predestination

[Mystical]

God knows who will choose salvation, He doesn't make them choose it or not choose it.

[Believer]

Very briefly--most of you seem to be mixing the terms election with predestination. If election means that God elects (chooses) some to salvation, and predestination means that God predestines (chooses) some to salvation, then can you see that both of these are exactly the same?

Predestination is nothing more than God's decree that certain things will happen to the elect. They elect are predestined to salvation, to adoption, and to an inheritance. It is that simple.

The question now becomes this: does God elect individuals to salvation, and by extention "elect" some to damnation, or does this doctrine mean something else entirely?

Yes, God chooses people to go to hell against their free-will to choose. You can't do anything, if you are "marked" so to speak, it doesn't matter, you're going to hell. Again, we can't use our own free-will (or lack of) to choose. I have asked some people about it, including my Christian counselor, and all I get are differing viewpoints. So what is truth then? Is there a simpler analogy to be made? I know that some people don't even bother with Christianity BECAUSE of this issue alone, that they don't have a will to choose, so why bother? Why spread the Good News since God has already chosen His people? There is no hope, just for the people that God chooses against our will.

[Lady Bee]

*ponders*

What do you guys make of this passage?

21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

(Romans 9:21-23)


p.s. Foreknowledge and predestination are different things, right? Predestination is all about God's sovereign will. Which runs above His revealed will. But I don't know where I am going with that. Sooo I'll be quiet.

[SUGAAAAA]

what about 1 John 2:2?

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[B. W.]

Let me post what I posted on another thread and edit it for you all: This is how I understand the subject of predestination and I hope it helps anyone here comprehend it more. If not — well — it is something to work off of…

In order to grasp this topic, think of God calling, or declaring, something; for me, this helps me understand the subject predestination. What helped me the most to understand predestination and free will (autonomy of reason) was to see the five links from the Romans 8:29-30 chain.

Romans 8: 29-30 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren; Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” NKJV

In Romans 8:30 the five links of a theological chain are all are interlocked together: foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. (I think Sproul came up with the five chain illustration based on Romans 8: 29-30, but I can't remember clearly if it was he or someone else)

The links of this chain are as follows: foreknowing, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. The central link is the strongest link as it is the middle link that holds the chain together.

Without the middle link you would have a doctorial position based on: foreknowing, predestination, justification, and glorification verses another doctorial belief based on; predestination, foreknowing, justification, and glorification. These leave out the Sovereign will of God totally out of the picture.

The doctrines based on foreknowing, predestination, justification, and glorification point to man's own ability to choose His way into heaven.

Likewise, the doctrines that emphasize predestination, foreknowing, justification, and glorification make God out as a cruel master — picking and choosing people to Hell or Heaven. Both err as they have missed the Call — that middle link that holds the chain together.

God makes known His sovereign will by His calling. Without the calling — human beings would never freely choose God. The Calling provides the avenue for choices to be made just like He gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when He called out to them. They responded to His Call. If God would not have called, our first parents would have remained lost and forsaken. I use the Adam and Eve illustration only to illustrate a point - not some doctrine truth.

The Callings of God declare His sovereign will to save, heal, justify, glorify, etc… Without His callings — no one would be capable to choose God as no one could choose without the call issuing forth from God.

His call — engages our human reasoning to be able to freely make a choice. It is not our choice that saves us but rather God's call — which, without - no choice could be ever made.

I do not like to use the term free will as it denotes that a sovereign God is a slave to human choices. However, I do use the term because others do and it is a good reference point for anyone discussing the subject. I use the term 'Autonomy of Reason' instead of 'free will' because God is in the business of engaging human reason as Isaiah 1:18 states, “Come let us reason together...” NKJV

God foreknows everything about us before we are ever born. He knows that without His call, all humankind would be lost and since He knows all things, He foreknows well in advance how people will respond to His call before they have ever done anything bad or good.

Next, He can predestine us according to His callings as He knows all things. Those that He knows will come to Him, will do so, and those that not, will not. He knows who will respond to His callings and who will not. It is His Calling, not our choice that determines the elect. Our choices are merely a response to His call. Without His call — there would be no choice possible.

It is God's call, His decree, His plan, His call of salvation that creates the choice. This choice engages our reason because God designed us to be able to reason freely. Too freely reason shows God's just and merciful nature as a sovereign. Without granting the ability to reason autonomously, God would be not be all-powerful, as being all-powerful is able to control all things justly, etc.

God knows everything, even the choices a person makes before the person is ever born. Since it is God's calling decree, He foreknows the choices made and can fashion each accordingly. Therefore, it is not human choices that God foresees that save a person, but rather it is God's Call, decree, alone that saves. It is God who wills salvations plans decrees. Without this decree, none could, or would have ever been saved.

Because of God's decree, our human reasoning intelligence can respond to His Call — freely — without any violation of justice or trust. God already knows everything about us before we were ever born. Since He does, he can place each person in the scheme of time according to His own Will.

This is what is difficult to see — without God's call or decree to show mercy, salvation, etc... There could be no choice. Since God made the call according to His own will, He can have mercy on whom He wills. The Call is what makes the choice possible — without it — all would be damned.

A hard heart is a heart that refuses to respond. If a person hardens their own heart, and God foresees this hardness, God can make ones heart, harder than the person could ever do without any violation of justice or fairness.

God is perfect and fair. No doubt, God could change the heart of Pharaoh and make it good but since God is absolutely fair and just to do so would not be fair to any person bent on hardening their own heart against God's decree of salvation. That is how fair and just God is. If a person was foreseen to be so hard, it would be no violation if God made that person's heart even harder so that God's Glory and plan of salvation can shine on through all adversity.

Therefore: God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than Pharaoh to be, Pharaoh and thus made Pharaoh — Pharaoh.

Likewise, God offered the decree and foresaw that there would be no one better than you to be you, and thus made you — you: saved - born again — justified — sanctified — redeemed — and Glorified at the resurrection of the just!

Romans 8 6-7, 11 “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called…11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).” NKJV

Also, His callings determine the process of justification now and forever and the state glorification in the life to come. He knows well in advance who will acquiescence to the process of justification and who will not. He is sovereign.

What I mean by the process of justification is the Christian walk — being free from indwelling sin during our earthly sojourn, repentance, learning not to sin, God's discipline, the process of becoming sanctified, the process of justification that God declares over us and what we do to catch up to its full declarative meaning.
-
-

[Kurieuo]

Predestination is nothing more than God's decree that certain things will happen to the elect.

I'd disagree that it is 'necessarily' God's decree, as taking away God, one could still possibly believe in having a destiny. God's decree I would say is more compatible with 'election'. Still you are right I think to point out the differences. Maybe something like the following would be better: "It is by God's election that some a predestined to salvation"?

It seems quite natural to ask then, how is this 'predestining by election' is compatible with our 'free will' which we see in Scripture where we are accountable to God, responsible for our actions, and so forth. I believe Craig with his theology surrounding God's providence (scroll down to the heading "Providence"), provides some enlightening information which harmonises these two.

Kurieuo

[Believer]

Still don't understand B.W., way to long of an article for ADD people like me. Can you shorten it and make it very simple into one sentence? None of this makes sense at all. I'm having a mental breakdown over trying to figure this out.

[Mystical]

So God places us in circumstances which will eventually lead us to choose Him? Does He place others in circumstances on purpose so that they don't choose Him? Or, does He just place the elect in special (pro-God) circumstances, and allows the others to fend for themselves (thus, the non-elect can choose Him, but don't get special help like the elect)?

[Jac3510]

I'd disagree that it is 'necessarily' God's decree, as taking away God, one could still possibly believe in having a destiny. God's decree I would say is more compatible with 'election'. Still you are right I think to point out the differences. Maybe something like the following would be better: "It is by God's election that some a predestined to salvation"?

It seems quite natural to ask then, how is this 'predestining by election' is compatible with our 'free will' which we see in Scripture where we are accountable to God, responsible for our actions, and so forth. I believe Craig with his theology surrounding God's providence (scroll down to the heading "Providence"), provides some enlightening information which harmonises these two.

Sorry, K, I still disagree. Individuals are not predestined to salvation. Show me a single place in scripture that is taught. What we do see are the three verses I've already responded to. Those whom God foreknew (read "the elect") are predestined to conformity to the image of His son. The elect are predestined to salvation, and the elect are predestined to an inheritance.

We may be tempted here to say that the "because the elect are predestined to salvation, and the elect are individuals, then it follows that individuals are predestined to salvation." However, this proves a misunderstanding of the eternal nature of the decree. It also gets into a sub/infra/supra-lapsarian debate. My personal position would be as follows:

1) God decreed to create.
2) God decreed to permit the fall.
3) God decreed to provide a means of salvation.
4) God decreed to save some.

These, of course, are not chronologically sequential but only logically sequential. By changing these orders you come up with wildly different theologies. For instance, if you switch (3) and (4), you come up with standard Calvinism.

The reason I bring this up is that in this idea, election occurs at (4), while predestination is not even on this list. You would have to add a (5), which would say something to the effect of "God decreed the elect would be saved, glorified, and have an inheritance."

It is here we ask ourselves if election is to salvation or not. In other words, did God look at the fallen creation and say, "I elect you for salvation, but not you"? Again, most people consider that question one of predestination, and it simply is not. To argue so is, if I may say so, just bad theology.

For the record, I strongly hold to the idea that election is NOT to salvation, but rather those who are elected are saved. It can best be demonstrated visually. The standard view of election is something like this:

Code: Select all

Christ           Adam
   |              |
   |              |
  me  <---------- me
        election

Here, it is easy to see that we are elected from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ." We move from one "family tree" to another. I, though, see it this way.

Code: Select all

|    Christ              Adam
|       |                 |
|       |     rebirth     |
V      me  <-----------  me
election

Here, God elected those who are "in Christ", and not elected some "to be in Christ." Thus, God predestines the elect for salvation. It is individuals are are, in fact, elected and predestined for salvation, adoption, and an inheritance--we certainly are not arguing for corporate election, which is one of the reasons I disagree with Craig.

Anyway, this has been far from a formal defense of the position, and I've not cited any Scripture here. I'm just explaining the concept . . . hopefully, you'll see where I'm coming from. I'll just say that I believe this to be the system that the Bible teaches, and if you hold this, you have absolutely zero problem with the free will vs. sovereignty problem. And, sorry to say, but for the record, my studies in predestination and election have forced me even more than before into the belief of a totally atemporal God. I like Craig a lot, and his concept of middle knowledge is interesting and can certainly be made to work, but I just don't think it jives with Scripture as well as the position I'm advocating does.

God bless

[Believer]

I'd disagree that it is 'necessarily' God's decree, as taking away God, one could still possibly believe in having a destiny. God's decree I would say is more compatible with 'election'. Still you are right I think to point out the differences. Maybe something like the following would be better: "It is by God's election that some a predestined to salvation"?

It seems quite natural to ask then, how is this 'predestining by election' is compatible with our 'free will' which we see in Scripture where we are accountable to God, responsible for our actions, and so forth. I believe Craig with his theology surrounding God's providence (scroll down to the heading "Providence"), provides some enlightening information which harmonises these two.

Sorry, K, I still disagree. Individuals are not predestined to salvation. Show me a single place in scripture that is taught. What we do see are the three verses I've already responded to. Those whom God foreknew (read "the elect") are predestined to conformity to the image of His son. The elect are predestined to salvation, and the elect are predestined to an inheritance.

We may be tempted here to say that the "because the elect are predestined to salvation, and the elect are individuals, then it follows that individuals are predestined to salvation." However, this proves a misunderstanding of the eternal nature of the decree. It also gets into a sub/infra/supra-lapsarian debate. My personal position would be as follows:

1) God decreed to create.
2) God decreed to permit the fall.
3) God decreed to provide a means of salvation.
4) God decreed to save some.

These, of course, are not chronologically sequential but only logically sequential. By changing these orders you come up with wildly different theologies. For instance, if you switch (3) and (4), you come up with standard Calvinism.

The reason I bring this up is that in this idea, election occurs at (4), while predestination is not even on this list. You would have to add a (5), which would say something to the effect of "God decreed the elect would be saved, glorified, and have an inheritance."

It is here we ask ourselves if election is to salvation or not. In other words, did God look at the fallen creation and say, "I elect you for salvation, but not you"? Again, most people consider that question one of predestination, and it simply is not. To argue so is, if I may say so, just bad theology.

For the record, I strongly hold to the idea that election is NOT to salvation, but rather those who are elected are saved. It can best be demonstrated visually. The standard view of election is something like this:

Code: Select all

Christ           Adam
   |              |
   |              |
  me  <---------- me
        election

Here, it is easy to see that we are elected from being "in Adam" to being "in Christ." We move from one "family tree" to another. I, though, see it this way.

Code: Select all

|    Christ              Adam
|       |                 |
|       |     rebirth     |
V      me  <-----------  me
election

Here, God elected those who are "in Christ", and not elected some "to be in Christ." Thus, God predestines the elect for salvation. It is individuals are are, in fact, elected and predestined for salvation, adoption, and an inheritance--we certainly are not arguing for corporate election, which is one of the reasons I disagree with Craig.

Anyway, this has been far from a formal defense of the position, and I've not cited any Scripture here. I'm just explaining the concept . . . hopefully, you'll see where I'm coming from. I'll just say that I believe this to be the system that the Bible teaches, and if you hold this, you have absolutely zero problem with the free will vs. sovereignty problem. And, sorry to say, but for the record, my studies in predestination and election have forced me even more than before into the belief of a totally atemporal God. I like Craig a lot, and his concept of middle knowledge is interesting and can certainly be made to work, but I just don't think it jives with Scripture as well as the position I'm advocating does.

God bless

Wow, didn't make sense at all.

[B. W.]

Still don't understand B.W., way to long of an article for ADD people like me. Can you shorten it and make it very simple into one sentence? None of this makes sense at all. I'm having a mental breakdown over trying to figure this out.

Sure, Please read slow and try to think of it in this way: there once was a just and fair king who issued a decree in writing and had it posted throughout has vast kingdom. The decreed read, six months from now on this date June 1, 2006 all persons who owe delinquent taxes are to report to their local Courthouse where they will be granted clemency and owe no back taxes forever.

Every month, for six months, the written decree was posted in the land. On the date required, only one third of those who owed delinquent taxes showed up to receive clemency and had their back tax debit erased forever and went home rejoicing at the mercy and Fairness of the great King!

Next day, the other two thirds showed up expecting the same. All these people who had failed to show on the day required said that they were afraid the King was lying and waited to see what happened to those that went the correct day. Clearly, those that failed to show up on the correct day had no trust for the King and thus the king had no trust in them and they had to pay back all past due taxes owed.

God, being perfectly just, declared and called forth an invitation, without this invitation, no one would or could be invited to go where God wanted. Without God's invitation, no one would choose God's salvation He alone declared. Why, People are too busy choosing anything but God and remain lost not knowing where they are going.

God knows everything, even the choices a person makes before the person is ever born. Why is that? Bible teaches us that God knows all things. He foresaw everything and all choices we can ever make before we were ever born because He is God. He designed us with the ability to choose. He designed us that way because God is Fair and Just!

Why? So we could respond freely to His invitation, or not. Those that respond — show that they trust God and His invitation and are rewarded. Those that do not — show that they do not trust God's invitation and cannot be trusted.

Therefore, it is not our human choices that God foresees that save a person, but rather it is God's Call, decree, His invitation alone that saves. Without His invitations decree, none could, or would ever be saved. Why? Without God inviting — how would anyone know there was a God so Fair — Just — Merciful — Righteous that truly pardons sins unless He declares it and offers it?

If you are still having trouble — try reading the next frame:
-
-

[B. W.]

Still don't understand B.W., way to long of an article for ADD people like me. Can you shorten it and make it very simple into one sentence? None of this makes sense at all. I'm having a mental breakdown over trying to figure this out.

God, being perfectly just, declared and called forth an invitation, without this invitation, no one would ever know there was an invitation to begin with.

Without God's invitations, no one could choose. Instead, all would snooze and lose.

If this still is not clear — let me know and I'll try to make it simpler and will proceed one step at a time.
-
-
-

[Believer]

Thank you B.W.! That helped so much, I understand now! YAY!!!!!!!

[B. W.]

Thank you B.W.! That helped so much, I understand now! YAY!!!!!!!

Glad too help

Now you maybe able to see what this scripture means:

Romans 10:11-17 "The Scriptures say that no one who has faith will be disappointed, no matter if that person is a Jew or a Gentile. There is only one Lord, and he is generous to everyone who asks for his help. All who call out to the Lord will be saved.

How can people have faith in the Lord and ask him to save them, if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear, unless someone tells them? And how can anyone tell them without being sent by the Lord?

The Scriptures say it is a beautiful sight to see even the feet of someone coming to preach the good news. Yet not everyone has believed the message. For example, the prophet Isaiah asked, "Lord, has anyone believed what we said?" No one can have faith without hearing the message about Christ." CEV

-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Alright, let me try to explain again.

1. If we are going to discuss predestination, then we have to make sure our terminology is correct. Many people incorrectly assume that predestination refers to God's deciding one's eternal fate for him or her. Thus, God predestines some for salvation, and either actively or passively predestines others to hell. There ARE theological positions that hold to this (i.e., 5-point Calvinism). However, it must be noted that in the strictest theological sense, this is an incorrect understanding of predestination. Why? Because it confuses predestination with election, and these are two separate doctrines.

The short answer is this: predestination centers on God's decrees concerning the elect. Please note that we are referring strictly to predestination as it relates to salvation, because their are events that are predestined (i.e., the cross), but that discussion is, for the most part, unrelated to our present debate. We know that God predestined the elect to certain things: adoption, glorification, and an inheritance (see Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:5, 11)

2. The question, then, relates to the elect. We can all agree that the elect are predestined to salvation. However, can we say that certain people are elected to be elect? In other words, did God choose certain people to be in a group (the elect) that He has declared would be saved?

[Technical note--you can skip this if you like: Some may object and say that I am advocating a corporate election and that my distinction between election and predestination is a false one. They would argue that "the elect" are not a group. There are two deep problems with this objection. First, the Bible repeatedly refers to "the elect" as a group (i.e. 2 Tim. 2:10), and secondly, there is an equivocation of "elect" (as a verb) with "predestinate." For these people, the sentences "God elected me to salvation" and "God predestinated me to salvation" mean precisely the same thing. It is then easy to see that the theology is sloppy at best, and flat wrong at the worst.]

3. Therefore, how are we to understand the doctrine of election? This has a great deal to do with your "lapsarian" position. For a brief article on the issue, see http://www.gotquestions.org/lapsarianism.html. Also, google "infralapsarianism" (or sub- or supra-) for more information.

The question here is how God dealt with the election of people. God obviously decreed that people would be saved before the foundation of the world. How does that decree work with the rest of His sovereignty? Standard 5-point Calvinists, like our friend Puritan Lad, hold to what is called Supralapsarianism. They would argue the following:

• 1. God decreed salvation for some and condemnation for others.
  2. God decreed to create.
  3. God decreed to permit the fall.
  4. God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ to the elect.

Clearly, in this scheme, election is to certain individuals to salvation and others to condemnation. Therefore, the entire purpose of the world is to execute the plan found in the first (primary) decree. Against this, infralapsarianism argues as follows:

• 1. God decreed to create.
  2. God decreed to permit the fall.
  3. God decreed to save some.
  4. God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ.

This is the position held by most moderate or 4-point Calvinists. A third position is called sublapsarianism which argues:

• 1. God decreed to create.
  2. God decreed to permit the fall.
  3. God decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ.
  4. God decreed to save some.

For the record, I would be a sublapsarianist, as you should be able to tell from my previous post. In both infra- and supra-, God elects certain people FOR salvation. This leads to my understanding of election, which I find to be more biblical.

4. John 3 makes it clear that to saved, you must be born again. Only those "in Christ" will be saved. Now, without going into a massive discussion on election as it is presented throughout the whole Bible, what we see is that the term "elect" is ONLY provided to the righteous in the NT. In fact, "the elect" is almost synonomous with "the church." If you are one of the elect, you will be saved. So, we see this simple formula:

a) Only those "in Christ" will be saved,
b) Only the elect are saved,
c) The elect are those who are "in Christ."

So, we have to ask ourself this question: does God choose us to be in Christ, or does He choose us on the basis that we are in Christ? The word "choose" here is a verb, so we can use the word "predestine" or "elect" (as a verb), and we see exactly the same thing. I have already made very clear that the doctrine of predestination refers only to the elect, so it makes bad theology to apply it here--we get into fallacies of equivocation by going that route. Thus, my visual demonstration from before. I won't draw it again, but picture two family trees. At the head of one is Adam, and at the head of the other is Jesus. We are all born into the human race, and thus, Adam is at the head of our family tree. When we are saved, we are regenerated and reborn, and therefore, we are born into the family tree of Jesus. Therefore, we can be said to be "in Adam" or "in Christ." We see it is a headship issue. Those who are "in Christ" are saved. Those who are "in Adam" are condemned. [As aside note, this, I believe, is the only way we can come to a biblical understanding of the doctrines of imputed righteousness vs. imputed guilt.]

How, then, do we move from Adam's family tree into Christ's family tree? This would be a "horizontal" motion, if pictured graphically. How you answer this question will determine your understanding of election and thus predestination, and therefore it will affect your understanding of the tension between God's sovereignty and man's will. The Calvinist will say that we are elected to be in Christ. I reject this for two reasons.

First, show me a single place in Scripture ANYWHERE that we are said to be elected to be in Christ. Secondly, if the elect are those who are saved, and if those who are saved are those who in in Christ, then it is obvious that "the Elect" are those who are in Christ! To hold the Calvinist's position is to say "You are elected to be elect." That is simply silly!

So, again, drawn graphically, we have a question of "horizontal election" against "vertical election." That is, does "election" mean being chosen to go from Adam's tree into Christ's tree, or does "election" mean that God chose all those in Jesus' tree? It cannot be both. I believe Scripture tells us the second answer is the correct one.

5. The final question, then, is how does man move from being in Adam to being in Christ? Again, John 3 tells us. He must be born again. He was born into the human race, and thus he is in Adam. By putting his faith in Christ, he is born again--this time, into Christ. It is that simple. With this understanding, review again the Sublapsarian position and you will see why I hold to it.

I hope that makes more sense.

God bless