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?

[PinSeeker]

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.

Why would He change what He made very good? Why would He change anything He made for His own glory? Yes, it needs redeeming, and He is certainly doing that. But changing it? No need.

Apparently the predestine god is not so powerful after all.

Grace and peace to you.

[William]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #51]

What evidence do you have regarding your assertions on time/space?

What biblical support do you have for this idea you are presenting about time?

It sounds to me as if you are desperately trying to cling on to what you have been told about The Creator by arguing this. But I am certainly open to being shown you are correct in your claims here.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I think some of the issues that people find with 'predestination' might be resolved if one understands:

A - that there is no hell (a place of eternal and conscious torment)

B - that while the elect may be foreordained, that does not mean that only the elect are saved and receive eternal life.




Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

Peace to you,

I think some of the issues that people find with 'predestination' might be resolved if one understands:

A - that there is no hell (a place of eternal and conscious torment)

I agree. But there are indeed horrific experiences which fearful souls do indeed create for themselves to experience, although these are not eternal, because they are not real. They are impermanent creations which manifest because those who create them are uninformed and have attitudes which promote such creations, and are fearful...

B - that while the elect may be foreordained, that does not mean that only the elect are saved and receive eternal life.

I agree. Eventually all will be saved, and brought into the greater knowledge [of The Creators Reality] beyond the heavens and the hells that they have created [for the most part - unconsciously] for themselves to experience.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I think some of the issues that people find with 'predestination' might be resolved if one understands:

A - that there is no hell (a place of eternal and conscious torment)

I agree. But there are indeed horrific experiences which fearful souls do indeed create for themselves to experience, although these are not eternal, because they are not real. They are impermanent creations which manifest because those who create them are uninformed and have attitudes which promote such creations, and are fearful...

William, I have no reason to accept that (the bold) and every reason to reject it. As we have discussed.



Peace again to you.

[William]

Peace to you,

I think some of the issues that people find with 'predestination' might be resolved if one understands:

A - that there is no hell (a place of eternal and conscious torment)

I agree. But there are indeed horrific experiences which fearful souls do indeed create for themselves to experience, although these are not eternal, because they are not real. They are impermanent creations which manifest because those who create them are uninformed and have attitudes which promote such creations, and are fearful...

William, I have no reason to accept that (the bold) and every reason to reject it. As we have discussed.

I have not discussed this with you in any detail Tammy, so do not know the reasons you have to reject my understanding.

The function of the Church was set up in order to provide a place of refuge for souls incarnate within human form. It's message of hope for those otherwise who are too weak in spirit to follow Jesus as his disciples. In that, there was a greater purpose to having those sheep in the yard, relatively protected from the wolves at the door. In relation to the Next Phase [afterlife] this was the primary mission of Christ - to implant a way of thinking into the collective human psyche which would produce better quality experience in the next phase, as for the most part, souls were experiencing horrific manifestations due to their beliefs and attitudes, so something was done about that.

[The Tanager]

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.

But the sovereign choice between Isaac and Ishmael and between Jacob and Esau is whose lineage the promised gift will come through, not whether they were individually saved or not. In 9:11, those choices are "in order that God's purpose of election might continue" not an election concerning their individual salvation.

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.

To me the "election of those in Christ" is about the way we gain the righteousness of God, by being in Christ rather than by trying our best to follow the Law.

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.

I don't see how the purpose is about individual salvation, though. The choice of Isaac over Ishmael wasn't. The choice of Jacob over Esau wasn't. The use of Pharaoh wasn't. God hardened Pharaoh to show His power and that His name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (9:17). God's purpose in election is so that both Jew and Gentile can be "His People" (9:24-26). How does the election work? God's righteousness is attained by faith (9:30) not by pursuing a law like (much of) Israel did (9:31-32).

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 why wouldn't God will what He desired? His desire couldn't be stopped if He didn't want it to be, right?

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...

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.

These passages are not about God's ways being illogical or 'mysterious' and we've just got to accept them. (1) Psalm 139 is about God knowing us completely. (2) Romans 11:33 is directed towards Gentiles (11:13) who have written future Jewish converts off. Paul says that although they are branches that have been cut off from the olive tree ('Isreal'), can be grafted back in (11:23). The mystery is about God's plans to use Gentile Christians in order to spur Jewish people back to faith in Him. How amazing a God that gets spurned by the Chosen nation, brings in people from all other nations, and, not content to stop there, still has a heart for the ones who spurned Him!

(3) The context of Isaiah 55 is God asking people to come to Him, listen to His words "that your soul may live" (v. 3), seeking Him, calling upon Him, returning to Him "that He may have compassion on him" (v. 7). God's thoughts are full of love and compassion, to an extent that ours are not. On that note, I don't see how Calvinism fits in with Isaiah 55. Why would God say the above things to people, when He knows that they can only listen and come if He chooses them to and that He's only choosing some of them?

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've jumped ahead to bring this quote in here. I agree that just because it seems random to us, this doesn't mean we are right. But that's differernt than saying that we can't understand it correctly.

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.

I completely agree! I didn't define love as "feeling all nice about" or something like that, but "willing the good of". I should change that to say "willing and choosing the good of." God's will and actions towards us is always good.

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 [emphasis mine] 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.

I thought you were saying love isn't a feeling. How can the opposite of love be indifference, then?

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).

I think the "good" being willed (the loving vs. hating action) being contextually focused on here is "having the Messiah come through your lineage." That is a good that God willed for Jacob but not Esau. It had to be one of them or the other. He didn't decide His action based on who deserved it more. God still willed Esau's overall good, even though it wouldn't include having the Messiah as a physical descendant.

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.

What does it mean to be 'eligible' but there is no chance that you will actually get it because of a choice someone else has made? If I told my kids that each of them are eligible to get a new computer but I know that I will only choose my oldest daughter, are they really eligible for a new computer. Logically, yes, they are able to receive the computer, but actually they aren't eligible.

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.

I completely agree. He can do whatever He wants. He can choose to offer free redemption (and allow us to accept or reject it) in spite of what we deserve rather than making it about how well or badly we follow the Law, which I think Romans 9 is about. I see God's answer to Job to be primarily about how much love and care God has for the world, including Job, which Job has not been seeing. Job either decides to repent through seeing the power and majesty and love of God or is comforted by it (42:6).

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.

Which I understand to be that our choice is in the context of whether we will rely upon Christ's work (God's sovereign choice) or rely on ourselves to reach God.

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?

I do. What's the principle of 6:37, though? I would say it's something like: that those who are truly seeking God find that culminating in Jesus, just like the Jews of Jesus's day who truly knew God had their faith culminate in Jesus.

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.

Here is the 3rd Article of the Remonstrants:

"That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Arminianism agrees that, unaided by the Holy Spirit, no one is able to respond to God's will (I would say to either the outward or the inward call). We are spiritually dead to the point where God must make the first move. We completely need God to bring us from spiritual death to spiritual life. Every step we need God, we can't do any of it for ourselves. The differences are that Arminians believe (1) God wants to do it for everyone but (2) won't go against our free will in order to do it, (i.e., we must make a choice), while Calvinists seem to believe that (1) God only "wills" (in spite of His desire) to do it for some and (2) goes against their free will to do so.

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

Whether God's choice of which individuals are 'in' has some unknown reason behind it (like you seemed to say earlier) or is completely random, there still seems to be a condition behind the election. Not just everyone gets saved. What's the condition that determines if you are saved or not? God's sovereign choice conditions why Person A is elect and Person B isn't. In that sense, universalism would be the only uncounditional election to salvation.

If "unconditional" is about our works vs. God's working it, then Arminians agree with you. Accepting a gift earned by another is not earning it. If "unconditional" is about free will vs. determinism, then we obviously disagree there, but that is what the "I" is about.

Here is the First Article:

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36

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

I'm not sure of your point here. Here is the 2nd article about unlimited atonement:

That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word

where he quotes John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2

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

Yes. It is more loving for God to allow free will than to do away with it.

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

Here is the first part of the 5th article:

That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28

It's all about God's power, not ours. Our role is to simply grab Jesus' hand. Whether one can "lose their salvation" the article continues:

But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

Grace and peace.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I think some of the issues that people find with 'predestination' might be resolved if one understands:

A - that there is no hell (a place of eternal and conscious torment)

I agree. But there are indeed horrific experiences which fearful souls do indeed create for themselves to experience, although these are not eternal, because they are not real. They are impermanent creations which manifest because those who create them are uninformed and have attitudes which promote such creations, and are fearful...

William, I have no reason to accept that (the bold) and every reason to reject it. As we have discussed.

I have not discussed this with you in any detail Tammy, so do not know the reasons you have to reject my understanding.

You do not recall any discussion between us on what you think the after life entails?

viewtopic.php?p=1030073#p1030073
viewtopic.php?p=1030598#p1030598

The function of the Church was set up in order to provide a place of refuge for souls incarnate within human form.

The Church is the Body of Christ; the Church is the people (with Christ as their Head). The Church is not a religion. I'm not sure what you are suggesting the Church is.



Peace again to you.

[William]

I think some of the issues that people find with 'predestination' might be resolved if they understood:

That there is no place of eternal and conscious torment but there are indeed horrific experiences which fearful souls do indeed create for themselves to experience, although these are not eternal, because they are not real. They are impermanent creations which manifest because those who create them are uninformed and have attitudes which promote such creations, largely through fearfulness.

That eventually all will be saved, and brought into the greater knowledge [of The Creators Reality] beyond the heavens and the hells that they have created [for the most part - unconsciously] for themselves to temporarily experience.

[William]

The Church is the Body of Christ; the Church is the people (with Christ as their Head). The Church is not a religion. I'm not sure what you are suggesting the Church is.

I can go along with your interpretation as to what The Church is representative of Tammy - What I am referring to is related to that. It is the Spirit of Christ to which I am pointing to in relation to what I termed as the reality "all are brought into the greater knowledge [of The Creators Reality] beyond the heavens and the hells that they have created [for the most part - unconsciously] for themselves to experience."

As we know, The Body of Christ experienced great horrors....