Single Predestination

[ivdavid]

Is there really any chance that a child will choose School and Homework with no external requirement?

We've been discussing a lot and in order to avoid a spaghetti discussion, let's recap and agree on what we're exactly arguing for now and what we've already covered...

The logical merits of single predestination was argued over first which led to a fork over whether God had provided a valid path of salvation to the non-elect outside of predestined salvation. I replied in the affirmative and argued that God not only desired the non-elect to repent and live but also showed conditional mercy in giving them a new heart unto repentance with knowledge of the truth in which if they do self-determine to endure in faith to the end, they will be saved (Scriptural references provided). Both of us agree that they themselves certainly self-determine to fall away.

You count this certainty as grounds for predestination but I count it simply as man's self-determinism - which occurs by definition only after predestination and not before any man's good or evil. I'd asked how you hold God to have factored in man's certain destruction, on account of his evil innate nature, without factoring in Adam's future evil that would stand in violation of Rom 9:11 and that's been left open-ended.

On my part, I'd raised the question on how God's nature can be consistent if He desires against what He Himself earlier sovereignly decreed/counselled. This is being discussed now. And what of the Hebrews falling away passages which reveal an initial conditional supernatural work done by God in the non-elect towards salvation. Yet to discuss this here.

You'd asked for single predestination's interpretation of Rom 9 and I listed out related beliefs in a recent post. Hardening is not from predestination but only after the non-elect fill up their measure of iniquity.

So your above question is more about the child self-determining its destiny. And this self-determined choice by definition is not predestined. Which brings us back to the open-ended question earlier - If the certainty is derived only on account of man's own self-determinism, then that's not predestined since such a choice by definition cannot be before any man's good or evil. However, if you can show that the certainty was derived from God's own sovereign decrees to not provide Christ or regeneration as means of salvation to the non-elect, independent of man's own good or evil, then I'd argue over different things but at least we'd have made some progress.

 

[37818]

Not really. It's not just our interpretation that God knows the end from the beginning . . .

I never said any such thing. Are you denying that is according to God's word?

Not really. It's not just our interpretation that God knows the end from the beginning and yet Rom 9:11 places God's election of grace before His factoring in human acts of good or evil - both of which occur before the foundation of the world but having a relative sequence to each other qualified by just the word 'before'. How do you see this as our interpretation outside of scriptures?

What is out side of scripture are interpretations where we would disagree and that being things the written word of God is silent.

Which was my argument:

This is for us between God's spoken word we know about and our interpretations.

So your statment:

Not really.

Was false.

 

[ivdavid]

I never said any such thing. Are you denying that is according to God's word?

You misunderstood. I'm saying it's not just this that is in God's Word but also all that followed that's found in God's word. And since it's all found directly in God's word, it's not our own interpretation.

What is out side of scripture are interpretations where we would disagree and that being things the written word of God is silent.

Again, my point was that the written word of God is not silent on what's being discussed here - and I pointed to those verses which show that it's not just our own interpretation.

 

[JosephBKuzara]

I wasn't referring to hypercalvinism here. Though the calvinist position does get ambiguously confusing to me when I see someone, possibly taking the side of calvinism, writing the following and you agreeing with it -



Am I to read the above as God actively forming but not hardening initially - instead hardening only at a later time when man has filled his measure of iniquity? If so, we are in agreement.


Anyways, I meant that Romans 9 is read by the calvinists as God hating Esau and preparing vessels of mercy and destruction alike from the point of election itself - how then can it not mean God's hardening too from that same point in time? For Romans 9 lays out the parallels of God hardening those who are fitted for destruction, right? If destruction was decreed during election, then how can the hardening that leads to it not be decreed during election itself?

By my use of the word forming I intended it to be used of our existence in the womb. God actively knits us together in the womb decideing beforehand how we will come forth.

Those who God foreknows from eternity past, He sets apart in the womb unto Himself in order to come forth capable to percieve Him and His Sons testimony.

 

[JosephBKuzara]

How does one explain the inconsistency in God's nature to decree one thing first and then desire the exact opposite? God very well can decree as He pleases - but once He has decreed it, He cannot desire against what He Himself has sovereignly decreed.

God can very well counsel/decree to harden anyone, but He cannot desire them to repent and live after decreeing so. So how do you explain Scriptures that reveal such desires of God?

Please provide such examples you are referring too.

 

[ivdavid]

Those who God foreknows from eternity past, He sets apart in the womb unto Himself in order to come forth capable to percieve Him and His Sons testimony.

Single predestination does not deny this. The point of difference is in whether God predestines / foreordains the condemnation of the non-elect at that same point in His mind or if He sovereignly decrees for them to self-determine their own destiny through faith or unbelief. Essentially, does God primarily foreknow... or foreordain their fate?

 

[37818]

Single predestination does not deny this. The point of difference is in whether God predestines / foreordains the condemnation of the non-elect at that same point in His mind or if He sovereignly decrees for them to self-determine their own destiny through faith or unbelief. Essentially, does God primarily foreknow... or foreordain their fate?

Matthew 25:31-46. Theism versus open theism.

 

[ivdavid]

Matthew 25:31-46. Theism versus open theism.

Open theism holds that God cannot foreknow what man will self-determine until it actually occurs, right? How do you read open theism into what I'd written when I'm maintaining God's foreknowledge throughout? The question is if God foreknows through foreordination or not..

 

[ivdavid]

Please provide such examples you are referring too.

I'm guessing you're looking for scriptural references that reveal God's desire for the non-elect to repent and live? There are many if Calvinism didn't redefine plain words as in John 3:16, but pivotal verses would be Matt 23:37 and Eze 33:11.

 

[37818]

Open theism holds that God cannot foreknow what man will self-determine until it actually occurs, right? How do you read open theism into what I'd written when I'm maintaining God's foreknowledge throughout? The question is if God foreknows through foreordination or not..

What erroneously intreperted as open theism only applies to the Son of God on behalf of the Father. Because God is absolutely fully omniscient. Cases of the Son deliberately exercising some limited omniscience, Genesis 22:12, ". . . now I know . . ." and Mark 13:32 explained by Jesus, Acts of the Apostles 1:7, ". . . It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority. . . ." Otherwise the Son of God being the sustainer of all creation is fully omniscient.

 

[JosephBKuzara]

I'm guessing you're looking for scriptural references that reveal God's desire for the non-elect to repent and live? There are many if Calvinism didn't redefine plain words as in John 3:16, but pivotal verses would be Matt 23:37 and Eze 33:11.

For a fact I know that which ever way you try to read into these two passages a single predestination it does not disprove that scripture teaches double predestination.

So I know those two passages do not teach what you are trying to force Into it.

Not just for humans but also for the angels

because God from before both creations decided beforehand knowing He would create culpable beings with vulnerabilities(God has no equal) while allowing certain creatures of both creations to fall knowing very well He could have intervened to prevent that fall as He did with some of the angels that He elected and set apart unto Himself. Of the humans He has chosen to foreknow as His own possession relationally has He also by election set them apart in the womb in order to be heavenly called through the Testimony of the Son. of which brings about there redemption from under wrath by Gods Working.

God knits together every human in the womb, He knows fully well who He has chosen beforehand as a child of promise to be set apart relationally to be His and those He has not set apart in the womb knowing fully well He is the one granting salvation.

It is foolish to think that God would only predestine the elect with the intention to be removed from under His wrath and not also predestine the non-elect who He chose to not set apart that it was not for the intention to remain under his wrath. Knowing full well He can intervene and prevent such an destination yet He sent His Son to only die for the human elect and not all of humanity nor did he come to help the fallen angels as Hebrews 2 teaches.

If God desired and was willing to save all, He having the ability could have intervened upon our will and prevented sin but chose not to. What He chose instead before creation was to make His power known towards vessels fitted for destruction in order to make known the riches of His Glory toward those beforehand elected to receive it.

 

[37818]

. . . Of the humans He has chosen to foreknow as His own possession . . . .

Nonsense. You are arguing God chooses before foreknowing. The written word argues God foreknowing before choosing. ". . . according to foreknowledge . . . ." 1 Peter 1:2. ". . . did foreknow . . . ." Romans 8:29.

 

[JosephBKuzara]

Nonsense. You are arguing God chooses before foreknowing. The written word argues God foreknowing before choosing. ". . . according to foreknowledge . . . ." 1 Peter 1:2. ". . . did foreknow . . . ." Romans 8:29.

Thank you for pointing that out, didn't know that what I was thinking came out backwards in writing. I'll correct it if it lets me . If not then it is known here my intentions were not to have it come out that way .God foreknows relationally those who He chose as children of promise to receive the riches of His Glory.

 

[JosephBKuzara]

Why are we limited in the amount of edits we have on our own responses? But also why can't we delete a post?

 

[atpollard]

Why are we limited in the amount of edits we have on our own responses? But also why can't we delete a post?

It is a time limit for editing.
Don't sweat it.

As a moderator on another site, I know THAT OTHER SITE installed such a limitation when a poster decided to leave and in a fit of spite deleted every post they had ever made. It left large holes in conversations that made them impossible to follow. THIS SITE may have had similar problems or are preempting some other problem that they have experienced or know of.
(So I cut them a lot of slack on not being able to edit after a certain time).

If it is vitally important, report the post yourself and request a moderator to edit or delete it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nonsense. You are arguing God chooses before foreknowing. The written word argues God foreknowing before choosing. ". . . according to foreknowledge . . . ." 1 Peter 1:2. ". . . did foreknow . . . ." Romans 8:29.

Not foreknowledge though as classical arminism postulates, as His knowing refers to calling them out already as his own covenant people, as he directly determines that to happen, not just passive and observing their faith in Christ happening!

 

[37818]

Why are we limited in the amount of edits we have on our own responses? But also why can't we delete a post?

If something you posted was not how you meant to say it, high light that portion of the text and reply to it with your correction. Or just reply to your whole post and make the correction. Or reply to person again with the restated post.

 

[JosephBKuzara]

Of the humans He has foreknown as His own possession relationally and has chosen from eternity, He also by such election set them apart in the womb in order to be heavenly called through the Testimony of the Son knowing He would grant and work salvation into them. of which brings about there redemption from under wrath by Gods Working.

 

[ivdavid]

For a fact I know that which ever way you try to read into these two passages a single predestination it does not disprove that scripture teaches double predestination.

This is a debate forum and there are no facts simply by repeated assertion until evidenced from scriptural consistency. Again, I do not wish to engage in a hostile or defensive environment - we're each simply sharing how we arrive at our respective beliefs. We provide our reasons and scriptural basis and the other considers while raising inconsistencies or asking for clarifications.

So I know those two passages do not teach what you are trying to force Into it.

What am I trying to 'force' into it? I could equally say Calvinism forces double predestination of man into scriptures and where do we go from there... Let's instead engage with incremental arguments towards truth. I merely observed God revealing His desire for non-elect man to repent and live from those two references - do you not see this at all from the same?

Not just for humans but also for the angels

God doesn't deal with man and angels the same - Christ didn't take on the nature of angels to make redemption possible for them, neither has God revealed any desire for non-elect angels to repent and live. If God had dealt with non-elect man exactly the same where He does absolutely no supernatural work in them towards salvation desiring them to repent and live, I'd agree it's consistent if God had left them with no redemption possible. But we must go where Scriptures go.

It is foolish to think that God would only predestine the elect with the intention to be removed from under His wrath and not also predestine the non-elect who He chose to not set apart that it was not for the intention to remain under his wrath.

Why do you think God's intention is for them to remain under His wrath from the beginning? Why couldn't God be demonstrating His nature contrasted against man's self-determinism by genuinely desiring the same end for all in life until dealing with their evil as a just judge when they've filled up their measure of iniquity and being completed for destruction?

If God desired and was willing to save all, He having the ability could have intervened upon our will and prevented sin but chose not to. What He chose instead before creation was to make His power known towards vessels fitted for destruction in order to make known the riches of His Glory toward those beforehand elected to receive it.

We've been discussing this on this thread... Hardening doesn't occur from the time of predestining. I've gone through Romans 9 just earlier as reference. God's choosing not to prevent sin could be on account of His sovereign decree to permit man to self-determine his fate - why must it be only the options you surmise?

 

[JosephBKuzara]

Because God is the one working salvation in those who he chose and solely purposed with accordance to His good pleasure and will from eternity (ephe1:4-5)to set these many apart in the womb(gal 1:15).knowing the atonement to which He limited to only save many sinners unconditionally while granting only them to be drawn toward Christ (John 6:44) ,calling only the children of Abraham(gal 3:7) through and to be reborn spiritually by the Gospel (2 thess2:14;1 Peter 1:23), to repent( acts 11:18;2tim2:25)and believe(Philip 1:29). Other declared sinners are not intervened upon purposely to be worked in by God by His eternal decision. Sense God from before the creations chose who was to be set apart unto Himself and live. it is only logical to conclude backed by scripture that God also decided in that same moment to decree the impossibility of other culpable creatures to not recieve an outlet from under His wrath.

So even though as culpable certain humans will remain enslaved to sin thus under His Wrath not only because of Adams sin but of those who consciously can sin unwittingly and wittingly toward there own destruction, it was God who decreed and decided beforehand by not granting them any outlet from under his wrath He wanted His Authority to be made known through.

So there fate is not self-determined as humanity was not only allowed to fall (God deciding to not intervene when He could have) but also provided no possibility to ever have an outlet from under God's wrath while being held culpable through Adam and there own sins.

So those who are consciouly and unconsciously(mentally incapable to percieve) bound by culpability through Adam and there own sin being enslaved to sin and spiritually dead , not knowing God and disobeying the Gospel(which is not accomplished through Divine wrath) perish alike (2 thess 1:8) predestined by God's eternal choice to never have an outlet. Sense they could never have the possibility to be saved there fate is not self-determined but was decided from eternity for them while holding them culpable.(1 Peter 2:8)

So anything you wish to interpret God desireing that the reprobate to repent and live makes no sense. Because if God desired all to repent and live could he have not accomplished it as He did other culpable sinners that He decreed and worked in ensuring them an outlet from under His wrath by His permission! Does God command all to repent yes, but He does not desire all to repent and live but only those He foreknew relationally unconditionally choosing them from eternity to be granted such an outlet.

59. What is “double predestination,” and does the bible teach it?