Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

[Dr. Walter]

All of God's prophecies come to pass.

Your argument is with "heavenly" then and not me! Heavenly does not believe any kind of determinism on God's part or that any predicted outcome by God must be necessary or else the human will cannot be free. In other words, the human will is the only Sovereign will and thus the only Sovereign God in Heavenly's view of happenstance happenings.

 

[billwald]

>HP: Are not these Canons nothing more or less than the five points of Calvinism set forth and expounded upon?

Calvin would have rejected the 5 points, which were invented after Calvin's death to counter the 5 points of Jacobus Arminius.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you do not know what I have read and studied. I am familiar with Calvin's Institutes and Calvinism in general and have a hard back copy of his Intitutes to study and refer to as well as other books on the subject by various authors. As to your question: I would say, God, the Scriptures and God instilled reason. :wavey:
I must retire briefly to accomplish other tasks. I am not avoiding anyone. I will try to take up where we are leaving off when I return.

To pick up where I left off, HP, if what you say is true why do you ignore the Scripture and rarely quote it? You refer to your philosophy often instead of the Scripture. And you mention Calvin more than anyone I know.

As to what you first say, most anyone can say the same thing.
I too own a copy of Calvin's Institutes (both hard copy and on cd). I have referred to them occasionally, and have read quite a bit of the discussion on the board as well as got involved in the actual debates in the Baptist Theology Forum. I also have quite a few other books on the subject. My conclusion: you are far from an authority on the subject. I know that by the way that you post.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Can you answer my question then? Does divine prophecy necessitate the outcome predicted OR is it possible that God can be a false prophet? You see "heavenly" denies even prescience or any explanation that demands a necessary outcome.

HP: Fishing was bad and I am back.….. just in time to read DW completely misrepresenting anything I believe or have stated. Where in the world did you come up with that position as my belief DW???

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Fishing was bad and I am back.….. just in time to read DW completely misrepresenting anything I believe or have stated. Where in the world did you come up with that position as my belief DW???

Are you saying then that you do believe in necessitated conclusions? I asked you if you believed in prophecy if it MUST necessarily come to pass as predicted OR do you believe God can be a false prophet?

In other words, prophecy proves the Divine Will necessarily determines conclusions or the only other possible choice is that God could be a false prophet!

Will you agree that prophecy is proof that the Divine will necessarily determines the fulfillment of what is prophesied OR will you argue that God COULD be a false prophet?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Are you saying then that you do believe in necessitated conclusions?

HP: Absolutely I believe in necessitated conclusions, just not when it comes to issues involving moral agents when they are to be praised or blamed.

DW: I asked you if you believed in prophecy if it MUST necessarily come to pass as predicted OR do you believe God can be a false prophet?

HP: You seem to have the impression that if it is foreknown it must come about by necessity. I do not find that to be true, again where moral agents are involved and praise or blame is properly predicated of their actions.

DW: In other words, prophecy proves the Divine Will necessarily determines conclusions or the only other possible choice is that God could be a false prophet!

HP: You draw an unwarranted conclusion. Because something comes to pass, prophesied concerning or not, does not necessitate its existence necessarily. It depend on the prophesy and whether or not moral blame or praise can be rightfully predicated of that which is prophesied about.

DW: Will you agree that prophecy is proof that the Divine will necessarily determines the fulfillment of what is prophesied OR will you argue that God COULD be a false prophet?

HP: Again, you draw a completely unwarranted conclusion. You are trying to paint someone that might disagree with you in the worst light possible, and in this case you are beating as one beateth against the wind. Divine foreknowledge does not necessarily necessitate the outcome, but Divine foreknowledge is always true.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Divine foreknowledge does not necessarily necessitate the outcome, but Divine foreknowledge is always true. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Why is it ALWAYS true? Why can't it be SOMETIMES wrong? When the prophecy is in regard to moral agents why can't they choose contrary to what has been predicted if they are absolutely free moral agents?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Why is it ALWAYS true? Why can't it be SOMETIMES wrong?

HP: Because God is Infinite in all His attributes and is Omniscient. I cannot believe you would even ask me such a thing.

DW: When the prophecy is in regard to moral agents why can't they choose contrary to what has been predicted if they are absolutely free moral agents?

HP: Let me say the following and I believe the answer to your question should become clear.

If I held in my hand a coin in an environment in which when releasing my hand the coin had the distinct possibility of going up as well as down, there is no way we could predict with absolute precision which way it would go, due to the fact our foreknowledge can only foreknow matters that of necessity would come to pass. If, in the environment we now live in with gravity present, we can know with absolute certainty that if we dropped the coin in our hand, that it would go straight down. Why? Because gravity demands that it of necessity falls downward. Our foreknowledge can only be absolute when focusing on things of necessity.

God’s foreknowledge is far greater than ours, in that He can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those things of necessity. If the coin, in the environment of perfect choice, could go up as well as down, God could know with the same absolute perfection as he knows matters of necessity, in what direction such an object would travel without necessarily necessitating the end.

When we say that if something comes to pass, that God foreknows and that due to that foreknowledge it of necessity must happen, we are limiting God’s abilities to that of ours by filtering our thoughts through the lens of our finite human abilities and understanding. God is not, nor can be, limited by such human inability to foreknow matters of perfect choice. Every notion of morality, love, selfishness, evil or good, relies on the fact that we must be the first cause in forming our moral intents. Freedom of the will to chose between two or more consequents for any one antecedent is is not only possible but absolutely necessary if God is Just as He says He is and He is to place moral praise or blame on us due to those formed intents, as He clearly does.

If one necessitates the intents of men, by believing that because God foreknows the outcome it must of necessity come to pass, no morality on the part of man can be predicated of any actions. No notion of an intent or subsequent action could be denoted as blameworthy or praiseworthy on the part of man, for God would of necessity be the only cause of it. This clearly destroys all personal accountability for any and all such intents or subsequent actions. God alone could be blamed for all the wickedness perpetrated upon this universe.

In summary, God’s foreknowledge is far greater than ours, and can and does foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as things that of necessity must come to pass. God can foreknow with absolute certainty the end of our moral intents without necessitating them to come to pass. The absolute proof of man being the first cause of his moral intents (as opposed to God being the first cause of them) is that God attaches blame and praise and grants corresponding punishments and rewards for sin or obedience. God is just and justice demands that if blame or praise is to be predicated for moral intents, the one being praised or blamed must be the first cause of such intents.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP:
In summary, God’s foreknowledge is far greater than ours, and can and does foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as things that of necessity must come to pass. God can foreknow with absolute certainty the end of our moral intents without necessitating them to come to pass. The absolute proof of man being the first cause of his moral intents (as opposed to God being the first cause of them) is that God attaches blame and praise and grants corresponding punishments and rewards for sin or obedience. God is just and justice demands that if blame or praise is to be predicated for moral intents, the one being praised or blamed must be the first cause of such intents.

Rom. 9: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Isn't verse 19 exactly your response against determination by God as stated in verse 18?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Rom. 9: 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Isn't verse 19 exactly your response against determination by God as stated in verse 18?

Psa. 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.



If as Psalms 14:2-3 states explicity that God did look down and saw that there is "NONE, NO NOT ONE" who would seek God of their own free choice and this exact verse is what Paul quotes in Romans 3:10-11 to proceed to his conclusion in Romans 3:19-20 that the "whole world" is condemned under the law to wrath due to their own free choice. Now, would not such a foreseen but free will resistant and God rejecting humanity only deserve wrath?- How can it be unjust or respect of persons for Paul to say:

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same [fallen and resisting] lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Notice carefully the last bold underlined phrase of verse 24 applies this not merely to Jews but to gentiles.

Why would it be unjust or respect of persons if all equally and freely reject God, for God to do with them as he will? Wouldn't justice give cause to destroy all humanity at its root with Adam and Eve if he so chose or at anywhere along the way??? Why would God choose to save any and if he did how could he be charged as unjust in allowing the rest to continue in their own free will to freely reject Him at any point along the way?

Consider this also. If God not only foresaw total free rejection of God not only in advance but that total free rejection was inseparable from their own intrinsic nature by birth and their complicit action in union with Adam as their federal head or representative in the garden in testing free will (Rom. 5:12) and they obtain that nature by one man's disobedience because they were in union when that one man disobeyed, how can it be unjust of God to do as he wills with total fallen God hating and God rejecting humanity?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, do us all a favor. If I was to address your last post effectively I would have to write a book on multiple issues. Pick one passage of Scripture or one issue (which I thought we were looking directly at the foreknowledge of God) and I will respond to it. Since you started with the following Scripture, I will address it first. Better yet, I would hope that we could stick with the direct issue of the foreknowledge of God for just a moment. :wavey:

So as not to be accused of simply overlooking your post, or failing to possess rounded objects commonly denoted of men, or being a coward, etc. etc as others have falsely accused of me of in the recent the past, I will take one of the verses you mention and address it directly although I believe it has little if anything to do with the discussion of the foreknowledge of God. :saint:

DW: Psa. 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

HP: No one on this list that I know of would argue that all men, especially in our generation , have become morally depraved. Scripture asserts that all are in need of repentance. The question is, does the passage of Scripture you present here make a case for original sin. (for that is what I believe you must be referring to) I say it does not for several reasons. You are a stickler for context, so it would seem to me that you should have picked up on the clear context of this passage in the first verse which you conveniently do not mention. Here it is to get us in focus with just who the Psalmist is referring to. "The FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, There is no God. THEY ((who are ‘they??? The fools) are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none( of the subset mentioned, i,e,, the fools) that doeth good.

The point is NOT that I believe that man has not became morally depraved, or that all are not sinners, but rather that this passage is NOT establishing any notion of issues like original sin, for the Jews did NOT believe man was born in sin and rightfully so. The renowned scholar Alfred Edersheim points out clearly in “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” that there was simply no place whatsoever in the theology held by the Jews for any such notion as original sin. I for one believe Mr. Edersheim in his conclusion. Others have came to that conclusion as well. The notiuon of original sin was not introduced or taught in the church prior to Augustine that is clearly and justly denoted as the father of the doctrine of original sin.

David was comparing two groups of individuals in this text as he did in other texts as well, Psalm 53 for instance, where he again pits the “FOOL” in the following manner: Ps 53:3 EVERY ONE of THEM is GONE BACK (not born that way, but GONE BACK) they are altogether BECOME FILTHY; (not born filthy) there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

David was speaking directly to those he considered as fools and was by no means making any universal acknowledgement of original sin in both Psalms, 14 as well as 53.


David uses the cliché’, “children of men” in this passage much the in the same manner he did in another passage, to point to a group of individuals unlike himself. He considered himself to be a follower of God and righteousness, and those workers of iniquity to be merely referred to as the ‘children of men.’ Listen to David as he speaks again in the same manner in yet another text. 1Sa 26:19 Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.” Note clearly that these workers of iniquity David spoken of were NOT as himself, but are those evil persons(those 'children of men') who drove him from abiding in the presence of the inheritance of the Lord.

 

[Jedi Knight]

DW, do us all a favor. If I was to address your last post effectively I would have to write a book on multiple issues. Pick one passage of Scripture or one issue (which I thought we were looking directly at the foreknowledge of God) and I will respond to it. Since you started with the following Scripture, I will address it first. Better yet, I would hope that we could stick with the direct issue of the foreknowledge of God for just a moment. :wavey:

So as not to be accused of simply overlooking your post, or failing to possess rounded objects commonly denoted of men, or being a coward, etc. etc as others have falsely accused of me of in the recent the past, I will take one of the verses you mention and address it directly although I believe it has little if anything to do with the discussion of the foreknowledge of God. :saint:




HP: No one on this list that I know of would argue that all men, especially in our generation , have become morally depraved. Scripture asserts that all are in need of repentance. The question is, does the passage of Scripture you present here make a case for original sin. (for that is what I believe you must be referring to) I say it does not for several reasons. You are a stickler for context, so it would seem to me that you should have picked up on the clear context of this passage in the first verse which you conveniently do not mention. Here it is to get us in focus with just who the Psalmist is referring to. "The FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART, There is no God. THEY ((who are ‘they??? The fools) are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The point is NOT that I believe that man has not became morally depraved, or that all are not sinners, but rather that this passage is NOT establishing any notion of issues like original sin, for the Jews did NOT believe man was born in sin and rightfully so. The renowned scholar Alfred Edersheim points out clearly in “The Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah” that there was simply no place whatsoever in the theology held by the Jews for any such notion as original sin. I for one believe Mr. Edersheim in his conclusion. Others have came to that conclusion as well. The notiuon of original sin was not introduced or taught in the church prior to Augustine that is clearly and justly denoted as the father of the doctrine of original sin.

David was comparing two groups of individuals in this text as he did in other texts as well, Psalm 53 for instance, where he again pits the “FOOL” in the following manner: Ps 53:3 EVERY ONE of THEM is GONE BACK (not born that way, but GONE BACK) they are altogether BECOME FILTHY; (not born filthy) there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

David was speaking directly to those he considered as fools and was by no means making any universal acknowledgement of original sin in both Psalms, 14 as well as 53.


David uses the cliché’, “children of men” in this passage much the in the same manner he did in another passage, to point to a group of individuals unlike himself. He considered himself to be a follower of God and righteousness, and those workers of iniquity to be merely referred to as the ‘children of men.’ Listen to David as he speaks again in the same manner in yet another text. 1Sa 26:19 Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.” Note clearly that these workers of iniquity David spoken of were NOT as himself, but are those evil persons who drove him from abiding in the presence of the inheritance of the Lord.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Is there one daring soul on this list that would be so kind as to tell us where in the world the righteous spoken of come from in this chapter tht JK sets forth?? and why David would have desired his own teeth (if he was saying all are wicked from birth) to be smashed in his mouth as an infant, and why he would have desired that he would have ‘passed away’ in a miscarriage due to the ‘original sin’ of himself as an infant? If all are born in original sin, and this passage is supporting that notion, where are the righteous hailing from that are rejoicing at the just desserts of every child ever born including themselves as God is called upon to smash their teeth in their mouths and destroy them??? Are we being careful and serious with the Word of God?

I am again forced to conclude that the issue of context is more often than not simply wielded as a convenient tool IF it helps one support their intented end. Context is often completely ignored when one is simply cherry picking for a proof text to support an otherwise unfounded and unsupported dogma.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK I was not sugggesting that you are not being careful with the Word of God, as you simply mentioned the text. I am sorry if it came across that way. It certainly was not intended to point you out specifically. I have simply heard this passage of Scripture taken completely out of context so many times.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. And to say the Jews didn't believe you could be born in sin? John 9:34 To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out. Psalm 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."
Eph. 2:3 "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" Job 14:4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one."
Job 15:14 "What is man that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK, are you not even going to make a reply as the verses already mentioned before you quickly move to other texts? Besides, we were trying to focus here on the foreknowledge of God. The issue of original sin (and all the purported proof texts) really needs its own thread does it not?

 

[Jedi Knight]

JK, are you not even going to make a reply as the verses already mentioned before you quickly move to other texts?

Did you not side step me earlier when asked "Did Jesus do all of the fathers will...yes or no?".

 

[quantumfaith]

You cannot lose something that is not yours to begin with.

The word quite clearly says the the "son of perdition" is lost. But I guess you can debate the semantics of the meaning of this.

 

[quantumfaith]

No, he never left the family of Satan. Scripture says:
"Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world."
A believer who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit cannot be possessed by Satan, yet we read that Satan entered into Judas. It wasn't simply a demon. He wasn't demon-possessed. He was "Satan-possessed." This could not happen to a "child of God." Satan never left Satan's family and never entered God's family. He was not born again.
God never lost any.

Honest question DHK, did the people alive during the ministry of Jesus on earth have the same experience of the "indwelling" that we have the privilege of today?

 

[quantumfaith]

You depict a God who is able to lose something/someone--a God who is only half there; perhaps has Alzheimer's; a God who is deficient. If that is your God, I want nothing of Him.

He never made any such claim, no You are being the 'spin-miester".