Prove it wrong: There is not one verse about predestination to salvation

[George Antonios]

I ask you all to be as careful with terms as you can be. Our Calvinist brethren often denounce conflation of terms. We are not talking about election here. The thread is about predestination unto salvation. And please define terms with cross-references, not general one-liners.

 

[Scott Downey]

God does not plan or know the future?
Our salvation is not a work of God?
On the 7th day, God rested from all His works.
Acts 15:18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

 

[George Antonios]

God does not plan or know the future?
Our salvation is not a work of God?
On the 7th day, God rested from all His works.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

You did not answer the OP. Is that because there is no such verse?

 

[Scott Downey]

You did not answer the OP. Is that because there is no such verse?

Your distorting the meaning, it is not worthy of discussion by limiting to a few versus a concept which also includes God's works, foreknowledge, predestination, calling, and election of individuals. It's like you have this huge work of writing, and out of it you grab one sentence, and then declare what the book means by what is written in one sentence after you define all the meanings and boundaries. What you end up is a fantasy explanation of the whole work.

 

[George Antonios]

Your distorting the meaning, it is not worthy of discussion by limiting to a few versus a concept which also includes God's works, foreknowledge, predestination, calling, and election of individuals. It's like you have this huge work of writing, and out of it you grab one sentence, and then declare what the book means by what is written in one sentence after you define all the meanings and boundaries. What you end up is a fantasy explanation of the whole work.

You did not answer the OP. Is that because there is no such verse?
Nor did you say how the meaning was distorted, nor did you back it up with verses.

 

[Scott Downey]

You did not answer the OP. Is that because there is no such verse?
Nor did you say how the meaning was distorted, nor did you back it up with verses.

The word means this accoding to the dictionary. Apparently you dont agree with dictionaries.
Your writing your own dictionary.

Oxford
pre·des·ti·na·tion

noun
(as a doctrine in Christian theology) the divine foreordaining of all that will happen, especially with regard to the salvation of some and not others. It has been particularly associated with the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo and of Calvin.

Merriam Webster
Definition of predestination
1: the act of predestinating : the state of being predestinated
2: the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation

 

[George Antonios]

The word means this accoding to the dictionary. Apparently you dont agree with dictionaries.
Your writing your own dictionary.

Oxford
pre·des·ti·na·tion

noun
(as a doctrine in Christian theology) the divine foreordaining of all that will happen, especially with regard to the salvation of some and not others. It has been particularly associated with the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo and of Calvin.

Merriam Webster
Definition of predestination
1: the act of predestinating : the state of being predestinated
2: the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation

I'm on a Christian board. That means the Holy Bible is our final authority for all issues. I presented the Bible's definition of predestination and you give me the Oxford editors' definition. That is very telling and I'm thankful it happened. Not to win a debate, but for others to see and consider. Moreover, that definition gave you the sense that was historically popularized by Calvinists. It's simply telling you what Calvinists think it means. If the word [or any word] were to take on another connotation in the future, then that would be the connotation you would find in a future dictionary - albeit not necessarily the correct one. A dictionary simply reflects popular culture.

So, yet again, you did not answer the OP, but ran to the words of men rather than the words of God. Is that because there is no such verse?

 

[Scott Downey]

I'm on a Christian board. That means the Holy Bible is our final authority for all issues. I presented the Bible's definition of predestination and you give me the Oxford editors' definition. That is very telling and I'm thankful it happened. Not to win a debate, but others to see and consider. Moreover, that definition gave you the sense that was historically popularized by Calvinists. If the word [or any word] were to take on another connotation in the future, then that would be the connotation you would find in a future dictionary - albeit not necessarily the correct one. A dictionary simply reflects popular culture.

So, yet again, you did not answer the OP, but ran to the words of men rather than the words of God. Is that because there is no such verse?

You presented a distorted opinion of what 'predestination' means. So no you established nothing. except your own interpretation.

 

[George Antonios]

You presented a distorted opinion of what 'predestination' means. So no you established nothing. except your own interpretation.

Yet again, you have yet to show the distortion [especially since my "interpretation" is backed up by scripture] and provide your own scriptural definition.
You did not answer the OP. Is that because there is no such verse?

 

[Scott Downey]

God foreknows individuals as His people, not the concept of believers as His people. That is the subterfuge playing out against the meaning here.

As it says, For Whom He foreknew, He also predestined.
So then who is changing the meaning of the verse, OP, who is claiming it says
'Believers He also predestined', and that truly distorts the scripture entirely.

 

[George Antonios]

God foreknows individuals as His people, not the concept of believers as His people. That is the subterfuge playing out against the meaning here.

As it says, For Whom He foreknew, He also predestined.

I have no issue with God foreknowing people individually, so no, there is no such "subterfuge".
You still refuse to answer the OP. Is that because there is no such verse?

 

[Scott Downey]

I have no issue with God foreknowing people individually, so no, there is no such "subterfuge".
You still refuse to answer the OP. Is that because there is no such verse?

Its right in your chart, your putting the emphasis on believers as a generalized type person that God saves, not the called individual person.

As your showing, 'predestination of the believer', which is not 'For whom He foreknew'. It changes the verse meaning entirely.

 

[Scott Downey]

If 'For whom He did foreknew, He did also predestine' is true , then its opposite,

For Whom He did not foreknow, He did not predestine' is logically true.
Which proves the predestination of individuals He foreknew is true.

 

[George Antonios]

Its right in your chart, your putting the emphasis on believers as a generalized type person that God saves, not the called individual person.

As your showing, 'predestination of the believer', which is not 'For whom He foreknew'. It changes the verse meaning entirely.

No problem with that. Make the believer the individual. What was I supposed to write? "Mike" or "Bobby"?
God foreknew that Bobby would get saved (1Pe.1:2, Ro.8:29) and, once Bobby got saved [wait, don't jump the gun], God fixed his destination to end up with a glorified resurrection body (Ro.8:29) in which he would praise God for ever (Eph.1:11-12). That arrangement of things was foreordained of God before the foundation of the world. Voilà. There is no predestination unto salvation anywhere.

 

[Particular]

View attachment 3425 I ask you all to be as careful with terms as you can be. Our Calvinist brethren often denounce conflation of terms. We are not talking about election here. The thread is about predestination unto salvation. And please define terms with cross-references, not general one-liners.

Do you view adoption and salvation as two different things?

 

[George Antonios]

Do you view adoption and salvation as two different things?

In the verses listed in the O.P., yes, they are different. Salvation in its basic form, is simply our soul not suffering the judgment of hell. Adoption, as it is used and defined by Paul himself in the verses above, is the transformation of our body at the resurrection to be conformed to the physical image of Christ's resurrection body.
God could have ordained that salvation would not be concomitant to having a resurrection body just like Christ's own glorious body.

 

[MB]

View attachment 3425 I ask you all to be as careful with terms as you can be. Our Calvinist brethren often denounce conflation of terms. We are not talking about election here. The thread is about predestination unto salvation. And please define terms with cross-references, not general one-liners.

A men brother there is not even a hint of such nonsense.
MB

 

[Particular]

In the verses listed in the O.P., yes, they are different. Salvation in its basic form, is simply our soul not suffering the judgment of hell. Adoption, as it is used and defined by Paul himself in the verses above, is the transformation of our body at the resurrection to be conformed to the physical image of Christ's resurrection body.
God could have ordained that salvation would not be concomitant to having a resurrection body just like Christ's own glorious body.

I disagree with your definition. Therefore it seems fruitless to argue when we cannot agree on the meaning of the terms being used.

 

[George Antonios]

I disagree with your definition. Therefore it seems fruitless to argue when we cannot agree on the meaning of the terms being used.

My definition? That's what the verses in the OP are saying, and nobody has pointed out a scriptural flaw in the OP.
Why don't you give us your scriptural definition with defining cross-references?

 

[Particular]

My definition? That's what the verses in the OP are saying, and nobody has pointed out a scriptural flaw in the OP.
Why don't you give us your scriptural definition with defining cross-references?

Because it is a pointless and useless endeavor. You have boxed in the definition to your particular position and told others they can only argue within the parameters of that perspective. In that structure only a fool would engage you. I have already wasted too much time on this.
This is my last comment to you in this thread. Carry on.