Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, God "chose to elect" those God foresaw would have faith. That's not predestination or election in any usual sense of the word. That's just God creating what God foresaw would be. You're basically saying God elected to create. Using the words "predestination" or "election" adds nothing new to the simple fact God chose to create this world and not some other. In other words, those two words are emptied of any meaning. Trust me, I'm not trying to defend Calvin, but your position has some issues.
I'm sure the anti-Paulists have a lengthy laundry list.What mistakes would those be?
AGREED!
...but this does not reconcile with the enslavement of sinners to evil, their free will suppressed by sin, and that salvation is NOT by their will but by the grace of GOD, ie by HIS will.
When did they get to choose their fate by choosing Christ? If it was after they became sinners than why is that grace not given to all sinners since they are all equally sinful in HIS sight??? And if it was before they chose to be sinful, when was that? Before the foundation of the world obviously...in fact, not just in HIS imagination.
Are you saying they predestined themselves?
They elected themselves?
It sounds like predestination and election mean neither predestined nor election. They simply mean we choose our own fate and that's the end of it. God isn't doing any predestining or electing; God is simply going along. I think that approach absolves God of most responsibility, sans creating everything, but it seems to empty those words of their meaning.
I think that approach absolves God of most responsibility, sans creating everything, but it seems to empty those words of their meaning.
Yeah, God "chose to elect" those God foresaw would have faith. That's not predestination or election in any usual sense of the word. That's just God creating what God foresaw would be. You're basically saying God elected to create. Using the words "predestination" or "election" adds nothing new to the simple fact God chose to create this world and not some other. In other words, those two words are emptied of any meaning. Trust me, I'm not trying to defend Calvin, but your position has some issues.
An essay:
Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son.
From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD.
Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?
GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21 – 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love.
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain, He never knew them.
This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.
Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?
cntd
Did God create first and then foresee?
Then HE also foresaw who would not have faith but created them anyway just to end in hell ??? when HE takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and wants no one to die but all to repent???
Then what I said holds. God simply created the world God chose. Election and predestination have no meaning except God created. It's not like God foresaw and then created, or God created and then foresaw. God just created what God wanted to create. If anything, those who come to faith elected and predestined themselves by choosing. If God foresaw that, it is only because God decided which world to create. But God is not doing anything but creating the world God chose to create. Your position empties those words of meaning, which is fine if that's what you believe.
I agree, I think the problem is intractable. There is a mystery side to all this that we can't know, i.e. God's side. But the idea that God elects and predestined what God foresaw as free choices is simply God choosing this world and not another. Or, if this world was the only possibility, then human free choice does all the electing and predestining, short of God not creating a world at all.
But the idea that God elects and predestined what God foresaw as free choices is simply God choosing this world and not another.
Because you have repeated exactly what you have already said, it is obvious that you are not going to accept anything else, so no further response about that from me.No he means tulip is the gospel
You know the answer to that already, so you don't need mine.Does the presence of the smoke alarm mitigate the fact that the father has put us into a fire trap, not a paradise? Would the gospel be needed if He did not cause us to be born into Adam's sinfulness?
Too deep for me!HIS sovereignty does not mean that He does not need to answer to HIMself, HIS own moral nature.
HIS sovereignty serves HIS moral nature; it does not produce or cause it. HIS sovereignty does not allow HIM to do evil...
Charles Spurgeon saw his role as preaching Jesus in order to get souls saved and confirmed in their faith in Christ. He never purported to be a theologian. He left the deeper and more complicated components of theology to the doctors of theology.I believe he was an honest man honestly trying to resolve the unresolvable except by accepting the doublethink necessary to ignore that election to salvation in fact DOES mean the non-elect are passed over for election to salvation so are in essence elected to reprobation.
Accepting three scripturally defendable premises:
1. we existed before the foundation of the physical universe, world and
2. we made a free will decision to accept or reject GOD's claims to be our GOD and that salvation from all sin was only found in the Son and
3. our free will responses to GOD's call to have faith (an unproven hope) in HIM was the basis, the reason, by which HE chose who to elect to salvation (if they should ever sin) and who to pass over for salvation as eternally unable to ever be holy, ie, those who sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a liar and a false god driven by a psychotic megalomania.
solves the irreconcilable easily. Every person created in HIS image chose their own FATE by their own free will and then those who chose to be sinners, either by that original choice or by a later rebellion to HIS commands, were given predertmined LIVES, predetermined and predestined to be the best possible life each sinful elect could have to bring them to redemption and holy sanctification, heaven ready to be HIS Bride.
This is the second time you have repeated yourself concerning Spurgeon believing in TULIP.Spurgeon defines the gospel as the "doctrines of grace " or TULIP. That is not the gospel.
Paul defines the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.
There is no unconditional election, limited atonement or irresistible grace in the passage. So Spurgeon is actually adding to the gospel which Paul condemns in Galatians 1
hope this helps !!!
Is not the heavenly state the culmination of all life? Is not the heavenly state characterized as the marriage of Christ and HIS Church: Revelation 19:6-7 “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready” Is not the sexual union of married people symbolic of the spiritual unity with GOD of those married to GOD?
I don't need to accept anything from you since I have taught calvinism for over 4 decades. I know the dogma very well oscar.Because you have repeated exactly what you have already said, it is obvious that you are not going to accept anything else, so no further response about that from me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?