Talk:Predestination

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Hopefully this gives the article a little more to go off of. I need to organize the flow a little more - I know it's a little jumbled. The "Predestination and salvation" section needs more. Perhaps someone else can add to this? JordanBarrett 00:46, 15 November 2005 (EST)

Contents

The Election of Christ

I heard a really good message at my church that talked about the election of Christ. The preacher was speaking about how it is Jesus that is the Elect One. It's not that we, us belivers, were chosen specifically (although in a sense, this is true as well)... it's that God chose His one and only Son, and through Him we are the elect of God. So why does the Bible sometimes refer to believers as elect? That is because when we have accepted Christ's gift of Salvation, because He is Elect, we are now elect through Him. I think there is a misunderstanding today of what the word 'elect' means.

One thing with predestination debates I find is that it is very difficult to draw the line between someone that disagrees with it and someone that accepts it. In most cases one will find that both sides actually agree with eachother when it comes to the scripture, but it is the interpretation of each that is slightly different. For example... here are some of the viewpoints of each. (I don't intend to do a verse-by-verse study as I can't in one comment, but I do want ot point out some things. Pretty much all the verses about predestination and election have the same meaning anyways, so it's useless to fight over amount of verses for a particular viewpoint. Rather we should look at what it all means.)

For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14 NASB)
Those that believe that only some are chosen for salvation would say that "For many are called" shows that some are not chosen, and that "but few are chosen" confirms this.
Those that believe that all have the possibility of salvation would say that "For many are called" is very true, and that "but few are chosen" is also very true...
----
So where's the difference in the two beliefs? First let's look at what defines being 'chosen by God' to both beliefs...
Timeframe Viewpoint 1 Viewpoint 2
Before creation God knows and is aware of the future choices of mankind
God chooses those who will be saved God chooses Jesus as the Elect One
During Salvation They were already chosen, and this is just the actual event taking place God knew about there decision beforehand, but lets man choose to follow or reject Him.
Result of Salvation The person is now saved because they were chosen by God (elect/grace) and they had faith, not of their own works or deeds.


well, this is just a quick little thing I made up, maybe someone else can add to it or correct it... --Ymmotrojam 15:55, 20 December 2005 (EST)

This would be more fittingly under Election, under a section called, "Corporate election". Theopedia is, of course, critical of this view. -Aaronshaf 16:24, 20 December 2005 (EST)

Are the Sproul audio links down permanently?

? -Aaronshaf 01:53, 2 March 2006 (EST)


Multimedia

Given the recent controversy surrounding Jr., maybe. I'll check with Ligonier. -David 09:56, 2 March 2006 (EST)
Nope, they're up now... David 10:00, 2 March 2006 (EST)
What's going on with Jr.? JordanBarrett (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2006 (EST)
Evidently, he's been defrocked (deposed of his office as minister) along with several elders by a general assembly of his church. Here's a blog with some info and links to other sites with source documents and so on: link. --MonkeeSage 05:13, 16 March 2006 (EST)
Thanks for the info and link. However, I thought our audio was from R.C Sproul Sr. It is the son, Sproul Jr., that has been defrocked. I don't know why that would affect Ligonier links, even if Jr. is instrumental in Ligonier now. Gomarus 07:40, 16 March 2006 (EST)
I think you're right. It sounds like Sr to me, but I've never heard Jr speak before. I doubt the Jr stuff would effect the links. --MonkeeSage 03:38, 17 March 2006 (EST)

Why re-add the multimedia that is broken?

-Aaronshaf 10:58, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Moving reference to Vincent Cheung

The added comment on Cheung was inserted by User:MonkeeSage into an excerpt from Sproul -- essentially a quote. Therefore, I am moving it. Also, this statement should have a specific citation. Cheung has a lot of material online -- so let's have a specific reference! Gomarus 11:28, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Well, for example, in the article The Author of Sin in the book by the same title, Cheung says:
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the "author of sin," they are too quick to say, "No, God is not the author of sin." And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of "self-determination,"2 and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable,3 and yet still leave God with total sovereignty.
On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my first reaction tends to be, "So what?" Even Christians who disagree with me stupidly chants, "But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin…." However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a half-decent explanation as to what's wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective. (p. 5, [PDF version]).
He says similar things all through his Systematic Theology, Commentary on Ephesians, and Ultimate Questions. I added a link to his site in the article, so people can check out his position if they want. I didn't think an inline reference like the one above would be good in the article since it is a very minority view among the Reformed. --MonkeeSage 14:56, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Thanks for your prompt reply and the information. I think an inline reference/link to Cheung's article would be appropriate. Not being personally familiar with Cheung, do you see him as generally outside of mainstream Calvinism? regards, Jim --- Gomarus 15:27, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Hi Jim. I think he is definitely outside of mainstream Calvinism. He'd even make Pink, Ness and Gill blush. :wink: But he is consistant and unflenching in what he affirms. And he is not completely alone in his boat; to a degree G. Clark, H. Hoeksema, D. Engelsma, and other more "hard-nosed" Calvinists are in it with him. He's kind of like a mix of Clarkianism and the PRC, though more rigorous and consistant than either by themselves. Kind of like how Van Til was "Kuyper meets Warfield." I tend to flirt with many of his notions, seeing as I'm a "High"-Calvinist (Supra. / anti-"Well-Meant Offer"), though I haven't entirely jumped ship into Cheung's rowboat. HTH! --MonkeeSage 15:47, 9 March 2006 (EST)
Here is the HTML version of the Author of Sin article from Cheung's blog. There are links to other relevant articles at the bottom (in the "Recommended" section). Most of the articles are included in the books I mentioned above, but the HTML is more accessible. --MonkeeSage 04:04, 11 March 2006 (EST)

Cheung

Here is the section removed... (removed by User:Aaronshaf)

A minority of Christian thinkers who are Calvinistic / Reformed in every other sense take a different view of predestination. Notably, Vincent Cheung argues that "hard," or absolute causal determinism is the only logically and Biblically justifiable context for understanding predestination. These thinkers claim that that God is the author of evil, and that Compatibilist Freedom is a myth, because there is no such thing as a "Permissive Will" or "Passive Decree" with God. They claim that the causation of sin does not make God himself a sinner, and that it is a logically coherent belief, and that it therefore poses no problem to Biblical Christianity. See Cheung's website for books and articles representative of this position.

Cheung is not prominent enough in the Reformed community to make special mention of. My 2c. -Aaronshaf 03:27, 15 March 2006 (EST)

I think you're right, in a sense. But I'm not sure of how many people subscribe to his perspective (a small minority compared with the whole, I'm sure). I think it is good to present the specific differences between the creedal / historic view and the "Cheung party" -- so that those who come from the historic perspective can say "yes...some people believe that, but not the majority of us," and those who come from Cheung's view can say "yes...we disagree with the majority view." I do think it is good to differentiate between the various views of those who are (at least nominally) "Reformed / Calvinistic" indicating which views are mainstream and which are fringe-element. --MonkeeSage 03:52, 15 March 2006 (EST)
I think this needs more discussion. Is it fair to say that this hard determinism finds a "respected place within Reformed evangelicalism"? What you wrote sounds contrary even to the Westminster Confession. Grace and peace in Christ. -Aaronshaf 04:05, 15 March 2006 (EST)
I think it's fair to distinguish between views even if they are minority. JordanBarrett (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2006 (EST)
Aaronshaf - I don't know if it is a "respected" position, and it is not confessional, but it is Reformed, at least nominally (since it holds to the 5 points and 5 solas). It is sometimes incorrectly called Hyper-Calvinism (incorrectly, because it holds to duty-faith / duty-preaching); a more accurate description would something like "Super-High-Calvinism." In any case, there are many differences among the nominally Reformed -- even creedally -- a few examples being the form of church polity, the role of the civil magistrate, the mode and scope of baptism (cf. unrevised LBCF with unrevised WCF). Think about the differences in eschatology between various Reformed thinkers (Pre/Post/Amill.); think about the differences regarding Revelation (Futurist/Partial & Full Preterist, et alii). So even though it is a minority position, it is still a minority Reformed position. The PRC is in the minority in denying "Common Grace" -- but it is still considered to be Reformed with regard to the distinctives. I don't see why Cheung's view should be excluded from the article. --MonkeeSage 19:26, 15 March 2006 (EST)

If nobody objects, I'll reinsert the paragraph under a new "Hard Determinism" subsection (after the "Double Predestination" section). --MonkeeSage 07:11, 18 March 2006 (EST)

Okay, here goes... --MonkeeSage 01:49, 21 March 2006 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Talk:Predestination"
Personal tools