Predestination Theology

[William]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

[2timothy316]

One god gives a way out the other makes the choice for us. Which is it?

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

That scripture is pointing to only one God but their are two doctrines here that both can't be applied to one God. He can't choose to give people faith to some and at the same time make faith be available to everyone for the taking. One of these doctrines belongs to a false god that doesn't exist accept in people's minds. People are either predestined or they are not, it can't be both.

[PinSeeker]

Okay, this is longer than I intended it to be... And perhaps I am over-qualifying... But here goes:

No need to apologize. I love it, especially done as lovingly as you have. So many either go to the extremes of getting angry at those they disagree with or refusing to challenge them where they deeply disagree. You have not. Thank you.

Dude. Thanks for saying that.

Well not 'what,' but who. Israel is a people. One people. Made up of individuals from every tongue, tribe, and nation. We can also refer to it -- as Scripture does -- as the remnant God is preserving.

Are you saying the election in Romans 9:11 is about individuals being in (i.e., Israel) or out? If so, then why do you think that? I'm sorry if I've missed your reason but, if I have, perhaps you could put it a bit differently for me.

Hmmm... I'm not really sure I understand your question here. Romans 9:11 is specifically about Jacob an Esau, right? But Paul presents the Jacob/Esau dichotomy as a microcosm of a much larger reality. He is showing that God made His sovereign choice regarding all individuals before they were born or had done anything good or bad... that it was his sovereign choice of which individuals to include in His elect and dependent on nothing in, of, or by the individual whatsoever, past, present, or future. So maybe the answer to your question is yes, and if so, I hope I've explained sufficiently.

Well, Paul is making the point (among other things) that not all who are directly descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- not all ethnic Jews -- are of Israel. They were not elect; they thought they could achieve righteousness by keeping the law.

But many Israelites were elect -- not all, but many (like any church you might go to today). They came to know Jesus, albeit indirectly, through all the promises of the coming Savior through Moses and the prophets; they were able to "see" Jesus in all the types and shadows of Him through the entire Old Testament. Hey, read Leviticus and see how many times it mentions sacrificing a lamb without blemish. Leviticus 16 is especially great -- the day of atonement. And read Luke 24, after Jesus's resurrection, when He explains, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets -- in all the Scriptures -- the things concerning Himself to the two men on the road to Emmaus. And we see in Hebrews 1 that God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. So the elect Israelites were saved exactly the same way we are, by faith. They knew their righteousness was not in the law itself or their ability to keep it but in the Lord. And this is how it is today for us, too. This is what Paul says in Romans 11, and it's what the writer of Hebrews (who may also be Paul) in Hebrews 11. You see how Scripture is one story about one people? The story of the Israelites... it's the story of OUR people. They are us, and we are them. We identify intensely with them. The only difference is that they were looking forward to the coming Savior, where we are looking back on what He did and forward to His return. People want to erect this wall between the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is no wall. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir... So anyway, coming back around to Romans 9, it's not about ethnic Jews. The story of the Israelites is the story of all of us, of our forefathers, and directly relatable to us, and that's exactly what Paul is doing.

I completely agree.

Cool!

Paul is talking about God's election of those in Christ vs. those who try to follow the law.

Right, I agree.

This passage is about God electing the way salvation will come about, not who will join in on that way.

Disagree. Maybe I'm not understanding you here, but this seems a contradiction to what you said immediately above. This passage is God's sovereign choice -- who does what in salvation, and about what God has done for us -- and about His purpose of election regarding the recipients of His mercy in achieving that salvation.

I don't see how my statements contradict each other (I think they are saying the exact same thing).

Okay, fair enough. Maybe I saw some kind of disparateness in error. My apologies. But the disparateness seems to be that you're saying at first that it's about election of individuals and a group of people ("election of those in Christ"), but then turn right around and say it's just about electing a way of salvation ("electing the way salvation will come about, not who will join in on that way"). That seems a stark contrast and thus a contradiction to me.

Why do you think the truly magnificent passages you quoted contradict my belief that election is about God electing the rules to get in 'Israel' rather than which individual person is in and out?

Well, because Paul's whole emphasis in Romans 9-11... and really Romans as a whole; it is a personal letter (to a large group of people... the church in Rome) after all. So yes, I would say that election is not about "rules" of any kind but about His creation -- us, as individuals and as a whole -- and His sovereignty as Creator in making some for one purpose and others for another, according to His will. This is what Paul says in Romans 9:19-26, even anticipating and answering the inevitable objections before they even materialize.

You're right; I agree with you that neither the 1 Timothy nor the 2 Peter verses you cite are referencing only the elect. The best way to answer your question is that God's wish, or desire, is not the same as His will; those are two very different things and must not be conflated. We have to understand the difference between what God desires -- what He would prefer -- versus what His will is. God, in His perfect love, would desire -- prefer -- that all His creation come to repentance and belief in Him/Christ. But the implication there is that will not be the case. And this is what those two verses say.

What verses show God's desire and will to be two different things? Or are you saying that they must be or this passage wouldn't make sense with other passages that you believe show Calvinism to be true?

I'm just saying it just is what it is. Someone's desire can be incorporated into someone's will for sure, but desire and will are two different things. To be fair, there can be an overlap with desire and will, but in practical use, will has to do with determination or a set path, and desire more with a wish of sorts or a preference.

But the point is, again, we have to be able to differentiate between God's desire and His will. God can compromise His desire, but not His will, because His will involves His glory, His justice, His love, and a whole host of other things.

Assuming those are two different things, I don't understand how God compromising His desire saves His glory, justice, love, etc.

This is why I brought up the rather simple example on the human level. As I said, "we may really want (desire)... something... but know we cannot have it, or just take it, because of who we are, what we stand for, our integrity, right? So we don't do it, or take it. We could, but we would be compromising ourselves. It's really the same with God (albeit on a much higher level, of course)." Okay, read on, because the next comment goes with this; I just broke apart your comment here...

God would seem to have greater glory if He chose to save everyone. God's justice would not be lessened because Jesus still paid the price. And concerning His love...

Yes, I can understand that, certainly, that it might seem that way. But at some point, we have to say (with Isaiah in Isaiah 55:8-9), "For (God's) thoughts are not (our) thoughts, neither are (our) ways (His) ways... For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are (His) ways higher than (our) ways and (His) thoughts than (our) thoughts," and (with David in Psalm 139:6), "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it," or (with Paul in Romans 11:33), "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" We don't get to decide what gives God glory and what doesn't.

I do think our being transformed by God's grace is contingent on our acceptance. I think it's the only belief that maintains God's unconditional love.

In a sense, this could be a troublesome statement, but in a sense, it is true. How you really mean it I'm not quite sure. But if thought of in the correct light, what you're getting at here is the concept of perseverance of the saints.

While I believe in the perseverance of the saints, that is not how I mean it here. God's love would be shown to be greater if He saved everyone (assuming the choice is only up to Him, of course).

I'm glad that the concept of perseverance of the saints presents no issue between us, but again, we don't get to decide how God's love would be shown to be greater. His ways are not our ways, His thoughts not our thoughts. His ways and thoughts are much higher.

If God choose some and not others, then God is loving (willing the good of) some and hating (not willing the good of) others. That seems to be compromising God's love. God's love is not unconditional, it's conditioned by randomness.

Ah! So, yes, God is loving some and hating others, but the concepts of love and hate are different than what you suppose them to be. Not, of course, to say, "You don't know what love and/or hate are," but, well, love and hate as referred to in various places in the Bible are not mere "feelings" on the part of God toward the subject but rather actions -- sovereign, distinguishing actions -- on the part of God toward the subject. Love and hate are not opposites in the way that some think them to be. The opposite of love, Tanager, is complete indifference... not caring, total disregard. And the fact that God does hate necessarily implies that He is not at all -- in any way -- indifferent to or uncaring for or disregarding of any things even people. The fact is, there is no love without hate; and there is no hate without love. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference; the opposite of feeling can only be the absence of feeling. Love and hate must go hand in hand; hate is grounded in the nature of love. So God's hate is not -- cannot be -- the opposite of His love. As I said before, the fact that God hated Esau (Romans 9:13) is not to be read in the light that God did not love Esau (and thus all those that He doesn't call) at all (because He loves all of His creation; He pronounced it all "very good," as you know, I'm sure), but that He didn't love him (and thus all that He doesn't call) -- take action toward him (and all that He doesn't call) -- in the same sovereign, distinguishing way as Jacob (His elect). Just because God's ways, thoughts, even choices may seem random to us -- and yes, I can understand it seeming that way; we can only see things from our prespective as the created and not from His perspective as Creator -- it does not follow that it is that way.

I totally agree. This is the outward call. God's grace, salvation -- all that -- is available to all without discrimination. Everyone is eligible.

To me it sounds like you are saying that God's grace is not available to all, but that it's available to all that God randomly chooses.

As I have said, God's grace is available to all -- all are eligible, as I said. But yes, God, chooses (although not randomly; God has a purpose for everything He does, and what that purpose is we cannot know)... So although everyone is eligible, it does not then follow that everyone is given this saving grace by God. This is His -- and only His -- prerogative. He made us. He is the potter (the Molder, the Creator) and we are the clay (the molded, the created). He made us all with a specific purpose in mind, and this is His right as Creator. We cannot answer back to God and question Him, lest we find ourselves in the same place as Job did in Job 38-42. This is exactly what Paul is saying in Romans 9:19-21.

Again, respectfully, these statements seem to teeter on the edge between good and bad -- could go either way. To say "(o)ur experience of that unconditional grace is conditional on our acceptance of it" is very close to saying that God only extends this unconditional saving grace if we do something to deserve it, which is totally antithetical to Scripture.

God extends this unconditional saving grace to every single person, no matter what we've done and no matter how we will react to this gift. We experience the saving grace only if we choose it. We don't experience the saving grace if we reject it.

I wholeheartedly agree. But what Paul is saying in Romans 9 through 11 -- and Ephesians 1 and 2 (and his other epistles in various ways), as well as Peter in 1 Peter 1, as well as Ezekiel in chapters 36 and 37 of his prophecy, as well as Isaiah, as well as even Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- is that our choice is in the context of God's sovereign choice, His purpose of election.

Exactly! And what you're hitting on here is the concept of limited atonement, the knowledge that while Christ's atonement was surely sufficient for all, it was only effectual for those God gave Christ, as Jesus Himself says in John 6:37, that all that the Father gives (Him) -- the Father's elect -- will come to (Him), and whoever comes to (Him He) will never cast out.

I think John 6:37 is talking about the Jews of Jesus' day who truly knew God in faith being given their long awaited Messiah.

Right, but don't you think John's gospel is meant for us too?

In the larger context, I would agree that atonement is limited...to one rule/way (faith in Christ vs. moral perfection vs. birth vs. whatever). I don't think God limits the offer of atonement like you do, though. Even in Romans 10:21, after talking about faith coming from hearing (10:17), we see God holding out His hands to people who are rejecting Him. Calvinism, it seems to me, says that God does not hold out His hand to people who don't choose Him, only holding out His hand to those who He determines to choose Him.

Again, though I'm sure you don't mean to do so, you're conflating the outward (general) and inward (specific) call. Regarding the former, the benefits of Jesus's atonement are available to all. But regarding the latter, the benefits of Jesus's atonement are only effectual... even intended... for God's elect. Again, Jesus's atonement would be -- is -- sufficient for all, but that is an entirely different and separate matter. So no, I don't think God limits the offer of atonement, or its sufficiency to cover all. But He does limit the number of people for which it is effectual, for whom it is intended, and it is His choice/prerogative to do so. Like the great hymn ("Crown Him with Many Crowns") says:
.

"Crown Him (Jesus) the Lord of life,
Who triumphed o'er the grave,
Who rose victorious to the strife,
For those He came to save."

.
I know I'm repeating myself, and I apologize for that, but again, from John 6, Jesus says (emphasis mine):
.

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day."

.

"This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the "five points" are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen."

Arminianism does not deny any of that. Sinners do not save themselves, in any sense at all. Sinners can choose to let God save them entirely or choose to reject God's salvation.

Well, Arminianism does not intentionally deny it, but does deny it, even if inadvertently. And... I know you don't mean to do it, but in effect, that's what you're doing when you say, "(s)inners can choose to let God save them entirely or choose to reject God's salvation." It does outwardly deny the concept of total depravity, at least by not understanding the ramifications that we are all born dead -- dead -- in our sin. Arminianism postulates that we retain, even after the Fall of Adam (when he died, just as God said he would in Genesis 2; thus, every human being who came after him was born that way), some ability to choose, in and of ourselves, the spiritual good, and thereby says we are not born spiritually dead. And that's what precipitates everything, really: not getting how utterly depraved -- dead -- we naturally are and what is needed -- from outside ourselves -- to bring us from spiritual death to spiritual life. We cannot do this for ourselves, and we cannot do anything to make it happen or even make it possible... because we are, in our natural state, all, spiritually dead. And having gotten that wrong (the 'T' in John Calvin's tulip acronym), that then necessarily leads to the erroneous thinking that:

• God's election is conditional (rather than unconditional...'U')

• the atonement can not have been limited in scope and therefore that God's call is not irrevocable (rather than only effectual for those whom God unconditionally elected... 'L')

• God's grace, though He has purposed it, is resistible (rather than irresistible... 'I')

• it is we who enable ourselves by our own power to persevere to the end, the Day of Christ (rather than God by His ... 'P')

So in effect, Tanager, yes, Arminians deny it all. And like J.I. Packer said, John Calvin didn't postulate these five points at all, but they are merely his responses to Jacobus Arminius's erroneous five points.

Continued strength, friend.

The same to you! Grace and peace to you.

[myth-one.com]

One god gives a way out the other makes the choice for us. Which is it?

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

That scripture is pointing to only one God but their are two doctrines here that both can't be applied to one God. He can't choose to give people faith to some and at the same time make faith be available to everyone for the taking. One of these doctrines belongs to a false god that doesn't exist accept in people's minds. People are either predestined or they are not, it can't be both.

Most doctrines are products of man.

Here is a scripture which states who is predestined to be saved:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So whosoever believeth shall be saved.

This good news of the gospel will be preached to everyone:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

That is, everyone will be preached the true good news and make an informed personal choice of whether to accept or reject everlasting life.

Predestination will not be preached to all the nations.

[2timothy316]

One god gives a way out the other makes the choice for us. Which is it?

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

That scripture is pointing to only one God but their are two doctrines here that both can't be applied to one God. He can't choose to give people faith to some and at the same time make faith be available to everyone for the taking. One of these doctrines belongs to a false god that doesn't exist accept in people's minds. People are either predestined or they are not, it can't be both.

Most doctrines are products of man.

Yet which is a product of man? Predestination or no predestination?

[William]

I do think our being transformed by God's grace is contingent on our acceptance. I think it's the only belief that maintains God's unconditional love.

In a sense, this could be a troublesome statement, but in a sense, it is true. How you really mean it I'm not quite sure. But if thought of in the correct light, what you're getting at here is the concept of perseverance of the saints.

While I believe in the perseverance of the saints, that is not how I mean it here. God's love would be shown to be greater if He saved everyone (assuming the choice is only up to Him, of course). If God choose some and not others, then God is loving (willing the good of) some and hating (not willing the good of) others. That seems to be compromising God's love. God's love is not unconditional, it's conditioned by randomness.

This is the heart of the whole debate. I'm seeing two gods presented here. One withholds their love, by denying a person faith based on either choice or randomness and the other that withholds their love and access to faith from no one. Only one is a characteristic of the True God. I've seen some that say that both can be true, two roads same mountain, but one doctrine leads people away from the True God. I've met many people that give up on seeking anything spiritual because they feel that they have been denied faith and based on the predestined doctrine. They say if they have no faith, then that is the way the predestine god wants it and they just await eternal damnation. One god gives a way out the other makes the choice for us. Which is it?

What is being shown herein is that some do not understand the duality they are experiencing and in that - it acts like a distorting lens, clouding the vision of their understanding.

There are not two versions of the One Creator. There are many ways in which The One Creator is able to bring souls into the fuller knowledge.

The next phase [afterlife] is also set up for this purpose. This, because, truth injected into this current phase has been tampered with and to the point where only those [The Elect] who poke and prod around without getting distracted by belief systems which were created through the tampering, by that process - come to understand this.

Those who see "two creators" are those who are beholding to belief systems which have been created through the tampering.

In the next phase, these ones will be [one by one] brought into the full knowledge by there own free will with the assistance of beings whom The Creator has anointed for the task..."Soul Retrievers" as they are oft referred to by those in the fuller knowledge.

Many SR's are themselves former believers in stuff tampered with who have themselves been rescued from the product of their own beliefs and the environments which were created through those beliefs - and in that - feel duty bound to help correct the misinformation the tampering caused.

[2timothy316]

Those who see "two creators" are those who are beholding to belief systems which have been created through the tampering.

I don't see two creators. I see a false god that doesn't exist but is thought to exist and a real God that does exist. But yes, because of 'tampering' with people, there are two ideas of God, but one isn't true. While the predestination god seems real to many, he really isn't IMO.

[myth-one.com]

One god gives a way out the other makes the choice for us. Which is it?

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

That scripture is pointing to only one God but their are two doctrines here that both can't be applied to one God. He can't choose to give people faith to some and at the same time make faith be available to everyone for the taking. One of these doctrines belongs to a false god that doesn't exist accept in people's minds. People are either predestined or they are not, it can't be both.

Most doctrines are products of man.

Yet which is a product of man? Predestination or no predestination?

Prior to one's existence, one can absolutely not make a decision which will affect their destiny. So at that time, everything is pre-destiny to that individual.

As an example: I did not reach a certain age, perform a wide study of all religions, and then decide which religious affiliation I would join. If I had been born into a Jewish family, I would probably be Jewish. Or if I had been born into a Muslim family in Palestine, I might now be throwing rocks at Jews.

We are what we are mostly because of accidents of birth -- where, to whom, to what race, into what religion, etc.

In fact, that continues until we arrived at an age where we can control our own destiny.

So in the real world, we all suffer or benefit from some "predestination."

===================================================

Here is how the scriptures put it:

Sin is the transgression of God's laws, or commandments:

For sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4)]

However, to commit a sin, one must first recognize that the act is a sin:

To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)

So we are not responsible for sins unto we reach the point where we recognize the act is a sin.

Thus we have separate courts for children and not guilty by reason of insanity laws.

========================================

But God is love and must treat everyone just and true:

Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. (Revelation 15:3)

In the latest covenant between God and man, the only path to everlasting life is believing in Jesus as one's Savior:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Whosoever is inclusive of every human!

If you believe in Jesus, God cannot reject you because you are red, yellow, black, white, a murderer, rapist, good guy, bad guy, male, female, transgender, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, democrat, republican, smart, stupid, beautiful, ugly, . . . or not one of the elect!
===========================================

Predestination in regard to the salvation of some and not others is a product (and unnecessary complication) of man -- not God!

[PinSeeker]

While the predestination god seems real to many, he really isn't IMO.

It's odd to me that you would say that, 2timothy316, especially given your moniker. You stand on the truth of God's word as I do, which is great. I know the NWT, the favorite translation of Jehovah's Witnesses like yourself, is careful in Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 1:5 and 1:11 to translate the Greek 'proorizō' to the English 'foreordained,' rather than 'predestined,' but there really is absolutely no difference in the two. According to Merriam-Webster the definitions of the two are intimately synonymous:

foreordain: to dispose or appoint in advance; synonyms include 'predestine,' 'preordain'

predestine: to destine, decree, determine, appoint, or settle beforehand; synonyms include 'foreordain,' 'preordain'

It seems kind of silly to call Him a "predestination god," but God's foreordination and predestination is clearly in the Bible. People can decide to ignore it, or they can apply their own fallacious definitions to it, or they can accept it as is, but they have to deal with it in some manner. But, to each his/her own.

Grace and peace to you.

[William]

Those who see "two creators" are those who are beholding to belief systems which have been created through the tampering.

I don't see two creators. I see a false god that doesn't exist but is thought to exist and a real God that does exist. But yes, because of 'tampering' with people, there are two ideas of God, but one isn't true. While the predestination god seems real to many, he really isn't IMO.

Then your opinion is noted as such. Your so called false image of The Creator being that of the idea of The Creator is unable to have full knowledge of how the act of creating would unfold, is shown to be lack substance, re the posts I have already made in this thread to which you noticeably appear to have skipped over...perhaps because your opinion falls flat in the face of my own understanding, explained. Or perhaps because you simply missed them or perhaps because you read them but did not understand them...

[2timothy316]

Your so called false image of The Creator being that of the idea of The Creator is unable to have full knowledge of how the act of creating would unfold,

That is the problem with the doctrine. You're assuming there is a timeline to look at. As if your god is watching a DVD. Jumping to spots to watch what he wants. Time doesn't work like that. Time is not linear. Everything is not determined for your god to look at. The future doesn't exist and the movie back to the future is fiction. All time travel is impossible as the True God didn't make all time at one time. This means people can control their own fate because their fate hasn't been made yet. The True God didn't make them one. Predestination is false at its core because those who made it have no understanding of what time really is, it's a measurement and nothing more. Time doesn't even actually pass. Time passing is a concept we experience, it's all in our heads. This idea of 'full knowledge' is based on the idea there is knowledge to know and since time is not a timeline and the future doesn't exist there is nothing to know. Only when the True God Jehovah decides He is going to make something happen is the future assured. Yet even then He can change His mind and alter His plans for the future.

What 'm learning of the predestination god, he can't do that. He is stuck looking at a premade timeline that he made and knows about but can't change it, he can only look at. Apparently the predestine god is not so powerful after all.