A question related to God's sovereignty

Here is a question regarding God's sovereignty? We understand that God's sovereignty allows Him the divine right to do whatever is pleasing to Him. We do not fear this authoritative prerogative because by faith we hold that God's perfect will originates from within His perfect being.
If it pleases Him to make some vessels unto wrath and other vessels unto mercy, we may wrestle trying to comprehend this truth; however, we can not accuse Him of wrong doing and remain consistent with our confession that God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all.
God will do whatever He pleases and all of His desires are perfectly righteous - there is no contradiction.
Now for the question - If God always does what pleases Him, why would He be pleased to create vessels unto wrath when He states that He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked? Put another way, why would God sovereignly choose to create a vessel solely for the purpose to be destroyed when He has clearly stated it does not please Him to destroy the wicked?
I am certain that I am not the first person to ask this question, so if someone reading this can point me to an article or book that addresses this, I would be grateful.

Mak

Are we allowed to argue that your observation stems from a false premise(that God predestines individual persons to wrath)?

If so, that is my argument.

The other option is monstrous, no matter how one tries to spin it.

The bible teaches that man was created by God with the purpose of exercising a free will to make choices to obey God or disobey. God did not create mankind to be robots that are controlled against their will.

Blessings...rbanks

Hey Neil-

I just happened to listen to the book of Job last week- it is one of my favorites.

I don't get any contrary idea from Job.

Sure, God can do what He wants. The question is, what does He do?

Brother Alan,

I can only speak from the understanding I've been given by the Lord,... Having said that I inquired at great length regarding a similar question of where the sovereignty of God ends and the free will of man begins? Which I am aware many professing Faith in Christ do not even confess is an actual agent. Nonetheless this seemed to me to be the crux of the matter of so much division in the church that I was previously unaware of. I believe the Lord Himself gave me the desire to seek Him out on this subject so that He may reveal the truth of His spirit on this most divisive subject. It was however up to me to take up the task,that he had given me the desire for, and if I had not He would simply give it to another and most likely has/did, not because of any lack of desire for the truth on my part so much as for the integrity of His plan and the purposes therein.

So perhaps because I am simple minded He gave it (after years of prep) to me in a very elementary context.....

You can't have a kingdom without a king and if there is a king then his word is law/sovereign within the borders of his kingdom, however his sovereignty does not extend beyond the borders of his kingdom. (Which brought to mind a parallel with Jesus and Pontius Pilate).
He then continued to give me an analogous context and asked me questions regarding it as follows;
If you,as a loving and responsible father, took your son Asa to a place that he deemed unclean, seedy, and dangerous, would he not question it at first but then be comforted by your calm and loving disposition giving you the benefit of the doubt as to why you lead him there? I said yes

He the asked now, since you lead him there (to a place outside his ability to understand) are you as his father sovereignly responsible for his provision? his protection? his security while there? Again I answered yes and psalm 23 came to mind

He then asked this,.... Now what if this same son went to this same place but without your directing him to go or accompanying him- does he have any legitimate expectation of your provision? your protection? your security? I answered, no...
But what if this son went to this place without your leading and found himself in trouble and cried out for help, would you rescue him? I said yes a thousand times and as quickly the last as the first. To which He said, so it is with you. My sovereignty extends only to those who choose to submit themselves to it even when it doesn't make sense to them because they love me and trust that I love them and desire the best for them.

This may mean nothing to you dear brother but for me it was exactly what I needed to hear, that tho at times the circumstances of life seem dire, IF we are walking in obedience to God then we have nothing to worry about and are His sheep, however if we go a out doing what is right in our own eyes then we have not a king and have become a law unto ourselves and are goats/lawless....

I've found over the years a great number of people who have on the "soldiers uniform" but aren't "under orders" of their CO, but are in fact rouge agents/wolves in sheep clothing if you will and it is a most grevious thing and does great damage to the cause of Christ.
2 Timothy 2:3-5 comes to mind....

Hope this helps,... as for articles and commentaries, I've read and studied many but only my King could give me the words of life and tho they be hard, where else can I go?

Hi Fletcher-

But what if God predestined that your son go to the seedy part of town? And also that he not cry out for help?

Brother Todd,
Ha! Well that wouldn't be a word of life now would it?
And the God of salvation that saves me everyday, doesn't lead us to death but we can choose it in spite of His best efforts to call us to repentance.

Going farther I confess I don't kno the "god" that does that. The God I know and serve is abounding in mercy, kindness, is forgiving and justifies the sinner while yet an enemy, so the one you describe is foreign to me.

The garden of Gethsemane is a (for me) very clear example of Gods sovereignty at work:)

God is sovereign. There's no question about it. The most fortunate thing I have found about this subject is that my ideas about the sovereignty of God in no way affect His actual sovereignty. Good thing the Lord is not waiting upon us to define what Biblical predestination is in order to be doing it.

So regardless of what conclusion we come to today or any other day, God still reigns and His will will be accomplished according to His plan and purpose.

Here is what I notice about people: men and women love the sovereignty of God when it benefits them (blessings, help in situations, etc). They may tend to hate it when it seems to harm them (trials, death, sickness, etc). You can't do a study on the sovereignty of God and still be grappling with selfish ambitions and expect to come to a doctrinally sound conclusion. That was not pointed at anyone, just something I know is true about myself. When God offends me, it is because I am being dumb.

Hi fletcher-

Hope my tone doesn't come across as nasty. I actually enjoy these conversations.

What I don't like and have trouble abiding is the aspersion of God's character. If you peel too many layers off the Calvinistic sovereignty onion that is what happens.

I certainly agree that we cannot know how God works.

But one thing I do know: he does not create persons in order to send them to hell. I am ok with saying a person sends Himself to hell by not believing; what I cannot say is that God is behind the choice, as Calvinists do.

Brother Todd,

No offense was takin dear brother as I catch and appreciate your context and sense of humor;)

Yeah I loved my reformed grace brethren but we agree to disagree on that doctrine.
Interestingly I've never met someone who subscribes to the reformed grace doctrine of election that did not think themselves one of the elect;)
It would be a strange thing to have one confess the doctrine and then follow with, "but it sucks cause I'm not one of the elect" would it not?

Haha never thought of that before. Good point.

Cal-arm alarm :)

Here we go again...... - all the arguments about that have been pulled out already by people more clever and learned than us.

Anyone seriously inclined to come to the bottom of it if that were possible should listen to Keith Daniel's sermon entitled "The tightrope walker"
He starts to preach as a Calvinist and then at the midst of his sermon takes on an Arminianist positon - seemingly. In the end he states: I am glad I can walk out of this place with the whole bible in my hand.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=19110&commentView=itemComments

enjoy!

I certainly agree that these discussions are generally unfruitful in the long run.

The Calvinist brothers I know personally, all who are very intelligent and strong men of God, respect each other enough not to discuss it if at all possible. It requires much tongue biting.

Yes that's my experience as well. Some of my reformed brothers like their Armenian counterparts actually know Jesus and walk with Him and we enjoy a fruitful time of fellowship.

Interestingly while in doctrine I'm not on that side per sé in my personal relationship I have noticed it leans more toward that (reformed side).

Another interesting note... Peter by all accounts in my reading/study had a very Armenian experience of Christ, while John was def more of a reformed experience in that he seemed to focus on the fact that he was loved/chosen. Another interesting note is while John's experience was seemingly a more stable/consistent one, he had few if any miracles credited to his ministry where as Peter (next to Jesus) was the benchmark in spite of his ups and downs.
Makes for a wonderful life in Christ wherever we find ourselves in Him:)

Can I whisper something into this? :)

The OP quoted -- without citing -- Paul's argument in Romans 9.

I want to offer this -- and I know it'll be rebutted and dismissed by some, but I offer it humbly any way: that Romans 9 is not referring to individual "vessels" but to Israel as the nation of the promise ("vessels of mercy") and to the Gentiles as "vessels of wrath". The entire context of Chapter 9 - 11 has nothing to do with individuals and their particular salvation or damnation.

Romans 9-11 is one of the brilliant pieces of writing ever. Well, the whole epistle is, but you get my point. I don't know of any other writing like Romans where an elaborately long and perfectly stated argument is made (chapter 1-8) that continues PERFECTLY in two different places (chapters 9-11 on the one hand, and chapter 12 on the other). You COULD read Romans 1-8, skip 9-11, and pick up with 12:1 ff. and it make total sense. Of course, it would be incomplete because 9-11 are vital in every sense of the word. That's one reason why this is such a brilliant piece of writing.

But, 9-11 as a unit is an argument about God's purpose for Israel. It MUST be read so because that's what it is.

Paul already discussed how INDIVIDUALS are saved in Rom. 3:22-24. He already said that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those who believe, first the Jew then the Greek (Gentile) in Romans 1:16.

In Matthew 21:42-44, Jesus told the Pharisees what was going to happen NATIONALLY to Israel as they rejected Himself as Messiah. In Romans 9, Paul affirms Jesus and explains how and -- in one of the few times in the Scripture we get "whys" to things -- why God was/is doing with Israel because of Jesus. You know this is what he is doing because he tells you, elaborating "hey, I love Israel and would let myself be cut off from Christ if the nation of Israel in the flesh would be saved, but it isn't like God's word has failed them or anything because not all of natural/national Israel is really Israel. They are Israel because God chose them. God's choice is what makes Israel Israel." Then, he goes on in the rest of chapter 9 to make clear how that is the case.

This makes perfect sense. After all, we all here have read the prophets in the OT and we all know Israel's attitude as a nation was, "Hey, we're Israel. God's not going to let us be taken exile." They missed the point. They kept missing the point all the way to their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. Jesus told them the consequence of that, and it is to our fortune as Gentiles of course, so that we might be partakers of the promises, too! But, for Israel the nation in the flesh, they rejected that. So, what is God doing with Israel? Jesus said it in Matthew 21:42-44, and Paul explains it more fully broken down into its elements in Romans 9.

God chose Jacob over Esau because it was God's sovereign choice to do so, not because Jacob merited it --- thus taking away Israel's long-held belief that they merited God's promises. Rom. 9:10-12. It is not about individual salvation. To quote Whitney Houston, "that's whack." :) It is about why God chose Israel and how He went about it. By God's sovereign grace, He chose Israel as His covenant people through whom to deliver His word, His promises and ultimately His Son and our salvation.

In 9:14-18, Paul makes it clear that this choice is up to God, not men. God alone says what nation (Israel) He would choose to bring Himself to humanity. It's His choice. He doesn't let us tell Him. In fact, Paul cites God's firm control over it by alluding to Exodus 33 where Moses contended with God over how He ought to reveal Himself to Israel. God would only reveal His glory to Moses, and then only in part, and then only because He chose and not because Moses insisted. Likewise, God chooses which nation -- Israel -- He would use. And, He did exactly that.

Neither can a man stop God from exercising His will among the nations. Paul uses Pharoah as a case in point. God "hardened" (or, strengthened) Pharoah's dark heart to do what Pharoah wanted to do anyway -- stop Israel from leaving, keep them as his slaves. But, God showed him big-time how not even a king could stop Him and His strategy among the nations.

Just read chapter 9 closely. You'll see.

Juilus, yes. I stated that incorrectly. No argument.

You ask, you receive, dear brother and sister.
Prepare to be blessed. May the Lord grant you the grace to receive it. Here's an audio on this amazing, yet very simple subject that a child of the true faith can comprehend. Most of it is all Scripture and absolutely no twisting of doctrine via carnal reasoning. All glory to God :) https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=19110

Perhaps one explanation is that it was for His glory in the sense that He gets to reveal the fullness of who He is; His eternal attributes of mercy and wrath forever being displayed by demonstration upon said vessels.

To explain the reasoning/logic behind this thesis:

1) God created all things for His ultimate glory and worship

2) Worship requires that the worshipper innately desire to know their object of worship (ex: man who idolizes ferraris will innately desire to know everything there is to know about ferraris)

3) To know God one must know His attributes

4) God's attributes are measureless (love, justice, mercy, wrath, kindness, grace, etc)

4) These attributes cannot be known by creation unless they are demonstrated by the Creator to creation (ex. one cannot look at a stationary object and know what love, justice, mercy, etc. are, they have to be demonstrated)

5) God uses vessels of wrath to display His measureless justice and wrath and anger whereas the objects of mercy are used to display His measureless love, kindness, grace, mercy

6) Hell just as much as heaven are for the revealing of God's measureless attributes for all of eternity to creation that He may be fully known and worshipped for who He is

Just my 2 cents (and maybe a nickel, haha)

Mak,

My offering in regard to your post:

https://youtu.be/tyWbewGFudQ

Thank you to those who have responded. My wife and I have been moving into a home and I have not had a lot of time to be at a computer.

I am grateful for brothers who can explain their understanding from a settled position, especially those who in recognition of the valid questions others have, seek to address those concerns in a spirit of brotherhood.

Mak

Hi Julius,

Perhaps my logic is faulty, but I reasoned that if God is the one "having prepared vessels unto destruction", that He had a purpose for doing so.

We know He does all things for His own good purposes, so my question is searching for the why He purposed to do what He has expressed He has no pleasure in doing?

My choice of words may have been inadequate, but I was seeking to express the idea some assert that God made vessels He never purposed to have mercy upon. I assume that those who express that God did not ordain all unto mercy have sincerely considered why He did not and have pondered His reasons for having readied vessels unto destruction given that He takes no pleasure in that destruction.

I hope that helps, but please bear with me if it does not and help me clarify my own thoughts.

Mak

Mak,

I don't speak for Julius and hope it is okay for me to respond. I think it is a faulty premise that individuals are "vessels unto destruction" if Romans 9 is the basis for using the phrase. These vessels are nations. Specifically, Paul describes God's sovereign right to choose whom (as a people, not individually) in the world He will to reveal His plan for the ages. It has nothing to do with what individuals are saved or not, nor who will be and who won't be saved.

From this perspective, then, you don't arrive at any dilemma. To the extent anyone applies Romans 9 as pertaining to God's choice to save some and His choice of others to be condemned, they are reading fiercely into the text. It is so beside the point Paul makes in the whole passage.

Is 53:10, in regard to Jesus, says:

"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief."

I dont think this mean God was happy about it; it means it was part of His plan.

I suggest one do a thorough study of the history of God's people as recorded in the OT - being a an observer, asking God what this incident teaches you about Him, his relationship with people whether godly or wicked. And then, only then, ask this question. I think you will gain an understanding of the mind of God working in the affairs of man.

This has been my experience. As an outgrowth of this learning, insights, it has given me a wonderful handle on dealing with life issues - with the best one being that God is in control.

Sandra

You know, it testifies to our weak minds that beloved brethren come to this passage with so many varied understandings. Some of the most respected "names" of our time read this passage and have very differing views on it. It triggered my interest enough when I read this thread to peruse a little. R.C. Sproul, John Macarthur and John Piper -- Baptists all -- each view this passage with application to individual believers and individual election, but with very different ways of getting there. Sproul holds to "double predestination" from this passage. Macarthur says it applies to individuals but grammatically from Romans 9 argues (in similar fashion as our brother Julius) that men have made ourselves fit for destruction, not that God has prepared us to be so (which is a direct conflict with Sproul). John Piper is much closer to Macarthur than Sproul but hedges by treating it as a mystery we don't fully understand.

Other scholars not so famous are all over the map on the question. A valiant ongoing effort in some scholarly journals to have it both ways among some Calvinist scholars points up that there is a viable argument that God is not speaking about individual salvation or election in Romans 9. Otherwise, Calvinists would simply reject the idea of any non-individual reading and move along (and for sure, more than enough of them do, but none of them have gone so far as treating their brethren who want it both ways as handling "strange fire").

Unfortunately, the tail wags the dog, as it does too often. Calvinists who need Romans 9 to defend their view of election will not yield to the authority of the Scripture itself to speak for itself even if it means they are wrong; Arminians who must strike out at "double predestination" for their own reasons will either ignore Romans 9 altogether (which, in the rank and file is almost always so) or hope for any other lifeboat and are all too glad to hear that Romans 9 is NOT about individual election;
non-Calvinists who have no particular itch about election to scratch are far more inclined to view the passage carefully and let it speak for itself --- and many reach the same conclusions I have.

Thought I’d offer my two cents here. I would agree with dolfan that the context necessitates an interpretation which sees nations as the primary focus there in Romans 9:22. However, as is the case with many other passages of Scripture, I believe it can also be applied in a secondary sense to individual salvation.

I think a key word from that verse that we must grapple with is the word "prepared”. I found it interesting to note that in the following verse which speaks of vessels of mercy "prepared” for glory, it’s a different Greek word used. In verse 22 the Greek word is "katartizo” and in verse 23 the Greek word is "proetoimazo”. In the KJV the first one is translated as "fitted” and the second one as "prepared”.

Based on what I read in Strong’s Greek lexicon, the first one seems to have the idea of, to perfect or complete, to strengthen, to mend or frame together. And the second one has the idea of, to prepare beforehand.

So in reference to those "prepared” or "fitted” for destruction, it could mean that God allows them to be strengthened in their wickedness and to make themselves fit for the destruction which they justly deserve. This would line up with verses 17-18 which speak of Pharaoh being hardened by God. In Exodus 8:32 we read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart against God. So what I get from that is that sinners harden their own hearts and God allows their hearts to be hardened more and more; and it's in that sense that God hardens them. On the other hand, those "prepared” for glory God predestined for salvation from before the foundation of the world as we clearly read in several scriptures. Yet we can also say that God also "prepared" the the wicked for destruction beforehand in the sense that He knew that they would prepare themselves for that destruction even before He created them, since He is omniscient.

So another thing we must grapple with here is the truth of God’s omniscience. We must seriously consider the question, did God really know all that would happen before He created the universe? If He did know all that would happen and if He is indeed All-powerful, it follows that He did indeed ordain both the salvation of His people and the destruction of the wicked. In order for Him not have ordained the destruction of the wicked, He would have to be stripped of His omniscience (which is the teaching of open theism, a heresy which some hold to). Again, if He is indeed omniscient and omnipotent and sovereign, it follows that He decreed or planned out what would happen. And again, otherwise you end up with a false weak deity that is not the God of the Bible.

So if God is omniscient, omnipotent and completely sovereign, and if He knew and planned all that would happen, including the fall of mankind and the final destruction of the wicked, does it follow that God is unjust or evil in any way for having allowed and ordained for that to come about? Of course not! The fact that God is omniscient and all-mighty does not make Him evil or unjust in any sense despite all the evil that we see in the world. God, in His omniscience and sovereignty ordained and allowed for there to be a fall of mankind, and He ordained and allowed for some sinners to be saved from that fall and for others to be justly condemned for their own wickedness. The thing we must understand is that it is the sinner who is guilty of his sin, not God. And it is the sinner who deserves to be punished in hell despite the fact that God knew beforehand that he would sin and merit eternal punishment. God simply allows sinners to do what they choose to do, which is to sin and store up for themselves wrath for the Day of Judgment (Rom. 2:5).

God is not obligated to save any sinner who justly deserves to be condemned in hell. But in His mercy He chose to save those who call upon His name to save them.

That's right.

I am posting this in answer to Oracio's comment which implies that if God is both omniscient and omnipotent, then it follows that he must have ordained, decreed, or as is often said" willed" the destruction of the wicked.

Perhaps a quote from C.S. Lewis is in order here to answer your dilemma, which i think arises from the supposition that "will" is a simple disposition.

here is the quote: Hope it helps.

" Is this state of affairs in accordance with God's will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?

But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, "I'm not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You've got to learn to keep it tidy on your own." Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible."

No argument there UntoBabes. I guess it would come down to the meaning/s of words like ordain, will, decree and plan. I would never say that God ordained the destruction of the wicked in the sense that He desired it or that it was His ideal plan. I think that what I meant to say in my post would be in agreement with you and that C.S. Lewis quote, but maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough. Appreciate the post UntoBabes.

Oracio wrote:
"In order for Him not have ordained the destruction of the wicked, He would have to be stripped of His omniscience (which is the teaching of open theism, a heresy which some hold to)."

To be entirely fair, that is NOT what open theism posits. That view does not strip God of omniscience. An open theists believes that God knows everything that can be known. An open theist believes that the future does not exist NOW. Therefore God does not see the future NOW because the future does not exist NOW. Therefore, this view does not strip God of his omniscience any more than saying that God cannot make square circles strip him of him omnipotence.

By the way, open theism is only arguably heretical if it is not true ;)

As for the rest of your post, I can certainly follow your argument. But it simply cannot work the way you want it to. Because if God perfectly foresees someone not repenting and dying in their sins then by gum they have no freedom to do otherwise, no matter how the matter is spun.

To simplify, if God perfectly foresees me eating a PBJ sandwich for lunch tomorrow, guess what I'll be having for lunch tomorrow?

Perhaps there is not a clear enough line of demarcation between "sovereignty and authority"..... Much like the oft stumbling block of "salvation and sanctification"- while these are both certainly linked they are also certainly not the same thing.... While they are independent in their function they are not independent in their purpose, much like the heart and the liver or kidneys....

Are we sure we are allowing each term to mean what it means and not projecting onto it a meaning that it quite frankly can't capacitate?

No problem Oracio. Glad we agree.

To simplify, if God perfectly foresees me eating a PBJ sandwich for lunch tomorrow, guess what I'll be having for lunch tomorrow?

Again, just because God foresees evil choices men make it does not follow that He is evil Himself or unjust.

It’s like a rebellious kid (which all kids are rebellious to one degree or another) who says to his parents, "Why did you bring me into this world? I didn’t ask you to bring me into the world in the first place.” That kind of back-talk only reveals the sinful and rebellious heart of that kid. And also, the fact that the kid is sinful and rebellious by nature will also not absolve him from responsibility and the just consequences of his rebellion.

But Oracio-

If God, who is perfect, and omniscient, knows that I will eat a PBJ tomorrow, how am I free to do otherwise? If I choose a BLT, then God goofed. Can't have that obviously. So the only solution is that I either don't have true free will or that God opens the future so he does not know now what I will do tomorrow. He has every fact in the universe at his disposal however, so he would have a pretty good idea.

The Wikipedia article on "open theism" is actually very interesting. There is a handy dandy chart that compares that view to the reformed view on various key points. Pretty enlightening.

To be entirely fair, that is NOT what open theism posits. That view does not strip God of omniscience. An open theists believes that God knows everything that can be known. An open theist believes that the future does not exist NOW. Therefore God does not see the future NOW because the future does not exist NOW. Therefore, this view does not strip God of his omniscience any more than saying that God cannot make square circles strip him of him omnipotence.

"9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure”-Isa. 46:9-10

"Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.”-Ps. 139:16

"Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.” Ps. 147:5

Consider also all the prophecies that God and Christ gave which already came to pass to the T and the ones which are yet to be fulfilled to the T.

But Oracio-

If God, who is perfect, and omniscient, knows that I will eat a PBJ tomorrow, how am I free to do otherwise? If I choose a BLT, then God goofed. Can't have that obviously. So the only solution is that I either don't have true free will or that God opens the future so he does not know now what I will do tomorrow. He has every fact in the universe at his disposal however, so he would have a pretty good idea.

You are right in saying that one solution (which I believe the Bible clearly teaches) is that you don’t have true or "full” free will in the sense that God knows your choice before you make it. But again, that does not absolve you from responsibility. That kind of reasoning which seeks to absolve one from responsibility based on God’s foreknowledge doesn’t make sense to me. Guess we’ll have to disagree on the kind of logic we are using here.

TMK, my exhortation to you would be that you be careful in your research of different theological beliefs online. I know that you have held to or leaned toward universalism in the past (don't know if you still do) and there are other serious disagreements we've had here before, and here we have another serious disagreement, this time dealing with the doctrine of God's omniscience.

Sometimes in our disagreements with and disdain for certain strands of Christianity we can go so far as to question and go astray from essential Christian doctrines simply because they've been held by certain denominations or churches. I hope that that will not be the case with you.

If God knows all that can be known, and if God does not change, then He already knows all that will ever be knowable regardless of whether the future is now. His knowledge of the future is perfect regardless of how we resolve our wrestling match with "time" and "eternity".

Can God create a machine that generates data that He does not already know? If He can't, then how can He create a universe with a future of information that He does not already know? If He can, then there is something knowable that God does not know, even if by His own hand. This is akin to making a rock so big that even He can't lift it.

The other issue is that if there is to be data that God does not know, then God is one who learns and the information must have a source outside of Himself. The information exists. If it exists, He made it. (Rev. 4:11, John 1) If it exists and He made it but does not know it, then it follows that on some level, God did not know what He was doing. That is more than theological nicety. That is character assassination. For the life of me, I cannot accept "open theism" or "middle knowledge" or whatever other phrase is used to label it.

dolfan, you got this noggin working a bit hard and deeply on that one but I think I follow and fully agree :). Good stuff.

I'm thinking that maybe "ordained" was not the best word for me to use. Maybe "allowed" would have been better. God in His sovereignty allowed for or permitted the existence of evil in the universe.

I think that if you say that the existence of evil and the final destruction of the wicked were God's desired will or plan, you are getting into a form of hyper-Calvinism, a view which does indeed distort the character of God to say the least.

"I hope it is not being stated that just because God knows future events that it also means He is ordaining said events. This would include future good and evil."

I'm not going that far. I'm talking about His foreknowledge. I don't draw from foreknowledge that God is morally responsible nor that it reduces men to robots.

Julius wrote:
"I hope it is not being stated that just because God knows future events that it also means He is ordaining said events. This would include future good and evil."

I don't want to say that but I do not see logically how God can foresee everything perfectly, yet avoids ordaining it. If he foresees, since He is perfect, it must come to pass. So to me it's a distinction without a difference.

And Oracio- I am not a universalist although I readily admit I have huge issues with the traditional doctrine of eternal torment.

Nor am I am open theist. But the case for same to me is as strong as the reformed view, probably stronger IMO. Again I cannot state all the niceties of the idea and probably am not explaining it right but there are many sources that do.

I don't want to say that but I do not see logically how God can foresee everything perfectly, yet avoids ordaining it. If he foresees, since He is perfect, it must come to pass. So to me it's a distinction without a difference.

Scripture is clear that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11) and that He desires for all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). And again, Scripture is clear that God is omniscient and knows the future perfectly. Therefore the fact that some end up perishing shows that God allowed or "ordained" something that was not His desired or ideal will.

It’s like the whole issue of the difference between God’s perfect and permissive will. God’s perfect will for me is that I be perfectly holy even as He is holy, but in His permissive will He allows me to stumble here and there at times and learn my lesson while in this body on this earth.

Brother Julius wrote;
"I hope it is not being stated that just because God knows future events that it also means He is ordaining said events. This would include future good and evil."

Yes again the question of sovereignty vs authority....

And further if He knows up front why would He perpetually engage Himself in a futile activity?
For example;
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not WILLING!!"

- Luke 13:34

Emphasis mine

Perhaps it's pertinent to ask - is God's will fulfilled all the time?

I'm coming in late to this conversation but I thought I would share. Predestination is a doctrine I have always struggled with. Not that I have a problem with it because I know God is sovereign and He can do what He sees fit. It is the doctrine that keeps me from saying I am 100% Calvinist. My point of view has become not that God created this one to be saved and this when to be damned but that we are all damned and then some are saved. I guess the argument could be made that God is choosing to damn the ones He does not save but the fact that he saves any of us shows is amazing grace. Just think when lucifer and some of the Angels fell God sent them no savior and He was still holy and righteous. When Adam and Eve fell he could have sent mankind no savior and he would have still been holy and righteous but we found grace in the eyes of the lord and thanks be to God that salvation has been made available through the work of Jesus Christ for those who believe!

And if I could add a side note. I use to struggle big time with the Calvinist vs Arminian debate. I grew up in a very Arminian church I had no idea there was such a thing as Calvinism. One day my brother recommended a Paul Washer sermon. The shocking youth message. I was blown away by him and started to research more about him and what he believed and that's how I discovered Calvinism. I was angry at first because I felt like I had been lied to my whole life. That everything I had been taught was wrong. Then I became so confused because support can be made for both sides in scripture. My relationship with the lord was effected by this. Thankfully, I came across a story about a young man in seminary who asked AW Tozer a question. He said, can you give me some insight on the Calvinism vs Arminian debate so when my friends at seminary start to discuss it I can win the argument. Tozer said when your friends start talking about that go to your room and pray and when you graduate you will be much closer to God than they are. :) it was then that I decided I knew what I believed and I didn't have to choose Calvinism or Arminianism all I had to choose was Jesus. No matter what side you're on we all want the same thing. The kingdom of God advanced and glory brought to his name! So let's band together even in our disagreements and turn this world upside down for Jesus Christ!! Much love brothers and sisters!

yuehan asked, "is God's will fulfilled all the time?"

Numbers 23:19
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

1 Samuel 3:12
On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end.

2 Chronicles 10:15
The king would not listen to the people because the turn of events was from God, so that the LORD might fulfill his word that he spoke through Nebat's son Ahijah the Shilonite.

Phillipians 2:13
For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Ephesians 1:9
God has now revealed to us the mystery of his will regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure.

Revelation 17:17
For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Job 9:12
Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?

The alternative would be a frustrated God!

"For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it?Indeed, the LORD who
commands armies has a plan, and who can possibly frustrate it? Isaiah 14:27

The way I see it is this: There are times when it seems that the Lord makes men do certain things. I take them at face value. The Lord is sovereign. He can certainly make you do whatever He wanted to.

There are times when it seems that the Lord allows men to make decisions that do not reflect what the Lord wants them to do. The Lord is sovereign. If He sovereignly decides to let you ruin your own life and sin it up, then that is fine. He most certainly can let you run wild. He most certainly can let your friends get cancer and your dog get run over by semi.

The question people always get to is: "But are awful things, including sin, the 'will' of God." I don't think God's will is like mine or yours. His thoughts are so high above mine, I could never even compete. We're talking about a timeless, triune, infinite God that speaks but a word and makes it so. But then we try to nail down His thoughts into either the Calvinist box or Arminian box. I am a stickler on doctrine. It is important to me. So the conclusion that I have come to is it is both. God can do whatever He wants, and I don't think His nature at all restricts Him to acting in one or the other.

God can and will make things happen, and still hold you responsible. He can do that. But I also think He can sovereignly decide to let you do your own thing. He may draw a line in the sand and say "you may not cross beyond this point!" The thing is, God doesn't necessarily HAVE to control every little thing, because nothing in creation can escape His grasp. When a little baby is learning to walk, the parent doesn't ALWAYS infinitely hold their hand and prop them up. But if that baby goes to fall, he is always within reach of the parent. The parent doesn't have to control every movement, because the overall situation is kept under control. Again, God doesn't have to decide where a particular dust bunny falls, He could if He wanted to, but He doesn't have to and that is because the whole of the Universe falls within the sphere of His control.

My views have some parallels with havok20x's and Oracio's.

I had a mentor in my early days as a Christian, and one of his 'pet ideas' was that there were two levels of God's will - (i) what God desires (e.g. not willing for any to perish - 2 Peter 3:9); (ii) what God permits (e.g. He allows people to live according to the flesh).

I don't know how doctrinally robust that 'pet idea' is, but I've found that framework to be very helpful when considering topics about God's will, predestination, theodicy, etc.

Concrete example: I've been wounded by other Christians before, and have wounded others. God's will was certainly not accomplished in any of these cases. But I believe He allowed these events to happen in His Sovereignty. God is definitely able to cover these situations with His grace and bring about good from fallen behavior, but that does not change the 'fallen' aspect of the original situation.

That's what I said. It's not God's will that any man should perish, but He permits many to perish even if He doesn't desire that.

One simple, helpful thing I've held on to based on my understanding of God's Word is this, God is absolutely sovereign/in control in the affairs of men and man is absolutely responsible before God for his deeds. We find multitudes of scriptures supporting both of those concepts. But don't ask me how to reconcile them both because in this case the best I'll be able to do is point you to Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

I really do believe that that's a biblical, healthy and balanced view to have when it comes to this debate. If you go too far on either side you end up with either heretical Pelagianism or hyper-Calvinism.

Saints,

We are aware that the word "sovereignty/sovereign" does not exist within the canonical texts save that of modern translations....

While to some this may seem an easy thing to dismiss and dismiss it they will, tho if we are honest with ourselves and not presumptuous, this is not so easy to ignore.

Again regarding the "splitting of hairs" between authority and sovereignty;
God has authority over and is the possessor of His creation by default as owner/proprietor however in the strictest sense, sovereignty has to be ascribed to Him by an autonomous agent for it to be applicable in a biblical covenant sense that remains consistent with the gospel of the Kingdom as lived out by Jesus of Nazareth.
ie; garden of Gethsemane.... Did Jesus have a choice to submit to His Fathers will or was He forced by ordination?

I agree with Oracio.

It is both makes and allows. He can do whichever He chooses. He can make my heart hard and then allow me to sin (aka, Pharaoh). And He most certainly can be like a puppeteer, if He wanted to be, but I don't believe He always does.

John the Baptist had no choice but the be the front runner to Jesus--0 choice. Yet he said that seeing Jesus fulfilled his joy? How can that be if it isn't both things working together to the glory of God?

God's sovereignty is internally generated by Himself, just like all of His attributes. If you don't like that word (sovereignty), then I believe that God can do whatever He wants to without any limits. And I mean WHATVER He wants.

Amen havok20x. This scripture also came to mind in reference to God's sovereign will:

"The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.”-Proverbs 21:1

Thought Matthew Henry’s comments on that verse were good:
"God can change men's minds, can, by a powerful insensible operation under their spirits, turn them from that which they seemed most intent upon, and incline them to that which they seemed most averse to, as the husbandman, by canals and gutters, turns the water through his grounds as he pleases, which does not alter the nature of the water, nor put any force upon it, any more than God's providence does upon the native freedom of man's will, but directs the course of it to serve his own purpose. 2. Even kings' hearts are so, notwithstanding their powers and prerogatives, as much as the hearts of common persons. The hearts of kings are unsearchable to us, much more unmanageable by us...but the great God has them not only under his eye, but in his hand. Kings are what he makes them. Those that are most absolute are under God's government; he puts things into their hearts, Rev. 17:17; Ezra 7:27.”

I looked up those last two references Henry points out and thought I’d post those scriptures here as well:

"For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.”-Rev. 17:17

"Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem”-Ezra 7:27

This scripture also came to mind in reference to God changing hearts and minds:
"Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”-Acts 16:14

But again, this truth of God’s absolute control must be kept in mind together with the truth of man’s responsibility before God. We must believe and preach both truths even if we do not fully comprehend how they can be reconciled.

yuehan wrote:

I had a mentor in my early days as a Christian, and one of his 'pet ideas' was that there were two levels of God's will - (i) what God desires (e.g. not willing for any to perish - 2 Peter 3:9); (ii) what God permits (e.g. He allows people to live according to the flesh).

I don't know how doctrinally robust that 'pet idea' is, but I've found that framework to be very helpful when considering topics about God's will, predestination, theodicy, etc.

Concrete example: I've been wounded by other Christians before, and have wounded others. God's will was certainly not accomplished in any of these cases. But I believe He allowed these events to happen in His Sovereignty. God is definitely able to cover these situations with His grace and bring about good from fallen behavior, but that does not change the 'fallen' aspect of the original situation.

Amen, good example.

I guess much hinges on what we mean by term "sovereignty."

Do we mean "puppet master" per Julian's observation?

What I find is that people say they don't hold sovereignty to mean puppet-master; but if you keep asking questions and peeling back layers ultimately that is exactly what they mean.

It is so easy to say that God predetermines everything all the while preserving man's free will, but this is non-sensical and wishful thinking.

At least reformed theologians like Piper are honest and just say that man doesn't truly have free will.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think Tozers advice per jherndons post is the best policy.

Leave it to Tozer. :)

God is completely trustworthy. I'm content to not know what I cannot know. :)

Me too- unfortunately I like debating about it a tad too much.

If it is Gods' will that none should parish, then why to many parish?

I guess in my finite mind this cannot be answered. Maybe some day the Holy Spirit teacher will give light to these questions "If it is Gods will"???

How can this be? How cannot this be?

Re 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Re 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

What is sealed and redeemed? Who is doing this?

Why not for all?

Wow!!! I am lost and confused.

"His ways are far above", my ways.

All I know is I believe because of Him that is birthed in me.

In Christ: Phillip

Christinyou asked,

"If it is Gods' will that none should parish, then why to many parish?"

Christinyou continued,
"I guess in my finite mind this cannot be answered. Maybe some day the Holy Spirit teacher will give light to these questions "If it is Gods will"???"

Maybe today is that day!

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=217081356571

Romans 8:28-39

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born 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.

What shall we then say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who will lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth: Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, or rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

But in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor hight, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given to me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine...Neither pray I for these alone; but for them also who shall believe on me through their word. John 17:9,10,20

Ok so since there are a variety of perspectives on the issue of sovereignty I'd like to ask a question,...
In your view of the sovereignty of God, how does He transfer/appropriate His authority?
ie; "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth" Matthew 28:18b
How is this possible?
(Yes it's by faith, but how, what are the necessary actions taken to make this happen?)

Ray C. Stedman - "It (predestination) simply tells us that God has selected beforehand the
goal toward which He is going to move everyone who believes in Christ. That goal is conformity to the character of Christ."

H.A. Ironside - "Nowhere are we told in Scripture that God predestinated one man to be saved and another to be lost...God has predestinated you to be fully conformed to the image of His Son."

Yes! amen!

Predestination and election primarily address sanctification:)

I simple and straightforward reading of the passages where these terms are used clearly reveal this fact.

I can go with that, I think.

savannah posted:

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given to me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine...Neither pray I for these alone; but for them also who shall believe on me through their word. John 17:9,10,20

These are a few other scriptures which also show that exclusivity:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out...This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day."-John 6:37,39

Notice that our Lord does not say that all His people "might" or "may" come to Him, but that they WILL come to Him. Seems like a pretty settled thing to me.

"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."-John 10:26-27

Notice what Christ is saying to the Pharisees. He is telling them that they do not believe in Him because they are not part of His sheep. Again, seems like a pretty definitive thing to me. They were not part of those that were predestined to be His sheep.

That's pretty heavy. And it's something only God can pronounce upon any individuals. We cannot know who the elect are when we preach the gospel to non-believers, only God knows. Our job is to plant and water with the seed of God's Word and trust that God will give the increase and save His elect through the faithful preaching of His Word.

That brings me to this point, I do think that a word of caution is in place here. If we hold to a "reformed" view of predestination we must be careful not to develop a fatalistic, apathetic attitude, as is the case with some.

But just because some who hold firmly to a "reformed" view of predestination have that type of fatalistic and apathetic attitude it doesn't mean that all do. George Whitefield is one of many examples of one who held to that position and was completely sold out for Christ, Spirit-filled and set ablaze to spread the gospel. He went to be with the Lord at the age of 55 due to his toilsome labor for Christ.

One can be on either side of the predestination debate and develop that type of lazy attitude as I've met many on both sides with that type of sentiment.

Quote: "That's pretty heavy. And it's something only God can pronounce upon any individuals. We cannot know who the elect are when we preach the gospel to non-believers, only God knows. Our job is to plant and water with the seed of God's Word and trust that God will give the increase and save His elect through the faithful preaching of His Word. "

Two questions: 1) what kind of God elects persons to perdition; (and don't say he doesn't- if he elects some, others are not elected by definition; 2) how can God not save his "elect" regardless of what silly man does? If they are elect they are getting "saved" per the reformed view.

I have no issue at all with the idea of God electing a "class" of individuals(i.e. those who will believe). But the whole idea of arbitrary individual election is repellant. How can it not be?

TMK,

Be careful on basing doctrinal beliefs or ideas on feelings. Like oracio and I have been saying, it is seems that scripture says both choice and election, which can only be worked out through an infinitely powerful God. It's a similar principle to the fact that the Lord can simultaneously hate the wicked and love us while we were still sinners. These things won't be worked out by us babes in Christ today or ever on this forum, all I know is that I choose to believe what the scriptures say at face value and any conflicts that seem to be, I trust the Lord to work those out. He is not waiting on me to figure these things out before He does them. He's waiting on me to just trust Him and cast myself upon Christ daily. I am a follower of Christ regardless of the consequences and regardless of my feelings. The Lord saved me when I did not deserve even a hateful glance from the King of the Universe, and for that I will forever love Him. So while I am learning to know Him more and more, I try to practice rejecting feelings of my flesh and accepting Who God is, regardless of what that means. I am in no way saying I have taken some higher road in comparison to you, only that I encourage you to set these things aside as things which we cannot fully grasp in this life and will spend an eternity discovering His glories in the next. Regardless, it is Christ and Christ alone who we should trust, not in our own understanding. That goes for me as well.

Two questions: 1) what kind of God elects persons to perdition; (and don't say he doesn't- if he elects some, others are not elected by definition; 2) how can God not save his "elect" regardless of what silly man does? If they are elect they are getting "saved" per the reformed view.

I have no issue at all with the idea of God electing a "class" of individuals(i.e. those who will believe). But the whole idea of arbitrary individual election is repellant. How can it not be?

TMK, not sure if I understood all your post correctly but I'll try to reply. If you really have "no issue at all with the idea of God electing a "class" of individuals(i.e. those who will believe)", then you shouldn't have an issue with my view of election(at least part of it)because that's what I am saying about it. I'm saying that based on several clear passages of Scripture God chose His people from before the foundation of the world. To argue against that is to argue against clear and undeniable biblical teaching.

A key word I want to address from your post is the word "arbitrary". I think that's what this debate hinges on for many when it comes down to it. Predestination is clear and undeniable in the Bible, but the question is, on what basis did God elect and predestine His people? Was it, as you said, an "arbitrary" decision? Or was it based on something He foresaw within the individuals being elected?

And that is where I depart from much of the reformed camp because I am not convinced that election and predestination are based on an "arbitrary" choice of God. I lean toward God foreseeing some type of choice on the part of His people.

But among those of us who hold to this view there are different views also. Some say God chose His people based on Him seeing that they would choose Him in real time and space; that man has a free will, in this life, to choose to be saved. I personally do not lean toward that view because I see man as being too fallen and depraved to be able to choose God of himself in this life.

My view sees God choosing His people based on a "hypothetical choice" that He was aware of before creating us. In other words, God knew that if His elect had the capability in real time and space to choose to be saved they would choose it, while the non-elect would never choose it.

If you say that that cannot be, think about the fall of Adam and Eve and how humanity was plunged into sin and condemnation based on that one act of rebellion. Scripture tells us in Romans 5:12 that through one man sin and death entered the world, notice, "because all sinned", and that "through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation", and that "by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners"-Rom. 5:18-19. In other words, all sinned in Adam even before they were born into the world. God saw our choice before he created us. he knew that we would choose to rebel exactly as Adam and Eve did had we been placed in their shoes in the garden of Eden. And that's why we inherit guilt and condemnation from Adam and Eve's sin. It's based on a "hypothetical choice", is it not? That's the only reasonable explanation I find for why we inherit that guilt and condemnation.

So just like God saw our "hypothetical choice" of rebellion before He created us, He also saw our "hypothetical choice" to receive salvation before He created us.

Oracio-

You appear to be saying that God can foresee what people will do, and on that basis "predestines" those who he foresees believing in Him. I am sorry to say that makes absolutely no sense. If he foresees perfectly, there is no need for him to take a second step of "predestining." if he foresees perfectly, it will happen. There is no need to do any "electing."

You continue to insist that foreseeing perfectly does not disturb fee will- I think Havok says this as well. I have tried my best to explain how this cannot be but apparently I have failed miserably in that regard.

Boiled down to basics, here is the issue I have with individual election (or non-election).

If God knew in advance that after he created mankind that mankind would fall, then mankind had no choice but to fall. He knew that every person on earth would sin and be doomed. If He knew this in advance, then it would come to pass. In his mercy God came up with a plan (His son) to redeem His creation. However, the reformed view says that even though God knew that his creation had no choice but to sin and fall (because He foresaw this) He would only elect SOME for redemption. Those he did not elect are destined to eternal torment. Those destined to eternal torment have no hope of salvation- in essence God prevents them from ever believing. Those elected have no choice but to believe- God will draw them to assure this happens.

If it was any other being in the universe that did such a thing, we would consider it outrageous. But because God did it (per reformed view) it's perfectly fine and holy and just. I just don't get it.

God just doesn't do stuff like that. He certainly will let people have their way and live or die based on their choices, but he REALLY and TRULY gives them a choice.

God punishing those he did not elect is like a parent spanking a 6 month old child because it cannot talk or walk. The nonelect cannot be saved because God has ordained it; it is impossible for them to be saved. The six month old cannot walk or talk because it too is impossible.

I know you are going to say that despite God's foresight and election man is still culpable if he goes to hell, not God. That is where I believe we part ways. I surely don't believe God is culpable either, but I do so by rejecting the doctrine of individual election or predestination in any manner, rather than trying to believe some morphing of ideas that allows for absolute perfect foresight and election that is consistent with free will and choice.

I think the idea at the very core of the fact that we were created in God's image is that we have a will that is truly free.

1Pe 1:17And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;
1Pe 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
1Pe 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
1Pe 1:21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
1Pe 1:22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

Jesus death and resurrection were determined before God said, "Let there be light."

That is very important to understand that Jesus is not an afterthought or Plan B.

TMK, I'm with you on not ascribing to the doctrine of God predestining people to eternal life or eternal hell. However if I understand what yiu have been saying, you also seem to disagree with God have all fore knowledge. Is that what you are saying?

I don't see that God knowing the future before it happens equates to him predestining it to happen, or that it is His will. He obviously knows that many will perish due to rejecting His free gift of salvation, but He also desires that none of these perish. Does that make God impotent? No, because He choses to allow us a free will choice.

The scriptures are full of the evidence that God knows the future before it happens. Just think of all the prophecies given before they happened. Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Even Jesus knew that Judas would betray him and that Peter would deny Him, but later return back.

Am I understanding where you are coming from? I can't see how it can be argued from scripture that God does not know all things perfectly before they happen. Scripture id clear on this. If God is omniscient, then He must know ALL things, past present and future. In fact I take great comfort in that, because He is also perfect love and righteousness.

Brother Dave,

I'd like to get your understanding of a scripture based on the last paragraph and general position of your post....

If God is omniscient in the way you seem to be suggesting, why would He choose to exercise Himself in futile exercises such as in this verse if He already knows what they will choose?

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"

- Luke 13:34

I'm not saying you are wrong so much as I can't fathom why God would engage Himself in such a way and then write it as tho' He didn't know and was in fact grieved by their choice as tho' it was on some level a surprise...
So If He knows they aren't willing to turn to Him why would he bother?

Brother Julius,

If I believed you were being serious, that would honestly be the saddest thing I had ever read in my life....

The error of equal ultimacy -

https://youtu.be/_Sawg2PX2aI

Fletcher, you wrote: "I'd like to get your understanding of a scripture based on the last paragraph and general position of your post...."

"If God is omniscient in the way you seem to be suggesting, why would He choose to exercise Himself in futile exercises such as in this verse if He already knows what they will choose?"

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"
____________________________________________________________

Fletcher, I don't consider that Jesus having a heart of desire to gather Jerusalem into his protection is a futile thing because He know they are unwilling. Their unwillingness does not change God's heart's desire for them to be saved.

Don't we experience this in some way as imperfect humans. A parent of a rebellious estranged child will still love and have a strong desire to receive back that child even when they know (if not in the perfect sense that God knows) that they will not come back. Only those who harden their hearts will change their affection toward such a child. If we as imperfect as we are have such desires in the face of the obvious facts, how much more does God remain loving and desirous toward all who are made in His image.

I still am unsure if what I assumed was TMK's position on this is correct, as it seems such a basic principle that God obviously knows all things future and yet knowing most will reject Him, He also desires ALL men to be saved. I see no problem with this. I would indeed have a problem if I thought He did not desire ALL men to be saved. Happily scripture says He does. The witness of the Holy Spirit says He does. Experience says He does. Only faulty human theology says He does not.

Dave-

My biggest objection is the idea of election. I object to the idea that God elects, then holds responsible those he does not elect.

In regard to God knowing the future, this raises issues for me in regard to the free will of man. You may not have seen the earlier discussion in this thread regarding openness theology, which posits that God does not know the future because the future does not exist NOW. That is a gross oversimplification of what this position holds. It does no damage to Gods omniscience because he still knows everything that can be known.

I am not saying I subscribe to that view, but I do believe that Gods perfect foreknowledge is inconsistent with free will because if God perfectly foreknows what a man will do then the man is "locked in" to the foreseen action.

I have heard it posed that perhaps God veils his foreknowledge in some respects, much like expecting parents might choose to remain ignorant about the sex of their child despite the ability to know if they wanted to.

I have not really thought about the ramifications of this but I don't reject it out of hand.

Brother Dave,

Thank you for responding, and while I can relate to your analogy (being a father) it nonetheless doesn't address the point I was attempting to make.

This (for me) is so central to the gospel, that without it the gospel that saves cannot exist. While I can respect we have differing positions, I cannot concede this point as it would require me to deny the very gospel that saves me.

I do not find that the scriptures state that God is omniscient nor sovereign in the way most seem to believe. While belief is itself a powerful thing, believing something doesn't make it true.... (if it did the earth would be flat)
But believing something makes it "true" for the believer even if it's not the truth...

What I have found the scriptures to state (without my ascribing to them my own ideas) is that God knows His plan for us, and of this plan He knows the end from the beginning (full stop). He is only concerned with that. All of His prophecies relate to His plan, hence foreknowledge. He also knows when we stray from His will and His plan includes drawing us back. He also is aware of the inevitability that many will reject His will, etc..... Having said this the scripture is clear that He does not have favorites; Acts 10:34... This verse alone torpedoes the reformed doctrine of election that is retroactively forced upon scriptures misappropriating the context of sanctification (being conformed into the image of Christ) in which it is written, for surely anyone who is saved will be-if they continue in the faith/abide in the vine-conformed into His image, exchanging it for a salvific context which thwarts the whole of the gospel and is something along the lines of what the Pharisee's were doing in the1st Century, for which Jesus spared them not saying "you will not enter into the Kingdom and you prevent others who would from doing so".
John 14:12 clearly states that we (those who believe) will do the works that Jesus did,... this is only possible thru the power of the Holy Spirit.
We can't give someone something that we don't have,... we can't share the gospel that saves unless we have the gospel that saves, and there is only one gospel that saves, but there are many gospels which lead men into deception/bondage/disobedience etc....
The only gospel I know is the one where I give up my autonomy in exchange for His sovereignty continually/daily. When a person gives themselves to the Lord in this way, He then gives Himself to them in the form of His spirit and they are "anointed" to do His work. This is not a "fixing" of the old but an abandonment of the old and a new creature is born that desires the glory of God above all else. Now if this new creature tries to run on the "old fuel" (thru ignorance/bad teaching, etc) it will not produce godly fruit, godly fruit requires godly fuel which He Himself provides, but only when we are not on the thrones of our hearts. This is the "oil" in the parable of the 10 virgins, which can only be purchased with the currency of our giving up our autonomy/self-governing/sovereignty. There are only two positions that anyone can ever be in, being conformed into the image of Christ thru faithful obedience of the truth/Jesus/gospel or being conformed into the image of the world thru self-governance. Yes God clearly sees and hears those whom believe Him and follow Him, and by follow Him I mean literally live on His word for His word is life and there is no other life but the manna that comes down from heaven, anything else produces death. And no matter how good we get at lying to ourselves and smearing over our pride with "christianese"
there is simply no getting around the issue of fruit/good works (Ephesians 2:10) which can only come by His authority at the directive of His word, performed by His spirit. Which itself can only happen when we choose to give up our will in exchange for His,... per garden of Gethsemane. That is the meaning of the cross, where our will is crossed by Gods'. Taking up our cross is simply surrendering our will and taking up His, acting in faith regarding our belief that His will is best to bring about His plan, and IF we have a new heart, it will desire this. Therefore He knows those who hear His voice and cooperate with Him in bringing about His plan by offering ourselves as a living sacrifice that He may live through us now. But He Himself says "DEPART FROM ME I DO NOT KNOW YOU" so how can a completely sovereign absolutely omniscient being who cannot lie legitimately make that statement in the context of eternal judgement if it weren't true??? Therefore He simply can't be omniscient or sovereign the way it's being suggested here or He couldn't say that...?!
Also Jesus says "the son knows not the hour or the day of his return, only the Father knows" now are we saying that Jesus is somehow not God? Not coequal? Not eternal? Because if He is those things and God is omniscient then he would have to know!
However if God is omniscient/sovereign regarding His plan and not everything else then it's a seamless fit,.... This also applies to the garden/fall of Adam with the same seamless quality.

Again this is (for me) so central to the gospel that the gospel that saves cannot save without this, for this is the very "mechanics" by which the blood of Jesus is appropriated by faith. Not appropriating His finished work is tantamount to having a legitimate billion dollar check but never actually depositing it and then living out of that account exclusively, but all the while claiming to be a billionaire... Now anyone who cared to see could see that this person isn't "living like a billionaire" in that they have no power, likewise the power of God is only entrusted to those whom have given up their own.

And Brother Dave, and all saints-

I hope you know that I'm not speaking "at" you but "to" you as I am barely able to contain the joy inside me:)))

My bride suggested this after I shared this with her,

"You could maybe mention this to get his own brain thinking instead of what he's heard, that God looked on the earth before the flood and saw that all men were evil. He didn't know that was going to happen or it wouldn't say he looked and saw... That was not his plan or will for evil so......"

My Dear Brother Julius,
I respectfully but totally disagree, as that would be completely against the spirit of the gospel itself.

God went "all in" on Jesus of Nazareth... There is no plan B

Either we respond in belief or we don't-
Jesus is our example, our forerunner, our high priest who CAN relate to our plight of total and unconditional reliance upon the Father who is the author and finisher of our faith+:)

The idea of election remains palatable,when one understands that God refused to save any of the angles that rebelled ,and was completely just in doing so ,and when it comes to the sons of men , he gave them all a general revaluation of him self ,and yet none would seek after the God they have altogether become unclean ,as Paul says in Romans ,or as a rapper once said ,he made it plain to them in ther cranium,,,,,Paul said they all suppress the truth in unrighteousness,,,,that ,God is under no obligation to save any of the sons of men , even less so then the angles who left the first abode ,,,,,,,,,,but God out of his good pleasure and purpose desires to save some any way ,to show that even tho he was righteous in not saving angles ,and righteous in not save the sons of Adam because they all rejected and suppressed the truth in unrighteousness ,he wanted to show his pure gracious mercy and save some of these rebellious humans , according to election ..........

God always has a choice ,and it's all about his choice........

That none would perish ,is speaking about the elect ,that all of them might come to repentance,,,,,Peter said he is long suffering toward us ,not want any of us !,,,,,,,the elect to perish ,,,,,,,!

Also remember julius,,,that the angles had three wings and with two they covered there faces ,so they never look upon the glory of God......

No brother , the context speaks for it's self ........

As in this context, so in that so to speak,,,,,

King James Bible
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

I don't believe in arbitrary election ,as if God randomly chooses with a blindfold on ,,,,,

But yes I do believe God chooses not to save ,,we see that expressed about false teaches ,who are marked out for destruction, .like brute beast made to be caught and destroyed ,I think is how it is expresses in the letter of Jude,,,,,,I think that it is the enevatable reality of the other side of the coin of election and predestination....

Julius21 said,

"The Bible says He desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth and that He desires all to be saved. He doesn't desire to save some. He died "that none would perish".

Mark said,

And when he was alone, they that were about him, with the twelve, asked of him the parable. And he said to them, To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Mark 4:10-12

https://youtu.be/r1GBQP58I6o

Julius21 said,

"You are adding words to the text, Gary. Just let the Word speak without adding your words.

"All men" means ALL men."

The Word to ALL -

Mark 1:5 "And there went out to him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem and were ALL baptized in the river Jordan"

John 8:2 "And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and ALL the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them."

Acts 22:15 "For thou (Paul) shalt be a witness unto ALL men of what thou hast seen or heard."

Matthew 10:22 "And ye shall be hated of ALL men for my name's sake."

John 3:26 "And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and ALL men came to him."

Luke 23:18-19 And they ALL cried out at once, saying, "Away with this [Man], and release to us Barabbas" who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.

Yet Wisdom is justified by all her children. Luke 7:35

Q. Why do you evangelize?
A. Romans 10:14-16

Q. Or rather do you evangelize?
A. Yes

Q. Does anybody on this thread who believes in predestination or double predestination burn with a passion to see the lost reached?
A. Yes

Q. Do you weep for the lost?
A. Yes

Q. Do you desire to be used as a worker in the harvest?
A. Yes

God has appointed the means as well as the end my friend.

Many of the well known missionaries and evangelists believed these truths.
Whitfield, Edwards, Brainerd, Spurgeon, Bunyan, etc.

Salvation was made available to all, but not all repent and believe. This is so obvious in scripture that it takes extreme twisting to think otherwise.

The idea that Jesus only died for a select few is repellant to say the least.

The issue with election and predestination is the mystery of God's knowledge. We must remain cautious to avoid ascribing to God motives and characteristics due to our failure to comprehend His ways. I've seen some say how God may be unjust or somehow blameworthy if, for example, double predestination were true. If double predestination IS true, then God is right. If God has reduced us to nothing but mere robots in our choice or rejection of Jesus, then He is right. We who see Him through a glass darkly are unqualified to ascribe unto God those characteristics that we see clearly in and among our own selves.

Here is what is clear:

1. God chooses. Titus 1:1, Matthew 22:14.
2. Those who are chosen are His.
3. The means of becoming His is to hear the preached gospel, to believe, repent and obey it, and to remain in Him.
4. Those who endure to the end shall be saved.
5. Those who have not yet believed are condemned already.
6. Jesus prayed that the Father would keep those who are given to Him.
7. The Father acts in accord with that prayer.
8. Men can and do shift from the gospel after having once believed; we are presented to Him only if we remain steadfast and firm and do not move away from the hope of the gospel. Col. 1:23

The mystery of God's foreknowledge and its effect on belief or unbelief are debatable and past finding out enough to go farther than Scripture allows. May yours and my election obtain that we might be presented to Christ in the resurrection unto life.

"...then God is right." This is EXACTLY the attitude we ought to have. God is good and right and just no matter what we think or feel.

We're forgetting that, here. While we argue our doctrinal beliefs, God goes on being God--just as gloriously as ever before!

I am glad I can trust myself to a Master who is as utterly as consistent and mysterious as He is Holy and Loving.

When I go to the place prepared for me, I can't wait to learn about the things we didn't even know we should be thinking about the Lord! :D

Julius,

But none of us can lay claim to being "enlightened enough" to know the entirety of truth. We are not God. Truth is concrete and it is dependable and it is solid, but we only know in part at this stage.

I HATE postmodern thinking where "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me and everyone is right, so let's all just get along." But I also make it a point to reject "There is no way I can be wrong because look at these 3 verses I found that say the opposite of what your verses say." Knowledge easily leads to pride. This is not a cut-and-dry issue. That's why I take the stance that Oracio and Dolfan proposed--God is God and let us just bask in the glory of who He is.

I want to know God, but I know that I am not going to fully know Him in this life. So I have no problem setting ideas aside as things that are earmarked to be cleared up definitely in eternity.

I allow that I could be totally wrong, but I am not moving there until the Lord leads me. What bothers me is that the attitude we tend to have toward one another is "Oh, you poor, deceived creature. Let me show you a better way." And then we try to lead each other to somewhere other than Jesus.

I love taking about this subject, but only if we can all walk away thinking about what we believe and examining ourselves in the Light of Christ. It isn't worth it if everyone walks away saying, "so and so is so wrong. I can't believe they think this way."

Quote:"...then God is right." This is EXACTLY the attitude we ought to have. God is good and right and just no matter what we think or feel."

I am going to ask something extremely and outrageously hypothetical here but I hope you can get the gist of what I am getting at.

What if God wasn't good; in fact what if he was downright mean.

Would we still be under obligation to worship and adore him, just because he created us?

In other words, does or should Gods character matter?

Because my primary concern with the whole election/non-election issue is that Gods character is important. He created us able to judge what is right and wrong. To me the idea of double predestination is gruesome. Saying that is ok (if true) because God is God doesn't sit well with me at all, because I do not think that God would ever do something like that.

In fact if that doctrine is true the non elect should be praising and worshipping God all the way into hell because they were chosen to fulfill some purpose of Gods.

TMK, I know this seems odd. It IS odd humanly speaking.

But, "the non elect should be praising and worshipping God all the way into hell because they were chosen to fulfill some purpose of God's".

Scripture says, "at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." Every tongue, every knee, everywhere. Confession of the Lordship of Christ in spite of their own wickedness. The Father receives glory from it. The wicked are fully included. It is worship that Paul describes here. It is -- dare I say it? -- compelled worship of those upon whom the judgment of condemnation rests. Not a moment of joy. A moment of true and unending terror. Yet, God is glorified by it.

We can't conjecture whether God is good. He simply is. All that may be described as "good" has Him alone as its referent. There is no other way. God's meanness would be goodness to us because it is Him. We would not know meanness as such, but we would consider it good and it would be objectively true if God were mean. In fact, our lack of meanness would be evil.

God's character does matter. By it, we know Him; by it, we know what it is He made us to be. But, He is self-defining. He also defines everything else. If double predestination is biblically true (and, let me say I don't believe it is, at least not in the Romans 9 sense of it as it is embraced by many Christians), then double predestination is right and good because it is -- like all else He does -- done after the counsel of God's own will. Whatever I think God is or would be or do is incorrect if His revelation of Himself is to the contrary, even if I find it unpalatable. "Lord, help my distaste to become the taste of heaven!"

"at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."

I dont have a problem with that verse at all and obviously believe it is true. Those in hell will know they DESERVE to be there, because they refused to repent and believe.

That is a far different matter than saying they are there because God pre-ordained that they would be there so too bad for them.

I think part of the problem is that we do not consider the truth that God dwells in the realm of eternity outside of time. For Him it is all in the present, like one who sits in a helicopter and is able to see a parade from beginning to end all at once. At any moment God can enter into the present realm and truly feel and express His feelings as He sees what is going on in this world. I am thankful that God is past our finding out because if He was able to be perfectly comprehended He would stop being God. In eternity we will still continue to grow in our knowledge of this infinite Being who is worthy of all praise and adoration.

J- I have never considered that question- point extremely well-taken.

O- that was CS Lewis's solution. I used to find a lot of comfort in it; then over the years I have read various things that shed quite a bit of doubt on the idea that God exists outside of time. But if that is true it does solve some problems.

TMK, we know that God is eternal; He has no beginning and no end. If He dwelt in the realm of time He would have to have had a beginning at one point in time. In other words, in order for Him to be eternal and not to have had any beginning in time He has to dwell outside of time and in the realm of eternity. When we consider the eternality of God I know it gets deep and incomprehensible to our finite minds but we must accept this truth about God, in a sense, as a little child by faith as we do many other things about Him which we do not fully comprehend.

This thought came to mind regarding the prophets Jeremiah and John the Baptist. God told Jeremiah that before he formed him in the womb He knew him and that before he was born He set him apart for His service (Jer.1:5). And we read that John the Baptist was Spirit-filled from his mother’s womb (Lk. 1:15). I’m curious to know how those who don’t believe in predestination would explain that. Why did God save and set apart Jeremiah and John the Baptist before they were born? Did Jeremiah and John the Baptist choose to repent of their sins in their mothers’ wombs? How is it that John the Baptist was Spirit-filled in the womb without repentance on his part? Since infants cannot possibly make the choice to repent, the only reasonable explanation to me is that they were predestined to be saints and prophets based on God’s foreknowledge.

Good explanation from that perspective Julius, I'll give you that :).

Let's talk about evolution. I don't believe at all that we all originated from some single-cell organism over the course of billions of years because I believe that it is a faulty conclusion taken 1 step further than the evidence allowed. I do believe in micro-evolution. I believe that an island full of horses can eventually become only white if a disease-carrying fly targets only horses with other colors. That has happened and I'd be a fool to deny it because it is documented. But to draw a further conclusion based on what may be is faulty.

In the same sense, I definitely believe in micro-election. Macro-election I am still up in the air about, but the scriptures that we keep pitting against each other seem to suggest both. If that makes any sense.

TMK,

Our definition of good and evil comes from God himself. It is not something we compare God to, but we should compare our definition of good and evil against God and make the necessary adjustments. That's what makes the Christian walk so great! "Keep this in mind from an old man: there's no finality to the Christian life this side of eternity." We always get to grow more. We always get to be conformed more and into the image of Jesus Christ!

O-

Gods in filling of men with the HS was different pre-covenant, right? God did fill men with the HS to endue them for service but in many senses they weren't changed men(eg Samson).

In the new covenant the HS is given freely to all who believe.

Havok-

I don't have a problem with macro-election, meaning that God predestined a class of individuals (those who repent and believe) to eternal life.

I just don't buy micro- election - that he does this for individuals.

I certainly agree that our definition of good and evil comes from God. He instilled that in us. Which is why I feel that ascribing actions to God that seem evil must be avoided at all costs.

TMK,

I totally made up those terms, so I best define what I mean by them:

Macro-Election - includes the predestination of all people either to heaven or hell (not a class of people, but all people's destinies are determined before the foundation of the world)

Micro-election - predestination of certain individuals to do certain things. ie, John the Baptist, Judas Iscariot, Jeremiah, Adam and Eve, Moses, Pharaoh, etc.

Yeah we were using the term differently- like the term though!