The Elect

[The Rogue Tomato]

Yes, I can.

In fact I already have, but I am a patient man.

The word "allow" has a definition of more than one will.

That part is important, and I need you to follow my logic—you have a predisposition not to see the logic here, so you need to follow this closely. The word "allow" has, by definition, the presence of more than one will. That part is very, very important.

Now, we have to ask ourselves, how many wills are in this passage? How many wills are described and illustrated by these words?

Now if someone "means" something, we speak of "intent." This "intent" is a desire, a purpose, a direction of the agent—that is, someone is "meaning" to do or accomplish something, they have a plan. For an agent to have a plan this requires a will, a decision maker, to pick among options and settle on one thing to "mean."

Rocks don't "mean" something. A tree doesn't "mean" to wreck your house, it just falls on it. Meteors don't "mean" to flash in the sky, they just do by rote physics with no intention. So to "mean" something logically necessitates a will.

Now how does "allow" interface with "mean"? Let's say, we are playing poker, and I go all in with a bad hand. Then you call me. Now I say, "I allowed that to happen—I wanted you to win." Perhaps, because you are a keen player, you "meant" to win by skill. And I "meant" to let you win. Now we have two wills "meaning" two different things.

Now suppose, you were a mean person, and you really wanted to rob me of all my money. But I am a kind person, and I wanted to let you have it, because you need to pay your rent and buy groceries, and you are a little down on your luck. Then I say, "You know what—you meant that for evil, but I meant it for good." There is two wills there, and two people meaning two different things.

Now suppose I uniterally decided to decree what happened to you, and decide your choice for you. That requires removing your "mean to," it requires removing your determination as an agency, and replacing it with mine. So now, whatever you do, is only and solely what I decide for it to be—there is only one "mean to," and that "mean to" is mine. I force you to call by hypnotizing you, for your own good.

Which of these descriptions is in the passage?

One "will" or two?

One "mean to" or two "mean tos"?

One "purpose" or two "purposes"?

And thus we see that the text is actually an excellent proof of libertarian free will, and completely disproves monergism.

That's eisegesis by analogy. It doesn't modify the actual text that God MEANT it for good.

 

[civic]

That's eisegesis by analogy. It doesn't modify the actual text that God MEANT it for good.

Meaning does not equate to ordaining, determining. Huge difference between them. One is not the other.

 

[makesends]

Meaning does not equate to ordaining, determining. Huge difference between them. One is not the other.

"Ordaining vs determining —can you show the difference when it is God doing it?

What, to your thinking, are the implications for each, when it is God doing it? Keep in mind, that God is First Cause.

 

[civic]

"Ordaining vs determining —can you show the difference when it is God doing it?

What, to your thinking, are the implications for each, when it is God doing it? Keep in mind, that God is First Cause.

They are synonyms. I'm saying that with Joseph and the brothers its not in the passage.

 

[makesends]

They are synonyms. I'm saying that with Joseph and the brothers its not in the passage.

If God knew it when he created (caused it) he intended it, just as it says. Thus, ordained it and determined that it would come to pass (caused it on purpose).

 

[Dizerner]

Exhaustive Divine Determinism where God causes all things through the choice of his own decree, removes one of the "you meant it."

There's only ONE meant it under EDD in Genesis 50.

Yet it says two.

 

[civic]

If God knew it when he created (caused it) he intended it, just as it says. Thus, ordained it and determined that it would come to pass (caused it on purpose).

It doesn’t say He caused it.

 

[makesends]

Exhaustive Divine Determinism where God causes all things through the choice of his own decree, removes one of the "you meant it."

There's only ONE meant it under EDD in Genesis 50.

Yet it says two.

You lower God to man's level, or raise man to God's, with such statements.

The God-made logic is simple. If God is First Cause, everything subsequent to that is caused by God. No?

The fact that man chooses according to his inclinations means that he does indeed choose as he pleases. God does not change that. Somehow, the nature of temporal thinking pre-supposes that man is self-determining, but he only determines within what God has determined.

If it's any comfort to you, there are many Calvinists that claim God has determined more than one possibility. They arrive at that by reasoning and by the way Scripture is written for man to obey. Well, we ARE indeed commanded to choose, but the implication that we could have chosen differently from what God has ordained is not stated. The "if you had only chosen to..." statements that God makes do not demonstrate that they could have, since if they had [obeyed, chosen to do x, and such], then that would have been what God ordained. And since God came first causally, we do not cause what God ordains, but God ordained what we choose.

 

[makesends]

It doesn’t say He caused it.

What is there that God has not caused? EVERYTHING that comes subsequent to first cause, is caused by first cause. Otherwise, First Cause (God) is not the only first cause, which is both logically self-contradictory and blasphemy. You posit other first causes, whether you mean to or not. I will happily admit that my logic is not of itself entirely reliable, but so far I've seen nothing in scripture, experience nor reason to contradict the fact that God intentionally specifically caused all things, whatsoever comes to pass. And there is a LOT of scripture to posit God's absolute sovereignty over all fact. Very REALITY is by God's making.

We've been through this before, but I see we are saying it for the sake of other readers. Again, the notion that for man to be responsible to God's command does not imply that man is able to obey it. God is more than right to create what he intended for destruction, should he choose to do so. Man is not sentient on God's level. Not even close. Morally responsible men are no more valuable to God than a bug is to us, except as he uses them to accomplish what he had in mind for the end of his creation —The Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, The Dwelling Place of God, The Children of God, and so on.

Next, you will claim this denies God's love and compassion, I expect. It does not. God's love is VERY particularly placed, and his compassion for all things falls second to, and complies with, his purposes for them. It it helps, consider what there is to a person, once God has removed his hand from them, removing all virtues. The virtues we assess to a person are by the hand of God, and not endemic to the person.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The virtues we assess to a person are by the hand of God, and not endemic to the person.

Amen, to the Glory of God.

 

[Dizerner]

That's eisegesis by analogy. It doesn't modify the actual text that God MEANT it for good.

I don't think it's at all honest just to pull out the word "eisegesis" when one does not like the conclusion of what Scripture says.

It's just a "get out of jail free" card someone slaps on literally anything, even logically valid conclusions.

 

[Dizerner]

The God-made logic is simple. If God is First Cause, everything subsequent to that is caused by God. No?

You're limiting God here—you're not allowing God to create an autonomous cause.

Calvinists mock the idea that God is sovereign over his own sovereignty, and yet, how could one argue he is not?

God can self-limit—that is an option among his infinite choices.

 

[brightfame52]

You're limiting God here—you're not allowing God to create an autonomous cause.

Calvinists mock the idea that God is sovereign over his own sovereignty, and yet, how could one argue he is not?

God can self-limit—that is an option among his infinite choices.

God limited whom He Loved and chose in Christ, It was limited for whom Christ would die for and redeem, and its limited for whom the Spirit applies Salvation to.

 

[Dizerner]

God limited whom He Loved

Blasphemy.

A God with imperfect partial love.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't think it's at all honest just to pull out the word "eisegesis" when one does not like the conclusion of what Scripture says.

It's just a "get out of jail free" card someone slaps on literally anything, even logically valid conclusions.

Saying "God meant it" means anything other than "God meant it" is the very definition of eisegesis.

 

[makesends]

You're limiting God here—you're not allowing God to create an autonomous cause.

You don't see the obvious self-contradiction? You have God causing something uncaused. It makes no more sense than to say that God can make a rock too big for himself to pick up.

Calvinists mock the idea that God is sovereign over his own sovereignty, and yet, how could one argue he is not

God can self-limit—that is an option among his infinite choices.

You would do well to study God's attributes of Simplicity and Aseity. God does not choose from between possibles, except in our minds. God simply does as he pleases. Self-limit? Choices? Those are human concepts, and here we go applying them to God; this is called Anthropomorphism.

 

[Rockson]

Calvinists mock the idea that God is sovereign over his own sovereignty, and yet, how could one argue he is not?

God can self-limit—that is an option among his infinite choices.

I've talked about this various times. Calvinists in presentations usually always make this statement, "Well we believe in God's sovereignty" As if to say people that don't believe what they do don't.

They need to be told, "No you don't, no you don't, NO YOU DON'T! You don't get to claim that you own that word. We also believe in his sovereignty too, just as much as you but we claim our view is more balanced with scripture on how that works! Now we can each discuss our view but let's not imply there isn't another view that shouldn't be examined as possibly valid"

It's like they try to play a game of One-Up-On. We need to make a stand and being as kind as possible say NO to that.

 

[civic]

You would do well to study God's attributes of Simplicity and Aseity. God does not choose from between possibles, except in our minds. God simply does as he pleases. Self-limit? Choices? Those are human concepts, and here we go applying them to God; this is called Anthropomorphism.

Its because of those mentioned attributes why I reject PSA and TULIP. They go against Gods Innate attributes.

 

[brightfame52]

Blasphemy.

A God with imperfect partial love.

Yes on your part, for you deny God His Sovereign Right, and then call His Sovereign Love partial, Blasphemy indeed

 

[civic]

That's eisegesis by analogy. It doesn't modify the actual text that God MEANT it for good.

The word simply means to think. What you though was evil, God thought was good. There is nothing deterministic about the Hebrew word. What they thought/devised in their mind was for evil intentions- But what God thought/devised in His mind was good intentions.

Kind of like God saying as the heavens are above the earth so are MY THOUGHTS above (higher) than your thoughts.

See the parallel now ???

oops

next.........

hope this helps !!!

Strong's Concordance
chashab: to think, account
Original Word: חָשַׁב
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: chashab
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-shab')
Definition: to think, account
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to think, account