all these things. What are you going to do about it? Who are you to even ask me about it?" When it comes to metaphysics, including God's relationship to human decisions, whether for good or evil, this is how the Bible responds.

Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin, p.8.
http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

Yes, I think I agree with Cheung on this point. What you are saying is, "weak, evasive, incoherent and confusing". The problem here isn't that it is difficult to explain the issue, "in such a way an unbeliever will understand". The actual problem is that what you are saying is simply incoherent. And your own Calvinist source says so! :D

We can know the fall of man thru Adam wasn’t an accident and was ordained by God... We can know the reason for allowing the fall... 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

Lets look at what Cheung says-

[quote:56b05]
I would not say that God permitted Adam to fall, but that God caused it. Many Calvinists would also disagree with me on this.

(Cheung, p.15)

He doesn't agree with you. According to Cheung, God actually caused the fall of Adam. Cheung rejects the idea that God merely "allowed" the fall of Adam.

all Calvinistic and reformed writers would affirm that sin came as a result of God's decree, so that it was determined at least in this sense. The difference is that many say that this is a "passive" or "permissive" decree, whereas my position is that there is no such thing as a "passive" or a "permissive" decree with God, that it is unbiblical and impossible for a divine decree to be "passive" or "permissive."

(Cheung, p.16)

In fact, according to Cheung, what you are saying is both "unbiblical" and "impossible"! [/quote:56b05]

The whole idea of "allowing" is actually based on an Arminian concept of God looking into a future to check out what Adam would do and then "allow it." This is the classic Calvinist "Arminian dodge" where they resort to an Arminian perspective for the sake of their problem. And quite absurd given their premise that God ordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Shifting their positions on a daily basis to suit problems seems to be a Calvinist mainstay from my observations.

 

[DivineNames]

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.

I have serious doubts that you are able to understand what Vincent Cheung is saying. You have given a link to his work, "The Author of Sin", but what you say in your own writing is in complete contradiction to it. I can only imagine that you failed to understand Cheung's position.

 

[DivineNames]

I don't see how I should continue in this thread, I'm the only one answering objections, when I post a question I get nothing in return...as Drew admitted.

You are joking?

You have completely failed to properly answer what I have said.

 

[DivineNames]

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.

Which is what is going on. To be "morally responsible" is changed to mean simply that God tortures people.

 

[Drew]

I don't see how I should continue in this thread, I'm the only one answering objections

I am glad to see people can engage in levity in this thread......

My next worry about this thread, is human philosophy will be used, instead of Biblical theology. It's been done before.

To me this is code for "if an argument I don't agree with is supported by clear, rational arguments, it can be somehow tarred with the "human philosophy" label....as if your very arguments do not deploy elements of human wisdom. It is obvious that they, in fact, do. And that is to your credit.

It is a convenient myth to slap the "human philosophy" label on someone, when everyone's arguments are based on such reasoning. You present verses, which, to your credit, are indeed consistent with a Calvinist reading. Clearly, you expect us to use our "human reasoning" to draw the conclusion you are arguing for. Again, this is to your credit.

However, we all get to play by the same rules.

 

[gingercat]

JM,

We Christians follow the Bible, not theologeans' interpretations.

Jesus gives us wisdom to discern what is right and wrong by its fruit.

Most churchgoers follow Calvisnism and they are well known as uncommitted Christians; this is Calvinists' fruit.

You can debate all day long and never admit the reality. I don't believe it is wise to just win arguments (which I don't believe you are doing, BTW)

 

[JM]

Could you clarify your position for us?

When asked to clarify, I did.

 

[JM]

Again, no one has given answers to any of the questions I posted, they only add more questions...I've presented a case built upon the Bible and no one has yet to touch it.

Most churchgoers follow Calvisnism and they are well known as uncommitted Christians; this is Calvinists' fruit.

Please site a source for the above information, or retract it.

If I've lost, I've lost and there's no need to continue. No arguement would be accepted anyways...as I stated before.

 

[JM]

I don't see how I should continue in this thread, I'm the only one answering objections, when I post a question I get nothing in return...as Drew admitted.

You are joking?

You have completely failed to properly answer what I have said.

Here's a list of question I've asked that NO ONE has answered.

Does God do what He does without reason?

What is God's purpose in creating man?

What do you say to God when He writes, "I bring prosperity and create disaster?"

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?

If God is the first cause/first mover, then how did God not decree sin, how did it come into existance?

What makes you think man loves God while not in the Spirit?

Please Drew, can you provide Scripture that agrees with your view?

Does dead mean dead or sick?

Does slave mean you're free to act or does it mean you're a slave?

Do you see the weakness of your man that was drugged?

Where does it say in the Bible that a leopard can change it's spots?

Free will is not an option, show me where you find a will that is not touch by sin?

Have all sinned in Adam?

When we fell in Adams' sin, did we have a choice?

Does a person need to know their a sinner before they can be held accountible for that sin?

Has God provided a way for every single person in history to hear the Gospel, does everyone have an equal chance to accept the offer?

Can you address the Scriptures that were posted a few pages back where God allowed evil to have, ordaining the outcome for good?

How does a God hating sinner, who loves darkness, not light, know where the pothole is and what they need to do to avoid it?

As you can see, it's hard to have an interaction, look back over this thread and you'll find my pleas have been ignored. Cheap shots from the side lines is what I've been dealing with and my case has been hindered because of it.
__________________________________

New questions...that no one will answer.

Is the will of man separate from his nature?

Does man act according to his will?

Does sin manifest itself from the will?

Does sin manifest itself from man’s fallen nature?

Does man even have a fallen nature?

To what extent was the fall of man?

 

[gingercat]

Again, no one has given answers to any of the questions I posted, they only add more questions...I've presented a case built upon the Bible and no one has yet to touch it.

Most churchgoers follow Calvisnism and they are well known as uncommitted Christians; this is Calvinists' fruit.

Please site a source for the above information, or retract it.

If I've lost, I've lost and there's no need to continue. No arguement would be accepted anyways...as I stated before.

Well, It is so well known that I never thought anyone ask such question. You are just palying and debating games. You just want to show off how well you can debate. This is men's ego.

Billy Graham has been stating very often that most of the churchgoers are not committed Christians. Most churches follow Calvinism except Catholics.

I will find information. just be patient. :wink:

 

[JM]

Again, no one has given answers to any of the questions I posted, they only add more questions...I've presented a case built upon the Bible and no one has yet to touch it.

Most churchgoers follow Calvisnism and they are well known as uncommitted Christians; this is Calvinists' fruit.

Please site a source for the above information, or retract it.

If I've lost, I've lost and there's no need to continue. No arguement would be accepted anyways...as I stated before.

Well, It is so well known that I never thought anyone ask such question. You are just palying and debating games. You just want to show off how well you can debate. This is men's ego.

Billy Graham has been stating very often that most of the churchgoers are not committed Christians. Most churches follow Calvinism except Catholics.

I will find information. just be patient. :wink:

I'll also like to see a source that states "most churches follow Calvinism except Catholics." I don't mean to be a stickler, I just find these statements are untrue. Even if you provide something from Br. Billy, were are his stats, where's his numbers? You made a leap from "not committed Christians" to being equal to saying "Calvinists don't go to church." This is false logic. As a Calvinist, I don't see many Calvinists on this forum, I don't see many Calvinists anywhere!

JM

 

[gingercat]

I dont see many Calvinists on this forum, I don't see many Calvinists anywhere!

JM

I believe most of protestants are Calvinists. What makes you thinkth otherwise? Their core doctorine is based on calvinism.

I am saying this because most of the churchgoers believe they are saved without fruit of christianity. This proves Calvinist's mentality. I am using logical thinking.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I believe most of protestants are Calvinists. What makes you thinkth otherwise? Their core doctorine is based on calvinism.

I am saying this because most of the churchgoers believe they are saved without fruit of christianity. This proves Calvinist's mentality. I am using logical thinking.

Please provide proof, ironclad proof. For one the Methodist denomination leans very much toward Arminianism, as you might not know a man by the name of John Wesley was an early leader of the Methodist denomination and his theology was Arminian in nature. Also consider some information I once gave to you in a PM about General Baptists and Particular Baptists. General Baptists were Arminian in their theology, while Particular Baptist were Calvinist in their theology.

I would recommend, gingercat, that you do some studying on church history. I know you hate church but if you want to provide more then mere opinion about “most churches†you are going to need to learn about church history.

If you want to argue about the validity of church do that in another topic, this topic is about Predestination. If you continue to argue about the validity of church in this topic I will be forced to lock this topic until a decision can be made about what to do with your off topic posts.

 

[DivineNames]

I don't see how I should continue in this thread, I'm the only one answering objections, when I post a question I get nothing in return...as Drew admitted.

You are joking?

You have completely failed to properly answer what I have said.

Here's a list of question I've asked that NO ONE has answered.

I would be happy to go into the stuff that touches on the free will defence. How about you do what you said, and (properly) respond to the points that I have made?

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Just a Reminder this topic is about " Why I Don't Believe in Predestination" Myself and other moderators reserve the right delete any posts and we deem to go off topic. So please post only things that have to do with this topic. Personal problems are to be done in PMs.

Due to the above explained one post has already been deleted, any more posts that are about personal problems are far to off topic will be deleted.

 

[mutzrein]

Just a Reminder this topic is about " Why I Don't Believe in Predestination" Myself and other moderators reserve the right delete any posts and we deem to go off topic. So please post only things that have to do with this topic. Personal problems are to be done in PMs.

Due to the above explained one post has already been deleted, any more posts that are about personal problems are far to off topic will be deleted.

Thanks for the reminder. Is the offender/s PM'd to advise of deleted posts? Thanks.