PCE and Double Predestination...

[Der Alte]

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16
"Low I come in the volume of the book it is written of me..." Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7
If you think "words of Christ" give precedence over "words of Paul" you are mistaken because it's all "the Word of God"!
So if you don't understand how to reconcile those passages; maybe it would be wiser to get out a concordance and start digging to figure it out instead of "brushing the dust off your feet".

You are correct "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness. I do know how to reconcile scripture, you don't! You demonstrate this by making the words of Paul supersede the very words of Jesus. As I said, if there is a seeming, i.e. not actual, discrepancy between the words of Jesus, and the words of any other writer in the Bible it absolutely must be resolved in favor of Jesus. Your interpretation does not do this. Ergo you do not know how to reconcile scripture. Instead you force scripture to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignore the word of Jesus.
I have two editions of Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon in my "library" a print edition I bought for seminary about 3 decades ago and an electronic edition I purchased within the past 2 years. How many lexicons do you own?
FYI you would use a Greek grammar for reconciliation, not a lexicon. Just sayin'! I can point you to both online.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You are correct "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness. I do know how to reconcile scripture, you don't! You demonstrate this by making the words of Paul supersede the very words of Jesus. As I said, if there is a seeming, i.e. not actual, discrepancy between the words of Jesus, and the words of any other writer in the Bible it absolutely must be resolved in favor of Jesus. Your interpretation does not do this. Ergo you do not know how to reconcile scripture. Instead you force scripture to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignore the word of Jesus.
I have two editions of Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon in my "library" a print edition I bought for seminary about 3 decades ago and an electronic edition I purchased within the past 2 years. How many lexicons do you own?

Oh, I think I have about 6 different lexicons (including two to three Greek grammar ones), 4 different concordances, a total of four different interlinear Bibles and this does not include the on-line resources I use too. I have probably at least a dozen on-line resources; and than there's the historical / archeology / cultural resources I use.

So if you want to get into a "Bible resource pizzing contest" - I'd probably win!

Now what does it mean to "reconcile Scripture". If God is the final author of everything in the Bible how does John 3:16 reconcile with Romans 9:13?

Your presupposition is that because John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world..." you conclude that means God loves every single human being ever born; yet you can't reconcile that belief to the passages that say God hated Esau.

So your version of reconciling is to say: "Well what Jesus said has more weight than what Paul (or Malachi) said." Which looses sight of the fact that Paul and Malachi wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit which are actually also the words of Christ!

So Jesus said "God so loved the world" and Jesus also said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" and you are obviously at a loss of how to reconcile those two statements.

So let's take a look at John 3:16 for a minute. "For God so loved the world.." The word "world" there is actually the word "cosmos". It's not the word "inhabitant" as is seen in "A decree went out from Augustus Caesar that all the world be taxed". The word "world" there is not the word "cosmos". Obviously Caesar didn't tax the people in the Americas, or China.

Now the Holy Spirit could have inspired John to write "For God so loved the inhabitance...." But that isn't what that passages says. The Greek word used there is the word "cosmos". So what does it mean that "God so loved the cosmos..."?

Well, we get one answer to that in that the creation is part of the redemption plan. "The creation groans and travails...." Romans 8:22

So, let's move onto a "practical" question related to 'the love of God". If God loves someone who ends up in the Lake of Fire; what measure of quality of love is that?

Next question: If Jesus paid for someone's sin and they end up in the Lake of Fire to pay for their own sin; we got some major theological issues!
1. Christ's atonement was insufficient.
2. At least in relation to those who end up in the Lake of Fire; Christ died in vain.
3. Jesus is a liar because he says "All that the Father gives me will come and I will loose nothing, but will raise (it / him) up on the last day." John 6:39, John 6:40, John 6:44
4. If Jesus paid for someone's sin and they pay for their own sin; that's two people paying for the sin of one and even in human courts - that's not justice!

So now; how to reconcile these passages? Other than to conclude that Christ did not atone for every single human being that ever lived.

Now on to Romans 9:13 what does "hated" in "Esau have I hated" mean?

I've heard some people argue: "it means love less". Which again would bring us back to the question of what is the quality of the measure of "love" that's "less"? If "love less" means condemnation than.... what kind of love is that? I love my kid; but I let him go play in the traffic on the freeway! (Yeah... that kind of love would have CPS taking my kid away from me!)

So "hated" there in the Greek does not mean "love less". It actually means "to have no regard for". We often think of "hate" as something that expends emotional energy. But if someone has come to the point of "having no regard" for someone else; they just "don't care" what happens to them. In human terms we call that apathy.

Now obviously we also know "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". (Ezekiel 33:11) But God is not troubled by His own Divine prerogative to determine who He will redeem and who He doesn't. Humanity struggles with God's choices because it doesn't "seem fair" to us. Yet, if we got what was "fair" we'd all be in the Lake of Fire. This is why it's His MERCY that He saves some! (Not His obligation.)

Now if you are an adherent to arminian doctrine that believes whether or not God chose you, is determined on you "accepting" / "choosing" or some exercise of your human will that "allows" God to redeem you. You have now made your redemption God's obligation. Then it's a works gospel because it's dependent on something you did.

Jesus aint up in heaven wringing His hands waiting for any of us to "accept" Him!

God is the proverbial gorilla in the cosmic living room. He does what He wants!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

You are correct "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness. I do know how to reconcile scripture, you don't! You demonstrate this by making the words of Paul supersede the very words of Jesus. As I said, if there is a seeming, i.e. not actual, discrepancy between the words of Jesus, and the words of any other writer in the Bible it absolutely must be resolved in favor of Jesus. Your interpretation does not do this. Ergo you do not know how to reconcile scripture. Instead you force scripture to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignore the word of Jesus.
I have two editions of Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon in my "library" a print edition I bought for seminary about 3 decades ago and an electronic edition I purchased within the past 2 years. How many lexicons do you own?
FYI you would use a Greek grammar for reconciliation, not a lexicon. Just sayin'! I can point you to both online.

ditto I have Bauer 2nd edition hardbound and the new BDAG in Logos electronically.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Oh, I think I have about 6 different lexicons, including two to three Greek grammar ones, 4 different concordances, a total of four different interlinear Bibles and this does not include the on-line resources I use too. I have probably at least a dozen on-line resources; and than there's the historical / archeology / cultural resources I use.

So if you want to get into a "Bible resource pizzing contest" - I'd probably win!

Now what does it mean to "reconcile Scripture". If God is the final author of everything in the Bible how does John 3:16 reconcile with Romans 9:13?

Your presupposition is that because John 3:16 says "For God so loved the word..." you conclude that means God loves every single human being ever born; yet you can't reconcile that belief to the passages that say God hated Esau.

So your version of reconciling is to say: "Well what Jesus said has more weight than what Paul (or Malachi) said." Which looses sight of the fact that Paul and Malachi wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit which are actually also the words of Christ!

So Jesus said "God so loved the world" and Jesus also said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" and you are obviously at a loss of how to reconcile those two statements.

So let's take a look at John 3:16 for a minute. "For God so loved the world.." The word "world" there is actually the word "cosmos". It's not the word "inhabitant" as is seen in "A decree went out from Augustus Caesar that all the world be taxed". The word "world" there is not the word "cosmos". Obviously Caesar didn't tax the people in the Americas, or China.

Now the Holy Spirit could have inspired John to write "For God so loved the inhabitance...." But that isn't what that passages says. The Greek word used there is the word "cosmos". So what does it mean that "God so loved the cosmos..."?

Well, we get one answer to that in that the creation is part of the redemption plan. "The creation groans and travails...." Romans 8:22

So, let's move onto a "practical" question related to 'the love of God". If God loves someone who ends up in the Lake of Fire; what measure of quality of love is that?

Next question: If Jesus paid for someone's sin and they end up in the Lake of Fire to pay for their own sin; we got some major theological issues!
1. Christ's atonement was insufficient.
2. At least in relation to those who end up in the Lake of Fire; Christ died in vain.
3. Jesus is a liar because he says "All that the Father gives me will come and I will loose nothing, but will raise (it / him) up on the last day." John 6:39, John 6:40, John 6:44
4. If Jesus paid for someone's sin and they pay for their own sin; that's two people paying for the sin of one and even in human courts - that's not justice!

So now; how to reconcile these passages? Other than to conclude that Christ did not atone for every single human being that ever lived.

Now on to Romans 9:13 what does "hated" in "Esau have I hated" mean?

I've heard some people argue: "it means love less". Which again would bring us back to the question of what is the quality of the measure of "love" that's "less"? If "love less" means condemnation than.... what kind of love is that? I love my kid; but I let him go play in the traffic on the freeway! (Yeah... that kind of love would have CPS taking my kid away from me!)

So "hated" there in the Greek does not mean "love less". It actually means "to have no regard for". We often think of "hate" as something that expends emotional energy. But if someone has come to the point of "having no regard" for someone else; they just "don't care" what happens to them. In human terms we call that apathy.

Now obviously we also know "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". (Ezekiel 33:11) But God is not troubled by His own Divine prerogative to determine who He will redeem and who He doesn't. Humanity struggles with God's choices because it doesn't "seem fair" to us. Yet, if we got what was "fair" we'd all be in the Lake of Fire. This is why it's His MERCY that He saves some! (Not His obligation.)

Now if you are an adherent to arminian doctrine that believes whether or not God chose you, is determined on you "accepting" / "choosing" or some exercise of your human will that "allows" God to redeem you. You have now made your redemption God's obligation. Then it's a works gospel because it's dependent on something you did.

Jesus aint up in heaven wringing His hands waiting for any of us to "accept" Him!

God is the proverbial gorilla in the cosmic living room. He does what He wants!

NT:3404- strongs

NT:3404 ‎mise/w ‎miseo (mis-eh'-o); from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)



NT:3404

NT:3404 mise/w, ‎misw=‎; imperfect ‎e)mi/soun‎; future ‎mish/sw‎; 1 aorist ‎e)mi/shsa‎; perfect ‎memi/shka‎; passive, present participle ‎misoumeno$‎; perfect participle ‎memishmeno$ ‎(Rev 18:2); the Sept. for an@c*‎; (from Homer down); to hate, pursue with hatred, detest; passive to be hated, detested: ‎tina‎, Matt 5:43 and Rec. in 44; 24:10; Luke 1:71; 6:22,27; 19:14; John 7:7; 15:18ff, 23-25; 17:14; Titus 3:3; 1 John 2:9 (11); 3:13,15; 4:20; Rev 17:16; passive, Matt 10:22; 24:9; (Mark 13:13); Luke 21:17; ‎ti/‎: John 3:20; Rev 7:15; Eph 5:29; Heb 1:9; Jude 23; Rev 2:6 and Rec. in 15; passive Rev 18:2. Not a few interpreters have attributed to ‎misei=n ‎in Gen 29:31 (cf. Gen 29:30); Deut 21:15; Matt 6:24; Luke 14:26; 16:13; (John 12:25); Rom 9:13, the signification to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight, through oversight of the circumstance that 'the Orientals, in accordance with their greater excitability, are accustomed both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals, with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing'; Fritzsche, Commentary on Romans, ii., p. 304; cf. Rückert, Magazin f. Exegese u. Theologie des N. T., p. 27ff*

(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

BDAG also agrees with the above I will site it with Romans 9:13.

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Righterzpen]

NT:3404- strongs

NT:3404 ‎mise/w ‎miseo (mis-eh'-o); from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

NT:3404

NT:3404 mise/w, ‎misw=‎; imperfect ‎e)mi/soun‎; future ‎mish/sw‎; 1 aorist ‎e)mi/shsa‎; perfect ‎memi/shka‎; passive, present participle ‎misoumeno$‎; perfect participle ‎memishmeno$ ‎(Rev 18:2); the Sept. for an@c*‎; (from Homer down); to hate, pursue with hatred, detest; passive to be hated, detested: ‎tina‎, Matt 5:43 and Rec. in 44; 24:10; Luke 1:71; 6:22,27; 19:14; John 7:7; 15:18ff, 23-25; 17:14; Titus 3:3; 1 John 2:9 (11); 3:13,15; 4:20; Rev 17:16; passive, Matt 10:22; 24:9; (Mark 13:13); Luke 21:17; ‎ti/‎: John 3:20; Rev 7:15; Eph 5:29; Heb 1:9; Jude 23; Rev 2:6 and Rec. in 15; passive Rev 18:2. Not a few interpreters have attributed to ‎misei=n ‎in Gen 29:31 (cf. Gen 29:30); Deut 21:15; Matt 6:24; Luke 14:26; 16:13; (John 12:25); Rom 9:13, the signification to love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight, through oversight of the circumstance that 'the Orientals, in accordance with their greater excitability, are accustomed both to feel and to profess love and hate where we Occidentals, with our cooler temperament, feel and express nothing more than interest in, or disregard and indifference to a thing'; Fritzsche, Commentary on Romans, ii., p. 304; cf. Rückert, Magazin f. Exegese u. Theologie des N. T., p. 27ff*

(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, PC Study Bible formatted Electronic Database. Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

BDAG also agrees with the above I will site it with Romans 9:13.

hope this helps !!!

If God "loves Esau less" than what is the quality of that love if God detests and persecutes him?

How is that "love"; even if it is "lesser love"?

Are Lexicons and dictionaries infallible? Do they bear the same weight as comparing Scripture to Scripture?

Yet even the dictionary you quoted speaks of "disregard" and "indifference" as "alternate translation possibilities".

So what makes more sense to the context of redemption, as opposed to facing God's wrath (as to God's relational position to the Lake of Fire bound sinner); to "love less" or "indifference"?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

If God "loves Esau less" than what is the quality of that love if God detests and persecutes him?

How is that "love"; even if it is "lesser love"?

Are Lexicons and dictionaries infallible? Do they bear the same weight as comparing Scripture to Scripture?

Yet even the dictionary you quoted speaks of "disregard" and "indifference" as "alternate translation possibilities".

Well since you are " Reformed " and have all the lexicons and Greek grammars you should be very familiar with these 2 renown Greek Grammarians/Scholars who are Reformed/Calvinists and Mounces Greek Grammar is used in seminary.


I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.

Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).

Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.

13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.

The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 356–357.


So the Greek Lexicons and Greek Grammarians who are reformed refute your position and interpretation. They can be unbiased whereas you let your "calvinism" dictate the interpretation.

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well since you are " Reformed " and have all the lexicons and Greek grammars you should be very familiar with these 2 renown Greek Grammarians/Scholars who are Reformed/Calvinists and Mounces Greek Grammar is used in seminary.


I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.

Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).

Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).

Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.

13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.

The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 356–357.


So the Greek Lexicons and Greek Grammarians who are reformed refute your position and interpretation. They can be unbiased whereas you let your "calvinism" dictate the interpretation.

hope this helps !!!

Again, you didn't answer the question.

What quality of "love" does God "love less" of someone who ends up in the Lake of Fire? (Keep in mind the Lake of Fire demonstrates the wrath of God.)

Do you think God is crying / or will be crying over anyone who ends up in the Lake of Fire; because He "loves them less"?

Seems to me "indifference" as the meaning of that word fits better!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Again, you didn't answer the question.

What quality of "love" does God "love less" of someone who ends up in the Lake of Fire? (Keep in mind the Lake of Fire demonstrates the wrath of God.)

Do you think God is crying / or will be crying over anyone who ends up in the Lake of Fire; because He "loves them less"?

Seems to me "indifference" as the meaning of that word fits better!

They choose to love their sin and themselves more than God hence they end up in hell by their own will. Not by Gods assignment to hell before the creation of the world.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Der Alte]

* * * Your presupposition is that because John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world..." you conclude that means God loves every single human being ever born; yet you can't reconcile that belief to the passages that say God hated Esau. * * *

Typical false theology scripture twisting. What did Esau do that he should not have done and when did God say He hated Esau before or after that?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Typical false theology scripture twisting. What did Esau do that he should not have done and when did God say He hated Esau before or after that?

You neglected to address the issue; is it not true that your presupposition is that you conclude "God so loved the word....." to mean that He loved every single human being ever created?

Yet you also fail to address the issue that "whosoever believes" contextualizes the "love the world" as it applies to the human population. The "whosoever" is the qualifier of those that are loved.

Now what actually is the process that brings about how the "whosoever" that believe actually believe is another nuance to the overall question of how does one become born again.

 

[The Righterzpen]

They choose to love their sin and themselves more than God hence they end up in hell by their own will. Not by Gods assignment to hell before the creation of the world.

hope this helps !!!

Yes, they chose (of their own will that is enslaved to sin because of the fall) to love their sin and themselves more than God. And yes, it is true; God did not "assign" them to hell; they "assigned" themselves there. The punishment received is the wages of their sin.

There is no such thing as "double predestination" because this state is the natural outcome of fallen sinners. "There are none righteous no not one......" Romans 3

"Predestination before the foundation of the world" only applies to the elect. For again, if it was not for God's electing grace; all would be condemned - and RIGHTFULLY condemned!

The entire human race (including you who seem to believe you somehow had enough righteousness in your own will to "trigger" God to enact redemption upon you); deserves eternal condemnation.

Now correct me upon your own individual conviction; if you do indeed understand that you are entitled to God's wrath!

 

[Der Alte]

You neglected to address the issue; is it not true that your presupposition is that you conclude "God so loved the word....." to mean that He loved every single human being ever created?
Yet you also fail to address the issue that "whosoever believes" contextualizes the "love the world" as it applies to the human population. The "whosoever" is the qualifier of those that are loved.
Now what actually is the process that brings about how the "whosoever" that believe actually believe is another nuance to the overall question of how does one become born again.

Nonsense! I appreciate your efforts to translate English for me but I have been speaking English since FDR was president and do not require any translation or explanation what anything in English "really means."
Is the word "loved" in John 3:16 present or past tense?

 

[The Righterzpen]

I appreciate your efforts to translate English for me but I have been speaking English since FDR was president and do not require any translation or explanation what anything in English "really means."
Is the word "loved" in John 3:16 present or past tense?

I did't "translate" anything in English. I asked you a question. Do you believe "God so loved the world" means that God loved every single human being that was ever created?

That's a "yes" or "no" question! (No translation involved.)

And as far as whether or not "loved" is past or present tense; what difference would that make? God is outside of time and we know that those who are elect were elect before the foundation of the world. So....

 

[Der Alte]

I did't "translate" anything in English. I asked you a question. Do you believe "God so loved the world" means that God loved every single human being that was ever created?
That's a "yes" or "no" question!
And as far as whether or not "loved" is past or present tense; what difference would that make? God is outside of time.

I have already explained fully how I understand John 3:16 in this thread. Look it up.
God is outside of time but people aren't.
I wonder how the first century Christians understood John 3:16?

 

[TedT]

There is no such thing as "double predestination" because this state is the natural outcome of fallen sinners

Double predestination means they were passed over for salvation BEFORE the foundation of the world (as you have said) BEFORE their creation (as you have implied) WITHOUT any reference to decisions they made as sinners...(as you said.)

 

[The Righterzpen]

Double predestination means they were passed over for salvation BEFORE the foundation of the world (as you have said) BEFORE their creation (as you have implied) WITHOUT any reference to decisions they made as sinners...(as you said.)

ELECTION (not double predestination) means the non-elect were passed over for salvation BEFORE the foundation of the world. BEFORE their creation. WITHOUT any reference to decisions they made as sinners.

This is true.

Now do you know why?

 

[The Righterzpen]

I have already explained fully how I understand John 3:16 in this thread. Look it up.

Matthew 5:37

God is outside of time but people aren't.

And do tell; how is it that people being within time, affects decisions God made outside of time?

I wonder how the first century Christians understood John 3:16?

Through the context of the rest of Scripture.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Yes, they chose (of their own will that is enslaved to sin because of the fall) to love their sin and themselves more than God. And yes, it is true; God did not "assign" them to hell; they "assigned" themselves there. The punishment received is the wages of their sin.

There is no such thing as "double predestination" because this state is the natural outcome of fallen sinners. "There are none righteous no not one......" Romans 3

"Predestination before the foundation of the world" only applies to the elect. For again, if it was not for God's electing grace; all would be condemned - and RIGHTFULLY condemned!

The entire human race (including you who seem to believe you somehow had enough righteousness in your own will to "trigger" God to enact redemption upon you); deserves eternal condemnation.

Now correct me upon your own individual conviction; if you do indeed understand that you are entitled to God's wrath!

How are believers entitled to Gods wrath ? That falls on unbelievers. Any more fallacious arguments ?

And predestination outside of calvinism teaches God predestined people, not individuals. The church as in believers or Israel as a people/nation.

hope this helps !!!

 

[rwb]

Double predestination in my humble opinion makes no sense! On the other hand predestination can be biblically proven. Why would it be necessary for God to predestine some to destruction, since before creation He knows every human is destined to be destroyed? Isn't that why God needed to predestine a people for Himself in the first place?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Double predestination in my humble opinion makes no sense! On the other hand predestination can be biblically proven. Why would it be necessary for God to predestine some to destruction, since before creation He knows every human is destined to be destroyed? Isn't that why God needed to predestine a people for Himself in the first place?

Calvin taught man are in 2 camps. Those predetermined/predestined to salvation or destruction before creation. Man can only do what was predetermined by God. So God chose most humanity for hell/eternal torment and a few for salvation. They use Jesus words you did not choose Me but I chose you. No one has a free will to choose God. God must draw/drag you first to Him ( against your will ) and regenerate you prior to belief and repentance. This is Calvinism 101 and I taught this for over 4 decades and its wrong. If God is really Love then calvinism is wrong. They will also elevate Gods hate above His love. They focus on the negative aspects of God to defend their beliefs.

In fact in both the Institutes of Calvin and the WCF Gods is Love is missing from the list of Gods attributes. Its obvious why if God is truly Love then their doctrines in tulip and double predestination collapse. Those doctrines are the exact opposite of love.

hope this helps !!!