Predestination and Foreknowledge

[TCassidy]

How nice that even Calvinists freely admit that the DRAWING of God enables all the "choice" that depravity "disables".

Which, of course, none do.

 

[Iconoclast]

What "terms" are you referring to? What are my specific errors concerning my understanding of Calvinism?

You speak of Calvinism, or the doctrines of grace however you can not begin to give the biblical usage of the terms in question.....foreknow , predestined,...until you can give the biblical usage of these terms...you are in over your head.
Do your homework, then try again...when you discover the correct biblical usage...then show why it means what you suggest rather than what all the confessional believers have understood....then we can talk.

 

[Reformed]

They begin life in a state of sin which they did not choose and which they are completely, utterly unable to change.

Mark,

The problem with joining a thread in the middle is that you have too much ground to make up, so I am not going to try. Let me latch on to this one comment of yours, and then see if I can make some sense of your OP in subsequent posts.

The sentence of yours that I quote seems to reveal your philosophical problem with the Reformed view of predestination and election. Instead of just stating a fact (that everyone is born in a state of sin), you offer an excuse ("which they did not choose"). The problem with that line of reasoning is that it counters God's sovereign will of decree.

Romans 9:20 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?

Adam acted as our federal head when he rebelled against God in the Garden. Sin passed on to all of Adam's posterity because of his sinful act. Ergo, all are born in sin. To add "which they did not choose" is an unnecessary prepositional phrase. Yes. All who are born are born in sin. It does not matter whether all who are born possess the ability to choose their spiritual condition or not. God spoke in Genesis when He pronounced judgment on Adam. God is the One who chose. Human beings cannot throw that back in God's face.

I will try to deal with the predestination and election issue, but it may take me a few days. Our power was just restored late yesterday afternoon after being knocked out by Hurricane Irma. I have a lot to catch up on.

Blessings.

 

[Mark Corbett]

You speak of Calvinism, or the doctrines of grace however you can not begin to give the biblical usage of the terms in question.....foreknow , predestined,...until you can give the biblical usage of these terms...you are in over your head.
Do your homework, then try again...when you discover the correct biblical usage...then show why it means what you suggest rather than what all the confessional believers have understood....then we can talk.

I don't see how this type of reply helps a discussion. It is really a ad hominem argument rather than a reasonable interaction with the views being discussed.

My posts have laid out interpretations of Scripture along with reasons for those interpretations.

If you disagree don't just say basically "you don't know what you're talking about". Try giving some specific examples of what you disagree with, what your own view is, and evidence supporting that. I'm glad to interact with those who strongly disagree with my views and comments, but let's focus on evidence and reasons rather than personal evaluations.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Mark,

The problem with joining a thread in the middle is that you have too much ground to make up, so I am not going to try. Let me latch on to this one comment of yours, and then see if I can make some sense of your OP in subsequent posts.

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.

The sentence of yours that I quote seems to reveal your philosophical problem with the Reformed view of predestination and election. Instead of just stating a fact (that everyone is born in a state of sin), you offer an excuse ("which they did not choose"). The problem with that line of reasoning is that it counters God's sovereign will of decree.

Romans 9:20 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?

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.

Adam acted as our federal head when he rebelled against God in the Garden. Sin passed on to all of Adam's posterity because of his sinful act. Ergo, all are born in sin. To add "which they did not choose" is an unnecessary prepositional phrase. Yes. All who are born are born in sin.

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.

It does not matter whether all who are born possess the ability to choose their spiritual condition or not. God spoke in Genesis when He pronounced judgment on Adam. God is the One who chose. Human beings cannot throw that back in God's face.

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.

I will try to deal with the predestination and election issue, but it may take me a few days. Our power was just restored late yesterday afternoon after being knocked out by Hurricane Irma. I have a lot to catch up on.

Blessings.

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!)

 

[Mark Corbett]

The Calvinist argument is that the saved/not-saved outcome is not based on the sinner who accepts or does not accept the Gospel -- but on God who wills that some get saved and does not so-will for others EVEN though God goes through all the pain and suffering to be the "Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and NOT for OUR sins only - but for the sins of the Whole World"

The verse you quote does seem to be a VERY strong argument against limited atonement, which is a part of Calvinism:

NIV 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

When you want to really strongly emphasize a truth, one way to do it is to state it in both negative and positive terms. For example, if I want to warn someone of the dangers of cigarettes I could simply say:

Smoking is not safe.

or

Smoking is dangerous.

But if want to be very emphatic and extra clear I could combine these statements and say:

Smoking is not safe, it is dangerous.

This is what the Apostle John has done 1 John 2:2, not wrt to smoking, but to limited atonement. He could have said:

Jesus' atonement is not only for our sins.

or

Jesus' atonement is for the sins of the whole world.

But he combined these two, thus making this verse an emphatic and extra clear denial of the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement:

NIV 1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Aaron]

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.

This is an old chestnut. You're simply saying God knows who are good enough to make the right choice. It's salvation based on merit and works, not grace through faith.

I know no one who wrestles with the fact that he had nothing to do whatever with his first birth. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that you contribute the same to your second one?

 

[Aaron]

Does the God who taught us to love our enemies hate His?

In his love for His elect, He IS loving His enemies. LOL

But God's acceptance of one and rejection of another is based solely on His sovereign will, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

[Mark Corbett]

This is an old chestnut. You're simply saying God knows who are good enough to make the right choice. It's salvation based on merit and works, not grace through faith.

Aaron, thanks for writing.

Your comment is an example of what I believe is a common Calvinist way of thinking and speaking which is quite different from the Bible's way of speaking and thinking.

Specifically, Calvinists speak as if faith is a type of work.

But the Bible very consistently speaks of works and faith as two different types of things. Consider these passages:

ESV Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Notice that "not work" is contrasted with "believes" and "faith".

ESV Romans 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

Notice that the alternative to pursuing salvation by works (which is doomed to fail) is NOT that we don't pursue it all, but that we pursue it "by faith".

This passage conveys the same truth:

ESV Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Grace and Peace, Mark

 

[Mark Corbett]

In his love for His elect, He IS loving His enemies. LOL

Yes, all of us were God's enemies and were loved by Him. But do you believe that God wants us to love only some of our enemies? Does He love only some of His?

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, thanks for writing.

Your comment is an example of what I believe is a common Calvinist way of thinking and speaking which is quite different from the Bible's way of speaking and thinking.

Specifically, Calvinists speak as if faith is a type of work.

Making a choice is how you define faith, not the Calvinists or the Bible. When Adam became a living soul, it was because God put breath into him. God did not think that Adam would begin breathing on his own given the right circumstances. In fact, if Adam willfully held his breath till he passed out, he would begin breathing again once his will had been neutralized.

Faith is the same way. I either have it or I don't. If I have it, I didn't get it from Adam. It's not part of being human. It's God's gift. And if I have it, it works in me.

But you will say faith is part of being human. Or you might say that upon hearing the Word of God, faith is imparted, and we can choose to exercise it or not, or any myriad of ways that boils down simply to this:

It all depends on a choice I make, and if I make the right choice, it's because I'm somehow not as fallen as the one who didn't. There is no alternative conclusion.

But God is clear. Jacob and Esau being equal, He accepted one and rejected the other, and the only criterion was His sovereign will.

 

[Aaron]

Yes, all of us were God's enemies and were loved by Him. But do you believe that God wants us to love only some of our enemies? Does He love only some of His?

Lol. Let this saying sink into your ears. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Making a choice is how you define faith, not the Calvinists or the Bible. When Adam became a living soul, it was because God put breath into him. God did not think that Adam would begin breathing on his own given the right circumstances. In fact, if Adam willfully held his breath till he passed out, he would begin breathing again once his will had been neutralized.

That's an interesting analogy, but we do not accept Christ before we are born or while we are passed out. We accept Christ while we are conscious and able to think and able to make decisions. Is the fact that we are conscious and able to think and decide a gift from God? Absolutely! Does it negate our free will? I don't see why it should.

Faith is the same way. I either have it or I don't. If I have it, I didn't get it from Adam. It's not part of being human. It's God's gift. And if I have it, it works in me.

There's another possibility. God creates us in such a way that putting our faith in Him is possible, but He allows us to choose. I believe that this possibility best explains all the Bible says about God, us, salvation, and judgment.

But you will say faith is part of being human. Or you might say that upon hearing the Word of God, faith is imparted, and we can choose to exercise it or not, or any myriad of ways that boils down simply to this:

It all depends on a choice I make, and if I make the right choice, it's because I'm somehow not as fallen as the one who didn't. There is no alternative conclusion.

It's not true that I believe that before I was saved by God's grace I was "not as fallen" as people who never accept Christ. That does not follow from my view. In fact, recognizing that we are fallen and totally unable to save ourselves is precisely part of what leads to us choosing to trust God to save us through Christ rather than trusting in ourselves.

But if faith is an irresistible gift that does not depend on us choosing in any way, than why does God not give this gift to everyone? After all, God is good and loving and He desires everyone to be saved:

ESV 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

and

ESV 1 Timothy 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[TCassidy]

The entire myth of "free will" is a denial of the word of God and of the God of the word.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The unsaved person's will is not free. It is in bondage to the law of sin and death.

The saved person's will is not free, it is bound to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Lol. Let this saying sink into your ears. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

I'm not sure why you begin your comment with LOL. Since we aren't talking face to face it is easy to misinterpret statements like that. To me it seems either derogatory (you are laughing at me) or like you are not taking this seriously. If God did hate some people, it would not be funny. But you probably don't mean it that way.

Now let's turn to the verse you refer to:

ESV Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

You claim that it is clear, by which you seem to mean that it clearly supports Calvinism.

But that's not true.

It's not clear that God means here that He actually hates Esau. This passage may be using "hate" in the same sense that Jesus uses it in this passage:

NIV Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-- yes, even their own life-- such a person cannot be my disciple.

Here, it refers to choosing Jesus over our family when we have to choose. A similar passage makes it clear that actual hate is not intended:

ESV Matthew 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

It also is far from clear that Romans 9:13 is referring to Esau's eternal destiny. It may be referring to the fact that God chose Jacob and his descendants (Israel) to have a special role in salvation history which Esau and his descendants were not chosen for.

Some of Romans 9, when taken out of context, certainly does seem to fit with Calvinism. But in the context of the rest of Romans, this is not true. For instance, while still discussing the problem of why most of the Jewish people were not being saved at the time, Paul writes:

Romans10:13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

In this passage what is needed for believing is hearing the gospel. And in the midst of our disagreements, at least we can agree (I think) that we have a great responsibility to share that gospel with people near and far and to also support others in this work.

 

[Mark Corbett]

The entire myth of "free will" is a denial of the word of God and of the God of the word.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The unsaved person's will is not free. It is in bondage to the law of sin and death.

The saved person's will is not free, it is bound to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

I don't agree that "free will" is a myth or that Romans 8:2 means that people who are not saved are unable to hear the gospel and respond to it. But, if your view is true, then why does God not give this "irresistible grace" to everyone, since He desires all to be saved:

ESV 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

and

ESV 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[TCassidy]

people who are not saved are unable to hear the gospel and respond to it.

Who says they can't hear the Gospel? It is the Gospel call which God uses to draw people unto Christ.

But, if your view is true, then why does God not give this "irresistible grace" to everyone, since He desires all to be saved:

What part of God's efficacious Grace do you think is a failure? And He redeems those He chooses according to the good pleasure of His will. Are you suggesting He is not allowed to do so? Or that you are more compassionate than He?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are referring here to robocop3's statement:

"But I do NOT believe He predestinated anyone for hell, with no chance for salvation."

It seems to me that a number of well-known Calvinists that most would view as "mainstream, normal, standard Calvinists" believe that God predestines some to Hell, a doctrine called "double predestination" or "reprobation" (I'm sure you know what it's called, I share this for others who may be reading).

For example Wayne Grudem defends reprobation on pages 684-687 of his Systematic Theology book.

The Desiring God website explains the John Piper, perhaps the most well-known Calvinist on the planet today, believes in double predestination:

The "sixth" point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. (from What Does Piper Mean when He Says He's a Seven Point Calvinist).
​

The website which represents the "teaching ministry of R.C. Sproul" also has an article explaining and defending reprobation.

It seems to me that "double predestination" is actually a normal, common, teaching among popular, top Calvinist teachers.

But even if this wasn't true, what real difference is there between God predestining some people to go to Hell, and God only predestining some to go receive eternal life knowing that the others will certainly, without any doubt at all, go to Hell?

That would be the minority view among us Calvinist,as that is held by the so called high Calvinists, bordering on Hyper Calvinism.

 

[Yeshua1]

What "terms" are you referring to? What are my specific errors concerning my understanding of Calvinism?

You misunderstand how we view the fall, election, free will etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

Who says they can't hear the Gospel? It is the Gospel call which God uses to draw people unto Christ.

What part of God's efficacious Grace do you think is a failure? And He redeems those He chooses according to the good pleasure of His will. Are you suggesting He is not allowed to do so? Or that you are more compassionate than He?

Here is the REAL objection to God being allowed to be sovereignHin How he works how salvation, it offends us, as some see it as not being fair!