predestination

I have often seen that those who object to predestination of the elect do so on the basis that they can't understand or believe in a God who would create a person to be destined for Hell. While I understand the concern, I would respectfully suggest that as God, before the foundation of time, considers and contemplates creating the spirit and flesh that a particular man is to be, forsees that that person will not choose Him and forsees Hell for that person, then God could choose not to create that man. In fact, God could only create people who by His foreknowledge would by their free will choose Him. Thus avoiding Hell altogether for billions but still being true to the Armenian concept that God only wants men to love Him by their own free choice. This, He did not do. He is under no compulsion to create a man. A man is not preesxistent and has no right to exist at all. Accordingly, whether free will or predestination are accurate, God does create men whom God does not have to create and some of those created men will in fact go to Hell. Further, if God creates or ordains all the characteristics of a man---- his intellect, desires, character, personality traits, who his parents, family, etc. will be, aren't the choices the man makes all predetermined to some extent by his chemical makeup, the spiritual nature he's given, the enviroment he's exposed to and the stimulus applied to him; all of which are from God. I do believe in free will. I believe that natural man freely chooses against God ( according to his fallen nature ) and that a regenerated man born of the Spirit and possesser of a new heart freely chooses for God. Finally, I am perplexed by the often repeated criticism that God doesn't want robots who are created to love Him. Every thoughtful reader of the Bible will concede that the Bible is clear that men by nature are haters and enemies of God. Why is it so objectionable that God would, by the sovereign act of the second birth, create men who by nature love Him. If loving God by nature is robotic then God is a robot because he loves not by choice, but because that is His very nature.

Praise to Jesus Christ.

If God is a robot then I am proud to be a robot. I could never love by choice, but by His Choice I now have the desire of my heart that only God new would satisfy my hunger and His. I love because He gave His life for me and in doing this He first love me.

1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

In Christ: Phillip

I saved this explaination written by a sister a few years back at SI

This analogy is a VERY simple look at Predestination and Election. I did not intend it to be for salvation, regeneration, sanctification, etc. It basically states in my opinion, that on the topic of predestination/election that we were chosen as a whole (the church), yet have the individual will to choose to serve our Lord and Master. Once again the analogy was not to serve as an end all be all for salvation and etc. BTW, desire is not enough..the analogy did cover a living faith, meaning a day to day belief in Jesus Christ, and not just believe but living the Word, not just reading it or knowing it.

Let me explain myself perhaps a little more clearly.
ELECTION--God's choice of those who believe in Christ is an important doctrine to the apostle Paul (Rom 8:29-33, 9:6-26, 11:5,28; Col 3:12; 1Thess 1:4; 2Thess 2:13; Titus 1:1). Election refers to God's choice in Christ of a people in order that they should be holy and blameless in his sight. Paul sees election as expressing God's love as God receives, as His own, all who receive His Son, Jesus. I feel that the doctrine of election involves these following truths: ( I may split up over several posts.)

1. Election is Christocentric ie, election of humans occurs only in union with Jesus Christ. Jesus himself is first of all the elect of God. Concerning Jesus, God states, "Here is my servant whom I have chosen". Christ, as the elect, is the foundation of our election. Only in union with Christ do we become members of the elect. NO ONE is elect apart from union with Christ through faith.
If the analogy were carefully read, you would see that if one does not maintain that union with Christ, he/she is no longer part of the elect and have abandoned ship.
2. Election is "in Him...through His blood" (Eph. 1:7). God purposed before creation to form a people through Christ's redemptive death on the cross. Thus election is grounded in Christ's sacrificial death to save us from our sins(Act 20:28, Rom 3:24-26).

3. Election in Christ is primarily corporate, that is the election of a people. The elect are called "the body of Christ", "My church","A people belonging to God" and the "bride" of Christ. Therefore, election is corporate and embraces individual persons only as they identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the true church. This was true already of Israel in the OT.
4. The election to salvation and holiness of the body of Christ is always certain. But the certainty of election for individuals remain conditional on their personal living faith in Jesus Christ and perseverance in union with Him. Paul demonstrates this as follows:
a.) God's eternal purpose for the church is that we should "be holy and blameless in His sight" (Eph 1:4). This refers both to forgivness of sins, and to the church's sanctification and holiness. God's elect people are being led by the Holy Spirit toward sanctification and holiness (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:16-25). Paul repeatedly emphasizes this paramount purpose of God (Eph 2:10, 3:14-19, 4:1-3,13-24; 5:1-18.)
b.)Fulfillment of this purpose for the corporate church is certain: Christ will "present her to Himself as a radiant church...holy and blameless (Eph 5:27).
c.) Fulfillment of this purpose for individuals in the church is conditional. Christ will present us "holy and blameless in His sight" only if we continue in the faith. Paul states this to us clearly: Christ will "present you holy in His sight without blemish...if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel" (Col 1:22-23).

5. Election to salvation in Christ is offered to all (John 3:16-17; 1 Tim 2:4-6; Titus 2:11)and becomes actual for particular persons contingent on their repentance and faith as they accept God's gift of salvation in Christ. At the point of faith, the believer is incorporated into Christ's elect body (the church) by the Holy Spirit (1 Col 12:13), thereby becoming one of the elect. Thus, both God and humans have a decision in election.

PREDESTINATION--Predestination means "to decide beforhand" and applies to God's purposes comprehended in election. Election is God's choice "in Christ" of a people (the true church) for Himself. Predestination comprehends what will happen to God's people (all genuine believers in Christ).
1.) God predestines his elect to be : called (Rom 8:30); justified (Rom 3:24; 8:30); glorified (Rom 8:30); conformed to the likeness of His Son (Rom 8:29); holy and blameless (Eph 1:4); adopted as God's children (Eph 1:5); redeemed (Eph 1:7); recipients of an inheritance(Eph 1:14); for the praise of His glory (Eph 1:12; 1Pet 2:9);recipients of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13; Gal 3:14) and created to do good works (Eph 2:10).
2.) Predestination, like election, refers to the corporate body of Christ(the true spiritual church), and comprehends individuals only in association with that body through a living faith in Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your time.

Yours in Christ,

Shelly

In Christ
Jeff

I can't really tell if your comment about arrogance was directed at my posting but I will aplologize in advance if it came off that way. I have downloaded the series you recommend and will listen with interest. You may be a little strong in your expression that the predestination viewpoint is heresy ( ie., dangerous false doctrine ) It is a viewpoint that was held strongly by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Acquinas, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, the Puritan preachers, Charles Spurgeon and on and on. This comment isn't meant to say that this list makes the doctrine true but merely is meant to address whether it is "dangerous".

Krispy, I am listening to the first part of James Knox's sermon on Calvinism (as a part of his "Sects, cults and heresy's" series) and I am shocked at his lack of understanding of true Calvinism.

He launches into the same old attacks that have been launched at Calvinism for countless years. He adds nothing to the debate other than to say that Calvinism makes God the author of sin--which no true Calvinist believes. Mr. Knox picks up the 'Calvinist straw man' and beats on it.

He said, "No Calvinist wants their doctrine presented that way." Exactly! Because no one wants their beliefs to be twisted and misrepresented.

Let me give you an example. Mr. Knox says concerning Irresistible grace, "you are going to get saved whether you want to or not. In fact you will be saved before you know it."

This is false and I know of no one who believes this, but Mr. Knox tells everyone that this is what a Calvinist believes. Mr. Knox might believe what he is saying, but he is speaking untruth. Irresistible grace says that it is God who works in an unbeliever to bring them to repentance. I and other Calvinists affirm that no one ever is saved "whether they want to or not". All who desire Christ will be saved and no one is drug to the cross 'against their desires".

I am saddened by this type of 'preaching' by a man of God. It is pure speculation and it does more damage to the debate than it does to help understand.

For me, this is why it is so difficult to discuss the Doctrines of Grace with other people. Many people have been fed lies about Calvinism for so long that they consider it heresy.

If Calvinism is heresy then I join such heretics as:
C. J. Mahaney
Carl F. H. Henry
Charles Spurgeon
Don Carson
James Petigru Boyce
James White (theologian)
John F. MacArthur
John Gill (theologian)
John L. Dagg
John Piper (theologian)
Joshua Harris
Leonhard Euler
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Wayne Grudem
William Carey
Jonathan Edwards
George Whitefield
John Newton
A.W. Pink
Martin Luther
J.I. Packer
Walter Chantry
Benjamin Keach
and countless others.

I am sorry Krispy but I am not listening anymore to that guy. The best thing for him to do is to actually study Calvinism or ask a Calvinist what he/she believes instead of preaching what he 'thinks' Calvinism is.

By the way, Calvin was not Catholic. He might have been Catholic growing up, but he definatly did not remain Catholic.

Even the Catholics themselves know this:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm

John Calvin

"This man, undoubtedly the greatest of Protestant divines, and perhaps, after St. Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on theology, was born at Noyon in Picardy, France, 10 July, 1509, and died at Geneva, 27 May, 1564."

Perhaps you are not a pure Calvinist.

If by 'pure Calvinist' you are referring to 'Hyper-Calvinist' then I am not that type of 'pure Calvinist'.

This is why it is so hard to discuss Calvinism, people argue against a 'Calvinism straw man' that they are taught and they don't know what Calvinism truly says.

Let me put it to you this way Krispy.

I know you are a strong advocate of the King James Version. What if I asked you to listen to a sermon that is against the 'KJV-only' believers and in this sermon the guy talked against those who believe that the KJV itself is inspired. He even went further to say that the Greek is not inspired, but only the KJV.

How would you respond? You would probably say "That guy misrepresents my beliefs and constructs a false belief that is easier to refute." He does not understand the true position of the KJV-only adherents."

Do you see what I mean? James Knox is argueing against a Calvinist straw man that is easy to refute, but does not properly describe true Calvinism.

Do you see this?

I concur with JaySaved. I just listened to the first 15 minutes of the series and I don't think the pastor speaking ever read the first thing about the doctrine. If he did, then he has totally and knowingly mischaracterized the position. If anyone really wants a good, balanced biblical exposition of the doctrine then I highly reccommend the book Still Sovereign which includes the writings of various authorities on the doctrine like JI Packer and John Piper. Loraine Boetner also wrote a great work on the topic as well that influenced the theology of many current theologians and thinkers. I will certainly listen to the rest of the series you recommended but I am not optimistic about the preaching because Mr. Knox starts somewhere further out than left field out of the blocks in a confused attempt just to define the doctrine. Again, not intended to be arrogant just shocked that someone who seems to want to address the weaknesses they perceive in the doctrine would not understand what the doctrine is before launching a critique. Finally, it is a misnomer to call the doctrine Calvinism. Calvin held the view but the doctrine predates him by a thousand years ( St. Augustine )and quite frankly I believe very strongly was held by St. Paul.

So you both listened to barely 1/10th of the message, and shut it off.

Does the other 9/10th's have a better understanding of true Calvinism? or is it just more of the same?

Yes, I believe in eternal security of the believer in that those who are truly saved persevere to the end.

Jude 1:24, "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,"

Luke 22:31-32, "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

1 John 2:1, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

John 17:15, "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."

Praise the Lord.