Discussion of Predestination

Praise the Lord for that man's salvation. Bob there is one thing that I do not ever take lightly and that is the need for our churches to take the gospel to a lost and dying world. I may believe in predestination, but I pray that the Lord would save the elect and elect some more!

 

Are not all the pieces of God's Word true? Do those pieces ever contradict each other? I do not believe that they do. So ours is an attempt to reconcile what could be viewed as noticeably different expressions of how God relates to humanity. It is my belief that there are not two truths but one. I would say it is fair to assume that those who appose my view feel justified in what they believe. When you have two opposing views drawn from the same source there must be a hermeneutical or an interpretive issue.

You prove my point. You have a interpretive choice that you go with, but your choice brings other pieces of Scripture into direct conflict with your interpretation.

And yet you can have a great tolerance for the high sovereignty of God despite what you just previously said.

Here again another contradiction in your view, because you say God has given to us our faith but it is our choice in what we do with it. If God gives faith as you suggest, then how do you chose to have faith?

So you claim that God predestined a method of salvation but not to whom that salvation would apply.

 

What is a temptation? A temptation is a solicitation to do evil. If God were to do that he would use an evil as the lure to entice you. God is not evil and does not use evil directly. However, what if in God's sovereignty he knew that by preaching the Word to someone who is not inclined to follow the Word it would push him away even further. That would not be tempting someone to do evil but preaching the Word in order to drive them away.

You must not read into the Scripture something that is not there. It does not say that God in his infinite wisdom found a hard case and worked him into an overall strategy. It says he hardened their hearts. He cause them to be obstinate. I would argue that like the rat in the maze God can do this without violating human free moral agency and at the same time he can perfectly maneuver and influence the process without ever directly violating his holy nature as well which even more important to emphasize.

 

This does not represent a problem. I have never denied the free moral agency of man. In this case it does not say that God caused their hearts to be hard but that they had lust in their heart and God gave them over to their lust. God does not take joy in seeing his own people sin and violate his holy name. I am not sure why you listed this passage.

Again, this passage is not a problem. Maybe you would care to comment on what you intend to demonstrate here because if your point is that God can give someone over to their wicked nature that is true. That does not mean that he cannot provide someone with the necessary stimuli in order to exacerbate the circumstance as in the case of Duet. and Josh.

God is righteous and holy. Again there is not a problem here.

The free moral agency of man is not a matter of asking if man is free to choose but what is man able to choose? Man is clearly able to freely choose to sin against God. No Reformed theologian will argue otherwise. Man is not free to choose to quit sinning. There is not a problem with this passage either.

God is gracious and merciful. That is why the Reformed view is known as the doctrines of grace. I believe in the grace of God. If it were not for the gracious nature of God no one would be saved.

Blammo, perhaps you can add to these passages or make a point because I just do not see the problem that maybe you see with the passages for my position.

 

I believe the Bible, it sounds like you do to. :thumbs:

 

So if as you suggest God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, do they?

If they don't why don't they? If the answer is because they choose not to, then does God still not realize what he ultimately desired?

Also, does not your view ultimately present God as an unsuccessful universalist?

Do you not attribute any credit to God for being able to accomplish his will, because evidently your view places God in a position where he is entirely dependant on man?

One last thing, since there have been those now who have received Christ, this is a hypothetical question. But when Christ came into the world and died on the cross and rose from the dead, was there a possibility than no one would respond to the gospel?

I understand that God has forknowledge according to your view but if the offer of salvation is truly open does that not require the possibility that no one would have responded to the message?

 

You will not find me arguing against the need to preach the gospel. I have believed what you preach. I preach the gospel constantly. I understand the need of preaching the gospel.

The issue here is not that we must believe the gospel, but that in order to believe the gospel their is a work that God must do through the Holy Spirit. The point here is not that man must believe the gospel, the point here is understanding this, apart from the work of God through the Holy Spirit no one can be saved.

I understand your simple approach to God. In your view you cannot manage to understand how both that the Lord is good and that God can allow for evil to accomplish a purpose. God is not the author of evil. God does not violate the free moral agency of human beings. But never fail to understand that God is perfect and his will is perfect and he accomplishes his will.

If you are at peace with holding a view riddled with inconsistencies then by all means you are free to choose to believe that if you would like. However, please do not interfere with a discussion that seeks to find reasons for believing. Too long has the church just said this is the way it is, take it or leave it. NO, the truth is not unattainable. Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life. He said you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

Just because God's ways are not our ways does not mean that God has not revealed his will to his children. His children hear his voice and he calls them by name.

 

Then we are in agreement. As long as you recognize the need of God in the work of bringing repentance. As long as you recognize the proper role of the Holy Spirit in bringing conviction, then I will give you no grief over that, but that is not the underlying assumption that general atonement assumes. Again you are welcome to hold to a system riddled with inconsistency, however, I am glad to see that you clearly affirm the sovereignty of God in salvation. And the fact that the guilt of sin falls upon man does not remove God from his sovereign role in determining that there would be those whom he would without question redeem and that he has chosen and elected them based solely on his gracious nature and not due to merit or respect to their good deeds. Free moral agency is a factor but that agency very much works within a framework put in place by a sovereign omni-benevolent creator.