Were People Saved & Marked for Heaven BEFORE Christ's Death and Resurrection?

[Artfuldodger]

If predestination is true, God is evil.

I don't know I guess it's all in how you look at it. An all seeing and knowing God allowing free will seems just as evil. Leaving salvation up to Man? Many who died never hearing? Not stopping cancer or car wrecks? Not steering hurricanes away from crowded cities? That seems way more evil.

 

[hummerpoo]

When I was growing up around here, there were two main sets of what I would call fundamentalist preachers. One set believed in predestination, and the other set believed in free will. They argued about it with each other all the time and both sets said the other set was going to Hades. Both sides spent most of their time hollering at people all the reasons they were going to Hades.

Not failing to recognize that the meaning of "fundamentalism" is a red herring leading away from the point of the required criteria for drawing conclusions, and only mentioned as an aside by me as a point of clarity.

What "[You] would call fundamentalist preachers" does not communicate what you want it to communicate. Fundamentalist, is actually a term which started out meaning anti-modernism and, in the way of the world, developed from there. I think that, although prior to your time, this statement made in turning down an appointment as president of a university, while acknowledging other meanings, expresses the generally accepted meaning:

'I never call myself a "Fundamentalist." There is indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a "Fundamentalist" but a "Calvinist"—that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church's life—the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the "Princeton School".'
Fundamentalism | Theopedia

BTW, I would never call myself a Calvinist, as the author does but would sometimes accept Reformed; that being a more general term; as Machen describes it "flowing down from the Word of God"

 

[hummerpoo]

It's weird that the predestination/election preachers preached fire and brimstone to folks as to why they were going to Hades.

Why "weird"? Are not God's People used by Him for edification. To recognize ourselves is part of recognizing who God is.

However, if you mean that "fire and brimstone" is meant to bring people to Christ for fear of he11, to the exclusion of recognition of ourselves, it's not weird, it's just wrong. That is because it is self centered, not God centered.

 

[Spotlite]

The 3 previous posts, #33, #34, #35, presuppose far too much of man and far too little of God; something no man can change.

It’s man that’s determined what God did by saying He’s predestined your every move when Bible is clear such as in Jonah 3 that God planned to do evil but he repented because Nineveh turned from their evil works. And, there’s numerous places where “if” you do this, this will happen.

An all knowing God knows every situation and knows if you go this way, this is your reward, if you go this way, this is your judgment.

God doesn’t need a “YOU” for His plan to work, He can make it work with any willing vessel.

It’s that man that seems to put boundaries on God and make it appear to depend on YOU.

But go ahead and explain why God grieved in Genesis and repented in Jonah if people were acting to their designed actions.

 

[Spotlite]

Not failing to recognize that the meaning of "fundamentalism" is a red herring leading away from the point of the required criteria for drawing conclusions, and only mentioned as an aside by me as a point of clarity.

What "[You] would call fundamentalist preachers" does not communicate what you want it to communicate. Fundamentalist, is actually a term which started out meaning anti-modernism and, in the way of the world, developed from there. I think that, although prior to your time, this statement made in turning down an appointment as president of a university, while acknowledging other meanings, expresses the generally accepted meaning:

'I never call myself a "Fundamentalist." There is indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a "Fundamentalist" but a "Calvinist"—that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church's life—the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the "Princeton School".'
Fundamentalism | Theopedia

BTW, I would never call myself a Calvinist, as the author does but would sometimes accept Reformed; that being a more general term; as Machen describes it "flowing down from the Word of God"

Fundamental or not, it is the John Calvin Doctrine.

 

[hummerpoo]

It’s man that’s determined what God did by saying He’s predestined your every move when Bible is clear such as in Jonah 3 that God planned to do evil but he repented because Nineveh turned from their evil works. And, there’s numerous places where “if” you do this, this will happen.

An all knowing God knows every situation and knows if you go this way, this is your reward, if you go this way, this is your judgment.

God doesn’t need a “YOU” for His plan to work, He can make it work with any willing vessel.

It’s that man that seems to put boundaries on God and make it appear to depend on YOU.

But go ahead and explain why God grieved in Genesis and repented in Jonah if people were acting to their designed actions.

It’s man that’s determined what God did ...

Hmmm, do I need to read further?

O.k., I will, this one time.

And, there’s numerous places where “if” you do this, this will happen.

Ahh yes, the Doctrine of "IF"; which ignores cause.

But go ahead and explain why God grieved in Genesis and repented in Jonah if people were acting to their designed actions.

For the umpteenth time .... Anthropopathy

 

[hummerpoo]

Fundamental or not, it is the John Calvin Doctrine.

If YOU arbitrarily stop where YOU want, not where the investigation leads.

 

[Spotlite]

Hmmm, do I need to read further?

O.k., I will, this one time.


Ahh yes, the Doctrine of "IF"; which ignores cause.



For the umpteenth time .... Anthropopathy

There’s no Doctrine of “IF” in If my people……..

But, I will take your answer for why God grieved and repented as in “I don’t know”.

 

[NCHillbilly]

Not failing to recognize that the meaning of "fundamentalism" is a red herring leading away from the point of the required criteria for drawing conclusions, and only mentioned as an aside by me as a point of clarity.

What "[You] would call fundamentalist preachers" does not communicate what you want it to communicate. Fundamentalist, is actually a term which started out meaning anti-modernism and, in the way of the world, developed from there. I think that, although prior to your time, this statement made in turning down an appointment as president of a university, while acknowledging other meanings, expresses the generally accepted meaning:

'I never call myself a "Fundamentalist." There is indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a "Fundamentalist" but a "Calvinist"—that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church's life—the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, and which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the other representatives of the "Princeton School".'
Fundamentalism | Theopedia

BTW, I would never call myself a Calvinist, as the author does but would sometimes accept Reformed; that being a more general term; as Machen describes it "flowing down from the Word of God"

I don't have a doctorate in theology, so I don't know all the correct terminology, nor do I really want to or care what anything is called. I was just talking about a certain type of preacher who jumps up and down a lot, runs up and down the aisles, screams and hollers while he's preaching, believes in a very rudimentary set of doctrines, and takes everything in the Bible at literal face value. Usually completely uneducated, has has a fixation about everybody going to Hades, and uses that topic as the main topic of almost every sermon. My God is an angry vengeful God mentality. And thinks that anything on earth that's enjoyable is a sin. Whatever you call those folks.

I have no idea why I'm in here anyhow, I think I'll leave now.

 

[NCHillbilly]

I don't know I guess it's all in how you look at it. An all seeing and knowing God allowing free will seems just as evil. Leaving salvation up to Man? Many who died never hearing? Not stopping cancer or car wrecks? Not steering hurricanes away from crowded cities? That seems way more evil.

Why not just create people to be good and how you want them, instead of punishing them for acting the way you designed them to? And don't create cancer and hurricanes?

It's weird that the predestination/election preachers preached fire and brimstone to folks as to why they were going to Hades.

I reckon they didn't know anything else to preach about.

 

[hummerpoo]

There’s no Doctrine of “IF” in If my people……..

That could be true, and I suppose is true, when the focus was "people"

But, I will take your answer for why God grieved and repented as in “I don’t know”.

You will take it as you will.
Whether you acknowledge all of the causes or not.

 

[hummerpoo]

I don't have a doctorate in theology, so I don't know all the correct terminology, nor do I really want to or care what anything is called. I was just talking about a certain type of preacher who jumps up and down a lot, runs up and down the aisles, screams and hollers while he's preaching, believes in a very rudimentary set of doctrines, and takes everything in the Bible at literal face value. Usually completely uneducated, has has a fixation about everybody going to Hades, and uses that topic as the main topic of almost every sermon. My God is an angry vengeful God mentality. And thinks that anything on earth that's enjoyable is a sin. Whatever you call those folks.

I have no idea why I'm in here anyhow, I think I'll leave now.

I think you have a good idea, if I were closer I would ask where I could buy you one.

 

[StriperAddict]

Are my inferences demonic to you?

No.
Grace thru faith were the way of salvation for the righteous Old Testament saints and those whom Jesus walked with in His time. Salvation during both covenants is and was God's doing and while the message of the cross was veiled before His arrival, it was part of the whole package to man since man began.
Why its veiling? That is a mystery now fully revealed.
Jesus: Moses spoke of me;
David did too in Isaiah 53,

The law and the prophets all do as well.

As the scriptures said,
If righteousness comes by the law then Christ died in vain.

Moses and Elijah were justified by faith, hence a welcomed place at the transfiguration with Christ - not unlike what believers posses in the Spirit by faith in the work of God.

Without the cross at a specific time of God's choosing then NO person could be saved throughout ALL of history.

 

[StriperAddict]

Two things here; both just opinions.

From my perspective, the teaching of "ladder climbing" can only be viewed as a Strawman, because the only thing I can relate it to, from my experience, is a couple of sermons I have heard that were based in sociology, psychology, and/or anthropology and therefore not to be taken seriously.

Second is that your statement above supports what I have been noticing for the last few weeks: that being that there is a distinction between what you express in your own words and that which is expressed in the posts which you make quoting others. That distinction being that your statements appear to me to come from a heart that love's God; and those that you quote appear to me to come from the anthropocentric constructs of Relational Theology, Open Theology, and Process Theology; all of which deny certain substantial attributes of God, such as Omniscience, Omnipotence, Infinity, and others.

Indirectly I understand from the post copies and especially the authors that they are speaking of grace in a way that still doesn't complicate the gospel. You may assign some man centered ideas from such, but as one who has been thru the fodder of the self sufficient gospel I am content in the context of their writings.
I also do not see an argument in the texts on the omniscience or omnipotence of Providence as you do. Far enough then, that the grace of God is not limited in our understanding. My choice in all - is the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ, of which we believers are all partakers.

As this thread has now morphed into the predestination subject I'll now take leave. I often keep in mind that there are other viewers who would be too intimidated to tag along to structural discussions of doctrine that don't touch the invitation part of Christ who says, Come to me all who labor and are heavy burdened. They have the same right to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved, as we have. Ok, sorry, there's my dig at the pick or not pick predestination foolishness. And our receiving Christ is not a 'work' unto HIS work of the cross and resurrection.

Ridiculously graced,
- Walter

 

[Artfuldodger]

Why "weird"? Are not God's People used by Him for edification. To recognize ourselves is part of recognizing who God is.

However, if you mean that "fire and brimstone" is meant to bring people to Christ for fear of he11, to the exclusion of recognition of ourselves, it's not weird, it's just wrong. That is because it is self centered, not God centered.

Yes to the second part of your post. It would be wrong and therefore weird for an election believing preacher to preach to a crowd that they were gonna go to He11 because of their evil ways if in a sense he was trying to lead them to salvation.

I'm having a hard time wording this. I'm trying to picture an election believing preacher teaching this concept without sounding prideful about his own salvation. Something like "because God elected us, we are all going to Heaven but all you other evil sinners are going to He11 and there is really not anything you can do about it." It would really depend on how he worded his teachings. Even if true, is would sound a bit condescending to even preach it to that deep of a subject matter to a mass audience.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

I'm not an athiest.
So, explain to me the joy of creating large numbers of people who are predestined to burn in Hades for eternity, just because you want them to? I'm failing to see the benefits of this arrangement.

your definition of predestination seems to be flawed.

God predestined all of us to become sons of God. Some choose not to. God knows which will choose to become children, and which will not. He isn't forcing them to choose one way or the other, He just knows in advance what they will choose.

I have a grand daugther that I know hates chocolate. ( I know, females are suppose to adore the stuff). So, If I offer her a Hersey Kiss or a peppermint, I know before hand that she is going to chose the peppermint. That is her choice. I didn't force her to choose, and if she said she wanted the Hersey, I would be happy to give it to her. It just isn't in her makeup to eat chocolate though

Some folks will choose not to follow Christ. Isn't it a great thing that we are offered a choice, rather than a mandate from on high?

 

[Artfuldodger]

Why not just create people to be good and how you want them, instead of punishing them for acting the way you designed them to? And don't create cancer and hurricanes?


I reckon they didn't know anything else to preach about.

In other words don't create a free will world. Doing so would allow cancer, hurricanes, and car wrecks.

A predestined Creation of a perfect design with no chances of any evil or bad natural things that we think are bad. No earthquakes, hurricanes, or evolution that can go terribly wrong and allow evil mutations.

I think a predestined plan sounds better if that predestined plan did not include any free will. Freewill not only for humans but for every animal and the planets too. No asterroids, etc. unless God wills them.

A world where God is in total control would not be as evil.

 

[Artfuldodger]

your definition of predestination seems to be flawed.

God predestined all of us to become sons of God. Some choose not to. God knows which will choose to become children, and which will not. He isn't forcing them to choose one way or the other, He just knows in advance what they will choose.

I have a grand daugther that I know hates chocolate. ( I know, females are suppose to adore the stuff). So, If I offer her a Hersey Kiss or a peppermint, I know before hand that she is going to chose the peppermint. That is her choice. I didn't force her to choose, and if she said she wanted the Hersey, I would be happy to give it to her. It just isn't in her makeup to eat chocolate though

Some folks will choose not to follow Christ. Isn't it a great thing that we are offered a choice, rather than a mandate from on high?

Yet since God has already seen that they would not choose Him, how is that any different from predestination? One can't undo what God has already seen. Since God knew this before time, it's really about the same as predestination under the guise of free will.

You can call it what you want to but it's really the same thing because even though God didn't cause it, He foresaw it.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

Yet since God has already seen that they would not choose Him, how is that any different from predestination? One can't undo what God has already seen. Since God knew this before time, it's really about the same as predestination under the guise of free will.

You can call it what you want to but it's really the same thing because even though God didn't cause it, He foresaw it.

Foreknowledge is not equal to condemning someone.

How do you go from ' I knew you were going to do that' being equal to ' I forced you to do that'

 

[Artfuldodger]

Foreknowledge is not equal to condemning someone.

How do you go from ' I knew you were going to do that' being equal to ' I forced you to do that'

I think because it lies in still letting someone do that. If I somehow had foreknowledge that my child was going to burn in a house fire and didn't go burn the house down earlier it would be evil.
We're talking about an eternity in He11, not chocolate candy choices.