Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Five Solas]

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?

If you could only pick two sentences to sum up the disagreement on this thread.  I submit it's found right here...

:0)

 

--Erik

Edited August 17, 2013 by Five Solas

[bluebell]

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.

Of course not, and no one is arguing that He should. 

 

What is being argued is that it's neither just nor merciful to create people who are born loving sin so much they will not obey God, and then to only save some of 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.

Where does this idea come from?  That God can create beings and then not be responsible for them?  That is neither just nor merciful either, as I understand justice and mercy. 

 

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.

I don't believe the God the Calvinists worship is at all biblical.  And I think that's one of the reasons I find your understanding of God so unappealing.

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.

But He saves them arbitrarily.  He could save all, but doesn't, and that's not loving or just in my view.  

 

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.

Aren't His purposes (as they are believed by Calvinists) completely self-centered.  Doesn't He refuse to save all because doing so would somehow give Him less glory?

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?

I accept this scripture as well.  I just don't believe it means what you believe it means.

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?

Like I said, we interpret that verse differently.

 

Edit to add:  I just wanted to thank you for answering my questions and not being contentious about them.  We are probably at a point where we have to just agree to disagree (though I'm not opposed to carrying on the discussion if there are other things still to discuss!), but I appreciate your efforts. 

Edited August 17, 2013 by bluebell

[MrG]

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!

 

Great questions. 

 

1, There are some churches that are fairly clearly holding this view as a whole such as Reformed Baptists, however in my experience there are no churches where everyone holds this view, some do and some dont. Methodists tend not too as well as likely a number of other denominations.

 

2, The point is that if you are of the elect. You will trust in Christ and follow His teachings, however if you are not chosen, you simply will not decide to follow Him. You may take on religion in some form or another but you will not be truly trusting in Christ. My view is that outside of Christ we do not have the free will to decide to follow Him because of our depraved nature, unless God draws us first. 

 

John 6:37 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

All that the Father gives Christ will come to Him. We also see in Acts 13:48 that those that were ordained to eternal life believed, the ordaining came before belief.

 

 

3, This doctrine is about as far away from Mormonism as you can get, I appreciate and respect why so thats not a dig either, respect to you guys for having this discussion.

 

4, You are a million miles away from offending, feel free to ask anything else on the back of what I have said.

[bluebell]

If you could only pick two sentences to sum up the disagreement on this thread.  I submit it's found right here...

:0)

 

--Erik

Hey Erik, I know you said that you have limited time to post, but when you do get the chance, could you answer some of the questions that have been asked specifically of you in other threads?

(Maybe you already have and I just haven't seen those yet. In that case, I thank you. )

 

[Calm]

 

2, The point is that if you are of the elect. You will trust in Christ and follow His teachings, however if you are not chosen, you simply will not decide to follow Him. 

Just to clarify for sure...

 

If you believe you are trusting in Christ, you are.  Or can false doctrine convince you that you trust and love Christ when you don't?

[MrG]

Just to clarify for sure...

 

If you believe you are trusting in Christ, you are.  Or can false doctrine convince you that you trust and love Christ when you don't?

 

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

 

I would say as I believe the point of this verse is, that its not possible, as 1 John 2:19 says

 

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

That does not mean a lot of people in Christian churches cant be deceived, but I far from believe everyone in a Christian Church on a sunday are part of the elect. Thus when they leave for false teaching this verse in 1 John proves true.

 

(edited to add)

 

I would certainly also say People can certainly believe that they are following Christ when believing false doctrine .

Edited August 17, 2013 by MrG

[Calm]

 

I would certainly also say People can certainly believe that they are following Christ when believing false doctrine .

So then how does one know one is of the elect?

[djholmess]

 

Edit to add:  I just wanted to thank you for answering my questions and not being contentious about them.  We are probably at a point where we have to just agree to disagree (though I'm not opposed to carrying on the discussion if there are other things still to discuss!), but I appreciate your efforts. 

I agree-and have been happy to explain things in more detail. As a rule I don't discuss calvinism (in person at least) with someone who disagrees unless we can sit and discuss it with an open Bible. There probably isn't much more to discuss unless there are some specific bible passages you want to discuss in detail e.g. you have said you interpret Romans 9 differently but haven't explained how you understand it. Of course this would take more time and effort than the mostly simple explainations we have been exchanging so far.

To reply to one thing you said in your last post. You basically said it is unjust for God to create people who are enslaved to sin and then send them to hell, if they were created enslaved to sin then God is responsible for their sinfulness. I agree. However that description ignores the point I have been stressing about Adam being mankinds representative in the Garden of Eden. When Adam sinned all mankind became guilty of his sin. You could argue that it would be unjust for God to just create enslaved sinners. That's not what God did. Man's enslavement to sin is part of the punishment that resulted from the fall. It was just for God to punish mankind in this way. Just as it is just for God to bless his elect because they are in Jesus even though they themselves have done nothing deserving of blessing.

[MrG]

So then how does one know one is of the elect?

 

By their fruits you will know them I guess. If in your heart you are still self seeking and looking for your own interests or worldly interests over that of the glory of Christ then you could be in trouble. However if Christ is more important to you than ANYTHING else and His glory and presence is your eternal goal then I think you are in the right place. Jesus said:

 

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

Paul said:

 

Philippians 1:21-23 21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.

23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

 

Is Christ your love over absolutely everything, is eternity with Him the goal that you are caught up with? 

 

I think the answer helps determine whether you have found Christ or religion, and you know as well as I do its those that endure to the end that are saved, this is also probably the best way of determining whether someone is of the elect. 

 

I am confident on the basis of my faith in Christ that my salvation is secure, however I am not so confident that I let myself fall into the trap of living out the problems of James 2.

[kassie]

Great questions. 

 

1, There are some churches that are fairly clearly holding this view as a whole such as Reformed Baptists, however in my experience there are no churches where everyone holds this view, some do and some dont. Methodists tend not too as well as likely a number of other denominations.

 

2, The point is that if you are of the elect. You will trust in Christ and follow His teachings, however if you are not chosen, you simply will not decide to follow Him. You may take on religion in some form or another but you will not be truly trusting in Christ. My view is that outside of Christ we do not have the free will to decide to follow Him because of our depraved nature, unless God draws us first. 

 

John 6:37 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

All that the Father gives Christ will come to Him. We also see in Acts 13:48 that those that were ordained to eternal life believed, the ordaining came before belief.

 

 

3, This doctrine is about as far away from Mormonism as you can get, I appreciate and respect why so thats not a dig either, respect to you guys for having this discussion.

 

4, You are a million miles away from offending, feel free to ask anything else on the back of what I have said.

Okay so then are you saying that IF you draw close to God, do what He asks, and live a righteous life you ARE one of the elect? And that those who choose NOT to do so are the "damned?" I don't agree with you but this point at least clarifies to me where you are coming from. This means that those of us who "choose" to follow Heavenly Father's teachings, accept Christ's atonement and resurrection, and good works follow from there SHOWS that we are of the "elect?" And if we don't do any of those things then that shows we never were "one of the elect?" 

[Rolo The Walker]

As to Predestination or the five points of Calvinism it probably would not be worth discussing too much with Mormons as it is antithetical to their belief that being a human being means being saved. 

 

As to babies who die in infancy Charles Spurgeon said they would all go to heaven, however the Westminster Confession which R. C. Sprouls adheres to says that elect babies go to heaven, indicating that there would be some who go to hell.  I don't buy that.

There are some nuances to Calvinism such as Moses Amryat who beiieved in Unlimited Atonement but also in Predestination.  Pascal the Catholic (Mathematical genius) also believed in Predestination - I don't know where he stood on the Atonement.  Jacob Arminius believed in Free Will and Unlimited Atonement but he never concluded ( I think) as to whether one could lose their salvation.  That doctrine was formulated by his followers. I don't really believe it matters much which way you believe on all this as long as you know the Saviour. 

[Calm]

 it is antithetical to their belief that being a human being means being saved. 

 

According to LDS or to Calvinists?  And if LDS, what do you mean by that?

 

Are you LDS, Calvinist or something else?  I ask because I like to know if someone is providing information about their own beliefs (which I tend to trust more) or someone else's (which I tend to trust less).

Edited August 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Is Christ your love over absolutely everything, is eternity with Him the goal that you are caught up with? 

 

I think the answer helps determine whether you have found Christ or religion, and you know as well as I do its those that endure to the end that are saved, this is also probably the best way of determining whether someone is of the elect.

Yay!  I'm in.

 

Oh- you forgot all my other questions.

Edited August 17, 2013 by mfbukowski

[MrG]

Yay!  I'm in.

 

Oh- you forgot all my other questions.

Can you remind me and I will happily have a go ,your right I did forget.

[mfbukowski]

Can you remind me and I will happily have a go ,your right I did forget.

It was a question about Mormonism and the view that God is subject to laws, and my contention that this was all just a linguistic confusion and your contention that it represented a vast gulf between Mormonism and Christianity. I saw no difference between God "making laws" and accepting for himself pre-existing natural laws- in each case a free decision was made to act according to law.

The conversation then shifted slightly to a different topic, but the same problem- a linguistic confusion about the meanings of the words "sin" and "transgression" which seemed to be very important to you.

It starts on page 17 and continues until you left the thread on page 21.

 

 MrG, on 12 Aug 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

    If God is subject to Laws it is a massive difference to Him actually setting the laws. Its the difference between their being one God and many, and our Heavenly Father having a heavenly Father and so on, its the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

 

 

  mfbukowski, on 12 Aug 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

    Ha!

    What you have discovered is that there IS no difference, but this nuance in language which has become a gulf in theology

    Are you really ready to defend the substance metaphysics behind the Trinity?

    It's the same problem- one or many

 

    MrG, on 12 Aug 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

    No I'm just not seeing that at all, I still see the difference massive

    Regarding your last question maybe sometime but not this week

 

Then, in a reply to Vance:

 

    MrG, on 12 Aug 2013 - 3:17 PM, said:

    Im thinking about this over and over in my head and I see the problem.

    Sin and Transgression are general terms that can be manifested in various different ways. Various things can be a sin, and various things can be a transgression, even if you dont accept that one is the other.

    So its a general term is a general term in a sense.

    So its like me saying all crime breaks the law, so therefore all breaking of the law is crime. In real life this is not 100% true but its closer to what I am saying to what you are as you are changing one side of the equation to being a specific thing and then playing it off against a general thing and then using it to make it sound like thats what I am saying.

    This far from the case, I am saying that sin is transgression and transgression is sin.

    I am not saying sin is adultery so adultery is all sin. I think you are merely making a strawman out my position, which still very much stands.

 

    mfbukowski, on 12 Aug 2013 - 3:22 PM, said:

    What precisely is a "general term" and how does it differ from any other kind?

 

 

   MrG, on 12 Aug 2013 - 3:24 PM, said:

    As in a term that can encompass many things.

    Crime can be lots of different crimes. To say you commited a crime can have many different outworkings

    Theft is one crime.

 

 

  mfbukowski, on 12 Aug 2013 - 3:31 PM, said:

    I see, yes, as "God" can cover many persons. Like a committee or council, or a family for that matter. Perhaps you are referring to collective nouns.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun

    Yet certainly not all transgressions of the law are sins, as I have detailed above. I am not even sure what kind of laws are being mentioned here to be transgressed.

 

    MrG, on 12 Aug 2013 - 3:34 PM, said:

    Im getting lost myself, I think its time for bed (UK) talk soon all.

    (edit) also yes thanks for that, collective nouns sounds like the word I was after.

 

    mfbukowski, on 12 Aug 2013 - 3:39 PM, said:

    It's not tiredness, it's the belief that language can actually be precise in such abstract matters, and the belief that literalism makes things clear.

    It does not- it simply makes one confused, just as you are now experiencing confusion.

 

 

  MrG, on 12 Aug 2013 - 3:40 PM, said:

    No im pretty sure im tired, but thanks!

 

Then you left the thread.

 

This is important because you have said that these are the issues which separate Mormonism from Christianity, but my contention is that these issues are only semantic confusions.

Edited August 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[MrG]

It was a question about Mormonism and the view that God is subject to laws, and my contention that this was all just a linguistic confusion and your contention that it represented a vast gulf between Mormonism and Christianity. I saw no difference between God "making laws" and accepting for himself pre-existing natural laws- in each case a free decision was made to act according to law.

The conversation then shifted slightly to a different topic, but the same problem- a linguistic confusion about the meanings of the words "sin" and "transgression" which seemed to be very important to you.

It starts on page 17 and continues until you left the thread on page 21.

 

 

Then, in a reply to Vance:

 

 

 

 

Then you left the thread.

 

This is important because you have said that these are the issues which separate Mormonism from Christianity, but my contention is that these issues are only semantic confusions.

 

Thanks for that, so whats your questions?

[MrG]

Okay so then are you saying that IF you draw close to God, do what He asks, and live a righteous life you ARE one of the elect? And that those who choose NOT to do so are the "damned?" I don't agree with you but this point at least clarifies to me where you are coming from. This means that those of us who "choose" to follow Heavenly Father's teachings, accept Christ's atonement and resurrection, and good works follow from there SHOWS that we are of the "elect?" And if we don't do any of those things then that shows we never were "one of the elect?" 

 

Yes, that about sums it up.

[Rivers]

This debate segment with James White helped me to understand predestination a lot better.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSNM75FVBCA

He essentially says that we humans are so depraved that it is only by the grace of God that anyone would be drawn towards Christ and choose anything but evil. It is a very bleak view of humanity.

[Calm]

those of us who "choose" to follow Heavenly Father's teachings, accept Christ's atonement and resurrection, and good works follow from there SHOWS that we are of the "elect?

 

Yes, that about sums it up.

Okay, so then what is your problem with the LDS faith since faithful LDS follow this path?

[MrG]

Okay, so then what is your problem with the LDS faith since faithful LDS follow this path?

 

Thats a whole world of other issues.

[Calm]

Thats a whole world of other issues.

But if we can be drawn toward God through our faith, then why do those issues matter?

[MrG]

But if we can be drawn toward God through our faith, then why do those issues matter?

 

 

If you know more of the calvinist i.e Evangelical worldview which I suspect you might, then you will know what our view is of the Mormon Doctrine of God and salvation etc and that it is not the one that the true Biblical God would draw people too. Mormonism is an example of people finding religion and missing Christ, in my mind. Matthew 24:24 would apply here, but Mormons not being among the elect.

 

I am not trying to flare up a big diversion here which is why I was reluctant to share this here, but there we go.

[Calm]

If you know more of the calvinist i.e Evangelical worldview which I suspect you might, then you will know what our view is of the Mormon Doctrine of God and salvation etc and that it is not the one that the true Biblical God would draw people too. Mormonism is an example of people finding religion and missing Christ, in my mind. Matthew 24:24 would apply here, but Mormons not being among the elect.

 

I am not trying to flare up a big diversion here which is why I was reluctant to share this here, but there we go.

Well, all I can do is depend on the evidence of my own experience for myself and those I see around me and what I've seen is that the LDS faith is an excellent vehicle to be drawn toward God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ.  

 

 

 

 2 Nephi 25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

 24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

 25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

 26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

 27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts

 

 

Edited August 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[MrG]

Well, all I can do is depend on the evidence of my own experience for myself and those I see around me and what I've seen is that the LDS faith is an excellent vehicle to be drawn toward God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ.  

against him when the law ought to be done away.

 

Understood and appreciated, obviously we disagree but thats the beauty of discussion forums to discuss through the issues.

 

FYI I am not usually in the habit of simply saying "Mormonism is wrong" or any other worldview for that matter, and I certainly dont expect that statement to be persuasive, I prefer to have more substantive discussions than that hence why this predestination discussion is a lot of fun. 

[Calm]

 this predestination discussion is a lot of fun. 

Yes, it is.