Predestination and Foreknowledge

[Mark Corbett]

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?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

How nice for us then that

"If I be lifted up I will DRAW ALL mankind unto Me" John 12:32
"The Spirit convicts THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16

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

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Indeed.

In 1 John 2:2 "he is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"
In Rom 2:11 "God is not partial"

Thus as you say - He not only "can" save everyone -- but Christ died on the cross providing the payment of sin-debt for the whole world. And of course "God is not partial". So as you say - why does He not snap the fingers and program all the robots to say "we do accept the Gospel"? Having done everything .. the result is "not everyone saved" -- indeed only the "few" of Matthew 7 and not the "many" of Matthew 7.

Only one reason for that... free will




Exactly!

Recall that the Protestant argument against Catholicism's purgatory and indulgences has always been "if the Pope ever had the ability to remit/forgive sins of those in purgatory why does he not do it right now - give them all a plenary indulgence... end the torment and suffering in purgatory for all".

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"

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!

 

[TCassidy]

The issue is that the Bible explicitly says that God WANTS to save all people.

But He just can't seem to pull it off? He wants to but man's will is stronger than His will?

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.

So you are more compassionate than God? He could but doesn't, but if you could you would?

 

[Reformed]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Thank you.

 

[Mark Corbett]

But He just can't seem to pull it off? He wants to but man's will is stronger than His will?

Good questions. It's not that man's will is stronger than God's will. It's that God has good reasons for giving man free will. Giving man free will is indeed a high price to pay. It means that people can reject Him and end up not being saved, even though God wants them to accept Him and be saved.

So why would God give man free will? I think the answer is love.

God is love, and God made us to be in His image. Being in His image means to be like God in various ways. One of the most important ways we can be like God is to love like God loves.

NIV Ephesians 5:1 Follow God's example, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

I believe that kind of love requires free will. I explain this in another thread, here:

Does Love Require Free Will?

 

[Mark Corbett]

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

Thanks for your careful, thoughtful post. I want to discuss it, but I want to let you know it may be a few hours before I can get to it. In the meantime, God Bless You!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Good questions. It's not that man's will is stronger than God's will. It's that God has good reasons for giving man free will. Giving man free will is indeed a high price to pay. It means that people can reject Him and end up not being saved, even though God wants them to accept Him and be saved.

So why would God give man free will? I think the answer is love.

God is love, and God made us to be in His image. Being in His image means to be like God in various ways. One of the most important ways we can be like God is to love like God loves.

NIV Ephesians 5:1 Follow God's example, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

I believe that kind of love requires free will. I explain this in another thread, here:

Does Love Require Free Will?

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.

 

[TCassidy]

free will

So 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 - is not true?

 

[Yeshua1]

So 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 - is not true?

What aspect of Humanity was not affected by the Fall?

 

[Reformed]

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

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

 

[Mark Corbett]

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.

I do not intend the use of the phrase "Calvinism" to be pejorative. Although many (perhaps most) of the people active on this forum, and certainly on this thread, understand that "Reformed theology" basically means "Calvinism" in many contexts, I try to keep in mind the many guests to the Baptist Board who read some of the threads but do not comment. I suspect that some of them are more aware of the term Calvinism than they are of the meaning "Reformed Theology". For that reason, I don't want to use "Reformed Theology" exclusively, but I'll try to use it more often (I don't think I've used it at all in this thread so far), especially when interacting with you.

 

[Mark Corbett]

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.

Here is a brief explanation of why I feel that Reformed theology is inconsistent with the truths that God is love and God is entirely good.

Under Reformed theology there is nothing about any person which prevents God from saving them in the same way He saves some. This seems clear from the fact that in Reformed theology election is unconditional and grace is irresistible.

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

I just don't see anything in Reformed theology which can escape this problem.

 

[Mark Corbett]

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 beliefs that God's attributes do not change and do not conflict and that God's love requires His holiness are not unique to Reformed theology. I certainly believe those things, and I suspect that most Christians do.

 

[Reformed]

Here is a brief explanation of why I feel that Reformed theology is inconsistent with the truths that God is love and God is entirely good.

Under Reformed theology there is nothing about any person which prevents God from saving them in the same way He saves some. This seems clear from the fact that in Reformed theology election is unconditional and grace is irresistible.

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

I just don't see anything in Reformed theology which can escape this problem.

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.

 

[Mark Corbett]

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.

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]

The beliefs that God's attributes do not change and do not conflict and that God's love requires His holiness are not unique to Reformed theology. I certainly believe those things, and I suspect that most Christians do.

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

 

[Mark Corbett]

So, your objection to the 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.

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.