toldailytopic: The reprobate. Are some people born with no hope of salvation?

[Krsto]

*
That is about what I've always said...I am always ready to be shown if someone can show me from scipture I am wrong in a matter.

I took your statement, "What God DID predestine was man's redemption," to mean God predestined who would be redeemed and who would not be redeemed, vis a vis Calvanism. If that is not what you meant then my apologies for misunderstanding you. So you agree that God did not pick ahead of time who would be saved and who wouldn't?

 

[Totton Linnet]

I took your statement, "What God DID predestine was man's redemption," to mean God predestined who would be redeemed and who would not be redeemed, vis a vis Calvanism. If that is not what you meant then my apologies for misunderstanding you. So you agree that God did not pick ahead of time who would be saved and who wouldn't?

*
I am not going to open the "wider mercy" can of worms here.

In order to conform us God must first have to save us, but I totally reject the supposition Calvin made [he was caught on the hop] that this neccesarily means that all others are predestined to be damned.

If people believe that they will read their bibles that way, with what I call Calvin blinkers. If you you reject that idea and cry out to the Lord of mercy to show you the truth, suddenly the bible comes alive and scriptures which people have skated over [because they fit not into the Calvin scheme] become illumined.

Just because Calvin saw no other option does not mean that God does not have other options. I can full back up my belief in a much wider mercy...indeed predestination sits easier with the wider mercy than the free will position which states that the gospel must be heard AND a decision made for Christ in order to salvation, the free will argument consigns UNTOLD billions-whole nations and continents-to eternal misery because they never heard the gospel, never had the opportunity to hear.

Therefore the free will gospel is a BILLIONfold more cruel than Calvin.

We have got to take the blinkers off and see God as He is in the bible, in the face of Jesus and no according to Calvin or Arminius.

God is sovereign Lord.

 

[Krsto]

*
I am not going to open the "wider mercy" can of worms here.

In order to conform us God must first have to save us, but I totally reject the supposition Calvin made [he was caught on the hop] that this neccesarily means that all others are predestined to be damned.

If people believe that they will read their bibles that way, with what I call Calvin blinkers. If you you reject that idea and cry out to the Lord of mercy to show you the truth, suddenly the bible comes alive and scriptures which people have skated over [because they fit not into the Calvin scheme] become illumined.

Just because Calvin saw no other option does not mean that God does not have other options. I can full back up my belief in a much wider mercy...indeed predestination sits easier with the wider mercy than the free will position which states that the gospel must be heard AND a decision made for Christ in order to salvation, the free will argument consigns UNTOLD billions-whole nations and continents-to eternal misery because they never heard the gospel, never had the opportunity to hear.

Therefore the free will gospel is a BILLIONfold more cruel than Calvin.

We have got to take the blinkers off and see God as He is in the bible, in the face of Jesus and no according to Calvin or Arminius.

God is sovereign Lord.

Well I have heard some say the truth is somewhere in between Calvinism and Arminianism and I've never really understood what they mean by that. I really don't see how free will is a billionfold more cruel than Calvinism, in fact, I would say it's the other way around since Calvinism says God picked out ahead of time who would end up in eternal misery and they had absolutely no say in the matter while a free will position says the person makes up his own mind, though it can be rightly argued that people generally don't "pick" eternal torment, they just don't accept the invitation if they heard it and others didn't hear it. What you are saying though is that whole continents are in effect relegated to the trash heap of eternal misery because God didn't do enough to send them apostles and evangelists to preach the Gospel but given that way of looking at it, a valid point, I would say it not a billionfold more cruel than Calvinism, just equally as cruel.

I'm glad you recognize the cruelty though. Most Christians don't want to face the music but prefer to put on blinders with regard to the logical conclusion to their theology, that God is cruel if anybody, for any reason, spends eternity in torment.

That's one reason many of us have re-examined the church's traditional teachings about the state of the unsaved and have concluded another option you haven't seemed to consider, that the unsaved don't suffer for eternity but merely suffer death, or as some have put forth Jesus died for all so that everybody will be redeemed.

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ. - Rom. 6:23

Believe that and you will understand the Gospel.

 

[griffinsavard]

This doctrine is contingent upon what you believe happens when you die. If you believe as most do that God will torment you forever in everlasting fire then the thought that some are saved by God and some are not is repulsive. On the other hand, if you have re-examined the Scriptures and been shown by the Holy Spirit that God does not burn you forever but simply annihilates you then the doctrine doesn't have so much of a sting; for we have all fallen short of the glory, and the wages of sin is death.
Salvation is a free gift and God can do whatever he wants with his own. According to the gospel you cannot earn your way into heaven; but, let's say, someone along the way cries out to God and would like to be saved would God, who is love, reject him? Prisoners can cry out to anyone walking past their cell. Of course, it is up to that person walking past to find a ransom and get him pardoned.
Paul does list verses which say God made some vessels of wrath and some of mercy. All I am saying is alot of the emotional feelings this doctrine produces comes from faulty reasoning on what happens when we die. It is cruel to say that God predisposed people to burn in flames for eternity. If you deny that you are a liar and simply have no other explanation to put forward.

 

[Krsto]

This doctrine is contingent upon what you believe happens when you die. If you believe as most do that God will torment you forever in everlasting fire then the thought that some are saved by God and some are not is repulsive. On the other hand, if you have re-examined the Scriptures and been shown by the Holy Spirit that God does not burn you forever but simply annihilates you then the doctrine doesn't have so much of a sting; for we have all fallen short of the glory, and the wages of sin is death.
Salvation is a free gift and God can do whatever he wants with his own. According to the gospel you cannot earn your way into heaven; but, let's say, someone along the way cries out to God and would like to be saved would God, who is love, reject him? Prisoners can cry out to anyone walking past their cell. Of course, it is up to that person walking past to find a ransom and get him pardoned.
Paul does list verses which say God made some vessels of wrath and some of mercy. All I am saying is alot of the emotional feelings this doctrine produces comes from faulty reasoning on what happens when we die. It is cruel to say that God predisposed people to burn in flames for eternity. If you deny that you are a liar and simply have no other explanation to put forward.

Being an annihilationist myself I could be Calvinistic in that I would believe God picked who would receive eternal life and who would end their existance in the grave but I just don't see that as the case, except in the wider sense that God determined which areas would receive the Gospel first and which would have to wait. I do also understand and believe God did send blindness on the Jews, basically keeping them in the dark, while working with the Gentiles, which is the sense that the analogy of the potter and the clay is written, but again, that is not saying he chose them for eternal suffering, only for being a vessel of wrath, ie, they would die in the grave without the gift of eternal life, having their souls and bodies destroyed in the grave.

But you are correct, Calvinism as believed by most is a reprehensible doctrine that turns more people off to God than they realize.

 

[griffinsavard]

Being an annihilationist myself I could be Calvinistic in that I would believe God picked who would receive eternal life and who would end their existance in the grave but I just don't see that as the case, except in the wider sense that God determined which areas would receive the Gospel first and which would have to wait. I do also understand and believe God did send blindness on the Jews, basically keeping them in the dark, while working with the Gentiles, which is the sense that the analogy of the potter and the clay is written, but again, that is not saying he chose them for eternal suffering, only for being a vessel of wrath, ie, they would die in the grave without the gift of eternal life, having their souls and bodies destroyed in the grave.

But you are correct, Calvinism as believed by most is a reprehensible doctrine that turns more people off to God than they realize.

Being an annihilationist too I could agree to sharing some of calvin's thoughts. I have often wondered how the free-will people deal with John receiving the Spirit in the womb, i.e., before he would of been able to ask for it, which appears to make God choosing this kind of life for the prophet. And statements such as the one to Jeremiah, before i formed you in the womb.....
I have often wondered wether election refers to selecting a group of people for carrying out certain tasks and not referring to the general mass of the redeemed. Kind of like choosing a star basketball team, training them [these would be the elect], and then the public could choose whose team they would support [the general mass of the saved]. Meaning, some are elected, but they are elected to certain duties and positions [vessels of mercy] while the general mass have to choose who they will support and follow.
Of course this is all theory and I am not trying to teach doctrine here. Just throwing out some ideas i have and would like to hear what you say about them....:wave:

 

[Totton Linnet]

Well I have heard some say the truth is somewhere in between Calvinism and Arminianism and I've never really understood what they mean by that. I really don't see how free will is a billionfold more cruel than Calvinism, in fact, I would say it's the other way around since Calvinism says God picked out ahead of time who would end up in eternal misery and they had absolutely no say in the matter while a free will position says the person makes up his own mind, though it can be rightly argued that people generally don't "pick" eternal torment, they just don't accept the invitation if they heard it and others didn't hear it. What you are saying though is that whole continents are in effect relegated to the trash heap of eternal misery because God didn't do enough to send them apostles and evangelists to preach the Gospel but given that way of looking at it, a valid point, I would say it not a billionfold more cruel than Calvinism, just equally as cruel.

I'm glad you recognize the cruelty though. Most Christians don't want to face the music but prefer to put on blinders with regard to the logical conclusion to their theology, that God is cruel if anybody, for any reason, spends eternity in torment.

That's one reason many of us have re-examined the church's traditional teachings about the state of the unsaved and have concluded another option you haven't seemed to consider, that the unsaved don't suffer for eternity but merely suffer death, or as some have put forth Jesus died for all so that everybody will be redeemed.

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ. - Rom. 6:23

Believe that and you will understand the Gospel.

*
You HAVE put a lot of thought and study into this. I when I heard of the negative aspect of Calvin [I never have read him] cried to the Lord wih this mind, God is Love, He is merciful, yes both predetermined damnation and salvation contingent upon free will "decision" are equally cruel.

I trust God that the judgement He makes will be equitable. I can see a case for eventual annihilation, if death and hell be in the end swallowed up in a lake of fire although the Saviour's word to the goats are not easily to be dismissed.

There is one thing I am sure of and that is that there are goats, there are tares which Jesus didn't say were predestined by God but planted by an enemy. There are sheep who belong not to the Lord.

We do not see the inner man of a man like for instance Hitler or Nero, we see only the outer man [so we think of everyone as fellows] but almost no christian would extend mercy to the devil. What if Hitler were not under constraints and limitations? if he could have all power and might to do as he pleased? how very like the devil he would have been, he is a picture of the coming Antichrist.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Being an annihilationist too I could agree to sharing some of calvin's thoughts. I have often wondered how the free-will people deal with John receiving the Spirit in the womb, i.e., before he would of been able to ask for it, which appears to make God choosing this kind of life for the prophet. And statements such as the one to Jeremiah, before i formed you in the womb.....
I have often wondered wether election refers to selecting a group of people for carrying out certain tasks and not referring to the general mass of the redeemed. Kind of like choosing a star basketball team, training them [these would be the elect], and then the public could choose whose team they would support [the general mass of the saved]. Meaning, some are elected, but they are elected to certain duties and positions [vessels of mercy] while the general mass have to choose who they will support and follow.
Of course this is all theory and I am not trying to teach doctrine here. Just throwing out some ideas i have and would like to hear what you say about them....:wave:

*
They are ideas worth looking at, only everything has to be proved by scripture, Calvin's negative doctrine concerning predestiny is not provable by scripture, it is an assumption.

For example Jesus said "if anyone gives one of these a cup of water because he is a disciple he shall by no means lose his reward"

Paul says The Gentiles who have not the law do what the law requires of them they show that what is required of them by the law is written on their hearts, they are a law unto themselves, their consciences excusing them or accusing them on that day when according to my gospel God judges the secrets of man by Christ Jesus.

You never hear Evangelicals preach on verses like that.

 

[Krsto]

Being an annihilationist too I could agree to sharing some of calvin's thoughts. I have often wondered how the free-will people deal with John receiving the Spirit in the womb, i.e., before he would of been able to ask for it, which appears to make God choosing this kind of life for the prophet. And statements such as the one to Jeremiah, before i formed you in the womb.....
I have often wondered wether election refers to selecting a group of people for carrying out certain tasks and not referring to the general mass of the redeemed. Kind of like choosing a star basketball team, training them [these would be the elect], and then the public could choose whose team they would support [the general mass of the saved]. Meaning, some are elected, but they are elected to certain duties and positions [vessels of mercy] while the general mass have to choose who they will support and follow.
Of course this is all theory and I am not trying to teach doctrine here. Just throwing out some ideas i have and would like to hear what you say about them....:wave:

Election appears to be general to a people, not specific to individuals, and as it's used in 2 Tim. 2:10

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

election doesn't guarantee salvation.

I think though that God can deal with individuals, calling them, anointing them, etc., without infringing on their free will. He's very clever.

I know from my own experience I have thought in my own mind to do such and such and later after having done it find out that God orchestrated events for the purpose of a "divine appointment," either for my benefit or someone else's, including puting the thought in my head to do such and such. I never did feel I was being made to do something or lost control of myself or had my free will infringed in any way.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Read it again. What God did predestinate was what he would do to those who recieved or accepted his redemption. Those whom he foreknew he predestined to be made into the image of Christ. Sound familiar? That is a direct quote from Romans. That is a lifelong process that begins at redemption.

Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

It seems to me that you do not understand what Paul is saying here. To say that God predestined those who “received or accepted” anything is to read into the passage a theological understanding that is not in the text.
It looks like you read the text to be something like:
29 For those whom he foreknew [would accept or receive redemption on their own will] he also predestined…
God’s foreknowledge seems to have the force of choice or calling, rather than just knowing about. It seems to me that a simple straight-forward reading of the text shows a chain of linked concepts that lead inescapably to the conclusion that God, for his own reasons, including the making of “many brothers” for Christ, chose at least some people out of all possible people to be saved.
It is hard for me to understand how one could read “those” as meaning anything other than individual people. So it reads that a person is chosen [foreknown] by God > predestined to be conformed >called > justified > glorified. Seems to me to be all tied together, those that God foreknows are saved. Both in eternity [glorified] and at some time in their lifetimes [called and justified].

Peace,
Rick

 

[bybee]

Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

It seems to me that you do not understand what Paul is saying here. To say that God predestined those who “received or accepted” anything is to read into the passage a theological understanding that is not in the text.
It looks like you read the text to be something like:
29 For those whom he foreknew [would accept or receive redemption on their own will] he also predestined…
God’s foreknowledge seems to have the force of choice or calling, rather than just knowing about. It seems to me that a simple straight-forward reading of the text shows a chain of linked concepts that lead inescapably to the conclusion that God, for his own reasons, including the making of “many brothers” for Christ, chose at least some people out of all possible people to be saved.
It is hard for me to understand how one could read “those” as meaning anything other than individual people. So it reads that a person is chosen [foreknown] by God > predestined to be conformed >called > justified > glorified. Seems to me to be all tied together, those that God foreknows are saved. Both in eternity [glorified] and at some time in their lifetimes [called and justified].

Peace,
Rick

I heard an interesting sermon this morning. The Pastor said "Those who either through election or choice are baptized and indwelt with the Holy Spirit are dead to self and alive through Christ".
He seems to believe that, yes, there are those whom God has elected for His purposes and yes, there are those who choose to be used of God for His purposes.

 

[Krsto]

Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

It seems to me that you do not understand what Paul is saying here. To say that God predestined those who “received or accepted” anything is to read into the passage a theological understanding that is not in the text.
It looks like you read the text to be something like:
29 For those whom he foreknew [would accept or receive redemption on their own will] he also predestined…
God’s foreknowledge seems to have the force of choice or calling, rather than just knowing about. It seems to me that a simple straight-forward reading of the text shows a chain of linked concepts that lead inescapably to the conclusion that God, for his own reasons, including the making of “many brothers” for Christ, chose at least some people out of all possible people to be saved.
It is hard for me to understand how one could read “those” as meaning anything other than individual people. So it reads that a person is chosen [foreknown] by God > predestined to be conformed >called > justified > glorified. Seems to me to be all tied together, those that God foreknows are saved. Both in eternity [glorified] and at some time in their lifetimes [called and justified].

Peace,
Rick

In the red above you are equating foreknown and chosen. I don't. They are not the same.

Those he foreknew, he chose (predestined). Isn't that what it says? Isn't that the "straightforward reading"?

The point Paul is making is what did God predestine those to be whom he foreknew would respond to the Gospel? A "straightforward reading" says they were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ (as opposed to conformed to something else).

Yes, there is a chain of events. Once you understand that chain you will not have a theology that says that God chose individuals to suffer in hell for eternity. You will then cease to make God a monster and begin to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Brother Ducky]

I heard an interesting sermon this morning. The Pastor said "Those who either through election or choice are baptized and indwelt with the Holy Spirit are dead to self and alive through Christ".
He seems to believe that, yes, there are those whom God has elected for His purposes and yes, there are those who choose to be used of God for His purposes.

Bybee, beloved in the Lord and by most on TOL

I have heard something to the effect that John Wesley held a view that there are some that are elect but others can choose God on their own. I have never bothered to do any research on it, and it true, I do not know that Wesley would have used the word "elect" for the special cases.

So I guess the view is not unique but I suspect somewhat rare.

Peace,
Rick

 

[bybee]

Bybee, beloved in the Lord and by most on TOL

I have heard something to the effect that John Wesley held a view that there are some that are elect but others can choose God on their own. I have never bothered to do any research on it, and it true, I do not know that Wesley would have used the word "elect" for the special cases.

So I guess the view is not unique but I suspect somewhat rare.

Peace,
Rick

Thanks for the kind words.
The words caught my attention because of so much dialogue on TOL regarding the subject.
This is a great place to learn and have one's faith reinforced! Peace, bybee

 

[Brother Ducky]

In the red above you are equating foreknown and chosen. I don't. They are not the same.

Those he foreknew, he chose (predestined). Isn't that what it says? Isn't that the "straightforward reading"?

The point Paul is making is what did God predestine those to be whom he foreknew would respond to the Gospel? A "straightforward reading" says they were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ (as opposed to conformed to something else).

Yes, there is a chain of events. Once you understand that chain you will not have a theology that says that God chose individuals to suffer in hell for eternity. You will then cease to make God a monster and begin to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, the straightforward reading of the verse is those he foreknew, he chose. What is not so straightforward is your adding the concept of foreknowledge of what some would do, as opposed to foreknowledge being a choice or calling of someone.
Romans 11: 1-2
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

Paul in the same book refers to the Israelites as being foreknown. If his foreknowledge has the sense of choice or calling, the verse makes perfect sense. If it has a meaning of knowing something ahead of time, the second part of the verse becomes meaningless. What did the Israelites do or say that God knew about ahead of time? Well, everything, but that does not seem to be relevant to the discussion.

Peace,
Rick

 

[Brother Ducky]

Thanks for the kind words.
The words caught my attention because of so much dialogue on TOL regarding the subject.
This is a great place to learn and have one's faith reinforced! Peace, bybee

I am afraid that there will always be an impasse between those who hold to TULIP and those who don't. I understand that a Biblical case can be built for either position. In my studies, I have come to the conclusion that the Reformed system of doctrine is the best explanation for the Biblical data. Definitely not perfect, but better than the others, in my opinion as an ex-Arminian. Certainly something that we can have vigorous debate and discussion over without losing sight of the fact that we can be brothers and sisters in Christ and not agree on everything.

Peace,
Rick

On an unrelated note, my usual closing is copied from you. I would use shalom in Hebrew letters, but it is too hard and too much trouble.

 

[Krsto]

Yes, the straightforward reading of the verse is those he foreknew, he chose. What is not so straightforward is your adding the concept of foreknowledge of what some would do, as opposed to foreknowledge being a choice or calling of someone.
Romans 11: 1-2
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

Paul in the same book refers to the Israelites as being foreknown. If his foreknowledge has the sense of choice or calling, the verse makes perfect sense. If it has a meaning of knowing something ahead of time, the second part of the verse becomes meaningless. What did the Israelites do or say that God knew about ahead of time? Well, everything, but that does not seem to be relevant to the discussion.

Peace,
Rick

I'm trying to avoid opening the can of worms you have presented with regard to definitions of foreknowledge and preordination so as to keep this simple at the risk of not really addressing the issue but perhaps this will be usefull:

Gnosis often carries the idea of more than just knowledge but also relational knowledge, similar to when we say, "I know you, you wouldn't do that," which is different than just knowing about someone.

I think if you look at the statement "God has not cast off those whom he foreknew," we can get the idea that what Paul is saying is that God knew he would have a covenantal relationship with Israel, and it can be argued that is because he planned it that way, that is, he preordained it, but to then define "pre knowledge" as "pre choice" is going way beyond the meaning of the word itself. If you insert that meaning into "pre knowledge" then you will find "those he pre knew he pre chose" in Rom. 8:29 to be saying, "those he pre chose he pre chose," which doesn't make any sense either.

Neither does making "pre choice" a meaning for "pre knowledge" make any sense in the following:

Acts 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

2 Pet. 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

So I think it is safer and more sound to leave prognosis as pre knowledge and not add to it the meaning of pre choice.

You will also find that the early church fathers who had Greek as their language (rather than Latin) agree with what I am saying and did not have the idea of choice with regard to prognosis, which verifies that adding the idea of choice to prognosis was a later invention, possibly as early as the first Latin church fathers.

Following the above line of reasoning will also keep you from the inescapable conclusion to TULIP, that God picked souls to suffer eternally.

 

[temple2006]

No one is born hopeless. God is great and God is good.

 

[Esquilax]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 12th, 2011 08:59 AM

toldailytopic: The reprobate. Are some people born with no hope of salvation?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

## No. Reprobation does not imply that.

The problem comes from confusing *our* relation to past present and future, with God's - because God is not related to time at all, nor bound by it. God does not happen or act "alongside" man; and He is not a man, but God. So He is not a larger-than-life manager of the universe either.