Do you believe in predestination ?

[Gary K]

There is some agreement with a few of your points here, but I've had to express clearly where we disagree and give scriptures for the disagreement. Please read these scriptures with me:

I disagree that such is 'true' love. Love? Whatever one does intending the well-being of another is love. The 'ability' to choose isn't anything really. Cognition is simply an appreciation, thus "we love, because He first loved us." It has every indication that He taught us how. This doesn't require nor need me to 'make a decision' as much as simply doing the thing required. It is a form of narcissism to think that God has to defer anything to you in order to 'be loved' or to 'love you.' It really and only strokes the ego but worse? Is describing the only way some of you understand love (with strings attached and not as purely as Agape' insists). You've a few scriptural directives to 'deny self' and to 'take up your cross and follow.' As such, this narcissistic reflection on self for choice and reciprocation makes us entirely too self-interested and self-focused for it to be any kind of Godly love. I'm convinced of this and have to say this strongly because it is immensely important:
Php 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition (narcissism self-centered-ness) or conceit, but in humility (other-centered, God-centered) count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
I don't believe you are correct here. Love does indeed compel (compulsion). Luke 14:23 The word is 'compel, no choice.' More scriptures to follow...


:nono: 1 John 4:19 Love isn't the exception, its the rule. It is expected. John continues simply to say, if you don't, you don't belong to God. Philippians 2 went as far as to say to esteem others better, more important, more significant. My kids are loved. I cannot demand love of them, BUT they do love because they were loved and this specifically taught them how. The choice stuff? :nono: Proverbs 22:6 Kids will love because 1) they were trained to do so and 2) because it is right. The 'choice' imho is self-serving and self-interested. It does bother me that Open Theists equate 'choice' as love. There is little truth to that statement and it is egocentric in conveyance. I wholly disagree that God had to give 'choice' and 'free will' in order for man to 'learn to love.' Adam and Eve loved well and beyond before their fall because they were made by a Loving Being "in His image." Love itself is lessened because of choice, not enhanced by any means. It is only when we lose ourselves that we find ourselves. Matthew 16:25 Luke 9:4 Love isn't found by 'choice' but by Love Himself. John 15:5


Imho, this also is why marriages fail for 1 in every 2 among Christians. Love is sacrifice.

Ric Cua echos Philippians with For the Love of God
"...Some days he might not like it, but he does it any way, for the love of God...."



I don't know what the hyper Calvinist believes concerning this :idunno:

Except one thing: Love is indeed power, it changes men and it is also compulsive. RATHER what I use to 'compel' my kids is on the table. What 'makes' us love is what is on the table. I totally argue: by love, I've been made to love. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15
So love can be 'compelling, influencing, pressing, instructive, constraining.'




:nono: This is reactionary and again self-centered in focus. This example rather shows what is in a man already. He isn't made to make a choice, nor is the comparison between mean and loving. I've been under both in school. How "I" responded had nothing to do with either teacher.


But you contrasted this with an example that talks of love as a response to two different stimuli. Such is simply rewarding good behavior, NOT teaching love. The Lord Jesus Christ told Peter "Satan, get behind me!" Harshness from God is 1) necessary and 2) coming from the definition of Love 1 John 4:8 We love and are loved so frailly, that we 1) don't grasp the height dept and breadth and 2) that we think God's love is the same way.


Luke 22:42 John 6:38 :think: A bad thing?


Agree. Philippians 2:4

It doesn't matter what kind of Calvinist or brand I am. All I'm interested in is what is biblical. The VERY first thing Calvinism affronted me with was 'dying to self' and me being 'less that I thought myself to be.' It was, indeed, an affront to self.

That simply must and has to be the first thing any future Calvinist will have to wrestle with: Carrying a cross of self. 2 Corinthians 5:17

I don't have the time to respond to this lengthy post. I will ask you one question that is very integral to your underlying thought though.

What was Jesus' mission with respect to His Father while Jesus was on earth?

 

[Lon]

What was Jesus' mission with respect to His Father while Jesus was on earth?

To seek and save what was lost, to do the will of His Father,
I have reservations that your one question can address my previous post, it is sad you have no time but I'll give the points for posterity. These are incredibly important discussion points that we all should be very interested in addressing. You may want to loosen your schedule:

My post:

1) Love does NOT require you to have a choice about it for it to be meaningful, JUST that you value the object and have been taught to value and love. A spoiled child that suddenly decides inconsistently to 'love me back' is the worse response of love, not the one that just does it because it is in their nature. <--Nature, no choice, who that one is. "Choice" would be love immaturity. Second-nature is when love has taken a hold of you and you do it better, stronger, more in line with the definition of Agape.

2) "Ability to choose differently" and "free - will" is narcissistic and self-interested thus an immature and less developed sense of love expressed by many 'leaders' of Open Theism who, being leaders, should have matured and known better than to teach this.

3) God isn't impressed with man's prideful offerings. An ability to 'freely' choose from an 'autonomous freewill man' is NOT love in its more mature forms.

4) Love DOES compel and influence and change people. "Against their wills?" :nono: That's why I'm a Calvinist. God doesn't just use feel-good sentiment to change us. Love made Saul Blind and turned tables. God can and does compel us. Some Open Theists do not understand that love is not defined on their terms, but on God's who is Love. It does not mean fuzzy feel good all the time and it is quite against the sentiment that God defers to us catering to our pride and arrogance and our limited scope of what love is or must be.

5) Most often, when we talk about wills, it is that which makes us self-important and prideful and somewhat reserved and hold-out from being Christ's. 1 Corinthians 6:20

6) The very first thing any new Calvinist will have to come to terms with, IS dying to self and a sudden attack on self-worth, self-esteem, and self-interest. Christ calls men to die to self.

7) Of course we have a sense of 'self' an identity, a will. I'm not denying that. RATHER I'm saying it is insignificant in light of these given scriptures and observations. I'm not saying we don't have a will. I'm saying real, true Christians usurp their own wills, and become His-willed. Our wills and love RATHER become meaningful NOT BY CHOOSING but by emulating and learning how by example of our Savior.

I guarantee this: The ONLY thing you can possibly like in me is ONLY whatever I reflect of my Savior. Not a choice, but HIS. Not a will, but subsumed in His. My love - His Love. John 15:5

 

[Gary K]

To seek and save what was lost, to do the will of His Father,
I have reservations that your one question can address my previous post, it is sad you have no time but I'll give the points for posterity. These are incredibly important discussion points that we all should be very interested in addressing. You may want to loosen your schedule:

My post:

1) Love does NOT require you to have a choice about it for it to be meaningful, JUST that you value the object and have been taught to value and love. A spoiled child that suddenly decides inconsistently to 'love me back' is the worse response of love, not the one that just does it because it is in their nature. <--Nature, no choice, who that one is. "Choice" would be love immaturity. Second-nature is when love has taken a hold of you and you do it better, stronger, more in line with the definition of Agape.

2) "Ability to choose differently" and "free - will" is narcissistic and self-interested thus an immature and less developed sense of love expressed by many 'leaders' of Open Theism who, being leaders, should have matured and known better than to teach this.

3) God isn't impressed with man's prideful offerings. An ability to 'freely' choose from an 'autonomous freewill man' is NOT love in its more mature forms.

4) Love DOES compel and influence and change people. "Against their wills?" :nono: That's why I'm a Calvinist. God doesn't just use feel-good sentiment to change us. Love made Saul Blind and turned tables. God can and does compel us. Some Open Theists do not understand that love is not defined on their terms, but on God's who is Love. It does not mean fuzzy feel good all the time and it is quite against the sentiment that God defers to us catering to our pride and arrogance and our limited scope of what love is or must be.

5) Most often, when we talk about wills, it is that which makes us self-important and prideful and somewhat reserved and hold-out from being Christ's. 1 Corinthians 6:20

6) The very first thing any new Calvinist will have to come to terms with, IS dying to self and a sudden attack on self-worth, self-esteem, and self-interest. Christ calls men to die to self.

7) Of course we have a sense of 'self' an identity, a will. I'm not denying that. RATHER I'm saying it is insignificant in light of these given scriptures and observations. I'm not saying we don't have a will. I'm saying real, true Christians usurp their own wills, and become His-willed. Our wills and love RATHER become meaningful NOT BY CHOOSING but by emulating and learning how by example of our Savior.

I guarantee this: The ONLY thing you can possibly like in me is ONLY whatever I reflect of my Savior. Not a choice, but HIS. Not a will, but subsumed in His. My love - His Love. John 15:5

We have a huge chasm between our underlying paradigms. As such we will have an extremely hard time not talking past each other for we will understand the evidence of scripture much, much differently. The way I see it our fundamental biases are almost as far apart as evolutionists and creationists in how we view the evidence of scripture and how we each view our heavenly Father. Now, the fundamental biases of the evolutionist and the creationist go to whether scripture is true or not. We both seem to accept scripture as true, but our views of God seem to be polar opposites. That's a lot to overcome.

What about opening another thread for just this discussion as it will go far afield from predestination? Is that OK with you? Or would you rather just start this discussion here?

I do see one thing we can agree on. It is only what you see in me of my heavenly Father that is likable. In that we are alike.

 

[Lon]

We have a huge chasm between our underlying paradigms. As such we will have an extremely hard time not talking past each other for we will understand the evidence of scripture much, much differently. The way I see it our fundamental biases are almost as far apart as evolutionists and creationists in how we view the evidence of scripture and how we each view our heavenly Father. Now, the fundamental biases of the evolutionist and the creationist go to whether scripture is true or not. We both seem to accept scripture as true, but our views of God seem to be polar opposites. That's a lot to overcome.

What about opening another thread for just this discussion as it will go far afield from predestination? Is that OK with you? Or would you rather just start this discussion here?

I do see one thing we can agree on. It is only what you see in me of my heavenly Father that is likable. In that we are alike.

Agreed on all three. Would you like to start it and let me know when you've gotten it set up? Thank you. -Lon

 

[Gary K]

Agreed on all three. Would you like to start it and let me know when you've gotten it set up? Thank you. -Lon

Will do. I need a little time to figure out how exactly to start the conversation but I'll be working on how to approach this.

 

[Lon]

Will do. I need a little time to figure out how exactly to start the conversation but I'll be working on how to approach this.

Here is a suggestion:

Matthew 6:10,24;10:37;16:24,25;22:37


Luke 22:42


John 12:24,25


Romans 12:1
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
1 Corinthians 15:30-49


2 Corinthians 5:9,10,17


Philippians 2:4


Psalm 40:8

Which of these scriptures apply to you and or your theology perspective?

(These will apply even to MAD and Open Theists, I believe).

If even one of these apply, do we actually have a huge chasm between our scriptural paradigms?

Is there a cognitive dissension between how these scriptures apply and change us, and how we should reckon ourselves, vs. how we think, and behave every day?

Do we own ourselves, or are we owned?

How much is 'self-will' (will or freewill) involved and or exercised when one is not their own?

These may or may not help start the thread. You could definitely cut/paste and start the first post with this and your response as well.

In Him -Lon

 

[Gary K]

Matthew 6:10,24;10:37;16:24,25;22:37


Luke 22:42


John 12:24,25


Romans 12:1
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
1 Corinthians 15:30-49


2 Corinthians 5:9,10,17


Philippians 2:4


Psalm 40:8

Which of these scriptures apply to you and or your theology perspective?

(These will apply even to MAD and Open Theists, I believe).

If even one of these apply, do we actually have a huge chasm between our scriptural paradigms?

Is there a cognitive dissension between how these scriptures apply and change us, and how we should reckon ourselves, vs. how we think, and behave every day?

Do we own ourselves, or are we owned?

How much is 'self-will' (will or freewill) involved and or exercised when one is not their own?

I was thinking of a different approach. One in which we explore our personal philosophical differences for it is in that area where our paradigms of viewing scripture originate. We can look at scripture all day long and only become more and more confirmed in the idea that the other person is set on misunderstanding scripture as our philosophical foundations cause us to come to completely different interpretations of scripture.

I think first of all we need to actually get to know each other for that will give context to our individual paradigms and how and where they come from.

Sound good to you?

 

[Lon]

I was thinking of a different approach. One in which we explore our personal philosophical differences for it is in that area where our paradigms of viewing scripture originate. We can look at scripture all day long and only become more and more confirmed in the idea that the other person is set on misunderstanding scripture as our philosophical foundations cause us to come to completely different interpretations of scripture.

I think first of all we need to actually get to know each other for that will give context to our individual paradigms and how and where they come from.

Sound good to you?

I've done this with Open Theists in the past (not very long-lived threads).
I've a BA in Bible from Multnomah but have traversed toward Reformed theology, was challenged with Calvinism, became more Amyraldian, then when discussing topics with Open Theists, I've embraced TULIP with some differences how I describe each. I've gone on in other academic pursuits but have kept my BA and study up to date.

I do, in fact, believe these scriptures would settle issues rather quickly. Even MAD and Open Theists recognize Pauline scriptures applying directly to them, thus a living sacrifice is their paradigm. I've no idea where you come from. I do embrace the Reformed position on enjoying God and the life He has given, fully, but I very much believe we need to redeem the time because the days are evil. It means, very much recognizing we are not our own, bought with a price, and that we live, not only to please ourselves, nor without impacting this world with the gospel. There is really no point otherwise. I love my family, but my goal is seeing them love Christ. I have a strict line and observance of Christian hedonism principles: "Yes, AS I follow Christ." Its about that simple and I do hold others to the same expectation of the biblical standard.

Does such involve this thread? Insomuch as Christ calling the shots of our lives, yes. This discussion certainly does, but you are still free to start the other thread.

In Him -Lon

 

[Gary K]

I'm a mid sixties boomer. I grew up in a highly religious home that had very little Christianity in it. We were a very dysfunctional family in which I was the one which all the other family members took all their frustrations and anger out on. So, I grew up very alone as I got no support from my family. They considered me a worthless individual from a very young age. I was irretrievably broken in their eyes.

I ended up being abused in any way you can think of. As a result of that after I graduated from high school I set out intentionally to destroy myself with drugs. I didn't want to remember all that crap any more. I wanted all the pain of rejection gone and I knew drugs would kill my brain functions so I set out to destroy them. I worked at it for almost a decade and then God interceded in my life.

I was really burnt out by the time He got my attention. I couldn't even hold down a job pushing a broom. Yet He knew there was something still worth salvaging in me and He drew me to Him. At first I'd walk out under the stars at night and speak to Him aloud asking if He really was there and if He loved me. I would ask Him if I was worth anything at all because my entire life I'd been told I was a useless worthless piece of something that comes out of the south end of a northbound horse. I was so far down I could only look up. I couldn't get any lower.

He touched me though and made me whole. He performed miracles in my life. He took away my addiction. Where I hadn't been able to live a day without drugs He took the desire to get high out of me. He replaced it with the desire to know Him. I didn't become an overnight success. It took me years to understand all I had gone through and how God had literally carried me through those years and how He had drawn me to Him. He has continued drawing me and teaching me about Him and about me. For someone who once knew nothing about himself and had no idea that I had any worth at all, He has led me to understand that I have value, that He has a plan for my life, and that all I went through had a purpose. And that purpose was to teach me just how evil sin is, and how much power it exerts over us. He has also taught me that He is far more powerful than sin. That if we will just surrender ourselves to Him He can recreate His image in us once again in the here and now.

I hated what I went through growing up. I was pretty angry with God for not doing what I thought He should have done. Yet today I am grateful for all I went through because God has used those experiences to teach me life lessons and spiritual lessons I could have learned in no other way. The faith He has given me in Him along the way I don't see in many other people. That's not trying to say I'm something special. I'm not. I just had to go through so much that the only way to survive a lot of times was just to hold onto Him and His promises in the Bible with everything I had in me. And that taught me that God is one hundred percent trustworthy. For me to see God that way is very amazing for I trust humanity very little. It has let me down so many times I've lost count. We often see God as we have seen our earthly fathers. I see God's goodness, love, and caring despite my earthly father. I see that as no minor miracle.

It is God who has taught me what a father is, and is supposed to be for my earthly father had no use for me whatsoever. In my mid twenties, after I met Jesus, I wrote him a letter and and recounted what had gone on between us for all those years and said he and I needed to talk those things over. I told him the way things were from my side of the fence and that although I didn't trust, love, or respect him that I wanted to, but the only way that could be accomplished was for us to discuss all those years. His answer? Forget it. I'm not talking to you about anything.

With David I can truly say that God lifted me out of a pit made of miry clay, set my feet upon the Rock, and established my goings. He has taught me the meanings of self respect, self discipline, love and respect, admiration, love, and plain old awe of God. His goodness, mercy, and lovingkindness are off the charts they are so great. So is His love of justice. I trust Him in everything, not because I am that way by nature, but because He has proven Himself to be that trustworthy to me. He has never let me down.

Anyway, that's the basis of the paradigm through which I see God and read the Bible. I see revealed in scripture, and have proven to myself through the experience of hanging on to God's promises until it hurt that He is a God of love who truly says to us, Come, let us reason together. Though your life of sin be be scarlet it can be white as snow, and though it be red like crimson it can be as wool. God has reasoned, taught, and led me through the very shadow of the valley of death. I fear no evil as a result of the education, love, and experience with Him He has given me. Come what may, I know I can trust God and His word.

 

[Lon]

... basis of the paradigm through which I see God and read the Bible. I see revealed in scripture, and have proven to myself through the experience of hanging on to God's promises until it hurt that He is a God of love who truly says to us, Come, let us reason together. Though your life of sin be be scarlet it can be white as snow, and though it be red like crimson it can be as wool. God has reasoned, taught, and led me through the very shadow of the valley of death. I fear no evil as a result of the education, love, and experience with Him He has given me. Come what may, I know I can trust God and His word.

Very meaningful. I don't believe this reflects poorly on our understandings. Our appreciations? Yes, I think so, because the difference here (no difference really, I relate, though without the drugs and God found me much earlier in life). Paul said he became all things to all people. Christ, knowing us intimately, definitely knows and caters to our differences. For some, they ran to him dropping their fishing nets to follow Him. Others, like Paul, had to be struck blind.

When I talk about us, being conformed to His image, I'm totally on the side of everyone in their walk, where they happen to be. What I'm rather arguing for is that these all move on to maturity in love and in Christ. When I've seen people love me, I've come to recognize over and over and over, it is when I'm sacrificing, when I'm dying to self and being more like Christ, that I'm loved. Is this the goal? Sort of, I do enjoy love but not only for my sake, but for His, and theirs. It is an embrace that the more we are in, the more we get the self-centered accolades, but the less it matters because we are inside of the experience.

It's hard to explain, so is taking up our cross and dying daily, or recognizing 'we are not our own, we were bought with a price.' It is a full-affront and attack on self, but Christ said, "he who would lose himself(life), will find himself (life)." It is something that absorbs us, and saturates, and all that it is, is Him. We get lost in the Savior, then find what we are supposed to be. He doesn't call us slaves, but slaves we are John 15:15, He calls us friend (as your story here beautifully illustrates). Both are true, not either or. We are a slave to 'love' and 'goodness' and 'joy' etc. It's an easy burden and a light yoke. We are 'predestined' for it (on the thread premise).

The one complaint I see most is that 'you Calvinists are robots and make the rest of us robots.' It isn't just robots, its slaves. "Yes, yes we do. The best kind."

Freewill and 'me-ism' is what got us in this mess originally. There is a real fear in losing oneself Matthew 6:25;10:39;16:24-28 It becomes a leap, and trust abandonment. We are all at different stages in our understanding of love, and so it truly doesn't matter where one is at, just that we are doing as Paul says Ephesians 3:18 that we pursue knowing the height, depth, and breadth of God's love, which is beyond those measures.

For me, it hurts not at all if God totally planned it all out because it 'cannot' go against love, regardless. It took me a long time, reading through the O.T. to grasp this. I yet don't grasp 'how a loving God...' but I stopped questioning, like you, that He is a loving God. It simply means I 1) have to realize I'm the one that needs to grow into His definition of Love, for He is Love 1 John 4:8;1:5 I'm the one who needs to move. God certainly moves to us, but I've seen to many who have walked away who thought God never moved to them, and so, in their disappointment, they decided somehow He doesn't exist. That's a poor grasp of love and self-serving. They never grasped Him in the first place. All I know of love. Real true actual agape love, I've learned from God. By comparison, it'd be ridiculous for me to say God doesn't exist. Everything I know about real love, comes from Him. I know you agree so our paradigms are not that far apart, we are just focusing rather on the difference between God moving closer, and us moving closer at this point (I think, as far as I can tell).

Thank you again for sharing your testimony and journey here. It is very meaningful.

In Christ -Lon

 

[Pierac]

This is the million dollar question. Most in mans religions dont believe in this doctrine, or they believe it in a man centered way that deny the Sovereignty of God, but nevertheless its a Salvation Doctrine. In a book and chapter primarily about Salvation Paul writes Eph 1:3-6

[FONT=&]3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Rom 8:28-30

[/FONT]
[FONT=&]28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Theres no word of Salvation without predestination.[/FONT]

Your asking the wrong question... You first must understand Salvation!

Is Salvation limited to the 1000 year reign of our Christ? Or does it go past when our Lord and King gives up the kingdom?


THE END>>>
1Co 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Before the END>>
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

Then... what does this mean???
Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

1Ti 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.


Predestined for what? 1000 years? or is there more for the love of GOD? :idunno:

Predestination is real... but are you following the teachings of men... in it's understanding?

You would do well in reading Paul

1Co 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

Perhaps Predestination is but a part?

Seek out others who also know in part with whom you disagree... then slowly you may gather more than your own part? But I believe we as seekers will never know the whole!

Gods speed in your search!
:sherlock:oly:
Paul

 

[Gary K]

Very meaningful. I don't believe this reflects poorly on our understandings. Our appreciations? Yes, I think so, because the difference here (no difference really, I relate, though without the drugs and God found me much earlier in life). Paul said he became all things to all people. Christ, knowing us intimately, definitely knows and caters to our differences. For some, they ran to him dropping their fishing nets to follow Him. Others, like Paul, had to be struck blind.

When I talk about us, being conformed to His image, I'm totally on the side of everyone in their walk, where they happen to be. What I'm rather arguing for is that these all move on to maturity in love and in Christ. When I've seen people love me, I've come to recognize over and over and over, it is when I'm sacrificing, when I'm dying to self and being more like Christ, that I'm loved. Is this the goal? Sort of, I do enjoy love but not only for my sake, but for His, and theirs. It is an embrace that the more we are in, the more we get the self-centered accolades, but the less it matters because we are inside of the experience.

It's hard to explain, so is taking up our cross and dying daily, or recognizing 'we are not our own, we were bought with a price.' It is a full-affront and attack on self, but Christ said, "he who would lose himself(life), will find himself (life)." It is something that absorbs us, and saturates, and all that it is, is Him. We get lost in the Savior, then find what we are supposed to be. He doesn't call us slaves, but slaves we are John 15:15, He calls us friend (as your story here beautifully illustrates). Both are true, not either or. We are a slave to 'love' and 'goodness' and 'joy' etc. It's an easy burden and a light yoke. We are 'predestined' for it (on the thread premise).

The one complaint I see most is that 'you Calvinists are robots and make the rest of us robots.' It isn't just robots, its slaves. "Yes, yes we do. The best kind."

Freewill and 'me-ism' is what got us in this mess originally. There is a real fear in losing oneself Matthew 6:25;10:39;16:24-28 It becomes a leap, and trust abandonment. We are all at different stages in our understanding of love, and so it truly doesn't matter where one is at, just that we are doing as Paul says Ephesians 3:18 that we pursue knowing the height, depth, and breadth of God's love, which is beyond those measures.

For me, it hurts not at all if God totally planned it all out because it 'cannot' go against love, regardless. It took me a long time, reading through the O.T. to grasp this. I yet don't grasp 'how a loving God...' but I stopped questioning, like you, that He is a loving God. It simply means I 1) have to realize I'm the one that needs to grow into His definition of Love, for He is Love 1 John 4:8;1:5 I'm the one who needs to move. God certainly moves to us, but I've seen to many who have walked away who thought God never moved to them, and so, in their disappointment, they decided somehow He doesn't exist. That's a poor grasp of love and self-serving. They never grasped Him in the first place. All I know of love. Real true actual agape love, I've learned from God. By comparison, it'd be ridiculous for me to say God doesn't exist. Everything I know about real love, comes from Him. I know you agree so our paradigms are not that far apart, we are just focusing rather on the difference between God moving closer, and us moving closer at this point (I think, as far as I can tell).

Thank you again for sharing your testimony and journey here. It is very meaningful.

In Christ -Lon

Thanks for the kind words. I'll only comment on what I bolded as we are for the most part agreed on the rest of your post.

So, because sin came into existence God changed and decided He had made a mistake in granting the power of choice to humanity? Huh? God tells us explicitly that He changes not. Malachi 3:6

As to what I bolded, I have a question to ask you. You say your desire is to be like Jesus. Jesus is the God of the OT as He said that He is the I AM. The NT tells us that He is our Creator. Now my question to you is this: As you say Jesus created the majority of people on earth only for the purpose of destroying them, which of your children will you destroy as becoming like Jesus, from your point of view, is to become like someone who "fathers"(creates) only so He can destroy. You call that unfathomable love, so are you going to follow that picture/example of unfathomable love?

From my paradigm of God I do not have that problem. I can become completely like Jesus and never have to worry about destroying a child, friend, family member, fellow human being, etc... as a result of being like Jesus. You do for that view of Jesus is baked inherently into your theology, and theology is nothing more than how we conceive of/picture who God is.

This is where our paradigms separate. I cannot see my Friend, Savior, and Lord creating only to destroy. I've been through hell on earth, but that was not because God ordained that. It's because this world is ruled by the cruelest, most despicable being to ever exist. He loves to destroy, to watch we humans suffer. It is foundational to his character ruled by hatred. And yet you equate his character with God's by saying God creates only to watch His children suffer, die, undergo torture, etc... as expressions of His will for them. That's not God's will for those people. It's a result of sin, and the Bible clearly tells us that God is not the author of sin.

Oh yeah, I know you point to one text text. Isaiah 45:7 Strong's concordance says this about the underlying Hebrew word.

07451H7451 רעה רעra‛ râ‛âhrah raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity affliction bad calamity + displease (-ure) distress evil ([-favouredness] man thing) + exceedingly × great grief (-vous) harm heavy hurt (-ful) ill (favoured) + mark mischief (-vous) misery naught (-ty) noisome + not please sad (-ly) sore sorrow trouble vex wicked (-ly -ness one) worse (-st) wretchedness wrong. [Including feminine ra´ ah; as adjective or noun.]

Therefore evil in this instance does not require the text to be read as God creates moral evil. It can be truthfully read the other way. The problem with your interpretation of it is that it conflicts with what the rest of the Bible says about God and His character. God is graciousness, loving, kind, generous, merciful, just, righteous, etc... all of which are mutually exclusive of evil. This means that to insist on the text meaning moral evil is a violation of the laws of logic as mutually exclusive ideas can not both be true at the same time. To me, the only rational reading of the text must agree with the rest of the descriptions of God's character. One example of that is the drought that Elijah pronounced during the reign of Ahab. There are all kinds of examples of that kind of evil used by God to punish/teach/discipline His people throughout the Bible. I can think of no scriptural evidence of God making His people act with evil intentions, or in other words, authoring sin.

 

[Right Divider]

So, because sin came into existence God changed and decided He had made a mistake in granting the power of choice to humanity? Huh? God tells us explicitly that He changes not. Malachi 3:6

Context? In what WAY does the LORD not change?

Mal 3:6 KJV For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.​

There is a SPECIFIC context there and not a universal "God does not change" idea that can be applied to anything that you choose.

Read a little more and you will know that God is talking about keeping His promises.

Mal 3:7-12 KJV Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? (8) Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. (9) Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. (10) Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (11) And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts. (12) And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.​

 

[beloved57]

Your asking the wrong question... You first must understand Salvation!

Is Salvation limited to the 1000 year reign of our Christ? Or does it go past when our Lord and King gives up the kingdom?


THE END>>>
1Co 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Before the END>>
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

Then... what does this mean???
Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

1Ti 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.


Predestined for what? 1000 years? or is there more for the love of GOD? :idunno:

Predestination is real... but are you following the teachings of men... in it's understanding?

You would do well in reading Paul

1Co 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

Perhaps Predestination is but a part?

Seek out others who also know in part with whom you disagree... then slowly you may gather more than your own part? But I believe we as seekers will never know the whole!

Gods speed in your search!
:sherlock:oly:
Paul

Huh? I don't know what you talking about.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

Thanks for the kind words. I'll only comment on what I bolded as we are for the most part agreed on the rest of your post.

So, because sin came into existence God changed and decided He had made a mistake in granting the power of choice to humanity? Huh? God tells us explicitly that He changes not. Malachi 3:6

:nono: "Man" changed. God did not. "Granting the power of choice to humanity" is nothing I believe or would say. Rather, I'd say we gained choice, not by God's plan, but by the Serpent's lie where there was a conflict between doing only what God wanted, and THEN what the serpent wanted against God. Thus, I believe free will is the result and always the contrast between where we fell and where we are supposed to be. The choice of ice cream flavors? Inconsequential. Surely God made my tastebuds this way. Do I care? :nono: Not at all. It doesn't make me a robot OR it makes me the best kind. I've no problem whatsoever with God's determination and destinations for me.

As to what I bolded, I have a question to ask you. You say your desire is to be like Jesus. Jesus is the God of the OT as He said that He is the I AM. The NT tells us that He is our Creator. Now my question to you is this: As you say Jesus created the majority of people on earth only for the purpose of destroying them, which of your children will you destroy as becoming like Jesus, from your point of view, is to become like someone who "fathers"(creates) only so He can destroy. You call that unfathomable love, so are you going to follow that picture/example of unfathomable love?

1) I'm not God. Being 'like' Him as His creation has to be constrained only to what He expects of me as His child and creation, so no to your question (If I'm reading you right).
2) I have admitted already that some things don't 'look' loving in the O.T. That doesn't mean they weren't, but it does mean I'm once again, not God nor have His knowledge or righteousness. He is light as John tells us, with NO darkness at all. What it means is again "No" as I understand your question because I don't have the knowledge of God. Unless and until God demands you or I sacrifice our child on the altar, we shouldn't do so. There is no "Go and do likewise" instruction.
3) The O.T. was written for a specific people and they received those instructions. The N.T. is written to gentiles as well.
Because of this, "No" again, because we are not under the law and its consequences. Being a servant doesn't require it.

From my paradigm of God I do not have that problem.

Nor I, albeit for different reasons as you proceed...

I can become completely like Jesus and never have to worry about destroying a child, friend, family member, fellow human being, etc... as a result of being like Jesus. You do for that view of Jesus is baked inherently into your theology, and theology is nothing more than how we conceive of/picture who God is.

:nono: Not only are we new creations with new desires, be ALSO have God working on us to make us into His image. Ephesians 2:10. Paul said "Not that I've already attained it, but this I do, forgetting all else, I strive to reach the prize which is the high calling of God." Are you saying here, that you've already reached, already attained? :think:

I'm not. I'm with Paul in reaching for the prize.

This is where our paradigms separate.

No. "If" as you say, you are already like Christ and have attained the prize, then you are already doing all things for His glory, thus already a happy slave of Christ. Colossians 3:17. It isn't a paradigm shift, just that you've arrived and are already doing everything and are completely able to walk without satisfying the desires of the flesh. That's great! I'm on my way and more every day. For me? 1 John 3:2 That's when. So, if we are reading each other correctly, you are just ahead of me, not saying something different, correct?

I cannot see my Friend, Savior, and Lord creating only to destroy.

He doesn't. Again, this isn't a paradigm shift. For me, the parable of the wheat and tares is problem: The enemy sowed bad seed (men and women) among the good. The problem is most people think nonChristians shouldn't be treated as weeds AND that God cannot discern weeds from wheat, because some of their friends and family look like 'good weeds.' This is all second-guessing God. I've no idea other than what I read in scripture. I'll have to wait at the end of time when sheep are separated from goats, and wheat and tares are bundled separately. The Lord, with you, is concerned that no wheat that may look 'weedy' gets harmed. He is unwilling that any should be lost and He is unwilling to lose any. That's not much to go on, but it is genuinely enough for me. These are God's and His alone, even, as you mention, my kids. They are not 'my' kids, but His or not. They are on loan to me. I better do a good job with what I've become the steward of. He lets the rain fall on the just and the unjust.

I've been through hell on earth, but that was not because God ordained that.

I've had a very harsh childhood as well. Why not? He ordained such for Job. Are you more special? More precious than Job? Me? Ordained doesn't mean 'desired for us.' Rather "all things working for good for those who love Him" is what ordained means. He didn't desire us to be among weeds. You and I grew up among so many weeds, that section should have been destroyed to save the rest of the wheat. Why didn't He? Because, according to the story, He is concerned lest one of His own should fall and be lost. Are you correct in saying God didn't ordain? No. You are correct in saying "Didn't desire" but God did ordain Job's trial and affliction. Why? We are not told why God allowed Satan to thresh Job. It couldn't have been to appease Satan, nor because He had no love for Job. Job was chosen by God because of his love. Threshing was chosen to prove it real. Throwing stinky fertilizer on wheat doesn't 'seem' loving at first glimpse. For me, I've just stopped and continue to try and stop second-guessing God. Things aren't what they first appear to be, and I've often been wrong like Job's well-meaning friends (God loved them too, just rebuked them/corrected them).

It's because this world is ruled by the cruelest, most despicable being to ever exist. He loves to destroy, to watch we humans suffer. It is foundational to his character ruled by hatred. And yet you equate his character with God's by saying God creates only to watch His children suffer, die, undergo torture, etc... as expressions of His will for them. That's not God's will for those people. It's a result of sin, and the Bible clearly tells us that God is not the author of sin.

Perhaps this will help: Not all Calvinists are the same. I agree with you on this for the most part (Christ crushed Satan, and God promises to crush him for us also).

Oh yeah, I know you point to one text text. Isaiah 45:7 Strong's concordance says this about the underlying Hebrew word.

Therefore evil in this instance does not require the text to be read as God creates moral evil. It can be truthfully read the other way. The problem with your interpretation of it is that it conflicts with what the rest of the Bible says about God and His character. God is graciousness, loving, kind, generous, merciful, just, righteous, etc... all of which are mutually exclusive of evil. This means that to insist on the text meaning moral evil is a violation of the laws of logic as mutually exclusive ideas can not both be true at the same time. To me, the only rational reading of the text must agree with the rest of the descriptions of God's character. One example of that is the drought that Elijah pronounced during the reign of Ahab. There are all kinds of examples of that kind of evil used by God to punish/teach/discipline His people throughout the Bible. I can think of no scriptural evidence of God making His people act with evil intentions, or in other words, authoring sin.

Agreed here as well. Realize (perhaps) that not all Calvinists agree on this. When we are talking about paradigm shifts, I think we are seeing things fairly the same. As I said previously, whatever stage we are in, regarding our understanding, I'm okay with that. Some Unitarians will become Triune (Trinitarian). As far as Calvinist or non? I've the same love for both and have fellowshipped with both. I simply see some denominations/theologies as several steps behind in their own discovering the Height, Depth, and Breadth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ephesians 3:18 (3:19,20 says 'beyond ability to discover').

 

[Gary K]

We are right at the same point we started with. I gave you where and how my paradigm for reading the scriptures came into existence. You gave me yours, but it seems not to come from personal experience, but has been taught to you by other people. Who taught you this paradigm? Who taught you determinism and convinced you that it is the true state of humanity? I'd be really interested to hear how that belief came into being.


I don't understand why you think God changed after the fall. The Bible tells us three different times that He does not change. Period.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
[SIZE=+1]14[/SIZE] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
[SIZE=+1]15[/SIZE] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
[SIZE=+1]16[/SIZE] Do not err, my beloved brethren.
[SIZE=+1]17[/SIZE] Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Hebrews 11:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

The Greek, for yesterday in Hebrews 8:11, according to Strong's means in times past. So Jesus is the same today as He has always been in the past and will continue to be in the future. As He is God scripture is telling us that God has never, and will never, be different than He is today. Meaning that He has dealt, now deals, and will ever deal, with humanity in the same exact way.

And in Malachi 3:6.

 

[Right Divider]

The Greek, for yesterday in Hebrews 8:11, according to Strong's means in times past. So Jesus is the same today as He has always been in the past and will continue to be in the future. As He is God scripture is telling us that God has never, and will never, be different than He is today. Meaning that He has dealt, now deals, and will ever deal, with humanity in the same exact way.

And in Malachi 3:6.

Continuing to abuse the scripture: https://theologyonline.com/showthre...lieve-in-predestination&p=5350990#post5350990

 

[Gary K]

Context? In what WAY does the LORD not change?

Mal 3:6 KJV For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.​

There is a SPECIFIC context there and not a universal "God does not change" idea that can be applied to anything that you choose.

Read a little more and you will know that God is talking about keeping His promises.

Mal 3:7-12 KJV Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? (8) Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. (9) Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. (10) Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (11) And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts. (12) And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.​

Yup, there is a specific context to Malachi 3:6 and it has to do with verses 1-5 where God speaks through Malachi about how he will purify His people. He says it will be like the refiner's fire and fuller's soap. Both a refiners fire and a fuller's soap cleanse. A refiners fire burns out the impurities. A fuller in those days trampled the dirt and stains out of woolen cloth by trampling the cloth into a specific type of clay. The word "for" at the beginning of verse 6 is used a conjunction between verse 6 and verses 1-5. Because could also be used without changing the meaning of the text. So the meaning of the entire passage has to do with God not changing the way he deals with the sinfulness of man. And because He doesn't change He is still treating us the same way and has not destroyed us all for our sinfulness.

The first five verses are a reference to the book of Deuteronomy with it's blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience and God's promises there to cleanse the Israelites from evil if they would allow Him to circumcise their hearts and obey Him. It's because of what is written there that God was still working with the nation of Israel. He doesn't change. He keeps his word. And when the Jews finally rebelled to the point of killing the Son of God they passed the limits of divine forbearance just like was prophesied in Deuteronomy where God told them there was a limit to how far He would forgive their rebellion.

Jesus told them the results of their behavior in the parable of the absentee landlord (Mark 12) whose servants had been killed one after another by his tenants. The absentee landlord said he'd try one last time because surely his tenants would respect his son. Instead the servants decided that if they killed the son they would then own the vineyard. Jesus told them that the result of the son's death would be the destruction of the tenants and their removal from the vineyard and that the vineyard would be given to other people. This is the same thing foretold in Deuteronomy. God said there that if the Isrealites followed a path of repeated rebellion that led them ever further into sin that He would destroy them as a nation. They reached that point with the death of Jesus. The object lesson of the destruction of the nation of Israel and the ten tribes because of their rebellion against God had not been learned by the Jews.

God didn't change one iota. His people moved away from Him further and further until He finally said, you are no longer my people. Jesus told the Jews, your house, the temple, is left unto you desolate. How could it be desolate while the Jews were still using it? Because God had removed His presence from the temple.

Besides Malachi 3:6 there are other verses in the Bible that tell us that God does not change. James tells us that there is no variableness nor shadow of turning with God. Hebrews tells us that Jesus, who is God, is the same today as He was in times past and will be in the future.

 

[Gary K]

Continuing to abuse the scripture: https://theologyonline.com/showthre...lieve-in-predestination&p=5350990#post5350990

No. Just continuing to disagree with your interpretation of scripture. I do not accept the MAD theology as valid.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Just continuing to disagree with your interpretation of scripture. I do not accept the MAD theology as valid.

This had nothing to with "MAD theology", but bashers gotta bash.