A few questions on predestination

[JerryNumbers]

I see no question as to whether or not God is in control. We see in things such as Joseph that he can take the bad things of life and turn them around and make good come out of them. But does that mean that he predestined or predetermined everything that would happen. Yes we know God is all knowing, but does that mean he always uses that knowledge the way we think of. For instance we find in Genesis 6:6 that it repented God that he had made man. Now we all know that God knew man would sin, else he would not have planned Jesus for the sacrifice before the foundation of the world. But if he used that forknowledge the way predestination of all things would call for why would he repent of making man. But then we find that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. To me this seems that though God is all knowing he put things into free will and then allowed them to take shape without him using his knowledge. Another example of what I am trying to say is King Hezekiah found in Isaiah 38. We find Hezekiah sick unto death in verse 1 and Isaiah being sent by God to tell him to set his house in order for he was going to die. Then we find King Hezekiah turning to the wall and praying for mercy. And what is the mercy shown? God added 15 years to his life (verse 5). Now my thoughts are that if God used his knowledge to know everything that would happen in detail before the foundation of the world why does he say he added 15 years to King Hezekiah's life? If he predestinated all things then he knew from before the foundations of the world that Hezekiah would live that extra 15 years thus making it that nothing was added!!! That would make a prOBlem for God said "I will add". Now the question is what did he add 15 years to? Was it the life span he predestined before the foundation of the world? Then all things were not Predestinated or else God would have known that Hezekiah was going to pray and predestinated that he would live exactly how long he did. Was it that he added 15 years to the sentance he had set? Yes he added it to the time that he told Isaiah to tell Hezekiah he was to live.

Yes, thankfully God can do this.

Ro 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Take whatever we are someone else has done and work it our for our good. But because we can't fully understand how God can do this they take it to mean what it does not.

[anime4christ]

I know this doesn't prove anything and might potentially open another can of worms, but unlike how many people say about Calvinists, as I've gone more towards Calvinism, I have had the desire to share the Gospel and the opportunities to do so increase, rather than decrease. I don't believe it is solely because I have gotten closer to Calvinism, but because I have gotten closer to God. Yet, I still have to say that both happened simultaneously.

That said, I still reject classical Calvinism -- of which some proponents do frown upon the urgency to evangelize -- but I lean more towards a form of moderate Calvinism. I don't agree with everything moderate Calvinists say, so I still refuse to be labeled a Calvinist, but they are the closest group to which I can currently identify.

I think one of the things I have realized is people fight Calvinism more because of the label than the content. Classical Calvinism and moderate Calvinism are similar on the outside, but have some very significant differences. This is why I dislike labels so much; they cause too much division and strife. I think the label doesn't matter, but we must believe the Gospel, be filled with the Gospel, and preach the Gospel instead of fighting. Now, I'm not saying we were fighting here, but some attitudes toward Calvinism is extremely negative here, and I understand why. I think the conversation was pretty good in this thread though and I can say I definitely learned something from it.

[JerryNumbers]

I know this doesn't prove anything and might potentially open another can of worms, but unlike how many people say about Calvinists, as I've gone more towards Calvinism, I have had the desire to share the Gospel and the opportunities to do so increase, rather than decrease. I don't believe it is solely because I have gotten closer to Calvinism, but because I have gotten closer to God. Yet, I still have to say that both happened simultaneously.

That said, I still reject classical Calvinism -- of which some proponents do frown upon the urgency to evangelize -- but I lean more towards a form of moderate Calvinism. I don't agree with everything moderate Calvinists say, so I still refuse to be labeled a Calvinist, but they are the closest group to which I can currently identify.

I think one of the things I have realized is people fight Calvinism more because of the label than the content. Classical Calvinism and moderate Calvinism are similar on the outside, but have some very significant differences. This is why I dislike labels so much; they cause too much division and strife. I think the label doesn't matter, but we must believe the Gospel, be filled with the Gospel, and preach the Gospel instead of fighting. Now, I'm not saying we were fighting here, but some attitudes toward Calvinism is extremely negative here, and I understand why. I think the conversation was pretty good in this thread though and I can say I definitely learned something from it.

Your wrong, at least in part, I and others stand against it because it is false teaching and is not found in the pages of the Holy Bible God gave to us. We are to stand for truth, and God's truth only, we are to guard it, and contend for the faith. I know, that is very unpopular in today society, todays society wants us to be tolerant, to put differences aside and walk in a false sens of unity. yet, from the pages of the Bible that was true in the days Jesus and His 12 walked on this earth.


Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

[heartstrings]

I know this doesn't prove anything and might potentially open another can of worms, but unlike how many people say about Calvinists, as I've gone more towards Calvinism, I have had the desire to share the Gospel and the opportunities to do so increase, rather than decrease. I don't believe it is solely because I have gotten closer to Calvinism, but because I have gotten closer to God. Yet, I still have to say that both happened simultaneously.

That said, I still reject classical Calvinism -- of which some proponents do frown upon the urgency to evangelize -- but I lean more towards a form of moderate Calvinism. I don't agree with everything moderate Calvinists say, so I still refuse to be labeled a Calvinist, but they are the closest group to which I can currently identify.

I think one of the things I have realized is people fight Calvinism more because of the label than the content. Classical Calvinism and moderate Calvinism are similar on the outside, but have some very significant differences. This is why I dislike labels so much; they cause too much division and strife. I think the label doesn't matter, but we must believe the Gospel, be filled with the Gospel, and preach the Gospel instead of fighting. Now, I'm not saying we were fighting here, but some attitudes toward Calvinism is extremely negative here, and I understand why. I think the conversation was pretty good in this thread though and I can say I definitely learned something from it.

Not true
"Doctrines of Grace", "Augustinianism", "Reformed theology","Hyper-Calvinism", "Tulip Theology",
Whatever label you put on it, the content is still wicked false doctrine.

[Reformation Man35]

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.


16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.


18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.


19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?


20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?


21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:


23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


So, someone please explain to me this verse? I am very curious as to its meaning. Thanks.

[anime4christ]

For the record, I have only studied the sotoriology of the different systems, and therefore can't call myself a Calvinist at all because I have not studied the other parts of it.

Not true
"Doctrines of Grace", "Augustinianism", "Reformed theology","Hyper-Calvinism", "Tulip Theology",
Whatever label you put on it, the content is still wicked false doctrine.

I haven't studied all those in full, so I can't answer to all, but I do not agree with Augustinianism, Hyper-Calvinism, or Tulip Theology (the classical definition). Moderate Calvinism ranges in teachings from 4-point to a more moderate definition of the 5 points to almost being identical to classical Arminianism. From what I have seen, talking to IFBs, they range from a hybrid of moderate Calvinism and classical Arminianism to open theology.

Here's a summary of how the different systems explain predetermination as I have come to understand it (I will exclude Hyper-Calvinism because it's pure junk):

open theology:
Nothing is predetermined and God Himself does not know who will be saved but He can make a pretty good guess because He knows all the possibilities.

classical Arminianism:
Everything is predetermined but it is not known by whom.
People have free absolute will, but God knows exactly what they will choose.
Therefore, God knows ahead of time who will be saved and who won't.

moderate Calvinism:
Everything is predetermined, ultimately, by God.
People have free will, but God created their will, therefore knows what they will choose.
Therefore, God knows, and ultimately chose, ahead of time who will be saved and who won't.
People still are the ones who choose, by their own free will, to accept or reject God's grace and are therefore responsible for their choice, and how that works together is a mystery.

classical Calvinism:
Everything is predetermined, ultimately, by God.
Logically, people do not possess free will, at least in the choice leading to their salvation.
Any free will that people may possess can only freely choose sin, nothing else (if people even have free will).
Therefore, God had to choose ahead of time who to save and who not to, because He was the only one who could.

Now, when it comes to Eternal Security, there are several variations for open theology and Arminianism:
open theology:
1) People can come and go and God doesn't know who will be saved in the end.
2) For those who come to God, He will make sure they will be saved in the end, regardless of what happens to them later.

Arminianism:
1) Since God knows ahead of time who will be saved, ultimately, those who are saved are secure and those who aren't, well aren't.
2) Classical Arminianism: Arminus himself said that some passages in the Bible seem to imply that it is possible for someone who was saved to fully apostatize and lose his salvation. Given the above statement (1), however he wasn't sure how that was possible, and believed that more research needed to be done before he could come to a definite conclusion on that.
3) Modern Arminianism: God will temporarily save those who come to Him, but if they apostatize, He will take their salvation away. The funny thing with this theology is that if God knows ahead of time who will be saved and who won't, why would He give them a temporary salvation that would ultimately not be a salvation at all?
4) Those who are saved are eternally saved, which matches (1) and (2) anyway.

I know IFBs who believe open theology with eternal security and those who believe classical Arminianism without Arminius' notion of the possibility of apostasy. That doesn't mean that most IFBs are Arminians, but their sotoriology is nearly identical to classical Arminianism, even if they came to that conclusion independently.

So to summarize, the only real difference between most IFBs and moderate Calvinists in sotoriology is that a moderate Calvinist will say that ultimately, God predetermined every event in history while an IFB will say that it was predetermined, but not by God. I have also met some IFBs who's sotoriology fits moderate Calvinism's because they do believe that God ultimately predetermined everything.

As for other parts of Calvinism, that's a different topic. I'm only discussing sotoriology right now, and in that area, I am most like a moderate Calvinist.

[heartstrings]

For the record, I have only studied the sotoriology of the different systems, and therefore can't call myself a Calvinist at all because I have not studied the other parts of it.



I haven't studied all those in full, so I can't answer to all, but I do not agree with Augustinianism, Hyper-Calvinism, or Tulip Theology (the classical definition). Moderate Calvinism ranges in teachings from 4-point to a more moderate definition of the 5 points to almost being identical to classical Arminianism. From what I have seen, talking to IFBs, they range from a hybrid of moderate Calvinism and classical Arminianism to open theology.

Here's a summary of how the different systems explain predetermination as I have come to understand it (I will exclude Hyper-Calvinism because it's pure junk):

open theology:
Nothing is predetermined and God Himself does not know who will be saved but He can make a pretty good guess because He knows all the possibilities.

classical Arminianism:
Everything is predetermined but it is not known by whom.
People have free absolute will, but God knows exactly what they will choose.
Therefore, God knows ahead of time who will be saved and who won't.

moderate Calvinism:
Everything is predetermined, ultimately, by God.
People have free will, but God created their will, therefore knows what they will choose.
Therefore, God knows, and ultimately chose, ahead of time who will be saved and who won't.
People still are the ones who choose, by their own free will, to accept or reject God's grace and are therefore responsible for their choice, and how that works together is a mystery.

classical Calvinism:
Everything is predetermined, ultimately, by God.
Logically, people do not possess free will, at least in the choice leading to their salvation.
Any free will that people may possess can only freely choose sin, nothing else (if people even have free will).
Therefore, God had to choose ahead of time who to save and who not to, because He was the only one who could.

Now, when it comes to Eternal Security, there are several variations for open theology and Arminianism:
open theology:
1) People can come and go and God doesn't know who will be saved in the end.
2) For those who come to God, He will make sure they will be saved in the end, regardless of what happens to them later.

Arminianism:
1) Since God knows ahead of time who will be saved, ultimately, those who are saved are secure and those who aren't, well aren't.
2) Classical Arminianism: Arminus himself said that some passages in the Bible seem to imply that it is possible for someone who was saved to fully apostatize and lose his salvation. Given the above statement (1), however he wasn't sure how that was possible, and believed that more research needed to be done before he could come to a definite conclusion on that.
3) Modern Arminianism: God will temporarily save those who come to Him, but if they apostatize, He will take their salvation away. The funny thing with this theology is that if God knows ahead of time who will be saved and who won't, why would He give them a temporary salvation that would ultimately not be a salvation at all?
4) Those who are saved are eternally saved, which matches (1) and (2) anyway.

I know IFBs who believe open theology with eternal security and those who believe classical Arminianism without Arminius' notion of the possibility of apostasy. That doesn't mean that most IFBs are Arminians, but their sotoriology is nearly identical to classical Arminianism, even if they came to that conclusion independently.

So to summarize, the only real difference between most IFBs and moderate Calvinists in sotoriology is that a moderate Calvinist will say that ultimately, God predetermined every event in history while an IFB will say that it was predetermined, but not by God. I have also met some IFBs who's sotoriology fits moderate Calvinism's because they do believe that God ultimately predetermined everything.

As for other parts of Calvinism, that's a different topic. I'm only discussing sotoriology right now, and in that area, I am most like a moderate Calvinist.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for every single man, woman, or child who has ever lived or ever will live.
I beleive that Jesus draws ALL men to himself, by the power o the Holy Ghost.
I believe that God gave every person the freewill to choose, as each person is drawn or wooed by the Holy Ghost.
I believe that once a person is truly saved, that person is saved and secure for all eternity.

I beleive that God, being all knowing, predestinated a body of believers to be sanctified/conformed to the image of Christ.
But I DO NOT believe that he predetermined ANYONE to go to Heaven or Hell.
I beleive that a "mans heart deviseth his way". God says "come unto me..." but He forces no one to choose.

What category does that put me in?

[anime4christ]

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for every single man, woman, or child who has ever lived or ever will live.
I beleive that Jesus draws ALL men to himself, by the power o the Holy Ghost.
I believe that God gave every person the freewill to choose, as each person is drawn or wooed by the Holy Ghost.
I believe that once a person is truly saved, that person is saved and secure for all eternity.

I beleive that God, being all knowing, predestinated a body of believers to be sanctified/conformed to the image of Christ.
But I DO NOT believe that he predetermined ANYONE to go to Heaven or Hell.
I beleive that a "mans heart deviseth his way". God says "come unto me..." but He forces no one to choose.

What category does that put me in?

That is consistent with classical Arminianism without the possibility of apostasy. Which is absolutely fine, it's modern Arminianism that is off the edge.

[heartstrings]

Taken from the heading "Classical Arminianism" found on this page.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism#Classical_Arminianism

Eternal security is also conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.[19] Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renouncement of belief.[20]

This is false doctrine.
I would rather just be called a Bible believer.

[Psalms18_28]

people who are saved are unable to stop believing in God. They may have doubts and anger at times but they always go back to the Lord. They can not be unsaved. That's why I don't believe in Arminianist theory. Calvinist also believe that once someone is open to the gospel they can't go back either. Which is why they believe they are "chosen".

I just don't believe certain people were chosen. I believe EVERYONE was chosen to hear the gospel of Christ.

You have to be careful, if you have too much pride that God only pick certain people (that you are more special and more important than other people) to be open to the gospel, you could be worshipping the wrong God.

[anime4christ]

I would rather just be called a Bible believer.

I agree, this is the reason why I don't like labels. Just because my sotoriology is close to moderate Calvinism, if I say it here, people assume I am whatever their preconceived image of a Calvinist is. Originally, I was asking in this thread about predestination, or more specifically, predetermination, but it quickly swerved into a Calvinism vs everything else debate. The point I'm trying to make is that the sotoriologies of moderate Calvinism, classical Arminianism, and IFBs is not as far as it seems and does not seem worth condemning for.

Here's the major points on which IFBs don't agree with moderate Calvinists and classical Arminians:

Moderate Calvinists believe that, ultimately, is was God who predetermined everything. IFBs don't attempt to answer the who question.

Classical Arminians believe in the possibility of apostasy in theory, IFB's don't.

We all consider ourselves Bible believers, but we just disagree on which of the positions on those two issues are Biblical.

[JerryNumbers]

That is consistent with classical Arminianism without the possibility of apostasy. Which is absolutely fine, it's modern Arminianism that is off the edge.

Actually there is nothing modern about that, its what Jesus taught, so its the Old, Old, Story.

[anime4christ]

Actually there is nothing modern about that, its what Jesus taught, so its the Old, Old, Story.

All I'm saying is that what is known today as modern Arminianism is a false teaching.

[Reformation Man35]

So no takers on any commentation on the Romans passage I had questions on? Thanks.

[Seth Doty]

So no takers on any commentation on the Romans passage I had questions on? Thanks.

It prOBably wasn't commented on because it would be a waste of time, that is why I didn't respond to it. Debates with those coming from a calvinist perspective never seem to accomplish anything or go anywhere. If your truly interested in a view of romans 9 other than what calvinism would give look around online, I am sure you can find something pretty easily. There has been a great deal of discussion/arguments about that chapter over the years.