REDEMPTION/ATONEMENT: US vs THEM (the L of TULIP)

[Mark Quayle]

I am wondering; do the conversations you've had with me modify anything you have to say to others?

My sincere apologies. You do not deserve the attack.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My sincere apologies. You do not deserve the attack.

Accepted. Yet I did not comment to ellicit an apology, and though it is welcome and accepted I still hope to see changes in what you write when you have stated things that indicated a development in your modes of expression even if not in your underlying beliefs. One ought to take in knowledge and apply it, it ought to change poorly informed to better informed modes of expression even if there is no change in beliefs. Knowledge and acceptance of it - about such things as history, specific Catholic views, and other matters that we have touched upon - ought to be reflected in what comes out of one's heart, so to speak. Wisdom ought to speak clearly and loudly and never be set aside for past expressions that were born of lack of accurate knowledge.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Accepted. Yet I did not comment to illicit an apology, and though it is welcome and accepted I still hope to see changes in what you write when you have stated things that indicated a development in your modes of expression even if not in your underlying beliefs. One ought to take in knowledge and apply it, it ought to change poorly informed to better informed modes of expression even if there is no change in beliefs. Knowledge and acceptance of it - about such things as history, specific Catholic views, and other matters that we have touched upon - ought to be reflected in what comes out of one's heart, so to speak. Wisdom ought to speak clearly and loudly and never be set aside for past expressions that were born of lack of accurate knowledge.

What I do wrong is sin, not misunderstanding. The fact that I don't accept your specific Catholic views is irrelevant to the sin and my mode of expression.

 

[Clare73]

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

foreknew = proginōskō = Verb - Aorist Active Indicative - 3rd Person Singular

• Aorist = Is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time.
• Active = Represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "Jesus returned to Capernaum" Jesus performs the action.
• Indicative = Is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.
• so "foreknew" is independent of time (past, present future), God JUST foreknew ... GOD does the foreknowing ... this "foreknowing" is a simple statement of fact (God really does foreknow).

God knew more than their choices ... God knew that they would be "conformed to the image of His Son" ... so "whom" and "these" in the following phrases/statements are all "saved" (100% in heaven at the end, unless you believe that there are people conformed to the image of Christ damned in Hell).

Look, therefore at those God foreknew:

• GOD predestined
• GOD called
• GOD justified
• GOD glorified

We call them "the Elect" (which means 'Chosen') ... because, like it says, God chose them and God justified them and God predestined them and God foreknew them.

John 6:44 states: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

• Will "whom/these" from Romans 8:28-30 be "raised up at the last days"? (I say YES).
• THEREFORE, does that not mean that Jesus will do the raising up (like He said) and that He is raising up those that the Father DREW to Him? (I say YES.)
• Does that not mean that the "chosen" (aka "Elect") are DRAWN by the Father to the Son? (I say YES.)

The Calvinist position sure looks like the words in the BIBLE to me.

Now, where does it say the "goats", the "tares" those God stomps in "His wrath", the "vessels for destruction" are "loved, drawn, chosen, called, justified, or saved"? I didn't see it. I see "ALL" and "WHOSOEVER BELIEVES" (they don't believe) and "WORLD" applied to them when those words could equally apply to Revelation 7:9-10 "a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, andGo tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!' " ... which AGREES with Romans 8 and John 6 rather than contradicting them.

God foreknew their destiny because he had decreed their destiny before the foundation of the world.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

God foreknew their destiny because he had decreed their destiny before the foundation of the world.

How do you know it was Decree then foresee rather than foresee then decree?

 

[Clare73]

How do you know it was Decree then foresee rather than foresee then decree?

It is not decree, then foresee. They are simultaneous.
My decision (decree) to put down my fork is simultaneous with knowing (foreseeing) that I will put it down.
God's decree is simultaneous with his foreseeing.

God's decrees cause, they are not caused.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

God's decree is simultaneous with his foreseeing.

How do you know that decree and foresee are simultaneous?

 

[Clare73]

How do you know that decree and foresee are simultaneous?

It is the nature of them. . .that was illustrated.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is the nature of them. . .that was illustrated.

I think you ought to admit that you do not know.

 

[Clare73]

I think you ought to admit that you do not know.

Answered and illustrated. . .

What should you admit?
Anything regarding infinite wisdom, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience?

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you know it was Decree then foresee rather than foresee then decree?

The fact we must arrange things according to our human ways, doesn't mean God does. We think he had to arrange the order of progression, when there was the one act, the one thought, the one plan. God isn't like us, having to consider this and weigh that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The fact we must arrange things according to our human ways, doesn't mean God does. We think he had to arrange the order of progression, when there was the one act, the one thought, the one plan. God isn't like us, having to consider this and weigh that.

You're speculating.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're speculating.

Yet it makes sense, doesn't it! God is not like us. We are like him, only not very much.

But it isn't my speculation alone. It is good theology. The Simplicity of God, and the Aseity of God go a long way here.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yet it makes sense, doesn't it! God is not like us. We are like him, only not very much.

But it isn't my speculation alone. It is good theology. The Simplicity of God, and the Aseity of God go a long way here.

It's speculation. It has no foundation in the scriptures, just in the imagination and philosophy of some theologians, and yourself, as you say.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
The fact we must arrange things according to our human ways, doesn't mean God does. We think he had to arrange the order of progression, when there was the one act, the one thought, the one plan. God isn't like us, having to consider this and weigh that.

Xeno.of.athens said:
You're speculating.

Mark Quayle said:
Yet it makes sense, doesn't it! God is not like us. We are like him, only not very much.

But it isn't my speculation alone. It is good theology. The Simplicity of God, and the Aseity of God go a long way here.

It's speculation. It has no foundation in the scriptures, just in the imagination and philosophy of some theologians, and yourself, as you say.

The Simplicity of God and the Aseity of God have no Scriptural backing? Scripture doesn't show that God isn't like us?

It is speculation to say that God has to consider before doing. Or worse, it is assuming that he does so.

You think that God weighs options instead of simply making fact? Do you think Scripture has God wondering whether this or that is a better way to do something?

Anthropomorphism.

"In the beginning, God..." God's creation doesn't happen to God. There can be only one brute fact: God, the "I AM".


But, for whatever it is worth to you for me to say it, even the best philosophy and theology, if it is not a quote from Scripture itself, is still "man's way to put it".

 

[Mark Quayle]

It should be noted that the "US" that your refer to also believe that God so loved man that He made some men just so He could give them no chance what so ever to avoid eternal punishment, that is not the God I believe in, My God loves everyone and gives everyone an opportunity for salvation.

No. That is not God's primary purpose for them. Romans 9 tells us the real purpose he made them (among many other reasons for making them):

"What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory..."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Simplicity of God and the Aseity of God have no Scriptural backing? Scripture doesn't show that God isn't like us?

Rhetorical nonsense. None of this is in question. It is the speculation offered in your posts that was questioned.

It is speculation to say that God has to consider before doing.

It is speculation to say that. Human beings who live from one moment to the next moment in an irreversible procession of moments ought to first consider and then to act. But is this so for God? Few would say it is. It is believed that God transcends time and that is believed to imply that for God there is no "before" and "after" an event as there is for human beings.

You think that God weighs options instead of simply making fact? Do you think Scripture has God wondering whether this or that is a better way to do something?

Anthropomorphism.

I agree with these remarks with the following amendment "Who thinks that God weighs options instead of causing his purposes to be? Who thinks Scripture has God wondering whether this or that is a better way to do something? This is just anthropomorphism"

"In the beginning, God..." God's creation doesn't happen to God. There can be only one brute fact: God, the "I AM".

This is a rhetorical flourish, it has little to contribute to the discussion.

But, for whatever it is worth to you for me to say it, even the best philosophy and theology, if it is not a quote from Scripture itself, is still "man's way to put it".

This is at least partially true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
The Simplicity of God and the Aseity of God have no Scriptural backing? Scripture doesn't show that God isn't like us?

Rhetorical nonsense.

How about the immutability of God?

Mark Quayle said:
"In the beginning, God..." God's creation doesn't happen to God. There can be only one brute fact: God, the "I AM".

This is a rhetorical flourish, it has little to contribute to the discussion.

You present a god who must react to his creation, in ways he had not planned. You present God's creation as the main fact, not God himself. God is the default fact, but your theology doesn't start there.

Mark Quayle said:
But, for whatever it is worth to you for me to say it, even the best philosophy and theology, if it is not a quote from Scripture itself, is still "man's way to put it".

This is at least partially true.

You leave me to guess which part. The part that leaves out the authority of the RCC?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You present a god who must react to his creation, in ways he had not planned. You present God's creation as the main fact, not God himself. God is the default fact, but your theology doesn't start there.

These are incorrect inferences drawn by yourself in your posts but not implied by myself in my posts. It does not advance the discussion to hurl such comments at me as if I had some responsibility to answer them; they are simply things that you infer incorrectly.

You leave me to guess which part. The part that leaves out the authority of the RCC?

The only part with any content in it; specifically "even the best philosophy and theology, if it is not a quote from Scripture itself, is still "man's way to put it"." It is the part in italics that is at least partially true.