I really don’t know how you can compare God’s predetermined plan of what Jesus did willingly for us to, say, a little child being raped over and over by his father. God does not predetermine such things. That’s the specific point I was trying to make.
Theology Club: Predestination, Election and Freewill and the Sovereignty of God
- Thread starter lesjude
- Start date
God did not predestinate sin, He foreknew that man would sin and He predestined salvation. Predestination has to do with salvation and blessing.
Last edited:
I agree.
Until people start to listen to Jesus over their own doctrines they will continue to walk in error, because only He has the words of truth.
According to Jesus the Father did not knowingly put Jesus in harms way. Jesus tells us the Father thought they would reverence him (Jesus).
Oh please...read Isaiah 53
That takes nothing away from what Jesus said. Who you going to believe Jesus or your doctrine?
God did never put man in harm's way, He warned what would put man in harm's way and forbade man to partake of the knowledge of good an evil which would put him into harm's way.
devil tricked man into believing that God had lied, he deceived him into believing he had freewill to do as he pleased without any consequences which God had warned him of.
Adam did not make a simple mistake, there was much more to what occurred in the Garden than this, devil said that Adam would himself become like God. It was a conspiracy to overthrow the sovereign will of God.
Freewill doctrine is the very same agenda. It is a negation of God's will for our own freewill. God will say to His people "Ok get on with it and when you've had enough of it and the sorrow and grief it will bring upon you, call on Me."
It is sin, induced by the deception of freewill which leads to bondage and harm's way. I think that the western church is in harm's way, I think christians are hurting, I think the fault lies with the ministry and leadership, I think the fault lies in teaching this false theology.
devil tricked man into believing that God had lied, he deceived him into believing he had freewill to do as he pleased without any consequences which God had warned him of.
Adam did not make a simple mistake, there was much more to what occurred in the Garden than this, devil said that Adam would himself become like God. It was a conspiracy to overthrow the sovereign will of God.
Freewill doctrine is the very same agenda. It is a negation of God's will for our own freewill. God will say to His people "Ok get on with it and when you've had enough of it and the sorrow and grief it will bring upon you, call on Me."
It is sin, induced by the deception of freewill which leads to bondage and harm's way. I think that the western church is in harm's way, I think christians are hurting, I think the fault lies with the ministry and leadership, I think the fault lies in teaching this false theology.
Morning TL, if God foreknew Adam would eat and die before He ever created him God put Adam in harms way knowing that he would be killed by a semi-truck.
Sure the devil tricked Adam, but according to you God knew the devil was going to do this and Adam would fall for it. It is the same as taking a child and putting that child in the middle of a freeway knowing for a fact that the child would be killed by a semi-truck?
Why do you look at freewill all in the negative? What about freely loving God, freely worshiping God, freely preaching the Gospel etc. God gave us freewill so that He could have a real relationship with us (just like a husband and wife), Satan however (like he does with all Gods gifts to man) tries to corrupt our freedom and bring us into bondage so that we become a slave to sin and death.
God sets us free, Satan holds us in bondage
Yeah well you can mutter all that to yourself, you saying all these things caught God unawares, God is never caught unawares.
The fact is He DID see the sorrow the pain and woe that is death, He therefore has an option. Knowing that these things do neccesarily accompany things that pertain to life, and I did not say I fully understand that but I accept by faith that God does know best and can be trusted when He tells me "unless a grain of seed fall into the ground and die it abideth alone". He saw that and He created the natural world taking all that into account, creating it in such a way that everything works together for the salvation of His true children.
His other option is to not create at all....I am glad that He did not take that option.
Joseph was not Jacob's first son, and Isaac was not Abraham's first son. But if either had forborne fatherhood because of the evil of the son's that went before where would the blessing be? Abel was not Adam's first son ut Cain, should Adam therefore have said [had he foreknowledge to see] I will not be a father to a murderer.
In other words God always saw that good would triumph over evil and the blessing far, far outweigh the curse.
It is foolish to suppose that God did not foreknow man would sin, you are saying something a hundred times worse for you say God gave Adam freewill, He did no such thing, where in Genesis does God say that? if He gave Adam freewill then He cannot hold man to account for using his freewill to rebel.
Freewill puts the blame for sin upon God.
The fact is He DID see the sorrow the pain and woe that is death, He therefore has an option. Knowing that these things do neccesarily accompany things that pertain to life, and I did not say I fully understand that but I accept by faith that God does know best and can be trusted when He tells me "unless a grain of seed fall into the ground and die it abideth alone". He saw that and He created the natural world taking all that into account, creating it in such a way that everything works together for the salvation of His true children.
His other option is to not create at all....I am glad that He did not take that option.
Joseph was not Jacob's first son, and Isaac was not Abraham's first son. But if either had forborne fatherhood because of the evil of the son's that went before where would the blessing be? Abel was not Adam's first son ut Cain, should Adam therefore have said [had he foreknowledge to see] I will not be a father to a murderer.
In other words God always saw that good would triumph over evil and the blessing far, far outweigh the curse.
It is foolish to suppose that God did not foreknow man would sin, you are saying something a hundred times worse for you say God gave Adam freewill, He did no such thing, where in Genesis does God say that? if He gave Adam freewill then He cannot hold man to account for using his freewill to rebel.
Freewill puts the blame for sin upon God.
Let us make man in our image and likeness.
Does God have freewill?
If so then in order to be made in His image and likeness we to had to be created with it.
Adam chose [and I have never denied free choice...choice is not frrewill] to relinquish the image of God, he exchanged freedom for bondage, righteousness for wickedness, life for death.
It is not only the bible that tell us it is so but our own eyes and ears tells us it is so.
It is not only the bible that tell us it is so but our own eyes and ears tells us it is so.
SeraphimsCherub
New member
—Hodge's Systematic Theology
"Arguments from Scripture
A second argument on this subject is derived from those doctrines of Scripture which necessarily suppose that free acts may be certain as to their occurrence.
1. The first and most obvious of these doctrines is the foreknowledge of God. Whatever metaphysical explanation may be given of this divine attribute; however we may ignore the distinction between knowledge and foreknowledge, or however we may contend that because God inhabits eternity, and is in no wise subject to the limitations of time, and that to Him nothing is successive, still the fact remains that we exist in time, and that to us there is a future as well as a present. It remains, therefore, a fact that human acts are known before they occur in time, and consequently are foreknown. But if foreknown as future, they must be certain; not because foreknowledge renders their occurrence certain, but because it supposes it to be so. It is a contradiction in terms to say that an uncertain event can be foreknown as certain. To deny foreknowledge to God, to say that free acts, because necessarily uncertain as to their occurrence, are not the objects of foreknowledge any more than sounds are the objects of sight, or mathematical truths of the affections, is to destroy the very idea of God. The future must be as dark to Him as to us; and He must every moment be receiving vast accessions of knowledge. He cannot be an eternal being, pervading all duration with a simultaneous existence, much less an omniscient Being, to whom there is nothing new. It is impossible, therefore, to believe in God as He is revealed in the Bible, unless we believe that all things are known unto Him from the beginning. But if all things are known, all things, whether fortuitous or free, are certain; consequently certainty must be consistent with freedom. We are not more assured of our existence than we are of our free agency. To say that this is a delusion is to deny the veracity of consciousness, which of necessity not only involves a denial of the veracity of God, but also subverts the foundation of all knowledge, and plunges us into absolute scepticism. We may just as well say that our existence is a delusion as that any other fact of consciousness is delusive. We have no more and no higher evidence for one such fact than for another. Men may speculate as they please, they must believe and act according to the laws impressed on our nature by our Creator. We must believe, therefore, in our existence and in our free agency; and as by a necessity scarcely less imperative we must believe that all things are known to God from eternity, and that if foreknown their occurrence is certain, we cannot deny that certainty is consistent with free agency without involving ourselves in palpable contradictions. This argument is so conclusive that most theistical advocates of the doctrine of contingency, when they come to deal with it, give the matter up, and acknowledge that an act may be certain as to its occurrence and yet free. They content themselves for the time being with denying that it is necessary, although it may be certain. But they forget that by "moral necessity" nothing more than certainty is intended, and that certainty is precisely the thing which, on other occasions, they affirm to be contrary to liberty. If from all eternity it is fixed how every man will act; if the same consequences follow invariably from the same antecedents; if the acts of men are inevitable, this is declared to be fatalism. If, however, it be indeed true that the advocates of indifference, self-determining power of the will, power of contrary choice, or by whatever other name the theory of contingency may be called, really do not intend to oppose the doctrine of certainty, but are simply combating fatalism or physical necessity, then the controversy is ended. What more could Leibnitz or Edwards ask than Reid concedes in the following passage:
"It must be granted, that, as whatever was, certainly was, and whatever is, certainly is, so whatever shall be, certainly shall be. These are identical propositions, and cannot be doubted by those who conceive them distinctly. But I know no rule of reasoning by which it can be inferred that because an event certainly shall be, therefore its production must be necessary. The manner of its production, whether free or necessary, cannot be concluded from the time of its production, whether it be past, present, or future. That it shall be, no more implies that it shall be necessarily than that it shall be freely produced; for neither present, past, nor future, have any more connection with necessity than they have with freedom. I grant, therefore, that from events being foreseen, it may be justly concluded, that, they are certainly future; but from their being certainly future it does not follow that they are necessary."
As all things are foreseen all things are inevitably certain as to their occurrence. This is granting all any Augustinian need demand."
—Hodge's Systematic Theology
"Arguments from Scripture
A second argument on this subject is derived from those doctrines of Scripture which necessarily suppose that free acts may be certain as to their occurrence.
1. The first and most obvious of these doctrines is the foreknowledge of God. Whatever metaphysical explanation may be given of this divine attribute; however we may ignore the distinction between knowledge and foreknowledge, or however we may contend that because God inhabits eternity, and is in no wise subject to the limitations of time, and that to Him nothing is successive, still the fact remains that we exist in time, and that to us there is a future as well as a present. It remains, therefore, a fact that human acts are known before they occur in time, and consequently are foreknown. But if foreknown as future, they must be certain; not because foreknowledge renders their occurrence certain, but because it supposes it to be so. It is a contradiction in terms to say that an uncertain event can be foreknown as certain. To deny foreknowledge to God, to say that free acts, because necessarily uncertain as to their occurrence, are not the objects of foreknowledge any more than sounds are the objects of sight, or mathematical truths of the affections, is to destroy the very idea of God. The future must be as dark to Him as to us; and He must every moment be receiving vast accessions of knowledge. He cannot be an eternal being, pervading all duration with a simultaneous existence, much less an omniscient Being, to whom there is nothing new. It is impossible, therefore, to believe in God as He is revealed in the Bible, unless we believe that all things are known unto Him from the beginning. But if all things are known, all things, whether fortuitous or free, are certain; consequently certainty must be consistent with freedom. We are not more assured of our existence than we are of our free agency. To say that this is a delusion is to deny the veracity of consciousness, which of necessity not only involves a denial of the veracity of God, but also subverts the foundation of all knowledge, and plunges us into absolute scepticism. We may just as well say that our existence is a delusion as that any other fact of consciousness is delusive. We have no more and no higher evidence for one such fact than for another. Men may speculate as they please, they must believe and act according to the laws impressed on our nature by our Creator. We must believe, therefore, in our existence and in our free agency; and as by a necessity scarcely less imperative we must believe that all things are known to God from eternity, and that if foreknown their occurrence is certain, we cannot deny that certainty is consistent with free agency without involving ourselves in palpable contradictions. This argument is so conclusive that most theistical advocates of the doctrine of contingency, when they come to deal with it, give the matter up, and acknowledge that an act may be certain as to its occurrence and yet free. They content themselves for the time being with denying that it is necessary, although it may be certain. But they forget that by "moral necessity" nothing more than certainty is intended, and that certainty is precisely the thing which, on other occasions, they affirm to be contrary to liberty. If from all eternity it is fixed how every man will act; if the same consequences follow invariably from the same antecedents; if the acts of men are inevitable, this is declared to be fatalism. If, however, it be indeed true that the advocates of indifference, self-determining power of the will, power of contrary choice, or by whatever other name the theory of contingency may be called, really do not intend to oppose the doctrine of certainty, but are simply combating fatalism or physical necessity, then the controversy is ended. What more could Leibnitz or Edwards ask than Reid concedes in the following passage:
"It must be granted, that, as whatever was, certainly was, and whatever is, certainly is, so whatever shall be, certainly shall be. These are identical propositions, and cannot be doubted by those who conceive them distinctly. But I know no rule of reasoning by which it can be inferred that because an event certainly shall be, therefore its production must be necessary. The manner of its production, whether free or necessary, cannot be concluded from the time of its production, whether it be past, present, or future. That it shall be, no more implies that it shall be necessarily than that it shall be freely produced; for neither present, past, nor future, have any more connection with necessity than they have with freedom. I grant, therefore, that from events being foreseen, it may be justly concluded, that, they are certainly future; but from their being certainly future it does not follow that they are necessary."
As all things are foreseen all things are inevitably certain as to their occurrence. This is granting all any Augustinian need demand."
—Hodge's Systematic Theology
Nice Calvinist doctrine presentation, with some of the same misconceptions....which is closed view, not open view.
Blessings,
Lee
Blessings,
Lee
Hello, this is Judy of Lesjude...Les went home to be with Jesus 5/24/2013.)He died exactly the way he lived, worshipping Jesus,passionate for God's and loving people. Leslie and I knew each other for 50 years, were married almost 47, have seven adult children that he trained to do two things, not to let anyone do their thinking for them and to seek God with all their hearts. We walked together in one accord with Jesus for 35 years. Les was a remarkable man and would tell you that all he did or knew was due to the amazing grace of God almighty demonstrated by the mighty Holy Ghost through the wonder filled cross of Jesus Christ. Just before Les closed his physical eyes for the last time he raised his hands and said" Thank You, Jesus!" Turned to me and said, Don't you quit! " This occurred after he had been dead an hour and come back to be with us for an hour! I told you he had a remarkable life! And he dearly served our sovereign , holy, loving, just God...thank you , Judy Flinn
oatmeal
Well-known member
There is no free will if all has been predetermined.
As you pointed out, God has foreknowledge.
Knowledge of the future.
If you have knowledge of the future you can make choices based on that knowledge, if you wise, which God is.
God chose based on His foreknowledge. He foreknew who would exercise their free will to choose to believe and who would not.
He, foreknowing who would choose to believe, chose, predestinated/marked out beforehand, those believers.
He chooses/chose those who choose to believe.
Foreknowledge precedes predestination/marking out beforehand.
oatmeal
There is a little word in all of this, the word "fixed" this word has connotations of which I disapprove if fixed here means that God fixed it so. God foreknew certainly but with regards to sin He did not fix it, that is to say He did not plan it or predestine it so. Foreknowledge and the certainty of man's fall is every bit as much a fact without that God should have planned it.
In foreknowing that man would fall God predestined and preplanned His creation first to manage and contain sin once it had been committed and secondly to redeem man back to Himself out of it.
We must be very careful not to make God in any way the agent of sin.
Thank you for your testimony and praise God for the testimony of your belovéd....."all by grace was his testimony"
Hopefully you will agree with Paul when he declares that our condition before we came to Christ was that of bondservants to sin.