Hitler believed in predestination, a belief that leads many to Hell..

[TriuneUnity]

Do you mind sharing the distinct differences that you stated. I have read more writings of Calvin than Luther. But, I thought Luther taught predestination with greater force than Calvin. I also have read works by Augustine too. Please help me understand what you are sharing. I believe Augustine influenced both Luther and Calvin, but I could be wrong. Without the complete sovereignty of God in all things including salvation of sinners (predestination), can we trust God to accomplish all that He promises in His Word (the Bible)?

Luther did teach predestination. He actually wrote about it more than Calvin did. He just didn’t come to the same conclusions. Mainly double predestination.

 

[Reformed]

Luther did teach predestination. He actually wrote about it more than Calvin did. He just didn’t come to the same conclusions. Mainly double predestination.

Thanks for the information. I’ve read lot’s of work by Calvin, but not much of Luther. What books do you recommend by Luther? I haven’t even read “Bondage of the Will”. I have read works of Jonathan Edwards too, and found it to be helpful in my Christian life.

 

[Nans]

Single Predestination is a myth- there is no such thing. :tsktsk:

Please Read Romans chapter 9. Don’t fuss and bicker- just read it and submit to the authority of Scripture with a humble heart.

Inherent in every choice is the passing over of something else.

This is irrefutable.

God could have chosen ALL sinners to be saved- but He did not. He chose to elect some and chose NOT to elect others.

And without this electing grace (that which puts the sinner into an eternal union with Christ) there is no salvation- only SELF-condemnation- for we are sinners by nature.

So when God chooses not to save a man- He (knowing the end from the beginning) has clearly purposed to leave this sinner to himself- and has purposed to give him the just reward of his wicked works. That reward is eternal damnation.

Apart from salvation- damnation is all there is: (purgatory is a lie)

Therefore- when God chooses to save some- He automatically chooses NOT to save some- This is double Predestination.

We do not believe that God damns people for no reason- or that He MAKES them wicked- God forbid! We believe no such thing! Every non-elect sinner will receive the just punishment for their willful acts of rebellion. They are self-condemned.

However- one can still not escape the fact that if I chose to purchase one out of ten apples- I also then made the choice NOT TO PURCHASE those other nine apples. One choice implies a multitude of others.

Besides- God does all things with a purpose- and does nothing by accident. In other words- there are no UN-intended consequences with God- for He is both Omniscient- He knows ALL THINGS, and Omnipotent- He never fails to accomplish His will. So if God’s will was to save all men- All men would receive the free grace of God in Jesus Christ- and the saving benefits of Christ’s sacrifice would certainly be applied to ALL men by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel. But this is not God’s intention- For if it was- then He would be a failure.

Indeed- if you believe in a God who makes a choice- and becomes the unhappy victim of some unavoidable consequence- then you are an idolater- period. :bowdown: Your god is no God at all- only a figment of your vain religious imagination.

2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thanks for the information. I’ve read lot’s of work by Calvin, but not much of Luther. What books do you recommend by Luther? I haven’t even read “Bondage of the Will”. I have read works of Jonathan Edwards too, and found it to be helpful in my Christian life.

The Bondage of the Will is his main work relating to the topic of monergism and predestination. Most of his other comments relating to the topic are from his commentaries on the Scriptures.

His commentary on Galatians is, IMO, his best work. The Freedom of a Christian, the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and his Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 are other good ones.

 

[Reformed]

2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Thanks for the Scripture, but it needs to be understood in light of all of scripture. If you take this one verse by itself, I think you have three positions.

1. God is sovereign and all mankind will be saved (universalist).
2. God is sovereign and He saves whom He wills to the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1 and 2, Romans 8 and 9).
3. God is not sovereign, and mankind is sovereign in salvation.

 

[chosensinner]

Please do not quote scripture out of context- that is really embarrassing! uch: I hope your not a Protestant!

You should study to show yourself approved of God; a work-man not needing to be ashamed- RIGHTLY dividing the word of Truth.

Concerning this passage- there are a few key elements that you have missed. Verse 9 is speaking to the “beloved” or the “Dear friends” in verse 8. Please check this- open you Bible and see.

So who are the “Beloved” or the “Dear friends?”

Look back to 2 Peter chapter 3 and verse 1.

You will see that Peter is now writing his SECOND epistle to these “beloved” or “Dear friends.” And so here we must ask ourselves- “If this epistle is the second epistle that Peter has written to this same group of people- THEN TO WHOM DID HE ADDRESS THESE EPISTLES?”

Go back to 1 Peter and read the salutation- (by the way- this is called searching the scriptures- you must do this diligently if you are going to run around and cite passages)

So tell me then- to whom is Peter writing? Let’s see:

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect,” (1 Peter 1:1, 2)

If this does not satisfy you- let’s look a little deeper. How are these people -to whom Peter is writing- described in this context???

1 Peter -

verse 1- STRANGERS- (not to God but to the world)
verse 2- ELECT- (chosen in Christ unto salvation)
verse 3- BORN AGAIN- (unto the lively hope)
verse 4- HEIRS- (of an incorruptible inheritance)
verse 5- KEPT- (by the power of God) etc . . .

So when reading 2 Peter 3:9- we should also look at the immediate context as well. The issue being spoken of is the Return of Christ and the execution of the severe judgment of God- (and therefore the rescue of His people from this wicked world)-

But notice that the Lord is not slack concerning His promise- and this promise is that He will save His people! The reason the Lord is being “patient” or “longsuffering” is so that He would be sure to save all of His elect from their sins- by bringing them to repentance before He judges this world. God is not willing that a single one of His elect will perish.

The “promise” in verse 9 is literally rendered to “us-ward” and the “us” includes Peter himself- and therefore it is abundantly clear that he is referring to all the elect!

Besides- and this should not be overlooked- he goes on to say that we should consider that the “longsuffering of God is salvation.” What does this mean? It means God is being patient and He is not bringing judgment just yet- for His will is to save ALL OF HIS ELECT- “not willing that any should perish.”

Please look into the Doctrines of Grace- this way you will not continue to cite passage after passage in a loose and irresponsible way- not only is this embarrassing for you- but it is disrespectful to God and His promises.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Please look into the Doctrines of Grace- this way you will not continue to cite passage after passage in a loose and irresponsible way- not only is this embarrassing for you- but it is disrespectful to God and His promises.

It’s also disrespectful for you to insinuate that because Nans is not a Calvinist he/she is being disrespectful to God and His promises.

Your interpretation is eisegetical in order to insert the Calvinistic presupposition into every text that contradicts it.

 

[chosensinner]

If Peter is not speaking of God’s promise of saving His elect- then please tell us all what he is speaking about?

Would you dare assert that although The Sovereign God of the Universe is NOT WILLING that ANYONE in the entire human race should perish- Millions perish every year?

In your scenario- I would have to ask you then- “What good is God’s will if He cannot and does not accomplish His intentions and desires?” :ehh:

“A god who wills to do what he fails to do - is worthless.” -Don Fortner

 

[TriuneUnity]

If Peter is not speaking of God’s promise of saving His elect- then please tell us all what he is speaking about?

Verse 9 is a promise given to the elect, for sure. Because it is a promise to the elect, that does not rule out its application to “any.” If I say that all of group A has an apple, it does not mean that all of group B does not have an apple, unless I modify it by saying so. Peter does not say that God does NOT wish the non-elect to come to repentance.

Would you dare assert that although The Sovereign God of the Universe is NOT WILLING that ANYONE in the entire human race should perish- Millions perish every year?

Yes; because they reject Him. God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Their sins and rejection are the reason they are damned, not because God has chosen to damn them.

In your scenario- I would have to ask you then- “What good is God’s will if He cannot and does not accomplish His intentions and desires?” :ehh:

Apart from Christ and Him crucified for the sins of the world, God has not revealed His hidden will and desires. Much as Calvinists may try, you will not figure them out.

 

[chosensinner]

I agree that men perish because they reject Christ- I agree.

BUT- let me ask you this:

Does God stop them from rejecting Christ? Or does He allow them to reject Christ and perish?

If you say the latter- then here is another question for you:

Was God WILLING to allow them to reject Christ and perish- or was He NOT WILLING to allow them to reject Christ and perish?

C’mon bro- Quit playing. We obviously do not know the secret will of God . . . UNTIL it happens! So although we do not know what God has purposed- still, we cannot deny that whatsoever actually does end up happening is God’s sovereign will- period.

We may not have known what God was up to all along- but when it manifests in the death of millions (who come under His judgment for thier rebellion) - we cannot continue to pretend that this was NOT His will.

I never said that God takes pleasure in judgment- or that He extracts JOY from pouring out His wrath- But you cannot deny that if He does execute judgment- then it was His will to do so.

And if it was His will in the end- then it was His will from the beginning- “For known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.” -(Acts 15:18)

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree that men perish because they reject Christ- I agree.

BUT- let me ask you this:

Does God stop them from rejecting Christ? Or does He allow them to reject Christ and perish?

If you say the latter- then here is another question for you:

Was God WILLING to allow them to reject Christ and perish- or was He NOT WILLING to allow them to reject Christ and perish?

Scripture doesn’t reveal the answer to this question. So, my answer would be; I don’t know.

C’mon bro- Quit playing. We obviously do not know the secret will of God . . . UNTIL it happens! So although we do not know what God has purposed- still, we cannot deny that whatsoever actually does end up happening is God’s sovereign will- period.

Scripture does tell us this. It doesn’t tell us how this comes to be. Unless it does, we cannot logically deduct how it does.

Scripture tells us that if we are saved, it is solely by the grace of God without human merit. If man is damned, it is solely because of his sin and unbelief. We cannot go beyond what is written.

 

[Contarini]

Predestination is a very dangerous belief…

Hitler believed he was predestined to take over Europe… He believed God ordained him to be ruler (probably of the whole world).

Of course, if one believes such things, one will also believe that everything one does or neglects to do in the fulfillment of such a goal, is justified - The end justifies the means…

There is evidence that Hitler is in Hell (for all his talk of “God” - his version thereof).

Comments?

As you’re using the word “predestination” it seems to mean no more than “God’s will.” Are you suggesting that God does not will anything?

You might mean “God has providentially ordained X to happen even though X may not be good” (what orthodox Christianity would refer to as “permission”). But of course this doesn’t apply to your example–Hitler thought that taking over Europe was good. And those who think that God in some way “predestines” everything that happens, good or bad, do not think that this justifies humans in bringing about what God has predestined. God uses evil instruments as well as good ones–our job is to be good instruments.

In short, you don’t understand the issue of predestination and providence at all, and your argument is completely wide of the mark.

Edwin

 

[chosensinner]

Scripture doesn’t reveal the answer to this question. So, my answer would be; I don’t know.

Scripture does tell us this. It doesn’t tell us how this comes to be. Unless it does, we cannot logically deduct how it does.

Scripture tells us that if we are saved, it is solely by the grace of God without human merit. If man is damned, it is solely because of his sin and unbelief. We cannot go beyond what is written.

I am good with that- though you inferred that the word ANY may have application to the entire human family of all time. But if you apply your rule here, then you must admit that this is no more than a mere logical deduction as well. Especially if “we cannot go beyond what is written” right? (1 Cor. 4:6) I agree with that rule.

And to be honest with you- I did not go beyond what was written when I stated that the “any” in 2 Peter 3:9 was referring to the elect- BUT to assert that this “any” includes all of mankind without exception- is going beyond what is written- (for it is not defined in that manner, and nothing in the context could lend any real support to that interpretation).

I am satisfied with believing that God is not willing that any of His people perish- though I do not limit who they may be. And if He does not will for them to perish- they will not perish.

Do you agree?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I am good with that- though you inferred that the word ANY may have application to the entire human family of all time. But if you apply your rule here, then you must admit that this is no more than a mere logical deduction as well. Especially if “we cannot go beyond what is written” right? (1 Cor. 4:6) I agree with that rule.

It isn’t a logical deduction. It’s grammar. Peter doesn’t exclude that any applies to both the elect and non-elect by his statement.

And to be honest with you- I did not go beyond what was written when I stated that the “any” in 2 Peter 3:9 was referring to the elect- BUT to assert that this “any” includes all of mankind without exception- is going beyond what is written- (for it is not defined in that manner, and nothing in the context could lend any real support to that interpretation).

Sure it does. If Peter doesn’t make a statement which excludes the non-elect, then we cannot, either.

 

[Reformed]

It is my understanding that the word predestination in the Bible is speaking about the eternal destinies of individuals. Does anyone agree or disagree? I understand divine providence and the sovereignity of God.

 

[distracted]

As you’re using the word “predestination” it seems to mean no more than “God’s will.” Are you suggesting that God does not will anything?

You might mean “God has providentially ordained X to happen even though X may not be good” (what orthodox Christianity would refer to as “permission”). But of course this doesn’t apply to your example–Hitler thought that taking over Europe was good. And those who think that God in some way “predestines” everything that happens, good or bad, do not think that this justifies humans in bringing about what God has predestined. God uses evil instruments as well as good ones–our job is to be good instruments.

In short, you don’t understand the issue of predestination and providence at all, and your argument is completely wide of the mark.

Edwin

in short, you don’t understand the issue of there being no predestination and… your argument is completely wide of the mark.

 

[distracted]

It is my understanding that the word predestination in the Bible is speaking about the eternal destinies of individuals. Does anyone agree or disagree? I understand divine providence and the sovereignity of God.

the only pre-d i believe is that once a person accepts Christ (some say born again) s/he is very unlikely to turn his back on Him forever…

unlikely but possible… therefore, stricly speaking - NO predestination…

 

[distracted]

Does God stop them from rejecting Christ? Or does He allow them to reject Christ and perish?

If you say the latter- then here is another question for you:

Was God WILLING to allow them to reject Christ and perish- or was He NOT WILLING to allow them to reject Christ and perish?

C’mon bro- Quit playing. We obviously do not know the secret will of God . . . UNTIL it happens! So although we do not know what God has purposed- still, we cannot deny that whatsoever actually does end up happening is God’s sovereign will- period.

We may not have known what God was up to all along- but when it manifests in the death of millions (who come under His judgment for thier rebellion) - we cannot continue to pretend that this was NOT His will.

)

i cannot understand where you are coming from. Do you believe in absolute free will or not??

 

[distracted]

What “evidence” is that?

during various exorcisms performed by Catholic priests, His voice has spoken through the demons… this is documented but don’t ask me where… i read a lot of books & don’t remember citations… All i know is that i read books that are reliable (meaning: Catholic ) Well, you know imprimatur and nihil obstat stamped books…

 

[distracted]

Consider these:​

• Hitler had a pet dog - & invaded Poland
• Dubya has a pet dog - & invaded Iraq
• • conclusion: dog ownership causes heads of state to be invaders
    Therefore
• having a pet dog causes its owner to invade other nations
• Stalin invaded various states - so he must have had a pet dog
• therefore, owners of pet dogs should be deprived of them, and required to have cats instead

can’t argue with that logic…

Well, i COULD but i heard its not nice to argue…