Is Double Predestination Biblical?

[Eternally-Grateful]

Do a Bible search, then find all the verses which say that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is a result of sinful man's choice. There aren't any...

before we get started. I do not follow the fatalistic view of Romans 9. I follow a vew That Paul is answering the jewish questions I feel many were asking at the time. so if I seem to come with an odd interpretation to you. this is why

Rom. 9:13-18 (W.E.B.)
13 Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

1. God did not Hate a baby, and love another baby, this is taken from Malichi. where God talks about the fact he loved Jacob (Israel) more than he loved Esau (literally Edom)

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? May it never be!
15 For he said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.

Yes. so again, we must go back to the OT. If God is willing to cruch Israel in order to build it back up again, who are we to argue/

Again, eternal salvation is not in context. here Not is the sovereignty of God. it is all concerning Israel

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I caused you to be raised up, that I might show in you my power, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

Amen, He knew pharoah would do what God needed him to do. and put him in place,

God has reasons for doing things and putting certain people in place.

But again, this has nothing to do with anyone salvation.

18 So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.

Amen

He desires to have mercy on Jacob. He let edom (esau) go so that it does not even exist anymore. Mostly because of the way it treates Israel. so it was punished..

Yet even today he shows mercy on Jacob. Because Jacob he loves. and as we see in chapter 11. Jacob will be saved, one day it will repent and be saved. we are even told when (thats another story)

But again, this is not talking about anyone's personal salvation

It's not a fear; in fact, we agree that one receives the gift of salvation freely, just as a socket receives a plug. The socket is made the right shape and size (like us being born again), then the plug is plugged into the socket without the need for force. Just like the socket and plug, the reception of the grace-gift of salvation does not depend upon the will of the socket, but upon the will of the one who inserts the plug (God).

God demands we recieve him. If we do he will save us, If we do not he will not save us.

Again, John 1 is clear.

He went to his own, they recieved him not.

He saved those who recieved him.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

That is the case right now.

But he is not ruling with a rod of iron right now.

As you know, there are many prophecies in the Bible; some have been fulfilled, some are being fulfilled and some have yet to be fulfilled.

Amen. The future reign is one of them

Not all prophecies are the for the benefit of those alive at that time.

1 Pet. 1:10-12 (W.E.B.)
10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you,
11 searching for who or what kind of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, pointed to, when he predicted the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that would follow them.
12 To them it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to you, they ministered these things, which now have been announced to you through those who preached the Good News to you by the Holy Spirit sent out from heaven; which things angels desire to look into.

Many people came to christ because of the prophesies.

Some are more discerning than others. This is always the case.

agree.. But many are making the same mistake. and while it may not affect them, it may affect others down the road

One thing I think it effects is ones faith.

which is why I say, If this is Jesus ruling today.. What do I really have to look forward to?

 

[Arial]

The ability to receive is a gift.

Not everyone will receive. That's why Jesus said, if you do not believe you are condemned already. If you do believe you are no longer condemned. You are in essence born again

Where is "ability to receive a gift" mentioned in that passage you refer to? Or anywhere else when it comes to believing? That is completely read into every scripture it is applied to.
https://christcentered.community.fo...same-time-can-one-be-neither.2670/post-114675

If God does not love everyone. the bible is not true. He is a god of perfect love that we can not comprehend. and will not until we see him face to face.

He does not love evil or evil people. If he did the meaning of "love" would be seriously compromised.

Everyone likes to focus on Gods sovereignty. he is sovereign, but even more, he is love.

I see his essence in this way

He is perfect love
He is perfect justice
He is perfectly sovereign.

All of these work together to make him who he is.

Do you really not realize when you contradict yourself as you just did above? You said they all work together to make who he is, right after you said that love overrides sovereignty. That means he would sacrifice sovereignty for the sake of love. Where do you ever see him doing that using your definition of love?

As I see it......

the problem is the universalist says God is perfect love. they reject his perfect Justice
The Problem with the fatalist is they say God has perfect justice. Yet is limited or selective on his love

Are there other options? Who are you defining as a "fatalist"? According to whatever that definition is (yours) are there more than just "fatalist" and "universalists"? Why with all your cries against "isms" (and in this case "ists" within an "ism") are you trying to box each into an all? And making only two boxes?

How about this? God can do and does as he pleases. He is sovereign over all his creation. The love that he is, equally and within his sovereignty, and his perfect holiness, therefore hates all rebellion against him and that holiness. He in his sovereignty has declared that the sinner will die and go into everlasting punishment. That is the judgment. If any are to be saved from this condition, he, because he is always all of his attributes, all the time and in every place, and all in equal measure, his judgement against sin must be met. In this way he can extend mercy without any element of justice be compromised. We all know what he did and how he did it.

But the non elect do not receive that mercy, they receive the justice. Does that fit your definition of love? Does your "free will" position explain away the responsibility of God's sovereignty and all the other attributes, and solve the "puzzle" of God loves everyone? No. It merely makes him give up his sovereignty.

God's love for his people is shown covenantly---a special personal relationship with. His love is a covenant love. He does not treat all people the same---that is not the definition of love. He cares for all and for his creation providentially and for his own purpose ends. Here, I will pull the typical anti Calvinism trick. Do you think he loves Hitler?

 

[Arial]

As for as Gods sovereignty goes. It works within the boundaries of perfect love and perfect justice. He is allowed to do as he wishes. and his wishes will not counter his perfect justice or his perfect love.

Then why do you imply he has to love everyone the same?

 

[Arial]

when? I look back in history, and I see no time when Christ appears in the sky and all nations saw the sign of the son of man. and he struck the earth. where there was so much dead flesh the birds feasted.

Pay close attention to the rest of @Hazelelponi 's post. Very careful attention, and set aside all presuppositions of what you believe is Christ ruling and reigning, and try very hard to hear what she is saying.

But that is not the same kingdom.

What kingdom is it?

I see the world today. I do not see any unity, any nations worshiping God. no peace.

Why are you using the world to interpret the Bible? The war is still ongoing as all the sheep are gathered. It is for the sake of the sheep who God knew (elected) before the foundation of the world, and that for the sake of the Son who he is giving them to. Do you not think Christ is on the throne NOW? If not, where is he? WHat is he doing?

Can you please go back over the prophecy I shared. and show me where those things are happening today. or have happened in the past 2000 years (since Christ)

if you want to convince me. that is where you have to start.

Does the fact that they have not happened yet mean that they are going to happen in a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth? Does it mean he is not already King of kings and Lord of lords? Does it mean that he is not ruling and reigning now, with a rod of Iron. And does ruling with a rod of iron sound peaceful to you? And it is disingenuous to ask someone to go over a prophecy that you post when you have not gone over the prophecy they posted.

 

[Arial]

Again, there's no earthly blessing that you have been denied, your cup runneth over with material and spiritual blessings

Christ did strike the earth, or did you not notice?

Jesus came to the earth, fulfilled the old covenant through his life and death and began the new in his ressurection. Since then, not one thing, not one thing, has stopped or been able to stop the advancement of the Kingdom of God. No power on the earth or in the earth or under the earth has been able to stop it, try though Satan has.

Read the Scripture together as it's written.

"Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”

I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”

Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him."

^^ this is now. Did you expect a Kingdom of One not to have to grow?

Everything we do that is done in faith, in Christ, in the love of God and of the brethren, in accordance with God's perfect will and aided by the Holy Spirit, brings Heaven that much closer to earth on a daily basis.

Obedience, patience... Yes, there will be more, we do actually go to heaven, but this is the Kingdom of God advancing. Has been advancing since the resurrection, going forward to cover the earth.

Whether or not the nations were obedient, now that's a completely different question...

.. Because this is also the judgement

"And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." John 3:19

Two kingdoms, the kingdom of darkness, and the Kingdom of God. The wheat and the tares growing together.

Tares turn into wheat every day. Evil is judged righteously. God's mercy and provision abounds.

That Psalm, Psalm 2 is one of my favorites. Voddie has a video dealing with it. Later I will see if I can find it and post it.

 

[David1701]

before we get started. I do not follow the fatalistic view of Romans 9. I follow a vew That Paul is answering the jewish questions I feel many were asking at the time. so if I seem to come with an odd interpretation to you. this is why

1. God did not Hate a baby, and love another baby, this is taken from Malichi. where God talks about the fact he loved Jacob (Israel) more than he loved Esau (literally Edom)

Yes. so again, we must go back to the OT. If God is willing to cruch Israel in order to build it back up again, who are we to argue/

Again, eternal salvation is not in context. here Not is the sovereignty of God. it is all concerning Israel

Amen, He knew pharoah would do what God needed him to do. and put him in place,

God has reasons for doing things and putting certain people in place.

But again, this has nothing to do with anyone salvation.

Amen

He desires to have mercy on Jacob. He let edom (esau) go so that it does not even exist anymore. Mostly because of the way it treates Israel. so it was punished..

Yet even today he shows mercy on Jacob. Because Jacob he loves. and as we see in chapter 11. Jacob will be saved, one day it will repent and be saved. we are even told when (thats another story)

But again, this is not talking about anyone's personal salvation

God demands we recieve him. If we do he will save us, If we do not he will not save us.

Again, John 1 is clear.

He went to his own, they recieved him not.

He saved those who recieved him.

I've come across this interpretation of Rom. 9 many times before. It does not fit the context.

Rom. 9:18-24 (W.E.B.)
18 So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.
19 You will say then to me, “Why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?”
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”
21 Or hasn’t the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction,
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,
24 us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

The above makes it very, very clear that the passage is indeed about salvation (and about individuals, not nations).

John 1:12,13
12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:
13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Those who believe, i.e. receive him, (present tense) were born of God (past tense). This is always the order - being born of God precedes the faith in Jesus Christ by which we enter the Kingdom of God; faith precedes being saved. We must not conflate being born again with being saved. Being born again, on its own, saves no-one; but, it is the precursor for faith in Jesus Christ, through which God saves us by his grace.

John 3:3-7
3 Jesus answered him, “Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see the Kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into the Kingdom of God!
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’

 

[David1701]

But he is not ruling with a rod of iron right now.

Amen. The future reign is one of them

Many people came to christ because of the prophesies.

agree.. But many are making the same mistake. and while it may not affect them, it may affect others down the road

One thing I think it effects is ones faith.

which is why I say, If this is Jesus ruling today.. What do I really have to look forward to?

I don't understand why you think that, if Jesus is ruling today (which he certainly is) that that means that we really don't have anything to look forward to. Surely, a new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness dwells; a new body that doesn't age or get ill; no sin; and, best of all, unhindered fellowship with the Lord and the other saints is something very much to look forward to!

As far as Jesus ruling and reigning now is concerned: how do you think that the Lord can always lead us in triumphal procession, if he is not reigning now?

2 Cor. 2:14 (W.E.B.) Now thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and reveals through us the sweet aroma of his knowledge in every place.

Rom. 8:37 No, in all these things, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That Psalm, Psalm 2 is one of my favorites. Voddie has a video dealing with it. Later I will see if I can find it and post it.

Oh awesome!

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I've come across this interpretation of Rom. 9 many times before. It does not fit the context.

what interpretation. the fatalistic view? Or the jewish view?

Rom. 9:18-24 (W.E.B.)
18 So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.
19 You will say then to me, “Why does he still find fault? For who withstands his will?”
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”
21 Or hasn’t the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath made for destruction,
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory,
24 us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

The above makes it very, very clear that the passage is indeed about salvation (and about individuals, not nations).

No. God did not say he hated one baby and condemned to hell and loved another baby and granted them heaven before they were born. Not only does this not fit the context. it is not even close to what Paul is talking about

John 1:12,13
12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:
13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Those who believe, i.e. receive him, (present tense) were born of God (past tense). This is always the order - being born of God precedes the faith in Jesus Christ by which we enter the Kingdom of God; faith precedes being saved. We must not conflate being born again with being saved. Being born again, on its own, saves no-one; but, it is the precursor for faith in Jesus Christ, through which God saves us by his grace.

recieved is aorist tense.

Become is also aorist tense

Recieve and become are in the same tense. You can not separate the two. Even to those who believe. I believed 50 years ago.

so literally. But as many as have received him (myself 50 years ago) were given the power to become (50 years ago), even to those who are presently believing in his name.

John 3:3-7

3 Jesus answered him, “Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see the Kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”

5 Jesus answered, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into the Kingdom of God!

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’

Lets continue


John 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should [not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Again, You can not remove belief (literally saving faith)

 

[fastfredy0]

Mostly, it would seem that they were here for awhile, certain that they could defend their position against Calvinism. When that proved to not be the case, they blamed the Calvinists and left the discussions. Others are simply not interested in the debate, understandably so as it is an age old debate, never satisfactorily resolved and won't be in these discussions.

The reason the "free will" position cannot be defended with sound biblical hermeneutics and exegesis and exposition, is because it isn't consistent with the Biblical doctrine of God---which mostly the agree with, but unconsciously abandon when it comes to the free will position in salvation. Their own doctrinal position makes it impossible to do what the Calvinist (if thoroughly vested in the craft of apologetics and intimately knowledgeable of the Scriptures)is able to do.

I realize that statement will likely result in proclamations of arrogance and pride. In these discussions facts mean little to the one attempting to undermine the doctrines of grace in Calvinism. That is why the "plan B" is often defamation of a person's character, red herrings, deflection. changing the subject, deliberate misstatement of the doctrines or what a person has said, proof texting, ignoring contradictions, and denial of any wrong doing.

But my question is why ask where the arminians are when you yourself hold the Arminian view of "free will" in deciding whether or not one will accept the gift of salvation?

A few more posts like this and you may reach prophetess status.

 

[fastfredy0]

Do a Bible search, then find all the verses which say that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is a result of sinful man's choice.

All Christians chose to believe salvificly. It's the Christian doing the believing and not God believing for him. The deeper question is "why".

 

[David1701]

what interpretation. the fatalistic view? Or the jewish view?

No. God did not say he hated one baby and condemned to hell and loved another baby and granted them heaven before they were born. Not only does this not fit the context. it is not even close to what Paul is talking about

recieved is aorist tense.

Become is also aorist tense

Recieve and become are in the same tense. You can not separate the two. Even to those who believe. I believed 50 years ago.

so literally. But as many as have received him (myself 50 years ago) were given the power to become (50 years ago), even to those who are presently believing in his name.





Lets continue


John 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should [not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Again, You can not remove belief (literally saving faith)

You don't seem willing (or able) to deal with the points made; and you are multiplying straw man arguments (which I have left unchallenged, several times already), so I'm going to leave it there.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

All Christians chose to believe salvificly. It's the Christian doing the believing and not God believing for him. The deeper question is "why".

Does God believe for you?

Is it him believing in you or you believing (trusting) in him?

I heard there was a group of people who belief it is the faith of God that saves us.

 

[David1701]

All Christians chose to believe salvificly. It's the Christian doing the believing and not God believing for him. The deeper question is "why".

<sigh>
Then it should be no problem for you to quote some verses saying that faith in Jesus is a consequence of man's choice. I won't hold my breath...

P.S. If a heart surgeon gives you a new heart, is it the surgeon pumping blood round your body, or the new heart he gave you?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You don't seem willing (or able) to deal with the points made; and you are multiplying straw man arguments (which I have left unchallenged, several times already), so I'm going to leave it there.

ah

so I do not see it as you do. So your going to leave. (which is fine, if you do not want to discuss no one is forcing you to )

I told you I reject the fatalistic view of romans 9. And you would not understand or see what I am seeing.

I also saw that you did not try to counter my arguments in what I saw of these two babies. and the part where jacob I loved and esau IO hated being nations, and not babies.

Any, do not accuse me of posting some strawman just because I do not see it as you do

thats just plain being rude. .

 

[David1701]

ah

so I do not see it as you do. So your going to leave.

I told you I reject the fatalistic view of romans 9. And you would not understand or see what I am seeing.

But do not accuse me of posting some strawman just because I do nto see it as you do

thats rude.

LOL!

You have the temerity to claim that me pointing out your straw man arguments is "rude", when you have included one of those straw man arguments in this post! You know very well that we do not have a "fatalistic" view of Romans 9, since fatalism is impersonal and no Christian believes in it.

Freewillers ALWAYS end up being insulting and hypocritical, no matter how patient we are with them (I have decades of this kind of experience).

Goodbye. You are going on "ignore".

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

LOL!

You have the temerity to claim that me pointing out your straw man arguments is "rude",

Dude, I have not made any strawman argument.

when you have included one of those straw man arguments in this post! You know very well that we do not have a "fatalistic" view of Romans 9, since fatalism is impersonal and no Christian believes in it.

But you do have a fatalistic view. You just proved it in your posts.. Now who is doing a strawman??

Freewillers ALWAYS end up being insulting and hypocritical, no matter how patient we are with them (I have decades of this kind of experience).

Hey, I am not the one that came across as rude,.

Look inside my friend. Your the one who closed the discussion because I did not see it your way

Goodbye. You are going on "ignore".

Halleluiah.

You have proven what rude it.. I no longer have to waste my time

ps. Fatalism is the view that all things are set in stone. If God chose you you will go to heave, If God did nto chose you you are going to hell

it is the view that God chose one baby for hell. and one baby for heaven.

before they were even born

Are you now going to say you deny this is what you believe?

and I am the rude one

Good day!

 

[Arial]

A few more posts like this and you may reach prophetess status.

I was going to "ha,ha" but then I wasn't sure if that was humor or sarcasm!. Ha, ha. Prophecy skills not ready for the title I guess.

 

[atpollard]

I was going to "ha,ha" but then I wasn't sure if that was humor or sarcasm!. Ha, ha. Prophecy skills not ready for the title I guess.

Humor.