Reconciling Two

[JesusFan]

How can you say that in the light of this passage?

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

He would say basis of that predestinations would be God meriting it to us based upon our saving fait now placed unto Jesus Christ

 

[Van]

Let's start over. Since those who are saved are predestined Ephesians 1:5, why didn't God predestine all if He is not willing that any should perish?

Ephesians 1:4-5 (KJV) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Yes, we should start where we both agree. I say Calvinism is false doctrine, the Bible does not teach the "T" or "U" or "L" or "I" of the TULIP.
It seems you believe the Bible does teach those doctrines. So a starting point is not for you to assert everyone chosen was "predestined before creation" to be chosen for salvation, but for you to demonstrate why that doctrine is true.

In the passage you cite, with "having predestinated us" in bold, let us consider just who are those being referred to as "us." The audience reading the letter, those who had been saved (chosen individually and placed spiritually into Christ. And then, once in Christ what was then predestined? Our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming. As spiritual children of God, having been spiritually born anew, we look forward to receiving our full predestined benefits of being children of God, our bodily redemption, Romans 8:23 Calvinism falsely claims we have two adoptions, first when we are born anew as children of God, then after becoming children of God our bodily redemption. Utter nonsense.

Did you see anything in that interpretation that supports Calvinism? Neither did I.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, we should start where we both agree. I say Calvinism is false doctrine, the Bible does not teach the "T" or "U" or "L" or "I" of the TULIP.
It seems you believe the Bible does teach those doctrines. So a starting point is not for you to assert everyone chosen was "predestined before creation" to be chosen for salvation, but for you to demonstrate why that doctrine is true.

In the passage you cite, with "having predestinated us" in bold, let us consider just who are those being referred to as "us." The audience reading the letter, those who had been saved (chosen individually and placed spiritually into Christ. And then, once in Christ what was then predestined? Our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming. As spiritual children of God, having been spiritually born anew, we look forward to receiving our full predestined benefits of being children of God, our bodily redemption, Romans 8:23 Calvinism falsely claims we have two adoptions, first when we are born anew as children of God, then after becoming children of God our bodily redemption. Utter nonsense.

Did you see anything in that interpretation that supports Calvinism? Neither did I.

We Calvinists do NT hold to 2 adoptions Van, its that we hold to us being adopted and full children of the Father when saved, and yet we shall not receive the fullness of our inheritance until at the second coming of Christ.

And we were elected chosen by God from eternity past to become His own , and that [predestination includes all things explained and detailed by Paul in Romans 8

 

[Blank]

Yes, we should start where we both agree. I say Calvinism is false doctrine,

Well, that's not a very good start. I don't believe everything about Calvinism, but when it comes to soteriology... yes, i'm on board.

the Bible does not teach the "T" or "U" or "L" or "I" of the TULIP.
It seems you believe the Bible does teach those doctrines.

I am a bit iffy on the L of tulip. Also the Bible does not teach Trinity do you believe in the Trinity?

So a starting point is not for you to assert everyone chosen was "predestined before creation" to be chosen for salvation, but for you to demonstrate why that doctrine is true.

I don't know who is chosen or who is predestined for salvation. I believe predestination is true because generally that's what is revealed in the New Testament.

In the passage you cite, with "having predestinated us" in bold, let us consider just who are those being referred to as "us." The audience reading the letter, those who had been saved (chosen individually and placed spiritually into Christ. And then, once in Christ what was then predestined? Our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming. As spiritual children of God, having been spiritually born anew, we look forward to receiving our full predestined benefits of being children of God, our bodily redemption, Romans 8:23 Calvinism falsely claims we have two adoptions, first when we are born anew as children of God, then after becoming children of God our bodily redemption. Utter nonsense.

Did you see anything in that interpretation that supports Calvinism? Neither did I.

This is all a red herring, would you like to answer my question? "Why didn't God predestine all, since He's not willing that any should perish?

 

[Van]

SNIP
This is all a red herring, would you like to answer my question? "Why didn't God predestine all, since He's not willing that any should perish?

Once again, you ask a question that asserts God predestined people to salvation before creation. But that assertion is utterly false.

Once a person is saved, then, and only then, are they predestined to our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming.

Next, lets look at the verse referenced:

If the idea is God will not allow anyone to perish, that would be inconsistent with taking the unsaved to Hades. So a better translation is "not wanting anyone to perish, but wanting all people to come to repentance. Now that makes sense and is consistent with all scripture. 2 Peter 3:9

 

[Blank]

Once again, you ask a question that asserts God predestined people to salvation before creation. But that assertion is utterly false.

Once a person is saved, then, and only then, are they predestined to our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming.

Next, lets look at the verse referenced:

If the idea is God will not allow anyone to perish, that would be inconsistent with taking the unsaved to Hades. So a better translation is "not wanting anyone to perish, but wanting all people to come to repentance. Now that makes sense and is consistent with all scripture. 2 Peter 3:9

Changing the definitions of words like 'predestined' and 'willing' will not help your case unless you are qualified to sit on a Translation Committee, which I highly doubt you are. Until then, I'll take the text as written, in it's plain and clear sense.

 

[JesusFan]

Once again, you ask a question that asserts God predestined people to salvation before creation. But that assertion is utterly false.

Once a person is saved, then, and only then, are they predestined to our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming.

Next, lets look at the verse referenced:

If the idea is God will not allow anyone to perish, that would be inconsistent with taking the unsaved to Hades. So a better translation is "not wanting anyone to perish, but wanting all people to come to repentance. Now that makes sense and is consistent with all scripture. 2 Peter 3:9

Who are the all people van? All as in every lost sinner, or all as defined as all those who were and are tgo get saved by the Particular atonement of Christ on their behalf?

 

[JesusFan]

Changing the definitions of words like 'predestined' and 'willing' will not help your case unless you are qualified to sit on a Translation Committee, which I highly doubt you are. Until then, I'll take the text as written, in it's plain and clear sense.

Guess we will have to see by what credentials we can decide to retranslate any specific passage that we disagree with on how was translated?

 

[Blank]

Guess we will have to see by what credentials we can decide to retranslate any specific passage that we disagree with on how was translated?

When someone starts tinkering with God's Word, they are tinkering with fire. It's like the serpent saying "Hath God said..."?

 

[Van]

Changing the definitions of words like 'predestined' and 'willing' will not help your case unless you are qualified to sit on a Translation Committee, which I highly doubt you are. Until then, I'll take the text as written, in it's plain and clear sense.

Blank, you do realize questioning the character and qualifications of an opponent, rather than addressing the topic is tantamount to waving a white flag?

1) Did Blank claim the Greek word translated as "willing" does not also mean"wanting?" Yes. Is that claim false? Yes More than 20 English translations go with want, including the CSB, LEB, NIV, and NRSV.

2) To say those born anew are then predestined to the bodily redemption per Romans 8:23 is not changing the scriptural meaning of "predestined." To say those born anew are then predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, per Romans 8:29 is not changing the scriptural meaning of "predestined." To say the mystery of Christ was predestined before creation per 1 Corinthians 2:7 is not changing the scriptural meaning of "predestined." What does Ephesians 1:11 say? When and only when we are "in Christ" do we obtain our inheritance, so the plan is to predestine "benefits" rather than individuals. So it was the Calvinists who sought to alter the scriptural meaning of the word!

 

[Blank]

When and only when we are "in Christ" do we obtain our inheritance, so the plan is to predestine "benefits" rather than individuals. So it was the Calvinists who sought to alter the scriptural meaning of the word!

Do you have a scripture reference for that? I don't recall reading anywhere that benefits are credited as righteousness by faith, or that benefits are predestined for anything rather than individuals.

 

[Blank]

1) Did Blank claim the Greek word translated as "willing" does not also mean"wanting?" Yes. Is that claim false? Yes More than 20 English translations go with want, including the CSB, LEB, NIV, and NRSV.

Are you able to explain in terms of God, the difference between wanting and willing? Seems to me that with God, what He wants He wills and what He wills He wants, (both will be accomplished), or can you explain the difference in terms of God?

 

[DaveXR650]

This is all a red herring, would you like to answer my question? "Why didn't God predestine all, since He's not willing that any should perish?

One answer a Calvinist does often give is that it is none of your business. Who are we to demand of God why he did thus and thus? There is some truth to that answer. The question comes up though is that even though we have to accept that that is God's right, is that how God really acts? And you are right, if by predestine, you mean determine in the way those same Calvinists mean it, as in direct causation, then you have a contradiction with the idea that God is not willing that any should perish. Thus you have the argument that you see on here that God is willing that some perish and thus all the stuff about that was only to the elect and so on.

There are two possible answers I know of. One is that somewhere in this, there is some involvement of human free will which can at least mess up God's willingness to save. The level of drawing or conviction must be resistible or else the only other answer is that God chose not to provide a means of salvation to everyone. The level does not have to be equal in everyone - but it must be sufficient that God can determine in his wisdom that it was enough and once at that level the deciding factor is the decision of the person.

That would satisfy Arminians or Provisionists and so on.

The other answer would be from the standpoint of a true Calvinist. Men should be able to come to Christ or repent upon hearing the gospel. If they don't they are guilty, justly. True, they are "unable" to come on their own. However; this inability is moral in nature, meaning that the bottom line is that they are unable because they are truly and willfully unwilling. The problem is their will but in a sense you are your will, at least as far as free choices go. And since they are guilty, truly, and justly so, because of their own free will choice, if God does not save all by regenerating all has he acted unjustly? The question here is not that all have sinned, but that all choose not to come to Christ by their own true free will. The question here is can you accept this as God truly loving all, yet choosing not to give sufficient grace to all (even though they all truly deserve damnation) when it is known that these same people, though guilty as charged, are totally dependent upon such grace?

So in other words, you can have total determinism, where God saves some and wants or is willing that the others perish. You can have a system where a man can mess this up by wrong choices, and the wrong choices truly are the reason (and by definition right choices do have a part, even a deciding factor in salvation). And three, you can have a system where it is Calvinistic and much like the first except that the explanation is more fleshed out as to how man is truly, morally guilty and should be able to repent and believe but can't only because he won't. (But yet God is still totally sovereign in who will end up believing).

From that you should be able to figure out where you fit in.

 

[Blank]

From that you should be able to figure out where you fit in.

I'll refer you back to post #66. Being new here, I'm trying to find out where others fit in, not so much myself.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'll refer you back to post #66. Being new here, I'm trying to find out where others fit in, not so much myself.

Most on here are the modern, very deterministic Calvinists who as an answer to any who might question them either say," who are you to reply against God" or quote a verse they determine to be supporting their views. Others say God has to depend upon what our decision about all this is and at the most can see ahead to what our free will decision will be. They will not allow any scripture that might indicate God's sovereignty over man's salvation to stand and view the "elect" as those who meet the set of qualifications God has set before us.

The group that has God as sovereign in man's salvation and at the same time freely offers salvation to all is small because it requires more in depth reading of the scriptures and an understanding of the philosophy involved in it. It requires one to allow for free will and at the same time allow for the sovereignty of God. Most people will simply not do this. It's one or the other. These folks smirk at the idea of "mystery" and don't accept that we may not in our minds be able to comprehend all that is involved. And that pretty much covers it.

 

[Van]

Do you have a scripture reference for that? I don't recall reading anywhere that benefits are credited as righteousness by faith, or that benefits are predestined for anything rather than individuals.

LOL, why not quote my position rather than misrepresent it?

What are predestined, individuals or benefits? Benefits.

Are benefits credited as righteousness? Nope, that claim is utterly absurd nonsense.

Are the predestined benefits for those "in Him?" Yes

Ever wonder why Calvinists do not engage on the actual doctrine claimed to be scriptural? Answer because the doctrines are true!

 

[Van]

Are you able to explain in terms of God, the difference between wanting and willing? Seems to me that with God, what He wants He wills and what He wills He wants, (both will be accomplished), or can you explain the difference in terms of God?

Sure if you want to learn and are willing to learn.

 

[Blank]

Are there 23 days left? Or are there 31 days left in this year I couldn't be sure or positive but I think there are

What are predestined, individuals or benefits? Benefits.

Are benefits credited as righteousness? Nope, that claim is utterly absurd nonsense.

Your words,(not mine) to predestinate benefits...

When and only when we are "in Christ" do we obtain our inheritance, so the plan is to predestine "benefits" rather than individuals. So it was the Calvinists who sought to alter the scriptural meaning of the word!

 

[Blank]

Sure if you want to learn and are willing to learn.

I'm not God. He needs not to 'learn', He predestines according to His will/wants.

John 1:12-13 KJV
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[JesusFan]

Most on here are the modern, very deterministic Calvinists who as an answer to any who might question them either say," who are you to reply against God" or quote a verse they determine to be supporting their views. Others say God has to depend upon what our decision about all this is and at the most can see ahead to what our free will decision will be. They will not allow any scripture that might indicate God's sovereignty over man's salvation to stand and view the "elect" as those who meet the set of qualifications God has set before us.

The group that has God as sovereign in man's salvation and at the same time freely offers salvation to all is small because it requires more in depth reading of the scriptures and an understanding of the philosophy involved in it. It requires one to allow for free will and at the same time allow for the sovereignty of God. Most people will simply not do this. It's one or the other. These folks smirk at the idea of "mystery" and don't accept that we may not in our minds be able to comprehend all that is involved. And that pretty much covers it.

There has never been a moment where the Godhead among themselves ever had to do a conference call and state to themselves" Wow, never saw the Fall, the Flood, the Cross etc happening as it did"