ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Crucifer]

Meh

It's common sense that to take predestination out of God's sovereignty is to basically sweep God's power from underneath Him altogether.
You can't put the reigns of fate in man or mortal life and yet call God God. It's as simple as that- however. that doesn't mean to say man has no free will of his own.
I've always been a bit annoyed by this subject because it seems like there are a lot of people who simply hate the prospect of predestination and really shouldn't. It just means God is in control.

 

[7djengo7]

Paul is saying:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Paul, inspired by God, is very clear. Yet, you cannot accept God doing the saving. You cannot accept God giving the gift of faith.
Do you desire to boast?

Ephesians 2:8 does not say "And this is not your own doing"; that's an RSV/ESV fabrication, and not inspired by God.
Ephesians 2:8 says, "and this not of yourselves".

Here it is in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece:

καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν
and this not of yourselves

And, here it is in the Textus Receptus:

και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων
and this not of yourselves

The word 'doing' is not even there, not in the Greek. KJV has it right; not so RSV, ESV, and who knows what else. So, no, Paul is not saying "And this is not your own doing".

 

[Crucifer]

You replied as I was finalizing my post.

To claim God grants faith to those He has adopted, using the past tense "adopted," is to infelicitously infer adoption precedes faith in the outworking of God's redemptive plan for His children. See the link on "eternal justification" embedded in my updated post above.

No one is adopted before a declaration is made formalizing the act of adoption. The declaration of justification comes coincident the grant of faith to the believer. Once justified, comes the rest, e.g., union, adoption, sanctification, etc.

I am assuming you did not really mean to declare adoption precedes faith, hence my use of "infelicity." Now if you in fact did intend to do so, see my caution about eternal justification. Please clarify.

AMR

Nicely worded.
A lot of people I know are terrible at trying to explain the dilemma of free will and predestination. I 'm pretty versed at telling it myself.
There should be more you and me in the world lol

 

[7djengo7]

You see it as gobblygook (which I interpret as you calling God's Sovereignty... foolishness). Those who are perishing call God's word "foolishness."
When you hate my answer, you claim I didn't ever answer your question. Your claim is, as it always has been, false. You have been answered. Deal with it. I owe you nothing more as your modis operandi is to keep pretzeling in order to avoid your false construct.

Hypocrite, you, boasting that (as you imagine) you're not perishing while (as you imagine) somebody who calls you out on your lies, hypocrisy, irrationality, and gobbledygook, is perishing--all the while you are accusing others of boasting!

You never answered any of my questions; you have behaved snottily and irrationally against me in reaction to them, indeed. You have consistently stonewalled against them. Just because you type up a pile of garbage in just about every post you submit, as is your wont, doesn't mean that you have answered a question; it just means that you like typing up piles of garbage for all to see. Do you get that?

Pile of garbage /= answer to question.​

The fact that you persistently fail to explain--and refuse to even try to explain--slogans and other phrases that you are addicted to writing, like your slogan, "God's Sovereignty", is due to the fact that, in the realm of theology, at least, you're no more than a gabbling parrot, and, as such, you can't explain them. For instance, you haven't explained--because you can't explain--what it is for faith to be a gift, what it is for faith to be a work, nor what it is to enact faith. You've answered none of those questions, nor even made an appearance as though you were trying to answer them. You've not the least concern about whether or not what you write is meaningful; let alone (if you ever do happen to write anything meaningful), you've not the least concern about whether what you write is even true, relevant, or coherent.

You owe me--and others--apologies for lying in saying that you have answered questions which, everybody can see, plainly, you have never answered. Indeed, you owe us apologies for trolling us, and for just generally behaving like a brat.

 

[7djengo7]

He worketh faith in us to receive whatsoever the Lord giveth unto us and by the same faith worketh all holiness for us.

John Cotton

We'll, now, wait just one Cotton-pickin' minute, there. There's a problem, there, see. A glaring, Calvinism-damning problem. First, you got your claim that faith is a gift--that God gives a person faith. But, then, you turn around and say that "He worketh faith in us to receive whatsoever the Lord giveth unto us". Now, accordin' to you, faith is a gift from the Lord--it's something the Lord giveth unto you; so what you're trying to hand us is that the gift of faith is given to a person in order that the person can receive the gift of faith needed to receive the gift of faith. Vicious circle: to be able to receive faith, you need faith, but you don't have faith, because you haven't received faith, so you need to receive faith, but you are not able to receive faith because you don't have the faith through which to receive it...

 

[7djengo7]

You see it as gobblygook (which I interpret as you calling God's Sovereignty... foolishness). Those who are perishing call God's word "foolishness."
When you hate my answer, you claim I didn't ever answer your question. Your claim is, as it always has been, false. You have been answered. Deal with it. I owe you nothing more as your modis operandi is to keep pretzeling in order to avoid your false construct.

1. "gobblygook" isn't even a word,
2. There is a 'u' and no 'i' in 'modus' of 'modus operandi',
3. "your modis operandi is to keep pretzeling in order to avoid your false construct" is gobbledygook.

At this point, I'm almost starting to think you must be a cat-owner, and that you are just getting your cat to walk around on your keyboard, while under the influence of catnip.

 

[Winston Smith]

Would would be able to show why one might arrive at that conclusion?

Wut?

I have to say, I have been asking this question for decades and have never ever been able to get a straight answer to a straight question. Isn’t that odd?

 

[Rosenritter]

In that case, everyone gets into Heaven?

Would would be able to show why one might arrive at that conclusion?

Wut?

I have to say, I have been asking this question for decades and have never ever been able to get a straight answer to a straight question. Isn’t that odd?

Let me rephrase that. "How would you ever manage to arrive at that conclusion from what I said?" You were being invited to explain what was on your mind.

If you you only want a straight answer then "no" should suffice.

 

[Nang]

We'll, now, wait just one Cotton-pickin' minute, there. There's a problem, there, see. A glaring, Calvinism-damning problem. First, you got your claim that faith is a gift--that God gives a person faith. But, then, you turn around and say that "He worketh faith in us to receive whatsoever the Lord giveth unto us". Now, accordin' to you, faith is a gift from the Lord--it's something the Lord giveth unto you; so what you're trying to hand us is that the gift of faith is given to a person in order that the person can receive the gift of faith needed to receive the gift of faith. Vicious circle: to be able to receive faith, you need faith, but you don't have faith, because you haven't received faith, so you need to receive faith, but you are not able to receive faith because you don't have the faith through which to receive it...

John 16:7-15.

 

[MennoSota]

Ephesians 2:8 does not say "And this is not your own doing"; that's an RSV/ESV fabrication, and not inspired by God.
Ephesians 2:8 says, "and this not of yourselves".

Here it is in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece:

And, here it is in the Textus Receptus:


The word 'doing' is not even there, not in the Greek. KJV has it right; not so RSV, ESV, and who knows what else. So, no, Paul is not saying "And this is not your own doing".

Yep, faith is not of yourself, jengy. You proved me correct. Thanks.

 

[Crucifer]

We'll, now, wait just one Cotton-pickin' minute, there. There's a problem, there, see. A glaring, Calvinism-damning problem. First, you got your claim that faith is a gift--that God gives a person faith. But, then, you turn around and say that "He worketh faith in us to receive whatsoever the Lord giveth unto us". Now, accordin' to you, faith is a gift from the Lord--it's something the Lord giveth unto you; so what you're trying to hand us is that the gift of faith is given to a person in order that the person can receive the gift of faith needed to receive the gift of faith. Vicious circle: to be able to receive faith, you need faith, but you don't have faith, because you haven't received faith, so you need to receive faith, but you are not able to receive faith because you don't have the faith through which to receive it...

It's kind of lame to just state baldly that people 'choose God' and not recognize virtually any sovereignty in God's case. Rather than being a living savior, Jesus becomes more like a static ladder.
I hear a lot of churches always feeling a need to enunciate 'free will' just to turn back around and proclaim that God is in control.
It's really easy to sell to a congregation, not so much to a person who pays attention to this apparent cognitive dissonance of theology.

 

[glorydaz]

It's kind of lame to just state baldly that people 'choose God' and not recognize virtually any sovereignty in God's case. Rather than being a living savior, Jesus becomes more like a static ladder.
I hear a lot of churches always feeling a need to enunciate 'free will' just to turn back around and proclaim that God is in control.
It's really easy to sell to a congregation, not so much to a person who pays attention to this apparent cognitive dissonance of theology.

What? You can't see that God's plan is for man to reach up to Him as He reaches down to us?

 

[glorydaz]

John 16:7-15.

Nang gives another pass instead of addressing the post.:juggle:

 

[Crucifer]

What? You can't see that God's plan is for man to reach up to Him as He reaches down to us?

I believe in both free will and predestination, I just find churches that enunciate free will simply adulterate the gospel- it puts a major wedge between God's will and man's annoying inclination to be against anything it can't control.

 

[glorydaz]

I believe in both free will and predestination, I just find churches that enunciate free will simply adulterate the gospel- it puts a major wedge between God's will and man's annoying inclination to be against anything it can't control.

Well, I certainly agree that some go too far one direction or another.

 

[glorydaz]

Yep, faith is not of yourself, jengy. You proved me correct. Thanks.

Okay, let's try this.

Salvation is NOT of yourself.
Grace is NOT of yourself.


But faith is how we access that Grace. That is what we have (faith in the blood). Believing the Gospel is how we obtain that faith (through which we access that grace) and are saved.

Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.​

Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

 

[Crucifer]

Well, I certainly agree that some go too far one direction or another.

I lean a bit more to predestination rather than free will because I think, ultimately, predestination is what ought to simply be kept more in mind. Free will to me is just a bit of a dull, not-so-meaningful thing that is overused to fill in any gap of theological thinking. The Bible is far better understood when you keep God as the sovereign will.

 

[glorydaz]

I lean a bit more to predestination rather than free will because I think, ultimately, predestination is what ought to simply be kept more in mind. Free will to me is just a bit of a dull, not-so-meaningful thing that is overused to fill in any gap of theological thinking. The Bible is far better understood when you keep God as the sovereign will.

Problem with that is you miss so much of the beauty of man's relationship with God.

 

[Rosenritter]

It's kind of lame to just state baldly that people 'choose God' and not recognize virtually any sovereignty in God's case. Rather than being a living savior, Jesus becomes more like a static ladder.
I hear a lot of churches always feeling a need to enunciate 'free will' just to turn back around and proclaim that God is in control.
It's really easy to sell to a congregation, not so much to a person who pays attention to this apparent cognitive dissonance of theology.

So it would seem that by your definition that no parent (in the history of the world) has ever had their children under control.

 

[Crucifer]

So it would seem that by your definition that no parent (in the history of the world) has ever had their children under control.

It's funny how God's omniscience is tailored to whatever amount suits a particular idea- one minute he's all seeing and omnipresent, the next He's basically just some guy in Heaven playing everything by ear.