Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[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).

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.

Back to my original question-

 

If Christ understood the doctrine of predestination, why did He often imply that people had a choice in whether or not they followed him?  Why did He teach that it was up to the individual as to whether or not they followed Him?

 

And more than that, why would He ask God to let the cup pass from Him?  Why did He ask God if it was possible for Him not to do the Atonement, if He knew that He was foreordained to do it already and could not change that?

[Vance]

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

 

 

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Why does God not draw everyone to be saved? He has the power to do it? What is the point of damning or leaving some one damned if he can save everyone? After all you are only saved because God arbitraily predestined some to be saved and some to be damned.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

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?

I do believe that the law of justice says we all deserve damnation.

 

And I believe the law of mercy teaches that God so loved the 'world' (not just a few, but the 'world') that He offered His Son so that those who chose Him could return to Him.

 

And I believe that God is fair in both his exercise of justice and mercy in that he applies both laws equally.  Since the law of justice applies to (or affects) all, He has made it so that the law of mercy can also apply to all as well.  Whether or not it will, He leaves up to us. 

 

He offers the gift, but does not force us to accept it, of course. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I do believe that the law of justice says we all deserve damnation.

 

And I believe the law of mercy teaches that God so loved the 'world' (not just a few, but the 'world') that He offered His Son so that those who chose Him could return to Him.

 

And I believe that God is fair in both his exercise of justice and mercy in that he applies both laws equally.  Since the law of justice applies to (or affects) all, He has made it so that the law of mercy can also apply to all as well.  Whether or not it will, He leaves up to us. 

 

He offers the gift, but does not force us to accept it, of course. 

Which as you know with irresistible grace is impossible for some one to not accpet it if called. Which means there is no choice to accept or reject. But I agree 100% with what you said. I think God does want all saved. And John 3:16 proves that. But peoples choice will interefer with that and they will choose to not be saved.

[djholmess]

Back to my original question-

 

If Christ understood the doctrine of predestination, why did He often imply that people had a choice in whether or not they followed him?  Why did He teach that it was up to the individual as to whether or not they followed Him?

 

And more than that, why would He ask God to let the cup pass from Him?  Why did He ask God if it was possible for Him not to do the Atonement, if He knew that He was foreordained to do it already and could not change that?

 

 

As I have tried to stress a number of times Calvinism does not deny that man has the ability to choose and that his inability is not a physical one but a moral one.  Just because a person is too wicked to actually trust and obey Jesus does not mean that they are not morally obligated to do so.  Jesus commands/callings to sinners reflect this. 

 

As a Calvinist I accept both ideas put forword in Scripture:

1) As you point out Jesus calls indiviausl to believe in him demonstratting that they should trust him and are responsible for doing so.

2) As Jesus himself teaches in John 6 only those whom the father draws onto Jesus can actually come to him.

[djholmess]

 

"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."

 

If you were following my discussion earlier in the thread about the importance of who is your representative you may be able to guess how Calvinists understand this verse within its context.  As you quoted 'in Adam all die.'  Now the question is, who are all the people who classify as 'in Adam.'  Well obviouly that is all humanity that is descended from Adam (death spread to all aka Romans 5).  So who then are the ones that are 'in Christ'? 

 

All over the NT Paul talks about being 'in Christ' and it is always associated with a specific group for example:

 

Romans 8:1

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

1 Corinthians 1:30

And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption

 

2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

 

Again evangelicals do not see the reference to life here as only a reference to a general ressurection but specifically to the eternal life purchased by Jesus only for those who believe in him.  So as you read on through that passage about spiritual ressurection bodies evangelicals understand this only to be refering to the ressurection of those who have put their faith in Christ.  

 

For example in verse 54 - Paul tells us of a song that will be sung by those ressurected:

 

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”

⁵⁵ “O death, where is your victory?

    O death, where is your sting?”

⁵⁶ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. ⁵⁷ But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ

 

Only those who have put their faith in Jesus are have been given victory over death, sin and the law so they will only be the ones singing.

[bluebell]

As I have tried to stress a number of times Calvinism does not deny that man has the ability to choose and that his inability is not a physical one but a moral one.  Just because a person is too wicked to actually trust and obey Jesus does not mean that they are not morally obligated to do so.  Jesus commands/callings to sinners reflect this. 

 

As a Calvinist I accept both ideas put forword in Scripture:

1) As you point out Jesus calls indiviausl to believe in him demonstratting that they should trust him and are responsible for doing so.

2) As Jesus himself teaches in John 6 only those whom the father draws onto Jesus can actually come to him.

So, you believe that God commands people to physically trust and obey Jesus, even though they are too wicked to do so?

[bluebell]

If you were following my discussion earlier in the thread about the importance of who is your representative you may be able to guess how Calvinists understand this verse within its context.  As you quoted 'in Adam all die.'  Now the question is, who are all the people who classify as 'in Adam.'  Well obviouly that is all humanity that is descended from Adam (death spread to all aka Romans 5).  So who then are the ones that are 'in Christ'? 

 

All over the NT Paul talks about being 'in Christ' and it is always associated with a specific group for example:

 

Romans 8:1

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

1 Corinthians 1:30

And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption

 

2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

 

Again evangelicals do not see the reference to life here as only a reference to a general ressurection but specifically to the eternal life purchased by Jesus only for those who believe in him.  So as you read on through that passage about spiritual ressurection bodies evangelicals understand this only to be refering to the ressurection of those who have put their faith in Christ.  

 

For example in verse 54 - Paul tells us of a song that will be sung by those ressurected:

 

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”

⁵⁵ “O death, where is your victory?

    O death, where is your sting?”

⁵⁶ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. ⁵⁷ But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ

 

Only those who have put their faith in Jesus are have been given victory over death, sin and the law so they will only be the ones singing.

Oh, I have no doubt that we disagree on the interpretation of those verses.  I was just pointing out that the bible actually DOES say that all will be resurrected and that it's because of Christ that that will come about.

 

If you want to claim that's not what it means, then that's fine.  It does say that though.

[djholmess]

So, you believe that God commands people to physically trust and obey Jesus, even though they are too wicked to do so?

 

Yes, for two reasons.

1) Because it is their moral obligation to do so, it is a sin to dishonour and disobey Jesus.

2) Because those very commands are used by God to regenerate the sinner.  (I talked about this in an ealier post where i discussed 1 Peter 1:23 and God's use of the gospel to cause the new birth).

[Calm]

 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. 

I would disagree. I think a just God has a consistent way of applying the law to everyone, including how and when he forgives people's transgression of it.

 

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons

 

[Calm]

As I have tried to stress a number of times Calvinism does not deny that man has the ability to choose and that his inability is not a physical one but a moral one. 

If he is unable to choose due to his nature...whether physical or moral, what does it matter?  He is still unable to choose.

 

(this can be a rhetorical question if you have already answered this, iow feel free to ignore if answered as I am in the process of catching up)

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Yes, for two reasons.

1) Because it is their moral obligation to do so, it is a sin to dishonour and disobey Jesus.

2) Because those very commands are used by God to regenerate the sinner.  (I talked about this in an ealier post where i discussed 1 Peter 1:23 and God's use of the gospel to cause the new birth).

So,

 

1) God gives commandments to people who are incapable of following them without His help.

 

2) He refuses to help some of them to follow them,

 

3) then damns the people He refused to help because they couldn't keep the moral obligations that they were incapable of keeping,

 

4) and He's a just God for doing it that way?

 

I'm really not trying to be snarky or snide here, I just do NOT understand the kind of God that you are describing and what is just, loving, or glorious about Him.

[mfbukowski]

You are right, no one is capable of choosing good until God regenerates them.

 

[djholmess]

So,

 

1) God gives commandments to people who are incapable of following them without His help.

Yes God gives commands, but as I've said repeatidily they are incapable because of Adam's rebellion and rejection of God and because their own love of sin is so strong that they cannot entertain the idea of submitting to God. Just because Adam rejected God, mankind does not get a free pass to sin all they want. Just because men love their sin soo much that they will not obey God does not mean God can't demand that they do what is right.

 

2) He refuses to help some of them to follow them,

Yes, but as I've said he owes no one any help. God doesn't just refuse it, it is an act of judgement to leave people in their sins. An act of judgement they deserve.

So

I'm really not trying to be snarky or snide here, I just do NOT understand the kind of God that you are describing and what is just, loving, or glorious about Him.

That's fair enough. As I've said a number of times form an LDS perspective there's no way the Biblical God that calvinists worship could seem appealing.

Of course if you just focus on Gods judgement of sinners you're not going to see Gods love. Gods love and grace are seen in the fact that he doesn't condem all to hell but actually saves undeserving wretched sinners. Notice how the last four points of Calvinism are all focused on the positive actions of God in actually bringing about salvation. But even in his passing over some and not saving them God has a purpose. I may not like it but all I can do is accept scripture.

Romans 9:19

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Why do you think Paul anticipates the question, "why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" Isn't that the essence of the very objection you have with what I'm saying about calvinism? You say is is unjust/unfair/not glorious for God to command sinners to repent when they are too wicked to do so and then decide not to change their hearts to enable them to believe. How does Paul respond to such a objection?

[djholmess]

I would disagree. I think a just God has a consistent way of applying the law to everyone, including how and when he forgives people's transgression of it.

From my perspective that's your problem. You are letting what you think a just God should do determine what you accept rather than submitting to what scripture teaches the just God actually does.

When God disclosed himself for the first time to Moses in the burning bush he told Moses his name in Exodus 3:13-

"Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am."

Then when Moses asks God to reveal himself, God further discloses who he is on Mount Sini in Exodus 33:18-

"Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy"

The name 'the Lord' here is simply a restatement of the name given in Exodus 3:14 so literally God discloses his name to be..'I am who I am and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and show mercy on whom I will show mercy.' For Calvinists this is the God of the Bible. Central to Gods self revelation as to his nature is his total freedom to be gracious to whom ever he wishes to be gracious too. God is not beholden to any principle or law that determines what he does (like a law of fairness that says he must treat all sinners the same). If God is going to show mercy it is going to be on his terms.

[djholmess]

 

This entirely does away with the function of religion in our lives- no hope, no reason to repent, no reason to live.

It's funny how Calvinists don't respond this way, they seek to persue God in their daily lives, they have hope in Christ, repent and don't just all commit suicide. Maybe because you seem to be ignoring half of what I'm saying. Calvinists accept and believe in man's responsibility just as much as they do Gods sovereignity. Philippians 2:12-13 summarise the Calvinists perspective very well.

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 FOR it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

The reason why a Calvinist has hope and strength to strive in their spiritual lives is because in our working we are relying on God's working within us.

[Calm]

From my perspective that's your problem. You are letting what you think a just God should do determine what you accept rather than submitting to what scripture teaches the just God actually does.

Actually I think I am taking seriously what scripture says about God being no respecter of persons, all are alike unto God and how in Christ all are saved and how God invites all to come to him and partake of his goodness.

 

I just happen to disagree with your interpretation of what God's justice actually entails.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, but as I've said he owes no one any help. God doesn't just refuse it, it is an act of judgement to leave people in their sins. An act of judgement they deserve.

 

This sounds like semantic quibbling.  No one deserves God's mercy not even those that are elected. But he choses to extend that to some through no act of thiers and others he doesnt for no good reason other than they are damned which isn't a reason. Why does God choose not to save everyone, he certainly has the power to. This has never been answer in a rational logical answer.

[mfbukowski]

It's funny how Calvinists don't respond this way, they seek to persue God in their daily lives, they have hope in Christ, repent and don't just all commit suicide. Maybe because you seem to be ignoring half of what I'm saying. Calvinists accept and believe in man's responsibility just as much as they do Gods sovereignity. Philippians 2:12-13 summarise the Calvinists perspective very well.

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 FOR it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

The reason why a Calvinist has hope and strength to strive in their spiritual lives is because in our working we are relying on God's working within us.

Well that's great.

But is that attitude consistent with the theology- that is the question I am raising.  I am really not seeing how you get any human responsibility out of that theology at all.

 

I guess it is common for real people in real situations be unfamiliar with the implications of their theologies- we are all to some degree or other, simple folk I guess.

 

I love Catholics and Catholicism but I left because their theology made no sense to me.  For me, Mormonism is quite different and makes perfect sense.

Edited August 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Is everyone having problems with the quote function or am I the lucky one??

 

There are no links any more from the quote to the post??

[Calm]

Is everyone having problems with the quote function or am I the lucky one??

 

There are no links any more from the quote to the post??

Look on the right hand corner of the quote, it is now on the opposite side.  I was freaking out for quite sometime about that...

Edited August 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Look on the right hand corner of the quote, it is now on the opposite side.  I was freaking out for quite sometime about that...

AUGH!

 

[MrG]

Is it your position that little kids or babies are born sinners damned to hell? I should put it this way does being born = being damned to hell expect for those that God elects to save? The next part is that if a baby does die at say 1 day old and they are not the elect are they going to hell?

 

Apologies for the slow reply on this one, my opinion is that babies are equally subject to the electing choice of God. 

 

Psalm 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

 

This is consistent with Philippians 1:29 which says:

 

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

It is given (or granted in other versions) that we might believe, so as with the psalm where God can cause people to trust Him even in a very young age. This would be my stance on the child deaths issue.

[kassie]

Good morning! After reading this thread I STILL don't understand a few things.

I am not a theologian so forgive me if I sound "dense" here.

 

1) Is there a "Calvinist Church" or is the philosophy of the Presbyterian Church that most closely aligns itself with their beliefs?

 

2) If you are predestined NOT to be saved, you aren't one of the "elect", then what is the point of following Heavenly Father's teachings or the teachings of Christ? Why not just "live it up, "accept Christ as your saviour" and then do what you want? It won't matter in the end because you are either IN or you are OUT and you really had no free agency?

 

3) This seems a rather depressing doctrine to me. It so vastly is opposed to LDS teachings where we are taught that the Resurrection and Atonement are for everyone who "chooses" to be saved and then does good works on earth to achieve exaltation if Heavenly Father so chooses. 

 

4) I don't mean to offend anyone. My maternal grandmother was a Presbyterian and the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. I never heard her espouse this doctrine. 

 

Just curious. Thanks for your feedback in advance!