Predestination is misunderstood...
- Thread starter Genez
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You can study the doctrine of free will from one or two camps-that of Reformed, or that of Arminian and what stands written-Perfect Tense.
open theism
A movement emerging from within evangelicalism that denies the historic Christian view of God’s omniscience, teaching instead that God does not know the future exhaustively, since he cannot know for certain the choices and actions of free creatures until the choices are made and the actions are done in time; the future, then, is not certain, but “open,” for both God and his creatures; also called free will theism, open theology, or openness of God theology.
Scripture that disproves open theism:
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you. (Psalm 139:16-18 ESV)
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…. (Ephesians 1:11 ESV)
Belgic Confession, Article 13:
We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.
In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.
From Their God Is Too Small by Bruce Ware:
[T]he very greatness, goodness, and glory of God are undermined by the open view of God. While the open view tries to understand God as more “relational” and “really involved” in human affairs, the way it does so is by portraying God as less than he truly is. Of the open view we cannot help but say, “Their God is too small!”
Think about it. Here we have a God who has to wait, in so many, many cases, to see what we will do before he can decide his own course of action. While this is a very natural way to think of human choice and action, does this rightly apply to the God of the Bible?
The true and living God of the Bible proclaims, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Isa. 46:9b-10).
Surely such a majestic God stands high and exalted and far above the proposed God of the open view. The Bible’s abundant prophecies, most of which involve innumerable future free human choices and actions, should be enough by themselves to indicate that the true God does not have to wait to see what we do before he makes up his mind.
If God doesn’t know what we will do before we do it, how could Christ, for example, warn Peter that before the rooster crowed, Peter would deny him three times (John 13:38)? Was this a good guess on Jesus’ part? Hardly! Recall that just a few verses earlier in John 13 Jesus had told the disciples that he would begin telling them things before they take place so that when they occur, “you may believe that I am he” (John 13:19). God knows in advance what we will do, and he can, when he wishes, declare it to us as evidence of his very deity. The open view brings God down, pure and simple. It tries to give more significance to human choice and action at the expense of the very greatness and glory of God. The God of open theism is too small, simply because he is less than the majestic, fully knowing, altogether wise God of the Bible.
Shalom
J.
open theism
A movement emerging from within evangelicalism that denies the historic Christian view of God’s omniscience, teaching instead that God does not know the future exhaustively, since he cannot know for certain the choices and actions of free creatures until the choices are made and the actions are done in time; the future, then, is not certain, but “open,” for both God and his creatures; also called free will theism, open theology, or openness of God theology.
Scripture that disproves open theism:
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you. (Psalm 139:16-18 ESV)
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…. (Ephesians 1:11 ESV)
Belgic Confession, Article 13:
We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.
Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.
This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.
In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.
From Their God Is Too Small by Bruce Ware:
[T]he very greatness, goodness, and glory of God are undermined by the open view of God. While the open view tries to understand God as more “relational” and “really involved” in human affairs, the way it does so is by portraying God as less than he truly is. Of the open view we cannot help but say, “Their God is too small!”
Think about it. Here we have a God who has to wait, in so many, many cases, to see what we will do before he can decide his own course of action. While this is a very natural way to think of human choice and action, does this rightly apply to the God of the Bible?
The true and living God of the Bible proclaims, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Isa. 46:9b-10).
Surely such a majestic God stands high and exalted and far above the proposed God of the open view. The Bible’s abundant prophecies, most of which involve innumerable future free human choices and actions, should be enough by themselves to indicate that the true God does not have to wait to see what we do before he makes up his mind.
If God doesn’t know what we will do before we do it, how could Christ, for example, warn Peter that before the rooster crowed, Peter would deny him three times (John 13:38)? Was this a good guess on Jesus’ part? Hardly! Recall that just a few verses earlier in John 13 Jesus had told the disciples that he would begin telling them things before they take place so that when they occur, “you may believe that I am he” (John 13:19). God knows in advance what we will do, and he can, when he wishes, declare it to us as evidence of his very deity. The open view brings God down, pure and simple. It tries to give more significance to human choice and action at the expense of the very greatness and glory of God. The God of open theism is too small, simply because he is less than the majestic, fully knowing, altogether wise God of the Bible.
Shalom
J.
-
1
- Show all
II. Man's Will is not a Sovereign Faculty. Although man does have a will, it is neither independent of all influences nor supreme over all other parts of his personality. This is the next point to be seen in our LORD's teaching.
Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Arminians and Finneyites have all held one common view of the nature of man. They suggest that the will of man is in some way neutral, that it exists in a state of moral suspension. It is their understanding that with equal ease the will can choose good or evil; it can receive or reject Christ. With only degrees of difference and variety of explanation, this is their common opinion.
Pelagians have taught that the will is neutral because man's heart is morally neutral.
Arminians, on the other hand, acknowledge the human heart to be evil. But they suggest that prevenient grace has hung the will upon a 'sky hook' of neutrality from which it can swing either to receive or to reject the gospel. The common ground, however, is this idea of neutrality. The will, they tell us, is disinterested. Ultimately this controls their entire view of conversion and of sanctification.
It will be noted that our Master taught that the human will is not free from the other faculties of the heart. Far from the will reigning over a man, the will is determined by the man's own character. It is not raised to a position of dominance over the entire man.
Man is like a tree. His heart, not his will alone, is the root. There is no possible way by which the will can choose to produce fruit contrary to the character of the root. If the root is bad, the tree is bound by its very nature to produce evil fruit.
Man is like a person standing alongside his treasure chest. There is no possibility of bringing pure gold out of a box filled only with rusty steel. The contents of the heart determine what words and deeds may be brought out. Far from being neutral, the will must reach into the heart for its choices. Every thought, word and deed will partake of the nature of the treasure within. Man is like a stream which cannot rise above its source. If the fountain is polluted, the outflow will be evil. If the source be sweet, the stream will not be bitter and cannot choose to be so.
These three illustrations alike contain the same lesson. What a man is determines what he chooses. Choices of the will always reveal the character of the heart, because the heart determines the choices. Men are not sinners because they choose to sin; they choose to sin because they are sinners. If this were not so, we could never know a tree by its fruits, nor could we judge a man's character by his acts.
Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Arminians and Finneyites have all held one common view of the nature of man. They suggest that the will of man is in some way neutral, that it exists in a state of moral suspension. It is their understanding that with equal ease the will can choose good or evil; it can receive or reject Christ. With only degrees of difference and variety of explanation, this is their common opinion.
Pelagians have taught that the will is neutral because man's heart is morally neutral.
Arminians, on the other hand, acknowledge the human heart to be evil. But they suggest that prevenient grace has hung the will upon a 'sky hook' of neutrality from which it can swing either to receive or to reject the gospel. The common ground, however, is this idea of neutrality. The will, they tell us, is disinterested. Ultimately this controls their entire view of conversion and of sanctification.
It will be noted that our Master taught that the human will is not free from the other faculties of the heart. Far from the will reigning over a man, the will is determined by the man's own character. It is not raised to a position of dominance over the entire man.
Man is like a tree. His heart, not his will alone, is the root. There is no possible way by which the will can choose to produce fruit contrary to the character of the root. If the root is bad, the tree is bound by its very nature to produce evil fruit.
Man is like a person standing alongside his treasure chest. There is no possibility of bringing pure gold out of a box filled only with rusty steel. The contents of the heart determine what words and deeds may be brought out. Far from being neutral, the will must reach into the heart for its choices. Every thought, word and deed will partake of the nature of the treasure within. Man is like a stream which cannot rise above its source. If the fountain is polluted, the outflow will be evil. If the source be sweet, the stream will not be bitter and cannot choose to be so.
These three illustrations alike contain the same lesson. What a man is determines what he chooses. Choices of the will always reveal the character of the heart, because the heart determines the choices. Men are not sinners because they choose to sin; they choose to sin because they are sinners. If this were not so, we could never know a tree by its fruits, nor could we judge a man's character by his acts.
-
1
- Show all
Project your failings unto others much?
And, no, I did not say that our volition and nature are one and the same. However, I did say (clearly and succinctly, I thought) that the power of our will is limited by our nature (essence), in that neither we or God have the power to make any voluntary choices contrary to our nature. Again, I refer you to Jer 13:23 as the biblical proof this assertion. In fact, let me quote it for you to make you life easier:
Jer 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard its spots?
Neither CAN you do good
who are accustomed to doing evil.
NIV
The operative words in this text are: CAN. If this doesn't speak pointedly to all free moral agents' limitations, then nothing does in scripture! Don't miss the analogy the prophet made. He's saying that neither an Ethiopian (a moral, rational creature of God) or a leopard (an irrational, amoral creature) have the inherent power [of will] to change what they are -- to become something other than they are! Therefore, both of these creation categories are limited by their essence (nature). And, of course, this divine revelation harmonizes with natural revelation (reality as we all know it), which accounts for the law of logic knows as the Law of Identity, which teaches us the same thing in different words.
And don't be misled by the phrase "laws of logic" and dismiss them as mere philosophical constructs. Man did not invent the laws of logic! God did -- the LOGOS did! Man merely discovered these laws, just like we have discovered the physical laws of the natural world around us. We no more invented any law of logic than we did any law of physics, such as gravity, thermodynamics, etc.
Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the parallels in the analogy in the above passage, we must conclude that the text is teaching us that man cannot not sin! He is, in fact, a "slave" to his nature. But....so is God, for that matter, since He cannot sin. All moral agents, then, are most certainly free to to choose and act in accordance with our natures. To deny that man is a free moral agent is to also deny that man's Creator is a free moral agent. Are you going to deny that God is free to do whatsoever he wants -- to create or not create, to save or not save, to have compassion or not have compassion, or to have mercy or not have mercy, etc.? Whatever you conclude about God's created moral agents, you must by extension conclude the same thing about our Creator, since he made us in his image and likeness.
And, no, I did not say that our volition and nature are one and the same. However, I did say (clearly and succinctly, I thought) that the power of our will is limited by our nature (essence), in that neither we or God have the power to make any voluntary choices contrary to our nature. Again, I refer you to Jer 13:23 as the biblical proof this assertion. In fact, let me quote it for you to make you life easier:
Jer 13:23
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin
or the leopard its spots?
Neither CAN you do good
who are accustomed to doing evil.
NIV
The operative words in this text are: CAN. If this doesn't speak pointedly to all free moral agents' limitations, then nothing does in scripture! Don't miss the analogy the prophet made. He's saying that neither an Ethiopian (a moral, rational creature of God) or a leopard (an irrational, amoral creature) have the inherent power [of will] to change what they are -- to become something other than they are! Therefore, both of these creation categories are limited by their essence (nature). And, of course, this divine revelation harmonizes with natural revelation (reality as we all know it), which accounts for the law of logic knows as the Law of Identity, which teaches us the same thing in different words.
And don't be misled by the phrase "laws of logic" and dismiss them as mere philosophical constructs. Man did not invent the laws of logic! God did -- the LOGOS did! Man merely discovered these laws, just like we have discovered the physical laws of the natural world around us. We no more invented any law of logic than we did any law of physics, such as gravity, thermodynamics, etc.
Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the parallels in the analogy in the above passage, we must conclude that the text is teaching us that man cannot not sin! He is, in fact, a "slave" to his nature. But....so is God, for that matter, since He cannot sin. All moral agents, then, are most certainly free to to choose and act in accordance with our natures. To deny that man is a free moral agent is to also deny that man's Creator is a free moral agent. Are you going to deny that God is free to do whatsoever he wants -- to create or not create, to save or not save, to have compassion or not have compassion, or to have mercy or not have mercy, etc.? Whatever you conclude about God's created moral agents, you must by extension conclude the same thing about our Creator, since he made us in his image and likeness.
