Predestination

[Guest]

Ok, i've been wondering about this for awhile and knowing there are a few Calvinists on this board I was thinking someone might be able to explain this.

What exactly does predestination mean?
Now yeah, i've heard the whole God chooses where you go, but scriptures like 2nd Peter 3:9 seem to contradict that.

I personally believe in foreknowledge.  I believe that there are certain people God doesn't approach for salvation because He exists outside of time and knows the choice each person would make in the end.

From what a I know predestination is extremely similar except that God makes the end choice for each person.  There is no because He exists outside of time and He knows who will choose Him so those are the ones He gives salvation to.  It's simply God determines the second He creates a person whether they will go to Heaven or Hell and there is nothing they can do about it because He will not allow them to be able to come to Him.

So to simplify foreknowledge would allow each person the final choice while predestination gives that choice to God.

Am I right on all this?

[DvChWi]

Just a heads up, this has been a huge debate before.  You may want to find the old thread and read through it, and see what you come up with.

[Guest]

I have read it, but it doesn't really help me any.

[Josh]

Alas, I'm short on time right now, but I'll come back and explain this later today.  =)  

[Guest]

I don't need an explanation really.  I just want to know if true predestination is closer to my definition of foreknowledge or my definition of predestination.

[Vlad!]

Dv, the guy just wants information. It's cool

Saying "true predestination" is a bit of a misnomer, since there's a bunch of different opinions on predestination out there. There are people who believe that God actually controls our actions to some extent or another and that we have no free will at all, which is clearly absurd. I'd say the prevailing view is one of election, that God at some point (probably the beginning of the world) elected some of us to be saved. Some believe that all the elect will be saved but that the non-elect can choose salvation or not. Double predestination says that God chooses some for heaven and some for hell, and there's nothing we can do about it. An important tenet of predestination is the total depravity of man--left to his own devices, man is completely incapable of doing the right thing. He will make the wrong choice 100% of the time, and it's only God's grace which allows us to do right at all.

I may be wrong on some of this, since (as you know from reading our debates) I take the opposite view. And none of these beliefs are endorsed by me

[Guest]

I somewhat agree with predestination.  Yes, I do think there are people God does not offer salvation to.  But I believe that is only because He exists outside of time and knows the choice each person would make in the end.

I could even possibly agree with predestination, but not double-predestination.  That seems completely unlike the character of God.  Not allowing someone the option of turning to Him and then saying it's their fault they're burning in hell, that's something I take issue with.

[Vlad!]

I would have to agree with you, Guest. I'm sure Josh will jump in here and object (or commit seppuku; he doesn't seem to enjoy debating his position).

[Skrappybiskit]

An important tenet of predestination is the total depravity of man--left to his own devices, man is completely incapable of doing the right thing. He will make the wrong choice 100% of the time, and it's only God's grace which allows us to do right at all.

This is true in principle. However another tenet of the reformation is that God's restraining grace on the unelect allows them to do "good" things as well, and holds them back from being as completely depraved as they could be.

It might be noted that the only way that anyone can do good is by the blood of Jesus Christ, so that even though the believers works are still as filthy rags, they are good in the sight of God.

Just wanted to throw that in

And Vlad's definition of predestination (the elect are predestined, called, and saved) is correct, even though he himself doesn't believe it

Skraps

[Skrappybiskit]

A big postscript on this:

I believe that free will and predestination are entirely compatible. It's merely human limitations of perspective that make them appear to be opposite. I've been told that I've been influenced a little too much by eastern philosophy, but there is no reason to believe that this predestination/free-will dualism exists except in conteptual form.

We need predestination because otherwise God is not all-powerful. We need free will, however, because otherwise God is not all-good.

Skraps

[oneafroboy]

I pretty much agree with Skraps on this one.

[Josh]

Predestination is a word used many times in the Bible; if you don't believe in predestination then you haven't paid very much attention to the Word, plain and simple.

But when we come to the matter of DEFINING predestination... that's where the disagreement arises.

My own beliefs on the subject go as follows:

I believe in double predestination. Or reprobation, if you prefer. That is, God predestines some people to Heaven and some to Hell. (Frankly, I think that the belief that He predestines some to Heaven but He doesn't predestine the others to Hell makes no sense at all, but I digress...).

I believe that God determines who He will save, and He saves those people EXACTLY- no more, no less.

And we do make a choice, in a sense. That is, we must accept Christ. But if you are one of the elect then you WILL choose Him, because He gives you the faith and the desire. Likewise, He does not give reprobates the faith or the desire to choose Him, and therefore they can't and won't.

God does not turn anyone away.

Likewise, God does not drag anyone to salvation kicking and screaming. The people that He saves all want to be saved, the people that He doesn't save don't want to be saved.

Does that cover it, guest, or did I leave something out?

[Vlad!]

Predestination is a word used many times in the Bible; if you don't believe in predestination then you haven't paid very much attention to the Word, plain and simple.

The word predestination appears a grand total of zero times in the Bible. The word Predestined appears four times (twice in Romans and twice in Ephesians, I believe) in both the NIV and the NASB. One assumes that the greek word roughly corresponds with the english.

And it's interesting, Josh: you appear to have revised your stance somewhat since the last time we discussed this.  

[Josh]

The word predestination appears a grand total of zero times in the Bible. The word Predestined appears four times

Well, yeah, but it's just a different form of the same word. My point is that it's a biblical concept; the only thing that can really be argued here is how one defines it.

And it's interesting, Josh: you appear to have revised your stance somewhat since the last time we discussed this.

I don't doubt it. It's a hard concept to get my mind around, and my thoughts on it change from time to time. Which doesn't bother me.

Just out of curiosity, which part of my last post struck you as a variation from my previous stance? Just wondering.

[BigBird]

I'm inclined to agree with Joshypoo! The Bible makes more sense to me when I look at it that way. Though I did see a verse somewhere about "even the elect will be led astray" or sometheing weird like that. I'll try to find it...

[BigBird]

Matthew 24:24
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect."

I would say that even though they are misled they're still God's children. Interesting though, what do you all think?

[Vlad!]

God does not turn anyone away.

Likewise, God does not drag anyone to salvation kicking and screaming. The people that He saves all want to be saved, the people that He doesn't save don't want to be saved.

I distinctly remember asking you in another thread if God saves those who don't want to be saved, and you indicated that He did. Although I still disagree with you, you do seem to acknowledge personal choice more than you did before. I'm not criticizing or suggesting that you are 'giving in' in any way, just noting a change.

I would say that even though they are misled they're still God's children. Interesting though, what do you all think?

Since I think Paul uses the word elect in a different way, this doesn't really mess with my theology a whole lot. But I'm sure your calvinistic view leaves plenty of room for a deceived Christian.

[Guest]

So Josh, what are you feelings on foreknowledge?

I believe God does destine some for heaven and some for hell because only existing outside of time He knows the decision each person would make in the end.  It seems to me this is something you would not agree with in.  In other words, God destine where people will go for eternity with Him existing outside of time as a moot point.  I am correct on this?

And just to clarify any misconception, I don't want the reasons for believing in predestination, just the definition of it.

[linds]

i was just talking about predestination with some friends at school the other day; i always seem to get swept into these types of conversations(or debates)...

instead of making a point about why i believe in predestination, because i think that others have covered it pretty well already, i just wanted to make an observation-- my non-christian friends just could not look at predestination as a positive thing (that people get to go to heaven), but could only see it as a negative thing (that some people are damned).  they really could not get over that fact.
the truth is that unless you believe in total depravity, you cannot even begin to consider predestination.

i'll never forget what my friend said: "i just can't possibly believe in a god who would send people to hell."

[Josh]

i'll never forget what my friend said: "i just can't possibly believe in a god who would send people to hell."

I've heard that one, too, but that applies to all Christianity, Calvinist or not.  =)  

[bloop]

I plain don't buy total depravity...maybe that's my problem with believing Calvinism in general.

[Josh]

I plain don't buy total depravity...maybe that's my problem with believing Calvinism in general.

Must be. I don't see the other parts of Calvinism making sense if you don't buy depravity.

[Guest]

i'll never forget what my friend said: "i just can't possibly believe in a god who would send people to hell."

I've heard that one, too, but that applies to all Christianity, Calvinist or not.  =)

I'm a Christian and I don't believe God "sends" people to hell.  Nor do I believe God sends "people" to hell.

God doesn't force hell upon a person, He simply respects their decision to reject Him.
He doesn't send people to hell, He sends sinners to hell (by their own choice).

[Josh]

So... sinners aren't people anymore? Crap... and all this time I thought I was a person.    

[Skrappybiskit]

I'm a Christian and I don't believe God "sends" people to hell.  Nor do I believe God sends "people" to hell.

God doesn't force hell upon a person, He simply respects their decision to reject Him.
He doesn't send people to hell, He sends sinners to hell (by their own choice).

Well if, as Josh said, you buy total depravity, people that are left in their natural state go to hell. Of course since God is all powerful, and nothing happens without his direct control, people are quite literally sent to hell. They deserve it, after all, because chose not to follow God.

In related news, I believe that souls are eternal only in the sense that God upholds them through eternity, just like anything else that exists. And it's a negation of God's omnipresence to say he's not present in hell. So not only is he present pouring his wrath on the sinners who deserve it, he's also upholding their souls for eternity.

By respecting a decision, do you mean to say that God somehow leaves up to man to choose salvation, abdicating his omnipotence, or do you happen to believe that free will/predestination are not opposite concepts?

Skrap

[Vlad!]

I didn't want to reply to this now that the thread has practically become a debate, but I am compelled...

God has already abdicated his omnipotence in many areas. For instance, we have the ability to choose our own actions; God doesn't control our every move. Thus, he has granted us some form of autonomy, abdicating (as you put it) his omnipotence.

I have been taught that Hell is absence from God. I don't know whether I buy this or not, but frankly it's not something I worry about either way. Even if I am going to Hell, it is what it is. But I don't think that (if you believe that) it doesn't 'invalidate' God's omnipresence. If he truly is omnipotent, surely he can choose not to be somewhere.  

[Skrappybiskit]

You imply a belief that God can do whatever he likes, without limitation. However, God cannot violate his nature.

Suppose God's nature is to be just (and it is), then it logically follows that God can't wink at sin--not merely that he chooses not to--which is in the end why we need a savior, yes?

If it is part of God's nature to be omnipresent (and it is), then he can't just say, "Oh I won't be here, I don't want to be." He's there, because it's his nature to be there.

Also, if it's God's nature to be all-powerful (and it most certainly is), then he can't leave the choice up to humans and wait with bated breath while you make a choice.

Chaos theory alone should put an end to the debate. If a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere near the pacific can potentially cause a hurricane to hit Florida, can you imagine the chaos that would be caused if every sinner was given a choice? The ripple effectr alone would negate any claim to God having any control over human affairs, even though scripture clearly says that God holds the hearts of kings in the palm of his hand. Either God has control over everything, including reprobation and salvation, or he controls nothing at all.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

So do you not believe that we control our own actions?

I doubt your interpretation of chaos theory. Chaos theory has no predictive power. So you can't say "x will happen because of chaos theory." No, all it has (if anything) is interpretive (or descriptive) power.

God isn't some automaton that operates within rules and bounds set by something (himself? Us?) and is predictable in that way. You say God cannot violate his nature. That's fine, but again, what is God's nature? God's nature is the way God is. So if God does something, it is his nature to do it and thus it is within his nature. You violate your own supposition that God is omnipotent if you say that there are things that God simply cannot do. I consider myself a logical person, but I can act illogically if I so choose. If God cannot do the same, are we not more powerful than God?

...if it's God's nature to be all-powerful (and it most certainly is), then he can't leave the choice up to humans and wait with bated breath while you make a choice.

You tell me that God is all-powerful and then in the same sentence say that he can't do something. But didn't he leave the choice of sin or coexistance with him up to Adam and Eve? For if he didn't, then life is a farce and God is not merciful and just but cruel and truly evil.
 

[Skrappybiskit]

I doubt your interpretation of chaos theory. Chaos theory has no predictive power. So you can't say "x will happen because of chaos theory." No, all it has (if anything) is interpretive (or descriptive) power.

I consider myself a logical person, but I can act illogically if I so choose. If God cannot do the same, are we not more powerful than God?

I use choas theory non-descriptively. Maybe that's not even the right word for what I'm thinking. But still, arguing about definitions aside, you must see my point. I'm not saying that x will happen. I'm saying that is subject s chooses result y instead of x, the implications change the rest of his life, and the ripple effect proceeds from there. Ergo God can't accurately control anything. At least not by any good definition of control.

Alright. Consider my use of "all-powerful" in context of my words. I obviously have hijacked the word and am using it for my own purposes, but that should be fine with you, right?

And besides, God violating his nature would be more like you capriciously deciding to no longer sin. Good luck buddy, you can't do it, because it's your nature to sin. It's also your nature to be male. You can't just change that, transsexuals notwithstanding.

And again, you are applying your own humanity to God. The reason you act illogically is first beause the world is not ruled entirely by logic, and to think so is existentially unlivable. Another reason is that you are a sinful, fallen human creature. God, I think you would agree, is not.

So what about scriptures that say "God cannot lie"? If the scriptures themselves put limitations on what God can do, why are we debating the point?

Besides, you already have assumed (in the Did Logic Proceed From God thread) that God not only works inside a framework, but predicates the framework on all physical existance. And the reason that you're a logic-seeking person is because you believe that the universe is logical, and that the maker of the universe is logical, and is God.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

I use choas theory non-descriptively. Maybe that's not even the right word for what I'm thinking. But still, arguing about definitions aside, you must see my point. I'm not saying that x will happen. I'm saying that is subject s chooses result y instead of x, the implications change the rest of his life, and the ripple effect proceeds from there. Ergo God can't accurately control anything. At least not by any good definition of control.

You still haven't answered my question: does God control all our actions?

And see, through that theory choosing x will change his life as well. So you're looking at a choice between two life-changing alternatives, not one choice that will alter reality and another that will maintain it.

Alright. Consider my use of "all-powerful" in context of my words. I obviously have hijacked the word and am using it for my own purposes, but that should be fine with you, right?

That's OK, but you have to give warning (as I did, or thought I did, in my other thread) that you are using a non-conventional interpretation of the phrase or else confusion will ensue. What do you use "all-powerful" to mean? Semi-powerful? All-powerful within certain constraints?

And again, you are applying your own humanity to God. The reason you act illogically is first beause the world is not ruled entirely by logic, and to think so is existentially unlivable. Another reason is that you are a sinful, fallen human creature. God, I think you would agree, is not.

What does acting illogically have to do with being sinful? I admit that I am sinful, but I don't see how it relates. And it's possible that my humanity is clouding my interpretation of God's nature, but using that logic it's equally possible that your humanity has clouded your interpretation and I'm really right. Or neither of us are right. So that argument gains you nothing.

So what about scriptures that say "God cannot lie"? If the scriptures themselves put limitations on what God can do, why are we debating the point?

Can I get some references? I can recall verses saying God doesn't lie, but I don't remember any saying he can't.

And what about my last statement? Doesn't it seem obvious that he left the choice with them rather than keeping it for himself?

[Skrappybiskit]

Quickly:

Titus 1:2
in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Will get around to the rest later.

Skraps

[Skrappybiskit]

You still haven't answered my question: does God control all our actions?

What do you use "all-powerful" to mean? Semi-powerful? All-powerful within certain constraints?

Does God control all our actions? Yes, so it would seem. I'm not sure how that works out. You can counter with the usual.

But certainly you use "all-powerful" in a sense limited by certain constraints. There has to be some constraints, like if I ask you, can God do two opposite things at the same time? Much like the irrisitable force meeting the immovable object.

My assertion is that God has certain defining properties. He is a trinity, and can't decide not to be. He's all-powerful, and can't abdictate his authority. He's omnipresent and can't not be somewhere. You see these as restrictions on his ability, correct?

But God has to have *some* framework within which he works. Being is defined by attributes; if not you have the impersonal, nameless force of, say, Star Wars. Take God's attribute of being a loving God. Are you trying to tell me that before the beginning of the world (if such statements can have meaning in regards to God) he was just being himself, and God was like, "Let's make a universe full of creatures with eternal souls!" and went to the grab-bag of ideas, pulled out "loving", but it could just as well have been the Allah of Islam? Or the capricious Zeus, or something?

What does acting illogically have to do with being sinful? I admit that I am sinful, but I don't see how it relates. And it's possible that my humanity is clouding my interpretation of God's nature, but using that logic it's equally possible that your humanity has clouded your interpretation and I'm really right.

If you equate logic with correctness, which I believe you do at least tacitly, and God behaved illogically, would that not mean that he's being incorrect? You behave illogically in spite of yourself, yes? You don't get up one morning and decide to be irrational on purpose. It happens because we're sinful people that we're irrational. Thus, if God were to be illogical and irrational, would that not mean that he'd have sin in him?

But didn't he leave the choice of sin or coexistance with him up to Adam and Eve? For if he didn't, then life is a farce and God is not merciful and just but cruel and truly evil.

God's mind is above mine--at least I hope --and for all I know God designed the earth and everything that has happened and will happen to bring greater glory to himself. But again, like I've said before, you can't go walking around second-guessing what God's purpose is, because you just don't have the perspective. And also like I've said, I don't think that free will and predestination are a dichotomy. Just a mystery that we don't understand.

"Life is a farce." You should become a Calvinistic Post-modern existentialist.

Skraps

ps: I found this interesting:

Westminster Shorter Catechism
Question 4

Q: What is God?
A: God is a Spirit,1 infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being,2 wisdom,3 power,4 holiness,5 justice,6 goodness,7 and truth.8


   1. John 4:24. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
   2. Psalm 90:2. From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
      Malachi 3:6. For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore are ye sons of Jacob not consumed.
      James 1:17. The Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
      1 Kings 8:27. But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
      Jeremiah 23:24. Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? Saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? Saith the Lord.
      Isaiah 40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
   3. Psalm 147:5. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
      Romans 16:27. To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
   4. Genesis 17:1. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
      Revelation 19:6. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
   5. Isaiah 57:15. For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
      John 17:11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
      Revelation 4:8. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they werefull of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
   6. Deuteronomy 32:4. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
   7. Psalm 100:5. For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
      Romans 2:4. Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
   8. Exodus 34:6. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.
      Psalm 117:2. For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.  

[Vlad!]

Does God control all our actions? Yes, so it would seem. I'm not sure how that works out. You can counter with the usual.

Frankly I don't see how anyone could believe this. I'm sure, given your response, that you've at least heard most of the basic arguments against this belief, but it seems wrong to me on a number of fronts. If you want to debate this then that's fine, but if you'd rather not then I'll try to restrain myself.

But certainly you use "all-powerful" in a sense limited by certain constraints. There has to be some constraints, like if I ask you, can God do two opposite things at the same time? Much like the irrisitable force meeting the immovable object.

I suppose he could, and then they would cancel one-another out, but why would he do this? I think most 'constraints' on God's power are really either logic errors (like the fallacious but popular "can God make a rock so large that He can't move it?") or statements which essentially ask whether God would do something silly (as in your example, do two things that would either cancel one-another out or be contradictory) rather than providing a serious example.

My assertion is that God has certain defining properties. He is a trinity, and can't decide not to be. He's all-powerful, and can't abdictate his authority. He's omnipresent and can't not be somewhere. You see these as restrictions on his ability, correct?

I don't know about the first one, but the other two I would disagree with you on. I think he CAN abdicate his authority (and why not? Can God not choose to not interfere?) and I would argue that God's manifest presence can certainly not be somewhere even if, due to his existance outside the boundaries we are constrained by, he is somehow there.

But God has to have *some* framework within which he works. Being is defined by attributes; if not you have the impersonal, nameless force of, say, Star Wars. Take God's attribute of being a loving God. Are you trying to tell me that before the beginning of the world (if such statements can have meaning in regards to God) he was just being himself, and God was like, "Let's make a universe full of creatures with eternal souls!" and went to the grab-bag of ideas, pulled out "loving", but it could just as well have been the Allah of Islam? Or the capricious Zeus, or something?

Certainly not. God isn't arbitrary like that. Which, after I type that, I see that I'm defining an attribute of God. Which is exactly my point (fortunately, or else I'd have to erase that and start over): when you say what a person is like, you can list their charactersitics. People can violate those characterstics. Some of them are hard (tall is one of my characteristics; for me to become short would require painful alterations) to remove and some of them are impossible (your sin example) to remove on our own. But that's because we're human. God could one day decide to not be loving and destroy all of humanity. Heck, he almost did that once with the flood. So all I'm saying is that God isn't a formula and he's not an automaton. It's like some people say, where if you recite this little prayer then you get your own little Christ in your heart and you're bound for heaven yay! As if God HAS to save you if you use the magic words. He is who He is (as he said to Moses) and just because He doesn't seem to change doesn't mean he can't.

God's mind is above mine--at least I hope --and for all I know God designed the earth and everything that has happened and will happen to bring greater glory to himself. But again, like I've said before, you can't go walking around second-guessing what God's purpose is, because you just don't have the perspective. And also like I've said, I don't think that free will and predestination are a dichotomy. Just a mystery that we don't understand.

Sometimes we just have to admit that we can't wrap our minds around stuff or that we can't understand it. But more often than not it's a cop-out used by people who can't be arsed into actually thinking their beliefs through. Maybe this is really something that I just will never understand. But listen for a minute:

Let's say God controls the actions of Adam and Eve. Heck, we don't even have to say that; let's say he creates them with total depravity already intact. Thus, they are incapable of making the right decision. Then he places the tree o' knowledge in the garden and tells them it's off-limits. Exit God, stage right. Either due to God's control or due to the total depravity he gave them, Eve and Adam take a chunk out of the fruit and the world goes to hell in a handbasket. Literally (though maybe without the handbasket), since because of this we're all destined for hell. Now, what's up with that? You say God is just, but how can He punish us for the way He made us? Like maybe he didn't KNOW that he stuck total depravity in there? He shakes his head and says "oh my me, how did that get in there? Now what are we going to do?" And if he was pulling the strings it's even worse, because A&E had no choice in the matter at ALL! That's where the farce comes in: instead of a story of God as the spurned lover seeking to be reunited with his bride it's an evil puppet master meting out death and damnation on his creations for no better reason than they did what he told them to. How can you live in a world like that?

[BigBird]

But cannot God do something we as humans would consider unjust, yet it be perfectly just for HIM to do?

[Vlad!]

But cannot God do something we as humans would consider unjust, yet it be perfectly just for HIM to do?

It really depends. For example, was the Flood just? I don't know, and really I don't think I should put myself in the position of judging God. But in the scenario Skraps is presenting, God is being more than unjust, He is wreaking cruelty and capricious abuse on humanity on such a scale as to make the Holocaust look like a church picnic.  

[Skrappybiskit]

I was just reading all of this and laughing... the Phorum is probably the only place in the world that two people named Skrappybiskit and Vlad! the Mighty Armoured Assault Duck can discuss the nature of God and be taken--at least I hope--seriously...

Skraps

[Major Thom]

A brief summary of my thoughts on points so far-

Man is depraved. Without God's intervention, man could do nothing good- and by "good" I mean in anything in the will of God.

Romans 7:18 (NIV) - "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

From my definition of the concepts of free will and predestination, they are not compatible. In other words, God either determines who goes to heaven and hell or he does not, leaving the choice up to individuals.

I do believe in divine foreknowledge- that is, God knows who will and who will not follow Him (God is omniscient).

2 Timothy 2:19 - "Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

Here's the controversial one: I believe that God deliberately took a risk and allowed humans to determine whether they would or would not follow Him. He loves all humans infinitely and desires to bring them all to himself.

2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

God's choice to allow humans to choose to follow Him was not a violation of his all- powerful nature. Just because He can make humans believe in him doesn't mean He has to. I'm going to draw a parallel here between this and Matthew 24:36 ("No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"). If the Son doesn't know the day (or the hour), isn't that a violation of His omniscient nature?

No; God chose (for reasons unknown to anyone) to allow only the Father to know it. And I certainly don't claim to comprehend the inner workings of the Trinity; just going with what I believe the Bible says on that one.

Well, there we go; let the roasting begin. But remember, I'm an amateur at this. I'm going to try to be as open as possible to change my views. But from this one thing I will not deviate: the Living Word of God is infallible. If I will be convinced in any way, it will be because the Bible says it; if anyone's views deviate from the Bible, that person is wrong (including me).

Overall, the different views end in the same actions on the part of the Christian: glorifying and worshipping Jesus Christ, striving to walk with Him and become more like Him, and sharing His message with others. Free will vs. predestination is vital to determine your beliefs of the nature of God, but it's not a thing to cause disunity among believers. It is, however, beneficial and fun to debate it.

[Josh]

Overall, the different views end in the same actions on the part of the Christian: glorifying and worshipping Jesus Christ, striving to walk with Him and become more like Him, and sharing His message with others. Free will vs. predestination is vital to determine your beliefs of the nature of God, but it's not a thing to cause disunity among believers. It is, however, beneficial and fun to debate it.

Word. Well said, Wayne.

[Vlad!]

Great points! They grow up so fast...*sniff* ^_^

[Guest]

What about passages like Ezekiel 18:23&24?

23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD . Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

To me that seems to say that God is allowing a choice.