Evidence for God from Science

Predestination and Election is a confusing topic that was bound to come up on the Christian Theology Line. I know it has before, but I have some questions regarding it.

Did God - or does God - pre-select people to damnation and Hell?

Did God make the serail Killer to kill and the child molester to molest? Cause the drug addict to overdose? Predestined the Devil to be evil and wreck havoc?

Is God a puppet master and thus we have no say in any matter?

Did God Cause me to sneeze on a waitress last week? make me tie my shoes, or stub my toe?

If you ask these questions to a 5 point Calvinist - He will reason and explain it away in this manner - the clay has no right to question the potter.

I am not questioning God - but rather questioning doctrine of predestination as it is currently taught by mortal men and women.

If God predestined who will be saved and who will not and had it predetermined beforehand - to follow thru this logic to its conclusion means the great commission is null a void. Think about it. You are either damned or you are not.

There would be no way to tell if you are the elect or not. Heck, Billy Graham could stand before God and God tells Him, "Sorry son, I did not elect you, but the guy behind you is - that is the BKT serail Killer. He can enter but you shall not - sorry- to hell you go."

I you say "Free Will" you are labeled as an Armenian even though you are not!

More I study the doctrine - the more I see the need for the Call of God, which none could be saved. It seems to me that many interpret predestination in accordance to human logic alone and missed something else all together. I think Romans 9:11 has a clue - not of him that works but Him who Calls.

Without the call from God, there would be no Jacob, Abraham, Isaac, or anyone born again. Faith comes by hearing. Parable of the Sower speaks of those that hear and understand. Jesus tells that his sheep hear his voice.. etc..

Maybe the call of God is something other that arbitray selection of the elect? Maybe God just knows everything about everyone and decided to call and since he called - He can save. After all - knowing everything beforehand God surely knows who hears and who will not and thus can mold a person accordingly.

The point is - Without God's call - initiative - no one would ever come to Christ. To me, this is how God elects - hence - calls out - Electos...

It is truly of Him who Calls and not our works. Think of it for a moment, God designed us to reason and think and wants to, "come let us reason together," says the lord, "and your scarlet sins will be made white as snow." Isaiah chapter one paraphrase quote.

If God designed us to reason, then he knows our thoughts from afar off and could conceivably engage human reason by His call and thus call out from humanity lost in sin those that hear the call - invite - from God to become his. The initaitive remains entirely God's and not man's - afterall He designed us this way - to reason and think.

Well - I said my piece on the matter.

Jac - what is your take on Predestination? You are neither Calvinist nor Armenian maybe you can shed light on this more.

To me both Calvinist and Armenian thought are missing something about the topic and have mislead people into believing something about God that is not 100 percent accurate. I am saying both have some truth but with human dogma mixed in - both miss the proverbial brass ring and have hurt countless souls.

If I recall from history, Calvin was in Geneva - what happened in that City and why was He kicked out? A tree known by its fruit? I am not an expert on Calvin in this area. Was this early in His Life or later?

God Bless everyone!

Predestination is the doctrine of God's immutible decree (Isaiah 46:9-11, Ephesians 1:11). God's does predestine everything. Otherwise, we would live in a universe guided by undesigned chance or blind fate. I like David Chilton's statement concerning predestination.

"The Biblical doctrine of predestination, when rightly understood, should not be a source of fear for the Christian; rather, it is a source of comfort and assurance. The opposite of the doctrine of predestination is not freedom, but meaninglessness; if the smallest details of our lives are not part of the Plan of God, if they are not created facts with a divinely determined significance, then they can have no meaning at all. They cannot be "working together for good."" But the Christian who understands the truth of God's sovereignty is assured thereby that nothing in his life is without meaning and purpose — that God has ordained all things for His glory and for our ultimate good. This means that even our sufferings are part of a consistent Plan; that when we are opposed, we need not fear that God has abandoned us. We can be secure in the knowledge that, since we have been "called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28), all things in our life are a necessary aspect of that purpose. Martin Luther said: "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. . . . For the Christian's chief and only comfort in adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded." - Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, trans. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1957), pp. 80, 84.

Locker:

It seems to me that the primary problem in the discussion on predestination is that it gets confused with election. These two are distinct doctrines. Both Calvinists and Arminians make the mistake of mixing these two up. A classic example is Puritan's Calvinism vs. Arminianism thread. Give it a read through and notice how the two are utterly equated.

In fact, only the elect are predestined. They are predestined to conformation into the image of Christ (Romans 8:29-30), to adoption into God's family (Eph. 1:5), and to an inheritance (Eph. 1:11). So, I would argue that the problem isn't with predestination. It is with election. I explain my views on election extensively in the the other predestination thread, the Is Calvinism a Heresy? thread, and the Romans 9 thread, which is a really good one because it takes on the primary proof texts for the Calvinist understanding of election. I think that there is another thread around here where I deal with it, too, but I'm not 100% sure. Regardless, that's more than enough to get a well rounded understanding of the position I advocate.

Anyway, I think that the arguments you bring up against predestination in the Calvinist sense of the word are valid. They are the oldest and most obvious ones, so they've been countered a million ways. The primary response is, "Humans don't have the right to judge God!" followed by several proof texts. You can find all of those yourself and decide whether or not they are valid. The long and short of your line of thinking is that Calvinist predestination makes God the author of sin. They can sputter all they want, but you are absolutely right about that. We could take this line of thought a bit further, but I suppose now's a good a place to call it as any

God bless

Let me get this straight. God Predestines the Elect? Does that alone not contradict your own theory of election (actually your theory should be called ratification)? If God predestines the elect to adoption, then the very fact that he does not predestine the unelect to adoption suggests that he predestined them to Hell (and He does).

Proverbs 16:4
Romans 9:20-23
1 Peter 2:8,9

God from the beginning chose us for salvation. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). This necessarily means that those whom He did not chose for salvation were chosen for destruction (He chose not to save the Pharisees).

Puritan . . .

We have been engaging in discussions on this for what . . . three months now? We've exchanged thousands of words on the subject. I've accused you of not reading my posts in the past; you continue to substantiate that claim. After all of our debate, do you still fail to understand my position?

Jac,

I am simply taking you for what you said. You said that "In fact, only the elect are predestined", which means that the unelect are left to wander with no clear goal or purpose. Of course, you also believe that the elect are those who choose to be "in Christ", which means, by definition, that they are neither "elect" nor "predestined". You are all over the place, trying to redefine terms to suit what you want to believe. You now have at least two types of salvation, you have tons of confusion regarding predestination and election (for you, it should be called "ratification"). You have destruction that isn't really destruction, and covenantal "glory" that is merely an earthly blessing with no eternal benefits. You have "eternal life" as an "earthly blessing". In short, Jac, your theology is a mess, and I'm getting dizzy trying to follow it. I like to keep it simple with the word of God.

God's decrees are immutible (unchanging). He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He Hardens. He makes the plans of the people to no effect, but His council will stand forever. He works "all things to the council of His will". That is what it means to be Sovereign. It means that God is God, who does all His Pleasure. His will is affected neither by our actions nor our persons. Predestination is very easy to understand. It's just that the rebellious heart of man doesn't like it. Spurgeon correctly observed:

"There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation — the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands — the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a foot-ball, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his scepter in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust. It is God upon his throne of whom we have been singing this morning; and it is God upon his throne of whom we shall speak in this discourse."

Yes, this is a hot topic!

Is is possible we are confusing terms here?

I do have a question. In my BSF [Bible Study Fellowship] class, we are studying Gen 34:1-31.

Should Jacob have stayed in Shechem for ten years before moving to Bethal? Did God meant for him to do this - predestine?

If so - Dinah's rape was predestined by God. I have trouble with this one as this would make God guilty as those that raped.

Did Jacob have a choice to stay or go. If he left earlier, then would have the crime been avoided?

This is one confusing bible study! Any insights in this matter would be a great help as it involves this very topic.
-
-
-

Yes B.W. Very hot and can be very confusing.

However, consider the worst, most unjust crime in history, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Would you agree that this was predestined by God from the foundation of the earth?

That would also necessitate the predestination of the following:

The Pharisees' kangaroo court
Judas' Batrayal
The Jewish people "choosing" Barrabus (How's that for a "free-will" choice?)
Pilate's lack on manhood.
The actions of the Roman Soldier's. Etc.

Did the above act according to their will? Yes. They acted "freely" and were solely responsible for their actions. But, could any of the above have chosen to act any differently? What a horrendous thought, that God's eternal plan of salvation rested solely on the "free-will" of Pilate, or Judas. Thankfully, they were disobedient to the Word, to which they were appointed.

We may not understand why God "predestines" certain things. I personally think it would be much easier to wipe out all evil and save everybody. But His ways and thoughts are much higher than mine, and in the end, we must let God be God, and take confidence in the fact that He works all things together for good for us.

We may not understand why God "predestines" certain things. I personally think it would be much easier to wipe out all evil and save everybody. But His ways and thoughts are much higher than mine, and in the end, we must let God be God, and take confidence in the fact that He works all things together for good for us.

What is even harder for me to understand is that according to you God, before Adam and eve sinned, before the tree of the knowlege of good and evil was pointed out to them, before the foundation of the world he planned to create people and predestinate some to be saved and knowingly allow the rest to go to hell.

Yes, God is just and holy and when it comes to sinful human beings He has the right to bestow mercy or holy wrath on sinners as we see all through the OT, but where is the love and mercy and fairness in planning and orchestrating this cold premeditated plan before anybody was ever created. And if you say that he based His plan on the foreknowlege of his creatures actions to justify the plan, than that is even worse becuase you are saying that regardless of the casualities of those who would burn in hell forever God cared more about Himself and his elevated stature making him the most selfish and horrendous mass murderer of all time.

I can't accept it. that is not my God!

However if we can accept the possibility that God's soveriegnty and our free will do not have to be mutually exclusive, because all things are possible with God, then we can see that christ who was slain from the foundation of the world grants salvation to all who freely and willingly accept that free gift of grace through His death burial and ressurrection.

In this case all the perfect attributes of God are freely seen and put Him in a whole different light. I believe this is the Holy and soveriegn God who is full of grace offered to all. This is who He is and who He wants the world to see!

FFC wrote:

We may not understand why God "predestines" certain things. I personally think it would be much easier to wipe out all evil and save everybody. But His ways and thoughts are much higher than mine, and in the end, we must let God be God, and take confidence in the fact that He works all things together for good for us.

What is even harder for me to understand is that according to you God, before Adam and eve sinned, before the tree of the knowlege of good and evil was pointed out to them, before the foundation of the world he planned to create people and predestinate some to be saved and knowingly allow the rest to go to hell.

Yes, God is just and holy and when it comes to sinful human beings He has the right to bestow mercy or holy wrath on sinners as we see all through the OT, but where is the love and mercy and fairness in planning and orchestrating this cold premeditated plan before anybody was ever created. And if you say that he based His plan on the foreknowlege of his creatures actions to justify the plan, than that is even worse becuase you are saying that regardless of the casualities of those who would burn in hell forever God cared more about Himself and his elevated stature making him the most selfish and horrendous mass murderer of all time.

I can't accept it. that is not my God!

However if we can accept the possibility that God's soveriegnty and our free will do not have to be mutually exclusive, because all things are possible with God, then we can see that christ who was slain from the foundation of the world grants salvation to all who freely and willingly accept that free gift of grace through His death burial and ressurrection.

In this case all the perfect attributes of God are freely seen and put Him in a whole different light. I believe this is the Holy and soveriegn God who is full of grace offered to all. This is who He is and who He wants the world to see!

There's a couple things to keep in mind, in my opinion in the midst of this whole debate.

There is an element of mystery to this which I believe is simply the result of the finite (us) seeking to grasp the infinite (God.) It's like the proverbial 6 blind men each toaching a part of an elephant and then seeking to convince the others that the elephant it like a snake (trunk), a tree (legs), a wall (side) etc.

Soteriology and the mechanics of salvation involve a tremendous amount of speculation on our part as to the full mind of God and we get wrapped around the axle more often than not, while we project onto God what our sense of Justice is and try to push God into that mold. We also do not know the degree to which God's plan involves our volitional cooperation and which part is dependent only upon Him. There is no question, becuase of His immutable attributes, that he knows all, influences all etc, but there is a question, that only God knows and we can only guess or surmise where he chooses to limit His own direct influence in favor of allowing our decisions to be determinitive.

For 20 years I have watched these types of debates go back and forth. I've wrestled with and participated in them. I don't doubt there is more to know and learn on my part, but I have come to one conclusion. God is Just, God knows all, God is love and God gives to each of us a measure of choice.

What usually happens is we pick one element, make it the highest element in our Theology and then we work backwards to explain why the element we've picked is the keystone.

I think there is some value in accepting mystery and allowing varying degrees of contradiction when it comes to trying to understand God and admit that and start there, before we try to systematize God into a box.

Not a completely satisfying intellectual position, but then God is perceived and communed with by far more than our intellect and there is something tremendously freeing at times to saying the words ..... "I don't completelu understand this, but I trust that God is in control."

I pray like it is all up to God and work like it all up to me and in the end feel free to allow for some mysteries especially where God is concerned.

Thanks everyone for the insight, but this is perplexing - Should Jacob have stayed in Shechem for ten years before moving to Bethal? Did God meant for him to do this? Gen 34:1-31

Was Dinah's rape a predestined event by God?

Did Jacob have a choice to stay or go. If he left earlier, then would have the crime been avoided?

This is a classic case study of Predestination, foreknowing, free will, etc…

Any other views on this matter?
-
-
-

Puritan Lad wrote:I am simply taking you for what you said. You said that "In fact, only the elect are predestined", which means that the unelect are left to wander with no clear goal or purpose. Of course, you also believe that the elect are those who choose to be "in Christ", which means, by definition, that they are neither "elect" nor "predestined". You are all over the place, trying to redefine terms to suit what you want to believe. You now have at least two types of salvation, you have tons of confusion regarding predestination and election (for you, it should be called "ratification"). You have destruction that isn't really destruction, and covenantal "glory" that is merely an earthly blessing with no eternal benefits. You have "eternal life" as an "earthly blessing". In short, Jac, your theology is a mess, and I'm getting dizzy trying to follow it. I like to keep it simple with the word of God.

God's decrees are immutible (unchanging). He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He Hardens. He makes the plans of the people to no effect, but His council will stand forever. He works "all things to the council of His will". That is what it means to be Sovereign. It means that God is God, who does all His Pleasure. His will is affected neither by our actions nor our persons. Predestination is very easy to understand. It's just that the rebellious heart of man doesn't like it.

First off, you answered your own questions regarding my position. Of course only the elect are predestined, but only those in Christ are elect (not elect to be in Christ). You can try to relabel it "ratification" . . . we all know that putting a negative connotation on something immediately proves it to be false :p . . . but that doesn't do anything to the sheer amount of biblical support I've offered for the position in the threads provided. Regardless, I've already refuted the "ratification" label, anyway. And your coup de grace was "Jac, According to the above statement, you have verified my argument." Ah well, for those who want to see, they will

Now, I do like the charge of hyper-polarization. After all, election CANNOT be different from predestination. The words and doctrines are absolutely synonomous. And we certainly can't separate perseverence from eternal security. That would be complicating things. And we obviously have to mix rewards with . . . well, I take that back. We don't believe in rewards, because that would be tied to perseverence, but since everyone perseveres, that really doesn't mean much. My bad.

I can totally understanding why your head is spinning, PL. That's one of the problems with your system. You have a simplistic approach to Scripture. Everything equals everything. The Church equals Israel. The Second Coming equals the Rapture. Election equals salvation equals predestination. Belief equals repentance and the turning of sin. You mash everything into a neat little mold and avoid looking at anything that may not fit with your theological grid. Hey, fair enough, you do that. You go ahead and look at kosmos in John 3:16 as "the elect." Force that in there. And while you are at it, ignore verses like 2 Pet. 2:1. You've made quite a habit of that.

In the end, PL, the only people who are going to walk away from our discussions convinced you are in the right are those who hold your presuppositions. Sorry, but refusing to answer arguments, jumping off on tangents, raising old and refuted arguments as if they were fresh and relevant, and reading arguing entirely from your own assumptions just isn't going to cut it. I really appreciate these discussions, because it gives me a chance to exegete Scripture one verse at a time with a consistent hermeneutic that doesn't involve a presupposed system.

Finally, I totally agree that your idea of predestination is simple and easy to understand. I totally agree that you like to "keep it simple." Atheists like to "keep it simple," too. C. S. Lewis noted:

It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of--all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain--and, of course, you find that what we call 'seeing at table' lands you in mysteries and complications which you cannot hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not--and the modern world usually is not--if you want to go on and ask what is really happening--then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple. (Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 40)

Now, election and predestination ARE simple on the surface. Those in Christ are elected for salvation (among other things) and predestined to adoption (among other things). When we get under that hood, things get much more complicated. That's the nature of the beast. But, when you read the Bible consistently, literally, and without your bias, then we have absolutely no problem with it making sense. It all works out, and I don't have the mounds of exegetical or practical problems that you do, whether you wish to acknowledge them or not. Why, there are some of those problems posted in this very thread. So, I'm sure the G&S community would appreciate hearing you respond to these. If they can be satisfied with your solutions, good for them. I don't think they are.

God bless

B. W. wrote:Thanks everyone for the insight, but this is perplexing - Should Jacob have stayed in Shechem for ten years before moving to Bethal? Did God meant for him to do this? Gen 34:1-31

Was Dinah's rape a predestined event by God?

Did Jacob have a choice to stay or go. If he left earlier, then would have the crime been avoided?

This is a classic case study of Predestination, foreknowing, free will, etc…

Any other views on this matter?

Interesting, I will have too look into this more. For right now, I would say that Jacob had the free option to move to Bethel and all this could have been avoided.

I am not familiar with this part of Jacobs life, did God tell Jacob to go to Bethel? If so, did Jacob tarry, instead of moving on? This would suggest responsiblity on Jacobs part.

Did God know this would happen? Yes! Was it His best plan? No! Did He permit it? Yes!

Can God work all things together for Good for those that love Him? Yes!

So with that train of thought, I can see God's attributes at work here in this story and the interplay between free will and predestination at work in this story.

Here is an interesting verse that may ( doubtful ) clear up things.

2 Chron 7:14

Sounds to me based on this passage that these people had a choice in whether they were saved or not. Read the whole chapter I do not believe I have not taken it out of context. Although I believe salvation is totally an act of God, we must humble ourselves to allow Him to pour himself into us. It is our choice to be humble or not to be humble. Is it not?

YLTYLT wrote:Here is an interesting verse that may ( doubtful ) clear up things.

2 Chron 7:14

Sounds to me based on this passage that these people had a choice in whether they were saved or not. Read the whole chapter I do not believe I have not taken it out of context. Although I believe salvation is totally an act of God, we must humble ourselves to allow Him to pour himself into us. It is our choice to be humble or not to be humble. Is it not?

Thanks for the info! this helps show with the interplay between free will and predestination.
-
-
-