Challenge - The Golden Chain of Salvation

[sandusky]

utunumsint:

I am talking about the context for Romans 9. That’s all. It doesn’t mention baptism at all. I have no difficulty with individual salvation.

I’m having some difficulty understanding you. I pointed out to you the use of the singular name “Jacob,” and the singular name “Esau,” in v 13; I pointed out the use of the singular, participial verbs, “the willing one,” and the “the running one,” in v16, and the use of the singular pronoun, “whom,” in vv15, 18.

Will you define what you mean by “context,” please?

utunumsint:

What I have a problem with is predestination to damnation and irresistible grace. Both of these concepts seem to negate human free will.

In what way?

Here is your definition of free will:

By free will, I mean that human beings are responsible for their actions, they can cooperate in the grace God offers.

Those who are predestined to hell are sinners; how does God, in predestining sinners to hell, negate your definition of free will? Are condemned sinners not responsible for their actions—their sins?

utunumsint:

I also find it hard to swallow that my son might be predestined to hell by God. I find it easier to swallow that God might predestine Israel as a nation towards the rejection of the Gospel for the sake of the Gentiles.

Indeed; predestination is very hard for sinners to swallow—the absolute sovereignty of God, properly understood, is at the same time both comforting, and frightening.

utunumsint:

What does vessels of wrath mean anyway? Does it necessarily mean individual hell and damnation, or maybe it means the destruction of the temple and the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Vessels of wrath are individual sinful people (Eph 2:3; cf 2 Cor 4:7).

It does not mean the destruction of the temple. You keeping bringing up the context of Rom 9, where in Rom 9, or where in the entire epistle, does Paul talk about the destruction of the temple?

 

[utunumsint]

Sorry if I’m being unclear.

I’m having some difficulty understanding you. I pointed out to you the use of the singular name “Jacob,” and the singular name “Esau,” in v 13; I pointed out the use of the singular, participial verbs, “the willing one,” and the “the running one,” in v16, and the use of the singular pronoun, “whom,” in vv15, 18.

Yes, Paul is talking about individual people. But it is my thought that what he has in mind is not the predestination to heaven or hell of Jacob and Pharaoh, but the presdestination of Israel and the Gentiles to receive or reject the Gospels. Here are my reasons why I think this is the case:

1. 
   *]God literally renamed Jacob, Israel, so in a way he represents the people of Israel.
   *]Pharaoh, in a way, represents all non Jews, and therefore all Gentiles. God hardened the hearts of the Gentiles at the Exodus, but now he is doing the exact opposite.
   *]The third is as follows. Where in the context of the description of Pharaoh’s fate, and Jacob’s fate, does it imply that Jacob was predestined to heaven and Pharaoh was predestined to hell? Pharaoh did go to destruction, but so did Jacob, eventually. Does the Bible tell us anywhere that Pharaoh is in hell, or that Jacob is in heaven?
   
   Does this clarify my reasoning?
   
   Thanks,
   Ut

 

[Linkowski]

Sorry if I’m being unclear.

Yes, Paul is talking about individual people. But it is my thought that what he has in mind is not the predestination to heaven or hell of Jacob and Pharaoh, but the presdestination of Israel and the Gentiles. Here are my reasons why I think this is the case:

1. 
   *]God literally renamed Jacob, Israel, so in a way he represents the people of Israel.
   *]Pharaoh, in a way, represents all non Jews, and therefore all Gentiles. God hardened the hearts of the Gentiles at the Exodus, but now he is doing the exact opposite.
   *]The third is as follows. Where in the context of the description of Pharaoh’s fate, and Jacob’s fate, does it imply that Jacob was predestined to heaven and Pharaoh was predestined to hell? Pharaoh did go to destruction, but so did Jacob, eventually. Does the Bible tell us anywhere that Pharaoh is in hell, or that Jacob is in heaven?
   
   Does this clarify my reasoning?
   
   Thanks,
   Ut

1. 
   I have thought about what you have just written above…BUT
   
   We need to look elsewhere in scripture for scriptures concerning predestination…first off, in Romans 9, there are statements such as…it is not the MAN who wills or the MAN who runs but God that shows mercy. Also, it speaks of vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath (individuals) and speaks of vessels of mercy in such a way…
   
   Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not **of the Jews **only, but also of the Gentiles?
   
   Individuals from among the Jews and among the Gentiles are elect.
   
   Going further, we have scriptures such as…
   
   Ac 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
   
   Individuals that were appointed or ordained to eternal life believed.
   
   There is an even more specific illustration of this…
   
   Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
   
   Lidia must have been one of those appointed as well.
   
   Others include…
   
   John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
   
   And we, as individuals must work out or make certain of our calling and election…
   
   2Pe 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
   
   So, this is invidually applied and clear in these scriptures and is also very visible in other places of scripture Just as we were no born into this world of our own will…God “begets” us or causes us to be born again by His will…
   
   1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
   
   Jas 1:18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
   
   I do not want to confuse the issue b y placing a large amount of “stuff” in here but I think this makes it clear enough.

 

[Philthy]

Those who are predestined to hell are sinners; how does God, in predestining sinners to hell, negate your definition of free will?

If God has “predestined” them to hell positively/actively - not passively through the free exercise of choice - then they have no free will.

Sandusky:

Are condemned sinners not responsible for their actions—their sins?

They are no more or less responsible than anyone else for their sin. “…all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” - yet God is finding fault with them that he does not with the elect. It seems to be a form of “unjust justice” which, while it remains just nonetheless, isn’t perfect justice (which we expect of God).

sandusky:

Indeed; predestination is very hard for sinners to swallow—the absolute sovereignty of God, properly understood, is at the same time both comforting, and frightening.

Aren’t are all sinners, Sandusky? IMHO predestination is hard to swallow whether you believe you are of the elect or not. The reason it is difficult is because God’s “sovereignty” is portrayed as negating all we do in life. Here you are, pouring your heart out into this discussion - for what? Will it alter anyone’s eternal destiny positively or negatively? If so, how does that not alter the "sovereignty of God? If predestination is what I think is meant by it then it will not alter anything. It’s hard not only to swallow, but it’s hard to know what to do with it when you swallow it…

 

[Philthy]

Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not **of the Jews **only, but also of the Gentiles?

Individuals from among the Jews and among the Gentiles are elect.

Maybe yes, maybe no. This could equally refer to the time that they are in - the post crucifixion era. The emphasis could still be on the UNIVERSALITY of the calling, not on any individual exclusivety of it…

Link:

Ac 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Individuals that were appointed or ordained to eternal life believed.

There is an even more specific illustration of this…

Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

Lidia must have been one of those appointed as well.

Others include…

John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

All good stuff which supports your point. But then you make this claim which sends me back to not understanding what you mean by predestination…

Link:

And we, as individuals must work out or make certain of our calling and election…

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;

Why do WE need to make certain? Will God not take care of it? Why avoid stumbling if it is part of His Will for the elect? He is the potter, right - we’re just clay to be molded. I dont get it. Will our predestination according to the golden chain be altered by our NOT being certain of our calling? Yes or No, please.
If No, why the concern about diligence and stumbling?

 

[mikeledes]

You don’t know what you are talking about Mike. You really should attempt to understand what Pelagianism is before you accuse one of it.

Pelagianism has to do with our ability limiting our responsibility. IOW Pelagian stated that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is able to do, and since God wants us to do good, therefore, we must have the ability to do the good that God commands.

A Pelagian statement would be: man by his own natural powers is able to accept the gospel.

As you can see from the quote above, that is not what I said.

I have yet to call a Catholic a heretic, but Catholics freely throw that word at me, and they are always wrong.

Sandunksy, calm down! Where have I accused you of being a Pelagian? A Pelagian Calvinist is an oxymoron. I was speaking in general and did not have you or any other Calvinist in mind. You made an assertion about something that I said, and I responded that that was not what I was trying to say because that would be the heresy of Pelagianism. I hope this clarified this incident.

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

utunumsint:

Yes, Paul is talking about individual people. But it is my thought that what he has in mind is not the predestination to heaven or hell of Jacob and Pharaoh, but the presdestination of Israel and the Gentiles to receive or reject the Gospels. Here are my reasons why I think this is the case:

Of what value is it to predestine the reception, or the rejection of the Gospel to nations as a collective? That understanding would require a collective acceptance, or rejection of the Gospel, rather than an individual acceptance, or rejection of the Gospel within the collective; wouldn’t you agree?

Again, in this passage, Paul predicates the acceptance of the Gospel on the mercy of God, “*He has mercy on whom *[singular] He desires; and Paul predicates the rejection of the Gospel on the hardening of God, “*He hardens whom * [singular] He desires.”

And Paul’s argument includes the larger immediate context of Romans 9, that being Romans 8, specifically, the foreknowing, predestinating, calling, justifying, and glorifying of the elect.

Paul, after relating the story of Pharaoh (God’s raising him up, and hardening his heart), voices an objection by an unnamed man: “You [singular] *will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault *[with me] ? For who [singular] resists His will?”

Let’s give the unnamed man a name—Pharaoh.

In response to the question, Paul replies, “…who are you O Pharaoh, who answers back to God?”

Paul says that Pharaoh will not say to God, “why have you made me like this?” No one has the right to strike against God’s hand, nor to question God’s actions (cf Dan 4:35).

 

[mikeledes]

This has really become an interesting discussion. Due to time constraints, I couldn’t read every single post. First of all, let’s look at the context of Romans 9-11. Paul is asserting God’s absolute freedom to extend mercy to whomever He pleases. many Jews claimed that because they were God’s chosen people and that they possessed and observed the Law of Moses, they had an exclusive right to God’s mercy. Anyone who wanted to have a right to this mercy had to be incorporated into the Jewish community by being circumcised and observing the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1-5). In other words, by being the biological descendants of Abraham and observance of the Mosaic Law, they had an exclsuive claim on God’s mercy. The purpose of Romans is to correct this error. In Romans 2:28 He states:

28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

He also states in Romans 9:6-13

**6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”
10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
13Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” **

Therefore, the point being made is that God - in granting His mercy - is not obligated by biological descent or laws of primogeniture. Ishmael was descended from Abraham and was his first son. And yet God chose Isaac as the one through whom He would transmit His promises. Esau was technically the first born and, based on the law of primogeniture, He should have inherited the promise. And yet God chose Jacob over Esau, thus nullifying any supposed right based on primogeniture. Therefore, the Jews could claim no right to God’s mercy based on biological descent from Abraham or observance of the Law of Moses.

Now why did God “harden the heart” of Pharaoh? Romans 9:17 states:

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The following is an excerpt from the book Why I Am Not A Calvinist by Jerry l. Wallis and Joseph R. Dongell:

"Turning back to Paul’s argument, we see that understanding Pharoah’s story helps us make sense of Israel hardness. God did not create Pharoah’s initial hostility any more than he caused Israel’s initial unbelief. Rather, God reinforced their tendencies to bring about a greater proclamation of His truth around the world. While some might have wondered whether the unbelief of God’s chosen people would thwart God’s plan to redeem the world through Israel, Paul assures us that God will triumph even more spectacularly by using Israel’s unbelief to serve His larger purpose. While Paul does not flesh out the dynamics involved, the book of Acts repeatedly shows that the Jews’ hostile reaction to Christian preaching actually propelled the gospel to ever wider Gentile audiences [Acts 8:1-4; 11:19-23; 13:46-48; 17:1-15; 19:8-10; 23:1-11; 28:25-29] Jewish resistance to the gospel formed, in effect, a bridge that apostles and crossed to evangelize the nations of the world. God transformed their resistance into opportunity." (p.p 89-90)

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The study note of Romans 9:14-33 in the Navarre Bible, a respected Catholic study bible, states the following:

"The selection of the people of Israel in preference to all other nations, the hardening of Pharoah’s heart, and the punsihment meted out to him, individual salvation or rejection as indicated by the vessel of clay; these are all examples which point to the profound mystery of predestination. Our faith teaches that God, who is almighty and all-knowing, not only knows all future events but by His infallible will arranges them to achieve His design…"

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

A genuine desire to help must manifest itself in a genuine offer and a genuine offer is one that can be accepted. This reminds me of a verse in the Bible:

James 2:15-16

15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

How can you desire that a person be “warm and filled” and not provide what he/she needs, or at least the means of attaining it? Such a “desire” lacks sincerity.

God, on the other hand, cannot lie or deceive. Thank God for that! Otherwise, we’d really be in trouble. Therefore, He always says what He means and He always means what He says. Now what has God said regarding repentance and salvation?

John 3:16-17

16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

1 Timothy 2:3-4

**3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved **and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Ezekiel 18:23

23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

Now if the grace of repentance is granted by God and He desires the salvation of all, then how can God say that He does not desire the death of the wicked, “rather than that he turn from his ways and live” if He does not provide the means to accomplish that? As I stated earlier, a genuine desire produces a genuine offer and a genuine offer is only genuine when it can be accepted. Otherwise, it isn’t an offer at all. But how great and merciful is our God! He not only has the desire, but also provides the means to all mankind:

Titus 2:11

11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

John 1:9

9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

John 12:32

32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

The offer of grace is for all and he has provided the means for acceptance, as He did in Isaiah 5:1-6. There will be those who refuse it from the start. There will be others who accept it and then eventually fall away (the “justified” reprobate). Finally, there will be those who accept it an persevere (i.e. the elect).

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

I reaffirm what is I stated in this post. If God only gives the elect the opportunity to repent by offering the grace of repentance, how can that be recociled with God’s desire for the salvation of all and the repentance of the wicked? How can this desire be sincere if He never gives the reprobate a genuine opportunity to repent? Merely asking them to repent without providing prevenient grace - and knowing that they can only repent if He provides that grace first - is not a sincere offer. That’s like asking a one legged person to walk without given them a prosthetic leg and then saying “They chose not to walk.”

I believe that in God there is no deceit - He means what He says and He says what he means - and if He desires the salvation of all, he will offer the grace of repentance to all and enable them to accept it. Those who reject this offer from the start or turn away from it after having accepted it will have no excuse. An opportunity was given and they squandered it. No one is entitled to a second chance.

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Mike,

With respect to your long post #187, that God is not obligated to give mercy, or anything else, is not in dispute.

mikeledes:

The following is an excerpt from the book Why I Am Not A Calvinist by Jerry l. Wallis and Joseph R. Dongell:

“Turning back to paul’s argument, we see that understanding Pharoah’s story helps us make sense of Israel hardness. God did not create Pharoah’s initial hostility any more than he caused Israel’s initial unbelief. Rather, God reinforced their tendencies to bring about a greater proclamation of His truth around the world. While some might have wondered whether the unbelief of God’s chosen people would thwart God’s plan to redeem the world through Israel, Paul assures us that God will triumph even more spectacularly by using Israel’s unbelief to serve His larger purpose. While Paul does not flesh out the dynamics involved, the book of Acts repeatedly shows that the Jews’ hostile reaction to Christian preaching actually propelled the gospel to ever wider Gentile audiences [Acts 8:1-4; 11:19-23; 13:46-48; 17:1-15; 19:8-10; 23:1-11; 28:25-29] Jewish resistance to the gospel formed, in effect, a bridge that apostles and crossed to evangelize the nations of the world. God transformed their resistance into opportunity.” (p.p 89-90)

That “God will triumph even more spectacularly by using Israel’s unbelief to serve His larger purpose,” is not dispute.

Also, that God neither created Pharaoh’s initial hostility, nor Israel’s unbelief is not in dispute. All men are born in a state of sin, and unbelief (Rom 5:6-9; 12-15), and are by nature, “*Children of * [God’s] wrath,” (Eph 2:3)

mikeledes:

The study note of Romans 9:14-33 in the Navarre Bible, a respected Catholic study bible, states the following:

“The selection of the people of Israel in preference to all other nations, the hardening of Pharoah’s heart, and the punsihment meted out to him, individual salvation or rejection as indicated by the vessel of clay; these are all examples which point to the profound mystery of predestination. Our faith teaches that God, who is almighty and all-knowing, not only knows all future events but by His infallible will arranges them to achieve His design…”

That Romans 9 is referring to Individual salvation, as well as national rejection, has been in dispute by the Catholics participating.

The Catholic source in your post should settle the issue for those who have been uncertain about that; namely that, as well as dealing with national rejection/acceptance issues concerning Jews, and gentiles, Romans 9 also deals with the God’s actions/choices in individual salvation.

 

[sandusky]

Sandunksy, calm down! Where have I accused you of being a Pelagian? A Pelagian Calvinist is an oxymoron. I was speaking in general and did not have you or any other Calvinist in mind. You made an assertion about something that I said, and I responded that that was not what I was trying to say because that would be the heresy of Pelagianism. I hope this clarified this incident.

God bless,
Michael

You’re right, Mike; I took your initial statement as a paraphrase of what I had said, and that you were saying that what I said was Pelagianism; upon re-reading the post (#134), I see that I misunderstood what you were saying, and that you were not quoting me, but making a statement of fact; forgive me.

 

[SPH1]

Some form of predestination is the dominant position of Christendom, Catholic and Protestant. Here’s a pretty good link comparing and contrasting the Catholic and Calvinist view on predestination: A Tiptoe Through TULIP

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

For our Calvinist friends, I’d be very concerned not being “predestined” into God’s Holy Catholic Church.

 

[mikeledes]

The word “choose” inherently means the possibility of selecting one thing over another, as illustrated by the following passage:

Deuteronomy 30:19

19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, "

If one does not have the ability to select one thing over another, then there is no real choice. If grace is irresistable, than sin and concupisence is also irresistible in the case of someone who is in the flesh. Then there is no choice involved either in the case of grace or sin. And if sin is irresistible, God’s call to the reprobate to repent cannot be sincere if he does not provide prevenient grace that enables them to choose grace over sin. As I stated time and time again, God can never be insincere.

I just want to share another verse with you all before I go:

Proverbs 1:20-26

20Wisdom shouts in the street,
She lifts her voice in the square;
21At the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
At the entrance of the gates in the city she utters her sayings:
22"How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing
And fools hate knowledge?
23"Turn to my reproof,
Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you;
I will make my words known to you.
24"Because I called and you refused,
I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention;
25And you neglected all my counsel
And did not want my reproof;
26I will also laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your dread comes,
27When your dread comes like a storm
And your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.
28"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently but they will not find me,
29Because they hated knowledge
And did not choose the fear of the LORD.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

You’re right, Mike; I took your initial statement as a paraphrase of what I had said, and that you were saying that what I said was Pelagianism; upon re-reading the post (#134), I see that I misunderstood what you were saying, and that you were not quoting me, but making a statement of fact; forgive me.

No problem. I understand that with so many posts being written and so much information in each post, we can easily misinterpret what someone is saying. Hey, I’ve done it too. I’ve got to go and I’m not sure if I’ll be back online tomorrow. I wish you a very blessed evening.

God bless,
Michael

 

[SPH1]

The word “choose” inherently means the possibility of selecting one thing over another, as illustrated by the following passage:

Deuteronomy 30:19

19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, "

God Bless,
Michael

Michael, nice work!

But I think we should note that this debate was done earlier between Luther (Bondage of the Will) and Erasmus.

I took a religious studies class long time ago in college on Predestination (aka Determinism) vs. Free Will. The issue not only involves Religion, but many disciplines such as History, Psychology and Science. Best course I ever took!

Many disciplines speak of “cause.” And once you have a cause (cause and effect), have you not by definition taken away free will?

It appears that the dominant view of all Christendom is some form of predestination. The issue is how far to take it. Calvinists, especially the double-predestination group, go to the extreme. Luther and Catholics drop off before then, looking for a middle ground.

But the question is: Can there be a middle ground?

Nobody can do anything without God’s grace, religiously speaking. Like a car, which cannot go without gas. So why doesn’t God give gas (grace) to everyone so that they might turn to Him? Or does everyone have the gas (grace)?

Just some ancient thoughts from college days.

 

[utunumsint]

I’d like to thank Sandusky, Mikeledes, Philthy, Linkowski, and Tabcom for your posts. This has been an interesting topic. And I’ve learned a great deal.

God bless.
Ut

 

[tabcom]

**Is Deuteronomy 30:19 really a free-will verse?

Referring back to verse 15 . . .

30:15
"See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;

If I’m in a burning house and one door leads outside to safety, and another door leads to the basement and death, do I really have any free-will to choose the door that leads to the basement? **

 

[tabcom]

Some form of predestination is the dominant position of Christendom, Catholic and Protestant. Here’s a pretty good link comparing and contrasting the Catholic and Calvinist view on predestination: A Tiptoe Through TULIP

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

**I’ve studied that in detail about a year ago. I agree with it completely. :clapping:

I like to refer to it whenever someone attempts to hang the calvinist label on me. :tsktsk: **