Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[mfbukowski]

both of your examples use a hampered intellect. One a drunk, the other a child.

In the cases of Angelic beings (who fell) and Adam and Eve (who fell) neither are hampered intellects. Both were created perfect. With perfect intellects. Yet, if they were both given free will (perfectly free moral agents), then God is not responsible for their moral actions.

If they were created with a perfect moral free will, coupled with a hampered intellect, I think you'd have a point.

LOL

Ok then let's make the sin fornication/adultery and make the participants young healthy adults.

"Here you are in your naked splendor, but do not commit fornication!"

Or How about just the good old contemporary USA and give everyone the 10 commandments? Surely no would will sin, will they?

The entire point is that if the CHOICE is there, it is going to happen -NO QUESTION- and at least my God is smart enough to know that. I chose extreme examples to make the point clear.

Actually the point was that God is smarter than the moral agents in the situation I suggested- that's another reason I chose them as "innocents"

But remember, the bartender in the first example was not impaired- yet he was responsible for causing the accident at least partially.

Edited August 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's rare for a reason, need I say more?

Well of course. I think most of know the reason. Which is why was really interested in this topic specifically because of my first in run with a nice guy at Manti in 2000. For all I know it could have been MrG. I never did get answers to my questions.

[mfbukowski]

Well of course. I think most of know the reason. Which is why was really interested in this topic specifically because of my first in run with a nice guy at Manti in 2000. For all I know it could have been MrG. I never did get answers to my questions.

I have never found one who has any answers, and that is why I am not part of that tribe.

[danielwoods]

LOL

Ok then let's make the sin fornication/adultery and make the participants young healthy adults.

"Here you are in your naked splendor, but do not commit fornication!"

Or How about just the good old contemporary USA and give everyone the 10 commandments? Surely no would will sin, will they?

The entire point is that if the CHOICE is there, it is going to happen -NO QUESTION- and at least my God is smart enough to know that. I chose extreme examples to make the point clear.

Actually the point was that God is smarter than the moral agents in the situation I suggested- that's another reason I chose them as "innocents"

But remember, the bartender in the first example was not impaired- yet he was responsible for causing the accident at least partially.

If your God didn't make the "intelligence" in the first place, then it doesn't matter how smart he is, under your system he couldn't be responsible. Although it only regresses your creation to a place that is "unknowable" which doesn't really solve it.

However, if God is able to create a free moral agent, then he isn't responsible for evil, directly. I think this is why he still judges evil (vengeance is mine says the lord), because if he didn't judge it, then it would be a problem.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

However, if God is able to create a free moral agent, then he isn't responsible for evil, directly. I think this is why he still judges evil (vengeance is mine says the lord), because if he didn't judge it, then it would be a problem.

I think you and I would be in agreement. For all intents and purposes.

[Stone holm]

I had the same thought. One thing came to my mind that I have never once understood. If I am part of the damned and there is nothing I can do of myself I am not sure why Calvinist even preach their gospel. Because preaching it wont save anyone God does it all anyway as it was predestined before anyone was born. I am not even sure why there is even a gospel or a Bible. What is the point?

Well, the Puritans in New England finally realized, hm...this doesn't work for crowd control so they came up with the half-way covenant and the national covenant so that even though you were damned, you could still obey the gospel according to them just so everyone knew they were on the same team.

[djholmess]

Can they choose NOT to follow their sinful desires?

I thought that the concept of total depravity taught that no one is capable of choosing good, except those who God elects to save. Am I misunderstanding that?

You are right, no one is capable of choosing good until God regenerates them. However the important distinction Calvinists point out (as the Bible plainly teaches it) is that they are not being forced to choose evil, their choices are free, not in the sense of libertarian freedom, but in the sense that God is not physically coercing them.

Regarding your view that it is unjust for God to punish them for something they cannot change (being born with a sinful nature); Calvinists would point to the Federal Headship concept I previously discussed. God deals with us in part on the basis of who we are in Adam. Because Adam sinned we are all born sinners. It was not unjust of God to impute Adams sin to us. If God so wished he could have just thrown Adam and Eve into hell on the spot, that was the just thing to do.

As I said before I can understand how this may still seem unjust from a human perspective, especially from an individualistic western view point. However if this seems unjust then so too must Gods' counting believers as righteous in Christ. The two concepts work on the same basis. God counts what's true for being represented by a person; either by Adam or Jesus, as also being true for the one represented by that person.

At the end of the day I see it as a submission issue, I don't pretend to know exactly how God's justice works in this suitation. Yet God reveals soo much of his justice through out the rest of scripture that when I come to this issue and he hasn't spelled out fully how he is just in acting this way, both in Adam and in Jesus, then I'm more than happy to simply take him at his word and trust that the judge of all the earth will do right.

[mfbukowski]

If your God didn't make the "intelligence" in the first place, then it doesn't matter how smart he is, under your system he couldn't be responsible.

We don't think he IS responsible, and "our system" is the only Christian theology which accounts for this and answers the problem of why God is NOT responsible for evil acts. We come with agency from the beginning, he didn't give it to us- he is not an ex nihilo creator.

Although it only regresses your creation to a place that is "unknowable" which doesn't really solve it.

Not quite sure what this means, since your system is just as "unknowable" as ours. I don't see any telescopes observing God and making conclusions, do you?

However, if God is able to create a free moral agent, then he isn't responsible for evil, directly.

Oh indirectly works fine.

He is at least still partially responsible for it in your system since he created the "potential" for it, just like the bartender is only partly responsible for the drunk's actions. You are here conceding the point I have been making all along.

In your theology, God is at least partially responsible for evil; in ours he is not- we are totally free agents, and have been for eternity. He did not program us or provide the "potential" for evil, we get full responsibility for our actions.

I think this is why he still judges evil (vengeance is mine says the lord), because if he didn't judge it, then it would be a problem.

Again, not sure what you mean, or how this is relevant.

[Calm]

Sadly no one can logically explain, given the traditional Christian assumptions that I've mentioned, how it could be possible. So we're left to conclude it is impossible.

So is gravity impossible because we don't have something everyone agrees upon as to what causes it?

[Calm]

Out of curiousity, have you ever met a Calvinist who didn't believe they were destined for heaven? I am just curious, because all of the Calvinists I have met believe they are part of the those pre-destined for heaven.

Of those who have answered my question asking them (I don't always ask, only when it seems appropriate), all have believed so. A few were uncertain about loved ones though, didn't feel they could judge others' states, just believed they had the personal assurance of the Spirit. Edited August 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

I never once met a Calvinist who did not think they were part of the elect. After all they are elect becuase they are Calvinists.

I'm afraid this is totally wrong. Believing in Calvinism doesn't save anyone. Trusting in Jesus Christ alone as saviour and lord is how someone is united to Christ, justified and adopted into Gods family. This has always been the belief of Calvinists. To that end Calvinists recognise that there are many Christians who are not Calvinists but who are saved.

The reason you've never met a Calvinist who believes they are not part of the elect is because calvinism flows from the Protestant view of salvation by faith alone. Naturally those who would hold to calvinism would already be believers and so consider their faith a gift of God given to them because they are part of Gods elect.

I've never actually met a hyper-Calvinist but your view is probably more akin to what they believe which Calvinists reject as unbiblical.

[djholmess]

I had the same thought. One thing came to my mind that I have never once understood. If I am part of the damned and there is nothing I can do of myself I am not sure why Calvinist even preach their gospel. Because preaching it wont save anyone God does it all anyway as it was predestined before anyone was born. I am not even sure why there is even a gospel or a Bible. What is the point?

Again you have a warped view of Calvinism. Calvinism believes God predestines the ends as well as the means. So in regard to preaching, yes God has already chosen his elect from before the foundation of the world. However he also predestined the means that he would use to cause them to be born again (regeneration) and bring them to faith.

As we read in 1 Peter 1:

"23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;.....v25 and this word was the good news that we preached to you."

Calvinists believe that the means that God uses to bring about the new birth is through his word, read or heard.

Of course Calvinists only hold to calvinism because they are convinced that it is scriptural. It would be very inconsistent to focus on passages such as Romans 9 and insist this is the way to be faithful to Paul's teaching and then ignore the large sections of the NT that talk about evangelism.

[Calm]

I'm afraid this is totally wrong. Believing in Calvinism doesn't save anyone. Trusting in Jesus Christ alone as saviour and lord is how someone is united to Christ, justified and adopted into Gods family. This has always been the belief of Calvinists. To that end Calvinists recognise that there are many Christians who are not Calvinists but who are saved.

The reason you've never met a Calvinist who believes they are not part of the elect is because calvinism flows from the Protestant view of salvation by faith alone. Naturally those who would hold to calvinism would already be believers and so consider their faith a gift of God given to them because they are part of Gods elect.

I've never actually met a hyper-Calvinist but your view is probably more akin to what they believe which Calvinists reject as unbiblical.

I don't think I've ever met someone who believes they are saved because they are a Calvinist, just never met a Calvinist who wasn't certain s/he wasn't saved.

[cdowis]

Daniel,

 

If you are a visual learner, like myself, this may  be helpful to answer your question on the Plan of Salvation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MiF_HKoFr4

Edited August 16, 2013 by cdowis

[bluebell]

You are right, no one is capable of choosing good until God regenerates them. However the important distinction Calvinists point out (as the Bible plainly teaches it) is that they are not being forced to choose evil, their choices are free, not in the sense of libertarian freedom, but in the sense that God is not physically coercing them.

 

Isn't that just semantics though?

 

I mean, if a person is incapable of choosing good because of the nature which God gave them, then can it logically be said that their actions are not coerced by that nature?  Just because God is not there physically manipulating their body that really doesn't change anything does it?  They are still incapable of not choosing evil, right?

 

Because Adam sinned we are all born sinners. It was not unjust of God to impute Adams sin to us.

I agree, in a sense, but is it just to save some randomly from that sin and refuse to save others?  

 

As I said before I can understand how this may still seem unjust from a human perspective, especially from an individualistic western view point. However if this seems unjust then so too must Gods' counting believers as righteous in Christ. The two concepts work on the same basis. God counts what's true for being represented by a person; either by Adam or Jesus, as also being true for the one represented by that person.

It's LDS doctrine that physical and spiritual death entered the world because of the fall of Adam, and that it is thru the Atonement of Christ that mankind is saved from such death, one being a free gift offered to all (resurrection) and the other a free gift offered to those who follow Christ (salvation), so we agree partially on the idea of Federal Headship.

 

What I find unjust is that God would damn someone for Adam's sins and save another because of the Atonement of Christ, in a purely arbitrary fashion.  If someone 'deserves' damnation and hell because of another's choice, then all justly deserve it.  If it is just to offer salvation to another because of the Atonement, then it is unjust not to offer salvation to all.

 

At the end of the day I see it as a submission issue, I don't pretend to know exactly how God's justice works in this situation. Yet God reveals so much of his justice through out the rest of scripture that when I come to this issue and he hasn't spelled out fully how he is just in acting this way, both in Adam and in Jesus, then I'm more than happy to simply take him at his word and trust that the judge of all the earth will do right.

Fair enough.   I obviously believe that issue isn't with submission but with manmade doctrine, but I completely respect that you disagree and have come to a different conclusion.

[bluebell]

A question:

 

According to Calvinism, did Christ understand the doctrine of predestination during His mortal ministry?

[djholmess]

I don't think I've ever met someone who believes they are saved because they are a Calvinist, just never met a Calvinist who wasn't certain s/he wasn't saved.

Like I said, implicit within believing Calvinism is a faith in Jesus as lord and saviour. As I'm sure you're aware from an evangelical (and Calvinist) perspective you are justified by faith so it's an in or out suitation, there is no in between. It would therefore be very unusual to find someone who believes calvinism yeti does not believe in Jesus as lord and saviour.

I have heard of a number of different people who accept that calvinism accurately reflects the biblical presentation of predestination but are/were having doubts about their faith and so not convinced of their salvation. Obviously this is somewhat rare.

[djholmess]

I agree, in a sense, but is it just to save some randomly from that sin and refuse to save others?  

 .

You are right, it is not just to save some, but it is gracious. If God was only just he wouldn't save anyone. That's why Calvinists believe in penal substitutionary atonment; basically that Christ suffered the punishment and wrath of God for the specific sins of the elect on the cross (limited atonment). In this sense God is perfectly just in that he punishes sinners in hell and for those he chose to save he already punished their sins in Jesus. There is nothing unjust about God condemning sinners to hell and because of Jesus's death there is nothing unjust in saving other sinners. The only difference is Gods freedom to show grace to whomever he wishes.

It sounds more like your issue may be with my last sentence there. Within Calvinism we recognise that God is free to show mercy to whomever he wishes. He is under no obligation to show mercy to anyone. And when he does decide to show mercy and grace he does so for his own reasons-to display the greatness of his glories.

As has been discussed before on this thread if I understood agod to be the God of LDS theology I would have a problem with this. However Calvinists believe the God of the Bible is totally different to mankind and infinitely more valuable and glorious. The just thing for him to do is to delight in the display if his glory. He is free to show grace to whomever he wants to show grace to.

[bluebell]

You are right, it is not just to save some, but it is gracious. If God was only just he wouldn't save anyone. That's why Calvinists believe in penal substitutionary atonment; basically that Christ suffered the punishment and wrath of God for the specific sins of the elect on the cross (limited atonment). In this sense God is perfectly just in that he punishes sinners in hell and for those he chose to save he already punished their sins in Jesus. There is nothing unjust about God condemning sinners to hell and because of Jesus's death there is nothing unjust in saving other sinners. The only difference is Gods freedom to show grace to whomever he wishes.

It sounds more like your issue may be with my last sentence there. Within Calvinism we recognise that God is free to show mercy to whomever he wishes. He is under no obligation to show mercy to anyone. And when he does decide to show mercy and grace he does so for his own reasons-to display the greatness of his glories.

As has been discussed before on this thread if I understood agod to be the God of LDS theology I would have a problem with this. However Calvinists believe the God of the Bible is totally different to mankind and infinitely more valuable and glorious. The just thing for him to do is to delight in the display if his glory. He is free to show grace to whomever he wants to show grace to.

I think you are saying that God can be both just and merciful without having to be fair.

 

I don't believe the bible explains a God such as that, but again, I respect that you believe it does.

[djholmess]

A question:

 

According to Calvinism, did Christ understand the doctrine of predestination during His mortal ministry?

Yes, we believe did. John 6 is one of the strongest examples of Jesus 'talking like a Calvinist'

43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Here Jesus is explaining the unbelief of many of the crowds who followed him. In fact just in a few verses many of them will leave him. Jesus's explanation is that no one can come to Jesus (total depravity) unless the father draws him (irresistible grace) and Jesus will raise him up on the last day (perseverance of the saints).

Now obviously Jesus isn't going into great detail here but notice the connection between those who the fathers draw and those who Jesus raises up; it is the same him. There is a 1 to 1 relationship. Those who the father draws Jesus raises up.

Now you may read in here the LDS concept that Jesus will raise up everyone but obviously evangelicals reject this. We would say that there is nowhere in the NT where Jesus death is said to purchase or accomplish resurrection for everyone. Yes there is a resurrection of the unjust to judgement but nowhere is this said to be a result of Jesus death. Further the context of Jesus statements demonstrate that Jesus is talking about being raised up to eternal life e.g. V47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life"

Given that for Calvinists the implication of Jesus teaching is pretty clear. No one is able to come to Jesus without the enabling help of the Father. As Jesus raises up and gives eternal life to all (the same him) who the father draws it therefore means that the father does not draw all but only those who will eventually be saved.

[djholmess]

I think you are saying that God can be both just and merciful without having to be fair.

 

I don't believe the bible explains a God such as that, but again, I respect that you believe it does.

Ok, we'll given that everyone is a sinner and deserves Gods wrath and punishment (you may not fully believe this but grant it for a moment) what do you think the fair thing for God to do would be?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm afraid this is totally wrong. Believing in Calvinism doesn't save anyone. Trusting in Jesus Christ alone as saviour and lord is how someone is united to Christ, justified and adopted into Gods family. This has always been the belief of Calvinists. To that end Calvinists recognise that there are many Christians who are not Calvinists but who are saved.

The reason you've never met a Calvinist who believes they are not part of the elect is because calvinism flows from the Protestant view of salvation by faith alone. Naturally those who would hold to calvinism would already be believers and so consider their faith a gift of God given to them because they are part of Gods elect.

I've never actually met a hyper-Calvinist but your view is probably more akin to what they believe which Calvinists reject as unbiblical.

 

 

 

 

I never said that believing in Calvinsim saves any one. But the reason your are a calvinist is evidence of your salvation. At least in your own mind. Which was the point behind what I said.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again you have a warped view of Calvinism. Calvinism believes God predestines the ends as well as the means. So in regard to preaching, yes God has already chosen his elect from before the foundation of the world. However he also predestined the means that he would use to cause them to be born again (regeneration) and bring them to faith.

As we read in 1 Peter 1:

"23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;.....v25 and this word was the good news that we preached to you."

Calvinists believe that the means that God uses to bring about the new birth is through his word, read or heard.

Of course Calvinists only hold to calvinism because they are convinced that it is scriptural. It would be very inconsistent to focus on passages such as Romans 9 and insist this is the way to be faithful to Paul's teaching and then ignore the large sections of the NT that talk about evangelism.

I am sorry but this does not address anything I have said. There is simply no reason to have the scriptures or go to church or do anything if God can just aribitarily save or damn people because it was predestined before we were created. I have no choice to be saved according to your theology assuming I am one of the damned or non elect. It is all God, if he chooses to do it through irresistable grace.  I think you are just trying to skirt the issue because you either don't understand what I am saying or some other 3rd thing. Until you can address this point in away that makes sense other than quoting a verse of scripture that doesn't really help your case I am afraid we will just have to agree to disagree. This is one of the central points that I have a major issue with Calvinism. I reject it based solely on this but there are more reasons than this to reject it.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

Yes, we believe did. John 6 is one of the strongest examples of Jesus 'talking like a Calvinist'

43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Here Jesus is explaining the unbelief of many of the crowds who followed him. In fact just in a few verses many of them will leave him. Jesus's explanation is that no one can come to Jesus (total depravity) unless the father draws him (irresistible grace) and Jesus will raise him up on the last day (perseverance of the saints).

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

 

There are scriptures in the LDS canon which say something very similar to the verses you mention-

 

D&C 29:7

 

"And ye are called to bring to pass the gathering of mine elect; for mine elect hear my voice and harden not their hearts;"

 

3 Nephi 27:14

 

"And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—"

 

We obviously interpreted what all these verses are trying to say differently.

 

Now you may read in here the LDS concept that Jesus will raise up everyone but obviously evangelicals reject this. We would say that there is nowhere in the NT where Jesus death is said to purchase or accomplish resurrection for everyone.

1 Cor. 15:22

 

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

 

Yes there is a resurrection of the unjust to judgement but nowhere is this said to be a result of Jesus death.

 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

1 Cor. 15:22

 

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

 

 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Now that is something I thought that all Christians believed that all would be resurrected. I did not think that point would ever be indispute.