Did God predestine ISIS & Boko Haram to rape, torture, kill the Christians?

[DHK]

Brother DHK, If he "died for all our sins" as you readily state above, then that would include the sin of "unbelief", hence no one in Hell.

Come now. You are not a that divides sins into different groups: venial, mortal, etc. Sin is a transgression of the law. Sin is sin, and unbelief is sin--one of many.

Also if he as you stated, "paid the sins of all" there remains no more sin debt,

Jesus paid it all. He paid the entire debt "of our sin."

or to put it another way the crime has been punished through Christ on Calvary. How then could God righteously and justly fined the sinner to pay for their sins in Hell and thus punish twice for the same crime. That would be double jeopardy.

If you commit a crime and judge gives you a choice: One million dollar fine, or 25 years in jail. You know you will never have a million dollars. You have no connections, no money, nothing. And you don't want to spend 25 years in jail. You won't last. What then??
Suppose some rich compassionate stranger saw your condition and decided to have mercy on you. He pays the fine for you. The judge says you are free to go. You object. You are proud, self-righteous, realize your wrong and say: "Go tell that judge to Stuff It!. I am not accepting charity. I'll work my own way out of here one penny at a time if I have to." You are too proud to accept anyone else's help. You refuse the gift. It is your choice.
The price has been paid. The gift has been refused. You remain in prison. The Judge is even satisfied that propitiation has been made. But still you remain in prison. There is no double jeopardy here, only the hard heart of a prisoner.
The news gets back to the Judge. He is highly offended at your rejection and closes the door forever at your refusal of the generous gift that had to go through him in the first place (he is the head of the justice system).

So "he loved all" you say, but some for whom he loves, he throws in the lake of fire? What kind of love is that? How can you claim he loves all when David declares, "thou hatest all workers of iniquity."

When you spit in the face of the one who loved you, died for you, paid the penalty for you, and tell him--I don't want your love, then you have rejected the greatest gift and opportunity that there was ever offered. You have no hope left.

(Psalm 5:5b) and "5 The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth" (Psalm 11:5). Also does he love all equally? If so, how can you reconcile the fact that not all people have an equal opportunity to hear and have faith in the gospel?

I take by faith that God will give all who want to believe a chance to believe.
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
On the other hand, how can you be sure he doesn't?

The sinner gets what justice and holiness require, punishment for sin in Hell, how then does this make God the author of sin or unreasonable? No known theologian I have ever heard of would ever assert such a thing, if so provide me some quotes and your sources.

Justice is based on the choice man was given to receive or reject Christ.
We always worship God as an all-loving merciful God who does right.

On this board I have read some of the Calvinists say that God is the author of sin.
Many seem to have a flippant attitude toward God.
Here is one odd quote I found:

Yes, God is self-centered. Any other belief is totally out of line with all of Scripture and the historic Christian faith.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2098031&postcount=51

 

[blessedwife318]

You are misquoting me. Jesus died for all our sins, unbelief included. Where did I say he didn't. I did say that ultimately it is the sin of unbelief that directs us to hell. Any sin will earn the penalty of hell as an unholy person cannot stand before a holy God. But the entrance to heaven is belief in Christ, and thus the rejection of Christ is the entrance to hell. Christ paid the sins of all.

Yes, of course. He loved all. He has never hated anyone. That is not in the nature of God to hate. To ascribe hatred to God is to take away from his attribute of love. It is contrary to his being.

I disagree with you about Love and Hate. You cannot have one without the other. love and hate are two sides of the same coin. You always hate the antithesis of what you love.
If you love life you will hate death
If you love righteousness you will hate sin.
If you live truth you will hate lies.
The Bible itself ascribes hatred to God.
Proverbs 6:16 for example
Mal. 1:1-3 then quoted in Rom. 9:13

 

[DHK]

I disagree with you about Love and Hate. You cannot have one without the other. love and hate are two sides of the same coin. You always hate the antithesis of what you love.
If you love life you will hate death
If you love righteousness you will hate sin.
If you live truth you will hate lies.
The Bible itself ascribes hatred to God.
Proverbs 6:16 for example
Mal. 1:1-3 then quoted in Rom. 9:13

Here are some principles to bear in mind.
I don't believe that God "hates" any one individual.
Often Scripture (such as is quoted in Romans 9) is often quoted out of context.
Everyone of us ought to have a hatred of certain things or even principles.
That which is evil, sin, etc. we ought to hate.

In your first point: I love life and look forward to death.
For to me; "to live is Christ; to die is gain." Why would I hate death?

If I take all presuppositions and bias out of my thinking, and read the Bible with its plain sense, I read that:

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Without Calvin telling me otherwise, God loves the world--everyone of us equally.

God loved all of us enough that he died for us all and made a payment for all of our sins.
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
--If there was no Calvin, I would read it with the plain sense that Christ died for all the sins of the whole world. It is just that simple to read.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
--If Calvin wasn't hanging around, it would be very simple to believe that God really does desire "ALL men to be saved."
The plain sense of the reading does make good sense.

Over and over again, if we simply stop reading into the scriptures that which is not there, we see a God of love, dying for those who were unlovable, that they all might be saved.
All were not saved because of the hardness of many of their hearts in that they (like the Jews) rejected the Savior.
Why let Calvin change what the Bible really says?

 

[blessedwife318]

Often Scripture (such as is quoted in Romans 9) is often quoted out of context.

Are you saying that Paul took Scripture out of context?

 

[annsni]

If you commit a crime and judge gives you a choice: One million dollar fine, or 25 years in jail. You know you will never have a million dollars. You have no connections, no money, nothing. And you don't want to spend 25 years in jail. You won't last. What then??
Suppose some rich compassionate stranger saw your condition and decided to have mercy on you. He pays the fine for you. The judge says you are free to go. You object. You are proud, self-righteous, realize your wrong and say: "Go tell that judge to Stuff It!. I am not accepting charity. I'll work my own way out of here one penny at a time if I have to." You are too proud to accept anyone else's help. You refuse the gift. It is your choice.
The price has been paid. The gift has been refused. You remain in prison. The Judge is even satisfied that propitiation has been made. But still you remain in prison. There is no double jeopardy here, only the hard heart of a prisoner.
The news gets back to the Judge. He is highly offended at your rejection and closes the door forever at your refusal of the generous gift that had to go through him in the first place (he is the head of the justice system).

But in this case, you cannot go to prison if the fine has been paid. Unless you break another law, you literally cannot go to prison. They will release you whether you want to or not.

 

[DHK]

But in this case, you cannot go to prison if the fine has been paid. Unless you break another law, you literally cannot go to prison. They will release you whether you want to or not.

Technicalities.
Has a governor ever gave a pardon to an inmate and the inmate refused the pardon? I think so.

 

[DHK]

Are you saying that Paul took Scripture out of context?

No, I am saying that Calvinists take Scripture out of context, or more accurately don't bother to study the context in which Paul wrote the Scripture that God gave him.

What did he mean when he wrote "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
He wasn't talking about individuals. Go back to the very first time God spoke about these two individuals. What did God say to Rebekkah? It was not that two individuals that struggled, but rather that two nations struggled in her womb. The struggle has always been between two nations. The one from Jacob is Israel. Esau became known as Edom, one of Israel's greatest enemies.

 

[robustheologian]

But in this case, you cannot go to prison if the fine has been paid. Unless you break another law, you literally cannot go to prison. They will release you whether you want to or not.

Right. :thumbsup:

 

[annsni]

Technicalities.
Has a governor ever gave a pardon to an inmate and the inmate refused the pardon? I think so.

Can you show me a link to where an inmate refused a pardon and where he continued to stay in prison despite the pardon?

 

[DHK]

Can you show me a link to where an inmate refused a pardon and where he continued to stay in prison despite the pardon?

Back in 1830 George Wilson was convicted of robbing the U.S. Mail and was sentenced to be hanged. President Andrew Jackson issued a pardon for Wilson, but he refused to accept it. The matter went to Chief Justice Marshall, who concluded that Wilson would have to be executed. "A pardon is a slip of paper," wrote Marshall, "the value of which is determined by the acceptance of the person to be pardoned. If it is refused, it is no pardon. George Wilson must be hanged."

For some, the pardon comes too late. For others, the pardon is not accepted.

Prokope, V. 11, #5.

http://www.sermonillustrations.com/a-z/p/pardon.htm

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I am saying that Calvinists take Scripture out of context, or more accurately don't bother to study the context in which Paul wrote the Scripture that God gave him.

What did he mean when he wrote "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
He wasn't talking about individuals. Go back to the very first time God spoke about these two individuals. What did God say to Rebekkah? It was not that two individuals that struggled, but rather that two nations struggled in her womb. The struggle has always been between two nations. The one from Jacob is Israel. Esau became known as Edom, one of Israel's greatest enemies.

You have to realise though that in the contex of the text, that God was revealing to us that he was making a choice to be in a Covenant saving relationship with one over another....

 

[DHK]

You have to realise though that in the contex of the text, that God was revealing to us that he was making a choice to be in a Covenant saving relationship with one over another....

The context??
The overall context is the history of Israel, and Israel's present and future status in relation to the kingdom. Chapters 9-11 deal mainly with the nation of Israel, especially these verses that speak about Jacob and Esau.

 

[Eliyahu]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Theory of Predestination is fine for explaining How God deals with the Believers and How is the providence of God for the Believers.

However, it doesn't represent or depict How God deals with Unblievers and their wickedness, and their Destiny.

Did God create the most of the human beings except 1% of the to-be Believers so that

they may insult, disobey, rebel, mock, blaspheme, disbelieve, and reject Himself?

Then He regret about it ( Gen 6:6) ?

His Son weep when He saw the rejection of His message ( Luke 19:41-42, Mt 23:37)?

After the Almighty God created the most of the human beings not to believe, reject, blaspheme, disobey Himself, is He asking the people to be holy, obey, not to kill, not to commit adultery, to believe Himself?

If the Almighty God predestined only the few percentage people to believe Himself and atoned the sins of the limited people, then did He predestine the most of the people to live Unholy, Wicked, Murderous, Blasphemous, Ignorant, and Disobedient Life, and to mock, insult, disbelieve Himself?


Such God must go to the Psychiatric Health Centre!

You may try to term " Predestine " as if it meant " reluctantly Predestined though He is an Almighty God"

But even in that case, such God must be stupid! How come He was reluctantly creating His own creatures to mock and insult Himself?


Such God must go to the mental health care centre as soon as possible.


The True God whom I believe and adore never created such human beings in such ways but He created all human beings to obey and believe Him, and to live holy lives, but the most of the human beings reject such Will of God, and therefore they are going to the Hell.

Hell is the strong proof that all the sins were forgiven. If not, God cannot charge the Unbelievers for the sin of not believing, rejecting His pardon. God made all the arrangements for Unbelievers as well but they reject them and therefore God punish such unbelief and its results.

By Predestination theory, you can never explain the destiny of the Unbelievers without blaspheming or defaming God.

Predestination theory is not too bad for explaining the destiny of the Believers because it is close to the Original Predestination of 100% human beings by God.

Even in that case of Believers, the theory of Predestination has certain problems, which I would not focus at this time.

Eliyahu

 

[Eliyahu]

http://www.sermonillustrations.com/a-z/p/pardon.htm

Thanks for the Info. :godisgood:
I heard about it from the tracts couple of times.


Eliyahu

 

[annsni]

I've been reading about the case of Wilson and I'm definitely not up on the law but it seems that this is not a straight forward "He was convicted, pardoned and did not accept the pardon" case. I am going to have a friend who is a lawyer look at it and explain it more fully to me but from what I'm reading, the pardon was for another conviction he had and he turned it down because it would have a negative bearing on his current conviction. You can read more here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_1s29.html

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Come now. You are not a that divides sins into different groups: venial, mortal, etc. Sin is a transgression of the law. Sin is sin, and unbelief is sin--one of many.

Brother DHK,

No I do not believe in "venial" or "mortal" sins. I am also glad we both agree that Jesus dies for the sin of unbelief, but as a missionary Baptist, I thought you maintain that if you die in unbelief in the gospel you go to Hell for that sin and every other sin?

Jesus paid it all. He paid the entire debt "of our sin."

As far as the entire debt being paid, I also agree with you on that. I majored in accounting, but you do not need an accounting degree to know when a debt is wiped out from the company's books they no longer have that same debt there ever again, nor do they attempt to collect on it. Sure a few companies may cash a check if someone inadvertently sent in a check, but God would not do this as he does not lie and is just, nor would simply sending in another check create another "debt" or "accounts receivable" account on the company's books for the debt that was already paid.

If you commit a crime and judge gives you a choice: One million dollar fine, or 25 years in jail. You know you will never have a million dollars. You have no connections, no money, nothing. And you don't want to spend 25 years in jail. You won't last. What then??
Suppose some rich compassionate stranger saw your condition and decided to have mercy on you. He pays the fine for you. The judge says you are free to go. You object. You are proud, self-righteous, realize your wrong and say: "Go tell that judge to Stuff It!. I am not accepting charity. I'll work my own way out of here one penny at a time if I have to." You are too proud to accept anyone else's help. You refuse the gift. It is your choice.
The price has been paid. The gift has been refused. You remain in prison. The Judge is even satisfied that propitiation has been made. But still you remain in prison. There is no double jeopardy here, only the hard heart of a prisoner.
The news gets back to the Judge. He is highly offended at your rejection and closes the door forever at your refusal of the generous gift that had to go through him in the first place (he is the head of the justice system). ."

As another poster has already correctly stated, in your analogy if there was a fine imposed for the transgression of the law and the fine is subsequently paid the governmental authorities would not then pay for the defendant to also go to prison, but this is the position of those that believe Jesus died for every human being must take and it makes God unjust and unholy.

When you spit in the face of the one who loved you, died for you, paid the penalty for you, and tell him--I don't want your love, then you have rejected the greatest gift and opportunity that there was ever offered. You have no hope left. ."

Scripture doesn't teach God merely provided an "opportunity" to save people when he died for sin and rose again, but rather it states, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21). Notice the word "shall", not "may" is used. And again, "when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:" (Hebrews 1:3b). This verse states Jesus's sacrifice actually, not potentially, purged our sins by himself (Not by the cooperation of the sinner by believing the gospel). And finally, "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) This verse says he "taketh away sin".

Notice also the words "his people" (Matthew 1:21), "our sins" (Hebrews 1:3b), and even the words "the world" (John 1:29) can only mean the elect in these verses or else you have everyone in history "saved", their sins "purged", and taken "away".

I take by faith that God will give all who want to believe a chance to believe.
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
On the other hand, how can you be sure he doesn't? ."

What scripture says he gives all a "chance" to believe? The verse you quoted that states, "11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men," (Titus 2:11) clearly states it "bringeth salvation", that is the result (not a possible result), but yet we know all men without exception do not have salvation, thus that verse must mean all the elect.

As far as how I can be sure that God didn't give an equal opportunity or "chance" for all to believe the gospel, this can be seen in history. For example, do you believe the Indians had the gospel preached to them prior to the Pilgrims arriving?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

On this board I have read some of the Calvinists say that God is the author of sin.
Many seem to have a flippant attitude toward God.
Here is one odd quote I found:

Brother DHK,

I responded to a similar post of yours in the Calvinism debate forum and am reposting my reply to that post here for the benefits of those following this thread-

Mainstream Calvinism does not teach that God is the author of sin. This is like claiming that most Evangelical Christians believe you should bomb abortion clinics. I am sure, as you have presented us, you can find people posting on Baptistboard with such beliefs, just as you can also probably find some "Christians" posting on online forums that believe you should bomb abortion clinics or be members of a radical militia of some type, but to extrapolate that out to the mainstream is ridiculous. You need to remember this is the internet.

If you wish to establish your argument, I issue this challenge, site at least one Calvinistic denomination that holds that belief, or a Calvinistic confession of faith that states this, or an article of faith from a Calvinistic church that contains this statement, or even a church historian who asserts this that contains citations to support the historian's claim.

Moreover, not only do mainstream Calvinists not believe this, they have actually gone out of their way to state God is not the author of sin or evil! For example RC Sproul stated,"This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine." (Double Predestination). John Calvin himself wrote “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil[/].” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169, emphasis mine). Westminister Confession of Faith, ". God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother DHK,

A minority have held to that position, but the mainstream Calvinists and the major Confessions have ALL stated that God is not the author of sin!

Much more important is the the scriptures clearly teach to us that God is not the cause of Sin and death, that it was based upon 'free moral will" of Lucifer and adam, so calvinists again are getting straw manned here on this topic!

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Technicalities.
Has a governor ever gave a pardon to an inmate and the inmate refused the pardon? I think so.

Brother DHK,

The problem with your example of a "pardoned criminal" refusing the pardon is that you can provide no example from scripture to show God's pardon can be refused. Man's ways our not God's ways.

Also, scripture teaches us the atonement was more than just a pardon, but in fact a substitutionary atonement, thus it must be limited. Peter declares, "24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed". If our sins were already "bore" and we our "healed" by his stripes, God cannot than make someone "bore" their own sins again and "unheal" them.

Moreover, Jesus was said to actually have been literally "made sin" on behalf of those he died for. We read, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" (1 Corinthians 5:21a). He poured out the wrath of God on his son by forsaking him on the cross, thus he cannot pour out his wrath again on those he died for.

Further, the ransom example given earlier is a good one even though you tried to direct the argument to be narrowed down to your pardon example. The ransom analogy, like the pardon, is also used in scripture, "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). God would not be just to collect a ransom two times-one on Calvary and once on the sinner by sending them to Hell. Man may collect a ransom twice out of deceit and greed, but far be it from a just and holy God!

Finally, the atonement could not apply to all men because of what scripture tells us it actually accomplished (not potentially accomplished). The Bible has many passages of scripture that makes this undeniably clear-
"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14)
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Romans 5:10)
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Romans 5:9)
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" (Galatians 3:13)
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7)
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:" (Colossians 1:14)
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

Thus according to the scriptures above, the atonement accomplished perfection (our position before God), reconciliation, justification, made us righteous, redeemed us, forgave us, and sanctified us before God, therefore how could it possibly apply to every human being who ever lived? It simply can't.

 

[annsni]

I was just playing some catch-up with my Tabletalk devotional (I know, never catch up, but I miss the good stuff when I skip it! ) and last Thursday's devotion might be germain to this topic:

Job 1 "The Sabeans fell upon them and took them and struck down the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you" (vs. 15)

Given the exponential increase in human knowledge in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there is often an unspoken assumption that we have explained a phenomenon if we have labeled it or are able to account for its cause in the natural world. While it is doubles true that labeling phenomena and figuring out the natural causes of such things as diseases can represent a growth in understanding, our confidence in our knowledge is often misplaced. We still face many limitations in our ability to figure out the world. For instance, although we have given the label gravity to the force that keeps us grounded on earth so that we do not go flying off into space, we still do not know exactly what gravity is. We know what gravity does, but we do not really know it's ontology, its "beingness."

In theology, we face a similar difficulty when it comes to the doctrine of providence. We know that the Lord governs all things, but we do not understand fully how God works in and through His creation to accomplish His purposes. Nevertheless, theologians often employ the useful term concurrence to explain the reality that God and human beings both act at the same time so that the Lord's plan is fulfilled and our choices are really and truly our own.

In essence, codurrence says that two or more parties can act in the same event and produce a given outcome without all parties having the same intent. Job's life is a good illustration of concurrence. In Job 1, we read of three major players in Job's suffering. Satan instigated the suffering by issuing a challenge to the Lord regarding Job's piety. God allowed Satan to bring suffering into Job's life. The Chaldeans and the Sabeans attacked Job's family and stole his livestock. But the intent of each party in producing the same outcome - Job's suffering - was different. Satan intended to discredit Job, and by extension, to discredit God. The intent of the Chaldeans and Sabeans was to enrich themselves. Our Lord's intent was to vindicate Job's faith. Each of these players was necessarily involved in Job's suffering, but at different levels and with different motivations. There was a concurrence among them that Job should suffer, but each had a different reason for this suffering. God's intent was good. The other players intended evil.

Concurrence helps explain how God can ordain evil and not be guilty of sin. He has a holy intent in all He ordains. Evil is evil, but the Lord never has an evil intent, and he never does evil Himself. He works through the evil intents of others to fulfill His good intent.

___________

One of the best examples of concurrence in Scripture is seen in the death of Christ. God ordained the crucifixion and evil men acted to bring it about. Both were necessary for Christ's death to take place. But God had the good intent to save His people and exalt His Son for His sacrificial obedience, while men who killed Christ had the evil intent simply to do away with Him. God is sovereign over evil which gives every evil an ultimate purpose, but He remains entirely good.

The further study verses included are: Genesis 50:20-21, Judges 14:1-4, Zecharaiah 11:15-17, Acts 2:23