Election and predestination are often taken by Calvinists to mean that every individual is selected by God to be saved.

I consider that what was predestined was not individuals but the opportunity to enter into a state where anyone who enters could be called elect.

This is made confusing because the word "elect" can also be applied to those of Israel whose whole nation was chosen.

Hentenza said:

I don’t have to. I gave you where they are located in the Bible so you could find them.
Are you saying that they are NOT in the Bible?

Click to expand...

As I am sure you know, this is a typical means of evasion. All one actually needs to do is to select one commandment out of the Ten and discuss it. It is then that one discovers that, in reality, these legalists are hypocrites in their statements concerning keeping God's commandments.

In fact, one hardly need even go beyond the Ten to discover their hypocrisy. For example, the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" is taken in its very narrowest sense, even excluding the much broader interpretation of it by Jesus Christ.

That's the mistake all make. Don't forget volume or area has a single dimention of distance, which in the Ho case is light years. What area or volume did the excaped gas leak out to? You can legitimately say it spread out to 2 miles distance. You CANNOT legitimately say it spread out to 2 hours. That would be nonsense. So you are wrong, are you not???

bèlla said:

Why would you force someone to discuss their healthcare coverage and why would they comply?

~bella

Click to expand...

We're in such a discussion right now.

It happens, usually when someone starts an anti-"Obamacare" rant and expects everyone to agree.

Job 33:6 said:

Flat Earth, it's Biblical - Apple Sky

Click to expand...

Yes - Very much so.

This may end up being the most powerful storm to hit the island of Jamaica in recorded history.

CATASTROPHIC AND LIFE-THREATENING WINDS, FLOODING, AND STORM SURGE EXPECTED ON JAMAICA TONIGHT AND EARLY TUESDAY

11:00 AM EDT Mon Oct 27
Location: 16.4°N 78.2°W
Moving: W at 3 mph
Min pressure: 908 mb
Max sustained: 165 mph

Jamaica: Do not venture out of your safe shelter. Catastrophic and life-threatening flash flooding and numerous landslides are likely today through Tuesday. Catastrophic winds in the eyewall have the potential to cause total structural failure especially in higher elevation areas tonight and early Tuesday. This will result in extensive infrastructural damage, long-lasting power and communication outages, and isolated communities. Life-threatening storm surge and damaging waves are expected along the southern coast through Tuesday.

FutureAndAHope said:

Romans is a book that is often the topic of fierce debate, when it comes to the theological topic of Predestination, and free will. Personally, I believe that God has given man free will, that all people will be given a chance of life, but their choices determine whether they will be saved.

One of the key topics of this debate is the fact that God brings blindness to the sinner. If a person believes in Predestination, they will say, “A portion of the world was always destined, or planned, to be blind from the beginning”. That, “God only rescues a selected portion of creation, not based on man’s deeds, but God’s choice”.

Click to expand...

Your opening comments already rest on a few assumptions that should be examined before the discussion can move forward:

1. You equate predestination with fatalism ("a portion of the world was always destined to be blind from the beginning"). Can you point to a single Reformed expositor or confessional statement that defines it that way? It's imperative that we accurately represent the views of others.

2. You suggest that divine election negates human choice. Again, can you point to a Reformed statement or confession that ever frames God's sovereignty and human responsibility as opposites to be reconciled? Does the Reformed perspective not maintain that divine sovereignty and human responsibility operate compatibly (cf. WCF 3.1, 9.1) as exemplified in passages like Gen. 50:20 and Acts 2:23?

3. You imply that predestination denies that "all will be given a chance at life." Can you show where any Reformed confession denies the universal proclamation of the gospel or the genuine offer of salvation to all nations (cf. WCF 7.3, 10.2)? The question in Reformed theology is not whether the offer is sincere, but whether its acceptance rests ultimately on sovereign grace or autonomous will.

FutureAndAHope said:

I would like to show from Romans 1 that it makes more sense to believe spiritual blindness comes as “a result of disobedience”...

Click to expand...

Your point here is well taken; Paul certainly shows that spiritual darkness intensifies through persistent rejection of revealed truth. But the passage is describing not the initial cause of blindness, but its judicial reinforcement. Paul's argument in Romans 1-3 unfolds progressively. In chapter 1, he is explaining how God's wrath is received (v. 18): namely, by "giving them over" (vv. 24, 26, 28). That phrase, παρέδωκεν ὁ θεός, is not the language of causation of first sin, but of judicial handing over to the consequences of sin already present.

So yes, Romans 1 teaches that blindness results from sin. But it does not follow that sinners begin in a neutral, sighted state and then blind themselves by choice. Romans 3:10-12 clarifies that "none seeks for God," and Romans 8:7-8 says the natural mind "does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." The blindness of Romans 1:21 is therefore the outworking of a depraved state, not its origin.

If I may ask:

• Do you take Paul to mean that unregenerate humanity ever possesses a morally neutral capacity to "retain God in their knowledge" apart from grace (cf. Rom. 1:28)?
• If blindness only follows repeated sin, how would you interpret Eph. 4:18, where ignorance is "due to the hardness of their heart" -- that is, intrinsic, not acquired?

FutureAndAHope said:

We see that also in:

2Th 2:10-12 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.​

God sends strong delusion to those who have “pleasure in unrighteousness”. So a debased mind is not the default, but rather what we are given over to if we delight in sin.

Click to expand...

Again, seeing this text as disproof of divine sovereignty over reprobation confuses the judicial result of sin with its original cause. The position you're opposing does not teach that God creates blindness or moral corruption ex nihilo. Rather, He righteously hands sinners over to the blindness they have already chosen in Adam and continue to embrace.

Paul's point in this text is judicial, not causal. Those who "did not receive the love of the truth" are therefore given "a strong delusion" (ἐνέργειαν πλάνης). That delusion is not the origin of their depravity; it is the divine confirmation of it. Their refusal to love the truth is the immediate cause of judgment; their fallen nature (Rom. 8:7-8) is the ultimate cause.

If you're objecting to Reformed theology, then it is necessary that you recognize the distinctions Reformed theology makes:

• Moral inability is the state of fallen humanity inherited from Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; Eph. 2:1-3). It's the cause of blindness.
• Judicial hardening is God's righteous act of giving sinners over to their chosen darkness (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). It's the result of persistent rebellion.

So, yes... blindness results from sin, but that does not mean it originates from a morally neutral will. The sinner sins because he is blind (John 3:19-20), and God's judgment in hardening only seals what the fallen heart already desires.

FutureAndAHope said:

The earliest Church Leaders also taught that man “as it were, blind themselves”

4. ... but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. (Irenaeus 120-202, Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 39 -End)​

Click to expand...

Appealing to "the earliest Church leaders" as a unified interpretive block is historically careless. The patristic writers were not a monolith, nor were they always systematic or mutually consistent. The second century was marked by vigorous theological development. Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, and Clement differ on numerous points, including the nature of grace and freedom. So to claim that "the earliest Church leaders taught X" is, at best, an overstatement.

As for the quotation itself, Irenaeus is addressing the moral culpability of those who reject divine revelation, not the metaphysical origin of human blindness. He's contrasting the willing rejection of the light with its judicial consequence ("He has prepared darkness..."). Nothing in this passage denies man's fallen inability apart from grace; it simply underscores that the judgment is just because man's rebellion is voluntary.

Reformed theology fully agrees. Sinners "blind themselves" in the sense that they sin willingly, not by external coercion. The question is not whether men choose darkness (the certainly do), but whether, apart from regenerating grace, they could ever do otherwise. Irenaeus' moral appeal does not settle that question. The grammar of Romans 8 and John 6 does.

FutureAndAHope said:

Note: blindness in this post is not referring to Spiritual Ignorance, but rather a deep blindness that prevents salvation from occurring. We are all born with Spiritual Ignorance, blindness in this post refers to that which prevents salvation.

Click to expand...

This clarification actually makes your position more problematic, not less, as the distinction you're raising here actually reinforces, rather than refutes, the Reformed understanding. Let me explain.

First, Scripture does not present humanity as merely "spiritually ignorant." Paul is explicit that the unregenerate mind is not just uninformed but hostile to God:


That word "cannot" (οὐ δύναται) indicates inability, not mere ignorance. Likewise, 1 Cor. 2:14:


Note again: is not able (οὐ δύναται) to understand them. That's not ignorance; it's incapacity. This is not the blindness of one who lacks data, but of one who rejects light because of moral corruption. So to say all are born "ignorant" is already too weak; Scripture calls it spiritual death (Eph. 2:1-3), not partial blindness.

Second, the "deeper blindness" you describe (the one that "prevents salvation") is precisely what Reformed theology categorizes as judicial hardening. It is God's righteous act of giving a sinner over to his own chosen darkness. It's not that some neutral people become blind; it's that already-blind rebels are further confirmed in blindness as a consequence of rejecting truth. So, whether unintentionally or not, you're misrepresenting the position you oppose by assuming that it conflates a distinction it explicitly maintains -- one that you yourself later acknowledge, though without recognizing that your opponent does as well.

In short, you've described two stages of blindness, but the first stage (spiritual death) is itself morally culpable and already prevents salvation apart from grace. The second stage (judicial blindness) is God's righteous sealing of that condition. Neither concept contradicts the position you are arguing against; they presuppose it.

Always in His Presence said:

If you do not have a problem with the stop, what are you wining and complaining about this time?

Click to expand...

I'm not whining and complaining about anything; all I'm saying is if this had occurred during the Obama administration, many on the right would have been furious, which is true.

SabbathBlessings said:

It does make the distinction of two different rests not one, so we can agree on this. The Sabbath rest is according to the commandment Luke23:56. Christ rest is from rebellion and sin Mat11:28 Psa38:3 why those who enter into Christs rest ALSO means they are doing something in addition and it tells us verbatim what that is, they ALSO cease from their works as God did Heb4:10 on the seventh day Heb4:4 Exo20:11 Gen 2:1-3.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. The reason why humanity needed a savior was because of disobedience and sin. Those that enter Jesus rest enter because of obedience by having faith.

“For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let’s make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

“That rest” is Jesus rest NOT the sabbath rest. The contrast between the two proves this clearly.

stevevw said:

So already you are making unsupported claims. If we are going to play those games then my experts say your experts are wrong lol. Whose opinion should we listen to. Someone who has already been shown to make false claims and provide no evidence. Or the well evidenced support for the qualifications of those involved in the vase scan projects.

Click to expand...

So now you are accusing us of making false claims without evidence? You really are an arrogant little twit.

stevevw said:

Ok so Dunn and King have had over 50 years working in the industries. Flinders Petrie actually discovered and pioneered measuring and describing them. Yousef Awyan and his family have been making vases at the foot of the pyramids for generations.

Which spectualtions and claims. I am not sure what you mean. You do know spectulations don't usually have the evidence. You have to find the evidence to support the spectulation.

Click to expand...

It's easier the way you do it--just ignore the evidence that doesn't support your speculation.

stevevw said:

But thats different to the science of determining what the signatures tell us about possible tools or methods used.

Click to expand...

Why bother with science when you've already decided what kind of tools were used?

Always in His Presence said:

snopes - is hardly the bastion of truth.

Click to expand...

lol, says the guy who cited the NY Post citing the RNC.

Always in His Presence said:

View attachment 372182

Click to expand...

FYI: That Copilot result cites the same NY Post article you already did:



^That MSN link is this:

Guojing said:

OSAS is only found in Pauline epistles, so its part of the revelation of the mystery to the Body of Christ.

Click to expand...

In John 6 and elsewhere it speaks of "never perish," "no one can take...," etc., 1 Pet. 1:5, Heb. 6:19, and many other places. Almost all the writers of the NT teach eternal security, and Heb. and 2 Pet. exhorts people to make certain of it. So your idea that it's only taught by Paul is erroneous.

mark46 said:

An inheritance tax on farms under $14M will cause many, many to go out of business.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to. There are ways to structure the tax levy to be less disruptive. One way would be to just put a lien on the assets that isn't due until they're liquidated.

wing2000 said:

Odd, I thought conservatives were in favor of smaller government. From what I understand, Republican's found FDR's expansion of the White House (East wing) during WW2 to be wasteful.

Click to expand...

I heard an interesting take on Trump, FDR and the east wing a couple days ago. I can't link the video because of profanity, but if you're interested you can put the letter "y" at the beginning of the below link:

outube.com/watch?v=I_AW8SO9rS4

bling said:

Context, context, context and context, is what I was taught.
Paul does a wonderful communication job in writing to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, so how would they have understood it?

Click to expand...

The Jews had a multifaceted hermeneutic similar to the fourfold approach. For them, the levels were the peshat, remez, darash, and sod. Greeks also understood holy texts to have multiple facets of meaning as well, so allegorical readings would very much have been on the table.

JosephZ said:

Breaking Down How Much Time Biden Spent on Vacation While President – It's Not 40%

The rumor that Biden spent nearly half of his presidency on vacation came from an exaggerated and incorrect Republican National Committee analysis.

Snopes comprehensively analyzed the former president's public calendar, research from his administration and pool reports — detailed daily dispatches from the White House press corps tracking Biden's movements — and found that the RNC's claim was inaccurate. It is difficult to define what a "vacation" is for a president, given that a president is never away from duties. Therefore, Snopes determined how many days he was in a vacation setting.

Biden spent 117 or 118 full days of his 1,461-day presidency (Jan. 20, 2021 to Jan. 20, 2025) on vacation, or about 8% of his presidency. He also spent 66 days, about 4.5% of his presidency, partially in a vacation setting.

Click to expand...

snopes - is hardly the bastion of truth.



President Joe Biden's daily schedule has consistently ended well before 10 p.m. throughout his presidency. According to multiple reports:

• Most of Biden’s public events and meetings have taken place between 10 or 11 a.m. and 4 or 5 p.m., with very few exceptions. [dailymail.co.uk]
• Evening events are rare, and aides have acknowledged that Biden tends to get fatigued and is more prone to missteps outside of this window. After the June 2024 debate, Biden reportedly told Democratic governors he would stop scheduling events past 8 p.m.. [dailymail.co.uk]
• He typically returns to his residence by 7 p.m., and his day usually starts around 9 a.m.. [people.com]
• Reports describe him as a “five- or five-and-a-half-day-a-week” president, with weekends and evenings generally kept free of public appearances. [nationalreview.com]

So, it's safe to say that Biden’s schedule almost always ends before 10 p.m., with very few exceptions, especially in the later years of his presidency.

JosephZ said:

Qatar also has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and is a central hub for terrorism financing. I have no problem with Trump stopping in Qatar due to its role as a U.S. ally in negotiating with terrorists and its hosting of a U.S. air base, but like I said, many who are fine with Trump making an unscheduled stop and allowing the leaders of Qatar to board Air Force One would have criticized President Obama for doing the same because of Qatar’s links to Islamists and terrorists.

Click to expand...

If you do not have a problem with the stop, what are you wining and complaining about this time?

Hans Blaster said:

I don't.

Click to expand...

An inheritance tax on farms under $14M will cause many, many to go out of business.

However, I shouldn't speak for you. You seem not to favor an exempptions.

Take tiktok videos with a grain of salt. Some are ai.

Desk trauma said:

People with ruthless ancestors made up fancy words for why they’re better than us plebs, that’s how it works.

Click to expand...

And we never bow to them as Americans! We have no royals here

stevevw said:

Hum I am not sure. The problem is according to the orthodoxy there was no lathe or potters wheel or bore stick. This was pre all that. They made pots by the coil method so not wheel or lathe required.

But then this leaves an out of place artifact that is found in a culture that did not have the knowledge or tech. Then you have to start getting into spectulation as to how this can be.

Did I say anything about your personal ability or expertise.

Click to expand...

Yes, all of it derogatory. As you know, I am a journeyman machinist (retired) and recognize that you were not being condescending to me personally, but merely expressing your distain for skilled craftsmen generally (including those of ancient Egypt.) You clearly hold your own personal ability and expertise to be higher than mine, but it's interesting that despite repeated questioning, you won't tell us what it is.

stevevw said:

I said that the logic you are using in citing your own expertise is the same as me linking the experts I have. So if you are going to use authority as the evidence then it works both ways. We get into a game about who can supply the most authoritive expert. Its not a good way to argue.

We can only go by what we know. But its not just based on the Naqada. We have evidence in other parts of the world such as when the potters wheel was first invented in Mesopotamia around 5,000 to 4,000 years ago. The bore stick tech came from that area into Egypt around 2600BC.

It could be as we have found that ancients were more advanced than we thought in other ways. Like the 300,000 year old calved wooden joint. As though ancients had a pretty sophisticated level of carpentry.

No I'm not lol. Anyway.

Very good as thats exactly what I said. They are what we see right before our eyes. Knowing or not knowing what caused them makes no difference.

Yes and I have clarified this and even said it would be silly to say that theres all these lost computers and NASA level CNC machines everywhere. That theres more than one way to skin a cat. We just havn't worked out how they did it.

Yes they have and this is one of the logical fallacies thats used against lost knowledge and tech. That we have not found any of it. If theres lost knowledge and tech then where is it. I can go back and find several arguements like this. And its sort of true in a way when you think. Ok so if its not like modern tech and its not the traditional then what is it. It gets frustrating not knowing because it would then complete the picture.

Please don't tell me what I know lol.

Yes I more or less said that above. Their level of development had not reach the level of inventing the potters wheel or lathe I don't think. The consensus is they made pottery by coil and slab methoth because they had no rotating device. Plus we are more or less saying the Naqada invented the potters wheel as their culture Naqada one extends back almost as early as when Mesopotamia invented it.

Yeah fair enough. But then this is not evidence. We can say all sorts of things are possible. What then.

Click to expand...

Then we wait for more evidence. At least, that's the "orthodox" thing to do. Apparently that doesn't stop you from making certain conclusions without it.

Desk trauma said:

Again, he doesn’t get to allow or disallow such gatherings.

Click to expand...

Yes. I’m aware. That’s been my point all along.

Ophiolite said:

Almost every paragraph, every sentence, sometimes even every clause that you type can be contested. Most of the time I forego the effort, since you routinely misunderstand, or ignore whatever I say. But . . .

It has been amply demonstrated, I think to the satisfaction of all save yourself, that your experts are not experts.

Click to expand...

This is getting silly now. So you have just made what you seem to say is a factual statement and you have used the opinion of others as the evidence. This is exactly what I just said. That using merely expert opinion is not a good way to argue and support a fact or truth.

So lets look at the facts. You say that those involved in the tests ect are not experts. Yet I had provided the qualifications. For example Chris Dunn is an engineer, machinst and precision tool maker with over 50 years experience. Has worked to the level of Aerospace engineering, pioneered precision tooling and has worked with all levels of machines from the 60s to present.

There could be no more a qualified person on the precision made vases and the tools and machining involved to make them. Then theres Christopher King of Precision Components with similar experience and expertise. Then there is Flinders Petrie one of the worlds greatest archeologists and Egyptologists and also a machinist.

So already you are making unsupported claims. If we are going to play those games then my experts say your experts are wrong lol. Whose opinion should we listen to. Someone who has already been shown to make false claims and provide no evidence. Or the well evidenced support for the qualifications of those involved in the vase scan projects.

Ophiolite said:

Consequently, comparing their expertise - demonstrably of limited quality and probably less relevance - to that of a practitioner of the topics under discussion (whom you are free to interrogate to the test that expertise) is inappropriate.

Click to expand...

Ok so Dunn and King have had over 50 years working in the industries. Flinders Petrie actually discovered and pioneered measuring and describing them. Yousef Awyan and his family have been making vases at the foot of the pyramids for generations.

Ophiolite said:

I repeat an earlier comment, to which I got zero reaction: show evidence that you have critically examined the speculations and claims you are throwing around and then I shall treat your ramblings with a measure of respect.

Click to expand...

Which spectualtions and claims. I am not sure what you mean. You do know spectulations don't usually have the evidence. You have to find the evidence to support the spectulation. But thats different to the science of determining what the signatures tell us about possible tools or methods used.

Dan1988 said:

That's mall well and good, in theory. But it doesn't work in reality. Why, because you failed to take into account the fact that salvation is not by works. You're still pushing the false idea that God saves people because of their good works.
You have made repentance, faith and everything else a work to earn salvation.

Now the truth of that matter is that man only offers God his filthy rags and his stinking corpse, in exchange for eternal life in paradise and all the treasures of the universe.

You obviously reject what God said about the state of man, when He said we are born dead in our sin.

Now lets see where repentance comes from (I can do this for every other thing, which you think we must do to be saved) but I will just give you the truth of Gods Word regarding "Repentance", let me warn you this will be awful for you but think of it as bitter medicine.

• Acts 11:18: "When they heard these things, they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has to the Gentiles granted repentance that leads to life.'"
• Acts 5:31: "Him God exalted to his right hand to be our Prince and Savior, so that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel."
• 2 Timothy 2:25: "[God] opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. He corrects them gently, in the hope that he will give them repentance and they will know the truth."
• John 6:65: "And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.'

Click to expand...

Woah back up a verse brother. You quoted verse 18 but neglected to read verse 17 carefully.

“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also AFTER BELIEVING in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭11‬:‭17‬-‭18‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

God gave them the gift AFTER BELIEVING, not before. That’s what the passage actually says.

And in Acts 5:31 yes Jesus did grant repentance to Israel. Did they repent? Some of them did but most of them didn’t since it was the majority of Israel that crucified Him.

2 Timothy 2:25 Paul is telling Timothy to be kind and patient towards the unrepentant because God might lead them to repentance and they might come to their senses. It for say that they can’t repent it just says that God might grant them repentance which means that He might cause something to happen in their life that would lead them to repentance. It doesn’t say that they can’t repent unless God grants them the ability to. As I’ve already pointed out to you in Romans 2:4-5 God is in fact leading those people to repentance and yet they are still refusing to cooperate as did Israel for 1500 years.

And in response to John 6:65 I’ve already addressed this verse along with John 6:44 by demonstrating that this is how man was drawn to Christ during His ministry and John 12:32 describes how man is drawn to Christ after His crucifixion and so far you still haven’t addressed this passage.