makesends
Well-known member
Huh?
The Elect
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
Nice try as it was by Gods grace through faith by which I was saved. You are conflating glory with grace and salvation. Faith is a requirement to be saved. God doesn't believe for man not does God mysteriously zap man with faith they never asked for to be saved.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Which is a illogical claim because God is altogether lovely and pure. He doesn't need "evil" or anything to please Himself. I thought we agreed upon this? However, you are creating a requirement in your theology. Not me. You.
I have never taught such a thing. I said your argument is senseless because it is not an argument relative to power of result.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You claimed I was not debating because I said what I said. Just responding.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Rockson
Well-known member
It actually stuns me how some people Calvinists think God doesn't allow a liberty to exist of real free will and choice so that real love between beings can exist, including between himself and the creation.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Amen!
The essential aspect seen in the Priestly work of Christ in the Empathy of Love for man.
civic
Well-known member
Man under that system is coerced or forced to love God. By definition it's unloving apart from the ability and choice to freely love in return.
Rockson
Well-known member
And that's kind of like a Calvinists position that God would say, I'm going to make you love me and you won't have a choice! If one has the courage to work through this Calvinists beliefs always take one to a dead end. They don't understand by not giving a choice the irresistible thing would mean that it would actually cause one or most to not appreciate his character.Imagine the "Mental Gymnastics" required to surmise that "God must believe for me"....
Also many look beyond just themselves. Some people don't. I hope our Calvinists here will consider it. You may consider you have your elect security but won't you look beyond yourselves at the other who didn't according to you receive what you call irresistible grace? Don't you feel sorrow for them? Or what exactly do you feel? There's nothing absolutely nothing in you which would feel it unfair that you got all the benefit when God all the time could have given it to them as well?
Is your position well let their pain begin when all the time you would know you deserve it just as much as they? As least not believing in Calvinism then you know they could have equally have received pardon and regeneration the same as you BUT they rejected God's kind GENINUE offer..... then at least you could have peace. I'll stand by that when I say Calvinists really don't have peace. I say that because I don't think they can TRULY love a God as they portray. I'd contend it's only our of fear that they claim to. I think it's impossible. Human spiritual and psychological structures within all of us are the same. You know what real love would do and what it wouldn't.
No I did not say that, and what you left out is in Calvinism God determines what you want, and you can only do what it is you want most
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).
civic
Well-known member
and God has predetermined what you will want so its not really a choice made willingly, from ones volition.
It's a redefined definition designed to fit Calvinism
Yes, and we know that our free will is an absolute necessity for our guilt for sin to be true, for our faith to be a true faith and for the heavenly marriage to be a real marriage based upon a true love...
BUT we also now that we are sinners from conception because death, the wages for sin, applies in the womb also. It is also pertinent to this discussion to remember that our Lord taught us that all sinners are enslaved, addicted, by the power of sin, Berean Standard Bible Jn 8:34 Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
and if that doesn't mean that sinfulness destroys our free will than it has no pertinent meaning at all, and is just babble, a ridiculous conception.
The resolution of this conflict of thought by Pre-Conception Existence theology is to suggest that ALL created in HIS image, ie, able to become a proper Bride for HIM, have a time of absolute free will then some have a time of being enslaved by evil with no free will and some of these sinners then have their free will returned to them by their redemption.
The loss of their free will was due to their free will decision to rebel against GOD or against HIS commands. Once sinful they have no power or ability in the least to choose righteousness nor faith and without HIS election promise to some of salvation from all and any sin, none would be saved from the consequences of this terrible decision.
This one ancient pov (though rejected by the ancients in power) resolves all the conflict between the sects which variously champion one interpretation about our free will, grace and election against the others. They are each partially right but without our pre-earthly existence as innocents, our free will decision of faith or the rejection of faith in HIM as the cause of our election to heaven or reprobation, the differences are not be resolved.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Where do you get these sophisms? No, a WILL is an absolute necessity for our guilt for sin to be true.
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
We are born with a will. A will inclined toward sin and enmity against God. I suppose you don't believe we are the product of the fall.
makesends
Well-known member
makesends said:
Preordination means that God intended that "whatsoever cometh to pass" comes to pass.
*praise_yeshua said:
"Preordination of any causal event had no meaningful context relative to secondary cause. Sure, there may be many things that are "chain reaction" relative to primary cause but there is only power in primary cause.
"Which makes such arguments from secondary cause powerless and thus irrelevant to lasting purpose."
makesends said:
This is logically implied within the meaning of omniscient "first cause", at least, though there are also other ways it is logically derived. Your notion of un-specific power is not characteristic of God, as though he simply throws a blanket of love over his creation.
Preordination means that God intended that "whatsoever cometh to pass" comes to pass.
There you go getting general when specific is called for. That doesn't say he needs anything. But it does take evil for him to give himself for us. Otherwise, there is no need for him to give himself for us, and all would be Adam and Eve in the garden forever, with no "Body of Christ", no "Bride of Christ" and no "Dwelling Place of God". Paradise, but no Heaven.
*praise_yeshua said:
"Preordination of any causal event had no meaningful context relative to secondary cause. Sure, there may be many things that are "chain reaction" relative to primary cause but there is only power in primary cause.
"Which makes such arguments from secondary cause powerless and thus irrelevant to lasting purpose."
makesends said:
This is logically implied within the meaning of omniscient "first cause", at least, though there are also other ways it is logically derived. Your notion of un-specific power is not characteristic of God, as though he simply throws a blanket of love over his creation.
You said "there is only power to primary cause", which claim* sounds like God created, but with no specificity. —What do you mean by "power of result"? Sounds impressive! How is an argument not relative to power of result senseless? What does that even mean?
makesends
Well-known member
The construction, 'libertarian free will' is logical nonsense. It is a claim to first-causal ability on the part of creatures, which is self-contradiction. Absolute spontaneity only exists in God himself —not in creatures.
Do you think God can make something too big for himself to pick up? That is the sort of self-contradiction you espouse.
makesends
Well-known member
How did I leave that out? What kind of argument is that? The fact that I don't include a whole thesis paper with every post doesn't mean it is not relevant to what I write.
Rockson
Well-known member
Forgive me MS but your words come across as mere vain babbling. Talking incessantly without purpose. Maybe you can pick different ones?
No Makesends his wisdom wouldn't allow him to do that nor would his wisdom see any sense in making beings with no free will as your Calvinism puts forth. He wants real genuine love returned to him not something fake and artificial.
Last edited:
Rockson
Well-known member
No offence Ted but consider you just haven't thought through on this. Even an alcoholic or a drug addict can be bound and addicted but such doesn't mean he doesn't have the capacity of free will to ask for help.
