God’s Omniscience and Predestination

[JIM]

Either you really missed the whole point of the op or, you’re simply in denial.

In denial of what? Some of the stuff you believe? Probably.

 

[Mr GLee]

Believing is not a work of law.

Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

His living word is law as loving commandments . Let there be. or thou shall not .

 

[Arial]

Yes, pre-destined.

Let's look at the word you usedestined
Webster 1928 version: DESTINED, participle passive Ordained; appointed by previous determination; devoted; fixed unalterably.

Modern diectionary:
1. (of a person's future) developing as though according to a plan.
"she could see that he was destined for great things"
2. certain to meet (a particular fate).
"she was destined to become a life-long friend"
3. intended for or traveling toward (a particular place).
"agricultural exports destined for the United States"

So, again I will say, Yes, pre-destined.

Humans, without the intervention of God are destined (where they are headed) for judgement by God, because, in Adam, they are sinners (a sinful being) and therefore will sin. That is their destiny.

When "pre" is added to destine in a biblical sense as to one's destiny, it presupposes that God is the one who does this. It presupposes it because the same word "predestine" is used to express God's election of some. If the same construct is used for election unto salvation as is used for damnation, (that election is before they have done anything good or evil and is based only on God's will, not the person's past or future actions); then wouldn't that also apply to those who are predestined to damnation?

God saves some from their certain destination. Predestination is not a specific doctrine of the doctrines of grace. Election is. It is those God elects unto salvation who are predestined----not to election---but to come to the one with saving faith who has died in their place, and purchased them with his blood.

 

[Arial]

Well, it can be, but that's not the reformed view.

And why would God have to cause anyone to sin, wouldn't their fallen nature take care of that?

Yes. That's my point.They don't need to be predestined to condemnation. What they need is to be elected unto salvation.

 

[fastfredy0]

Haha. Well, that's how I see it. For now anyway. It's what makes the most sense of what I think I can make sense out of with my pea brain.

I think I hear you. Considering the subject of evil and God’s relationship to it is perplexing and man's relationship to men and ideas of what is right he tends to apply to the Potter when it should only apply to the clay (other men).
Hmmm...considering the wise words you publish and comparing your intellect to a pea has me concluding that I must have a 1/4 pea brain. That leaves me for more room for improvement than you so I will brag on that point.

 

[Arial]

God saves some from their certain destination. Predestination is not a specific doctrine of the doctrines of grace. Election is. It is those God elects unto salvation who are predestined----not to election---but to come to the one with saving faith who has died in their place, and purchased them with his blood.

@Carbon
Romans 8:29-30

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The foreknowing comes first. The foreknowing is election. And he predestined them to be conformed to the image of his Son. And those who were predestined to be conformed to this image he called, then justified through faith, and those he also glorified.

 

[Carbon]

Yes. That's my point.They don't need to be predestined to condemnation. What they need is to be elected unto salvation.

If they weren't predestined for destruction, it would be up for grabs.

 

[Arial]

If they weren't predestined for destruction, it would be up for grabs.

I guess God could have just stopped Adam and Eve from ever producing more people, even though he created them and all their descendants to fill the earth and care of it. We are really just quibbling over the use of the word predestination and what it is applied to in Scripture. The elect are predestined---not to be the elect, but to belong to Christ. Election precedes predestination. The non-elect are not predestined to be the non-elect, they are simply left in their natural state. Now, imv, it would not be improper to say God foreknew the non-elect as well as he foreknew the elect. That is true. But he did not change their natural destiny to an unnatural one of mercy.

So, is the question about predestination or is it why? And does God bear responsibility for not saving everyone, over and above the responsibility of the non-elect? If he predestines them to condemnation, he predestines them to be something they already are--rebellious sinners who want nothing to do with Christ. And if he predestines them, in the same way he elects for salvation, (and we cannot say it is one way for the elect and another for the non-elect) then he does bear responsibility for them being sinners. It would mean he created them specifically to reject them. However, even though they are God's creation, they are also the natural offspring of a sinner.

So the question is really---why? Why did God design things the way he designed them and why doesn't God save everyone?

And that is a very long story with many rabbit trails. We know from what he has told us that something that existed before creation---rebellion against God, and that deceiver roaming about the creation, successfully tempting the mediator of creation, and as a result the creation and all that is in it, being affected is being crushed for evermore, never to rise again. The death of the tempter, the death of sin, the death of death. It is being done through the redemption of men, but it is much bigger than just us.

 

[Carbon]

I guess God could have just stopped Adam and Eve from ever producing more people, even though he created them and all their descendants to fill the earth and care of it. We are really just quibbling over the use of the word predestination and what it is applied to in Scripture. The elect are predestined---not to be the elect, but to belong to Christ. Election precedes predestination. The non-elect are not predestined to be the non-elect, they are simply left in their natural state. Now, imv, it would not be improper to say God foreknew the non-elect as well as he foreknew the elect. That is true. But he did not change their natural destiny to an unnatural one of mercy.

So just admit then, you disagree with Calvin and many reformers about double predestination.

 

[Arial]

So just admit then, you disagree with Calvin and many reformers about double predestination.

Yes. Happy now? I agree with the Calvinists and Reformed that don't agree with double predestination, but I do so through my own reasoning.

 

[Carbon]

Yes. Happy now? I agree with the Calvinists and Reformed that don't agree with double predestination, but I do so through my own reasoning.

Nothing to do with being happy really. But thanks for your concern.

 

[Arial]

Nothing to do with being happy really. But thanks for your concern.

I am curious as to whether you see any logic to my reasoning?

 

[Carbon]

I am curious as to whether you see any logic to my reasoning?

Sister, I do. And I understand why you feel such. I know your heart is in the right place.

 

[Carbon]

Sister, I do. And I understand why you feel such. I know your heart is in the right place

@Arial
I know you agree with the Calvinists who do not hold to double predestination. But have you read Calvin on it? If you are interested start in the institutes: Introduction - X
It isn't an easy one for him but he does defend it.

 

[Arial]

@Arial
I know you agree with the Calvinists who do not hold to double predestination. But have you read Calvin on it? If you are interested start in the institutes: Introduction - X
It isn't an easy one for him but he does defend it.

That doesn't make Calvin correct or double predestination correct, as you know. And I have read it. Who knows if he had lived longer, if he would have altered his view. We are all in a state of growth.

It is the idea of double predestination that is frequently attacked as an injustice and evil in God. And that does not make the attack valid, but imo it makes the justification of it somewhat of an evasive dance, that is settled by "God can do whatever he wants to do." I think the doctrine stems from not looking closely at a lot of other things concerning redemption. I am not saying they are not known, but not looked at closely, or considered, when dealing with predestination. The big picture, the end from the beginning and all of it as whole working towards the same goal, same end game, needs to be kept in mind, rather than narrow parts.

I have tried to do that, but there seems to be no traction, and I attribute that to my own lack of clarity, so I have said my piece.

 

[Carbon]

That doesn't make Calvin correct or double predestination correct, as you know. And I have read it. Who knows if he had lived longer, if he would have altered his view. We are all in a state of growth.

It is the idea of double predestination that is frequently attacked as an injustice and evil in God. And that does not make the attack valid, but imo it makes the justification of it somewhat of an evasive dance, that is settled by "God can do whatever he wants to do." I think the doctrine stems from not looking closely at a lot of other things concerning redemption. I am not saying they are not known, but not looked at closely, or considered, when dealing with predestination. The big picture, the end from the beginning and all of it as whole working towards the same goal, same end game, needs to be kept in mind, rather than narrow parts.

I have tried to do that, but there seems to be no traction, and I attribute that to my own lack of clarity, so I have said my piece.

Okay, thanks for your explanation.

 

[makesends]

True .... you're definitely a 1/2 full guy as opposed to 1/2 empty. *giggle*
God is to be feared. I had a pastor who I said that I feared God and he said that 'fear' in Christian means deep reverence. maybe so, but He still scares me too.

Lately, somebody on one of these threads here was saying that Reformed theology taught no fear of God, and I didn't bother to answer because I could see it just continuing on as it usually does, with no real debate. But I did want to, because true fear of God recognizes his sovereign mercy alone as why one is still allowed to continue to live, and that, to whatever quality of life is theirs. I can't even begin to explain the fear that comes from praying for mercy when all I deserve is immediate public recognition of, and scorn for, my sin; the sure realization that God could have, and even 'should have', (as justice would demand), yet he continues with his lovingkindness towards me, produces a different kind of terror, because I have no recourse but his continuing mercy, which he would be just to withdraw at any moment he chose.

 

[makesends]

My God is in control of His creation. Control does not equate to causation. In His control, God allows for the occurrence of some things that He does not cause, such as sin.

Your god, on the other hand, is the author and cause of sin, some of it the most heinous of evil.

It is the simple math of causation that renders it sure, that whatsoever comes to pass does so by God's causation. Even if you believe in chance, and other self-contradictory things, the fact is, that whatever is, is because God created whatever else caused further effects down the line. If you want to pretend that God did not cause that there be sin, go ahead, but whatever you decide that DID cause that there be sin, was fact because of God's creation. It is really that simple. It all comes back around to the fact that God is the only Omnipotent and Creator.

You think that my position renders God as the author of sin. Truth is, the one who sins is the author of their sin, per James and a few other, which does not even treat with any notion of libertarian free will, but places blame where it belongs, on the sinner, and credits God with accomplishing all that he set out to do.

If they weren't predestined for destruction, it would be up for grabs.

They grab at it with every breath.

 

[brightfame52]

Believing is not a work of law.

Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Yes it is a work of the law if its not a work of the Spirit in you. Jesus says Faith is a law work here Matt 23:23

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

 

[Arial]

Suppose we do a bit of supposing.

Suppose there was no plan of redemption. And suppose what happened in Eden did happen and God put them out of the garden. And there was no promise of redemption. That how our world became is how our world would remain, and all people would meet condemnation and face the wrath of God. Would you still say God predestined them to condemnation? Or would you see that the justice of God demanded their condemnation?