Predestination

[chestertonrules]

It isn't what he wants if we do not love him. That's obvious, I'd say.

He wants us to love and follow him. All of us.

 

[Albion]

He wants us to love and follow him. All of us.

Absolutely--both the Elect and the "non-Elect."



But what we were discussing was not that. It was not whether he wants all men to love him, yes or no.

First it was whether or not he will save any who are "unwilling" to be saved. I asked if there are any such people. I said this is all about what God wants.

Then it was whether or not God has what he wants if, as you suggested, he wants all to love him but many choose not to do so. If many are allowed to freely reject him, this would mean that God is thwarted in his intention of having all men love him.

 

[Secundulus]

But all of these personal theories, whether it be Secundulus thinking that he might have lost his faith (because of Protestantism) rather than focus on the fact that stares us all right in the face, which is that he didn't lose it,

I was praying to a Pagan God for a couple of months before moving to gnosticism. So, if my faith wasn't lost, it was well hidden.

"Because of Protestantism" was a poor choice of words. I was trying to figure things out and was reading various books by prominent Protestant writers of today. I found that no two really agreed with each other and that further they constantly made statements about things, based upon their theology, that I know are absurd. Further, many of their writings were laced with errors in logic. These guys made Christianity make no sense whatsoever.

Also, I am fairly intelligent and I find that Protestant writers' efforts to deny works (in modern popular theology) weave a twisted tale that always leaves me entirely confused. Perhaps that is partially due to my engineer trained mind that needs to understand something to mathematical precision before I can accept it.

And, maybe our Priest could have spent some time preaching on this subject. I cannot remember it ever being addressed.

I understand it now, but that is only after reading and studying some heavy duty theological works from both Protestants and Catholics that are not generally available to the casual reader that I was at that time.

 

[Albion]

I was praying to a Pagan God for a couple of months before moving to gnosticism. So, if my faith wasn't lost, it was well hidden.

I understand, but I was responding to the notion that believing what the five points teach leads to despair, when really it's the other way around. You affirmed the POV that I rejected by explaining your "dark night of the soul" if I may be permitted to put it that way. Many people have had a similar experience but it doesn't indicate that your faith could be lost. God doesn't keep us from having ups and downs. The only thing that Eternal Security means is, well, Eternal Security, not a bed of roses along the way. You didn't lose your faith. That's the real deal here, and this fact doesn't in any way mean that you were about to lose it, no matter how it seemed at the time.

"Because of Protestantism" was a poor choice of words. I was trying to figure things out and was reading various books by prominent Protestant writers of today. I found that no two really agreed with each other and that further they constantly made statements about things, based upon their theology, that I know are absurd. Further, many of their writings were laced with errors in logic. These guys made Christianity make no sense whatsoever.

Well, that's OK with me. I wasn't really making any issue out of that other than that you didn't lose your faith.

Also, I am fairly intelligent and I find that Protestant writers' efforts to deny works (in modern popular theology) weave a twisted tale that always leaves me entirely confused.

You know (and if we are speaking comfortably and candidly) I never understand that POV when people say it. To me, it's the only perspective that is logical and consistent, as well of course as Biblical. Freewill is a mess, IMO. It sounds so good at a glance because we all want to think of ourselves as charting our own course, and being free is a high virtue in our society, etc., but when everything is examined closely, it's a downer. That's my conclusion, and I'm not arguing with anyone at the moment, just saying that that's what I concluded after long study and having come from a religious background that saw predestionation exactly as the critics here have approached it.

Perhaps that is partially due to my engineer trained mind that needs to understand something to mathematical precision before I can accept it.

Wow. I'm not an engineer or mathematician by profession, but the logic and even precision in the five points is one of the reasons that POV is compelling, IMO. The Freewill people I hear from haven't answered anything specific when asked about how it is supposed to work in real life, how many deeds to do, how to rank them, what fairness there is in the idea that a life of faithfulness means nothing if you die a moment after committing a mortal sin, etc. All they say is "I hope God finds me acceptable, yes, I think he will" or "It's not for me to judge." How much better, IMO, to say that God is in charge. That doesn't make me in charge, it's true, and we all like the idea of being in charge of the world around us, but once I got over that hurdle of self-importance, it was as though a huge rock were lifted from me and I thought of that old saying about "Let go and let God."

 

[chestertonrules]

Absolutely--both the Elect and the "non-Elect."



But what we were discussing was not that. It was not whether he wants all men to love him, yes or no.

First it was whether or not he will save any who are "unwilling" to be saved. I asked if there are any such people. I said this is all about what God wants.

Then it was whether or not God has what he wants if, as you suggested, he wants all to love him but many choose not to do so. If many are allowed to freely reject him, this would mean that God is thwarted in his intention of having all men love him.

You can discuss all you want, but you can't change what the bible says.

God wants all men to be saved. His grace is sufficient for all men to be saved.

Unfortunately, some men reject God's grace, and he doesn't prevent them from doing so.

 

[DeaconDean]

People, lest we forget the what the Op said:

This is not a debate.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[MamaZ]

Do you deny that Paul himself said that he had to press on to win the prize for which he was called?

Do you deny that Paul said that he must stand strong so that after preaching the gospel he himself would not be disqualified?

How do you conclude that the prize Paul is speaking of is salvation. For in the scripture we read of rewards.. Disqualified for what?

 

[MamaZ]

Salvation is not a reward . Salvation is a gift from God through His Grace and Mercy..

 

[Montalban]

Absolutely--both the Elect and the "non-Elect."

So he made some he loves for hell and will punish them even though he loves them because they failed to follow rules he created which he knew that they couldn't have obeyed

 

[Montalban]

That was an act of grace. It did not end there. Paul needed to persevere, press on, to strain ahead. Paul did not stop making choices when grace intervened in his life.

He could have chosen to reject God's grace.

MamaZ was replying to my response to another who was using an analogy that Paul was acting as a slave. I disagreed. And, although she disagreed to, she disagreed with me, not the person who first made use of that analogy.

Go figure

 

[Hammster]

MamaZ was replying to my response to another who was using an analogy that Paul was acting as a slave. I disagreed. And, although she disagreed to, she disagreed with me, not the person who first made use of that analogy.

Go figure

You sure seem to take this stuff seriously, and always want us to know when you have been wronged.

 

[Hammster]

So he made some he loves for hell and will punish them even though he loves them because they failed to follow rules he created which he knew that they couldn't have obeyed

We will let Paul answer.

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [Boy, do we hear that question here]
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

[chestertonrules]

We will let Paul answer.

Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [Boy, do we hear that question here]
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Two points Calvinists miss about Romans 9.

1) This is about God's relationship to the Jews. Romans 9-11 go together.


2) Pauls says, What if.... Paul is saying that we don't control God. I think we can all accept this. He is not making a doctrinal statement about individual salvation. However, this analogy in no way overrides the other promises and instructions from God that are much more explicit.



FYI:

Romans 11
19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[chestertonrules]

How do you conclude that the prize Paul is speaking of is salvation. For in the scripture we read of rewards.. Disqualified for what?

Phil 3

10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow,to attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

 

[Albion]

You can discuss all you want, but you can't change what the bible says.

Agreed. But you were answering to issues other than those we were talking about, is all. If God intends for all men to love him, and he is all-powerful, how can it be that he doesn't get it?

God wants all men to be saved.

You've said that several times. I noted that if this is what he wants, he is constantly being thwarted in his wants (which is something that freewill people admit to).

What does this say about God being omnipotent, then?

His grace is sufficient for all men to be saved.

Agreed. So why do Freewill people add that man has to contribute his own efforts if God's grace is--according to what you say here--"sufficient?" It's obviously NOT sufficient in your view if men must also do a certain number and kind of good deeds in addition to having faith that is given them by God (grace)?

Unfortunately, some men reject God's grace,

Do we know that that is the case, and if so, how do we know it?

 

[Hammster]

Two points Calvinists miss about Romans 9.



1) This is about God's relationship to the Jews. Romans 9-11 go together.





2) Pauls says, What if.... Paul is saying that we don't control God. I think we can all accept this. He is not making a doctrinal statement about individual salvation. However, this analogy in no way overrides the other promises and instructions from God that are much more explicit.







FYI:



Romans 11

19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

I understand these verses in the light of what is previously taught. You want to use them as a hammer to beat people into submission. And then you talk of God's grace. Nice. Real nice.

 

[chestertonrules]

Agreed. But you were answering to issues other than those we were talking about, is all. If God intends for all men to love him, and he is all-powerful, how can it be that he doesn't get it?

The bible doesn't say intends, it says wants. There is a difference.

You've said that several times. I noted that if this is what he wants, he is constantly being thwarted in his wants (which is something that freewill people admit to).

He permits us to choose. We are created in his image with the power to choose. He voluntarily created us in his image.

What does this say about God being omnipotent, then?

He gets the universe he created. It says nothing about God's omnipotence.

Agreed. So why do Freewill people add that man has to contribute his own efforts if God's grace is--according to what you say here--"sufficient?" It's obviously NOT sufficient in your view if men must also do a certain number and kind of good deeds in addition to having faith that is given them by God (grace)?

His grace is sufficient, but we must cooperate with it to be saved. For example, a new bike may be sufficient transportation to get me to the store. However, if I don't use the bike, then I won't get to the store.

Do we know that that is the case, and if so, how do we know it?

We can know this by reading the bible.

1 Timothy 1:19 "Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked".

Ezekiel 18:26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies because of the iniquity which he has committed, he will die.

 

[chestertonrules]

I understand these verses in the light of what is previously taught. You want to use them as a hammer to beat people into submission. And then you talk of God's grace. Nice. Real nice.

I want you to understand them.

I don't agree with your description.

You brought them up to defend your position, right?

 

[Albion]

The bible doesn't say intends, it says wants. There is a difference.

If God wants all men to be saved, and he is omnipotant, all men would be saved.

He permits us to choose. We are created in his image with the power to choose. He voluntarily created us in his image.

You've already said that.

He gets the universe he created. It says nothing about God's omnipotence.

If he is omnipotent, he doesn't just "get the universe he created." He has ALL power.

His grace is sufficient, but we must cooperate with it to be saved.
If that were the case, his grace would NOT be sufficient.

For example, a new bike may be sufficient transportation to get me to the store. However, if I don't use the bike, then I won't get to the store.

Then his grace would not be sufficient. It would require something else. As in your analogy here, it takes both God's grace and man's efforts to bring about the result in question.

(Some men can reject God's grace)

We can know this by reading the bible.

1 Timothy 1:19 "Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected (conscience) and their faith has been shipwrecked".

Ezekiel 18:26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies because of the iniquity which he has committed, he will die.

Exekiel refers to the Old Covenant, prior to Jesus, so it does not bear upon our topic. 1 Timothy speaks of refusing your conscience; it does not say anything about rejecting grace.

But we also must ask what you expect us to do with the verses that teach Election and Eternal Security. Surely, it can't be right to accept part of the Bible and reject other parts.

 

[Yab Yum]

1 Timothy 1:19 "Keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and their faith has been shipwrecked".

Thus demonstrating that from God's view they were never truly regenerated.