Were you speaking into a mirror with that one?I am humbled before your eisegetical skill.
Are we Predestined?
- Thread starter TibiasDad
- Start date
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I am humbled before your eisegetical skill.
Good catch. And also probably practicing his eisegesis.
atpollard
Active Member
The topic was "foreknew".
Not for your sake (since "ears to hear" appear to be in short supply), but to defend TRUTH and for the benefit of anyone that might stumble across your dross ... "come let us reason together" from what God has actually said rather than some fantasy about what you wish that God had said:
WHAT GOD ACTUALLY SAID:
Romans 8:29-30 [ESV] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Rather than rehashing the opening one more time, let us examine the so-called "golden chain" backwards (starting from the last pair).
"and those whom he justified he also glorified."
- Is there any doubt that a "cause-effect" relationship exists between "justified" and "glorified"? [No.]
- Is it possible for someone NOT JUSTIFIED to be "glorified"? [No.]
- Did the JUSTIFICATION enable the GLORIFICATION? [Yes.]
- Is GOD (and not man) the one doing both the JUSTIFYING and the GLORIFYING? [Yes.]
Taking one step back in the "Golden Chain":
"and those whom he called he also justified"
- Is there any doubt that a "cause-effect" relationship exists between "called" and "justified"? [No.]
- Is it possible for someone NOT CALLED to be "justified"? [No.]
- Did the CALLING enable the JUSTIFICATION? [Yes.]
- Is GOD (and not man) the one doing both the CALLING and the JUSTIFYING? [Yes.]
Taking another step back in the "Golden Chain":
"And those whom he predestined he also called"
- Is there any doubt that a "cause-effect" relationship exists between "predestined" and "called"? [No.]
- Is it possible for someone NOT PREDESTINED to be "called"? [No.]
- Did the PREDESTINING enable the CALLING? [Yes.]
- Is GOD (and not man) the one doing both the PREDESTINING and the CALLING? [Yes.]
Taking a final step back in the beginning of the "Golden Chain":
"those whom he foreknew he also predestined"
- There can be no question of the pattern so clearly established in every other link in this "Golden Chain". No one would suddenly deny the relationship HERE unless they had a motive which demanded scripture be bent to fit some predetermined theological cause.
- There can be no doubt that a "cause-effect" relationship exists between "foreknew" and "predestined".
- It is impossible for someone NOT FOREKNOWN to be "predestined".
- The FOREKNOWN (first) enabled the PREDESTINED and the CALLED and the JUSTIFIED and the GLORIFIED.
- GOD (and not man) is the one doing the FOREKNOWING.
- It says "those whom he foreknew" ... that is a knowledge of people not facts.
- (we call "knowing someone" a RELATIONSHIP)
- GOD "foreknew" people (had a relationship with us):
- BEFORE God predestined us
- BEFORE God called us
- BEFORE God justified us
- BEFORE God glorified us
- It all started with GOD and a relationship ... knowing people and choosing those He knew and loved (predestined) before we were born.
civic
Active Member
No one can have a relationship with someone who does not exist.
You did not have a relationship with your parents before your conception. You did not have a relationship with your children before they were born. You did not have a relationship with your wife before you met her.
God did not have a relationship with anyone before they existed.
Lexical Summary
proginóskó: To foreknow, to know beforehand
Original Word: προγινώσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: proginóskó
Pronunciation: prog-ee-NO-sko
Phonetic Spelling: (prog-in-oce'-ko)
KJV: foreknow (ordain), know (before)
NASB: foreknew, foreknown, knowing beforehand, known
Word Origin: [from G4253 (πρό - before) and G1097 (γινώσκω - know)]
1. to know beforehand, i.e. foresee
hope this helps !!!
atpollard
Active Member
God can.
- Acts 2:39 [ESV] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
God does.
- Romans 8:29 [ESV] For those whom he foreknew
- Galatians 1:15 [ESV] But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
- Ephesians 1:4 [ESV] even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
To HIM be all glory, honor and praise.
Sola Scriptura: "Scripture alone" is our highest authority.
Sola Fide: We are saved through "faith alone" in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia: We are saved by the "grace of God alone".
Solus Christus: "Jesus Christ alone" is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria: "to God alone belongs all of the the glory".
Amazing, absolutely amazing. With all of that explanation to explain the meaning of the word "foreknew", you failed to post the verse that actually does explain it, namely verse 28, which identifies that those whom God foreknew were "them that love God". And that after denigrating those without ears to hear. And the only dross was all the line after line of verbiage presented in apparent ignorance of what was said.
Moreover, verses 28-30 describes specifically why and how it is that all things work together for good to them that love God.
brightfame52
Active Member
Naturally speaking you right, however in things spiritual having to do with God, thats incorrect. God indicated He Loved Jacob before he existed, before he was born Rom 9:11-13
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
It appears God loved Jeremiah with an everlasting Love b4 he existed Jer 31 3
3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
Gill writes :
I dont believe the Loved of the everlasting God hath ever b4 His heart been a non entity.
So His plan was dependent on your choices?
And if they did would Gods foreknowledge change?
Never said he chooses for us did I ? A choice can be determined yet made freely.
Indeed, our lack of understanding causes many difficulties.
And yes, I do understand how elusive pre-conception existence theology or our existence with GOD prior to our earthly existence, can be. I remember saying pretty much exactly the same thing back in the mid-70s when it was introduced to me. Most of my learning about it came from my dedicated opposition which forced resolutions to be found.
I will show a few verses here so you don't think I'm a complete lunatic, totally divorced from scripture. I won't dump every verse I can find, so please understand this is just an intro so to speak. I also hope you understand that I don't claim these are PROOF verses that can't be argued. It is obvious that these verses have had their orthodox interpretations for centuries of which I am well aware. But they do contain alternative interpretations which should be answered as to how they fail if they are rejected as pce supports.
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible sums it up well:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee,.... Not merely by his omniscience, so he knows all men before their conception and birth; but with such a knowledge as had special love and affection joined with it; implying a personal relationship with not knowledge about as per:
Matthew 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Obviously He knew all about them but He did not have a personal relationship with them as GOD suggests HE had with Jeremiah.
Also, most folk when they first read this says, "Hey, does this say we were alive before we were in the womb?" and quickly learns that not only does it not mean this but is a hated Mormon doctrine! The obvious meaning that is rejected due to a theological position is a hint. It is obvious that the verse can have this meaning but theology has chosen to ignore it for another meaning...GOD only knew us pre-earth in HIS imagination...otherwise it upsets orthodox doctrine, that is, doctrine is used to find a verse's meaning rather than the meaning being found in the verse to create doctrine...
That all verses that are hints to pce have been interpreted as something else for centuries means that you can read them and never even see that they might contain a hint to pce, nor can you find a commentary that accepts our pre-conception existence though the best will mention it. Like Ps 9:17 The wicked do turn back / return to Sheol, All nations forgetting God. Going to Sheol is the result of a judgment. The implication is clear. The wicked are punished by being sent to Sheol instead of heaven. The word is translated as return 391 times by the biased KJV, just not here in this verse.
TURN BACK; Strong’s H7725 shûb - shoob
A primitive root; to turn back
to return, turn back
• to turn back
• to return, come or go back
• to return unto, go back, come back
English Standard Version
The wicked shall RETURN to Sheol, all the nations that forget God.
Berean Study Bible
The wicked will RETURN to Sheol—all the nations who forget God.
New American Standard Bible
The wicked will RETURN to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God.
IF the wicked RETURN to Sheol, logic and ordinary use of language indicates that they were there before but left. We have humans coming from Sheol and then returning back to there. We also have Christ telling us that the good seed, the people of the kingdom are sown into the world by the Son of Man and the people of the evil one are sown into the world by the devil, Matt 13:36-39. Where were they before they were sown? And sown cannot mean to be created as the devil does this sowing also and he can't create people. Does this verse refer to the moving of people from Sheol attested to by Ps 9:17 and Psalm 139:11-15? How can it be when orthodoxy has already declares it means something else and cannot be a reference hint to our pce! And we got the King James Bible to keep us straight (or to hide the fact of PCE?) about the orthodox interpretation, that is: The wicked shall be turned into sheol, and all the nations that forget God. ignoring to mention it was a return to where they were before.
Now if there were only two or three verses like this ordinary hermeneutics demands that they be accepted as a witness but what if there were in fact dozens, all suppressed? People generally are not willing to do the work to parse the verses to see if a hint could be hidden in scripture even if I provide them - just too many spilling apples!!
TibiasDad
Active Member
No it can’t; only one person can decide the certainty of the moment. If God determines the certainty from eternity past, then man has no part in making it certain; it is determined by God alone. Thus, all that happens is necessary only because God determines it; man has no freedom to do otherwise.
Doug
TibiasDad
Active Member
Perdetermination is the choice of God before man existed; thus, if God chooses X to happen, man cannot possibly do otherwise.
Doug
1. Merit based Election before Creation?
The basis of election cannot be, as some have suggested, some merit foreseen in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in their life life as sinners, but rather on HIS unmerited favour:
Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.
2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.
First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.
Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.
Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.
Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.
First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.
Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD'S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].
Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.
Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.
Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance. This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before earthly life" love. [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly.] GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?
Now, according to pre-conception existence (pce) theology, the "before earthly life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM. Therein is the reason why HE loved some "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest.
Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church, the sinful good seed). Yes, and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the eternally evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.
Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?
How is this not doublethink, holding opposite opinions to both be true at the same time?
civic
Active Member
Theological Determinism: This perspective holds that a divine entity or a higher power's omniscience and plan predetermine all events, including human actions.
Hard determinism is a philosophical position that asserts that free will is an illusion and that all events, including human actions and choices, are entirely determined by antecedent causes. In other words, under hard determinism, there is no room for genuine human agency or the ability to make choices that are independent of prior causes and conditions.
According to hard determinism, the state of the universe at any given moment, along with the laws of nature, logically and inevitably lead to specific outcomes in the future. This perspective denies the existence of any true alternatives and suggests that every action or decision made by an individual is the inevitable result of the sum total of their genetic makeup, past experiences, and external influences.
The proponents of hard determinism often draw on ideas from causal determinism, which posits that the world operates according to a chain of cause-and-effect relationships. They argue that even our thoughts and feelings are predetermined by physical processes in the brain and the external environment, leaving no room for genuine free will.
As a consequence of hard determinism, notions of moral responsibility and accountability become problematic. If individuals are not ultimately in control of their actions and choices, the traditional concepts of blame, punishment, and reward lose their grounding in the context of personal responsibility.
Critics of hard determinism argue that it negates the intuitive sense of agency and choice that humans experience in their everyday lives. They contend that certain complexities, such as the unpredictability of human behavior and the presence of genuine uncertainty in some systems (e.g., quantum mechanics), challenge the notion of a purely deterministic universe.
Overall, the debate between hard determinism and other philosophical perspectives on free will remains an ongoing and profound topic in philosophy and cognitive sciences, touching on fundamental questions about the nature of human existence and the limits of human autonomy.
calvinism is determinism which is fatalism.
Websters affirms this below, the calvinist affirms this with their proof texts here: Prov 16:4 ,1 Peter 2:8 and the WCF also affirms this in the confession. Romans 9 and double predestination also affirms its fatalism by the definition. As we see it makes God unjust.
from Stanford encyclopedia
Though the word “fatalism” is commonly used to refer to an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable, philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. This view may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called “Logical fatalism” (or, in some cases, “Metaphysical fatalism”); when argued for in the second way, it is commonly called “Theological fatalism”.
fa·tal·ism | \ ˈfā-tə-ˌli-zəm \
These reformed confessions are fatalism
This is fatalism.
1646 WCF, 3.1
God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own
will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as
thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of
the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established.
1689 LBCF, 3.1
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever
comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath
fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the
creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all
things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
dictionary.com
See synonyms for: fatalism / fatalistic on Thesaurus.com
College Levelnoun
the acceptance of all things and events as inevitable; submission to fate :Her fatalism helped her to face death with stoic calm.
Philosophy. the doctrine that all events are subject to fate or inevitable predetermination.
conclusion: determinism is fatalism/ calvinism
from wiki
The term "fatalism" can refer to any of the following ideas:
- Any view according to which human beings are powerless to do anything other than what they actually do.[1]Included in this is the belief that humans have no power to influence the future or indeed the outcome of their own actions.[2][3][clarification needed]
- The belief that events are decided by fate and are outside human control
- One such view is theological fatalism, according to which free will is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient God who has foreknowledge of all future events.[4] This is very similar to theological determinism.[a]
- A second such view is logical fatalism, according to which propositions about the future which we take to currently be either true or false can only be true or false if future events are already determined.[1]
- The view that the appropriate reaction to the inevitability of some future event is acceptance or resignation, rather than resistance.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism#cite_note-8 This view is closer to everyday use of the word "fatalism", and is similar to defeatism.
hope this helps !!!
atpollard
Active Member
Rather than rehashing the opening (V. 28-29) one more time, let us examine the so-called "golden chain" backwards (starting from the last pair).
"and those whom he justified he also glorified."
- Is there any doubt that a "cause-effect" relationship exists between "justified" and "glorified"?
- Is it possible for someone NOT JUSTIFIED to be "glorified"?
- Did the JUSTIFICATION enable the GLORIFICATION?
- Is GOD (and not man) the one doing both the JUSTIFYING and the GLORIFYING?
How do YOU answer the questions about justification and glorification?
The words of God are there for all to read and plain enough, so what do you say about them.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I see it as my choices have been dependent on his plan.
TibiasDad
Active Member
God is the only one who can do these things; however, he will only do them after we believe that he will do them for us according to his promise!
Doug
No there is not a cause-effect relationship between justified and glorified. They are two entirely separate acts of God. Just like justification and regeneration. There is no relation between the two except that God performed them both at the same instant in time in the life of the one whom He has saved. In truth, to be glorified is most likely referring to life in heaven. It is much like being given eternal life. When God saves, the one He saves is blessed in several different ways; namely, he is forgiven of his sins, he is born again, he is initially sanctified, he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, he is given eternal life, he is made a new creature, he is glorified, he becomes a child of God, he becomes one in the body of Christ, he becomes a saint, he is consecrated, etc., etc.
There is no cause-effect in any of these. The only cause in each and every one of them is God. They are all imposed upon the believer at the instant that they are saved, that instant in the life of the believer that God changes them from being unsaved to being saved. One isn't regenerated at one point in time and then sometime later justified. So also, one isn't justified at one point in time and then sometime later glorified even though what it means to be given eternal life or being glorified, or for that matter being saved, is fully realized only when finally arriving in heaven.
Similar threads
