Predestination and Foreknowledge

[Mark Corbett]

In Reformed soteriology, one's lapsarian view determines whether God actually chooses the non-elect to reprobation, or simply passes over them.

I don't see what practical difference it makes within a Reformed theology framework if one says "God actually chooses the non-elect to reprobation, or simple passes over them."

Either way, in a Reformed framework, God could have saved them, but did not. Not only that, but God created a world where He knew the non-elect would have no ability not to sin AND also no ability or opportunity for salvation. Yet, He judges them with a terrible judgment for something they had no ability to avoid or escape.

 

[Mark Corbett]

God did not choose for Adam to fall.

Thank you for clarifying your view on this. My understanding is that on this issue there is a difference of opinion among those with Reformed theology. I think you alluded to this yourself. I don't know if the others with Reformed theology on this thread agree with you on this point or not, but I suppose that is not that important.

 

[TCassidy]

The fact that God chooses not to save some when He could save them is inconsistent with His goodness and love.

In your system of soteriology, God has chosen to only save those who believe. Because He could save everybody, but has chosen to only save those who believe, the fact that God chooses not to save some when He could save them "is inconsistent with His goodness and love" according to you.

You demand that God be consistent with His goodness and love according to your standard of goodness and love and thus disallow Him His Sovereignty over His creation.

You have exactly the same problem you claim the Calvinist has. He could save everybody but doesn't.

 

[Reformed]

All the non-reformed evangelicals I know passionately and fully believe that God hates sin.

Whether His hatred for sin is expressed in judgment followed by eternal punishment or judgment followed by annihilation is an important topic, but is probably best discussed on another thread. Here I will only note that there are people with Reformed theology who hold to annihilationism.

I don't see at all how God's holiness is relegated as moot in an Arminian theology. Could you explain why you think this is true?

Mark, we need to be precise when framing one another's argument. I said that modern Arminianism relegates God's holiness as moot. Modern Arminianism starts with the premise that God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved, ergo, everyone has an autonomous free will by which they can accept or reject the gospel offer of eternal life. Finnneyism is alive and well in 21st-century evangelicalism. Raise that hand and say that prayer and go home a child of God! Modern evangelicalism is vastly different than Christianity during the time of the magisterial Reformers and the Puritans. I highly recommend that you read John Owen's work "Of the Mortification of Sin". There is a theological and scholarly weight to Owen's tome on this very important theological topic, one of which the Apostle Paul commanded that we understand in Romans 6. The Apostle Paul's command (which inspired Owen's work) is so under-preached in our churches, that it is relegated as moot. Your church may be an exception. If so, praise God! My comment is meant to address the condition of the church in general.

As far as Reformed Christians who hold to annihilationism, please provide a few names. Something tells me these "theologians" do not express orthodox Reformed thought.

 

[Reformed]

Thank you for clarifying your view on this. My understanding is that on this issue there is a difference of opinion among those with Reformed theology. I think you alluded to this yourself. I don't know if the others with Reformed theology on this thread agree with you on this point or not, but I suppose that is not that important.

Mark, I can state confidentially that the majority of Reformed theologians believe as I do, or vice versa. We all believe that God was not the first cause in Adam's disobedience.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for joining the discussion. I look forward to discussing these issues with you as the Lord gives us each time and ability. I pray (as I constantly do) that the Lord will use our discussion for good in our lives and the lives of others.



IF the Calvinist interpretation of predestination were correct, than your argument that my sentence counters God's sovereign decree and that I should bow to God's decree would be entirely correct. But the very thing we are discussing is whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist understandings of foreknowledge, election, sovereignty, responsibility, and related issues is correct.



I agree that all are born in sin and that we did not choose that.

By itself this is not what I have a problem with. It is when this truth is placed in the context of Calvinist theology that I see it as leading to wrong ideas about God. I want to be clear. I understand that almost all Calvinists, like almost all Christians, believe that God is loving and that God is entirely good. However, I believe that Calvinism is inconsistent with the truths that God is love and God is entirely good.




In the context of this discussion, when you say "God is the One who chose", I think you are specifically referring to God choosing for Adam to fall. If that were true than of course we cannot throw that back in God's face, because we are utterly unable and unworthy to throw anything in God's face and attempting to do so is foolish. The issue is not rather we should throw a belief in God's, but rather that belief is true. I do not believe it is true that God chose for Adam to fall, although I do believe that God chose to create a world where He knew ahead of time that Adam would fall. That's not the same thing.

One part of my arguments in this thread have been that some aspects of Calvinism are very unlikely to be true because they are not consistent with God's love and God's goodness.




May God bless you as you and your neighbors recover from the effects of Hurricane Irma.

I imagine you have many different types of things to catch up on. May God give you strength to do what needs to be done and peace about the things you can't get to quickly.

Grace and Peace,
Mark (with Hope and Joy!)

Either God wills and brings to pass all those whom He intended the cross of Christ to save, Reformed election, or else He provided salvation possible for all, and just hopes and waits to see who will take Him at His offer, your way!

 

[Yeshua1]

Mark, we need to be precise when framing one another's argument. I said that modern Arminianism relegates God's holiness as moot. Modern Arminianism starts with the premise that God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved, ergo, everyone has an autonomous free will by which they can accept or reject the gospel offer of eternal life. Finnneyism is alive and well in 21st-century evangelicalism. Raise that hand and say that prayer and go home a child of God! Modern evangelicalism is vastly different than Christianity during the time of the magisterial Reformers and the Puritans. I highly recommend that you read John Owen's work "Of the Mortification of Sin". There is a theological and scholarly weight to Owen's tome on this very important theological topic, one of which the Apostle Paul commanded that we understand in Romans 6. The Apostle Paul's command (which inspired Owen's work) is so under-preached in our churches, that it is relegated as moot. Your church may be an exception. If so, praise God! My comment is meant to address the condition of the church in general.

As far as Reformed Christians who hold to annihilationism, please provide a few names. Something tells me these "theologians" do not express orthodox Reformed thought.

John Stott did express that near end of His life...

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe that any part of God's grace is a failure. His goal was to win a people from every nation who would love Him and love others forever. His grace is marvelously achieving that goal. I discussed this goal in another thread, here.

Of course God is allowed to do whatever He wants. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Bible explicitly says that God WANTS to save all people.

I certainly do not believe I am more compassionate than God, This is one of many reasons that I reject Calvinism. I'm not nearly as good, loving, or compassionate as God, yet if people did not have free will and if salvation occurred because of a gift of irresistible grace, than even I, whom am less compassionate than God, would give that gift to everyone and save everyone.

ALL of us are sinners, who are at war with God, and naturally will choose our ways and reject Jesus, so how can He will all to get saved, unless He chooses who will get saved?

 

[Yeshua1]

If you go back to my OP you will see that I supported the view of Conditional Election by examining Bible verses. I've also offered Biblical evidence and Bible based reasoning in quite a few comments on this thread. So my view has a theological context (Conditional election) and a Biblical basis. Having said that, I ALSO have what you call philosophical objections to Calvinism. I believe these are also rooted in Biblical truths.

No, rooted in misunderstanding of biblical doctrines....

 

[Yeshua1]

All the non-reformed evangelicals I know passionately and fully believe that God hates sin.

Whether His hatred for sin is expressed in judgment followed by eternal punishment or judgment followed by annihilation is an important topic, but is probably best discussed on another thread. Here I will only note that there are people with Reformed theology who hold to annihilationism.

I don't see at all how God's holiness is relegated as moot in an Arminian theology. Could you explain why you think this is true?

Reformed and Baptist theology both on the whole uphold the notion of an eternal Hell.

 

[Reformed]

John Stott did express that near end of His life...

Stott was an Anglican. Although some Anglicans share an affinity for some aspects of Reformed theology, the Anglican conference is not Reformed.

 

[SovereignGrace]

@Mark Corbett

I truly appreciate the way you debate us in a civil manner. Kudos Brother.

 

[Yeshua1]

Stott was an Anglican. Although some Anglicans share an affinity for some aspects of Reformed theology, the Anglican conference is not Reformed.

You are right, as should have remembered that JI Packer called him out for holding to that belief at the end.

 

[Reformed]

I don't see what practical difference it makes within a Reformed theology framework if one says "God actually chooses the non-elect to reprobation, or simple passes over them."

Practically speaking, I agree. One is either elect or not. It is more of an intramural squabble between Calvinists than anything between Calvinists and Arminians.

Either way, in a Reformed framework, God could have saved them, but did not. Not only that, but God created a world where He knew the non-elect would have no ability not to sin AND also no ability or opportunity for salvation. Yet, He judges them with a terrible judgment for something they had no ability to avoid or escape.

You have to wrestle with Romans 9 on that one.

Romans 9:6-24 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND IWILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THEWHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Mark, let me ask you some questions. Is God beholding to His creation for anything? Does God owe salvation to anyone? Would God be justified in condemning all to hell? Is God unjust in choosing (eklektos - same Greek word in the NT, Eph. 1:4) to save some? If you believe God is unjust in saving some, how is that view not a refutation of Romans 9:14, 15, 20?

I believe a brief exposition of Ephesians will help reveal Reformed thought in this discussion. Ephesians 1 lays the groundwork in stating:

Ephesians 1:3-5 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Before the physical universe was created, God chose (eklektos = elected) His elect. He chose them for a purpose, "that we would be holy and blameless before Him". This was due to "the kind intention of His will".

In chapter two we read:

Ephesians 2:1-2 1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

Paul presents a condition. Sinners are spiritually dead. The word for dead in Ephesians 2:1 is the Greek work nekros. It means dead as in a corpse. Spiritually speaking, sinners, while alive phyiscally, are dead spiritually. They are incapable of any positive response towards God. Paul augments the Ephesians passage by what he wrote in Romans 8:

Romans 8:6-8 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Not only is the sinner spiritually dead, he is hostile toward God, and cannot subject himself to the law of God because he is incapable of doing so. 1 Corinthians 2:14 offers additional support for the inability of the sinner:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

This inability on the part of the sinner creates a real problem for the Synergist (someone who believes man cooperates with God in salvation, aka Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism). If the sinner has free will, that will is under the bondage of sin. He cannot believe. It does not even want to. The soul of the sinner is dead as a corpse in a casket. Something from outside of the sinner must change this condition. Thankfully, the Apostle Paul provides the remedy:

Ephesians 2:4-9 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The key words in the above passage are "But God". We do not read anything about "But man". God first makes the sinner alive through regeneration. He illumines the heart of the sinner to his sin, and the hope of the gospel. In Reformed theology, this is called the effectual call. Once God calls a sinner that sinner always responds by repentance and faith; each and every time and without fail. It is not about God condemning all by not giving them a chance. It is about God saving some even though none deserve it.

 

[rsr]

Call me a heretic, but I believe that Reformed theology includes both Calvinism and Arminianism. Their disagreements are really intramural and they agree on much more than they disagree.

Modern Southern Baptist soteriology, in many cases, is semi-Pelagianism. Both Calvinists and Arminians should stand shoulder to shoulder against it. They have much more in common than they differ.

 

[Mark Corbett]

As far as Reformed Christians who hold to annihilationism, please provide a few names. Something tells me these "theologians" do not express orthodox Reformed thought.

Here are a few examples of Reformed Christians who hold to annihilationism. I honestly do not know how closely their Reformed views match your own, but they self identify as holding to Reformed theology:

Chris Date
Chris is a leader and founding member of the Rethinking Hell ministry. You may read about him and get in touch with him here.

Terrance Tiessen, a professor at Providence Theological Seminary, as you can see here.

James Spiegel, a professor at Taylor University, as you can see here.

Adam Murrel, a member of Redeeming Grace Ministries, as seen here.

I know there are others, but I think this is a decent sample. They are, of course, a small minority in the Reformed community, at least for now.

 

[rsr]

So you do not consider yourself as a member of the Reformed community?

 

[TCassidy]

Call me a heretic, but I believe that Reformed theology includes both Calvinism and Arminianism.

YES! Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED minister and theologian.

 

[th1bill]

Most Christians sooner or later struggle with questions about predestination.

Many Christians don’t like the idea of predestination because it feels unfair. I think the problem is not with predestination itself, but with a lack of understanding about how predestination is related to foreknowledge. Once we understand what the Bible says about predestination and foreknowledge, it is easy to see how predestination is actually a good and encouraging truth which is entirely consistent with God’s justice, love, and even with our free will.

There are two Bible passages which explicitly link God’s foreknowledge with predestination. The first passage is Romans 8:29.

This passage shows us several things about predestination and foreknowledge:
1. The foreknowledge is knowledge related to people, as indicated by the phrase “those whom.”
2. This foreknowledge in some way logically precedes and leads to predestination.
3. The passage does NOT say that God predestines who will have faith.
4. The passage DOES say that God makes a destiny for us whom He foreknew, and that destiny is to become like Jesus.

The second passage which links foreknowledge and predestination is 1 Peter 1:1-2.

This passage shows us some truths similar to the truths we saw in Romans:

1. Being “elect” (which pretty much everyone agrees is the same thing as being chosen or predestined) is based on God’s foreknowledge. That’s what “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” means.
2. The passage does NOT say that God chooses who will have faith.
3. The passage does indicate that election has to do with both sanctification and forgiveness. Sanctification is the process where we become more and more like Jesus, so this is the same thing that Paul described in Romans 8:29 using the words “to be conformed to the image of His Son”.

What Specific Foreknowledge Leads to Predestination?

The Bible does not specifically tell us. We can’t say for sure. But I think it is possible that Paul and Peter were both referring to the fact that God knew ahead of time who, given the right opportunities and circumstances and help from Him, would freely accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

In other words, I don’t think the Bible is teaching that God predetermined who would have faith in Jesus. Rather, I think the Bible is teaching that God knew ahead of time who would have faith in Jesus. Then, based on that knowledge, God made a plan (a destiny, a predestination) for these people that their sins would be forgiven and they would be transformed to become like Jesus, and they would live in glory with God forever.

When you understand predestination in this way, you immediately realize that there is nothing unfair about it. In fact, you see that it is an amazing act of love. Even though we have faith in Jesus, we never could have saved ourselves. We never could have changed ourselves from being sinful people to being people who are like Jesus. But God makes sure this happens for everyone whom He knew would be willing to accept Him.

My destiny is not in doubt, and neither is yours, if you believe in Jesus. Predestination is wonderful! Thank God for predestination! God has chosen our destination, and it’s a really good one!

What Does This Have to Do With Calvinism and Arminianism?

You don’t have to understand the terms “Calvinism” and “Arminianism”. These terms are not in the Bible. However, since many Christians use these terms, you might want to know a little about them. These terms refer to two ways of understanding how predestination works. There’s more to Calvinism and Arminianism than predestination, but predestination is an important part of the issue.

The view I just shared above has a technical name: “conditional election.” This view, which represents my best effort to understand the Bible on this issue, is consistent with Arminianism. That doesn’t mean that I am committed to the full system of beliefs which are related to Arminianism, but it does mean that I lean toward an Arminian understanding of predestination.

Calvinists understand the Bible to teach “unconditional election.” They believe that God chose ahead of time who would have saving faith and who would not, and that God’s choice had nothing at all to do with anything He knew ahead of time about what each person would do or would be like.

Since I Lean Towards Arminianism, How Do I Feel About Calvinists?

I thank God for my brothers and sisters in Christ who are Calvinists. Although we disagree on some points of doctrine, we share a common faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are on the same team! I have been greatly blessed by the preaching, teaching, and writing ministries of men like John Piper and Wayne Grudem, both of whom are Calvinist. For me, learning from them is like eating a fish. You eat the meat and throw out the bones. In the case of these men, I have found them serving up huge amounts of delicious, nutritious fish meat which rarely contains more than a few small bones. They are advancing the work of God, and I thank God for them. I feel the same way about less famous Calvinists I know.

It’s fine to discuss issues like this, and they are not unimportant, but I hope Christians will not divide over issues like Arminianism vs. Calvinism. Sadly, some do. I am hoping we can have a discussion that will be peaceful, respectful, and helpful, even as we may strongly disagree on some issues. I also hope that those who are relatively new to this issue will feel free to share thoughts and questions so that the discussion is not dominated by a few of us who have already thought about this a lot.

Giving Thanks Together

Finally, all of us, Calvinists and Arminians alike, should thank God for His great grace, and specifically, that He made a plan for our salvation and uses His great wisdom and power to ensure that plan succeeds.


This OP is a modified version of a post on my blog.

Hello, brother,
I am neither of the major divisions and when I teach or witness and this subject comes up I present it thusly:


As does my first Pastor, I have labeled myself a a Biblicist because my view is "If the Bible says it, I believe it! God inspired/wrote the entire book and in Deuteronomy 4:2 and at the end of chapter 22 of The Revelation we find God promising that not a single word will ever be added to nor subtracted from His Written Word. Oh, and there are no conflicting passages in the Bible to any man filled with the Holy Spirit for the Spirit teaches us how to reconcile them to one another.



So, in verses Jer. 23:24, Prov 15:3, 1Kings 8:27 we learn that God is Omnipresent. He is literally everywhere but wait a second, I really mean everywhere. The LORD is right this moment everywhere there is on the planet and He is still seated in the Throne Room. Where am I going? God created, out of nothing but His will, this Time/Space Continuum and every person, bird, animal, lake, just everything you see or touch is a product from the hand of God.




We find that a day in Heaven is like unto a thousand years of our time. So there is nothing here like God or Heaven. Our minds put our Omnipotent. Omniscient, and Omnipresent God all over the Earth and on the in Heaven at this moment but we must learn to cease putting God in some sort of container, there is not one He fits into anyway. No, God is, right now, in the past, in the present, and He is in the future right now!



In Rev. 17:8 and in thirteen we learn that the Book of Life is not being written but is finished and closed. How could men made like unto the image of God do that because they, like God, have a free will? God was there before it happened, He is Omnipotent and with no limits, He is Omnipresent!

 

[Mark Corbett]

Mark, let me ask you some questions. Is God beholding to His creation for anything? Does God owe salvation to anyone? Would God be justified in condemning all to hell? Is God unjust in choosing (eklektos - same Greek word in the NT, Eph. 1:4) to save some? If you believe God is unjust in saving some, how is that view not a refutation of Romans 9:14, 15, 20?

First, I sincerely appreciate the time you put into your comment. I also appreciate that you are giving Scriptural based reasons for your view. I don't expect every comment to be as long and detailed as yours, but I wish more people would follow your example in reasoning from Scripture instead of merely making assertions.

With regard to your questions above, no I do not believe God owes us anything, including salvation. Yes, He would be justified in condemning all to hell, including me. I do not believe that God is unjust in choosing to save some, but in the setting of Reformed theology God does appear to be unjust. This is a new issue (I did not argue that Reformed theology unintentionally implies God is unjust, I argued it unintentionally implies He is not good and loving, which are related, but not identical, concepts.)

In terms of justice, I do believe a person has to have some ability to not sin to be morally responsible for sin. I'm not saying the unsaved have the ability to have consistent victory over sin. But I am saying that they have the ability to not commit any particular sin. However, in Reformed theology, I don't see how they have the ability to not commit any particular sin.

I see evidence in the Bible that the ability to not commit a sin is necessary to be morally responsible. Consider this passage:

Deuteronomy 22: 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-- the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,
27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man and an engaged woman sleep together, the normal penalty for both is death. But if he raped her somewhere where she could not get help, even though she has sex with him, she is not held guilty at all because she had no ability to not have sex with the man (at least that should be assumed).

I understand that in Reformed theology the unsaved sin because they want to sin. In that sense they are not forced to sin. But they have absolutely no ability to not want to sin and absolutely no ability to not commit any given sin they commit, because all their desires and all actions have been preordained by God. The point is, they have NO free will (at least no libertarian free will, which is the type of free will that would enable them to choose not to commit any given sin). At least the woman in the woods has a small chance of escaping, even if the man is stronger. But a sinner preordained to sin has much less ability than she does to "get away", in fact they have no ability at all. So, no, I do not believe it is just to hold people accountable in this framework, whereas I think it is just to hold them accountable in the type of Arminian leaning framework which I think is correct.

But you have not addressed the more difficult problem. Even if it were just for God to not choose to save some people in the Reformed system, how is it good and loving?