Predestination: Meaning and Application

Keep in mind Bob we are all not mind readers like you are, so we actually need someone to tell us what they are thinking. What is irrational is when you draw conclusions that have no bases or coherency on the merits of your argument. First you argued that predestination is wrong because people need to believe, yet I have continually restated time and again that I never said otherwise. When pressed on the nature of salvation when it is applied to those who never hear the gospel you then switch positions and now start arguing that even though they have never heard the gospel preached to them they can be saved. This amazingly is found in the very passage where the importance of hearing the gospel preached is taught. I along with the confessing historic church have believed that Romans 10 teaches one thing, and now you want to suggest it teaches another. This is so painfully obvious that your buddy saturneptune thinks this is a gag. He states: "Any third grader knows that the Gospel must be believed for salvation, and that it is spread by believers." He cannot even bring himself to acknowledge that someone could honestly teach otherwise. Yet you have and continue to teach that it is not necessary for someone to hear the gospel to receive it.

I am teaching Exclusivism.

Exclusivism makes two main claims. The first is ontological: Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation. The second is epistemological: salvation can only be received through explicit confession of faith in Jesus, which of course must involve some knowledge of him. Both claims apparently express the obvious meaning of texts such as Acts 4:12 ("there is no other name under heaven given among humans by which we must be saved") and John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me").

You are teaching Inclusivism.

Inclusivism makes the same ontological claim: Jesus is salvation's only source. Yet it makes a different epistemological claim: awareness and explicit confession of this source is not always necessary for salvation, for some can be saved by responding positively to their deepest awareness of God. This could come through another religion.

 

Do you see now why I accuse you of be irrational?

"Don't ask me how they heard that is why Salvation is of the Lord and not man."

What you are suggesting is that what you are teaching is nonsensical but hey it is the truth. What you are saying is hey don't ask me to explain this too you because it makes no sense but it is the truth. You are not talking to unregenerate man Bob, I am born of the Spirit. I get the things of the Spirit. Your insight defies the plain and simple reading of Scripture, so it must be secret knowledge your are gleaning from Romans 10:18. I can only go with what the Bible teaches. But everything the Bible teaches must be put into a historical grammatical framework. You claim to know the Bible but you cannot see that Romans 10:18 is a direct quote of Psalms 19:4. So how am I supposed to explain the difficulty of your interpretations on passages that you list which you somehow want to apply out of context? All the world does not mean every human being who ever lived. When things like was preached to every creature which is under heaven is stated that does not mean every human being who ever lived. If you took it literally it would be dogs, cats, donkeys and monkeys. Are you suggesting that monkeys get saved too Bob? John 1:9 does say what it says but watch out Bob because there is more to the story. While the light shines it does not say how. The light could be either general revelation, ie Ps. 19 or special revelation, ie Romans 10. But read the rest of John 1 because it totally defeats your argument:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

See Psalms 19 especially verse 4.

 

Now that is a diatribe. I agree with most of what you state there believe it or not. You are obviously still studying theology and these concepts are fresh to you. You have a pashion about the subject, I like that. I can see alot of myself in your spirited response.

But let me just repeat to you what I first said to bound, because what you are suggesting as it pertains to predestination is that God basically reversed engineered the process of election without causality.

What you are offering like bound is in effect a Theodicy or a defense of God. You do not want to attribute causality to God because you view the world as less than ideal due to sin. You for obvious reasons do not want to attribute sin to God, therefore, your effort is to distance God from sin through suggesting that he knew it would happen but did not cause it to happen. For example, as I have already suggested by way of illustration that the states issues drivers licenses but they are not liable for the harm done due to DUIs. Neither is God liable for evil due to free moral agency. But that does not remove from God causality in determining the outcome of creation. The problem of evil is an entirely other ‘thing’ to discuss but let me just say for our present discussion that I have already addressed this concern in my hypothesis by stating the following:

Free moral agency is a factor in resolving the problem with evil. Notice I said the problem 'with' and not 'of' evil. If evils existence was a problem then God would be liable for allowing for evil. Yet even evil is permitted by God and therefore serves a purpose in the greater scheme of ‘things.’

I understand your point here and believe me I sympathize with your efforts to defend God. The defense is not necessary nor is it a proper defense. In defending God from evil you are doing damage to his sovereignty as creator. It is like asking do you want to get hit by a bus or freight train?

I can resolve the above concerns however without doing damage to either human free moral agency nor the sovereignty of God. For the moment let’s just suppose that the end is all that matters. We will not focus on the means by which we got to the end. In the end according to God’s foreknowledge which you agree if he has knowledge then that must be based on actuality or it must be factually correct. Therefore if he envisions creation with you being saved in the end, that must inevitably come to pass. Can we at least agree on that?

Let's see if we can work from there and if not then we might have to back up further. One way or another we will get there...

 

Okay Bob, I will back off if you do not claim to denie the need for someone to hear the gospel in order to be saved. Bob, I am not denying what Paul wrote either as you keep insisting. I understand Paul quoted Psalms 19:4 which elludes to general revelation. I do not understand the Scripture to teach that every human being has heard the Special Revelation of Jesus Christ in a sufficient manner to bring salvation. Through general revelation we understand we are condemn but we need John 3:16 to convert to Christ. The reason I keep refering to you as irrational is because you keep insisting that God accomplishes the Great Commission through means that cannot be explained. You insist on suggesting that Paul's experience could me yours or my experience. The canon of Scripture is closed. There are no more apostles any more. Those types of events in Scripture have ceased. What the Bible presents is the institution of the Church which carries out the mission of sharing the gospel. So unless God does something that we cannot expect he will, it is the churches responsibility to share the gospel with the lost and dying world. What you are teaching is inclusivism because you are teaching that God saves people through means other than what is normative. If you read Romans 10 it sets up a pattern and that pattern is we need to send preachers, so that people can hear the gospel and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember Pascal's Wager: The wager goes something like this, "What if what you are teaching is true? What will be the result? What if what I am teaching is true? What will be the result? Are you willing to be wrong in either case?"

Now let's say that I am wrong about my assertion. I believe in the necessity of presenting the gospel to everyone. But if I am wrong and the pagan can expect some mystical enlightenment. So I have lost nothing. It does not really matter anyway, does it, because let's say that I try my best but still only cover 30% of the world population. Well that's okay, because the remaining 70% can thank their lucky stars or some mystical enlightenment.

I will repeat my warning, but what IF I am right and the you are wrong about the indispensable nature of presenting the gospel? That is a huge risk to take. Why? Because the remaining 70% are going to hell apart from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In order have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ those remaining 70% must have faith in Christ. In order to have faith in Christ you must be told about Christ and believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead. And the way the church has historically understood for this to take place is through the institution of the church while on mission and engaged in personal evangelism.

 

Bob,

You are a stubborn man. You keep beating that same old drum. I do not dispute they have heard but the substance of what they have heard is in question. The Bible presents the idea that all people are exposed to general revelation, which is sufficient to condemn but not save. The Bible also presents the idea that special revelation is needed in order to be saved. Therefore the idea of sharing the Gospel is presented with the intention of revealing something that was previously not known. The general revelation which all people have lets them know they are lost. The Gospel or special revelation gives people the "Good News" so they can know they may be saved. 1 + 1 = 2

If you suggest that was preached to every creature which is under heaven means every human being then why not every animal as well. Aren't monkeys creatures which are under heaven. If you want to take everything to be so literal, then that would not be absurd. Of course I do not believe that to be the case, but I find what you teach from these passages to be equally absurd.

 

This is where I have to tell you that you are being ridiculous. Infants are not condemned by God because they have not come to an awareness of moral good and moral evil. They are the exception to the rule because the rule applies to those who have knowledge of good and evil. When we read in the Bible where is states that you must believe, the implication is that you are of an adult level in your understanding. That is why we do not baptize babies. They have no conscious awareness. Please.

Bob, I have been arguing all along for general revelation... go back and read what I have been saying.

 

I am not done learning, not until the day that I die. That does not mean that my education and knowledge of this subject does not probably go beyond yours. Are you a Ph.D. student? Be honest, are you a student of theology? What degree are you working toward? I mean you are packing some pretty big heat there pal, toting around 3 dollar words like libertarian free will, or what is even more impressive is your use of the abbreviated terms, like EF, IOW and POE. Try not to be so aloof, do the average guy out there a favor and define your terms or at least spell them out. Don't get me wrong when they are pounding all that new stuff into you at the University or Seminary you have to do something with that knowledge. But in case you have not noticed this board is not a colloquium or even a seminar. It is a forum for discussion. You do not get a grade in here so relax, sit back and enjoy your time in here. Where you are able to contribute something constructively do so, if you cannot be constructive then try to restrain yourself.

Oh, yes you are right predestination of the elect to salvation and the non-elect to reprobation is such an Arminian tenet. That is why you are reacting so vehemently against my theology because it smacks of freewill theology. Hardly. The only thing different that at least you recognize is that I have tried to bring to the forefront that foreknowledge does not equivocate God from causality and that foreknowledge is more deterministic than most who hold to that system understand it to be. The age old question is do you believe because you are elect or do you have to believe in order to receive election. Both are true but at least the first is true. Where I am in a real sense not disputing the necessity of belief, I do not nor in anyway have I ever suggested that your choice enters into the decision of whether to or not to receive election. Can a person born in China decide to be born in the USA? There are more factors to election than simply choice. God plays a role in decreeing election. The resulting creation simply unfolds according to God's decree. It would be ridiculous to not allow that God has foreknowledge. The Bible clearly states he does but that foreknowledge is actual and therefore he has predetermined that it meets with his counsel and therefore decreed that it will be so.

Benny, can I call you Benny? If you leave election open ended then you are reverse engineering without attributing to God causality. If a tennis player hits a ball it goes where the racquet told it go. That is to say that at the point where the racquet makes contact with the ball information is transferred to the ball and with the information the ball reacts accordingly. It is called cause and effect. For every action there is a reaction. In quantum physics it is called the theory of relativity and is based on E=MC2. This is a mathematical principle that helps us better understand the nature of matter. In theology the debate over whether or not God exists has continued throughout the middle-ages to present. A theologian by the name Aquinas suggested 5 different ways that we could know that there is a God. In one of his ways he argues that the created order requires an initial mover. God is that initial mover and therefore causality goes back to God plain and simple.

First of all Benny, I can call you Benny? I have repeatedly stated that I do not attribute evil to God as an attribute of his character. It is reactions like this that expose the simpleton in you. News flash, God is not evil. No one here that I am aware is arguing that God is evil.

Do you not get the fact that I know what your concern is? There is no need to amp up the font and get all worked up. I understand your point here and believe me I sympathize with your efforts to defend God. But as I have said, the defense is not necessary nor is it a proper defense. In defending God from evil you are doing damage to his sovereignty as creator. It is like asking do you want to get hit by a bus or freight train? By trying to defend God against moral evil you strip him of his sovereignty. If you are going to get us out of one ditch please do not over correct and swerve into the ditch on the other side of the road. My solution accounts for the problem with evil.

Man you are one hungry student! What is the title of your PhD dissertation going to be? News flash, I already have offered a suitable amount of information to resolve the matter of moral evil. One, I allow for human free moral agency, which attributes sin to man not God. While God is the source of all life and therefore has a causal relationship to his creation, his relationship is not simply defined in physical laws pertaining to time and space, he also has established a moral system which equally governs his creation. The moral and physical laws are interrelated. He initially created the world in a pristine form. Initially the world was good as God created it. However, there were laws in place that allowed for the presence of evil in the world. There were laws in place that also allowed for human free moral agency. As result the fall occurred and the rest is history. Had God so decided he could have chosen to create a world without possibility of moral evil. He also could have chosen to create man without free moral agency. Yet in his infinite wisdom he chose to create the world in the fashion in which he created it. Therefore I am left to concur with God's judgment and understand that he has benefit of knowledge of which I will never acquire. He is God. His ways are not inconsistent they are beyond me.

You really do humor me with your animosity toward my position. You earlier had asked me can God lie? News flash, NO.

Let me ask you a question, can God create something so big that he cannot move it? Now either way you answer that question you are going to have a problem with God's sovereignty.

I recognize that you will see a problem with my understanding. But I have tried to offer you an illustration which might help you work out the intricacies of this issue. The states issues drivers’ licenses but they are not liable for the harm done due to DUIs. Neither is God liable for evil due to free moral agency. Just as the state has a system that allows for the freedom to drive, it also has a system which punishes individuals that break the law. Just as much as God allows for evil he has a means in place to do away with evil. If my view of God were limited to the present world condition I would definitely see evil as the problem. But in the end God will restore creation to its original pristine condition. We are very much in a parenthetical state right now. We look forward to the new creation when sin will be no more...