Is predestination about the destination or about the path to it?

[Clare73]

The principle is that the party making an assertion is responsible for providing evidence to support it. Since you've made the assertion, it follows that you should provide the proof.

Actually, the principle is that assertions stand true until proven untrue, which is why people bother to refute them.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Actually, the principle is that assertions stand true until proven untrue, which is why people bother to refute them.

If that is the principle, then your post was written by an AI

 

[Clare73]

If that is the principle, then your post was written by an AI

Who made that rule?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Who made that rule?

You did, you said that the claim stands until proven untrue.

 

[Clare73]

You did, you said that the claim stands until proven untrue.

And?

 

[bling]

...

 

[bling]

Human reasoning again. . .

We are talking about God's Love, which He defines with everything Christ said and did, plus we have 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4.
So my realize God's Love is the epitome of Love (beyond human logic), is because that is the way it is defined. You are saying: "God only "Loves" some people, whom He enables/draws and does not Love others who are no different from the one He enables/draws, so he does not "enable/draw" them. Which is totally contrary to God definition of Love and God being Love. Who is being unreasonable?

 

[bling]

Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God at the expanse of His love. Arminians emphasize the love of God at the expanse of His sovereignty.

As in the most of cases, the truth is in the middle, in the perfect balance between the two qualities of God.

There is no "balance" (compromise) needed, God is the epitome of Love and totally sovereign.

 

[Clare73]

We are talking about God's Love, which He defines with everything Christ said and did, plus we have 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4.
So my realize God's Love is the epitome of Love (beyond human logic), is because that is the way it is defined. You are saying: "God only "Loves" some people, whom He enables/draws and does not Love others who are no different from the one He enables/draws, so he does not "enable/draw" them. Which is totally contrary to God definition of Love and God being Love. Who is being unreasonable?

What is God's definition of love and God being love. . .keeping in mind that he condemns people (Jn 3:18)?

 

[bling]

What is God's definition of love and God being love. . .keeping in mind that he condemns people (Jn 3:18)?

I gave you above: "He defines with everything Christ said and did, plus we have 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4."
People condemn themselves. I think I know what you are getting at though, so briefly:
All mature adults are given the free will opportunity to humbly accept or reject God's Love in the form of forgiveness. What happens is, most mature adults refuse to the point that there is nothing more God could do to help them accept His help (Love) as pure undeserved charity, of their own free will (since that is the only way to get it). We cannot tell when a person reaches this sad point, but God can, so from that point on they would never accept God's charity and thus take on a lesser objective of helping those who still have the ability to accept.
People who reject God's Love/charity/grace/mercy/forgiveness and would never of their own free will accept it, would not be happy in heaven where there is no carnal love and only Godly type Love. God and all of us hate this fact and Love these people, but would not force them to stay in heaven.

 

[trophy33]

There is no "balance" (compromise) needed, God is the epitome of Love and totally sovereign.

Which means He is balanced.

 

[jonojim1337]

Predestination means that God knew what you would do, he did what he could for you, and fashioned you into a vessel for noble or ignoble purpose.

 

[jonojim1337]

We shall not judge how God forms his vessels but he is true to his Name and we can find assurance in that.

I haven't fully understood what form the wicked will inhabit after the Judgement.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And?

And you need to prove untrue whatever claim is made by anyone who disagrees with you, right?

For example, all angels wear varying shades of pink clothing including white as a shade of very very pale pink, prove that wrong

 

[jonojim1337]

And you need to prove untrue whatever claim is made by anyone who disagrees with you, right?

For example, all angels wear varying shades of pink clothing including white as a shade of very very pale pink, prove that wrong

The angels serve only those who receive salvation. Hard truth.

 

[Clare73]

And you need to prove untrue whatever claim is made by anyone who disagrees with you, right?

For example, all angels wear varying shades of pink clothing including white as a shade of very very pale pink, prove that wrong

It has no basis in Scripture.

Now you get to prove that wrong.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It has no basis in Scripture.

Now you get to prove that wrong.

It is a fact (wink) that every colour name in Hebrew and in Greek is a variant of pink!

 

[Clare73]

It is a fact (wink) that every colour name in Hebrew and in Greek is a variant of pink!

Book, chapter and verse of the Bible, the only authority for Biblical truth?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Book, chapter and verse of the Bible, the only authority for Biblical truth?

No, that is just your theology. Give book, chapter, and verse that teaches that the bible is the only authority for "biblical truth".

 

[Clare73]

No, that is just your theology. Give book, chapter, and verse that teaches that the bible is the only authority for "biblical truth".

Grammar: by definition, it's not "biblical" if the Bible does not present it.

Logic: if the Bible presents it, it is Biblical truth.

Nomenclature: its name: biblical truth.

Biblical truth may not disagree with other truth but, by definition, that truth is not "Biblical" truth.