ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Rosenritter]

Yes, but also applies to any sort of Supreme Being.

There is a lot of variety in ideas and stories of supreme being(s). Best not to make assumptions at this point?

 

[MennoSota]

Yes.

Since the entire context of "choosing good and evil" is within the scriptural context, may I use a scriptural example? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both Cain and Abel had the same understanding of God and the world around them as one another? One chose anger and murder, the other was slain and declared righteous.

Ezekiel 33 also has a very relevant section: the righteous that turns from his way shall perish, but the wicked that turns from his way shall live. It is possible for one who is righteous to change and choose evil, and it is possible for one who is wicked to change and choose righteousness.

Ezekiel 33:14-16 KJV
(14) Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
(15) If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
(16) None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Ezekiel 33 is not speaking about eternal life. Thus, Arminians have taken yet another passage out of context in order to build a house of cards.

 

[7djengo7]

Yes,

All right, then.

but also applies to any sort of Supreme Being.

This last bit that you wrote I do not understand. The phrase, "any sort of Supreme Being", is nonsensical, so far as I can tell.

Anyway, you tell us that, when you say "I don't know that God exists," you are referring, by the word 'God', to the same thing to which Christians are referring, by the word 'God', when we say (for instance) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Now, to what (or, better, to Whom) exactly, are we referring by the word 'God'? We are referring to the eternally existing, personal Creator of mankind. So, when Christians say "God exists", what we are saying is that

"God exists."
"[The eternally existing, personal Creator of mankind] exists."

Now, since He about Whom we are talking is eternally existent, it is necessarily the case that He exists. He can't, of course, eternally exist without existing. When we say that God exists, we are saying that the personal, existent Creator of mankind exists:

"God exists."
"[The personal, existent Creator of mankind] exists."

We are affirming a tautology, and so, what we are affirming is necessarily true. But, as you have admitted, you--when you say "I don't know that God exists"--are referring, by the word 'God', to Him to Whom Christians are referring by the word 'God', when we say "I/we know that God exists".

So, here is what you are saying:

"I don't know that God exists."
"I don't know that [the personal, existent Creator of mankind] exists."

So, you are pretending not to know this proposition which is tautological; that is, you are pretending not to know a necessarily true proposition.

It's a similar story for those who like to go about saying, "God does not exist." So long as they are referring to Him to Whom Christians are referring by the word, 'God', they are pretending to deny a tautology--they are pretending to deny what is necessarily true:

"God does not exist."
"[The personal Creator of mankind Who exists] does not exist."

And, such pretense is abject irrationality.

 

[Winston Smith]

All right, then.



This last bit that you wrote I do not understand. The phrase, "any sort of Supreme Being", is nonsensical, so far as I can tell.

Anyway, you tell us that, when you say "I don't know that God exists," you are referring, by the word 'God', to the same thing to which Christians are referring, by the word 'God', when we say (for instance) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Now, to what (or, better, to Whom) exactly, are we referring by the word 'God'? We are referring to the eternally existing, personal Creator of mankind. So, when Christians say "God exists", what we are saying is that



Now, since He about Whom we are talking is eternally existent, it is necessarily the case that He exists. He can't, of course, eternally exist without existing. When we say that God exists, we are saying that the personal, existent Creator of mankind exists:



We are affirming a tautology, and so, what we are affirming is necessarily true. But, as you have admitted, you--when you say "I don't know that God exists"--are referring, by the word 'God', to Him to Whom Christians are referring by the word 'God', when we say "I/we know that God exists".

So, here is what you are saying:



So, you are pretending not to know this proposition which is tautological; that is, you are pretending not to know a necessarily true proposition.

It's a similar story for those who like to go about saying, "God does not exist." So long as they are referring to Him to Whom Christians are referring by the word, 'God', they are pretending to deny a tautology--they are pretending to deny what is necessarily true:



And, such pretense is abject irrationality.

Way too much tap dancing. When it comes to religion, the Bible, Jesus and all that, for me so far it's conjecture. That could change at any moment if I find out something new. That's where I am honestly. Not pretending.

 

[Winston Smith]

Yes.

Since the entire context of "choosing good and evil" is within the scriptural context, may I use a scriptural example? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both Cain and Abel had the same understanding of God and the world around them as one another? One chose anger and murder, the other was slain and declared righteous.

Ezekiel 33 also has a very relevant section: the righteous that turns from his way shall perish, but the wicked that turns from his way shall live. It is possible for one who is righteous to change and choose evil, and it is possible for one who is wicked to change and choose righteousness.

Ezekiel 33:14-16 KJV
(14) Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
(15) If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
(16) None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Cain and Abel had the exact same minds, the exact same circuitry, the exact same judgment and understanding, but one decided on the wrong thing?

 

[Rosenritter]

Ezekiel 33 is not speaking about eternal life. Thus, Arminians have taken yet another passage out of context in order to build a house of cards.

Ezekiel 33 is talking about the way of the Lord, specifically of his ways and their stability and consistency. Are his ways not equal? If God honors the repentance of the wicked, is this not in all aspects? If God rejects the righteous that turns away and chooses rebellion and wickedness, why would he be unequal in this aspect only?

Ezekiel 33:18-19 KJV
(18) When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
(19) But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

We know that not all wicked die in this life as a result of their wickedness, and not all righteous live in this life for their righteousness. Either the scripture is mistaken, or this is talking in the ultimate sense of life and death, eternal life and the second death. Yes, it is speaking of eternal life... and eternal death.

 

[Rosenritter]

Cain and Abel had the exact same minds, the exact same circuitry, the exact same judgment and understanding, but one decided on the wrong thing?

1. They both had a physical father that had witnessed the creation of the animals first hand.
2. They both had physical parents that had lived in Eden, spoken to God, and witnessed the deception and betrayal of the serpent.
3. They both interacted with God, receiving direct approval or disapproval based on their actions.
4. We can presume that both were without genetic defects that would inhibit normal understanding and intelligence.
5. It is likewise safe to assume that both had been given the same instruction from God and their parents.

One of these brothers sought to please God, the other cared less for God and murdered his brother in anger.

I reject reasoning that our choices are merely a product of a specific coding of our DNA, or that all is decided for us as a reflection of things that happen to us. If such were the case, it would be nonsensical to judge anyone as personally responsible for anything.

 

[MennoSota]

Ezekiel 33 is talking about the way of the Lord, specifically of his ways and their stability and consistency. Are his ways not equal? If God honors the repentance of the wicked, is this not in all aspects? If God rejects the righteous that turns away and chooses rebellion and wickedness, why would he be unequal in this aspect only?

Ezekiel 33:18-19 KJV
(18) When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
(19) But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

We know that not all wicked die in this life as a result of their wickedness, and not all righteous live in this life for their righteousness. Either the scripture is mistaken, or this is talking in the ultimate sense of life and death, eternal life and the second death. Yes, it is speaking of eternal life... and eternal death.

God is talking about life here on earth in regards to Israel. It applies to us in this physical world. It is not referring to eternal life and salvation of the spirit/soul.
Repent before you die from the behavior you are doing. God warns you to change so you don't die.
It amazes me how arminians pluck verses way out of context in order to build their house of cards and thus claim that they chose their own salvation instead of God choosing to save them by God's grace.

 

[ttruscott]

Pardon me, but I do not see what you are trying to say. MennoSota, along with beloved57, spits upon justification through faith, by thinking that people can be justified before--and, therefore, without--having faith. That is why I asked him why he spits upon justification through faith.

BEFORE what?? Before the foundation of the world? Why not? Yes, justified before faith is to be justified without faith but if we were justified before the foundation of the world when we were elected BECAUSE WE were there and had faith at that time, then all these problems dissolve.

 

[ttruscott]

Since humans will not repent or exercise faith, God chooses to graciously adopt some rebellious humans and give them the gift of faith, which leads to repentance.
...
No one but God knows why, other than that God's love chose to do so.

There is NO reason why HIS love is expressed to some and not to everyone at the moment it is accepted that election was not merit based by the person before the foundation of the world.

We know that the SALVATION of the sinful elect is NOT MERIT BASED by anything a person can do on earth because there is no merit to be found in sinners, but that has nothing to do with our merit based election, the promise of salvation given to those innocents who put their faith, their hope without proof, in the Son before the foundation of the world.

 

[Rosenritter]

God is talking about life here on earth in regards to Israel. It applies to us in this physical world. It is not referring to eternal life and salvation of the spirit/soul.
Repent before you die from the behavior you are doing. God warns you to change so you don't die.
It amazes me how arminians pluck verses way out of context in order to build their house of cards and thus claim that they chose their own salvation instead of God choosing to save them by God's grace.

"Repent before you die from the behavior..." Why? Are you agreeing with Ezekiel 33 now? Or are you arguing that repentance has nothing to do regarding our salvation?

And whom are you calling an Arminian? Do you even know what that word means, or do you think it means anyone with whom you choose to disagree?

 

[ttruscott]

You are equivocating. If God has to "specifically grant" an "ability" to "have faith" then he is by default denying that ability to everyone else. You cannot fault God's creation for being exactly as he made them, so in that system if there is a fault to be found with their faith it has become God's fault.

AMEN!!!!

Ultimately it would be election that saves.

Election doesn't save....faith saves. Election is the promise of salvation to those who became believers, (faithers?) by putting their free will faith in the Son before the foundation of the world. Some later sinned and became the sinners who are believers and so are not condmened, Jn 3:18.

 

[MennoSota]

There is NO reason why HIS love is expressed to some and not to everyone at the moment it is accepted that election was not merit based by the person before the foundation of the world.

We know that the SALVATION of the sinful elect is NOT MERIT BASED by anything a person can do on earth because there is no merit to be found in sinners, but that has nothing to do with our merit based election, the promise of salvation given to those innocents who put their faith, their hope without proof, in the Son before the foundation of the world.

There is NO reason why His JUSTICE should not be decreed upon ALL humanity. An unjust God would never be a loving God. Therefore, you call for an unjust, unloving god who overlooks evil and cares nothing about sin.
When a King looks upon a parade of criminals, is He unloving to approve of the criminals being thrown in jail? You preach that God is unloving if God does not choose to stop prisoners from going to jail. You hate the idea that the King can, and does, choose to pick some, for whom He has chosen to take their punishment. You DEMAND that the King take the punishment for all prisoners and set them free.
Do you not see how prideful your demand is? Are you blind to the arrogance you display to the King?
Not ONE human deserves His gracious act of love. Not ONE. Yet, you DEMAND, all. What a worthless and pathetic theology you declare.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You are equivocating. If God has to "specifically grant" an "ability" to "have faith" then he is by default denying that ability to everyone else. You cannot fault God's creation for being exactly as he made them, so in that system if there is a fault to be found with their faith it has become God's fault.

God deals with humanity covenantally.

Covenant of Works
Do this and live.
Adam, made upright, yet mutable, our Federal Representative, failed.
All Adam's progeny by ordinary generation are now corrupted, unable to not sin.
Had Adam obeyed, all his progeny would be enjoying eternal life in the presence of God.

Covenant of Grace
Live, and do this.
Out of the contemplated fallen lump of humanity in Adam, at the appointed time God quickens those fallen in Adam He has set His preferences upon (Eze. 36:26), granting them faith.

If you deny the full effects of original sin, then you will always default to the typical "God is a tyrant" canards.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

AMEN!!!!

Election doesn't save....faith saves. Election is the promise of salvation to those who became believers, (faithers?) by putting their free will faith in the Son before the foundation of the world. Some later sinned and became the sinners who are believers and so are not condmened, Jn 3:18.

I meant "election saves" (the election of God saves before there is faith) when viewed through the Calvinist framework.

 

[Rosenritter]

God deals with humanity covenantally.

Covenant of Works
Do this and live.
Adam, made upright, yet mutable, our Federal Representative, failed.
All Adam's progeny by ordinary generation are now corrupted, unable to not sin.
Had Adam obeyed, all his progeny would be enjoying eternal life in the presence of God.

I see a distinction between "innately sinful" and "unable to not sin." We are certainly able to "not sin" for any specific act or instance... but that does not change that we have a weakness and propensity to sin. Therefore we are flawed and sinful regardless of how many times we have proven this propensity on an individual basis. Adam (and Eve) are proof of concept.

For a real question, how do you derive that "had Adam obeyed, all his progeny..." ? I assume you mean "Adam and Eve" but regardless I cannot recall any promise of eternal life being made that would extend to Adam's progeny, at least not from the covenant in the Garden. That seems like speculation. Can that be confirmed?

Covenant of Grace

Live, and do this.
Out of the contemplated fallen lump of humanity in Adam, at the appointed time God quickens those fallen in Adam He has set His preferences upon (Eze. 36:26), granting them faith.

If you deny the full effects of original sin, then you will always default to the typical "God is a tyrant" canards.

AMR

I do not give a blanket endorsement to anyone and everyone that throws around the term "original sin" but I was able to agree with the definition you gave on these forums at a prior time.

 

[Idolater]

You take Jesus literally when He says "Whosoever eateth my flesh"

Yep. Cf. John 6:53 KJV, John 6:54 KJV, John 6:55 KJV, and John 6:56 KJV. Also, "This (bread) is My body."

, yet you refuse to take Paul literally when he says "For as often as ye eat this bread".

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks,¹ he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."


¹ - Greek 'εὐχαριστήσας' => E-U-CH-A-R-I-S-T-

 

[Winston Smith]

1. They both had a physical father that had witnessed the creation of the animals first hand.
2. They both had physical parents that had lived in Eden, spoken to God, and witnessed the deception and betrayal of the serpent.
3. They both interacted with God, receiving direct approval or disapproval based on their actions.
4. We can presume that both were without genetic defects that would inhibit normal understanding and intelligence.
5. It is likewise safe to assume that both had been given the same instruction from God and their parents.

One of these brothers sought to please God, the other cared less for God and murdered his brother in anger.

But did he do it with a mind that was functioning 100% the same way as Abel's? Did he see the right decision with the same judgment as Abel (or God) but did a wrong thing anyway?

I reject reasoning that our choices are merely a product of a specific coding of our DNA, or that all is decided for us as a reflection of things that happen to us. If such were the case, it would be nonsensical to judge anyone as personally responsible for anything.

It is indeed nonsensical - that doesn't mean we can't separate chaff from wheat, that we can't separate criminals from the rest of us for the sake of society. But it's also nonsensical to fault chaff for being chaff. How can a nonfool choose to be a fool? That's a contradiction; it can't happen.

 

[Rosenritter]

But did he do it with a mind that was functioning 100% the same way as Abel's? Did he see the right decision with the same judgment as Abel (or God) but did a wrong thing anyway?

I guarantee that Cain knew that what he did was wrong.

1) He deflected the question of where Abel was when God questioned him afterwards
2) He was expressly told that he had done wrong by God when he was confronted with the fact.

Cain remained without remorse. He was more concerned that someone else would kill him instead. This isn't a matter of whether he understood what was wrong, it is a matter of that he did not repent of the wrong.

It is indeed nonsensical - that doesn't mean we can't separate chaff from wheat, that we can't separate criminals from the rest of us for the sake of society. But it's also nonsensical to fault chaff for being chaff. How can a nonfool choose to be a fool? That's a contradiction; it can't happen.

No it's not.

Psalms 19:7 KJV
(7) The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

 

[ttruscott]

There is NO reason why His JUSTICE should not be decreed upon ALL humanity. An unjust God would never be a loving God. Therefore, you call for an unjust, unloving god who overlooks evil and cares nothing about sin.
When a King looks upon a parade of criminals, is He unloving to approve of the criminals being thrown in jail? You preach that God is unloving if God does not choose to stop prisoners from going to jail. You hate the idea that the King can, and does, choose to pick some, for whom He has chosen to take their punishment. You DEMAND that the King take the punishment for all prisoners and set them free.
Do you not see how prideful your demand is? Are you blind to the arrogance you display to the King?
Not ONE human deserves His gracious act of love. Not ONE. Yet, you DEMAND, all. What a worthless and pathetic theology you declare.

Why talk about the criminal nature of men and GOD's justice when some people were elected to salvation long before their sin and others were passed over for election long before their sin?? This paragraph is a red herring that doesn't deal with the reason why HIS love is for some people and not for others due to the complete lack of any reason for HIM to withhold HIS love like that. And you describe my total support for His loving justice for all men with the ad hominem weak and pathetic....wow.