Where do you stand on the efficacy of Christ's atonement?

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,847
1,707
58
New England
✟484,042.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are a deep thinker.

On these forums, I have pointed out various problems with Reformed positions and in general I get intelligent responses that are somewhat plausible - which I appreciate.

In this John MacArthur sermon he supports these two things, among others: (a) that God's desires are done, and (b) many are not saved. However, if God desires all men to be saved, as I believe 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 declare, those two axioms cannot both be true. So how does one parse 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 without concluding that God does not desire all to be saved.


Good Day, John Mullally

If you open a thread in ask a Calvinist more than happy to look at the context of these single verses with you.

Ask a Calvinist

In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,162
1,805
✟794,659.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You are a deep thinker.

On these forums, I have pointed out various problems with Reformed positions and in general I get intelligent responses that are somewhat plausible - which I appreciate.

In this John MacArthur sermon he supports these two things, among others: (a) that God's desires are done, and (b) many are not saved. However, if God desires all men to be saved, as I believe 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 declare, those two axioms cannot both be true. So how does one parse 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 without concluding that God does not desire all to be saved.
Specific to your question:

There are just somethings God cannot do, since they are impossible to do, like:

Create a clone of Jesus (Jesus is not a “made” individual, but is deity which has always existed), you just cannot “make” something that has always existed. Jesus is thus perfect, where made individuals can only be made as good as any being could be made (very good by God’s standard).

We are made “very good”, so what is the really important thing we lack that keeps us from being “perfect” like Christ is perfect? This goes back to our earthly objective (please read my last post and think about the “objective”), what we are here on earth to try to obtain and it is nothing we can work for and earn, but can only come to us as a pure undeserving gift, we have to humbly accept it as pure undeserved charity.

The greatest gift God could give us is to be like He is and that is Love. God is doing and allowing everything to help us humbly accept as pure undeserved charity, His Love, so, we can Love like He Loves.

The “problem” is Godly type Love cannot be planted into a human (made instinctive to humans) since that would not be Godly type Love but a robotic type Love (a knee jerk reaction). And, Godly type Love cannot be forced on a person making them accept it, since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun. It would not be loving on God’s part nor would the Love we received be Godly type Love.

The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By accepting God’s forgiveness, we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50. Sin is made unbelievably huge so the forgiveness is unbelievably huge resulting in an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).

The real issue is with the fact humans have a hard time humbling themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity (no one likes to take charity and will do almost anything to avoid taking charity). Accepting charity is like the opposite of working to obtain something, but that is the only way to obtain “Love”. Those teaching God does the selection independent any human thought, are also saying you do not have to humble accept God’s pure undeserved charity, since you got God’s charity prior to humbly accepting it.

Yes, God is wanting and is offering to everyone eternal life, which comes with accepting forgiveness and Love, but few are willing and wanting to accept this charity, so they would be unhappy in heaven where there is only Godly type Love (unselfish and unconditional type Love). God does not want unhappy people in heaven (those desiring only a carnal type Love, wanting to be “Loved” for the way they want others to perceive them to be).

Much more can be said this is brief.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: John Mullally
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(a) that God's desires are done, and (b) many are not saved. However, if God desires all men to be saved, as I believe 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 declare, those two axioms cannot both be true. So how does one parse 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 without concluding that God does not desire all to be saved.
ImCo:
when GOD created us to be HIS bride as shown by the culmination of HIS story with mankind ending in this marriage, HE created us able to fulfill HIS purpose:
Isaiah 43:
7 "whom I created for my glory"
21 the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.


Aside from the evil doctrine of our being created in sin means we are NOT able to fulfill HIS purpose,

I contend that at our creation HE desired that by our free will everyone would choose to accept HIM and HIS gospel. HE desired hell to be empty.

But HE had to give us a free will for a true marriage based upon love to be possible so HE had to allow for evil to be created and hell to be a reality or our wills were not actually free.

HE does that which pleases HIM and it pleased HIM more to have a real marriage than to negate the possibility of hell by limiting our free will. That is, a real wife was more important to HIM than the impossibility of hell made possible by being married to a Stepford Wife.

What this desire of HIS that no one die in hell really means is that everyone was created with an equal ability and opportunity to choose by their free will to put their faith in HIM or to reject HIM. It also implies that if anyone can be saved, they will be saved contrary to most definitions of Arminianism and Calvinism. Only those who cannot be saved as unforgivable will not be saved and the source of the impossibility of their salvation is found in themselves, in their free will rejection of HIM as a liar and a false god, unforgivably repudiating HIM for eternity, which free will decision must be sacrosanct or what good is their so called free will?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: John Mullally
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Having been saved from total depravity I cant attribute my salvation to myself and to do so would be prideful.
The drowning man who grabs the lifeline thrown to him does not boast in saving himself - or at least shouldn't if he has any sense.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Carl Emerson
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,847
1,707
58
New England
✟484,042.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The drowning man who grabs the lifeline thrown to him does not boast in saving himself - or at least shouldn't if he has any sense.


Good Day, John

That man is dead is at the bottom of the river and Jesus seeks him out and breathes life into him.

He make the dead live!

in Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,544.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good Day, John

That man is dead is at the bottom of the river and Jesus seeks him out and breathes life into him.

He make the dead live!

in Him,

Bill

In my case I fell into the river after being born again...
 
Upvote 0

HappyHope

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2019
643
523
New Mexico
✟54,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To start off with I believe that God desires all men to be saved men per 1 Timothy 2:4 & 1 Peter 3:9 - I believe in free will & receiving by faith and repentance per Acts 2:38. But of course there is disagreement in the Christian community. Here John MacArthur dismisses arguments that God wants all to be saved with "God's will is always done" at 35:40 - that implies a lottery type pre-determined damnation for many as it is totally up to God - like a puppet on a string. Where do you stand?
No arguments here. Christ is where it is at. As for the predestination or predetermination, one can get lost in massive theological wormholes hashing out that stuff out. Jesus loves me, that's all I know.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The same reason Esau was not chosen, and Jacob was. . .before he had done anything good or bad--but simply because "God had purposed (decreed) to elect him: not by works, but by him (God) who calls" (Romans 9:10-12). "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

I believe this doctrine is a false interpretation of these verses which contradicts our all being created able to fulfill HIS purpose for us.

IF there was no reason found in us for our election then there was no reason found in the reprobate for their non-election to heaven ie their election to damnation. Iow, everyone was equally able to be accepted for election or passed over for election, there was NO DIFFERENCE!!!

GOD damns so many for no reason is unacceptable, completely.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,544.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe this doctrine is a false interpretation of these verses which contradicts our all being created able to fulfill HIS purpose for us.

IF there was no reason found in us for our election then there was no reason found in the reprobate for their non-election to heaven ie their election to damnation. Iow, everyone was equally able to be accepted for election or passed over for election, there was NO DIFFERENCE!!!

GOD damns so many for no reason is unacceptable, completely.

Paul answered your concern here...

Romans 9

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No arguments here. Christ is where it is at. As for the predestination or predetermination, one can get lost in massive theological wormholes hashing out that stuff out. Jesus loves me, that's all I know.

I consider that there is only one pre-accepted doctrine that makes all the massive theological wormholes to no end! That reprobate doctrine is our being created ON EARTH at conception (traducianism) or at birth (the creationism of the soul doctrine) contrary to so many verses of which I will pick one set: Matt 13:36 Then Jesus dismissed the crowds and went into the house. His disciples came to Him and said, “EXPLAIN to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” 37 He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons [PEOPLE] of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons [PEOPLE] of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. Every fanciful effort to try to explain away these verses fails in the light of the simple fact that they EXPLAIN the parable, ie, no metaphor, no hyperbole, just the facts, Ma'am.

To sow cannot mean to create as the devil sows but CANNOT CREATE. To sow means to move a seed from a place of storage (Sheol maybe?) to a place of growth, ie the world. Kinda blows the created on earth theory all to wormholes, huh?

Well there is a whole theology about our pre-conception existence, fall and redemption if you care...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I believe this doctrine is a false interpretation of these verses which contradicts our all being created able to fulfill HIS purpose for us.
IF there was no reason found in us for our election then there was no reason found in the reprobate for their non-election to heaven ie their election to damnation. Iow, everyone was equally able to be accepted for election or passed over for election, there was NO DIFFERENCE!!!
GOD damns so many for no reason is unacceptable, completely.
Please explain Romams 9:10-12, being true to its words and consistent with Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul answered your concern here...

Romans 9

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles

I agree with Paul in in these verses...I do not agree with your interpretation of what you think they mean...
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Romams 9:10-12

First: Origen quoted Romans 9:11-14 as evidence for his position about our pre-earth existence:
For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Origen argued that God could not love Jacob and hate Esau until Jacob had done something worthy of love and Esau had done something worthy of hatred, therefore, this passage only means that Jacob and Esau had not yet done good or evil in this earthly life and their conduct before this earthly life was the reason why Esau would serve Jacob.

He rejected the position that God loves or hates a soul based on its inclination toward good or evil, before the soul actually commits a good or evil act.

Origen also quoted Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. He took this at face value, refusing to bow to the created on earth faction of his time.

Now, I ask for patience because this is no one trick pony show but a full theology...ie, it will take slow and careful reading.

Le's start a bit eqarlier with Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word fore means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21, 23 Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love. James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain; He never knew them. As one commentator stated it, Whom HE foreknew”is virtually equivalent to whom HE foreloved.

Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?

1. Merit based Election before Creation?
The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour:
Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.

First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.

Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

Second, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD's world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].

Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.

Fourth, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life" love. GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

Now, according to pre-conception theology, the "before life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced (ie free) choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM. Therein is the reason why HE loved some "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest.

Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church, the sinful good seed). Yes, and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the other evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate pre-conception theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do. May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do in this life.

Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-existence.

The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. His purpose for us necessitates a free will choice to join that purpose or it is a tape recorder type of agreement and meaningless. Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a pre-conception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who per-fore-med that work.

The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels... Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), ie, they do not have what is usually called racial solidarity. This means that they have to make all their own choices. No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices. In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them?

If HIS choice was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion, would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven, (or: predestined for Hell)? And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever? This situation does not look too good, does it?

Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE is holy and just. Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.

Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice, works, being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too? May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility is the presupposition that Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's definition of elective works in

(FINALLY! :) )

Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth. Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say that the works of 2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines works the same in both verses. And just how does he define works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her. The children are Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil (works).

But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, [the Hebrew literally means "trying to crush each other to pieces" according to Strong's, not merely to jostle or wrestle], at least one, if not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil the work of murder, since it is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was being evil.

Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction, the children were being evil before birth, and must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or we have to admit that the Pauline definition of works does not exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election. In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election, he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having done any good or evil works (on the post-birth side of the womb) that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb).

Thus I contend see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
First: Origen quoted Romans 9:11-14 as evidence for his position about our pre-earth existence:
For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Origen argued that God could not love Jacob and hate Esau until Jacob had done something worthy of love and Esau had done something worthy of hatred, therefore, this passage only means that Jacob and Esau had not yet done good or evil in this earthly life and their conduct before this earthly life was the reason why Esau would serve Jacob.
Sorry, there is no Biblical basis for life before our birth. .Origen's heresy not-with-standing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2020
3,824
327
66
Georgia
✟125,375.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The drowning man who grabs the lifeline thrown to him does not boast in saving himself - or at least shouldn't if he has any sense.
Wonder if hes already drowns, dead, can he grab the lifeline ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,349
813
Califormia
✟131,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2020
3,824
327
66
Georgia
✟125,375.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The video in the opening post is about 10 years old. In a recent post (Oct 2020) MacArthur now argues that God wants everyone saved - although not strongly enough to "decree" it.
If God Desires All Men to Be Saved, Why Aren't They?
Then thats not the true God. Job 23:13

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

Salvation is according to the will of God, He does it Gal 1:4-5

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,162
1,805
✟794,659.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Good Day, John

That man is dead is at the bottom of the river and Jesus seeks him out and breathes life into him.

He make the dead live!

in Him,

Bill
Christ could use any words He wanted to in His parables but always used the very best word, so in the Parable of the prodigal son Christ twice discribes the son why in the foriegn land as being "dead", but that son was still physically and mentally alive and doing stuff, including coming to his senses and turning to his father.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,162
1,805
✟794,659.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0