The Elect

[TomL]

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.

You cannot explain Calvinist "free will" without noting that. It is the essence of what a Calvinism means by free will

 

[TomL]

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.

Although it was impacted, I do not believe free was lost. It is not absolute and is limited by our nature

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
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.

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.

"Forgive me but you words come across a mere vain babbling. Talking incessantly without purpose." That is ad-hominem. Not debate.

The reason God would not make a rock too big for him to pick up is not because he cannot, but because it is logical nonsense. The fact that humans can come up with a self-contradictory notion does not make the notion of any substance.

My point was rather obvious; apparently it didn't make sense to you because you are stuck in self-determinism and can't see your way out of it. I called 'libertarian free will' a construction, because it is a made-up notion, and not logically possible. It claims that man can do things without being caused to do so, which claim places man in a spontaneous self-existent position of 'first cause', which is logical nonsense. There can be only one first cause, and that is God.

It is not because God cannot do self-contradictory things, such as to cause second first causes, but rather, he does not do so, because the notion of second first causes is self-contradictory nonsense.

This principle applies to everyone, including me, that most of our discussions, and particularly, our questions, and our grand statements, are rather dishonest, by reason of our ignorance (if by no other reason). We are silly, self-important, self-esteeming fools, the bunch of us, and our questions show it. We don't know how biased we are, and how entrenched in this temporal 'reality' our point-of-view is.

CS Lewis talks about this in what may be my favorite of his books, Till We Have Faces, (A Fable Retold). His protagonist in the story, after years of wanting to complain to "the gods", realizes, "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?"

 

[praise_yeshua]

makesends said:
Preordination means that God intended that "whatsoever cometh to pass" comes to pass.

There you go getting general when specific is called for.

I love detail. General statements cause discussions. I forms a framework. It provokes thought.

That doesn't say he needs anything. But it does take evil for him to give himself for us.

No it does not. God can do anything. God can create and craft those that please Him from stone.....

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The issue is that God does not find pleasure in forcing others to serve Him. That is a core issue with what you believe.

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.

This is a very good area to discuss in great detail.

God made man capable of sin. Peccable. He let Adam have his own way. He allowed Adam to go free. It is the story of the "Willing Servant"

Exo 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Adam went out free.

God finds no pleasure in forcing others to serve Him. Forced servitude is the core of your theology.

God sought and still seeks to WIN US to Himself through the actions of Jesus Christ becoming just like us. Empathy for those He loves. All of humanity. Actions taken in Divinity to show Himself lovingly to humanity with just enough ambiguity for man to discover this on his own.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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.

Absolutely!

 

[makesends]

You cannot explain Calvinist "free will" without noting that. It is the essence of what a Calvinism means by free will

That doesn't answer the question. Any argument (debate) is done by terms understood by both parties, but there are many terms behind defining further terms. I should have thought you understood what you are now asking me to point out; you yourself have stated it, that Calvinism assumes this. So why should I need to point it out when you already know it is assumed? To leave it out of a statement doesn't make the statement any less substantive.

Perhaps you think that including it would make a self-contradiction, or some other logical fallacy or biblical disharmony obvious —I don't know what your reason is.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That doesn't say he needs anything. But it does take evil for him to give himself for us.

No it does not. God can do anything. God can create and craft those that please Him from stone.....

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The issue is that God does not find pleasure in forcing others to serve Him. That is a core issue with what you believe.

How, exactly, can God "give himself for us", without the faculty of sin being the reason for him to give himself for us? What does "give himself for us" even mean, if there is no sin in us, for him to atone for?

"Forcing" is not the core issue. That assumes that causation is forcing; it is not. Were you "forced" to be born? Do you consider yourself unfortunate to need oxygen and to have it available year after year? Are you "forced" to breathe? You are only caused to. No implication of force.

Reminds me of the contrast between two stories —two characters in the two stories. One, the unfaithful servant, says to his master, "I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed."

The other, Jonah, hard-hearted, hateful and rebellious though he was, knew God: "I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity."

 

[TomL]

That doesn't answer the question. Any argument (debate) is done by terms understood by both parties, but there are many terms behind defining further terms. I should have thought you understood what you are now asking me to point out; you yourself have stated it, that Calvinism assumes this. So why should I need to point it out when you already know it is assumed? To leave it out of a statement doesn't make the statement any less substantive.

Perhaps you think that including it would make a self-contradiction, or some other logical fallacy or biblical disharmony obvious —I don't know what your reason is.

No. I think readers need to be considered. I believe that without such notation some might be misled

 

[praise_yeshua]

makesends said:
That doesn't say he needs anything. But it does take evil for him to give himself for us.

How, exactly, can God "give himself for us", without the faculty of sin being the reason for him to give himself for us? What does "give himself for us" even mean, if there is no sin in us, for him to atone for?

Sin is the result of allowing man to be free from coercions. Sin was not preordained. It is the natural result of freedom for the immature and incomplete.

Forcing" is not the core issue. That assumes that causation is forcing; it is not. Were you "forced" to be born? Do you consider yourself unfortunate to need oxygen and to have it available year after year? Are you "forced" to breathe? You are only caused to. No implication of force.

Sure there is. Your examples are not applicable to the circumstances of freedom. You believe that God chose you personally before this world was ever designed or formed. You create a necessity in theology for the forcing of Christ upon YOU (a chosen sinner) to accomplish His will.

This is the reason for what you require from primary cause.

Contrary to this. God designed this life to "WIN US" to Himself. Not just in the actions of Christ but to "set the stage" for a natural understanding of the message of Jesus Christ. Like water and air. If any man thirst..... let him come to me.

The natural order of designing this natural body to REQUIRE water to survive "set the stage" for Jesus to come on the scene and say these words....

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Reminds me of the contrast between two stories —two characters in the two stories. One, the unfaithful servant, says to his master, "I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed."

The other, Jonah, hard-hearted, hateful and rebellious though he was, knew God: "I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

Again, you're requiring evil so God can show His goodness. Finding value in the actions of sinners is another issue you have. I don't find value in the hateful actions of Jonah. I don't find value in the assessment of the "unfaithful servant".

You're attributing meaningfulness relative to evil in the purpose of God.

 

[brightfame52]

@praise_yeshua

Sin was not preordained.

Yes it was, because Christ dying for sin was preordained before Adam was created 1 Pet 1:19-20

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 

[praise_yeshua]

@praise_yeshua



Yes it was, because Christ dying for sin was preordained before Adam was created 1 Pet 1:19-20

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

These verses establish the Goodness of God toward humanity in Jesus Christ.

Not the necessity of sin nor the goodness of evil relative to God's purpose.

If you had spiritual ears, you could hear......

I just had to say that.....

 

[brightfame52]

These verses establish the Goodness of God toward humanity in Jesus Christ.

Not the necessity of sin nor the goodness of evil relative to God's purpose.

If you had spiritual ears, you could hear......

I just had to say that.....

Sin was ordained since Christ was ordained as the Saviour from sin before the first sin was committed. Duh

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sin was ordained since Christ was ordained as the Saviour from sin before the first sin was committed. Duh

God knows the circumstances of His choices. Saying that God allows the free to sin isn't God "preordaining" sin.

It is like blaming the gun maker for the murderer who used the gun to take a person's life.

I know you don't care what you believe about God as long as you "look good" doing it.

Is God just like you?

 

[brightfame52]

God knows the circumstances of His choices. Saying that God allows the free to sin isn't God "preordaining" sin.

It is like blaming the gun maker for the murderer who used the gun to take a person's life.

I know you don't care what you believe about God as long as you "look good" doing it.

Is God just like you?

Sin was pre-ordained since Christ was pre-ordained as the Saviour from sin before the first sin was committed. Duh

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sin was pre-ordained since Christ was pre-ordained as the Saviour from sin before the first sin was committed. Duh

Why don't you just post a link to the last time comment you made? It would save time. Just hover over the thread #, right click, chose "copy link address" with the left mouse button, go to body of response, right click, and then left click.

If you're just going to pretend no one said anything meaningful, this might save you some time when you decide to repeat yourself.

Also, you can use keyboard shortcuts.... crtl + c (copy) or crtl +y (paste) or crtl +x (cut).

A clipboard memory tool can also help with your top 10 repeats.

 

[Rockson]

Sin was ordained since Christ was ordained as the Saviour from sin before the first sin was committed. Duh

So if I ordained or paid for my kids car insurance or life insurance that definitely means that I work behind the scene to make sure their car has an accident? So why again do you say that sin needed to be ordained?

 

[brightfame52]

Why don't you just post a link to the last time comment you made? It would save time. Just hover over the thread #, right click, chose "copy link address" with the left mouse button, go to body of response, right click, and then left click.

If you're just going to pretend no one said anything meaningful, this might save you some time when you decide to repeat yourself.

Also, you can use keyboard shortcuts.... crtl + c (copy) or crtl +y (paste) or crtl +x (cut).

A clipboard memory tool can also help with your top 10 repeats.

Could Adam and Eve have decided not to sin after they were created ? Christ before they were created was predestined to die for sin. Yes or No

 

[praise_yeshua]

Could Adam and Eve have decided not to sin after they were created ? Christ before they were created was predestined to die for sin. Yes or No

Why certainly they could have chosen not to sin. In fact, I believe Adam decided to eat of the fruit to save his wife Eve.

However, they were peccable. Capable of sin.

If you've listened to what I have said for many years, then you would know what I believe. Even in this forum there are plenty examples of this same message I just repeated.

 

[brightfame52]

So if I ordained or paid for my kids car insurance or life insurance that definitely means that I work behind the scene to make sure their car has an accident? So why again do you say that sin needed to be ordained?

Im not discussing you. Pay attention to the context of what Im saying. Did God predestinate the Saviour of sinners before He created the sinners ? Adam and Eve ? Yes or No

 

[brightfame52]

Why certainly they could have chosen not to sin. In fact, I believe Adam decided to eat of the fruit to save his wife Eve.

However, they were peccable. Capable of sin.

If you've listened to what I have said for many years, then you would know what I believe. Even in this forum there are plenty examples of this same message I just repeated.

Blasphemy, Christ was already purposed to come into the world for Adams sin, before Adam sinned. You foolishly saying Adam could have reversed Gods Eternal Purpose in Christ. Blasphemy