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.
Reformationist said:Why does one reject and one accept? If we are all made in His likeness and we compare two who have not yet made a decision either for or against the Lord, what makes one person accept and another reject?
Thanks,
God bless
Sin is offensive to God and harmful to us. I see the sense of urgency clearly because it is something we should urgently address in our lives. However, I don't see it being an issue of salvation and I think the prosaic way these issues are addressed in the Gospel often leads people to form unbiblical opinions about the result of falling into sin. For that matter, if it's an issue of wording, why would the Gospel just not come out and say, "If you don't keep my commandments then you will lose the gift that you never earned?" This, to me, is something that many seem to skip right over. They'll readily acknowledge they could do nothing to merit getting saved but then adamantly defend the belief that they must do something to keep it. The concept of unmerited gain can potentially beget merited loss makes no sense to me.Miss Shelby said:I would have to cut and paste half of the New Testament alone to show you that. In a nutshell it has to do with repenting, abiding and remaining. I believe these warnings are issued by God in a very urgent manner, and in the present tense. Giving that --it would be my opinion that they pertain to salvation. If they didn't, why the urgency? Why the warnings about being cut off and thrown into the fire or devoured by wolves? Why wouldn't He have been a bit more lax in His wording?
I am a big proponant of the belief of the passive action of God in giving men over to their natural sinful inclinations. Tell me, if God "steps back and has nothing to do with it" are those people still as morally free to repent and obey God?What I believe is happening here is that God is giving these vessels of wrath being fitted for destruction over to their sin. He is stepping back and having nothing to do with it.
A couple of things here. First, are you saying that you believe God does predestine vessels of mercy but not wrath? Also, what does that preparation by God entail? As for God "doing the acting" let me clarify that I am, in NO way, saying that God is forcing them to sin. What I'm saying is that God, in passively withdrawing His restraining hand, is, in essence, turning men over to deal with things from a carnal mind, which will ALWAYS sin. Once again, God is not inserting sinful thoughts into their minds. Rather, He is merely removing His hand of restraint that kept them from sinning to the level that they had under His active restraint, much like the way He dealt with Pharaoh.I would agree with you when he talks about vessels of mercy. But the vessels of wrath I think the verb is passive there, I do not think that God is doing the acting there. I think the action lies in the heart of the vessel being fitted for destruction.
Um...okay. I agree. Would you mind addressing this portion though?:I think that whole chapter speaks of God's sovereinity, but also of His mercy.
Michelle, if God created someone to worship Him and He's the One doing the creating don't you think that He has the power ensure they turn out the way He intended? Or do you think God arbitrarily desires something while knowing that He is powerless to ensure that it works out the way He wants it to? That makes God sound as impotent as man in my opinion. Why would God desire something that He eternally knew would never be? It just makes no sense whatsoever, especially sense it is God determining exactly what it is He is creating.As for why, if all humanity was created to worship God, why do they not? This is the crux of our disagreement. I believe He desires all men to do that but not all men will. I don't think this diminishes God's power in any way, as you think that it would, but that He loves us enough to let us choose Him.
Michelle
That's how you define "free will," the "power" to choose between the two opposites? So all people ever created are morally free to obey God or disobey God? Is that what you're saying?Shelb5 said:Free will: The power to chose between the two opposites.
Reformationist said:That's how you define "free will," the "power" to choose between the two opposites? So all people ever created are morally free to obey God or disobey God? Is that what you're saying?
Yes. Why does that seem wrong to you? God wants it to be our choice because love is not love if you do not give it from yourself willfully, denying yourself.
That still doesn't answer my question though. Using your definition, what causes one person to exercise "the power to choose between the two opposites" and submit to God and another to exercise ""the power to choose between the two opposites" and choose not to submit to God?
Thanks,
God bless
Power, abilty to be able to make that choice is how they do it. God still in in contol though, He is the one once they chose for erterntiy who allows the choice to stand and therefore they are made vessels of wrath fit for destruction. .
He is the one in control though, he is the one who gives them the chance to reject. They make that choice because God allows them the opportunity to make that choice. He is always the one in control, He chose us, not us Him.
He allows the choice and He allowed us the power to be able to make the choice. Nothing is done outside of His control. He is sovereign.
Well God existed prior to creating anything and He was certainly good, right?JesusServant said:Hi Ref!
I read through some of the thread, but not all of it as I am pressed for time. However, I just had to say this...
I have often asked this question as well Ref of Satan. God had to know how Satan would turn on Him, so why go through with it? Why not save everyone the frustration and skip that? I have to assume there has to be a balance for our universe/dimension to exist. Without evil, good has no meaning or existance, it is just the norm and uncomprehensible as good or anything at all.
I believe in man's ability to make decisions. If that's how you define "free will" then I believe in both. However, I temper my acknowledgement of man's ability to make decisions with the understanding that man is, in NO way, free. He is bound to decide based on the predominant desires of his heart. If that heart is unregenerate then he will always desire what the carnal mind, or flesh, desires.Anyway, the way I see it, either one believes in free-will or they believe in predestination. You cannot believe in both as you end up in a quandry of sorts and you end up tossing and turning in bed at night trying to understand it. However, Don, you seem to believe in both from posts I've read. How to you reckon the two?
Well, at least we can be frustrated together.JesusServant said:BTW, Ref, I have a very hard time with some of your questions as well.
I've always know the two of us are similar. We have to understand, mull over, disect and recontruct everything we're taught or believe in. I guess that's why so many stand firm that it all comes down to faith in the end.
I'm so confused on the simplest of matters right now, I'm frustrated.
GOd bless
I believe in man's ability to make decisions. If that's how you define "free will" then I believe in both. However, I temper my acknowledgement of man's ability to make decisions with the understanding that man is, in NO way, free. He is bound to decide based on the predominant desires of his heart. If that heart is unregenerate then he will always desire what the carnal mind, or flesh, desires.
But Michelle, justice has not been served against all the sins of humanity. Those who go to hell go to hell because they must account for their sins and are found lacking.Shelb5 said:Don,
First, I would like to add as Philo pointed out that this does not compromise divine justice because Christ died.
It is not a matter of God is gloried if the atonement is applied directly to a soul but rather, all the trillions of sins that are committed every second of the day only took the one perfect act of obedience from Christ who was the only worthy one to stand in our place created mans place) to satisfy justice. Meaning God is more pleased with that one perfect act of love and obedience from Christ- because he is worthy- than he is with all the sins of the world, all combined through out existence.
"Bringing someone to the Cross" was never your commission. You, and I, were commissioned with bringing the Cross to them.God does not leave those who have not yet responded to His call abandoned. The elect have the power of the cross to bring others to Christ and we do that by bringing them evangelical, supernatural love.
I am seriously trying to avoid a brain aneurysm. Let me get this straight. You're saying that Christ has already atoned for every sin ever committed but that atonement doesn't actually get applied to us until we "accept it?" Am I understanding that?This is the power I speak of that is with in us, it is the power of Jesus blood that atoned for the worlds sins. He atoned for them and we accept that atonement and are forgiven our sins and then we have that power of the atonement in us as His disciples to evangelize that atonement to others and they accept forgiveness and then they bring that love to others.
It seems wrong to me because Scripture refutes it:Yes. Why does that seem wrong to you? God wants it to be our choice because love is not love if you do not give it from yourself willfully, denying yourself.
You're not making any sense. You're saying that their ability to choose one way or the other is why they choose one way or the other. I'm not asking you if they're able. I agree they're able to make a choice. I'm asking you WHY they choose one way or the other.Power, abilty to be able to make that choice is how they do it.
As I told Miss Shelby, katartizo {kat-ar-tid'-zo} is not a reactionary word. It is a causal word. The whole idea that someone is made a certain way based on a future event, which is a direct result of the way they were made, is nonsensical. Once again, Michelle, it's PREpared. That means that it's done BEFORE. If it's done based on something that happens at a later time then it's not done before. It's done after. Look at these words and you may see a trend:God still in in contol though, He is the one once they chose for erterntiy who allows the choice to stand and therefore they are made vessels of wrath fit for destruction.
So why do some avail themselves of that chance to reject and some don't?He is the one in control though, he is the one who gives them the chance to reject.
So your contention is that we make the choice for no other reason than there's a choice to be made?They make that choice because God allows them the opportunity to make that choice.
No. Man's desires stem from His nature. If our nature is corrupted our desires are corrupted.Shelb5 said:Man's desire stems from his free will.
Okay. I agree. What changes this? Don't say God because then you make God's role mean nothing unless you acknowledge that God only changes it for some. In your theology there is a different result, i.e., believers and non believers, from the same favor of God, i.e., He loves us all.After the fall man's desire is to freely serve himself.
What verse do you interpret to mean that God choosing us, not us choosing Him means that His creating of us means that He chose us?God is with him however and he gives man a choice, He chose us, not us Him. By virtue of Him creating us, allowing us existence, He chose us.
You always say this and I've never seen this. Is this from the books you recognize that I don't? Where does the Bible say that God wants us to be free, and what is it that He wants us to be free to do?God made man for Himself but God desires us to be free.
Michelle, this is so weak. He doesn't "choose whom He wants to be born into existance." He creates them. I know that you know that but you paint God as some passive onlooker.God is free to chose whom he wants to be born into existence.
So if fallen man's desire is to freely serve himself and whatever his desire is is what his choice will be then what causes him to all of a sudden choose to submit to God?God gives man the choice between evil and good and he also gives him power to choose and like you said what man's desire is- is what his choice will be.
Repent or perish. That seems pretty clear to me.Reformationist said:For that matter, if it's an issue of wording, why would the Gospel just not come out and say, "If you don't keep my commandments then you will lose the gift that you never earned?"
I believe that God gives grace that we can either appreciate and gaurd or that we can reject. I think that when rejection becomes clear, he will give that person over to their desires, He will not force anyone to stay. If the fig tree is dead, He will cut it off at the root.I am a big proponant of the belief of the passive action of God in giving men over to their natural sinful inclinations. Tell me, if God "steps back and has nothing to do with it" are those people still as morally free to repent and obey God?
Yes.A couple of things here. First, are you saying that you believe God does predestine vessels of mercy but not wrath?
Because if didn't love him out of our own choice it wouldn't be real love.Lastly, and I've mentioned this before, why would you say that God loves us enough to let us choose?
You're asking too many questions in one stint. And they're questions that I do not claim to know the answer to.Didn't God realize that many of those He loved were going to burn in hell and suffer a lot of torment? How is that loving? Are you saying that God loves us all and desires that we all be with Him but He has a greater desire that we be the ones to choose Him? Doesn't the Word tell us that we weren't the ones that chose Him but rather He was the one who chose us? What do you think His choosing of us accomplished? Did His choice of us facilitate or ensure that anything would happen? Also, if God loves every single person, even though the Bible says that He hates workers of iniquity, does that mean that God started out being eternally disappointed in the way His own plan turned out?
Can I get that reference in context?Miss Shelby said:Repent or perish. That seems pretty clear to me.
You say that He will not force anyone to stay but that implies that they are His to begin with. How can a fig tree be dead if it is indwelt with the life of God through the Holy Spirit? Also, at what point in the mind of an immutable, omniscient Creator does soemthing "become clear?"I believe that God gives grace that we can either appreciate and gaurd or that we can reject. I think that when rejection becomes clear, he will give that person over to their desires, He will not force anyone to stay. If the fig tree is dead, He will cut it off at the root.
Do you believe that it is God's sovereign action of bringing each and every one to full glory that causes them to be brought to full glory?Yes.That is exactly what I believe. He speaks of the elect and I believe he will bring each and every one to full glory. What I do not think he speaks of are the nonelect, and therefore I cannot make any assumptions as to what his motive is there.
Who said that God's elect don't make the choice to love Him? I believe they do. However, Scripture relates that the reason they do is because God loved them first.Because if didn't love him out of our own choice it wouldn't be real love.
Sorry about that. Just take them one at a time if you feel inclined.You're asking too many questions in one stint.
I don't think God is "disappointed" because a vessel He created for wrath disobeys Him. On the contrary, that brings Him glory because it shows His sovereign control in creation. IOW, His creation came out exactly as He had intended.I can't answer whether or not God has been eternally disappointed. But by your reasoning He intended to disappoint himself from the start because the two he created for his own pleasure disobeyed Him.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I think it would be very difficult living my life striving to obey God thinking that I'll never know if I'm His until I'm in Heaven.And I do not think that I can presume that I am one of the elect, because I will only find that out when I meet my eternal reward and IF I continue in his kindess the outcome will be good.
Hey, that's wierd. My name is Don too.God bless,
Don
Shelb5 said:If I am understanding you crux it is A) the sacrifice of Christ must complete what it sets out to do and if it sets out to atoned all sins then all sins are atoned therefore all men would be saved.
And B) what makes one man choose the atonement that saves an one reject it.
First we know what Christ said, that he was dyeing for the sins of many. You see that as he is speaking specifically but he is speaking not about who is going to respond to the Blood and be saved, but rather He is speaking of the power of the Blood to make a perfect and pure satisfaction to God the Father for all the sins of the world.
Nevertheless, Christ did not come into the world only to judge it and condemn it: he came to save it. Convincing about sin and righteousness has as its purpose the salvation of the world, the salvation of men.
reformationist said:That was Their goal, right, the salvation of all men? If yes, consider your own goals that you may have set in your life
Shelb5 said:The purpose is the salvation that is why the goal is to atone for the sin, original sin, that brings the evil to the soul and Christ did that so now the Father is satisfied, satisfaction has been made for the sin that brought all of our personal sins into this world.
Since divine justice is satisfied, the Holy Spirit is sent and? (as aside, looking into this who issue, I found the meaning to the ?Come Holy Spirit? prayer that Catholics often pray so it has been worth it to me).
The prayer says; Come Holy Spirit fill the hearts of your faithful, send fourth your spirit and they shall be created and you will renew the face of the earth.?
Now I know what that means, the Holy Spirit is sent, he has ?come? and he renews the face of the earth by convicting souls of their sin and just as I can speak words to you hoping to reach your heart, you must be open to receiving my words.
What makes one person receive the word and another reject it. I will re quote JP because I believe he says it perfectly. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life.
Their spiritually dead he is saying which is them not existing because they closed themselves off to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and God hardends their hearts against Him by allowing their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
JP says it right here: This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins.
Fits right in with Christ saying that "He who sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."
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?