brightfame52
Well-known member
I dont believe you, so dont waste your time.
The Elect
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Okay, I'm just going to assume the answer is "yes", God does love some people less than He loves others. Pretty sure there's no third option in @civic reasoning.
Either we believe that HE created evil and evil people and then punished them for that evil
OR
we believe that we were created upright in innocence but then self corrupted ourselves which forces the conclusion that there must be a split between their creation and their being fitted to destruction already at the beginning of their earthly lives as per Jn 3:18.
"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man UPRIGHT; but they have sought out many inventions" Eccl 7:29. ...upright = righteous or at least able to become righteous
with
Deuteronomy 32:5 “They have corrupted themselves; They are not His children because of their blemish but a perverse and crooked generation. seems to me to be the highly preferable option.
Someone else involved in the GOD creates evil heresy as a logical necessity just might...
Your position insists:
GOD is light. Light DOES create darkness rather than being created by the obstruction of the Light.
GOD is love. Love DOES create evil people then damn them for being evil.
A good tree CAN bear bad fruit contra Matthew 7:18.
A stream of life giving water CAN put forth salt or brackish water, contra James 3:11.
I'm sorry but since I have a reasonable alternative which does NOT impugn GOD's holy loving nature, I stand firm against your suggested interpretation of the scriptures.
Last edited:
brightfame52
Well-known member
The Elect were Created upright, but the children of the devil are fashioned in iniquity and have no hope of salvation, they are the vessels of wrath formed for destruction. They were never in Adam initially, but added after the transgression.
makesends
Well-known member
So God determined to create and to save some for his particular purpose of becoming the members of the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. THIS was his reason for creating, and to that end, he purposed that sin enslave humanity, so that HE could save them from the wages of sin, and so that they would become those particular members glorified.
Your version: "So God determined Adam's sin, and then he determined the propagation of that sin to all mankind, determining that all would be born totally depraved and unable to responds to him in a positive manner. Of that mass of mankind God determined to change a few and save them consigning the rest to eternal torment." is faulty in several ways, intending to blame God and focusing on ways the human self-deterministic POV can do so, upon seeing that God has determined all things to come to pass.
God has every right to do with his creation as he pleases. It is astounding that any of the rational ones would think themselves worthy of God's respect, as deserving what THEY consider fair. Is it not enough that he lets us see some of his glory and majesty? Again, we do not figure on any scale of sentience, compared to him. We are not even complete beings to know and assess what he is doing, until we see him as he is. THIS life is not the default —GOD is. Everything is set in relation to that perfection, nothing relates to this life as a standard. What makes you think you know what love is —or more particularly, what love is, in respect to God. We are clueless, frankly.
Don't build your doctrine around your notions of love —that is what the universalists do.
makesends
Well-known member
To me, very broadly, 'free will' is 'free to do as it will, constrained only by limits of ability'. There are a multitude of implications there, first in mind being the denial of accusations and claims by those I call self-determinists.
Substantially different from that, is what I call 'libertarian free will', but (in my poor opinion) it is a fiction, only a self-contradictory concept in the mind of self-determinists.
When we talk, I would prefer to know what we are talking about, so that we have at least a common frame of reference, instead of trading insults over ambiguity. If you want to deal with these two terms, to further define them, great.
When I speak of "free will", even that 'definition' above, I dislike, because of ambiguity from the term, "free", in, "free to do as it will". Among what I see as a necessary narrowing of that definition, is the impinging logical law of causation, that everything subsequent to first cause is an effect, all which effects are caused, (whether directly or indirectly through other effects that cause further effects (and so on)). When I say I believe in "free will", I only mean that ones decisions are real, with real, even eternal consequences. And that does not necessitate "libertarian free will" to be a valid statement. And God is at the head of all causes and effects. HE was first. First Cause. The one and only one.
When I speak of "libertarian free will", I mean that notion that man is not constrained by even God, nor by any cause before his decisions, nor by the multitude of influences, to decide any particular thing in any particular way for any particular reason. In this notion, a man who chooses Christ is able to do so with full integrity while at enmity with Christ, and not be fooling himself, and in full possession of his own self-generated faith-by-decision-only, and not by gift of God, and even though ignorant of just exactly what it is that he is committing to. In this notion, man has escaped the natural universal pervasiveness of the law of cause-and-effect, because this creature is "caused to be uncaused" as far as his will is concerned. His will is thus 'another first cause' among many.
makesends
Well-known member
FWIW, your version: "So God determined Adam's sin, and then he determined the propagation of that sin to all mankind, determining that all would be born totally depraved and unable to responds to him in a positive manner. Of that mass of mankind God determined to change a few and save them consigning the rest to eternal torment.", was pretty good as far as it went, (though focused on the wrong thing and having begun wrong, as though sin in itself was God's reason for sin, and not something he intended for his good purposes), right up till you said, "unable to responds to him in a positive manner".
Notice that you have not defined what you mean by "positive manner". I submit that man can indeed, in and of his own perversion of heart and by his self-determination "choose Christ" as a response to the Gospel in a 'positive manner', thus: Many have "walked the aisle", as seed springs up immediately but is choked out by the thorns. All they did was walk the aisle and have an emotional experience. If they don't continue in Christ, (and that, by Christ's assessment and use), they have not really chosen Christ, but chosen a concept or feeling. Their will forbids otherwise, if they are still at enmity with God. And even Arminianism admits that they cannot.
I would say don't build your doctrine on determination. In your view there is but one player who determines everything including the eternal destruction of most that will ever exist before they were ever born. It is most incredible that the God who is love would ever act in such a manner. Calvinism misrepresents God
My stance in post #1064 was built on the nature of GOD as supported by Scripture. Your reply here shifts the focus to the nature of the reprobate. Do you not answer my questions about the nature of GOD expressing HIMself in our creation because you have no answer or for some other reason?
As for your side stepping answer:
Deut 32:5 says that those not HIS children corrupted themselves. To become corrupt one had to start as non-corrupt, upright, Ecclesiastes 7:29.
GOD has no right nor willingness nor ability to do anything outside of HIS loving holy nature. What HE pleases can have no hint of unfairness, unlovingness, unrighteousness nor lack of justice as so many use it to mean that HE can do anything, even evil, but because it is HIM doing it, it must be right.
Last edited:
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
You must be a universalist, right? All men/dogs go to heaven? Anything less would be unfair, unloving, unrighteous.
May I play too?
All FREE means is uncoerced and not constrained:
IF GOD set it up so HIS new creation had no coercion or constraints upon their choice to accept HIM as their GOD and only saviour from sin, forcing them to choose anything or not able to choose some option, they had a free will.
The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:
1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all genetics...
Nothing in their experience could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all, cultural or familial experience...
Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could FORCE them to choose good or evil, love or hate.
In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.
[Ref: definition of ingenuous: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness] as:
1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless.
2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.
2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of the options for their choice or their choice is random, not a true reflection of their desires. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence for each option would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right. Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a decision describes a choice based upon hope, an unproven hope called faith in Heb 11:1, choosing that option they hoped (had faith in) would bring them theown uncoerced most happiness.
Only then are they following their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality, defining the reality they most hope to enjoy. That is a true free will, not the fake free will of a person enslaved to sin, his dna, his family and cultural conditions etc etc.
Peace, Ted
brightfame52
Well-known member
I have given you my view
No sir: there is a good solid righteous reason for the reprobate to be eternally outside of HIS nature, HIS loving mercy.
The unforgivable Sin
From my Christian pov, the unforgivable sin was the Satanic fall, their free will decision to reject by faith, ie, an unproven hope, YHWH's unproven claims to be our creator GOD and to reject the gospel of salvation from sin as found only in the Son. It contained the ideas that HE was no better than the rest of us so HE must be a liar and as a liar, a false god...just listen to atheists and pagans about their opinion of HIM for confirmation.
As the first liar in all of creation, HE must therefore be the most evil person in existence so they repudiated HIM, rejecting HIM from having any influence in their lives at all. Putting their faith in this idea that HE was evil and driven by a psychotic megalomania made them eternally unfit to ever be HIS Bride so they were condemned to judgement on the spot, passed over for election to salvation due to their choice.
They can't be forgiven because
1. they made the decision to rebel against GOD's claims to Deity by their free will and a free will decision cannot be changed by anyone, even GOD, unless the person asks for it to be changed. All free will decisions must be sacrosanct and inviolable and apart from GOD's interference or it cannot be defined as free. This is not a rule but a matter of definitions: A cannot be not A at the same time; wet cannot be dry at the same time; free to choose an unchangeable decision can't therefore be changed by another and still be considered free.
2. Once they rebelled they became enslaved by the addictive power of evil which destroyed their ability to seek true repentance and unable to save themselves by changing their minds about HIM. They were instantly and totally unable to repent of their evil and became even more committed to the belief that they were right to rebel against this upstart liar and false god. So great is their addiction to evil that even after they learned the truth of HIS divinity and power when they saw the creation of the physical universe with their own eyes as described in Job 38:7, they could not change their minds because they loved their sin more than the truth as we learn in Roman 1:18+.
This describes the Satanic fall that precipitated the war in heaven and had all sinners, elect and reprobate, flung into the earth.
They are not unforgivable because HE hates them and their sin so much because it is worse than other sins but because when HE proclaimed HIS gospel of salvation to every creature created in HIS image, Colossians 1:23, for us to accept HIS claims or to reject HIM, HE promised us our choice would not be interfered with or changed or forced upon us without our consent, though there would be legal and natural consequences...warnings explained in full but which some ignored as lies.
The choice to eternally repudiate HIS help in saving them from the grip of sin while becoming unable to save themselves by changing their minds sealed their doom.
HE lovingly gave them the right and the ability to choose their own fate.
HE was fair and righteous to allow them to choose evil after warning them sincerely about the natural and legal consequences for choosing evil.
It was righteous for HIM to not interfere after they made the choice to rebuke HIM as a false god by allowing their free will choice to work out to its end.
They did not want to live with HIM in HIS heavenly marriage so much they chose to repudiate HIM even though they knew that if HE was ever proven to be their GOD, they would be doomed to hell... Iow, they chose to go to hell by their free will rather than ever having to live with HIM in HIS heaven. Alas, that is what they get...
Now everyone knows you have no answer...thank you very much.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
May I play too?
All FREE means is uncoerced and not constrained:
IF GOD set it up so HIS new creation had no coercion or constraints upon their choice to accept HIM as their GOD and only saviour from sin, forcing them to choose anything or not able to choose some option, they had a free will.
The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:
1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all genetics...
Nothing in their experience could FORCE them to choose love or hate, good or evil, including all, cultural or familial experience...
Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could FORCE them to choose good or evil, love or hate.
In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.
[Ref: definition of ingenuous: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness] as:
1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless.
2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.
2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of the options for their choice or their choice is random, not a true reflection of their desires. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence for each option would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,” “life there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right. Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a decision describes a choice based upon hope, an unproven hope called faith in Heb 11:1, choosing that option they hoped (had faith in) would bring them theown uncoerced most happiness.
Only then are they following their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality, defining the reality they most hope to enjoy. That is a true free will, not the fake free will of a person enslaved to sin, his dna, his family and cultural conditions etc etc.
Peace, Ted
I'll consider your comments and reply. Maybe a "coerced" thread is applicable?
I've long preached that Calvinism teaches a "Stockholm Syndrome" like theology relative to coercion.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Thank you for your thoughts and sharing them in the manner you do. I don't have much time at the moment but I'll respond. Again. Thanks
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
"HE lovingly gave them the right and the ability to choose their own fate."
In other words, He lovingly let the majority of men go to hell. If God desires all men to be saved, how is it loving for him to let men override his desire for them to be saved? That's an interesting analysis. Is God aware of it? Did you lovingly let him know how it all works? Because I can't find any scripture that describes God lovingly giving most men the right to go to hell.
What you're describing is that it's God's will that all men be saved, but those dang men just won't let Him do it. God lovingly gave them the ability to override His will.
Last edited:
makesends
Well-known member
You misrepresent Calvinism. It doesn't say there is just one player. It says God came first. Both Scripture and logic demand that there be only one first cause, from which all else descends causally. That doesn't mean that man does not choose and cause, and be affected by influences —causes, all— including God himself, through the Spirit of God, to accomplish precisely what God purposed for him to choose and cause.
In fact, logically, man's choices are real ONLY if God causes them. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
