God's Decree, Concerning the Rejection of lost souls #1. Pret-er-i-tion.

(firstly, i'm not being critical, but simply providing feedback that these different font sizes and font colors don't make it an easy read - that's just plain UI principles which you may or equally may not choose to abide by. Bold, Italic and Underline should be sufficient for emphasis and maybe a single dark color for verses? Again, not a core issue but only intending to be helpful)

And since we've already discussed before, the backdrop is that I still disagree with you when you think anyone who does not exactly hold these doctrines are incapable of being believers who are having God's Love equally shed abroad in their hearts. And you'd debate me as if I am someone I very clearly claim not to be - so let's get those digressions out of the way as soon as possible and simply focus on the doctrines themselves.

I completely believe that there are the individually elect and by definition there are the non-elect. Before any were born or before any of their acts, good or evil, were considered - God chose/elected some (termed as those He foreknew) to give them something that He passed over giving to the rest.

What was that 'something' that God gave to the elect but withheld from the non-elect? We could debate this as the first point if in disagreement, but I'd hold it to be - the promise of salvation. God promised/assured salvation to the elect (also why they're termed the children of Promise) which He did not, to the non-elect.

If you felt you agreed with the above too, then there's hope for reconciliation between our positions - and if not, instead of trying to juggle too many points all at once let's simply begin debating these and move on only when nothing left to discuss.

Is this your extended interpretation? While I can agree that Preterition is distinct from condemnation and that it is simply passing over the non-chosen and that it is a pure act of God's sovereignty - how can it logically be the rejection of lost souls, for these souls are not yet lost, having no sin in them considered yet. Therefore, just by definition, the non-elect being lost cannot be attributed to preterition as a cause. Since they were passed over as they were, nothing put into them, this itself cannot cause anything in them. Would you agree?
You may very well move on to say that this would be a differentiating factor in the later consideration of sin - but it's still not causing sin or their being lost or their condemnation in just the preterition of them.

 

God is Mature and Intelligent that okay with you?

Redeemer implies they have something of Good quality.

"But if corruption take away all measure, all form, all order from corruptible things, no nature will remain. And consequently every nature which cannot be corrupted is the highest good, as is God. But every nature that can be corrupted is also itself some good; for corruption cannot injure it, except by taking away from or diminishing that which is good." --St. Augustine

"No nature, therefore, as far as it is nature, is evil; but to each nature there is no evil except to be diminished in respect of good. But if by being diminished it should be consumed so that there is no good, no nature would be left; not only such as the Manichæans introduce, where so great good things are found that their exceeding blindness is wonderful, but such as any one can introduce." --St. Augustine

See if there is nothing Good, then nature is GONE, nothing to save there.

You need something to Respond to God.

Its easy to prove me wrong. Just tell me about that time you were reading the paper in front of the TV, with a seething hatred of neighbors and God.....and then ZAP you are regenerated.

 

I could tell you of the time one was riding on a horse to Damascus with a seething hatred of neighbor and God...and then ZAP, he was regenerated.

 

Why would you have to blind someone who is already on your side? He had to hear the gospel afterwards. He was not regenerated or sanctified.

Its the the ridiculous notion of how is a person suppose to repent for their bad heart?

God says the condition for giving you a new heart is you repent of your bad one. You guys claim you can't even know you have a bad heart unless you get zapped.

Or like Paul says how the Law was their TUTOR teaching them they did wrong and teaching they needed a savior.

Yet Calvinist say Law doesn't teach you anything, you have to get zapped first so you can receive the Gnostic enlightenment.