# Predestination



## ReformedWretch (Nov 29, 2007)

A good arminian friend of mine wants to debate this with me over coffee sometime soon. I know there is a TON of info out there for me to pour over before I go with him, but I am looking for two or three of the best refrences you all can provide. Something quick, I don't have time to wait on a book to arrive and then get it read and studied up before he invites me, I'm sure!


----------



## A5pointer (Nov 29, 2007)

Just bring Romans 9, don't mean to be smart. Ask him to provide a possible interpretation that fits his view of conditional election.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 29, 2007)

Thanks!! I;ll let you know how it goes.


----------



## jfschultz (Nov 29, 2007)

Take it from the one person who knows soteriology better that any one else (yes even Calvin) in John3:3-7. Being born is not something you do. Being born is something that happens to you.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 29, 2007)

Ha, yea that makes it sound pretty simple. Here is some of the notes my friends just dropped off for me. Keep in mind this is just some of 4 pages! (lol)

"If all saints are called and without free will of our own, to make a choice; Christ came for nothing and all of the following examples were merely ominous acts of God's selfish character, (Careless of the feelings of man).

1) Prophecies of the coming Messiah-Prince of Peace, Redeemer and King
2) Man-likeness of God, the fall, deteroration, destruction, prosperity and redemption
3) Cain and Abel- disobedience faithfulness, and fulfillment
4) The flood- Noah with his weaknesses and mistakes
5) God's covenants-Gods promises through obedience
6) Circumcission-The bridegroom of blood
7) Isaac, Rebekah, and their son-submission and blessing
8) Joseph-Proterity and strong Character
9) Tower of Babel-symbol of mans pride, selfish acheivement and abandoment
10) Abram and Lot-poor choices leading to problems
11) Sodom and Gomorrah-Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt
12) Jacob and Essau-grace to honor disgrace to shame
13) Joseph-staying optomistic through adversity
14) Moses-recieving God's law 
15) Moses and Aaron-chosen by God for leadership
16) Pharaoh-10 plagues, loss of a son, annihiliation of an army
17) Israelits Nation-opression to liberation and deliverance
18) The Passover-the destroyer, redemption, Sanctification
19) Manna-In this way I will test them and see if they will follow my instruction


There are 16 more of these! Things is, I am not sure what he's even trying to say! Anyone have a clue? To me the only thing I need to answer about any of them relates to the opening line before the list-



> If all saints are called and without free will of our own, to make a choice; Christ came for nothing and all of the following examples were merely ominous acts of God's selfish character, (Careless of the feelings of man).



Where does he get the idea that God operates in accordance to the feelings of man?!

Any one have other thoughts?


----------



## Poimen (Nov 29, 2007)

Well I hate to throw a wrench in the gears but I do want to ask: why the need to debate? I am not against debate per se, but the way the situation is being described it seems like this guy has a real chip on his shoulder. Sometimes Calvinists can be this way as well, but I would be careful about being drawn into a 'no holds barred' type of discussion that does not edify but seeks to glorify man. In fact, from what little you shared this seems to be his biggest problem: "Careless of the feelings of man" 

And don't think that you can't be drawn into that. It happens to the best of us.

But if you decide to go ahead I would just begin with Genesis 1:1. You, I and your friend weren't there. God is God; "Let God be God." (Luther)

As far as recognizing the good works of man, you well know that God does honor what we do. But even this was part of His preordained plan (Ephesians 1:4; 2:10)


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 30, 2007)

> In fact, from what little you shared this seems to be his biggest problem: "Careless of the feelings of man"



That jumped out at me immediately. I am shocked he doesn't see this.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 30, 2007)

Couple of thoughts:

Your friend has confused predestination with absolute predetermination. God has given Man (the elect moreso) liberty within His will, but His decreed will is absolute. So while the outcome is predestined in terms of the plan for His own glory and the elect, the means have some flexibility.



> Sproul discusses the will of God under the classical heads of His decretive and preceptive wills and His will of disposition. There is also a section on biblical righteousness. The chapter on man’s will discusses the nature of the human will by examining the Augustinian formulation of kinds of freedom (posse pecarre, posse non-pecarre, non-posse pecarre, non-posse non-pecarre). He concludes the discussion of free will by appealing to Jonathan Edwards’ conception of free will—that we as fallen human beings have free will in the sense that we are not constrained to act in any certain way, but that we have a moral inability to choose the good. He concludes by teaching us that our freedom is always restricted by God’s sovereignty, not the other way around. “There is a God who is sovereign,” he writes, “which is to say, He is absolutely free. My freedom is always within limits. My freedom is always constrained by the sovereignty of God. I have freedom to do things as I please, but if my freedom conflicts with the decretive will of God, there is no question as to the outcome—God’s will will be done and not mine,”


 link

God foreknows something about the Elect that fulfilled a Divine rationale - we don't know what - Christ came to enable these elect sinners to exist with Him without being judged for sinful corrupted-ness.

Bottom line: Predestination (and Creation itself!) is about demonstrating God's character of Loving Mercy and Justice, not about Man's choices.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2007)

Adam,

You might want to find out if your friend actually believes that God knows the future exhaustively or whether he's an Open Theist.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 30, 2007)

I confess, I am absolutely mystified about Open Theism - it's like string theory is sovereign...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 30, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I confess, I am absolutely mystified about Open Theism - it's like string theory is sovereign...



LOL! Exactly, I was just going to reply to Rich that if my friend subscribes to that I was going to be completely at a loss. Debating with those ideas seem nearly impossible, not because they are correct and have good points, but because it's hard to even understand what it is they believe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2007)

houseparent said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > I confess, I am absolutely mystified about Open Theism - it's like string theory is sovereign...
> ...



I actually highly recommend picking up a copy of _The Doctrine of God_ by John Frame. You may not agree with everything he writes there but he has some outstaning critiques of Open Theism and Libertine Free Will. It's pretty well organized so you can use it as a reference for such things. He deals with quite a few errors like that.

For instance, if your friend actually believes that man possesses free will _and_ God knows the future exhaustively but doesn't really have any positive individual _control_ over the actions of creatures then He simply sees the entire future like some movie and then creates knowing how everything will inexorably unfold without His direct hand in any of it. It all just happens inexorably with nothing that God can do to change it because these are the things He foresaw would happen but didn't control.

Also, in such a schema, there really is no point to any of the suffering and calamity and woe in the world. Your friends view of God caring about the feelings of others is so nauseatingly American where the worst suffering most experience is that somebody cuts them off on the freeway. I was just exhorting last week and noted that most American's "faith" will be washed away when real persecution comes because it's built on the sand of prosperity. They comfort the grieving widow that God "didn't want that to happen but if He didn't then we wouldn't have free will". I guess that's what we're just supposed to put our hope in. That's what we're supposed to break into rapturous doxology: "Oh what a glorious sight! I have free will! Glory! All this suffering makes sense! God has no plan for any of it but *I HAVE FREE WILL!*"

EXCREMENT! 

I'm just so nauseated by this stuff. It's so vacuos and pointless.

I just spoke about the real hope that we have in Christ that Peter wrote about to the Church in 1 Peter last week. Nothing about God caring for our feelings. Nothing about how precious our free will is. Here's a portion of what I told the congregation:


> I don’t mean to sound like a grade school teacher when I remind you of this but our hope is Christ. Our hope is Christ. Our hope is Christ. Our hope is not how we feel about what Christ has done. Our hope is what Christ has done. Our hope is in a God that saw us in our great need, our death in sin and misery, our hatred of Him. He saw us in our despair and sent His Son into the world.
> 
> Beloved, the prophets of old used to pore over the Word of God longing, longing, longing to understand the mystery that was going to be revealed. What is this Messiah being spoken of? Who is this? The Rabbis were absolutely baffled. This Messiah is sometimes referred to as a man and sometimes referred to as God. Oh, how they longed to see what has been revealed in Christ Jesus.
> 
> ...



I have hope in this world _because_ God is in complete control of it all. I was dead in my sins and trespasses and hated God and out of the great love with which He loved me He *made me alive!* I wasn't even looking for Him but He overcame me and I was overcome. If I thought for a moment that He didn't control everything then I would despair for everything because I know that I'm toast on my own.

Sonya was talking to a woman with two small kids this week and she was telling her how encouraging that message of hope was because she often feels like she is just messing up the whole Motherhood thing and, maybe if she just had more faith and obeyed, that her life would be all squared away because _by her will_ she would get the blessing she was missing. But the message of the Gospel took the yoke of her shoulders and replaced it with the light burden of hope. Not a message of happiness, health, and prosperity but that Christ has victory over the grave and that suffering in this world is a small thing in comparison.

I'll take the worst kind of tragedy that this wicked world has to offer as long as I don't have to replace the hope I have with the excrement that my free will is all supreme and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why Christians want to convince themselves that God is not in control.


----------

