Does the Bible say God chose and predestinated some to salvation

[makesends]

Josheb said:
Sure.

In the first option God past, present, and future appear before him at his position in eternity; all three observed simultaneously from the eternal vantage position before any of the events within them temporally occur.

In the second option God is observing the event at the time the event occurs, not from his vantage position in eternity. The first is not time-dependent; the second is time (temporally and spatially) dependent.

Some argue God knows the future because He looked down the timeline and saw what will happen, thereby also knowing what will not happen. That is how He knows what to prophecy and that is how He knows who will choose salvation. It's an enormously faulty point of view.

You said that in the first scenario the "past, present, and future appear before [God] at his position in eternity," all of it being "observed simultaneously" from his eternal vantage point "before any of the events within them temporally occur."

However, a problem arises from saying "before" any of the events "temporally" occur, for there is no such thing from an eternal vantage point. As Aiden W. Tozer put it, "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. For him, history and prophecy are one and the same." Therefore, I am compelled to assume that you meant what is past, present, and future from our temporal vantage point (at any given moment in history).

And perhaps you can now appreciate my confusion. If all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point, then he effectively observes all events at the time they each occur (i.e., you made a distinction without a difference). It's just not a temporal succession of observations for God but a singular observation from an eternal now.

Alternatively, you are describing a God who is eternal (first scenario) and a God who is temporal (second scenario). But the latter is not the God of Christian orthodoxy, so that scenario can be summarily dismissed.

Consider adding to the old philosophical ways, or considerations, defining a being's ontology: What it is for, what it is from, what it is made of, what it will be, what God spoke into being.

I consider it reasonable to say that for God to think is to do, to speak is to create, and so on. I see no reason, for example, that he should have to weigh options. He doesn't have options available to him like we do. He CREATES fact.

Not that what I say is any different from anyone else, in this sense, that what we say is necessarily, no matter how much we try to be apart from it as though to look at things from the outside, human; it is not the way God sees things. I see @Josheb making perfectly good sense IF and only if, our concepts are substantive —for example the difference between God causing deistically vs God causing minutely, and intrinsic ontology vs ontology dependent on God's continuous act— and I'm thinking, "What's really the difference, except in our way of definitions and arranging concepts?" I see @DialecticSkeptic commenting on what Josh said, and I see his point, but I can't help but wonder if all we have been talking about here, making profound and logical statements is only "babble we think we mean." We don't know much about God.

 

[Josheb]

You said that in the first scenario the "past, present, and future appear before [God] at his position in eternity," all of it being "observed simultaneously" from his eternal vantage point "before any of the events within them temporally occur."

However, a problem arises from saying "before" any of the events "temporally" occur, for there is no such thing from an eternal vantage point.

Yep. Glad you caught that. Now you're catching on. Both alternatives are imperfect statements. There is no "before" in eternity. Now apply that to predestination.

And perhaps you can now appreciate my confusion.

Hmmm.... yeah...., no...., you seem to grasp the problem with applying temporal terms to God quite well. I don't think you are confused at all and if I did, I 'd endeavor not to leverage that in this discussion. We're talking about predestination, a word that inescapably contains the prefix "pre-" which indicates some destiny previously existing or decided..... and this is the Arm v Cal board so we're talking about a destiny specific to the saved. As I noted earlier, no one disagrees the destiny exists; the dispute is over how the term is defined and how it exists. The Arms and other synergists predicate the destiny on God knowing who will choose Him. Yet they do not wish to acknowledge the necessary implication of that point of view: if God knows something then it cannot no happen. Neither do they wish to acknowledge the dependency that creates: God dependent on His creature (both epistemologically and teleologically).

If all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point, then he effectively observes all events at the time they each occur (i.e., you made a distinction without a difference).

Nope. That commits the exact same error. What it means is that the same event has happened twice.... sort of. What God has observed has already happened from His pov. What He has observed is a product of His will, purpose, choice, and work. Time has passed for God simply because time is the measure of cause and effect. However near-instant that might be, God spoke and then X happened...... even from eternity. For us, and only us, X is a fait accompli that hasn't yet happened in time and space. Again, everyone agrees we've been predestined, but is it because God decided our destiny regardless of what we'd do or not do (making Himself dependent on the creature, making himself dependent on time, and possibly indicating He isn't omniscient) or is it because God decided our destiny without any regard to what we'd do or not do (because we were all headed to the everlasting trash heap without His sovereign action)?

It's just not a temporal succession of observations for God but a singular observation from an eternal now.

Yep. Except for that micro-measure of time between when He spoke and when X happened.

Alternatively, you are describing a God who is eternal (first scenario) and a God who is temporal (second scenario). But the latter is not the God of Christian orthodoxy, so that scenario can be summarily dismissed.

That is incorrect because that's a false dichotomy. God is extra-temporal, not non-temporal.

 

[Alive]

Yep. Glad you caught that. Now you're catching on. Both alternatives are imperfect statements. There is no "before" in eternity. Now apply that to predestination.

Hmmm.... yeah...., no...., you seem to grasp the problem with applying temporal terms to God quite well. I don't think you are confused at all and if I did, I 'd endeavor not to leverage that in this discussion. We're talking about predestination, a word that inescapably contains the prefix "pre-" which indicates some destiny previously existing or decided..... and this is the Arm v Cal board so we're talking about a destiny specific to the saved. As I noted earlier, no one disagrees the destiny exists; the dispute is over how the term is defined and how it exists. The Arms and other synergists predicate the destiny on God knowing who will choose Him. Yet they do not wish to acknowledge the necessary implication of that point of view: if God knows something then it cannot no happen. Neither do they wish to acknowledge the dependency that creates: God dependent on His creature (both epistemologically and teleologically).

Nope. That commits the exact same error. What it means is that the same event has happened twice.... sort of. What God has observed has already happened from His pov. What He has observed is a product of His will, purpose, choice, and work. Time has passed for God simply because time is the measure of cause and effect. However near-instant that might be, God spoke and then X happened...... even from eternity. For us, and only us, X is a fait accompli that hasn't yet happened in time and space. Again, everyone agrees we've been predestined, but is it because God decided our destiny regardless of what we'd do or not do (making Himself dependent on the creature, making himself dependent on time, and possibly indicating He isn't omniscient) or is it because God decided our destiny without any regard to what we'd do or not do (because we were all headed to the everlasting trash heap without His sovereign action)?

Yep. Except for that micro-measure of time between when He spoke and when X happened.

That is incorrect because that's a false dichotomy. God is extra-temporal, not non-temporal.

And done with clarity!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

There is no "before" in eternity. Now apply that to PRE-destination.

It would be inappropriate to apply that to the doctrine of predestination, for doing so would confuse divine reality and divine revelation. The former, divine reality, consists of an eternal state that is practically impossible to articulate, a fact attested by this conversation (and hints at why apophatic theology is a thing). The latter, divine revelation, speaks into the human perspective, revealing eternal truths in temporal language. Just so, election and predestination refer to the biblical doctrines that God has eternally chosen certain individuals for salvation as well as the means thereof. To say that God has eternally chosen (i.e., "before the foundation of the world") is to deny that he chooses those individuals temporally (i.e., within the temporal flow of human history). And to say that it's a biblical doctrine is to affirm that it's a matter of divine revelation, a truth revealed by God that is graciously accommodated to the limitations of our temporal language and existence.

The eternal nature of predestination is also a reflection of the transcendence of God. He exists beyond the irreversible flow of this single dimension of time that we experience, beyond the constraints of past, present, and future. That is not to say necessarily that God is timeless or exists outside of time altogether (which is affirmed by classical theism). It can also mean—and this is where I lean, as did Karl Barth—that God rather encompasses all of time simultaneously, that every moment is present to God in an eternal "now." In other words, his omnipresence includes both space and time. This view maintains the transcendence of God while allowing for his immediate presence in every moment of time (divine immanence). It provides a way to conceptualize and articulate God's omnipresence and omniscience in a temporal framework.

Having said that, although predestination is eternal, it unfolds within time. God's eternal decree manifests in history as individuals come to faith or persist in unbelief. However, from the Reformed perspective, these temporal events are the outworking of God's eternal plan, rather than the basis for his decision.

Side note: What if there were multiple dimensions of time? Just try and wrap your head around the idea of time being more spatial than linear, for lack of a better term, never mind adding a third dimension to time. This is certainly one possible explanation for God's interaction in time, how he could occupy all of time simultaneously, how every moment could be present to God in an eternal "now." (It could also suggest solutions to quantum entanglement, where the state of one particle instantly influences the state of its partner regardless of the spatio-temporal distance separating them. This happens "faster than the speed of light" only if time is a linear dimension.) Our perception might be just one limited view of a more complex, multidimensional temporal landscape.

You seem to grasp the problem with applying temporal terms to God quite well. I don't think YOU are confused at all.

I wasn't confused about the issue itself, but about how your distinction should amount to a difference.

If all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point, then he effectively observes all events at the time they each occur (i.e., you made a distinction without a difference).

Nope. That commits the exact same error. What it means is that the same event has happened twice—sort of. What God observed has already happened from his point of view. What he has observed is a product of his will, purpose, choice, and work. Time has passed for God simply because time is the measure of cause and effect. How ever near-instant that might be, God spoke and then X happened—even from eternity. For us (and only us), X is a fait accompli that hasn't yet happened in time and space.

First, I don't know what "error" my comment was supposed to repeat. It would benefit our conversation if you were less flippant and glib (and condescending), and took at least some time to explain the error before attempting to correct it.

Second, if God is transcendent and eternal, then it is unintelligible to say that something has "already happened from his point of view," or that "time has passed for God." Not only are you imposing a temporal experience on an eternal God, but you're also failing to take into account the view under discussion, namely, that "all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point." On this view, as I understand it, all events for God are happening (present), not has happened (past) or will happen (future). We are temporal. God is not. He is eternal. We experience events in succession. God does not. He is omnipresent.

So, once again, "If all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point, then he effectively observes all events at the time they each occur." As we move from the past to the future, this eternal God is already there to meet us at every moment in history—and observing, not in temporal succession but in eternal omnipresence.

Again, everyone agrees we've been predestined, but is it because God decided our destiny regardless of what we'd do or not do (making himself dependent on the creature, making himself dependent on time, and possibly indicating he isn't omniscient), or is it because God decided our destiny without any regard to what we'd do or not do (because we were all headed to the everlasting trash heap without his sovereign action)?

Can you explain what the difference is supposed to be here? (See the highlighted portion, specifically the underlined parts.)

Yep. Except for that micro-measure of time between when he spoke and when X happened.

If there is a measure of time, no matter how microscopic, between when God speaks and when X happens, then God is temporal—by definition. If you genuinely believe this, you are not alone. The view that God is everlasting (meaning he has no beginning or end) but exists within time and experiences it as an unending sequence of moments is called divine temporalism, and it has been held by the likes of Wolterstorff, Swinburne, Pinnock, Boyd, etc. I strongly disagree with that view, but there it is.

 

[Josheb]

It would be inappropriate to apply that to the doctrine of predestination, for doing so would confuse divine reality and divine revelation.

I am not confused nor confusing either.

The former, divine reality, consists of an eternal state that is practically impossible to articulate...

Except where articulated for our understanding in scripture and what God has revealed of His power in creation. Appeals to language are red herrings.

, a fact attested by this conversation (and hints at why apophatic theology is a thing).

False cause. A person's inability to express oneself in words is not necessarily an indication of a lack of comprehension.

The latter, divine revelation, speaks into the human perspective...

Which is what many, including me, have asserted. Revelation reveals divine reality; the two are not mutually exclusive and it is a false dichotomy to think so.

.... revealing eternal truths in temporal language.

Which is articulated inhuman language and is meant to be understood.

Just so, election and predestination refer to the biblical doctrines that God has eternally chosen certain individuals for salvation as well as the means thereof. To say that God has eternally chosen (i.e., "before the foundation of the world") is to deny that he chooses those individuals temporally (i.e., within the temporal flow of human history). And to say that it's a biblical doctrine is to affirm that it's a matter of divine revelation, a truth revealed by God that is graciously accommodated to the limitations of our temporal language and existence.

All of which is a series of false dichotomies.

The eternal nature of predestination is also a reflection of the transcendence of God.

There is no "eternal nature" of predestination. There is an everlasting nature of predestination, but not an eternal one. Prior to the ordination of creation there was nothing "pre-". There is a beginning to creation. It says so in the very first verse of the Bible.

He exists beyond the irreversible flow of this single dimension of time that we experience, beyond the constraints of past, present, and future. That is not to say necessarily that God is timeless or exists outside of time altogether (which is affirmed by classical theism). It can also mean—and this is where I lean, as did Karl Barth—that God rather encompasses all of time simultaneously, that every moment is present to God in an eternal "now." In other words, his omnipresence includes both space and time. This view maintains the transcendence of God while allowing for his immediate presence in every moment of time (divine immanence). It provides a way to conceptualize and articulate God's omnipresence and omniscience in a temporal framework.

Which has nothing to do with predestination (other than God's as its ordaining Beginner).

Having said that, although predestination is eternal...

Which it's not.....

, it unfolds within time. God's eternal decree manifests in history as individuals come to faith or persist in unbelief. However, from the Reformed perspective, these temporal events are the outworking of God's eternal plan, rather than the basis for his decision.

Yep. On that we can agree.

Side note: What if there were multiple dimensions of time? Just try and wrap your head around the idea of time being more spatial than linear, for lack of a better term, never mind adding a third dimension to time. This is certainly one possible explanation for God's interaction in time, how he could occupy all of time simultaneously, how every moment could be present to God in an eternal "now." (It could also suggest solutions to quantum entanglement, where the state of one particle instantly influences the state of its partner regardless of the spatio-temporal distance separating them. This happens "faster than the speed of light" only if time is a linear dimension.) Our perception might be just one limited view of a more complex, multidimensional temporal landscape.

Which is exactly what I suggested. If a sub-atomic particle can be in two places at once, then how is it the Creator of that quantum condition cannot also do so?

I wasn't confused about the issue itself, but about how your distinction should amount to a difference.

Given the factual errors, logical fallacies employed above, and the fact at least one other poster grasped the earlier point I encourage a re-examination of your confusion.

First, I don't know what "error" my comment was supposed to repeat.

And that self-confessed lack of knowledge is a problem to be solved.

It would benefit our conversation if you were less flippant and glib (and condescending), and took at least some time to explain the error before attempting to correct it.

Another fallacy: mistaking the observation of facts in evidence (factual errors and logical fallacies) as condescension for one's own confusion and self-responsibility to post well.

Second, if God is transcendent and eternal, then it is unintelligible to say that something has "already happened from his point of view," or that "time has passed for God." Not only are you imposing a temporal experience on an eternal God, but you're also failing to take into account the view under discussion, namely, that "all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point."

No, it is acknowledging, not "imposing," an extra-temporal condition repeatedly described in scripture. There is only one Being who is before Creation. That being is the Creator, the Uncaused Cause of time. He is the first and only before, the first and only before that is before all of creation who knew all of what would, is, will happen at once.

On this view, as I understand it...

Given the numerous factual errors and logical fallacies I do not see any evidence of understanding anything correctly...

, all events for God are happening (present), not has happened (past) or will happen (future).

Scripture says otherwise,

Psalm 148:1-6
Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all stars of light! Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded, and they were created. He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away.

Isaiah 42:5-9
Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it, I am the LORD, I have called You in righteousness, I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You, and I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, as a light to the nations, to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the dungeon and those who dwell in darkness from the prison. I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images. Behold, the former things have come to pass, now I declare new things; before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."

Isaiah 46:9-11
Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure;" calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

We are temporal. God is not. He is eternal. We experience events in succession. God does not. He is omnipresent. So, once again, "If all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point, then he effectively observes all events at the time they each occur." As we move from the past to the future, this eternal God is already there to meet us at every moment in history—and observing, not in temporal succession but in eternal omnipresence.

Which is exactly what I posted.

 

[Josheb]

Can you explain what the difference is supposed to be here? (See the highlighted portion, specifically the underlined parts.)

Yes.

If there is a measure of time, no matter how microscopic, between when God speaks and when X happens, then God is temporal—by definition.

No. It means God created time (or rather, God created what we currently understand as singularity - a condition from which gravity, time, and space are made). He exists eternally prior to that which He creates.

If you genuinely believe this, you are not alone.

Irrelevant.

The view that God is everlasting (meaning he has no beginning or end)

No, "everlasting" means He has no end. It says nothing about His (non-existent) beginning. God is both, eternal and everlasting.

...but exists within time and experiences it as an unending sequence of moments is called divine temporalism,

Incorrect. There is an end to much of what He created. He states this plainly throughout His word. A number of problematic conditions arise if this is not the case. For one, it would be an enormous compromise on Hos omnipotence (there would be something everlasting beside Himself He could not end. Another would be the falsehood of using "end" language, God using words He doesn't mean, words not having reliable meaning, and the resulting inability to trust God's revelation. The "sequence of moments" has an end regardless of what it is called.

Something else warrants notation and clarification. The Creator does not exist IN that which He created. By definition, any creator exists prior to and in excess of that which s/he/it creates. To say God exists IN creation is to say God exists in the Ford motor He made, constructing the motor (or the tree, the elephant, the grain of sand, etc.) from within. That is nonsensical. The correct understanding, according to the divine Creator's divine revelation is that His divine nature proceeds creation, that He exists external to all that He creates but is ever-present with everything He created inside that which He created. But to say "ever-present" is not to say everything lasts forever. He is ever-present with the created something only for as long as that thing endures.

...and it has been held by the likes of Wolterstorff, Swinburne, Pinnock, Boyd, etc. I strongly disagree with that view, but there it is.

All of whom are flawed men subject to all the exact same errors you've cited in your post. It's odd that a view with which there is no agreement would be asserted as if it has any relevance. All that time, all that effort, and all that space in the posts posted when it's nothing more than disagreeable to you and irrelevant to what I have posted. and yet...

It would benefit our conversation if you were less flippant and glib (and condescending), and took at least some time to explain the error before attempting to correct it.

Look in the mirror.

What would have served the discussion best is if all those assumptions, factual errors, logical fallacies, and irrelevancies were absent. Go back to those few occasions where I just expressed agreement and work with that. The rest has nothing to do with my posts.

 

[makesends]

DialecticSkeptic said:
The former, divine reality, consists of an eternal state that is practically impossible to articulate...

Except where articulated for our understanding in scripture and what God has revealed of His power in creation. Appeals to language are red herrings.

Not to disagree with you in principle, but in practice, our use of what God has articulated —and him using human language without any misrepresenting of the truth, at that— is never quite exactly what he said.

But, yes, what God has articulated, he has perfectly articulated.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

Having said that, although predestination is eternal, it unfolds within time. God's eternal decree manifests in history as individuals come to faith or persist in unbelief. However, from the Reformed perspective, these temporal events are the outworking of God's eternal plan, rather than the basis for his decision.

@Josheb

I, too, believe that predestination is eternal. Those who were predestined to be saved were also predestined to be immortal. They have already been justified to live forever in the Eternity!

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

- Romans 8:29-30 (KJV)
—————

Greek Dictionary (Lexicon-Concordance)​

Key Word Studies (Translations-Definitions-Meanings)​

Justifed » G1344 «​

#1344 δικαιόω dikaioo {dik-ah-yo'-o}

from G1342; TDNT - 2:211,168; v

—Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)​

1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is
and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as
he ought to be

—Thayer's (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon)​

From G1342; to render (that is, show or regard as) just or innocent:—free, justify (-ier), be righteous.

—Strong's (Greek Dictionary of the New Testament)​

• #1344.
• δικαιο´ω
• dikaioō; from 1342; to show to be righteous, declare righteous:—
• NASB - acknowledged...justice(1), acquitted(1), freed(3), justified(24), justifier(1), justifies(2), justify(4), vindicated(3).

Lu

 

[Josheb]

But, yes, what God has articulated, he has perfectly articulated.

...with an implicit intent it eventually be understood. The alternative is God revealing knowledge of Himself without an expectation of understanding. That runs dead into (no pun intended) ahost of scripture, including but not limited to....

Psalm 119:105, 27, 104-105
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.... Make me understand the way of Your precepts, so I will meditate on Your wonders. From Your precepts I get understanding; therefore, I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

Job 32:7-8
I thought age should speak, and increased years should teach wisdom. But it is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.

John 4:41
Many more believed because of His word...

Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

There'd be no heeding or obeying that which is not and cannot be understood. This idea we cannot understand the extra-temporal aspects of God's ontology is a red herring. We may not currently fathom them in their entirety but that does not mean they are not understandable.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
But, yes, what God has articulated, he has perfectly articulated.

...with an implicit intent it eventually be understood. The alternative is God revealing knowledge of Himself without an expectation of understanding. That runs dead into (no pun intended) ahost of scripture, including but not limited to....

Psalm 119:105, 27, 104-105
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.... Make me understand the way of Your precepts, so I will meditate on Your wonders. From Your precepts I get understanding; therefore, I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

Job 32:7-8
I thought age should speak, and increased years should teach wisdom. But it is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool.

John 4:41
Many more believed because of His word...

Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

There'd be no heeding or obeying that which is not and cannot be understood. This idea we cannot understand the extra-temporal aspects of God's ontology is a red herring. We may not currently fathom them in their entirety but that does not mean they are not understandable.

I hope I haven't been misrepresenting my view. I don't claim we can't know God, nor understand his ways, nor that we can't understand His Word.. I only claim that we barely do, compared to the "depths of the riches" no matter how deep we go in this life. In fact, I believe that, generally, we will understand better with the heart than we will with the mind, which sounds quite a bit like some of the verses you quoted.

But, yes, I agree to a point that it is implicit that what he wrote was for us to understand, though I am sure that there are probably more "Wow!" to be found, such as puns, plays on words, literals we thought were symbolic, and so many more things that we will, there in Heaven, be amazed we did not see, right before our faces, here in this life. I am also sure that there are many examples of questions not worth answering, wrongly asked, presumptuous and self-important in temporal assumptions and assumptions that we understand more than we do.

No matter how much we know, "His ways are not our ways".

 

[Josheb]

I hope I haven't been misrepresenting my view. I don't claim we can't know God, nor understand his ways, nor that we can't understand His Word... I only claim that we barely do, compared to the "depths of the riches" no matter how deep we go in this life. In fact, I believe that, generally, we will understand better with the heart than we will with the mind, which sounds quite a bit like some of the verses you quoted.

Relevance?

But, yes, I agree to a point that it is implicit that what he wrote was for us to understand, though I am sure that there are probably more "Wow!" to be found, such as puns, plays on words, literals we thought were symbolic, and so many more things that we will, there in Heaven, be amazed we did not see, right before our faces, here in this life. I am also sure that there are many examples of questions not worth answering, wrongly asked, presumptuous and self-important in temporal assumptions and assumptions that we understand more than we do.

And that is certainly applicable to the eternal, temporal, and everlasting conditions of predestination.

From eternity and by the counsel of His own will, God freely and unchangeably ordain what comes to pass without His without authoring sin, doing violence to the will of the creatures, or removing the liberty or contingency of second causes but, instead, by that ordaining these were established. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, He did not decree anything because of any condition He foresaw it as future, as that which would eventually come to pass. For His own glorification God decreed some sinful men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God chose in Christ before the world was created, and He did so solely according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will. He did so out of His free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith, good works, or perseverance in the creature and without anything else moving Him to that effect.

Paul wrote to the saints in Ephesus and told them they had been chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless; they'd been predestined to become adopted sons, obtaining an inheritance according to His purpose and His work.

Ephesians 1:1-14
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight, He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

God chose us; we did not choose Him (Jn. 15:16) and given the universal sinfulness of humanity, appeals to "fairness" are red herrings. What we deserve is destruction but God, from His grace, has chosen to save some.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I hope I haven't been misrepresenting my view. I don't claim we can't know God, nor understand his ways, nor that we can't understand His Word... I only claim that we barely do, compared to the "depths of the riches" no matter how deep we go in this life. In fact, I believe that, generally, we will understand better with the heart than we will with the mind, which sounds quite a bit like some of the verses you quoted.

Relevance?

Yeah. I had restrained my urge to accuse you of over-polarizing the issue. I've never said we can understand nothing, unless by comparison with what God is/knows/does. But somehow your argument sounds like we either know or don't know, with the implication (ok —'inference', then) ripe for the picking (though I know well that you don't believe this) that we can know all there is to know, and that, in THIS life.

So I responded in kind without accusing.

 

[Josheb]

I hope I haven't been misrepresenting my view. I don't claim we can't know God, nor understand his ways, nor that we can't understand His Word.. I only claim that we barely do, compared to the "depths of the riches" no matter how deep we go in this life. In fact, I believe that, generally, we will understand better with the heart than we will with the mind, which sounds quite a bit like some of the verses you quoted.

Relevance?

Yeah. I had restrained my urge to accuse you of over-polarizing the issue. I've never said we can understand nothing, unless by comparison with what God is/knows/does. But somehow your argument sounds like we either know or don't know, with the implication (ok —'inference', then) ripe for the picking (though I know well that you don't believe this) that we can know all there is to know, and that, in THIS life.

So I responded in kind without accusing.

Relevance?

This op is about the fairness of God choosing and predestining some for salvation. The tangent about the eternal/temporal was germane solely to that topic. I repeatedly decried the polarization of false dichotomies I read in many posts, never said anyone claimed nothing could be understood or that everything can be known, and appreciate all lack of accusation.

So what? How is any of that relevant to this op?

 

[makesends]

Relevance?

This op is about the fairness of God choosing and predestining some for salvation. The tangent about the eternal/temporal was germane solely to that topic. I repeatedly decried the polarization of false dichotomies I read in many posts, never said anyone claimed nothing could be understood or that everything can be known, and appreciate all lack of accusation.

So what? How is any of that relevant to this op?

I suppose I should have known you were asking for relevance to the op —not relevance to what you said. My bad.