Predestination and Calvinism

[childeye]

It is my perspective that there is something very wrong about "making someone love you." Without free will to choose to submit to God's will, it seems to me that is the condition of the believer. If we are unable to resist His love because we have been programmed to respond positively, then we are just a machine that, when God pushes our button, responds according to the manufacturer's design. That's not love. That's a "Stepford wife."

Also, without free will, there is no basis for guilt. If the sin I do is simply the natural outcome of what a human being is and I have no choice in the matter because of my pre-programmed, inherent total depravity, then neither do I have any guilt for doing what I am "programmed" to do any more than a bulldozer used to destroy buildings is guilty of destroying buildings.

If we have no free will then we are no different than the beasts of the field who act according to instinct and not to choice.

my 2 kopecks

iakov the fool

I assure you that I fully understand your well made point. But I honestly don't choose to love my wife, my children, my brother,my Mother or my Father, I simply do because God has made me that way. His Eternal Spirit is Love, and I also love Love. God even makes me love my enemies, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Such is His Eternal power that I see everything right about it, and I am thankful for His Spirit and worship Him accordingly. 1 John 4:7, 8. 1 John 3:1.

 

[childeye]

Total Depravity (the "T" in "TULIP") is an invention of John Calvin. It is a deviation from the teaching of the ancient Church. His doctrine was deemed heresy by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. I see no reason to question their conclusions.

What if Calvin is simply meaning the same thing as Paul says here?
Romans 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

 

[Jim Parker]

But I honestly don't choose to love my wife, my children, my brother,my Mother or my Father, I simply do because God has made me that way.

Really?? You are indeed a unique individual.
Everyone I've ever met has had to learn to love others because our natural inclination is to love only ourselves at the expense of everyone else. That's why we see one toddler in a room with other toddlers and he has taken all the toys for himself and won't let any of the other toddlers play with them. He has to be taught to share; to "do unto others as he would have them do unto him."

People commonly confuse love with the emotional experience which is popularly and incorrectly called "love." Love is not an emotion. Emotions are hard-wired electro-chemical responses to our environment.
Love that the Bible describes is a set of behaviors and no emotional content is mantioned.

It is being patient. (even with the person who won't shut up and get out of the way so you can get on with your life)
It is being kind. (To someone who regularly treats you with disrespect and abuse)
It keeps no record of wrongs. (Even if the wrong suffered still rankles, love insists on forgiving.)
Everything that the Bible says makes up love are learned behaviors. They are not natural behaviors that we automatically exhibit. We have to learn them and practice to be good at them.

And I suspect that it is not very hard to love one's family. (Ok, most of the time.)
But we are also told to love our enemies, people who hate us, who say and do nasty things against us. People who attack us physically, injure us, rape our wives and daughters, and even sons.
We're supposed to love them too.
I do have an emotional response to those folk. It's not "love."
I'm not like Mother Theresa who was so unique among humanity as to be an astonishment that a human being could so love others without holding back anything from them.

So, if you just do all that naturally, you are a very rare bird, indeed!

 

[Jim Parker]

What if Calvin is simply meaning the same thing as Paul says here?
Romans 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Paul is not teaching "total Depravity."
Rather than taking that one verse out of its context, look at the entire thought which Paul presented.

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members

Paul was describing the war between the "law of the flesh" and the "law of the mind."
The flesh directs its energy toward self-gratification while the mind directs its energy toward doing good according to God's will.
Since that desire to do good is found to be at war with the desire of the flesh to sin, we cannot say that man is "totally" depraved. It is the "flesh" (the passions) which are depraved but the will desires holiness. Someone who is "totally" depraved does not "delight in the law of God."

iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

Paul is not teaching "total Depravity."
Rather than taking that one verse out of its context, look at the entire thought which Paul presented.

Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members

Paul was describing the war between the "law of the flesh" and the "law of the mind."
The flesh directs its energy toward self-gratification while the mind directs its energy toward doing good according to God's will.
Since that desire to do good is found to be at war with the desire of the flesh to sin, we cannot say that man is "totally" depraved. It is the "flesh" (the passions) which are depraved but the will desires holiness. Someone who is "totally" depraved does not "delight in the law of God."

I agree with what you're saying. But the way I read scripture is that the spirit in man that wills to do God's will, is His Word within us from creation. I believe we didn't acknowledge that, according to Romans 1:21, 22. I don't know whether Calvin would disagree with you, since I can't speak for him, and this is why I asked, "what if?"

 

[childeye]

Really?? You are indeed a unique individual.
Everyone I've ever met has had to learn to love others because our natural inclination is to love only ourselves at the expense of everyone else. That's why we see one toddler in a room with other toddlers and he has taken all the toys for himself and won't let any of the other toddlers play with them. He has to be taught to share; to "do unto others as he would have them do unto him."

I've raised several children and I do know what you mean. You are speaking about the carnal tendency to see the world as revolving around one's self. Such vanity is not voluntary, but inherited sin. Nonetheless, there is Love also, and every child is utterly dependent upon the Love of the Mother and Father, and they instinctively know this. Hence, they run to mommy because there they feel secure in her loving arms. Therefore every child seeks a hug after being reprimanded, as reassurance that they are still loved. Love is also learned, in the sense that we experience the absence of it in various degrees in this temporal existence, and see the consequences. We learn to admit against all pride, that we are utterly dependent upon Love, lest we become abominations. It is the only thing worth living for and dying for. Love preceded us when our parents raised us, and instructs us as we raise our own children. Love is Eternal.

People commonly confuse love with the emotional experience which is popularly and incorrectly called "love." Love is not an emotion. Emotions are hard-wired electro-chemical responses to our environment.
Love that the Bible describes is a set of behaviors and no emotional content is mentioned.

Ha, Ha, you're no Vulcan. You feel affection for others, and this is clearly what the bible means by righteousness. The bible mentions compassion all of the time. Luke 10:33. Romans 12:10. Love/God is empathy, the very Spirit that fulfills the commandment to Love others as you would want to be loved. Hence scripture says that Love fulfills the law.

It is being patient. (even with the jackass who won't shut up and get out of the way so you can get on with your life)
It is being kind. (To someone who regularly treats you with disrespect and abuse)
It keeps no record of wrongs. (Even if the wrong suffered still rankles, love insists on forgiving.)
Everything that the Bible says makes up love are learned behaviors. They are not natural behaviors that we automatically exhibit. We have to learn them and practice to be good at them.

Patience is an emotion even as impatience is an opposite emotion. Kindness is an emotion even as cruelty is an opposite emotion. Forgiveness is an emotion even as revenge is an opposite emotion. There are spiritual Kingdoms of Light and dark. The word spirit in Hebrew is animus, which means to animate, or move, make alive. According to the etymology of the word, emotion means the same thing. That's why a robot with a complex computer brain, able to make complex decisions, and even able to move arms and limbs, is still not alive, without emotion.

And I suspect that it is not very hard to love one's family. (Ok, most of the time.)
But we are also told to love our enemies, people who hate us, who say and do nasty things against us. People who attack us physically, injure us, rape our wives and daughters, and even sons.
We're supposed to love them too.
I do have an emotional response to those folk. It's not "love."
I'm not like Mother Theresa who was so unique among humanity as to be an astonishment that a human being could so love others without holding back anything from them.

So, if you just do all that naturally, you are a very rare bird, indeed!

I'm nothing special. I have experienced both the dark and Light of emotions just like everyone else. It is through belief in the Christ that I have received the Holy Spirit/Emotion. He instructs me to not blame people for their sin, but instead to bear a cross, and forgive those who crucify me, on account of they can't help themselves. This turns what otherwise would be an emotion of anger, into an emotion of pity. From darkness to Light. So by this I can see that the divine Love is in me and I in Him, in Christ. It was with great joy that I believed I was not responsible for my sins, but to keep the faith, I must not hold anyone else responsible for theirs. Such is the power of the cross that makes a man holy and blameless. Acts 7:60. Matthew 6:15. Romans 2:1.

 

[Jim Parker]

Patience is an emotion even as impatience is an opposite emotion.

That is incorrect. Patience is a behavior. A person practicing patience may experience many different emotions such as anger, anxiety, or joy. But patience is the practice of waiting and not taking an action which our emotions or our "flesh" would have us take.
I amy feel a variety of emotions while being patient but the emotions are not the patience.

Forgiveness is an emotion

That is also incorrect. Forgiveness is the act of making a choice not to hold a grievance or to demand justice for a wrong suffered. I may not feel like forgiving someone but if I refuse to act according to my hurt feelings or according to the wrong suffered then I have forgiven.
Forgiveness is also making the decision not to demand recompense. I may still be angry but, my choice not to act on the anger or to hold the offense against someone is an action, not an emotion.

These actions are often taken while we are feeling emotions but they are not themselves and emotion.

 

[childeye]

That is incorrect. Patience is a behavior. A person practicing patience may experience many different emotions such as anger, anxiety, or joy. But patience is the practice of waiting and not taking an action which our emotions or our "flesh" would have us take.
I amy feel a variety of emotions while being patient but the emotions are not the patience.


That is also incorrect. Forgiveness is the act of making a choice not to hold a grievance or to demand justice for a wrong suffered. I may not feel like forgiving someone but if I refuse to act according to my hurt feelings or according to the wrong suffered then I have forgiven.
Forgiveness is also making the decision not to demand recompense. I may still be angry but, my choice not to act on the anger or to hold the offense against someone is an action, not an emotion.

These actions are often taken while we are feeling emotions but they are not themselves and emotion.

All things in the moral/immoral purview are about behavior. Of course patience is a behavior, a behavior from an emotion that considers others with whom we are being patient with. An Old lady in front of me driving slower than I would like to go, empathy is there forming my patience and I behave accordingly. True forgiveness is the action set in motion by mercy and compassion. Matthew 18:27. These emotions and their opposites are what comprise godliness and ungodliness.

 

[Jim Parker]

All things in the moral/immoral purview are about behavior.

That's another topic.

Of course patience is a behavior, a behavior from an emotion that considers others with whom we are being patient with.

Patience is the choice not to respond according to emotion. It is a separation from emotion in order to act rationally rather than emotionally.

An Old lady in front of me driving slower than I would like to go, empathy is there forming my patience and I behave accordingly.

Or just realizing that getting your nickers in a bunch won't cause he to go and faster is a good reason to choose to be patient.
I need not feel empathy to decide not to become upset over something I don't control and which will make almost no difference.

True forgiveness is the action set in motion by mercy and compassion.

My experience is that forgiveness releases me from the ill effects of being angry. Not forgiving is like taking poison and hoping the other fellow will die. Forgiveness is the choice of acting contrary to the urging of my emotions. I have no need to feel compassion for the person who has offended me in order to forgive him. He may not care one way or the other but it will greatly improve the quality of my life is I choose to forgive rather than holding a grudge and thereby yielding a portion of my life to a negative emotion.

The definition of Love found at 1 Cor 13:4-8 describes actions and decisions not to take action. Those decisions are made in spite of emotions. Emotions are the product of the flesh. Choosing to love is making a decision not to be subjected to the lusts of the flesh but, rather, to follow the path of reason. The actions taken or avoided in 1 Cor 13 are all designed to protect us from the ill effects of negative emotions and to prevent a bitter root from taking hold.

We get better at being loving according to 1 cor 13 by practicing those behaviors. We don't practice emotions; they are mostly automatic programming. That's why we say things like, "He really made me angry!" Did he, indeed make you angry? How? By reaching inside you and flipping your "angry" switch to the "on" position?

The point of practicing the behaviors of love is that we can delete those emotional response programs and replace them with programming that we choose based on God's recommendation.

New idea: Emotions are transitory.
Anger "flares up" and the worldly notion of love "grows cold." We "vent our anger" to get rid of it.
But we can choose to act patiently and kindly and humbly every day for the rest of our life without investing the energy involved in sustaining anger or lust.

Love doesn't require that we feel anything; it only requires that we treat everyone as if they were as precious to God as they really are and as if our eternal life depended on it (which it does, see Mat 25:41-46) because that is what we were created to do whether we feel like it (sympathetically emote with the behavior) or not.

No, I am no Vulcan but any Vulcan can perfectly love according to the definition of 1 Cor 13. There is no emotional content required for any of the behaviors listed. But, compassion and a feeling of unity are quite likely to arise from acting out those behaviors. (Unless, of course, you are a Vulcan and have trained extensively not to allow any emotion to interfere with your logic.)

iakov the fool

 

[Butch5]

I certainly appreciate your thinking Butch. It causes me to rethink my own position. Personally, I reject the notion that predestination is or was only for Israel. Ephesians clearly details that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ, therefore what was good for the Jew is now good for everyone else in Christ. I also believe that predestination continues even today.

Just look at the great men who in modern times have excelled over the masses. Moody, Billy Graham etc. etc. these are the Elect of God.

Hi Chopper,

The point I'm making is that predestination is not the choosing of who will be saved. It simply means to predetermine something. As I pointed out verses 3-12 in Ephesians 1 are talking about what God has done for the Jewish people. The Jews were predestined to adoption. The Gentiles become adopted by being a part of Israel through Christ. In Romans 11 Paul explains how this takes place with the parable of the Olive tree. The Gentiles are grafted into Israel.

I'm not sure what these men have to do with predestination. They are the elect of God because they became Christians through faith in Christ and were grafted into Israel who are the chosen people. By becoming Christians they joined the elect people of God.

 

[childeye]

That's another topic.

Patience is the choice not to respond according to emotion. It is a separation from emotion in order to act rationally rather than emotionally.

Or just realizing that getting your nickers in a bunch won't cause he to go and faster is a good reason to choose to be patient.
I need not feel empathy to decide not to become upset over something I don't control and which will make almost no difference.

My experience is that forgiveness releases me from the ill effects of being angry. Not forgiving is like taking poison and hoping the other fellow will die. Forgiveness is the choice of acting contrary to the urging of my emotions. I have no need to feel compassion for the person who has offended me in order to forgive him. He may not care one way or the other but it will greatly improve the quality of my life is I choose to forgive rather than holding a grudge and thereby yielding a portion of my life to a negative emotion.

The definition of Love found at 1 Cor 13:4-8 describes actions and decisions not to take action. Those decisions are made in spite of emotions. Emotions are the product of the flesh. Choosing to love is making a decision not to be subjected to the lusts of the flesh but, rather, to follow the path of reason. The actions taken or avoided in 1 Cor 13 are all designed to protect us from the ill effects of negative emotions and to prevent a bitter root from taking hold.

We get better at being loving according to 1 cor 13 by practicing those behaviors. We don't practice emotions; they are mostly automatic programming. That's why we say things like, "He really made me angry!" Did he, indeed make you angry? How? By reaching inside you and flipping your "angry" switch to the "on" position?

The point of practicing the behaviors of love is that we can delete those emotional response programs and replace them with programming that we choose based on God's recommendation.

New idea: Emotions are transitory.
Anger "flares up" and the worldly notion of love "grows cold." We "vent our anger" to get rid of it.
But we can choose to act patiently and kindly and humbly every day for the rest of our life without investing the energy involved in sustaining anger or lust.

Love doesn't require that we feel anything; it only requires that we treat everyone as if they were as precious to God as they really are and as if our eternal life depended on it (which it does, see Mat 25:41-46) because that is what we were created to do whether we feel like it (sympathetically emote with the behavior) or not.

No, I am no Vulcan but any Vulcan can perfectly love according to the definition of 1 Cor 13. There is no emotional content required for any of the behaviors listed. But, compassion and a feeling of unity are quite likely to arise from acting out those behaviors. (Unless, of course, you are a Vulcan and have trained extensively not to allow any emotion to interfere with your logic.)

iakov the fool

According to this post it sounds like you want to be a Vulcan. You value logic over emotion. If I remember correctly, Love kills Vulcans. Live long and prosper.

 

[Jim Parker]

You value logic over emotion.

I don't value either one over the other. God gave us both.
It is just that people are foolish to base their decisions on emotions yet, that is what is promoted. How often have you heard someone ask, "What do you feel we should do about _____?" That is directing people to their emotions to choose a plan of action. That's what car salesmen do.
The question should be, "What do you THINK we should do about _____?" That directs you to your reasoning capacity. (Assuming that the "you" in question actually has such a capacity since our school systems tend to punish people who actually dare to think.)
How much more aught we use our intelligence to determine the course of action most pleasing to God rather than consulting the lusts of the flesh?
Emotions arise from the flesh.
Reason rises from the intellect.
Which one do you think God wants us to base our lives on?

iakov the fool

 

[ivdavid]

But, if God bet on a horse race, do you think He'd bet on a horse He knew was a looser?

God knew who Jacob's descendants would be and who Esau's would be.

Your presentation of God's election seems to be purely dependent on God's foreknowledge alone, not allowing for any consequent active predetermination where He has influence over the outcome. You see God as a passive spectator in watching a race or in watching a lineage unfold, where there is no direct action of God to alter the outcome in any way.

Firstly, while I can understand your position on God not willing to interfere with the outcome of a race, given that it is dependent on the skills of the participants - how do you believe that God is not an active determiner in the case of which lineage Jesus would be born in ? It is God who predetermined that Jesus would come in the flesh - and having made this initial decision, it falls upon God to determine at what time and in which family Jesus would be born. This is not a natural event which would occur by itself - God has to decide this.

You say that God knew who Jacob's descendants would be and who Esau's would be - is this after or before He decided that Jesus would come in the flesh? If before, then He couldn't have foreseen Jesus being a descendant of Jacob, God not having made the choice to send Jesus in the flesh yet. If after, then obviously He'd know exactly what He has just determined. Just as it is God's choosing/decision to send Christ 2000 years ago when He could have sent Christ a 1000 years ago or 500 years ago, similarly it is His choosing/decision that Christ be born in the lineage of Jacob and not Esau when He could just as well have sovereignly decided the other way round.

He elected Jacob and his descendants.

To elect is an act of choice/determination unto a purpose. The purpose we're discussing here is Christ's birth in the flesh. I'm saying, God's choosing/determining results in Jacob's line - but you state that the result of Jacob's line is what prompts God to choose/determine Jacob. As per what I say, God's choice precedes the fulfillment of the purpose and determines the outcome(Jacob and not Esau) - as per what you say, the foreknowledge of the fulfilled purpose and the outcome precedes God's choice!

But if the purpose is already fulfilled and the outcome known, what more does God have to choose over?

If I foreknow that flower vendor A and not flower vendor B will deliver flowers to my wife tomorrow (who determined this in the first place though?) , there's no sense in me saying "I chose" flower vendor A when it wasn't me who determined it - whereas I could make sense saying it if I did indeed determine vendor A and take action in accordance with such determining(by calling A and not B) to result in flower vendor A delivering flowers to my wife the next day.

Do you have other objections to stating that God's election of Jacob's line over Esau's was a predetermined choice in Himself?

 

[Chopper]

Hi Chopper,

The point I'm making is that predestination is not the choosing of who will be saved. It simply means to predetermine something. As I pointed out verses 3-12 in Ephesians 1 are talking about what God has done for the Jewish people. The Jews were predestined to adoption. The Gentiles become adopted by being a part of Israel through Christ. In Romans 11 Paul explains how this takes place with the parable of the Olive tree. The Gentiles are grafted into Israel.

I'm not sure what these men have to do with predestination. They are the elect of God because they became Christians through faith in Christ and were grafted into Israel who are the chosen people. By becoming Christians they joined the elect people of God.

I guess this is where we must cease our disagreements before this turns into a debate. You say, "The point I'm making is that predestination is not the choosing of who will be saved." And the point I'm making is that predestination is exactly who will be saved, and a part of the Elect of God.

I fear that you don't understand my point that the "Elect" is a small group of special believers that God hand picked before the world was laid. They are the Remnant of God, for He always has had a remnant to testify of Him. This group is not the mass of believers who have come thru the General Call of the Gospel that has gone out into the whole world testifying of God's grace to save. Nor is it the mass of Jews beyond their leaders like Abraham, Moses, Noah etc. Those men were the Elect, the others are simply members of the Nation of Israel thru birth.

I just want to refer to one man who was hand picked....
Jeremiah 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Listen, we are speaking about something that you and I know nothing about. Here's a question for you, can you explain how God knew Jeremiah before he was even conceived? I know you can't answer that, so lets just drop our back and forth idea's because I'm not changing what I'm convicted to believe and you're not going to change either. I have way to much respect for you to actually argue with you.

I love you Butch and don't know what to do from here.

 

[Butch5]

I guess this is where we must cease our disagreements before this turns into a debate. You say, "The point I'm making is that predestination is not the choosing of who will be saved." And the point I'm making is that predestination is exactly who will be saved, and a part of the Elect of God.

I fear that you don't understand my point that the "Elect" is a small group of special believers that God hand picked before the world was laid. They are the Remnant of God, for He always has had a remnant to testify of Him. This group is not the mass of believers who have come thru the General Call of the Gospel that has gone out into the whole world testifying of God's grace to save. Nor is it the mass of Jews beyond their leaders like Abraham, Moses, Noah etc. Those men were the Elect, the others are simply members of the Nation of Israel thru birth.

I just want to refer to one man who was hand picked....
Jeremiah 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Listen, we are speaking about something that you and I know nothing about. Here's a question for you, can you explain how God knew Jeremiah before he was even conceived? I know you can't answer that, so lets just drop our back and forth idea's because I'm not changing what I'm convicted to believe and you're not going to change either. I have way to much respect for you to actually argue with you.

I love you Butch and don't know what to do from here.

I do disagree that God has chosen individuals to be saved and not others. I think that idea is based on one passage of Scripture in Ephesians 1. That is why I made it a point to show that the passage is talking about the Jews and not Christians. Without that passage there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that God chose people to be saved before the foundation of the world.

We can leave it here if you'd like. That's fine. It may be the better way. Oh, by the way, I can answer your question.

 

[Jim Parker]

You see God as a passive spectator

Not at all. God regularly intervenes. The conception of Christ, for example.

how do you believe that God is not an active determiner in the case of which lineage Jesus would be born in ?

I don't. It appears to me that God chose the live which He knew would yield the desired results. He "picked the right horse" knowing the end from the beginning. But the horse still had to run the race.

You say that God knew who Jacob's descendants would be and who Esau's would be - is this after or before He decided that Jesus would come in the flesh?

God does not function in the "before" and "after." He is not constrained by space-time. He created it. Your question does not apply to reality.

I'm saying, God's choosing/determining results in Jacob's line - but you state that the result of Jacob's line is what prompts God to choose/determine Jacob. As per what I say, God's choice precedes the fulfillment of the purpose and determines the outcome(Jacob and not Esau) - as per what you say, the foreknowledge of the fulfilled purpose and the outcome precedes God's choice!

Again, you have improperly applied the concept of time (what precedes what) to God. Both God's foreknowledge and His choices exist in His "eternal now." The concept of which came first (in time) has no application to God. The sequence of events that God causes to be is our experience of God's working. Because we are finite, material, beings, we experience everything in space-time. God transcends space-time. He created it. He can "put it in His pocket."

Do you have other objections to stating that God's election of Jacob's line over Esau's was a predetermined choice in Himself?

I don't even have an objection to that statement as far as it goes.

My objection is to the notion held by various Calvinists who take God's sovereignty to the point that man has no free will at all and all that man does is done because God caused him to do it.
If man has no free will then Judas was not guilty of betraying Christ; rather, God is guilty of making Judas a betrayer just as He is guilty of making Adam a sinner and Cain a murderer.
If man has no free will, as some Calvinists have told me to be the case, then there was no need to redeem man from the curse of sin because man is not guilty of sin since that was what God created man to do. He is simply doing what God created him to do rather like a fan moving air. To the concept of such a completely sovereign God, who allows no free act of will by any man, must necessarily be attached the responsible for everything that He sovereignly causes man to do, whether good or evil.

I see the argument about which came first, God's choosing or man's doing, to be meaningless because it conflates time and eternity.

iakov the fool

 

[Cygnus]

Who changed the meaning of the word "all" so that it now means "not all"?

The context the word is found in.

 

[Jim Parker]

The context the word is found in.

You just said absolutely nothing.
Here's the context:
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
Prayers, etc, are to be made for ALL (not "some")
2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
Prayers are to be mad for ALL (not "some") who are in high positions
3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
God desires ALL (not "some") to be saved.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
It doesn't say a ransom for SOME.

There is NOTHING, not a shread of a shadow of an inkling of a suggestion anywhere in that passage that support your contention that the context requires we read "all" as "not all."

In order to support your notion, the passage would have to read:
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings NOT be made for all men,
2 NOT for kings and NOT all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires that NOT all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and SOME men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

You also need to explain why Paul, a highly educated man, would not use the word "some" (tis Gr: τις) as he did every other time he wanted to say "some" if he meant that God desired only some, only some, not all, to be saved.

Sorry, but you're not making any sense.

 

[Cygnus]

6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

If Jesus gave himself as a ransom for "all"....then no person will go to hell.

But as we know some people will go to hell....so Jesus wasn't a ransom for all.

What does this mean? You are using the wrong nuance of the word all.

 

[Chopper]

Jim, you like so many others who find fault with Calvin's theology, fail to make a difference from the Elect, those chosen by God before the world came about and those who come thru the General Call of the Gospel by Evangelists. They are the ones who can make a choice to accept God's grace and be saved, or not.