Predestined to what?

naaaaa... lol... I don't think I could win you over Bob.... its just tough for those who have the kind of investments that you do to change.... I mean by "investments" your pastorate and all the trappings that go with it, social relationships, etc etc.... a paradigm shift in your theology, eg from Arminianism to Calvinism is simply harder for folks like you, you would have to give up a lot if you ever came to the conclusion that you had been wrong for all these years, and for a pastor to say they had been wrong all those years, realizing that they had been preaching error to folks for 30+ years is a step that would be very tough to take. The cultists (I am not saying you are a cultist btw) love to get people totally enmeshed in their society, because developing relationships and developed relationshsips over many years, are extremely hard to break away from, so even if one begins to doubt a certain theological view they have which is essential to continuing to be a member of a given group, they will try and suppress that knowledge in order to not "rock the boat" in their relationships. In the midst of all these discussions, these aspects need to be brought to the front of our minds so that we can be aware of them, and then, even if we have to, and even in spite of them, we can follow the Word where ever it leads, no matter the consequences.

As far as John 1:9 goes;
"It speaks of the relation which Christ sustains to men, all men-He is their "light." This is confirmed by what we read in verse 9, "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." In what sense, then, is Christ as "the life" the "light of men?" We answer, In that which renders men accountable creatures. Every rational man is morally enlightened. All rational men "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" (Rom. 2:15). It is this "light," which lightens every man that cometh into the world, that constitutes them responsible human beings. The Greek word for "light" in John 1:4 is "phos," and that it is not restricted to spiritual illumination is plainly evident from its usage in Matthew 6:23, "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness," and also see Luke 11:35; Acts 16:29, etc.
Let no reader infer from what has been said that we are among the number who believe the unscriptural theory that there is in every man a spark of Divine life, which needs only to be fanned, to become a flame. No, we expressly repudiate any such satanic lie. By nature, spiritually, he is "dead in trespasses and sins." Yet, notwithstanding, the natural man is a responsible being before God, to Whom he shall give an account of himself; responsible, because the work of God's law is written in his heart, his conscience also bearing witness, and this, we take it, is the "light" which is referred to in John 1:4, and the "lighteneth" in John 1:9." (AW Pink)

blessings,
Ken

 

lol... read s l o w l y and c a r e f u l l y.... I said

missing it once... well ok... but I said twice what I was referring to...

now, here it is, just so you don't have to look it up:

See that? Not one single scripture.....

You haven't seen one single scripture that teaches individual election to salvation!?!? wow, perhaps just as you did not read my post carefully, so too are you doing with the Scriptures?

anyway, I will try and find the post you are referring to where you did appeal to Scripture, or, you could provide the link for me....

blessings,
Ken

 

Thank you for your comments Ken;
I can truthfully say that I have studied very hard at predestination for I live right among it and socialize with them every day. There are my friends, my relatives and just plain good people. I think what really turned me off to the predestination, before I became a Christian I went to a funeral service in the predestinated church believers. They usually do as we and have 3 preachers in a service and will never forget for it was in the evening at summer time and very very hot. At that time very few churches had air condition. I was with a preacher from the Old Regulars and I think that played a part in what the last preacher said for he had no other reason to get on such doctrine in a funeral. He said that there would be babies in hell no bigger than the span of his hand. I have found out since that that phrase has already been used by John Wesley? not sure, but it sure made cold chills run down my back. Maybe I study to lean my way, I sure we all do to some extent but I am fully sold on the choice Salvation to all men and if we miss Heaven then we truly are guilty of not repenting.

 

really? could you provide some valid statistics that prove that the typical progression is from Calvinist to Arminian? If it is true "historically" then surely you have ready access to the data... thanks in advance for it... I really look forward to seeing it.....

as far as Roman 9 goes, John Piper has an outstanding book that deals with just this chapter, and I would challenge you to check it out and see if you can refute it. Its called "The Justification of God; An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-21". Also one may consult John Murray's and Douglas Moo's commentary on Romans in the NICNT series. Or, you could check out Leon Morris' commentary on Romans in the Pillar set, or, you could check out Thomas Schreiner's Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Series or his The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will (a two-volume set which he co-edited with Bruce A. Ware) ... while this set deals primarily with Open Theism, there are some chapters that will address your concerns, in particular the chapter "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election to Salvation?". In any case, in every one of these books you will see individual election to salvation defended biblically.

For that matter, you may consult this link http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/election.html and have access to lots of good information at no cost.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ieRom9.htm
refutes corporate election

one writer says "Furthermore, those who argue absolute corporate election as opposed to individual election are attempting to defend their concept of free will in the ordo salutis, so we see that their exegesis has a theological motivation that is in fact foreign to the biblical texts most pertinent to the subject." http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1yfx7/Election.htm

also see bible.org'sd excellent site, and the following article in particular:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1175

or check out http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?ID=51%7C51%7C423

at any rate, I simply can't do all your homework for you... if you remain in ignorance regarding the fact that Ro 9 teaches individual election, that is your call.... you can't say you weren't given more then enough information on the subject... and one ought to be honest enough to say that while you may end up not agreeing, to say that persons who do adhere to individual election do so with it "not being in the Bible" are being dishonest.

end of part 1

 

but, as an added bonus, since you can't get this online, here is a short article that deals with individual and corporate election from numerous texts:

"A Theology of Election
The nature of election is the subject of a longstanding debate. Some have understood the scriptures to teach that God has chosen a people, i.e. the church of Christ, for salvation, but has not chosen individuals. Similarly, it has been suggested that God has chosen Christ to be the means by which people are saved (Eph. 1:4), but has not determined which individuals will actually be incorporated into Christ.
Such a view rightly acknowledges that God is calling out a people for himself, and correctly emphasizes that the elect are chosen in Christ. None the less, the attempt to separate corporate from individual election is unsuccessful. John focuses on the individual in his teaching that any and all who are drawn by the Father will come to the Son (John 6:37; cf. John 17:2, 6, 9). Conversely, individuals cannot come to or believe in (*cf. John 6:35) Jesus unless God grants them the ability to do so (John 6:44, 65). Such texts cannot be adequately explained if corporate election is separated from the election of individuals. Moreover, God’s electing work begets faith in his people. John 10:26 says, ‘[Y]ou do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep.’ It is tempting to reverse the syntax, to make the verse say that one is not Jesus’ sheep because one does not believe. The text, however, says just the opposite, conveying the idea that being chosen as one of the sheep is the means by which God’s people come to believe. Luke articulates the same theology when he says that all those in Pisidian Antioch who were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48; cf. Matt. 11:25–27). The syntax of the verse clearly indicates that God’s ordaining work precedes, enables, and secures human belief. In Ephesians 2:8–9, Paul says that the salvation event ‘is the gift of God’; this event includes the whole saving process of grace, faith and salvation. Scholars, of course, continue to dispute this reading, but Romans 8:30 seems to confirm that faith is a gift. Here Paul contemplates God’s saving work from beginning to end, affirming that those whom God has foreknown he will also glorify. The list of God’s saving works includes the statement, ‘those whom he called he also justified’. It is immediately evident that the word ‘called’ (kaleō) cannot possibly be translated as ‘invited to believe in Christ’. Otherwise, the verse would say that all those who are summoned to believe in Christ are justified (see Righteousness, justice and justification). Paul does not believe this, for he often insists that justification is only by faith (*e.g. Rom. 5:1), and not all people believe in Christ. In Paul the word ‘called’ refers to God’s effective call, which produces or begets faith in those to whom it is addressed. All who are called are justified, since the calling is performative, bringing people into a saving relationship with God. If this is so, then the calling must produce faith and be limited in scope. All those who are called are justified because God’s effective call begets faith in them, and by virtue of their faith they are justified. James also identifies faith as God’s gift, teaching that God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith (Jas. 2:5).
That God’s call is effective is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 1. The gospel is preached indiscriminately to both Jews and Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23), but only those called among Jews and Greeks embrace it as the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor. 1:9, 24). Paul then describes the ‘calling’ of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:26–31). Three times in 1 Corinthians 1:27–28 he explains ‘calling’ in terms of God’s choosing (eklegomai) the Corinthians, indicating that the call is a powerful work of grace which inducts believers into the kingdom and confers faith in Jesus Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 1:30 Paul refers to believers’ induction into Christ. Some understand Ephesians 1:4 to say that God chose Christ, and that those believers who choose to be part of Christ are thereby ‘elect’. Such a reading ignores the syntax of Ephesians 1:4, for the text does not actually say that God chose Christ, but that he chose ‘us’ to be ‘in Christ’. The reading also seems to ignore 1 Corinthians 1:30, which clearly teaches that believers are in Christ because of God’s work (*ex autou, ‘of him’). No room is left for the idea that believers themselves are ultimately responsible for their faith. Paul, of course, does not teach election to provoke intellectual debates. In both Ephesians 1:3–14 and 1 Corinthians 1:26–31 he emphasizes that God elects his people in order to bring glory, praise, and honour to his name. God’s election is ‘to the praise of his glory’ (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). He chose some and not others so that no one would boast in human beings (1 Cor. 1:29) and so that we would boast only in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31).
Probably the most controversial text on election is Romans 9–11 (especially Romans 9). In these chapters, Paul emphasizes God’s saving plan in history, affirming that God is faithful to his word (Rom. 9:6). A strong view of divine sovereignty is found throughout chapter 9. Some have said that the text refers only to corporate and not to individual salvation, but this distinction is not made elsewhere in the NT (see above). In addition, the separation of individual and corporate election is illogical, for all groups are comprised of individuals. Others suggest that chapter 9 relates to the historical destiny of Israel, Ishmael, Esau, Jacob and Pharaoh, and thus they conclude that Paul’s discussion is not about salvation at all. Such arguments are unconvincing. Paul is indeed concerned about the historical destiny of Israel, but that destiny is inextricably intertwined with salvation. Paul’s deep grief and willingness to suffer for Israel is precisely because the nation is unsaved (Rom. 9:3; 10:1) in contrast to the Gentiles (Rom. 8:28–39). It is this which precipitates Paul’s discussion in the first place, and he does not leave the issue of salvation behind in Romans 9:6–23. Indeed, in Romans 9 he uses soteriological terms: ‘Abraham’s children’ (Rom. 9:7); ‘children of God’ (9:8); ‘children of the promise’ (9:8); ‘election’ (9:11); the contrast between ‘works’ and ‘call’ (9:12); ‘loved’ and ‘hated’ (9:13); ‘mercy’ (9:15–16, 18); ‘special use’ and ‘ordinary use’ (9:21); and ‘objects of wrath’ and ‘objects of mercy’ (9:22–23). Thus historical destiny must not be divorced from salvation. In fact, chapters 9–11 have a single theme: God’s promise relating to Israel’s salvation, and the conclusion of the argument is that ‘all Israel will be saved’ (Rom. 11:26).
Romans 9, therefore (*cf. Rom. 11:1–10), emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation. He will surely accomplish what he has ordained. Since he chooses people by virtue of his own good pleasure and from his mercy, not on the basis of foreseen works or foreseen faith, his promises will certainly be fulfilled. Those who are dead in trespasses and sins have no ability or inclination to believe (Eph. 2:1–10), and thus the only means by which new life may be obtained is a powerful resurrection work of God.
The biblical teaching on election makes clear that salvation is God’s work, that his purpose will be accomplished, and that his promise to bless all nations will be fulfilled. Of course, such teaching raises questions about human responsibility and divine justice. The scriptures do not provide a complete answer to such questions. They do, however, teach a form of compatibilism in which human responsibility is assumed, even though God has predestined everything which will occur. This tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is articulated in Acts 2:23 and 4:27–28. The death of Jesus was predestined before the foundation of the world, and yet the people who did the evil deed were held responsible for their motives and actions. Nowhere do the scriptures teach that if events are predestined, then those who do what is evil are free from responsibility. Rather, they present God as sovereign over all things, even the toss of the dice (Prov. 16:33), and the choices of human beings as real and significant; people are held responsible for their actions.
Bibliography
D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Themes in Tension (Atlanta, 1981); P. K. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand Rapids, 1985); W. W. Klein, The New Chosen
People: A Corporate View of Election (Grand Rapids, 1990); C. H. Pinnock, The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Grand Rapids, 1989); idem (ed.), Grace Unlimited (Minneapolis, 1975); J. Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids, 21993); T. R. Schreiner and B. A. Ware (eds.), The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1995); R. K. M. Wright, No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong with Free Will Theism (Downers Grove, 1996). ​

(New dictionary of biblical theology, Thomas Schreiner)



blessings,
Ken

 

Bro. Bob wrote:

For what it's worth, Calvinistic statements of faith like the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession explicity state that babies who die in infancy are elect. I find very, very few Calvinists who believe infants are not under special grace, despite the fact that they too are sinners who have fallen short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23).

 

I have learned since being on BB that most on here believe that they are saved but still leave the door open just in case. I don't know about them being sinners for how on earth can an infant sin? Now children can do things that would be sin for someone who had the knowledge of the Commandments but where there is no Law, sin is not imputed so I believe even though they do such things it is not held against them until they receive the knowledge of sin. However, even though most Calvinist don't believe it, the few that do hurts their cause, or at least I think so for it sure touched me when I heard it and I was a sinner at the time. I know it is one subject they find very very hard to defend. I agree they are born with a sinful nature but that was because of Adam's sin and not their own.

 

Annie;
That is a good way to put it so it is easy understood.

 

I can speak from my personal experience as a Born Again Christian. I beleive it was God (the Holy Spirit) who called me, not the other way around.

My eyes were opened to the sin around me and the realization that I was a sinner. This realization dawned on me while I was laying in bed one night quietly thinking. It seemed like if someone flicked a bright light on in a dark room. The only thing I could do is to start sobbing uncontrollably. This realization immediately caused me to repent and opened my heart to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my only true savior.

When I think back, was I drawn to Jesus Christ after this realization? Without a doubt, YES. And not a day goes by that I don't thank and pray to God for what he has done for me. For once I was lost but didn't even know it.

 

That is exactly how it happens brother. You said you repented and opened the door to your heart and accepted Christ. So did I.

 

How does this not violate Man's responsibility for his life?

If God chooses you, you're set. Otherwise, you're doomed.

But since you play no role, you are not responsible. You have no free will. You do not have to choose to do Almighty God's will. You will if God makes you, otherwise no.

How does your interpretation not destroy responsibility?

 

Yes, we all repented. But we didn't repent until we were made aware of our condition. Who made us aware of our condition? What would we have done if our eyes and ears were not opened? Nothing. What could possibly motivate us to repent if we didn't think we needed to repent?

Again, who gives us eyes to see, ears to hear, etc?

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing [comes] by the word (Gr. rhema, utterance) of God". [Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes when God says so]

"Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day."

We don't have a heart to perceive, eyes to see, or ears to hear unless the LORD gives these things to us. Faith comes by hearing, and we can't hear unless the LORD gives us ears to hear.

 

npet;
We are close "tis but a fine line we walk as I said before" close but not completely. I agree entirely that the Spirit has to reveal to us we are lost. It is just that I believe it is revealed to all.

 

:thumbs: No one is predetermined for heaven or hell.It's based on your free willed decision to follow Christ or not.Anything else makes God evil and the cause of suffering and torment on Earth.