Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[MrG]

Well, first the in the context of that scripture, the Christian message was only known in a tiny corner of the world, so even by calvinist doctrine there would needs be a missionary effort, but the Gospel is widely known here in the western world, so is that ministry really necessary by your doctrine? But tbh I'm not saying that your ideas preclude ministerial work, I just don't see why they would need to point out the supposed fallacies of another's belief system. In my mind if someone has a message and by sharing that message you have to point out the flaws in another's message it shows a lack of confidence in your message. When I went out all I did was say "this is my message, this is why I believe that, this is how you can find out it's true". If I came across a Baptist, Catholic or Methodist I never said "well this is what you believe, this is why you're wrong & this is the truth".

Is this a calvinism or "AntiMormoning" discussion?

[stemelbow]

I know I am late to the game. But one can believe in predestination, as do I, while rejecting all of the five points of Calvinism.

Ding ding ding!

If you take the premise that God is omniscient and that He created out of nothig, then you simply can't escape predestination, logically speaking.

This really isn't a calvinist issue.

As I said earlier, if created out of nothing and not predestination, then He's not omniscient.

If He is omniscient and not predestination, then He didn't create out of nothing.

I can't see how anyone who holds tot he traditional Christian belief of Creation ex nihilo and Omniscience can see it any other way but predestination.

[LordUther]

Is this a calvinism or "AntiMormoning" discussion?

Calvinism, though my points still stand when dealing with EV's, I get why they feel they should. I completely disagree with them and tbh I have never felt anything but hate come from their ministry, something I will say has never come across in any of your posts or websites etc so thank you for that, but I honestly don't get why with the principle of predestination your ministry shouldn't be more of a lighthouse than a crusade.

[MrG]

Calvinism, though my points still stand when dealing with EV's, I get why they feel they should. I completely disagree with them and tbh I have never felt anything but hate come from their ministry, something I will say has never come across in any of your posts or websites etc so thank you for that, but I honestly don't get why with the principle of predestination your ministry shouldn't be more of a lighthouse than a crusade.

Thats all fair enough, I would say that is more of how we see ourselves, we simply want to reach certain people groups with the gospel. At times that involves using their own material to show they need it, I would always hope I spend more time on the positives than the negatives as that is our goal..

Its just a fact that someone who is a faithful LDS will never fully appreciate what we do, I can only hope to be at peace with all men and have people understand our motives and methods even if they do not agree with our content.

[danielwoods]

I don't think what you have claimed above can be possible given the premise of your beliefs.

Your decision to type a post was already made before you were created. It must have been--given the premises of your beliefs. God afterall knew each and everything you would do and think before it happened. Your very interaction with me, if we can call it that, is not original to you, it's origin is in God's conception, given the premises of your beliefs. How so? As it is, He knew this exact interaction would take place and knew the very words you would use to interact before you were ever created.

There simply is no free will there. But, as I said, everyone is entitled to call a potato and platypus if one wants.

The only way your premise is true is if you can establish that foreknowledge equals control.

[stemelbow]

The only way your premise is true is if you can establish that foreknowledge equals control.

Not at all, Daniel.

You see, according to the premises set up for you in traditional Christian thought, God knew each of your choices before you were ever in existence. In this, it's really not your choice. It simply can't be seen that way. You may think you have chosen by free will to leave a mustache when you shave, but that was already established before you were ever in existence. Each minute detail of your life must have been known By God before you existed, because as you say He knew each thought you would ever have before you ever were. Your thoughts were not conceived in your head, but in HIs conception. He conceived of your every deed and made it so by creating you.

I guess I can explain this every which way I can imagine, but it seems you simply don't want to see it. That's fine. We all do that a little when it comes to matters of faith.

Peace to you. I'm open to more conversation if you want.

[danielwoods]

Not at all, Daniel.

You see, according to the premises set up for you in traditional Christian thought, God knew each of your choices before you were ever in existence. In this, it's really not your choice. It simply can't be seen that way. You may think you have chosen by free will to leave a mustache when you shave, but that was already established before you were ever in existence. Each minute detail of your life must have been known By God before you existed, because as you say He knew each thought you would ever have before you ever were. Your thoughts were not conceived in your head, but in HIs conception. He conceived of your every deed and made it so by creating you.

I guess I can explain this every which way I can imagine, but it seems you simply don't want to see it. That's fine. We all do that a little when it comes to matters of faith.

Peace to you. I'm open to more conversation if you want.

If it was "already established" then I couldn't be judged for making the choice.

Like I said it is only true if you can establish that foreknowledge equals control.

So far this hasn't been done. Your claim that foreknowledge equal control doesn't make it so.

[BlueDreams]

I have come to this belief very simply because I see it so clearly taught in the Bible. Its not because I like it that I believe it, really I dont, if I was God I would do it much differently.

However I do not believe I have the luxury of believing God to be how I would have Him be, rather I believe Him to be how He has revealed Himself to be (to the best of my understanding)

All of mankind exists elect or not for one purpose, to glorify God. The absolute root of calvinist or biblical teaching is a glorious all powerful God who has the right to do whatever He wants with His creation, Romans 9 gives a great explanation.

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Thank you for your response. Considering the volume of responces since then, I don’t necessarily expect a response. But if you do make a responce, I wouldn’y complain .

On cleary taught in the bible being your reasons for how you came to this belief. Thanks. I would be lying if I said I found the answer satisfactory. After all the book is read by JW’s, Evs, catholics, and Calvinists, etc alike. They all view the same book differently…and for some, very differently. And having heard a number of people born-again speak about how the bible was the reason for their current beliefs, I also find that the fuller story has more nuances than they first suggest. Not that I think they’re lying, I just don’t believe the claim that the bible “alone” brought their change. No one reads the bible in a vacuum. Their history, the people they associate with, other readings, etc effect how they come to view the same text.

So, more frankly, I don’t see it in the Bible. I feel that the virtues attributed by God must somehow have balance. That He is all merciful, all just, loving, patient, temperate, no respecter of persons, etc. And in all that, He is perfect. To me, a God who leaves most of His creations fallen and lost is not love. It sounds more like a human idea of Love: partial and incomplete (it’s missing at least 5/6 of humanity). I cannot move around that.

To me, it not just about not liking the doctrine. It’s about the command to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thes 5:21). It doesn’t fit. It solves one thing about God by placing multiple other things about God on shakey grounds. Instead of expanding my knowledge, trust, and understanding of the Lord, I feel that it leaves things shut, by making terms and mercy, love, compassion, judgment, etc based solely on a seemingly unpredictable will. The virtues, thus become a mystery at best and inert at worse.

Also, if all mankind are there to glorify God, how is the damned in anyway a means to glorify Him? I know that we technically, are all damned in a sense (all of us are fallen). But considering God’s knowledge/predestination, this seems superfluous. How is it glorious to have most of his creatures condemned to hell with Satan? I’ve gotten similar responses about this prior….and it still makes no sense. No one has explained how or why this adds to God’s glory.

With luv,

BD

[stemelbow]

If it was "already established" then I couldn't be judged for making the choice.

Like I said it is only true if you can establish that foreknowledge equals control.

So far this hasn't been done. Your claim that foreknowledge equal control doesn't make it so.

But it has been done, basing it all on the premises of traditional Christian thought.

Any thought you have is not original to you at all, each one can be traced back to God conceiving of it first, for you. If every thought, then it is so with every action for you must think it before you do it. In this way, goign with the premises of traditional Christian thought, predestination is inescapable. In other words you are forced to choose what you do because your "choices" were made for you as God conceived of you along with every thought you would ever have.

[Questing Beast]

If it was "already established" then I couldn't be judged for making the choice.

Like I said it is only true if you can establish that foreknowledge equals control.

So far this hasn't been done. Your claim that foreknowledge equal control doesn't make it so.

The power to control is there, but "God" chooses NOT to control, that's the core point about free will. "God" really does create sapient beings with perfect free will. The controlling issue is a non issue: "God" does not control, "God" creates and then we do the rest. "God" provides. We react to what is provided, beginning with life itself, which is immortal but "caught" within spacetime, as "God" intends.

"God" does not bother with the details unless required to. What would be the fun in that? The "great game" of Creation is all about finding Joy, so ultimately "God" finds Joy through each and every one of our egocentric quests to discover as much as possible about "God" that there Is to discover: which, being Infinite, means always and forever discovering yet more about what "God Is". That we all come to enjoy the process is the predestined part or aspect. That we all experience it differently is the part that endlessly intrigues "God". There literally Is no end to the variation in ways to become joyful with existence, through each one of us....

[djholmess]

Why is man totally depraved? Did God make him that way?

So, He chooses to create mankind, and then send billions of His creations to suffer horrible things for all of eternity just to prove that He can?

When God created Adam he wasn't totally depraved, rather he was free to do either righteousness or sin. As Adam fell all mankind fell into sin with him. We are now all born with a sinful nature. Total Depravity is a description of this nature. Calvinists believe the consistent witness of scripture is that man is so sinful and hates God so much that if left to himself he will never choose God.

In a sense you could say God made man that way but only as a result of Adam's sin. This is a concept we find in the Bible that can seen strange to us. In Romans 5 we read

V15

"But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many..... 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ."

So, God works in a way that makes Adam our representative. Because Adam sinned he fell and the results of the fall are felt by all his descendants, all die. This may seem harsh, however if we reject such a concept we also throw away the only means of our own salvation. Just as God counts everyone who is in Adam sinful so too does God count everyone who is in Christ righteous. This is something Christians rarely have any qualms about. Yet doesn't it seem unfair? Why should God forgive my sins when Jesus died for them. In a human law court this wouldn't go down to we'll. Yet we often accept it without questioning it. It is only when we are faced with the other aspect of this; us being counted sinners in Adam do we complain. Yet it seem clear to me in scripture

V18

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."

So in a sense God makes everyone sinful in that he counts them sinful,because of Adam's sin. However, this is neither unjust or unfair...at least if you were to insist it is unfair then you would also have to insist it is unfair of God to count those in Christ as being righteous.

To answer your second question.

Firstly God doesn't send anyone to hell unfairly. Everyone who is punished in hell are punished for the wilful sinful choices that they made freely without any outside coearsion. Given that Adam sinned, and that all his descendants continue to sin God is under no obligation to save anyone. He would be perfectly just if he sent everyone to hell.

Secondly, as I said before Calvinists believe Gods ultimate purpose is to display the greatness of his glory. Therefore he his purpose in creation and choosing to redeem any sinners is to display his love, mercy, grace and also his wrath and power. As God is under no obligation to save anyone there is no unjustness on his part if he chooses to save some individuals to display his grace and not save others in order to show his justice and wrath.

So God doesn't do it just because he can but because it is the just thing to do and because it more clearly displays his grace and wrath than if he was either to save everyone or to save no one.

Edited August 9, 2013 by djholmess

[danielwoods]

But it has been done, basing it all on the premises of traditional Christian thought.

Any thought you have is not original to you at all, each one can be traced back to God conceiving of it first, for you. If every thought, then it is so with every action for you must think it before you do it. In this way, goign with the premises of traditional Christian thought, predestination is inescapable. In other words you are forced to choose what you do because your "choices" were made for you as God conceived of you along with every thought you would ever have.

Please demonstrate for me how it's already been done? How knowing something will occur means it's already been done?

[danielwoods]

The power to control is there, but "God" chooses NOT to control, that's the core point about free will. "God" really does create sapient beings with perfect free will. The controlling issue is a non issue: "God" does not control, "God" creates and then we do the rest. "God" provides. We react to what is provided, beginning with life itself, which is immortal but "caught" within spacetime, as "God" intends.

"God" does not bother with the details unless required to. What would be the fun in that? The "great game" of Creation is all about finding Joy, so ultimately "God" finds Joy through each and every one of our egocentric quests to discover as much as possible about "God" that there Is to discover: which, being Infinite, means always and forever discovering yet more about what "God Is". That we all come to enjoy the process is the predestined part or aspect. That we all experience it differently is the part that endlessly intrigues "God". There literally Is no end to the variation in ways to become joyful with existence, through each one of us....

I agree.

[stemelbow]

Please demonstrate for me how it's already been done? How knowing something will occur means it's already been done?

Let me try this. Any choice you have made will make was known by God before you were created, correct?

[danielwoods]

Let me try this. Any choice you have made will make was known by God before you were created, correct?

Yes. God knows what we will do.

[stemelbow]

Yes. God knows what we will do.

So tracing your choice back, is its origin in your conception or did God conceive of your choice before you were created?

[bluebell]

Please demonstrate for me how it's already been done? How knowing something will occur means it's already been done?

I think stemelbow is saying that if God created you from nothing, then that means that He created who you would be in your entirety-including how you would choose, and therefore your choice, in every instance. If you have a mustache, it's only because God created in you a desire to have one, for example.

Using the potter/pot analogy: There is not part of the pot that the potter is not responsible for. The pot cannot choose anything of itself, it can only be what the potter made it.

As to whether or not God can create you and then give you free will, I think the other posters' views are best illustrated with the pot/potter analogy again.

As in, if the potter made a pitcher, the potter could not then logically decree that the pitcher could choose to be something else. The pitcher is already a pitcher and every single part of it is what the potter made it to be. For the potter to then attempt to give the pitcher a choice would, in essence, require the pottery process being undone. Pitcher has no power to make itself something else, and the potter can't give that power to it, without first undoing what He has already done.

That's my understanding of what the other posters are saying at least.

[danielwoods]

So tracing your choice back, is its origin in your conception or did God conceive of your choice before you were created?

The origin of the choices I made originate with my will.

Did God know I would choose these choices? yes. Did he force me to choose them? no.

[cdowis]

I think stemelbow is saying that if God created you from nothing, then that means that He created who you would be in your entirety-including how you would choose, and therefore your choice, in every instance. If you have a mustache, it's only because God created in you a desire to have one, for example.

Using the potter/pot analogy: There is not part of the pot that the potter is not responsible for. The pot cannot choose anything of itself, it can only be what the potter made it.

When God created Satan ex nihlo, why did he not not decide to create another Gabriel?

Surely he knew what sort of being he was creating.

Edited August 9, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

I think stemelbow is saying that if God created you from nothing, then that means that He created who you would be in your entirety-including how you would choose, and therefore your choice, in every instance. If you have a mustache, it's only because God created in you a desire to have one, for example.

Using the potter/pot analogy: There is not part of the pot that the potter is not responsible for. The pot cannot choose anything of itself, it can only be what the potter made it.

As to whether or not God can create you and then give you free will, I think the other posters' views are best illustrated with the pot/potter analogy again.

As in, if the potter made a pitcher, the potter could not then logically decree that the pitcher could choose to be something else. The pitcher is already a pitcher and every single part of it is what the potter made it to be. For the potter to then attempt to give the pitcher a choice would, in essence, require the pottery process being undone. Pitcher has no power to make itself something else, and the potter can't give that power to it, without first undoing what He has already done.

That's my understanding of what the other posters are saying at least.

I appreciate your explanation. And I agree, that is what they are trying to say. That in essence, God is incapable of creating out of nothing, a free-willed being.

I disagree with this proposition. I believe that God is able to, and did just that.

[Bernard Gui]

Secondly, as I said before Calvinists believe Gods ultimate purpose is to display the greatness of his glory. Therefore he his purpose in creation and choosing to redeem any sinners is to display his love, mercy, grace and also his wrath and power. As God is under no obligation to save anyone there is no unjustness on his part if he chooses to save some individuals to display his grace and not save others in order to show his justice and wrath.

"God's ultimate purpose is to display the greatness of his glory."

If he is omnipotent, what is the purpose in displaying his greatness?

Who is he trying to impress?

[Stone holm]

"God's ultimate purpose is to display the greatness of his glory."

If he is omnipotent, what is the purpose in displaying his greatness?

Who is he trying to impress?

Interesting conundrum

[cdowis]

I disagree with this proposition. I believe that God is able to, and did just that.

Of course, we don't know everything about how God thinks, but why would he do such a thing. He clearly knows what decisions the created being will make, so why not create another Gabriel rather than a Satan? What purpose does that serve.]

If the purpose of creation is praise and glory, clearly the one will serve and praise him, and the other will not.

Or is this just another of those unknowable mysteries, like the "one substance", three in one, doctrine.

Edited August 11, 2013 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

Of course, we don't know everything about how God thinks, but why would he do such a thing. He clearly knows what decisions the created being will make, so why not create another Gabriel rather than a Satan? What purpose does that serve.]

If the purpose of creation is praise and glory, clearly the one will serve and praise him, and the other will not.

What do we mean by a "created being?"

[cdowis]

Everything is created ex nihlo, except God.

"created being" -- everybody except God.

This is terminology used by historic Christians. LDS are accused of believing that Christ was a created being, for example, since he is not "one substance" with the Father.

Edited August 11, 2013 by cdowis