What are the two key views in this whole theological debate that we have of the way man comes to Christ. We have two views and two different theological hermeneutics to get to this point in the theology of one’s own mind, but what is that the bible says about this in the end is the final saying that we need to hold to, but with that we can just go by our own feelings that we have for this. We should look at this from both views, I will be using much different recourse to do this, the main one of course is going to be the bible, and I will be using books other than the bible for this paper alone with some online pages about the different topics. But before I get in to the two different views I think that it is key we define the two different views as in there tittle first before we use the word of God to find the answers.
Let’s start out with predestination, what is this word mean? “[1] Predestination is a religious belief involving the relationship between God and His Creation. The general idea behind predestination is that God, before the Creation, predetermined the fate of the universe throughout all of space and time. There are many different views on what the Bible teaches and what this means for mankind and eternity.” So from the source that we pull this from we see that God is the one that is in control of all that will come to past. But the source all says that there are many different views, like the one of free will, but let’s see what the word means in its self “[2]1. theology. the act of God foreordaining every event from eternity b. the doctrine or belief, esp associated with Calvin, that the final salvation of some of mankind is foreordained from eternity by God” but what is the other view that we have to look at and what is the definition of those word? Well it is the doctrine of free will, free will is as said here “[3]What freewill tries to account for is our introspective conviction that we are in control of many of our choices, and thus our destiny - that we are free to think and decide. We contrast this flexible, conscious control that we enjoy with the involuntary action of, say, our heartbeat or digestion, and with the instinctual imperative of a bird's nest-building or a dog's conditioned response. Our decisions are far more independent of nature and nurture than any animals; we are aware of our ability to think and of the consequences of our choices - we can claim responsibility for our actions. These are the meaningful differences that give rise to the concept of freewill.”
So after seeing that we have one view that holds to God being the one that has everything come to pass, and the other that says man has the control to be saved or not to be. But what is the one that we find to the in the bible? Do we see that one plays a key role in the bible, or does one play more of a role but the other is there, or does one show up and the other in no were to be found in the bible? That is the key to this, but we must go to the key text of both sides of all this. What is all this telling us what does this mean for man and for God? Does man having this will that is free take away from the glory to God, Does man having been predestinated make man a robot?
I would like to first give a brief back round on the key men who were the founders (bright it is to the light in a big way) of the two main views on election. The first is theologian john Calvin. “[4]John Calvin was born in 1509. He died in 1564. John Calvin was the son of a lawyer. He was born in Noyon, Picardy and was therefore a Frenchman. Calvin developed a love for scholarship and literature. In 1523 he went to the University of Paris where he studied theology. To maintain himself while a student, Calvin secured a small chaplaincy attached to Noyon Cathedral. In 1528 he went to Orleans to study Law, and one year later Calvin went to Bourges also to study Law. Calvin was pressurised by his father to study Law but in 1531 his father died giving Calvin the freedom to resume his religious studies. In the same year that his father died, Calvin went to the College de France in Paris to study Greek. This college was noted for its Humanistic approach to learning. In fact, all the colleges that Calvin attended had Humanistic leanings and it was only natural that this influenced Calvin. He became an admirer of Erasmus. At some point between 1528 and 1533 he experienced a "sudden conversion" and grasped Protestantism. "God subdued my soul to docility by a sudden conversion" was how Calvin described this experience.” The next man is
“[5]Arminius, Jacobus (c.1559-1609), Dutch Remonstrant Reformer, was born Jacob Harmenszoon in Oudewater near Utrecht. His middle-class family was devastated when his father, a maker of kitchen utensils, died during Arminius' infancy and his mother, together with all his siblings, were slain during his adolescence in the Spanish massacre of Oudewater in 1575. Thereafter family friends raised him. Like most classically trained humanist scholars of his era, he eventually Latinized his name, recalling the "Arminius" who had been a 1st century Germanic leader noted for his resistance to the Romans. In 1574 he began his studies at Leiden, venue for a tradition reaching back into the pre-Reformation ferment of the North Netherlands. The atmosphere included a biblically-informed piety, a sacramentarianism that viewed medieval sacraments as largely superstitious, and a humanist perspective that identified Roman Catholic corruption of the church. It would be anachronistic to speak of this movement as (proto-) Lutheran or Zwinglian, as these latter descriptions entail a doctrinal specificity that was not operative in what had flowed from the 14th and 15th centuries. Studies followed at Geneva, Basel, and Geneva again, culminating, after years of leadership in city, church and university, in a doctorate from Leiden in 1603.Leiden accommodated the older reform as well as the precise Calvinism that Reformed refugees had brought with them. The ensuing conflict was less concerned with predestination (albeit never far from the surface) than with the relation of Calvinist consistory (an ecclesiastical court in Reformed churchmanship) and the city (reflecting the less doctrinally exact, humanist-informed piety indigenous to the Low Countries.) The consistory, for instance, in the spirit of Calvinist rigour, opposed observing Christian festivals (e.g., Christmas and Easter) that happened not to fall on Sundays.
So with these two men in the light, what are there doctrines that they held to and would fight over and would in the end, who would have them named after. I would like to take a look at the free will doctrine first, as I think it will be the easiest to show in the best why without going to a lot of links and quotes, and I say this because in this one we will not be hanging a lot of Greek and stuff in this view to go over as we will in the view that is held by the Calvinist the doctrine of predestination. In the view of free will, we have there key verse that the ones that hold to this view will run to first and we find it in the Old Testament. “[6]Jos 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Now that this is not in the new testament, this is the key verse as I said they will run to, and they do this based on the words used in the verse, the word is (“choose “this day whom you will serve) there are some in the new testament that they will un to, and in fact they are some very well-known verse. But before I go to the verse that they would use in the New Testament I want to just look at this one for a bit. I want to just look at some of the verse key part and that is “choose this day whom you will serve” is this talking about choosing Christ, over something else? Well we would have to get the context but instated of going with verse after verse to get it I will just say it, the context is that Joshua, is tell pagans that they need to choose in that day will they serve God of the bible or there god. That is the context. Not that man has a free will. But let’s jump over to the New Testament for the next run to verse. “[7]Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” So this is a verse that is in the view of free will is talking about, but is it in fact is it what it is saying? I don’t think that it is, but I want to hold that to the end on what I think the view is on this verse. But the next verse, what is it in fact many will us the most used verse in the world to show free will, “[8]John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The key word that they would use for this whole thing is the “whomever” but what is the word whomever means what? “[9]–pronoun; possessive whos·ev·er; objective whom·ev·er. 1whatever person; anyone that: Whoever did it should be proud. ask whoever is there. Tell it to whomever you like.” So we see that anyone that. But to understand that you need to read who will be the whomever (see john 10 also see john 3:3-8). So is there more to this then we think? Well yea this verse is one that hits many different doctrines not just the free will view, of how man can pick to be saved. “[10]John 7:17 If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” This verse is used but very well missed used in the way of free will. They will cut it very short, and stop it at “if anyone’s will is to do God’s will” is all they want to deal with, but we go one in the same verse we see this “he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” if they read on they see that the “will” is not on that is a free will to pick God but one that is a will like Gods and will know if what is being talked about is of God and not of mans, own will.
I want to know give you what the Westminster Confession of faith says about predestination.
“[11]I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither is any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.”
The use of the confection is not to say that the bible is not need but to go to the conftion for the answrs no, but it is a great help to one that is wanting to know more about the verse or doctrine that you are dealing with. Let’s now look at the verse that would back the doctrine that we have come to know and love in the reformed faith the doctrine of predestination. What are the key verses that we use in this? What is it that we say that will be of the grate doctrine that is truth of the word of God, what it that we see in this doctrine is. I want to start with romans and take some time with the book and the chapter that deals with this doctrine. What is the first part of all this? Well we start this in romans 8
“[12] romans 8:29-30 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. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” So what is it that this one is talking about? Is there a contradiction in the first part of the two verses? We see the word foreknew and we see the word predestined, is this say thing that it is based on something God say in us and then he predestined us? No I would say that is just the oppose of what is being said in this. I will show you this, what is the word foreknew in the Greek? The word and its uses in the Greek is as follows “[13]προγινώσκω,v \{prog-in-oce'-ko} 1) to have knowledge beforehand 2) to foreknow 2a) of those whom God elected to salvation 3) to predestinate”. So we see that in 2 as of those whom God elected to salvation, as this is the one being used, it is talking in the personal since. But what does that have to do with the election of man? Well if it being a personal type of talk, then it is a one on one type of election and by this I mean, he had elected some and not others. But is this far that God world give salvation unto some and not others? Well I ask you are it far for him to send everyone to hell, and not elect anyone? I would then have you rethink the past question that you put forth. But how does all this tie in with God electing some. When did this election take place, it took place before the formation of the world. “[14]Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love” so we see that in the book of Ephesians that even before the world was formed the elect were blameless before him. but who is the us and who is the ones that get this? The us are the church, the body of the flock. How are we elect, we are elect based on Gods pedestation. We are not elect because of what we have done. In all this what how do we know who is elect, well we don’t, theologian Charles h. spurgeon put it this way, [15]"If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I'd go up and down the street lifting up shirt tails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I'd give them the gospel. But God didn't do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature that 'whosoever will may come.'" Jesus says, "and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." So what does this mean? I mean well we don’t know who the elect is and that is a miss notion on the part of the free will poison on the doctrine of predestination, is that we think we don’t need to give the gospel that if they will be saved then God will do it no need for man to do anything in that way to make the move to give the gospel. But in fact it is because we don’t know who they are we need to, and the predestination is what shows who the elect are not use giving the gospel but the owns that have ears will hear the call from the holy spirit, and there for come forth in repenting of their sins. No view that is put out as the reformed view by the remonstrate, is that God will save them we don’t need to give the gospel, and that it is pointless to even give it. But in this we need to see that the fact is we don’t know either way, so we must give it, but what does that even mean for us in that if we as reformed hold to the doctrine of predestination? Well what it means is we after giving it have seen if they are elect, but this does not mean that they are not elect if they reject it, they still could but we must remember that God will work out for the good of the sheep and the ones who love the lord. [16]“Rom 8:27-28 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” So with this we see that it is up to God no matter what it is all based off his will, in the end it is not love that will win but God that will win. I would like think of it this way, with man totally depraved in their hearts, would they want to go away from a life of sex, pot, lawless acts, to something that holds you to a standard that no man could keep but one the Christ?
I want to take some time now to go back to the verse I used in the start from Joshua,
[17]“Jos 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
What is this verse saying? Is it in fact the verse that we need to use for free will? No we need to go on to the next to see who the context was about. [18]”Jos 24:16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods,” so they were severing other gods, and this was not a call to faith but a call to repent from braking [19]”Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.” So it is not a backing verse for freewillism.
In all this, I don’t see this fight is you will have it be going way anytime soon. But I would like to see the ones that do not think it is biblical to find out what it is they are fighting. Is it the men of faith that hold to it or is it the father that made them?[6] English Standard version (esv) the holy bible
[7] Esv , the holy bible
[8] Esv, the holy bible
[10] Esv the holy bible
[11] The Westminster confession of faith, Chapter III Of God's Eternal Decree.
[12] Esv , the holy bible
[14] Esv, the holy bible
[15] http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2008/12/yellow-stripes-quote-spurgeon-never.html (author denies that spurgeon actually said that)
[16] Esv the holy bible
[17] Esv the holy bible
[18] Esv the holy bible
[19] Esv the holy bible
