Predestination

Re: Matt 7: 7-11

Are you choosing to ask? If you are predestined to choose to ask, why would the Bible tell us to ask? I believe that God gives us what we need as Christians, but this wasn’t the question. If God gives us a directive to “ask” and to “knock”, it clearly implies that we have a choice to do so, else these are meaningless words.

This passage speaks to the condition of man under Old Testament law. The very point of this passage is to contrast this OT context with what has been made possible through the New Covenant. The very next passages in Romans 3 state:
Romans 3: 19-31
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Righteousness Through Faith

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

This shows the danger of taking something out of context. What you quoted spoke to the OT condition of man which was changed by the gift made possible by Christ’s sacrifice. Also note that the line “No one seeks God” would have to apply to the elect too.

Your interpretation comes pretty close to playing word games with this passage. This is a passage to Christians and along with the rest of Romans 8 is essentially an encouragement to Christians. It speaks to our new life through the Spirit and contrasts it to life under the Law. It says you can’t reach God through the Law. You need to live by the Spirit. To state the obvious, all of this would be pointless to say if we didn’t have any choice as Christians, but that’s the secondary issue.

The key point is about the choice to accept the Gift God has offered us. This has nothing to do with pleasing God through the Law so it really has nothing to do with this passage. Note also the trickery of saying that the Gift only occurs if you “believe in Christ” and believing in Christ would be pleasing to God so this can’t be a free will choice. To this I say, go talk to someone who had a big born again experience as an adult or a young adult and ask them about it. How the Gift works and what needs to be known about Jesus are interesting questions. Clearly not very much needs to be known about Jesus because there are lot of examples, even Biblical examples, of people being regenerated after just meeting him or hearing about him. Even as Christians we spend our whole lives getting to know Jesus. There are many quite outrageously untrue assertions out there about what knowing Jesus means in this situation. On one extreme is what the Bible itself says about Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith even before Jesus was born on the earth by believing God.

Romans 4
Abraham Justified by Faith
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[1]

Note that this doesn’t preclude the this justification being made possible by Christ’s sacrifice. Much more could be said about this issue but I have no wish to discuss it with Kate with all her games and misrepresentations. Talk to someone who has had an adult or a young adult born again experience. I submit that they will tell you two key things relevant to this discussion. First, there clearly is a choice to be made. And second, you simply cannot understand very much at all about Jesus before hand. The choice is a very very deep and personal choice, but it’s not complicated or full of legal loopholes like Kate is trying make you believe.

2 Cor 4
1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Corinthians was written to Christians in the church at Corinth, and it deals essentially with church issues. (Note also the warnings about distorting the word of God.) The part of this passage that you quoted relates to the church’s interaction with non-Christians. I’m sure that all Christians who became Christians as adults will tell you that they understood the Bible radically differently afterwards. This says nothing about the choice to enter into a relationship with God. Many people in the Bible even who came to God did not read the Bible first.

I believe that this is a reference to the above passage from Romans that you used out of context, so I’ll refer this back to those comments.

In Romans 9 Paul is speaking to his “unceasing anguish” about the fact that the Jews as a whole did not choose God. The OT speaks of many promises that were made to them. Paul goes on to say that God’s word hasn’t failed because “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” So this along with much of Romans is about there not being a pre-selected people, at least not in the case of those descended from the tribes of Israel. There are parts of this chapter that are not clear to me, but this greater context is quite clear. Does it make sense that God would choose not to predestine one group and instead select another? What would be the point? If he was going to predestine a group surely he would have only done it once. If he opened up salvation to the gentiles because the Jews turned away, then there was choice involved and we’re not taking about the Reform position on predestination.

When he says he will “have mercy on whom he will have mercy” I believe that he’s talking about his choice not to make the Jews the elect by birth, and I believe that he’s also talking about the roles that he ascribed to Jacob and Esau. There are lot of things in the chapter that are challenging for many different reasons, however.

I won’t address the passage about Lydia as I have already done so earlier.

If people don’t have the ability to choose God then why would it matter if they know he exists or not? There is nothing to be excused for in that situation because there is nothing they can do. They have no choices to make that would require an excuse for not making. The only way the term “excuse” makes sense, I submit, is if it relates to the choice to enter into a personal relationship with God.

 

While you're at it, exactly how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? I say 33,000 and not an angel more.

 

I’m not following your argument here at all. He didn’t say all nations. He said all men.

I think I’ve found something that refers to your reference, but it seems unlikely to be correct:
The language used (all men) is very sweeping. It could refer to the nations, which fits with the coming of the Greeks in this context (cf. Chrysostom In John 67.3; Barrett 1978:427). B. F. Westcott, however, says the phrase "must not be limited in any way" (1908:2:129), for God's love for the whole world is revealed on the cross. Christ is "the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn 2:2). Indeed, some manuscripts, versions and church fathers (most notably p66, followed by all Latin versions; cf. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.2.7; Augustine In John 52.11) read not all men (pantas) but "all things" (panta), pointing to the cosmic implications of Christ's death (cf. Rom 8:19-22; Eph 1:10; Col 1:20). John does not suggest, however, that everyone will in fact be drawn to Jesus. The present text shows folk rejecting him or simply being confused, and the next section is a reflection on the mystery of unbelief (12:37-43). Satan, the jailer, has been mortally wounded, and Jesus, the liberator, is standing in the cell, but many prisoners prefer to remain in bondage!
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/webcommentary?language=english&version=niv&book=john&chapter=12#3

How many of the 11 other passages I gave you that say that Christ died for all men have you addressed, btw?

This is an interesting point you raise and it may give us a clue as to what the passage in Romans 8 really means. The serious flaw, however, is that you’ve provided no justification for linking the use of “called” in both verses so I’ll have to disregard that comment. What links these two passages is that they are both being spoken to Christians alone. The Corinthians passages were directed right to the church at Corinth. We know from a dozen or so Bible passages that everyone is called, but in this sense perhaps this “called” means “called and accepted” since he’s talking directly to Christians who have both been called and accepted the call. I’d have to get into my Strong’s to investigate that further, but not tonight. At any rate the fact that in both cases he’s talking directly to people who are already Christians I suspect provides some important context for the comment and its apparent contradiction to the rest of the Bible.

You missed the point. If God foreordained ALL that will come to pass, then the Bible would be pointless. It would tell us nothing that would have any affect on us at all because all would already be foreordained.

What the Bible really says is that God foreordains on a macro level, and he gives individuals the choice to be part of that. God is holding a banquet but he has not foreordained who will come.

Matthew 22

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
5"But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

Note the numerous references to choices made one way and the other.

And here’s a bonus passage from a little further down.
The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

This again is a telling passage. The faithless spiritual leaders are hung up on legalisms and Christ is showing him what his character is really all about. The same is true today. How does the doctrine of predestination help you love your neighbour as yourself? Does it hurt your doing this? Does in separate them from you and cause you to be indifferent and hardhearted to them because you believe they are not of the elect? Again, if this doctrine does not encourage good fruit in people’s lives and only encourages bad fruit, then I think that is solid evidence of where it really comes from. I think we could direct this right at you Kate. You have shown an uncommon obsession with utterly insignificant legalisms in this thread, like the gender specific pronoun for the Holy Spirit, and several have commented on you hardhearted attitude toward those you consider to be the not of the elect. Could this doctrine be fooling you into believing you are a Christian when in fact you are not? I never ask people this and generally I really object to the way it is usually done, but in this case I think it’s appropriate. Kate, how do you know you are a Christian?

 

Lovely. And previously you apologised for “making me feel judged.” Manipulative and deceitful to the end. Lest anyone be fooled, and by this time I truly hope no one is, I have never and could never feel judged by you Kate. Christians know that they can neither judge or be judged by other people. This is one of the absolute fundamentals of Christianity. Nor have you upset me, but you have sure awakened me to the dangers of this doctrine. I have a lot more sympathy for the Catholics complaints about the old line Protestant churches now. Like it was for the Catholics, this shows the danger of being drawn into tradition and putting the creation of man ahead of the word of God, IMO.

 

wow...color me disappointed all the way around. i wish it would have all been confined to email.

 

You prove my point for me Kate and yet you’re so Spiritually blind you can’t even see it. I’m not sure whether to understand you as a victim or a perpetrator. I think you yourself might be the best example of the dangers of this doctrine. You apparently have yourself convinced that you’re one of “the elect”, in spite of the fact that, at least as far as what you’ve displayed in this thread goes, you bear none of the signs of a real Christian and many of the signs of a false prophet. To be clear, I have no problem with people of other denominations. Some of the most inspirational Christians in my life have been Catholics, in fact. I cringe when they pray to Mary and other such things, but there is no doubt that these people live love and exude love. They show the signs of being true Christians. But other than a few clearly empty words, I see no love in you. You don’t bear the signs of Christian. You have been consistent in your deceit, misrepresentations, diversions, clear misrepresentations of the word of God, callous disregard for the plight of other human beings, slippery attempts to infer power and authority onto yourself, all thinly veiled by a smarmy piety that claims to be very concerned with trivial legalities like the proper use of the pronoun for the Holy Spirit. To the best of my ability to discern, you are a tree of thistles Kate. I see no good fruit, no genuine love of your fellow man, and no concern for honest ethical conduct in you. I see you as a modern day Pharisee. The Bible gives clear direction on how to recognise people like you, and from what I can see you fit the stereotype.

I need to make a clear statement about Kate. It is not for me or anyone else to judge anyone else, but it is for us to discern. Since Kate started this thread and has been representing her/himself as a Christian and as an “elect” I need to say this in response. I see nothing about the way Kate has behaved here and nothing in what Kate has posted that even hint to me that Kate might be a real Christian. I do not believe that Kate is a real Christian and I don’t believe that what she has posted here is correct or Godly at all. If there are any Christians out there whose faith she/he has hurt or any non-Christians who have been put off by Kate, please do not judge the faith by one individual who only claims to be Christian. In fact many many people who claim to be Christian are not.

Matt 7
A Tree and Its Fruit
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!
Note that the will of God is not that we obey his Laws, but that we live by the Spirit.

When we began this the question was asked, what fruit does the doctrine of predestination produce? I said:

In fact, as the tread unfolded many noticed Kate’s hardheartedness. It was hard to miss even considering her (hollow) words to the contrary. Kate has also admitted that, “Being a Calvinist as opposed to being a non-Calvinist Christian affects the way I view God, myself, Christians, and non-Christians.” I think her conduct in this thread gives some clear clues as to what she means by that. As for the “them and us” mentality, I’ll let you be the judge.

The only possible positive fruit mentioned has been that predestination shows God’s sovereignty. I submit that this is clearly untrue on its face, and that Romans 1 clearly states how God shows his sovereignty and “what may be known about God,” and predestination isn’t it. To say that God did not give man free will to show God’s sovereignty is to give man standing apart from God that wasn’t granted by God. It suggest that God limited man which suggests that there was something apart form God in man that God wanted to restrict. But all the Christians I've ever known of believe that God created man, so limiting man to show sovereignty makes no sense. God is the creator. He gave us what he wanted to give us, and the fact that he clearly gave us free will is the testament to his sovereignty. He gave us the ability to think and know to some degree his nature. And the Bible speaks to our free will in countless places. I don’t think there can be any honest denial of that. But pretty clearly Kate is not that familiar with the Bible. Her understanding clearly comes from nonBiblical “interpretations.”

So, in light of what we have seen in this thread I wonder if I need to change the way I view this doctrine. I have called it dangerous and its dangers I think have been made explicitly clear in this thread. But in light of the purely and extremely bad fruit it produces, the worst of which is the message that one cannot choose God so don’t even try, is this doctrine not simply dangerous but evil?

I’ll answer the rest of Kate’s passages when I get a chance. At a quick glance most will be easy to rebut as most readers will be able to easily see, but in light of this extremely damaging doctrine it’s important to address all that is plainly wrong. There are passages in the Bible that are not clear to me. There are mysteries that are likely not possible to understand in this life. And the Bible does use the word predestination in a few places and it does mean something. But what it clearly does not mean is what Kate would have you believe it means. As I have shown and will continue to show, there is no scriptural support for that belief and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Most importantly, however, apart from the barrage of words, the true nature of this doctrine can be seen in the fruit it produces. Likewise the true nature of those who promote it can be seen in the nature of their hearts.

 

Good post Grizzled.

Geez, I knew predestination was a bunch of hogwash when this thread started, but had no idea this thread was predestined to last forever.

Let it be.

 

lol...dont be so hard on yourself kate. perk up a little bit

 

You were a really sexy vampire, btw.

 

Try this for real salvation.