Simple yes or no question...

[ScottEmerson]

Did God choose not to choose certain people to be elect based upon his wisdom and sovereignty?

Simple yes's or no's will suffice, then an explanation if you'd like.

[ October 30, 2002, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Did God choose not to choose certain people to be elect based upon his wisdom and sovereignty?

Simple yes's or no's will suffice, then an explanation if you'd like.

No!!!

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Did God choose not to choose certain people to be elect based upon his wisdom and sovereignty?

Simple yes's or no's will suffice, then an explanation if you'd like.

I see you're stil trying to sneak in double predestination.

The answer is no. God chose to elect some. He did not choose to not elect some.

It is certainly true that God's choice to elect some has the effect that others are not elected to salvation. But He di not elect others to damnation.

End of story. But will you listen?

Unlikely.

 

[rsr]

God chose to elect some. He did not choose to not elect some.

How is this possible? If He chose to elect some, then He chose not to elect some.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Latreia:
The answer is no. God chose to elect some. He did not choose to not elect some.

It is certainly true that God's choice to elect some has the effect that others are not elected to salvation. But He di not elect others to damnation.

Not talking about election. Talking about choosing.

 

[npetreley]

I don't know. Sorry, but I can't give a yes or no on something like that.

 

[Bible-belted]

Not talking about election?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Not talking about election?

Nope. Did he choose not to choose or did he not choose to choose?

Not even talking about whether election is true or not.

 

[Bible-belted]

If you want to make distinctions like that, fine.

As for your question, its already answered.

But, I don't suppose you'll accept it since that would mean losing your straw man...

 

[Pastor Larry]

Scott,

Election is choosing. The words in the original languages are the same idea. You cannot talk about choosing without talking about election.

As for your question, God chose to let some go their own way according to their own desires. That's not new. We have said that from that beginning.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As for your question, God chose to let some go their own way according to their own desires. That's not new. We have said that from that beginning.[/QB]

Good. So you agree with double predestination, then. God chose not to choose them for salvation, knowing what would happen if He didn't choose them.

That's predestining them to damnation.

 

[russell55]

God, considering people as sinners already justly condemned, in His mercy chooses some out of that already condemned group for salvation. His choice of some for salvation in no way changes anything for those not chosen.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Good. So you agree with double predestination, then. God chose not to choose them for salvation, knowing what would happen if He didn't choose them.

That's predestining them to damnation.

No it's not. You show again that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to my beliefs. How long will you continue like this??

[ October 30, 2002, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
No it's not. You show again that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to my beliefs. How long will you continue like this??[/QB]

Sorry you disagree. I'm just using the same argumentation that double-predestinarian calvinists use against the single-predestinarians.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Sorry you disagree. I'm just using the same argumentation that double-predestinarian calvinists use against the single-predestinarians.

It's not simply that I disagree. It is that you are wrong, you have been told so on multiple occasions, and you do it anyway. You asked a question, got an answer, twisted it, refused to acknowledge you twisted it, and then blame it on double-predestinarians

Choosing some does not mean choosing to not choose others. That is the logical fallacy of your position.

A bigger problem is that you are no better off than the position you think you have put me in. The reality is that your God created people he knew would go to hell. He could have shown his love by not creating them but he didn't do so. He created them knowing they would go to hell. What kind of "loving" God do you serve?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Choosing some does not mean choosing to not choose others. That is the logical fallacy of your position.

In another thread, I showed how it was not only not a logical fallacy, but that it was a logical necessity. Merely calling it a logical fallacy does not make it such.

A bigger problem is that you are no better off than the position you think you have put me in. The reality is that your God created people he knew would go to hell. He could have shown his love by not creating them but he didn't do so. He created them knowing they would go to hell. What kind of "loving" God do you serve?

The difference is that God gives all men in my system a chance. In your system, they have absolutely no chance. Big difference there.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
In another thread, I showed how it was not only not a logical fallacy, but that it was a logical necessity. Merely calling it a logical fallacy does not make it such.

I have never seen anyone successfully argue this. I doubt you have been the first but if you will point me to your attempt, I will take a look at it. A choice for some is to disregard others, not to choose not to choose. You are really struggling here to make a point that is a non issue. I don't even think it is that important because, even if your case could be made, you are in no better a position than you think your opponent is.

In the bottom line, it doesn't really matter what you think about the choice to choose or to not choose. Scripture does not talk in terms like that and your attempt to put God in a box does not help the understanding of Scripture. We need to rather talk about what Scripture says rather than what you think about whether or not choosing involves a choice to not choose (an oxymoron at best).

The difference is that God gives all men in my system a chance. In your system, they have absolutely no chance. Big difference there.

Actually, they don't have a chance unless you are an open theist denying the omniscience of God. If God knew before they were created that they would go to hell, then they have no chance to do otherwise ... unless God's knowledge is faulty.

 

[ForumChaplain]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[Q]It's not simply that I disagree. It is that you are wrong, you have been told so on multiple occasions, and you do it anyway. You asked a question, got an answer, twisted it, refused to acknowledge you twisted it, and then blame it on double-predestinarians [/b]

Pastor Larry:
Respectfully, I ask. If I came to you and told you that 2+2=4. Does the fact that you do not believe it change the truth of the matter. If you came to us and said that 2+2=3, does the fact that you said it make it true? It's not about what you say you believe, it's about the truth..

Does the fact that no matter how many times you deny it, in the face of further evaluation 2+2 still = 4. How does one twist 2+2=4 to get results that displease you. The fact that we have been told and told and told; does not change the fact that 2+2=4... Under freewill, it's 4, under election, it's 4.

We are not argueing the fact that you believe in single predestination. We are argueing the fact that the provable consequences of single predestination results in double predestination.

The proveable consequences of predestination is that it condemns those that are not choses to hell. Now this is true weither they deserve hell or not. The issue is not wheither they deserve hell, they are going there...

Choosing some does not mean choosing to not choose others. That is the logical fallacy of your position.

A bigger problem is that you are no better off than the position you think you have put me in. The reality is that your God created people he knew would go to hell. He could have shown his love by not creating them but he didn't do so. He created them knowing they would go to hell. What kind of "loving" God do you serve?

You are correct, men that are destined for hell do not gain a single iota under freewill as opposed to election. And this is not the real issue. The issue is under freewill God is not a respecter of persons, his glory is not deminished in the sight of men. Under election God is not glorified and the concept is down right unscriptural..

[ October 30, 2002, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I have never seen anyone successfully argue this. I doubt you have been the first but if you will point me to your attempt, I will take a look at it.

It's under "Projection Theology" on the second page. It is merely a list.

In the bottom line, it doesn't really matter what you think about the choice to choose or to not choose. Scripture does not talk in terms like that and your attempt to put God in a box does not help the understanding of Scripture. We need to rather talk about what Scripture says rather than what you think about whether or not choosing involves a choice to not choose (an oxymoron at best).

Sure Scripture does: Romans 9:18 - So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

Romans 11:7-8 - What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; just as it is written, "GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."

Romans 1:24 - Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Romans 1:26 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

If one believes in individual predestination, then these Scriptures mean that God double predestined.

Actually, they don't have a chance unless you are an open theist denying the omniscience of God. If God knew before they were created that they would go to hell, then they have no chance to do otherwise ... unless God's knowledge is faulty.

False dilemma - logical fallacy. IF God is both within time and transcendent of time, people can make a completely free choice. Kinda like seeing God in the nth dimension kinda thing. Needless to say, there are more than two options here.

 

[Frogman]

Your arguement also assumes the just condemnation of any is not righteous. Your question ultimately questions the holiness of God.

I will answer more fully later.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas