|
|
Post by Caroline on Mar 25, 2017 15:47:48 GMT -5
What is predestination? Well, some Protestant reformers and those today who identify as strong Calvinists do believe that predestination means God does pull all the strings and is the ultimate cause of all our actions, good or bad. By some twisted (in my view) logic they maintain that only by ascribing to him this complete and total control can he be properly and supremely glorified. But that is NOT what all Christians believe, and in fact I think it’s a safe bet that most do not. There is a correlating doctrine, however, that is traditionally accepted as true of the faith but is disputed “in-house” as to its meaning. Even some who may not hold to predestination as hard determinism believe and teach that God sovereignly chooses whom to save and whom to damn. It’s known as the doctrine of election and there are a number of verses in the Bible that seem to suggest this is true. But interpreting them this way leads to a number of contradictions. Because there are also many verses that read as a universal call to believe. Please refer to my blog post here for an explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by jimboslice on Jul 4, 2017 7:36:59 GMT -5
Hi Caroline. There is so more to predestination than what you posted on your blog. As a Reformed believer I believe that predestination means one thing for the elect and another for the non elect. Some call this double predestination. For the elect we are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ after God regenerates our hearts giving us a new heart, renewing our mind and changing our desires and will. For the non elect they just stay in the state of sin that they are born in. The non elect are slaves to sin because of Adams disobedience and are quite happy to remain there.
However this a such a big topic a quick reply is not enough to justify this issue. But I believe the contradictions are far more problematic on the arminian side of this than the Reformed view.
Thanks for letting me post. May God bless you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Jul 4, 2017 11:10:27 GMT -5
Hi, jimboslice. I appreciate your input and welcome you to the forum! I recognize that I barely scratched the surface of the doctrine of predestination here and on my blog. My intention there was to address it as a barrier to Christianity for those who are on the outside looking in, and here, in addition, to get a conversation going.
As my primary concern is for truth and God's glory, I would embrace predestination as it's understood in the Reformed traditions if I could be convinced that that's truly what Scripture teaches. But it just doesn't seem to jive with God's nature and the biblical evidence.
But I am certain that we can disagree in love on this as brothers and sisters in Christ, so I pray his blessings on you as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboslice on Jul 6, 2017 10:32:24 GMT -5
Hi Caroline. Thanks for your reply. I do believe that the main issue with those outside of Christianity looking in, when it comes to predestination, is that how could a loving God predestine anyone to hell. Is that what you are saying? That is the main "problem I hear from the arminian side. Basically the "I don't want to believe in God like that" statement. The Bible must be the final arbiter on such beliefs no matter what traditions or beliefs we may hold. Our beliefs must give way to correct Biblical teaching no matter how awful we might think that belief is at the beginning. This is often the position of anti- Christians who say the OT is filled with pictures of God being a megalomaniac when they only focus on the OT verses where God instructs Israel and some of its leaders to kill not just the men but women and children and livestock. At first look it may appear they are right but when we actually dive into the Word we see the reasoning behind Gods instructions. The same can be said about predestination. I would like, if possible, to just assume some common ground. When Jesus said "Whoever commits sin is a servant (slave) to sin" {John 8:34} didn't Jesus mean that all people, before conversion (regeneration), cannot escape their captivity to sin on their own? That when Jesus said "When the Son sets you free you will be free indeed" that what He meant was He actually has set us free from being slaves to sin? If I assume we both agree with these Biblical statements of Jesus then we find there are only 2 types of people in the world. Those who are slaves to sin and those who have been set free from sin ie: Christian believers. Can we agree that all those who remain slaves to sin and die in that state are predestined to hell? And that all those whom the Son has set free have had their destination changed by the Son so that now all Christians are predestined to be conformed into the image of the Son? This neither makes God the author of sin or the one pulling all the strings. It means God rules over all as Sovereign King. Those who sin willfully sin, willfully disobey God, willfully suppress the Truth that could set them free. So the question is why does God intervene in the life of some to regenerate some and not "all" especially when the Gospel is to be preached to "everyone"? Paul answers that- not just in Romans 8 and 9, but in Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. So, can we believe what we want to believe or what the Bible teaches? Can we accept that God has His own will that supersedes man will even when it comes to salvation and does things and allows things to happen that we may find "bad" but somehow that is all "according to the good pleasure of His will"? Thank you again for allowing me to post. May God bless you. BTW, I just happened on this page. I was not "surfing the net" looking for a Reformed/Arminian debate. I was researching something and found your post and then your link to your blog. Though in the past I have readily engaged in debating such issues i find that many cannot, sometimes myself even, remain civil. Too often the discussion escalates out of control into name-calling and trashing others and questioning the other persons salvation. What a poor example of Christians we must be to many sometimes. I hope we can remain civil and discuss this, if you want to, and as you say possibly even agree to disagree in Christian love on this issue.  |
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Jul 7, 2017 6:54:30 GMT -5
Yes, the unloving (and unlovely) divisiveness between Christians is probably as much a deterrent to the faith as the doctrine of predestination can be.
But about the doctrine, I of course recognize that the Bible talks about us being "predestined," but just how to understand that is the question. What I object to and reject is the notion that there are some who have no chance of being saved. They are born "in sin" and condemned from birth and not among "the elect" so are hopelessly lost for eternity. But it seems to me that just cannot be reconciled with a good, loving, just God. It's not that "I don't want to believe in a God like that." It's that God CAN'T be like that. If a teaching seems quite clearly to be in conflict with a fundamental truth about God, then our interpretation of Scripture must be off.
I believe there are other ways of understanding predestination, i.e. that it is corporate in that God predestined all who believe in Jesus to be adopted as his children.
Again, my rejection of the Reformed position is not from a humanist perspective pitting the "rights" of all people against the sovereignty of God. It's from the perspective of the nature of God and the necessity of his ways being consistent with his nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboslice on Jul 7, 2017 11:20:57 GMT -5
Caroline, thanks for your answer. I was wondering if you could explain your thoughts on what happened when Adam fell into sin when he disobeyed Gods command to not eat the fruit. I think this is a question that is vital to understanding predestination. Not if Adam was predestined to disobey but the consequences of his disobedience/sin against Gods command. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Jul 8, 2017 7:23:28 GMT -5
I believe the consequence pertinent to our discussion is that we are all born with a sin nature, but not with a "stain" of sin of some sort on our souls. Just as birds are born "flyers" but they don't come out of the egg flying, so we are born "sinners" but we still need to sin to be held accountable for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboslice on Jul 11, 2017 11:56:14 GMT -5
Hi Caroline.
You wrote- I believe the consequence pertinent to our discussion is that we are all born with a sin nature, but not with a "stain" of sin of some sort on our souls.
First I would like to say I believe in what is called the Federal headship. Are you familiar with the term?
If there is no stain from Adams sin on us why does every person who ever lived, including sometimes babies, die? Is that not a stain that our ultimate predestined end is physical death?
Also if there was "no stain" why did God choose to destroy the world by a flood yet save only 8 people? Genesis 6: 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Sounds like a stain on their imaginations to me.
Then why did God choose Noah? What was special about him? Genesis 6:8 Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
So again we see salvation by grace which actually means God sovereign choice in choosing Noah and the his family.
I believe the Bible is clear that indeed all have a "stain" from Adam- 100% of people are going to die in the flesh because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That is the stain. There is no escape from that certainty.
I, as a Reformed Christian, believe God's will is perfect. God is perfect. Mans will is flawed by the curse of death and we as Adams offspring cannot charge God with with any type of imperfection in His will. We must allow all things that actually take place to actually be in His will.
Eph. 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Jul 12, 2017 6:26:55 GMT -5
Hi, Jim (Jimbo?) What should I call you?
Yes, I'm familiar with the concept that Adam is our "federal head," and I could accept that physical death is the "stain" of sin. What I am not convinced that Scripture teaches, and what seems clearly at odds with God's justice, is that we are guilty of sin at birth and therefore eternally condemned if we die before having the capability to believe and trust in Christ. What do you believe is the eternal fate of babies who die?
I don't see how the flood account speaks to the issue of federal headship.
I too believe God and his will are perfect. And that includes being perfectly good and just. To condemn any person to hell who had absolutely nothing to do with the state of his or her soul at birth and no chance of being saved before death because not among the elect is clearly unjust. It’s not that I’m rejecting what Scripture teaches, it’s that I believe the verses that reference predestination can and should be understood differently than how those in the Reformed tradition do. As you say, man’s will “is flawed” and so is his/our apprehension of truth. As I said above, “If a teaching seems quite clearly to be in conflict with a fundamental truth about God, then our interpretation of Scripture must be off.”
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboslice on Jul 14, 2017 12:50:21 GMT -5
Hi Caroline. You may call me Jim. Thanks for asking.
Sorry it took a couple of days to reply. Just a busy time for me.
I do not know where babies who die go but if they go to hell I believe that will be just in the eyes of God. If they go to Heaven that will be solely by Gods grace. David said he was conceived in sin, Psalm 51, so i am not under the assumption that babies are excluded from the ALL when the verse says "all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God". Seems your position has to make an exemption clause for babies for you believe they are innocent. I have no such assumption of innocence but I have, as a Reformed believer, the assumption that all of human kind was "In Adam" when he fell so that stain of sin, some call original sin, even effects the eternal destiny of babies. This also includes those who never heard of Jesus, those who are of diminished mental capacity.
IMO, those who never heard are where they are because of the sin of their ancestors. They left God and tried to get as far from God as possible on this earth and then started their own religion. Remember the Tower of Babel when all people spoke the same language, had the same goal to ascend to Heaven to be like God and God said "not happening". These same people are the ones who were sent away and then tried to do the same thing- create their own way to Heaven.
The Flood shows how all people, including babies and young children, died in the flood because they were under the curse of the fall of Adam. Only 8 survived and they were not innocent, but they were saved by the grace of God. So the flood reflects the same situation we have today. Sinners sentenced to die in their sins and some were graciously saved, elected by God, to survive and continue the human race.
I got to run. Hopefully we can continue to discus this important issue.
may God bless you.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboslice on Jul 17, 2017 9:17:10 GMT -5
Hello again, Caroline. During my research I came across this letter from George Whitefield to John Wesley about this very same topic. Whitefield and Wesley were co-workers in the advancement of the Gospel however they had a strong disagreement on this topic. You can read about the background for why Whitefield wrote his letter HERE www.romans45.org/wesley/murray.htmand you can read Whitefields letter HERE www.romans45.org/wesley.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Jul 17, 2017 14:18:19 GMT -5
Hi, Jim. Thanks for the links. I haven't read them yet but I intend to and plan to respond again when I do. For now, since you cited Psalm 51:5 as evidence for your position, as I have read and heard others do, I’d like to focus on that first, since it seems to count as primary support.
The Psalms being poetic in nature need to be read as such, and so we can expect that often the chosen words and expressions will be metaphorical, symbolic, or exaggerated for effect. As in Psalm 58:3 - "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
Are we to believe from this verse that the wicked were speaking from birth? Or that the washing David speaks of in 51:7 will be evident by any part of his body or soul being literally “whiter than snow”? Did David really expect God to put his tears in a bottle (56:8) or think that his soul was really in the midst of lions (57:4)? In light of David’s anguish over his sin with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, it seems more reasonable to interpret verse 51:5 as a way of expressing the terrible guilt he felt in an exaggerated admission of his sinfulness by portraying himself as sinful from conception.
Have you considered this interpretation of that verse?
|
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Jul 18, 2017 7:06:47 GMT -5
I just read Whitefield's letter to Wesley. It's an interesting bit of history, but not really a defense of the doctrine of election. If you would like to continue our discussion of it, I suggest you begin a new thread on what you see as Scriptural support for it, with one thread per verse/passage. Because, of course, and I'm sure you would agree, that's where the focus should be. And I'm confident if neither of us is persuaded to the other's view we can follow Whitefield's and Wesley's lead and allow for our different interpretations without sacrificing unity in Christ. If you'd rather just agree to disagree, we can do that too. :-)
|
|
