If this is true, then the idea of a full loving communion with GOD in in a heavenly marriage to us is meaningless...it cannot happen by the definition of the words love and marriage. GOD is not a Borg to be satisfied with a Stepford wife.
What is a choice?
- Thread starter praise_yeshua
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
Agreed which is why I left Calvinism.
For an unborn sinner, the righteousness of this great self sacrifice is a filthy rags...Love for GOD and obedience to HIM is greater than the love of one idolater for another so it seems obvious to me that this refers to sinners, not the reborn and sanctified...
Total depravity to me means that no one can overcome the taint of sin in any of even their best decisions and they can never make a choice that can save them from sin...NOT that they cannot love or no do good things but they cannot do so purely - there is no righteous onion to take us to heaven.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I don't see any evidence to establish this claim. Can you do more than just state your belief.
I believe you meant to say Jesus is not referencing sinners.
Notice that Jesus appeal exclusively to HIS LOVE. He appeal to a man's love. Again. Provide evidence for your claim.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You are referencing "power" to overcome. The power to overcome is all God's. No one is claiming differently.
The issue is relative to the claim that there is power in choice. A sinner laying down their live for another sinner is powerless to impart eternal life. However it is a contrary to what you claim is inclination.
Hardly...election was not a decree about their fate causing their fate at all but is a predictive promise to them that their true free will choice (not a so called choice of one enslaved to sin) to respond willingly to HIS proposal of marriage would in fact end with that marriage in heaven.
That is, election is NOT causative but it is predictive based upon our own free will decision to put our faith in HIM without proof and without sin.
No, I think He was referencing sinners as it is about men in general and all men un-reborn are sinners enslaved to sin. That their sinful love is good enough to cause self sacrifice is fine but it is not the epitome of love ... in the face of a sinless devotion to GOD, it is pale.
My evidence is the meaning of the words: love, sinfulness, devotion, perfect, etc etc.
IF it is NOT a general statement about mankind then it is surely a reference to the pure love which was only found in HIS self sacrifice for us, greater than any man's for his brother.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Khazar
Member
The “elect of God” are those whom God has predestined to salvation. They are called the “elect” because that word denotes “determining beforehand,” “ordaining,” “deciding ahead of time.” God made the choice for them.
Reformed theology teachers that God brings the ELECT kicking and screaming, against their will, into His kingdom. It teaches that God Himself chooses who would be saved.
Therefore the elect are without choice Since God has made the choice for them.
Oh, I understand this as fairly orthodox theology BUT I disagree. GOD didn't make the choice for them because if HE would do that for some, HE would do it for everyone...since without condition means everyone is just as able to be elected and predestined to heaven as anyone else.
Their choice to put their faith in HIM would be accepted as a permanent end state their faith by HIS predictive promise and predetermination, no matter how sinful thy might ever become in the future. Those who rebuked HIM as a false object of faith were condemned on the spot as predictively redetermined to hell.
What reason might there be to suppose HE predetermined us before our creation and not after our own first confession of faith in HIM as our GOD and Saviour?
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
This is just speculation on my part, but I think it's not a matter of a choice, but opening the elect's eyes to the truth. Giving sight to the blind is not a choice, it's a transformation.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
So you actually excluding Jesus from laying down His life?
So you are referencing the actions Jesus. You need to choose between the two or say "both". Once you make a clear choice (yourself
).... I will respond.praise_yeshua
Well-known member
This isn't consistent with the teaching of Calvinism. If you believe in regeneration before faith then you're establishing that God empowers men to faith.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Some Calvinists will deny this because it is contrary to secondary cause.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
To be clear, I'm primarily referencing attributing power to a choice.
Calvinism denies it in many instances but claims that an Arminian is expressing power in their view of theology relative to choice.
Calvinism denies it in many instances but claims that an Arminian is expressing power in their view of theology relative to choice.
civic
Well-known member
Ditto
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Contrary to what you folks are saying, many Calvinists that I've read believe regeneration precedes faith, but in my mind, the two are inseparable. Faith is the immediate result of regeneration. Like I said, it's like giving sight to a blind man. Open the eyes to truth and what you see is undeniable truth.
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
10 For we are God’s handiwork
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
10 For we are God’s handiwork
I find this to be agreeable...
Once we are sinners with no free will then the will to save them must be GOD's will based upon their earlier choice to put their faith in HIM as Saviour before they chose to rebel.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You're making the typical nontemporal argument for Calvinistic salvation. You have nothing but chaos. You're conflating all the steps of salvation as being one. I don't know what Calvinist your following but they are at best.. mediocre.
You're blending everything together because you can not accurately deal with any distinct order of events. You can't explain your own position without ending up with mush.
