Something higher than God wants to save everyone...

[Philip dT]

Can we then safely draw from the word God has not chosen every man unto salvation?

In principle, God has chosen all who take part of Christ through faith.

 

[frumanchu]

On what basis?

I have not had enough time to go back and review Irenaeus' views, but my recollection is that that view is consistent with the rest of his theology.

I mean everything.

The entire mess that Adam plunged us into, death, everything.

I mean Jesus came and undid all of it.

Everything Adam stuffed up, Jesus fixed up.

Can I not make this statement and not be called a universalist?

Do you believe that the logical and practical outworking of that is that all men individually and without exception will be in Heaven? If not, then you can indeed say it without being called a universalist. If so, then I'm afraid you are a universalist.

Doesn't this make the unelect man's capacity nothing but a cruel joke?

A carrot dangled in front of his nose that he can never reach.

The analogy doesn't work. Man doesn't want the carrot

 

[john14_20]

Ok, thanks Fru.

 

[Colossians]

Msortwell,

Nothing that I have offered to this point proclaimed Adam as "good" in a sense that would equate him with God in His goodness.
There is only one kind of good. This is why “good” is derived from “God”. Adam was not God, therefore He was not good.





Tiger,

So you are saying Adam could not have choosen right over wrong?
That is what I am saying.

Was he already spiritually dead?
Yes, although his freedom of conscience was not, therefore rendering him unaware of his spiritual state. Once he found out about his state through the knowledge of good and evil, his freedom also died and came into line with his state. This is what Rom 7:9 refers to.

Was he not in fellowship and right relation with God before his sin?
No. Swinging from trees, naming animals, eating mangos, and talking about the weather with God, does not constitute fellowship with God. All fellowship with God must be in the Spirit.
There can be no fellowship with a God who is love, unless one first of all learns the apobetics and pragmatics of that love: Jesus’ sacrifice at Calvary.





Cygnus
Adam did have a choice , he wasn't forced to disobey .
The choice was only notional – it was the same choice Satan has right now.
To one who does not desire God’s highest good, there is only one choice to make: “ME first”.

God seeing he would sin , overuled it ....for GOOD!
This is Arminianism. You really need to study Romans 9. It appears you only think you are a Calvinist.





Philipdt,

God don't want to save people for the sake of saving, He wants to engage in a reciprocal relationship with him, where man is not a mere marionette. God can not have a relationship with a marionette.
God can’t have a relationship with anyone except Himself, so your point is moot. There is just nothing else that makes the grade of fellowship except God.

That's why God has given man a free will and choice.
Tell us, what is the fundamental attribute/characteristic/ability/propensity that is present in those that choose for God, and absent in those that choose against Him?

God has chosen all who take part of Christ through faith.
A half-truth.
God has indeed chosen all in Christ.
The untruth is your ommision of the fact that He has also chosen them to be Christ.

 

[Philip dT]

God can’t have a relationship with anyone except Himself, so your point is moot. There is just nothing else that makes the grade.

Please explain. Does this imply pantheïsm?

Tell us, what is the fundamental attribute/characteristic/ability/propensity that is present in those that choose for God, and absent in those that choose against Him?

There is no difference. Some make the choice and others don't.

Rom 3:21-23 "But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; (22) even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference, (23) for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

The untruth is your ommision of the fact that He has also chosen them to be Christ.

To be Christ?
You probably mean to be IN Christ...?

If so, that is an assumption.

Eph 1:3-14 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (7) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (8) Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; (9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. (13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (14) Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

This says we are chosen "in Him" It does not say we are chosen "to be" in Him. Election is never apart from Christ. Through faith, we take part in election in Christ. Believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit "after they believed." That is the pledge of our inheritance (Strongs: Of Hebrew origin [H6162]; a pledge, that is, part of the purchase money or property given in advance as security for the rest: - earnest.). It is the proof/security that we are part of His elect. In a sense, "election" is another word for "gospel." It is about His purpose / intention (verse 9,11): That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ (verse 12).

 

[Colossians]

God can’t have a relationship with anyone except Himself, so your point is moot. There is just nothing else that makes the grade.
Does this imply pantheïsm?
Nothing is implied. Only said.


Tell us, what is the fundamental attribute/characteristic/ability/propensity that is present in those that choose for God, and absent in those that choose against Him?
There is no difference. Some make the choice and others don't.
Invalid. All effects have causes. What is the cause behind their decisions?



In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
So you quote the above verse as that which supports your side?
I'd love to see the verses you think might be against you.


(BTW, did you find those 3 quotes I asked you to address on the other thread? You know, the conspicous ones. I noted you disappeared for a while soon after.)

 

[msortwell]

Coloss . . .

Do you hold a theology that is close to any that you have ever seen written down . . . by someone other than yourself . . . and other than the Scriptures as interpreted by what seems to be your unique lense?

I ask this as a serious question because I don't recognize your theology as any I have seen or heard of before.

Is there a "school of thought," the teachings of a "recognized theologian," or a "system of theology" that you would liken to the beliefs and interpretations that you hold?

Perhaps I have been more sheltered than I had previously thought.

mrsortwell

 

[Colossians]

ms,

Your question is redundant.
Better to respond to my post #49 to you, which you are yet to do.

 

[msortwell]

Coloss,

With what is my question redundant? I raise a question regarding your basic theological framework and if it is similar to any system that others might be familiar with.

But your point is correct, I did not respond to post 49. My response follows:

Me: I would offer that we in as much as we were "in Adam" as our federal head before the fall participated in his activities spiritually and shared his abilities spiritually.
You: Inabilities, not abilities. He had no spiritual abilities, because from the very beginning he was not in Christ.

My Response: You are just making this up, so I will discount it . . . unless you direct me to some Scripture that demonstrates (or at least hints) at Adam having no spiritual ability.

Me: Before he did most willingly submit himself to the disobedience of God's command he was not a servant of sin nor were we "in him."
You: He must have been, for by sinning, he served sin.
Just because he was busy naming animals etc, doesn't mean that if he hadn't been busy, he wouldn't have sinned. Non-believers don't go around sinning every minute, yet they are still the servants of sin.
Put another way, if he in fact was a servant of sin, how would the result have been any different? And of course it wouldn't have been any different, thus proving that he was in sin from the beginning.

My Response: “Put another way . . . proving that he was in sin from the beginning.” This is a fallacious argument. Therefore, it too will be ignored. The act of sin under consideration is Adam’s first act of sin. Prior to that act he had not sinned. He had not served sin. Upon this, we must agree. But what is the biblical explanation for one who is a servant of sin?

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. (KJV)

The Scriptures teach that whosoever “committeth” sin is the servant of sin. The verb translated as “committeth” is in its participle form. It is a verbal noun. It speak of one that has the ongoing characteristic of committing sin. This certainly can not be applied to someone who has never yet sinned, as was Adam’s condition when he was created. Therefore, he did not meet the biblical description of one that we know to be a servant of sin.

Me: He was not dead in his trespasses and sin...
You: He was in a state of unratified sin. His being not in Christ, meant he was in a state of sin. What remained was for him to prove such state by its fruit.
This occurred irresistably - it was not simply an unfortunate event which could have gone the other way.

My Response: Again, you are just making stuff up. You are, by unsubstantiated decree assigning sin to one, whom at one time in his life, had not yet sinned, and had no federal head in which to be guilty of sin. Bring some Scripture forward to prove that what you offer is not simple fantasy.


Me: had no fallen nature '"in him."
You: There is no such thing as "the fall of man", which is why such is not in the bible. Man couldn't fall: he was already at rock bottom. And he proved it.
The Rom 5:12 statement that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, does not mean to say that Adam was not already in a state which would bring about such transgression, but simply means that sin is not ratified as such until it is known to be what it is, via the knowledge of good and evil. That is, until sin has knowledge of itself, it remains unratified.
That is, it could not be said that sin was in the world while it was 'asleep' and consequently unratified. Rom 7:9, which speaks from the mouth of Adam, tells us that sin was initially present but asleep, for it was "revived".

My Response: From where do you pull this “ratification” theory? Employing the biblical language of a “fall” in the context of discussing Adam’s is appropriate. Sin is many times referred to as “falling” within the Scriptures. You say, “There is no such thing as ‘the fall of man’, which is why such is not in the Bible.” It is true that the phrase “fall of man” is not used, but the concept and account of a first sin perpetrated by Adam is clearly taught, and sin is frequently described in the text as a “fall.” This stands in stark contrast to the abuse of the text that you perpetrate when you declare that the words of Romans 7:9 is spoken ‘from the mouth of Adam.”

You: In summary, only God is good. Adam was not God, therefore he was not good. The "God saw that it was good" in Genesis, spoke to functionality, not righteousness.

My response: My position is simply that Adam had both the capacity and the ability to do right – to not sin – to spurn evil. I did not assert that Adam was good.

Now please, respond to my previous post.

msortwell

 

[cygnusx1]

Coloss . . .

Do you hold a theology that is close to any that you have ever seen written down . . . by someone other than yourself . . . and other than the Scriptures as interpreted by what seems to be your unique lense?

I ask this as a serious question because I don't recognize your theology as any I have seen or heard of before.

Is there a "school of thought," the teachings of a "recognized theologian," or a "system of theology" that you would liken to the beliefs and interpretations that you hold?

Perhaps I have been more sheltered than I had previously thought.

mrsortwell

Excellent post , it is pointless me quoting coloss , because he himself said quoting others is redundant .http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10276657#post10276657

His theology has been seen before ,

http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/macco.htm


"Gomarus, himself a strong supralapsarian, did join the committee in warning Maccovius against using unbiblical methods and making rash statements. These same rash statements are condemned in the Canons themselves, which tell us in no uncertain terms that we may not make God the author of sin."

 

[Philip dT]

God can’t have a relationship with anyone except Himself, so your point is moot. There is just nothing else that makes the grade.

You haven't explained / proved this.

What is the cause behind their decisions?

The fact that God has given all people a free will and choice.

So you quote the above verse as that which supports your side?

I don't have I side of my own.

I'd love to see the verses you think might be against you.

Me too.

 

[cygnusx1]

If God cannot have a relationship with anyone but Himself (a novel idea) then what is the point in Repenting believing , trusting ... Praying , seeking , honouring and aiming to please Him?


A bizzare logic gets more bizzare.

 

[tigersnare]

Coloss . . .

Do you hold a theology that is close to any that you have ever seen written down . . . by someone other than yourself . . . and other than the Scriptures as interpreted by what seems to be your unique lense?

I ask this as a serious question because I don't recognize your theology as any I have seen or heard of before.

Is there a "school of thought," the teachings of a "recognized theologian," or a "system of theology" that you would liken to the beliefs and interpretations that you hold?

Perhaps I have been more sheltered than I had previously thought.

mrsortwell

I've already asked him in a couple of other posts. He won't answer. And he also seems to be the only person here who "understands" Romans 9.

 

[cygnusx1]

I've already asked him in a couple of other posts. He won't answer. And he also seems to be the only person here who "understands" Romans 9.

Yes I noticed that one , and if anyone doesn't agree with him , he says they arn't a Calvinist and then declares Romans 9 is a sword to hit you with ...

Like if you don't agree with me then YOU must be the person Paul was talking about in Romans 9

 

[Colossians]

God can’t have a relationship with anyone except Himself, so your point is moot. There is just nothing else that makes the grade.
You haven't explained / proved this.
You seem to be unsure that your position is right, and wary that mine may in fact be right.
Here’s something to think about: “can a human being relate to that which is not human?”



What is the cause behind their decisions?
The fact that God has given all people a free will and choice.
Question begging/circular answer. All you have done is used a synonym for decision (“choice” ). You have not told us the cause of the particular choice. So you have not answered the question.

 

[Colossians]

Tigersnare,

I've already asked him in a couple of other posts. He won't answer.
And he also seems to be the only person here who "understands" Romans 9.
(He wonders why I don't answer.)

 

[john14_20]

Here’s something to think about: “can a human being relate to that which is not human?”

Yes.

Our pet dog can relate to us as humans, even though we are far greater than our dog. It is a lop sided or un-even type of relating of course, but there is still relationship.

Anyway, here's the kicker - it really doesn't matter because God is a Human now!

Blessings to all, Pete

 

[Colossians]

Here’s something to think about: “can a human being relate to that which is not human?”
Yes.Our pet dog can.... It is a lop sided or un-even type of relating of course, but there is still relationship.
So God's position in eternity was improved by a lop sided un-even relating?
But rather, if it is uneven, it is not relating. Only the part that is even is the relating part.
No argument can use in its propositions semantically-reduced terminology. All concepts are only validated by the highest and purest semantic.
You communicate with your dog, you don't relate to him.





Anyway, here's the kicker - it really doesn't matter because God is a Human now!
Guess what... He isn't human.
"The first Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
"God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"

So it's back to the scripture for you. And back to the kennel for your puppy dog.

 

[Colossians]

Msortwell,

I would offer that we in as much as we were "in Adam" as our federal head before the fall participated in his activities spiritually and shared his abilities spiritually.
Inabilities, not abilities. He had no spiritual abilities, because from the very beginning he was not in Christ.
.. direct me to some Scripture that demonstrates (or at least hints) at Adam having no spiritual ability.
Firstly, go and think about what “spiritual ability” means. I am not going to waste my time supplying an answer to you when you don’t understand your own question.




Before he did most willingly submit himself to the disobedience of God's command he was not a servant of sin nor were we "in him."
He must have been, for by sinning, he served sin.
Just because he was busy naming animals etc, doesn't mean that if he hadn't been busy, he wouldn't have sinned. Non-believers don't go around sinning every minute, yet they are still the servants of sin.
Put another way, if he in fact was a servant of sin, how would the result have been any different? And of course it wouldn't have been any different, thus proving that he was in sin from the beginning.
“Put another way . . . proving that he was in sin from the beginning.” This is a fallacious argument. Therefore, it too will be ignored.
You ignore it because you cannot refute it.
You like to play “heads I win, tails you lose”: you correctly claim that we were never righteous before we had sinned, but then you change feet and declare that Adam was.
The point stands: if the result would have been no different if he was a sinner, then by the philsophical axiom which states that “two things equal to the same thing, are equal to each other”, he was sinner from the outset.
You cannot have it both ways.

The Scriptures teach that whosoever “committeth” sin is the servant of sin.
Which comes first, one’s becoming a servant, or one’s acting in the servant’s role?
One is a servant of a master before one serves that master. State always precedes activity from state. This is the fundamental you don’t seem to be able to grasp.
Learn from Jesus’ teaching: “A good tree bringeth forth not corrupt fruit”.




He was not dead in his trespasses and sin...
He was in a state of unratified sin. His being not in Christ, meant he was in a state of sin. What remained was for him to prove such state by its fruit. This occurred irresistably - it was not simply an unfortunate event which could have gone the other way.
(Adam) had no federal head in which to be guilty of sin.
Fallacious argument: you require a head to be defined by another head. A head is at the top of the tree, and therefore can have no head.
The federal headship idea only holds for those under the headship. No-one expects a father of a family to justify his fatherhood.
Adam was his own head. And that is why he was a sinner, for he had no Federal Head of righteousness.





Bring some Scripture forward to prove that what you offer is not simple fantasy.
You don’t understand what sin is. Sin is not primarily an act: it is what commits the act. Hence Romans 7:20.
An act of sin is an act of one who is sin. It is sin’s act. Hence also Antichrist: “the man of sin”.




had no fallen nature '"in him."
There is no such thing as "the fall of man", which is why such is not in the bible. Man couldn't fall: he was already at rock bottom. And he proved it.
The Rom 5:12 statement that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression, does not mean to say that Adam was not already in a state which would bring about such transgression, but simply means that sin is not ratified as such until it is known to be what it is, via the knowledge of good and evil. That is, until sin has knowledge of itself, it remains unratified.
That is, it could not be said that sin was in the world while it was 'asleep' and consequently unratified. Rom 7:9, which speaks from the mouth of Adam, tells us that sin was initially present but asleep, for it was "revived".
From where do you pull this “ratification” theory?
(No reponse here except an inquisitive redundancy.)
Do you understand that all semantic value of all language has its derivation in Him who is the Word? – that language not only facilitates communication, but that is reflects the Absolute? Accordingly, “ratify” is defined by the first possible instance of itself.
You need to learn to think at the superordinate level. But as this is not an overnight skill, consider in the interim the implications of the word “revived” in Rom 7.

Employing the biblical language of a “fall” in the context of discussing Adam’s is appropriate.
Redundant argument: you may not appropriate your own rendering in the proving of it.

..to the abuse of the text that you perpetrate when you declare that the words of Romans 7:9 is spoken ‘from the mouth of Adam.”
You don’t understand your ‘federal head’ idea. When Paul is speaking in Romans, he is addressing all of mankind, generically, otherwise there is no teaching application, no relevance to those being taught. What applies to all of man, must of necessity apply to the first man. This is what is known in theology as “the law of first mention”.
Rom 7:9 speaks from the mouth of Adam, for it details the experience of all man. Similarly, Rom 7:11 speaks from the mouth of Eve. If you haven’t heard of this before, then now you have. Learn something new for a change, instead of rehashing what you learn from ‘recognised’ institutions (a redundant concept).





I did not assert that Adam was good.
Then you won’t mind my saying he was not good.

 

[john14_20]

Anyway, here's the kicker - it really doesn't matter because God is a Human now!
Guess what... He isn't human.
"The first Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
"God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"

So it's back to the scripture for you. And back to the kennel for your puppy dog.

God isn't human?

He became human in the Incarnation, unless you think that Jesus wasn't God.

Where do the Scriptures tell us that the humanity of Jesus was left behind after He rose?