Predestination: Meaning and Application

[npetreley]

Do you see how this works?

I already saw how it worked, but I liked your analogies. And I generally don't like analogies (even though I'm known to use them now and then), so that's quite a compliment.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I agree. Let me know Baptist Pastor if you do, and I will help with your cover design and help you get a publisher, if you do not already have one.

Hey we are all doing our part here to stand for biblical truth. Just because someone opens up the Book and proceeds to talk about what is written does not make him a gospel preacher. Lord help us when we are having to argue that the gospel is necessary for salvation. That is the day we live in though and that is why these little back rooms of theology are so important. It helps you know what the public is thinking. Actually, I prefer to discuss theology with the unchurched, none of that deprogramming reprogramming stuff. What gets me is the use of language on this board. I would offer for your consideration one more metaphor, a news paper. The way we read a news paper is plain and simple. If you read the Bible the way you read a news paper you would be way better off. That is why I am a strong believer in the need for proper hermeneutics. You have to have sound interpretative skills to get sound theology. Get off based on your exegesis and you will end up with Inclusivism. Inclusivism is as much an error in hermeneutics as it is a failure to attribute the necessary moral evil to human sin.

 

[Blammo]

Bob,

I have been reading your replies and your starting to prove yourself to be irrational...

So much for keeping it civil, folks. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

So much for keeping it civil, folks. :smilewinkgrin:

In a civil society we commit insane people, we just take our time in getting out the nets. When it becomes obvious that you are dealing with someone who is on the fringe, give them a chance to clear out the cobwebs before you get out the net. Now with Bob, I am just about ready to get out the net.:laugh:

 

[npetreley]

A different analogy

I thought I'd take your rat analogy and illustrate Calvinism vs. Free-willism. Like all analogies, it's somewhat flawed and definitely incomplete, but I think it illustrates the differences pretty well.

Calvinism:

Due to the fact that the first rat sinned, all of its offspring inherited a desire to eat whatever food seems tasty to them until they get so fat that they die.

They're all in a maze where there are two sources of food. One is the tasty smelling food, the other food smells awful but it gives eternal life. Most of the rats act according to their nature and go eat the tasty food and die. There are some rats that God foreknew, however, and predestined to eternal life. He provides stimuli that direct those rats to the awful smelling food, makes the rats aware that they are starving, and will die if they eat nothing, or go eat the other food. So these rats eat the awful smelling food and gain eternal life.

Free-willism:

Due to the fact that the first rat sinned, all of its offspring are crippled in their decision-making process, but not so much that they are unable to choose one type of food from another based on what they know about these foods.

They're all in a maze where there are two sources of food. One is the tasty smelling food that is poisoned, the other food smells awful but it gives eternal life. God informs these rats of the differences between these foods and the consequcnes. For some unexplained reason, some of the rats decide to eat the tasty food and die. For some unexplained reason, other rats decide to eat the smellly food and gain eternal life. When you ask a free-willer why one rat chose the smelly food and another chose the tasty food, they say "they chose one or the other because they had the ability to choose". This doesn't answer the question, but they can't answer any other way because any other answer would give some credit to the rats that chose the smelly food.


​

 

[bound]

I agree.

Time can be broken into units. One unit which you can see time is a spin of the earth. That is all that time is. God knows how many spins you have on this earth before you die. If the earth has had 10,000,000 spins, you can not go back to 5,000,000 spins. The space that was there is the same space that we have today. At 5,000,000 spins the space that you sit had another matter taking the space up. Even if there was time travel, there is no no space to go to. Its the same earth..the same matter...it just has more spins.

God has no need to Go back in time. God was there when spin 5,000,000 came about. He would change nothing. Spin 5,000,000 went just as He planned it. He was there, and He is the one spinning the earth. That is what time is.

Time is made by God for His creation.

Grace and Peace,

I don't believe 'Time' was made by God. Time is not a 'thing' it is merely awareness of change. Some change is consistant and thus we can use it as a means of measurement but the need to measurement change is a habit of creation not God.

This is my whole point. Time is not a 'thing' in creation it is merely 'change' which is part of the nature of creation. Once we cease to look at it like a 'thing' we cease to distort our understanding of God with it. Change and thus time is our problem to deal with not God's. God is eternal and immutable and thus doesn't experience 'time' in the sense that we do. Providence is not a timeline to something eternal and immutable it is an encounter of those attributes with His creatures. It is a state of past, present and future in the sense that it shares in the eternal now that an eternal and immutable presence extends to those who share in the divine nature.

Peace.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I thought I'd take your rat analogy and illustrate Calvinism vs. Free-willism. Like all analogies, it's somewhat flawed and definitely incomplete, but I think it illustrates the differences pretty well.​

Calvinism:​

Due to the fact that the first rat sinned, all of its offspring inherited a desire to eat whatever food seems tasty to them until they get so fat that they die.​

They're all in a maze where there are two sources of food. One is the tasty smelling food, the other food smells awful but it gives eternal life. Most of the rats act according to their nature and go eat the tasty food and die. There are some rats that God foreknew, however, and predestined to eternal life. He provides stimuli that direct those rats to the awful smelling food, makes the rats aware that they are starving, and will die if they eat nothing, or go eat the other food. So these rats eat the awful smelling food and gain eternal life.​

Free-willism:​

Due to the fact that the first rat sinned, all of its offspring are crippled in their decision-making process, but not so much that they are unable to choose one type of food from another based on what they know about these foods.​

They're all in a maze where there are two sources of food. One is the tasty smelling food that is poisoned, the other food smells awful but it gives eternal life. God informs these rats of the differences between these foods and the consequcnes. For some unexplained reason, some of the rats decide to eat the tasty food and die. For some unexplained reason, other rats decide to eat the smellly food and gain eternal life. When you ask a free-willer why one rat chose the smelly food and another chose the tasty food, they say "they chose one or the other because they had the ability to choose". This doesn't answer the question, but they can't answer any other way because any other answer would give some credit to the rats that chose the smelly food.​

Interesting spin on my metaphor there... you really stunk it up. "Lord, are you sure you want me to eat the stinky food? Here goes nothing..."

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Grace and Peace,

I don't believe 'Time' was made by God. Time is not a 'thing' it is merely awareness of change. Some change is consistant and thus we can use it as a means of measurement but the need to measurement change is a habit of creation not God.

This is my whole point. Time is not a 'thing' in creation it is merely 'change' which is part of the nature of creation. Once we cease to look at it like a 'thing' we cease to distort our understanding of God with it. Change and thus time is our problem to deal with not God's. God is eternal and immutable and thus doesn't experience 'time' in the sense that we do. Providence is not a timeline to something eternal and immutable it is an encounter of those attributes with His creatures. It is a state of past, present and future in the sense that it shares in the eternal now that an eternal and immutable presence extends to those who share in the divine nature.

Peace.

With all due respect time is a "thing." It is not the "Thing." Metaphysics suggests, however, that time can be altered by gravity and speed, therefore it most definitely is a thing. Come back to earth....

 

[npetreley]

Interesting spin on my metaphor there... you really stunk it up. "Lord, are you sure you want me to eat the stinky food? Here goes nothing..."

:laugh: Like I said, it's flawed. But I deliberately chose that because of this:

16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life.

In other words, even those rats God is guiding to the smelly cheese still think it's smelly until they eat it. Then it becomes the aroma of life.

Okay, so it's not a perfect analogy. Sue me. :laugh:

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

:laugh: Like I said, it's flawed. But I deliberately chose that because of this:

16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life.

In other words, even those rats God is guiding to the smelly cheese still think it's smelly until they eat it. Then it becomes the aroma of life.

Okay, so it's not a perfect analogy. Sue me. :laugh:

OH that was a good one...

I was just doing some sermon prep and was reading Joshua 11. I am preaching a series in my church out of the book of Joshua entitled "Possessing the Land."

All these free will theologians probably skip over verses like Joshua 11:20:

"20 For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses."

 

[bound]

With all due respect time is a "thing." It is not the "Thing." Metaphysics suggests, however, that time can be altered by gravity and speed, therefore it most definitely is a thing. Come back to earth....

Grace and Peace,

Actually it is not a thing. You are mistaking the measurement of change for a measurement of time. Time is merely a measurement of changes in creation.

If I asked you to show me time you would merely be pointing out the changes measured in things which are not time. Time is only measured 'indirectly' because it is not a thing but only the awarement or measurement to a thing (i.e. creation).

My feet are firmly planted on earth thank you very much. :laugh:

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

I have been reading your replies and your starting to prove yourself to be irrational. Therefore what can I say to you? You post entire section of Scripture as if it makes some kind of point. You see in that passage what you want to see there. If you are going so far as to suggest that the gospel is not necessary for salvation then I do not think there is much more to discuss. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush but I would not expect for him to speak to you or me in a like manner. But you somehow want to suggest that because he spoke to Paul in blinding light that this somehow means that God will use this method on a massively larger scale to reach the world. In verse 18 of Romans 10 there is a poetic metaphor utilized but you somehow want to make it mean something other than what it means. Verse 18 states that the geographic scope or the range of the gospel is universal and is intended for every people group. Bob, when I get to the point where someone is reading into Scripture what they want it to mean I generally move on to more rational discussions. You need to reign it in there pal. Good talking with you though...

BTW it seems we are not "pals" after all.

You remarks are plainly an attack of the messenger for you are talking about the Scripture itself. In no way did I say the

Gospel was not needed for the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation. The point that Paul made in 18 is that the Yes

verily, their sound went into all the earth and you attack me for Paul's writing. If you think you are above me with remarks

against Paul's writing and not one word of mine so be it. I slowly watched you turn negative as you were unable to answer the

questions put to you. You came on as if you had the answers to everything and even picked up some Calvinists but all you

have to do is be a calvinist and pick these guys up. The real question is if you can defend yourself against the Scriptures and

you can't. You brush off 4 verses below the Scripture you started with. If you are unable to defend the entire Chapter why use

it, that is called "cherry picking" in case you do not know. Just because I called it to your attention you make remarks against

me but I can defend myself so go to it again. Also, I see you had no answer to Rev: 14 either and didn't even want to answer

it. I don't blame you after saying it takes a human on human. Those two characters that just praised you I wonder if they

believe it must be "human on human". I doubt it. At first I thought maybe a Calvinist I could talk to but unfortnantly that is not

to be. I tell you what, pick out those you can out talk or those who agree with you and you will continue to look "good" but be

wary of those who point out your miscomings and false doctrine.


Just for the record I will post what you are calling irrational! I challenge anyone to read the following and see where it is irrational. peace,


Let me stay out of it and just post Apostle Paul then. Is this being twisted also for it is exactly what I said so if this is

twisted then I am guilty but if this is not twisted then I am falsely accused.

Roman: 10
"13": For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

"14": How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

"15": And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

"16": But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

"17": So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

"18":But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

"19": But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

"20": But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

"21": But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

 

[Jarthur001]

Grace and Peace,

I don't believe 'Time' was made by God. Time is not a 'thing' it is merely awareness of change. Some change is consistant and thus we can use it as a means of measurement but the need to measurement change is a habit of creation not God.

This is my whole point. Time is not a 'thing' in creation it is merely 'change' which is part of the nature of creation. Once we cease to look at it like a 'thing' we cease to distort our understanding of God with it. Change and thus time is our problem to deal with not God's. God is eternal and immutable and thus doesn't experience 'time' in the sense that we do. Providence is not a timeline to something eternal and immutable it is an encounter of those attributes with His creatures. It is a state of past, present and future in the sense that it shares in the eternal now that an eternal and immutable presence extends to those who share in the divine nature.

Peace.

Hello Bound..

1st the easy one..

It is a state of past, present and future in the sense that it shares in the eternal now that an eternal and immutable presence extends to those who share in the divine nature

IF..I understand you right...I agree. However this will crush your view as we shall see.

Time is not a 'thing' in creation it is merely 'change' which is part of the nature of creation.

Time is linked to ALL things and is part of all things that God made. Lets just stick with one "thing". We have talked about rocks on this thread...why not again. If all we have is a rock, we have time.

In the beginning God.

With this we have God. There is no space. There is no matter/rock. Therefore there is no time.

Now....
In the beginning God made a rock.

Time has now past. Time is indeed change just as you said, but what you fail to see is that, without a rock there is no change and therefore no time. This is why I said the whole of everything that God made is Matter, space and time. This is creation.

Time is in all rocks, cars, water, sky and yes you. If it is there or as you called it above..in the "now" ...it is time. There has to be a man, a rock or something made of matter to change, before there is indeed change. Remove the matter/thing/rock and you remove time.

Therefore, If this rock was all that God made, if God removes the rock, at the point that it is gone, or no more, there is no more time, for no change can take place without our rock. right?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

You remarks are plainly an attack of the messenger for you are talking about the Scripture itself. In no way did I say the

Gospel was not needed for the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation. The point that Paul made in 18 is that the Yes

verily, their sound went into all the earth and you attack me for Paul's writing. If you think you are above me with remarks

against Paul's writing and not one word of mine so be it. I slowly watched you turn negative as you were unable to answer the

questions put to you. You came on as if you had the answers to everything and even picked up some Calvinists but all you

have to do is be a calvinist and pick these guys up. The real question is if you can defend yourself against the Scriptures and

you can't. You brush off 4 verses below the Scripture you started with. If you are unable to defend the entire Chapter why use

it, that is called "cherry picking" in case you do not know. Just because I called it to your attention you make remarks against

me but I can defend myself so go to it again. Also, I see you had no answer to Rev: 14 either and didn't even want to answer

it. I don't blame you after saying it takes a human on human. Those to characters that just praised you I wonder if they

believe it must be "human on human". I doubt it. At first I thought may a Calvinist I could talk to but unfortnantly that is not

to be. I tell you what, pick out those you can out talk or those who agree with you and you will continue to look "good" but be

wary of those who point out your miscomings and false doctrine.


Just for the record I will post what you are calling irrational! I challenge anyone to read the following and see where it is irrational. peace,


Let me stay out of it and just post Apostle Paul then. Is this being twisted also for it is exactly what I said so if this is

twisted then I am guilty but if this is not twisted then I am falsely accused.

Roman: 10
"13": For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

"14": How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

"15": And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

"16": But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

"17": So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

"18":But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

"19": But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

"20": But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

"21": But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Get the net...

 

[J.D.]

Get the net...

You're on your own with that, brother. I gave up trying to control ranting pelagians some time ago.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Grace and Peace,

Actually it is not a thing. You are mistaking the measurement of change for a measurement of time. Time is merely a measurement of changes in creation.

If I asked you to show me time you would merely be pointing out the changes measured in things which are not time. Time is only measured 'indirectly' because it is not a thing but only the awarement or measurement to a thing (i.e. creation).

My feet are firmly planted on earth thank you very much. :laugh:

The word thing is such a precise term. Wow. You are actually going to academically argue that time is not a thing. Let me offer you a definition for the word thing from dictionary.com, "Thing: An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence." So as you can see time is a thing. Is it an object, no? You are limiting the word thing to material matter. Time is not material matter but it is a factor in understanding creation. Creation is subject to time and space. Matter cannot exist eternally due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Heat Death would ensue from the state of equilibrium that all systems eventually reach. If you want to talk about time and eternity, I am your Huckleberry.

Your point is not necessarily apparent in terms of the need to understand the metaphysics of time for our theological discourse. Causality does not necessarily have anything to do with time. Determination is not necessarily Fatalism. So what is your point?

I will state my hypothesis once again and you please feel free to interject. My view is that God is sovereign and created the world with a predetermined outcome. That this world is the best of all available worlds or it is ideal inasmuch as God created it and he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, ie perfect. Therefore, he could have created the world another way but he chose to create this world the way he did. As a part of that creation man was endowed with a free moral agency. The fall resulted from man's rebellion. Sin has now entered the world and completely corrupts man's relationship with God the creator. While God elected some and not others, each one who is elect must believe on Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Those who are non-elect will not believe on Jesus Christ, either due to an inability or lack of opportunity. Regardless, man's will is not coerced or forced or violated in the process of regeneration and conversion to Christ. Apart from the gospel there is no opportunity for salvation.

 

[Brother Bob]

Actually, I prefer to discuss theology with the unchurched, none of that deprogramming reprogramming stuff. What gets me is the use of language on this board. I would offer for your consideration one more metaphor, a news paper. The way we read a news paper is plain and simple. If you read the Bible the way you read a news paper you would be way better off. That is why I am a strong believer in the need for proper hermeneutics. You have to have sound interpretative skills to get sound theology. Get off based on your exegesis and you will end up with Inclusivism. Inclusivism is as much an error in hermeneutics as it is a failure to attribute the necessary moral evil to human

SO NOW I KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS:

No wonder he don't want you to quote scripture.


Ephesians, chapter 3

"1": For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

"2": If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward:

"3": How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

"4": Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

"5": Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

"6": That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

"7": Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

"8": Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

 

[webdog]

What I just said to Bob goes for you too... but let me just say that Rev. 14:6 is an apocalyptic genre of Scripture. I do not think the intent of that passage is suggest that the folks over in China and India are waiting on a angelic flyby to get saved. I think that passage will have meaning at a specific point in time in accordance with the unfolding of the endtimes, which may or may not be in my life time. The question is what is the normative or established means by which people get saved and what is an exception that has it purpose but is not normative. The angelic flyby is certainly not normative nor is the burning bush or the blinding light. Rational people you would expect would more than likely understand this and not try and force an exception as normative.

You seem to be more of a cynic than a learner... therefore I will not engage your last statement at this time but if you want an explanation I made several comments on the salvation of the unborn and small children in the thread entitled types of Calvinists.

I knew it was too good to be true. Stooping to calling me irrational, and a cynic not worthy of your time. Usually when there is "theologian" in a screen name, the enormous ego follows.

Who said anything about people in China waiting for an angelic fly-by? Strawman arguments will not get you too far. You ask what the "normative" means of salvation is. Faith comes by hearing (understanding), and that by the Word of God. I fail to see where man is attached to that at all.

 

[Jarthur001]

SO NOW I KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS:

No wonder he don't want you to quote scripture.

Bob...

This has been a good thread, so please don't get out of hand and close this down.

Stay cool. If you need...take time and get a cold drink of coke...and come back in a hour.

I think I'll join ya. Time to eat...

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

You're on your own with that, brother. I gave up trying to control ranting pelagians some time ago.

Somebody needs to take an anger management class, I mean look at that picture...