Sentences with phrase «for predestination»

But Predestination has three tech awards already, so there's a lot of love for Predestination, thanks in no small part the wonderful Sarah Snook.

Thanks to BD regular Fabien M., check out the international trailer for Predestination, starring Ethan Hawke.

After making the festival rounds this year, Stage 6 recently announced a January 9, 2015 theatrical run for Predestination, which stars Ethan Hawke, Sarah Snook and Noah Taylor.

Reasons for Predestination (Ephesians 1:5 b - 6)

But the biblical support for entire sanctification is less than that for predestination.

The fact that biblical predictions can be made, gives further evidence for predestination.

Not exact matches

1) The Bible DOES NOT teach predestination 2) The Bible DOES NOT teach that the «wicked» will suffer for all eternity in a hellfire 3) Not all people will go to Heaven

For him, the doctrine of double predestination was a monstrously deterministic and freedom - denying dogma.

God intimately chose His people, and this foreknowing is the foundation of His predestination, so if we were to translate the Biblical meaning of foreknowledge into Romans 8:29 it would read like this, «For those whom God intimately set His affection upon beforehand, He also predestined...» And this meaning is in sync with the rest of the Bible.

The Baptist tradition, as shaped by American revivalism in the Great Awakenings, has generally leaned toward Arminianism, a modified version of predestination proposed by Jacob Arminius (d. 1609) that allowed a greater role for human cooperation in salvation.

If, as the Scriptures and experience tell us, all men are by nature in a state of guilt and depravity from which they are wholly unable to deliver themselves and have no claim whatever on God for deliverance, it follows that if any are saved God must choose out those who shall be the objects of His grace (Boettner, Predestination, 95).

For instance, the idea of a strict determinism concerning salvation (the calvinistic interpretation of predestination & election).

There would be no theology classes or midrash or Bible studies or 2:30 a.m. dorm room debates about predestination and free will... because there would be nothing for us to talk about.

In my view there is a big difference between God for - knowing and Gods predestination.

Citing passages for and against predestination from Shakespeare, Craig Stephans seems to agree on the difficulty of easy assessment and on the inherent uncertainty.

These are not perfect examples of the conflicting sides of the theological argument of predestination, but they prove that examples can be found for trying to weigh the religious lessons of the plays in favor of Catholicism or Protestantism.

You don't choose who you are and what you look like, for example, that's Predestination, but you choose what you do, that's Free Will, which God DOES NOT interfere with (gives and honors,) even though He foreknows everything!

As far as I can see, all the difficulties (so called) with predestination come about through a mistaken interpretation of a few Bible passages which are then used as the benchmark for all other verses despite the fact that these verses may be saying completely different.

I do not, and never have believed in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, so that is not an issue for me.

Thank you for sharing your view on «predestination» — I googled this due to my troubled spirit resulting from having a precious sister in Christ — extremely brilliant student of Biblical theology, etc. — verbally wipe me out with shaking finger in face, followed by multiple disturbing emails just short of accusing me of apostacy due to my view on this doctrine — my view is the same as yours.

The religious controversies that occupied Rembrandt's Dutch contemporaries were internal debates among Calvinist factions — the conservative Reformed establishment against the more liberal Arminian or Remonstrant sect that favored free will over predestination, and peace — a policy also good for business — over continued war against Catholic Spain.

It could contain doctrines that were not inherently understandable (such as the doctrine of the trinity), or that seemed to be self - contradictory (such as the full humanity and deity of Jesus), or that were contradicted by other doctrines (as, for example, human freedom by divine predestination, or God's omnipotent goodness by human sin).

Neither of the examples given were chosen for «salvation», meaning your argument against double - predestination is shot all to hell (literally).

But if Paul is saying what you think He is saying, then this passage must be about double - predestination, first because they weer chosen before they had done anything good or bad, meaning they were in fact positionally neutral, and secondly, because they were specifically chosen for apoliea or destruction.

Like thousands of Calvinists who believed in predestination, he worked indefatigably for a better worldâ $» for himself, for his family, and for his nation.

For example, when Dennis Hirota writes that Shinran «avoids a voluntaristic... view of reality, with such concomitant problems as predestination, the need for a theodicy, and a substantialist understanding of reality or of self», I applaud Shinran and hope that the Christian tradition to which I belong succeeds equally well in these respecFor example, when Dennis Hirota writes that Shinran «avoids a voluntaristic... view of reality, with such concomitant problems as predestination, the need for a theodicy, and a substantialist understanding of reality or of self», I applaud Shinran and hope that the Christian tradition to which I belong succeeds equally well in these respecfor a theodicy, and a substantialist understanding of reality or of self», I applaud Shinran and hope that the Christian tradition to which I belong succeeds equally well in these respects.

One, for example follows the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.

Brunner unequivocally rejects any doctrine of predestination that denies to man the final responsibility for how he reacts to God's offer.

My friend agreed that this was indeed so for the human use of these words but insisted that when used in connection with God fore - ordination and freedom, predestination and our own responsibility for our end, were compatible.

But as, for example, the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination / election is probably one of the great divisive factors in the church.

Therefore, if we fight about predestination, we are not living according to what we were predestined for, namely, to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.

Most Calvinists reject double predestination or reprobation, and instead say that God did not actively choose who to send to heaven and who to send to hell, but simply chose out of everyone who was already headed to hell to save a few for heaven.

Though many Calvinists argue that double predestination is the only logical conclusion to the Calvinist position on God's election of some (but not all) to receive eternal life, I am not going to belabor the point or try to refute the idea since most Calvinists claim that they do not teach or believe it... (for more on reprobation and double predestination I recommend this book: Vance: The Other Side of Calvinism, pp, 250 - 333).

Some people are scared of predestination, but we should not be — for whatever it is, it begins with the love of God.

[1] For more reading on this subject try: The Other Side of Calvinism by Laurence Vance, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism by C. Gordon Olson, The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson, Calvinistic Paths Retraced by Samuel Fisk, Election and Predestination by Samuel Fisk, and God's Strategy in Human History by Paul Marston and Roger Forster.

As we gear up for this, I want to make sure I state right from the start that I believe in election and predestination.

Many Presbyterians, for example, no longer found the standard Calvinist teachings on double predestination and limited atonement compelling, and efforts were made to alter the Westminster Shorter Catechism to reflect a «modern» point of view.

Yet there is a problem with saying that God's predestination is based upon what He forsees will happen, for what if God foresees something that destroys or stops His plan for the world?

I believe in a God with a monstrous love for EVERYBODY and double predestination doesn't fit well into that.

Yet the Protestant partisan and self - styled Calvinist interprets the atoning death of Christ and God's eternal predestining decree in the very teeth of Luther and Calvin: election is the «sum of the Gospel,» for God's election of humanity is a predestination not merely of humanity but of God himself.

But, I do want you to explain one thing: If you know that some go to heaven and some hell, and if you know that some are predestined to heaven because they receive the gift of faith and others do not, and if you know there is no way to come to such saving faith on our own (which would be a work)... how can this be anything other than predestination to hell for those for whom God withholds that gift?

When, for example, Paul sets out to discuss such abstruse doctrines of theology as those of predestination, election, and justification by faith, in the middle chapters of the Epistle to the Romans (chaps.

I'd wrestle with free - will vs. predestination or the divinity of Christ and the incarnation, the Trinity, the atonement, and general church history on my own at home for the most part.

«Again, if the Fall were the cause of the predestination of Christ, it would follow that God's greatest work was only occasional, for the glory of all will not be so intense as that of Christ, and it seems unreasonable to think that God would have foregone such a work because of Adam's good deed, if he had not sinned.»

And if God's impassibility is interpreted as being emblematic of an imperious rule that is finally indifferent to the effect it has on the opinion of the governed — as in, for example, the classical doctrine of predestination — God appears as a tyrant who must be resisted in the name of human freedom.

George Whitefield believed in predestination, but the Wesleys followed the teaching of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560 - 1609) who held that Christ died for all people.

Calvin would not rank the unconditionality of Predestination among those doctrines necessary to be believed for salvation.

The crucial point is that, for Thomas, there is no distinction between what flows from free will and what is from predestination.

Though predestination was an essential doctrine for the vast majority of Puritans and had consequences both for personal and social life, it can not in itself be counted as one of the central symbols or beliefs that marked Puritan society.

But if predestination is correct, we do not actually make the choice for Christ on our own, but God enables us to make the choice, which we then automatically make even though it feels like we are making the choice on our own.