When does one's Predestination start?

So you're going to hitch our salvation to Eph 2:10 which talks about good works being preordained. Seriously? You just crossed back to the RCC. You are getting desperate.
You have got to learn to keep your posts about the posts. Evidence a genuine desire for cogent discourse.

I "hitch" salvation on the whole of scripture, not one verse and my rendering of Ephesians 2:5-10 is not RCC. That's not just a straw man, that's nuts. The RCC holds works as causal and I explicitly posted the exact opposite position. So, either what I posted was not understood or it was deliberately ignored for the sake of repeated ad hominem. Neither is cogent discourse. Go back and re-read what I posted and keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

The facts of scripture (ALL the scriptures I have cited) are as stated. Ephesians 2 explicitly states we are saved by grace, through faith for works and there isn't a verse anywhere in the Bible that says we are saved by faith or saved by works (contrary to RCC soteriology).
 
You have got to learn to keep your posts about the posts. Evidence a genuine desire for cogent discourse.

I "hitch" salvation on the whole of scripture, not one verse and my rendering of Ephesians 2:5-10 is not RCC. That's not just a straw man, that's nuts. The RCC holds works as causal and I explicitly posted the exact opposite position. So, either what I posted was not understood or it was deliberately ignored for the sake of repeated ad hominem. Neither is cogent discourse. Go back and re-read what I posted and keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

The facts of scripture (ALL the scriptures I have cited) are as stated. Ephesians 2 explicitly states we are saved by grace, through faith for works and there isn't a verse anywhere in the Bible that says we are saved by faith or saved by works (contrary to RCC soteriology).

Not sure I understand the bolded above.

Could you clairify.
 
Not sure I understand the bolded above.

Could you clairify.
Sure, the other poster criticized my post claiming I "hitched" "our salvation to Eph 2:10 which talks about good works being preordained. Seriously? You just crossed back to the RCC. You are getting desperate," but the problem is I have cited several sets of scripture in this thread and NOT just Ephesians 2:10. I "hitch" our salvation on the whole of scripture, and it is my general practice to survey the whole of scripture from the beginning of the OT to the end of the NT, just as I have done here in this thread. Therefore, the idea I hitch our salvation on one verse that is half of a sentence in one paragraph in one letter is not only wrong, it is absurdly wrong and so absurdly wrong it confounds the facts in evidence.

Then there's the claim I "cross back to the RCC." That too is factually incorrect and methodologically incorrect. Not once did I explicitly cite anything RCC and the implication I've implied a Roman Catholic soteriology by proof-texting one verse is just as factually incorrect because in Catholic Soteriology works are causally related to salvation. HERE, HERE, and HERE are three articles from catholic.com that expound on the RCC's approach to works. Everyone will find a lot of common ground with those articles but there are some important differences from the Protestant perspective. For example, one difference would be, "We also know that works pertain to our final justification, since Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:31-46 that the determining factor for those who go to heaven or hell are those who did and did not do the corporal works of mercy." It's a particularly odd statement, imo, since they elsewhere noted Paul's argument against Judaization, and Matthew 25 is an apocalyptic (eschatological, not soteriological) statement made to Jews about Jews prior to Calvary.... AND it contradicts passages like 1 Cor. 3:9-15 (which states we can exit the final testing empty-handed and still be saved. The point being my use of Ephesians 2:5-10 was not an assertion of RCCism as was claimed. HERE are a few articles on the RC view of predestination.


More op-relevantly, the point of my using the Ephesians 2 text was to evidence a form or degree of predestination that 1) wasn't considered in this op, that is 2) directly related to our "inheritance," and 3) both aspects of my point were completely ignored with the criticism and false appeal to RCCism. This op asks, "When does predestination start?" and my position is there is a problem with the question itself because it is temporally based (not eternally based), human centric and not God-centric, uses scripture selectively and is therefore presenting an incomplete understanding of predestination (and inheritance), and should be more accurately worded to ask, "When did predestination start?" because words like "before" and "beforehand" are just as indicative of something being previously destined as are those passages that use the word "predestined." This op has left all of that scriptural content out. One example is the works that were preordained for us and the implicit necessity those works are party of our destiny and inheritance. When I assert Ephesians 2:5-10, or even just the three verses 8 through 10 I do so in the context of a whole pile of other scriptures as well as the silence of whole scripture, because not only does scripture thoroughly and consistently support the Ephesians 2 equation of by-through-for, but there isn't a single verse in the Bible that asserts "saved by faith," or "saved by works." Therefore, the criticism I've hitched our salvation on a single verse is wrong, it ignores the op-relevant content which has nothing to do with RCCism.

Was your question answered? If not clarify the inquiry for me and I'll try to provide a more cogent and germane answer.
 
I think we all agree predestination, do the "pre" part, starts before time begins.

The more pertinent question is what factors exactly is it based on and why.
 
Sure, the other poster criticized my post claiming I "hitched" "our salvation to Eph 2:10 which talks about good works being preordained. Seriously? You just crossed back to the RCC. You are getting desperate," but the problem is I have cited several sets of scripture in this thread and NOT just Ephesians 2:10. I "hitch" our salvation on the whole of scripture, and it is my general practice to survey the whole of scripture from the beginning of the OT to the end of the NT, just as I have done here in this thread. Therefore, the idea I hitch our salvation on one verse that is half of a sentence in one paragraph in one letter is not only wrong, it is absurdly wrong and so absurdly wrong it confounds the facts in evidence.

Then there's the claim I "cross back to the RCC." That too is factually incorrect and methodologically incorrect. Not once did I explicitly cite anything RCC and the implication I've implied a Roman Catholic soteriology by proof-texting one verse is just as factually incorrect because in Catholic Soteriology works are causally related to salvation. HERE, HERE, and HERE are three articles from catholic.com that expound on the RCC's approach to works. Everyone will find a lot of common ground with those articles but there are some important differences from the Protestant perspective. For example, one difference would be, "We also know that works pertain to our final justification, since Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:31-46 that the determining factor for those who go to heaven or hell are those who did and did not do the corporal works of mercy." It's a particularly odd statement, imo, since they elsewhere noted Paul's argument against Judaization, and Matthew 25 is an apocalyptic (eschatological, not soteriological) statement made to Jews about Jews prior to Calvary.... AND it contradicts passages like 1 Cor. 3:9-15 (which states we can exit the final testing empty-handed and still be saved. The point being my use of Ephesians 2:5-10 was not an assertion of RCCism as was claimed. HERE are a few articles on the RC view of predestination.


More op-relevantly, the point of my using the Ephesians 2 text was to evidence a form or degree of predestination that 1) wasn't considered in this op, that is 2) directly related to our "inheritance," and 3) both aspects of my point were completely ignored with the criticism and false appeal to RCCism. This op asks, "When does predestination start?" and my position is there is a problem with the question itself because it is temporally based (not eternally based), human centric and not God-centric, uses scripture selectively and is therefore presenting an incomplete understanding of predestination (and inheritance), and should be more accurately worded to ask, "When did predestination start?" because words like "before" and "beforehand" are just as indicative of something being previously destined as are those passages that use the word "predestined." This op has left all of that scriptural content out. One example is the works that were preordained for us and the implicit necessity those works are party of our destiny and inheritance. When I assert Ephesians 2:5-10, or even just the three verses 8 through 10 I do so in the context of a whole pile of other scriptures as well as the silence of whole scripture, because not only does scripture thoroughly and consistently support the Ephesians 2 equation of by-through-for, but there isn't a single verse in the Bible that asserts "saved by faith," or "saved by works." Therefore, the criticism I've hitched our salvation on a single verse is wrong, it ignores the op-relevant content which has nothing to do with RCCism.

Was your question answered? If not clarify the inquiry for me and I'll try to provide a more cogent and germane answer.

good post .....

Bit to complicated for me.
 
So far, so good.

Not quite.

Some of our inheritance is NOW manifest in our salvation and other aspects are not. For example, we are NOW royal priests. We are NOW members of God's own separate and sacred (holy) nation. We are NOW members of the nation of priests God promised a long, long time ago as the inheritance of His promise(s). We are NOW the children of promise and not flesh or bloodline. We NOW have the right to become the sons (and daughters) of God's will and not the will of men (John 1:13).

Many aspects of our salvation are already accomplished conditions, currently existing and ongoing conditions, and yet to be realized conditions. Inheritance is not the only aspect where this is true. We were justified by Christ but we are also justified by faith and we will be justified when we stand before the throne. We were sanctified by the blood and are being sanctified by th word and the Spirit and we will be sanctified once and for all on the other side of resurrection.

These

things

were

predestined.


ALL of it, not just one part. Not properly discriminating the distinctions between correlation and causation is just one of many ways we screw up our understanding of salvation. Thinking only temporally is another. That's one of the reasons I earlier noted the fact of God's transcendence. God does not exist within time and space. What He destined is not time dependent for Him. It is for us because we live solely within the bounds of time and space, cause and effect, and volitional agency of BOTH Creator and creature. The neglect in part or whole of any of these aspects leads to bad soteriology, and I have cited only a small number of ways this goes awry.


Every single one of us should understand the effect of titling a discussion board "Arminianism and Calvinism," because the title has a dichotomizing and often polarizing effect that we see manifested every day in every op throughout the entire board. Why don't forums title the board "Soteriology"? Why don't the title the board "Monergism and Synergism"? Either one would be better and more beneficial presuppositionally than "Arminianism and Calvinism." We become prisoners of our own biases. Once we step outside of the human-made constructs and start with and stick with scripture predestination takes on aspects that reach far beyond the stereotyped and often cliched response of Arminianists and Calvinists (or Augustine, Luther, Wesley, White, Olson, Flowers, etc.). All three of those I just mentioned makes mistakes in the areas I've noted in this thread.


Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not serial, nor sequential, either. We'd all do well not to read causation, and sequence into scripture where none is actually stated.
As far as inheritance goes, I was speaking of it as 1 Peter 1:4 does. "to obtain an inheritance...reserved in Heaven." While we may have a legal right to that inheritance, we do not yet possess. maybe there are other verses using the word inheritance that speak to things we own while we are alive, but not that i am aware of, if you quote a verse or two, I can see what you are thinking.

I agree that correlation and causation, while overlapping since all causation has correlation, are not the same concept.
 
Nice prooftext.

Nice abusive proof-text of scripture that does NOT prove the earlier claim, "the Bible declares that we are saved 'in Christ' within temporal time.," because 1) the context of the verse was the urgency of evangelizing, 2) the verse has Old Testament prophetic force, and 3) there are also MANY verses that speak our having been saved (past-tense), or being saved (ongoing current condition), and the future in which we will be saved.
Having been saved occurs in temporal time. Being saved occurs in temporal time. Will be saved concerns our glorification when time is fulfilled (καιρος time).
For example, were I to pit 2 Cor. 6:2 against, say, 1 Cor. 15:2 we'd not only have a contradiction between two verses, we'd have a contradiction by the same guy in two letters to the same audience!
I see no contradiction between 1 Cor 15:2 and 2 Cor 6:2.
That's not a proper reading of scripture.
Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
So, either amend the prior statement, "the Bible declares that we are saved 'in Christ, within temporal time," to more accurately reflect the WHOLE of scripture, or take another attempt at proving the statement made as written.
That statement is true if you consider that salvation is "in Christ Jesus":
2Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

And being positioned "in Christ" occurs in temporal time:
Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Being "in Christ" is not a temporal condition,
I never said that. I said that we are saved "in Christ" within temporal time. Being "in Christ" is far more than a temporal condition. It is also a spiritual condition that has massive spiritual implications such as our predestination.
and in terms of this op's topic there are correlated and correlated conditions that come with and sequentially occur as conditions of being in Christ. All of them decided before time began.
Eph 1:4 talks about our election that is only possible if we are "in Him".
Eph 1:4 according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

And being positioned "in Him" occurs in temporal time according to Rom 16:7 and Eph 2:13.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who were once afar off are made near by the blood of Christ.
 
As far as inheritance goes, I was speaking of it as 1 Peter 1:4 does. "to obtain an inheritance...reserved in Heaven." While we may have a legal right to that inheritance, we do not yet possess. maybe there are other verses using the word inheritance that speak to things we own while we are alive, but not that i am aware of, if you quote a verse or two, I can see what you are thinking.

I agree that correlation and causation, while overlapping since all causation has correlation, are not the same concept.
Fair enough but care should be taken so as not to draw a dividing line that completely voids any and all overlap between what is now and what is yet to come because there are overlaps. False dichotomies (or the neglected middle) should be avoided. Jesus looked the eleven square in the face and told them he'd given them all the power that was given him. So when Paul writes about various things not yet attained, he can't be construed to contradict his own Lord.
 
Fair enough but care should be taken so as not to draw a dividing line that completely voids any and all overlap between what is now and what is yet to come because there are overlaps. False dichotomies (or the neglected middle) should be avoided. Jesus looked the eleven square in the face and told them he'd given them all the power that was given him. So when Paul writes about various things not yet attained, he can't be construed to contradict his own Lord.
From scripture. What are some details about the overlap?
 
Back
Top