Predestination and Foreknowledge

All would be defined per the bible as all those whom God will save by the Cross!

 

Either God's intended the death of Jesus to benefir just the elect, or he intended Him to provide salvation to all, and that the will of man trumps then the will of God to save!

 

Mark, I certainly am arguing from the premise that the Reformed position on predestination and election are correct. After all, I am Reformed.

As a point of clarification, while I do not mind the term "Calvinism/Calvinist" in this discussion, I think the term "Reformed" is better. John Calvin was just one voice on predestination/election. The Reformers and Puritans had more to say on the topic than just one man. Calvin gets credit for being an articulate voice, but he is far from being the definitive word.

You are going to have to prove your assertion that Reformed theology is inconsistent with the truths that God is love and God is entirely good. Reformed theology believes that God's attributes are immutable and never in conflict with one another. In fact, it believes that God cannot be a god of love unless He is also holy. The common 20th-century evangelistic mantra, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" errs on the side of God's love without considering the equally valid point that God hates sin and will condemn the sinner to eternal punishment and torment. It is that last part that seems to bother certain Arminians, although it did not bother Arminius himself. However, modern Arminianism (really modern semi-Pelagianism) has basically relegated God's holiness as moot.

In regards to the predestination/election discussion, God's holiness does not diminish His love, it clarifies it. In the Reformed view, God's salvific love is lavished upon the Elect, those whom the Father has chosen (elected) from all eternity (Eph.1:11). The Elect still need to come to faith in time, but there was never a time that God did not personally know them. The Reformed view rejects the divine foreknowledge view that posits that God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would choose Him, so, therefore, He elected them. It also dismisses the corporate view which is just a softer version of the divine foreknowledge view. God, in His love, calls His elect and gloriously saves them. In Reformed soteriology, one's lapsarian view determines whether God actually chooses the non-elect to reprobation, or simply passes over them. I will address that issue a bit later.

No. Absolutely not. God did not choose for Adam to fall. James 1:13 states, "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." In Reformed theology, there is something called the Covenant of Works. Adam was created posse pecare, posse non pecare (able to sin, and able not to sin). Adam was a true moral free agent. Had Adam continued in obedience to God, he would have been justified by his works. Unfortunately, once Adam sinned his moral free agency was gone. Forevermore he, and his posterity could no longer be justified by their works, an alien righteousness became necessary.

You are repeating yourself. As I indicated previously, you need to prove this.

Thank you.

 

I think that it is really hard for Christians not familiar with Calvinism/Reformed theology to discuss concepts and terms, as there are even with Calvinism and Reformed theology some disagreements in views on theology.
All Reformed are also Calvinists
Not all Calvinists though are Reformed

 

Godgave the free will that you look for to Adam and Eve, but they fell,and the Fall has made absolute free will just a pipe dream.

 

What aspect of Humanity was not affected by the Fall?

 

Correct. I differ from many of my fellow Baptist Calvinists. I am covenantal, confessional, and Reformed (minus Presbyterian ecclesiology and paedobaptism).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

That would make you a Reformed Baptist, and I find myself now sitting in that camp now, save holding to historical Premil, not the traditional A Mil.

 

So, your objection to Reformed soteriology is not based on theology, but on philosophical reasoning. I am not trying to be impertinent, but without a theological context to work from there is no constructive way to have a dialog on this topic.

P.S. edited to fix typo.

 

I am glad you agree with the immutability of God's attributes.