Still waiting on a answer....

[Blammo]

I'm not sure what you thought I was saying. I disagree with John in that God predestines some to hell. There are several verses of scripture that seem to say that He does though. I'll list them if you like. Jude 4 is one of many.

Which verse? :laugh: j/k - I love that one.

Jude 1:17-19 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

I prefer that God leaves some people to themselves, and changes some to be able to hear and see in a saving way. I certainly do understand where John is coming from however. I just don't like it... and when tested with other scripture, seems to *maybe* not be double predestination. I tend to waver back and forth on the issue of double predestination.

I don't waver on double predestination as understood by those who proclaim it. Their scriptural support for it is weak at best.

My heart of hearts wants God to save them all. I intend to ask Him why He didn't some day. This problem is not only a Calvinist problem however.... as has been pointed out many times... just not addressed by the free will side. God allows people to come into existence knowing they would never believe. Does He predestine them to hell by doing such?

You don't believe you are more merciful than God, do you?

I would ask Him why some did not believe. If He told me "because I didn't want them to", That would be the first time I believe it.

God allowing people to come into existence knowing they would never believe does not make Him guilty of their unbelief. However, yes, God allowing them to come into existence is, in a way, predestining them to hell.

 

[johnp.]

I know reformed I heard him to.

In other words, He HAS chosen some for hell, and has to make sure they get there.

That would be Sovereignty in action Blammo.

john.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Does your Bible end at verse 12?

Mar 4:13 And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?
Mar 4:14The sower sows the word.
Mar 4:15And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.
Mar 4:16And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy.
Mar 4:17And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.
Mar 4:18And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word,
Mar 4:19but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
Mar 4:20But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold."

This "messianic secret" hardly says some are not allowed to hear! Not even close! In fact it shows that all do hear, and it's what they do with the truth that determines the outcome.

You had better be careful using LARGE letters the Calvin Cops will get you. Some of them wear their feeling on there Calvin "inClined" Cuffs.

[I am NOT a Calvin cop, but I am a moderator. I am asking you nicely not to use colors, large, underlined or any other writing that distracts from the reader being able to read your material. Coorporation would be appreciated. Thank you, Phillip.]

 

[Blammo]

Webdog says so!

Actually, RB, to be fair, it looks like the Bible says so.

 

[johnp.]

Hello webdog.

Are you saying God saved HIS people from the egyptians...so He could blind them?

God saves His people and gives them sight. Two of the exodus were saved, Joseph and Caleb I think, the rest were blind and died in the wilderness. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Of course you are...you believe God authors sin!

I do.

So are you saying that God did indeed create the reprobate with the desire to live forever?

Yes. All men want to live forever don't they? The fear of death is common to all.

For what purpose?

I think that is one for God. The reprobate is hated by God maybe He is just winding them up. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. Matt 13:12.

Where's that tree then? Your flogging a dead corpse by the way. If God wants to do something that is foolishness in your eyes He has that right hasn't He?

john.

 

[Blammo]

God saves His people and gives them sight. Two of the exodus were saved, Joseph and Caleb I think, the rest were blind and died in the wilderness. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Joshua and Caleb - Numbers - read it again and get back to us. :thumbs:

 

[johnp.]

I don't waver on double predestination as understood by those who proclaim it. Their scriptural support for it is weak at best.

Logic and plain common sense is enough Blammo. One must chose who not to chose. Eph 1:8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.

He used wisdom and understanding in choosing me and He must have used that in not choosing whoever.

If He told me "because I didn't want them to", That would be the first time I believe it.

That's funny, that's when I believed it. Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

RO 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

However, yes, God allowing them to come into existence is, in a way, predestining them to hell.

With a loss of Sovereignty in allowing men to chose what God knowns they will chose. The choice would be a sovereign act with God just confirming our decision. Rubber stamping our ticket.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Cool Blammo. I was only 400 years out.

john.

 

[Blammo]

Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Quit denying this has to do with nations, and read Romans 9 all the way through.

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

 

[DHK]

You had better be careful using LARGE letters the Calvin Cops will get you. Some of them wear their feeling on there Calvin "inClined" Cuffs.

To clarify the point made here: Using either all CAPS or large red letters often indicates anger. It is better to use the emoticons then to post like a Christmas tree.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Quit denying this has to do with nations, and read Romans 9 all the way through.

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Blammo, I supose all those great theologians of past and present were wrong then. I suppose all us stupid calvinist might as well pack up and go home. This makes our theology so obviously in error. Wow, why didn't I see that before? J/K by the way. :laugh:

 

[webdog]

To clarify the point made here: Using either all CAPS or large red letters often indicates anger. It is better to use the emoticons then to post like a Christmas tree.

Maybe Jesus was mad when He talked, then, as that is the color in my Bible.

Large was for emphasis, since it may be "veiled" to the calvinist

 

[webdog]

Blammo, I supose all those great theologians of past and present were wrong then. I suppose all us stupid calvinist might as well pack up and go home. This makes our theology so obviously in error. Wow, why didn't I see that before? J/K by the way. :laugh:

Most theologians I know believe the truth that Romans 9-11 is dealing with the Jews, not individual salvation. The calvinist theologians need for it to be individual salvation, but in context of the enitre book it's clear that it is not.

 

[Blammo]

Blammo, I supose all those great theologians of past and present were wrong then. I suppose all us stupid calvinist might as well pack up and go home. This makes our theology so obviously in error. Wow, why didn't I see that before? J/K by the way. :laugh:

And... ?

Has Calvinism been universally accepted until recently? Or, have the only people to oppose the calvinist theology, past and present, been stupid?

Care to answer me with scripture? I'm stupid, sarcasm goes right over my bald head.

 

[johnp.]

Ok Blammo, Jacob is Israel and Esau is Edom and so God hated Edom and loved Israel? So what, now you have whole nations when I was saying it was just two men?

That He hated Edom there is no doubt, MAL 1:4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins." But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, `Great is the LORD--even beyond the borders of Israel!'

What gain is it to you? Are you saying Jacob and Esau are not included in the "Jacob I loved Esau I hated."? What's your point? 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad... God said He would love one nation and hate another. Is that more sense?

in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

God loved Israel and hated Edom. To show His purpose in election we have the free will way, Edom refused to believe Israel didn't but God hated Edom before they did wrong or right?

Most theologians I know believe the truth that Romans 9-11 is dealing with the Jews, not individual salvation. (webdog)

Is that the point? 3 nations are involved not two. Edom, spiritual Israel and physical Israel because ...not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Rom 9:6.

Romans nine as I said before is about how Despotic a God we have and as for it not talking about salvation, in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

GE 32:28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."
Is there a corresponding one for Esau, 'Your name will be Edom, you have struggled with God and with men and have failed to overcome' ?

john.

 

[Blammo]

Ok Blammo, Jacob is Israel and Esau is Edom and so God hated Edom and loved Israel? So what, now you have whole nations when I was saying it was just two men?

That He hated Edom there is no doubt, MAL 1:4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins." But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, `Great is the LORD--even beyond the borders of Israel!'

What gain is it to you? Are you saying Jacob and Esau are not included in the "Jacob I loved Esau I hated."? What's your point? 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad... God said He would love one nation and hate another. Is that more sense?

in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

God loved Israel and hated Edom. To show His purpose in election we have the free will way, Edom refused to believe Israel didn't but God hated Edom before they did wrong or right?



Is that the point? 3 nations are involved not two. Edom, spiritual Israel and physical Israel because ...not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Rom 9:6.

Romans nine as I said before is about how Despotic a God we have and as for it not talking about salvation, in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

GE 32:28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."
Is there a corresponding one for Esau, 'Your name will be Edom, you have struggled with God and with men and have failed to overcome' ?

john.

Wow, I just scratched the last hair off the top of my head.

Obviously "election" means exactly what Calvinists say it means every time it appears in scripture, and now it has been proven to me that, without any foreknowledge whatsoever, God arbitrarily chose to damn some guy He knew nothing about while saving the other one He knew nothing about. Not only that, all Edomites will be damned, and all Israelites will be saved, even though there is a whole lot of scripture to the contrary.

Thanks for clearing that up...

 

[johnp.]

Hello webdog.

Large was for emphasis...

Sounded like shouting to me. It sounded as if you were trying to get the deaf to hear and the sighted blinded.

...since it may be "veiled" to the calvinist

That would be impossible for a Calvinist because Calvinists believe Jesus died for their sins and that is believing in Jesus so they cannot be perishing but faith is theirs. Very simple.

If we are wrong we are still doing the faith thing. I know beyond doubt that I am saved because I believe Jesus died for my sins and therefore no charge can be brought against me by God. I am certain and sure so I know I have the right kind of faith and scripture commends me for it! Cool. If there is any merit in that I must be raking it in.

...since it may be "veiled" to the calvinist

One of is blind. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is servant.

john.

 

[reformedbeliever]

And... ?

Has Calvinism been universally accepted until recently? Or, have the only people to oppose the calvinist theology, past and present, been stupid?

Care to answer me with scripture? I'm stupid, sarcasm goes right over my bald head.

You got that problem with your head too bro? I just buzz cut what hair I have left, no problem. I kinda like it.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I did put the J/k which means just kidding... and the smilies. I was not trying to be mean. I consider you a friend Blammo, and always enjoy debating with you. Sorry if you took it wrong.

The point I was making is that not only Calvin, but many great theologians way before him, believe that Romans 9 is not talking about the nation as a whole in all of Romans 9. I believe that Romans 9 is talking about the nation in parts, and not the nation in other parts. The main point is that election is of God, and for His glory. It matters not what man will do. He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy.

I don't wanna take the time to go verse by verse, so I'll allow many greater theologians to do the work for me. Check out John McArthurs commentary for one. How about Spurgeon or Pink? Maybe even ole uncle John.... Calvin that is. The point being.... that many great Godly men disagree upon the exegesis of Romans 9. I suppose its all how you look at Election. If you base election upon something a man does, such as God having foresight of men believing, then maybe the national things looks good. I know it does to Webdog. Hey if Webdog says its a national thing........ then who are all the great theologians to argue with him?

 

[johnp.]

Blammo.

Obviously "election" means exactly what Calvinists say it means every time it appears in scripture...

But you know what election means. It is not a theological word it means to select, you know that. Who did you vote for and was he elected or did he elect himself? If an election is fraudulent that would mean that it wasn't a proper election. If Bush elected himself like a free willer elects himself then he is liable to be impeached. The free willer misrepresents a common and well known word simply to accommodate his false assumptions of grandeur. No different from the behaviour of the Jehovah witnesses.

...without any foreknowledge whatsoever...

Foreknowledge isn't seeing the future. ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
He doesn't go to the end to see, He knows from the beginning what will be because He ...works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will... Eph 1:11.

God arbitrarily chose to damn some guy He knew nothing about while saving the other one He knew nothing about.

Arbitrary? The lump was all the same. When He divided it it was still the same. He fashioned out of one piece stuff for noble purposes and the rest He wanted for common use. Do you question Him? You should pray that you're in the right lump not call Him man. It is one thing to ask for mercy it's another to do it complaining that it was His fault to begin with.

God arbitrarily chose to damn some guy He knew nothing about while saving the other one He knew nothing about.

RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?

Not only that, all Edomites will be damned, and all Israelites will be saved...

What's it to you? If the Lord determined that then it is just because He says He is, He doesn't care what we think about Him. JOB 9:23 When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent. 24 When a land falls into the hands of the wicked, he blindfolds its judges. If it is not he, then who is it?

...even though there is a whole lot of scripture to the contrary.

"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. Rev 5:9.

john.

 

[GordonSlocum]

But you know what election means. It is not a theological word it means to select, you know that. Who did you vote for and was he elected or did he elect himself? If an election is fraudulent that would mean that it wasn't a proper election. If Bush elected himself like a free willer elects himself then he is liable to be impeached. The free willer misrepresents a common and well known word simply to accommodate his false assumptions of grandeur. No different from the behaviour of the Jehovah witnesses

Really! How So?