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

[George Antonios]

This thread was about showing a verse where a lost man is predestinated unto salvation.
No such verse has been put forward by anyone, as partly illustrated by the interminable posts.
We've seen a couple of verses where believers are predestinated to a resurrection body like Christ's and to an inheritance. That's all.
The thread wasn't about foreknowledge, or election. It was about one verse.
Now someone can say: "there is no such verse, but I still believe the doctrine because I derive it from xyz" as I think only one person did, and that's fine.
But as a sheer, cold, hard, clinical fact: there is no verse where a lost man is predestinated unto salvation.

 

[Reformed1689]

I was not talking about Christ (just have to laugh) I was talking about the brethren who become his brothers by being born-again. Read brother, read.

Oy, George, you're a mess. You're so enthralled by your own theories, you can see the plain text. Please brother take a seat and study and learn before you speak out on these matters.

This is why I want to know where in the world he got a doctorate from. Either the school is not reputable or he is just ignoring everything he learned.

 

[Reformed1689]

This thread was about showing a verse where a lost man is predestinated unto salvation.
No such verse has been put forward by anyone, as partly illustrated by the interminable posts.
We've seen a couple of verses where believers are predestinated to a resurrection body like Christ's and to an inheritance.
That's all.

Only by YOUR definitions, not reality.

 

[George Antonios]

Only by YOUR definitions, not reality.

Nice personal definition there.

 

[Reformed1689]

Nice personal definition there.

Is this guy for real?

 

[George Antonios]

This is why I want to know where in the world he got a doctorate from. Either the school is not reputable or he is just ignoring everything he learned.

A) We all agree that the ultimate source of our knowledge is the book itself, not a school.
Did the fishermen God called graduate from the reputable schools of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
B) Maybe you haven't been exposed to teachings beyond a small circle. I'm certainly not the only one who teaches exactly what the verses say - that in every case it's a saved man who gets predestinated, according to the foreknowledge of God, to obtain a resurrection body like Christ's and to an inheritance - without coming at them with a pre-packaged theology and forcing them into that mold.
C) Still no one has disproved the OP cross-references with context, and counter and defining cross-references.

 

[Reformed1689]

A) We all agree that the ultimate source of our knowledge is the book itself, not a school.
Did the fishermen God called graduate from the reputable schools of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

And you are definitely not getting your theology from Scripture.

B) Maybe you haven't been exposed to teachings beyond a small circle. I'm certainly not the only one who teaches exactly what the verses say - that's in every case it's a saved man who gets predestinated, according to the foreknowledge of God, to obtain a resurrection body like Christ's and to an inheritance - without coming at them with a pre-packaged theology and forcing them into that mold.

The acrobatics you have to go through to deny salvation predestination is astounding. Maybe you just aren't mentally competent.

C) Still no one has disproved the OP cross-references with context and counter and defining cross-references.

Again, these are YOUR cross-references and YOUR definitions. There is nothing anyone can do to refute them because you just reject them. This is nonsense.

 

[George Antonios]

Again, these are YOUR cross-references and YOUR definitions. There is nothing anyone can do to refute them because you just reject them. This is nonsense.

I'm pretty sure I didn't author the verses.

 

[Reformed1689]

I'm pretty sure I didn't author the verses.

Notice I didn't claim you did.

 

[George Antonios]

And you are definitely not getting your theology from Scripture.

Notice I didn't claim you did.

Therefore they must still be addressed, even if I'm the one who typed them.
We must let the Bible define its own terms and Paul taught us in 1Corinthians 2 and Isaiah taught us in Isaiah 28 to do this by comparing scriptures with scriptures.
You can disagree, and show your own defining cross-references, and that's good.
But much of the disagreement here stems from pre-packaged theology, a scornful, downward looking attitude, and recently, insults.

 

[Reformed1689]

Therefore they must still be addressed, even if I'm the one who typed them.
We must let the Bible define its own terms and Paul taught us in 1Corinthians 2 and Isaiah taught us in Isaiah 28 to do this by comparing scriptures with scriptures.
You can disagree, and show your own defining cross-references, and that's good.
But much of the disagreement here stems from pre-packaged theology, a scornful, downward looking attitude, and recently, insults.

And the nonsense continues.

 

[ivdavid]

This thread was about showing a verse where a lost man is predestinated unto salvation.
No such verse has been put forward by anyone, as partly illustrated by the interminable posts.
We've seen a couple of verses where believers are predestinated to a resurrection body like Christ's and to an inheritance. That's all.
The thread wasn't about foreknowledge, or election. It was about one verse.
Now someone can say: "there is no such verse, but I still believe the doctrine because I derive it from xyz" as I think only one person did, and that's fine.
But as a sheer, cold, hard, clinical fact: there is no verse where a lost man is predestinated unto salvation.

Why have you ignored my post #160 where i've done just that - presented cross-references to prove my position and show the contradiction in yours to prove what you've been demanding. It's not fair to ask for something and then ignore it for lack of effort.

 

[Walpole]

Therefore they must still be addressed, even if I'm the one who typed them.
We must let the Bible define its own terms and Paul taught us in 1Corinthians 2 and Isaiah taught us in Isaiah 28 to do this by comparing scriptures with scriptures.
You can disagree, and show your own defining cross-references, and that's good.
But much of the disagreement here stems from pre-packaged theology, a scornful, downward looking attitude, and recently, insults.

I am sorry about the insults you have been receiving. Unfortunately anti-intellectualism is pervasive in Protestantism, which explains why you have received so many ad hominems in lieu of arguments / refutations / rebuttals to your OP.

I hope you and your family had a blessed Advent and that you have a blessed Christmas season.

 

[George Antonios]

Why have you ignored my post #160 where i've done just that - presented cross-references to prove my position and show the contradiction in yours to prove what you've been demanding. It's not fair to ask for something and then ignore it for lack of effort.

Yours was one of the best replies because it did a good work of cross-referencing. But I did answer it.

 

[George Antonios]

I simply know from common language that adoption does not mean that - when I adopt a child, I'm not redeeming its body. You'd argue against man's dictionaries. So I head to Strong's NT dictionary -
G5206 uihothesia - From a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087; the placing as a son, that is, adoption (figuratively Christian sonship in respect to God): - adoption (of children, of sons).

The word uihothesia is a compound of G5207 uihos meaning Son and G5087 tithēmi meaning To Place, literally and figuratively. This aligns perfectly with my common language knowledge too, since when I adopt a child, I am 'Placing as Son/Daughter' this child.

The post was long and that's ok but I'll try to focus.
We define terms from the words of God, the way God defines them. Also, as explained, the resurrection from the dead is spoken of as a birth in the verses I presented earlier.
No one disputes that we are sons now, as stated in Galatians 4. That's because we were born again spiritually the day we believed and thus became sons of God, but only spiritually. But that only covers our souls and spirits, not our bodies. In Romans, Paul addresses that aspect. Our bodies get adopted at the resurrection, not at salvation. That's what Paul was talking about in the passages in question, as was demonstrated by the way he himself defined it: waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom.8:23).
1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God [that’s Galatians 4, spiritually], and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is [That’s Romans 8, physically, at the resurrection].
It's in reference to that bodily adoption at the resurrection that he mentions predestination. As he also says, if you're waiting for something, then it hasn't happened yet, but it will happen, because we got predestinated unto that bodily adoption/resurrection the day we got saved, according to the foreknowledge of God.

 

[George Antonios]

I am sorry about the insults you have been receiving. Unfortunately anti-intellectualism is pervasive in Protestantism, which explains why you have received so many ad hominems in lieu of arguments / refutations / rebuttals to your OP.

I hope you and your family had a blessed Advent and that you have a blessed Christmas season.

Thank you brother. I wish you, and all here, the same

 

[Reformed1689]

The post was long and that's ok but I'll try to focus.
We define terms from the words of God, the way God defines them. Also, as explained, the resurrection from the dead is spoken of as a birth in the verses I presented earlier.
No one disputes that we are sons now, as stated in Galatians 4. That's because we were born again spiritually the day we believed and thus became sons of God, but only spiritually. But that only covers our souls and spirits, not our bodies. In Romans, Paul addresses that aspect. Our bodies get adopted at the resurrection, not at salvation. That's what Paul was talking about in the passages in question, as was demonstrated by the way he himself defined it: waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom.8:23). I'ts in reference to that bodily adoption at the resurrection that he mentions predestination. As he also says, if you're waiting for something, then it hasn't happened yet, but it will happen, because we got predestinated unto that bodily adoption/resurrection the day we got saved, according to the foreknowledge of God.

The conforming to the image of his son is in contrast to the conforming of the world see Romans 12:2.

This is not talking about our body. It is talking about our renewal and transformation that comes with salvation.

 

[Marooncat79]

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.

Jesus wept

 

[George Antonios]

The conforming to the image of his son is in contrast to the conforming of the world see Romans 12:2.

This is not talking about our body. It is talking about our renewal and transformation that comes with salvation.

That many Bible words have more than one connotation is certain. But if you refer back to the OP cross-references, Paul speaks of a physical conforming to the physical image of the risen Christ.
the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (Dan.3:25) the Son of God had a form even before his incarnation, as well as after; Mar 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. The use of form in a post-resurrection context, where Christ rose and appeared bodily to the disciples, proves that form here also refers to the physical shape of the Son of God. This will reveal that the meaning of: Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed [meaning: to take the form of] to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren refers primarily to a physical conformity, not a spiritual one, as is often taught. The image is physical, not spiritual, as is clear from: 1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
See also: 1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

[Reformed1689]

That many Bible words have more than one connotation is certain. But if you refer back to the OP cross-references, Paul speaks of a physical conforming to the physical image of the risen Christ.
the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (Dan.3:25) the Son of God had a form even before his incarnation, as well as after; Mar 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. The use of form in a post-resurrection context, where Christ rose and appeared bodily to the disciples, proves that form here also refers to the physical shape of the Son of God. This will reveal that the meaning of: Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed [meaning: to take the form of] to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren refers primarily to a physical conformity, not a spiritual one, as is often taught. The image is physical, not spiritual, as is clear from: 1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
See also: 1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

And this is a prime example why discussing with you is pointless. You immediately say "Pep Pep! The OP states....."