Predestination: Meaning and Application

Bob,

I will address the rest of your post tomorrow.

I'm about to quit for the day. But I wanted to post this to you and any others if they even care. Most. I'm sure could careless. but..What I did to saturnepturne was not mean. It was bold...i will give you this. I was bold in the faith, not in myself. Notice Saturn said very little to me, even though I pushed him hard to post. What I did was push him into the Word of God and to claim his faith. At least I hope I did. My guess is you will see longer and stronger and better post from Saturn as he proves his faith. We shall see. Being under the gun makes us react. If anyone ever does this to him again, he will be willing and ready to reply in strong ways, and still keep friends. In a few months I bet saturn will agree with this.


Well Bob, we had a rough time getting started today...but the last 2 hours were great. Good debate Bob.

See ya soon.


In Christ...James

 

James, I been preaching this for 34 years. I always preached and believed that Israel was God's chosen people.
Jesus wouldn't even let His deciples come and preach to us but rather go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel but where you fail to see is when Jesus arose from the grave He broke down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and Greek and made a way for us and guess what. He called His Apostles together again but this time He sent them out a little farther. He said now, go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to EVERY creature and He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. amen,

Satuneptune is a good friend and we don't get angry over doctrine.

 

See? Bad guess.

 

How many times does one need to hear before one can believe?

 

I heard the gospel several times before I finally believed. I kept hanging on to my own goodness. It wasn't til one night alone in my room, I was 17 years old, I began to examine my past and ponder my future. I did not like what I saw. All the preaching I had heard in the past flooded into my mind, I believed, and God saved me. (Best night of my life)

My point about, "how many times", is I think once could be enough, given that the hearer is humbled enough to believe.

 

The question is, do they hear (as in hear the words), or do they hear (as in having ears to hear)? If it's the latter, once. But they may hear in the former way any number of times before that.

 

If you read my last post, you'll see that, though I heard it, I wouldn't believe it. Then, when I realized what a mess I was, what I had previously heard, I believed. I know the Holy Spirit of God was at work on me that night. I know it was God who saved me. Sometimes you guys seem to think we believe we save ourselves. I can't help but think the difference between those who believe and those who do not is pride. The reason I rejected the gospel over and over again was pride. When I finally believed I was never so humble in all my life.

 

You are (rightfully) crediting the Holy Spirit for the reason why that night, of all nights, was the night you really heard and believed. If you had said that the difference between that night and every other night was that you finally decided of your own free will to believe, then I'd say you were taking some of the credit for your salvation. But that's not what you said.

 

I do not suggest being anything more than a humble student of the Word. If you want to present yourself as an authority because of your education and knowledge going beyond mine suit your self, but consider the scribes and Pharisees while doing so and know that I will challenge you if I choose to regardless whether you think I am being constructive to your agenda in contributing an opposing view. I will take it to heart that I threw out phrases forgetting that I was not only conversing to you in my replies but also others that may have an interest in the topic. I would also suggest to you that the terminology you have been using has had the same effect while I point out that unfortunately that will have to be the case as not every term can be readily defined without being asked.

Although your predestination objectives where clear you started out with a compatibility toward free moral agency that seemed to apply free will to my observations and I think to others. That is before you showed your true colors, which was expecting for obvious reasons.

Your statement that causality is so plain and simple must apply to God’s purpose and design, the way you perceive this is nothing more than a doctrinal necessity to your theology. Further, there are many aspects of causation that are subject to debate and your application to support unconditional election to God’s sovereignty has surely been debated in depth an awful lot for being so “plain and simple” as you would like to suggest.

Your intentions of belittling with your sympathy are comical and if you understand my point you will know I strongly disagree with your Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty in creation and I don’t regard your opinion of a proper defense as credible.

Glad we agree God can not lie. Then tell me in God’s sovereignty is He limited in any way by truth in regards to abiding in His Own Truth nature? , God is truth-cannot lie, so necessary truths are His attributes. 2+2=4, so what is the source for truth?

Is it necessary that God is truth? Or does it happen to exist? Doesn’t He have the ability to make conscious decisions and those decisions must be truth and if so then God, who has no beginning or end, did He make it true or was it already true? Where did the truth come from since God is self derived? What makes things be true? Did God make it true or is it necessary that it be true? God, whose knowledge comes from Himself, then does He self imposing a condition upon Himself that must be truth or was it necessary to already be the truth and He follows that?

If it is a truth that God is only good can He be the cause of evil? Can God make 2=2+5 and still it still be the truth?

 

Hello Jarthur001,

As you may have noticed I usually stay away from these C and A debates, usually to allow for other studies in more pressing areas. You probably won’t appreciate my views but to address your inquiry:

To me, the Calvinist doctrine sounds like they put a necessity to understanding that God “must” be in a position to bow down to evil in His creational design. This being in that He “must” have had to pick and choose between His creatures who would answer His draw to Grace, and that He “must” have had to predestine them because of the almighty evil would steal every one of His creatures otherwise, and why, because of His weak idea to create creatures with a free will to dwell within the natural existence of the big bully evil. Implying this logic one would have to think, poor God, guess the light of His Love isn’t bright enough, He isn’t powerful enough to persuade men to choose Good over evil within the way He created them having a gift of spiritual likeness, it was just too dark, so even God “must” not have had the free will to do as He pleased and had to pre-program every man’s heart beforehand in order to be sovereign in His Kingdom.

Fact is, evil does exist apart from God as it is plainly not a part of His nature. The Nature of Good that every man knows exists in his heart and has a measure of faith in that Good opposes evil in reality, we all know there is morality, this is because in Devine creation man did eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which God foreknew they would, and man received the ability to reason within that knowledge that was destined as a gift from God and procured in our existence, intentionally, as shown in His Word to us that we were made in His likeness and image, yet, being made in His likeness does not make us God, as there is only One God and He is the Only Good; we fall short in comparison, and therefore could not be at home in His nature being are set apart from Him eternally because He is Perfectly Good and we are not. God knew and prepared for our hope before the foundation of the world by giving of Himself in a promise which coincides with His characteristic nature of Love and desire that we, His creatures, should choose to live eternally IN Him, and this gratifying to His purpose, because He loved His creatures in the very true nature of His Love being. God gave freely of Himself in the form of the Only Begotten Son so that through Him, IN Him, we could live forever with Him that is Perfect as an adopted child.

A glorious and wonderful gift God gave to Adam in His unselfish Love by design. It was suggested that I perceived the world as less than ideally perfect, and this could not be further from the truth. I am so thankful that in my freedom by Devine design that, I, seeing the love that God shined into all the world that He created for the good believed in Good over evil in which while begging to know why, I, was placed in this world that existed by His creation, “despite” evil which was not created but “allowed for” not “permitted” but existed as a truth in nature because of the design that God had for all His creatures that were to be made with a free will. I regard the defense of His character as essential in that I perceive the understanding that God had a purpose for creating us and through the Holy Spirit He comforted me in the promise He made before the foundation and directed me in and through His prepared Word Who died for all men when, I, called out to Him asking, WHY AM “I” HERE?

God gave man a reasoning ability and also said let us reason together, He gives the gift of Love to them who ask, to them who realize they are less than God, less than Good, and then call out to Him because they are tired and hungry in their heart for the truth. He then shows them the Way, if they will just believe when He tells them of the Truth, as He draws them with the offer of Life, saying Come, and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.

I don’t have to explain why I chose God and another man didn’t, but I do have an obligation to share the Good news of the Gospel of God’s loving Grace in the world that He created for us all, not because I was forced to by a command but because I freely desire to obey that command given by Him as a slave being in the Love of a Good Master.

I don’t believe I’m specially hand pick out of the rest, I don’t believe God saw anything better about me when He foreknew me, I don’t believe it was a whim of God to save some and damn others; I believe God created all men for the good in His Devine design that included a freedom in spiritual likeness for all His creatures; and that being free is a good thing and I glory in the way that He prepared for us to be with Him for eternity by His Own sacrifice even though none of us deserved it. It was a free act of His great Love because of His Great Goodness and all within the truths that evil still exists.

That is what His character is about for me, Love and Goodness, Power to create us to be spiritually free, He is a Gracious Giver through this great Love of a Spiritual rebirth in the Son through the sacrifice of Himself. A sacrifice that would have no need if evil didn’t exist apart from Him as a truth of the nature in which He created His creatures. To suggest He “permitted” evil for a purpose in His creation is wrong, evil existed apart of God so He “allowed for it” and then to suggest He predestined men to be evil is also wrong, He “allowed for it” so that we could have a spirit and know His Love and be with Him forever, IN Him, Perfect.

 

When you say the world is going to hell in a handbasket you are getting much closer to the truth. You say a few in the Appalachian Mountains makes me suspect you know something about us but to be in the majority does not make you right. As a matter of fact it is the majority that will miss Heaven. Religeon has been turned on its head and all for money. Men like you talk about, have decided to remove the name Baptist so as to gain numbers, (hence more tithes and more money). I find it ironic that you say I need to open up my mind, when you are completely set in your theory and would not even goes as far as James did on verse 18 or Romans: 10. At least he admitted there were times the word went to the jungles and not by the two legged preacher. I will be truthfully with you, I think to say otherwise is to have a "closed mind" on the subject past verse 15 of Romans: 10. You refer it back to Psalms, as a way to get around it and I have noticed, all of you that profess to know more than the rest either jump to the OT, or go to the Greek for a different difintion of the word. You say, to take everything at face value until it don't fit, then you start your run around to the Greek or OT.
As far as James and I. James started off as you, but has learned that some of us good ole boys ,know more than given credit so now we are starting to respect each other, for we both are looking deeper into what the other one has said.
When you come down to earth and talk on and even keel, we might do the same. But as long as you talk down to me we will never get anywhere.
There is one thing you Theologians need to know, if you are one and that is we have figured out long ago that it depends entirely on your agenda, circumstances, geography, background and other factors that determine what interptation you put on a Scripture. You speak of how many agree with you, but I suspect there are more that disagree with you and call themselves Theologians too. So the title don't do much for me, it is what you say about any given Scripture, and when you refuse to look at the next few lines in the same sense you looked at the first, makes you a suspect to me. Don't get me wrong for in Revelation I think the writer leaves the subject and comes back several times. If you read Revelation in succession theory you are in trouble. I don't think that is the case in Romans 10:. So, that is my 2 cents worth BP/T.

 

I ask you, do you realize that this contradicts what you said about Romans:10 18, when you made fun of me because I said some didn't receive a 2 legged preacher?

That is why I get disturbed when you so strongly stand against something I said and later because of something you posted you then make allowances. Do you think we don't catch these things or what?

 

Hello Ben,

Thanks for your reply. I will not address all your post at this time, for it would not fit all in one reply. You start with a premise of what a Calvinist is, and end with you your view of what God is. In the middle is a mix of subjects that would be hard to address in one post. We will get to those in time I do hope. This will be my last day for weekday-work hour posting. So I hope we can keep in touch as we address this in greater detail. My job demands will change Monday, and I will be limited to posting in the mornings and at night.

Your premise for why Calvinisim is wrong…

Your understanding of Calvinism is limited. Though there are some that take Gods role in evil as a decree, many more, indeed most in fact, do not. You may want to read Augustine of Hippo on this. John Calvin held pretty close to Augustine. I could give you a long list of Calvinist that were not hyper-Calvinist, which is what you feel all Calvinist are, going by your post. In short, we are not all supralapsarians. In fact, I dare say, few are.

I have already given my views on what evil is, and it is in no way a part of a Holy God. This comes from Augustine’s own teachings of sin. Read “Confessions”. I will go beyond what I have already said and say that being God Is Holy and sin is a transgression of that holiness, for God to demand we do it would change sin and evil into His will and therefore not be sin. Sin is not God. It is not limited to a sin expression (to lie). It is a path away from what God is. Anything that is not God is sin. This of course is limited to the mind of man, where sin comes from as our sin nature temps us. Where as on the other hand, unlike man an object has no value other then what we as man in our minds place on that object. I can place a value on a car to the point it goes away from Gods will and thereby sin has taken hold. You can look at that same car with no sin.

Calvinism says that the saving operations of God are directed in every case to the individuals who are saved. Particularism in the processes of salvation becomes thus the mark of Calvinism. But before we can addess this end, we must start with Man and sin. My views on sin stated I find no need to restate unless you disagree. So sin is not a day by day decree by God on men other then what was decreed on all of man in the fall. Yet God indeed will use mans sin nature to control men into bringing God glory to him. We will have to address sin nature to see this.

part 1...........

 

The importance of Rom. 5.12-19 to the doctrine of original sin cannot be overstated. Only Romans 5.12-19 provides pure revelation of Adam's sin on humanity, and why redemption through Christ's death is needed. In this passage, Paul shows that Adam was the representative of his people, who included all humanity, and that Christ was the representative of His people.

Notice....many "even so" phrases throughout the passage. Everyone is either in Adam or in Christ, and just as our being in Adam brings certain consequences such as guilt, depravity, and death, so our being in Christ brings certain consequences such as righteousness, justification, and eternal life.

Charles Hodge says... "One thing is clear-Adam was the cause of sin in a sense analogous to that in which Christ is the cause of righteousness."

Failure to understand this context has left many in an exegetical nightmare. For instance, Pelagianism says that Adam's fall did not directly affect the human race other then by setting a poor example. If this is true....then to maintain the parallel between Christ and Adam we must be made righteous by following the good example of Jesus Christ!

In verse 12 Paul Says.. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world. . . .."

1) Some understand "therefore" linked with verse 10, "Having been reconciled, we shall be saved (in) his life."
Having said this, Paul explains in verses 12-19 how this alienation has taken place, and how we are reconciled back to God.

2) Others feel that the connection is more general, a summation of all that Paul said from 1.16-5.11. Having explained the great doctrine of justification by faith, Paul shows in 5.12-19 how God justifies through faith in Christ. It may also be true, as Lloyd-Jones points out, that Paul has both connections in mind.

In any event, clearly in verse 12-19, Paul shows how God justifies the ungodly, and remains just while emphasizing that justification is all of grace, not of works.

"Therefore, just as through one man . . . (5:12)." Both the context and 1 Cor. 15.22 make it clear that Adam is this "one man."

Here Paul begins his grand contrast between the one man Adam, with the one man Jesus Christ. By this one man, Paul argues, sin entered the world. Sin had existed before, but Adam was the cause of sin entering the world, and with sin came death.

Death was not a natural part of God's creation. God did not create Adam with a natural law of death. Death came into creation because of Adam's Sin. In Genesis, God tells the first man that if he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die. Death is that judgement for Adam's sin. However, death did not only affect Adam, for "so death spread to all."

Why? "Because all sinned."


The meaning of the phrase "Because all sinned" is the focal point of a long running debate. Does Paul mean "all sinned" literally, therefore they die? In other words, is Paul saying that because everyone sins, everyone dies, or is Paul saying that death came to all because all are somehow guilty of Adams sin?

Grammatically both are possible. However, the context seems to favor the latter interpretation, that we are all guilty of Adam's sin, therefore we all die.


Most commentaries agree that verses 13-17 are a parenthetical explanation of "because all sinned." Paul felt the need to explain more fully "because all sinned" and this he does until verse 18 where He restates what he began at the end of verse 12. In verses 13-14 Paul explains that although no Law existed from Adam to Moses all nevertheless die, even those who did not sin after the same manner as Adam. In verse 15, Paul says that by the Adam's transgression the many died. "The many" are those in Adam, as "the many" at the end of verse 15 are those in Christ. In verse 16, Paul tells us that those in Adam are condemned, while those who are in Christ are justified. In verse 17, Paul says that through Adam's sin death reigned. In verse 18, Paul clearly says that through Adam's sin there resulted in condemnation to all men. Again, the parallelism employed by Paul makes "all men" to mean "all men" in Adam, as the "all men" in the second half of the verse refers to "all men" in Christ. The context, therefore, suggests that when Paul said "because all sinned" he was refereeing to the fact that all are guilty of Adam's sin and as such all die.

Nevertheless... and please read this, if you read nothing else...no matter what one believes to be the reason for death in the world, the Bible states all are condemned not only because personal sin, but also for Adam's sin..... "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men" (verses 18).

A . A. Hodge rightly says.... "Paul here proves that the guilt,...legal obligation to suffer the penalty-of Adam's sin is imputed to us, by the unquestionable fact that the penalty of the law which Adam broke has been inflicted upon all."

Now you may agree with all or most of this and do not see the point. It has been a while since I posted on sin nature and much has been said in the past few weeks who see dead as "sick" and not dead as dead...so this post was two fold. To set ground for How God uses evil, and to state reason why man indeed is dead.

Next I hope to address how this sin nature can be used of God yet without God seen as evil.

Last..your limited view of God.


Thanks again for your reply.


In Christ...James

 

I'm pleased to know we finally agree on something. I want you to know, this is the way I have always remembered it. I have not changed my view on free-will. Because of pride, I by my own free-will rejected the gospel many times. When I realized my lost and helpless state, the Holy Spirit convinced me, and I believed. I believe God foreknew that night would come, and foreknew He would be there to save me.

 

Hello Blammo,

We agree on God knowing you would be there, but Calvinist would say God caused you to be there. Events took place by God Almighty for you to be in places at the right time and moment to hear Gods word. Did you use your will to choose God? Indeed you did. But only after God 1st revealed Himself to you. 2nd, God followed you around telling the good news to you...until one day He got though to you.

Will ...Yes. Free...no.

It is only free to the choices God has laid before us. Before you knew of God and His saving Grace, God was not a choice. At that point your will was bound outside of salvation.

Why you? I do not know you...but all of us have asked this. Why did God have people around me..praying..sharing Gods Word? Some do not have that grace. Why you?

 

James-

Run your post through spell-check. I am NOT picking on you. I don't care if people spell things incorrectly at times, but you, (UNINTENTIONALY), said something, (I KNOW), you do not mean.

I think we are so close to believing the same thing. (It took us long enough to figure it out)

I don't believe we have changed our views, we just understand each other better.