Calvinism / pre-destination

[Gadgeteer]

Does a man have to be perfect to bless those that hear him preach? His book "All of Grace" was a great blessing to me and really encouraged me after I was saved and very weak in faith.

You're right. I was a fan of James Kennedy, "Coral Ridge Ministries" Ft. Lauderdale Florida; met him in 1993 on a cruise. Extremely nice guy. He did many good things, "Evangelism Explosion" to name one. He was Calvinist, but his sermons do not emphasize that. I also enjoyed Adrien Rodgers, had some powerful sermons.

Have you ever taught error? Did you grow in grace and knowledge? Does your error mean all your teaching is bad? Lord knows I have taught error before. Thankfully, God did not throw me away but instead, used me in spite of the error!

Perhaps I owe you an apology, I meant no insult. I'm very pleased you were strengthened!

No matter who one listens to, we have to be strong enough in Scripture to not just accept whatever is said, but to think critically.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God..." 1Jn4:1.

With some, they make it easy --- I often listen to MacArthur and Sproul radio shows just to know their positions. MacArthur says things like "God GLORIES in the hopeless helpless no-chance perishing of the majority of people whom God CREATED to be sinful and to perish". Uh, huh. Not the God I know! Would I ever use a MacArthur Study Bible? Heavens no! :-P

Spurgeon has many great sermons that are a wonderful encouragement to the saints. That doesn't mean I agree with all he says. However, he did get some great revelation from the Lord! I remember one piece where he would witness to someone and say "God has elected some to go to heaven, why don't you be one of them?"

He must have struggled with the whole idea of "sovereign election". In the quote I posted above from "Warrant of Faith", he didn't seem to realize he was rejecting the foundation of "Predestined-Salvation"; or that his very assertion aligns perfectly with Matt9:12-13, where Reformed Theology recognizes no connection between Jesus coming for people, and regeneration. Clearly, Jesus came for the sick, that through faith they may become healed and regenerated.

Have you read much of his work?

Probably not enough. I've read stuff from Sproul, MacArthur, Pink, White, Gill, etcetera; have books like "Chosen by God" and "The Sovereignty of God". All those verses we've been discussing are in those books.

Did he use a spirit of deception with Ahab? Did he put an evil Spirit on Saul?

One thing that's critical for us all to understand is Biblical use of literary devices; "Semitic View" (anthropromorphism) for one. Many times they wrote "GOD DID IT", when all the readers at the time understood "men did it themselves". Exodus10:1 is a perfect example --- in that verse "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"; but just two verses earlier (9:34) Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart. It's the same in Romans9, where God "hardens whom He will and has mercy on whom He will" --- in no sense does it mean God actually CLOSES any hearts to belief, nor that God only has mercy on some; it is Semitic View, those who are hardened did it themselves, and God has mercy on ALL (Rom11:32) but men choose to submit themselves to His mercy or not.

Did he have the guy in 1 Cor. 5 turned over to Satan to discipline him?

That verse connects directly to 1Tim1:20, where a man can be left to the consequences of his own choice that he may learn faith. Oftentimes God withdraws His protection and allows men to suffer their own consequences or evil men, which gets written as "God sent ____".

Did God use the evil chaldeans to discipline his people in Habakkuk? Did he raise up the evil Babylonians to chastise Israel?

All of that has to fit with "In Him there is no sin", and "God can have nothing to do with evil". God's nature and essence are perfection and infinite goodness, tempered with justness; God cannot be causally involved in anything evil.

It is a hard thing to believe and God tells us it is a hard thing to believe.

Hab 1:5-7

5 " Look among the nations! Observe!
Be astonished! Wonder!
Because I am doing something in your days —
You would not believe if you were told.
6 "For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,
That fierce and impetuous people
Who march throughout the earth
To seize dwelling places which are not theirs.
7 "They are dreaded and feared;
Their justice and authority originate with themselves.
NASU

But he answers a question later about what his purpose is in doing so.

Hab 1:12

12 Are You not from everlasting,
O Lord, my God, my Holy One?
We will not die.
You, O Lord, have appointed them to judge;
And You, O Rock, have established them to correct.
NASU

I think it's similar to what happened with Job. God did not send satan to attack Job, but God allowed the attack. There is a verse where "God will rebuke the destroyer"; so clearly there are times when He does not rebuke the destroyer.

Makes me frightened with what's happening in America --- "marriage" being defined in new and fascinating ways, God rejected from all public consumption, we must be dealt with else many ancient cities must receive an apology for what happened to them.

Paul understood this concept and said he would turn people over to Satan to teach them.

I'm betting every last person here acknowledges the connection between 1Cor5:5 and 1Tim1:20; "taught-not-to-blaspheme", clearly conveys that the bad consequences of their choices may encourage them to REPENTANCE. Bringing to mind 2Tim2:25-26:

"...if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

Clearly, "God-grant-repentance" is identically "come-to-their-senses"; it is yet another Semitic View, God does not ACTUALLY hand-out repentance (rather, He receives repentance FROM men) --- it is saying "if perhaps they may come to their senses AND repent".

"May-come-to-their-senses" does not fit with "God-handing-out-repentance"; but it fits perfectly with "become-convicted-and-repent". A second Semitic View in that very passage is "held-captive-by-the-devil" (which reminds us of 2Cor4:4) --- the devil does not actually have any more control over men than what they GIVE him. But a man who chooses sinfulness, is said to be "held-captive/blinded by the devil". Neither God nor the devil forcefully closes anyone's eyes (Mark4:11-12), they close their own eyes and ears against belief (Matt13:15!).

IOW, God uses evil.

It's all "causality". God does not write evil into anyone's heart, nor does He collaborate with anything evil; but He does allow us to experience consequences, which (hopefully!) cause conviction and repentance.

In all of Scripture I've never seen anything where God wants/ordains/decrees anyone to be sinful or to perish. He truly opens the gates of Heaven for all who will enter Jesus-the-door.

I agree.

I'd like to know if anyone here disagrees with us, and what is the basis for the disagreement.

:-)

[keyzer soze]

Gadgeteer, I listen to MacArthur, I would like you to point me to where he says that please as I have never heard ANYTHING like that come out of his mouth or in anything that I have read of his and I have read about 5 books.

[Gadgeteer]

Gadgeteer, I listen to MacArthur, I would like you to point me to where he says that please as I have never heard ANYTHING like that come out of his mouth or in anything that I have read of his and I have read about 5 books.

Well, he doesn't actually say things like "helpless" or "hopeless" or "no-chance", it's implied. But this summer one morning show (Sproul comes on back-to-back with MacArthur) he stated that God glories in predestining men to perish. And I was yelling at the radio, "What about Ezekiel 18:23? Or 31-32?"

Sproul also says it's for God's glory that men perish.

They never seem to hear me when I yell at the radio...

[Brother Mark]

You're right. I was a fan of James Kennedy, "Coral Ridge Ministries" Ft. Lauderdale Florida; met him in 1993 on a cruise. Extremely nice guy. He did many good things, "Evangelism Explosion" to name one. He was Calvinist, but his sermons do not emphasize that. I also enjoyed Adrien Rodgers, had some powerful sermons. Perhaps I owe you an apology, I meant no insult. I'm very pleased you were strengthened!

Amen. One thing I like about Spurgeon, he encourages an intimate walk with God and it is not all brain stuff.

No matter who one listens to, we have to be strong enough in Scripture to not just accept whatever is said, but to think critically.

Of course.

With some, they make it easy --- I often listen to MacArthur and Sproul radio shows just to know their positions. MacArthur says things like "God GLORIES in the hopeless helpless no-chance perishing of the majority of people whom God CREATED to be sinful and to perish". Uh, huh. Not the God I know! Would I ever use a MacArthur Study Bible? Heavens no! :-P

Well, I don't want to say too much because of board policy on men not being here to defend themselves. But I would not recommend a study by either.

He must have struggled with the whole idea of "sovereign election". In the quote I posted above from "Warrant of Faith", he didn't seem to realize he was rejecting the foundation of "Predestined-Salvation"; or that his very assertion aligns perfectly with Matt9:12-13, where Reformed Theology recognizes no connection between Jesus coming for people, and regeneration. Clearly, Jesus came for the sick, that through faith they may become healed and regenerated.

I don't know if he did or not. I know he was calvinist but at the time I read his book "All of Grace" I barely knew what that was. I till read his "stuff" and he doesn't focus on it a lot. But he will speak of election some. It depends, I suppose, on what he is writing and the purpose behind it.

Probably not enough. I've read stuff from Sproul, MacArthur, Pink, White, Gill, etcetera; have books like "Chosen by God" and "The Sovereignty of God". All those verses we've been discussing are in those books.

Of those, Pink is the only one I have read. His work on "Gleanings in Genesis" is simply AWESOME! As for the others, some I will never read and others I have not heard of.

One thing that's critical for us all to understand is Biblical use of literary devices; "Semitic View" (anthropromorphism) for one. Many times they wrote "GOD DID IT", when all the readers at the time understood "men did it themselves". Exodus10:1 is a perfect example --- in that verse "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"; but just two verses earlier (9:34) Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart. It's the same in Romans9, where God "hardens whom He will and has mercy on whom He will" --- in no sense does it mean God actually CLOSES any hearts to belief, nor that God only has mercy on some; it is Semitic View, those who are hardened did it themselves, and God has mercy on ALL (Rom11:32) but men choose to submit themselves to His mercy or not. That verse connects directly to 1Tim1:20, where a man can be left to the consequences of his own choice that he may learn faith. Oftentimes God withdraws His protection and allows men to suffer their own consequences or evil men, which gets written as "God sent ____". All of that has to fit with "In Him there is no sin", and "God can have nothing to do with evil". God's nature and essence are perfection and infinite goodness, tempered with justness; God cannot be causally involved in anything evil.

I don't really buy that, but it's OK. You realize that the calvinist use the same argument for scriptures that talk about God changing his mind? I don't think our resident Jew (Fenris) would agree with you either. But we could ask him.

I think it's similar to what happened with Job. God did not send satan to attack Job, but God allowed the attack. There is a verse where "God will rebuke the destroyer"; so clearly there are times when He does not rebuke the destroyer.

Job is vastly different! That is testing where God does allow. 1 Cor. 5 is where God actively turns over. With Saul in the OT, God sent the evil spirit. It's not that God is the cause of evil or does evil, but rather, he uses them to judge, and correct. Then when they are done, he breaks them for the evil they do. Now, if we want to say God removes his protection, I am OK with that (for discussion purposes). But we need to understand that what Job endured was different that what Israel endured when God sent them into captivity. Thing is, scripture is full of verses that say God does these things.

Makes me frightened with what's happening in America --- "marriage" being defined in new and fascinating ways, God rejected from all public consumption, we must be dealt with else many ancient cities must receive an apology for what happened to them.

Except in some cases, God said he did that for an example. Doesn't mean he will do it every time. Also, keep in mind that Jesus said what Israel did during his time was worse that what Sodom did.

I'm betting every last person here acknowledges the connection between 1Cor5:5 and 1Tim1:20; "taught-not-to-blaspheme", clearly conveys that the bad consequences of their choices may encourage them to REPENTANCE. Bringing to mind 2Tim2:25-26:

"...if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

Clearly, "God-grant-repentance" is identically "come-to-their-senses"; it is yet another Semitic View, God does not ACTUALLY hand-out repentance (rather, He receives repentance FROM men) --- it is saying "if perhaps they may come to their senses AND repent".

"May-come-to-their-senses" does not fit with "God-handing-out-repentance"; but it fits perfectly with "become-convicted-and-repent". A second Semitic View in that very passage is "held-captive-by-the-devil" (which reminds us of 2Cor4:4) --- the devil does not actually have any more control over men than what they GIVE him. But a man who chooses sinfulness, is said to be "held-captive/blinded by the devil". Neither God nor the devil forcefully closes anyone's eyes (Mark4:11-12), they close their own eyes and ears against belief (Matt13:15!).
It's all "causality". God does not write evil into anyone's heart, nor does He collaborate with anything evil; but He does allow us to experience consequences, which (hopefully!) cause conviction and repentance.

I disagree with the above too. But that would be another thread.

Grace and peace,

Mark

[Bandit]

Is my question a loaded question? I get the verses, I am studying/reading the bible, however the crux of the issue comes down to my question I believe based on how you interpret the verses.

Are you suggesting that the verses above say that people will perish in hell OUTSIDE of God's will? Am I understanding you correctly in this? God's will is to save all but man's free-will trumps God's will and thus God's will can't come to be because of man's free-will doesn't allow it?

Hello keyzer soze,

I believe I have tried to address this, but perhaps I was not sucessful. Here is how I understand your predicament (and why I think it is a false predicament). You appear to believe that God has predestined each man to one of two destinies, but if a man can choose his own destiny, then it seem to be that you think that the man can twart God's plan.

I suggest that you rethink what God's plan is. What if God's plan is to save a certain class of persons, so that God's plan to save is not directed in an individual sense. If this is true, then by making his individual choice (a choice as to what kind of person - which of the two groups - to be) the individual in no way threatens or violates what God has chosen. The two basic groups - the righteous and the wicked - still exist and are subject to God's eventual and respective jugments; the individual's choice is merely one of deciding which of God's two predestined groups he will join.

I think one needs to read the bible carefully, perhaps many times through, in order to be able to see this perspective.

[Redeemed by Grace]

Well, he doesn't actually say things like "helpless" or "hopeless" or "no-chance", it's implied. But this summer one morning show (Sproul comes on back-to-back with MacArthur) he stated that God glories in predestining men to perish. And I was yelling at the radio, "What about Ezekiel 18:23? Or 31-32?"

Sproul also says it's for God's glory that men perish.

They never seem to hear me when I yell at the radio...

I would think you must be miss interpreting what Sproul and MacArthur were saying... Unless you can show us through something they wrote, I'd say that they would be saying that God's Glory is within all things, meaning everything works together to in effect to the Glory of the Lord. Sin is allowed to be, to the Glory of the Lord, for Jesus defeats Satan and death and sin, to the Glory of the Lord. The gospel is proclaimed and is accepted by some and rejected by others, to the Glory of the Lord. All things and in all ways, goes back somehow and some way to the Glory of the Lord.

[keyzer soze]

Hello keyzer soze,

I believe I have tried to address this, but perhaps I was not sucessful. Here is how I understand your predicament (and why I think it is a false predicament). You appear to believe that God has predestined each man to one of two destinies, but if a man can choose his own destiny, then it seem to be that you think that the man can twart God's plan.

I suggest that you rethink what God's plan is. What if God's plan is to save a certain class of persons, so that God's plan to save is not directed in an individual sense. If this is true, then by making his individual choice (a choice as to what kind of person - which of the two groups - to be) the individual in no way threatens or violates what God has chosen. The two basic groups - the righteous and the wicked - still exist and are subject to God's eventual and respective jugments; the individual's choice is merely one of deciding which of God's two predestined groups he will join.

I think one needs to read the bible carefully, perhaps many times through, in order to be able to see this perspective.

Bandit, I have thought that through and I just don't see it. I think there is enough evidence in the bible to suggest that NO ONE on planet earth is righteous enough for saving. There is no one righteous, not even one. If God was to reward salvation based on "classes" of people I truly believe the bible says that 100% (minus Jesus) would be eternally separated from God. I do appreciate your time and input however and I have thought this through.

[keyzer soze]

I would think you must be miss interpreting what Sproul and MacArthur were saying... Unless you can show us through something they wrote, I'd say that they would be saying that God's Glory is within all things, meaning everything works together to in effect to the Glory of the Lord. Sin is allowed to be, to the Glory of the Lord, for Jesus defeats Satan and death and sin, to the Glory of the Lord. The gospel is proclaimed and is accepted by some and rejected by others, to the Glory of the Lord. All things and in all ways, goes back somehow and some way to the Glory of the Lord.

This is how I understand the general purpose of creation. It is all for the glory of God as well as to show His attributes. Pre-fall could God even show that He is justice or merciful? If sin never entered the world there is much about God we would never know or understand and thus our relationship limited.

[keyzer soze]

Couple questions along the doctrine of OSAS. I got through Chapter 8 of Romans last night and wow, verses 26-39 are painting a STRONG case that if a person is truly saved, God will never lose them. And I know the answer to this in this thread has been true, God will not leave them but humans can still leave God. If indeed you believe that I have a couple of follow-up questions.

1) Why does it say that we are glorified? Is glorification in Christ a temporary condition if one loses his salvation?
2) If God knows all and thus knows that a person will choose to walk away from Him at a later date and become unsaved, then how do you explain this verse? Heb 12:6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. (What is the purpose of this if God already knows that his discipline will FAIL and the person will walk away from the faith?)

In the end I believe we are to preach and spread the gospel with the Armenean mindset urging all to turn and follow Christ but I believe we should have the theology of a Calvinist that allows us to fully trust in the Lord that He is in control and that He can take control and lead our lives.

Personal Question: As a new believer one of the things I regularly pray for is the salvation of my family and friends. I pray that God will soften their hearts and they will see their need for a savior. Is that prayer foolish in the eyes of a "free-will" person because God stays out of that because that would be violating human free-will? Scripture already claims that a fair and just God is already calling everyone the same and thus my prayer is contrary to basic scripture teaching. I am asking God to do something that scripture clearly states He doesn't do?

[Gadgeteer]

Hello keyzer soze,

I believe I have tried to address this, but perhaps I was not sucessful. Here is how I understand your predicament (and why I think it is a false predicament). You appear to believe that God has predestined each man to one of two destinies, but if a man can choose his own destiny, then it seem to be that you think that the man can thwart God's plan.

I suggest that you rethink what God's plan is. What if God's plan is to save a certain class of persons, so that God's plan to save is not directed in an individual sense. If this is true, then by making his individual choice (a choice as to what kind of person - which of the two groups - to be) the individual in no way threatens or violates what God has chosen. The two basic groups - the righteous and the wicked - still exist and are subject to God's eventual and respective jugments; the individual's choice is merely one of deciding which of God's two predestined groups he will join.

There are so many paths that lead to this; one is that God's position is to receive the faith of those who come to Him --- Heb11:6 is clear, and Acts10:34-35 is not only clear but asserts the OPPOSITE of that is partiality/bias that God is NOT. Can anyone deny that "Reformed-Theology/Predestined-salvation" is all about God favoring people with election BEFORE they revere Him and BEFORE they seek righteousness, fully conflicting Acts10:34-35?

Another path is the concept of "seeing is believing". Plainly stated in John10:38, Jn20:29, and the basis of the rebuke of Matt11:21-24. In Matt11 He rebuked the three cities comprising His audience because they would not repent. Had He been born in the times of Tyre, Sidon and even Sodom, those ancient cities would have repented; but His current audience was more willfully unbelieving than they were! This fits no concept of "predestined-salvation"; not in any way.

Another path is to recognize that God loved the WORLD that He sent the Son so that whoever believes may not perish but have eternal life; His will is that all who see Jesus and believe have eternal life.

And of course we've discussed Matt9:12-13; Jesus came for the sick/sinners, not for the righteous. "Monergistic Regeneration" asserts that those unregenerated cannot understand/respond (thus Jesus' coming for them is useless), and those ALREADY regeenrated are righteous already (thus Jesus' coming for them is useless too!).

We've also discussed Romans2:4-8, where God's kindness is s'posed to LEAD to repentance, but stubborn unrepentance (sternly rebuked here!) stores up wrath for themselves.

I think one needs to read the bible carefully, perhaps many times through, in order to be able to see this perspective.

I don't think it has to be read that carefully; it is the theme throughout. Whichever path one takes in study of Scripture, "universal invitation" and "personal responsibility" is clearly seen.

[Gadgeteer]

I would think you must be missinterpreting what Sproul and MacArthur were saying... Unless you can show us through something they wrote, I'd say that they would be saying that God's Glory is within all things, meaning everything works together to in effect to the Glory of the Lord. Sin is allowed to be, to the Glory of the Lord, for Jesus defeats Satan and death and sin, to the Glory of the Lord. The gospel is proclaimed and is accepted by some and rejected by others, to the Glory of the Lord. All things and in all ways, goes back somehow and some way to the Glory of the Lord.

Both God's wrath and His love work to the same ultimate end - His glory. God is glorified in the condemnation of the wicked; He is glorified in every expression of love for all people without exception; and He is glorified in the particular love He manifests in saving His people.
link

It is ironic that in the same discussion MacArthur states:

Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.

This is at full odds with Romans2, where God's kindness leads to repentance; here MacArthur is trying to promote that God loves those He's destined to PERISH --- what kind of love is it to shruggingly turn His back on those who have no alternative but to sin and perish, while He partially/biasedly elects some to righteosuness and life?

We cannot continue to say "GOD IS LOVE" under such a view.

"God's primary concern in anything He does is to bring glory to Himself."
"God, without regard to Human desire or effort, has chosen some for glory (election) and others for wrath (reprobation)."

From "Chosen by God", linked here.

There are probably better citations; I welcome other links.

[Brother Mark]

Personal Question: As a new believer one of the things I regularly pray for is the salvation of my family and friends. I pray that God will soften their hearts and they will see their need for a savior. Is that prayer foolish in the eyes of a "free-will" person because God stays out of that because that would be violating human free-will? Scripture already claims that a fair and just God is already calling everyone the same and thus my prayer is contrary to basic scripture teaching. I am asking God to do something that scripture clearly states He doesn't do?

Why would your prayer be anti-scriptural? Most people that I know intercede for the lost in and especially their lost family. the "free will" folks want God to intervene in other's lives in a HUGE way and they pray for that. Not sure why it would not be considered scriptural by anyone.

[Gadgeteer]

Bandit, I have thought that through and I just don't see it. I think there is enough evidence in the bible to suggest that NO ONE on planet earth is righteous enough for saving. There is no one righteous, not even one. If God was to reward salvation based on "classes" of people I truly believe the bible says that 100% (minus Jesus) would be eternally separated from God. I do appreciate your time and input however and I have thought this through.

But "predestination" 100% asserts a couple classes of people; those who were "predestined before time to eternal life", and those who were either "predestined to perish" or "predestined to be PASSED OVER for life" (which is the same thing).

If we were predestined to eternal life --- why does God wait so long before bringing many to salvation? Does He WANT people to sin for years before they are saved? Why does Paul call us (Eph2:1-3) "children of Hell/wrath, even as the rest" if we were a special class of "predestined-elect"? Why does 1Cor6:11 say "such WERE some of you", if we were really just "predestined-but-not-yet-regenerated"?

If God was to reward salvation based on "classes" of people...

What is God's welcome based on, in Acts10:34-35? It's based on those WHO revere Him and desire righteousness, isn't it? But "predestined-election" promotes a speciall CLASS of people whom God welcomes/elects/predestines who do NOT revere Him nor do they do right, until AFTER God receives them and regenerates them and MAKES them righteous!

What is the "reward of the inheritance" based on in Col3:24? God responds to faith and diligent seeking in Heb11:6, and in Matt7:14, doesn't He? God's justice responds to faith in Rom3:26, doesn't it?

This is the whole issue --- is God's position responsive to men's faith, or is men's faith responsive to God's position? We've just read verses that assert the first. Can you cite anything asserting the second (or overturning what I said about the first)?

[Brother Mark]

This is how I understand the general purpose of creation. It is all for the glory of God as well as to show His attributes. Pre-fall could God even show that He is justice or merciful? If sin never entered the world there is much about God we would never know or understand and thus our relationship limited.

It is an interesting question... what is the ultimate purpose of God for creation? Why did he create all that he did?

[Gadgeteer]

This is how I understand the general purpose of creation. It is all for the glory of God as well as to show His attributes. Pre-fall could God even show that He is justice or merciful? If sin never entered the world there is much about God we would never know or understand and thus our relationship limited.

The world as created was good; God did not intend for Adam or Eve to eat from the Tree of Life, nor did He intend their eating from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

Please tell how it is God's GLORY than anyone perishes; especially in the shadow of verses like Ezk18:24:
"Do I take pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, rather than that he should repent and live?"