The Faith of Jesus vs Predestination

[Rella]

@Red Baker

I have not gone back to find and re-read your posts on your teaching on Christ Jesus' faith ( not ours) and our salvation.

Something came to mind and perhaps you can clarify.

If it is the "Faith" of Jesus then why was predestination ever considered in the first place.

Seems to me that if God predestined you then Jesus' faith would not be needed.

And if Jesus' faith is the deciding factor predestination was all wrong.

[Texas Conservative]

Faith is needed, the words of Christ, such as in John 5:24 among other passages.  Predestined isn't meaning that God foreknew, so He depended on our future action.

The spiritually dead cannot choose God unless the Holy Spirit draws him (John 6:44).

Some of the biggest failures you can have in reading the bible start with "seems to me."

[4WD]

The spiritually dead cannot choose God unless the Holy Spirit draws him (John 6:44).

So many quote verse 44 but leave out verse 45 which describes who will come to Jesus. 

John 6:45  It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--

As Albert Barnes notes,

In the prophets - Isa_54:13. A similar sentiment is found in Mic_4:1-4, and Jer_31:34; but by the prophets, here, is meant the book of the prophets, and it is probable that Jesus had reference only to the place in Isaiah, as this was the usual way of quoting the prophets.

Shall be all taught of God - This explains the preceding verse. It is by the teaching of his Word and Spirit that men are drawn to God. This shows that it is not compulsory, and that there is no obstacle in the way but a strong voluntary ignorance and unwillingness

Paul confirmed a similar concept in Romans 10:17  "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

[Rella]

I wrote this before but seems it never got posted, or if it  did
I dont show it.

You both are missing my point.

Do you remember a longs while back when Red countered, quite firmly" that it was not our faith in Jesus that mattered, it was Jesus'faith???

I know that is simply said but that was the essence.

It occurred to me that if that be true, then his belief in predestination... though he has always maintained he is not a Calvenist...does not work because if God , did in fact, preselect or predestine those who would be saved... (or could be saved)... then Jesus did not need the faith that Red had been talking about.

Now I am hitting post and hope it gets posted.

[4WD]

As I have noted very often in response to Red's view that the faith that saves is Jesus' faith, the idea that Jesus' in His divinity needed or had "faith" in God is absurd, whatever might be his definition of faith.  But let's go with the definition given in Hebrews 11:1, that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".  There is no way that one can seriously see how that could possibly apply to Jesus' relationship with God, the Father.

There is one way that the faith OF Jesus can be understood which can make sense in some applications. That is where the meaning of the "faith OF Jesus" means the religious system put in place by God in His Word, the Bible.

But then we have to ask what that religious system is.  At the most basic and simplest, it is that given by Jesus in Mark 16:16, namely, that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Paul reiterated that basic concept with his discussion and reference to Abraham in Romans 4. He said, For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (v.3)

That entire chapter establishes the fundamental fact that it is through our faith that we receive the promise of eternal life.  Paul ends that chapter with the following: but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Rom 4:20-25).

Clearly it is our faith that is counted to us as righteousness.

[Rella]

As I have noted very often in response to Red's view that the faith that saves is Jesus' faith, the idea that Jesus' in His divinity needed or had "faith" in God is absurd, whatever might be his definition of faith.  But let's go with the definition given in Hebrews 11:1, that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".  There is no way that one can seriously see how that could possibly apply to Jesus' relationship with God, the Father.

There is one way that the faith OF Jesus can be understood which can make sense in some applications. That is where the meaning of the "faith OF Jesus" means the religious system put in place by God in His Word, the Bible.

But then we have to ask what that religious system is.  At the most basic and simplest, it is that given by Jesus in Mark 16:16, namely, that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Paul reiterated that basic concept with his discussion and reference to Abraham in Romans 4. He said, For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (v.3)

That entire chapter establishes the fundamental fact that it is through our faith that we receive the promise of eternal life.  Paul ends that chapter with the following: but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Rom 4:20-25).

Clearly it is our faith that is counted to us as righteousness.

Well said and I agree.

But funny that.... You have studied and know Red's thoughs far more then I. and you understood that he meant "the idea that Jesus' in His divinity needed or had "faith" in God is absurd, whatever might be his definition of faith."

Oddly I was of the impression he was saying not faith in God but He had faith in us. Yours makes more sense.....

Faith in Himself??? Yes, that is what all those self-help books teach to love and believe in ourselves....

I digress.

Hopefully @Red Baker will come and clarify.

I only know that even while RB has professed to "not " be a Calvenist.. at least in the way we think of them, he leans that way... and if he has any inkling that God pre-chose...pre-destined... pre-determined- or pre-selected ( which ever term one prefers to use) that then the idea of our needing the faith of Jesus... in whatever capacity is not logical....

And he needs to explain.



 

[Red Baker]

Marking this so I can remember to answer your post to me. I got a few things to do first. RB

[Red Baker]

@Red Baker

I have not gone back to find and re-read your posts on your teaching on Christ Jesus' faith ( not ours) and our salvation.

Something came to mind and perhaps you can clarify.

If it is the "Faith" of Jesus then why was predestination ever considered in the first place.

Seems to me that if God predestined you then Jesus' faith would not be needed.

And if Jesus' faith is the deciding factor predestination was all wrong.

Greetings Rella,

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back with you. I forgot that I needed to answer you and then when I put a reminder down to do so, I forgot again!

If it is the "Faith" of Jesus then why was predestination ever considered in the first place.

Before God can shown mercy, sin had to be paid for and a surety provided for doing so, which God found a perfect propitiation in the person of His only begotten son, Jesus, the promised Messiah for his people.

Psalms 89:19,20~""Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:"

Romans 3:21-But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

This is as brief as I can state the answer to your question.

[Rella]

Thank you Red

[Cally]

I can never understand why this kind of question should be a hard concept, even regardless of whether one likes to agree with predestination or not. God created the person who has faith, hence is the One Who inevitably caused one to have faith (or any other choice a person makes). He created everything, which inevitably means that the behaviors of everything trace back to His creation.

If you ask "why would he tell us to choose things?" that's simply nurture acting on nature (in psychology terms), both encompassed in the process of creation, just like the "nature" from birth came from the outside in the first place.

Another one question I've heard often is, why would we evangelize if people were predestined? And the same question would be equally valid simply from God knowing everything anyway: why did Jesus bother ministering to people whom He would have known beforehand wouldn't repent, since he later renounced many entire cities (just for one example)?

[Jaime]

Good questions Cally. I will ponder  a bit  before responding.

[4WD]

I have to wonder who would ever think God would impose a set of commandments, or any commandment for that matter, upon his creation knowing that they had no ability whatsoever to obey without his direct intervention. That is much the same as giving a command to your dog knowing that he had no way of even knowing what you said let alone obeying, and then beating the dog for not obeying.

You wouldn't do that to your dog. My point is that God simply would never do such a monstrous and horrible thing either.

[Cally]

I have to wonder who would ever think God would impose a set of commandments, or any commandment for that matter, upon his creation knowing that they had no ability whatsoever to obey without his direct intervention.

So my question, for my curiosity's sake, is: how is it less absurd to you that God would tell people to choose to do something knowing full-well they won't do so?

Wasn't Jesus knowingly wasting his time left and right in his ministry, given that he ended up condemning a long list of cities?

[4WD]

So my question, for my curiosity's sake, is: how is it less absurd to you that God would tell people to choose to do something knowing full-well they won't do so?

Because God's plan of salvation is to produce a body of souls who have freely chosen to love Him. It is precisely why faith derived from freely hearing and responding to the Gospel is the basis for selection of who will constitute that body of souls.

Wasn't Jesus knowingly wasting his time left and right in his ministry, given that he ended up condemning a long list of cities?

Not at all. Some would and have indeed answered His call.  Some have heard the word about Christ and have believed.  They are the ones who in their belief do love God.

[Cally]

Because God's plan of salvation is to produce a body of souls who have freely chosen to love Him. It is precisely why faith derived from freely hearing and responding to the Gospel is the basis for selection of who will constitute that body of souls.
Not at all. Some would and have indeed answered His call.  Some have heard the word about Christ and have believed.  They are the ones who in their belief do love God.

I guess we need to back up: am I understanding you correctly that Jesus actually did not know who would or wouldn't repent in response to his ministry beforehand? If not him, didn't at least God know who would or wouldn't? If not, this is a new one to me.

Otherwise, why isn't Jesus saying: I KNOW that "x" person isn't going to repent if I preach to this person, so it's a waste of time to try.

Take, for example, the way the apostles first tried to minister in Jerusalem but ended up giving up: "your blood be on your own heads" and headed off to the Gentiles. Why didn't God just tell them not to waste their time in the first place since He surely knew that the apostles' first efforts would be futile? But all those are just examples.

Usually people who believe in free will at least believe in God's foreknowledge, but are you saying that you don't?

[Jaime]

I would say foreknowledge is not the same as pre-destination. God is outside of time and sees the past, present and future simultaneously. He sees the end FROM the beginning. Maybe I'm mistaken and foreknowledge and predestination are the same, though I don't think so. Or maybe from the human's perspective God's foreknowledge seems a lot like predestination.

[4WD]

The words are totally different. They mean two different things.  One has to do with what God knows and the other has to do with what God does. Obviously they are not the same.

[4WD]

Why didn't God just tell them not to waste their time in the first place since He surely knew that the apostles' first efforts would be futile?

Because if even one responds and thousands do not, it is not a futile effort.

Usually people who believe in free will at least believe in God's foreknowledge, but are you saying that you don't?

What have I said that would make you even ask that?  Of course I believe in God's foreknowledge.  It is His foreknowledge that is the basis for His election.

1Pe 1:1  Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2  according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

[Cally]

I would say foreknowledge is not the same as pre-destination. God is outside of time and sees the past, present and future simultaneously. He sees the end FROM the beginning. Maybe I'm mistaken and foreknowledge and predestination are the same, though I don't think so. Or maybe from the human's perspective God's foreknowledge seems a lot like predestination.

They're not the same if you're a prophet. They are the same when we're talking about a God Who created absolutely every last thing: it's completely inevitable. "Free will" is the black box -- it simply works -- that negates the otherwise inevitable conclusion: when people "choose" something, it's a behavior that comes from the design of the person created by God through the environment, which is also created by God (a continuous nature/nurture interaction to be sure, but one that started from the outside).

[Cally]

Because if even one responds and thousands do not, it is not a futile effort.

Acts 18:5-6
When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.
And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."


This was clearly a failed attempt: tried to minister to the Jews unsuccessfully, so they took off. It wasn't anything like hanging around to see how many they could still manage to get, it was purely: nope, this flat-out isn't working.


Galatians 4:11
I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

Spoken to the WHOLE church of Galatia, flat out a waste of time: "in vain," he says.

And to be clear, the apostles were definitely directed by the Holy Spirit:

Acts 16:7
And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.

So why not let Paul know whether or not to preach to Galatia, and stop him if He knew in advance it was "in vain"? To be clear, Paul didn't claim to know, but why would Paul even wonder? Like if God sent me here -- didn't stop me -- then surely it wasn't "in vain." Of course, this kind of thing happens in missions all the time, even if it's just the odd, five-minute conversation totally wasted -- why doesn't God just let evangelists know who is worth the time or not, having the foreknowledge who will be a total waste of time before it's wasted?

And how many times did no one listen to prophets? Why did God send Moses to bother rebuking Pharaoh in ways that He knew wouldn't cut it, like why not go straight to the tenth plague (for example)?

Why bother telling Adam not to eat the fruit in the garden knowing that Adam would disobey?

Anyway, just a few examples that spring to mind.

[4WD]

I guess God felt all of that is necessary information to bring some to the faith necessary for salvation.

[Cally]

I guess God felt all of that is necessary information to bring some to the faith necessary for salvation.

Very good. Then why couldn't you say the same thing for determinism? I'm not saying this is the ENTIRE argument of "free will", but the point is that we still have the same question about commands, warnings, evangelism, etc., spoken to people to whom the message is completely futile just because of the fact that God KNOWS when it's futile to particular people, but does it anyway -- why? Any reason why would apply from the viewpoint of determinism also.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I'm not saying this is the ENTIRE argument of "free will", but the point is that we still have the same question about commands, warnings, evangelism, etc., spoken to people to whom the message is completely futile just because of the fact that God KNOWS when it's futile to particular people, but does it anyway -- why?

Because it takes away their excuse of having never heard.

[4WD]

There is a story about two high schools in a town.  These two schools were fierce competitors each year in football.  There was one old man who had followed the teams for years. Each year he would predict down to the score which team would win. And each prediction was right on.  Finally someone from one of the school's councils suggested that instead of spending the money and effort required for the teams to actually compete against each other every year, they could just ask the old gentleman who the winner would be.  He responded, "I can't predict the outcome of a game which will never actually take place". Although not 100% applicable to God, it does give support to W_S's answer concerning the false notion of determinism.

[4WD]

Very good. Then why couldn't you say the same thing for determinism?

Your view of determinism, when taken to the limit, would mean that God wouldn't even have needed to create this world as He did.  He could just have created the souls, sending the ones he "foreknew" would believe to heaven and the others to hell. It doesn't work that way.  Determinism is a false doctrine.

[Cally]

Your view of determinism, when taken to the limit, would mean that God wouldn't even have needed to create this world as He did.  He could just have created the souls, sending the ones he "foreknew" would believe to heaven and the others to hell. It doesn't work that way.  Determinism is a false doctrine.

That's essentially what the creation is, using the world as it's made: the world and people growing one way or another in it IS the creation.

People living and growing in this world is compared to growing crops and then gathering when fully grown for the harvest, throwing the bad ones into the fire. Seeds land on certain types of soil (parable of the sower). The people are analogous to the types of soil and the seed is the same Word that is thrown on the ground, and the passage of time does the full creating: some result in the "new creation", but others don't. That IS the creation process.

As far as what God "needs" to do or not, given that He does as He pleases, can go every which way. This is just the nature of the creation of mankind.

[Jaime]

Maybe this is applicable:

Probably every parent looking back in time to before they had kids would never opt to just agree to accept the final version of their offspring and skip out the admittedly difficult and challenging and sometimes agonizing process of raising children as babies to adults. The "process" is where the blessing is, not in just the finished product, though it very michnIS a huge blessing to see my kids and grandkids become the beings I hope they would without God's ommicient perspective. In my limited and inadequate view of God, I think He is a lot like that. He could create mature automotons for the sake of worshippimg Him eternally, but he wants to experience our growth, our decision to be his son or daughter after he draws us to him. I personally believe that His drawing of us is NOT irresistable. That to my finite mind would make it inevitable, and not an "adventure". I believe he enjoys the adventure of our free will somehow even with his omnicience and his seeing the end from the beginning. I am as likely to be 100% but I think it may not be wrong. For me as a parent and grandparent, the practical part of me might have  preferred that the final version of my extemded family had just appeared intact all safe and sound, but the adventurous romantic in me would not trade anything for the journey with it's blessings AND challenging times. I believe God smiles when a lifelong rebel finally drops his clinched fists of resistance and turns to Him, even though he knew the moment it would happen since the foundation of the world. I could be way off, I freely admit that. But understanding we are created in His image likely means in my mind that our adventurous romantic side is also in  the likeness of His.

This is NOT intended as a slap down of anyone else's theory or opinion here, but just my musings on an interesting  topic.

[Cally]

He responded, "I can't predict the outcome of a game which will never actually take place". Although not 100% applicable to God, it does give support to W_S's answer concerning the false notion of determinism.

So the most logical prediction for that scenario is simply: no one will win since the game is cancelled. So what?

[4WD]

So the most logical prediction for that scenario is simply: no one will win since the game is cancelled. So what?

It is useless to continue this conversation with you.  It is going nowhere.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

There is a story about two high schools in a town.  These two schools were fierce competitors each year in football.  There was one old man who had followed the teams for years. Each year he would predict down to the score which team would win. And each prediction was right on.  Finally someone from one of the school's councils suggested that instead of spending the money and effort required for the teams to actually compete against each other every year, they could just ask the old gentleman who the winner would be.  He responded, "I can't predict the outcome of a game which will never actually take place". Although not 100% applicable to God, it does give support to W_S's answer concerning the false notion of determinism.

This reminds me of the movie Minority Report, in which the police arrest people for future crimes.

There's a moral question there - is it just to condemn someone for a crime they WOULD have committed, even if they never actually DID?