Predestination and Foreknowledge

[Reformed]

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.

Mark,

Thank you for these names. While these men may claim to be part of the Reformed community, Baptist associations such as ARBCA and the SBC's Founders Movement find them to be heterodox in their view of the eternal state for unbelievers. The same for many Reformed Presbyterian denominations. Like anything else, one can claim to be something even if their claim strains credulity. This is one of the reasons why I am a confessional Baptist, just like many of my Presbyterian friends are confessional Presbyterians. Both the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, provide a firm foundation on tried and tested theology. They keep subscribers away from slippery slopes that lead to heterodoxial and heretical doctrines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Mark Corbett]

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.

Yes, this is part of the reason I was initially using the term "Calvinist" instead of "Reformed". "Reformed" tends to be a term used in different ways by different people and tends to be broader than "Calvinist". Still, among most evangelicals (at least most American evangelicals), the terms "Reformed theology" and "Calvinism" are often used interchangeably.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Both the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, provide a firm foundation on tried and tested theology. They keep subscribers away from slippery slopes that lead to heterodoxial and heretical doctrines.

Yes, confessions of faith and statements of faith can serve, and often do serve, a useful function within the Body of Christ by guarding the church and its members against false teaching.

But these statements of faith must always and ever be subordinate to the Bible (being Reformed, I'm confident you agree with this). Unlike the Bible, confessions should be open to testing and there should be openness to changing them, or discarding them in favor of new ones, when and if they are found to contain errors themselves.

The people I know (quite a few) who have adopted the view of Conditional Immortality (which includes Annihilationism) have done so after long, detailed, and careful study of the Scriptures convinced them that Conditional Immortality is the correct view. Here I risk derailing this thread which I myself started, so if you want to discuss Conditional Immortality in more detail, perhaps a new thread could be started (although we had a long, detailed discussion of this, that thread was closed as threads often are after many comments).

 

[Reformed]

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?

Mark, I strive to be biblical in my posts. After all, if I believe in Sola Scriptura, I have no other option.

Will you do me a favor? Will you deal with the texts I referenced, as well as my exegesis, in post #114? I will commit to do the same with your passages.

Deuteronomy 22:23-27 is dealing with the external administration of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law applied to the entire nation of covenant Israel. It did not matter whether an individual was actually a member of spiritual Israel or not. A person could be reprobate and still follow the external administration of the Law. It is similar to following laws today. It is illegal to rob a bank. It is possible to obey the law and not rob a bank, but maintain a covetous heart. The inability passages I cited in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2, and Ephesians 2 address the internal administration of the New Covenant. The only way to obey God's law is to be in covenant with God, and the only way to be in covenant with God is to be born again.

With respect, I believe you are placing a construct on God that is not scriptural. It appears that you somehow believe God is obligated to be fair and equitable. Nowhere in scripture do you find such warrant. God acts after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11). God does not have to pass the "good and loving" test. God's elect are chosen, not because of anything they did to merit salvation. Indeed, they merit damnation. You have not explicitly said so, but you seem to disagree with Paul's statement in Ephesians 2:1, that the sinner is spiritually dead and incapable of any positive action in regards to God (c.f. Romans 8:6-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14). You really do have to deal with those passages. I know they are hard passages for a Synergist. Trust me. They were very hard for me when I was a Synergist. But no matter how I tried to employ exegetical gymnastics, I was not able to avoid them. Paul purposefully used the Greek word nekros in Ephesians 2:1. He was not saying the sinner is sick in his trespasses and sin. He was saying the sinner is dead as a doornail, just as a corpse in a casket is dead. If the sinner is spiritually dead (which I confess), then God must take unilateral action to change the sinner's spiritual condition without any action on the part of the sinner. By the time the sinner confesses and believes (Romans 10:9-10), justification by faith has already taken place.

Back to what is loving. How is it loving for God to save some through divine election? It is loving because God could have chosen to save none.

P.S. Edited to correct typos.

 

[Reformed]

Yes, confessions of faith and statements of faith can serve, and often do serve, a useful function within the Body of Christ by guarding the church and its members against false teaching.

But these statements of faith must always and ever be subordinate to the Bible (being Reformed, I'm confident you agree with this). Unlike the Bible, confessions should be open to testing and there should be openness to changing them, or discarding them in favor of new ones, when and if they are found to contain errors themselves.

I agree completely. I believe that the confession I subscribe to (1689 LBC) has withstood 328 years of constant scrutiny and testing, and it still stands unassailed. Of course, IMHO.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Mark, I strive to be biblical in my posts. After all, if I believe in Sola Scriptura, I have no other option.

Will you do me a favor? Will you deal with the texts I referenced, as well as my exegesis, in post #114? I will commit to do the same with your passages.

My brother, what we have in common (imo) is far more important than our differences. For example, we both believe in Sola Scriptura!

I do intend to interact with your texts as well as your exegesis. There are many comments, and so I cannot promise to interact with everything in detail, but yours are (imo) among the best representing the Reformed view and I will try to get to them. I'm not sure of the time frame.

 

[Reformed]

My brother, what we have in common (imo) is far more important than our differences. For example, we both believe in Sola Scriptura!

I do intend to interact with your texts as well as your exegesis. There are many comments, and so I cannot promise to interact with everything in detail, but yours are (imo) among the best representing the Reformed view and I will try to get to them. I'm not sure of the time frame.

Mark, the reason I am pressing you on post #114 is that it strikes at the heart of our discussion. If sinful man is truly unable to believe without divine intervention, it has radical implications for this thread.

Blessings.

 

[rsr]

Yes, this is part of the reason I was initially using the term "Calvinist" instead of "Reformed". "Reformed" tends to be a term used in different ways by different people and tends to be broader than "Calvinist". Still, among most evangelicals (at least most American evangelicals), the terms "Reformed theology" and "Calvinism" are often used interchangeably.

Not among the classical Arminians (like Roger Olson) who believe in the overarching truth of Reformed theology and reject semi-Pelagianism, sacramentalism and works-based salvation.

Olson and many Calvinists believe semi-Pelagian is the predominant soteriology of American Christianity. I see no reason to disagree with them, except that I am not sure it outranks Pelagianism

 

[Reformed]

Olson and many Calvinists believe semi-Pelagian is the predominant soteriology of American Christianity. I see no reason to disagree with them, except that I am not sure it outranks Pelagianism

I believe semi-Pelagianism is the predominant soteriology in evangelicalism. Pelagianism is only possible when someone believes people are born tabula rasa.

 

[TCassidy]

people are born tabula rasa.

Some stay that way their whole lives.

 

[Reformed]

Some stay that way their whole lives.

LOL Most of them can be found congregating around zip code 20004.

 

[rsr]

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 think you misunderstand Reformed theology on this point. Original sin and total inability to respond to God do not mean that everything a human does is sinful. It simply means that a human is bent toward sin. Yes, even fallen humans have the ability not to commit sin, but they are prone to do so.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

OTE

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.

Your starting point is wrong. The contextual starting point is verse 28 where Paul says that God works ALL THINGS "according to His purpose" and those "all things" are then listed as verbs "foreknew....predestinated.....called....justified......glorified".

He foreknew certain people "those whom" BECAUSE they had been called "according to his purpose."

Let me illustrate. A contractor is going to build a house, he foreknows where every window, door and room will be, and it is predetermined simply because he first has a blue print (purpose) which he works "all things" according to.

Like all Arminians you jerk things out of context, then reverse what the text says so that man's will is the determining factor rather than God's will.

 

[BobRyan]

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!

That is a "story" that is often told -- but it remains as untrue today as it was when first imagined for public consumption.

The problem with Calvinism's doctrine of arbitrary selection is that it goes against the Word of God. Such a huge problem and complaint about it -- that some Calvinists can't even say what the objection actually is.

 

[Mark Corbett]

He foreknew certain people "those whom" BECAUSE they had been called "according to his purpose."

Are you saying you think that calling precedes foreknowledge and predestination in the order of salvation?

 

[utilyan]

I think you misunderstand Reformed theology on this point. Original sin and total inability to respond to God do not mean that everything a human does is sinful. It simply means that a human is bent toward sin. Yes, even fallen humans have the ability not to commit sin, but they are prone to do so.

"Original sin and total inability to respond to God do not mean that everything a human does is sinful."

Anything done that is not in a service and loyal response to God is a sin. Show me something good without God.

 

[InTheLight]

Are you saying you think that calling precedes foreknowledge and predestination in the order of salvation?

In Calvinist theology Foreknowledge = Predetermination.

God knows about because he's already made it happen in eternity past. It can't not happen because he knows about it.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Mark Corbett]

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

I'm working through your "brief exposition of Ephesians" and hopefully will be ready to share some thoughts soon. Thanks again for the time you have put into this.

 

[Mark Corbett]

In Calvinist theology Foreknowledge = Predetermination.

God knows about because he's already made it happen in eternity past. It can't not happen because he knows about it.

Thanks for reminding us of this.

I'm aware that Calvinist theology says Foreknowledge = Predetermination (election, predestination).

I do not agree with that interpretation. Here are a couple of reasons:

Firs, notice the logical chain of events given in Romans 8:29-30:

ESV Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The chain of events (gracious, glorious, wonderful events) includes:

foreknew → predestined → called → justified → glorified

No one argues that
predestined = called
or
called = justified
or
justified = glorified
These are related, but separate, gracious actions of God.

So why should we think that
foreknew = predestined

It does not fit the pattern.

A second reason I do not believe foreknew = predestined is because the words simply do not mean the same thing. To foreknow is to know something ahead of time. Even as humans we have (very limited, imperfect) foreknowledge of some events. God's foreknowledge is perfect, and I believe most likely it is also unlimited. But it is not the same as predestining. To predestine something is to ensure ahead of time that something will happen.

Now, certainly God foreknows everything that He predestines. But it does NOT logically follow that He predestines everything that He foreknows. That's just basic logic.

 

[Mark Corbett]

You quote Ephesians 1:3-5

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,

You then comment as follows:

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".

I agree with everything you write here! And I praise God for these wonderful truths, as I’m sure you do.

The issue is not whether or not God chose the elect before the universe was created. The issue in this thread is whether that election was conditional or unconditional.

I would also point out that there is a third view, as I’m sure you know but some reading this thread might not know, called Corporate Election. Belief in Corporate Election can be harmonious with Conditional Election, but is not harmonious with the Reformed theology view of Unconditional Election (Some Arminians who hold to Corporate Election deny any individual election, but this is not necessary, as the two concepts can be easily harmonized). Corporate Election basically says that God chose Christ to be the source of Salvation, and whoever is “in Christ” is included. Corporate Election further posits that people are able to choose to be “in Christ” when they hear and believe the Truth, the Gospel of their salvation.

A common illustration for Corporate Election is that it works like a Gospel Ship. The Ship is Jesus. The Ship is heading for glory. You get on the ship by faith in Jesus. Everyone on the “Jesus Ship” is thus predestined for glory, their destination is glory.

I personally believe that some passages, like Ephesians 1:3-5 are at least in part referring to Corporate Election, although I also believe that individual, conditional election is also most likely true.

The reason a passage like Ephesians 1:3-5 works so well with Corporate Election is that it mentions being “in Christ” or an equivalent phrase quite often:

ESV Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (Eph. 1:3 ESV)

Similar “in Christ” phrases continue all through Ephesians 1 and in fact are found frequently through Paul’s writings. Ephesians 1:11 is especially relevant:

NIV Ephesians 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

I have some more to say about Ephesians 1 before we get to Ephesians 2, but I don’t want to put too much in one comment.