Predestination: Meaning and Application

[Benjamin]

Okay, I am not saying that this is going to be easily understood, but I want to go back to my earlier illustrations on election…blah…blah…blah…

It’s not so much a matter of understanding your attempted
presentation to support predestined election, and I know this is going to be very hard for you to accept considering your ego, but the problem is your logic just doesn’t add up with God’s character.



Your definition of Gods sovereignty falls short while you blindly skip over the POE. The conclusions that you arrive at do damage to God’s character and can not be so lightly placed aside.

In your erroneous belief concerning the definition of God’s sovereignty you place God in a position that He can do things against His true natural existence and at the same time limit His Omnipotent sovereign ability to create the world as He pleased. No, God can not do anything, such as He can not learn, that would be against the nature of God being He is Omniscient.

Another factor in the nature of God is that He is Truth, He can not lie; the typical Calvinistic defense often will go as far as to suggest that God does lie, but I hope that you would be beyond that fallacy while desperately attempting to hold to your invalid theories of predestination of His creatures before foreknowledge.


Your fallacy of logic centers in your own comparisons. Your defense allows for a free will factor while contending God is not liable for evil and you plainly state God “permitted” evil as causality in order that His creation would exist, IOW God omnisciently having foreknowledge that evil would exist as a necessary factor in creation, in the very way He created it is not “liable” for evil because He only “permitted” it.


You’re missing your own point! This implies evil exists apart from God; and evil not being part of God’s nature which includes being eternally self existent, unchanging, and unable to learn has always existed apart from evil in the truth of the characteristic nature that He exists. God “can not” create, predestine, determine, something that is not a part of the truth of His Own nature in which He abides. Your theology becomes fatalistic to God’s existence if God created the nature in which He exists, which in fact contains evil. He did not create evil as a truth of His Own nature; His characteristic nature has always existed within Him apart from evil.


You rightfully limit the nature God to be apart from sin then deny the unchanging truth of His nature because sin does in fact exists in His creation you then accredit it back to Him. Talk about, “nothing more than a bipolar view of God's foreknowledge” and a teaching that “smacks as a type of Panentheism.” words: πάν ( 'pan' ) =all, en=in and Theos=God; "all-in-God


God abides within the truths of His Own natural existence which is good shown in the Word about the creation of the world:


(Gen 1:31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, itwas very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Tell me did God lie?

This fact in itself shows that God could not have predestined any man to be evil but only allowed evil as a truth in the nature that God exists within. God in His creation which He designed to be good, lovingly, gifted His creatures the freedom within His design being made in His likeness and image a free will. This is plainly seen in Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s instructions.

Also God being Omniscient foreknew that Adam being created with the gift of freedom would choose to eat of the tree of knowledge; within that freedom happens the fall of men within God’s creation by the their own freedom in which God created them; contrary to the determinist predestined view that HE created some men to be evil and this shows that God did indeed give men complete LFW (libertarian free will).

In the matter is His creatures having unlimited propitiation by freely accepting His gift of loving grace to His creation to abide forever with Him that is Only Good.

 

[saturneptune]

Romans 10:18

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I don't know where you get this stuff? I have never said you didn't have to believe the Gospel and if you think I did say so it was a misunderstanding. I really think you have a hard time understanding me and then have to go so far as calling it irrationality. Mine and your difference is the hearing. You believe in a human on human and I don't for Salvation is of the Lord.

You Calvinist are so strong in there being "no works" to Salvation then turn right around and say that someone else needs "your" works to be saved, like "preaching". Talk about being irrational then that is. Either you believe in works or you don't. You either believe that Jesus can do the saving or you don't. I say he don't need you or me to save someone, now if you want to put yourself in it go ahead but not me. I think you either don't want to understand because you have this set way in you mind and when questioned about it you don't know where to go.
To be honest, I don't think you are no where near as deep in the Scriptures as some of these other Calvinist think.

You skip all the Scriptures that Blammo quoted you, the ones I quoted you and there are others such as there is a Spirit in man the inspirational of God almight that giveth him understanding. Also, The Grace of God had appeared unto all men, etc. Also, Go ye not from house to house saying know ye the Lord for they shall know me from the least to the greatest. Now instead of a personal attack please explain the Scriptures. Start with how Paul mean they had heard all over the world already, ok?
I doubt if the other Calvinist on BB believe in a human on human in order to be saved or that sure would mess up being the "elect". Now which is it, the "elect" chosen by God or the human on human conversion?

1. Pslams 23, was to show you that there are plenty of Scriptures in OT used today

2. Hebrews 4, was to show you they had the Gospel same as we.

3. Romans 10 was to show you that Paul was talking about them hearing the Gospel and in verse 18 he said they have heard it all over the world. Who am I to question Apostle Paul.

4. For the life of me I don't know why you would want to just gloss over verse 18 on down in Romans 10?

Nothing irrational there but maybe I need to explain better so you can understand or go slower, I don't know please help me to know what to do to help you understand what I am saying.

Keep in mind Bob we are all not mind readers like you are, so we actually need someone to tell us what they are thinking. What is irrational is when you draw conclusions that have no bases or coherency on the merits of your argument. First you argued that predestination is wrong because people need to believe, yet I have continually restated time and again that I never said otherwise. When pressed on the nature of salvation when it is applied to those who never hear the gospel you then switch positions and now start arguing that even though they have never heard the gospel preached to them they can be saved. This amazingly is found in the very passage where the importance of hearing the gospel preached is taught. I along with the confessing historic church have believed that Romans 10 teaches one thing, and now you want to suggest it teaches another. This is so painfully obvious that your buddy saturneptune thinks this is a gag. He states: "Any third grader knows that the Gospel must be believed for salvation, and that it is spread by believers." He cannot even bring himself to acknowledge that someone could honestly teach otherwise. Yet you have and continue to teach that it is not necessary for someone to hear the gospel to receive it.

I am teaching Exclusivism.

Exclusivism makes two main claims. The first is ontological: Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation. The second is epistemological: salvation can only be received through explicit confession of faith in Jesus, which of course must involve some knowledge of him. Both claims apparently express the obvious meaning of texts such as Acts 4:12 ("there is no other name under heaven given among humans by which we must be saved") and John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me").

You are teaching Inclusivism.

Inclusivism makes the same ontological claim: Jesus is salvation's only source. Yet it makes a different epistemological claim: awareness and explicit confession of this source is not always necessary for salvation, for some can be saved by responding positively to their deepest awareness of God. This could come through another religion.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

It does not reverse it at all but says they have already heard now I figure Apostle is smarter than I am.

"16": But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

"17": So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

"18":But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Paul said they heard is Paul lying?

Acts 26:20-26 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

Colossians 1:4-6 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: Paul said they heard is Paul lying?

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Paul said they heard is Paul lying?

Have they not heard?

John, chapter 1


"9": That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

I am surprised that a Calvinist would believe that the "elect" would did and go to hell because there must be a human on human.

Infants have they heard the preacher or are they all lost?

Mute, have they heard the preacher or are they all lost?

fetus have they heard the preacher or are they all lost?

Don't ask me how they heard that is why Salvation is of the Lord and not man.

Do you see now why I accuse you of be irrational?

"Don't ask me how they heard that is why Salvation is of the Lord and not man."

What you are suggesting is that what you are teaching is nonsensical but hey it is the truth. What you are saying is hey don't ask me to explain this too you because it makes no sense but it is the truth. You are not talking to unregenerate man Bob, I am born of the Spirit. I get the things of the Spirit. Your insight defies the plain and simple reading of Scripture, so it must be secret knowledge your are gleaning from Romans 10:18. I can only go with what the Bible teaches. But everything the Bible teaches must be put into a historical grammatical framework. You claim to know the Bible but you cannot see that Romans 10:18 is a direct quote of Psalms 19:4. So how am I supposed to explain the difficulty of your interpretations on passages that you list which you somehow want to apply out of context? All the world does not mean every human being who ever lived. When things like was preached to every creature which is under heaven is stated that does not mean every human being who ever lived. If you took it literally it would be dogs, cats, donkeys and monkeys. Are you suggesting that monkeys get saved too Bob? John 1:9 does say what it says but watch out Bob because there is more to the story. While the light shines it does not say how. The light could be either general revelation, ie Ps. 19 or special revelation, ie Romans 10. But read the rest of John 1 because it totally defeats your argument:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Romans 10:18

See Psalms 19 especially verse 4.

 

[Brother Bob]

then switch positions and now start arguing that even though they have never heard the gospel preached to them they can be saved

I never said this. It is I just don't know how they hear but you seem to know. I know there are those who didn't hear the preacher who were saved like Apostle Paul to start with. infants and others but the Scripture says He lighteth every man that cometh in the world and I just gave you several Scriptures where Paul said they had heard but I don't know how they heard but Paul said they did so I believe but you seem to not. No, my buddy is right I never said they never heard but it how they heard. verse 18 of Romans 10 Apostle said they have heard. you argue with Paul if you want. I believe what you say in exclusivism but I am not like you I don't know everything I see through a glass darkly but someday i will see face to face. You are denying Paul not me. I do not believe it has to be human on human I think God is much more powerful than that. What is so funny is you say you can't be saved by works but then you say it takes your works to save another, that is absurb.

 

[Jarthur001]

Grace and Peace Jarthur,

Actually I'm still not getting it yet.

Would you say that an individual who witnesses a crime is the cause? The way I see it is God has graced certain creatures (Angels and man) with Free-Choice and although I agree that God is aware of who will choose because of His Omnisciense I don't see this awareness as necessarily antagonistic to one's Free-Choice anymore than I believe witnessing a crime makes one the cause. Witnessing even witnessing events beforehand is not antagonistic to one's Free-Choice. Perhaps we are arguing semantic or perhaps not but I believe that the two exist unmolested by the other because God has deemed it so.

Calvinists appear to argue 'hard determinism' which creates no moral responsibility on the part of creation if not fatalism. As a side note it makes God the author of evil which is not Biblical. Perhaps I'm not understanding the details of Calvinist Theology on this matter but at the moment I'd have to say that although I recognize that God is at work in His Creation I have to hold that a 'Good' God affords an opportunity for each individual creations to participate in His redemptive work. Yes I understand that from our perspective creation might appear to be a linear timeline in which God exercises His Providence but I believe we can't project our creaturely perspective onto God who encounters His creation in an eternal now with not beginning and no end.

I know that I could frame this better given some more reflection so if anyone doesn't grasp my issues I'd be happy to give it more thought and try again later.

Peace.

I know this is a few pages back, but I went to church tonight, and just now getting to this one.

Maybe the word choice is misleading you. Most all Calvinist believe man has a choice, but it is not free. This is clear in many areas. I cannot change who i am by my own will. I am James the tall ugly guy. No matter how much I may want to look like Brad Pitt...I can not will myself like that. I could have plastic surgery..and maybe if the doctor is good kinda sorta have the brad pitt look. But I will never look like brad pitt. I have no choice. I'm to tall and ugly.

I love Basketball and at the age of 48 i played last weekend with college level guys. I would love ....NO I MEAN I WOULD LOVE IT...to will myself to be Michael Jordon but really my will alone shall never make me Michael, even if I sing the song all day long..”I want to be like Mike.”.

Your will is bound..and is not free. Some people have more grace given to them then others. That is the facts of life. Even in salvation we see this. Some have many ways to hear Gods word...and some have only a few ways. It is God that places in the world. It is God that had you born in this nation. It was not your choice.

Now nearly all will agree with this. This is only a small part of election. I call it..Low level election. (LLE ) But with this simply view it is easy to see, God indeed is in control. Again..election is much greater then just this. God is in full control of his creation.

Yet...you have choice. It is just not free choice. It is bound to the grace that God gave you. It is however free from the choices you have before you. But I have no choice to be like mike no matter how bad I want it. Like wise.. If you do not know of God, you can not choose God. God can reach out and make you know of Him and draw you to Him. To you it was a choice. To God..he pulled you to Him.

Again this is what I call.... (LLE) Not lower in order, but lower in understanding...meaning it is clear it is Gods choice. If God is seen in control in LE...he can and is in control in all election.

Next...eph 1. This is high level election. (HLE) Again not in order, but in understanding.

Read Eph 1....

1)Who does the choosing?

2)When did the choosing take place?


In Christ...James

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

It’s not so much a matter of understanding your attempted
presentation to support predestined election, and I know this is going to be very hard for you to accept considering your ego, but the problem is your logic just doesn’t add up with God’s character.



Your definition of Gods sovereignty falls short while you blindly skip over the POE. The conclusions that you arrive at do damage to God’s character and can not be so lightly placed aside.

In your erroneous belief concerning the definition of God’s sovereignty you place God in a position that He can do things against His true natural existence and at the same time limit His Omnipotent sovereign ability to create the world as He pleased. No, God can not do anything, such as He can not learn, that would be against the nature of God being He is Omniscient.

Another factor in the nature of God is that He is Truth, He can not lie; the typical Calvinistic defense often will go as far as to suggest that God does lie, but I hope that you would be beyond that fallacy while desperately attempting to hold to your invalid theories of predestination of His creatures before foreknowledge.


Your fallacy of logic centers in your own comparisons. Your defense allows for a free will factor while contending God is not liable for evil and you plainly state God “permitted” evil as causality in order that His creation would exist, IOW God omnisciently having foreknowledge that evil would exist as a necessary factor in creation, in the very way He created it is not “liable” for evil because He only “permitted” it.


You’re missing your own point! This implies evil exists apart from God; and evil not being part of God’s nature which includes being eternally self existent, unchanging, and unable to learn has always existed apart from evil in the truth of the characteristic nature that He exists. God “can not” create, predestine, determine, something that is not a part of the truth of His Own nature in which He abides. Your theology becomes fatalistic to God’s existence if God created the nature in which He exists, which in fact contains evil. He did not create evil as a truth of His Own nature; His characteristic nature has always existed within Him apart from evil.


You rightfully limit the nature God to be apart from sin then deny the unchanging truth of His nature because sin does in fact exists in His creation you then accredit it back to Him. Talk about, “nothing more than a bipolar view of God's foreknowledge” and a teaching that “smacks as a type of Panentheism.” words: πάν ( 'pan' ) =all, en=in and Theos=God; "all-in-God


God abides within the truths of His Own natural existence which is good shown in the Word about the creation of the world:


(Gen 1:31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, itwas very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Tell me did God lie?

This fact in itself shows that God could not have predestined any man to be evil but only allowed evil as a truth in the nature that God exists within. God in His creation which He designed to be good, lovingly, gifted His creatures the freedom within His design being made in His likeness and image a free will. This is plainly seen in Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s instructions.

Also God being Omniscient foreknew that Adam being created with the gift of freedom would choose to eat of the tree of knowledge; within that freedom happens the fall of men within God’s creation by the their own freedom in which God created them; contrary to the determinist predestined view that HE created some men to be evil and this shows that God did indeed give men complete LFW (libertarian free will).

In the matter is His creatures having unlimited propitiation by freely accepting His gift of loving grace to His creation to abide forever with Him that is Only Good.

Now that is a diatribe. I agree with most of what you state there believe it or not. You are obviously still studying theology and these concepts are fresh to you. You have a pashion about the subject, I like that. I can see alot of myself in your spirited response.

But let me just repeat to you what I first said to bound, because what you are suggesting as it pertains to predestination is that God basically reversed engineered the process of election without causality.

What you are offering like bound is in effect a Theodicy or a defense of God. You do not want to attribute causality to God because you view the world as less than ideal due to sin. You for obvious reasons do not want to attribute sin to God, therefore, your effort is to distance God from sin through suggesting that he knew it would happen but did not cause it to happen. For example, as I have already suggested by way of illustration that the states issues drivers licenses but they are not liable for the harm done due to DUIs. Neither is God liable for evil due to free moral agency. But that does not remove from God causality in determining the outcome of creation. The problem of evil is an entirely other ‘thing’ to discuss but let me just say for our present discussion that I have already addressed this concern in my hypothesis by stating the following:

That this world is the best of all available worlds or it is ideal inasmuch as God created it and he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, ie perfect. Therefore, he could have created the world another way but he chose to create this world the way he did. As a part of that creation man was endowed with a free moral agency. The fall resulted from man's rebellion.

Free moral agency is a factor in resolving the problem with evil. Notice I said the problem 'with' and not 'of' evil. If evils existence was a problem then God would be liable for allowing for evil. Yet even evil is permitted by God and therefore serves a purpose in the greater scheme of ‘things.’

I understand your point here and believe me I sympathize with your efforts to defend God. The defense is not necessary nor is it a proper defense. In defending God from evil you are doing damage to his sovereignty as creator. It is like asking do you want to get hit by a bus or freight train?

I can resolve the above concerns however without doing damage to either human free moral agency nor the sovereignty of God. For the moment let’s just suppose that the end is all that matters. We will not focus on the means by which we got to the end. In the end according to God’s foreknowledge which you agree if he has knowledge then that must be based on actuality or it must be factually correct. Therefore if he envisions creation with you being saved in the end, that must inevitably come to pass. Can we at least agree on that?

Let's see if we can work from there and if not then we might have to back up further. One way or another we will get there...

 

[Brother Bob]

Colossians 1:4-6 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: Paul said they heard is Paul lying?

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

PB/T says I am irrational but look what he has called the creature when being used in Scripture.

was preached to every creature which is under heaven is stated that does not mean every human being who ever lived. If you took it literally it would be dogs, cats, donkeys and monkeys. Are you suggesting that monkeys get saved too Bob?

Now, wanna talk about being irrational?

Romans, chapter 8
20": For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

"21": Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

I could of helped you understand what the creature was before if I had of known.

One other thing, you have forgotten the greatest preacher of all. Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:
15:[/I] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16:[/I] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? [/B]
17:[/I] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [/B]
18: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

(This is where Paul said they had heared and he was talking about the Gospel also. Now you can make of it what you want but you will have to take it up with Paul. I don't blame you for trying to change the Scripture though for it don't fit your theory.)

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I never said this. It is I just don't know how they hear but you seem to know. I know there are those who didn't hear the preacher who were saved like Apostle Paul to start with. infants and others but the Scripture says He lighteth every man that cometh in the world and I just gave you several Scriptures where Paul said they had heard but I don't know how they heard but Paul said they did so I believe but you seem to not. No, my buddy is right I never said they never heard but it how they heard. verse 18 of Romans 10 Apostle said they have heard. you argue with Paul if you want. I believe what you say in exclusivism but I am not like you I don't know everything I see through a glass darkly but someday i will see face to face. You are denying Paul not me. I do not believe it has to be human on human I think God is much more powerful than that. What is so funny is you say you can't be saved by works but then you say it takes your works to save another, that is absurb.

Okay Bob, I will back off if you do not claim to denie the need for someone to hear the gospel in order to be saved. Bob, I am not denying what Paul wrote either as you keep insisting. I understand Paul quoted Psalms 19:4 which elludes to general revelation. I do not understand the Scripture to teach that every human being has heard the Special Revelation of Jesus Christ in a sufficient manner to bring salvation. Through general revelation we understand we are condemn but we need John 3:16 to convert to Christ. The reason I keep refering to you as irrational is because you keep insisting that God accomplishes the Great Commission through means that cannot be explained. You insist on suggesting that Paul's experience could me yours or my experience. The canon of Scripture is closed. There are no more apostles any more. Those types of events in Scripture have ceased. What the Bible presents is the institution of the Church which carries out the mission of sharing the gospel. So unless God does something that we cannot expect he will, it is the churches responsibility to share the gospel with the lost and dying world. What you are teaching is inclusivism because you are teaching that God saves people through means other than what is normative. If you read Romans 10 it sets up a pattern and that pattern is we need to send preachers, so that people can hear the gospel and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember Pascal's Wager: The wager goes something like this, "What if what you are teaching is true? What will be the result? What if what I am teaching is true? What will be the result? Are you willing to be wrong in either case?"

Now let's say that I am wrong about my assertion. I believe in the necessity of presenting the gospel to everyone. But if I am wrong and the pagan can expect some mystical enlightenment. So I have lost nothing. It does not really matter anyway, does it, because let's say that I try my best but still only cover 30% of the world population. Well that's okay, because the remaining 70% can thank their lucky stars or some mystical enlightenment.

I will repeat my warning, but what IF I am right and the you are wrong about the indispensable nature of presenting the gospel? That is a huge risk to take. Why? Because the remaining 70% are going to hell apart from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In order have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ those remaining 70% must have faith in Christ. In order to have faith in Christ you must be told about Christ and believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead. And the way the church has historically understood for this to take place is through the institution of the church while on mission and engaged in personal evangelism.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Colossians 1:4-6 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: Paul said they heard is Paul lying?

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

PB/T says I am irrational but look what he has called the creature when being used in Scripture.


Now, wanna talk about being irrational?

Romans, chapter 8
20": For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

"21": Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

I could of helped you understand what the creature was before if I had of known.

One other thing, you have forgotten the greatest preacher of all. Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:
15:[/i] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16:[/i] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? [/b]
17:[/i] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [/b]
18: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

(This is where Paul said they had heared and he was talking about the Gospel also. Now you can make of it what you want but you will have to take it up with Paul. I don't blame you for trying to change the Scripture though for it don't fit your theory.)

Bob,

You are a stubborn man. You keep beating that same old drum. I do not dispute they have heard but the substance of what they have heard is in question. The Bible presents the idea that all people are exposed to general revelation, which is sufficient to condemn but not save. The Bible also presents the idea that special revelation is needed in order to be saved. Therefore the idea of sharing the Gospel is presented with the intention of revealing something that was previously not known. The general revelation which all people have lets them know they are lost. The Gospel or special revelation gives people the "Good News" so they can know they may be saved. 1 + 1 = 2

If you suggest that was preached to every creature which is under heaven means every human being then why not every animal as well. Aren't monkeys creatures which are under heaven. If you want to take everything to be so literal, then that would not be absurd. Of course I do not believe that to be the case, but I find what you teach from these passages to be equally absurd.

 

[Brother Bob]

So, you are saying Salvation of the world is not the Grace of God but the preaching of men and Salvation is in the hands of men and not God. I do not concur. Why does the Scripture say that time and chance has happened to all men? You must believe that all infants went to hell if they died that way for there is no other explanation. Do you believe all infants that died as an infant are in Hell? I will be waiting for your answer.

Why are you saying now they did hear but just not enough. That is not what you said when we started this discussion on verse 18. That is why we never come to an end.

If you suggest that was preached to every creature which is under heaven means every human being then why not every animal as well. Aren't monkeys creatures which are under heaven. If you want to take everything to be so literal, then that would not be absurd. Of course I do not believe that to be the case, but I find what you teach from these passages to be equally absurd.

I am going to be totally honest here being the Bible teaches us what the creature is in this sense and say that statement is foolish.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

So, you are saying Salvation of the world is not the Grace of God but the preaching of men and Salvation is in the hands of men and not God. I do not concur. Why does the Scripture say that time and chance has happened to all men? You must believe that all infants went to hell if they died that way for there is no other explanation. Do you believe all infants that died as an infant are in Hell? I will be waiting for your answer.

Why are you saying now they did hear but just not enough. That is not what you said when we started this discussion on verse 18. That is why we never come to an end.

This is where I have to tell you that you are being ridiculous. Infants are not condemned by God because they have not come to an awareness of moral good and moral evil. They are the exception to the rule because the rule applies to those who have knowledge of good and evil. When we read in the Bible where is states that you must believe, the implication is that you are of an adult level in your understanding. That is why we do not baptize babies. They have no conscious awareness. Please.

Bob, I have been arguing all along for general revelation... go back and read what I have been saying.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

You are a stubborn man. You keep beating that same old drum. I do not dispute they have heard but the substance of what they have heard is in question. The Bible presents the idea that all people are exposed to general revelation, which is sufficient to condemn but not save. The Bible also presents the idea that special revelation is needed in order to be saved. Therefore the idea of sharing the Gospel is presented with the intention of revealing something that was previously not known. The general revelation which all people have lets them know they are lost. The Gospel or special revelation gives people the "Good News" so they can know they may be saved. 1 + 1 = 2

So now you are saying they have all heard but just not enough. That is a long way from what you said when we started this discussion on verse 18

This is where I have to tell you that you are being ridiculous. Infants are not condemned by God because they have not come to an awareness of moral good and moral evil. They are the exception to the rule because the rule applies to those who have knowledge of good and evil. When we read in the Bible where is states that you must believe, the implication is that you are of an adult level in your understanding. That is why we do not baptize babies. They have no conscious awareness. Please.

Bob, I have been arguing all along for general revelation... go back and read what I have been saying.

So, infants are saved without the preacher and Apostle Paul was saved without the preacher and the whole world has heard enough to be condemned but not saved. Is that where we are at now? From verse 18 of Romans: 10 they did hear but only to condemn them?

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Bound,

Sorry, I overlooked part of this.

As a side note it

makes God the author of evil

which is not Biblical. Perhaps I'm not understanding the details of Calvinist Theology on this matter but at the moment I'd have to say that although I recognize that God is at work in His Creation I have to hold that a 'Good' God affords an opportunity for each individual creations to participate in His redemptive work.

This is where non-Calvinist go wrong. It is in their understanding of evil/ The sin principle. There are a few view on this..and I'll not tell them all. I'll only share my ideas.

Sin is shown as both an expression and a force. The force I call the sin principle if you are speaking of hamartiology. This is as sin nature in anthropology. Not human nature. The sin nature is the agent...maybe active agent that uses the human nature (actions, words, thoughts, emotions, attitudes) for expressing evil.

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

This force/sin principle makes us sin...in that it controls or human nature.

But where did this come from?

In my view, God did not make evil. God did not make good. God is good.

Evil was made when God gave satan a choice to serve God or to have his own will.

Satan said...I will be...I will that...I will be like the Most High. In doing so satan took a path away from God. This is what evil is. God is good, truth, and holy. Evil is going away from Him or His will. satan in taking this path made evil and is the father of evil. He is everything God is not. God still has satan with powers..and can tempt us with evil and lie to make us think it is good, for he is the father of lies.

Now to the Garden...

God made Adam...with a choice.

God said..Adam you can do anything you want...but do not eat the apple.
Now Adam..if you eat the apple..you want your way over my way.

Adam ate the apple and choose the evil path away from God.

Now man is in sin, and has a sin nature that controls him and his choice to choose God is bound by his sin nature.

Ok that was cude...but you get the idea. In my view..though all do not agree...sin is a path away from God. God did not make sin. Sin is not God.

To support this view, I give you the law. The law is not just the 10 commandments. The law is a picture of who God is. Do not lie...for God is truth. Do not murder..for God is love.

This also is true in the NT. murder is not just the act of murder, but also hating a person, wishing they were died, planning to kill...and the act of murder. All a path away from God.

 

[Benjamin]

Now that is a diatribe. I agree with most of what you state there believe it or not. You are obviously still studying theology and these concepts are fresh to you. You have a pashion about the subject, I like that. I can see alot of myself in your spirited response.

You obviously think that you are done learning and have it all figured out in your own mind. Is that net still around? The only concept presented here so far by you that is fresh to me is the Calvinist twist on an Arminian type theology.

But let me just repeat to you what I first said to bound, because what you are suggesting as it pertains to predestination is that God basically reversed engineered the process of election without causality.

I suggest no such thing as God’s construction of the process of election was designed perfectly and remains unchanged in that those that were to be “in Him” there was a promise made for His creatures before the foundation of the world that He would provide a way for them to freely choose life because of His designing them as having a free will. Evil was never caused by God as a truth factor in God’s character which character you are the one trying to reverse engineer.

What you are offering like bound is in effect a Theodicy or a defense of God. You do not want to attribute causality to God because you view the world as less than ideal due to sin. You for obvious reasons do not want to attribute sin to God, therefore, your effort is to distance God from sin through suggesting that he knew it would happen but did not cause it to happen. For example, as I have already suggested by way of illustration that the states issues drivers licenses but they are not liable for the harm done due to DUIs. Neither is God liable for evil due to free moral agency. But that does not remove from God causality in determining the outcome of creation. The problem of evil is an entirely other ‘thing’ to discuss but let me just say for our present discussion that I have already addressed this concern in my hypothesis by stating the following:

You’re making several mistakes here in what I offer; causality is not, can not, logically be attributed to God and I in no way believe the world less than ideally perfect despite of sin. You obviously missed my POINT that SIN is NOT attributed to God as HE is ONLY GOOD!

Free moral agency is a factor in resolving the problem with evil. Notice I said the problem 'with' and not 'of' evil. If evils existence was a problem then God would be liable for allowing for evil. Yet even evil is permitted by God and therefore serves a purpose in the greater scheme of ‘things.’

I wish you would quit copying and pasting your washed up teachings and address the POINTS that I already responded to your Calminian switch up from “allowed” to “permitted”.

I understand your point here and believe me I sympathize with your efforts to defend God. The defense is not necessary nor is it a proper defense. In defending God from evil you are doing damage to his sovereignty as creator. It is like asking do you want to get hit by a bus or freight train?

Ohh, you “sympathize with my efforts” while claiming I do damage to “your” definition of God’s sovereignty while you do damage to His character; how sweet! Are you going to address the damage I suggested you do to His character or just continue with this parade?

I can resolve the above concerns however without doing damage to either human free moral agency nor the sovereignty of God. For the moment let’s just suppose that the end is all that matters. We will not focus on the means by which we got to the end. In the end according to God’s foreknowledge which you agree if he has knowledge then that must be based on actuality or it must be factually correct. Therefore if he envisions creation with you being saved in the end, that must inevitably come to pass. Can we at least agree on that?

Okay already, resolve it; where have I heard this before? at least post something new. If you got something in your bag let it out. The suspense is killing me!

Let's see if we can work from there and if not then we might have to back up further. One way or another we will get there...

I don’t think we can get much further back than creation and you neglect to answer the facts about that. Man! Talk about reverse engineering! You take a Calvy doctrine and try to force it into creation. I have a feeling we are never going to get there. You might want to get started writing your book now.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Benjamin


I know this was not addressed to me, but I wanted say a few things nonetheless.

I suggest no such thing as God’s construction of the process of election was designed perfectly and remains unchanged in that those that were to be “in Him” there was a promise made for His creatures before the foundation of the world that He would provide a way for them to freely choose life because of His designing them as having a free will. Evil was never caused by God as a truth factor in God’s character which character you are the one trying to reverse engineer.

You seem to be going with the ol "in Him" idea that free-willers try to push on Eph1. Now I may be wrong, but that would be my guess. If this is the case I would gladly show where this is wrong.

The statement about evil, before I reply to that I would like for you to be more clear. It all depends on how you express what you mean by the word "cause". In my view God did not make evil, but allowed/permitted it. If however, God could have stopped evil from coming about, what would you call this? I'm sure you do not believe God had not the power to stop evil.

Last, "freely choose life"I believe God does indeed offer man life. I would like to see where man takes God up on this, without God 1st reaching out to pull man to Him. If you have a verse please share.

Ohh, you “sympathize with my efforts” while claiming I do damage to “your” definition of God’s sovereignty while you do damage to His character; how sweet! Are you going to address the damage I suggested you do to His character or just continue with this parade?

Okay already, resolve it; where have I heard this before? at least post something new. If you got something in your bag let it out. The suspense is killing me!

If you have a cold coke to drink, now would be a good time to drink that.

Your..."the damage I suggested you do to His character"...I have seen no damage.

I don’t think we can get much further back than creation and you neglect to answer the facts about that. Man! Talk about reverse engineering! You take a Calvy doctrine and try to force it into creation. I have a feeling we are never going to get there. You might want to get started writing your book now.

It seems to me that leaving God in His sovereignty of creation is not so much a force. BTW, God’s foreknowledge is only one tool that God uses in His sovereignty state.

How about my book??? We have a 2 for 1 deal going on. Offer not available in stores.


In Christ..James

 

[npetreley]

BP/Th, Jarthur,

I admire your persistence. However, you must be aware by now that you're dealing with the equivalent of evolutionists in science.

Just as the Bible is the same for free-willers and Calvinists, the evidence is the same for both creationists and evolutionists.

The evidence is against the evolutionists. However, they refuse to take the evidence at face value. They would rather make up just-so stories to explain it away in order to maintain their belief in evolution.

 

[Blammo]

Brother Bob, Benjamin,

I admire your persistence. However, you must be aware by now that you're dealing with the equivalent of evolutionists in science.

Just as the Bible is the same for free-willers and Calvinists, the evidence is the same for both creationists and evolutionists.

The evidence is against the evolutionists. However, they refuse to take the evidence at face value. They would rather make up just-so stories to explain it away in order to maintain their belief in evolution.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

You obviously think that you are done learning and have it all figured out in your own mind. Is that net still around?

I am not done learning, not until the day that I die. That does not mean that my education and knowledge of this subject does not probably go beyond yours. Are you a Ph.D. student? Be honest, are you a student of theology? What degree are you working toward? I mean you are packing some pretty big heat there pal, toting around 3 dollar words like libertarian free will, or what is even more impressive is your use of the abbreviated terms, like EF, IOW and POE. Try not to be so aloof, do the average guy out there a favor and define your terms or at least spell them out. Don't get me wrong when they are pounding all that new stuff into you at the University or Seminary you have to do something with that knowledge. But in case you have not noticed this board is not a colloquium or even a seminar. It is a forum for discussion. You do not get a grade in here so relax, sit back and enjoy your time in here. Where you are able to contribute something constructively do so, if you cannot be constructive then try to restrain yourself.

The only concept presented here so far by you that is fresh to me is the Calvinist twist on an Arminian type theology.

Oh, yes you are right predestination of the elect to salvation and the non-elect to reprobation is such an Arminian tenet. That is why you are reacting so vehemently against my theology because it smacks of freewill theology. Hardly. The only thing different that at least you recognize is that I have tried to bring to the forefront that foreknowledge does not equivocate God from causality and that foreknowledge is more deterministic than most who hold to that system understand it to be. The age old question is do you believe because you are elect or do you have to believe in order to receive election. Both are true but at least the first is true. Where I am in a real sense not disputing the necessity of belief, I do not nor in anyway have I ever suggested that your choice enters into the decision of whether to or not to receive election. Can a person born in China decide to be born in the USA? There are more factors to election than simply choice. God plays a role in decreeing election. The resulting creation simply unfolds according to God's decree. It would be ridiculous to not allow that God has foreknowledge. The Bible clearly states he does but that foreknowledge is actual and therefore he has predetermined that it meets with his counsel and therefore decreed that it will be so.

I suggest no such thing as God’s construction of the process of election was designed perfectly and remains unchanged in that those that were to be “in Him” there was a promise made for His creatures before the foundation of the world that He would provide a way for them to freely choose life because of His designing them as having a free will.

Benny, can I call you Benny? If you leave election open ended then you are reverse engineering without attributing to God causality. If a tennis player hits a ball it goes where the racquet told it go. That is to say that at the point where the racquet makes contact with the ball information is transferred to the ball and with the information the ball reacts accordingly. It is called cause and effect. For every action there is a reaction. In quantum physics it is called the theory of relativity and is based on E=MC2. This is a mathematical principle that helps us better understand the nature of matter. In theology the debate over whether or not God exists has continued throughout the middle-ages to present. A theologian by the name Aquinas suggested 5 different ways that we could know that there is a God. In one of his ways he argues that the created order requires an initial mover. God is that initial mover and therefore causality goes back to God plain and simple.

Evil was never caused by God as a truth factor in God’s character which character you are the one trying to reverse engineer.

First of all Benny, I can call you Benny? I have repeatedly stated that I do not attribute evil to God as an attribute of his character. It is reactions like this that expose the simpleton in you. News flash, God is not evil. No one here that I am aware is arguing that God is evil.

You obviously missed my POINT that SIN is NOT attributed to God as HE is ONLY GOOD!

Do you not get the fact that I know what your concern is? There is no need to amp up the font and get all worked up. I understand your point here and believe me I sympathize with your efforts to defend God. But as I have said, the defense is not necessary nor is it a proper defense. In defending God from evil you are doing damage to his sovereignty as creator. It is like asking do you want to get hit by a bus or freight train? By trying to defend God against moral evil you strip him of his sovereignty. If you are going to get us out of one ditch please do not over correct and swerve into the ditch on the other side of the road. My solution accounts for the problem with evil.

Ohh, you “sympathize with my efforts” while claiming I do damage to “your” definition of God’s sovereignty while you do damage to His character; how sweet!

Man you are one hungry student! What is the title of your PhD dissertation going to be? News flash, I already have offered a suitable amount of information to resolve the matter of moral evil. One, I allow for human free moral agency, which attributes sin to man not God. While God is the source of all life and therefore has a causal relationship to his creation, his relationship is not simply defined in physical laws pertaining to time and space, he also has established a moral system which equally governs his creation. The moral and physical laws are interrelated. He initially created the world in a pristine form. Initially the world was good as God created it. However, there were laws in place that allowed for the presence of evil in the world. There were laws in place that also allowed for human free moral agency. As result the fall occurred and the rest is history. Had God so decided he could have chosen to create a world without possibility of moral evil. He also could have chosen to create man without free moral agency. Yet in his infinite wisdom he chose to create the world in the fashion in which he created it. Therefore I am left to concur with God's judgment and understand that he has benefit of knowledge of which I will never acquire. He is God. His ways are not inconsistent they are beyond me.

You really do humor me with your animosity toward my position. You earlier had asked me can God lie? News flash, NO.

Let me ask you a question, can God create something so big that he cannot move it? Now either way you answer that question you are going to have a problem with God's sovereignty.

I recognize that you will see a problem with my understanding. But I have tried to offer you an illustration which might help you work out the intricacies of this issue. The states issues drivers’ licenses but they are not liable for the harm done due to DUIs. Neither is God liable for evil due to free moral agency. Just as the state has a system that allows for the freedom to drive, it also has a system which punishes individuals that break the law. Just as much as God allows for evil he has a means in place to do away with evil. If my view of God were limited to the present world condition I would definitely see evil as the problem. But in the end God will restore creation to its original pristine condition. We are very much in a parenthetical state right now. We look forward to the new creation when sin will be no more...