Featured Double Double Toil and Trouble

I will get right to the point...... What is the scope of predestination to you? Where is it applied to ones spiritual life?

 

God choosing some to be saved before the foundation of the world based on nothing but His will and purpose.

 

Double Predestination

Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, affirms "double predestination", i.e.that God has decreed the salvation of some through election and the damnation of others through reprobation. It's supralapsarianism & in my book it makes God the first cause of sin.

Primitive Baptist's believe that predestination concerns only the salvation of the elect and that the non-elect are simply left in their fallen state to be punished for their wicked works. (Note that the word predestinate appears in it’s various forms four times in the Bible and always refers to people and not events of time.) Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5&11, Matthew 7:23, Revelation 20:13

 

We'll I'm afraid I won't be recommending your book to anyone but seriously it isn't supralapsarianism (which is a silly debate, man assuming he knows how Gods mind works, what if he doesn't think linearly like we do?) and God let man act according to his nature which as we know is sinful. The alternative is faith by works and a limited "god"

 

I'll pass on 'your book' as well. Also, the pb position amounts to the same thing.

 

Opinions opinions....just like....:smilewinkgrin:

 

I realize you are the only member of this Board who vocally denies original sin. As such you will find much of the Bible unintelligible, requiring extreme Scripture twisting on your part to make heads or tails of it.

You envision two sweet, innocent sinless twin fetuses in Rebecca’s womb.

God envisions two sinners equally on the path of destruction when born.

Both ‘deserve’ his wrath and hatred.

Yet, for reasons known only to God, Jacob is undeservedly loved as an Elect sinner while Esau is deservedly hated as a Reprobate sinner.

You insinuate unrighteousness on God’s part.

That is exactly the argument posed to Paul when he teaches the doctrine of Election:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.​

As explained in my previous post, merciful saving grace is owed no man. Had it been owed to all then God could be accused of injustice.

Isn't it supernatural that the Holy Spirit anticipated the objections and arguments from Winman and all Arminians regarding the doctrine of Election.......before they were born?!

Yes.

Coming from the man who equates disliking carrots to rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ, I consider it a high compliment.

 

You might be surprised.

Coming from a Calvinist this is downright comical. You guys are the Kings of twisting scripture.

No, they were fighting with each other. Nevertheless, Paul said they had done no evil. Why? Because you must know right from wrong before sin is imputed to you.

I seriously doubt you know what God envisions. You and several other Calvinists are incredibly sure of yourselves. Remember, pride before a fall.

How can someone who has never done wrong deserve wrath and hatred?

You don't get it, THAT is the question.

I don't believe God hates anyone who has never done wrong, YOU DO. That is what Calvinism believes, Arminians and non Calvinists do not believe this doctrine of yours. I believe in CONDITIONAL election.

Paul was speaking of Israel and Edom, not Jacob and Esau. Jacob became the nation of Israel, Esau became the nation of Edom. See the book of Malachi to understand Paul's quote.

And if Jacob and Esau had done no evil, which is exactly what Roman 9:11 says, they also deserve no hatred. Jesus said if you are angry at a person without cause you are in danger of the judgment.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Jesus said it is a very serious offense to be angry at a person without a cause, yet you believe God hates Esau when scripture says he had not done evil yet. This would be God hating him without a cause.

Yes, and Mat 5:21 refutes your view. It is a sin to be angry or hate someone without cause, so your interpretation of Romans 9:11-13 cannot possibly be correct.

Yes, if Unconditional Election is true, then God hated all of the non-elect without cause before they were ever born. God did not hate them because of any evil thing or sin they committed. He just ALWAYS hated them in your view.

Actually, I like carrots, but I hate eggplant. Yuck!

 

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5 ESV)
Go on twist it I dare ya raying:
I would also like to point out that God killed many times therefore if we continue with your argument He is already in danger of judgement

 

I was beaten in anger, and in wrath did my mother strike me.

All you have to do is substitute other words, and immediately it becomes obvious this verse is speaking of David's mother, not David.

David's mother had two daughters with a non Jew before she had David with Jesse. They were Zeruiah and Abigail, and their father was Nahash the Ammonite. This would make her a "polluted" woman to the Jews.

David did not look like his brothers, he was short and ruddy, his older brothers were tall and handsome.

When the prophet Samuel came to see Jesse and asked to see his sons, twice Jesse did not bring David. Only when Samuel insisted did Jesse bring David to Samuel. He was the black sheep of the family.

Scholars are not exactly sure what David was saying. He could have been saying that his mother was a "polluted" woman. It was considered unclean to have relations with a non Jew.

It is also possible David was conceived out of wedlock, but scholars are not sure.

But one thing is sure, David was confessing his sin with Bathsheba in the first four verses of this Psalm. It would be incredible to think that suddenly in verse 5 he would blame his sin on being born a sinner.

No, David was simply expressing his deep disgust with himself. Perhaps he did view himself as inferior because of his birth and this is what he is saying.

But this scripture in no way says all men are born sinners. It is not even saying that David was born a sinner. This verse is speaking of his mother.

 

Oh my Winman you went there. Rom 3:10 there is none good no not one. This cannot exclude children unless they are not considered human.
Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are "sons of disobedience." Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all "by nature children of wrath." If we are all "by nature children of wrath," it can only be because we are all by nature sinners

 

Skan, you know I do not believe in Original Sin, and I can show you NUMEROUS verses to support my position.

Verses like Psa 51:5 and Psa 58:3 are ridiculous and say nothing about all men being born sinners.

Original Sin is NOT a truth, and can easily be denied.

 

The Bible clearly teaches that God has decreed that sin would result in death, not only physical death but also a Second Death (Hell). Every ordinary (sinful) human being has been born condemned already.

But if God in Eternity Past has looked down the corridor of Time and noticed those that would receive Salvation (and wrote their name in the Lamb's Book of Life) then He also could see those that would not accept Christ as Savior. Therefore, God would have determined both the lost (damned-goats) and the saved (elect-sheep) person's eternal destiny before they would actually be born into history. Call it "double" if you must, but the belief should be affirmed by any Bible-believer.

 

If I said to you, None of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, would you interpret that to mean that they are unable to go to church?

No, no sensible person would ever assume such a thing, but that is exactly what you are doing. Why? Because someone told you that is what this scripture is saying and CONDITIONED you to interpret this scripture to say this. It says no such thing.

Scripture also says the Gentiles "by nature" do the things contained in the law, which is a good thing, not evil.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul said the Gentiles by nature do the things contained in the law, showing the law written on their hearts and conscience.

See, you have allowed people to condition what you believe. Anybody can cherry pick particular verses and ignore others to teach whatever they wish. This is what Calvinism has done.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Scripture says God has made man upright, which means without sin. The word "they" points back to the word "man" showing this verse is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

Now I have just showed you scripture that directly says God has made men upright. Now you show me even one verse of scripture that says all men are born sinners. You can't do it, no such scripture exists.

Listen to the word of God, not men.

 

Your interpretation cannot be correct, because if God unconditionally imputes Adam's sin to all men, then likewise righteousness must be unconditionally imputed to all men because of Jesus one act of righteousness. You MUST treat both halves of the verses here equally, that is the form of argument Paul is using.

This is the FAVORITE verse of Universalists. And if your view is correct, they are absolutely correct and all men will be saved because of Jesus, just as all men were made sinners by Adam. This is inescapable.

What Romans 5 is teaching is that Adam and Jesus both set LEGAL PRECEDENTS, Adam for sin, Jesus for faith.

Because of Adam's one sin, from that point forward, the judgment and condemnation of death was imputed to all men who sinned as Adam did.

Likewise, when one trusts Jesus to save them as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead, righteousness is imputed to that person.

That is what these verses are saying, they both set a LEGAL PRECEDENT, Adam for sin, Jesus for faith.

 

Then logically God must have also in his foreknowledge choosen those he foresees will not believe on Jesus.

 

Exactly, and scripture directly shows us this.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Scripture tells us that Jesus "knew from the beginning who believed not". If Jesus knew from the beginning who would not believe, then by simple process of elimination he also knew from the beginning who would believe.

So how can anybody deny that scripture shows foreknowledge of faith??

This scripture and several others convinces me that God elected those in his foreknowledge whom he saw would believe in time.