Three Views of Predestination

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Somewhere in the early 80s I found myself in a discussion on the doctrine of predestination with two other men. We were sitting in a Restaurant in San Marcos,Texas recovering from some killer BBQ when this discussion took place and we found ourselves divided on the issue two to one. Presenting what might be termed "Unconditional Election" --a Reformed point of view--was Miles McKee, the pastor of the local church I attended.

Myself and Carl Stevens were the other two at the table, and we argued for the classical Arminian position (although we didn't even know we were Arminians) that God elects and predestines based on foreseen faith. We have heard it a hundred or more times, that God looks down through the tunnel of time and views how you are going to decide for Christ--and then predestines you on that basis (making God's will and decisions subordinate to ours). Carl elaborated on this saying that only Christ is really predestined, and we are chosen in Him--which is a good transition into the third view.


Adam Clarke, a Wesleyan theologian has interpreted:
Romans 9:13 (KJV)
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
to mean that God has elected a class of people--"Jacob"--to be His own. This is much like saying that He has decided that there will be a bus to take us all to heaven--but it remains to be seen who will be seated on that bus, and of course Jesus the Beloved one is the Driver.

I begin this thread to say very clearly that there are good Christian believers holding to each of the views. Holding to one or other does not make a person more or less a Christian. Being right about the issue does not make a person a better Christian. It is a good idea to study these views, grapple with the scriptures, talk to your pastor, especially argue--even passionately and vociferously with someone holding an opposing view--and listen to God in His word.

So we have the three views:

Election based on foreseen faith, the classical Arminian and current favorite American evangelical view.

Election of an Unknown Class, presented by Clarke and currently held to by the Bible answerman, Hank Hannegraff.

Unconditional Election, the classical Reformed Protestant view.

None of the views are without problems. In some cases the sovereignty of God is brought into question, in another man's ability, in the other God's omniscience. Can they be resolved? How we view the character of God is the issue at stake.

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Well, if none of the views are without problems, and it is not clear from the bible which is absolutely right, then we must just have to accept that we were not meant to fully understand this subject in this life. As Dave Drago put it, we are finite and God is infinite, and maybe we just don't have the capacity to fully comprehend this issue

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Just because the views have difficulties doesn't mean there is no way to know. That is the easy way out.

I used to go to All Souls Langham Place on occasion in London and once I heard John Stott say that the good Bible student would wrestle with a text of Scripture like a Jack Russell terrier trying to get all the meat off a bone. That is the task we have before us with this subject.

It is often the case that we are the ones who are not clear, rather than Scripture.

With this subject it is always best to start at the beginning--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." What are the implications?

Does God just start the ball rolling then stand back and watch?

[Dave Drago (66.136.186.161)]

No!! Thank God we are not Deists. God did not wind the clock and move on to bigger business! Of course this is demonstrated in His incarnation and His crucifixion.
For Him,
Dave

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

He also created people with free will

[Dave Drago (66.136.186.161)]

Nic,
This debate which I truly love is best shared with an open Bible, Starbuck's coffee, good pastries and good Christian friends! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif
For Him,
Dave

[Nic (205.188.117.20)]

Dave,
I wish I could say I loved it. I hate it, because it just goes in circles and there is no answer! But I do love Starbuck's coffee

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Dave, Nic, all and sundry,
These views were posted here not to necessarily spark a debate but to evaluate each view.

Take the Arminian semi-Pelagian view for example. It allows for the "free will" of man. What do we mean by "free?" Does having "free will" enable us to choose how, when, where we will be born or what color our eyes and hair will be or how long we will live or who our parents are? "Free will" has its limitations. Does God choose how, when and to whom we will be born in the first place or is it accidental or coincidental? How much does God's choice have to do with the rest of our lives--our education or lack of it, who we marry, what our vocations will be? If God influences in any way, what does that do to our "free will?"

Is our "free will" completely neutral? Are we "inclined" to do right or wrong? Is that a problem when it comes to "choosing" God? What part does the Holy Spirit play in our choice for God? Some? A little? More in some than in others? How much credit do we give the Holy Spirit and how much credit do we give to "free will?" Why do some have more "free will" than others? Are they better?

If God foreknows how we will decide and therefore predestines us on that basis, why does he decide to create people anyway who He knows will never choose Him? Isn't that the same as predestining them to hell and then blaming them for it? What part does Adam's sin have in all this? How was Adam's "free will" different from our "free will" or do we have the same ability to choose as he did? If we do, then why is his sin imputed to us, too?

[Anonymous (67.243.240.150)]

JF

I think the more important question for Dave or Nic is....how do you justify paying four dollars for a cup of (Starbucks) coffee?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

You drive there in your big SUV and pay $20 for the stainless steel coffee mug that fits exactly into its drink holder thingie.

[Dave Drago (66.136.186.161)]

You buy the beans and ground them yourself!
For Him,
Dave

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

What about the "class election" theory--or the GGWO explanation that "only Jesus was predestined?" Any problems with that view? What does it say about the attributes of God in His omnipotence and omniscience? Does he "cloak" them as the "open theists" claim? Does He sit on the edge of His seat waiting for us to make sure all the seats on the "Predestination bus" are filled?

[Dave Drago (66.136.186.161)]

Jim,
Excellent points
Another thought:

1. The Holy Spirit is convicting the world (mankind) of sin, righteousness and judgement. WE cannot diminish in anyway the work of the Holy Spirit. He is calling mankind to repent.

2. If grace were irresistable then all would be saved. We know people resist grace because the Bible says so. We know people resist grace because not all are saved.

3. We also know that Jesus said if I be lifted up I will draw all men to me. In my life I try to lift Jesus higher, and let the Holy Spirit do the work.
For Him,
Dave

[Dave Drago (66.136.186.161)]

Jim,
It is too late for coffee. I have to get up early tomorrow. I appreciate you and your great love for Scripture. As one of your dear friends said of you, You are the hammer and we are the nails!
For Him,
Your friend,
Dave

[Nic (152.163.101.13)]

To 67,
I actually don't buy Starbucks coffee very often. I get Dunkin Donuts which is even better and only $1.50 for a cup. But you can get a small Starbucks coffee for about $2.00

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

You moved on to the Reformed view, Dave, concerning the irresistibility of God's grace.

What does "irresistible grace" mean? It has become a bit of jargon in Christian circles? Is there any support in Scripture for the concept of God irrevocably drawing anyone to Himself? Are we not ALL inclined to RESIST God? What does the Scripture mean
Romans 3:10-12 (ESV)
as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
[11] no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
[12] All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one?"
If no one understands and no one seeks for God, are we not all resisting God and in need of being drawn? On the other hand what does this scripture imply?:

John 6:37 (KJV)
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

[Dave Drago (66.136.186.161)]

Jim,
Analogy:
(And I am not equating my kisses as synonymous with God's grace!) http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

1. When I first kissed my wife; I initiated. She could have resisted me, but I am thankful that she did not. Her free will in this case responded to my initiation.

2. Perhaps, salvation is similar. God initiates the kiss, i.e., the finished work on Calvary, and a person can respond or reject. (I believe that is scope of free will, it is a response not a decision.)A non-meritorious response to His work. Christ does all the work. And, just like I had to work for that first kiss, He had to work for our salvation! Isn't great to be kissed by the kisses of Calvary on our behalf.

3.I'm going to bed now. If I stay up, I will miss my goodnight kiss!

For Him,
Dave

[Nic (152.163.101.13)]

Jim,
Then what about these verses:

"for they sought Him with their whole heart, and He was found by them" 2 Chron 15:15

"Blessed are they that keep his testimonies and that seek him with the whole heart" PS 119:2

"This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him, who seek Your face" Ps 24:6

"I sought the Lord and He heard me" PS 34:4

"But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul" Deut 4:29

So people can seek for God and are told to.
This is why it all seems so contradictory.

[Nic (152.163.101.13)]

Also Proverbs 8:17 "I love those who love me,and those who seek me find me."

Jeremiah 29:13 "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart".

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

So, Nic, what do you think? Do the verses you quote contradict Romans 3? Or did something occur in those who do end up seeking after God? Is it possible that they were drawn? Romans 3 says that no ones seeks him, yet Jeremiah 29:13 says you "will seek me." The Lord speaks in the Jeremiah passage directly to someone, who is it?

Dave,
Your analogy is a good one, what if you really were irresitible?

Here's another scripture to consider:

John 17:2 (KJV)
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Have we really answered the problems of the inclinations of the so-called "free will" yet? And what part does the Holy Spirit play in all this? How much do we attribute to each? Also consider this:

John 6:44 (KJV)
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This verse addresses human inability, the drawing of the Father in our coming to Christ, and the raising up at the last day of the one who is drawn speaks to His power to keep and complete His work begun in us, doesn't it?

[Nic (152.163.101.13)]

It is speaking to Israel. But it does not say that God will draw them to Him in those verses, it tells people to seek Him, and IF they seek Him they will find Him. So it is something that they have a choice to do.

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

Just like it's cheaper to drink alcohol at home (and the company is better), it is cheaper to drink coffee there. And you have control over the quality of what you get. You can add little touches like cinnamon, or mix blends of different coffees. You can choose music to have on and not have competing conversations from people you don't even know going on in the background. You can even have some nicely focused prayer.

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

I think there are degrees of free will; that are exercised in different directions. Perhaps some choose towards evil voluntarily, cooperating with it willfully. Others may choose to try to be good, looking to be honest and fair, to help the downtrodden. If one is an unbeliever in the second category, could they be said to be responding to God's nature or character without having responded to Him personally (that is, the Son)? Might that be a reason for God to extend a degree of His drawing toward that one? And then if they respond to that initiation toward them, mightn't He draw a little more strongly or directly?

I believe that whatever degree of 'free' will we have is given to us by the Spirit, just as I believe creativity is only from Him. I believe He deserves credit for all good things. But I have to believe (at least for now) that God has reasons for choosing those for salvation that He does. This does not indicate that they deserve it. No one does. And I do believe that He forcefully drags some in (Paul is an example). The idea that the Holy Spirit is 'a Gentleman' might make a good coffee table book for unthinking people, but it doesn't accurately describe Him in totality.

I think people have 'a scope' of free will. That they have it in degree, and that it is exercisable in only certain directions. As I choose to respond to God, it becomes easier to more fully choose Him. If I start choosing away from Him, it becomes more difficult. Degrees of grace, empowerment. As wrong choice is prolonged and followed up, it becomes bondage. It gets more and more difficult to choose that which is truly good. You have ended up choosing blindness. Even the light becomes darkness. God can and sometimes does intervene for one such as this. In the believer camp, you see Jonah and the Prodigal as examples.

I still believe that perhaps what God predestines is not always the initial choice of response to Him, but the character of the vessel based on that choice, or the lack of it. The conscience is the light of man. Perhaps there is initially a freedom of will to choose to respond to the conscience or to turn from it for 'personal advantage'. Perhaps additional degrees of light which might be responded to are given on the basis of a right response or responses to the conscience. I throw these things out as possibilities and as the way I seem to currently perceive it. I recognize Scriptural backing for what others have said and am not trying to win anyone over to these views.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

We seem to want to at times exalt our "free will" over God--and then attribute this "conflict" to Him--by saying in a lofty knowing voice "God's first gift to man was his "FREE WILL" and God will never VIOLATE that." Where is this thinking revealed in Scripture?

Has sin affected the "free will?"

Is our "free will" the same as Adam's "free will?"

Did Adam have the ability to obey God with his "free will?" Do we have the same ability?

Nic, I would say that those who seek are the ones being drawn and they shall come to Him. None of us seek after God without being drawn by Him because He has no attraction for us.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Many times we start these discussions in the wrong place.

Let's say that we grant the Arminian position for a moment hypothetically--that God looks down the tunnel of time, sees how you or I will "decide" with our "free will" if we will accept Jesus or not. He knows ahead of time what our decision will be.

We have already established that God does not just "set the ball in motion" and then stand back and watch everything happen, but is actively involved in the things that happen in the world.

Does He decide before hand to create every single person who enters the world or not?

If he does decide this, and I can't think of any Christian who would say that He doesn't, He is actively deciding to create millions of people that He knows full well will never use their "free will" to accept Him--because He has looked helplessly down the tunnel of time to see that they will not choose Him.

But He chooses to create them anyway.

How is this not the same as predestination to hell? Is it God getting off on a technicality?

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

And how about Satan and the fallen angels? Could you say that God predestined them for hell?

But perhaps who it is that will end up in hell is not set in stone beforehand. Perhaps God's knowing the end from the beginning doesn't have to do specifically with who will end up in which camp. It may just mean that He will have His way and will use His will to bring it to pass. Perhaps He does exactly predestine certain ones to believe, but then chooses as He goes those from either camp to intensify for the particulars of His designs.

[Nic (152.163.101.13)]

Speaking of Satan, why would God allow him a certain time to rule the world, if it was not to allow people a choice between God or Satan? We were always taught that the whole angelic conflict and the spiritual warfare going on now in the atmosphere is about souls. That Satan wants to drag as many people as he can with him into hell. But if it was already decided and people had no choice at all, that would be pointless. So why would God allow Satan to be the ruler of this world and create so much chaos... what would be the purpose of that?

Bob, I don't agree with your explanation at all. If God was to draw people because they chose to try to be good, and not draw people because they chose evil, then that would be totally salvation based on works.

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

No Nic, You've misunderstood me. I mean that perhaps the light in which they might be saved might be based on them initially responding to their first light, which is the conscience. It's not works. And in fuller light they might still turn away and be lost. My thought is that light might be given by degrees and in stages, and withdrawn if it is not responded to. Just as people you witness to respond or not. If they don't respond, they are not saved at that point.

And I like the point you raise above your address to me.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Bob,
What you have said in the post above is what the "open theologians" are saying--that God actually "cloaks" his attributes and really refuses to "know" who will and who will not accept Him.

This concept fits nowhere in scripture and the few these "open theologians" use to support their premise are very dodgy indeed.

The verse you quote from Isaiah in the KJV reads in another that God "declares the end from the beginning" meaning that He causes things to happen--such as conversions.

Nic,
In one place, Paul says this to Timothy because we are observed in our lives:

1 Tim. 5:21 (ESV)
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the <U>elect</U> angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

Also Nic, we need to view the use of the word "world"...in that it can mean so many things in the New Testament and we need to make sure we are not making one scripture repugnant to another--as would be possible if we pitted Jer.29:13 against Paul's quote of the 14th and 53rd Psalms in Romans 3.

In Matthew 28 Jesus says:
Matthew 28:18 (ESV)
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

In Ephesians the second chapter Paul says:

Ephes. 2:2 (ESV)
in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience...

We should never confuse who reigns supreme:

Hebrews 2:5-9 (ESV)
Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. [6] It has been testified somewhere,
"What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
[7] You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
[8] putting everything in subjection under his feet."

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. [9] But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.


As for "why" God allows us to be tried and tempted by Satan remember what Paul said of his own "messenger of Satan":
2 Cor. 12:7 (ESV)
So to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.

Wasn't this for humbling? And Peter confirms in the first chapter of the first epistle:

6 You rejoice in this, though now for a short time you have had to be distressed by various trials 7 so that the genuineness of your faith--more valuable than gold, which perishes though refined by fire--may result in praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So for believers there is very good reason why we have an adversary.

But before we exalt "choice" and "free will" it might be good if we could address the questions concerning just exactly how "free" and how unaffected by sin the will is.

Do we have the same "free will" as Adam?

Adam with his will could have obeyed God's commands perfectly--he was not created with a nature inclined toward sin. Can we say the same?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Thought it might be good to get a look at the three theories from the proponents of each.

This is Article 1 of the Arminian Remonstrants:

The Remonstrant Articles

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.


Read it very carefully. I will bet Ten Bucks that some out there are thinking, "I didn't know I was an Arminian!"

[Nancy Curra (141.157.91.129)]

JF Do we have the same "free will" as Adam?

Adam with his will could have obeyed God's commands perfectly--he was not created with a nature inclined toward sin. Can we say the same?

We are born sinners Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Adam was not created with a nature inclined towards sin....yet he sinned.

Can you elaborate. This is so interesting to me.

I believe in God's foreknowledge because of His nature and that He is not willing that any should perish. He cans turn the king's heart and does because He already know's the beginning from the end.

Because of His mercy I don't believe He created anyone to go to Hell. He says He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy because He already knows who will receive that mercy.

After I saw the movie "The Passion of Christ" knowing Mel Gibson's research in the Bible to make this movie I can have no other stand than the one above. He endure such suffering for all it would take an insane man to believe God wants to send people to Hell.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Thanks Nancy for your comments. God's thoughts are not our own. Even that sounds like a cliche sometimes. His memory is covenantal. He made a covenant with Adam in Eden--that Adam would receive eternal life promised to him if he perfectly obeyed God's commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He had the perfect ability to obey and the inclination because he was created holy and righteous with knowledge of and fellowship with God.

Adam was our representative in Eden, just as Christ is our representative on Calvary. Adam's sin was imputed to each of us in the nature we receive from him. Because of that nature we sin. What does scripture tell us sin deserves?

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

There are no denominations in particular which hold to a creedal or confessional position based on Adam Clarke's interpretation of Romans 9:12ff. It is possible that because he was a Methodist and an Arminian that many likeminded folks exist in those camps. Anyway, here is the section of Clarke's commentary which begets the "class election" theory:

Verse 12. The elder shall serve the younger] These words, with those of Malachi, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, are cited by the apostle to prove, according to their typical signification, that the purpose of God, according to election, does and will stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; that is, that the purpose of God, which is the ground of that election which he makes among men, unto the honour of being Abraham's seed, might appear to remain unchangeable in him; and to be even the same which he had declared unto Abraham. That these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense, is evident from this: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant; see Gen. xxxii. 4; xxxiii. 8, 13. And hence it appears that neither Esau nor Jacob, nor even their posterities, are brought here by the apostle as instances of any personal reprobation from eternity: for, it is very certain that very many, if not the far greatest part, of Jacob's posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and it is not less certain that some of Esau's posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.

From these premises the true sense of the words immediately following, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, Malachi i. 2, 3, fully appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Moses concerning the two nations, styled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachi's time, either in words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of him wherein he had loved them? I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Mal. i. 2-5. To this the Lord answers: Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

1. It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, We are impoverished; neither were his mountains nor heritage laid waste. Now, if the prophet speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the apostle speaks of them in the same way.

2. If neither the prophet nor the apostle speaks of the persons of Jacob or Esau, but of their posterity, then it is evident that neither the love of God to Jacob, nor the hatred of God to Esau, were such, according to which the eternal states of men, either in happiness or misery, are to be determined; nor is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation, which, comparatively, modern times have endeavoured to build on these scriptures. For, 1. It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as the head of his posterity. 2. The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esau's posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all Jacob's posterity elected. 3. Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob, which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be elected, while the master himself is in a state of reprobation. 4. Were it even granted that servitude did import such a reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never did serve Jacob. 5. Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to his posterity. 6. The scope of the apostle's reasoning is to show that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.

Therefore, 1. He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate. 2. When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect. 3.

He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained ONLY by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are NOW laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction. That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses, was no mean proof that God had forgiven him. See our Lord's words, Matthew vi. 14. Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all eternity. 8. And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose sight his pious parents had found favour, should inform them, even before their child was born, that he had absolutely consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of travail with two children was just at hand, could not have failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of reprobation in his message; two manner of nations are in thy womb-and the elder shall serve the younger. There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God, why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence, as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own hands. See Goodwin's Exposition: and see my notes on Gen. 27.

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

To me there is a big difference between God creating people He knows will not respond to light that will go to hell, and His causing them to not respond to it. I still say that predestination doesn't necessarily have to do with the individual's initial response to or failure to respond to light; and that God's predestination of what follows might be based on what He knows will be that response or lack of it.

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

And to go further back in the process, God could have chosen to not create Satan, or possibly chosen different ways of 'handling' him that might have precluded the whole mess. And if what God wants is unquestioning obedience and not the 'freedom of will' which we were taught (love of Him despite the freedom to choose to not love Him); then why not? This is a foolish question, and we're not going to get answers for it.

We know that He loves a just measure. I have to trust God based on Who He is and His love for me; not on how He lines up with my codes of morality. But consider this: There are people who spend their whole lives being oppressed and abused and tortured who do not and will not know God. How do I find a parallel between that and the woman taken in adultery? Do I just rack everything I don't understand up to God's sovereignty? Do Satan and his 'kingdom' really have anything to do with this, or are they just another part of His sovereign plan, like a gargantuan game of heavenly chess with no real opponent? Are all these questions of the foolish Job-type? Is wanting to understand these kinds of things about God evil?

Somehow I have to believe what God has said about Himself; that He is good. Somehow I have to believe that there's a way to see these things in another context that God has and I don't in which they will make sense, and that in eternity it will be revealed. I accept His goodness by faith, and seek to walk in accord with it as He shows me how. I will believe that He is right, even if I can't see the full measure of it. He holds the view, and I am but one piece.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

There is also a difference between God "causing people not to respond" and passing them over, not causing them to respond.

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

Yes Jim, I acknowledge that. I believe God is right, and that my understanding is incomplete. But I also believe what He has said about Himself. I can't let go of that just because things might look strange to me. He will explain Himself in due time, if that is what He wishes to do. In the meantime, I trust Him. As Peter said, there's no other game in town. But if He were evil (and He's not), I would rather burn. Being a stupid romantic (with Trane wailing in the background), I've always empathised with the germanic 'gods', who fought on against the Frost Giants despite knowing they would win. Better to die a martyr and even burn than to choose evil.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

Although it will take some reading, here is the Reformed view of Election which is the positive predestination of God's human creatures. It is taken from the Canons of Dordt, slammed elsewhere on this board by somebody's favorite dead guy. The Canons of Dordt are best known today as "TULIP" the unfortunate starting ground of so many arguments surrounding this subject. I will later post a summary of the doctrine of Providence, which is a better place to start--but here is the content:

Article 6: God's Eternal Decision
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

Article 7: Election
Election [or choosing] is God's unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation. And so he decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ's fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, he decided to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.
As Scripture says, God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

Article 8: A Single Decision of Election
This election is not of many kinds; it is one and the same election for all who were to be saved in the Old and the New Testament. For Scripture declares that there is a single good pleasure, purpose, and plan of God's will, by which he chose us from eternity both to grace and to glory, both to salvation and to the way of salvation, which he prepared in advance for us to walk in.

Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

Article 10: Election Based on God's Good Pleasure
But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad..., she (Rebecca) was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:11-13). Also, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).

Article 11: Election Unchangeable
Just as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, all-knowing, and almighty, so the election made by him can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled; neither can his chosen ones be cast off, nor their number reduced.
Article 12: The Assurance of Election
Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God's Word-- such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

I just read through this Jim, not just glancing at it. Many of the points made are not actually backed within this statement by scriptural references. I don't mean that as criticism, but I'm not coming at this from some kind of course or deep teaching in these particular areas. I am not predisposed to just accept everything said. At the same time, I don't really want to take the time to pull it off here and go through point by point to show what is and isn't backed with the references. You can see for yourself if you read through it. Again, I'm not indicating by this that the points are incorrect because of that. I don't throw references into everything I write either.

By the way, I'm listening to Marc-Andre Hamelin (one of the greatest pianists in the world) playing Robert Schumann's Fantasie, Op.17. Rather unusual territory for him, as he usually plays more unusual music. Great sentence, that last one...

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Bob,
The Synod of Dordt put this statement out eight years after the Arminian Statement above and in answer to it.

You can click on this link to see the whole thing and look for the references. Oftentimes these older documents assume a certain basic knowledge of Scripture that is no longer present in modern Christians. If you read the statements in articles eight, eleven and twelve you will see a reference to so many scriptures that space would not permit all the list.

Election From a Reformed Point of View (http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html)