Does the Bible say God chose and predestinated some to salvation

[Carbon]

Does the Bible say God chose and predestined some to salvation?

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:4-5.


The answer is obviously a "Yes."

So then, do you consider election, or God’s choice of men, unfair, even thouh Paul said it's not? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom 9:14.

 

[Alive]

Does the Bible say God chose and predestined some to salvation?

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:4-5.


The answer is obviously a "Yes."

So then, do you consider election, or God’s choice of men, unfair, even thouh Paul said it's not? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom 9:14.

Good reply. If there is anything clear in scripture regarding God’s dealing with man, it is election…ie. The Creator’s Choices.
And all of His Choices are Just. Justice Juxtaposed in Grace.

 

[Tambora]

Does the Bible say God chose and predestined some to salvation?

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:4-5.


The answer is obviously a "Yes."

So then, do you consider election, or God’s choice of men, unfair, even thouh Paul said it's not? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom 9:14.

I think the key to verse 5 are the phrases "in him" and "by Jesus Christ to himself".

John 17:24 KJV​

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.​

 

[Carbon]

I think the key to verse 5 are the phrases "in him" and "by Jesus Christ to himself".

John 17:24 KJV​

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.​

You seem reformed. Or am I not understanding your point?

 

[Tambora]

You seem reformed.

I am not.
I just think their focus gets a little blurry and narrow minded at times.
But that doesn't mean I am at odds with everything in the reformed doctrine, and I appreciate all their hard work in trying to make sense of scripture as all true seekers do.

Or am I not understanding your point?

Well, this could open up a can of worms!

I think the Son that was before the foundation of the world was the true elected one, the true predestined one.
As God referred to Israel as His elected son and His son that was called out of Egypt is only a typology/pattern of Christ being the true elected Son called out of Egypt.

 

[Carbon]

I am not.
I just think their focus gets a little blurry and narrow minded at times.
But that doesn't mean I am at odds with everything in the reformed doctrine, and I appreciate all their hard work in trying to make sense of scripture as all true seekers do.


Well, this could open up a can of worms!

I think the Son that was before the foundation of the world was the true elected one, the true predestined one.
As God referred to Israel as His elected son and His son that was called out of Egypt is only a typology/pattern of Christ being the true elected Son called out of Egypt.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Alive]

What of Abraham? Quite a story he tells us.
One pagan chosen out of the mass of humanity and all of a sudden he believes and obeys a God foreign to him.

 

[fastfredy0]

So then, do you consider election, or God’s choice of men, unfair

Definition of "unfair": not conforming with the established rules

God makes all the rules and never breaks His rules. Therefore, God is fair.
There is no power that sets rules for God. A sovereign God is not ruled at all.

If God controls all things (Acts 17:28a, Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15, John 1:3), then all things are "fair".

 

[atpollard]

So then, do you consider election, or God’s choice of men, unfair, even thouh Paul said it's not? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom 9:14.

Yup.

Unfair:
a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
b(1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed
(2): consonant with merit or importance : due
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition a: GRACE is not free from favoritism. "I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy" [Romans 9]
Definition b(1): "The wages of sin is death"; "The soul that sins, shall die" - God's Law. GRACE is a setting aside of the law, not a conforming.
Definition b(2): "There is none righteous, no not one" ... GRACE is not what we merit, it is not our due.

JUDGEMENT and DAMNATION and HELL are "fair" ... free from prejudice, conforming with the rules, merited and due ... MERCY and GRACE and SALVATION are innately unfair (to our benefit).

 

[atpollard]

Definition of "unfair": not conforming with the established rules

God makes all the rules and never breaks His rules. Therefore, God is fair.
There is no power that sets rules for God. A sovereign God is not ruled at all.

If God controls all things (Acts 17:28a, Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15, John 1:3), then all things are "fair".

... liked (even if we disagree).

 

[makesends]

... liked (even if we disagree).

What did you disagree with?

 

[fastfredy0]

What did you disagree with?

I am a hard determinist. I think that is our disagreement.

The following syllogism and scripture being my points.
Premise 1: From nothing, nothing comes. (Thus God cannot know what nothing will do)
Premise 2: God is all knowing and immutable. (thus God's knowledge does not change)
Premise 3: Before creation nothing existed (Thus God knowledge only comes from Himself)
Conclusion: Since God knows all future things He must determine all things as there was no other source of information at one time save Himself.

God controls all things (Acts 17:28a, Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Romans 11:36, Job 34:14-15, John 1:3)
Also, God is independent of all things (He is never an affect; rather, always the First Cause) ...

something like that ... *giggle*

 

[atpollard]

What did you disagree with?

I lean towards compatibilism.

FastFreddy0 and I are old Internet friends that have argued vigorously over a number of minutiae over the years. Sometimes we disagree just to have something to argue about.

But we are both Christans and both Monergists and both 5 point TULIPS … so the disagreements are over the UNKNOWABLE details that people have no shortage of opinions over. [LOL]

In this case, I don’t think “fair” is a semantically accurate way to describe God’s right to do as He pleases. “Fair” and “Unfair” carry human-centric connotations that are not applicable to THE GREAT I AM. So FastFreddy responded by saying “God makes the rules, so it is FAIR because they are God’s rules to make” (a variation on “Norma normans non normata”) while I responded with a more semantic answer of “No, God is not ‘fair’ since fair would be getting what is deserved” (damnation) and salvation is the opposite of “fair” … it is ‘preferential injustice’ (GRACE).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Do you consider election (God's choice of men) unfair, ...?

If fairness means getting what is deserved, then yes, election is manifestly unfair. Grace and mercy are unfair. Salvation is unfair.

What we deserve, every last one of us, is condemnation.

"But God ..."

 

[makesends]

I lean towards compatibilism.

FastFreddy0 and I are old Internet friends that have argued vigorously over a number of minutiae over the years. Sometimes we disagree just to have something to argue about.

But we are both Christans and both Monergists and both 5 point TULIPS … so the disagreements are over the UNKNOWABLE details that people have no shortage of opinions over. [LOL]

In this case, I don’t think “fair” is a semantically accurate way to describe God’s right to do as He pleases. “Fair” and “Unfair” carry human-centric connotations that are not applicable to THE GREAT I AM. So FastFreddy responded by saying “God makes the rules, so it is FAIR because they are God’s rules to make” (a variation on “Norma normans non normata”) while I responded with a more semantic answer of “No, God is not ‘fair’ since fair would be getting what is deserved” (damnation) and salvation is the opposite of “fair” … it is ‘preferential injustice’ (GRACE).

Compatibilism is one of those words that describes many differing views, as long as predestination doesn't preclude choice in each compatibilist's thinking. I don't like the word, for the same reason I don't like 'hard determinism', (yet I could be called both), because Compatibilism to some means predestination and free will, and they cry, "foul", and Determinism to some means, no choice. So I opt out of both and go to the doctrines behind both.

I'm starting to finally get to the point that I will nit-pick, not what a person says, but what they mean. What they say is usually only their way of putting a thought, and at best only a way to look at a matter (if it goes that far). If they say that man has free will, but mean that man's choices are uncaused, then I cry, "foul". If they say that man's will is not free, meaning that he has no true choice, then I also cry, "foul"!

@fastfredy0 made the point that (regardless of what words one uses) the definition of valid concepts depends on God alone. And to that, I cry, "FAIR", haha!

 

[fastfredy0]

If they say that man has free will, but mean that man's choices are uncaused, then I cry, "foul". If they say that man's will is not free, meaning that he has no true choice, then I also cry, "foul"!

First off, I define "free will" or "choice" as "the ability to do what you desire most at the time" This Augustine's definition.
But you are NOT "free" to chose your desires. For example, who choose the desire determined by a "sin nature". (Maybe Adam/Eve... that's it)
So, who is the First Cause of creation and does not that creation include our desires? .....

.... and to repeat, God knows everything you will do when you were nothing so unless God knows what nothing will do (which I think is impossible), then He must have determined/caused it. Just as God has determined/caused a Christian's spirit to remain sinless after he dies by changing his desires for the rest of eternity. Once again I assume in heaven you will have free will to do whatever you desire most and you will never sin again as Someone changed/determined your new desires.

 

[atpollard]

[insert term] is one of those words that describes many differing views …

That applies to EVERY Christian term used on forums. We (as a group) are notoriously sloppy with our terms.

I am reminded of the quote …
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

 

[Josheb]

So then, do you consider election, or God’s choice of men, unfair, even thouh Paul said it's not? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom 9:14.

LOL! ROTFLMBO!

By what measure would the sinful creature measure the righteous Creator? By what standard of the sinner would the finite, inherently unjust creature measure the infinitely righteous Creator? The premise of "fairness" fails prima facie (and evidences the problem to be solved: the corrupting effect if sin on the creatures thinking)!

The fist held aloft in protest is a fist wholly rotted with decay of sin.

 

[Alive]

LOL! ROTFLMBO!

By what measure would the sinful creature measure the righteous Creator? By what standard of the sinner would the finite, inherently unjust creature measure the infinitely righteous Creator? The premise of "fairness" fails prima facie (and evidences the problem to be solved: the corrupting effect if sin on the creatures thinking)!

The fist held aloft in protest is a fist wholly rotted with decay of sin.

Tis true.

 

[Arial]

Yup.

Unfair:
a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
b(1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed
(2): consonant with merit or importance : due
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition a: GRACE is not free from favoritism. "I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy" [Romans 9]
Definition b(1): "The wages of sin is death"; "The soul that sins, shall die" - God's Law. GRACE is a setting aside of the law, not a conforming.
Definition b(2): "There is none righteous, no not one" ... GRACE is not what we merit, it is not our due.

JUDGEMENT and DAMNATION and HELL are "fair" ... free from prejudice, conforming with the rules, merited and due ... MERCY and GRACE and SALVATION are innately unfair (to our benefit).

It is unfair if one defines fair as all getting the same thing. What it is not, is unjust---which is a common accusation against God, when the doctrine of election is rejected. Some get mercy, the rest receive justice.