tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post115933192801827663..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: Two Views of PredestinationWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-78646139425424505022013-09-07T22:51:00.442-05:002013-09-07T22:51:00.442-05:00Hi Cruv
I missed your comment back in 2006, and h...Hi Cruv<br /><br />I missed your comment back in 2006, and have only found your comment tonight. I'm replying now on the chance that you signed up for email notification on replies. <br /><br />To reply, then -- I'm thinking of books, and the closest I can think of in books may be "Where God Meets Man" by Gerhard O Forde. But better yet is Paul's letter to the Ephesians. If you diagram that section of Chapter 1 where he's talking about the blessings -- that's a real eye-opener. His topic sentence is that all the spiritual blessings that we have are received in Christ and through Christ -- they're all linked to Christ, and we only have them through him. <br /><br />It's like a needle and a magnet -- the magnet has the magnetism by itself. The needle has magnetism only through its contact with the needle. Now that's an imperfect illustration because you can rub a needle on a magnet and get a needle to be slightly magnetized too. Maybe it's more like an electromagnet: turn off the power and the magnetism is gone. <br /><br />Disconnect us from Christ and there is no predestination, because it was only ours through Christ. Disconnect us from Christ and there is no adoption as sons, because it was only ours through Christ. <br /><br />That's how it sounds to me, what Paul's point is in Eph1. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WF<br />Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-6703466034998757692013-09-07T22:44:22.396-05:002013-09-07T22:44:22.396-05:00Hi Gary
Speaking as another Lutheran here, I'...Hi Gary<br /><br />Speaking as another Lutheran here, I'd say I've never agreed with those Lutherans who say they do not know on what basis people are elected. We are elected "based on" Christ -- to go by Paul's comments to the Ephesians on how he saw it. Now that very idea -- that we are elected in Christ and through Christ -- causes problems for certain varieties of thought about predestination. To me, I don't really concern myself if it causes problems with theories; the theories should be moved to fit what we know instead of vice versa. <br /><br />Which still leaves a lot to be said but we have to start a conversation somewhere. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WF<br />Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-83888249511425017392013-09-03T23:47:04.556-05:002013-09-03T23:47:04.556-05:00Is someone else's Salvation dependent on YOU?
...Is someone else's Salvation dependent on YOU?<br /><br /> One of the biggest criticisms of the Lutheran (and Calvinist) position on the Predestination of the Elect is that it removes the motivation to spread the Gospel/to do missionary work. "If God has already chosen who will be saved, why bother spending your time preaching the Gospel to sinners? God will take care of it, I don't need to worry about it."<br /><br /> It is true that Lutherans believe that God has already chosen those who will be saved (but they do NOT believe that God has predestined anyone to hell, regardless of what some people believe Luther may have said at one point in his life). It is also true that we Lutherans believe that sinners do not have a free will to choose God. So no matter how hard we try to convince sinners of their need for a Savior, if God has not predestined them for salvation, they will NOT believe, they will not be saved.<br /><br /> The advocates of Free Will Theology say that a sinner IS capable of choosing God. Therefore, it is our job as Christians to witness to every human being with whom we come into contact in our daily lives, because our efforts may be the trigger for them to "accept" Christ." These Christians base their belief on the passage of Scripture that states, "for whom he did foreknow, those he did predestine...". They take this to mean that God's predestination is based on God foreknowing that at some point in the future, that a particular person would make a free will decision to believe in Christ.<br /><br /> Lutherans and Calvinists say that this is impossible since Romans chapter 3 tells us that no one seeks God. Making a decision for God is "seeking" God, and therefore an impossibility according to God's Word.<br /><br /> But are we Lutherans and the Calvinists really off the hook when it comes to sharing the Gospel? It is true, we absolutely should be out preaching the Gospel to our neighbors simply because Christ commands us to do it, but, really, what are the consequences of our disobedience on this one issue? A slap on the wrist when we get to heaven, but no direct consequences for the "un-elect" person to whom we failed to share the Good News?<br /><br /> Lutherans state that we do not know what criteria God used to choose/predestine those whom he will save. But I would like to propose this idea: Yes, it is true that a particular person's election is not dependent on HIS decision to believe since Romans chapter three states that this is impossible. But...is it possible that this person's election is dependent on God foreknowing that YOU would obey his command to go out into the world and preach the Gospel, and in particular, he foresaw that YOU would share the Gospel with this individual, and based on YOU being faithful/obedient and sharing the Good News with that person, God chose/elected that person to be saved??<br /><br /> To believe this would certainly increase our motivation as Lutherans to share the Gospel instead of sitting at home enjoying the blessings of salvation all to ourselves. (Maybe we should share this idea with our Calvinist Christian brothers and sisters to light the "evangelism fire" underneath their behinds also.)<br /><br /> Gary<br /> Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1162906547074511822006-11-07T07:35:00.000-06:002006-11-07T07:35:00.000-06:00WF,I'm interested in further discussion/reading on...WF,<BR/><BR/>I'm interested in further discussion/reading on the Christological view of Predestination. Do you have more articles, books, and other resources of which I can read?Cruvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10313285627566088494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1160413263495578882006-10-09T12:01:00.000-05:002006-10-09T12:01:00.000-05:00Hi JeremyThe point of this was to open up the disc...Hi Jeremy<BR/><BR/>The point of this was to open up the discussion of how many different ways there are to see predestination. For instance, a good number of Calvinists genuinely believe there's no such thing as a theological view outside of Calvinism or Arminianism. <BR/><BR/>But as you were drawing a distinction between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, you also mentioned: <BR/><BR/>Jeremy writes: << People who use that term (single predestination) are usually Calvinists who are unwilling to acknowledge that electing some particular people to salvation has the necessary consequence that everyone else will be damned. >><BR/><BR/>As a side note, "single predestination" is one way in which Lutherans describe the view of predestination mediated through Christ (Eph1); discussions of predestination are not strictly a Calvinist phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>But when you get to the point of saying that God electing some particular people to salvation has the necessary consequence that everyone else will be damned, what do you say is the cause of election? Are you a TULIP-type person yourself, where God's unmediated election of some but not others occurs before time and independent of anything that happens in time? If so, that logically negates the view that a person's choice or actions in life have anything to do with it, and you're right back to the reason some are lost is that God chose not to elect them. It removes the meaningful distinction between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists for the purposes of this particular discussion. <BR/><BR/>I'm familiar with the Calvinist view (non-hyper-C)that while God's saving love does not apply to everyone, but still God's generalized love (not including salvation) does apply to everyone. I'd ask: if you were to weigh in the scales the fleeting enjoyment in this world and the glory in the world to come, versus the fleeting enjoyment in this world and an eternity of damnation on the other, does the love of God shown to the one group even slightly compare to the love of God shown to the other group? (Of course not.) The most meaningful love God gives us, what gives meaning and hope to our lives in a fallen world, is his redemptive love. To say that the boundaries of his redemptive love was fixed on certain individuals before the world was made is to say that God does not love most people in the most meaningful way. <BR/><BR/>JP << The view you're describing might better be called potential predestination, since no one is specifically predestined either to life or to death. >><BR/><BR/>WF: No, that's trying to put it back into the Calvinist framework, and it really is distinct and cannot be fitted into a system with such a different framework. In the Christological system, predestination is about what the work of Christ accomplishes in all who have Christ; in the TULIP/sovereigntist system, predestination is about individuals, and whether or not they can come to Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith is of this type, when it claims a second type of call for those God wills to save. Would you say the Westminster Confession of Faith isn't a mainstream Calvinist confession? Or would you say that a mainstream Calvinist view includes that there are those God never intended to save, otherwise they would have been called efficaciously?Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1160409291311197712006-10-09T10:54:00.000-05:002006-10-09T10:54:00.000-05:00I think you're confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calv...I think you're confusing Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism here. Calvinists are compatibilists about human freedom and divine soereignty. Hyper-Calvinists are hard determinists, denying human freedom and choice.<BR/><BR/>Calvinists do not say that God loves only the elect, just that God's saving love only applies to the elect, while God's creating love applies to all he created.<BR/><BR/>Calvinists do not deny that in some sense Christ died for all. That is Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists insist on a general offer to all to be saved, and the atonement applies to any who will believe, with real choices granted to all. Those who are elect are the only ones who do believe, and they are the only ones to whom the atonement is applied, but Arminians believe that too. Limited Atonement is thus a confusion over terms in most cases, since both views accept the same theological truth that Christ's death was only intended for those who would be saved but is open to anyone who does believe.<BR/><BR/>I don't think what you're calling single predestination is how the temr is usually used. People who use that term are usually Calvinists who are unwilling to acknowledge that electing some particular people to salvation has the necessary consequence that everyone else will be damned. The view you're describing might better be called potential predestination, since no one is specifically predestined either to life or to death. What is predestined is the method of salvation, by which God can't guarantee that anyone at all will be saved. Single predestination would have such a guarantee without somehow having its logical implication that the others will be damned. That doesn't seem to be the view you have in mind.<BR/><BR/>By the way, there are plenty of people who hold the view you set up as the second view who hold to perseverance of the saints. It's a completely separate issue. One issue is about whether God is sovereign over people's free choices regarding becoming saved. The other is about whether God is sovereign over people's free choices regarding staying saved. Lots of people deny the first kind of sovereignty but affirm the second. Most Wesleyans/Arminians I know in fact do that.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1160012278626542162006-10-04T20:37:00.000-05:002006-10-04T20:37:00.000-05:00Great post. Thanks.I found this through the Christ...Great post. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>I found this through the Christian Carnival.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1159882315524309912006-10-03T08:31:00.000-05:002006-10-03T08:31:00.000-05:00WF,it's that Christ is where God meets man and the...WF,<BR/><BR/><I>it's that Christ is where God meets man and the way that God saves us</I><BR/><BR/>Amen! The vehicle of salvation is the focus. As usual, great stuff WF!<BR/><BR/>God Bless<BR/>DougDougALughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13335959723414264767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1159845641221824302006-10-02T22:20:00.000-05:002006-10-02T22:20:00.000-05:00The focus of predestination, according to Scriptur...The focus of predestination, according to Scripture, is what God does through Christ. Ephesians 1 in particular has that all through it so strongly that it's nearly beating us over the head with it. Predestination is not eenie-meenie-minie-moe on who's saved; it's that Christ is where God meets man and the way that God saves us. <BR/><BR/>I'd always be glad to hear you present your views. <BR/><BR/>Take care & God blessWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-1159842215294111442006-10-02T21:23:00.000-05:002006-10-02T21:23:00.000-05:00WF,As usual, thanks for the great info. I don't re...WF,<BR/><BR/>As usual, thanks for the great info. I don't really agree with either, but heh! To me, the wrong focus is on what is really 'predestined'. Both of the theories presented fall flat if you say that Christians (no individuals)... as in... 'those in Him' are predestined to be spotless and without blame. <BR/><BR/>There is a bit of this debate on Codepoke's blog. You really should jump in.<BR/><BR/><BR/>God Bless<BR/>dougDougALughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13335959723414264767noreply@blogger.com