Predestination and Determinism

[praise_yeshua]

Teach that verse like this..

In Abrham's Bosom, that is "Paradise" where Yeshua preached to the spirits....

Abraham saw Him there... as did all the other OT "Saints" who were there, and not in Heaven.


That is not Abraham seeing Jesus..

Read your verse..

It says the "SCRIPTURE SAW"...,

And the context is , the same justification by faith that was Abrahams.. the SCRIPTURE foreknew would be preached, (Paul's Gospel)... and in that, all nations shall be blessed.

I feel no need to respond to you when you are selective responding to me. I've done enough of this lately. I'm not going to do it with you. Especially you unethically partially responded to what I wrote as if I didn't say anything at all.

You either stop this right now or I have nothing else to say. I've held the same position for a very long time on this and I have debated it with those far more skilled than yourself. You give me no reason to believe you have anything to add to anything other than to unethically dismiss reality.

In good faith, hoping that you will fully respond to me, I will answer this one question.......

Abraham saw Him there... as did all the other OT "Saints" who were there, and not in Heaven.

Jesus very nicely narrowed the possibilities by explicitly stating that Abraham rejoiced to "see his day". Now you may not care about the Incarnation. (You certainly didn't even consider it) However, there is no doubt that Abraham rejoiced in the Incarnation of God in flesh. After all, Abraham meet God personally (Theophany). Find it for yourself.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

FYI. I recognize hyper-dispensationalism when I see it. I'm a former Dispensationalist myself.

 

[praise_yeshua]

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

So Jesus didn't die at Calvary and return to the Father in the Silent Ascension?

So when did Jesus spend time with Jesus Christ personally? Like others, you don't consider how Paul is appealing to Christ here. Which establishes that you're not actually trying to study what you read.

 

[Behold]

. I've held them same position for a very long time on this and I have debated it with those far more skilled than yourself.

I'll let you continue to inform us that you have taught this, for a while.
NP.

Jesus very nicely narrowed the possibilities by explicitly stating that Abraham rejoiced to "see his day". Now you may not care about the Incarnation. (You certainly didn't even consider it) However, there is no doubt that Abraham rejoiced in the Incarnation of God in flesh. After all, Abraham meet God personally (Theophany). Find it for yourself.

When the "word was with God", He was not JESUS, yet.

Jesus is the name of the Virgin born MAN.... @praise_yeshua .

So, when you teach that Abram knew Jesus as "pre-incarnate" and yet Jesus is not the NAME of Christ as "pre-incarnate".

Do you understand?

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Yes, that is an Apostle, not Abraham.

Paul wrote something similar in 1 Timothy 3:16, = "God manifested in the Flesh".

FYI. I recognize hyper-dispensationalism when I see it. I'm a former Dispensationalist myself.

Im not any of that...

So, you want a nice discussion, yet you want to label me?

 

[Behold]

So Jesus didn't die at Calvary and return to the Father in the Silent Ascension?

So when did Jesus spend time with Jesus Christ personally? Like others, you don't consider how Paul is appealing to Christ here. Which establishes that you're not actually trying to study what you read.

What you wrote only makes sense to you.
Its bizarre.

Here is what Paul said.
He said that He went into the desert for some years and Jesus revealed not only THE GOSPEL, but the other Doctrine for the Church..

Read it.
Use a bible.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What you wrote only makes sense to you.
Its bizarre.

Here is what Paul said.
He said that He went into the desert for some years and Jesus revealed not only THE GOSPEL, but the other Doctrine for the Church..

Read it.
Use a bible.

You're a hyper-dispensationalist. I'm treating you as such. You claim that Jesus Christ (the Son) literally spent time with Paul in the desert.

I assume you believe that Christ is literally omnipresent with Paul while Christ was with the Father?

Come along. Lets have this discussion. Just make sure you deal with everything I say. You're not going to "peck" at me.

 

[Johann]

It’s from the pit- anti God

Nope-I stand by what I believe Scriptures says and written.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'll let you continue to inform us that you have taught this, for a while.
NP.

Okay. Will do.

When the "word was with God", He was not JESUS, yet.

Jesus comes from Latin to English. If you're going to have such a narrow scope of response. Then get it right. I have no idea why you're saying this in context to the discussion.

Jesus is the name of the Virgin born MAN.... @praise_yeshua .

How about Immanuel? Lets get them all in there.....

So, when you teach that Abram knew Jesus as "pre-incarnate" and yet Jesus is not the NAME of Christ as "pre-incarnate".

Do you understand?

Same Person. He has never changed. Same character. Same substance. Eternal.

"Jesus" has a name that No one knows. I'll let you find that.

Yes, that is an Apostle, not Abraham.

Paul wrote something similar in 1 Timothy 3:16, = "God manifested in the Flesh".

I shared other verses that you unethical are ignoring. I wonder why Abraham took his son up on a mountain three days journey from him to offering Isaac upon an altar? I wonder how did Abraham know about the offering of God's own son that established after the offering of Abraham of his own son?

We don't have to guess at all.

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Abraham didn't take a lamb with him. You would have us think that Abraham lied to his own son. Abraham loved his son too much to lie to him. Do you lie to your son?

Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

I don't often have "nice" conversation. I like them. However, the Truth causes division. It always has.

 

[Behold]

Nope-I stand by what I believe Scriptures says and written.

Next week you'll believe something else.

You're flexible that way.

 

[atpollard]

God saves those who believe. Why are you convulsing in horror against that Biblical fact?

It is not that Biblical fact that I find repugnant. It is your snatching the "gift" of Ephesians 2:8-9 from the hand of God who "shows mercy on whom He shows mercy" [Romans 9] and claiming that SOVEREIGNTY for the heart of fallen men to empower God to save, or strip God of that power by superseding HIS will with their own will.

You place so much emphasis on Philippians 2:12 ... So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; [NASB95] that you ignore the rest of the passage in Philippians 2:13 ... for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. [NASB95]

THAT, I find "repugnant".

 

[atpollard]

I was told you are a "mellow" kind of fella-apparently only to those who are in agreement with you-

(although to be fair, which of us is NOT guilty of this?)

 

[Behold]

God who "shows mercy on whom He shows mercy"

That "mercy" that "God shows".. is The Cross of Christ.

And the DEVIL, teaches that this Blood and Death of Jesus that Jesus said is given to ALL, and John said is given to the World.... The Devil teaches that the Cross is not for everyone.

See that? That is to deny The Cross of Christ.... which is to insult God's Son and reject God's Grace.

Be careful that you dont believe what the Devil teaches as you dont want to become one of Satan's Ministers., or as Paul teaches...

""""And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light (Truth)."""

"""""So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as Ministers of righteousness."""

 

[atpollard]

Actually all of the events are past tense, even glorified. Since when is a living believer glorified in the past sense?

Actually, the tense is AORIST:

Is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.​

So the point is GOD FOREKNEW/KNOWS/WILL ALWAYS KNOW and PREDESTINED/PREDESTINES/WILL ALWAYS PREDESTINE and CALLED/CALLS/WILL ALWAYS CALL and JUSTIFIED/JUSTIFIES/WILL ALWAYS JUSTIFY and GLORIFIED/GLORIFIES/WILL ALWAYS GLORIFY ... "those" ... there is a specific group known to God that are part of an unchanging plan. Therein lies the COMFORT Paul deliver to those in distress. God started it, God will finish it and the end was settled from the beginning.

 

[Johann]

Actually, the tense is AORIST:

Is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.​

So the point is GOD FOREKNEW/KNOWS/WILL ALWAYS KNOW and PREDESTINED/PREDESTINES/WILL ALWAYS PREDESTINE and CALLED/CALLS/WILL ALWAYS CALL and JUSTIFIED/JUSTIFIES/WILL ALWAYS JUSTIFY and GLORIFIED/GLORIFIES/WILL ALWAYS GLORIFY ... "those" ... there is a specific group known to God that are part of an unchanging plan. Therein lies the COMFORT Paul deliver to those in distress. God started it, God will finish it and the end was settled from the beginning.

Lexical Definition for Aorist Tense

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or

www.blueletterbible.org

(although to be fair, which of us is NOT guilty of this?)

Not me-I am always swimming against the stream.

 

[Richard]

(although to be fair, which of us is NOT guilty of this?)

Exactly, We have all gutting hot under the collar and blown it one time or another on these forums. The good news is we're Overcomers. You just have to work at it. I think the expression is you don't want to stay Stuck on Stupid.

One thing about topics like PSA Is no matter which side of the fence you're on someone will always be on the opposite side. So after debating it for a period of time it just gets old.

For me it's more important to understand why Jesus went to the cross. That's the gospel. That's what we want to be able to share with nonbelievers. Telling someone about PSA that's not a believer is a waste of time.

 

[atpollard]

How can you possibly be chosen in Him without believing in Him?

You have no answer for my question. I didn't think you would, typical of those who deride human integrity/intellect.

It is not that I had no answer, it is a matter that I thought the answer was none of your business.
However, in an exercise of casting pearls before swine ....

HOW COULD I POSSIBLY BE CHOSEN IN HIM WITHOUT BELIEVING IN HIM?

Before I believed in Him, I was a member of a gang. I was an arsonist. I smuggled drugs across state lines. I had been stabbed. I had shot someone. I had set an enemy on fire. I came to the reconciliation that I was unlikely to live more than another two years. My "philosophy of life" was Nihilism ... there is no "good" or "evil" ... they are artificial constructs. Killing a man to get money to survive makes me a "monster" according to the law, and killing a hundred men to capture a hill in their country made Sergeant York a "hero".

I was an atheist. I had carefully considered "the problem of evil" and come to the conclusion that one of two things was true:

• God was not "omnipotent", "omniscient" and "omnipresent". He COULDN'T do something about it because he was "powerless", "ignorant" or "busy somewhere else" ... conclusion: "god" is not "GOD" [he is either a little being, or a pure fiction.]
• God could do something and chose not to ... that is the definition of EVIL.

So which is it? Is god an "invisible unicorn" (something that does not exist) or a sadistic monster that delights in suffering?
LOGIC, since you are so fond of it, demands the conclusion of the atheist. Even if I was wrong, an EVIL god should be resisted rater than worshiped.

As I was preparing a suicide bomb to remove many people (mostly adversaries to 'my side') from the world, God appeared and laid claim to ownership of me [thus dispelling both possibilities ... clearly He exists and I had experienced His nature for myself].

How could I possibly NOT be "chosen in Him" before I "believed in Him"?

 

[civic]

It is not that I had no answer, it is a matter that I thought the answer was none of your business.
However, in an exercise of casting pearls before swine ....

HOW COULD I POSSIBLY BE CHOSEN IN HIM WITHOUT BELIEVING IN HIM?

Before I believed in Him, I was a member of a gang. I was an arsonist. I smuggled drugs across state lines. I had been stabbed. I had shot someone. I had set an enemy on fire. I came to the reconciliation that I was unlikely to live more than another two years. My "philosophy of life" was Nihilism ... there is no "good" or "evil" ... they are artificial constructs. Killing a man to get money to survive makes me a "monster" according to the law, and killing a hundred men to capture a hill in their country made Sergeant York a "hero".

I was an atheist. I had carefully considered "the problem of evil" and come to the conclusion that one of two things was true:

• God was not "omnipotent", "omniscient" and "omnipresent". He COULDN'T do something about it because he was "powerless", "ignorant" or "busy somewhere else" ... conclusion: "god" is not "GOD" [he is either a little being, or a pure fiction.]
• God could do something and chose not to ... that is the definition of EVIL.

So which is it? Is god an "invisible unicorn" (something that does not exist) or a sadistic monster that delights in suffering?
LOGIC, since you are so fond of it, demands the conclusion of the atheist. Even if I was wrong, an EVIL god should be resisted rater than worshiped.

As I was preparing a suicide bomb to remove many people (mostly adversaries to 'my side') from the world, God appeared and laid claim to ownership of me [thus dispelling both possibilities ... clearly He exists and I had experienced His nature for myself].

How could I possibly NOT be "chosen in Him" before I "believed in Him"?

Is that really your story ?

 

[atpollard]

That "mercy" that "God shows".. is The Cross of Christ.

That "grinds the gears" of the context in both Romans 9 and the OT from which it quotes. What of the rest of the verse and paragraph beyond that one small "phrase"?

 

[atpollard]

Is that really your story ?

Yup.
Reluctantly, I have no choice but to be a MONERGIST when God "makes you an offer you can't refuse" ... Road to Damascus style.

 

[atpollard]

@civic

If we are being honest (as Christian to Christian), then for every Paul, there is at least one Andrew, someone that seeks Jesus out to ask "where are you staying" and is told "come and follow" and freely chooses to do JUST THAT because that is what their heart had already been prepared to receive (like Lydia hearing Paul).

God just saves people like ME to remind the world that He still can ... GOD is GOD and, to quote Corrie Ten Boon: "He does as He pleases and He does it right well."

 

[civic]

Yup.
Reluctantly, I have no choice but to be a MONERGIST when God "makes you an offer you can't refuse" ... Road to Damascus style.

Thanks for sharing this with us, you have much in common with our @Administrator