God is resting, are you?

[Arphaxad12]

Hi Rick

Thanks for writing! I'm encouraged by some of the things you mentioned regarding predestination.

In fact, I think see a possibility that you may be the first person I've encountered so far who may actually have a feasible theology on predestination.

Admittedly, up until now, I haven't spent much time or effort on the subject of predestination, especially since most of what I read from various posters on the subject seems to espouse "micro-management" of individual lives.

I believe I could accept a broader view of the subject. With concepts like "God creates evil" being understood as: "God creates the means by which both evil or good can be created." Or "God permits evil." I seem to remember something about the Lord being "first cause" or something to that effect.

Anyway, the reason I never went into predestination in any depth at all, is because, as I said earlier, all the "underpinnings" of any discussion on ANY denominational theology, including Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc., are completely missing for me. Especially since the "King James Hell" actually has 5 different meanings in the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures from which it was supposedly taken. Here are the five different meanings of "Hell" used in different passages of the King James Version of the bible. Most of the "Hell" Jesus spoke of in the Gospels was "Gehenna:"
====================================================================
1."Sheol," ("grave," "burial place," "place of the dead" - no torment).

2."Hades," ("grave," mythical Greek "Underworld" - no torment).

3."Gehenna" (Literal: "trash dump." Spiritual: "trash dump of self-hatred" in this life, where the "fire of truth is not quenched and the self-destructive 'worm of guilt' dieth not").

4.Tartaros ("holding prison" for fallen angels - no people).

5."Lake of Intense Truth, Light, and Reality" ("Fire"). (Place where incorruptibly resurrected unbelievers must face themselves in the intense light of the Holy Spirit - large torment and shame: "Let the rocks fall on us!" And: "Hide us from the face of Him who sits on the Throne!").
=====================================================================

So as you may see, I don't hold at all with the corrupt traditional, mythological, scripturally bereft theologies of most Christian denominations. Finally! The Lord is "breaking the seals" and "opening the books" in these last remaining days of the ever-present intense influence of the Prince of the power of the "Air," viz. "the Prince of this World."

Anyway, the concept of the Lord predestining people to etrernal unending screaming agony, supposedly for no apparent reason knownable to man, always completely placed predestination in the catagory of "anti-God," "pro-humanist" doctrine for me.

Also, Paul's statement about The Lord being "the Saviour of all men, specially of those which believe," might correctly be understood as: "The Saviour of all men, especially (but not exclusively) of those which believe."

Formal Logic demands that, if as you said, "Saviour of all men" means: "rain that waters crops," "wounds that heal," etc., Paul would certainly never have suffered reproach for preaching this generally accepted concept to believers in God, who, by the way, always comprised MOST of his audience. In fact, why would he have even bothered preaching such a widely-accepted concept to believers in the first place?

So the reproach Paul said he suffered must have been from preaching a concept to believers that was very controversial, like: "God will somehow save all men, those which believe, the 'easy way,' in THIS life, the rest through GREAT TRIBULATION (Rev 7:9-17), "so as by fire," after their promised incorruptible resurrection." For THIS concept he would definitely have suffered reproach.

Did we all think that death was the end of any chance to accept Christ? Well, just consider all the people Jesus raised from the dead during His time here on Earth (Lazarus, the widow of Nain's son, Jarius' daughter, etc.). They all got a second chance to accept Jesus AFTER they had died once and been resurrected.

And what ever happened to that scripture in Hebrews that says: "It is appointed unto men ONCE to die?" All the people in the bible who were raised from death all had to die TWICE! Plus, all believers know that the Lord is no respecter of persons, and that what He does for one He'll do for all.

Peace,
"Arph"

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Arphaxad12Hi Rick

Thanks for writing! I'm encouraged by some of the things you mentioned regarding predestination.

Way Cool, bro. I'm encouraged to know I have encouraged you!

In fact, I think see a possibility that you may be the first person I've encountered so far who may actually have a feasible theology on predestination.

Admittedly, up until now, I haven't spent much time or effort on the subject of predestination, especially since most of what I read from various posters on the subject seems to espouse "micro-management" of individual lives.

Yah, I hate control freaks. I don't doubt God is in control, but I doubt He's a freak.

I believe I could accept a broader view of the subject. With concepts like "God creates evil" being understood as: "God creates the means by which both evil or good can be created." Or "God permits evil." I seem to remember something about the Lord being "first cause" or something to that effect.

Yep, 1st Cause is descriptive of process, & I didn't have much trouble with that, but it took me a long time to resolve the personal responsibility issue, & it involved some disillusionment from years of too much false self-esteem. I can get math & physics, but I get all emotional over morality & as easy as intellectualy accepting Total Depravity was, it took a lot longer to accept it in my guts.(My gut is realy selfish!)

Anyway, the reason I never went into predestination in any depth at all, is because, as I said earlier, all the "underpinnings" of any discussion on ANY denominational theology, including Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc., are completely missing for me.

Lucky you!

Especially since the "King James Hell" actually has 5 different meanings in the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures from which it was supposedly taken. Here are the five different meanings of "Hell" used in different passages of the King James Version of the bible. Most of the "Hell" Jesus spoke of in the Gospels was "Gehenna:"

Yeah, I know, I know,... & I have put off sortin' that stuff out too.
I have problems with eternal punishment for temporal sins, etc. too. I don't worry too much about it for myself because I don't believe I'm headed in that direction, but I do need to understand it correctly so my witnessing & apologetics aren't weak.

So as you may see, I don't hold at all with the corrupt traditional, mythological, scripturally bereft theologies of most Christian denominations. Finally! The Lord is "breaking the seals" and "opening the books" in these last remaining days of the ever-present intense influence of the Prince of the power of the "Air," viz. "the Prince of this World."

Me neither, & I think youre right.

Anyway, the concept of the Lord predestining people to etrernal unending screaming agony, supposedly for no apparent reason knownable to man, always completely placed predestination in the catagory of "anti-God," "pro-humanist" doctrine for me.

I hadn't heard enough about to even form a decent opinion until about 2000, when I went online for the 1st time, but at first it sounded ANTI-God, AND Anti-humanist to me!

Also, Paul's statement about The Lord being "the Saviour of all men, specially of those which believe," might correctly be understood as: "The Saviour of all men, especially (but not exclusively) of those which believe."

I just read John Gill's commentary on that verse, yesterday. He said (& I believe) that meant God gives & maintains all life providentialy, but gives eternal spiritual life exclusively (to His elect Eph1:4).

Formal Logic demands that, if as you said, "Saviour of all men" means: "rain that waters crops," "wounds that heal," etc., Paul would certainly never have suffered reproach for preaching this generally accepted concept to believers in God, who, by the way, always comprised MOST of his audience. In fact, why would he have even bothered preaching such a widely-accepted concept to believers in the first place?

Preamble? Start with common ground before scaling the heights?

So the reproach Paul said he suffered must have been from preaching a concept to believers that was very controversial, like: "God will somehow save all men, those which believe, the 'easy way,' in THIS life, the rest through GREAT TRIBULATION (Rev 7:9-17), "so as by fire" after their promised incorruptible resurrection." For THIS concept he would definitely have suffered reproach.

People were even more touchy about religion back then!

Did we all think that death was the end of any chance to accept Christ? Well, just consider all the people Jesus raised from the dead during His time here on Earth (Lazarus, the widow of Nain's son, Jarius' daughter, etc.). They all got a second chance to accept Jesus AFTER they had died once and been resurrected.

Interesting.

And what ever happened to that scripture in Hebrews that says: "It is appointed unto men ONCE to die?" All the people in the bible who were raised from death all had to die TWICE! Plus, all believers know that the Lord is no respecter of persons, and that what He does for one He'll do for all.

Not so fast, Arph. He doesn't love everybody exactly the same, and having one appointment doesn't necessarily mean that another isn't possible, it just means that one time is a sure thing, and even then, appointments can be cancelled (Enoch, Elijah).

Peace, bro!

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hey Rick!

Hello again from Detroit (where brand new police cars are auctioned off every Saturday night [with the police still inside! ]).

Anyway, just a short note to hopefully add to something you wrote: Enoch and Elijah did "die," just not physically. "As it is appointed unto MEN once to die," so Enoch and Elijah decided to take "the narrow way" and die to their own will, as we all theoretically could, and thus receive the same reward. But as Jesus said: "Few there be that find it".
========================================
1Cr 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (bolding is my own).
========================================


Would you like to escape the grave and remain here to help prepare the Earth for Christ's return?
According to scripture, It is THEORETICALLY possible:
========================================
Joel 2:1-3 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

3 A fire (truth) devoureth before them; and behind them a flame (reality) burneth: the (Godless) land is as (seems like) the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them. (parentheses are my own).

Matt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. (bolding is my own).
=======================================

I understand "this generation" as the one being alive at the time the Lord puts His end-time "army" together, which should be right about now. He's looking for volunteers. The discipline is hard but the reward is very great: Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
-----------
P.S. Rick, you have completely blown my theory that all the spiritually bright believers live only here in Michigan!

 

[sunlover1]

P.S. Rick, you have completely blown my theory that all the spiritually bright believers live only here in Michigan!

No, I think you were right.

Must be Rick's predestined to move to MI.

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi sunlover

I didn't really have that theory about Michigan. I was just trying to be "clever" and compliment Rick for his heroic effort to understand predestination. The truth is, there are a number of writers here on foru.ms who are VERY spiritually bright. Certainly including yourself!

Please accept my profuse apologies. I think I accidently managed to offend everyone in the entire USA outside of MI. James was right, I should be quick to listen and VERY slow to open my mouth and put my foot in it.

Anyway, after reading your comment on predestination, I think you should REALLY appreciate this post I recently did on Church USA.com:
=========================================
I believe a person with no obligations (responsibility) to anyone (if that were even possible), including to the Lord, would have lost their "humanness," including their dignity as a person. Just as an animal has no moral responsibility to anyone, he has no "humanness" either. Only Man and the angels are created capable of responsibility to God, clearly proven by Adam being given the gift of responsibility to obey God and remain loyal to his creator along with free choice not to. This ability to possess and respond to God's gift of responsibility, OR NOT, is what distinguishes Man from the animals.

Would anyone here like to be an animal? It might be a lot easier than being a human being but it would also have a LOT of disadvantages.

What if I told you I have been trying to instill moral values into my dog for years and at long last I have decided he is a total and hopeless reprobate and even refuses to participate in worship and prayer when I tell him to. He's a nice dog but he's morally bankrupt! And besides that he adamantly refuses to repent!

Maybe now you can see what I'm saying: God gave Man the Law to let man know what Man is responsible for in this life (what his obligations would be to belong to God's family). Not that the Lord really expected Man to keep all God's holy Law, but God gave it just so man would know what his obligations were and thus hopefully could fully appreciate what Jesus saved him from.

And surely Man is the only one of God's creatures besides the angels who is capable of understanding and responding to such an obligation (responsibility). This God-given gift of understanding and response to (or rejection of) God is what I mean by "humanness." Animals cannot choose NOT to respond to God as Man can. No wonder the bible says Man was made in the image of God.

By suffering and dying on a bloody Roman cross, Jesus has clearly shown us all that Man has miserably failed in his responsibility to love God and his neighbor as himself. Otherwise why would He have suffered and died in misery on that bloody cross? When we see Christ crucified, we hopefully see at least TWO things: FULL AND COMPLETE PAYMENT for all our violations of our God-given responsibilities, AND, AND, AND the fact that THERE WAS A TOTAL FAILURE in the fulfillment of responsibility on Man's part THAT NEEDED TO BE PAID FOR! If Man was not responsible to God then WHY is Christ hanging on that cross??? So you see, by His suffering and death on that miserable agonizing cross, Jesus FIRMLY ESTABLISHES the fact that Man had an obligation to be loyal to God and failed in it miserably! Thus Christ firmly establishes the Law by paying for it!

Whew, I hope I came through clearly for everyone. I gave it my "best shot."

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
-----------

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi Rick

Re: Free will: Are you saying that Adam was not created with free will and free choice?

Do not external influences trump guilt? For example: Were not those who crucified Christ with "wicked hands" really under the strong external influence of the Prince of this World? Hence, no guilt!

Does not TRUE wickedness really require the "ingredient" of totally unencumbered free will, as Adam supposedly had when he was first created?

Surely TRUE EVIL requires completely unencumbered free choice, as Lucifer definitely had when he was first created. And for that exact reason, is not Satan the very purest "single-eyed" essence and father of evil:
=================================
Ezekiel 28:12-17 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (underlines and bolding are my own).
=================================

And if you tell me that Adam or anyone else was guilty because he/she should have resisted the evil influence of the Prince of this World, and because they didn't, they sinned and were guilty, then I will answer: "Would not the ability to resist an evil influence be the absolute proof of free will? Unless we're all TOTALLY just puppets.

Peace,
"Arph"
------

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Arphaxad12Re: Free will: Are you saying that Adam was not created with free will and free choice?

I'm saying that "free" will isn't realy free at all, unless you're God.
Adam's will was free of the condition his sin left ours in, but it wasn't free to defy the power of God by recreating truth & reality.
The will can only choose from the options it is given. Adam removed spiritual good from the options menu.
Only a living spirit can discern & desire spiritual things.
We're spiritualy still born until by grace we're born-again.

Do not external influences trump guilt? For example: Were not those who crucified Christ with "wicked hands" really under the strong external influence of the Prince of this World? Hence, no guilt!

They chose to be so, hence guilt, sentencing may be moderated by considering that influence.

Does not TRUE wickedness really require the "ingredient" of totally unencumbered free will, as Adam supposedly had when he was first created?

I don't think so, it just requires intent, whether or not that intent was predestined addresses a higher jurisdiction where the intent of the predestinator can be addressed. There we can rail the accusation & ask "Why hast thou made me thus?"(Rom9:20)
What you're asking is,"Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? "
How can anyone who is predestined be guilty of or credited for, anything?
Paul's answer may seem unsatisfying, simply because the only answer he gives is the reality of God's superiority:
"21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

Surely TRUE EVIL requires completely unencumbered free choice, as Lucifer definitely had when he was first created. And for that exact reason, is not Satan the very purest "single-eyed" essence and father of evil:

God's foreknowledge is not clairvoyance, it is familiarity with His own determinations previous to His act of creation. It was not a spasmodic act with any unintended consequences, else God isn't realy omnipotent & omniscient, no matter how sentimental he may be toward us fleshy little creatures Don't try & sell me that dogs don't experience responsibility (My dog is growling at the computer screen). Any [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] with pups would argue, if you abused them. It's the way God made them.
Free will puts responsibility for our salvation coming to pass, in our hands, instead of The Author & Finisher's (The Potter).

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

How else can perfection allow iniquity entrance, unless by God willing, actively or passively?

"Would not the ability to resist an evil influence be the absolute proof of free will? Unless we're all TOTALLY just puppets.

It would be evidence of will, but it wouldn't rule out the predestination of that created will. Puppets don't have a will, Arph. We do, it's just predestined.

 

[Kristos]

Not so fast, Arph. He doesn't love everybody exactly the same, and having one appointment doesn't necessarily mean that another isn't possible, it just means that one time is a sure thing, and even then, appointments can be cancelled (Enoch, Elijah).

He doesn't love everybody the same? Where does that come from?

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi Rick

You wrote: "The will can only choose from the options it is given."

My answer: Au contraire mon ami! Man's will can also be infintely creative as history shows us in all the great creations of Mankind. viz. The arts, music, science, etc. Let's not limit the one sovereignly created in the very image of God to such mundane choices. God does better work than that. Let's not denigrate God's tremendous creation of the one created in the very image of God himself, to being a "two-trick pony."

Also, I wrote: "Does not TRUE wickedness really require the "ingredient" of totally unencumbered free will, as Adam supposedly had when he was first created?


You answered: "I don't think so, it just requires intent."


I ask: "Intent born of WHAT? Free will?, External influence?, both? Again, intent also cannot be wicked unless born out of unencumbered free will such as Lucifer had. N'est pas? Is not intent really a single active creative decision such as Adam made rather than simply a choice of options?

You also wrote: "the predestination of that created will." (end quote).

My answer: Now you're saying that man's will can also be predestinated? Wow! that makes us TOTAL puppets! What's left???

You also said: "How else can perfection allow iniquity entrance, unless by God willing, actively or passively? (end quote).

My answer: Ah, ah, ah, what happened to holding the players responsible for the performance?
Is God so fearful of His own position that he cannot allow or gift anyone or anything besides Himself to have any control or responsibility of their own? Sounds like a control freak to me! It sounds like now, contrary to your earlier post, you're ascribing ALL responsibility (passive or active) only to "the conductor" of the orchestra.


We REALLY need some good "solid" comprehensive definitions here in order to produce some real understanding. If we can agree on definitions, that in itself will be a very hopeful beginning.

Also, I think before we discuss predestination any further we should DEFINITELY carefully investigate and determine the exact and complete meaning of "destine." (active, intent only, passive use of foreknowledge, etc.?)

Without a precise definition of "destine"/"destiny"/"predestine," everyone will most likely have their own subtly individual interpretation, which, of course, will lead to total confusion and unnecessary falsely perceived disagreement.

By the way, what say you to the far weighter issue of "We shall not all sleep?" Major insomnia or what?

Peace,
"Arph"
P.S. Consider yourself very fortunate to own a dog with high moral standards and a great sense of responsibility to love his fellow dogs as himself. My dog still remains a morally bankrupt hopelessly irresponsible reprobate.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Arphaxad12;Hi Rick,... Man's will can also be infintely creative as history shows us in all the great creations of Mankind. viz. The arts, music, science, etc. Let's not limit the one sovereignly created in the very image of God to such mundane choices. God does better work than that. Let's not denigrate God's tremendous creation of the one created in the very image of God himself, to being a "two-trick pony."

Arph, I wouldn't put anything past man,
The limit I'm pointin' at is physical & finite.
A creature can't create out of nothing, as creation was, startin' with turnin' on the lights, or actualy, the sound of the announcing of light
"Let there be ~"
You're projecting the power of the Potter into the clay. Ya got goats turnin' into sheep, cats livin' with dogs... (ok, I made that last one up )

Also, I wrote: "Does not TRUE wickedness really require the "ingredient" of totally unencumbered free will, as Adam supposedly had when he was first created?
You answered: "I don't think so, it just requires intent."
I ask: "Intent born of WHAT? Free will?, External influence?, both?

Well, born of the wicked deceitful heart of man.
If The Holy Spirit indwells you, is that an external influence?

Again, intent also cannot be wicked unless born out of unencumbered free will such as Lucifer had. N'est pas? Is not intent really a single active creative decision such as Adam made rather than simply a choice of options?

It is indeed a personal decision, but persons have a destiny and God destines, it is written.
The only thing we have left to judge whether or not we think He done right on any given incident & issue, is motive.
So when we're tempted to over-sympathize with the "vessels made unto dishonor", remember:

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Esau is a vessel unto dishonor) 14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? (Esau never had a chance, is that fair?) God forbid. 15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (I can't help but suspect He's emphasizing something there...) 16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. ("It" being election) 17: For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. (Choosing whom from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).) 19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (If there is an answer to why we're still responsible with predestination as a fact, it's gotta be here!) 20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

(I know, kinda sounds like a power trip, but Paul goes on to explain why

22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

You also wrote: "the predestination of that created will." (end quote).

My answer: Now you're saying that man's will can also be predestinated? Wow! that makes us TOTAL puppets! What's left???

Puppets don't have a will. People do.

You also said: "How else can perfection allow iniquity entrance, unless by God willing, actively or passively? (end quote).

My answer: Ah, ah, ah, what happened to holding the players responsible for the performance?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I DO, Arph.
Don't you remember that ? I'm trying to explain to you how that is possible, and why it is that way.

Is God so fearful of His own position that he cannot allow or gift anyone or anything besides Himself to have any control or responsibility of their own?

No.

Sounds like a control freak to me!

Did to me for the longest time, too.
It was the only realy hard part of The Synod of Dort for me.

It sounds like now, contrary to your earlier post, you're ascribing ALL responsibility (passive or active) only to "the conductor" of the orchestra.

Corporate responsibility incurs limited liability.
Keep it real. The oboist maybe had a problem with his prescription, I should fire the conductor?
Motive, Arph... motive!

We REALLY need some good "solid" comprehensive definitions here in order to produce some real understanding. If we can agree on definitions, that in itself will be a very hopeful beginning.

I don't think we're so far off on that, but maybe you're right.

Also, I think before we discuss predestination any further we should DEFINITELY carefully investigate and determine the exact and complete meaning of "destine." (active, intent only, passive use of foreknowledge, etc.?)

I don't think we need to dissect that, the beef boils down to: does God creating evil render God evil. You can't see how it doesn't - I can't explain to you how it doesn't, can I?

Maybe we should exchange recipes or something... I have an old copy of Ignatious of Loyola's "How To Serve Protestants"

Without a precise definition of "destine"/"destiny"/"predestine," everyone will most likely have their own subtly individual interpretation, which, of course, will lead to total confusion and unnecessary falsely perceived disagreement.

I can't imagine it ever getting that bad (LOL!)

By the way, what say you to the far weighter issue of "We shall not all sleep?" Major insomnia or what?

I was kinda hopin' He'd show up before I had to leave. Instead of ressurrection, I think those people experience a quickening of the flesh or something.

Peace,
"Arph"
P.S. Consider yourself very fortunate to own a dog with high moral standards and a great sense of responsibility to love his fellow dogs as himself. My dog still remains a morally bankrupt hopelessly irresponsible reprobate.

Well, ...I had to beat it into him.

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi Rick!

Thanks for writing. Man! I sure wish you could give some illustrative examples of the concepts you're presenting. Either I'm not fully awake yet, or the ideas you're mentioning are very abstruse and esoteric. (Hard to understand ).

Anyway, you quoted: "Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (end quote).

My answer: VERY simple explanation not based on GOD'S predestination in any way at all, but rather on ESAU'S own "God-foreknown" choice! EXAMPLE: God knows everything in advance, therefore He hated Esau because He already knew before Esau was ever born that Esau would choose to hate and ignore Him, just as God also foreknew that Jacob would choose to love and honor Him.

You also wrote: "A creature can't create out of nothing, as creation was, startin' with turnin' on the lights, or actualy, the sound of the announcing of light."

My answer: I believe we're getting out of the realm of the will here. So, getting back to the subject of Man's will, and away from the subject of the Creation being "not made of things which do appear:" The Lord has fearlessly given Man much freedom, creative power, material, and equipment to work with in shaping his own life according to Man's own will and choice. And this without Man necessarily having to create something "out of things which are not seen." God's creation of Man with sovereignty over himself certainly makes life MUCH more spontaneous and interesting for everybody:
======================================================================
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue (rule over) it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (including yourselves!). (underlines, parentheses and bolding are my own).
=======================================================================

Maybe the Lord needed a challenge, so He sovereignly gave Man sovereignty over his own destiny. I'm pretty sure the Lord can handle it though. Aren't you? Hopefully some fool won't say God's name backwards and bring about the fabled "Uncreation."

In fact there are VERY strong indications in the bible that Man does, to a great extent, have power to create by faith, using his words. Yet another indication that Man was indeed created in the very image of God:
=================================
Mark 11:20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.

22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have them.

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance (basis) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(underlines, parentheses and bolding are my own).
=================================

I wrote: "Does not TRUE wickedness really require the "ingredient" of totally unencumbered free will, as Adam supposedly had when he was first created?

You answered: "I don't think so, it just requires intent."


I asked: "Intent born of WHAT? Free will?, External influence?, both?


You answered: "Well, born of the wicked deceitful heart of man.
If The Holy Spirit indwells you, is that an external influence?

I answer: So how did the wicked, deceitful heart of Man originate? Wasn't it created by a willful, wrongly motivated, decision by Adam to "be as the most high" under the strong external influence of the Prince of this World? External influence by God, Satan, demons, angels or anything else trumps motive as a determinate of guilt or virtue! N'est pas?

The indwelling Holy Spirit is not an influence, but a part of our very being and character, as also is "Christ in us, the hope of glory:"
======================================================================
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (underlines and bolding are my own).
======================================================================================

You also wrote: "The only thing we have left to judge whether or not we think He done right on any given incident & issue, is motive." (end quote).

My answer: How in God's green Earth can WE possibly know the Lord's motives?? Isn't His written Word ALL we have to safely go by? Hence, shouldn't we ALWAYS ascribe the motives to God that are so often clearly described in His Word? such as these:
=================================
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Psalm 103:11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. (underlines and bolding are my own).
=================================

You also quoted: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

My answer: The Lord is simply saying here that the choice of whom He will have mercy on is His sovereign prerogative alone. Except for His self-imposed obligation to keep His many written promises to show mercy to them that fear him, He has absolutely no obligation to show mercy to all to those who don't, although at His option He may do so.

Pharaoh is a perfect example of the passive use of foreknowledge: The Lord, knowing eons in advance, that Pharaoh, in spite of all the mighty evidence he had seen through Moses, would not choose to repent and call on God, did not choose to have mercy on him. And this passive decision by God accomplished the Lord's following predestined stated purpose:
=================================
Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth
=================================

I don't see what's so difficult about that! It's just a matter of choices: Pharaoh's and God's. (Pharaoh's first!).

Also I wrote: "Do not external influences trump guilt? For example: Were not those who crucified Christ with "wicked hands" really under the strong external influence of the Prince of this World? Hence, no guilt!

You answered: "They chose to be so, hence guilt, sentencing may be moderated by considering that influence." (end quote).


Dumbfounded, I answer: THEY CHOSE??? My God! There's hope for you to become a Pentecostal yet!! Although I seriously don't think that's necessary to be saved and born again.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
---------------
P.S. Rick, Didn't God create ONLY Adam and his wife? And acting under the Lord's command to "be fruitful and multiply," didn't MAN create all the rest of Mankind by procreation? So obviously, as far as the Human Race goes, the truth is that all God ever created was only ONE man and ONE woman. Man himself created all the rest, and sadly, not all perfect either, thus proving that the Lord didn't do it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Arph, I don't know how many times I gotta tell ya, predestination doesn't destroy, eliminate, or replace the will, choice, volition, decision-making, and hence, responsibility.
God's foreknowledge empowers Him from eternity to order Pharoah's life (for example), in such a way that Pharoah will harden his own heart.
Nobody acts "first" before God.
Nothing happens without God willing, in this ontological sense. That is how God comes by His foreknowlege. It is by the fact of His own determinate council, not a clairvoyant ability to see what happens in the future - He created the future! He knew what would be there before it existed. And what He doesn't pro-actively manipulate, He passively allows because He could intervene omnipresently. So His control is as complete as His sovereignity.
If God is your co-pilot, switch seats!

Arph, for over a dozen years I attended a non-denominational congregation that started out firebrand charismatic Pentecostal, then split & left the calmer crew with the building & back taxes.
And I grew up RCatholic, so I have maybe a little broader experience than some, for what it's worth.

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi again Rick,

You wrote: "God's foreknowledge empowers Him from eternity to order Pharoah's life (for example), in such a way that Pharoah will harden his own heart. (end quote).

A short question by "Moi": Since you seem to be convinced of the aforementioned concept it follows as the night the day that you must also know exactly what it is that you're convinced of.

Unless of course you're simply leaving the concept undefined and nebulous as so many ideas in Christianity are, without any real substance, but are just a cloudy thought that's fun to talk about while supposing that such a thing somehow does exist.

"Bottom line" - Can you possibly explain to me exactly or theoretically how the Lord could possibly have "ordered Pharaoh's life" without disrurbing Pharaoh's will or decision-making ability? Since you posited the idea, you should be able to give it real substance or at least a good theory, unless, as I suspect, it rightfully falls in the category of supposition or myth.

I posited a very viable hypothesis on the "passive use of foreknowledge" in raising up Pharaoh to demonstrate the Lord's power. My theory absolutely did not include the Lord disturbing or changing Pharaoh's will or decision-making capability at all.

I doubt if you'll be able to come up with any theory or scenario wherein the Lord could "order Pharaoh's life" without disturbing or changing Pharaoh's free will.

That would be like saying a person received a heart transplant without missing a day of work.

And if you tell me you just flat don't know HOW the Lord ordered Pharaoh's life, then I will ask: "Then how can you be sure God did it at all?"

Thanks,
"Arph"
----------
P.S. We're "digging for the truth" here. Maybe we're not too far from "bedrock" already.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Arphaxad12;Rick, you wrote: "God's foreknowledge empowers Him from eternity to order Pharoah's life (for example), in such a way that Pharoah will harden his own heart."
A short question by "Moi": - Can you possibly explain to me exactly or theoretically how the Lord could possibly have "ordered Pharaoh's life" without disrurbing Pharaoh's will or decision-making ability?

Why should I have to, when scripture says He did,... regardless of if Pharoah was hard hearted to begin with, God disturbed Pharoah's decision making ability to repent & soften his heart toward Moses & crew... demonstrating the sanctity with which you regard the human volition to be vainglory, bro. There is no redeeming feature in us since Adam, certainly not our will, altho I must say I do look rather noble in my best filthy rag suit on a sunny Sunday morn.

Since you posited the idea, you should be able to give it real substance or at least a good theory, unless, as I suspect, it rightfully falls in the category of supposition or myth.

I posited a very viable hypothesis on the "passive use of foreknowledge" in raising up Pharaoh to demonstrate the Lord's power. My theory absolutely did not include the Lord disturbing or changing Pharaoh's will or decision-making capability at all.

Doesn't have to, Arph. If God sees a train wreck is gonna happen, doesn't He have the power to stop it? What if He has a point in letting it happen? (Rom9:21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,)

I doubt if you'll be able to come up with any theory or scenario wherein the Lord could "order Pharaoh's life" without disturbing or changing Pharaoh's free will.

I wouldn't try. God is sovereign over each will He created. For Him to be out of control, He couldn't be God. Allowing what He omnisciently knows will happen, is not a loss of control and it represents judgement, not freedom for the will He allows to sin.


http://javascript<b></b>:emoticon(':lol:')

And if you tell me you just flat don't know HOW the Lord ordered Pharaoh's life, then I will ask: "Then how can you be sure God did it at all?"

Well, Paul says He hardened Pharoah's heart. I equate that with an ordering of Pharoah's life, even if I don't equate that with predestination - the ordering of Pharoah's life that was done in God's mind before God created. Creation was planned, not a spontaneous spasm... hey that kinda has a ring to it... maybe we name a new dance or a rock band!

Sorry I took so long to get back. Homeschool & work have both gotten busy lately.

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi again Rick

Thanks again for writing. I don't doubt that you do have to "budget" your time pretty judiciously with all you have to do. No problem, I understand perfectly.

Just a few final questions/comments here on the subject of predestination: Does God predestine the animal, insect and microbial worlds? How about the snake that bit Paul? The mule that talked to Baalam? The Lion that attacked Roy in Las Vegas? The lion that killed the disobedient prophet in the OT? The lion and the bear that David slew?

And how about Mosquitoes that have killed millions of people in this World? Bacteria that caused the Black Plague?

Unbethought by the Reformers, wouldn't God have predestined all animals, insects, bacteria, and even viruses and micro viruses, not only to exist, but also to interact with man in a predetermined, frequently individual way? How could it possibly be otherwise? Nothing happens outside of God's will, right? Would any doughty staunch advocate of Predestination dare to try to make some arbitrary exceptions to God's all-encompassing will?

Seeing that we are no longer in the midst of the Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church, just how relevant is the narrowly-focused, skeletal reactionary Reformist doctrine in our present day?

We should not forget that the Reformers were intensely focused on exposing and changing the alleged faults in the Roman Catholic Church, hence a necessarily "narrow" doctrine was produced suited primarily to that purpose.

That being the obvious case, many "secondary" doctrines were left "unaddressed." I'm speaking of doctrines which weren't relevant to the basic issues of salvation. Sadly, even to this day, salvation always seems to be most believers' main "bugaboo."

So the question necessarily arises: What value does ANY Christian doctrine have? Especially since the Lord has written the bible so cleverly that most, if not all, of it's interpretations are completely unprovable. And it can, and usually is, understood by each person according to their own fears, projections and faith, or lack thereof. Is it the "Lady or theTiger?"

One of the most attractive but unprovable emotional advantages I do see in Predestination though, is the supposed God-determined, anti-Catholic absolute certainty for those who believe, that they are on "an express train" into God's Kingdom here on the promised New Earth. Will believers go to Heaven? Absolutely! "Heaven" - right here on the promised New Earth, ruled forever by Jesus in righteousness, love, justice, prosperity and abundance in the light of the New Jerusalem, the TRUE city of love:
=======================================================================
Rev 21:2-5 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

(underlines and bolding are my own).
=======================================================================


But if you truly understand the bible and it's author, you won't need the dubious emotional comfort afforded by Predestination. However, In my view, the "certainty" of salvation espoused by Predestination would be ESPECIALLY attractive to all those raised with a strong Catholic background, especially since Predestination was created to "undo" the Catholic doctrine of dependence on human works and the resultant uncertainty of salvation..

But for myself all this doctrinal discussion is really just a religious "Chess game" anyway. The reason being, that as a born-again, Protestant Jewish Catholic Charismatic Pentecostal, raised atheist, I find no necessity for myself to adhere to any other person's interpretation of the Gospel, seeing that I personally KNOW whom I have believed and have finally and joyfully given myself to His service after many years of resisting His call upon my life. A call first given me as a child almost 60 years ago.

Then one day, at a Kathryn Kuhlman service in London Ontario, in the mighty presence of the Holy Spirit I finally answered His call and just said, "Yes Lord, you can have my life. Nothing could ever beat having you for a friend." And even though I always was a real stubborn "mule," I've never forgotten or regretted that glorious day.

So you see, although I know both quite well, denominational theology and doctrine don't mean anything to me personally. They certainly have their place for many believers in knowing the Lord at a "safe distance" from their lives. But for myself, dependence on them would certainly diminish my joyful, occasionally maddening, but always loving, eternal friendship with the Lord.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
-----------

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi Rick

Couldn't resist the allure of making one more observation on Predestination:

You quoted: "(Rom9:21-22: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (end quote).

My answer: Just to demonstrate how the same verses can be undeerstood in more than one way, I submit the following examples:
=========================================
"(Rom9:21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel (foreknown) unto honour, and another (foreknown) unto dishonour?


22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to (appropriate for) destruction:

2 Tim 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

2 Tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

2 Tim 2:20-21 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

22 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

(underlines, parentheses and bolding are my own).
=========================================

Sure sounds like our choice as to what kind of vessels WE want to be. "if we purge ourselves," etc. Is this not OUR choice?

And why would God have to "endure with much longsuffering" something that He created in the first place? Is God a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Or maybe just "enduring something with much longsuffering" for it's own sake is God's will? And WHY would He have to suffer through something that's His own will anyway? When I get something that's my own will, I'm usually very happy about it. And again, if "enduring something with much longsuffering" IS God's will, then He must be a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! Unless He has sovereignly and fearlessly left it out of His own control.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
---------------
P.S. Can the Lord build a wall so high He can't jump over it?

 

[Rick Otto]

Sure sounds like our choice as to what kind of vessels WE want to be. "if we purge ourselves," etc. Is this not OUR choice? [/FONT]

Yes, I believe that. All Calvinists do.

And why would God have to "endure with much longsuffering" something that He created in the first place? Is God a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Or maybe just "enduring something with much longsuffering" for it's own sake is God's will?

I don't know where you get the idea He has to. I don't see it there in the text.

And WHY would He have to suffer through something that's His own will anyway?

It's called "deferred gratification". You do it all the time.

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi Rick

I wrote: "And why would God have to "endure with much longsuffering" something that He created in the first place? Is God a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Or maybe just "enduring something with much longsuffering" for it's own sake is God's will?


You asked: "I don't know where you get the idea He has to. I don't see it there in the text. (end quote).

I answer: I guess I got the idea that the Lord suffered with the vessels, etc., from the word "endure." Because "endure" means "to put up with;" "to bear with:"
=================================
Endure:
verb: undergo or be subjected to
verb: persist or be long; in time
verb: face or endure with courage
verb: put up with something or somebody unpleasant
=========================================

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
--------------------

 

[Rick Otto]

So He chose to bear with it for a good reason, right?
Rom9:22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24: Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
The how is interesting, but the why is important in sorting out predestination & God's assigning of responsibility.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Not "obedient hands", as your understanding of predestination would imply.
See the difference?

 

[Arphaxad12]

Hi Rick

Thanks again for writing. It's much appreciated since I'm sure you have many other pressing responsibilities making demands on your time.

Re: Romans 9:
Ok, how about this: God made ALL the vessels the same (of the same lump), foreknowing, and thus able to declare what they, not the Lord, would choose for themselves to "be prepared unto."

God was able to say: "prepared unto glory" only because he knew in advance what each vessel would choose for themselves to become. It was not that God actively prepared any vessels any differently than any others, But because of His foreknowledge, He could say of certain ones: "prepared unto glory."

It's just like if you owned a company that made pottery and you made a number of clay pots to fill an order for the President of the United States. Even though these pots might be made exactly the same as all your others, you could still correctly say: "These pots were afore prepared unto glory."

See how cleverly the bible is written. The same passage can be understood in different ways depending on your viewpoint.

In fact, after reading Romans 9 carefully, I'm beginning to strongly suspect, that amazingly, Paul may actually be arguing AGAINST those who claim they're innocent because they're inevitably predestined by God to sin and cannot resist His will. He seems to be arguing strongly for individual responsibility and the sovereignty needed to fulfill it..

He seems to be saying that God made all vessels "of the same lump" and that what they were prepared for is up to THEM, not God!



Oh, Rick, by the way, am I correct in saying that there is a conspicuous absence of any reference in Calvin's doctrine to the "New Birth" stressed so strongly by Jesus and all the other writers in the New Testament? I'm speaking especially of Paul's constant references to God's gift to believers of regeneration from our old Adamic depravity: "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature, old things are passed away, BEHOLD, all things are become new."

Paul is saying that believers do not remain in their old depraved state after they have personally accepted for themselves the full payment for all men made by Christ from the foundation of the world. And moreover, that all who call on the name of the Lord for salvation do also receive God's precious gift of regeneration as God's righteous holy children. This concept is VERY scriptural! In fact it's one of the main "foundation stones" of the gospel of Christ. But possibly it's missing from the Reformers' doctrines because it wouldn't have been very useful against Catholicism in the 1500s?

The Reformers' main emphasis seems to have been on justification rather than regeneration. But myself, I always tell believers that, expressed in human terms, salvation is 10% justification and 90% regeneration. Maybe that's because I believe in miracles.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
----------