Search results

Yes, the question is though, does that mean God had to ordain the fall? A) yes, says the calvinist; He had to decree it B) no, says the non calvinist; He only foreknew it

Anyone can be Gods elect, both in the OT and the NT. In the OT: Israel was Gods elect. Didnt mean you were saved, even though you were chosen. Any alien could become part of Gods elect. In the NT: Israel and Gentiles who are in Christ are now Gods elect because they are IN CHRIST, Gods...

Respectfully disagree because of scripture: John was the end of the Law and Prophets, Jesus is the start of the New Covenant. Edit: Cool to note that John was a Levite and Aaronic priest while Jesus was from Judah and a Melchezedekian priest. What an amazing hand-off from John to Jesus! Paul...

Yes, He saves those that believe in Him. And He loves even those that He sends to Hell. This is different than Calvinist God who only saves those He truly loves, and does not live those He sends to hell. Yes, He created them both and loves them both equally, desiring neither to go to Hell...

Actually it does, because then after the Fall the God you are talking about now Creates humans unable to respond to Him. They are now type A in unbelief, and then the ones that are saved are done so effectually and so even the type B’s become type A. I will go through your other post a bit...

Paul, and this does not mean that they are not God’s children, nor that they can again be in Him, nor that those are in Him cant be removed… keep reading! : Again, the assumption that because they are under a different father at this time, that God is not their father. I understand it is...

However in Calvinism He does not love ALL His children unconditionally.

Yes, you held in the prior thread that Adam and Eve were decreed to ultimately sin to bring about God‘s purpose. That it was God’s purpose and intention to have Adam fall. Though it has appeared that you wanted to say that He didnt decree that bite of the fruit, just that He decreed that it...

Here was your original statement: I get to wish for: A: a child that always obeys B: a child that stubbornly rebels Assuming no change, and this is wish that is granted that is permenantly the case, neither is preferable. With your later clarification which is quoted at the top, I would say...

OK, now I understand more of your analogy. I think there is an option C which is more modified that your 2 options. I will explain later when Im back from a hike with my kids!

Well this is the argument. You believe these are Gods only options in creation. You must believe this because of the Calvinist view of sovereignty. I do not, fortunately!

I would chose not to have children if those were the only 2 outcomes if you were to have children. Your scenario presents having child A is forced obedience and child B is forced rebellion: these are the required outcomes.

Sorry, not following your analogy, can you explain more how this relates to sovereignty? Im not quite following to see how your options connect. Right now im thinking that when I chose to have kids I knew that they could rebel if they chose. Are you asking that when I have a child that I can...

God created, He knew the fall would happen, but He planned for that from the beginning because Jesus and our glorification was always His plan. This is what He predestined: Jesus the savior of all who are in Him. This says nothing about whether He predestined people to be “In Him and saved” or...

Just because he created the world does not mean he created sin.

This verse says nothing about sin being Gods will, nor do any of the verses above. And as Calvinists like to say, “all doesnt mean all.” In the verse you quote you can see in his list He is talking about power structures, not things like sin. The fact you can so boldly say God desired them to...

I wonder if we will see special ops in Mexico before the end of this four-year term!

And the problem for the Calvinist is that they have to say that his intention was for them to sin, because otherwise they give up their definition of sovereignty

It’s interesting looking at those different creeds, how it seems as they progress through the centuries, they get more and more focused on how to understand the theology of God. I wonder how the Catholics can affirm the Caledonian creed when it gives a very clear definition of what the catholic...

Yes, i think we need the basics of what you see in the Apostles Creed as a summary of core scriptural necessities. You cant really follow Jesus without those basics!