I am Genuinely Confused

[InTheLight]

LOL, I recognize that context is important. I also note how we addressed your concerns regarding Romans 3 and showed how the context applies.
What you struggle with is the fact that there are literally extended passages addressing election and predestination while you must reduce your argument to a sentence (almost always out of context) in order to fit your presupposition.

You've got Ephesians 1:4-5. You rely massively on those two verses.
You've got a misapplication of Ezekiel 36 (interesting that you claim Ezekiel 36 applies nowadays when it clearly was written to Israel, yet Ezekiel 18 does not),
You've got a sketchy interpretation of Romans 8:29-30.
You've got a misinterpretation of Romans 9 where you assign the message to individuals and not to Israel. (See the pattern? Pick and choose verses that apply to Israel and transfer them to individuals when it suits you; apply them to Israel when they don't fit your theology.)

That's the core of Calvinism.

The twisting and contortion is found in your camp more than any place else. It is disappointing to see the lack of exegetical prowess displayed by Arminians and Semi-Pelagians.

Yes, but I'm not an Arminian or a semi-Pelagian. Nice try with the name calling, though.

 

[MennoSota]

Only Ephesians chapter 1? That's all you think is available to Reformed theology? Wow! You are misinformed. Multiple passages in John, Romans 3 -12, Ephesians 1-2, both Thessalonians, 1 Peter, etc.
ITL, I ask you to do a word search for "chosen", "elect", "predestined" and see the number of passages addressing the issue. Then, start at Genesis and go through Revelation and mark the times that God chooses specific individuals or groups. From God choosing to pardon Adam and Eve, to God choosing the 144,000, you can't miss God's election. You have to close your eyes and plug your ears to miss God's elective work.

 

[Lukasaurus]

So what say you all? Have I missed something?

I gave up trying to find the answers to this. I don't think we'll know this side of heaven.

Having said that - Election: Does God Send People to Hell?

Steve Brown (old presbyterian) here has an interesting take on predestination and mans responsibility. It's not new, but I found it interesting, not being a calvinist, nor a full blown arminian either. I think I'm what is derogatorily called a Calminian.

One quote " There is no indication in Scripture as to exactly how God foreknew. I believe, though not biblical, that God does arrange circumstances so that the greatest possible number of people would be elect given the factors of human freedom and responsibility. God's love and election have to be reconciled somehow. God chose with tears in his eyes."

 

[MennoSota]

I gave up trying to find the answers to this. I don't think we'll know this side of heaven.

Having said that - Election: Does God Send People to Hell?

Steve Brown (old presbyterian) here has an interesting take on predestination and mans responsibility. It's not new, but I found it interesting, not being a calvinist, nor a full blown arminian either. I think I'm what is derogatorily called a Calminian.

One quote " There is no indication in Scripture as to exactly how God foreknew. I believe, though not biblical, that God does arrange circumstances so that the greatest possible number of people would be elect given the factors of human freedom and responsibility. God's love and election have to be reconciled somehow. God chose with tears in his eyes."

Wow! What an amazingly bad quote. It's head shakingly bad.
God foreknew because God is not bound in time. God is omniscient. The Bible is clear, but the person giving the quote apparently does not know God.
The problem you seem to have is that you are forcing your definition of love upon God and since you can't reconcile that with God's choices, you create a wimpy God that you can fit into your definitions.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Wow! What an amazingly bad quote. It's head shakingly bad.
God foreknew because God is not bound in time. God is omniscient. The Bible is clear, but the person giving the quote apparently does not know God.
The problem you seem to have is that you are forcing your definition of love upon God and since you can't reconcile that with God's choices, you create a wimpy God that you can fit into your definitions.

I didn't write the quote. Steve Brown, professor at Knox Seminary did.

Why are you such a nasty person to accuse me of things when you know nothing about me. Sorry that you are hurting and feel the need to be vindicated by belittling others.

You say "the problem I seem to have" as though you've seen a pattern, when this is the first post I have posted in this cal/arm debate forum. I hope you find peace man, because I've been where you are, constantly needing to be right to affirm your own beliefs. If you correct everyone else, there is noone left to correct you right?

 

[InTheLight]

Why are you such a nasty person to accuse me of things when you know nothing about me. Sorry that you are hurting and feel the need to be vindicated by belittling others.

It's what he does.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[MennoSota]

I didn't write the quote. Steve Brown, professor at Knox Seminary did.

Why are you such a nasty person to accuse me of things when you know nothing about me. Sorry that you are hurting and feel the need to be vindicated by belittling others.

You say "the problem I seem to have" as though you've seen a pattern, when this is the first post I have posted in this cal/arm debate forum. I hope you find peace man, because I've been where you are, constantly needing to be right to affirm your own beliefs. If you correct everyone else, there is noone left to correct you right?

I know you didn't write the quote. I didn't say you did. Forgive me if you don't agree with that quote. It's an amazingly bad view of God.
This is not about needing to be right. This is about pointing out what is horribly wrong.

 

[JamesL]

I cannot fathom how certain bible verses on predestination and election can coexist with other bible verses about God wanting everyone saved.

the two are not related, so there's no reason they need to coexist

My first thought is that God can have it both ways: yes there is predestination but somehow He wants all saved, but that seems nonsensical to me on fundamental levels.....

Now you're making sense though.

There is predestination, but it does not relate to who is saved from hell and who goes to heaven.

the predestined ones, the chosen ones, will be a much smaller number than those who go to heaven

Assuming I could be wrong and the answer obvious in the bible though, for predestination I usually think of the following bible verses:
1. Ephesians 1-2
2. Romans 9-11
3. Psalms 139:16
4. Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8

predestination relates to an inheritance. It is both corporate and individual. Corporately, we have been predestined to share in the inheritance of Christ when he returns. It's the same thing as the whole nation of Israel being Chosen and predestined before an inheritance in the Promised Land.

but securing The Inheritance is not inevitable for every Christian, just like it was not inevitable for every Israelite

However, the book of life itself is confusing since Exodus 32:31-33 and Revelation 3:5 seem to indicate that everyone is written in the book and they are blotted out for iniquity.

Yes, just like an Israelite could be cut off from the people, cut off from the land, cut off from The Inheritance.

Life and death don't always relate to going to heaven or being saved from hell. more than once, God told the Israelites "I have set before you this day life and death, blessing and cursing"

Read Deuteronomy 30. He wasn't telling them to choose to be saved from Hell or choose to go to heaven. He was telling them to choose blessing rather than cursing. And he equated it with life versus death.

And in his appeal to the Israelites to secure the promise through obedience, he reminded them that it was unconditionally promised to their forefathers

Of course Ephesians 1-2, Romans 9-11, and Psalms 139:16 seem definitive to me, and were for a short time until I found Ezekiel 18.

Ezekiel 18 makes it so abundantly clear that God wants all to repent and be saved that I am genuinely confused. When I pray that His will is done on earth as it is in heaven, I know now that this means that I should pray that all repent and be saved. I have also looked for more beyond Ezekiel 18 and that gets me into the regular suspects of Arminian verses I see debated all the time about God wanting all saved and the idea that Jesus died for all people, but not all will be saved.

I also have the verse Romans 3:25-26 that seems to indicate God considered it unrighteous and possibly unjust not to send Jesus.

I want to get at the bottom of this though. However, I do feel far more inclined to believe in free will, but then again that is likely because I am a normal Westerner.

So what say you all? Have I missed something?

The only thing you've missed is context

 

[MennoSota]

the two are not related, so there's no reason they need to coexist


Now you're making sense though.

There is predestination, but it does not relate to who is saved from hell and who goes to heaven.

the predestined ones, the chosen ones, will be a much smaller number than those who go to heaven


predestination relates to an inheritance. It is both corporate and individual. Corporately, we have been predestined to share in the inheritance of Christ when he returns. It's the same thing as the whole nation of Israel being Chosen and predestined before an inheritance in the Promised Land.

but securing The Inheritance is not inevitable for every Christian, just like it was not inevitable for every Israelite


Yes, just like an Israelite could be cut off from the people, cut off from the land, cut off from The Inheritance.

Life and death don't always relate to going to heaven or being saved from hell. more than once, God told the Israelites "I have set before you this day life and death, blessing and cursing"

Read Deuteronomy 30. He wasn't telling them to choose to be saved from Hell or choose to go to heaven. He was telling them to choose blessing rather than cursing. And he equated it with life versus death.

And in his appeal to the Israelites to secure the promise through obedience, he reminded them that it was unconditionally promised to their forefathers


The only thing you've missed is context

James, you keep repeating heresy. No matter how much you repeat it, it's still heresy.

 

[JamesL]

James, you keep repeating heresy. No matter how much you repeat it, it's still heresy.

I would expect nothing less from mother Rome and her half-breed children of the Reformation

 

[Steven Yeadon]

the two are not related, so there's no reason they need to coexist

I had thought about the corporate angle before, as that is close to my pastor's viewpoint. He is a Molinist. but how do you mesh it with (Romans 9:14-24)? Whenever I try to read Romans 9, I am struck that I can read it as addressing large groups until I get to (Romans 9:14-18) where it suddenly refers to Pharaoh in a way that does seem unfair to a Westerner. Then I get to (Romans 9:19-24) to have the corporate angle obliterated.

For now, I have accepted what I believe is the obvious: That God in His own reasons and wisdom chose some and rejected others before He made them.

But I feel this belief challenged by the verses I earlier listed that show He is after the repentance of all.

I do feel an odd peace over me though, Ecclesiastes is making more sense too from this perspective as all things under the sun are vanity in light of sovereignty. Then again Solomon warns everyone to obey God as that is the whole duty of man as the summation of his prophecy. I'm going to keep struggling and see where the Spirit takes me.

Does the bible ever make it clear that God gave man the ability to do one thing: obey Him or not? If there is free will, that is all I could realistically believe in at this point given sovereignty. I am still struggling to understand God's glory from this perspective.

 

[rsr]

One quote " There is no indication in Scripture as to exactly how God foreknew. I believe, though not biblical, that God does arrange circumstances so that the greatest possible number of people would be elect given the factors of human freedom and responsibility. God's love and election have to be reconciled somehow. God chose with tears in his eyes."

And that is Molinism, a 500-year-old attempt to reconcile the sovereignty of God with the free will of humans.

Back in my college days, this was examined (non-theistically, of course) as an explanation of why God would allow evil in the world. Even some of my favorite writers have nudged into this position.

The problem, of course, is there is no biblical support for it, no matter how it smooths over the problems of sovereignty and free will.

 

[Fake johnny mac]

From our perspective we choose God. From God's perspective He chose us

 

[MennoSota]

I would expect nothing less from mother Rome and her half-breed children of the Reformation

Except we are referring to the heresy you preach that is not biblical.

 

[JamesL]

I had thought about the corporate angle before, as that is close to my pastor's viewpoint. He is a Molinist. but how do you mesh it with (Romans 9:14-24)?

You don't mesh it. Romans 9 has absolutely nothing to do with being saved from hell.

Election has nothing to do with being saved from hell

Whenever I try to read Romans 9, I am struck that I can read it as addressing large groups until I get to (Romans 9:14-18) where it suddenly refers to Pharaoh in a way that does seem unfair to a Westerner. Then I get to (Romans 9:19-24) to have the corporate angle obliterated.

I believe you're trying to read Romans 9 as a treatise on God making people fit for heaven or hell, which is not the case.

It's a long piece to type, but I can if I need to go indepth. Romans 9 cannot be understood apart from chapter 8. And the context for chapter 8 starts with chapter 5.

For now, I have accepted what I believe is the obvious: That God in His own reasons and wisdom chose some and rejected others before He made them.

Yes. But the two questions are - chosen for what? And shows them on what basis?

But I feel this belief challenged by the verses I earlier listed that show He is after the repentance of all.

I do feel an odd peace over me though, Ecclesiastes is making more sense too from this perspective as all things under the sun are vanity in light of sovereignty. Then again Solomon warns everyone to obey God as that is the whole duty of man as the summation of his prophecy. I'm going to keep struggling and see where the Spirit takes me.

Brother, just take a deep breath. Don't put so much pressure on yourself to have everything all figured out all at once

Does the bible ever make it clear that God gave man the ability to do one thing: obey Him or not? If there is free will, that is all I could realistically believe in at this point given sovereignty. I am still struggling to understand God's glory from this perspective.

I don't believe becoming born again is a matter of the will, so I believe Calvinists and Arminians are in error

 

[rsr]

I had thought about the corporate angle before, as that is close to my pastor's viewpoint. He is a Molinist. .. .

Corporate election is more Arminian than Molinist. Whether election is individual or corporate is really not a question with Molinism; the essential element is that God has designed a world and causes and effects that will result in the maximum number of people being redeemed. Molinism's middle knowledge, the fact that God knows the outcome of every possible choice that creatures might make and orders his will according to those choices is an interesting philosophical proposition. But I cannot for the life of me make sense of it practically.

Today, I think, and I may be wrong, Molinism is more likely to be expressed in terms of Open Theism than anything that would fit within the Reformed tradition. I don't think Molinism and Open Theism are the same, but I believe Open Theism hijacks Molinism's propositions.

My own personal view is that I would rather choose between Augustinianism and Pelagianism than to accept Molinism. But that's just me.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I am still stuck between predestination and free will. However, I know the power of His sovereignty now, and I have great peace from it. Oddly enough, I probably lean a little more predestination now whereas I was far more free will before. I had to wrestle with the fact God is God. He is omnipotent and sovereign. He is reaching out to everyone, yet He is sovereign over all things. I understand that I lean more in the predestination camp now though, whereas before I had been firmly free will in my leanings. However, I still can't square my predestination belief entirely with all the bible verses in context. I have more research to do I know!

You don't mesh it. Romans 9 has absolutely nothing to do with being saved from hell.

Election has nothing to do with being saved from hell

I do understand your critique on Romans better now after a bit of reading. So you are saying that the noble artifacts of clay are people groups and there existence as chosen and holy and so are the common ones? Hmm, I'l think on this, it could be true. The problem is there is a lot more than Romans 9 in support of predestination. I must still square Ephesian's verses with so called free will. And there are several verses beyond those it seems.

To me, I must be missing something in the bible. We must be having a problem of imagination as the church to not fully incorporate all of the bible verses on both sides of the debate.

I mean could we be getting it wrong? Can God have it both ways in His omnipotence and omniscience, ways so high they are beyond our comprehension? Could He be absolute sovereign, knowing the end form the beginning, and yet give humans the ability to obey Him or disobey Him? To me it goes to Adam and his wife in the garden. Were they decreed to do what they did or did they have any real choice to obey or disobey? However, God seems to be the one in charge fully though since He knows the End form the Beginning.

Brother, just take a deep breath. Don't put so much pressure on yourself to have everything all figured out all at once

He says to seek with all your heart, so I am doing so. I view what you said as a dangerous temptation for a man losing sleep over not knowing the truth.

 

[Lukasaurus]

He says to seek with all your heart, so I am doing so. I view what you said as a dangerous temptation for a man losing sleep over not knowing the truth.

Is seeking this truth setting you free, or putting you into a sort of bondage? If you discover that Calvinism is true, how will it free you? If you discover that Arminianism is true, how will it free you? Will you do things any differently if either, or neither is true, or something else is true?

 

[JamesL]

I am still stuck between predestination and free will.....

can you explain how you might figure each one of those might factor into whatever you're struggling with?

are you thinking in the context of all events throughout history?

Or are you thinking only in the context of someone becoming a believer in Christ?

Or are you thinking in terms of how the word "predestine" is used in scripture, and how it is framed in context?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I cannot fathom how certain bible verses on predestination and election can coexist with other bible verses about God wanting everyone saved.

Hi Stephen,
I've posted this several times before on the forum, but maybe you've missed it.

John 6:37. 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..........' There is your predestination and your Calvinism. God has given to the Son a people to redeem, and He will save every single one. See also John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6. But......

'........And the One who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.' Here is your free will. Nothing stops the greatest sinner in the world-- slave-dealers, Islamic terrorists, rapists, paedophiles-- from coming to Christ, except their wicked unbelieving hearts; He will not cast them out if they come. No one will ever be told that Christ's blood is not sufficient to save him.

The Calvinist holds these two truths together absolutely. If we find it hard to reconcile them, we know that God has no such difficulty. The gates of heaven are wide open; whosoever wills may enter (Revelation 22:17), but when he enters, he will find that God has loved him from the foundation of the world and has drawn him to Him with cords of love (Jeremiah 31:3; Matthew 11:25; John 6:44; Revelation 21:27).