Predestination

[effie g-tad]

Originally Posted by Arcane

There is no free will with predestination. If you were created not to believe then that's not really free will is it?

However I am willing to entertain that perhaps my understanding of the terms are flawed.

not so much flawed (that would provide nice entertianment ), but too narrow, imho.

go from the idea(l?) of coincidences - that can be great (entertainment, 2).

[Arcane]

Originally Posted by effie briest

not so much flawed (that would provide nice entertianment ), but too narrow, imho.

go from the idea(l?) of coincidences - that can be great (entertainment, 2).

I'm sorry, but really I don't know what your saying in that second line.

Just to perhaps reiterate, I understand the various forms of predestination, but I do assume Calvin's to be the traditional form however. Either way, I don't believe in it from a supernatural standpoint. There are contradictions in logic and paradoxes that simply make it not possible to have a determined destination if free will is true. But, I'm willing to admit maybe I'm missing something here. I've just yet to read any convincing account of predestination.

Originally Posted by Arcane

There is no free will with predestination. If you were created not to believe then that's not really free will is it?

However I am willing to entertain that perhaps my understanding of the terms are flawed.

That is the gist of it. Predestination is not God choosing some to be justified and others not to be justified. Predestination is from the standpoint of being 'In Christ' - from this point on you will be glorified. It is a done deal and God sees to it that he completes the work of salvation. To be elect is to have a favored status with God because of you sonship. This is why in the Bible predestination is only spoken of in regard to Believers - those who are in Christ, it is never spoken of about unbelievers. That is why in your first definition it is a complete and non Scriptual inference that if God chose some for belief then he chose some for unbelief. But that is not the case in the NT.

[DBDavis]

This is a subject that I've found very disturbing and confusing for a while.

This is all about Calvinism, which is summed up by the TULIP acronym.

T=Total Depravity (humans have no ability to be sinless and/or cooperate with God's salvation plan),

U=Unconditional Election (God decides who will be saved NOT based on merit or anything else we can understand--it's His business who he saves and why),

L=Limited Atonement (Jesus' sacrifice was only for some people, not all),

I=Irresistible Grace (if you're being called, then the calling is irresistible), and

P = perseverance of the saints (the Elect will not fall away from their Christian belief)

There are a lot of people who lean toward the Calvinist side. A lot are 4 point Calvinists and believe all 4 points except Limited Atonement.

Calvinists are brutally effective at debating their points. Honestly, in every argument I've seen, the Calvinist laid out high opponent's arguments and sliced them up and had them for lunch. Try arguing with one sometime and you'll see, LOL. Their doctrine seems completely internally consistent and is capable of explaining a vast array of very difficult questions. For examples: Does someone go to Hell if he literally never heard anything about God or Jesus? Do babies go to Hell if they die before repenting? Why do some people seem "saved" but then fall away? The mental gymnastics required to explain some of these without Calvinism are so extreme that they stretch my faith.

Thinking back to my own conversion, it is difficult to say if God came after me or if I wanted to believe in him and follow him. I honestly don't know.

All we can do is trust that He is good and perfectly just.

Originally Posted by DBDavis

This is a subject that I've found very disturbing and confusing for a while.

This is all about Calvinism, which is summed up by the TULIP acronym.

T=Total Depravity (humans have no ability to be sinless and/or cooperate with God's salvation plan),

U=Unconditional Election (God decides who will be saved NOT based on merit or anything else we can understand--it's His business who he saves and why),

L=Limited Atonement (Jesus' sacrifice was only for some people, not all),

I=Irresistible Grace (if you're being called, then the calling is irresistible), and

P = perseverance of the saints (the Elect will not fall away from their Christian belief)

There are a lot of people who lean toward the Calvinist side. A lot are 4 point Calvinists and believe all 4 points except Limited Atonement.

Calvinists are brutally effective at debating their points. Honestly, in every argument I've seen, the Calvinist laid out high opponent's arguments and sliced them up and had them for lunch. Try arguing with one sometime and you'll see, LOL. Their doctrine seems completely internally consistent and is capable of explaining a vast array of very difficult questions. For examples: Does someone go to Hell if he literally never heard anything about God or Jesus? Do babies go to Hell if they die before repenting? Why do some people seem "saved" but then fall away? The mental gymnastics required to explain some of these without Calvinism are so extreme that they stretch my faith.

Thinking back to my own conversion, it is difficult to say if God came after me or if I wanted to believe in him and follow him. I honestly don't know.

All we can do is trust that He is good and perfectly just.

Calvinism is internally coherant but it is not correspondant to the NT because they always set up the parameters and the definitions (many of which are hotly debated) from which they argue from. Those who argue with them fail because they try to argue from their presuppositions. They also try to subject God to their logic or logic in general and God is not necessarily subject to human logic. The question should be - what do the Scriptures say? Your 2nd to last sentence is a false dichotomy - why can't it be both? God not only ordains the means but the end and the Scriptures teach that God not only pursues you but that you must exercise faith. If this can not be understood by us (and I am not saying it can not nor that it will conflict with logic) we must let the Sriptures speak for themselves. Basically Calvinism is a strawman that is internally coherant and people then fall for it because they do not think any further and this is the only way they win converts - and then get upset that you are ordained to believe otherwise and yet still be a Christain -Go figure. Is anything to hard for God? Calvinism fails because it crams God into a simplistic entity - a reductionist approach because they have a hard time finding out the mysteries of how God works and weaves togehter His will and mans will and so they are not able to systemitize it - so they just slap determinism over everything to make it go away. This coupled with basic logic skills, prescibed definitions and a little twisting of the Scriptures with a dab of inventing categories like the two wills of God or the two calls of God - blah blah blah - they make their case seem convincing.

[DBDavis]

Interesting stuff, Shiloh1. That's a lot to think about.

As for me, I'm not sure what I believe with respect to predestination vs free will. To my simplistic mind, both seem supported in the Bible. For example, there's 1st Timothy 2:4 which I have a hard time reconciling with John 6:44.

I'm curious why John 6:44 doesn't go a long way toward proving predestination. I would sincerely like some enlightenment on this one because it's troubled me for a while.

Honestly, the biggest problem I have with Calvinists is a completely worldly one. All of the ones whose stuff I've read seem to think they have a monopoly on being able to accurately read the Bible. They seem arrogant and know-it-all-ish and this gets my hackles up.

[ShanaBrown]

As for me, I'm not sure what I believe with respect to predestination vs free will. To my simplistic mind, both seem supported in the Bible. For example, there's 1st Timothy 2:4 which I have a hard time reconciling with John 6:44.

I'm curious why John 6:44 doesn't go a long way toward proving predestination. I would sincerely like some enlightenment on this one because it's troubled me for a while.

Hi DBDavis. I believe that the Father draws people to Himself at different times. All will not come to Him now because He has predestined some to be the first fruits of His harvest. It is all according to His purpose. Eventually all will be drawn to Him because He will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. This is His intention. Since God sees beginning to end and knows all that will happen, I do believe in predestination, but I do not believe that people are predestined to go to eternal hell while others are predestined for eternal heaven. It was His good pleasure to reconcile all to Himself. (Colossians 1)God bless.

Originally Posted by DBDavis

Interesting stuff, Shiloh1. That's a lot to think about.

As for me, I'm not sure what I believe with respect to predestination vs free will. To my simplistic mind, both seem supported in the Bible. For example, there's 1st Timothy 2:4 which I have a hard time reconciling with John 6:44.

I'm curious why John 6:44 doesn't go a long way toward proving predestination. I would sincerely like some enlightenment on this one because it's troubled me for a while.

Honestly, the biggest problem I have with Calvinists is a completely worldly one. All of the ones whose stuff I've read seem to think they have a monopoly on being able to accurately read the Bible. They seem arrogant and know-it-all-ish and this gets my hackles up.

I think the trouble with this verse and with John particularly is that it is vague on the issues surrounding predestination. John 6:44 contextually is putting the intiation upon God not man - I do not think we should read anymore into it than that. It says nothing about the nature of how or in what manner God draws people (except in v.45 it hints at it). We know from other Scriptures that by His Spirit He opens the eyes, heart, convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, uses the preaching of the gospel, ect. ect. Calvinism really plays-up the word draw to practically mean - to force or drag. But words have a range of meaning often drawn out (pardon the pun) from the surrounding context. In verse 40 notice the paralell with 'seeing the Son' and 'believing' and 'I will raise him up at the last day.' and verse 44 'draws' and 'I will raise him up at the last day.' Question: Why would the Father have to draw someone to regenerate them? - in a Calvinists framework there is no necessity for that - God just does it and you will then believe. Notice that in verse 40 that it is the Father's will that all who 'believe' may have everlasting life. Now notice verse 45 'Therefore, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes (is drawn) to Me.' Why? because they have recieved the teaching - the preperatory Words of God in the OT regarding the Messiah and the Words of the Messiah himself (that is they have heard and learned - Understood) who he was to be and in so doing they recieved Him unlike those who were rejecting Him. The Law and the Promise (of Messaih) were a schoolmaster to lead them to Christ so that when he arrived he would be recieved - this is how God draws people through the Word and the Spirit but they must be heard, learned, and believed. Now notice the summary of Jesus in verse 47 'he who believes in Me has everlasting life.'

More could be said about the larger contextual issues - like the whole theme of John's gospel being against a Calvinist bent and some other grammatical points but that is just to much writing right now