Predestination??

[Full_Moon]

This thread is so hilarious. We have some people arguing that it is all up to our own free will. We have other people arguing that it is all up to God. Then everyone is quoting bible verses thinking that they can use the truth of one bible verse to show the fallacy of others??? Idiots (I say that in the nicest possible sense)


The nature of this debate it seems is that so many simply hate the True God, wanting to replace Him with a god of their own liking and understanding. Even in the arguements they say "sounds nicer" and "would you like a god like that?"

Idiots. (again, as nicely as I can say it)

Why do you argue over God as though He is a specimen on your plate? Who do you think you are to use one part of the bible to disprove others? You have not disproven or demonstrated anything but your own greed for the god which you imagined and are using to replace the True God. My point you may wonder?

If you have a problem being responsible for your own decisions then you have a problem with God and the gift of choice He has given you.

If you have a problem with God hardening the Pharoahs heart in order to make an example of him, then again you have a problem with God being the Almighty Lord.(this is the same as having a problem with it all being up to God)

What amazes me most in all this is it does seem as though God is using our idiocy and hatred towards Him to teach us about Him.

What do all you idiots think about the nature of 50 pages of debate?

The Lord is mysterious indeed.

 

[tmcothran]

Notice in the parable of the wedding feast many are invited few are compelled ....... those invited one by one bgan to make excuse!!!
Man's total depravity is that he wants sin and salvation , and he wants independance (free-will) from God , not have the Love of Christ which will "constrain him" ........ so the Lord in wisdom commands that the underdogs , the dross of humanity , those who are unable , incapable and underpriviledged shall be compelled (Biblical word) to come in!

I see Love in the first instance , and Grace and Love in the latter situation ....... only those who are compelled will come . "No man can come to me unless the Father draws (drags) them "



Yes , and God doesn't work sin in them , as He does work righteousness in the Elect.


At first it does appear to be against their will , but God makes us willing ....... those who are opposed to God changing men's hearts need to read the scriptures there are many instances where God places a new disposition in someone , see Esau on his way to massacre his brother and his family ....... what was the result!


That depends on what you mean ........... yes , for all things are from Him and to him , yet God's revealed will , His will of command is that we be perfect.


all things were made to glorify God , even the wicked.
His love is manifested by the contrast , see Romans 9



Well I know what you mean , i think , the trick is to keep God's Love at the center of our Soteriology ........... God so loved the world sounds a lot better than for God so Controlled the World

OK. Offered a rope, a hand, I think it's the same analogy. The point is that some are, as you said, compelled. Which brings up the question: if God compels some, why not all? If He is willing to violate the free will of the "elect," why does He not do so with the hell bound? He wills all to be saved, so what is preventing Him from saving everyone?

You say it is His glory and point to Romans 9. I would refer you to where I quoted Dostoyevsky. Doesn't God take pleasure in that which He is glorified? And if he is glorified by the eternal torture of sinners, doesn't He logically take pleasure in the suffering of those sinners? I hope not, because God would be a sadist.

As to all things glorifying God, they do. Evil has no ontological existance, however. It is not a thing, and it does not glorify God.

If God is glorified by the contrast, then it follows that before sin, he was not glorified. Sinning actually increased his glory. I would have to wholheartedly reject this statement. For one thing (besides being completely absurd), it diminishes the self-sufficiency of God. For another, it makes the fall of man a fortunate thing. If Adam had not sinned, then God's glory would be diminished. Thus God benefits from sin.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong here. I hope I am.

 

[tmcothran]

If you have a problem being responsible for your own decisions then you have a problem with God and the gift of choice He has given you.

If you have a problem with God hardening the Pharoahs heart in order to make an example of him, then again you have a problem with God being the Almighty Lord.(this is the same as having a problem with it all being up to God)

First of all, if you think someone is an idiot for discussing this issue... well, I won't say it. Many minds brighter than yours or mine have addressed this issue. And it is an important one.

You seem to want to accept both free will, and God's determination (at least in some cases) of free will. You can't have it both ways.

"Free" in this context doesn't mean anything like political liberty. It means autonomous. Unaffected by outside influence. If God alters ones will, then that will is no longer free, it has been affected by an outside influence. This is the most basic rule of logic: a thing may not both be a and not a.

 

[Lambeth1595]

Notice it didn't say whosoever was picked out before birth!

You are quite correct but other verses do. Those God has chosen are those who will believe. The gospel is freely offered to all but only the chosen respond in faith which was given them by God.

John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

 

[Lambeth1595]

Are you blaming God for reprobation? Is man not responsible for his own sins?

Yes and yes.
God chose Jacob before he had done any good because he loved him, equally he reprobated Esau before he had done any bad because he hated him (Romans 9).

 

[cygnusx1]

OK. Offered a rope, a hand, I think it's the same analogy. The point is that some are, as you said, compelled. Which brings up the question: if God compels some, why not all? If He is willing to violate the free will of the "elect," why does He not do so with the hell bound? He wills all to be saved, so what is preventing Him from saving everyone?

You say it is His glory and point to Romans 9. I would refer you to where I quoted Dostoyevsky. Doesn't God take pleasure in that which He is glorified? And if he is glorified by the eternal torture of sinners, doesn't He logically take pleasure in the suffering of those sinners? I hope not, because God would be a sadist.

As to all things glorifying God, they do. Evil has no ontological existance, however. It is not a thing, and it does not glorify God.

If God is glorified by the contrast, then it follows that before sin, he was not glorified. Sinning actually increased his glory. I would have to wholheartedly reject this statement. For one thing (besides being completely absurd), it diminishes the self-sufficiency of God. For another, it makes the fall of man a fortunate thing. If Adam had not sinned, then God's glory would be diminished. Thus God benefits from sin.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong here. I hope I am.

this short quote may help ..........
I like it anyway .

Again; though it be true, blessedly and gloriously true, that God’s mercy "endureth forever," yet we must observe carefully the objects to whom His "mercy" is shown. Even the casting of the reprobate into the Lake of Fire is an act of mercy. The punishment of the wicked is to be contemplated from a threefold viewpoint. From God’s side, it is an act of justice, vindicating His honour. The mercy of God is never shown to the prejudice of His holiness and righteousness. From their side, it is an act of equity, when they are made to suffer the due reward of their iniquities. But from the standpoint of the redeemed, the punishment of the wicked is an act of unspeakable mercy. How dreadful would it be if the present order of things when the children of God are obliged to live in the midst of the children of the Devil, should continue forever! Heaven would at once cease to be heaven if the ears of the saints still heard the blasphemous and filthy language of the reprobate. What a mercy that in the New Jerusalem "there shall in nowise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither worketh abomination" (Rev. 21:27)!

Lest the reader might think that in the last paragraph we have been drawing upon our imagination, let us appeal to Holy Scripture in support of what has been said. In Psalm 143:12 we find David praying, "And of Thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am Thy servant." Again; in Psalm 136:15 we read that God "overthrew Pharaoh and his hosts in the Red Sea: for His mercy endureth forever." It was an act of vengeance upon Pharaoh and his hosts, but it was an act of "mercy" unto the Israelites. Again, in Revelation 19:1-3 we read, "I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: for true and righteous are His judgments: for He hath judged the great harlot, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up forever and ever."

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_14.htm

 

[Full_Moon]

First of all, if you think someone is an idiot for discussing this issue... well, I won't say it. Many minds brighter than yours or mine have addressed this issue. And it is an important one.

You seem to want to accept both free will, and God's determination (at least in some cases) of free will. You can't have it both ways.

"Free" in this context doesn't mean anything like political liberty. It means autonomous. Unaffected by outside influence. If God alters ones will, then that will is no longer free, it has been affected by an outside influence. This is the most basic rule of logic: a thing may not both be a and not a.

Look, I said idiot in the nicest possible way. I was specific in that to uphold one thing God says without upholding another is to be an idiot.

This is my personal opinion of course. But you definately give a great example:

You seem to want to accept both free will, and God's determination (at least in some cases) of free will. You can't have it both ways.

If you are using bible verses to bring about both notions, and both notions are in the bible, then both are true and you are an idiot to even bother quoting the bible as true in the way you like it and false in the way you do not. God does not depend on whether you like Him or not.
again: If you are going to quote from the bible as authoritive, and then use that authoritive knowledge from the bible to discredit other knowledge from the bible, is that not breaking some of the most simple logic of all? Or would you rewrite the bible and take out all the parts you don't like??

That is why I carefully chose the word idiot. Hey, if it is true, then don't argue.

"Free" in this context doesn't mean anything like political liberty. It means autonomous. Unaffected by outside influence. If God alters ones will, then that will is no longer free, it has been affected by an outside influence. This is the most basic rule of logic: a thing may not both be a and not a.

If you want to define what the bible is REALLY talking about, then go make your own version called: "My bible, without the stuff I don't like"

whatever definitions you want to use, whatever meaning you want to put to words. These two things are true.

1. God's Will is Supreme. If He wants to save someone, they will be saved. If He wants to damn someone, then they will be damned. He is the creator of all things INCLUDING our wills and souls.

2. We are accountable for all our deeds and responsible for our choices. For God Himself, who made all things, also made us with the capacity to choose. He Himself will call every deed into account.

Both of these things are clearly stated and supported in the bible. To choose one over the other is to be partial and hypocritical. I used the word idiot because I don't see anyone here blatantly trying to make God a liar in His Word.

You may think that they both can't work, you may not understand and that is fine. I use the word idiot when someone has clear bible passages in front of them showing both to be true, and then goes to say that one part of the bible is true while the other isn't (thus invalidating the bible altogether, not to mention inventing a god of one's own understanding)

Trust me, idiot is me being kind. Discuss, debate, learn and understand. But don't follow the false logic of using something to prove something which disproves that which you used initially. And don't be offended if you do and I say idiot. Come on man, am I being unfair?

 

[Jesus_Fan]

"so the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

god does not just predestine people like that. we have free will and everyone would love god if they didnt let pride and selfishness rule.

i do believe this in the sense that if god has you, he wont let you slip out of his hands unless you make a concious decision to blaspheme him and anyone that can be saved, will be.

 

[Normann]

Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 7:37
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

John 12:47
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

More than Eighty times the term (any man) is used, but the Calvinist will tell us that it does not mean any man.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Normann]

........
....."Man shall not live on bread alone, but on EVERY word which proceeds from the mouth of the Father"

Very good verse; Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


Will the Calvinist also tell me this does not mean "every"?

The word "every" in this verse is from the same greek word whosoever is form...

as, Greek pas, pas; including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole :- all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), × thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

So I guess according to Calvinist we do not need "every" word of God!

Matthew 7:8
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[cygnusx1]

Look, I said idiot in the nicest possible way. I was specific in that to uphold one thing God says without upholding another is to be an idiot.

This is my personal opinion of course. But you definately give a great example:


If you are using bible verses to bring about both notions, and both notions are in the bible, then both are true and you are an idiot to even bother quoting the bible as true in the way you like it and false in the way you do not. God does not depend on whether you like Him or not.
again: If you are going to quote from the bible as authoritive, and then use that authoritive knowledge from the bible to discredit other knowledge from the bible, is that not breaking some of the most simple logic of all? Or would you rewrite the bible and take out all the parts you don't like??

That is why I carefully chose the word idiot. Hey, if it is true, then don't argue.



If you want to define what the bible is REALLY talking about, then go make your own version called: "My bible, without the stuff I don't like"

whatever definitions you want to use, whatever meaning you want to put to words. These two things are true.

1. God's Will is Supreme. If He wants to save someone, they will be saved. If He wants to damn someone, then they will be damned. He is the creator of all things INCLUDING our wills and souls.

2. We are accountable for all our deeds and responsible for our choices. For God Himself, who made all things, also made us with the capacity to choose. He Himself will call every deed into account.

Both of these things are clearly stated and supported in the bible. To choose one over the other is to be partial and hypocritical. I used the word idiot because I don't see anyone here blatantly trying to make God a liar in His Word.

You may think that they both can't work, you may not understand and that is fine. I use the word idiot when someone has clear bible passages in front of them showing both to be true, and then goes to say that one part of the bible is true while the other isn't (thus invalidating the bible altogether, not to mention inventing a god of one's own understanding)

Trust me, idiot is me being kind. Discuss, debate, learn and understand. But don't follow the false logic of using something to prove something which disproves that which you used initially. And don't be offended if you do and I say idiot. Come on man, am I being unfair?

i wouldn't be too quick to call anyone an idiot ......... it is like calling someone a fool .......... have you no recollection of the warning Jesus gave us ?

'But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.' Mat 5:22

 

[lmnop9876]

the whole debate about predestination comes down to two terms:
1. free will. do we have it, or don't we?
2. foreknowledge. does it mean God knows (foresees a future event, has knowledge of) before who will believe, or God knows (loves, is acquainted with, is friends with) before who will believe?

which Bible verses indicate that we have the ability to turn to God by ourselves? which ones indicate that we don't?

a couple of verses about free will and God calling men to Christ:

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

but...

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

the Lord says that no man can come to Him except the Father draw him, but He also says that He will draw all men to Himself.

here's a couple of uses of the word "foreknowledge (prognosis)" in the Bible:

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

the word foreknowledge here would seem to indicate that God "determined before" what would happen.

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

does foreknowledge mean the same thing here as it does in Acts 2:23?

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed 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 whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

again, does "did foreknow" (proginosko) mean the same thing here as in Acts 2:23?

 

[cygnusx1]

the whole debate about predestination comes down to two terms:
1. free will. do we have it, or don't we?
2. foreknowledge. does it mean God knows (foresees a future event, has knowledge of) before who will believe, or God knows (loves, is acquainted with, is friends with) before who will believe?

which Bible verses indicate that we have the ability to turn to God by ourselves? which ones indicate that we don't?

a couple of verses about free will and God calling men to Christ:

but...

the Lord says that no man can come to Him except the Father draw him, but He also says that He will draw all men to Himself.

here's a couple of uses of the word "foreknowledge (prognosis)" in the Bible:

the word foreknowledge here would seem to indicate that God "determined before" what would happen.

does foreknowledge mean the same thing here as it does in Acts 2:23?


again, does "did foreknow" (proginosko) mean the same thing here as in Acts 2:23?

can you tell me is Christ drawing all men to Himself , will Christ draw all men to Himself ........... or do you acknowledge "all" must be interpreted by Context ?

see Fru's arguement in Soteriology .........

The problem is that if you are at all consistent in arguing for "exact equalities" then you must either deny original sin or embrace universalism. If you affirm that not all men are "made righteous" (saved) then to maintain "exact equality" you must affirm that not all men are "made sinners" (in denial of original sin). If you you affirm that all men are indeed "made sinners" then to maintain "exact equality" you must affirm that all men are "made righteous" (and thus accept universalism).

Moreover, if you affirm that men choose to be "made righteous" then to maintain "exact equality" you must affirm that they choose to be "made sinners" (again in denial of original sin).Originally Posted by: frumanchu

http://www.christianforums.com/t2220581-romans-9.html&page=98#post20719265

 

[calidog]

for what it's worth (if anything) the following was quoted before the cross

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

but...

Quote

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

and John 12 was refering to after the cross.

 

[calidog]

can you tell me is Christ drawing all men to Himself , will Christ draw all men to Himself ........... or do you acknowledge "all" must be interpreted by Context ?

see Fru's arguement in Soteriology .........

every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

 

[cygnusx1]

every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

glad you quoted that scripture , would you care to tell us just how that is going to happen .......... I mean , possibly a third of humanity will be saved , the rest will be in continuous enmity and defiance of God , they will continue to resist Him , so just how is God going to get these rebels to bow the knee ?

Invite them all nicely ?

 

[lmnop9876]

can you tell me is Christ drawing all men to Himself , will Christ draw all men to Himself ........... or do you acknowledge "all" must be interpreted by Context ?

St. Augustine: God chooses us, not because we believe, but so we may believe.

 

[cygnusx1]

can someone address how rebels will bow the knee ......... is it forgotten that rebels don't want to bow the knee and acknowledge that Jesus is Lord!
But on judgment day all men will !

I want someone to tell me how God is going to get sinners in rebellion to bow the knee .................... I have so many times heard it said God is Love and Love doesn't use force ......

 

[calidog]

glad you quoted that scripture , would you care to tell us just how that is going to happen .......... I mean , possibly a third of humanity will be saved , the rest will be in continuous enmity and defiance of God , they will continue to resist Him , so just how is God going to get these rebels to bow the knee ?

Invite them all nicely ?

I'm sure the Author could give you a better answer.

 

[ContraMundum]

St. Augustine: God chooses us, not because we believe, but so we may believe.

..and more from him..

"He that made us without ourselves, will not save us without ourselves"