Pelagianism: The Boogie Man

[Iconoclast]

But according to most Calvinists God knew Adam would fall and already had the plan of salvation worked out. So God "looked down the corridors of time", saw what was going to happen and made a remedy.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

No biblical Calvinists would say that God looked down any Corridor of time biblical Calvinists understand that God has decreed all the events that come to pass without being the author of sin. God considered mankind has fallen in Adam and elected out of the Fallen Humanity those who would be saved
In other words look at it this way God who is perfect never increases or diminishes in knowledge he doesn't have to look down any corridor of time he knows the end from the beginning because he's determine what would come to pass and the means by which it comes to pass.

 

[InTheLight]

No biblical Calvinists would say that God looked down any Corridor of time

"No True Scotsman..."

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[InTheLight]

In John 11 Jesus looked into the future and saw that if he didn't go to Bethany then Lazarus would die and by raising him the Father would be glorified.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Iconoclast]

"No True Scotsman..."

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

I just added a little to the previous post

 

[Iconoclast]

In John 11 Jesus looked into the future and saw that if he didn't go to Bethany then Lazarus would die and by raising him the Father would be glorified.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Look a little closer I'd versesfour five and six of John 11 and you'll see that he didn't rush to get that he knew exactly what was going to take place and exactly what he was going to do and it was going to be for God's glory

 

[InTheLight]

Look a little closer I'd versesfour five and six of John 11 and you'll see that he didn't rush to get that he knew exactly what was going to take place and exactly what he was going to do and it was going to be for God's glory

Look at verse 41. Sounds like Jesus had been praying about what was going to happen when he got to Bethany while he was staying away for a couple of days.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Iconoclast]

Look at verse 41. Sounds like Jesus had been praying about what was going to happen when he got to Bethany while he was staying away for a couple of days.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Of course God always uses means and prayer as one means that is ordained to occur

 

[glad4mercy]

I think you are incorrectly using biblical foreknowledge.God does not "know" what they will "do" first.....then elect
God foreknown "them" as dead sinners.....then elects them before they have done anything good or evil.
Rm has posted an April fool's prank.

I know the Calvinist position of foreknowledge, and have and am giving it consideration. But it is possible that the use of the word foreknowledge has the same usage that it has in Acts 2:23.

 

[glad4mercy]

those would would believe are the chosen. (John1:12) Chosen to be Holy and blameless (not saved). Epehesians 1:4

We become elect once we are "in Him".

Elect is not a noun in 1 Peter, it is an adjective, and the root is eklegomai, which is the verb to choose. So to be elect and to be chosen is the same thing, just one is an adjective (elect/chosen) and the other is a verb elect/choose.

I am chosen (a chosen one) because God chose me.

1 Peter, we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God and

Ephesians 1:4, we were chosen before the foundation of the world.

I think it is talking about the same thing. We are chosen before the foundation of the world, but the choice was according to the foreknowledge of God, which of course is EXHAUSTIVE...and is not temporal, but eternal...without beginning or end.

And being Holy (sanctified) and blameless (justified and sanctified) is part of the salvific work.

 

[agedman]

I was speed reading through this thread and realized something.

The OP appeals to folks to have a serious discussion, yet the author rarely participates in actual serious discussion.

Perhaps the author was not as serious about the discussion as he posted in the OP?

Or, perhaps he has found himself in the uncomfortable position of no longer trusting what he once considered the faithful presentation of the Scriptures and has come to begin to understand the value of not dismissing that which he would still desire to strongly disagree?

Or perhaps other areas of the BB are more to the liking and only desires to stir the pot in this part out of some pleasure at seeing folks rush about casting stones at shadows?

But ultimately, for the author of the OP to desire structured and educational dialogue, then it would require more attention given to the specific issues that he would both support and refute.

Here's hoping that such takes place.

 

[Revmitchell]

Elect is not a noun in 1 Peter, it is an adjective, and the root is eklegomai, which is the verb to choose. So to be elect and to be chosen is the same thing, just one is an adjective (elect/chosen) and the other is a verb elect/choose.

In scripture its almost always the same thing

Ephesians 1:4, we were chosen before the foundation of the world.

What does that same verse say we were chosen for?

I think it is talking about the same thing. We are chosen before the foundation of the world, but the choice was according to the foreknowledge of God, which of course is EXHAUSTIVE...and is not temporal, but eternal...without beginning or end.

Those who would believe were chosen before the foundation of the world. Not individuals.

 

[agedman]

I
Those who would believe were chosen before the foundation of the world. Not individuals.

Are you truly stating that the creator and sustainer of all things, who would die for all, would not know just the ultimate results as it pertains to individuals of the all?

What manner of redemption do you teach?

Consider that all formed was formed from what is not seen, and so intricately and specifically, yet your thinking is that this same creator has a group of "those" who are not individuals, not specifically chosen in Him?

Consider that the "those" as you posted are actual individuals called "my sheep" by the creator prior to the crucifixion, yet those are not individuals prior to the foundations of the world?

Consider that David stated that prior to conception, God had planned out every aspect and every event of his life, yet "those" are not individuals?

How is it that you actually get by teaching that "Those who would believe were chosen before the foundation of the world. Not individuals." ?

The people you teach, they actually understand and accept this teaching as valid?

 

[agedman]

Ephesians 1 establishes that the Ephesian church individuals (the "us" includes Paul, too) were chosen prior to the foundations of the world to be redeemed (holy and blameless) and predestined to become His own adopted child representing Him on this earth.


And such was according to the Love and kind attention of His will. It had nothing to do with some act by humans in order to acquire salvation.

It was and remains totally that of the mercy and grace of God and what He intends.

 

[glad4mercy]

What does that same verse say we were chosen for?
.

Holy and blameless. In other words, to be justified and sanctified. Salvific works.

Agree those who believe are elect, but God knows/has known from all eternity who they are. Correct?

And they were chosen before they believed. Based on the foreknowledge of God. Where Calvs and arms part is what exactly foreknowledge means.

Elect (chosen). According to the foreknowledge of God. ( 1 Peter 1:2)

 

[Revmitchell]

Holy and blameless. In other words, to be justified and sanctified. Salvific works.

Agree those who believe are elect, but God knows/has known from all eternity who they are. Correct?

And they were chosen before they believed. Based on the foreknowledge of God. Where Calvs and arms part is what exactly foreknowledge means.

Elect (chosen). According to the foreknowledge of God. ( 1 Peter 1:2)

Im not an arm. Election is purely corporate. God elects those that believe

 

[agedman]

Im not an arm. Election is purely corporate. God elects those that believe

Your view places God as confirming rather then God as author of salvation of the individual.

Such is not Scriptural when considering “my sheep hear my voice.”

No sheep can of their own volition choose which shepherd to submit. They hear their shepherd, specifically, and conform to that shepherd’s demands.

 

[utilyan]

Are you truly stating that the creator and sustainer of all things, who would die for all, would not know just the ultimate results as it pertains to individuals of the all?

What manner of redemption do you teach?

Consider that all formed was formed from what is not seen, and so intricately and specifically, yet your thinking is that this same creator has a group of "those" who are not individuals, not specifically chosen in Him?

Consider that the "those" as you posted are actual individuals called "my sheep" by the creator prior to the crucifixion, yet those are not individuals prior to the foundations of the world?

Consider that David stated that prior to conception, God had planned out every aspect and every event of his life, yet "those" are not individuals?

How is it that you actually get by teaching that "Those who would believe were chosen before the foundation of the world. Not individuals." ?

The people you teach, they actually understand and accept this teaching as valid?

"Are you truly stating that the creator and sustainer of all things, who would die for all, would not know just the ultimate results as it pertains to individuals of the all?"

You are making a assumption that God RELIES on this power.

God can beat you at game of poker, WITHOUT knowing what cards you have.....and he only has one card.

This wouldn't be acceptable to calvinist. (God knows what card you have, plays your hand for you, complains about the dumb choice he only wanted you to have)


If God said he was going to move your car, you look behind him and ask......well where is the tow truck?

If we keep compounding spiritual mechanics you get stupid stuff like Calvinism. Start with a fallen man's idea of absolute "power" is alot different then what God would call "power".

 

[agedman]

"Are you truly stating that the creator and sustainer of all things, who would die for all, would not know just the ultimate results as it pertains to individuals of the all?"

You are making a assumption that God RELIES on this power.

God can beat you at game of poker, WITHOUT knowing what cards you have.....and he only has one card.

This wouldn't be acceptable to calvinist. (God knows what card you have, plays your hand for you, complains about the dumb choice he only wanted you to have)


If God said he was going to move your car, you look behind him and ask......well where is the tow truck?

If we keep compounding spiritual mechanics you get stupid stuff like Calvinism. Start with a fallen man's idea of absolute "power" is alot different then what God would call "power".

God IS all powerful.

That is part of His nature and not something He dredge up and occasionally use.

It is as other attributes such as Holy, righteous, love...

You present a God manipulated and subservient to the whims of humankind in this post.

 

[utilyan]

God IS all powerful.

That is part of His nature and not something He dredge up and occasionally use.

It is as other attributes such as Holy, righteous, love...

You present a God manipulated and subservient to the whims of humankind in this post.

Brother If I let my son die for you.....that is as subservient as subservient can get.

God is greater, then his nature. Your eyes are fixed on the crown rather then the king.

See ALL POWERFUL means different thing to you and me.

You are pointing at a tow-truck for God to move your Car.

I'm telling you he doesn't even need the truck.

He doesn't NEED what you think he NEEDS.

At a blink of an eye God can have everyone in heaven with everything all said and done. And would have done so if he only had your level of patience.

 

[agedman]

Brother If I let my son die for you.....that is as subservient as subservient can get.

God is greater, then his nature. Your eyes are fixed on the crown rather then the king.

See ALL POWERFUL means different thing to you and me.

You are pointing at a tow-truck for God to move your Car.

I'm telling you he doesn't even need the truck.

He doesn't NEED what you think he NEEDS.

At a blink of an eye God can have everyone in heaven with everything all said and done. And would have done so if he only had your level of patience.

God did not "let his son die for me." It was the Father's will that the Son die for me.

and as far as what God can do, He may do as HE chooses and is under no obligation to humankind.

He first loved, not we.

He first gave, not we.

He is the creator and sustainer of all, not we.

You seem to give humankind a lot of ability to achieve that which only God is the author and sustainer.

There is only one definition of all powerful.

All powerful mean not lacking in power.

Jesus said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18)

That includes everything, and no lack of authority.

That you seem to imply that God is less then ALL powerful would also oblige the Christ to be less than All authority.

At one time I had authority over many. They would come when I called, and suffer if I obliged. I did not have near the authority that Christ has, for He has ALL authority.

At one time I had power over many. They would submit to my demands, and conform to my desires. I did not have near the power that God has, for He has ALL power.

Yet, there are some who would puff upon their own power, their own ability as if such were self generated or innate and not as Christ told the judge in His trial, "given to you by My Father."

In the same manner of authority, Jesus stated, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Do you not take that statement by the Christ as truthful?