Featured Is Everything Predestined?

LOL

I have shown everyone here your error. Your sad attempt to assert such a foolish claim against me is pathetic on your part. Just own your humanism and walk away.

 

Right Alan. Foreknowledge by itself if what we do as humans. I can obtain a chart and predict tides for instance with amazing accuracy but no power is involved and really I'm just guessing, even though it's an educated guess. God does not use bare foreknowledge like we do. I have foreknowledge of high tide because I have a local chart. God has foreknowledge of high tide because he made the ocean, the earth, and the moon and set it all up with mathematical precision. I may share with God the knowledge of when the high tide occurs but the difference is that with God's "foreknowledge" the time of the high tide is not only known to him, but is occurring only with his permissive will. That is a big difference and I don't understand why people insist on making God into just a real smart person, like us.

 

I am a little frustrated. The whole point is that the Bible clearly teaches that everything from Paul's education to his misplaced sinful zeal which he thought was for God was bringing him to that moment. No, he could not have rejected the call. And he was a chosen vessel as scripture says, and he did freely follow Christ at the same time. Paul by his own free will, counted everything else as dung and tried to apprehend Christ because Christ had apprehended him. Sorry, but you have both. Read Philippians 3. The WCF tries to explain it that way. I'm sorry they are right. I'm sorry you hate Calvinism. I admit that Calvinists don't always present it well but hey, we're the ones saying we're totally depraved so give us a break.

 

Dave, there are many reasons for God doing the things in the manner he does. I would not want to take a long time of explaining what God is doing here through Paul and his conversion and his partial blindness as a result of his experience on the Damascus road, but I will mention one thing.

Paul stands as a figure and a type of the remnant of Jewish believers who are burdened by God to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the gentiles, the heathen, the world. Observing and studying his life and ministry will give us insight into at least the apostolic era of the church when the appearance of Jesus Christ before the nation did not make them see as was intended but blinded them to the truth of who Jesus Christ is and what he came to do in saving and restoring their nation. Jesus had told them that through much tribulation they would enter into the kingdom of God. Paul's experiences demonstrated this and he struggled with this throughout his ministry.

One must see the pictures God paints in his word. It is how God thinks.

Paul's decision to be saved was not orchastated and God's hands would not have been tied if Paul had not been saved that day. Paul believed from the heart or he would not have been saved. He had too much light to resist.

Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s (Israel's) heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

Paul's decision?

Paul's decision to be saved?

Paul made a decision, first, or he won't have been saved?

Paul believed from the heart?

Paul believed from the heart or he would not have been saved?

Paul believed from the heart, first, or he would not have been saved?

"the appearance of Jesus Christ before the nation
did not make them see as was intended"

Was "the appearance of Jesus Christ before the nation" supposed to be another way of 'salvation', aside from Repenting and Believing the Gospel?

"did not make them see as was intended"? intended where? by whom, or Whom?

 

That’s one of the few arguments for Calvinism/Calvinists one could support.

 

from: Predestination

"...if God knows that anything will result in infinite good (as the wicked crucifixion of Christ, for instance), it is not unworthy in Him to decree that it should occur;

on the contrary, it is infinitely worthy in Him to do so.

"Calvinists, therefore, divide the will of God into secret and revealed

—the revealed to govern His creatures,

the secret to govern Himself;

and the latter will be attained (the secret to govern Himself),

whether men regard or disregard the former (the revealed to govern His creatures)


"But here two other objections are started:

1st. "Does not this imply an inconsistency in God;

as His secret will is sometimes one thing,

and His revealed another?"

and 2nd. "Is this not saying that God does evil, that good may come?"

"1st. To the first, we answer that God’s revealed will is always consistent with itself, and His secret will is always consistent with itself.

"The former is given in His precepts (God’s revealed will);

and all the commands, warning, threatenings, persuasions, &c. His secret will

(are consistent therewith.

"He never commands anything without sincerely requiring it;

and, having commanded it, He never authorizes anything that conflicts with it.

"His revealed and His secret will have reference to objects that are entirely distinct, and cannot, therefore, be compared together.

"Thus, as we have shown, His revealed will may be entirely opposed to the violence offered to the Saviour and to the motives and feelings that influenced the Jews in that transaction;

and yet His secret will, having another object in view, decreed that event in order that the glorious blessings and results that flow from the atonement of Christ might be secured.

"2nd. "Is this not saying that God does evil that good may come?"

"God is not the doer of evil

—the most that can be said, therefore, is that He permits evil that good may come.

"Substitute, therefore, for the word ‘does’, the word ‘permits’, and the question will stand:

"Does God permit evil that good may come?"

That He does permit evil is indisputable.

"Only three suppositions, therefore, can be made in the case:

"Either He permits it without any objection in view and for no reason at all;

or He permits it that evil may come;

or He permits it that good may come.

"The first, if we understand them, is the Arminian view;
but which is the most honoring to God? Let the reader judge.

"Finally, if there is any difficulty in this subject, it grows out of the connection that exists between the omnipotent and sovereign God and finite and responsible men.

"God’s sovereignty and man’s free agency are both revealed in the scriptures and, therefore, should be both believed.

"And if we cannot reconcile them, it is not because they are irreconcilable, but because the subject is above our faculties.

"We think it has been shown, however, that if the objection considered above can lie against the Calvinistic system, it can be alleged with as much reason against the Bible: and Calvinism is content to stand or fall with the Bible."

I am ready to hear an Arminian/ Free-willer say, "if Calvinism can be shown to be true from the Bible, I will throw my Bible away."

Their forefathers did. But, where are they now?

And where are their followers, with that kind of misplaced guts?

Russell Reneau's Deference to the Bible. —

"Convince us that Christianity tolerates such things, and we will plead its (the Bible's) cause no more"

(p.15), from THE SUBSTANCE OF TWO DISCOURSES ON PREDESTINATION
AND ON RECEIVING THE GRACE OF GOD IN VAIN, in 1849, by Russell Reneau.
Oxford, Ga.—Office of the Southern Family Journal.

 

Load up better than that, or don't bring your guns to town.

Here's some help from one of your forefathers.

Russell Reneau's Courtesy and Liberality (from above sermon noted). —

"But in order to carry out their Calvinistic scheme, this talk, &c., has been made a part of their visionary scheme and theories; —To exhibit still further the mad scheme of this system," &c., (p.16).

"No man that prefers the truth to his own prejudices, it would seem to us, could doubt that Jesus did intend on this occasion to teach that his disciples might lose their religion."

"Calvinists holding on to their error with a zeal worthy of a better cause." —"if we were to admit this foolish hypothesis" (p.19).

"No man can mistake here provided his prejudices have not blinded him and so wholly perverted his understanding, that nothing could instruct him" (p.21).

"Is there a man on this Camp-Ground stupid enough to believe such to be the true meaning of these texts of Holy Writ? Everyone who has sense enough to know the road to the mill knows better" (p.23).

"We feel that enough has been said to satisfy every honest inquirer after truth, that it is possible for a man to receive the grace of God in vain and thus perish everlastingly" (p.23).

"Do Calvinists think the world dull enough to believe that such argument makes out their doctrine?" (p.27).

Russell Reneau's Candor. —

"It is palpable that Calvinists hold that God’s elect are ordained to everlasting life without any regard to their Christian character" (p. 14).

Russell Reneau's Dogmatism. —

"This is indeed a very convenient method of proving an unscriptural doctrine" (p.6).

"If we believe no more concerning predestination than the Bible teaches, we will never believe the Calvinistic notion on that subject" (p. 11).

"Neither these" (passages of scripture) "nor any others prove anything at all in their favor" (p.27).

Russell Reneau's Refinement. —

"If a poor reprobate were to commit such crimes, eternal damnation in Hell-fire would be the consequence, but let one of these predestinated pets commit them, and they will have the headache or some other punishment and then bask in heaven’s smiles world without end" (p. 15).


"We fear our Calvinistic friends will not easily forgive us for our frank dealing with their favorite doctrines" (p.17).

"If our Calvinistic brethren feel hurt, they may rest assured that we deliver these sentiments out of no unkind feelings. It is because we thus believe that we thus preach" (p.12).

"True, our author says that they are "silly" and "dull" and "stupid" and "prejudiced" and "dishonest" and "without sense enough to know the road to the mill", but it is because he thus believes that he thus writes.

Anywhere else than in a sermon, this would be called slang.

 

“Ay, there’s the rub.” But a major barrier is irreconcilable definitions.

From The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 

Predestination

Is it unjust and cruel in God to condemn and punish sinners for their transgressions? Under what circumstances then can condemnation righteously be pronounced and punishment righteously inflicted?

Is the Judge unjust and cruel who pronounces sentence according to law upon the murderer or other capital offender?

"But do you not say that God, for all eternity, ordained, before they committed good or evil, that they should come to this condemnation?"

Our statement is that God from all eternity determined to pass by those whom He does pass by and to permit them to sin against Him when He knew that this preterition and permission would result in their continuance in sin, and in their final condemnation and perdition.

Now is there anything in this unjust and cruel?

Is it unjust to pass them by?

You cannot say so; for you know that He does pass them by.

God does not give all men repentance for the acknowledgment of the truth. You are unconscious of it, but it is God’s act that you complain of here under the name of His decrees.

According to the Calvinistic system, God’s decrees are a rule to govern Him and can have no influence upon the creature for good or for evil unless followed by God’s act.

Another may decree to take your life, but that will do you no harm unless the determination is followed up by the attempt.

Will you say, therefore, looking now to what He does, that it is unjust in God to pass by anyone, and withhold from Him His converting and His sanctifying grace?

You dare not say so. If then, it is not unjust in God to pass by anyone in time, surely it is consistent with His justice to decree to do so from eternity.

"But does it not seem cruel in God to make men merely to damn them?"

Doubtless, when put in this shape and expressed in this strong language, it seems to you a very "horrid" doctrine. We might object to this statement of it as incorrect: waiving this, however, we will meet you in a different way.

What would my Arminian opposer say if I should assert that his system too teaches that God makes men merely to damn them?

Let us see: You believe in God’s foreknowledge (even Mr. Reneau says he does—following Mr. Watson rather than Dr. Clarke).

Known unto God then were all his works from eternity.

He knew therefore perfectly long before He created them every individual that would live in sin, die in impenitency, and finally perish.

Now, reasoning upon your own principles, was it not cruel in God to create them, seeing He was under no necessity to do so?

Why did He give them existence?—for their final happiness? He knew as well, from eternity, as they do after they open their eyes in torment, that they would never attain to happiness.

What object then did the Creator have in view in giving being to those who He knew would inevitably sin against Him and go to perdition?

We should like much to see an intelligent and candid Arminian look at this question without blinking and answer without evasion.

Upon your own principles then, may I not ask:

Does it not seem cruel in God to make men (if not merely to damn them, at least) that they might be damned?

Upon your principles, God created the finally impenitent neither for any purposes of His own nor for their lasting welfare

—no benefit accrues to Him nor to His system, and they spend on earth a few precarious days full of troubles and then enter into a state of endless misery!

"Cruelty" unmitigated by an incidental or ulterior good either to the creator or to the created!

How "horrid" a doctrine, and how strange and unworthy a view of the infinitely wise and merciful God!

...

Allowing sin and the sinful acts of wicked men bring Glory to God in OVERRULING SIN, through The GLORIFICATION of The Work of His Son and the Ultimate Perfect Success of The Triune Godhead's Eternal Plan of Salvation.

Heaven will be filled with believers in The Doctrines of Grace, who are brought to understand it when they get there, if not before.

Hell is full of lost souls that denied Total Depravity and the rest of the Doctrines of Grace in this lifetime, didn't they?

In His system of Ruling the Universe,

Proverbs 16:4 "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil", including PUNISHING THE WICKED who He leaves in THEIR SINS, right where He found them, as He Providentially passes over them.

All by the Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God, exactly as when His Son was Crucified,

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"

These are Purposes of His Own.

The benefit of His Predestinated Determinant Counsel and Foreknowledge of God accrues to Him, for His Glory.

Romans 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?”

I tell you who you are. Explain,

"by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God."

Can't explain that?

Then that's who you are and God is still The God
Who Predestinates All Things, by the Pleasure of His Own Will.

If you can't Worship a God like that,
then He is the only True and Living Creator God,
aptly described by The Eternal Doctrines of Grace, that there is.

So be it.

Psalm 95:1-3

"let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. and extol him with music and song. For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods."

Revelation 4:11
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things, and by your will, they existed and were created.”

Philippians 2:9-11
"Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."

Matthew 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me,
and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

Romans 11:33-36;
33 "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

34 "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?

35 "Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

36 "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things:
to whom be glory forever. Amen."

 

You did see the ellipses at the end of what I quoted which as you and I would think the people on this board understand means that there is more to the text. I only quoted that section as it had direct input to what I was saying as I am sure you are well aware of. I am surprised that all you have done is vent but you have not responded to what I have posted. But since you think I treated the text unfairly here is the whole paragraph.

CHAPTER 3; OF GOD’S DECREE

Paragraph 1. 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;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 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;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4

Whatever they write after the blue text does not alter the reality that according to them God determines all things, nothing is excluded. Remember Dave you said the writers of these documents were not idiots so they knew exactly what they were saying. How they then can say He {God} according to what they just wrote is not responsible for all that happens is them just trying to have their cake and eat it to.

Perhaps you can deal with what I have posted.

And yes I know there is a chapter on free will but if God controls all things as the above quote says then man really dos not have free will do they. So once again we see the writers of this document trying to cover up their error and hope that no one point out the obvious contradiction in their logic.