Is predestination disturbing?

[JGrubbs]

I believe that it is God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." But, God doesn't force anyone to accept His free gift of salvation. As the Holy Spirit convicts, God allows man to choose wether or not to respond to that conviction. Those who choose to respond to that conviction and come to repentance become part of the elect, those who reject the Holy Spirit do not. While God may know who will accept and who will reject, it doesn't change that fact that those people had a free-will to make the choice.

Our simple human minds may not understand how God can know who will accept His gift of salvation and who will reject it, all the while allowing them to make the choice, just like our simple human minds don't fully understand eternity, the trinity, etc. Just becuase we can't understand God's mind, doesn't change the facts, we can't use any "doctrine" to try to make the complex things of God easier for our simple human minds.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Pastor Larry.

...dead wrong...

Might be alive wrong but not dead wrong!

John is in the minority of Calvinists...

Thanks for the label! Proud to wear it. A black sheep at worst or best yet I am a sheep nevertheless.


Hello dianetavegia.

My stand would be more in line with what an Arminian believes Calvinism is rather than a Calvinist believes Calvinism is, possibly.

EX 4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

In that statement, spoken of in Romans nine, God determines, in His Sovereignty, to harden Pharaoh's heart and causes Pharaoh to disobey a command of God. God is first cause of sin with Pharaoh. The reason given in Romans nine is that this happened so that God could show His power over man. He created Pharaoh for this express purpose, to destroy him in full public gaze.
Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

In hardening the heart of Pharaoh God caused Pharaoh to sin by disobeying His command and then Pharaoh gets it in the neck for disobeying God and who am I to talk back to God?

john.

 

[David Ekstrom]

I'd like to share a few reasons why I think that "foreknow" in Rom. 8 is more than simply "knowledge in advance."
First, if God simply knew in advance that Jones would be saved, predestination is moot. There would be no need to predestine Jones.
Second, and a much better option, if God knew that Jones "would believe if given the chance" and so predestined events so that Jones would have a chance, then Jones is the cause of his own election. I'm not adamantly against this point, but it does seem to contradict Rom 9:16. In fact, as Pastor Larry has already pointed out, Rom. 9 really puts us in a box. Paul anticipates an objection to his teaching--the very same objection that I have heard raised again and again by Arminians. In fact, Diane raised the same objection. v.14 "Is God unjust?" v.19 "So how can God judge anyone since no one resisted his will?" If the Arminian position were correct, Paul would answer that question simply and forthrightly: "You misunderstand what I'm saying. I never said that God chooses who are saved." But Paul doesn't answer it that way. He answers like a Calvinist would: "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God." v.20 Why in heaven's name would Paul have answered that way if he taught Arminianism? If the free will argument could get God off the hook that easily, why didn't Paul use it?

 

[David Ekstrom]

Early on in this thread, someone pointed out that the real challenge is election, not predestination. I agree. Most Calvinists would consider me a pretty wimpy Calvinist and here's why. I feel certain that God has elected some to salvation from all eternity. Yet, I am also convinced that God wishes ALL could have been saved. Why did God elect Jones and not Smith? A very logical answer would be that God foreknew that Jones would believe if he had the chance. But there are some Scriptures that seem to disallow that.
Calvinists reply: "He did it for His own glory." That's true but that's not enough. God's glory is the final cause but there's an intermediate cause in there that is not revealed in Scripture. Why Jones and why not Smith? Some Calvinists imply that God's election was arbitrary. I'm not at all comfortable with that.
To me, Calvinism is at its best when it says, "We don't know. God is good and loving. He would have elected Smith, but He could not." This is not to deny God's sovereignty. If electing Smith to salvation would involve God compromising on His holiness, then God could not do it. An Arminian is going to say, "You're right, David! Now if you would just understand that free will is the problem, then your conundrum is solved!" Well, that may be it, but I'm put in a corner by several Scriptures that seem to deny that.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Let's discuss this more tomorrow. Even the first remark confuses me more.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Remember that all sinners are turned against God and freely sin

God turned them against Him, correct, by not choosing them as the prechosen elect? So their sinning is not really their choice.</font>[/QUOTE]Diane,

All of us by nature are sinners, turned against God, and by nature we all freely sin. God turns some of us back to Himself.

Consider Romans 8:20-21:

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

First, who was it that subjected all of creation to futility, in hope of some day setting it free? I think there is only one possible answer.

Second, why would he do so against the will of creation? That one is worth thinking about for a while.

As for your last statement, I do not think it follows. I cannot think of a single sin that I have ever committed that I did not choose. It may have been a reluctant choice, or maybe it was not a conscious choice, but still in each instance I chose to sin rather than to not sin. The same is true of the non-elect. I cannot think of a single instance of any sin, in the Bible or out, which was not the choice of the sinner. But maybe there is - can you think of one?

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
Most Calvinists would consider me a pretty wimpy Calvinist ...

David,

I think you are right on. There is nothing wimpy about saying "I don't know". God has not revealed to us why He is pleased to elect one to salvation and not another, and we will not likely guess, and even if we did guess we cannot know whether we are right. So "I don't know" is the best answer we can give when we truly do not know.

 

[johnp.]

Hello David.

Some Calvinists imply that God's election was arbitrary.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. Eph 1:7-8.

"We don't know. God is good and loving. He would have elected Smith, but He could not. This is not to deny God's sovereignty."

A could not is a denial of God's Sovereign power. He chose not to save those that are not saved. I will have mercy on whoever I want He says, and compassion on whoever I want.
That God wants to reveal His glory causes men to go to Hell not sin. No one goes to Hell because of sin but because God chose that for them. I am no different from Judas and there but for the grace of God go I but He chose me with all wisdom and understanding for glory.


Hello whatever.

I cannot think of a single instance of any sin, in the Bible or out, which was not the choice of the sinner.

Then why does God still blame us falls.
But I think concentrating on what we do rather than what we are is a mistake. We are sinners. We accumulate wrath as we sleep.
We were created sinners at conception and as sinners we sin. Why does God still blame us for who resists His will.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Adam blew it for us? God has bound all men over, why does He still blame us?

john.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by whatever:


Pastor Larry said: Remember that all sinners are turned against God and freely sin

Diane Replied: God turned them against Him, correct, by not choosing them as the prechosen elect? So their sinning is not really their choice.

Diane,
All of us by nature are sinners, turned against God, and by nature we all freely sin. God turns some of us back to Himself.

Consider Romans 8:20-21:

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

First, who was it that subjected all of creation to futility, in hope of some day setting it free? I think there is only one possible answer.

Second, why would he do so against the will of creation? That one is worth thinking about for a while.

As for your last statement, I do not think it follows. I cannot think of a single sin that I have ever committed that I did not choose. It may have been a reluctant choice, or maybe it was not a conscious choice, but still in each instance I chose to sin rather than to not sin. The same is true of the non-elect. I cannot think of a single instance of any sin, in the Bible or out, which was not the choice of the sinner. But maybe there is - can you think of one?

Diane Replied: God turned them against Him, correct, by not choosing them as the prechosen elect? So their sinning is not really their choice.

To Whatever... You chose sin, have a sinful nature, because of the way you were created; the fall of Adam and Eve.

To not allow you the chance to repent of said sin, turn to God and accept the blood sacrifice freely given for the sins of the world is beyond my comprehension!

Thanks in advance for your response. I'll check back later.

Diane

 

[dianetavegia]

Pastor Larry, I'm VERY confused by these remarks and would like to ask you to explain it to me. (NOT making a joke but being totally honest.) I'll check in later to see if you've had the time to answer.

You said a few posts up:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The unelect refuse to love the truth and be saved.

But God didn't determine that. Their sin determined it.

Remember that in Calvinism, man is kept from God only by his own willing sin.

There are a few Calvinists who disagree, but most do not.

The sinner rejects God. As Christ put it, you will not come to me so that you may have life.

God is not preventing anyone from coming. All who are willing may come.

This doesn't even sound like pre-selection, pre-election or predestination. I am very confused. It sounds like pre-knowledge of what their choice would eventually be, which is what I believe foreknew means. </font>[/QUOTE]Bumping so this doesn't get lost.

The unelect refuse to love the truth and be saved.
Diane answers: If predestined to be that way, they had no choice to refuse or accept that love and be saved from eternal damnation.

But God didn't determine that. Their sin determined it.
Diane answers: If predestined to be that way, they were created unable to turn and repent of their sin / do otherwise.

Remember that in Calvinism, man is kept from God only by his own willing sin.
Diane answers: If predestined to be that way, it's not his OWN will but how he was created, otherwise man would have free will.

The sinner rejects God. As Christ put it, you will not come to me so that you may have life.
Diane answers: If predestined to be that way, the sinner was not allowed the choice to choose to come to Christ and have that life in Christ Jesus!

God is not preventing anyone from coming. All who are willing may come.
Diane answers: If predestined to be that way, God DOES/ DID prevent them from coming to HIM by creating those He chose not to elect to be incapable of that 'coming'. IMHO, If all who are willing may come, then it's foreknowlege and free will but not predestination.

Looking forward to our discussion tonight when you have a chance to better explain your meaning of the above.

Thanks!
Diane

 

[Kiffen]

Man is free to make any kind of choice he or she chooses to make. The problem is man will only make the choices he or she wants to make BUT NOT make the choice God wants him or her to make. Humanity has a Self Will not a Free Will. It is only when the Holy Spirit intervenes and regenerates man that a sinner can make the right choice.

 

[Kiffen]

Bro. Joe stated,

1) Would you rather have your eternal soul in God's hand or your own?

2) Do you believe more souls would go to heaven if it is dependent on mankinds will or God's will?

Amen!!

 

[johnp.]

Hello Kiffen.

Man is free to make any kind of choice he or she chooses to make.

RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Calvinists want it both ways. They want God to be Sovereign without dirty hands. That causes God to be not Sovereign and invalidates the question, 'Why does God still blame us?'.

john.

 

[Kiffen]

RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Calvinists want it both ways. They want God to be Sovereign without dirty hands. That causes God to be not Sovereign and invalidates the question, 'Why does God still blame us?'.

john.

Hi john

Nope, most Calvinists admit there is a paradox and a mystery when it comes to election and whosoever will may come. A Calvinist admits both are true and does not seek to reconcile them. To make God the author of sin is to embrace hypercalvinism and contradicts scripture that is clear Satan is the author of sin. Of course God is sovereign in all this but unlike the hypercalvinists, Calvinists do not try to use puny human logic to say God must be the author of sin.

hypercalvinists in calling God the author of sin (which is blasphemy) and Arminians trying to make Salvation a human choice use human logic to explain such things when the nature of God is beyound human logic.

 

[Pastor Larry]

God turned them against Him, correct, by not choosing them as the prechosen elect? So their sinning is not really their choice.

This will be quick, and then I will be probably busy for the rest of the day. Sorry ... My answer to that is that God did not turn them against Him. They were turned against him from conception. God simply didn't change that. Their sinning is their choice. They can stop and turn to God at any time they so desire. They are not "willing" to turn to God, and so God simply lets them do what they want to do. He does not do that for his elect. He is under no obligation to do it for anyone. He would be perfectly just to let people go their own way and go to hell.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by Kiffen:
Nope, most Calvinists admit there is a paradox and a mystery when it comes to election and whosoever will may come. A Calvinist admits both are true and does not seek to reconcile them. To make God the author of sin is to embrace hypercalvinism and contradicts scripture that is clear Satan is the author of sin. Of course God is sovereign in all this but unlike the hypercalvinists, Calvinists do not try to use puny human logic to say God must be the author of sin.

Those who believe in preelection reply that God's thoughts are unsearchable, and that the unanswered questions that pre-election/ predestination/ pre-selection has, for example divine election and human responsibility, exhaustive sovereignty and human free will, and God's having two contradictory wills, reply, "well that's a mystery."

If predestionationists can use the term 'mystery', why can't those of us who believe in free will answer with the same 'nobody understands' type answer?

 

[johnp.]

Hello Kiffen.

To make God the author of sin is to embrace hypercalvinism...

Why does God still blame us for who resists His will? His will.

...and contradicts scripture that is clear Satan is the author of sin.

That Satan was the first to exhibit sin does not in itself make him the author of it. To contradict scripture you will have to believe that 'Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?' is a non-question for it is our fault.

Of course God is sovereign in all this but unlike the hypercalvinists, Calvinists do not try to use puny human logic to say God must be the author of sin.

What the Arminians want is for Calvinists to look extreme so if they call us Hyper it hinders our message. Calvinists that lay the blame at the door of man or some sort of cooperation they, the Arminians, want you to look good so they can bash you better and pour contempt on those who are called extremist who believe the 'Why does He blame us'.
They will go for your contradiction that God can be Sovereign while at the same time others make choices. Sovereignty cannot be taken too far or it is not Sovereignty. That's my problem.
It is not puny human logic to accept the question is it? It is not hyper to think that God wants us to ask that question, Why does God still blame us for who resists His will?, because when you ask that question seriously by yourself then you know you have the right doctrine.

john.

 

[TexasSky]

John,

I don't know that I am really an Arminian. What I am is a Christian who reading God's word finds that Calvinism contradicts a tremendously large volume of scripture.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
God did not turn them against Him. They were turned against him from conception. God simply didn't change that. Their sinning is their choice. They can stop and turn to God at any time they so desire. They are not "willing" to turn to God, and so God simply lets them do what they want to do. He does not do that for his elect. He is under no obligation to do it for anyone. He would be perfectly just to let people go their own way and go to hell.

Psalms 139:7 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10 Even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, "Surely the darkness shall fall on me," Even the night shall be light about me; 12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You. 13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. 14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

King David, a man after God's own heart, said: When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

God did not turn them against Him. They were turned against him from conception. God simply didn't change that.

So do I understand you to say we ALL were turned against God from conception but God chose to 'fix' some so that they could obtain salvation and left others for damnation?

How can WE know, then, no matter how nice a person we are or how we believe we are saved, that we are one of the elect and not just genetically an emotionally reachable and really nice damned to hell person? Couldn't there be some who are touched by the salvation message but not chosen for salvation? This scenario sounds like Primitive Baptist reasoning.

 

[OCC]

"Satan is the author of sin."

How so? God created him perfect in all his ways.

 

[OCC]

"They can stop and turn to God at any time they so desire. They are not "willing" to turn to God,..."

I disagree. If God doesn't choose them, they CAN'T turn to God. It has nothing to do with being willing. This is the way it HAS to be if Calvinism is true. I grow weary of this kind of double speak from Calvinists.