Tackling Predestination

[benedictus2]

Of course it is twisting, because I merely gave Shaky a few tips for learning from the Holy Spirit and you quote a portion out of context. Your whole purpose was to drive a wedge between me and Shaky. Only Satan does such things.

No it was not my purpose. It was to show you that the pride you accuse him of is so blatantly on display in that post of yours.

You were not giving Shaky tips about learning from the Holy Spirit, what you said was that either he waits for the publication of your book or he gets guidance from the Holy Spirit. By inference you are saying that your book is equivalent to the guidance of the Holy Spirit since you gave an either/or statement.

You have made some similar comment in another thread by boasting that your theory on the Trinity has been approved by theologians and your bishop. If that is not pride that I don’t know what that is.

Are you desperately trying to drag me into unnecessary arguments when I am not even debating anything with you? You purposes can never
succeed.

I am not dragging you into an unnecessary argument with me but your post to Shaky was so pompous it deserved a comment.

 

[benedictus2]

Does irresistable grace in any way prove that God predestines one to hell? I can see where it would lead someone to heaven.

Exactly! Their point however says that God witholds this irresistible grace from some to ensure that they are damned.

They speak so badly of God that I am not surprised if seeing such a portrait of God one decides to be an atheist.

 

[benedictus2]

Read this chapter at the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html so that you can understand what I mean. It’s entitled “Adam’s Fall and Mine” from CHOSEN BY GOD by R.C. Sproul.

Take special notice of the Federal or Representative View of the Fall.

You said you are a lawyer so presumably skilled at the art of rebuttal. Surely you should be able to summarize it in a post or two considering that (I presume) you know this explanation well.

If this article is as good as you claim it is, then give us the salient points.

 

[paul_c]

Reprobation is supported by Scripture.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.”
(Ephesians 1:3-6 ESV)

Commentary:

Eph. 1:4 He chose us in him means that the Father chose Christians in the Son (Christ), and this took place in eternity past, before the foundation of the world. This indicates that for all eternity the Father has had the role of leading and directing among the persons of the Trinity, even though Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in deity and attributes. God’s initiative in redeeming the believer from sin and death was not an arbitrary or whimsical decision but something God had planned all along “in Christ.” Since God chose his people in his love, they can take no credit for their salvation. God was determined to have them as his own (see note on 2:8). holy. God chose them with the goal that they be holy and blameless before him. This goal is not optional for Christians—it is the purpose of election. Holiness here expresses moral purity, while blamelessness expresses freedom from the guilt of trespasses and sins in which the Christian formerly walked (1:7; 2:1, 5). In love, at the end of 1:4, properly belongs to v. 5, describing predestination, though the esv footnote indicates that “in love” can also be taken with the preceding phrase (“that we should be holy and blameless before him in love”).

Eph. 1:5 predestined. Previously ordained or appointed to some position. God’s election of Christians (v. 4) entails his predestining them to something—in this case to adoption as sons (see also v. 11; Rom. 8:29–30). Hence, election and predestination in this context refer to God’s decision to save someone. All Christians, male and female, are “sons” in the sense of being heirs who will inherit blessings from their Father in heaven. Paul qualifies and stresses God’s plan and initiation of redemption with the phrase according to the purpose of his will here and elsewhere in the passage (Eph. 1:9, 11). God cannot be constrained by any outside force, and his inexorable will for believers is to pour out his grace and goodness on them in Christ Jesus.

Eph. 1:6 God’s ultimate purpose is not redemption as such but the praise of his glorious name through redemption. This theme is repeated at key junctures in the argument (see vv. 12, 14).

This verse does not support reprobation. It merely says that some are predestined to heaven. It says nothing about anyone being predestined to hell.

 

[paul_c]

On Romans 9:

**Rom. 9:14–15 **Since God chose Jacob instead of Esau before they were born, without regard to how good or bad either of them would be, the question naturally arises: Is God just in choosing one over the other? God is just because no one deserves to be saved (cf. 3:23), and the salvation of anyone at all is due to God’s mercy alone, as the citation of Ex. 33:19 affirms.

**Rom. 9:16 **Salvation, then, is not ultimately based on human free will or effort but depends entirely on God’s merciful will.

**Rom. 9:17 **For this very purpose. Paul quotes Ex. 9:16 to show that God is sovereign over evil as well. Even the wrath of man praises God (Ps. 76:10), for God installed Pharaoh as ruler and hardened his heart so that his own saving power and glorious name would be spread throughout the whole world.

**Rom. 9:19 **who can resist his will? If salvation ultimately depends upon God, and he has mercy and hardens whomever he pleases, then how can he find anyone guilty? How can he charge anyone with guilt since his will is irresistible?

**Rom. 9:20–21 **Some of Paul’s readers might expect him to appeal to human free will to resolve the problem posed in v. 19. Instead, he insists that finite human beings may not rebelliously question God’s ways, that God as a potter (cf. Jer. 18:1–6) has the right to do what he wishes with his creation. The honorable and dishonorable vessels in this context represent those who are saved and unsaved. Paul affirms that humans are guilty for their sin, and he offers no philosophical resolution as to how this fits with divine sovereignty. He does insist that God ordains all that happens (cf. Eph. 1:11), even though God himself does not sin and is not morally responsible for sin.

**Rom. 9:22–23 **God created a world in which both his wrath and his mercy would be displayed. Indeed, his mercy shines against the backdrop of his just wrath, showing thereby that the salvation of any person is due to the marvelous grace and love of God. If this is difficult to understand, it is because people mistakenly think God owes them salvation!

These passages do not say that anyone is predestined to hell, either. That is an extrapolation. It does say that Esau was to serve Jacob, but it doesn’t say Esau was destined for hell. And it does say that Pharoah was put in place to bring glory to God, but it does not say that he was destined for hell.

If you had read a little further, what Paul does say in chapter 10 is:
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him.
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

And you know at the beginning of Romans (chapter 2) he says:
5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
11 There is no partiality with God.

Note that these two passages from the same letter (romans) stand in direct opposition to your theory on reprobation.

 

[Pitcharan]

No it was not my purpose. It was to show you that the pride you accuse him of is so blatantly on display in that post of yours.

You were not giving Shaky tips about learning from the Holy Spirit, what you said was that either he waits for the publication of your book or he gets guidance from the Holy Spirit. By inference you are saying that your book is equivalent to the guidance of the Holy Spirit since you gave an either/or statement.

You have made some similar comment in another thread by boasting that your theory on the Trinity has been approved by theologians and your bishop. If that is not pride that I don’t know what that is.

Again back at your dirty trick of making up things and attributing to me. However much you may twist, truth alone will triumph.

I am not dragging you into an unnecessary argument with me but your post to Shaky was so pompous it deserved a comment.

Such denials and false claim of merely commenting, cannot hide you perverse intentions.

 

[paul_c]

paul c;6889894:

…But none that say some are predestined to hell, which is a heresy…/

QUOTE]

Can you explain these verses?
I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:12b);

“… woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.” (Matt 26:24b-26)

But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." (Mk 14:21bc)

Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!". He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him. (John 6:70-71)

As it says in John, Jesus chose them all. Simon chose to betray Jesus. Jesus knew it up front, but did not force Judas to betray him.

 

[benedictus2]

Again back at your dirty trick of making up things and attributing to me. However much you may twist, truth alone will triumph.

Such denials and false claim of merely commenting, cannot hide you perverse intentions.

That is right, if someone points out your boasting and pride (while you are taking someone to task for their non-existent pride) they are perverse .

 

[paul_c]

I am convinced that the truth is different from either beliefs (catholic and protestant), but would like to share my inspired views only after theological approval and permission. As “food for thought” I quote the following.

Pitcharan.
Its good that you are submitting your views to the eclesiastical authorities. That is a sign of obedience, which is good and appropriate. however, I expect you to be disappointed in the results. It is very doubtful that you will create new doctrine.

Extracts from THE SINNER’S GUIDE by The venerable Louis of Granada.
Vidimus et Approbabimus:
Fr. C. H. McKenna, O.P.
Fr. J. L. O’Neil, O.P.
Revisores Deputati
New York
November 15,1883
Imprimi Potest:
Fr. M. D. Lilly, O.P.
Prior Provincial
Province of St. Joseph
November 15, 1883
**Imprimatur: **
+John J. Williams, D.D.
Archbishop of Boston
By his Vicar General
November 22, 1883

1. Taken from chapter 6
   The origin and the antiquity of this election also merit special consideration. It did not begin with this world; it preceded the existence of the universe; it was coeval with the very existence of God. From all eternity He loved His elect. They were ever present to Him, and His will to render them eternally happy was as fixed at His own Being.

This discusses predestination of the saints. On this there is no disagreement

1. Taken from chapter 10
   …we are all destined to one or the other – either to reign eternally with God in Heaven or to burn forever with the devils in Hell! This happiness and misery, either of which must inevitably be our portion, are represented by the two baskets of figs which Jeremias saw in the vision, one containing “very good figs, like the figs of the first season, and the other basket very bad figs, which could not be eaten.” (Jer. 24:1-2). God willed thus to represent to His prophet the two classes of souls, one of which forms the object of His mercy, and the other of His justice. The happiness of the first is unequaled, and the misery of the second is also incomparable; for the just enjoy the perpetual vision of God, which is the greatest of all blessings, while the wicked are forever deprived of this vision, and thereby suffer the greatest of all evils.

This does not say that any individuals are predestined to hell. It merely states that some people will go to heaven and some will go to hell. This is not a surprising statement. Only those that think everyone goes to heaven would disagree with this point.

 

[benedictus2]

This verse does not support reprobation. It merely says that some are predestined to heaven. It says nothing about anyone being predestined to hell.

I think their distorted reasoning goes like this: if the verse says that God loves some, then He must hate others. Never mind that verses abound that says God loves all.

 

[paul_c]

See! There really are Catholics who agree with the Reformed position!

Those would be the ones in error. The Catholic position is clear: no one is predestined to hell. Pitcharan does not speak for the Catholic church.

 

[benedictus2]

And you know at the beginning of Romans (chapter 2) he says:
5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 **but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
11 There is no partiality with God. **
Note that these two passages from the same letter (romans) stand in direct opposition to your theory on reprobation.

And this is exactly what is so depraved about their reasoning. That God purposely withholds grace to make sure that this people will disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

For if grace is irresistible, then no one can resist turning to God. So if God offers this irresistible grace, then everyone will be saved.

But since they have decided that god does not will everyone to be saved, then the only way for people to be damned is for god to purposely withhold grace so that these people will do evil, and then he pounces on them for doing evil .

And they get perplexed when we say how can we call a god who does that just ?

 

[benedictus2]

Pitcharan.
Its good that you are submitting your views to the eclesiastical authorities. That is a sign of obedience, which is good and appropriate. however, I expect you to be disappointed in the results. It is very doubtful that you will create new doctrine.

This discusses predestination of the saints. On this there is no disagreement

This does not say that any individuals are predestined to hell. It merely states that some people will go to heaven and some will go to hell. This is not a surprising statement. Only those that think everyone goes to heaven would disagree with this point.

Good to see a clear mind in operation.

 

[paul_c]

And this is exactly what is so depraved about their reasoning. That God purposely withholds grace to make sure that this people will disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

For if grace is irresistible, then no one can resist turning to God. So if God offers this irresistible grace, then everyone will be saved.

But since they have decided that god does not will everyone to be saved, then the only way for people to be damned is for god to purposely withhold grace so that these people will do evil, and then he pounces on them for doing evil .

And they get perplexed when we say how can we call a god who does that just ?

The end of all this predestination talk is that it takes away all personal responsibility. Afterall, if God made the choice, they have someone to blame other than themselves if they are condemned. This is why it is a heresy.

 

[benedictus2]

The end of all this predestination talk is that it takes away all personal responsibility. Afterall, if God made the choice, they have someone to blame other than themselves if they are condemned. This is why it is a heresy.

Which brings us back to Adam who blames God for putting the woman there.

Reprobation is nothing more than re-hashing of Adam’s complaint.

 

[rtconstant]

The end of all this predestination talk is that it takes away all personal responsibility. Afterall, if God made the choice, they have someone to blame other than themselves if they are condemned. This is why it is a heresy.

Exactly. Personally I think this is at the very heart of Calvin’s errors. The man seems to have suffered from extreme scrupulocity. And so he was driven to devise a system that removed his own responsibility so as to retain his sanity. Obviously this is an opinion, as we don’t have medical records, but having suffered from the condition myself it seems clear as day to me.

Personally opinions aside. I think that a primary error in the argument that “we cannot judge God” is that it ultimately draws a picture of an inconsistent deity. God commands certain moral qualities in His people. Yet to be told that we cannot apply these same expectations to their founder is to suggest that is somehow OK for God to be hypocritical.

I’ve said before that I am always amazed at how casually people will attribute to God qualities that all people would find reprehensible in a human being. It reminds me of how the ancient Greeks designed gods who were often morally inferior to themselves.

 

[benedictus2]

Exactly. Personally I think this is at the very heart of Calvin’s errors. The man seems to have suffered from extreme scrupulocity. And so he was driven to devise a system that removed his own responsibility so as to retain his sanity. Obviously this is an opinion, as we don’t have medical records, but having suffered from the condition myself it seems clear as day to me.

Personally opinions aside. **I think that a primary error in the argument that “we cannot judge God” is that it ultimately draws a picture of an inconsistent deity. **God commands certain moral qualities in His people. Yet to be told that we cannot apply these same expectations to their founder is to suggest that is somehow OK for God to be hypocritical.

I’ve said before that I am always amazed at how casually people will attribute to God qualities that all people would find reprehensible in a human being. It reminds me of how the ancient Greeks designed gods who were often morally inferior to themselves.

What I find absurd about their position too is that they equate questioning their theory (which portrays an unjust God) to questioning God Himself.

 

[Bengoshi]

And therefore COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY TO SALVATION.

There is nowhere in the Bible that says the sinners prayer is how one “gets saved”. Another doctrine and “tradition of men” among the many that came out of reformed theology.

“That if you confess with your mouth that ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and it is with your mouth that you are saved.” (Rom. 10:9-10)

As I’ve said, it is just a way of “confessing” one’s faith in Christ. It is not the prayer itself that saves, but the faith that comes with it.

 

[Bengoshi]

You said you are a lawyer so presumably skilled at the art of rebuttal. Surely you should be able to summarize it in a post or two considering that (I presume) you know this explanation well.

If this article is as good as you claim it is, then give us the salient points.

I’m sorry if Sproul is just too much for you to understand…

 

[Bengoshi]

These passages do not say that anyone is predestined to hell, either. That is an extrapolation. It does say that Esau was to serve Jacob, but it doesn’t say Esau was destined for hell. And it does say that Pharoah was put in place to bring glory to God, but it does not say that he was destined for hell.

If you had read a little further, what Paul does say in chapter 10 is:
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him.
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

And you know at the beginning of Romans (chapter 2) he says:
5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
11 There is no partiality with God.

Note that these two passages from the same letter (romans) stand in direct opposition to your theory on reprobation.

I have no problem with the passages you quoted. But the thing is, the reprobate will not call on the name of the Lord in the first place. They are the ones who “selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”