Conference yukon::christian_v7

.....predestination/election "discussion" approaching!

:-)

Our pastor had the best articulation of this that I've heard, he said:

"I can't explain exactly how this works.  Certainly I've had the free will to do
whatever I chose, and I know that because I've used that free will in ways I 
wish I hadn't many a time.  By my own choice and my own decision, I accepted the
Lord as my Savior.  Yet at the same time, somehow I know that before I even was 
born, and long before those choices were set before me, God had a plan for me, 
and ordained that I was to be His.  I cannot explain how God had both set me 
apart to be His and allowed me free will to choose, yet I know both to be true.

Paul

Short comment:  God ordained all persons to be saved; some accept that 
ordination; some reject it.

    Interesting -- I have just been "called to the task" of taking a hard
    look at this issue.  What you are looking at is a point of difference
    among many believers, which basically comes down to whether you accept
    the teaching of Calvinism or not.  I am no expert to explain the full
    doctrine, but "predestination" is at the core of it.  Basic Calvinism
    maintains 5 fundamental points, commonly remembered with the acronym
    TULIP -- I can't quite quote them all from memory, but those I remember
    are: 1) Total depravity of man,  2) ??  3) Limited atonement, 4)
    Irresistible grace, 5) Perseverence of the elect.  (I recognize that
    there are alternate "titles" to these points.)  There are some who
    consider themselves "3-point" Calvinists -- I'm not sure where they
    differ with those who fully agree with the teaching.  Most Calvinists
    deny that there is a free will (at least, with regard to salvation).

    I can't take the time to go into a full explanation.  A look at the past
    conferences in the issue of Predestination would probably be
    appropriate.  If you are interested, check out ATLANA::
      CHRISTIAN_V2 note 137
      CHRISTIAN_V3 note 12
      CHRISTIAN_V4 note 812
      CHRISTIAN_V5 note 349
      CHRISTIAN_V6 note 200

    Mark L.

    My first reaction is to agree with Mark based on 1st Peter 1.
    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness. 
    But His longsuffering to usward NOT WILLING THAT ANY should perish but
    that all should come to repentance.
    
    -Jack

    I have recently been having some conversations with a very strong
    Calvinist.  A few basic elements of his (and the Calvinists') stand, as
    far as I understand them:
    
    - Man is so totally depraved that he is incapable of accepting God's
      remedy.
    
    - God's sovereignty allows Him to choose who will be saved.  The
      "elect" have been predestined to salvation.  It is them who will be
      saved, and they cannot help but be saved.
    
    - The concept of free will is unscriptural.
    
    - Christ's atoning work on the cross was only for sake of the elect (as
      well as for the ultimate recovery of the creation from the effects of
      sin).
    
    At first view, these concepts can seem very different.  However, when
    explained and dealt with from the way that the Calvinists interpret
    scripture, it is not an easy doctrine to refute.  It is extremely
    logical and systematic, when considered from within it's premises. For
    example, a non-Calvinist would consider: "But God commendeth his love
    toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
    (Rom. 5:8) to indicate that Christ's work was in behalf of all sinners. 
    The Calvinistic view is to say that the "us" in this case, however, is
    not all mankind, but the elect.
    
    I have heard that the real flaw lies not in the "points", but in the
    premises.  An extreme emphasis is placed on the sovereignty of God to
    do whatsoever He pleases.  However, this is carried to such an extreme
    that man no longer is given any choice in the matter.
    
    A few of my thoughts.
    
    I believe that God does give man a choice.  He calls men everywhere to
    repent.  As Abraham said in Gen 18:25, "shall not the judge of all the
    earth do right?"  God is going to judge all the earth.  Can a just
    judge condemn a man who never had a choice?  I believe that God offers
    to every man the ability to respond to Him (Rom. 1:20).  To refuse to
    consider and acknowlege Him is to be "without excuse".  Of course, God
    has a complete foreknowledgle of the end from the beginning, and in His
    foreknowledge He knows who will repsond to the gospel.
    
    Also, I consider the most basic of gospel verses, John 3:16:
    
    - "God so loved _the world" -- God's love was not for just the elect,
       but for the world.  This is clearly speaking of all mankind:
    - "...that _whosoever_ believeth in him should not perish, but have
      everlasting life."  I believe that the gospel is to "whosoever" will.
    
    Now, with regard to "predestined" and "foreordained", consider:
    
         Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate
             to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
             firstborn among many brethren.
          30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and
             whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he
             justified, them he also glorified.
         
         Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of
             children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good
             pleasure of his will,
         
          11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
             predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all
             things after the counsel of his own will:
    
    I believe that "predestination" is not dealing with salvation, but with
    God's purpose *for* the saved.  God has laid out His intent for
    everyone that is saved, that we would be conformed to the image of His
    Son, that we would enter into the inheritance that He offers, etc. 
    However, a careful study of the Scriptures makes it clear that these
    things _can_ be forfeited by disobedience/unbelief on our part.
    
    More as I have time and further my study.
    
    Mark L.

    "And when the gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the
    Word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained* to eternal life
    believed."  Acts 13:48.

* Gr. _Taso_, translation. ordain (Acts 13:48; Romans 13:1);
  set (Luke 7:8); appoint (Matthew 28:16; Acts 22:10; 28:23); determine
  (Acts 15:2);  addict (1 Cor. 16:15).  The simple meaning is that God has
  appointed and provided eternal life for all who will believe (John
  3:15-20; Romans1:16; 10:9-10; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation
  22:17).  It could not mean that by God's predetermined decree certain
  ones are to be saved and others are to be lost simply upon the basis of
  His own choice.  Predestination is never that of individual conformity of
  the will to salvation without man's choice, but rather that God has
  predestined a plan that all who conform will be saved and all who do not
  will be damned.  It is *the plan, not the act of the will* [emphasis is
  mine; MM]  that is predestined. The Jews who rebelled here failed to meet
  the terms of being appointer to eternal life, while the believing Jews
  and Gentiles who gladly accepted the terms of the gospel were appointed
  to the blessing promised all who will believe.

-Dake

    Well, this Dake fellow can't be all bad, seeing he agrees with me on
    this matter. :-)
    
    Mark L.

Mike, 
  Does Dake say that there are 9 in the Trinity!?
  (Where do you get this?  Be careful of what you spread.)
  These insinuations are not edifying to anyone.


Mark L.,
  Yes, he did support what you said.  

P.S.  I'll be supplying the -Dake tag whenever I use his commentary
in notes, and you can be the judge of its content.  Normally, I'd
usually say, "my study Bible" or some such reference, but Mike's 
recent campaign of smear necessitates the tag so you can make your own 
informed opinions.

>  Does Dake say that there are 9 in the Trinity!?
    
    That's exactly what the false doctrine of Tritheism is all about.  Read
    "God's Plan for Man."

>>  Does Dake say that there are 9 in the Trinity!?
>    
>    That's exactly what the false doctrine of Tritheism is all about.  Read
>    "God's Plan for Man."

You say this, Mike, but why not just supply the texts?  But then, if you 
did that, I don't know if I could trust it, since the texts you supplied 
earlier in the other note were shown to be patchwork theology at best and
just plain erroneous at worst because I had the Annotated reference bible
to check out your assertions.

.8 is another SMEAR against Dake in another notes string.  You're beginning
to look like some other "hit-and-run" noters we've seen in here, Mike.
Accusations without support - just references to titles that most people
don't and won't have access to, but because you say so, the stuff that
you don't disagree with from Dake is disregarded out of hand.

How would you like it, Mike, if because of your stance on Rock and Roll,
it was determined that you were unfaithful in the small things - a heretic -
and all things you say should be disregarded as from a fruitcake and
heretic?  The parallels are striking.  Think about it.

Mark

>You say this, Mike, but why not just supply the texts?  But then, if you 
>did that, I don't know if I could trust it, since the texts you supplied 
>earlier in the other note were shown to be patchwork theology at best and
>just plain erroneous at worst because I had the Annotated reference bible
>to check out your assertions.
    
    exactly why I said to read it for yourself.  

>How would you like it, Mike, if because of your stance on Rock and Roll,
>it was determined that you were unfaithful in the small things - a heretic -
>and all things you say should be disregarded as from a fruitcake and
>heretic?  The parallels are striking.  Think about it.

    so what else is new? ;-)

>>How would you like it, Mike, if because of your stance on Rock and Roll,
>>it was determined that you were unfaithful in the small things - a heretic -
>>and all things you say should be disregarded as from a fruitcake and
>>heretic?  The parallels are striking.  Think about it.
>
>   so what else is new? ;-)

Maybe you're not taking the charge of heresy as serious as I am.  I don't
see [some] doctrinal differences between the various [non]denominations as
heresies, but I do see a heresy as necessary for causing one to be led to
their own destruction through its faleshood.  If you were branded a heretic
to be avoided based on your position on Rock and Roll, which "leads
to destruction by the falsehood of your testimony" would you put a
smiley face to it?

MM

    Heresy is a contradiction to established doctrines.  Is it possible
    for some heresy teachings not to lead to destruction?  I just glanced
    over Dake's marathon on the trinity.  Outside of the first paragraph,
    most of it looks legitimate.  Will a belief in a 9-being trinity lead
    to destruction?