Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Questing Beast]

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.

Bleak views on humanity are core to "fallen man" doctrine, which is core to Judeo-Christianity having a purpose. Without "the fall" there is no healing of our species, indeed the entire world of humans, required.

 

If mankind is "so depraved" then the implicit corollary is that the vast majority of humanity must be getting helped along by "the grace of God" on a 24/7 basis, since the evidence is that we are good far more than we are evil, and do good for no self interested reasons above the good feeling that doing good gives to us. If we are "fallen", then God is surely granting grace in copious amounts without favoritism....

[bluebell]

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.

So it sounds like it's not just faith in Christ which is important, but that a person isn't saved if they don't believe correct doctrine as well.  Is that right?

 

In other words, a person can believe they have faith, can live their lives doing things like praying, trying to follow Christ's teachings, loving God and their neighbor and all that, but if they believe doctrine that is not correct, then that shows that they are not elected to salvation.

[MrG]

So it sounds like it's not just faith in Christ which is important, but that a person isn't saved if they don't believe correct doctrine as well.  Is that right?

 

In other words, a person can believe they have faith, can live their lives doing things like praying, trying to follow Christ's teachings, loving God and their neighbor and all that, but if they believe doctrine that is not correct, then that shows that they are not elected to salvation.

 

Depends on the doctrine, but yes if its regarding the true nature of God and the truth about salvation, then yes I would agree with that. Jesus alone is totally sufficient for salvation, if  a load of church ordinances are necessary as well, then that means Jesus alone is not enough.

 

I knew that statement would get me into trouble but I was asked....

[bluebell]

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.

 

I talked about it earlier, but I think it was to a different poster so I don't expect you to have seen it or remembered.  And not to get into extreme detail because it would not work well in this discussion and format, in general, LDS interpret Romans chapter 9 as speaking about how the law of election or foreordination works as it applies to the House of Israel, and then also to the Gentiles.  That people can be chosen to receive the blessings of the Gospel (as the House of Israel is) but that each person must individually seek those blessings by faith.

 

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.

 

I'm not ignoring it so much as I don't see that it matters.  A person has no choice to have Adam as His representative, thus, whether created by God to be sinful or having it imputed upon them because of Adam, the result is exactly the same-they are born enslaved to sin through no fault of their own and no way to change it.

 

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.

 

 

And as I said before, I don't have significant problems with that doctrine, but I do believe that the doctrine of a universal or unlimited fall can only justly be answered by a doctrine of universal or unlimited Atonement. 

 

It is the Calvinistic belief in an unlimited fall and limited Atonement that I believe is unjust and therefore not representative of how God operates or His gospel as laid out in the bible.

 

[bluebell]

Depends on the doctrine, but yes if its regarding the true nature of God and the truth about salvation, then yes I would agree with that. Jesus alone is totally sufficient for salvation, if  a load of church ordinances are necessary as well, then that means Jesus alone is not enough.

 

I knew that statement would get me into trouble but I was asked....

If Jesus alone is totally sufficient for salvation, then why does a person have to believe that ordinances aren't necessary in order to be saved? Doesn't that imply that Jesus can't save us unless our own correct understanding of baptism, for example, is added to the equation?

[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.

 

I know this was a response to a question I had about Christ, but it didn't actually answer my entire question so I'm going to ask the second part again. 

 

I think my second question just got lost in the shuffle and don't believe you ignored it on purpose (I obviously forgot about it myself as it took me this long to remember to ask again) but I am really interested in the answer.

 

I asked-"And more than that, why would He [Christ] 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 that could not be changed?"

[bluebell]

I know that Paloma mentioned (much) earlier in the thread that Calvinism came about when Calvin was trying to understand why some people believe in the gospel and Jesus Christ when they are taught it and others reject it.  (Hope I paraphrased that correctly).

 

It seems though that the parable of the sower already answers that question, and answers it in a way that contradicts Calvin's conclusions on the matter. 

 

Matt. 13:18-23

 

Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

 

I have heard the parable of the sower also called the parable of the four types of soil, and it does seem that whether or not someone develops and retains a testimony of the gospel depends completely upon the type of 'soil' the seed is received into and not upon the sower or the seed. 

 

For the Calvinists on the thread, does this parable answer Calvin's original question? 

[MrG]

If Jesus alone is totally sufficient for salvation, then why does a person have to believe that ordinances aren't necessary in order to be saved? Doesn't that imply that Jesus can't save us unless our own correct understanding of baptism, for example, is added to the equation?

 

Sure, if Jesus wanted to make it so that trusting in Him was not enough, I am sure He could make it that way, however.....

 

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_DiE6QgO0

Edited August 18, 2013 by MrG

[bluebell]

Sure, if Jesus wanted to make it so that trusting in Him was not enough, I am sure He could make it that way, however.....

 

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_DiE6QgO0

 

I think it's safe to say that for those people who sincerely believe that baptism, for example, is necessary in accessing Christ's saving grace, that they do so because they are trusting in Christ completely (because they believe the commandment comes expressly from Him and that to disobey would be an act of distrust).

 

But this definitely isn't the thread to get into whether or not Christ requires more than belief in Him to be saved. 

 

What I'm asking is whether or not Calvinism teaches that Christ's Atonement is able too overcome sincere belief in incorrect doctrine that a person may be elect even with a wrong belief here or there, or if belief in incorrect doctrine means that a person does NOT have faith in Christ and is therefore not elect?

 

PS-I don't watch youtube videos so I did not follow the link.  I just don't have the patience for them.  If there is something specific in the video that you wanted to be part of your answer to me, then you'll have to type it out. Sorry.

[cdowis]

River posts

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.

 

The LDS view of "depraved man"

 

Mosiah 3 [19] For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for that, so whats your questions?

Oh my gosh!

 

Forget about it.

[Calm]

 

PS-I don't watch youtube videos so I did not follow the link.  I just don't have the patience for them.  If there is something specific in the video that you wanted to be part of your answer to me, then you'll have to type it out. Sorry.

The video is just a visual presentation of the verses in Luke.

[mfbukowski]

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.

So then we are totally programmed first by the depravity, and then by the "grace"- no choice in the matter, and in the final analysis, full-on determinism.

 

Gosh that sounds like atheism to me.

 

We are the result of natural forces and the results of random chance.  Choice is an illusion - we are just particles which randomly get together for a few years.

 

No thanks - neither one works for me.  Predestination is atheism in disguise?  An interesting thought.

 

What was that story about Satan teaching half truths to deceive the elect?   HMMMMMM....

[mfbukowski]

Thats a whole world of other issues.

Evasive as usual.  Let me guess- your real name is Rob Bowman.  You have no case so you become evasive.  Time to disappear for another week and then not remember what we were talking about.

[Calm]

Since I am interested in the answers.....if I remember the conversation correctly....

. 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.

First question...what is the ultimate difference between God making laws and accepting preexisting laws as in each case he has made a choice to act according to law...iow, the end is the same:  God acts according to laws in regards to his relationship with mankind.  Therefore what does the process by which he gets to that point matter?

 

Second question:

 

How are you justifying the claim that when "transgression" is used in scripture, it is equivalent to all sin IF sin is really a subset of transgression and not equivalent to all types of transgression (similar to the case of adultery is a subset of sin, but not equivalent to sin in the sense of equating to all types of sin).  IOW, the terms are not interchangeable and it is wrong to do use one for the other in scripture in my opinion.  So why do you do so in the verse being discussed, 1 John 3:4?

 

 

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sinis the transgression of the law.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61482-predestination-you-asked-for-it-here-it-is/?p=1209288929

Vance:

Sin, based upon the scriptural definition, is a transgression of the law. Therefore Sin is a subset of transgression of the law. But that leaves open the possibility that there are some transgressions of the law that are not sins.  All sin is transgression, but that doesn't require that all transgressions are sins. 

 

While MrG states:

 

Sin is the transgression of the law, so to transgress is to sin, because sin is transgression

 

I would be interested in hearing from someone who can deal with the verse in the original language and the implications thereof.

Edited August 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Evasive as usual.  Let me guess- your real name is Rob Bowman.  You have no case so you become evasive.  Time to disappear for another week and then not remember what we were talking about.

Give him a chance....I couldn't remember the flow of the argument until I went back and read it from the beginning.     Remember he's talking to several different people at once about different things.

Edited August 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Well life beckons and there is not much here for me at the moment- have a good one y'all!

[mfbukowski]

Give him a chance....I couldn't remember the flow of the argument until I went back and read it from the beginning.     Remember he's talking to several different people at once about different things.

I don't think he understands the questions- you do, and I am sure you will carry on in my absence.  I am too impatient.

 

The bottom line is that he- and his position- creates false categories- they are all category errors.  They create linguistic distinctions which are not clearly definable and then base their whole theology on them.

 

For example- the Trinity is based on false distinctions in various ways of defining the word "being" or "substance", and now this case about "sin" vs "Transgression" - these are smoke and mirrors.

 

One is "predestined" but then magically "saved" by "grace" without any choice on the part of anyone- yet God is supposedly just because he sends innocents to hell?  People who had no choice to be good or bad?

 

They are the old arguments based on old theology and old pagan philosophy and not Biblical.  I am sure you will all have fun, but it's not for me!

[Calm]

  I am too impatient.

 

You have justified my mother-in-law who taught me the verse:

 

Patience is a virtue, possess it if you can, seldom in a woman and never in a man.

[Calm]

  I am sure you will all have fun, but it's not for me!

 

Well, for you it's a been there, done that so many times you've had your quota...I'm still working through my allotment as I came to this a lot latter than you.  

[MrG]

Evasive as usual.  Let me guess- your real name is Rob Bowman.  You have no case so you become evasive.  Time to disappear for another week and then not remember what we were talking about.

I guess we are just not predestined to be best friends

But seriously I went through the pages you said and could not see any questions from you too me, maybe I missed them.

also I was not aware of a minimum requirement for involvement here, if there was I would not have come on, my job is long days etc and kind of wipes out my time for this, 6 days again starting Tuesday. That's life.

[mfbukowski]

I guess we are just not predestined to be best friends

But seriously I went through the pages you said and could not see any questions from you too me, maybe I missed them.

also I was not aware of a minimum requirement for involvement here, if there was I would not have come on, my job is long days etc and kind of wipes out my time for this, 6 days again starting Tuesday. That's life.

No, I would love to be your friend-that has nothing to do with it.  The question is whether or not we would waste time, as friends, discussing theology.  I mean some people like to play chess and others hate it.  Some people like classical music and others like country and western.  Some people think theologically and philosophically and others don't.  Some people can't stand poetry, others can't live without it.

 

Calmoriah already summarized the questions for you and so did I, if you still don't know what they are, there isn't much to talk about is there?

 

It doesn't take time- you are already on here- all it takes is a few words in an answer.  But if you don't know what the questions are, that presents a problem, at least in discussing the answers.

Edited August 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Look at post 665.

[MrG]

No, I would love to be your friend-that has nothing to do with it.  The question is whether or not we would waste time, as friends, discussing theology.  I mean some people like to play chess and others hate it.  Some people like classical music and others like country and western.  Some people think theologically and philosophically and others don't.  Some people can't stand poetry, others can't live without it.

 

Calmoriah already summarized the questions for you and so did I, if you still don't know what they are, there isn't much to talk about is there?

 

It doesn't take time- you are already on here- all it takes is a few words in an answer.  But if you don't know what the questions are, that presents a problem, at least in discussing the answers.

 

Understood and appreciated, looking at post 665 now, 

[MrG]

Since I am interested in the answers.....if I remember the conversation correctly....

First question...what is the ultimate difference between God making laws and accepting preexisting laws as in each case he has made a choice to act according to law...iow, the end is the same:  God acts according to laws in regards to his relationship with mankind.  Therefore what does the process by which he gets to that point matter?

 

Second question:

 

How are you justifying the claim that when "transgression" is used in scripture, it is equivalent to all sin IF sin is really a subset of transgression and not equivalent to all types of transgression (similar to the case of adultery is a subset of sin, but not equivalent to sin in the sense of equating to all types of sin).  IOW, the terms are not interchangeable and it is wrong to do use one for the other in scripture in my opinion.  So why do you do so in the verse being discussed, 1 John 3:4?

 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61482-predestination-you-asked-for-it-here-it-is/?p=1209288929

Vance:

While MrG states:

 

I would be interested in hearing from someone who can deal with the verse in the original language and the implications thereof.

 

 

 

 

For the first question I would say the issue here is. 

 

Is God the only Go that exists and the most High being over all else that has always been God? If so He sets all law and is not bound by the law of His God, or other past Gods. If God is following laws already set then this instantly shows that He is not the only God and that He is following a pattern set by who knows who, at who knows whenn.

 

In terms of the practical outworking in our lives there is not really any difference to us I guess. In terms of who we are following and worshipping and is this God the true God, then the implications are massive.

 

Second question.

 

Regarding transgression being a sin etc I am by no means a language expert so I wont go there, however I think the issue here is the difference between myself seeing the fall as a bad thing as Adam sinned and brought sin into the world.

 

The LDS Church sees this as a good thing and seeing as the word transgression is used with regards to what Adam did, I see this as a means by which the church tries to show that what Adam did was not as bad as a sin.

 

Just looking up a dictionary of the term transgression it says:

 

an act of transgressing; violation of a law, command, etc.; sin.

 

I am not saying a dictionary is the authority to us on the issue but I think you would agree with the first part, a transgression being a violation of Gods law, am I right?

 

This brings us back to 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

So I if I sin then I transgress the law, I do see this simply meaning that if I transgress the law therefore I sin. I know the circles we went around on this before but to me this is clear, but this is where different preconceptions come in.

 

How would you guys define a Sin and a transgression?

 

For me as this verse says to sin is to transgress the law. They are the same thing.