Pre-Destination?

[lands21]

Does Pre-Destination exsist or not? Are we saved or comdemmed long before we are born? Does God have a book of life with names of his saved children already written in it?

Thoughts and versus please!

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Romans 8:28 And we know that all good things work together for good to them that [agape] love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did predestinate to be comformed to the image of His Son, That He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and who He called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

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

Eph 1:4 According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. 5 Having predestinated us unto sonship by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 To the praise of the glory of His grace[verb], wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved 7 In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of trespasses , according to the riches of His grace; 8 Wherein He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: 10 That in this dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather in one all things by thee Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in Him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the determintive of His own desireous will:


2 tim 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,


Gotta love scripture

 

[Gamecock]

Predestination is clearly taught in Scripture.

The better question is what is meant by election. Some will hold that it is God's Soveriegn choice, while others believe in man's free will.

God is sovereign, what else can I say?

 

[Zorobabel]

There's really not much to add. Any systematic theology (I use that by definition and not as a term) will bring you to that conclusion.

 

[rnmomof7]

Does Pre-Destination exsist or not? Are we saved or comdemmed long before we are born? Does God have a book of life with names of his saved children already written in it?

Thoughts and versus please!

All men are born worthy of condemnation.They are not condemned arbitrarily.

God has selected according to His good pleasure to save some men and allow others to feel the judgment of God.

God know the name of every elect child .

Isa 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine.

 

[Received]

All men are born worthy of condemnation.They are not condemned arbitrarily.

I don't understand. If men are born worthy of condemnation, why does God create them? Is not the man slave to sin? Did not Jesus come to save man from his sins (Matt. 1:21), and not some faulty view of divine eschatological judgment?

I simply don't understand how you can hold such a view while simultaneously holding God to righteous, including the fact that man cannot seek God in his own power once grace has been registered to the human being in question. This is not the God idealized in the face of Jesus; and therefore not an interpretation that I hold as worthy of His name.

I don't understand.

Also, I read plainly in 1 Peter 1:2 that God elects in accordance with His foreknowledge. As I have argued in previous threads, this immediately causes a shift in momentum from unconditional election to limited atonement and irresistible grace, for it makes it clear that God's election does not necessarily negate man's freedom.

 

[Scotticusprime]

Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory"

This scripture is useful when trying to wrap your head around this idea. I think because our thinking is linear and limited by space/time, we cannot grasp the two seemingly opposite ideas that God has mercy on whoever calls on him, but also that he created some to be destroyed.

 

[Received]

Hermeneutics does not justify our common understanding of Justice. God never changes (Malachi 3:6). What rnmomof7 revealed to us as orthodoxy does indeed externalize in our minds as injustice; and injustice it stays. I therefore warrant that the claim that men are condemned and therefore worthy of an eternal Hell as unscriptural, and choose instead to hold what Paul seems quite naturally to teach: that men are condemned before the law; that is, before the divine inscribement of perfection as filtered through His perfection -- for this is precisely what the law is: a revelation of God given in tangible form of Himself. Conclusively, I do not believe the claim that human beings deserve an everlasting torment estranged from the Good by nature of being who they are: imperfect. Such imperfection arises not from their wills but the inevitable continuation of human imperfection through the hereditary exchange of sin. In short, I find a God who creates such men, being imperfect, and blames them for not being what they are by nature cannot be, utterly unacceptable. Man is a slave to sin; and sin is congenital. Indeed, as the brilliant rumination of C.S. Lewis would have it, there is no use in saying that God is going to throw us in Hell; for there is something in us that will in itself be Hell unless nipped in the bud. This is where Christ comes in; and this is where I find reason that men are not condemned because they are born, but because they reject their chance at freely offered salvation. Men cannot help being sinners, though they can help it in light of the contingency of repentance, and this, we all know, comes only through special revelation (Romans 10:14,15) -- such is not in our powers to wield.

Do we hear throughout scripture that God cannot do evil? I believe we do (James 1:13). For the divine voluntarist's position to be true, the claim that God cannot commit evil must logically follow with the absurd conclusion that evil is whatever God does not will -- that is to say, God cannot do what He does not do (this is absurd); for voluntarism states that goodness is based on the will of God, rather than His immutable nature. My position -- the more commonly held view of divine essentialism -- states that God's will is not the determinate factor in our understanding of perfection, but this undestanding finds its basis in His immutable nature. What this all means is that our understanding of perfection has nothing to do with our agreement with God's will -- that is to say, whether we are sinners or saints --, but with our simple creation in His image, and our minds being written with a law of perfection in our minds, as Paul argues in Romans 2. Therefore, to claim that a simple revelation through Romans 9 is indeed sufficient evidence to justify the seeming injustice in our minds is absurd, and repugnant to me. In logic, this is called theologism -- taking one single scripture and universalizing what the remainder seems to contradict.

I find therefore that our conception of Romans 9 is faulty, rather than our sense of justice. I have made an argument against the common calvinistic interpretation in a previous thread, which I bring to your attention now:

The question, "who resists His will?" is not an affirmation made by Paul, but a question raised by opposition (theologian Thomas Talbott would claim that these were the Jewish theologians who limited God's grace, just like the calvinist theologians now!), from the mouth of an objector.

Note the introductory phrase: "One of you will say to me"! Even greater evidence is founded in the very next verse, when Paul clearly rejects the objector's stance: "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). The question raised in this context does not refer to God's wilfull withholding of salvation for some, but refers (oh so very interestingly) to the opposition in question; such men were very well the ones who wanted to limit God's grace. It is the freely offered grace of God here that causes the scandel regarding the oppositionist questioning, and not the center of Paul's theology.

Thomas Talbott states thus in reference to Romans 9:14-16:

"Why, first of all, did a question concerning justice even arise in the present context? Was it because Paul really did accept a seemingly unjust doctrine of limited election? Clearly not. It was Paul's opponents, not Paul, who believed in limited election; his opponents would have seen no injustice, for example, in the election of Isaac and Jacob, or even in a literal interpretation of "I have hated Esau." It was not this reminder of history, in other words, that motivated the question about injustice; it was rather the implication in Paul's teaching that election depends not upon physical decent from Abraham (9:6--8) and not upon works (9:12), but upon God's sovereign mercy alone (9:16).... "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion,"...is an idiotmatic expression that stresses not the indeterminacy of God's mercy, as some Augustinians have supposed, but rather its intensity and assuredness. As one Old Testament scholar, Fredrick Bush, has pointed out, "the meaning that the expression is normally given in English, i.e. an arbitrary expression of God's free, sovereign will, makes almost no sense in the context" of Exodus 33:19, where it is a revelation of the very name, or essence, or goodness of God. It is, says BUsh, "equivalent to 'I am indeed the one who is gracious and merciful.'""

Again, our conception of justice has nothing to do with our soteriological stance in reference to God. It is a good in and of itself. Therefore, my position stands. The heart cannot accept what the mind rejects; and this is why I do not accept this doctrine.

 

[Received]

What I mean by all this, I should add, is that the context of Romans 9, and Paul's response to the audience in question, is not in the context of limited grace, but in inclusive grace. It is the audience that considers it a scandel for God to limit His election; it is Paul who states, "who are you to answer to God?" in response to such a statement.

I still am hard-pressed to choose between which interpretation regarding the rejection of Esau and acceptance of Jacob is sufficient for me. The Geisler/F.F. Bruce position holds that this is not a reference to the individuals at all, but to the nations; a more radical view, posed by Thomas Talbott, states that the context of Romans 9 does indeed refer to individuals, but has no reference to salvation. Talbott's reasoning is interesting, for he says that the Old Testament appears to imply otherwise than Esau's condemnation, considering the compassionate embrace they held following their seperation.

 

[rnmomof7]

I don't understand. If men are born worthy of condemnation, why does God create them? Is not the man slave to sin? Did not Jesus come to save man from his sins (Matt. 1:21), and not some faulty view of divine eschatological judgment?

Why did God create Adam and Eve? He knew they would rebel and sin.

The problem in the church today as I see it Received, is well demonstrated by your reply. Men think they are worthy of Gods love and salvation.If they are worthy there is no Mercy on Gods part.

I have heard over and over that God made men to love them, implying that men were made because God was not content within Himself..that he "needed" something .

The actually is God made man to show His glory. God is glorified by His Love and his mercy , he is also glorified by His holiness by His Judgment and Justice.


God creates the some men to salvation and some men to damnation , both give Him glory .

Creation is not all about man.

There is no one born that "worthy " All men are under sin and there forth condemnation .

I come back to the points I have made with you before (I believe)

1) If Jesus died for all the sins of all men ...then we have a Universal salvation

2)If Jesus paid the price and bore the wrath of God for all the sins of all the men , then God is an unjust Judge as He is asking men to pay for their sins that were paid for at the cross.

3) If Jesus only paid the price for those He foresaw Believing , then God has created some men for damnation knowing that these men would never choose Christ. (the accusation usually held against Calvinists)

4) If it is Gods desire that all men be saved then we have a powerless God, that can not achieve His will, and there fore man is more powerful than God.

I simply don't understand how you can hold such a view while simultaneously holding God to righteous, including the fact that man cannot seek God in his own power once grace has been registered to the human being in question. This is not the God idealized in the face of Jesus; and therefore not an interpretation that I hold as worthy of His name.

It is because of His righteousness that all men deserve damnation .
Not one man can stand in the Presence of God.
He is so offended by the sin of man that the only one that could assuage that anger is Himself .
It is His very righteousness that demands the damnation of all men .
Yet he has decided to save some from their sin because His Mercy will glorify Him.


No man seeks after God. No man understands the gospel , men are born with wills that desire to do their own will not Gods.

Rom 3:10**
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

**
*
Rom 3:11**
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

**
*
Rom 3:12**
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Mercy means give without merit.

I don't understand.

Also, I read plainly in 1 Peter 1:2 that God elects in accordance with His foreknowledge. As I have argued in previous threads, this immediately causes a shift in momentum from unconditional election to limited atonement and irresistible grace, for it makes it clear that God's election does not necessarily negate man's freedom.

God foreknows every one of His creatures.

Would you say that God did not "foreordain" Jesus that He simply saw that Jesus was a man that chose to be the savior?

Act 2:23**
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

2. foreknowledge foreordaining love ( 1Pe 1:20 ), inseparable from God's foreknowledge, the origin from which, and pattern according to which, election takes place. Act 2:23 , and Rom 11:2 , prove "foreknowledge" to be foreordination. God's foreknowledge is not the perception of any ground of action out of Himself; still in it liberty is comprehended, and all absolute constraint debarred [ANSELM in STEIGER]. For so the Son of God was "foreknown" (so the Greek for "foreordained," 1Pe 1:20 ) to be the sacrificial Lamb, not against, or without His will, but His will rested in the will of the Father; this includes self-conscious action; nay, even cheerful acquiescense. The Hebrew and Greek "know" include approval and acknowledging as one's own. The Hebrew marks the oneness of loving and choosing, by having one word for both, bachar (Greek, "hairetizo," Septuagint). Peter descends from the eternal "election" of God through the new birth, to the believer's "sanctification," that from this he might again raise them through the consideration of their new birth to a "living hope" of the heavenly "inheritance" [HEIDEGGER]. The divine three are introduced in their respective functions in redemption.


Now if you want to grip your right over Gods will by your intelligent choice , good luck or personally worth or holiness you must keep in mind

If it is salvation by foreknowledge then we have a completely work based salvation.

God looks down and sees a man choose him , so he rewards that choice by paying him the wage due for that smart choice. It is a salvation earned without grace.

It also makes no sense that there would be a need for God to "elect" a man that he already chose him..

 

[rnmomof7]

Hermeneutics does not justify our common understanding of Justice. God never changes (Malachi 3:6). What rnmomof7 revealed to us as orthodoxy does indeed externalize in our minds as injustice; and injustice it stays.

It was the Justice of God that drown men, women , children AND INFANTS , that He declared even infants EVIL

*
*
Gen 6:5**
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

**
*
Gen 6:6**
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

**
*
Gen 6:7**
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

He also declared the women , children and INFANTS wicked in Sodom and rained fire down on them

Gen 13:13**
But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.


*
*
Job 15:15**
Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

**
*
Job 15:16**
How much more abominable and filthy [is] man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Job 15:17**
I will shew thee, hear me; and that [which] I have seen I will declare;


The Justice of God never changes, He hates sin, It can not reside in His presence.He is glorified by the destruction of the evil
**
*
Isa 1:9**
Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

I therefore warrant that the claim that men are condemned and therefore worthy of an eternal Hell as unscriptural, and choose instead to hold what Paul seems quite naturally to teach: that men are condemned before the law; that is, before the divine inscribement of perfection as filtered through His perfection -- for this is precisely what the law is: a revelation of God given in tangible form of Himself.

The Law is the character of God, and NO MAN can keep it.

The Law condemns man and shows that he can never keep it and he is worthy of condemnation.

Why was Jesus needed if men are born sinless.

Can you name one man that lived a sinless man ? Surely if men are not born sinners , then there must be at least one.

I would refer you to Hebrews 7

Heb. 7:8-10.

"Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

We were in the loins of Adam

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Conclusively, I do not believe the claim that human beings deserve an everlasting torment estranged from the Good by nature of being who they are: imperfect. Such imperfection arises not from their wills but the inevitable continuation of human imperfection through the hereditary exchange of sin.

Are you suggesting that men are the victims of sin?



Our spiritual death is characterized as making us incapable of fearing God's judgment (Rom. 3:18), of seeking God (Rom. 3:11), of understanding the things of the Spirit of God (Rom. 3:11; 1 Cor. 2:14), of knowing the way of peace (Rom. 3:17). Under this death we only seek after the world (Eph. 2:2), the spirit of Satan (Eph. 2:2), and to satisfy fleshly lust (Eph. 2:3). Furthermore our carnal mind is enmity with God (Rom. 8:7) and we cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). All of our works are verily wickedness (Gal. 5:19-21).

In short, I find a God who creates such men, being imperfect, and blames them for not being what they are by nature cannot be, utterly unacceptable. Man is a slave to sin; and sin is congenital.

LOL .Received., I am sure He is sorry He is not the kind of God you like:>)

Indeed, as the brilliant rumination of C.S. Lewis would have it, there is no use in saying that God is going to throw us in Hell; for there is something in us that will in itself be Hell unless nipped in the bud.

Was He a theologian or an author. His books are not the word of God..he is simply a RC man that gives his take on things.

Reprobate men Love the way they live..If they REALLY considered it hell , they would fall on their face in front of a Holy God and repent.

But instead they joke about it and make satan a funny little man with horns and a pitchfork.

They will tell you they want to go to hell , because all their friends are there.. Fiery hell is on big party to them.

This is where Christ comes in; and this is where I find reason that men are not condemned because they are born, but because they reject their chance at freely offered salvation. Men cannot help being sinners, though they can help it in light of the contingency of repentance, and this, we all know, comes only through special revelation (Romans 10:14,15) -- such is not in our powers to wield.

Christ came to save condemned men , He came because they are condemned .

Do we hear throughout scripture that God cannot do evil?

Amo 3:6**
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

Isa 45:7**
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]

Nothing happens that does not fall from the Hands of God.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.



I believe we do (James 1:13). For the divine voluntarist's position to be true, the claim that God cannot commit evil must logically follow with the absurd conclusion that evil is whatever God does not will -- that is to say, God cannot do what He does not do (this is absurd); for voluntarism states that goodness is based on the will of God, rather than His immutable nature. My position -- the more commonly held view of divine essentialism -- states that God's will is not the determinate factor in our understanding of perfection, but this undestanding finds its basis in His immutable nature. What this all means is that our understanding of perfection has nothing to do with our agreement with God's will -- that is to say, whether we are sinners or saints --, but with our simple creation in His image, and our minds being written with a law of perfection in our minds, as Paul argues in Romans 2. [ Therefore, to claim that a simple revelation through Romans 9 is indeed sufficient evidence to justify the seeming injustice in our minds is absurd, and repugnant to me. In logic, this is called theologism -- taking one single scripture and universalizing what the remainder seems to contradict. [/quote]

It i that very knowledge that will condemn men..Paul tells us that God has written the law on the heart and on the tablets of stone is exactly what will condemn us, not save us.

Psa 65:4**
Blessed [is the man whom] thou choosest, and causest to approach [unto thee, that] he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, [even] of thy holy temple.


Has God predestined ANYTHING in your mind?

 

[rnmomof7]

What I mean by all this, I should add, is that the context of Romans 9, and Paul's response to the audience in question, is not in the context of limited grace, but in inclusive grace. It is the audience that considers it a scandel for God to limit His election; it is Paul who states, "who are you to answer to God?" in response to such a statement.

I still am hard-pressed to choose between which interpretation regarding the rejection of Esau and acceptance of Jacob is sufficient for me. The Geisler/F.F. Bruce position holds that this is not a reference to the individuals at all, but to the nations; a more radical view, posed by Thomas Talbott, states that the context of Romans 9 does indeed refer to individuals, but has no reference to salvation. Talbott's reasoning is interesting, for he says that the Old Testament appears to imply otherwise than Esau's condemnation, considering the compassionate embrace they held following their seperation.

Well Geilser should take time to read it in context , because God explains it quite well

Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost Tells us it is indeed about individuals because He continues on speaking of Persons

**
*
Rom 9:13**
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

**
*
Rom 9:14**
What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

**
*
Rom 9:15**
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

**
*
Rom 9:16**
So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

**
*
Rom 9:17**
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

**
*
Rom 9:18**
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.


Talbot needs to consider that Esau remained an enemy of God and of Israel through his line.There was no reconciliation between God and Esau.
Crying on his brothers shoulder brought forgiveness there, but
God never gave Esau repentance.

 

[rnmomof7]

Why did God create Adam and Eve? He knew they would rebel and sin.

The problem in the church today as I see it Received, is well demonstrated by your reply. Men think they are worthy of Gods love and salvation.If they are worthy there is no Mercy on Gods part.

I have heard over and over that God made men to love them, implying that men were made because God was not content within Himself..that he "needed" something .

The actually is God made man to show His glory. God is glorified by His Love and his mercy , he is also glorified by His holiness by His Judgment and Justice.


God creates the some men to salvation and some men to damnation , both give Him glory .

Creation is not all about man.

There is no one born that "worthy " All men are under sin and there forth condemnation .

I come back to the points I have made with you before (I believe)

1) If Jesus died for all the sins of all men ...then we have a Universal salvation

2)If Jesus paid the price and bore the wrath of God for all the sins of all the men , then God is an unjust Judge as He is asking men to pay for their sins that were paid for at the cross.

3) If Jesus only paid the price for those He foresaw Believing , then God has created some men for damnation knowing that these men would never choose Christ. (the accusation usually held against Calvinists)

4) If it is Gods desire that all men be saved then we have a powerless God, that can not achieve His will, and there fore man is more powerful than God.



It is because of His righteousness that all men deserve damnation .
Not one man can stand in the Presence of God.
He is so offended by the sin of man that the only one that could assuage that anger is Himself .
It is His very righteousness that demands the damnation of all men .
Yet he has decided to save some from their sin because His Mercy will glorify Him.


No man seeks after God. No man understands the gospel , men are born with wills that desire to do their own will not Gods.

Rom 3:10**
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

**
*
Rom 3:11**
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

**
*
Rom 3:12**
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Mercy means give without merit.







God foreknows every one of His creatures.

Would you say that God did not "foreordain" Jesus that He simply saw that Jesus was a man that chose to be the savior?

Act 2:23**
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

2. foreknowledge foreordaining love ( 1Pe 1:20 ), inseparable from God's foreknowledge, the origin from which, and pattern according to which, election takes place. Act 2:23 , and Rom 11:2 , prove "foreknowledge" to be foreordination. God's foreknowledge is not the perception of any ground of action out of Himself; still in it liberty is comprehended, and all absolute constraint debarred [ANSELM in STEIGER]. For so the Son of God was "foreknown" (so the Greek for "foreordained," 1Pe 1:20 ) to be the sacrificial Lamb, not against, or without His will, but His will rested in the will of the Father; this includes self-conscious action; nay, even cheerful acquiescense. The Hebrew and Greek "know" include approval and acknowledging as one's own. The Hebrew marks the oneness of loving and choosing, by having one word for both, bachar (Greek, "hairetizo," Septuagint). Peter descends from the eternal "election" of God through the new birth, to the believer's "sanctification," that from this he might again raise them through the consideration of their new birth to a "living hope" of the heavenly "inheritance" [HEIDEGGER]. The divine three are introduced in their respective functions in redemption.


Now if you want to grip your right over Gods will by your intelligent choice or good luck or personal worth or holiness you must keep in mind

If it is salvation by foreknowledge then we have a completely work based salvation.

God looks down and sees a man choose him , so he rewards that choice by paying him the wage due for that smart choice. It is a salvation earned without grace.

It also makes no sense that there would be a need for God to "elect" a man that he already chose him..[/QUOTE]

 

[Received]

I must point out that if you love an evil God, I have no place with you. I do not warrant that the actions that God emitted in the old testament were evil -- indeed, there aren't many to begin with --, but that they were in the realm of justice, and even in reference to those quite shady experiences, God still has a teleological end that He is yet to reveal (consider the fact that the death of children means their salvation -- Isaiah 7:16). If these things are not so, I am not a Christian. God never changes (Malachi 3:6), and Jesus is the idealized representation of God the Father; which means precisely that the acts in the old testament were not deviations from Jesus' character.

If God is evil as you present it, the punishment of Hell matters not, for those who come to the revelation that God is indeed evil will indeed choose the eternal flames -- there is simply no other choice. This is interesting considering the weak calvinistic response would be that God reveals His love to you and ravishes you out of what He sees as a foolish decision. Of course, this response is all the more horrific. God can weild a superficial holding of love, all the while being evil. This is Himmler, not God. Indeed, if God is evil, the eternal torment is on those who spend eternity with Him -- in heaven!

This, too, I would point out:

Now if you want to grip your right over Gods will by your intelligent choice or good luck or personal worth or holiness you must keep in mind

I am tired of toying around with such responses. This is a sin. You are intentionally belittling my intelligence in the hope that your position would win -- via appeal to emotion if anything. Continuation in this attitude only makes you a fool, and therefore places your theology on shaky grounds, with yourself as representation.


Can we agree that such responses -- such horrendous question begging malice -- are superflous, and continue with debate? For what I once considered a rather courteous and moral person seems more and more to externalize as a bitterly arrogant child. These are observations, and not condemnations.

Why did God create Adam and Eve? He knew they would rebel and sin.

And would you not agree that, given this inevitable choice to evil, God would therefore work out His judicial action on the basis of such inevitability? I do.



I would also point out that nowhere in the Old Testament -- save Daniel -- do we hear of the possibility of eternal condemnation arising from sin. On the contrary! Adam's sin brought them the condemnation they deserved! -- estrangement from God!

The problem in the church today as I see it Received, is well demonstrated by your reply. Men think they are worthy of Gods love and salvation.If they are worthy there is no Mercy on Gods part.

Again, as I have argued in previous threads, love is not in the realm of desert. I do not deserve the love of God, nor the limited affection by a dog.

I have heard over and over that God made men to love them, implying that men were made because God was not content within Himself..that he "needed" something .

Well you haven't heard that from me; the only safe solution to this engima is the fact that love is creative, and God created man out of a wonder at His own power.

The actually is God made man to show His glory. God is glorified by His Love and his mercy , he is also glorified by His holiness by His Judgment and Justice.

Glory sought in itself is not glory, but tyranny. God is love (1 John 4:8), and love does not seeks it own (1 Corinthians 13:5). Any response you make to this must come to realize that love cannot seek itself.

God creates the some men to salvation and some men to damnation , both give Him glory .

That is not glory; that is pornography. God instrumentally uses those He knows will not come to Him -- such He will not reveal Himself to -- in order to woo the remainder of salvation. Count me out.

Creation is not all about man.

True. But it is not all about God either. God created because He loves; consequently, everything He creates He loves.


There are two possible answers for you:



God created man for His own glory, or

God created man to comprehend His glory.



The latter I enthusiastically choose. If the latter, it is both about man and God, for God is blessing man with the revelation of His goodness. The former violates the law of love. Sounds poetic, right? Egads, too bad you reject it.

There is no one born that "worthy " All men are under sin and there forth condemnation .

And yet the point you completely ignored:



"I don't understand. If men are born worthy of condemnation, why does God create them? Is not the man slave to sin? Did not Jesus come to save man from his sins (Matt. 1:21), and not some faulty view of divine eschatological judgment?

I simply don't understand how you can hold such a view while simultaneously holding God to righteous, including the fact that man cannot seek God in his own power once grace has been registered to the human being in question. This is not the God idealized in the face of Jesus; and therefore not an interpretation that I hold as worthy of His name.I don't understand."

I come back to the points I have made with you before (I believe)

1) If Jesus died for all the sins of all men ...then we have a Universal salvation

2)If Jesus paid the price and bore the wrath of God for all the sins of all the men , then God is an unjust Judge as He is asking men to pay for their sins that were paid for at the cross.

3) If Jesus only paid the price for those He foresaw Believing , then God has created some men for damnation knowing that these men would never choose Christ. (the accusation usually held against Calvinists)

4) If it is Gods desire that all men be saved then we have a powerless God, that can not achieve His will, and there fore man is more powerful than God.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." -- Hebrews 10:26,27 (NASB)

Sorry; Jesus died for all sins. Ah, here is an interesting verse:



"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." -- 2 Peter 2:1 (NASB)



Ah, Peter points out that even the ungodly are bought by Him, even though they did not believe in Him. Your position is clearly unacceptable. Even John Calvin believed in unlimited atonement.

It is because of His righteousness that all men deserve damnation .
Not one man can stand in the Presence of God.
He is so offended by the sin of man that the only one that could assuage that anger is Himself .
It is His very righteousness that demands the damnation of all men .
Yet he has decided to save some from their sin because His Mercy will glorify Him.

Not what I read. The condemnation of the law is not the eternal condemnation of all men; it reveals that man is imperfect, in need of salvation, and has a nature that produces desires not of his own generating.

No man seeks after God. No man understands the gospel , men are born with wills that desire to do their own will not Gods.

Rom

3:10

**
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

**
*
Rom 3:11**
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

**
*
Rom 3:12**
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Mercy means give without merit.

And what on earth makes you believe that this is not the psychological result of a sinful disposition that was established in their being without their consent? If all men naturally reject God on their own wills, without any desire by sin, this reveals a disgustingly weak God who cannot woo His creation. I warrant the biblical argument -- that men are slaves to sin -- that sin is a power, as Paul declared it to be (Romans 7).

Would you say that God did not "foreordain" Jesus that He simply saw that Jesus was a man that chose to be the savior?

Well, this might be good and well if Jesus were a mere man; but He is not.

Act

2:23

**
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Ah, realize the phrase 'determinate counsel' before foreknowledge. Luke dichotomizes them; they are not one and the same. By God’s prognosis and determined counsel, the actual world in which Jesus died the way He did came to pass. To say this is by foreknowledge itself is absurd, for our knowledge of an action does not force an action into being.

 

[Received]

2. foreknowledge foreordaining love ( 1Pe

1:20 ), inseparable from God's foreknowledge, the origin from which, and pattern according to which, election takes place. Act 2:23 , and Rom 11:2 , prove "foreknowledge" to be foreordination. God's foreknowledge is not the perception of any ground of action out of Himself; still in it liberty is comprehended, and all absolute constraint debarred [ANSELM in STEIGER]. For so the Son of God was "foreknown" (so the Greek for "foreordained," 1Pe 1:20 ) to be the sacrificial Lamb, not against, or without His will, but His will rested in the will of the Father; this includes self-conscious action; nay, even cheerful acquiescense. The Hebrew and Greek "know" include approval and acknowledging as one's own. The Hebrew marks the oneness of loving and choosing, by having one word for both, bachar (Greek, "hairetizo," Septuagint). Peter descends from the eternal "election" of God through the new birth, to the believer's "sanctification," that from this he might again raise them through the consideration of their new birth to a "living hope" of the heavenly "inheritance" [HEIDEGGER]. The divine three are introduced in their respective functions in redemption.

From yet another thread:



"To foreknow is to know before. Furthermore, I've heard of this claim of foreloving being applied to Romans 8:29, 30 (though, of course, there are excellent arguments against its validity), though not to this specific passage: the greek here is prognosis, and this word makes perfect sense even in the english language!

The argument is favored in view of common sense: to foreknow obviously means to know before. Predestination does not entail irresistible grace through the appearance of the former word in scripture."

The greek word in this context is plain jane simple: it refers to knowledge, and nowhere to activity.

Now if you want to grip your right over Gods will by your intelligent choice , good luck or personally worth or holiness you must keep in mind

Yet another unchristlike remark.

If it is salvation by foreknowledge then we have a completely work based salvation.

Have you eyes?! Paul declared in Romans 4 that belief is not a work!!!



"Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believesin Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." -- Romans 4:4,5 (NASB)



Dear heavens, are you this assiduous in ignoring common biblical themes? Facts ignored do not cease to be facts.

God looks down and sees a man choose him , so he rewards that choice by paying him the wage due for that smart choice. It is a salvation earned without grace.

It also makes no sense that there would be a need for God to "elect" a man that he already chose him..

Not only can you not realize common biblical arguments, but you also institute the steepest of slippery slopes to keep your intellect from grasping it. Have you read arminian systemmatic theology? Have you read common non-calvinist evangelical works? Perhaps you should.



Are you afraid of what you might find? Are you comfortable in the church you find yourself in? Wouldn't it be the greatest act of faith for you actually to seriously read some books that contradict your doctrine? Don’t even come to me with the claim that you used to be an arminian; this is hardly sufficient. I have some; if you wish to exchange books sometime, count me in.

It was the Justice of God that drown men, women , children AND INFANTS , that He declared even infants EVIL

Quite true, though the infants did nothing. God did not destroy the village to intentionally drown those who cannot know the difference between good and evil (Isaiah 7:16). To say He did is to consider God evil, and therefore unworthy of worship.

The Law is the character of God, and NO MAN can keep it.

The Law condemns man and shows that he can never keep it and he is worthy of condemnation.

Why was Jesus needed if men are born sinless.

Well now...if the law condemns man, is not an eternal torment of the men already thus far condemned superflous? Again, this is why I hold that Hell is for those who will have nothing of God.



Men are born sinners, and therefore the claim that God eternally torments them for something He instituted -- namely, their existence, regardless of the fact that original sin is at the fault of Adam -- does not follow. You accept the premises I do, but you deny the inevitable conclusion. I actually find interesting argument clearly explained otherwise, such as Paul’s claim of eternal destruction in 2 Thessalonians 1 towards those who are enemies of the gospel, rather than those who simply exist.



We were in the loins of Adam, but men not yet in existence cannot make choices, for choice implies existence. Why can you not accept this simple truth?

Are you suggesting that men are the victims of sin?

Yup.



"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." -- Romans 7:14-20

Our spiritual death is characterized as making us incapable of fearing God's judgment (Rom.

3:18), of seeking God (Rom. 3:11), of understanding the things of the Spirit of God (Rom. 3:11; 1 Cor. 2:14), of knowing the way of peace (Rom. 3:17). Under this death we only seek after the world (Eph. 2:2), the spirit of Satan (Eph. 2:2), and to satisfy fleshly lust (Eph. 2:3). Furthermore our carnal mind is enmity with God (Rom. 8:7) and we cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). All of our works are verily wickedness (Gal. 5:19-21).

Wicked by hereditary nature, as argued previously. See above. Paul makes it quite clear that because we sin does not mean that we desire the sin we commit, even if this sin is committed perpetually. So it goes with this anthology of scripture.



As the legendary Brooks on The Shawshank Redemption once said: "easy peasy, Japenesey"

LOL .Received., I am sure He is sorry He is not the kind of God you like:>)

Ah, another comment without scriptural justification. Your interpretation stinks of tyranny and false benevolence. On the contrary, I am sure He is sorry He is not the kind of judicially perverted God you like (I use this last point not logically, but to reveal the absurdity of your fallacy).

Reprobate men Love the way they live..If they REALLY considered it hell , they would fall on their face in front of a Holy God and repent.

But instead they joke about it and make satan a funny little man with horns and a pitchfork.

They will tell you they want to go to hell , because all their friends are there.. Fiery hell is on big party to them.

Hah! Whatever blows your hair back. How many men commit suicide from lack of meaning; how many men in this position, close to the gun, choose Christ on the basis of this revelation? Men find momentary liberation in the deeds of the flesh, and this is because of their natural state of being born without the faith that sustains the many saints of the world!



A psychological interlude I suppose, but I find this quite interesting. Viktor Frankl stated a study in his immortal Man’s Search For Meaning that 100% of those interviewed who did indeed use drugs and why they did so. Their answer: no meaning. One hundred percent!!! Add to this sexual promiscuity, alcohol consumption, increased sleeping hours, and much more – you come to the conclusion that there is something fundamental to the fallen man’s makeup that causes him to desire transitory things; and it is this, I boldly warrant, is precisely the sinful nature that constrains their being, with the utterly depressing truth of their being born in a lack of faith that would otherwise make it possible for them to follow the divine commandments that bring life to them that know God.



I find the above mentioned comments interesting precisely in the context you have thus far revealed: “Reprobate men Love the way they live..If they REALLY considered it hell , they would fall on their face in front of a Holy God and repent.”



On the contrary; men are not aware of the hell they are living in – to get philosophical, “the specific character of despair is precisely this: it is unaware of being despair” (Kierkegaard --, and it is the point of religion – at least in ideality; heaven knows this is hardly carried out – to point to man who is Maker is. In view of this is how men come to the light! By revelation! We all know that general revelation cannot save, for men need a preacher (Romans 10:14,15).



Man is a victim.

Amo 3:6**
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

Isa 45:7**
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]

Nothing happens that does not fall from the Hands of God.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.

Err, these scriptures refer to judgment, and not to the essential desire by God to commit evil. The idea is not moral evil, but environmental evil. Indeed, the Hebrew word gives the idea of calamity, rather than our common conception of evil, which is perfectly moral. God does not kill for killing’s sake – this is evil. He does, however – and through the workings of Satan, as Job points out --, rend upon man what he deserves, and judgement is a way for men to realize their imperfections.

It i that very knowledge that will condemn men..Paul tells us that God has written the law on the heart and on the tablets of stone is exactly what will condemn us, not save us.

Ah, the condemnation of the law is the median by which the need for salvation is revealed. That is why Paul argues that we cannot keep the law – we need the law Giver. You seem to have it entirely backwards. Through the law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

 

[Received]

Has God predestined ANYTHING in your mind?

The blessed logic that reveals the absurdity of a plethora of arguments. You really should see how it works when it comes to big questions – not silly theological debate, but atheism, agnosticism, and theism – that is, in the general apologetics.

Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost Tells us it is indeed about individuals because He continues on speaking of Persons

And yet the quotation is from Malachi, which tells of God’s hatred of Esau after he has been born and died. Which means that context of Romans 9 is very likely the nations. Paul’s usage of persons means nothing, for he could have been speaking metaphorically, and, what is even greater weight, he is arguing from Malachi, which holds Esau and Jacob via simple names, though the historical context speaks to nations (this means that God hates the nations of Esau, for it is after the consummation of his nation to flourish that God speaks this in the context of Malachi; nevertheless, this does not mean the rejection of Esau the person, for this seems contrary to what the Old Testament reveals regarding their embrace, and I see no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise, as the Calvinist maintains). Nonetheless, I still find the embrace between Esau and Jacob a little too much to simply neglect regarding the Calvinist camp. And I think God left the scripture open for a reason.

Talbot needs to consider that Esau remained an enemy of God and of

Israel through his line.There was no reconciliation between God and Esau.
Crying on his brothers shoulder brought forgiveness there, but
God never gave Esau repentance.

I find this nowhere in scripture; on the contrary, the implication strongly bars against this interpretation. Remember that Talbott holds the persons Esau and Jacob to refer to individuals, while Geisler and Bruce do not. The hatred of Esau entails an anthropomorphic slur, which externalizes in God’s choosing Jacob over Esau to win the birthright (even though Esau was the first-born), which means precisely that Esau did very much accept the forgiveness of God. Indeed, Paul’s conclusion of v. 11 and 12 seems to refer precisely to an earthly victory by Jacob, for “the elder shall serve the younger,” this being “not by works but by His call” (v.12). Perhaps even more intriguing is verse 17, which seems to follow with this logic in saying that God has raised up Pharoah precisely for His glory to be exhibited throughout the earth. A point I bring to you is the fact that because they are chosen for earthly advantage or disadvantage does not negate their capacity for righteousness in the face of God who freely offers. The bible declares that Pharoah did indeed harden his heart as well; likewise, it states a compassionate embrace between the two brothers that would seem to indicate an eternal union between them, and therefore between Esau and God (regardless of how his nation turns out). Moreso, as with the case of Pharoah, God’s electing him for instrumental use (though it is intrinsically not so, seeing how Pharoah desired the means, and God provided them [strengthening his otherwise weak heart (cowardice)]) was not to limit His glory, but that the whole earth might behold it (v. 17). This means precisely that God is using those who would rebel against Him for the blessedness of all, and this seems quite an opposition to limited atonement.



Moreover, even if the election of Jacob and rejection of Esau has reference to the soteriological realm, this does not imply absolute hatred by God regarding the parties in question. Rather, a teleological end is in place – those who could indeed be saved if indeed the message was preached to them but nonetheless aren’t are indeed the non-elect, while the elect are precisely those who are saved during this earthly dispensation, and are meant to present a gospel to the elect and non-elect as well – though, of course, the latter having only a form of truth planted, however dim. This does mean that God withholds salvation for some, though only momentary. And yes, this entails post-mortem salvation, which there are excellent arguments for, both practical and theological.



Despite all this, I still see myself leaning towards the Bruce/Geisler interpretation. However, it seems obvious that there is much ground to decide on. You can see how abstract such a murky passage can get, and therefore I tend to stray away from it, and focus instead on the nature of God, rather than on His acts (for you cannot know the latter except by the former).



I also do not understand your logic. If by a judgment of God – the hatred of Esau --, an entire nation is made contrary to Him, how does it not follow that God caused the dissonance and is therefore responsible for it?

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

QUOTE=Received







"If we deliberately keep on sinning [ 1 john1:8,10] after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left 1 john 1:9, but only a fearful expectation of judgment hebrews 12:3-11 and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Rev 20:15" -- Hebrews 10:26,27 (NASB)

Hebrews 6:6 If they shall[verb] fall away, to renew them again unto repentance seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame.

here we as christians are not having faith on what God has said about us...
But just because we fail God allows us to be renewed and we show no works
with our faith which goes to James 2 which goes towards men and romans 4 which goes toward God


Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified..

this is postional in the heavenlies not here on earth at this time....eph 2:6




I m not sure if the point I m talking about came thru tell me if I did or not

 

[CCWoody]

I must point out that if you love an evil God, I have no place with you....


If God is evil as you present it,....

Of course, this response is all the more horrific. God can weild a superficial holding of love, all the while being evil. This is Himmler, not God. Indeed, if God is evil, the eternal torment is on those who spend eternity with Him -- in heaven!


Continuation in this attitude only makes you a fool,....



For what I once considered a rather courteous and moral person seems more and more to externalize as a bitterly arrogant child. These are observations, and not condemnations.







That is not glory; that is pornography.

Gee, Received, yesterday, you call my post pornographic and me a fool. Today, you call RnMomof's post pornographic and her a fool & bitterly arrogant child.

I think you are losing it, man.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[rnmomof7]

I must point out that if you love an evil God, I have no place with you. I do not warrant that the actions that God emitted in the old testament were evil -- indeed, there aren't many to begin with --, but that they were in the realm of justice, and even in reference to those quite shady experiences, God still has a teleological end that He is yet to reveal (consider the fact that the death of children means their salvation -- Isaiah 7:16). If these things are not so, I am not a Christian. God never changes (Malachi 3:6), and Jesus is the idealized representation of God the Father; which means precisely that the acts in the old testament were not deviations from Jesus' character.

I do not worship and "evil" god. I worship a Sovereign God,that is the 1st cause of all events. Nothing can or does happen that He has not ordained.

Now you may not like that , but that is the teaching of the Bible.

By definition God, that is Holy can not sin, whatever He does is just.
It is His Justice that is seen as evil by man

I quoted the Words that the Holy Spirit inspired..

Amo 3:6Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

If God is evil as you present it, the punishment of Hell matters not, for those who come to the revelation that God is indeed evil will indeed choose the eternal flames -- there is simply no other choice. This is interesting considering the weak calvinistic response would be that God reveals His love to you and ravishes you out of what He sees as a foolish decision. Of course, this response is all the more horrific. God can weild a superficial holding of love, all the while being evil. This is Himmler, not God. Indeed, if God is evil, the eternal torment is on those who spend eternity with Him -- in heaven!

Did you enjoy your rant at God?

Did or did not God bring to pass a flood that killed mot of mankind

Did or did not God rain down fires on the people of Sodom?

Did or did not God send an angel to murder the firstborns in Egypt?
Did God not cause the army pursing the Israelites to drown every one?

Did God not send the nation of Israel in to completely destroy Nations?

Those that hold that God is a Teddy Bear god that will not reign down His justice upon reprobate man need to see that Gods Justice is as much a part of His nature as His Love.

Isa 14:24**
The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, [so] shall it stand:

All things good or evil ,as man as counts them, come from the hand of God.

*
Isa 45:6**
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.

**
*
Isa 45:7**
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].


Now if you want to grip your right over Gods will by your intelligent choice or good luck or personal worth or holiness you must keep in mind

I am tired of toying around with such responses. This is a sin. You are intentionally belittling my intelligence in the hope that your position would win -- via appeal to emotion if anything. Continuation in this attitude only makes you a fool, and therefore places your theology on shaky grounds, with yourself as representation.

Received I have not called anyone a "jerk " as you have or post "pornographic ", I have not questioned anyones salvation as you have by implication . I have simply stated the Arminian position , that is they had the good luck to hear the gospel, and unlike those that did not accept Christ , they were smart enough or holy enough to accept the gospel.

That is a summary of the position of man electing God.

Can we agree that such responses -- such horrendous question begging malice -- are superflous, and continue with debate? For what I once considered a rather courteous and moral person seems more and more to externalize as a bitterly arrogant child. These are observations, and not condemnations.

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. On another thread you said Woody and I had declared and Anathema**
on you. I asked for proof of that then and now. It seems to me your purpose is to close threads or have me banned.

And by the way they are indeed condemnations in spite of your denials .

And would you not agree that, given this inevitable choice to evil, God would therefore work out His judicial action on the basis of such inevitability? I do.



I would also point out that nowhere in the Old Testament -- save Daniel -- do we hear of the possibility of eternal condemnation arising from sin. On the contrary! Adam's sin brought them the condemnation they deserved! -- estrangement from God!

Again, as I have argued in previous threads, love is not in the realm of desert. I do not deserve the love of God, nor the limited affection by a dog.

Are you suggesting that there was no knowledge of Hell or eternal damnation in the OT ?
Seeing it was taught and understood by the Jews in the New , it is obvious that the Jews did indeed have an understanding of it.



Mt. 25:46
"They will go away to eternal punishment."

Heb. 6:2
"… the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

Jude 7
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example of those who suffer the "punishment of eternal fires."

Dan. 12:2
"… some to everlasting life, other to shame and everlasting contempt."

*

2 Th. 1:9
*"…they will be punished with everlasting destruction."

Gal. 1:8*
If someone preaches another gospel, he is to be "eternally condemned."

Is. 66:24*
Those that rebelled against God, "Their worm will not die, nor will the fire be quenched."

Rev. 14:10-11*
"And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever"

Mk. 3:29*
Those who blaspheme will be guilty of an "eternal sin."

Is. 34:8-10*
"Lord has a day of vengeance … it will not be quenched night or day. Its smoke will rise forever."

Jhn 5:29**
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

[/font]

Glory sought in itself is not glory, but tyranny. God is love (1 John 4:8), and love does not seeks it own (1 Corinthians 13:5). Any response you make to this must come to realize that love cannot seek itself.

That is not glory; that is pornography. God instrumentally uses those He knows will not come to Him -- such He will not reveal Himself to -- in order to woo the remainder of salvation. Count me out.

I am very concerned that God not be demeaned in these discussions.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. Exodus 20:


How is the Holiness of God displayed except by the clear comparison with evil and punishment. It is that very contrast that shows the glory of all of Gods attributes

I am disturbed at the disrespect shown for God here . You call Him a tyrant , that fits well with the posts that tell us that he forces people to himself.

Deuteronomy 29:2 "And Moses called unto all Israel, and said
unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the
land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all
his land;
Eze 6:7**
And the slain shall fall in the midst of you, and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.
Eze 35:9**
I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not return: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.
Eze 35:11**
Therefore, [as] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thy hatred against them; and I will make myself known among them, when I have judged thee.
Eze 35:12**
And thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD, [and that] I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, They are laid desolate, they are given us to consume.
Eze 35:13**
Thus with your mouth ye have boasted against me, and have multiplied your words against me: I have heard [them].
Eze 35:14**
Thus saith the Lord GOD; When the whole earth rejoiceth, I will make thee desolate.

Then Moses said to God, "I am to go, then, to the sons of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you." But if they ask me what his name is, what am I to tell them?" And God said to Moses, "I am who I am." Exodus 3:14

We are to dwell on the inflexible Justice of our God. It will magnify and the riches of His grace, the glories of redemption.
God has made His name known to the elect and non elect by His works of Justice and Mercy.

True. But it is not all about God either. God created because He loves; consequently, everything He creates He loves.

He created man for His glory, not because he needed to have anyone to love. God is complete in Himself.

Does God love all men ?

GOD HATES ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY” Psalms 5:5

THE BIBLE SAYS GOD HATES SINNERS, NOT JUST THE SIN:

Leviticus 20:23: “And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I ABHORRED THEM.”

Leviticus 26:14-30: “If ye will not hearken unto Me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise My statutes, or if your soul abhor My judgments, so that ye will not do all My commandments, but that ye break My covenant, I also will do this to you... [send plagues, famine, drought, destructive armies, wild beasts who shall devour your children, pestilence, captivity in a cruel land...] And if ye will not for all this hearken unto Me, but walk contrary to Me; Then I WILL WALK CONTRARY TO YOU IN FURY... I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols, and MY SOUL SHALL ABHOR YOU.”

Deuteronomy 18:12 “For all that do these things are an ABOMINATION TO THE LORD, and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.”

Deuteronomy 25:16: “...ALL THAT DO UNRIGHTEOUSLY ARE AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD.”

Deuteronomy 28:62-63: “Because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God... it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will the Lord will REJOICE OVER YOU TO DESTROY YOU, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.” (In Deuteronomy 27, 28, and 29, 124 CURSES are promised upon the Jews who refused to obey God’s commandments.)

Deuteronomy 32:16-20: “They provoked Him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations they provoked Him to ANGER... And when the Lord saw it [people sacrificing to devils - v.17], HE ABHORRED THEM...”

Psalm 2:4-9: “The Lord that sits in the heavens shall LAUGH [at rebellious men]: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak unto them in His WRATH, and VEX THEM IN HIS SORE DISPLEASURE... [and Christ shall] break them with a rod of iron: Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Psalm 5:5-6: “The foolish shall not stand in Thy sight: THOU HATEST ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (lies): THE LORD WILL ABHOR THE BLOODY AND DECEITFUL MAN.”

Psalm 7:11-13: “...God is ANGRY with the wicked every day. If he turn not, He will whet His sword; He hath bent His bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; He ordaineth His arrows against the persecutors.”

Psalm 10:3: “For the wicked... blesseth the covetous, WHOM THE LORD ABHORRETH.”

Psalm 11:5-7: “The Lord trieth the righteous: but THE WICKED AND HIM THAT LOVETH VIOLENCE HIS SOUL HATETH. Upon the wicked He shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness...”

Psalm 50:22: “Now consider this, ye that forget God, LEST I TEAR YOU IN PIECES, AND THERE BE NONE TO DELIVER.”

Psalm 78:59: “When God heard this He was wroth, and GREATLY ABHORRED ISRAEL.”

Psalm 106:40: “Therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled against His people, insomuch that HE ABHORRED HIS OWN INHERITANCE.”

Proverbs 3:32-33: “For the froward is an ABOMINATION TO THE LORD... The CURSE OF THE LORD is in the house of the wicked: but He blesseth the habitation of the just.”

Proverbs 6:16-19: “These six things doth THE LORD HATE: yea, seven are AN ABOMINATION TO HIM... A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.”

Proverbs 16:5: “Every one that is proud in heart is an ABOMINATION TO THE LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.”

Proverbs 17:5: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are ABOMINATION TO THE LORD.”

Proverbs 22:14: “The soul of strange women is a deep pit: HE THAT IS ABHORRED OF THE LORD shall fall therein.”

Jeremiah 17:5: “Thus saith the Lord, CURSED BE THE MAN that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.”

Hosea 9:15: “All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I HATED THEM: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of Mine house, I WILL LOVE THEM NO MORE...”

Malachi 1:3-4: “And I HATED ESAU, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness...thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and the people AGAINST WHOM THE LORD HATH INDIGNATION FOREVER.”

Romans 9:13: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but ESAU HAVE I HATED.”

I Corinthians 16:22: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be ANATHEMA MARANATHA [which means ACCURSED, THE LORD COMETH].”

James 4:4: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship of the world is ENMITY (or HATRED) WITH GOD? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is an ENEMY OF GOD.”

I Peter 3:12: “For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers: but THE FACE OF THE LORD IS AGAINST THEM THAT DO EVIL.”

Revelation 14:10-11: “[Sinners] shall drink of the wine of the WRATH OF GOD, which is poured without mixture into the cup of HIS INDIGNATION; and he shall be TORMENTED WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY ANGELS, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB; And the smoke of their TORMENT ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT...”

"I don't understand. If men are born worthy of condemnation, why does God create them? Is not the man slave to sin? Did not Jesus come to save man from his sins (Matt. 1:21), and not some faulty view of divine eschatological judgment?

You do not seem to understand that the display of justice glorifies God.

You have said you are not a Universalist

So then the question must be asked. If God does not want any lost why are any lost?.

We are told that God always accomplishes His will

If God foreknows those that will be lost why does He create them?

You have the same question whether from an Arminian perspective or a Calvinist perspective.

I simply don't understand how you can hold such a view while simultaneously holding God to righteous, including the fact that man cannot seek God in his own power once grace has been registered to the human being in question. This is not the God idealized in the face of Jesus; and therefore not an interpretation that I hold as worthy of His name.

I don't understand."

I know that you do not see it.
It is the righteousness of God that saves and damns

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." -- Hebrews 10:26,27 (NASB)

Hebrews teaches ( by YOUR interpretation that once a man "loses" his salvation he can NEVER get it back. Is that your position?

Sorry; Jesus died for all sins. Ah, here is an interesting verse:

Calvinists believe that the sacrifice of the cross was sufficient for all , but only effective for the elect. So as many as the Father elected are saved.

I believe that it was MY VERY SINS that nailed Jesus to the cross. I believe my face and the face of all the saved were before the eyes of Christ when He said "It is finished"

The Arminian position is that no one was saved at the cross..their is no Personal Savior..just the will of men saving them

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." -- 2 Peter 2:1 (NASB)

Trust me Calvinists believe that scripture. We see false, man worshipping doctrine taught all over the place :>)

But according to Arminian Theology NO ONE was purchased (bought ) By Christ,

Ah, Peter points out that even the ungodly are bought by Him, even though they did not believe in Him

.

As I said the sacrifice of the cross was sufficient for all , but applicable only to the elect.

As many as the Father sends to the son He has saved.

Your position is clearly unacceptable. Even John Calvin believed in unlimited atonement.

Not what I read. The condemnation of the law is not the eternal condemnation of all men; it reveals that man is imperfect, in need of salvation, and has a nature that produces desires not of his own generating.

If one reads with understanding one sees that Calvin did indeed believe in a limited atonement
(You may want to start with the Institutes.)





Well, this might be good and well if Jesus were a mere man; but He is not.



Ah, realize the phrase 'determinate counsel' before foreknowledge. Luke dichotomizes them; they are not one and the same. By God’s prognosis and determined counsel, the actual world in which Jesus died the way He did came to pass. To say this is by foreknowledge itself is absurd, for our knowledge of an action does not force an action into being.
[/color][/font][/QUOTE]

 

[Received]

Gee, Received, yesterday, you call my post pornographic and me a fool. Today, you call RnMomof's post pornographic and her a fool & bitterly arrogant child.

I think you are losing it, man.

Hah, Woody, you just don't seem to grasp the obvious. I have lost it. Reading Kierkegaard will do that to you.

Nonetheless...pornography, your folly...all good and well. Remember, Jesus called men fools in accordance to their deliberate ignorance. I would love you to point out to me anything that speaks otherwise.

Oh, and just for the record...do you not realize that pornography is by definition something that is repugnant to the populous? If you are considering the post-modern usage of the word, I'll be happy to buy you a dictionary.

Yet another post where you wish to deliberately belittle me. You want to make things interesting? I'll bet you the right for respect if you can hush your mouth and wait until the day of judgment to reveal the true motives. Then we'll see who has the godly intentions. Until then, your arrogance is unacceptable. Your refusal to accept this only magnifies the obvious truth -- that you utterly despise me.

Do you hate me, dearest Woody? Does not the word say that he who hates his brother cannot see God (1 John 4:20)? I am more than willing to eschew our futile bickering, and have always been, for I do not hold hate towards you. But alas, you are not willing. You are based on the false premise that I called Jesus a liar; and you refuse to accept the obvious truth. You do not display the character of Christ in any way. You perpetually bring up derogatory points -- whether directly or indirectly -- towards non-calvinist theology.

I'm waiting for some rational points by you. Still haven't found any. Only sinful anger and condescension.

I spit on the attitudes revealed at these forums -- all I see is the common lording over of theology (the threads that seek to glorify calvinism before regarding the doctrine of our neighbor), and the immutable false premise that because we disagree, we are therefore contemptable. I hate it; I despise it; God curse it. All I desire is the love of each other; this I have not found -- only indignation mixing with emotion, producing the chaotic effect of sinful behavior. And what is worse -- denial. Would anyone be willing to start loving one another?

I don't know why I chose this over the company of atheists and agnostics, who according to such theology are utterly immoral; on the contrary, I find them far more compassionate than the tyranny displayed here.

rnmomof7, I will respond to your post in good time.

Good day, gentlemen.