Predestination

[smaller]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 2

We have already seen that predestination to Hell is a philosophy of men, but could this philosophy be true anyway?

Psalm 145:9 will be a key verse in this study, as we see that God did not create anyone to be a innocent victim of His wrath.

The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.

The devil and his messengers will be tenderly ROASTED in the Lake of Fire for a very long time. They were made in part for that purpose and are PREDESTINED to be THROWN IN there.

I have asked you many times now if you believe there is Satanic salvation or NO Satan but MANKIND. If you want to put up on the net, then stating positions is typical AND polite so others know WHERE you are at and then WHY. If any position is scriptually justifiable, then it is worth examining in detail for OTHERS to view. If not there are also fantasy discussion boards.

smaller

 

[Vince]

The devil and his messengers ... were made in part for that purpose and are PREDESTINED to be THROWN IN there.


The Bible teaches no such thing.

 

[smaller]

The devil and his messengers ... were made in part for that purpose and are PREDESTINED to be THROWN IN there.


The Bible teaches no such thing.

Satanic salvation then Vince? Or are the 'devils' just your fellow man?

 

[Vince]

Satanic salvation then Vince? Or are the 'devils' just your fellow man?

Readers, I hope you see that Calvinism is a religion of fear and accusations. No one on this thread has taught Satanic salvation.

 

[savedbygrace57]

vince:

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 2

He does not need to force sinners to sin, they do it willingly. Men are born guilty before God, God did not put a gun to their head and force them to guilty.

rom 3:

9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

[savedbygrace57]

The devil and his messengers ... were made in part for that purpose and are PREDESTINED to be THROWN IN there.


The Bible teaches no such thing.

Matt 25:

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

 

[smaller]

Matt 25:

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Yeah, I tried that one too. Vince bypassed the obvious fact of this matter.

 

[smaller]

Satanic salvation then Vince? Or are the 'devils' just your fellow man?

Readers, I hope you see that Calvinism is a religion of fear and accusations. No one on this thread has taught Satanic salvation.

And you STILL have not addressed what you believe.

Is the devil scheduled for the LAKE OF FIRE? Will the devil have SATANIC SALVATION? Or are your fellow man devils? Pretty simple here Vince.

Calling me a Calvinist is childs internet debate play. I'm not one for the record, though I accept every point of the TULIP when ALL the scriptural facts are on the table. Calvin didn't have all the facts in his construct. He was very close however.

 

[Vince]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 3

The rejection of John 3:16 is essential to Calvinism. The statement "For God so loved the world..." shows that God does not have a class of innocent people whom He condemned before birth, and then forced them to sin. Saint Augustine, to get around this problem, invented "the whole of Scripture." He would take a pagan doctrine, and using his authority as a bishop, would declare that Catholics must believe it. When Scripture was used to show the error of his doctrines, St. Augustine would claim that "the whole of Scripture" contradicted that verse, and therefor, the verse was to be rejected.

Modern Calvinists teach that "the world" means "the elect," even though the word is never used that way in either classical Greek or in the Bible. Unconditional election is so unscriptural that even rejecting Scripture isn't enough; you have to reject the dictionary as well.

 

[Vince]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 4

We often quote Titus 2:11 to show Calvinism's errors, but this time let's look at the next verse as well:

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,

One result of God's sending His grace to everyone is that everyone is taught by God.

John 6:44-45 also shows this, when Jesus says:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

God doesn't force men to sin. He teaches them, and those who accept that teaching come to Christ.

 

[smaller]

Romans 9:
11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[Vince]

Smaller makes two intersting points:

"Calvin didn't have all the facts in his construct. " True. After he was dead, irresistible grace had to be invented to patch a fatal flaw in his philosophy.

The passage in Romans about God hating Esau before he was born refers to the nation of Esau, not the person. Hating the nation of Esau, God still blessed them with abundant physical blessings, even though He knew that they would later turn against their brother nation of Israel. He did not force the nation to sin, nor did He predestine the nation (or anyone else) to Hell.

 

[smaller]

Smaller makes two intersting points:

"Calvin didn't have all the facts in his construct. " True. After he was dead, irresistible grace had to be invented to patch a fatal flaw in his philosophy.

The passage in Romans about God hating Esau before he was born refers to the nation of Esau, not the person. Hating the nation of Esau,

Vince, honestly I don't get how you read. Romans clearly references the two children, neither of which had done any good or evil. Yet God hated Esau. God doing good to his enemies later does not equate to God NOT hating Esau and there is no need to 'add' nation to what is plainly NOT nation, but Esau the unborn child. Unless of course you want God to HATE all of Esau's subsequent progeny as well?

God still blessed them with abundant physical blessings, even though He knew that they would later turn against their brother nation of Israel. He did not force the nation to sin, nor did He predestine the nation (or anyone else) to Hell.

Sorry Vince. The devils are predestined to THE LAKE OF FIRE where they will burn forever and ever in torture or be totally destroyed. Don't really know why you'd have a beef with this matter either.

And fwiw, I do not believe God has predestined Esau, Pharaoh, or any other person to the Lake of Fire. BUT, IF you believe there will be people in the Lake of Fire using some other basis does it really matter how they got there?

Seeing Calvinists-Reformed and freewillers argue this matter is funny as they both believe the same people are going to be in the LAKE OF FIRE regardless of HOW they end up therein.

s

 

[Elijah674]

I think the thing many christians have a hard time reconciling is predestination coupled with free-will of man.

This where I see many christian writers and comentators (including you guys on this forum) stumble, some cant conceptualize that God says every amn is free to make his own choices in regards to salvation - yet God preordained it and controlled your salvation before any of us were flesh - so how can man have free-will?

Islam has addressed and dealt with this issue - which is a fundemetal beleif.

I wont give you guys a lesson in Ashari Aqeedah - but I wonder how you guys hash this out amongst yourselves?

They all don't! (Rev. 17:5)
The problem is that what God knew in Eternity about us, [THAT WE DO NOT!] In other words, what our lives lived will determine if we are to be saved or not. Eccl. 12:13-14. In Heb. 11:13 we see Inspiration telling us that these ALL did die in the Faith. (MATURED in other words!) + James 2's whole book! (see ibid. 26)

--Elijah

 

[Vince]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 5

Pharaoh is often held up as an example of an innocent man, forced by God to sin by not letting Israel go. His story is long enough to take more than one post.

We often quote Galatians 6:7 by itself: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." The next verse, however, explains HOW you reap what you sow.


"For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life."

This passage teaches that if you continually sin, you will do something to your flesh, producing a harvest of corruption. We're going to see that this is what Pharaoh did to himself.

 

[Elijah674]

Eccl.
[12] And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. (especially the Jer. 17:5 ones)

[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the [whole] matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the [whole duty of man].

[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

And Rev. tells of the Books being opened!
OK: Did The Godhead need Record Books of mans free choice for the Universe to Eternally know what sin would do?

Surely! What the Immortal Godhead has Eternally known, does not say that They created mankind + angels with this 'MATURE' knowledge! All of Their 'thinking' creation started out with babe like brains, NO MATURITY! Free/will had to be PROVEN SAFE TO SAVE! Nahum 1:9 Other/wise we would be brain/dead robots!

--Elijah

 

[Drew]

Romans 9:
11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind. The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

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

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:

The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.

Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?"

So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight.

If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other.

What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election?

 

[Drew]

DOES GOD FORCE INNOCENT MEN TO SIN? PART 5

Pharaoh is often held up as an example of an innocent man, forced by God to sin by not letting Israel go. His story is long enough to take more than one post.

.....

This passage teaches that if you continually sin, you will do something to your flesh, producing a harvest of corruption. We're going to see that this is what Pharaoh did to himself.

Hello Vince: While I am generally with you on the whole "pre-destination" thing, I think it is clear that God indeed actively hardened Pharaoh. The text says what it says:

FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."

Note: the 'caps' are not me yelling - this is how the text is provided in Biblegateway.

I do not deny that Pharaoh "freely" started down a path of disobedience. But God did actively harden Pharoah.

We see this in the potter metaphor. Although there is a lot of controversy about what the metaphor means - I believe the "vessels of destruction" are hardened Jews - I suggest we can avoid an image where God, the potter, is actively molding the vessels.

So I cannot see how we can read Romans 9 without seeing it is a treatment about God intervening in the lives of people, not merely "leaving them to their own devices", as it were.

 

[Vince]

Drew, I appreciated your post showing that "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" refers to nations, not individuals. Also, that the passage refers to the future positions of the nations, not the spiritual fates of anyone.

You also stole one of my future posts, but that's okay.

I'll explain the part about Pharaoh, but that's going to take more than one post.

 

[savedbygrace57]

vince:

Drew, I appreciated your post showing that "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" refers to nations, not individuals.

Both of you are deceived, Jacob abd Esau were individuals, the children of Isaac rom 9:

10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

This Illustrates Individual election, not National election.