Predestination, is it coercive determinism ?

Jan001 said:

If they were baptized, yes.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.


Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, rsv​

Click to expand...

Then you answered your own question didn't you.

Here's where I think the indeterminists will find unfairness and injustice:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

And yet Paul tells us that this is completely just and right.

98cwitr said:

Here's where I think the indeterminists will find unfairness and injustice:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

And yet Paul tells us that this is completely just and right.

Click to expand...

I don't see a problem. God does what God wants, we are not able to judge God's actions.

98cwitr said:

Here's where I think the indeterminists will find unfairness and injustice:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

And yet Paul tells us that this is completely just and right.

Click to expand...

The verse mention comes out of:

Ro. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.


First off: From Peter’s comments: “Paul can be difficult to understand”, but Paul is an excellent communicator with very difficult subjects. The best people for understanding what he is saying would be the people Paul is directly addressing in the particular passage and in this case it would be first century Jewish and/or Gentile Christians in Rome he had not yet visited.

The question is thus: “How would these first century Jewish and/or Gentile Christians understand “just” and since Paul is using the diatribe method of teaching what support is Paul using to show why the imaginary questioner of the group might think God is “unjust”?

What “injustice” would the Gentile and/or Jewish Christians might perceive in God. Paul has been addressing the differences between those born Jew and those born Gentile with the emphasis on the apparent lack of God’s preparing of the Gentiles for living the Christian life. Paul does not deny the fact the Gentile were not prepared as well as the Jews for living a sinless life especially if they had to be circumcised, eat Kocher foods and keep holy days. Paul spends lots of words showing it is as hard on the Jews as it is for the gentiles to accept Christ, so there is the equality making it both fair and just.

Jan001 said:

No human entered into heaven until after Christ's regenerative work was finished on the cross. Adam's sin prevented all humans from entering into heaven to be with God the Father.

John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. rsv​

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I do know that Mary, Jesus' mother, was conceived without original sin and I also know that Mary never personally sinned. Eve chose to sin, but Mary did not ever choose to sin. Mary was already spiritually "one" with God at her conception because the Father chose Mary and blessed her to be the Mother of His Incarnate Son, Jesus. Mary's DNA had to be pure/perfect/not corrupted by Adam's sin in order for Jesus' human DNA to be pure. Therefore Mary is the new Eve and Jesus is the new Adam. Both are without sin just as Adam and Eve were without sin before they fell from grace.

1 Corinthians 15:45
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. rsv​

Click to expand...

These ideas you speak about Mary are mostly new concepts to me. I have not read anywhere in the Bible that she had somehow escaped original sin unless she was not a daughter of Adam and Even. If she did, she certainly could live a sinless life, despite the temptations of the world she, like Christ, could easily resist them if she was as Holy as you say.

I don't agree with her not being born into sin like the rest of humanity, but I would agree that she may have been made fully sanctified the moment the Holy Spirit descended upon her, and granted her the child that she would name Jesus. The boy that would grow up being both fully man, and fully God.

I do not understand the need to elevate Mary to more than what she was, chosen and human. Just like Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and the modern Christian. Chosen for grand purposes to bring about the will of God in His playing out of the divine story. All prone to mistakes and growth in their walk to please God.

Jesus saved Mary at the instant of her conception by the merits of His own sacrifice in the same manner (outside of time constraints) as He gave His apostles His literal Flesh and His literal Blood to eat and drink before He physically died on the cross. Matthew 26:26-29

God is not subject to the constraints of time and space. Past, Present, and Future are all ever-present to Him, therefore God's works were finished before the foundation of the world. (This is not the thread to discuss this topic in detail.)

Hebrews 4:3
For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. rsv​

Click to expand...

If I believed Mary was without original sin, as you do, she would have no need for the merits of Christ's sacrifice. If I did not believe she was without any sin at all, then she would be forgiven as we all are because of His sacrifice.

I do not consume the literal flesh and blood of Christ no more than the apostles did in His presence at the Last Supper. God's humanity shines through at the pleasure it brought in breaking bread and sharing drink with His followers, whom He loved. He then told them to do exactly this (that is to eat the bread, and drink the cup), in remembrance. The Lord's Supper is symbolic in that we have fellowship among followers of Christ, remembering the His sacrifice of body and blood for us.

I agree that God is not bound to the laws of time. He create the very thing in which we use to determine it.

And today when a person dies, he is not permitted to go to be with God the Father unless first Jesus approves him worthy.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. rsv​

Click to expand...

He permits whom the Father has given Him, and not by their own merits are they 'approved' but by His.

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given me but raise it up on the last day." (John 6:37-39)

BornAgainChristian1 said:

But you most certainly are making that claim that your church is the "universal church" and yes that has been your consistent argument.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am making this claim. This my consistent belief. History supports my own understanding that it is the Catholic Church which has always faithfully taught the gospel of Jesus Christ and that it is the Catholic Church which still faithfully teaches it today. If I did not believe this, I would not be Catholic.

First, Jesus Christ's one Church was nicknamed the Way. Acts 9:2

This Church's members later became known as Christians because they followed Christ's teachings. Acts 11:26

After the gospel spread to the whole known world, Jesus' one Church became known as the Catholic Church. Jesus promised to be with His one Church with Peter (and his successors) as Jesus' appointed and authorized leader (Peter and his successors have possession of the keys) until He returns at the end of the age. Matthew 16:15-20

Oldest known written record with the words, "Catholic Church" was by Irenaeus, circa 100 A.D. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html

BornAgainChristian1 said:

As usual all you that make that claim can never give a explanation that Jesus does indeed make that claim and do nothing but deflect to misquoting scripture which make you seem all the more desperate....

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, and unto us a Son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder, and he shall call his name, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The prince of peace.

Click to expand...

It is your own understanding of this Scripture which is in error. Jesus cannot possibly be His own biological Father. No person can be his own biological father. To become a biological father, a male has to beget a child.

How do you explain the following statement of Jesus:

Jesus is on earth when He makes this statement that His Father is in heaven.

Jesus is an everlasting spiritual Father. Jesus is not His own biological Father.

Please note that Paul is a spiritual father to his flock. Paul is not a biological father to any of these Corinthian Christians.

Jesus is a spiritual, everlasting Father to all His followers.

I hope that you will figure this out soon.

GillDouglas said:

These ideas you speak about Mary are mostly new concepts to me. I have not read anywhere in the Bible that she had somehow escaped original sin unless she was not a daughter of Adam and Even. If she did, she certainly could live a sinless life, despite the temptations of the world she, like Christ, could easily resist them if she was as Holy as you say.

I don't agree with her not being born into sin like the rest of humanity, but I would agree that she may have been made fully sanctified the moment the Holy Spirit descended upon her, and granted her the child that she would name Jesus. The boy that would grow up being both fully man, and fully God.

Click to expand...

Adam and Eve were created without sin. Surely the Mother of God the Incarnate Son is of higher dignity than they are. God can and did apply the merits of His Son's sacrifice to Jesus' human mother at the time of her own conception. Jesus saved her before she received Adam's sin upon her.

I do not understand the need to elevate Mary to more than what she was, chosen and human. Just like Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and the modern Christian. Chosen for grand purposes to bring about the will of God in His playing out of the divine story. All prone to mistakes and growth in their walk to please God.

Click to expand...

Mary was not an ordinary girl. She was chosen before the foundation of the world to become the mother of God's Son. 1 Peter 1:20

If I believed Mary was without original sin, as you do, she would have no need for the merits of Christ's sacrifice. If I did not believe she was without any sin at all, then she would be forgiven as we all are because of His sacrifice.

Click to expand...

God applied the merits of Jesus' sacrifice to His mother at the moment of her conception so that she would always be pure.

I do not consume the literal flesh and blood of Christ no more than the apostles did in His presence at the Last Supper. God's humanity shines through at the pleasure it brought in breaking bread and sharing drink with His followers, whom He loved. He then told them to do exactly this (that is to eat the bread, and drink the cup), in remembrance. The Lord's Supper is symbolic in that we have fellowship among followers of Christ, remembering the His sacrifice of body and blood for us.

Click to expand...

I do most emphatically consume the literal Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ just as the apostles did at Jesus' Last Supper before He died.

There is no symbolic flesh and blood is these statements. This is literal flesh and blood.

He permits whom the Father has given Him, and not by their own merits are they 'approved' but by His.

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given me but raise it up on the last day." (John 6:37-39)

Click to expand...

What criteria/criterion do you think God used to determine who He would give to Jesus?

Jan001 said:

Yes, I am making this claim. This my consistent belief. History supports my own understanding that it is the Catholic Church which has always faithfully taught the gospel of Jesus Christ and that it is the Catholic Church which still faithfully teaches it today. If I did not believe this, I would not be Catholic.

First, Jesus Christ's one Church was nicknamed the Way. Acts 9:2

This Church's members later became known as Christians because they followed Christ's teachings. Acts 11:26

After the gospel spread to the whole known world, Jesus' one Church became known as the Catholic Church. Jesus promised to be with His one Church with Peter (and his successors) as Jesus' appointed and authorized leader (Peter and his successors have possession of the keys) until He returns at the end of the age. Matthew 16:15-20

Oldest known written record with the words, "Catholic Church" was by Irenaeus, circa 100 A.D. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html

​

Click to expand...

Sorry but not one of those verses supports you erroneous claim because the Christian church exists despite the catholic church and we never needed the catholic churches approval for our existence.

The catholic church is not the "true" church


Peter was not the first pope nor is there a pope mentioned or condoned in the bible

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter (stone), and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not overcome it.

As you can see and know below Christ called Peter a STONE and not "THE ROCK".

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus beheld him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone.

Who was Christ referring to when He said this....19 Jesus answered, and said unto them, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.

1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

So here we have Christ identified as "THE ROCK"
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ.

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone, and a rock to make men fall: and everyone that believeth in him, shall not be ashamed.

So if you don't mind I'll stick with scripture rather than what you think the gravity of what some man you think supports your fallacy about the catholic church is the church Christ was speaking of in Matthew 16:18.

Jan001 said:

It is your own understanding of this Scripture which is in error. Jesus cannot possibly be His own biological Father. No person can be his own biological father. To become a biological father, a male has to beget a child.

How do you explain the following statement of Jesus:

Matthew 7:21
[ Concerning Self-Deception ] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. rsv
​

Jesus is on earth when He makes this statement that His Father is in heaven.

Jesus is an everlasting spiritual Father. Jesus is not His own biological Father.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” rsv


1 Corinthians 4:15
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. rsv
​

Please note that Paul is a spiritual father to his flock. Paul is not a biological father to any of these Corinthian Christians.

Jesus is a spiritual, everlasting Father to all His followers.

I hope that you will figure this out soon.

Click to expand...

God can be anything He claims He is and doesn't need to opinion to weigh in on that fact.

QUOTE="Jan001, post: 69677757, member: What criteria/criterion do you think God used to determine who He would give to Jesus?

Click to expand...

Free will works.

98cwitr said:

Here's where I think the indeterminists will find unfairness and injustice:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

And yet Paul tells us that this is completely just and right.

Click to expand...

It's called 'being God'

98cwitr said:

Here's where I think the indeterminists will find unfairness and injustice:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

And yet Paul tells us that this is completely just and right.

Click to expand...

I think some started a lot of theology from that verse.

ToBeLoved said:

I think some started a lot of theology from that verse.

Click to expand...

Maybe so.
My responce was resonant. This came to mind...

[Job1:21] And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
[22] In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

BornAgainChristian1 said:

Sorry but not one of those verses supports you erroneous claim because the Christian church exists despite the catholic church and we never needed the catholic churches approval for our existence.

The catholic church is not the "true" church


Peter was not the first pope nor is there a pope mentioned or condoned in the bible

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter (stone), and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not overcome it.

As you can see and know below Christ called Peter a STONE and not "THE ROCK".

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus beheld him, and said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation a stone.

Who was Christ referring to when He said this....19 Jesus answered, and said unto them, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.

1 Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

So here we have Christ identified as "THE ROCK"
1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ.

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone, and a rock to make men fall: and everyone that believeth in him, shall not be ashamed.

So if you don't mind I'll stick with scripture rather than what you think the gravity of what some man you think supports your fallacy about the catholic church is the church Christ was speaking of in Matthew 16:18.

Click to expand...

Jesus renamed Simon "Peter" which means "Rock". Jesus renamed Simon because Jesus chose Simon to become His own chief representative on earth. Jesus gave only Simon Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus gave no other person the keys and He renamed no other apostle. Isaiah 22:22

Saul began using his Roman name "Paul" after his conversion to Christianity. Paul was a Roman citizen. http://www.behindthename.com/name/paul

Rick Otto said:

Free will works.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Before the foundation of the world, the Father gave to Jesus only the persons who He foreknew were still faithful to God's commandments at the time of their death.

Jan001 said:

Jesus renamed Simon "Peter" which means "Rock". Jesus renamed Simon because Jesus chose Simon to become His own chief representative on earth. Jesus gave only Simon Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus gave no other person the keys and He renamed no other apostle. Isaiah 22:22

Saul began using his Roman name "Paul" after his conversion to Christianity. Paul was a Roman citizen. http://www.behindthename.com/name/paul

Acts 22:24-27
the tribune commanded him to be brought into the barracks, and ordered him to be examined by scourging, to find out why they shouted thus against him. 25 But when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen, and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard that, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” rsv​

​

Click to expand...

Sorry but I spent enough time attempting to educate you on the bible so at this point your argument is with God.

Jan001 said:

I agree.

Before the foundation of the world, the Father gave to Jesus only the persons who He foreknew were still faithful to God's commandments at the time of their death.

Click to expand...

Are those same people the ones He finishes the work He started in, and they make it to heaven?
Did He foreknow because He created, or did He have to peek into the future to find out?

Jan001 said:

Jesus renamed Simon "Peter" which means "Rock". Jesus renamed Simon because Jesus chose Simon to become His own chief representative on earth. Jesus gave only Simon Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus gave no other person the keys and He renamed no other apostle. Isaiah 22:22

Saul began using his Roman name "Paul" after his conversion to Christianity. Paul was a Roman citizen. http://www.behindthename.com/name/paul

Acts 22:24-27
the tribune commanded him to be brought into the barracks, and ordered him to be examined by scourging, to find out why they shouted thus against him. 25 But when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen, and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard that, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” rsv​

​

Click to expand...

So a couple lines after He names him rock, He says "Get thee behind me Satan" to the guy He wants as leader? Jesus replaced Himself?
If you look two chapters later, we see Him giving those same keys to everyone present.

18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Jan001 said:

Jesus renamed Simon "Peter" which means "Rock". Jesus renamed Simon because Jesus chose Simon to become His own chief representative on earth. Jesus gave only Simon Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus gave no other person the keys and He renamed no other apostle. Isaiah 22:22

Saul began using his Roman name "Paul" after his conversion to Christianity. Paul was a Roman citizen. http://www.behindthename.com/name/paul

Acts 22:24-27
the tribune commanded him to be brought into the barracks, and ordered him to be examined by scourging, to find out why they shouted thus against him. 25 But when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen, and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard that, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” rsv​

​

Click to expand...

I think God renamed Paul. So what if he is a roman citizen. What does that have to do with why he would be renamed?