Is Everything Predetermined?

[atpollard]

Food

It's either going to be Chicken or Pizza tonight.

I ask myself: What should I choose?

Throughout the day I go back and forth with my decision, but whatever I eat of the two didn't God already know what I was going to choose?

God may have done better than that ... The Pizza Delivery person may need a word of encouragement from you, and ...

• "The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the LORD; he guides it wherever he pleases." [Pro 21:1 NLT]

... so is ours! God may have already decided that you want Pizza.

 

[Fred]

Should we proclaim the gospel as if all can be saved, but leave it to God as to whom He has already chosen to save?

That is, don't get bogged down with the finer details of this, but just be good stewards and the sow the precious seed whithersoever thou goest.

 

[atpollard]

I would say no. I would say the only problem would be what you're insisting how Gods OMNI ability must be played out. I would think God would say, No I can exercise my OMNI ability any way I choose to and it's my sovereign right to do so.

I think that will eventually run into paradox/conflict as well. Sort of "kicking the ball down the field". It just moves the line of what the Lutherans call "mystery".

 

[atpollard]

Thing is though (reading through your post) what you mean by God is in control is a lot different from some Calvinists. Some and many believe EVERY ACTION that takes place on the Earth is God controlling it to be that way. You don't seem to believe that for you acknowledge, in Romans 1 people reject God....they do. Then you're not believing God controlled that. So back to your words above. You said God is in control of everything. But it seems you believe he allows them and only them to make decisions. Again that wouldn't be control of everything.

I am a VERY STRONG believer in both "original sin" and "fallen nature" [Ephesians 2:1-4 describes EVERYONE without an "intervention" by God] for personal and empirical reasons. [Others are free to disagree, but this is a point about which I am immovably convinced.] So for me, God need do NOTHING and all mankind would eagerly follow the reprobates of Romans 1:18-32. It is only God's restraint that prevents a true "Hell on Earth" today.

So God does not NEED to do anything to damn people. God could (as HOLY and JUST) sit back and RIGHTEOUSLY condemn "all without exception" to depart from His Holy Presence. It is SALVATION that requires an extraordinary action on God's part. Back to the Romans 2 analogy, what do you need to do to make a dead man stay dead? Nothing. It is making a dead man come to life that requires action!

Thus the "GIFT" is Eternal Life and per John 3:18, "already judged" is the default (no action required by anyone).
Satan was free to DESIRE to act against Job, but God controlled EXACTLY what Satan was free to DO. So too, men are free to DESIRE what our fallen nature desires, but God is in 100% control of what we are allowed to DO. [Like the story of Joseph.]

 

[Rockson]

I am a VERY STRONG believer in both "original sin" and "fallen nature" [Ephesians 2:1-4 describes EVERYONE without an "intervention" by God]

I think it's safe to say all Non Calvinists believe there was an intervention by God. God decided to send his Son and through the preaching of the gospel what Jesus did on the cross all could be saved. But what you're saying though as an intervention by God is some type of irresistible grace. That's where I'd say most of Christendom disagrees with you.

for personal and empirical reasons. [Others are free to disagree, but this is a point about which I am immovably convinced.]

And as I stated your last statement said you believe salvation took an intervention by God. But it seemed you stayed away from what you really meant by that. It's similar to making a sandwich giving it to someone but they're not really understanding what's really in it. How did you make it. Is irresistible grace is in it according to you. If not nobody has any problem with you saying God did an intervention in the way I described above.

So for me, God need do NOTHING and all mankind would eagerly follow the reprobates of Romans 1:18-32.

Not sure that's true at all to say ALL mankind would follow the worst of reprobates. I've seen lots of those outside of Christ which by no means agree with the extremes of degradation some individuals get into .

It is only God's restraint that prevents a true "Hell on Earth" today.

Well sure there's a degree of prevention of some actions of men. Men may be tempted to hit the buttons and blow up the world...God might and probably has stepped in and stopped some things. Such doesn't mean God is controlling everything.

 

[Diserner]

There is a difference between certainty and necessity.

Unless you understand that difference—you will always feel confused by omniscience paradoxes.

 

[atpollard]

I think it's safe to say all Non Calvinists believe there was an intervention by God. God decided to send his Son and through the preaching of the gospel what Jesus did on the cross all could be saved. But what you're saying though as an intervention by God is some type of irresistible grace. That's where I'd say most of Christendom disagrees with you.

And as I stated your last statement said you believe salvation took an intervention by God. But it seemed you stayed away from what you really meant by that. It's similar to making a sandwich giving it to someone but they're not really understanding what's really in it. How did you make it. Is irresistible grace is in it according to you. If not nobody has any problem with you saying God did an intervention in the way I described above.

Not sure that's true at all to say ALL mankind would follow the worst of reprobates. I've seen lots of those outside of Christ which by no means agree with the extremes of degradation some individuals get into .

Well sure there's a degree of prevention of some actions of men. Men may be tempted to hit the buttons and blow up the world...God might and probably has stepped in and stopped some things. Such doesn't mean God is controlling everything.

That's why I am a Monergist and you are a Synergist [neither is a bad word ]. We Baptists have a +/- 400 year tradition of allowing each individual to answer to

1. the Bible
2. their conscience
3. God

rather than to each other or a "denomination". It allows Particular (Monergist) Baptists and General (Synergist) Baptists to worship together in the same church (local body of believers). Like the saying goes: "If we agreed on everything, one of us would be superfluous."

 

[Diserner]

It allows Particular (Monergist) Baptists and General (Synergist) Baptists to worship together in the same church (local body of believers). Like the saying goes: "If we agreed on everything, one of us would be superfluous."

Let's be clear... although a person can be within the bounds of salvation and we fellowship out of mercy...

One of those positions is very wrong, as they are opposite, and we don't somehow "need" some believers to be wrong on important issues.

till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
(Eph. 4:13-14 NKJ)

 

[atpollard]

Let's be clear... although a person can be within the bounds of salvation and we fellowship out of mercy...

One of those positions is very wrong, as they are opposite, and we don't somehow "need" some believers to be wrong on important issues.

I agree, but as the Moravian Motto suggests: "Unity in essentials, Liberty in non-essentials, Love in all things."
If Salvation does not hang in the balance, then it is probably not an "essential" ... so LOVE remains the dominant force.

... besides, it is exhausting explaining to everyone that TULIP is correct because THAT's what the Bible teaches and having to listen to all the whining about God being "mean" or "unfair".

 

[GeneZ]

God puts in front of fallen angels the actions of men and they're supposed to be their teachers? Not sure where you came up with that as I don't find it anywhere in the word. Really not sure why you'd even put together a thought like that. Maybe you could explain further.

God is the teacher. Fallen man is merely the "teaching tool" that God uses to make angels see how good and evil will not be able to coexist forever. That there must be an end put to evil (Lake of Fire), and that its a good thing it will end.

In the mean while all sorts of compromises throughout and during human history will display that there is no way for evil to be reconciled to those who are righteous. That the Lake of Fire is a must.

 

[Diserner]

so LOVE remains the dominant force.

I may fellowship with a believer in sexual sin (depending).

I'll love them too.

But I'll never stop telling them it's wrong and evil.

Isn't that the loving thing to do?

I mean, under a Calvinist view they are preaching to people God unilaterally chose to resist and reject their doctrine.

Then so often appealing to their ability to make a decision, lol.

That's ridiculous.

 

[GeneZ]

rather than to each other or a "denomination". It allows Particular (Monergist) Baptists and General (Synergist) Baptists to worship together in the same church (local body of believers). Like the saying goes: "If we agreed on everything, one of us would be superfluous."

Actually.. if we all agreed on everything?

It could mean we all are willing to do like the Lord said, and deny self and take up our own crosses when sound doctrine is taught to follow..

With sound doctrine is how God separates believers from each other.

​

For the time will come when people will not put up with/endure/tolerate/ sound doctrine. ​

Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers ​

to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3​

For pride in our own way of thinking will reject certain sound doctrinal teachings. And, when we reject? We try to save their own life. Jesus said if they try to save their life, we will lose it. Lose the true life found only in Christ via thinking with God's Word correctly...

Instead..

Tradition based denominations of non-thinkers (spiritually) take pride in the badge of their allegiance that they take personal pride in.

grace and peace ..........................

 

[GeneZ]

I agree, but as the Moravian Motto suggests: "Unity in essentials, Liberty in non-essentials, Love in all things."
If Salvation does not hang in the balance, then it is probably not an "essential" ... so LOVE remains the dominant force.

... besides, it is exhausting explaining to everyone that TULIP is correct because THAT's what the Bible teaches and having to listen to all the whining about God being "mean" or "unfair".

The agape love Jesus and Paul spoke of is an impersonal type love.

Its a 'live and let live' kind of love respecting the freedom of your neighbor.

 

[atpollard]

I may fellowship with a believer in sexual sin (depending).
I'll love them too.
But I'll never stop telling them it's wrong and evil.
Isn't that the loving thing to do?
I mean, under a Calvinist view they are preaching to people God unilaterally chose to resist and reject their doctrine.
Then so often appealing to their ability to make a decision, lol.
That's ridiculous.

I don't ... I am a MEAN Calvinist.

"How's that working out for you?" [living in sin when you know what God says].
Then mike drop and walk away if they don't want to talk about it. I am not their mother or the Holy Spirit [I can't fix what's broken.]

To the ignorant, I offer information. To the hard-hearted, I offer a reminder of truth and to be left alone (if that's what they want).

 

[atpollard]

The agape love Jesus and Paul spoke of is an impersonal type love.

Its a 'live and let live' kind of love respecting the freedom of your neighbor.

I am almost 100% sure [99.9995%] that "agape" love is not "impersonal" or "live and let live".
I will let someone with better Koine Greek cover that if they feel so inclined.

 

[e v e]

love means that the one who loves
can be affected by the other...

to compare, the greek soul nous has no feeling
does not care and is sociopathic

*nous is an oversoul or hive mind per the greek theology..
has no body, has no sex, has only Mind and no feelings,
since the Greeks refer to feelings as accident, not substance.
It's a treacherous doctrine.

 

[e v e]

certainty as a buzz term is derived from the augustinian Descartes.

necessity is a greek theological term.

 

[e v e]

Greek theology has been overlaid upon Christianity
to such extent that its logic saturates poor jacob

every word seems to be doubled in meaning...
on purpose to hurt souls...
so that the greek one will always 'win'.

 

[e v e]

I don't ... I am a MEAN Calvinist.

i find that in some things calvinists are half right sometimes
but not quite...and arminians are half right sometimes but not quite...
it's like a weird dichotomy was created using 'logic' on purpose
to keep the sons spinning their wheels...
so that no one could ever understand Him...
and of course the problem with half-right is that it is not right...
this is why I don't like terms like calvinist or arminian..
they don't mean anything in the soul....
but create more confusion

at least for me I need NOT
to use such terms ever.

feels Dirty.

 

[GeneZ]

I am almost 100% sure [99.9995%] that "agape" love is not "impersonal" or "live and let live".
I will let someone with better Koine Greek cover that if they feel so inclined.

There are three different Greek words for three type of love....

One reason Peter became hurt when Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him?
It was agape He asked Peter about.
Peter responded with 'phileo' which means personal love.

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ​

“Simon son of John, do you love (agape) me more than these?”​

​

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love (phileo) you.”​

​

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”​

​

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love (agape) me?”​

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo) you.”​

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”​

​

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love (phileo) me?”​

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love (phileo) me?” ​

He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (phileo) you.”​

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep”.​

That is one example of what we can not get from mainstream English translations.
We will think love means whatever we choose it to mean.


grace and peace .................