Book Review: Predestined For Hell? No!

[Don]

Wow, just wow.

Quote:is there nobody else on this site that understands the grace of God

You can take the man out of Fundie.. but you can't take the fundie out of the man. That is a DNA encoded fundie statement if there ever was one.

Greg, think about what you said there. If you can't see it for what it is at face value then how can there be genuine debate? You see yourself as the final authority. No one knows truth unless they see it as you do?

Then there's your appeal to Scriptural proofing. Your requirement for proof texting is a monumental fail. (and before you go off half cocked claiming I am rejecting Biblical authority hear me out) You are notorious for taking text out of context to prove your point. You rarely take the whole text in context: who is the writer, who is he writing to, what was the writer saying to his audience, was his audience universal or was it to believers?
Your literalist take on some scripture is dangerous and misleading. Was the passage meant to be taken literally or figuratively? Was it fact or metaphor? What was being said on the whole?

Finally you and I (especially) differ on our views of the Sovereignty of God and the condition of man in regards to salvation. You have taken a universalist view regarding salvation and lean heavily on man's ability to comprehend spiritual things even while still in his sinful condition.

I believe that, while each person is not as morally depraved as they can be, they are as spiritually deprave as they ever could be. I do not believe that anyone is capable of comprehending the spiritual riches of God's grace until God does a supernatural work of Grace in their heart. I contend that all are condemned and are dead before God, ( but I do not believe that God condemns the innocent or those who are unable to understand right and wrong. I believe that scripture is plain that God does not impute sin to such as these) but we who are capable of unsterstanding come to a knowledge of accountability and sin is imputed to us. We are dead to God and condemned to separation from God and there is nothing we can do about it. Yet God, who is merciful and just, gives life to those whom he will. If all are condemned and dead do you claim God is unrighteous and unfair to give life to those he chooses to?

He chose Noah and his family to be the representatives of mankind. He chose Abram to make a great nation from. He chose Joseph. He chose Moses. He chose Gideon. He chose Elijah. He chose Samuel. He chose David. He chose Mary. He chose John the Baptist. He chose 12 disciples and he knew that one of them would betray him to bring about his death. He chose Paul. (not only did he choose these but he activlely worked in their lives to bring them to the point of salvation.) Now all of a sudden he quits and says, "Ok, you chose"?

Your examples of the serpant in the wilderness and Joshua's admonition to "Choose you this day" were not universal in scope or practice but were given to the people he had already chosen.

It boils down to: is God completely sovereign over his creation, and is he all knowing and all powerful, able to bring about his will and his plan for his creation in all areas or is he hindered by his creation? Specifically is he hindered by the sin nature of his creation? If so, then has God not then put himself in subjection to and under the authority of sin? That cannot be and God still be God.

Did I use specific scripture references? Nope. Does what I have said conflict with Scripture? I don't believe so. I believe that what I have said is biblically accurate. Can you see God's Grace in what I have said? I do but I leave it to you the reader. I tend not to elevate man and our importance above what I can see in scripture. I believe that because of our sin nature, we can do nothing outside of Christ. We cannot even make a choice to accept his free gift of Life unless Christ does a work of Grace in our hearts and provides us with the very faith necessary to believe the Gospel.

Here I stand and before God and with good conscience I can do nothing more.

[greg]

Don - I apprecitate the tone of your last response, of course I disagree with your viewpoint, and I pray that you will continue to study God's word, leaving those calvinistic eyeglasses off when you dig into and study God's precious Word, as good as you "think" it is now, let me promise you it is much better than that!

Let's observe something Jesus said. Ok we are going to set the stage (btw I completely disagree that my exegesis was not in context, it was exactly in context. It was simplistic and I could have gone into much more detail, but I had time constraints that day and frankly most of this audience is not ready for "strong meat.") Ok, setting the stage, Jesus is speaking to Jews about healing folks on the Sabbath Day.

John 5:39-40 Jesus speaking "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." ......well, great day Jesus, the reason we're not coming is because we weren't pre-selected!!! Just please read what Jesus told these Jews "you refuse to come to me to have life"......Who has life? Jesus does. How do I get it? Go to Jesus!!!!......talk about good news, now try and tell me some fancy calvinistic way around this. The Jews refused to come to Jesus for life. Oh but God has to give them grace to come to Him, why didn't he say that? Doesn't seem very fair, does it? I may have some fundy tendencies, but let me stand before men and God and proclaim to everyone, that Jesus Christ died to save sinners, that's why he came to this planet, and over and over he tells anyone and everyone to come, if you are unable to come, why tell folks that thay can.

I feel that the entire teaching on calvinism is man-dominated, full of pride (check us out, God loves us more than you guys) and completely and totally against the scripture, and again I have used scripture to back up my beliefs, I have nothing else, I point to no man to "support" my beliefs, only the blessed Holy Scriptures, and yes it may sound fundy, but I appeal to all readers of SFL, "Does nobody else understand the Grace of God."

As I write this I understand that these truths of scripture are "spiritually discerned" and I can talk til I'm blue in the face, and won't do a bit of good. But at least consider this, I am pointing you and everyone else to the Blessed Scriptures, hey maybe I'm wrong about calvinism, but I have still only pointed folks to the Scriptures because in them "I think I have eternal life."

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-20-2011 09:36 AM)greg Wrote:  Don - I apprecitate the tone of your last response, of course I disagree with your viewpoint, and I pray that you will continue to study God's word, leaving those calvinistic eyeglasses off when you dig into and study God's precious Word, as good as you "think" it is now, let me promise you it is much better than that!

Let's observe something Jesus said. Ok we are going to set the stage (btw I completely disagree that my exegesis was not in context, it was exactly in context. It was simplistic and I could have gone into much more detail, but I had time constraints that day and frankly most of this audience is not ready for "strong meat.") Ok, setting the stage, Jesus is speaking to Jews about healing folks on the Sabbath Day.

John 5:39-40 Jesus speaking "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." ......well, great day Jesus, the reason we're not coming is because we weren't pre-selected!!! Just please read what Jesus told these Jews "you refuse to come to me to have life"......Who has life? Jesus does. How do I get it? Go to Jesus!!!!......talk about good news, now try and tell me some fancy calvinistic way around this. The Jews refused to come to Jesus for life. Oh but God has to give them grace to come to Him, why didn't he say that? Doesn't seem very fair, does it? I may have some fundy tendencies, but let me stand before men and God and proclaim to everyone, that Jesus Christ died to save sinners, that's why he came to this planet, and over and over he tells anyone and everyone to come, if you are unable to come, why tell folks that thay can.

I feel that the entire teaching on calvinism is man-dominated, full of pride (check us out, God loves us more than you guys) and completely and totally against the scripture, and again I have used scripture to back up my beliefs, I have nothing else, I point to no man to "support" my beliefs, only the blessed Holy Scriptures, and yes it may sound fundy, but I appeal to all readers of SFL, "Does nobody else understand the Grace of God."

As I write this I understand that these truths of scripture are "spiritually discerned" and I can talk til I'm blue in the face, and won't do a bit of good. But at least consider this, I am pointing you and everyone else to the Blessed Scriptures, hey maybe I'm wrong about calvinism, but I have still only pointed folks to the Scriptures because in them "I think I have eternal life."

I still don't understand a thing you said and I'm considered really good at deciphering complex sentences and whatnot.

Here is what I know about predestination: Only god knows who is saved and who isn't.

What is that based on?

The god of the bible is all-knowing and has a hand in everything. No? He knows what we're gonna do before we do it because to him there is no past or future. Everything is the present to god. God knows whether we are saved or not and no one else can really know that. Not even people who profess faith in Jesus.

Nothing in that great wall of text you threw up negates predestination.

[Don]

Greg,
You did it again. Proof texting out of context.
John Chapter 5.
Where does the passage begin? At the Pool of Bethesda where there were a multitude of people needing to be healed. Jesus chose to heal this particular individual. Why didn't he heal everyone there? This one was not healed according to his faith but Jesus chose to heal him. There is no recorded account that Jesus healed anyone else at this time. So, was it unfair that Jesus didn't just heal them all? Or way it by Grace and Mercy that this one was healed?

Now the rest of the chapter goes into Jesus' witness and testimony as to who he is and his authority to heal, especially on the sabbath.

Look at verses 20-23 what does it say? In these verses we see that God is sovereign in giving life to whom he wills, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will."
(hummm we're a ways from Paul and Romans 9, and Jesus himself is declaring his role in life giving salvation.)

Your proof text falls in context of verses 37-44. Jesus is pointing out their hypocrisy. The point is that they claim to follow the scriptures and abide by the law but they do not believe in either the law or the one who gave them the law. He is pointing out that if they really knew the scriptures and the law they profess to follow, then they cound not help but see the Messiah and would readily accept him. Instead they are holding on to their pride and the law. We know that the law cannot save anyone, yet that is precisely what the audience Jesus was talking to claimed to be doing.

The verses you use here for proof texting are not very good anchors for one's soteriology.

[greg]

(11-20-2011 06:17 PM)Don Wrote:  Greg,
You did it again. Proof texting out of context.
John Chapter 5.
Where does the passage begin? At the Pool of Bethesda where there were a multitude of people needing to be healed. Jesus chose to heal this particular individual. Why didn't he heal everyone there? This one was not healed according to his faith but Jesus chose to heal him. There is no recorded account that Jesus healed anyone else at this time. So, was it unfair that Jesus didn't just heal them all? Or way it by Grace and Mercy that this one was healed?

Now the rest of the chapter goes into Jesus' witness and testimony as to who he is and his authority to heal, especially on the sabbath.

Look at verses 20-23 what does it say? In these verses we see that God is sovereign in giving life to whom he wills, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will."
(hummm we're a ways from Paul and Romans 9, and Jesus himself is declaring his role in life giving salvation.)

Your proof text falls in context of verses 37-44. Jesus is pointing out their hypocrisy. The point is that they claim to follow the scriptures and abide by the law but they do not believe in either the law or the one who gave them the law. He is pointing out that if they really knew the scriptures and the law they profess to follow, then they cound not help but see the Messiah and would readily accept him. Instead they are holding on to their pride and the law. We know that the law cannot save anyone, yet that is precisely what the audience Jesus was talking to claimed to be doing.

The verses you use here for proof texting are not very good anchors for one's soteriology.

Friend if anyone here is proof-texting it is you. I set up the scenario completely correctly, maybe I should have gone back to Bethlehem and Christ's birth, or better yet to Isaiah's prophecies about Jesus' birth, or still better, in the beginning when the world was void and darkness was across the expanses.

No offense, seriously, I think you care about your theology and want to be correct. But it is so very obvious that you have followed men as you look at the scripture. I am now going to point out some very specific things that demonstrate that you have not considered this passage or spent really any time on it at all, methinks you grabbed the nearest calvinistic commentary and relayed whatever some man said.

#1 - You state there were a number of people needing to be healed. Really, I can't find them in my translation (NIV) the NIV says v-3 "Here a great number of disabled people used to lie" This indicates to me that sick folk regularly visited this place but not that they were necessarily there at the time this passage records. I checked several other translations, several of which read like the NIV. Who is proof-texting?

#2 - You ask, why didn't He heal everyone there? Of course I would ask you right back, How do you know that He didn't? There is nothing to indicate that anyone else was even there at this time, and there is no indication that God refused to heal anyone! Who is proof-texting?

#3 -You said this man was not healed according to his faith. Really, where did you find out that information? The bible is silent regarding this man's faith. We may speculate about his faith, but I don't recommend it, that's how you end up with man-made theology like calvinism! Who is proof-texting?

#4 - None of this has anything to do at all with what we are discussing. I just saw so many holes and a near complete misunderstanding of the passage, I thought I would point them out to you.

v-21 "even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it." Even to them that believe on His name, For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord, Salvation is the power of God to all who believe, he died not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world, he would that all men be saved.

Oh my, on and on and on, what a bankrupt theology to dismiss such truths. Let me try an analogy. I live in the country, a good chainsaw is a real handy tool around here. For Christmas this year I have already purchased chainsaws for every single man over 18 years. Beautiful brand new, in the box, Stihl chainsaws with 20" bars. Now these are bought and paid for, I bought one for every man (whosever) all one has to do is walk past my trailer, parked downtown and say I'm here for my chainsaw, and I hand them the saw, I'm giving them away, they were purchased for each man in town. Well there are a couple of knuckleheads that say I don't believe that, surely no one is going to be giving away new saws!!!They don't come and claim their saws, each of them had a saw, specifically for them, bought and paid for, they just didn't show up to collect them. It was their gift, but what did they fail to do? They failed to "ACCEPT" their gift.

God has purchased yours and mine and every single person on this planets' salvation. It is theirs, (salvation is the gift of God) the work, the price, the penalty all paid for, paid in full on that rugged cross of Calvary. When Jesus said it is finished, it really was, there remains nothing for any of us to do but merely accept this once in a lifetime gift.

Btw, go ahead and read v-24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned." Greg raising hand, Uh, can I get in on this, am I included in that there whosever?

Don, I am really telling you the truth, really! Whoever, that means anybody and everybody in the greek! who hears the words of Jesus and just simply believes him who sent Jesus has eternal life, and the great news, the beautiful news is that they will not be condemned.

So you tell me.

Who is doing the proof-texting?

[Don]

Quote:Whoever, that means anybody and everybody in the greek!

I direct you back to our previous conversation on "ALL". The greek word is "pas."

And here is what Charles Spurgeon commented regarding the Whosoever passage found in John 3:16

Quote:"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

To insist that ALL is universal in scope and essence in every instance is unrealistic and just plain wrong. God will save all whom he will, Jesus will not cast out any who come to him, whom the Father has given unto him. And the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ by the Drawing of the Holy Spirit. None can be saved who aren't drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit. The drawing is not universal. There is no scripture that says it is. When Christ says he will draw all men unto himself that is not a Universal drawing meaning all men in all places in all times. If it was then all men would be saved. If 1Timothy 2: 4 was universal then again everyone would be saved. Either that, or you have grounds for saying that God is limited in his ability to bring about his will concerning his creation... which would mean he is not God.

Thomas Aquinas does a much better job of Explaining the meaning of that passage than I.

I linked to it and commented on it here: http://persifler.wordpress.com/2010/11/0...all-times/

It says:
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Prima Pars, The Will of God, Sixth Article.

Quote:Article 6. Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?

Objection 1. It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:4): “God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” But this does not happen. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.

Objection 2. Further, as is the relation of knowledge to truth, so is that of the will to good. Now God knows all truth. Therefore He wills all good. But not all good actually exists; for much more good might exist. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.

Objection 3. Further, since the will of God is the first cause, it does not exclude intermediate causes. But the effect of a first cause may be hindered by a defect of a secondary cause; as the effect of the motive power may be hindered by the weakness of the limb. Therefore the effect of the divine will may be hindered by a defect of the secondary causes. The will of God, therefore, is not always fulfilled.

On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 13:11): “God hath done all things, whatsoever He would.”

I answer that, The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with active causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the same must happen in active causes. Something may fall outside the order of any particular active cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first heaven. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.

Reply to Objection 1. The words of the Apostle, “God will have all men to be saved,” etc. can be understood in three ways.

First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), “God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will.”

Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition.

Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.

Reply to Objection 2. An act of the cognitive faculty is according as the thing known is in the knower; while an act of the appetite faculty is directed to things as they exist in themselves. But all that can have the nature of being and truth virtually exists in God, though it does not all exist in created things. Therefore God knows all truth; but does not will all good, except in so far as He wills Himself, in Whom all good virtually exists.

Reply to Objection 3. A first cause can be hindered in its effect by deficiency in the secondary cause, when it is not the universal first cause, including within itself all causes; for then the effect could in no way escape its order. And thus it is with the will of God, as said above.

[Don]

Who is doing the proof-texting?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are Greg. I gave a quick over all synopsis of the entire chapter in context. You took two verses out of the middle of the passage and used them as proof text for your soteriological argument.

What did the entire passage say in context of such factors as: culture, location, setting, language, audience, subject, actions, consequences and results. To just look around and snatch veses out of context to develop your argument is neither helpful nor persuasive.

Quote: methinks you grabbed the nearest calvinistic commentary and relayed whatever some man said.

Actually greg I developed that argument myself. I Argued from truth which is clearly laid out in that passage.


Donb123 answered your point very well. I'll do a little follow up as well.

You said:

Quote:#1 - You state there were a number of people needing to be healed. Really, I can't find them in my translation (NIV) the NIV says v-3 "Here a great number of disabled people used to lie" This indicates to me that sick folk regularly visited this place but not that they were necessarily there at the time this passage records. I checked several other translations, several of which read like the NIV. Who is proof-texting?

John 5:4
In these lay a multitude of invalids--blind, lame, and paralyzed. - ESV
Crowds of sick people—blind, lame, or paralyzed—lay on the porches. -NLT
In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, -NASB

The greek word is plethos.
Now as to who is proof texting? That would be you Greg. Your proof text was taken from a verse that used the past tense rather than the imperfect tense which indicates a continual or on going action. The passage is saying that a multitude of invalids and sick people continually were there . Greg, these are very basic literature criticism skills. Who said it? To whom were they speaking? In what cultural reference were they speaking? What was the location? Who/what is the subject? What action took place? Who/what recieved the benefit/consequence of that action?
Then there are some basic investagory skills. Given this is a translation, What did the original language say? (and here one usually has to rely on the scholarship of others) Lexicons and concordances are our friends.

[captain_solo]

Greg is still ignoring the scripture, I posted just scripture, not the words of Calvin, Beza, or myself. Although in all fairness by blathering on he has shoved it several pages back so it can be ignored more easily.

Greg, have you ever read the book of Romans? That alone would help you, being that its the closest thing we have in the Bible to a systematic theology, and it was the impetus for much of the teaching critical to the reformation.

You know there's something funny about all these accusations about the human reasoning trumping scripture, the color of the pot and the kettle? Yeah, Black, that's what I thought.

[captain_solo]

(11-16-2011 05:45 PM)captain_solo Wrote:  

(11-16-2011 01:14 PM)greg Wrote:  Which of us is appealing to the other to follow God's Word and God's Word alone, and to leave foolish men's theology behind?

Btw, I don't think I have ever heard a calvinst that had a clue about predestination and election, they mostly have been influenced by Calvin, and he demonstrated clearly that he had no understanding regarding those subjects. I appeal to you to continue to study God's Word as it relates to these matters, and not swallow everything that you are taught, but compare those things to scripture, and if at all possible set your traditions aside.

My beliefs come from my own study of God's Word, I have followed no sinful man's beliefs.

"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men." 1 Timothy 1:1-6

I'll take Paul's word over John Calvin's any day, so should you!

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 9:14-24

Unless I am mistaken these words were written by Paul - there are plenty others like them that he wrote.

It would be really great if you would stop calling God unjust for doing what is the result of his very nature. Yeah, and It would also be great if you would read the words of Paul, all of them.

For those in Rio Linda

[C_Fresh]

(11-21-2011 01:34 PM)captain_solo Wrote:  For those in Rio Linda

***laughs at the implication***