Is Everything Predestined?

[seekingthetruth]

John Owen was simply a faithful pastor (unlike Joel Osteen) who had some insightful things to say and wrote some of them down.

Wise Christians have always learned from those who went before them, even while we follow Christ above every man.

Well, I havent read everything that every Christian wrote down.

Forgive me for not being a "wise" Christian

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

No, without sin the death of Jesus would have been unnecessary.

But, if God saves who He will then is sin even a factor? After all, we are all sinners. Did God actually need a sacrifice of His Son to decide who to save? Or did we need the sacrifice of the Son to convict us of our need to repent?

I say that WE needed the sacrifice, and that God didnt. He did it for us to show us that we need to repent.....and repentance requires a choice.

John

 

[Skandelon]

According to John Owen, the opposite would be the case:

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." (Works of John Owen: volume 3 pg. 433)

Owen argues that if libertarian free will were true, and the hinge of individual salvation rests on the ability of the creature (regardless of the requirement), then the Cross itself becomes unnecessary.

What about when God enables the fulfillment of the requirement, making the person without any excuse for his rejection? That is your (Owen's) error. You seem to presume that we don't believe, as you do, that God must enable our faith in Christ. Just because we believe that gracious provision may be rejected making their punishment all the more deserved, doesn't negate that it is FROM GOD.

God "could" have simply required faith in something without the Cross, if the spiritual faith requirement is intrinsically tenable in the unregenerate creature.

1. As just explained, we don't believe the faith requirement is 'intrinsically tenable.' We believe it must be enabled by God, but it may still be rejected.

2. I think the point being made is that without 'a choice, and a freewill' it seems that God could have just made us the way he wanted us to be from birth (irresistibly), thus making the cross seem unnecessary in your more deterministic world view. Why not just 'regenerate' us from birth with a heart that loves, worships, and understands his mercy? Is he not powerful enough just to create people who understand him fully and love him completely? Our explanation is that God prefers those who FREELY choose him, what is your explanation to this question?

Both Reformed and Arminian theologians at the time understood what substitutionary atonement actually entailed, thus the Arminians flatly rejected it.

That is incorrect. Arminians do affirm substitutionary atonement.

Both Arminius and Wesley believed in the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's atonement through penal substitution.[Picirilli Grace, Faith, Free Will 104–105, 132ff]

Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied individually, [Ashby Four Views on Eternal Security 140ff]

Hugo Grotius and many of Wesley's followers taught that it was satisfied governmentally. [Picirilli Grace, Faith, Free Will 132]​

 

[AresMan]

But, if God saves who He will then is sin even a factor? After all, we are all sinners.

People need saving because they are sinners, not just because God arbitrarily decides on a "program" of relationship.

Picture a jail full of people on death row. They have all committed murder. Their sentence is already made, and they all have the just execution pending. Can anyone argue that any of them "deserve" mercy?
The governor of the state decides to pardon some of them, thus giving them what they do not deserve. Does this mean that the ones who are not pardoned now deserve the same mercy? No! They will still face the just punishment of their deeds. The ones who are pardoned receive grace and mercy contrary to what they deserve. The governor is not unjust. It would be ridiculous to argue that the governor must either pardon them all or pardon none. None of them could deserve any opportunity of escape from just sentence regardless of any conditions that happen to be present.

Did God actually need a sacrifice of His Son to decide who to save?

Intrinsic in the sacrifice of His Son IS the actual, judicial payment for sins. That is what substitutionary atonement (even atonement itself) implies. One dies in the place of another paying for that person's wrongdoing. This act, then, removes the penalty of the sinner and saves him judicially. Part and parcel of the atonement is basis by which God brings the person to Himself, including regeneration and faith.

Or did we need the sacrifice of the Son to convict us of our need to repent?

Yes, but the sacrifice is not just some symbolic gesture. It did something.

I say that WE needed the sacrifice, and that God didnt.

Sure, God didn't need the sacrifice for Himself, but it fits with His character that ALL sin must be justly punished. Either the sinner pays for the sin eternally, or it is paid for by the Substitute. God does not "dismiss" sin, ever. Every single sin is punished. The atonement of Jesus Christ is the pinnacle of all history--past, present, future.

He did it for us to show us that we need to repent

Are you suggesting a "governmental" model or a "moral influence" model for the atonement, such that it was mostly an act of God to "demonstrate" his love to get sinners to convert, rather than that it has judicial, forensic, legal implications of actual debt payment?

.....and repentance requires a choice.

Sure, but that does not necessitate that the choice is autonomous from God.

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Phi 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
Phi 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Phi 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

[Winman]

Notice that not one Calvinist addressed the scripture I showed that Cornelius performed righteous works in God's eyes before he was saved?

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Not only did Peter confirm that Cornelius could and DID righteous works, Peter says those that do so are accepted with God. This is exactly what God told Cain, if he gave an acceptable sacrifice he would be accepted with God.

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God did not say Cain was unable to do a good work, he implied he could, and if he chose to do so he would be accepted. So, God had made no decision to pass over Cain as Calvinism would teach.

When you engage in philosophy with Calvinists you are playing THEIR GAME. They love nothing more than discussing philosophy. They can quote Reformed scholar after scholar, you don't stand a chance. But when you show them scripture that directly refutes their doctrine, they choose to "pass over" it.

Scripture does not show that unregenerate men cannot do good works acceptable to God, Cornelius proves that. The scriptures do not teach that unregenerate man is utterly enslaved by his will and cannot choose to obey or believe God. That is Calvinist philosophy, not scripture.

Jesus said those who sin are a slave to sin, he DID NOT say that those who are slaves to sin must sin. Calvinsim reverses what Jesus truly said.

Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Calvinism teaches a man is born a slave to sin and must sin. This is exactly the opposite of what Jesus said. Jesus said the person who commits sin is the servant of sin. This can be observed. No one is born with a cigarette in their mouth, addicted to tobacco. It is only when a person chooses to smoke that they become addicted. No one is born with a bottle of whiskey in his hand, addicted to alcohol. It is only when a person freely chooses to drink that they become addicted and a slave to alcohol.

Don't be fooled folks, Calvinism teaches the exact reverse of scripture.

 

[jbh28]

But, if God saves who He will then is sin even a factor? After all, we are all sinners. Did God actually need a sacrifice of His Son to decide who to save? Or did we need the sacrifice of the Son to convict us of our need to repent?

I say that WE needed the sacrifice, and that God didnt. He did it for us to show us that we need to repent.....and repentance requires a choice.

John

The atonement was necessary because God is just. "the wages of sin is death." God could not have just saved people by forgiving their sins without the atoning sacrifice of the perfect lamb of God. That's why Jesus died on the cross. He was our substitute on the cross. He took our punishment.

 

[Van]

Reply to Skandelon;

You called me an Open Theist, blurring the line and ignoring I only agreed on this one point, everything is not predestined.

But that isn't the only point you hold to within Open Theism. You also have argued that God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge and that is the point most people equate with the Openness view with which they take the most issue.

Folks it is really difficult to convey the truth when my posts are edited and words are put in my mouth.

Here is the truth, Skandelon is an open theist to a limited degree.

My views on God's knowledge have been ruled as unorthodox, thus I am unable to defend myself from the statements of Skandelon.

His view is God has exhaustive knowledge of a future that he claims exists, but cannot support this view from scripture. He says God can know the future but that does not fix the future. He does not explain how anything other than what God knows will happen, can happen, and therefore the future is exhaustively predestined, making God the author of sin. Rather he wants me to explain my position which he ruled I cannot explain.

Bottom line, logical necessity requires that both Calvinisms incomprehensible doctrine, everything is predestined but God is not the author of sin, and the Arminianisms incomprehensible doctrine, God's exhaustive knowledge of the future does not predestine the future be dismissed. Not to mention neither come close to reflecting what scripture teaches.

 

[percho]

Hyper-Calvinists openly assert everything is predestine. Boettner says everything is predestined. But is that Biblical.

No. This thread is not about Omniscience, no matter how it is defined. According to Arminianism, God knowing the future exhaustively does not predestine it. We must set aside this issue and stick with the scope of predestination.

If everything is predestined, that is Closed Theology and God is the Author of Sin, just as the Hyper-Calvinisms claim.

If everything is not predestined, that is Open Theology to a limited degree, and God knowing the future exhaustively does not change that everything is not predestined according to Arminianism.

Therefore all Arminians and most Calvinists are open theists to a limited degree.



Skandelon did not answer these questions. I will because I can support my views from scripture. Yes Jesus said what Peter would do. And as I have posted numerous times, Jesus can know what is in the hearts of people and therefore know how they would react given a circumstance. Thus Jesus knew what Peter would freely choose to do given that circumstance.

Did Jesus declaring what would happen fix the future? Yes, no plan of God can be thwarted, if even if Peter had been altered so his response would have differed, God would have brought about the denials anyway.

But the real issue is why did Skandelon ask this off topic question? Because he does not understand my view.

It would be nice if only posts that answer the question, is everything predestined be allowed.

Let me answer in this manner. Maybe they whoever they are (I must be a conspiracist) should have put it down like this:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.
Gen. 1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

There would have been only 30 verses in chapter 1.

On the sixth day God having created man in his image male and female, said all he had created and made was very good.

Now I understand many if not most will disagree but I believe the reason darkness was upon the face of the deep was because God had removed himself from what had been created in eons pass and only Satan and his angels were here when God returned being the light. Until that moment the earth had become a dark, dead earth because of the sin of Satan in the pass having tried to exalt himself as God.

Death was already known and a concept in that from day one the Lamb of God, the Son of God to be conceived in a woman was slain (death) and he did die. However before day one or before the age of time measurement Gof made a promise for his sinless one who would die for the creation. The hope of eternal life.

God raised him from the dead.

You tell me what was or was not predestined.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

May I see the full commentary & out of what context she said it?

"Boettner says everything is predestined"

 

[Van]

Reply to EWF,

May I see the full commentary & out of what context she said it?

"Boettner says everything is predestined"

"The Arminian objection against foreordination bears with equal force against the foreknowledge of God.
What God foreknows must, in the very nature of the case, be as fixed and certain as what is foreordained;
and if one is inconsistent with the free agency of man, the other is also. Foreordination renders the events
certain, while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain." Chapter 6, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

"Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His
knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a
locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago. The Arminian doctrine, in rejecting
foreordination, rejects the theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event can be
foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined."

 

[percho]

No, without sin the death of Jesus would have been unnecessary.

I agree and this will be sort of a companion post to my previous post. But lets talk about just whose sin. The day Adam sinned it was appointed unto man to die. Death the opposite of life unless God does something to nullify death. Without something taking place to overcome death man would be dead forever.

Hebrews 2:9 says this about Jesus, "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." But where does it really come from.

James 1:14,15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The serpent beguiled, Eve; she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. What was the husband lusting that brought forth sin and then death?

Who is really responsible. Jesus tasted death for every man but what was the real purpose for his death.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

God through man and the Son of God, the man child born of a wo-man (the one taken from man) was going to destroy death which already existed before man was created and him who had the power of death, Satan the devil.

 

[Winman]

May I see the full commentary & out of what context she said it?

"Boettner says everything is predestined"

Loraine Boettner was a man, not a woman.

 

[DaChaser1]

Notice that not one Calvinist addressed the scripture I showed that Cornelius performed righteous works in God's eyes before he was saved?

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Not only did Peter confirm that Cornelius could and DID righteous works, Peter says those that do so are accepted with God. This is exactly what God told Cain, if he gave an acceptable sacrifice he would be accepted with God.

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God did not say Cain was unable to do a good work, he implied he could, and if he chose to do so he would be accepted. So, God had made no decision to pass over Cain as Calvinism would teach.

When you engage in philosophy with Calvinists you are playing THEIR GAME. They love nothing more than discussing philosophy. They can quote Reformed scholar after scholar, you don't stand a chance. But when you show them scripture that directly refutes their doctrine, they choose to "pass over" it.

Scripture does not show that unregenerate men cannot do good works acceptable to God, Cornelius proves that. The scriptures do not teach that unregenerate man is utterly enslaved by his will and cannot choose to obey or believe God. That is Calvinist philosophy, not scripture.

Jesus said those who sin are a slave to sin, he DID NOT say that those who are slaves to sin must sin. Calvinsim reverses what Jesus truly said.

Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Calvinism teaches a man is born a slave to sin and must sin. This is exactly the opposite of what Jesus said. Jesus said the person who commits sin is the servant of sin. This can be observed. No one is born with a cigarette in their mouth, addicted to tobacco. It is only when a person chooses to smoke that they become addicted. No one is born with a bottle of whiskey in his hand, addicted to alcohol. It is only when a person freely chooses to drink that they become addicted and a slave to alcohol.

Don't be fooled folks, Calvinism teaches the exact reverse of scripture.

NNE is rightous, as compared to the Holy One of isreal!

Our BEST deeds/works are feeble at best...

NONE EVER were declared to be saved and right with god by their works and deeds...

ANY who were that in the bible had to be those "of faith", and their faith was from the living God that had called them out to be his own people, see Abraham and Moses!

 

[Winman]

NNE is rightous, as compared to the Holy One of isreal!

Our BEST deeds/works are feeble at best...

NONE EVER were declared to be saved and right with god by their works and deeds...

ANY who were that in the bible had to be those "of faith", and their faith was from the living God that had called them out to be his own people, see Abraham and Moses!

Like others, you put words in my mouth I never said. I agree that all men are sinners and no man can merit salvation.

What I am saying is that those who say unregenerate men cannot perform righteous works (in God's eyes) is error. Peter said that Cornelius did righteous works. Total Depravity is false doctrine.

It would not matter if a man performed a thousand righteous works, if that man commits even one single sin in his entire lifetime, then he must pay the penalty for that sin, which is death.

Calvinism teaches that the unregenerate cannot perform righteous works. That is false. Cornelius proves this.

God himself said that man can perform righteous works.

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Here God speaks of a righteous man who turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity. God says that "all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned".

There are two possibilites here. This is either speaking of a saved person who sins and loses salvation, or it is saying that at some point men are righteous, but when they sin their righteousness will not be mentioned and they will die in their sins.

I say that the scriptures say God has made man upright, but all men sin and come under condemnation.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Look up the word "upright". It means righteous. This would explain Eze 18:24 that a man is righteous, but then commits iniquity and shall die in his sins.

The only other alternative is that Eze 18:24 is teaching that a saved person can lose salvation (which I reject).

What say you?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Instead of starting a new thread as I considered doing, I saw this one and thought it would be a good place to post the following; if it has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, I apologize, but I have not read the entire thread:

Do Calvinists or those who believe in any kind of predestination believe the following: Do you believe that God predestined Lucifer to rebel and thus be cast out of heaven; and do you believe that God predestined Adam to eat that apple?

 

[seekingthetruth]

People need saving because they are sinners, not just because God arbitrarily decides on a "program" of relationship.

Picture a jail full of people on death row. They have all committed murder. Their sentence is already made, and they all have the just execution pending. Can anyone argue that any of them "deserve" mercy?
The governor of the state decides to pardon some of them, thus giving them what they do not deserve. Does this mean that the ones who are not pardoned now deserve the same mercy? No! They will still face the just punishment of their deeds. The ones who are pardoned receive grace and mercy contrary to what they deserve. The governor is not unjust. It would be ridiculous to argue that the governor must either pardon them all or pardon none. None of them could deserve any opportunity of escape from just sentence regardless of any conditions that happen to be present.

Intrinsic in the sacrifice of His Son IS the actual, judicial payment for sins. That is what substitutionary atonement (even atonement itself) implies. One dies in the place of another paying for that person's wrongdoing. This act, then, removes the penalty of the sinner and saves him judicially. Part and parcel of the atonement is basis by which God brings the person to Himself, including regeneration and faith.

Yes, but the sacrifice is not just some symbolic gesture. It did something.

Sure, God didn't need the sacrifice for Himself, but it fits with His character that ALL sin must be justly punished. Either the sinner pays for the sin eternally, or it is paid for by the Substitute. God does not "dismiss" sin, ever. Every single sin is punished. The atonement of Jesus Christ is the pinnacle of all history--past, present, future.

Are you suggesting a "governmental" model or a "moral influence" model for the atonement, such that it was mostly an act of God to "demonstrate" his love to get sinners to convert, rather than that it has judicial, forensic, legal implications of actual debt payment?

Sure, but that does not necessitate that the choice is autonomous from God.

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Phi 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
Phi 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Phi 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

What I am saying is that those that refuse to repent are destined to hell.

Even all of those that seek God will not repent and go to heaven.

But every man has the same oppurtunity as you did to come to Christ.

Once we seek Him, the HS will come to us, but we still have the choice to deny it.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

The atonement was necessary because God is just. "the wages of sin is death." God could not have just saved people by forgiving their sins without the atoning sacrifice of the perfect lamb of God. That's why Jesus died on the cross. He was our substitute on the cross. He took our punishment.

God can do whatever God chooses to do.

How do you know what God "could not" have done

John

 

[Iconoclast]

Who is John Owen...is he like Joel Olsteen? Was he an apostle?

If his word is so important then why doesnt he have a book in the bible?

And why havent I heard of him?

Do you follow him, or Christ?

Sounds to me like another Luther or Calvin

John

you never heard of Owen?

 

[seekingthetruth]

Instead of starting a new thread as I considered doing, I saw this one and thought it would be a good place to post the following; if it has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, I apologize, but I have not read the entire thread:

Do Calvinists or those who believe in any kind of predestination believe the following: Do you believe that God predestined Lucifer to rebel and thus be cast out of heaven; and do you believe that God predestined Adam to eat that apple?

Which in other words means "Did God create Lucifer and Adam to sin?"

I say a resounding no!!!!

God created man with the intent of having fellowship with man. Man messed thast up, not God.

Did God know beforehand that man would mess up? Absolutely.

God created time, so I am sure He is not confined by time.

In the end, when lucifer is locked up in Hell forever, and the New Jeruselum descends from heaven, God's will will finally come to pass, and He will dwell on Earth with fellowship with man.

And God knows this because God is here now, He is in the past, and He is in the future

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

you never heard of Owen?

I had a pastor once with the last name owen???

John