Why...

Both predestination and free will are scriptural. It is up to us to discern how they apply and interact in God's plan.

I find the key passage is Rom 8:29-31 which has been discussed ad nauseum, right. But basically God foreknew -- then He predestined believers and foreordained all things. Now looking back, some say God wasn't/couldn't first just foresee our acceptance or rejection of Christ. Why not? That would support the notion that we have free will, for one thing.

They say that God foreknowing was actually Him making us who we would be predestining every event and then foreordaining His entore plan.

As I am discussing with Larry, this means that we have 2 "gods" -- one of "free will" and one of "fate." In ancient cultures, we would have been fine with that (witness the totem pole). In those days (even up to the end of the Reformation) it was more important, men felt, to have a unified society than to understand Who true God was. Today within a religion that only allows one God, we are denominating Him according to the "God" we believe in.


That is, we don't have the problem of the "wheat and tares" which is OT Israel. We have the problem of the "mustard tree." From one seed, Christ, we have one trunk, Christianity, numerous "branches," denominations, and "birds," demonic spirits, are flocking to many of these branches! We are thus united in salvation (Eph 4:3) throughout many denoms (as Rev 2-3 avers) but we cannot seem to get united in one knowledge and faith of Christ (Eph 4:13).

What is the reason for the branches in the first place? To serve the function of "restrainer!" So that the true church would never merge with the harlot, Babylon religion in Rome! And the Protestant/Reform was the first major working of the Spirit against the "mystery of iniquity" branch.

But this is where Reform comes in -- though they found a different God, they ended up defining Him as God only of fate and grace (overreaction to RCC God of free will and works). He's BOTH, David! We see BOTH in scriptures! "Having a name that liveth but art dead" (Rev 3:1) isn't that much progress from the "God of idols" and Jezebel that they left.

His coming kingdom and the one He offered at the time was with Israel "reigning" over the world but serving Him. This is the manner by which they would be a "blessing to the Gentiles nations of the world" as promised to Abraham, etal. Roles would have been reversed. They would have brought salvation to us rather than we to them.

And it is hard to distinguish looking backward, which came first -- foreknowledge or determinant purpose. Like I said, the only passage I know of that teaches the order explicitly is Rom 8:29-31.

Right. Neither God of fate nor God of free will but of both.

And also in scripture we find that "God of free will AND FATE" changed His mind regarding the flood, the destruction of Lot, the death of Hezekiah, the gathering of Israel as a hen, destroying Nineveh, etc. Why? Determinate purpose OR foreknowledge and mercy? Both -- foreknowledge and then, explaining His own "changed mind," foreordination to have mercy.

Yes, but can you see that by explaining it this way, we are not made privey to the process of "foreordination" -- we are supposed to find and to understand that information elsewhere.

Yes, indicating that He won't change His mind regarding the salvation of even one saint -- at least not after He changes His mind to save them based upon their BELIEF!

No, actually the scenario you offer would be that God couldn't FORESEE how to integrate His plan in a world where He had let man have personal sovereignty and make sovereign choices. Do you think God can't "see?"

Right, none in the "course of time." The "course of time" is for "calling, justifying, glorifying" IAW Rom 8:30-31, right? Changing His mind was done in the process of "foreknow-foreordain" -- what I would call the "free will-fate" process God being the God of both, not just one or the other (Cal. vs Arm.) as Calvinism tries to make it. Do you see that paradigm creates 2 "Gods" out of One?

"37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me [FREE WILL], and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out [FATE]. ."​

skypair

 

Right. But assuming we are saved, we have the same God, baptism, etc. -- we just need to know Him better.

Mine, but not yours.

Because it can't be otherwise or because He won't be otherwise? You have this thing about "nature" that doesn't allow God to sin nor man to do good, right? In both cases, there is a "law of nature" overseeing the will. But in God's case, if there is a law that disallows God sinning, then by your description, it comes from a higher power than Him else He would have free will too.

In man, you reckon such sin nature and man's inability to not sin to be from God, right? Apparently in your paradigm (though you may not have seen it), God has a nature that He CAN'T sin -- He has no free will either. Perhaps He too is a victim of fate. Fate just merely means that we have no choices or if we exercise them, there is no cause and effect relationship with the outcomes.

That pretty much puts a pretty bow on Calvinisn, doesn't it? Calling "nature," not God, the determinant. We've already agreed that man can be relieved of that nature -- why not God of His?

So in your thology, Jesus wasn't "in all ways tempted as we are yet without sin." Cause when we are tested, we have a choice to make. You say Jesus didn't though? Couldn't have bowed down to Satan and received the kingdoms of the world? Couldn't have called 10,000 angels to catch Him lest He break His foot? Couldn't turn stone to bread cause He is hungry? Or do you think Jesus wasn't God?

Perhaps you would agree that God won't sin because He has given us His word to that effect and shown that He can keep His promises?

Well then this is the first place where we can have unity of the knowledge of Christ -- babies are NOT condemned, Larry. Not by the Bible, not by God. They, like Adam before the fall, are INNOCENT and will have their chance to trust Christ following the resurrection of the just (Isa 49:20-23).

The reason I bring it up time and again is that if what I say is true, it destroys most of Calvinism. You no doubt detect that and yet cannot find or cannot admit the truth (not in your "nature" :laugh: ). You go with the "theology" of sin nature taught by Calvin rather than, IMO, the Bible. Ezek 18:20 is your answer as to whether sin passes from Adam unto all -- it doesn't. But it would destroy total inability to admit this "nature" and to say that natural men no longer can know good.

As we used to say at summer camp skit, "If it looks like poop, smells like poop, and tastes like poop -- it's poop alright!" Correct me at what point I am wrong concerning Calvinism on this but basically man can only do what is in his own nature unless God intervenes. God has a plan and His plans will be done, not ours.

Here's the big one in my mind: God doesn't change His mind/plan just because we pray. We could never see Elijah pray 3 times over the widow's dead son and that be the reason God restored his life. No. It was God's plan all along and God "made" Elijah respond that way to the boy's death. So all is fate. Like Sproul said (and I assume you would as well), "Praying doesn't change God's mind."

But here's one more bit of evidence for the "God of fate" you say you don't worship --- even intervention is the "hand of fate."

But look -- show me something that doesn't happen because God planned it that way and because God changed His mind so I can start taking back what I said about you.

I am convinced that your "mirror" is "dark." You do not see yourself as clearly as you think. And as you "look into a glass" (scripture), you are changed to what you think you see. I know my wife hates it when I don't like what she picks to wear sometimes. This is one of those issues.

His decree" of condemnation of the lost is without choice on their part, is it not? The choice of the "elect" is only apparently by choice because they do something other than what they were doing. Again, so we are talking about the same thing --- "fate" means that even though we apparently choose, there is not one atom of God's plan for our lives or our destinies that we can change (whereas at this point, free will would say we can pray receiving salvation in Christ and it would change God's mind/plan regarding our destiny.). Do you believe this? Or would you like to take a stab at redefining "fate" for me so that it is NOT what you believe?

Actually, I read the premise in Sproul's book positing what free willers might be thinking. Apparently it is not a charge that Calvinists consider unthinkable of themselves.

Anyway, that is how Greek "fate" works. If you are to understand my contentions and, perhaps your own theology, it might be worth being a bit more "concerned" as to what Greek "fate" is and comparing it to what you believe. I'm slowly getting this "model" of Calvinism wherein I see them worshipping a different God strictly of fate (whereas mine is of both free will and fate). And in days gone by, we would have included Him in our pantheon and kept our society together. But now with us both admitting that there is only one true God who is to be worshipped "in spirit and in truth," we can't really do that, can we? And we can't really have "Christians" going through life as if their decisions and acts were meaningless moves on a chessboard, can we?

Are you familiar with "all is fate?" You appear to make choices. So does everyone around you. But on account of fate, they can't (there's that word again). Fate, some higher power, has already decided what will happen.

skypair

 

The OP posited that, as brothers, we ought to be able to grow into "unity of knowledge and faith in Christ." Paul didn't mince words about those who come into the church "unawares" to us and subvert the "simplicity that is in Christ." Indeed, the "mustard tree" has many "foul spirits" "lodging" in her branches, wouldn't you say?

If you mean to be a help, then clear up some of these issues such as "god of fate" vs. "god of free will and fate."

skypair

 

????????

Larry,

I got one more thing I forgot to mention --- do you agree with this idea that if God didn't "fate" the "elect" to be saved, NNE would receive Christ?? I mean, call it "irresistible grace" or "effectual calling" or whatever -- basically it is not by human "free will" to believe what the Spirit says and be saved.

'Cause really, this is a "tenet" I have heard everywhere of Calvin's TULIP theory.

skypair

 

How is it FREE, Larry?? Is God "God" if He is not FREE??

So you say. I'm OK with your understanding of that so far.

I think what you are saying is that to "relieve God of His 'box'" that we have put Him in. Take holiness. What impact does it have on your theology if God is holy because He chooses to be rather than because He has to be??

Yes. Just like God, eh?

In what way? I'm not aware here so please explain.

OK, you alluding to a scripture there and an interpretation of it. "In Adam all sin." right? Does that mean at birth? or eventually? Or is that your source?

I don't recall but if you did, I don't know why I wasn't convinced. And for my part, I have also demonstrated time and again. Who's right, Larry?? Do you agree the correct answer is pretty critical to Calvinism??

Not true. My very next comment answers to my assertion.

That's a good idea -- what IS fate to you? And does God change His mind??

OK, did God plan to kill the widow's child? He's poor, yes. But he is young. Why would God "plan" for him to die?? Why would God then bring his soul back into him at Elijah's request? Do you know that this is the first time this ever happened in the whole Bible? Why would Elijah even pray that if he thought God never changes His mind? (no fair coming back with the "Calvinist copout," either. That merely shows you are not using the "mind of Christ" you've been given.)

According to you, they didn't/can't "choose" sin -- it is their "nature." How can you say they ever had a choice (or the God ever had a choice?)?

"Working out His purpose" in utter disregard of His creatures. That's almost offensive to me if you indeed agree that God is love!

Good. That's progress. Now you need to come over and worship the God of the Bible and not the "Fate God" of Calvinism! If you are starting to detect the distinction, let me tell you -- the God of the Bible is the God of free will and fate. He changes His mind in eternity past when His foreknowledge tells Him what His creatures will do with "go great a salvation!" or when they pray. The God of the Bible INTERACTS with His creation -- He is NOT the great "Puppet Master" called "Fate."

I am sure you believe in my God but just cannot admit it or, at least, acknowledge it. raying:

skypair

 

OK (1) and you didn't make that same comeback? It's important to keep in mind but I also assumed in the OP and since that you were saved. (2) Apparently that is not what comes first for you. What's first in Calvinism is regeneration or, alternatively, "election," is it not? Belief (= faith) comes afterward. Do you not see that personal "fate" has more to do with salvation than personal belief under that paradigm?? (3) The "mustard tree" a paradigm which I doubt you were aware of and is worth considering by way of warning. Get a grip -- it's applicable to every branch.

I have not been shown how your God is not a god of fate, that's true. And for your part, all you can show me is a God that predestined everything before He foreknew it. That is what "fate" is. A God who takes no mind of what His creation does or doesn't do -- whose "plan" is unchangable at some point along its preparation -- is so sovereign that it is at least as if His creation had no life. Now compare that to the "foreknowledge" (of free will) AND "predestination" (of His plan) model I have been endorsing and see that God interacts with His creation just like the Bible says.

Free will and predestination are BOTH scriptural tenets. You apparently only see one. And I'm sure you won't worship a God that you can't see and don't know.

Apparently the "motive" of not wanting to make this a learning, edifying, brotherly experience outweighs the excuse of not having time for us.

skypair

 

Yes. The way I see it, God knows ALL -- good and evil. The serpent was right. Adam and Eve could be like God in that respect if they ate the fruit. So the knowledge of evil is not darkness. We even know this from the NT. It is no sin to be tempted -- Jesus was tempted. There's no temptation without knowledge (i.e. infants, right?).

Yet knowing evil, God does not cause, do, or protect evil, does He? No. That would be darkness.

If God can't do something, He is not God. It is a very elementary principle that God is omnipotent. Another is that no one sets the rules for God to follow. The impossibility of lying regards retaining His character as God as much as Jesus resisting temptation proved His character and that He was God.

"cannot disobey Himself" or else what? I can show you what -- Rom says that if God owes man anything, then He is not God. With sin comes obligation to make something right.

He could, therefore, sin if He was willing to put someone else on the throne. It's just like you. You sin -- you owe God -- you have put self or Satan on the throne. But now, because of sin, you've lost your freedom, right? Same would be true of God (i.e. Jesus in the wilderness).

So I would say it is still "Self-discipline" that keeps God from doing whatever He wants. However, we are in the realms of theory and there may be something you can point out that I didn't consider. If so, fire away! :laugh:

skypair