Does the Bible say God chose and predestinated some to salvation

[atpollard]

Would you explain the difference, please?

I can.

"Does that mean all things past, present, and future are eternally present before God,"

• This places God external to TIME and spreads TIME around God like a deck of cards.

"or does that mean God is presently present at every point in time past, present, and future?"

• This places God within TIME and SPACE (his creation) making God a "time-travelling" being [like Dr Who or the legendary Merlin that lives life backwards].

[I have no idea what DISTINCTION Josheb intended to make ... EDIT: I see he explained it, well I got the difference correct, anyway. ]

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, if God decides you are going to do something, that is in fact forcing you to do something. Period.

No, it is not.

God can decide you will do something without forcing you to do so. That is, in fact, what orthodox monergism teaches. What God ordained He ordained without causing violence to the human will! God's ordaining AND volitional agency are simultaneously asserted.

That is not at all the same as God knowing ahead of time that you are going to do something.

God does not know what He decided will happen? That is not an all-knowing God! You've just compromised God's omniscience.

Are you denying God's permissive will in His power and sovereignty over His creation?

Nope.

And neither will I collaborate with you hijacking another op. This op is about predestination and whether or not God chose some for that end and purpose. My answer to that question is "Yes, but both monergists and synergists agree on that particular point. Objective observation of the world and the plain reading of scripture tells us some are making it, and most are not. The divide is whether or not predestination is due solely to God's will, God's choice, and God's purpose, or is it also due to the unregenerate sinner's will and works."

Romans 9 makes it clear God's mercy is for the elect and it does NOT depend on the will of the man, nor his works. It depends (solely) on God's mercy. God's purpose is "according to His choice," and not the works of the one being elected. God's will is asserted monistically and man's will and works are expressly excluded.

1. God, and God alone are mentioned in the two (connected) passages.
2. There's no mention of the unregenerate's sinner's choice, and in the second passage it is explicitly excluded. No synergism is possible.
3. The addition of the sinner's volitional agency is just as much an addition to the text as the word "alone," but the word alone is consistent with the text that cite only God and exclude the sinner.

Those three points are not being addressed. Would you please either stop avoiding the op-relevant points just made or let me know you have no intent of doing so? Either will work for me. Even silence would be better than the constant fallacy and digression received so far.

 

[Josheb]

Are you suggesting that by his free will Judas made up his own mind and chose?

Judas' will was not free. That did not preclude him from having the liberty to make choices within the controls, restrictions and/or limits that existed in his life.

 

[Josheb]

.

I can.

"Does that mean all things past, present, and future are eternally present before God,"

• This places God external to TIME and spreads TIME around God like a deck of cards.

"or does that mean God is presently present at every point in time past, present, and future?"

• This places God within TIME and SPACE (his creation) making God a "time-travelling" being [like Dr Who or the legendary Merlin that lives life backwards].

[I have no idea what DISTINCTION Josheb intended to make ... EDIT: I see he explained it, well I got the difference correct, anyway. ]

@DialecticSkeptic, @atpollard,

Let's observe the more salient fact the question has yet to be answered by the one of whom it was asked.

 

[makesends]

JIM said:
So long as you understand it is salvation by grace through faith that is not of yourselves.
Carbon said:
But I dont think you understand what that means. even though you can recite the verse

Given some of your other posts, I know you don't understand what that means. What it actually means is simply outside of your wheelhouse.

Ok, let's take a look at your understanding of Eph 2:8, you having demonstrated repeatedly that you believe that one's eternal destination hinges on THEIR decision and not on God's:

JIM said:​

I think the obvious answer to your question is yes. However, the real question is not whether God chose and predestined some to salvation. The question is on what basis did God chose and predestine some to salvation.​

JIM said:​

God certainly knew from before all creation who would love Him.​

Here you defend your notion that it is because God knew who would love him, that he knew whom to predestine, completely ignoring the simple logic that if God knew all things, but created all the same, then he intended all things.

JIM said:​

You and all those who insist on inserting the worth alone after he word faith in the phrase, saved by grace through faith. It isn't there.​

Above you emphasize that it is salvation that is not of yourselves, as opposed to the grace and the faith, as do pretty much all who want to bend this passage to suit their soteriology, ignoring the obvious grammar and language and logic of the fact that the salvation is by grace through faith, which means that the 'components' of the 'formula' —salvation (comes from) grace (which is accessed by way of) faith; thus, in crass logic, [salvation = grace + faith]— grace and faith are necessarily also part of the gift, and thus, grace and faith are also not of yourselves.

​

It is your self-determinism that drives your blindness to the fact that salvation is ENTIRELY OF GRACE, and NOT IN ANY WAY (or any component) OF YOURSELF. You insist on synergism, of such a kind that God cannot save anyone who is not first willing and allowing of God to save him. You think your work adds to God's, though you will deny that self-generated "faith" is work, ignoring that it is "of yourself" in your construction.

Are you suggesting that by his free will Judas made up his own mind and chose?

Argumentative. You know very well he doesn't think free will is the same as what you think it is.

 

[makesends]

Josheb, if God decides you are going to do something, that is in fact forcing you to do something. Period. That is not at all the same as God knowing ahead of time that you are going to do something.

Are you denying God's permissive will in His power and sovereignty over His creation?

Whether @Josheb denies it or not, I do deny it. "Permissive will" is a human construction to ease the pain of the fact of God's sovereignty over self-determination. The places in scripture where God speaks that way are obvious in the point that Man is to blame for his sin. Those passages don't imply that man's choices are spontaneous. (By "spontaneous" I don't mean "willed" —I do hold that man's choices are willed.)

 

[makesends]

JIM said:
Josheb, if God decides you are going to do something, that is in fact forcing you to do something. Period.

No, it is not.

God can decide you will do something without forcing you to do so. That is, in fact, what orthodox monergism teaches. What God ordained He ordained without causing violence to the human will! God's ordaining AND volitional agency are simultaneously asserted.

As a matter of fact, @JIM , God ESTABLISHES the fact of choice and the choices themselves. They are logically impossible, apart from God's decision and causation.

 

[JIM]

Romans 9:9-13 ESV
For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad — in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls — she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Election is the only purpose mention in the passage.

There is just too much wrong in that entire post. I have not the time nor the energy to go through it all. And it would not likely effect your thinking about it one way or the other.

But I will make one comment to show you why perhaps you have so much wrong.

While I tend to like, agree and use the ESV more than others, I think in this case it is not the best.

Romans 9:11

(KJV) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

(NASB) for 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

The phrase "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" is the first part of a parenthetical comment in that passage. In this comment Paul is explaining why ("in order that") God's choice of Jacob (and thus the nation of Israel) was unconditional, namely, so that his purpose according to election might not fail. What was God's purpose for choosing one or the other of these twins? It was the same purpose he had for choosing Abraham in the first place, then Isaac. It was the purpose expressed when God first made his covenant with Abraham: "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:3). This purpose was fulfilled with the birth of the Messiah (9:5); Acts 13:32-33). The election here is "The older will serve the younger", i.e., Jacob (v.12).

This redemptive purpose was too important to be allowed to depend on the whims of human behavior. Thus God made it clear from the very beginning that he was going to accomplish his purpose through this particular family regardless of their individual decisions and the direction of the personal piety. He showed this by the very way in which he chose Jacob over Esau, i.e., unconditionally.

How this applies to the issue under discussion should be clear. At stake is God's faithfulness in his dealings with the Jews. How could he shower them with the covenant blessing of 9:45 and allow them to be lost at the same time? The answer is that the covenant did not include a promise if individual salvation for all Jews; it was limited God's special use of the nation of Israel as the conduit for bringing Christ into the world. From the beginning God determined that he was going to do this, regardless of whether any individual Jews were saved. Just as god's purpose in choosing Jacob over Esau did not depend upon the spiritual status of the twin he chose, so also it did not depend upon the salvation statues of the Jews in Paul's day.

And so again, it is an error to see in this expression (in the ESV), "God's purpose in election", any reference at all to God's general method of saving individuals.

Peace and God bless you, Josheb.

 

[JIM]

JIM said:
So long as you understand it is salvation by grace through faith that is not of yourselves.
Carbon said:
But I dont think you understand what that means. even though you can recite the verse

Ok, let's take a look at your understanding of Eph 2:8, you having demonstrated repeatedly that you believe that one's eternal destination hinges on THEIR decision and not on God's:

For all of your discussion there, you fail to understand or perhaps even to know that the Greek grammar will not permit the "that" in "that not of yourselves" cannot modify either grace or faith. Both of the Greek words for grace and for faith are feminine in gender. The "that" in the Greek is neutral in gender. Therefore, according to Greek grammar, the "that" can only modify the entire phrase, "by grace you have been saved through faith", that is, the gift in Ephesians 2:8 is salvation by grace through faith.

 

[JIM]

JIM said:
Josheb, if God decides you are going to do something, that is in fact forcing you to do something. Period.

As a matter of fact, @JIM , God ESTABLISHES the fact of choice and the choices themselves. They are logically impossible, apart from God's decision and causation.

That is determinism and that is false. Determinism basically says that everything that happens, including everything that we think and everything we do, is determined by things that have preceded, going all the way back to the beginning which has God as the beginner.

 

[JIM]

Whether @Josheb denies it or not, I do deny it. "Permissive will" is a human construction to ease the pain of the fact of God's sovereignty over self-determination. The places in scripture where God speaks that way are obvious in the point that Man is to blame for his sin. Those passages don't imply that man's choices are spontaneous. (By "spontaneous" I don't mean "willed" —I do hold that man's choices are willed.)

Your view of God's sovereignty makes God the supreme Puppeteer and means of course that he eternally condemns those he has "sovereignly" caused to sin. You can hold God to that if you like. I don't. I reject outright your definition of God's sovereignty.

 

[Carbon]

Are you suggesting that by his free will Judas made up his own mind and chose?

Of course he did.

 

[atpollard]

God can decide you will do something without forcing you to do so. That is, in fact, what orthodox monergism teaches. What God ordained He ordained without causing violence to the human will! God's ordaining AND volitional agency are simultaneously asserted.

It is amazing how many Confessions affirm this and how many people claim it is "impossible".

Romans 1 (to my eyes) appears to illustrate EXACTLY this truth (as do the story of Job and Joseph) in the OT. God caused violence to NO human will in any of those events, yet God's sovereign control is irrefutable: Genesis 50:20 [NASB] "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to keep many people alive."

 

[Josheb]

Whether @Josheb denies it or not, I do deny it. "Permissive will" is a human construction to ease the pain of the fact of God's sovereignty over self-determination. The places in scripture where God speaks that way are obvious in the point that Man is to blame for his sin. Those passages don't imply that man's choices are spontaneous. (By "spontaneous" I don't mean "willed" —I do hold that man's choices are willed.)

(psssst.... he's, once again, taken another thread off topic)

 

[Josheb]

There is just too much wrong in that entire post.

Says the guy who got one out of a dozen statements wrong in the previous post.

While I tend to like, agree and use the ESV more than others, I think in this case it is not the best.

Romans 9:11

(KJV) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

(NASB) for 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

I prefer the NAS. However, if you look at the Greek transliteration, you'll find the verse states...

Romans 9:11 Greek transliteration
...not yet for having been born, nor having done anything good or evil, so that the according to election purpose of God might stand.

The Greek is much more concise, and much blunter. God's mercy, love, and hate were decided before either person was born, before either man had done anything good or evil. God's mercy, love, and hate were decided that way so God's purpose of election might stand.

They stand NOT predicated on how either man behaved!

The phrase "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" is the first part of a parenthetical comment in that passage. In this comment Paul is explaining why ("in order that") God's choice of Jacob (and thus the nation of Israel) was unconditional, namely, so that his purpose according to election might not fail. What was God's purpose for choosing one or the other of these twins? It was the same purpose he had for choosing Abraham in the first place, then Isaac. It was the purpose expressed when God first made his covenant with Abraham: "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:3). This purpose was fulfilled with the birth of the Messiah (9:5); Acts 13:32-33). The election here is "The older will serve the younger", i.e., Jacob (v.12).

All of which is monergistic.

So, once again... God's will is asserted monistically and man's will and works are expressly excluded.

1. God's will, and God's will alone are mentioned in the two (connected) passages.
2. There's no mention of the unregenerate's sinner's choice, and in the second passage it is explicitly excluded. No synergism is possible.
3. The addition of the sinner's volitional agency is just as much an addition to the text as the word "alone," but the word "alone" is consistent with the text that cites only God and excludes the sinner.

Those three points are not being addressed. Could I now please get either an acknowledgment of those facts or a scripture-informed logical refutation of them?

 

[JIM]

Of course he did.

Thank you.

 

[JIM]

Says the guy who got one out of a dozen statements wrong in the previous post.

I prefer the NAS. However, if you look at the Greek transliteration, you'll find the verse states...

Romans 9:11 Greek transliteration
...not yet for having been born, nor having done anything good or evil, so that the according to election purpose of God might stand.

The Greek is much more concise, and much blunter. God's mercy, love, and hate were decided before either person was born, before either man had done anything good or evil. God's mercy, love, and hate were decided that way so God's purpose of election might stand.

They stand NOT predicated on how either man behaved!

All of which is monergistic.

So, once again... God's will is asserted monistically and man's will and works are expressly excluded.

1. God's will, and God's will alone are mentioned in the two (connected) passages.
2. There's no mention of the unregenerate's sinner's choice, and in the second passage it is explicitly excluded. No synergism is possible.
3. The addition of the sinner's volitional agency is just as much an addition to the text as the word "alone," but the word "alone" is consistent with the text that cites only God and excludes the sinner.

Those three points are not being addressed. Could I now please get either an acknowledgment of those facts or a scripture-informed logical refutation of them?

You have missed entirely the election discussed is the election, the choice, of Jacob and the nation which followed. That choice was to provide the way or the means whereby Jesus Christ would be brought to the world. It was not about Jacob's salvation nor was it about the salvation of anyone or even any group in particular. It was about bringing into operation the system which would produce the savior to the world. And of course that election, that choice, was monergistic. That has nothing to say about whether or not the system under which anyone is actually saved is monergistic.

 

[Josheb]

It is amazing how many Confessions affirm this and how many people claim it is "impossible".

Romans 1 (to my eyes) appears to illustrate EXACTLY this truth (as do the story of Job and Joseph) in the OT. God caused violence to NO human will in any of those events, yet God's sovereign control is irrefutable: Genesis 50:20 [NASB] "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to keep many people alive."

Yep

 

[Josheb]

You have missed entirely the election discussed is the election, the choice, of Jacob and the nation which followed. That choice was to provide the way or the means whereby Jesus Christ would be brought to the world. It was not about Jacob's salvation nor was it about the salvation of anyone or even any group in particular. It was about bringing into operation the system which would produce the savior to the world.

Thank you for your time but none of it was missed. It was all addressed and is being ignored. Moving on from your nonsense.

 

[atpollard]

You have missed entirely the election discussed is the election, the choice, of Jacob and the nation which followed. That choice was to provide the way or the means whereby Jesus Christ would be brought to the world. It was not about Jacob's salvation nor was it about the salvation of anyone or even any group in particular. It was about bringing into operation the system which would produce the savior to the world.

If it was not about Salvation AT ALL, then why include it in Romans? Paul is in the middle of a LONG discussion all about salvation (and sin and faith and works of the Law failing to save), so to think anything was just thrown in that had nothing to do with the topic is silly.

It is at a bare minimum, an exclamation point on God's monergistic working of His will and Plan irrespective of human plans or desires for what God SHOULD do. God TRAMPLED human traditions and Father Isaac's blessing in the referenced story and God announced His intent to do so before the twins were born.