Open View of Salvation vs. Predetermination

It usually comes down to this when all the Scripture has been presented. That is why I warned that it seemed to me that they are saying that no matter what the Bible says, they are not able to worship a God who could create someone in order to send them to Hell. That does not say much for their view of God or their view of Scripture, which I hold in the highest regard on both accounts.

 

That is the point now isn't it? We are not worshipping a God that creates people just for hell. I am glad you posted that though. I am going to save that.

 

Telling indeed. The debate is over. All the cards have been turned over and exposed!

 

Grace and Peace BP/T,

If you don't mind I'd like to comment. I believe that you are creating false analogies and straw-men which fails to do justice to the Arminian point of view on Conditional Election.

First regardless of what Brother Bob has stated in frustration in this long debate Conditional Election asserts nothing that contradicts God's Omnipotence. To the contrary, the point of Conditional Election speaks more to the failure of man to respond than that the failure of election is somehow an error or weakness of God Himself. Blame of damnation rests solely on the shoulders of those who ultimately reject the saving grace offered by God.

God's election of people to salvation is conditioned upon their faith response to the gospel (Eph. 1:13; ROM 3:28). Arminians reject the claim that faith is a work, since faith merely receives the gift that God offers (ROM 4:4-5; Gal. 2:16).

Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness*.*.*. - Romans*4:4-5
*
Illustration: Having been handed a million dollar check, the Arminians would not state that it was work for you to go to the bank, endorse it, and to have it deposited into your account.

It is God's desire that all men enjoy a personal relationship with Him in participation in the Godhead. This participation in the Divine Nature has to be one of 'real' love and uncoerced union between the Divine Nature and His Creation. For this reason God has endowed 'some' of His Creatures with freewill in His image so that such a relationship would be possible.

What Calvinism appears to propose is a God who randomly grabs a 'small' number of His Creation to share eternity to arbitrarly discard the rest and not only to discard but to punish for all eternity because ultimately God felt inclined to do so. Is this really what you think?

Regardless Peace and God Bless.

 

Bound, aren't you holding the same cards that Bob holds. Isn't that your real claim - that God wants to save everybody but does not have the ability to save anybody?

 

Grace and Peace J.D.,

My real claim is that God as Father (abba) extends grace to all willing to receive it. Salvation is not a show of God's Might but a show of His Mercy toward fallen man who given the liberty of free choice in their error and to their shame has embraced evil and turned from God. It is a testament of the Mercy of God that we still have that grace extended regardless of our actions toward our Father in Heaven.

Grace is not about Might, it's about Mercy. I can't stress this point enough.

Peace and God Bless.

 

Yes, mercy is the motivation of God's salvation. The question is, does God have the ABILITY to save those he wishes to save?

 

From a skeptic's point of view (not mine):

I see no difference between a god who chooses to save some while passing over others, and one who could save everybody but chooses not to out of some desire to not violate their free will. Both gods are evil in that they had the power to keep people from hell but did not excercise that power.

It looks like we are all in the same boat.

 

Grace and Peace J.D.,

Let me say first that I appreciate the less polemical tone in your posts today. I believe it gives us a broader platform in which to share our views. That is great! :thumbs:

I believe God's desire to share with His Creatures the Divine Nature is ultimately not one of coercion. Neither is it an assumption of the creatures person-hood but a synergos or synergism where two discrete influences or agents acting together create an effect greater than that predicted by knowing only the separate effects of the individual agents. In this we share in the nature and person of Christ our Lord and Saviour. This has nothing to do with God having the sheer force to save man. The only means of giving man eternal life is through unmolested participation 'in' the Divine Nature for only God is eternal.

Peace and God Bless.

 

That's a good point Andy and a very important one although I would rather address that in another thread. I've seen that issue before. I can understand a skeptic having that view. It would take us to apologetical arguments.

 

Grace and Peace Andy T.,

I believe it is vastly more complicated then your post but I can appreciate you struggle. If you don't mind I enjoy discussing this with you and perhaps we might both reach a greater understanding of the message of Salvation through Jesus Christ?

Just let me know.

Regardless Peace and God Bless.

 

BPT,

I would like to begin by saying I do concede that you have made a very good argument that may create some difficulties to over come. I want to thank you for this op as it has driven me to dig so deeply into my Lords' very Words.

I disagree that the reformed view is a higher view of God than that of those who have studied diligently and have come to understand that being created in the image of God we have free will.

The reformed view of God falls short of the title "higher" because it puts limits on God much in the same way you say that those of us who hold to the free will of man does.

The reformed view contends, with reasonable thought, that those who hold to free will diminish Gods' soveriegnty as we seem to say that God is limited by our free will. How ever I say that just the opposite is true. I will clarify further:

I beleive that the reformed view itself diminshes Gods' soveriegnty. For it says that God cannot maintain soveriegnty when men have free will.
It is not necessary to think that God cannot act in a soveriegn way if man has free will. This is hard to understand and even more difficult to explain. Is it reasonable to think that man has God given free will? Is it possible that Gods' soveriegnty and mans' free will can coexist?

Let's begin by taking a look at what you have asked us to address.

Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things to himself, yea even the wicked for the day of evil.

The word "made" does not have to speak to the creation of the wickedness of the wicked. In order to make that case you have have to present some scripture that says just that in order to make your point credible here.

If this passage actually speaks to the creation of the wicked at all it can also mean the creation of the person that is wicked and the power to use free will to be wicked. This is also a reasonable possibility.

The word "made" is the Hebrew word "Pawal" and it means "to do, to make, or to practice. The synonyms given for it are "commit, do, make, ordain, work, or wrought.

So as we see the word "made" does not have to refer to the creation of wickedness, by God, that is in man.

This verse can reasonably be understood to mean God has ordained all things for himself, even the wicked are ordained for the evil day.

The chaldee translates this verse in this way:
All the works of the Lord are for those that obey him; and the wicked is reserved for the evil day.

Wolvord & Zuck puts it this way:

God works all things for his own ends including the wicked for the day of destruction.

This is enough for now I look forward to your response BPT.:thumbs:

 

Who, me? Polemic? Surely you jest.

You said "God's desire to share with His Creatures the Divine Nature". I'm not sure about the theological validity of that statement.

Of course monergism v synergism is the precise debate between C and A. All flavours of arminians - pelagians, semi-pelagians, arminians, semi-arminians, ad infinitem, are synergists. You allusion to synergism merely restates your argument using different words.

You say "The only means of giving man eternal life is through unmolested participation 'in' the Divine Nature for only God is eternal." This is the core of humanistic thought in the arminian system. It is philosophy. It is not born on exposure to scripture. Someone told you that. There is not one scripture to validate the notion that the salvation of man MUST be a contract between two bargaining entities.

The key to understanding the entire bible is understanding the two covenants - the Abrahamic (revealed as the covenant of grace in the NT) and the Mosaic. The Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant - an agreement, a contract, between God and man. God's proposal was "Do this and you shall live". Man, represented by Israel in the wilderness, said "we will do this". Man broke that covenant and it was dissolved in God's time. See Hebrews 8. To prevent the destruction of the world due to man's unworthiness, God had in place all along, and revealed to the church, a plan, an agreement, a contract, a covenant which was agreed upon by the Father, The Son, and the Spirit; in the which man could be saved by the intervention and rescue by the Triune God. The "new" covenent (although in place from the beginning) speaks this way: "I will put my law in their heart..", clearly showing the new covenant to be a unilateral agreement that God had purposed in himself to do. This putting of law into the heart is the action of God, not contingent upon any thing whatsoever in the recipient. You can't show one single verse of scripture that faintly indicates that God's grace elects contingently. All conditional promises of life were under the law, in which man utterly failed.

Now, does God "molest" a man to save him? I don't know if it's the proper word or not, but I do know he "draws" him, and I do know that in order to "draw" water from a well, you have to do more than just "woo" it.

You have related God's ABILITY to save with FORCE. I do not deny that comparison, but merely remind you that those are your words, not mine. I say that God's ability to save lies in the CHANGE that he works within the heart of a man, circumsizing the heart, shedding abroad the love of God, creating unto good works, causing thirst for God and bring the fruit of repentance and faith to His new born child.

 

The point of my post was to dispel the notion that the Calvinist makes God out to be evil. As pointed out, both C's and A's must deal with the skeptic's attack. Calvinists are not alone in this regard. Anyone who believes in an omnipotent God must face this charge.

 

Of course you loved this for there has been no way you have been able to defend your doctrine of a God who creates all men, some to everlasting life and some to Hell.

My remark was in response to your God who would create some for Hell. Not that I believe in a God that failed but it would be better than the one you believe in.

I don't believe God failed in anything but did exactly what He wanted to do and that was to make the creature subject to vanity (in other words able to choose good or evil).
God in His Soverneignity created man with the ability to choose to server Him or reject Him. Again, He said "I am that I am" and He is everlasting to everlasting. You doctrine of predestination falls apart with a Omnipresence God that is able to be in all places at all times and sees who believes and therefore knows who to call, who to predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, who to Justify, and also Who to Glorify.

 

Hello Bound,

I know this is a view pages back, let I do not have much time to post now.

And what attribute does all balance on? Sovereignty. Thus my stand on Romans 9, which you think changes God. If we were to play with this idea for a bit, you may see my point. This cannot be done, but the picture will be clear.

You can remove any other attribute other then... sovereignty ...and you still have a god. Sovereignty is God. If you were to remove love from God, we could still say he was God, just not the God of the Bible. If we were to remove faithness from God, we still would have a god, if He was Sovereign. Now if you remove Gods' Sovereignty you no longer have a god, even if He is a God of love. With not being sovereign, what good would his love be to us, if He had not the power to make love happen?

And that balance is over Sovereignty which gives the power to the other attributes. No?

Well...with that statement I see a step. God bless you as you study.

It is a fact. Election never keeps anyone from going to heaven. If they cry out to God, He will save them. If they cry out..God has opened their eyes.


I'll try to check back later. Sorry about the slow replies


Press On Till He Comes

In Christ...James

 

Just a quick post....someone may need to help me on this..for I do not have the time. 3 places at least maybe more says that .."not by the will of man"..when it talks of salvation. Romans 9...John 1...and maybe eph 1. Maybe one other place.

Are you saying the Bible is fibbing in places where it says..."not by the will of man"?....or something close to this?

In Christ...James

 

Now, Paul was talking to the church alright but was speaking about how that Christ had died for the dead in sin which was the whole world.
Paul also said though they were all dead that some were made alive in Christ Jesus raised to walk a newness of life.
Paul also those who were made alive were a new creature for old things had passed away. Which He was talking about the church here.
Paul then spoke of being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ and made a minister of reconciliation and that through Jesus Christ the world was being reconciled to God. Paul was speaking of himself here.
Again, Paul speaking of himself said he had been committed to the word of reconciliation and was now ambassadors for Christ and prayed that those he was addressing at the time also be rconciled to God.
Paul concluded that Jesus who had no sin, took our sins that we might be made righteous back to God.
Finally, Paul was speaking not only to the believers but about the whole world of mankind and also of Paul being chosen to be a minister of reconciliation and an ambassador for Christ.

This passage is addressing the church and about all men and Paul being an ambassorador for Christ. This passage does mean that Christ died that all men could be reconciled to God.

10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11: Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
12: For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
13: For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.
14: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16: Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18: And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19: To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20: Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21: For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Now, Paul was talking to the church alright but was speaking about how that Christ had died for the dead in sin which was the whole world.
Paul also said though they were all dead that some were made alive in Christ Jesus raised to walk a newness of life.
Paul also those who were made alive were a new creature for old things had passed away. Which He was talking about the church here.
Paul then spoke of being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ and made a minister of reconciliation and that through Jesus Christ the world was being reconciled to God.
Again, Paul speaking of himself said he had been committed to the word of reconciliation and was now ambassadors for Christ and prayed that those he was addressing at the time also be rconciled to God.
Paul concluded that Jesus who had no sin, took our sins that we might be made righteous back to God.
Finally, Paul was speaking not only to the believers but about the whole world of mankind and also of Paul being chosen to be a minister of reconciliation and an ambassador for Christ.

 

I think you can sum up what Prov. 16:4 is teaching by saying that God had express purpose in creation. He created "for his own ends" or for His own pleasure (Revelation 4:11) and for His glory (Isaiah 43:7). All of creation is thus an expression of his will and his power.

God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11). This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).

From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).

Oh, yes, Satan is real and active and involved in this world of woe! In fact Job 2:7 says, "Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." Satan struck him. But Job did not get comfort from looking at secondary causes. He got comfort from looking at the ultimate cause. "Shall we not accept adversity from God?" And the author of the book agrees with Job when he says that Job's brothers and sisters "consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him" (Job 42:11). Then James underlines God's purposeful goodness in Job's misery: "You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful" (James 5:11). Job himself concludes in prayer: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). Yes, Satan is real, and he is terrible - and he is on a leash.

As for the alternative views you are considering, they cannot consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more? Certainly, it is foolish to assert that God is trying to do something which He knew never could be accomplished.

Likewise other positions cannot consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the Synergist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would go to Hell. He knew where they were going before He created them. Since He went ahead and created them with full knowledge that they would be lost, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, He evidently has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. The Christian humanist can complain against the truth that God chose to allow some men a final destiny of Hell all they want, but it is as much a problem for them as for anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a problem which they must face like anyone else. If they face it, he will have to admit either the error of his theology or deny foreknowledge all together. But he might say that God had to create those that perish, even against His will. This would make God subject to Fate.

Likewise these cannot consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear these other positions talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Synergist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead.

Hope this helps clarify some things ...most of all, I would challenge you to let the conclusions you ultimately draw take into account all biblical evidence.