Do you believe in predestination ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
oatmeal
Well-known member
Did you mean to say something?
Lon
Well-known member
I do believe God predetermines: I believe what scriptures say and on any given revelation, I may or may not be able to figure it all out. He did certainly plan for sin's effect through Christ, well before He created. 1 Peter 1:19-21 Ephesians 3:9-11
Predetermined and predestined are a bit different by definition, however.
If you believe in omniscience, of course.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
No, Federalism is the basis of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. In one man (Adam) all sinned, so in one Man (Jesus Christ) will all the elect of God be saved. Romans 5:19
Just as there is only one Savior of mankind, so there was
only one human source of mankind. Two “Adams”. I Corinthians 15:45-49
Fetuses are conceived in sin and go astray upon birth. It is their inherited nature received through the first Adam. Psalm 51:5
Until you acknowledge these universal & biblical truths, you will receive no answer or satisfaction for any of your numerous skepticisms.
The acceptance and confession of the doctrine of Total Depravity is the beginning of faith in God and full understanding of His saving grace.
No soul can appreciate the death & resurrection of Christ, until the Spirit of God reveals the necessity for His incarnate work on the behalf of sinners.
ttruscott
Well-known member
No, Federalism is the basis of the Calvinist interpretation of the Fall in Adam...
Rather: in one man Adam all humans came into / under DEATH so that Christ need die but once for all elect, not once for each of them. That we came into / under Adam's sin also is a gross misrepresentation of the purpose of GOD! We were created to glorify HIM and be HIS Bride by first being made grossly corrupt by HIS will??? Oh my goodness.... Isaiah 43:7 "...whom I created for my glory " 21...the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise. Calvinism says HE created us evil by making us to be in Adam and making us to inherit Adam's sin, that is, unable to fulfill HIS purpose, unable to proclaim HIS praise!
Excellent! But this does NOT imply only one source for all human sin.
I agree with this as perfectly biblical...I just disagree with your understanding of why it is like this, ie, your next statement : It is their inherited nature received through the first Adam. IF we inherited our sinful nature it was not by our choice, it was not by Adam's choice so it must have been by GOD's choice, HIS sovereign decree that 1. we must all be conceived into Adam and 2. we must inherit Adam's sin by that conception. There is no other way for this to come about. This is a hard position to hold for a number of reasons:
- It makes the HOLY GOD to be the creator of evil in man.
- It is beyond reason to think that He creates HIS Bride as totally corrupt in Adam AFTER HE proved by Adam's creation HE had the power to create innocent persons.
- It denigrates the GLORY of the Salvation by Grace if HE first made us with a desperate life and death need to be saved. More Glory is found in HIM not making us with a sinful nature and not needing saving, ie, less suffering, no death and since sin is 100% destructive to HIS purpose for our creation, ie, to glorify HIM and to be HIS Bride, a more perfect accomplishing of that eternal purpose.
I am not skeptical in the sense you use the word - I ask these questions in the Socratic manner of hoping to induce some skepticism of inherited sin in my audience. I have faith in the answer to all these questions with all hint or aroma of blasphemy removed.
My faith is in the theology that there is another way we can be born into sin, that is, be sinful at conception not involving inheriting sin from Adam (and all the blasphemies this entails) and that is that every person created in HIS image before the creation of the physical universe chose to put their faith in YHWH's proclamation of HIS deity and the gospel of salvation as found in HIS Son OR chose to reject HIM as a false god and a liar about heaven and hell, sin and righteousness. OUR free will choices pre-earthly life to be eternally sinful or temporarily sinful were the cause of our sinful natures once we were conceived, born into, that is, sown into mankind Matt 13:36-39.
I accept this doctrine of the total disvalue of sin and our total depravity as it was indeed a great part of my conversion and repentance but you miss the mark claiming that a lapse in this area of theology causes an aberration within my thinking.
Wow - such an erudite pronouncement! Such pedantic didacticism in one short unnecessary sentence, sigh.
Lon
Well-known member
You and I predetermine a lot of things. Not all things, because we aren't capable, but we certainly pre-plan a lot, and almost everything of consequence. Predetermining is a bit different than the theological idea of predestination. Colossians 1:17 and John 15:5 imply there is nothing that can happen without it being predetermined if nothing can or will happen without His sustaining power. We are never 'unplugged' or running on batteries.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono:
Lon
Well-known member
It is the dichotomy. We have sin, God didn't want it in His universe. The "choose' theory, I understand but I don't believe it is a good one that makes 'choice' a gift from God. It is indeed the consequence of sin else we'd be exactly as God "planned." Some Open Theists believe God had no idea where Adam was nor was watching when he and Eve fell. The other Open Theists understand better, and hold to my position that God knew. Because of this, it is hard to have a conversation with all Open Theists. Some grasp the dilemma (as I believe you do).
There are consequences that come with the things we believe. The challenge you face is to explain how God is not responsible for sin.
This is a challenge I simply do not want to try and defend. I say my sin is the result of my choices, without any dichotomy.
And I think scripture justifies this view.
I hold to the open theist view, but I appreciate that Calvinist ideas of exhaustive foreknowledge or omniscience are easy to see in some passages.
I think that in the contest between our worldviews, it is important to recognize that the most important factor is that the relationships between God and man, and among men, are kept possible.
Calvin goes too far when he says that it is only those who God calls who may come to Him, and that those who are called will do so. This eradicates relationships.
Lon
Well-known member
... and you. You can't take these out of your Bible any more than I can: 1 Peter 1:19-21Ephesians 3:9-11
See? It was 'pre-ordained' and the Lord Jesus Christ was predestined.
I don't believe you (or I) have a choice. It is actually good that we both try. It is this struggle that makes you and Open Theist at this time, and me more Calvinist at this time. It is also why I count you a brother. We are both trying to do honor to scriptures. The open dialogue is important.
Sort of. Your 'sin' is inherited from the first Adam. In that sense, a bit of this was predetermined as well, 'for all sinned.' Romans 5:12
The longer I'm alive and examining these different systematic theologies, including my own, the more I see readily the flaws in every last one of them. I believe, at this time, Open Theism has the larger and more of.
Conversely, I also agree with Open Theists God did not desire nor have any hand in sin. He couldn't have. It is the opposite of Himself. :up:
Relationship IS important, but it doesn't require that we 'choose.' Again, my kids didn't choose to be in this particular family. They wouldn't (as far as I know) have it any other way...
...And this is the disagreement. Relationship is not eradicated at all. The MORE God is seen as the Author of our relationship to Him, the better. Why? --> The first covenant was the Law. It left things 'in man's hands' for a time (Paul says as a governor). The problem: man couldn't live up to the law. Only one could (and did). It was rather to show that we don't have good relationship skills and needed a Mediator. The Gospel is even more invasive to your relationship objection because it literally took relationship out of our hands and gave it to Christ on our behalf! HE keeps our salvation (relationship) secure. It is important to always look at such. I'm convinced, even if you remain Open Theist, it WILL cause a scriptural change in your thinking more accurately embracing the scriptures. :e4e: -Lon
It looks like you don't understand the challenge. We agree that the plan to send Jesus was in place before creation. The challenge to the Calvinist is to show how they do not make God responsible for sin.
Their usual response is from Romans: "Who are you, man?"
Of course.
That verse doesn't say one way or the other that Adam was programmed to act the way he did.
The question is: How does your worldview logically account for this?
They choose to remain in love — a relationship based on their will — even if they have no say in their biology.
And this same Paul urges men to confess with their mouths and believe with their hearts.
You can't take stuff that God has done and say that they are all that happened to eliminate the role a man's will has in his life.
Lon
Well-known member
And you! You don't 'get out of it' just because you are an Open Theist. You've just agreed, before Adam and Eve sinned, that God pre-planned the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm sure I've heard what you are saying, having had this conversation before, but I'm not quite connecting the dots :think:
I believe the scenario for this one is often compared to a computer program: God made man. "If" God made man 'self-determining' then God 'wired man' to be able to fail/fall. The problem? God only makes creation that is 'good.' Entertain for a moment: If God put a switch in man that 'could' go against His own character, that's be 'out of character' for God. It is every bit as much and I think more a problem for Open Theism in proposition at this point. When the Open Theist believes God made him/her with a 'free' will, they are saying God pre-programmed man 'against' His own nature. Even putting in the switch is 'against' His nature. It doesn't matter if you are Open or I'm Calvinist. We both have a very large issue against our chosen respectives. I see mine, clearly. I hope the Open Theist sees his/hers nearly as clearly.
Genesis 3:1 is fairly well, my only hint.
Many ask "How did the serpent get this way? I don't know that either. Somehow, an imperfection exists in what perfection does. How? :idunno: Further? Even if tomorrow I became an Open Theist, I'd still not know and would have to try to answer the same way. Neither Open Theism nor Calvinism provides an easy or all-satisfying answer.
I deny this. They choose what has been given and taught to them. My kids have no other choice and more...they don't want one.
You'd call this then, 'choice' but I rather believe it is simply being satisfied and happy with no choice at all. Think of it: Your only other option is some kind of odd choice 'not' to want it. This is the problem of sin, but Open Theism, imho, never really thinks this hard or deeply very often. I've always endeavored to get them to try. The simplistic isn't often the best, it just glosses over and thus makes one feel comfortable, if only for a little while. The harder questions, even that the Open Theist thought he avoided, are still there, just pushed into the background by attempt. There has to come a point when even an Open Theist realizes he/she didn't gain as much as they'd hoped in the conversion.
So "just a 'little' bit better than the Mosaic Law" then? Isn't trying to take your own responsibility for your own salvation, what Galatians is about?
Didn't, in fact, God and Christ already decide AND do all that was needed? How much credit and responsibility do you want to take for your relationship with God, eradicating your sin, and salvation? 10/90? 5/95? 1/99? The flip of this is how much YOU want to determine your own destiny. How much 'determinism' do you want to take or keep possession of? .005/99.95? What's the percentage? How much better, by the numbers, is the New Covenant? If 50/50 then you are correct, we are pretty far apart in our respective theologies. If .005/99.95 then you are much closer to mine than you imagined and the difference is starting to become negligible. In Him. -Lon
That doesn't tie me to the notion that they were predestined to do so.
I'm saying the verses you presented do not apply. The Romans one is more likely applicable.
God has a will. He made man in His image, also with a will.
That carried with it the risk that men would reject Him, but it is the only way to create beings who are capable of choosing to be with Him — an actual relationship. Otherwise, He could have simply created men to do as He determined, but not ever sinned.
Which is worse: God creating men with the "switch," or Him creating them with no switch, but predestined to fall?
I don't know that either. The possibility for imperfection exists by necessity when creating a being with a will.
As I said, I'm not looking for answers per se. What is important is that I do not level an accusation at God built from where the logic of my worldview leads. Calvinists have built into their beliefs things that remove the challenge that God created men with no choice but to be evil, making Him its author. However, those doctrines do not flow from logic or reason, but the same goal I have of not leveling the accusation. They keep their Calvinism despite the logical contradictions they must incorporate into it.
And yet all men sin and fall short of the glory of God.
It's not a law; it's an act of faith and the work of Jesus Christ alone. Paul wrote this in Romans, so we do have to incorporate it into what we believe.
Yes. All that is left is for me to acknowledge the fact. Men are capable of denying Him, you know?
None. I only want credit for having accepted that it is true. It's like when the sun rises: I do not claim to have had any role in turning the Earth, but I do claim credit for actually admitting that it is daytime.
None.
As I say, I think our theologies are pretty much in sync. It's just the mental gymnastics we have to go through to explain away a few problems that logically arise from what we believe. I think open theism does it a little better.
Lon
Well-known member
Let's look:
Pre-planned: God planned before anything ever happened for everything. The Open Theist would say "every contingency" but it is just giving the number of things God pre-planned.
Predestined, predetermined is like 'preplanned' in that it is God still in control.
preordained/ foreordained Acts 4:28 God the Father predestined
the Lord Jesus Christ for Salvation.
Romans 8:29,30 Tucked in Romans 8 and 9 is a declaration that God 'forknows' those He 'predestinated.' Nobody who reads their bible and loves it can possibly throw this verse out. It is a MUST keep verse.
Ephesians 1:5, 11 Some do a weird dance to get around verse 5 but it is clear from verse 4 that 'us' 1) are known before the foundation of the world (names are taken out of the book of life, not written when each are born).
Hebrews 6:17 God's plans are immutable (therefore pre-ordained AND cannot change though some Open Theists declare God can 'change His mind.' :nono: Not possible NOR would any Open Theist actually want Him to do so. There is 'best' and then 'not so best.'
The promises of God are 'predestined.' We were 'predestined' to be blessed by Abraham's faith.
▲This doesn't agree with this▼
:think:
It is a deduction, not, in fact, a scriptural given. You 'think' will was what was in God's image but try this (please): Genesis 3:5 What was the 'promise' or prediciton? Can it be that God gave what the serpent takes responsibility for? Worse: isn't there an inherent danger in listening and believing the serpent or claiming the actual real, thing obtained (a will to NOT do as God commanded) is a 'gift' and that this is what was imago deo (how we were made in His image)? There is a great danger here for every Open Theist (and Arminian).
Wow. You've (and every other Open Theist who has said this to me) just blown my Calvinist mind. You know how everyone disagrees with Beloved about God creating sin? You and every other Open Theist that says this is literally telling me that God is the author of Sin (even if somewhat indirectly, still purposefully!)
Do you understand why the rest of us Calvinists say this is heresy? Because it CANNOT (read that 'cannot' again) be that God would 'desire' what is opposite of His own nature. How could you, for instance, possibly do something you 'cannot or would not do' in the first place??? It can't be done! I wish every Open Theist on the planet would read these last couple of sentences. It is impossible for God, without sin/against sin, to make a creature that 'wants' to sin.
Both! Neither! God didn't create man desiring him/her to fall and no switch was put in. The serpent both created and flipped the switch. The one constant I do not have an answer for, is how the serpent, created by God, could have fallen. It is against holiness and perfection both, for such a creature to even exist in the world. The Open Theist (Sanders) then believes God is capable of 'mistakes.' If that's the case, then the Mormons are right and God was 'not perfect' but 'became so.' Problem? A Being who is righteous, perfect, and holy, 'became' holy at some later date after Satan fell. Before that? He'd have been 'good' but not perfect in His goodness. "Darkness" would have existed in God in whom there is "no darkness at all."
At this point, whatever you think, let me hear the scriptures because I've good many behind me right now screaming against such a notion for truthfulness.
I appreciate that and you. On the converse, at least look at the traps inherent in the propositions above. Every Open Theist necessarily has to address these when talking to the rest of the Body of Christ (and I believe even among yourselves, these have to be shown, asked, and meaningfully answered).
For me, and "yes please show me" the answer is not "God" but the serpent. "How?" I'm with you. I just don't know, but I REALLY don't like the Mormon's ideas and positions about God being imperfect. There are too many scriptures that say God doesn't change and "IS" already perfect (Holy, righteous et al )and always has been.
Agreed Genesis 3:1 The problem again, is whether you need to 'choose' to have a meaningful relationship. I've had a few friends who insisted on being my friend thus became meaningful to me as friends despite my 'will.' Granted these were when I was a kid, but let me also repeat that the Body of Christ is mine without my will involved at all. I don't 'get' to choose my brothers and sisters in Christ. More, I'm thankful I don't for surely I'd do a terrible job.
Yes, but this still has you owning the details of your own salvation. Can you lose it? How could you know? Where is the point where you know, by faith, your salvation is secure? In your own hands???
Sort of, isn't it rather that we are born already denying Him though? The mystery, for me, is both how the switch to sin 'could' have existed, let alone get flipped. Similarly, I've no idea how the switch gets flipped back in Christ other than Him doing it (my total depravity is culprit for this one).Yes. All that is left is for me to acknowledge the fact. Men are capable of denying Him, you know?
What if 'you' began to doubt? Would Jesus disown you? How one-way or two-way is our salvation?
Well, that's still monergism (and Calvinist). I have, in many years on TOL, come to realize a good many Open Theists embrace tenants of Calvinism. Monergism is a good one to embrace.It's like when the sun rises: I do not claim to have had any role in turning the Earth, but I do claim credit for actually admitting that it is daytime.
:up: Appreciate the exchange and the ability to traverse these with you (once again). Thank you. -Lon
The closest I am willing to get to the idea that man was predestined to fall is to say that God figured it was certain that eventually, someone would betray His trust.
This makes His plan — put in place before the foundations of the Earth — sensible.
I would not agree that the Romans passage denies my worldview. I just think it's a more challenging response for you to use against me than the other verses.
I believe that the woman had a choice to make as Satan spoke to her. The things he promised were lies. She already had everything she needed to spend the rest of eternity in perfect union with her world, her husband and her God — which included a will.
The punishment she reaped was justified because of her choice. The mercy she was shown was because of her ignorance and mitigated culpability.
These ideas jive well with the concepts of truth and justice that we call good. If she had been destined to take and eat, that destroys the concepts of truth and justice. Calvinists ease this challenge by declaring God's sovereignty. I think it's much better to just leave the design of Eve's actions where the Bible puts them, ie, with her.
Cut here, cause I want to read the conversation again before responding further.