Hilston asked:
Will you now agree with Paul that God predestinated individuals to redemption in Christ?
godrulz said:
TULIP is deductive, not inductive from the text.
Is that a "no"?
godrulz said:
... It is a preconceived theology that does not stand up to contextual scrutiny.
Yet, when I show you how your demitheology is disproven by scripture, you persist because of your preconceived theology. Fascinating. There's a term for this. It starts with an "S".
godrulz said:
... The weight of Scripture is that God loves and died for all men.
That's only if you read the scriptures through the lens of your deductive and preconceived theology, GR.
godrulz said:
We see God not desiring any to perish.
No, we see God not desiring that any of the Elect perish. Context, GR, context.
godrulz said:
... His impartial love seeks to convince and convict and draw all men.
No, His impartial and arbitrary love accomplishes exactly that for which He intends it: the infallible salvation of those for whom He died.
godrulz said:
... The reason that all are not saved lies in the heart of man, not the mysterious will of God.
It's both, GR. This is abundantly proven in scripture. (
Jn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.;
Ro 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy).
godrulz said:
... The deficiency is not in God's desire or power, but in the nature of man's heart and the parameters for a reciprocal love relationship (that cannot be coerced, caused, nor unilateral). We could go on and on dissecting each aspect of TULIP.
Straw man, GR. I'm not defending TULIP. I'm merely pointing out to everyone how your deductive and preconceived theology is impervious to the teachings of scripture and to logic.
godrulz said:
The bottom line for me is that sound exegesis (grammatical, contextual, historical, theological, literal, etc.) does not lend itself to a elect vs non-elect concept in light of explicit revelation of God and His ways.
When you admitted earlier,
"We would need to do a detailed study on this topic. I am not prepared to do so," you disqualified yourself from making such statements GR. When confronted with scripture that opposes your preconception, you beg off, and proceed to contradict Paul, who perspicuously states that individuals are elected to redemption in Christ.
godrulz said:
A few proof texts out of context are not persuasive to me.
How convenient. This is exactly the kind of answer I would expect from someone whose preconceived and deductive theology contradicts scripture. But, lest there be any question regarding the ubiquity of individual election in scripture (i.e. much much more than "a few proof texts"), have a look at these:
Ro 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. ["elect" here is plural, meaning a plurality of individuals]
Ro 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. [An individually chosen person]
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; ["elect" here is plural, meaning a plurality of individuals]
1Th 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. [Note the plural possessive pronoun, "your," denoting a plurality of individuals whom God elected]
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: [Note the plural pronoun put with "chosen you," denoting a plurality of individuals, i.e. "chosen you all.]
2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. [Individual election]
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [Note that "elect" here is plural, denoting the election of a plurality of individuals]
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; ["elect" here is plural, meaning a plurality of individuals]
I know, I know, your deductive and preconceived theology doesn't care. A whole pile of "prooftexts" will not be persuasive to you because of your deductive theology and preconceptions.
godrulz said:
God did predestine individuals to salvation (as opposed to objects, frogs, dogs, etc.).
What the? What are you talking about? There is no redemption for the sin of "objects, frogs, dogs, etc." That's probably the lamest attempt at obfuscation I've ever seen. It is godrulz' attempt to accommodate the scriptures that undermine his deductive theology and to eat his cake, too. But we all see through it. Lame. Totally lame.
godrulz said:
... He predestined that all who believe and respond to His drawing will become part of the people of God.
This is blatant equivocation. Please explain what is meant by "predestined." The scripture says it means to mark out or determine in advance.
godrulz said:
... Yes, individuals make up the group. The question is when this is settled? Is it in eternity in the mind of God before creation or is it as each person choses today whom they will serve? God's generic plan for the church and all individuals who will eventually become part of His people was settled in advance.
The text doesn't say that. It says that their choosing, their election, their redemption, were settled in advance; not merely a "generic plan." The specific works for each individual saint was foreordained (Eph 2:10).
godrulz said:
... Whether Tom, Dick, Harry, Mary, Sue, Betty believes or persists in unbelief is settled in real space time after they are born, not in the decrees before creation.
Not according to the scriptures cited above and elsewhere. The individual members of the Body of Christ were chosen before the foundation of the world, i.e. logically prior to God's decree to create (Eph 1:4).
godrulz said:
His plan of redemption is potentially efficacious for all men, but is only appropriated by some men.
That's not what the scriptures say, GR. It says He came to die for those whom the Father gave Him (Jn 6:38-40) and that He will not lose a single one.
godrulz said:
... It was intended for all, but not all receive Him.
All for whom it was intended will inexorably receive Him.
godrulz said:
... Your view makes God's love arbitrary and His redemption limited in scope (for the so-called frozen chosen elect in eternity).
God's love is indeed arbitrary, in the true sense of the word. It is impartial and completely arbitrary. Particular redemption makes God's love and sacrifice truly meaningful, effectual and sufficient. Whereas the Open-View co-Savior doctrine makes Jesus a salvation assistant.
godrulz said:
... It overstates God's will and negates the fact that God created significant others with a will (God is not the only being/factor in the universe...by His sovereign choice and decree, of course).
Straw man, GR. It's a lot easier to debate an imaginary opponent, isn't it?
godrulz said:
Relational theism trumps determinism/omnicasuality.
It also trumps the teaching of scripture, doesn't it?
godrulz said:
... Your view finds resonance with fatalistic Islam.
Straw man, GR. You don't know what you're talking about, obviously.
godrulz said:
... My view resonates with the general tenure of all of Scripture.
Um ... what? What is general tenure? How does something resonate with tenure? This is simply more Open-View smokescreen obfuscation.
godrulz said:
Of course we agree to disagree.
I don't agree to disagree. There is only one truth, GR, and one true interpretation of scripture. There are no viable alternative interpretations. So I refuse to "agree to disagree" with someone whose theology mangles the word of God and does violence to logic and language.
godrulz said:
Romans 9-11 is about the election of national Israel for service and bringing forth the Messiah.
Then why does Paul use all those plural pronouns referring to a plurality of individuals, GR?
godrulz said:
... The issue is not individual salvation or election/non-election (TULIP).
Sure it is, as demonstrated in lucid terms, namely, the plural pronouns. You can pound your pulpit as hard as you want, and scream it until you're cobalt-blue in the face, and it won't change the fact that the words of Scripture contradict your claims.
godrulz said:
... Sorry I cannot help you further. This is my dogmatic conviction.
Despite your expressed
"need to do a detailed study on this topic", and your blatant dodging (
"I am not prepared to do so,"), you have your "dogmatic conviction." Your "dogmatic conviction" is, admittedly, not informed by a detailed study on the topic. So where does it come from? It reminds me of the burning in the bosom that my Mormon visitors were telling me about.
godrulz said:
... You will have to continue to believe your ideas. I find †hem contrary to the context and the flow of Paul's general argument.
Correction: You find them contrary to your deductive theology and preconceptions. Paul's argument, general and specific, deal with the election of individuals.
GR, will you now agree with the pile of verses that teach that God predestinated individuals to redemption in Christ?