Loving the Unelect

[Strivax]

A moral duty to oppose your Creator? That is inherently contradictory.

I don't see why. If I thought my Creator was evil, and had created me for evil purposes, I would oppose him. And I hope you would, too.

The very concept of morality stems from "good" vs "evil", right and wrong.

Indeed it does.

Without a merciful Creator God, we are just evolutionary animals, the strong should conquer the weak, and all concepts of mercy/love are delusions weaker beings generate to trick the stronger into not taking what they want.
Without a merciful God or rewards system (Heaven) to back it up, there is literally no logical reason why the strong shouldn't just take what they want from the weak. Evolution in fact rewards such behavior.

We just are evolutionary animals. Evolution seems to be the way God decided to create us. But many evolutionary biologists now think that altruism maybe an evolved trait. There is a social strength to be had in mutual cooperation, that outweighs any individual strength. And there is no reason why the genes that promote this social strength should not be adaptively advantageous.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Thursday]

Circumcision predates the Law.

You REFUSE to accept Yeshua's OWN WORDS.

I think you misunderstand Pharisee Paul.

Bottom line Yeshua plainly, OPENLY stated that he did NOT come to do away with the Torah.

The apostles INCLUDING PAUL ALL observed Sabbath and the Feast days.

Paul is told to go to the temple with men set aside to take the vow and Paul was to pay their way, take the vow himself and make the required animal sacrifices AND HE DID

Paul made it clear that we are not to judge people for what Sabbath of feast day they celebrate. Jesus came to fulfill the law.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath? Why did he allow his men to gather wheat on the Sabbath?

 

[derGroßmütige]

We just are evolutionary animals. Evolution seems to be the way God decided to create us. But many evolutionary biologists now think that altruism maybe an evolved trait. There is a social strength to be had in mutual cooperation, that outweighs any individual strength. And there is no reason why the genes that promote this social strength should not be adaptively advantageous..

That is beyond insane. It sounds almost communist/collectivist but on a GLOBAL scale. Even if you apply collectivist mentality, that only extends as far as the tribe/clan/country. I.E. America should conquer all weaker nations, enslave their people, take their oil and resources.

It is also anti-Christian thinking to claim that your flesh makes you naturally good (naturally altruistic, which is insane self-harm for the sake of the hive, without a God, that is just suicidal STUPIDITY). You are claiming the flesh is giving us holy indicators, when the Bible clearly tells us the EXACT opposite, that the flesh TEMPTS you to WRONG actions, to DISOBEDIENCE from God.

And even so, if it is evolution it would NEVER extend beyond the local tribe/clan/country. i.e. it's beneficial for your clan to work together unified, in order to conquer, rape, plunder, and pillage. If you want to claim evolution/flesh as indicators of morality, you need to be in favor of polygamy (reproduction is the #1 priority of evolution), enslaving enemy countries (including taking several wives from your enemies, as humans have done for thousands of years), taking resources of lesser nations to ensure our own prosperity/survival, etc.

Evolutionarily speaking, altruism would never extend to a global scale in a world with limited resources. Both because the species has never even had more than a few years of global knowledge, and because it clearly harms yourself, your tribe, and your country, to embrace a sort of global altruism, instead of the superpower clearly taking the limited resources it needs, enslaving other weaker nations, etc.

If you want an example of tribes that acted in the most clearly evolutionarily beneficial manner, then look to the Vikings, the Mongols under Genghis Khan, etc. Mercilessly kill your enemies, take their women and their resources. That is the best way to ensure reproductive ability (secure several women for every male), increase prosperity, increase the strength of your clan, etc.

It's no coincidence it took Christianity to pacify the Vikings from what their FLESH, their evolution, had turned them into. And now the Scandinavian peoples are among the most peaceful on Earth. Again, because of Christianity.

 

[Strivax]

That is beyond insane.

I only report the facts as they are. I do not see why that should be 'beyond insane'. Or maybe you prefer 'alternative facts', aka, lies.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[derGroßmütige]

I only report the facts as they are. I do not see why that should be 'beyond insane'. Or maybe you prefer 'alternative facts' aka, lies.

You think everything you believe is a fact, and anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. Then why do you even come here?

And you did not address my logical argument that followed my exclamation and instead want to nitpick at my shock at how bizarre your argument is. Guess you can't handle disagreement. Odd, why come here?

Also, you used the word "seems" and now call it a fact. When you asserted your viewpoint, you did not view it as a fact but rather a theory of yours, now suddenly you claim it as an indisputable fact.

 

[derGroßmütige]

I only report the facts as they are.

And please do explain how it is evolutionarily benficial for a superior, powerful clan/tribe/country to be "altruistic" and harm itself, rather than compete for the limited resources of the world.

Evolution's two main features are constantly seeking reproduction and competition over scarce resources. This means a tribe/clan/country adhering to evolution's principles would kill it's enemies, take their women, and secure their resources (oil, minerals, land, etc.).

You seem to think man's flesh is somehow naturally "good" (ignoring 10,000 years of human history, and our last century was not progressing to a better future but rather the most brutal century of all with genocides of over 120 million committed by collectivist, communist and socialist governments, man's nature only getting worse with time). And that you would actually suggest protesting God, and saying He is limited to His choices in whom to place on a path towards Salvation, is not logical. Even if we have a choice, God can alter the circumstances that lead us to make that choice, know what choice we will make, and yet we still have a choice.

There was an angel who thought to protest God and led a major Occupy Heaven movement..... just FYI his name is "Lucifer". Even angels have a choice. And God, in the Bible, makes choices, like when He chose Abraham for the covenant, David to be King, etc. God cannot make a "wrong" choice, for He is the judge of what is good and what is not.

 

[Strivax]

It is also anti-Christian thinking to claim that your flesh makes you naturally good

I never said that. The idea is more subtle than than that. More nuanced even than flesh=bad, spirit=good.

The idea is, that just as we are inevitably predisposed to selfishness by our immediate wants and needs, because we feel those most keenly, some of us may also be circumstantially predisposed to unselfishness by sympathy and empathy with the wants and needs of others. And this latter predisposition may be an important evolutionary force.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

God cannot make a "wrong" choice, for He is the judge of what is good and what is not.

So, is the good good, because God wills it, or does God will the good, because it is good?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

And please do explain how it is evolutionarily benficial for a superior, powerful clan/tribe/country to be "altruistic" and harm itself, rather than compete for the limited resources of the world.

Both natural history and human affairs are replete with examples of cooperation being at least as powerful a force as competition. There is no necessary reason why mutual altruism need be harmful; in many circumstances it may be beneficial, or there would be no evolutionary argument to favour it.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

And you did not address my logical argument that followed my exclamation and instead want to nitpick at my shock at how bizarre your argument is. Guess you can't handle disagreement. Odd, why come here?

Which logical argument would that be, then? Please provide a post number.

You think everything you believe is a fact, and anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. Then why do you even come here?

On the contrary, I regard everything I believe as mutable, subject to change by better argument, and better evidence. The search for such arguments, and such evidence, provides the reason I am here. I do not think that is a dishonourable motive.

Meanwhile, I do not think I have an altogether inaccurate view of the world, and if while arguing my case, I may help other pilgrims, then that is good, too. And I do not think that a dishonourable motive, either.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[BukiRob]

Paul made it clear that we are not to judge people for what Sabbath of feast day they celebrate. Jesus came to fulfill the law.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath? Why did he allow his men to gather wheat on the Sabbath?

You don't understand Paul because you are reading what he is saying as though he is a GENTILE.

Paul is a believing PHARISEE. He states this himself.

Paul was taught by Gamamiel who was considered the greatest rabbinical thinker of his era and the grandson of Hillel (died in 10 AD) who is considered one of the Greatest Rabbinical thinkers of all time. If the Jews had a Mt Rushmore, Hillel would be on it.

Paul's understanding of the Torah and how it applied to Gentiles is how Paul is teaching the Gentiles. Paul was not saying DONT observe Sabbath, he was saying that when you OBSERVE SABBATH dont allow the judiazer to condemn you on HOW you Observe it.

Again, you have completely ignored WHY Paul would have gone to the Temple, taken the vow of the Nazarene which included animal sacrifice at the request of James and the Elders to "20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many [d]thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to [e]walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who [f]are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and [g]pay their expenses so that they may shave their [h]heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

PAUL DID exactly what James instructed him to do. Thus Paul is SHOWING BY HIS ACTION that he KEPT THE LAW!

 

[Thursday]

You don't understand Paul because you are reading what he is saying as though he is a GENTILE.

Paul is a believing PHARISEE. He states this himself.

Paul was taught by Gamamiel who was considered the greatest rabbinical thinker of his era and the grandson of Hillel (died in 10 AD) who is considered one of the Greatest Rabbinical thinkers of all time. If the Jews had a Mt Rushmore, Hillel would be on it.

Paul's understanding of the Torah and how it applied to Gentiles is how Paul is teaching the Gentiles. Paul was not saying DONT observe Sabbath, he was saying that when you OBSERVE SABBATH dont allow the judiazer to condemn you on HOW you Observe it.

Again, you have completely ignored WHY Paul would have gone to the Temple, taken the vow of the Nazarene which included animal sacrifice at the request of James and the Elders to "20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many [d]thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to [e]walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who [f]are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and [g]pay their expenses so that they may shave their [h]heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

PAUL DID exactly what James instructed him to do. Thus Paul is SHOWING BY HIS ACTION that he KEPT THE LAW!

Nice filibuster, but you ignored my point and didn't answer the questions. I know why.

Col 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

 

[BukiRob]

Nice filibuster, but you ignored my point and didn't answer the questions. I know why.

Col 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

You clearly then did not read what I wrote as I addressed this very verse in scripture..... but then, I am not at all surprised

 

[Thursday]

You clearly then did not read what I wrote as I addressed this very verse in scripture..... but then, I am not at all surprised

You didn't address it, you spun around it because it directly contradicts your dogma.

 

[BukiRob]

You didn't address it, you spun around it because it directly contradicts your dogma.

It is pointless to engage in discussion with you because you say nothing other than "Your wrong"

You STILL have failed to address why Paul did what James instructed him to do in Act 21 that was done to PROVE he was PRO TORAH.... but thats not a surprise at all....

 

[Thursday]

It is pointless to engage in discussion with you because you say nothing other than "Your wrong"

You STILL have failed to address why Paul did what James instructed him to do in Act 21 that was done to PROVE he was PRO TORAH.... but thats not a surprise at all....

So as not to offend the Jews present. Paul explained that here:

1 Cor 10
23“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”f

27If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

 

[DingDing]

If God only loves those who are elected--but I love even the unelected--does that mean I am better than God?

It means that you have listened to one too many calvinists. The real God is not like that.

 

[Jim Langston]

this is not so, as the angel said that Jesus would save His people from their sins. matthew 1:21. it doesn't say He'll try, it says he will accomplish it. it doesn't say he'll save everyone, but rather he will save those who are His people who are His chosen sheep(john 10:25-30).

do you believe that ezekiel 36:26-28 has happened to every single human being that has ever lived?

Just because Jesus died for every one's sins doesn't mean rmeveryone's sin is firgiven, only those that repent and have faith. It's the part we have to do for salvation.

 

[AllIsrael]

If God only loves those who are elected--but I love even the unelected--does that mean I am better than God?

Well, first, your basic assumption is that God only loves those who are elected. It’s always (always) a good idea to compare assumptions about God with what the scriptures say. So, for this one, consider Jesus’ encounter with the rich young man in Mark 10:21. The young man tried to justify himself by telling Jesus he had obeyed all the commands from his youth. But Jesus looked on him and loved him, a man who was so attracted to his riches that he did not really want to follow Jesus. Yet Jesus loved him. Or consider when Judas betrayed Jesus in Matthew 26:50. Jesus called him ‘friend’ from the Greek word hetairos, meaning friend or partner, used as a kindly address. So, Jesus was gracious and loving toward the one who betrayed him. These words about Jesus put some doubt on your basic assumption that God only loves those who are elected.

But what is really sad here on this thread is that out of the 30 or so posts I’ve read, all of them, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or other perspective about salvation, all of them are explained through the lenses of amillennialists. I didn’t see any explanations from a premillennialist perspective. I don’t want to discuss the pros and cons of amillennialism or premillennialism here, but I would like to bring the premillennial view of God’s plan of salvation to the table, for it offers much to us in knowing God and what he is doing. It also gives an accurate understanding of who the word ‘elect’ is referring to.

All of Jesus’ followers and disciples in this life will be raised from their graves and given their immortal bodies when Jesus returns. Revelation 20 claims that these disciples of Jesus will be blessed, being in this first resurrection. Revelation tells us they will reign with him on the earth for 1,000 years, a time when Jesus as Lord on earth will judge between nations, settle their disputes, teach them to break their war machinery into agricultural implements, and not learn war any more, among other things. Read Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 – prophecies that can only occur here on the earth with the Lord Jesus sitting on his throne in Jerusalem. All of the resurrected saints will be demonstrating and teaching about the love of God to all those not resurrected, as a witness of God’s glory and love for every child he has created. It is reasonable to think that many of those not resurrected will repent and become followers of Jesus during the millennium. At the end of the 1,000 years according to Rev. 20, the rest of the dead will come to life who were not in the first resurrection, and books will be opened, among them, again, the book of life. So, there will be many people coming to Jesus at a later time than those blessed to be in the first resurrection.

Scripture offers strong evidence that the ‘elect’ refer to those in the first resurrection. Many others will be saved too, but at a later time. God apparently will go to any length to make known to all people that salvation can be theirs with the Lord Jesus. But Scripture also lets us know that believers during this life will be given their eternal life in new bodies before others will. That most likely is why they are ‘blessed’ to be in the first resurrection.

The reality of the millennium was established under the umbrella of orthodox Christianity long before amillennialism came along attempting to do away with it. Understanding of the millennium’s reality and its revelation of God’s plan for salvation in a succession of steps and stages should have equal footing in any irenic discussion of salvation.

 

[danstribe]

Paul made it clear that we are not to judge people for what Sabbath of feast day they celebrate. Jesus came to fulfill the law.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath? Why did he allow his men to gather wheat on the Sabbath?

They were not gathering wheat on the Sabbath, "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them." Matt 12:1. Christ was setting the Pharisees straight on just what the law was concerning the sabbath, if you're hungry you can pick food and eat it. "If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain." Deut. 23:25. You can pick an apple and eat it but you cant pick baskets of them! That is why King David could eat the bread that was consecrated...because they were hungry! Fulfilling the Law is not doing away with it. He did away with the penalty of breaking it (sin IS the transgression of the Law) and the penalty is death which everyone was under the death penalty until Christ came and kept the Law perfectly receiving no penalty but gave His life anyway to pay for our debt to death. And because He was responsible for the creation of everything His life was more than sufficient to cover the requirement of the penalty of breaking the Law of every human ever born, past, present and future!