Nailing the Coffin of the Traditional Predestination View

The word study for proorizo has been discussed earlier. See Relational Theology's response to the Classical Concept of Predestination

The current discussion aims to comprehensively address the subject and hopefully shed light on those who truly seek the truth but further confuse those who insist on the pseudo-hermeneutics of the Traditional view.

The Traditional View

The traditional view of Predestination has the following important elements:

1. Predestination applies to each individual aside from the church.
2. God is Sovereign and He CANNOT help but be totally in micro-control of everything, or God is Sovereign and He CANNOT (incapable of, no ability to) take any risk.
3. God is Sovereign and He micro-controls the past, present and future.
4. The above view of Sovereignty is the ONLY logical view
5. He has predetermined who will be saved (the elect) and who will be lost (poor souls! with zero chance to do anything about how God created them?)
6. God unconditionally loves the elect only. Christ died for the elect only.
7. The Calvinist TULIP is a parallel doctrine supported by the traditional view of Predestination.

The Main Fallacy of the Traditional View

1. The first major fallacy of the Traditional view is that it reduces their Scripture to only the book of Ephesians and Romans because their (revised) view of Salvation is based PRIMARILY on those 2 books of the Bible. This is a rabid case of PERIPHERAL doctrine completely redefining CARDINAL doctrine.
2. The second major fallacy is that this view portrays a BI-POLAR god, saying something in several passages but doing something contradictory in other passages.  I wrote "god" in lowercase because I am convinced BIBLICALLY that their BI-POLAR god is a truly a useless idol and caricature of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
3. The third major fallacy is bad hermeneutics since this view looks only on the words, even if it is in the original Greek, and forgets the context or the big picture of Divine Revelation.
4. Finally, the view is NOT BIBLICAL just by sheer preponderance of alternative Scripture. Scripture is Divine Revelation and its theme is consistent throughout all cannonized 66 books. Any obvious contradiction is a red flag that should alarm the exegete that his overall theology is faulty. Scripture is Divine REVELATION and NOT Divine CONFUSION. Scripture is Divine MYSTERY REVEALED clearly and NOT Divine MYSTERY UNRESOLVED! Divine MYSTERY UNRESOLVED after 66 books is a blatant insult to the Greatest COMMUNICATOR. It implies that God has utterly failed at His job of Revelation!
5. We have discussed and fully refuted the unbiblical foundations of TULIP in the blog, Relational Theology's response to the Five Points of Calvinism. We have clearly stated in that blog that although TULIP is a very logical concept, nevertheless, it is very unbiblical concept and paints only one minor side of God (Sovereignty) and not the major side of God (kheced Love).

We now respond to the descriptions of the Traditional View.


Analysis of the Problem passages

Strong's Lexicon cites 6 occurrences of the Greek word proorizo. We will address each one but note that only 4 out of the six are what Calvinists cite to develop their peripheral sub-theology.

***to be properly analyzed...

1. Romans 8:29, 30 note that all verbs are in the aorist tense. Even "glorify" in in the aorist tense, people! So what is the correct exegesis?
2. Acts 4:28
3. 1 Corinthians 2:7
4. Ephesians 1:5
5. Ephesians 1:11