Moderator: Moderators
Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"2timothy316 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:01 pm I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.
Hi PinSeeker,PinSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:13 pmWhoops! Stop right there; go no further. I don't claim such a thing. So the rest of your post:myth-one.com wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:43 pmIf mankind is created with immortality in Genesis 1:26-27 as you claim...
...is totally inert and thus null and void. I mean.. of course, Scripture is not inert or null or void, of course, but your "point" is.myth-one wrote:...then what does God eject mankind from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:22-23 to separate them from the Tree of Life lest they eat from it and live forever:
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23)
How did they lose their immortality between Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 3:22-23?
Is immortality that fleeting?
Grace and peace to you, myth-one.
If that is not your statement, I apologize.Hopefully, on posting #90 on Page 9, PinSeeker wrote: I'll actually quote your entire statement, because it is absolutely correct. All are eternal beings from the point of their creation forward. But I would say that Scripture does state explicitly that man was created an eternal being... here:
"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:26-27)
Eternality is but one among a great many things being said there. We are all created in Their/His image.
William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:40 pm [Replying to 2timothy316 in post #51]
What evidence do you have regarding your assertions on time/space?
What biblical support do you have for this idea you are presenting about time?
It sounds to me as if you are desperately trying to cling on to what you have been told about The Creator by arguing this. But I am certainly open to being shown you are correct in your claims here.
Three things to say here, myth-one:myth-one.com wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:36 pmHi PinSeeker,PinSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:13 pmWhoops! Stop right there; go no further. I don't claim such a thing. So the rest of your post:myth-one.com wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:43 pmIf mankind is created with immortality in Genesis 1:26-27 as you claim...
...is totally inert and thus null and void. I mean.. of course, Scripture is not inert or null or void, of course, but your "point" is.myth-one wrote:...then what does God eject mankind from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:22-23 to separate them from the Tree of Life lest they eat from it and live forever:
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23)
How did they lose their immortality between Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 3:22-23?
Is immortality that fleeting?
Grace and peace to you, myth-one.
I was quoting you from your posting #90 on page 9 (I hope). Here is the link:
viewtopic.php?p=1036791#p1036791
If that is not your statement, I apologize.Hopefully, on posting #90 on Page 9, PinSeeker wrote: I'll actually quote your entire statement, because it is absolutely correct. All are eternal beings from the point of their creation forward. But I would say that Scripture does state explicitly that man was created an eternal being... here:
"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:26-27)
Eternality is but one among a great many things being said there. We are all created in Their/His image.
If that was your posting, then you used Genesis 1:26-27 to prove explicitly that man was created an eternal being.
Oh... I've seen and read your posts. I mean, I haven't dwelt on them by any means, because my conversation lately in this thread has been with Tanager.William wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:29 pmOops no - that is not the case. Rather we have - through various means - being lead to believe that we are simply the flesh which has soul...rather than the spirit which has a body...of course I have already said this and explained in in more detail in my previous posts, so you would have to read those and make a case for your argument against this, based on what I have shown.
I will check out that video. Is it something you feel proves that it makes impossible for The Creator to predestine?2timothy316 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:08 amWilliam wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:40 pm [Replying to 2timothy316 in post #51]
What evidence do you have regarding your assertions on time/space?
What biblical support do you have for this idea you are presenting about time?
It sounds to me as if you are desperately trying to cling on to what you have been told about The Creator by arguing this. But I am certainly open to being shown you are correct in your claims here.
Time is a measurement its not something that is tangible no more than you can hold an inch or a meter. All of these things are measurements. Our minds make it linear to make sense of our lives. We now know the speed at which two people are traveling will affect the passage of time for each person. This is called relativity and it has been proven over and over.
Past, present, future are concepts of the human mind that we make, they are not things that actually exist. What I'm desperate for is someone that understands relativity and that it squashes the idea that we are part of some river of linear time.
Definition of immortal: living forever; never dying or decaying.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:20 amThree things to say here, myth-one:myth-one.com wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:36 pmHi PinSeeker,PinSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:13 pmWhoops! Stop right there; go no further. I don't claim such a thing. So the rest of your post:myth-one.com wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:43 pmIf mankind is created with immortality in Genesis 1:26-27 as you claim...
...is totally inert and thus null and void. I mean.. of course, Scripture is not inert or null or void, of course, but your "point" is.myth-one wrote:...then what does God eject mankind from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:22-23 to separate them from the Tree of Life lest they eat from it and live forever:
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23)
How did they lose their immortality between Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 3:22-23?
Is immortality that fleeting?
Grace and peace to you, myth-one.
I was quoting you from your posting #90 on page 9 (I hope). Here is the link:
viewtopic.php?p=1036791#p1036791
If that is not your statement, I apologize.Hopefully, on posting #90 on Page 9, PinSeeker wrote: I'll actually quote your entire statement, because it is absolutely correct. All are eternal beings from the point of their creation forward. But I would say that Scripture does state explicitly that man was created an eternal being... here:
"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:26-27)
Eternality is but one among a great many things being said there. We are all created in Their/His image.
If that was your posting, then you used Genesis 1:26-27 to prove explicitly that man was created an eternal being.
1. Thank you for your (seemingly and somewhat, at least) graceful reply. With all due respect, I'm quite pleasantly surprised. Hopefully, it's a positive trend, but... Well, hopefully.
2. Yes, so, see, this is the conflation I mentioned earlier. 'Immortal' and 'eternal' are two entirely different things.
3. Yes, God created us all in His image, and one part of that is that we are eternal beings. I know you disagree, but that's okay with me.
Grace and peace to you.
It proves the True God didn't predestine everyone's lives in a timeline. Read my posts carefully, I never said Jehovah can't predestine something to happen, what He doesn't do is predestine people's fates and all world events in a fixed timeline. There is no timeline to view the future as the 'future' is a concept to help us make since of our existence and not a tangible viewable thing.
I agree.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:06 pmWell, not either/or, but both/and.
We agree that God can make whatever rules He wants. We disagree on the rule/condition of salvation He has chosen to make.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:22 pmThis is God's purpose of election. Some are elect, and some are not. Why did God make it that way? The only way to answer that is, God is perfect, He is King and Lord of all, and everything He does is for His own glory. And it just is what it is. It's all well and good to try to understand it -- or at least come to terms with it -- but at some point we just have to acknowledge that, well, it is what it is, God has made things to be how He has made them to be, and that God is God and we are not. And to worship Him as the King of kings and Lord of lords that He is, and give Him glory and praise, because He alone is worthy.
That is God's sovereign choice, in my interpretation, so I agree.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:35 pmWell, I agree with what you say here, but Romans 9 is really about God's sovereign choice.He can choose to offer free redemption (and allow us to accept or reject it) in spite of what we deserve rather than making it about how well or badly we follow the Law, which I think Romans 9 is about.
Which quote are you referring to?PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:06 pmThey asserted that even after the Fall, man retained the ability to choose spiritual good, and upon doing so would merit God's grace. And it presents an unavoidable conflict with your assertion that, correct as it is, we completely need God to bring us from spiritual death to spiritual life.
This article is about God electing the condition, not choosing the people that will meet the condition. It isn't about God looking into the future and seeing who will meet the condition and then electing those individuals to meet the condition.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:06 pmYes, this article asserts that election is conditional upon faith in Christ, and that God elects to salvation those He knows beforehand will have faith in Him.That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36
I think Paul is saying that God elects the group/rule/condition of salvation (belief in Jesus vs. following the Law or birth), but doesn't elect which individual goes into which group; that we choose the group. Without God's call and power, we could choose the second and third conditions but we couldn't choose belief in Jesus.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:22 pmOkay, accepted, but again, here, in this very assertion, you're saying that there is some group of people -- and people individually -- who are "elected." Right? I mean I agree with you here. That's what is puzzling to me, that you seem to be saying it's not about people/individuals, but then you turn right around and say it is. And it is. God chose some -- elected them unto His salvation -- and not others. And that's what Paul is saying to the church in Rome... and to us.
Exactly my point. Paul uses this example, Jacob over Esau, God not starting over with Moses, and Isaac over Ishmael as four examples of what he is talking about in Romans 9. These examples do not speak about the individual salvation of these individuals. They all speak about God using specific people to bring about the Messiah through Israel for the glory of God and the good of both Jew and Gentile, so that people can become children of the promise.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:22 pmGod's use of... things... people... things... is a different subject, really, than His purpose of election, His electing some to eternal life and others not.The use of Pharaoh wasn't. God hardened Pharaoh to show His power and that His name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (9:17).
I don't see why you think my interpretation goes against this. I accept the summary you just laid out wholeheartedly.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:35 pmOkay, well, you understand, I think, that I disagree with this. I mean, at least for the reason that in talking about Jacob and Esau, he is talking about us, too, in the same position as Jacob... likening all of us to Jacob as opposed to Esau. With all due respect, I would submit that what you say here is totally out of Paul's context not just in Romans 9, but in his letter to the church in Rome as a whole, at least chapters 1 through 11. Observe:I think the "good" being willed (the loving vs. hating action) being contextually focused on here is "having the Messiah come through your lineage." That is a good that God willed for Jacob but not Esau.
.
1. Paul starts out in Romans 1 by saying God has revealed Himself to all and that no one has any excuse of any kind.
2. He goes on then in chapters 2-7 to tell us just how hopeless we all are, even using himself as the prime example, but that God has given us Himself in the Person of Jesus so that we might be redeemed and saved.
3. Then in Romans 8 he tells us that there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are, by God's grace, in Christ Jesus and that nothing in this world can separate us -- because we are in Christ -- from the love of God that is in Christ. Which is really (should be, anyway) quite unbelievable considering who and what we've just been shown to be.
4. And then in Romans 9-11, in view of all Paul has said to that point (that we were without excuse and without hope of salvation but God did this for us), Paul shows us just how much -- as if we could really fathom it, as if even he himself can really fathom it -- God has done for us, and that it was ALL Him, even despite the fact that we were running as hard as we could the opposite way. This is how great His love is, how full of grace and mercy and compassion He is, and how worthy of all glory and blessing and honor -- forever and ever -- He is.
I'm not saying all of Romans is about the coming of the Messiah. I agree chapters 1-11 are about salvation and God's grace, mercy, and compassion. Romans 9 does this in contrasting children of the promise to children of the flesh (9:6-8) or, said at the end of the chapter this way: a righteousness by faith versus those who pursued a Law (9:30-33). In the middle of this Isaac, Jacob, not starting over with Moses, and Pharaoh are examples of God using individuals for His purposes of salvation and mercy, not for the salvation of those specific individuals.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:35 pmWell that depends on what we think the "overall good" is that Paul is talking about. It's certainly not about having Christ as a physical descendant. Chapters 1-11 of Romans are about salvation and God's grace that we have been the recipients of, His mercy and compassion. Then chapters 12-16 are about how we should then live in light of what we have been told in the first 11 chapters, in light of what God has done for us.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hymn. I also agree that 6:37 can't be separated from the surrounding verses. I don't think this passage addresses the question we are, either way. I think my interpretation of these verses remain the same even if I were a Calvinist. They ask Jesus to give them the bread of God always. Jesus says if they believe in Him, He will never cast them out (9:37), He won't reject or lose any of them (9:39-40), He will give them eternal life. He is not going to fail them. If I become a Calvinist it will be because of different passages and won't be read into this one.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:06 pmOkay, well what I would say is that, while what you say is true in and of itself, what Jesus says in John 6:37 cannot be separated from what He continues in the same breath with in 6:38-40 -- the whole statement:
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
There is nothing in that statement referring, really, to "those truly seeking God," or even about faith or lack thereof in people, Jew or otherwise. Jesus's statement here is directly relatable to the Father's sovereign will and His purpose of election and Paul's statement that it doesn't depend on the person's will or strength but on God who has mercy (or not), and to the perseverance of the saints in that He keeps us in His power, not the person keeping himself in his. Again, I hear another great hymn, this time "Jesus! What a Friend for Sinners!" (emphasis mine):
.
Hallelujah! what a Savior!
Hallelujah! what a Friend!
Saving, helping, keeping, loving,
He is with me to the end.
I don't see the conflict between total depravity and 'conditional' (in the Arminian sense) election. Can you spell that out more clearly for me?PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:06 pmRight, I know it well, but the inconsistency among the points is unavoidable. In article 1, they deny that election is unconditional, and they do the same thing in article 5 regarding preservation of the saints (which they themselves stated they were not sure about). At any rate, those two things -- while maybe not in intention, but certainly in effect -- deny total depravity, thus saying the depravity is not total but only partial, or "far-reaching."
We all know there is only one thing you can do with all dead: go through his clothes and look for loose change.
I'm not sure what "God's call" is here to you. The outward call? The inward call? Both?PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:06 pmNot sure of the original full quote, but Arminius asserted that the atonement can not have been limited in scope... and therefore that God's call is not irrevocable (which is not the intent, but the effect). In actuality, the atonement is only effectual for those whom God unconditionally elected. God's call is irrevocable.
I didn't mean to imply that you said they were illogical. I am the one that thinks the concept that God would have greater glory and show greater justice and show greater love by predestining some to life and some to death is illogical or, if logical, beyond my current skill in understanding how it logically works.
But didn't you say that God desires that all be saved, yet wills only some be saved? Isn't that God's will trumping His desire?
How is universalism (a deterministic God's desire of all being saved going through) be "overlooking sin" in a way that the Calvinistic understanding is not?PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:35 pmSure, okay, the first question is certainly fair, and I would certainly answer the second question 'yes.' But I would turn around and say the same thing I said before, that in the case of the desire we are talking about, to make that desire happen, He would have to compromise Who He is -- His glory, His justice, His holiness, His perfection -- all of that, by overlooking sin.But why wouldn't God will what He desired? His desire couldn't be stopped if He didn't want it to be, right?
If love is "willing and acting towards the good of" someone and indifference/hate is "not willing and acting towards the good of" the opposite, then we need to apply those same definitions to both of these situations. In situation #1 (the outward call) God is willing and acting towards the good of every person, if I understand your thoughts correctly.PinSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:35 pmFantastic. But I would clarify a bit what you said in the first quote here. The hate is not "not love," but rather a giving them over to their own selfish desires, as Paul says in Romans 1. He still gives them grace, just not a saving grace. It's still love, it's just not the sovereign, distinguishing, saving love given to His elect.I completely agree! I didn't define love as "feeling all nice about" or something like that, but "willing the good of". I should change that to say "willing and choosing the good of." God's will and actions towards us is always good.Ah! So, yes, God is loving some and hating others, but the concepts of love and hate are different than what you suppose them to be. Not, of course, to say, "You don't know what love and/or hate are," but, well, love and hate as referred to in various places in the Bible are not mere "feelings" on the part of God toward the subject but rather actions -- sovereign, distinguishing actions -- on the part of God toward the subject.If God chooses some and not others, then God is loving (willing the good of) some and hating (not willing the good of) others. That seems to be compromising God's love. God's love is not unconditional, it's conditioned by randomness.
If I've already made the decision, then telling my youngest one that they are still eligible for it is not true. They aren't because I've made my decision already. While I act towards my oldest with grace and love, I'm not doing so to my youngest.
Why the distinction here between heart and will?
