Predestination

[squint]

Those who don't endure to the end simply prove they are not 'chosen'.

Oddly enough the baseline understandings of determinism in the Calvin sense show that not even Calvin or any other determinist who takes Calvin's views on TULIP can say they are saved because they must persevere to the end and in order to find out, at the conclusion of perseverance.

I find it quite odd that Calvin or any other determinist who takes Calvin's positions can not really say they are saved in this construct and in fact his entire construct could just as easily fall off the cliff on the basis that he wasn't saved or didn't persevere and could therefore theoretically be pulling his entire construct out of his potentially unsaved hat.

Calvin's positions have some very severe errors in any case. And some of his offshoots have gone waaay out there.

Looking at just one, Total Depravity:

All of Israel's people are/were taught in the Old Testament to be Gods children. That teaching of fact is found in Deut. 14:1 and Psalm 82:6 for quick references among other citings, in the later case reference even Jesus affirming in the N.T. Gospels.

If Total Depravity were true as it applied to Israel, it must be categorical that God had Totally Depraved children, seeing they are His children.

That can't possibly compute.

s

 

[dollarsbill]

If Total Depravity were true as it applied to Israel, it must be categorical that God had Totally Depraved children, seeing they are His children.

That can't possibly compute.

s

But what is "total depravity"? All have sinned, except Jesus.

 

[squint]

But what is "total depravity"? All have sinned, except Jesus.

Man is not alone in matters of sin. The devil is also 'factually' involved in the sin of everyone in thought via sinning temptation thought, in sinning word and eventually in sinning deed.

I can certainly agree that the devil is totally depraved. But Calvin entirely overlooks that factual matter, and even insulates and exonerates 'the believer' in that equation by failing to PLACE THAT OPERATOR in his theological system 'within the man.' Yes, even the 'saved' man.

It is factually impossible to see 'man' alone in this equation. The more likely culprit that is factually involved is undoubtedly totally depraved and that is the devil. The man is his pawn in that action and activity.

This doesn't make them 'the same' entity.

IN this equation as it applies to Israel as previously cited they can very well be Gods children as the scriptures clearly state. The fact that they are/were blinded by the 'god of this world' does not make them totally depraved, but BLINDED CAPTIVES.

No slur on God whatsoever in that equation nor on the blinded captives, the man.

dig?

s

 

[Albion]

Calvin's positions have some very severe errors in any case. And some of his offshoots have gone waaay out there.

Looking at just one, Total Depravity:

All of Israel's people are/were taught in the Old Testament to be Gods children. That teaching of fact is found in Deut. 14:1 and Psalm 82:6 for quick references among other citings, in the later case reference even Jesus affirming in the N.T. Gospels.

If Total Depravity were true as it applied to Israel, it must be categorical that God had Totally Depraved children, seeing they are His children.

That can't possibly compute.

It doesn't. But it's also not what Total Depravity means. The meaning is that Man's natural condition after the Fall and prior to receiving God's free gift of Grace, is fallen. In that state, there is nothing meritorious about us...in God's eyes. We are not raging barbarians, but neither are we capable of being "good" in a theological sense. Sin can't co-exist with perfection which is God.

 

[squint]

It doesn't. But it's also not what Total Depravity means. The meaning is that Man's natural condition after the Fall and prior to receiving God's free gift of Grace, is fallen. In that state, there is nothing meritorious about us...in God's eyes. We are not raging barbarians,

You understand the difficulty observed of terming children of God as it pertains to blinded Israel, Gods children, totally depraved? That automatically connects to their Father, God, by any measure of logic.

It is certain they are/were in the condition of spiritual blindness. But this does not equate to total depravity.

but neither are we capable of being "good" in a theological sense.

I have a hard time disconnecting any good in any person being apart from Gods involvement.

Men outside of Judaism and Christiandom did and do seek God. I'm not saying they aren't drawn to do so by God.

Acts of righteousness and love are certainly shown to be present with those outside of Israel and outside of faith equations as they are commonly understood/promoted.

The RCC for example recognizes this as an issue and rightfully sees that God is not against 'good works' and that unsaved or people outside the church do in fact do good and right things.

Sin can't co-exist with perfection which is God.

I would consider that a common christian fantasy. God is certainly in the business of loving, saving and co-habitation with sinners.

s

 

[Albion]

You understand the difficulty observed of terming children of God as it pertains to blinded Israel, Gods children, totally depraved? That automatically connects to their Father, God, by any measure of logic.

It's hard to answer that. The two ideas simply deal with different aspects of our belief system. Everyone, before conversion, is part of a fallen race, but of course, we also recognize that God can have a chosen race, etc. The term itself shouldn't offend any Christian IMO, so long as he understands what it means and is not deterred by its somewhat grim sound.

It is certain they are/were in the condition of spiritual blindness. But this does not equate to total depravity.

I'd say that they were in both, but the two concepts are still different.

I have a hard time disconnecting any good in any person being apart from Gods involvement.

Ah, well, then you are attuned to the meaning of Total Depravity!

Acts of righteousness and love are certainly shown to be present with those outside of Israel and outside of faith equations as they are commonly understood/promoted.

The question is whether or not an act we'd judge to be good by all that we value is received by God as good if it comes from an unredeemed person.

The RCC for example recognizes this as an issue and rightfully sees that God is not against 'good works' and that unsaved or people outside the church do in fact do good and right things.

In a natural sense, probably. In a theological sense, I doubt it. God cannot put a stamp of approval in the ultimate sense on an act that was not generated by the gift of his grace.

I would consider that a common christian fantasy. God is certainly in the business of loving, saving and co-habitation with sinners.

Not sure that we can show that to be so.

 

[squint]

It's hard to answer that. The two ideas simply deal with different aspects of our belief system. Everyone, before conversion, is part of a fallen race, but of course, we also recognize that God can have a chosen race, etc. The term itself shouldn't offend any Christian IMO, so long as he understands what it means and is not deterred by its somewhat grim sound.

If we see that blinded Israel was blinded by the god of this world, which Paul teaches us they are in 2 Cor. 4:4, there is no reason for me to see any person apart from factual presence of the 'god of this world' who blinds their minds. IN that presence there is undoubtedly total depravity. This does not mean the person is the same as the blinding party. That's all I'm pointing to. It's not just 'them' alone in the facts of the equations.

I'd say that they were in both, but the two concepts are still different.

It is quite easy to see any unbeliever of Israel as them and the 'spirit of stupor' put upon them, again, the blinding of the 'god of this world.'

Jesus tells us how this happens, in Mark 4:15 for example. There is the person and there is the Thief of Word in their hearts.

Ah, well, then you are attuned to the meaning of Total Depravity!

In an accurate sight of all the parties involved, unquestionably.

Where Satan spoke from Peters lips we can certainly see that Satan was the totally depraved entity and that Peter probably didn't even have a clue as to what was 'really' going on. One of them Jesus loved, the other...nope. Not a chance.

The question is whether or not an act we'd judge to be good by all that we value is received by God as good if it comes from an unredeemed person.

I do have an issue with certain branches of determinism deeming such righteous actions or loving actions as 'superfluous.' Scriptures do not teach that they are. That is just the stand of determinism for the opportunity to outright damn them regardless. It is also one of the reasons believers rightfully reject determinism of that flavor.

In a natural sense, probably. In a theological sense, I doubt it. God cannot put a stamp of approval in the ultimate sense on an act that was not generated by the gift of his grace.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Not sure that we can show that to be so.

If your claim is that the Spirit of God in Christ does not dwell with sinners I'm pretty sure none of us have the Spirit of God in Christ because we are all certainly sinners.

The notion that the Spirit of God in Christ does not dwell with sinners is not available that I can see since none of us can say we 'have' no sin as a present tense matter and be in Truth.

Pretty simple.

Even sin existing within Omnipresence shows that God dwells with sinners in the larger sense.

s

 

[Albion]

If your claim is that the Spirit of God in Christ does not dwell with sinners I'm pretty sure none of us have the Spirit of God in Christ because we are all certainly sinners.

The notion that the Spirit of God in Christ does not dwell with sinners is not available that I can see since none of us can say we 'have' no sin as a present tense matter and be in Truth.

Pretty simple.

Even sin existing within Omnipresence shows that God dwells with sinners in the larger sense.

s

That isn't quite it, as I understand the issue. We are all sinners, but there's a diff between those who have been saved and those who have not. It's not as though the redeemed become sinless by accepting the Lord.

 

[simonthezealot]

But remember, it's only the matter of one's eternal destination that's under consideration. Everything else in life remains the same as for freewill folks. Predestination isn't Fatalism, i.e. making us robots.

Right we are not automatons, we should consider the doctrine of concurrence, and that the free-will we have is a compatiblist free-will.