Predestination unto salvation

[kyredneck]

It would have been helpful to address the issue with verses that define the predestination Paul talks about, not insults. God bless you brother.

No insult intended, just stating the facts as I see them. No chart needed to do that.

 

[George Antonios]

Single Predestination, for the elect in Christ only!

The predestination is never, ever, anywhere in scripture, that of a lost man unto salvation. We had a whole thread about that, and no one produced one verse. Check it out.

 

[kyredneck]

The predestination is never, ever, anywhere in scripture, that of a lost man unto salvation.

Wrong. 'Predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son' most definitely equates to salvation.

 

[JonC]

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?



But through strictly scriptural lens 'predestine' is found only four times in the scriptures and is always in reference to God choosing a people for His own possession, not to events.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: Eph 1

Good point. In reference to events I am saying everything is predestined and that God predestined everything based on the act of Creation. But Scripture in these passages are not focusing on predestination but stating (among other things) we were predestined.

 

[George Antonios]

Wrong. 'Predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son' most definitely equates to salvation.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. I've presented the verses that define Paul's use of "predestination"


All the verses that mention predestination are about a saved man getting predestinated, according to the foreknowledge of God, unto standing before God in love and holiness and obtaining a glorified resurrection body in the image of Christ's resurrection body.

Now, present your verses which define the term. Don't insult me, don't dismiss the verses out of hand. Simply produce counter-defining verses, please.

 

[MB]

God is fully aware of His planting:

24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field:
25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away.
37 And he answered and said, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; Mt 13

13 But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. Mt 15

Yes He is but you aren't.
MB

 

[kyredneck]

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Iconoclast]

If it were for philosophical reasons I would not have confidence in my belief. I believe in the predestination of the Elect because I am convinced scripture clearly and unambiguously teaches it.

I agree in that those who approach this topic from philosophy or emotions never grasp the scriptural components to get it.
God given revelation informs us of the teaching if we desire to seek it out.
Another obstacle for some is failing to get hold of the correct biblical usages of the terms and keep them separate.
Foreknowledge, decree, election, predestination. Getting these wrong is to build on sand.
For example if someone says foreknowledge biblically equals a simple prescience, no sense reading further as they have already missed it.

 

[Iconoclast]

To say that because God has created everything is predestined is not according to the biblical usage, but is pure philosophical speculation.
Others confuse omniscience with foreknowledge. Scripture and words used must be accurate to correctly learn of these truths.

I lean towards infra although I first heard Supra ideas expressed. It would not disturb me at all if supralapsarian was correct because if so I am confident God would have perfect wisdom on why it was so.

 

[Reformed]

I agree in that those who approach this topic from philosophy or emotions never grasp the scriptural components to get it.
God given revelation informs us of the teaching if we desire to seek it out.

One of my favorite theologians is the late R.C. Sproul, Sr. R.C. was also a philosopher. He asked the great questions of life that the ancient philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Socrates tried to answer. However, even though he saw value in philosophy, R.C.'s final authority for all matters of faith and practice was the Bible. How much did R.C. Sproul love scripture? He once said, “I’ll retire when they pry my cold, dead fingers off of my Bible.” And that is about how it went.

 

[JonC]

I agree in that those who approach this topic from philosophy or emotions never grasp the scriptural components to get it.
God given revelation informs us of the teaching if we desire to seek it out.

I disagree. Historically people like Augustine, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and Jonathan Edwards approached the topic from a philosophical standpoint. I do not believe it fair to imply they never grasped the scriptural components. Some of Spurgeon's most famous sermons regarding predestination approach the topic philosophically.

I think some people confuse philosophical aspects of study with being unbiblical or antibiblical while holding views (like doctrines of the Trinity) that are indebted to philosophical contributions. God gave men an intellect. I suspect he expects us to use it.

 

[Iconoclast]

I am more than certain that former persons in church history took a peek at the scriptures from time to time to gather a biblical understanding.
Our thoughts apart from direct scriptural input only hinders correct understanding
If I had a dollar for everytime emotional or philosophical objects against truth are raised I would not have to continue to work.

 

[JonC]

One of my favorite theologians is the late R.C. Sproul, Sr. R.C. was also a philosopher. He asked the great questions of life that the ancient philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Socrates tried to answer. However, even though he saw value in philosophy, R.C.'s final authority for all matters of faith and practice was the Bible. How much did R.C. Sproul love scripture? He once said, “I’ll retire when they pry my cold, dead fingers off of my Bible.” And that is about how it went.

I appreciate Jonathan Edward's, so obviously I do not think philosophy is worthless. The thing is it has to be grounded in Scripture. It is often how we reason things out.

Without philosophy there would be no doctrine of the Trinity (think of the debates over "persons" and "nature"). Calvinism would never have been articulated as we know it today (there would be no doctrines concerning the scope of the Atonement, no Ordo salutis, no logical order of God's decrees, etc.).

I once knew a CoC guy who insisted theology was evil.

 

[JonC]

I am more than certain that former persons in church history took a peek at the scriptures from time to time to gather a biblical understanding.
Our thoughts apart from direct scriptural input only hinders correct understanding
If I had a dollar for everytime emotional or philosophical objects against truth are raised I would not have to continue to work.

Strawman (and off topic) .

Systematic theology is first and foremost biblical (it is dependent on Scripture). But it incorporates the extra-biblical as well (history, philosophy, culture, etc).

My approach was philosophical. But it is based on the nature of God as demonstrated and stated in Scripture. No one has suggested to ignore Scripture.

Spurgeon was not ignoring Scripture when he philosophically defended "sects" in Christianity, or when he philosophically defended irresistible grace in his sermon on the will of God.

I do not reject the Scripture Calvinism affirms. I reject the philosophy that drives Calvinistic interpretation. We have to weigh these philosophical ideas with Scripture, not pretend they do not exist.

If I had a penny for the number of times people complained about Christian philosophy while never realizing how philosophical their views really were.....

 

[Reformed]

@JonC , God has, indeed, given us a mind and the ability to reason. I do not think philosophy is evil. I do think that philosophy has a dark side, as what happened through philosophical reasoning by the German Higher Critics in the 18th-century. Higher Criticism resulted in an abandonment of scripture as the final authority of all matters of faith and practice. Instead of asking great questions and turning to scripture for answers, Higher Criticism embraced intellectual Gnosticism and Humanism. That is one of the reasons why I am guarded about philosophy. It has value, so long as it drives us to scripture.

 

[JonC]

@JonC , God has, indeed, given us a mind and the ability to reason. I do not think philosophy is evil. I do think that philosophy has a dark side, as what happened through philosophical reasoning by the German Higher Critics in the 18th-century. Higher Criticism resulted in an abandonment of scripture as the final authority of all matters of faith and practice. Instead of asking great questions and turning to scripture for answers, Higher Criticism embraced intellectual Gnosticism and Humanism. That is one of the reasons why I am guarded about philosophy. It has value, so long as it drives us to scripture.

I agree. God gave us an intellect. How we use it is up to us.

We should always be guarded when it comes to philosophy. The philosophy Calvinism incorporates is why I am not a Calvinist (the judicial philosophy). The philosophy of Open Theism is why neither of us are Open Theists.

We judge the philosophy against Scripture (which is our final authority when it comes to doctrine). We may not agree when it comes to conclusions, but we can agree that Scripture is our authority for doctrine.

 

[JonC]

We went through all this in this forum not long ago:
Prove it wrong: There is not one verse about predestination to salvation

There is not one verse in the scriptures that speaks of a lost man being predestinated unto salvation.
All the verses that mention predestination are about a saved man getting predestinated, according to the foreknowledge of God, unto standing before God in love and holiness and obtaining a glorified resurrection body in the image of Christ's resurrection body:

View attachment 3523

That is a good point. There are also no verses that speak of someone who does not yet believe as being chosen or elected to salvation. Ideas like unconditional election are reasoned out from Scripture (they are not taught in or by Scripture but deducted from Scripture via human understanding to answer questions not exactly addressed in the Bible).

 

[Reformed]

That is a good point. There are also no verses that speak of someone who does not yet believe as being chosen or elected to salvation. Ideas like unconditional election are reasoned out from Scripture (they are not taught in or by Scripture but deducted from Scripture via human understanding to answer questions not exactly addressed in the Bible).

Not exactly.

Acts 2:37-39 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (emphasis mine)

προσκαλέω (proskaleo) "call" is written in the aorist tense. It is an uncompleted act, indicating that those called by the Lord our God is not complete. There are those who have not yet been called. It also makes the "promise" in verse 39 both now and not yet. It has been fulfilled in those already called but not in those who have yet to be called.

John 10:16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

The "other sheep" are the Gentiles (the nations) that were not yet part of the fold. While the Gospel would go out in force to the Gentiles during Paul's ministry, it continues to do so today. So, when our Lord spoke those words they were about a future action.

I have more examples I can cite but these will suffice.

 

[JonC]

Not exactly.

Acts 2:37-39 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (emphasis mine)

προσκαλέω (proskaleo) "call" is written in the aorist tense. It is an uncompleted act, indicating that those called by the Lord our God is not complete. There are those who have not yet been called. It also makes the "promise" in verse 39 both now and not yet. It has been fulfilled in those already called but not in those who have yet to be called.

John 10:16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

The "other sheep" are the Gentiles (the nations) that were not yet part of the fold. While the Gospel would go out in force to the Gentiles during Paul's ministry, it continues to do so today. So, when our Lord spoke those words they were about a future action.

I have more examples I can cite but these will suffice.

Are you suggesting our children are by virtue of the parent "elect"?

I do not see this as referring to election but if calling and children who will be saved. To clarify, are you saying that God's election (individual election) is not from the foundation of the earth but a continuing process?

 

[Reformed]

Are you suggesting our children are by virtue of the parent "elect"?

I do not see this as referring to election but if calling and children who will be saved. To clarify, are you saying that God's election (individual election) is not from the foundation of the earth but a continuing process?

Election is from all eternity but it occurs in time through what is referred to as the effectual call. Acts 2:39 is saying the promise contained in the Gospel is for you (those hearing Peter's words, your children (their posterity), all who are far off (the nations), and "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself" (those elect or predestined to eternal life who had not yet heard the gospel message).