Predestination and Determinism

[synergy]

So I take it you're a non-Calvinist? But just for the record whether you are or not I wouldn't want anyone to think you're a lunatic. But you may be right

Your video made me laugh. We all need a little lunacy in our live every so often.

 

[synergy]

duplicate.

 

[Administrator]

Your video made me laugh. We all need a little lunacy in our live every so often.

There's hope for us.

Matthew 17:14-16 (Jesus Heals a Lunatic, Part 1)​

Matthew 17:14-16 (Jesus Heals a Lunatic, Part 1) - Inductive Bible

When Jesus, Peter, James and John returned to the other disciples from the Mount of Transfiguration who met them? See Luk 9:37. Why had such a large crowd been gathered together around the other disciples? See Luk 9:38-40. Besides the spectacle of the demon-possessed boy, how might the...

inductivebible.org

 

[Manasseh]

Thank you for that explanation.

It's interesting what acrobatics Calvinists need to resort to in order to supposedly keep their doctrines logical like assigning 2 wills to God. What's to keep anyone from assigning another will to God like making everyone rich? This is just too mind warping.

I've found that if you try to explain Calvinism to a Christian that's never heard of Calvinism they look at you like you're crazy. Like how could anyone possibly believe In Calvinism.

 

[TomL]

Here's something to clarify and get a good understanding of Calvinism.

The substance of the Calvinistic doctrine is:—that God, from eternity, chose, or elected, certain men to everlasting life; and resolved, certainly and infallibly, to effect the salvation of these men, in accordance with the provisions of a great scheme which had devised for this purpose,—-a scheme without which no sinners could have been saved; and that, in making this selection of these individuals, who were to be certainly saved.

He was not influenced or determined by the foresight or foreknowledge, that they, as distinguished from others, would repent and believe, and would persevere to the end in faith and holiness; but that, on the contrary, their faith and conversion, their holiness and perseverance, are to be traced to His election of them, and to the effectual provision

He has made for executing His electing purpose or decree, as their true and only source,—they being chosen absolutely and unconditionally to salvation; and chosen also to faith, regeneration, and perseverance, as the necessary means, and in some sense, conditions, of salvation. Now, if this doctrine be denied, it is plain enough that the view which must be taken of the various points involved in the statement of it, is in substance this:—that God does not make from eternity any selection of some men from among the human race, whom He resolves and determines to save; that of course He never puts in operation any means that are fitted, and intended, to secure the salvation of those who are saved, as distinguished from others; and that, consequently, their faith and regeneration, with which salvation is inseparably connected, are not the gifts of God, effected by His agency, but are wrought by themselves, in the exercise of their own powers and capacities.

On this theory, it is impossible that God could have decreed or purposed the conversion and salvation of those who are saved, any more than of those who perish. And the only way in which their salvation, individually, could have come under God's cognizance, is that merely of its being foreseen as a fact future,—which would certainly take place—though He neither decreed nor caused it,—their own acts in repenting and believing, and persevering in faith and obedience, simply foreseen as future, being the cause, or ground, or determining principle of any acts which God either did or could pass in regard to them, individually, as distinguished from the rest of their fellow men.

This brings out the true, real, and only possible alternative in the case; and it is just in substance this: whether God is the the author and cause of the salvation of those who are saved? or whether this result is to be ascribed, in each case, to men themselves?

Calvinistic and Arminian writers have displayed considerable variety in their mode of stating and discussing this subject; and Calvinists, as well as Arminians, have sometimes imagined that they had fallen upon ideas and modes of statement and representation, which threw some new light upon it,—which tended to establish more firmly their own doctrine, or to expose more successfully that of their opponents.

But the practical result of all these ingenious speculations has always, upon a full examination of the subject, turned out to be, that the state of the question was found to be the same as before,—the real alternative unchanged,—the substantial materials of proof and argument unaltered; and the difficulties attaching to the opposite doctrines as strong and perplexing as ever, amid all the ingenious attempts made to modify their aspect, or to shift their position.

Predestination in Historical Theology​

Which is found nowhere in scripture

 

[Behold]

So I take it you're a non-Calvinist?

God is not a Calvinist.
Jesus is not a Calvinist
Paul the Apostle is not a Calvinist
The Bible does not teach Calvinism.

God make CHRISTians

Calvin makes : Calvinists

These are not the same.

 

[Biblelesson]

God is not a Calvinist.
Jesus is not a Calvinist
Paul the Apostle is not a Calvinist
The Bible does not teach Calvinism.

God make CHRISTians

Calvin makes : Calvinists

These are not the same.

God is not a Calvinist? Wow... you learn something new everyday. You say God makes Christians? That's predestination. Are you sure you're not a Calvinist? I thought the non-elect believed that God provided the way of salvation but man chooses to believe.

Predestination is the decree of God, manifesting his special glory in the eternal condition of men.

22.What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,
Romans 9:22–23.

Predestination indeed was from eternity. He chose us before the foundations of the World were laid.
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. Eph 1:4–5.

Which grace was given to us before all ages.
who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago 2 Timothy 1:9

God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect, God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves.

 

[civic]

God is not a Calvinist? Wow... you learn something new everyday. You say God makes Christians? That's predestination. Are you sure you're not a Calvinist? I thought the non-elect believed that God provided the way of salvation but man chooses to believe.

Predestination is the decree of God, manifesting his special glory in the eternal condition of men.

22.What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,
Romans 9:22–23.

Predestination indeed was from eternity. He chose us before the foundations of the World were laid.
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. Eph 1:4–5.

Which grace was given to us before all ages.
who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago 2 Timothy 1:9

God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect, God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves.

Yes that is fatalism

 

[Biblelesson]

Yes that is fatalism

There is the difference between Fate and Predestination. And all the language of men cannot tell the immensity of the difference.

This is a sad state of mind that people fall into sometimes, in which they do not know the difference between God and Fate. One of the most astonishing illustrations of it in all history is, no doubt, that afforded by our Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, who for a hundred years, now, have been vigorously declaring that the Westminster Confession teaches "fatalism." What they mean is that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that it is God who determines all that shall happen in his universe; that God has not -- to use a fine phrase of Dr. Charles Hodge's -- "given it either to necessity, or to chance, or to the caprice of man, or to the malice of Satan, to control the sequence of events and all their issues, but has kept the reins of government in his own hands." This, they say, is Fate: because (so they say) it involves "an inevitable necessity" in the falling out of events. And this doctrine of "fatality," they say -- or at least, their historian, Dr. B. W. McDonnold says for them -- is "the one supreme difficulty which it has never been possible to reconcile," and which still "stands an insuperable obstacle to a reunion" between them and "the mother church." "Whether the hard places in the Westminster Confession be justly called fatality or not," he adds, "they are too hard for us."

Now, is it not remarkable that men with hearts on fire with love to God should not know him from Fate? Of course, the reason is not far to seek. Like other men, and like the singer in the sweet hymn that begins, "I was a wandering sheep," they have a natural objection to being "controlled." They wish to be the architects of their own fortunes, the determiners of their own destinies; though why they should fancy they could do that better for themselves than God can be trusted to do it for them, it puzzles one to understand. And their confusion is fostered further by a faulty way they have of conceiving how God works. They fancy he works only by "general law." "Divine influence," they call it (rather than "him"): and they conceive this "divine influence" as a diffused force, present through the whole universe and playing on all alike, just like gravity, or light, or heat. What happens to the individual, therefore, is determined, not by the "divine influence" which plays alike on all, but by something in himself which makes him respond more or less to the "divine influence" common to all. If we conceive God's modes of operation, thus, under the analogy of a natural force, no wonder if we cannot tell him from Fate. For Fate is just Natural Force; and if Natural Force should thus govern all things that would be Fatalism.

The conception is, we see, in essence the same as that of the old Greeks. "To the Stoic, in fact," says Dr. Bigg, "God was Natural Law, and his other name was Destiny. Thus we read in the famous hymn of Cleanthes: 'Lead us, 0 Zeus, and Thou too, 0 destiny, whithersoever ye have appointed for us to go. For I will follow without hesitation. And if I refuse I shall become evil, but I shall follow all the same.' Man is himself a part of the great world-force, carried along in its all-embracing sweep, like the water-beetle in a torrent. He may struggle, or he may let himself go; but the result is the same, except that in the latter case, he embraces his doom, and so is at peace." When a man thus identifies God with mere natural law, he may obtain resignation, but he cannot attain religion. And the resignation attained may conceal beneath it the intensest bitterness of spirit. We all remember that terrible epigram of Palladas: "If caring avails anything, why, certainly, take good care; but if care is taken for you by a God, what's the use of your taking care? It's all the same whether you care or care not; the God takes care only for this -- that you shall have cares enough." That is the outcome of fatalism -- of confounding God with Natural Law.

What, now, is the real difference between this Fatalism and the Predestination taught, say, in our Confession? "Predestination and Fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same." That is to say, they differ precisely as a person differs from a machine. And yet Schopenhauer can represent this as not a radical difference! Professor William James knows better; and in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" enlarges on the difference. It is illustrated, he says, by the difference between the chill remark of Marcus Aurelius: "If the gods care not for me or my children, there is a reason for it"; and the passionate cry of Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!" Nor is the difference solely in emotional mood. It is precisely the difference that stretches between materialism and religion. There is, therefore, no heresy so great, no heresy that so utterly tears religion up by the roots, as the heresy that thinks of God under the analogy of natural force and forgets that he is a person.

There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate. This little boy's home was on a dyke in Holland, near a great wind-mill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there forgetful of everything but his present pleasures.

Perhaps, he was half conscious of a breeze springing up; and somewhere in the depth of his soul, he may have been obscurely aware of the danger with which he had been threatened. At any rate, suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard! 0 what a sinking of the heart! 0 what a horror of great darkness! It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasureable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father's face. At once, he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.

Selected Shorter Writings by B. B. WARFIELD​

 

[civic]

There is the difference between Fate and Predestination. And all the language of men cannot tell the immensity of the difference.

This is a sad state of mind that people fall into sometimes, in which they do not know the difference between God and Fate. One of the most astonishing illustrations of it in all history is, no doubt, that afforded by our Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, who for a hundred years, now, have been vigorously declaring that the Westminster Confession teaches "fatalism." What they mean is that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that it is God who determines all that shall happen in his universe; that God has not -- to use a fine phrase of Dr. Charles Hodge's -- "given it either to necessity, or to chance, or to the caprice of man, or to the malice of Satan, to control the sequence of events and all their issues, but has kept the reins of government in his own hands." This, they say, is Fate: because (so they say) it involves "an inevitable necessity" in the falling out of events. And this doctrine of "fatality," they say -- or at least, their historian, Dr. B. W. McDonnold says for them -- is "the one supreme difficulty which it has never been possible to reconcile," and which still "stands an insuperable obstacle to a reunion" between them and "the mother church." "Whether the hard places in the Westminster Confession be justly called fatality or not," he adds, "they are too hard for us."

Now, is it not remarkable that men with hearts on fire with love to God should not know him from Fate? Of course, the reason is not far to seek. Like other men, and like the singer in the sweet hymn that begins, "I was a wandering sheep," they have a natural objection to being "controlled." They wish to be the architects of their own fortunes, the determiners of their own destinies; though why they should fancy they could do that better for themselves than God can be trusted to do it for them, it puzzles one to understand. And their confusion is fostered further by a faulty way they have of conceiving how God works. They fancy he works only by "general law." "Divine influence," they call it (rather than "him"): and they conceive this "divine influence" as a diffused force, present through the whole universe and playing on all alike, just like gravity, or light, or heat. What happens to the individual, therefore, is determined, not by the "divine influence" which plays alike on all, but by something in himself which makes him respond more or less to the "divine influence" common to all. If we conceive God's modes of operation, thus, under the analogy of a natural force, no wonder if we cannot tell him from Fate. For Fate is just Natural Force; and if Natural Force should thus govern all things that would be Fatalism.

The conception is, we see, in essence the same as that of the old Greeks. "To the Stoic, in fact," says Dr. Bigg, "God was Natural Law, and his other name was Destiny. Thus we read in the famous hymn of Cleanthes: 'Lead us, 0 Zeus, and Thou too, 0 destiny, whithersoever ye have appointed for us to go. For I will follow without hesitation. And if I refuse I shall become evil, but I shall follow all the same.' Man is himself a part of the great world-force, carried along in its all-embracing sweep, like the water-beetle in a torrent. He may struggle, or he may let himself go; but the result is the same, except that in the latter case, he embraces his doom, and so is at peace." When a man thus identifies God with mere natural law, he may obtain resignation, but he cannot attain religion. And the resignation attained may conceal beneath it the intensest bitterness of spirit. We all remember that terrible epigram of Palladas: "If caring avails anything, why, certainly, take good care; but if care is taken for you by a God, what's the use of your taking care? It's all the same whether you care or care not; the God takes care only for this -- that you shall have cares enough." That is the outcome of fatalism -- of confounding God with Natural Law.

What, now, is the real difference between this Fatalism and the Predestination taught, say, in our Confession? "Predestination and Fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same." That is to say, they differ precisely as a person differs from a machine. And yet Schopenhauer can represent this as not a radical difference! Professor William James knows better; and in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" enlarges on the difference. It is illustrated, he says, by the difference between the chill remark of Marcus Aurelius: "If the gods care not for me or my children, there is a reason for it"; and the passionate cry of Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!" Nor is the difference solely in emotional mood. It is precisely the difference that stretches between materialism and religion. There is, therefore, no heresy so great, no heresy that so utterly tears religion up by the roots, as the heresy that thinks of God under the analogy of natural force and forgets that he is a person.

There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate. This little boy's home was on a dyke in Holland, near a great wind-mill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there forgetful of everything but his present pleasures.

Perhaps, he was half conscious of a breeze springing up; and somewhere in the depth of his soul, he may have been obscurely aware of the danger with which he had been threatened. At any rate, suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard! 0 what a sinking of the heart! 0 what a horror of great darkness! It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasureable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father's face. At once, he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.

Selected Shorter Writings by B. B. WARFIELD​

Fatalism and determinism are related philosophical concepts, but they have distinct differences in their implications and interpretations.

1. Determinism:Determinism is the philosophical idea that all events, including human actions and choices, are causally determined by prior events and the laws of nature. It suggests that the present state of the universe, along with the natural laws that govern it, necessarily leads to specific future events. In a deterministic worldview, the future is viewed as a logical consequence of the past and the laws of cause and effect. This concept applies to both natural events and human actions.
   Difference: Determinism is a broader and more general concept, encompassing the idea that all events are causally determined. It doesn't necessarily imply a specific belief about fate or predestination. Determinism can be compatible with the idea of free will, as some philosophers propose "compatibilism," which suggests that free will can coexist with determinism if actions align with an individual's desires and motivations.
2. Fatalism:Fatalism is the belief that all events and outcomes are predetermined and inevitable, regardless of human actions or choices. In a fatalistic view, it is futile for individuals to resist or change the course of events since they are bound to unfold as preordained. Fatalism often implies the idea of an external force or destiny that guides events in an inexorable manner.
   Difference: Fatalism is a specific subset of determinism, focusing on the inevitability of future events, typically without consideration of causality or the laws of nature. Fatalism tends to have a more fatalistic outlook, suggesting that events will unfold irrespective of human agency, choices, or actions. Unlike some interpretations of determinism, fatalism tends to reject the possibility of free will altogether.

In summary, determinism is a broader concept that suggests all events are causally determined, while fatalism is a specific subset of determinism that emphasizes the inevitability and predestination of events, often implying a lack of human control or influence over the unfolding of these events. While determinism can be compatible with free will (in the form of compatibilism), fatalism typically presents a more pessimistic view that events are fixed and beyond human intervention or choice.

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.

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Now, is it not remarkable that men with hearts on fire with love to God should not know him from Fate? Of course, the reason is not far to seek. Like other men, and like the singer in the sweet hymn that begins, "I was a wandering sheep," they have a natural objection to being "controlled." They wish to be the architects of their own fortunes, the determiners of their own destinies; though why they should fancy they could do that better for themselves than God can be trusted to do it for them, it puzzles one to understand. And their confusion is fostered further by a faulty way they have of conceiving how God works. They fancy he works only by "general law." "Divine influence," they call it (rather than "him"): and they conceive this "divine influence" as a diffused force, present through the whole universe and playing on all alike, just like gravity, or light, or heat. What happens to the individual, therefore, is determined, not by the "divine influence" which plays alike on all, but by something in himself which makes him respond more or less to the "divine influence" common to all. If we conceive God's modes of operation, thus, under the analogy of a natural force, no wonder if we cannot tell him from Fate. For Fate is just Natural Force; and if Natural Force should thus govern all things that would be Fatalism.

What, now, is the real difference between this Fatalism and the Predestination taught, say, in our Confession? "Predestination and Fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same." That is to say, they differ precisely as a person differs from a machine. And yet Schopenhauer can represent this as not a radical difference! Professor William James knows better; and in his lectures on "The Varieties of Religious Experience" enlarges on the difference. It is illustrated, he says, by the difference between the chill remark of Marcus Aurelius: "If the gods care not for me or my children, there is a reason for it"; and the passionate cry of Job, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!" Nor is the difference solely in emotional mood. It is precisely the difference that stretches between materialism and religion. There is, therefore, no heresy so great, no heresy that so utterly tears religion up by the roots, as the heresy that thinks of God under the analogy of natural force and forgets that he is a person.

Selected Shorter Writings by B. B. WARFIELD​

Great snippet. Emphasis mine.

 

[civic]

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.

fatalism noun​

fa·tal·ism | \ ˈfā-tə-ˌli-zəm \

Definition of fatalism : a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine​

 

[civic]

Great snippet. Emphasis mine.

Great snippet below emphasis mine

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”.

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.

fatalism noun​

fa·tal·ism | \ ˈfā-tə-ˌli-zəm \

Definition of fatalism : a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine​

 

[civic]

Their creeds 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.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

From the snippet...

Free-willers:

They wish to be the architects of their own fortunes, the determiners of their own destinies; though why they should fancy they could do that better for themselves than God can be trusted to do it for them, it puzzles one to understand. And their confusion is fostered further by a faulty way they have of conceiving how God works.

Reality:

"Predestination and Fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one.

And here's why free-willers reject the reality: They do not trust God because they have a faulty way of conceiving how God works.

 

[Manasseh]

One of the main aspects of the Calvinist understanding of total depravity—the T in TULIP—is that regeneration precedes faith. Unfortunately, most Evangelicals do not know what that means and so they are likely to accept the first point of Calvinism, thinking that total depravity means that we are all sinners and that we are not able to save ourselves.

Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23

But total depravity means much more than that. While most Evangelicals say that one must believe in Jesus in order to be born again "regenerate", by contrast, Calvinists say that one must be born again "regenerate" in order to believe.

While most Calvinists say that regeneration and faith occur almost simultaneously, they all say that regeneration must precede faith since they do not believe that spiritually dead people can believe.

 

[Behold]

God is not a Calvinist? Wow... you learn something new everyday.

You know it.

God hates Calvinism, because it offends the Cross of Christ and rejects the Grace of God as GOD provides it.

Calvinism is "of the Devil", and its deceived are a bane against the Body of Christ.

You say God makes Christians? That's predestination.

No, that's "Born again". as "ALL who Believe".. not "all who are elected".

John Calvin hated John 3:16, because it rejects his "doctrine of devils'..

Predestination is the decree of God,

"pre-destination" is Calvin's demonic Theology.

Calvinism is a cancer on the body of Christ.

22.What if God,

Exaclty.

'what IF">

That is a consideration,.... that is not a declaration.

See,..... those in that discussion, one is being addressed like this..."what is it to you".. "who are you to be telling God"... and in that perspective you then read... "what IF God...

See that?
Calvinism is built on a "what if". perspective.. a "well, God could do it" "what if God decided to hurl Pluto into Jupiter"., and if He did, what is that to you ?

So that is how you read that., to get the correct understanding.

And when you read about "vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction"......that is not teaching that God chose them for that... That is teaching that when they decided to NOT BELIEVE then they became under the wrath of God that will not be removed unless they turn from their unbelief.

JOHN 3:36, is describing these WILL-FUL "stiff necked".... people.

Hebrews Chapter 6 and 10... and Acts 28:28 describe them VIVIDLY.

4. even as he chose us in him

To be "chosen in Him" is to be birthed as "in Christ'.
That gets you "" Predestined to be conformed into the image"

See, there is a pre-destined "conforming" of a born again believer into "the image of Christ.

That's the verse.

So, Calvin rewrote "predestined to be conformed" into "predestined before you were born to be chosen to be saved", "or not".

He made that up, because He was a mentally twisted scripture rejecting devil.

Noone is pre-destined to be born again, ...yet everyone who is born again is pre-destined to be "conformed into the image of Christ".

Which grace was given to us before all ages.

That is God's Foreknowledge.
See, God knew what He was going to do, at all times.... because that is God's Foreknowledge.
He also knows what you are going to do, next.. @Biblelesson
God knew that Christ would come, and the Trib would come, and the 2nd Advent would come.

God always KNOWS what is going to happen next, as that is God's FORE-KNOWING... (Foreknowledge)
And Calvin falsely redefined all that as ""'pre-destined"".

See, Calvin's insanity, (Theologically) is that He re-defined "God's Foreknowledge" as "pre-destined" and that is the lie from Hell that is the core of John Calvinism, which is a extreme "doctrine of devils".

who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago 2 Timothy 1:9

Yes, God saves us by His Grace, and His Grace is the Cross of Christ that is given to the "WORLD"... John 3:16
And God foreknew this would happen, before Jesus was Virgin Born.
So, once again, this is simply the FORE-Knowledge of God.. and that is God knowing all that is going to happen next.

The BIBLE is the same.
The BIBLE has shown YOU, that the TRIB is coming.. but that is not the BIBLE "pre-destining it".. that is the Bible REVEALING IT.

See that?

So, Calvin would say that this is the bible "pre-destining it" because He had this obsession with redefining future revelation, or "God's Foreknowledge' as "pre-destined to happen".

Ive never met a mind blinded Calvinist, who can understand correctly, that God knowing everything, is not the same as God causing Everything.

See that?

Calvin's core demonic doctrine is to change "God's Fore-knowing" into God Pre-destined.

That's the LIE of Calvinism that is its core heresy and from that lie, Calvin just kept on going and going, like a cancer that just keeps on growing.

God from all eternity decrees some to election

Every Calvinist teaches that lie,.
See, every Calvinist will say that all of their family.. all of YOUR Family, is "Pre-destined", because you have to say it.

However.... once you realize that some of your family, (According to your IDOL John Calvin).... are not pre-destined to believe, then you are going to have a wake up call and the reality is going to bite you.


But till then, You'll just pretend the some of the members here are not "pre-destined elect" or their Family.... .while all of your family is pre-destined for heaven.

Uh huh...

 

[TomL]

Predestination indeed was from eternity. He chose us before the foundations of the World were laid.
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. Eph 1:4–5.

.

That concerns the destiny of those in Christ not unconditionally select men to salvation

 

[Biblelesson]

From the snippet...

Free-willers:

They wish to be the architects of their own fortunes, the determiners of their own destinies; though why they should fancy they could do that better for themselves than God can be trusted to do it for them, it puzzles one to understand. And their confusion is fostered further by a faulty way they have of conceiving how God works.

Reality:

"Predestination and Fatalism," says Schopenhauer, "do not differ in the main. They differ only in this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism from an irrational one.

And here's why free-willers reject the reality: They do not trust God because they have a faulty way of conceiving how God works.

That's a good one.

 

[civic]

One of the main aspects of the Calvinist understanding of total depravity—the T in TULIP—is that regeneration precedes faith. Unfortunately, most Evangelicals do not know what that means and so they are likely to accept the first point of Calvinism, thinking that total depravity means that we are all sinners and that we are not able to save ourselves.

Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Romans 3:23

But total depravity means much more than that. While most Evangelicals say that one must believe in Jesus in order to be born again "regenerate", by contrast, Calvinists say that one must be born again "regenerate" in order to believe.

While most Calvinists say that regeneration and faith occur almost simultaneously, they all say that regeneration must precede faith since they do not believe that spiritually dead people can believe.

correct that is heresy.