Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined

[ReformedBaptist]

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37)

This is NOT a matter of a sovereign God choosing not to influence unbelievers--by doing this you are painting God as being a tyrant. If God has to INFLUENCE unbelievers to continue in blindness and rebellion for His purpose, then He isn't very sovereign at all. Man's will does NOT negate God's sovereignty.

Does God offer a piece of bread to someone who is hungry, and then say "No, you are not "predestined/elected" to have this bread, but you are "predestined/elected" to go hungry to fulfill My purpose." What kind of a God is that? Is this a God who would invite ALL to come to Him:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)

You are teaching what Calvinism calls "double predestination". It specifically says in Matthew 23:37 "but ye would not"--it doesn't say "I would not allow it". The problem was not that the unbelieving Jews were not chosen for salvation. Christ would have saved all of them. The problem was that they rejected Him. The problem was the will. Christ would, but they would not. Man has the capability to reject God, and He has the capability to receive God. That is taught from the beginning of the Bible to the end.

Linda,

The thurst and heart of your defense here is the moral argument. The thrust and heart of the "reformed/calvinist" defense is Scripture. Our appeal is to the Scriptures while (at least what I get from your post) is our own moral sensibilities. It is not an uncommon defense against the doctrine of predestination as explained by reformed/calvinist folks.

All I would like you to do is consider the doctrine not in what you might think it does to character of God, but what Scripture says. God is good, holy, just, right, pure, love, kind, et. Nothing can change that. Our understanding of His ways may fall short, and out senses might be offended when we learn just how Sovereign God is. But our questions shouldn't run the line of "Is God evil?" No, He is not. But our question should be, "What saith the Scripture?"

Blessings my sister,
RB

 

[Linda64]

Linda,

The thurst and heart of your defense here is the moral argument. The thrust and heart of the "reformed/calvinist" defense is Scripture. Our appeal is to the Scriptures while (at least what I get from your post) is our own moral sensibilities. It is not an uncommon defense against the doctrine of predestination as explained by reformed/calvinist folks.

All I would like you to do is consider the doctrine not in what you might think it does to character of God, but what Scripture says. God is good, holy, just, right, pure, love, kind, et. Nothing can change that. Our understanding of His ways may fall short, and out senses might be offended when we learn just how Sovereign God is. But our questions shouldn't run the line of "Is God evil?" No, He is not. But our question should be, "What saith the Scripture?"

Blessings my sister,
RB

Why do you believe that my defense is simply moral argument? Calvinistic/Reformed theology paints God as a tyrant and the "cause" of all things--both good and evil. According to Calvinistic theology everything is "predestined"-- and even sin is "predestined" and man has absolutely NO choice--it's all been "pre-ordained" by God. That makes man an automaton or robot--not a free moral agent. This is contrary to Scriptures. It is a Calvinistic approach to interpretation of Scriptures.

Sorry, but the God I serve and love is not a tyrant. He offers salvation to ALL/WHOSOEVER--this is not my defense according to moral argument, but according to what is written in God's Holy Word.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why do you believe that my defense is simply moral argument? Calvinistic/Reformed theology paints God as a tyrant and the "cause" of all things--both good and evil. According to Calvinistic theology everything is "predestined"-- and even sin is "predestined" and man has absolutely NO choice--it's all been "pre-ordained" by God. That makes man an automaton or robot--not a free moral agent. This is contrary to Scriptures. It is a Calvinistic approach to interpretation of Scriptures.

Sorry, but the God I serve and love is not a tyrant. He offers salvation to ALL/WHOSOEVER--this is not my defense according to moral argument, but according to what is written in God's Holy Word.

Methinks you just proved my point. lol

 

[TCGreek]

Why do you believe that my defense is simply moral argument? Calvinistic/Reformed theology paints God as a tyrant and the "cause" of all things--both good and evil. According to Calvinistic theology everything is "predestined"-- and even sin is "predestined" and man has absolutely NO choice--it's all been "pre-ordained" by God. That makes man an automaton or robot--not a free moral agent. This is contrary to Scriptures. It is a Calvinistic approach to interpretation of Scriptures.

Sorry, but the God I serve and love is not a tyrant. He offers salvation to ALL/WHOSOEVER--this is not my defense according to moral argument, but according to what is written in God's Holy Word.

Linda, nothing I can be further from the truth. How much do you really understand of Reformed theology?

soli deo gloria.

 

[swaimj]

Methinks you just proved my point. lol

No she didn't Reformed Baptist. She made HER point by aluding to a clear biblical statement: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". She answered you with the thing that you demanded: scripture. Your turn!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No she didn't Reformed Baptist. She made HER point by aluding to a clear biblical statement: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". She answered you with the thing that you demanded: scripture. Your turn!

Yes she did swaimy. I agree with that Scripture 100% and its 100% in agreement with all the doctrines of grace. The force of her argument is a moral one, quite common I might add, among those who have tried to argue against God's absolute sovereignty. My OP contained many Scriptures which prove God's absolute sovereigntly over all things, even the thoughts and intents of a man's heart.

The moral argument seeks to prove the calvinism/reformed theology wrong by saying "It make God out to be a monster/tyrant/et." rather than to show how we have misunderstood the Scirptures or misapplied them.

 

[swaimj]

My OP contained many Scriptures which prove God's absolute sovereigntly over all things, even the thoughts and intents of a man's heart.

Typically, you assert what you believe but do not actually prove it. BTW, what is the difference between the sovereignty of God and the absolute sovereignty of God.

 

[Linda64]

Linda, nothing I can be further from the truth. How much do you really understand of Reformed theology?

soli deo gloria.

Truthfully, I really wish that I had never heard of Calvinistic/Reformed theology in the first place. I was fine just believing the Bible for the first 27 years of my Christian life, without the input of John Calvin and the Reformers. When I first heard about Calvinism was in 2001--I rejected it then, and I continue to reject it. Enough said. I'll stick with Scriptures ALONE.

 

[TCGreek]

Truthfully, I really wish that I had never heard of Calvinistic/Reformed theology in the first place. I was fine just believing the Bible for the first 27 years of my Christian life, without the input of John Calvin and the Reformers. When I first heard about Calvinism was in 2001--I rejected it then, and I continue to reject it. Enough said. I'll stick with Scriptures ALONE.

1. I certainly respect your rejection of Calvinism, but you must represent Calvinism properly in your posts.

2. Calvinism and fatalism are not one and the same, for your posts certainly points to this conclusion.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Typically, you assert what you believe but do not actually prove it. BTW, what is the difference between the sovereignty of God and the absolute sovereignty of God.

An adjective. :laugh:

And, how I have not proved it?

 

[Linda64]

1. I certainly respect your rejection of Calvinism, but you must represent Calvinism properly in your posts.

2. Calvinism and fatalism are not one and the same, for your posts certainly points to this conclusion.

The way I see Calvinism portrayed is to paint God as a tyrant and despot--choosing/electing/predestinating some to heaven and choosing/electing/predestinating some to eternal damnation. This is a misrepresntation of God and this is what I reject.

I'm sorry you see it as a mis-representation of Calvinism, but this is very evident to me. How can I represent a Calvinism other than what I see being taught? I'm not going to lie--I see the Calvinistic teachings concerning election and predestination as being fatalism--they are one and the same.

 

[TCGreek]

The way I see Calvinism portrayed is to paint God as a tyrant and despot--choosing/electing/predestinating some to heaven and choosing/electing/predestinating some to eternal damnation. This is a misrepresntation of God and this is what I reject.

I'm sorry you see it as a mis-representation of Calvinism, but this is very evident to me. How can I represent a Calvinism other than what I see being taught? I'm not going to lie--I see the Calvinistic teachings concerning election and predestination as being fatalism--they are one and the same.

Have you ever studied classic Calvinism?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The way I see Calvinism portrayed is to paint God as a tyrant and despot--choosing/electing/predestinating some to heaven and choosing/electing/predestinating some to eternal damnation. This is a misrepresntation of God and this is what I reject.

I'm sorry you see it as a mis-representation of Calvinism, but this is very evident to me. How can I represent a Calvinism other than what I see being taught? I'm not going to lie--I see the Calvinistic teachings concerning election and predestination as being fatalism--they are one and the same.

That God has chosen, elected, and predestined a particular number of folks to salvation I cannot deny. This is what the Scriptures teach. That God is not a tyant I fully affirm knowing His character from Scripture.

The second part of what you call calvinism is not historic calvinism. While there may be some hyper-calvinists about, neither TC or I are one. Neither was the great men of God who held the doctrines of in the past. Why? Because the Scripture doesn't teach it.

The Calvinism you have been taught is not the Calvinism we believe and teach. Most of us calvinists have pretty detailed confessions of faith. Mine is the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and is very detailed in stating what I believe to be true. If we believe what you say we believe, then look there and see if you see it.

But to say we believe something when we don't is not right. We do not teach or believe a double-predestination nor do we believe or teach fatalism. All I am asking is that if you come out to say we are in error, please represent us truthfully. If you believe we are wrong in saying we don't believe in double-predestination then show us how what we believe are those things.



RB

 

[npetreley]

The way I see Calvinism portrayed is to paint God as a tyrant and despot--choosing/electing/predestinating some to heaven and choosing/electing/predestinating some to eternal damnation.

Others are addressing how this does not describe historic calvinism.

However, I want to add that the way you word this implies a falsehood. It is worded to seem like all people start out in some "neutral" state, after which God chooses to bless some and damn others. That certainly would be unjust, because it means God is arbitrarily moving humans from some "neutral" state into the "to be damned" bin.

I hope we both know that's not how it works. Everyone is in the "damned" bin. God chooses to pull some out and put them in the "blessed" bin, to the praise of his glorious grace and mercy. Why is it unfair for God to leave others in the "damned" bin? Don't they deserve to be there just as much as we did before we were saved?

 

[TCGreek]

That God has chosen, elected, and predestined a particular number of folks to salvation I cannot deny. This is what the Scriptures teach. That God is not a tyant I fully affirm knowing His character from Scripture.

The second part of what you call calvinism is not historic calvinism. While there may be some hyper-calvinists about, neither TC or I are one. Neither was the great men of God who held the doctrines of in the past. Why? Because the Scripture doesn't teach it.

The Calvinism you have been taught is not the Calvinism we believe and teach. Most of us calvinists have pretty detailed confessions of faith. Mine is the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and is very detailed in stating what I believe to be true. If we believe what you say we believe, then look there and see if you see it.

But to say we believe something when we don't is not right. We do not teach or believe a double-predestination nor do we believe or teach fatalism. All I am asking is that if you come out to say we are in error, please represent us truthfully. If you believe we are wrong in saying we don't believe in double-predestination then show us how what we believe are those things.



RB

Linda, this is what I hold to as well and it does not fit what you have been saying.

 

[TCGreek]

Others are addressing how this does not describe historic calvinism.

However, I want to add that the way you word this implies a falsehood. It is worded to seem like all people start out in some "neutral" state, after which God chooses to bless some and damn others. That certainly would be unjust, because it means God is arbitrarily moving humans from some "neutral" state into the "to be damned" bin.

I hope we both know that's not how it works. Everyone is in the "damned" bin. God chooses to pull some out and put them in the "blessed" bin, to the praise of his glorious grace and mercy. Why is it unfair for God to leave others in the "damned" bin? Don't they deserve to be there just as much as we did before we were saved?

1. Your analogy captures it well. "Everyone is in the 'damned bin. God chooses to pull some out and put them in the 'blessed' bin, to the praise of his glorious grace and mercy."

2. This is what I see in Scripture and in the word's of Martin Luther, "My conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

 

[Rippon]

Double Or Nothing !

I believe in double-predestination . But I do not believe in equal ultimacy where election to eternal life runs parallel to reprobation . The two are asymmetrical -- even a staunch supralasarian like Hereman Hoeksema denied equal ultimacy .

I really think a Church History course is needed here . Luther , Calvin , Zanchius , Edwards , and Warfield to name a few , believed in D.P. I am not in the minority among Calvinists in history who maintain this belief .

Of course I realize that good Calvinistic men such as John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul disagree with it .

 

[TCGreek]

I believe in double-predestination . But I do not believe in equal ultimacy where election to eternal life runs parallel to reprobation . The two are asymmetrical -- even a staunch supralasarian like Hereman Hoeksema denied equal ultimacy .

I really think a Church History course is needed here . Luther , Calvin , Zanchius , Edwards , and Warfield to name a few , believed in D.P. I am not in the minority among Calvinists in history who maintain this belief .

Of course I realize that good Calvinistic men such as John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul disagree with it .

At one level this is true as qualified by the denial of equal ultimacy, which I think would be impossible to deny.

 

[Amy.G]

QUOTE=npetreley
Everyone is in the "damned" bin. God chooses to pull some out and put them in the "blessed" bin, to the praise of his glorious grace and mercy. Why is it unfair for God to leave others in the "damned" bin? Don't they deserve to be there just as much as we did before we were saved?

Why doesn't God pull everyone out of the "damned" bin? Why leave some in there?

 

[Rippon]

The much more significant question is why the Lord has shown mercy to any of us -- not why He has not shown mercy to more , or even all of us .