Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Liar. Because you are using only one form of the word predestine, you say it's not there. You are a hypocrit and a liar falsely leading others to doubt their salvation. You are doing the work of your father, the devil.
ECT What is Predestination?
- Thread starter nikolai_42
- Start date
are you a calvinist?
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Love can be both reactionary and proactive. That's how we love. Abraham's test was different than changing the time Hezikiah had in response to Hezikiah's actions. The promises are based on our trust of Him. James and Paul agree on this about Abraham. Wooing/drawing are the same thing.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Then at the absolute minimum, we have to say that the scriptures clearly teach that without wooing/drawing (whatever it is - I will overlook the terminology for the moment), we will not and cannot come to God. God, therefore, must be the active agent.
that
very dark place
you speak of
is
your own doing
so
do something about it
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Catalyst yes!!! He loved us first, but will the seed bear fruit? Seek and you will find... Seeking is act of will, we find by Grace, soverignty. But the "good fight of faith" can not be discounted, the trails, testing.... Will and sovereignty work together, both are true.
so what does that mean?
No, those are your words. His predestining is depicted clearly in Rom 8:29 (NIV)
God foreknows EVERYTHING, why would you think He can't?
Does God know that 2+2 = 5? Yes or no.
Does God know that you will die tomorrow? Yes or no.
Does God know that I will eat egg on toast tomorrow morning? Yes or no.
Does God know that meriwinkles are green? Yes or no.
what God knows or foreknows does not support predestination
and
what we know about free will suggests we can and will determine our fate
Dialogos
Well-known member
There are a number of assumptions that are totally wrong in this statement.DR said:
The appeal to experience here is nonsensical. It is exactly the wrong approach. If we try an interpret theological truths from our own experience will likely arrive at the conclusions that we are just fine, in no need of saving and that our lives are just fine, solidly under our own control. According to our experience we humans are the most intelligent beings that we know so there is no need to trust in an unseen God. According to our experience, we are basically “good people” and according to our own metrics of justice (which are informed by our own experiences the vast majority of us are deserving of heaven so the notion that someone must die for our sins seems to be ridiculously over-reactive. According to the experience of most of the people that Jesus came to, Jesus said some promising things but didn’t deliver in the end and so in their experience Barabbas was a much better choice than Jesus when Pilot offered to set a prisoner free during that Passover celebration. It is interpreting what God is up to though the lenses of our own experience that ended up putting the Author of Life on a Roman cross.
Our experience is tainted by the sin that we inherited from our first parents. So, yes, it may well be the case that “in our experience” we destine ourselves to salvation and God is waiting, with baited breath, for us to choose Him, but if our reading of scripture teaches us anything, it should teach us that, left to our own devices, we interpret experience particularly badly and if we hold up the interpretation of our experiences as the ultimate principle by which we interpret matters of theology then we likely won’t believe there is a God at all. Just read Romans 1:21-22.
This is totally wrong. Just look at the way passages get danced around on this thread?DR said:
Romans 9 isn’t about salvation despite the following:
“Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:21-24 ESV)”
Romans 8 isn’t about predestination we are told, its about already saved individuals. Despite the fact that Paul is clear…
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30 ESV)”
Foreknowing (foreordaining) precedes predestination. Predestination precedes calling, calling precedes justifying, and justifying precedes glorifying.
But Openness Theology must rip calling out from the middle and put it before predestination as (according to openness theology) we aren’t predestined until we answer God’s call to salvation.
Therefor openness Theology sees the following as the Ordo Solutis:
Foreknowing (or a misunderstanding of foreknowing and perhaps a downright denial of foreknowing) – calling – justifying – predestining – glorifying.
But perhaps the most stark reality is that Open Theism cannot consistently claim that God passes his own test that was given in Isaiah 40-48. Specifically, God chastises the false gods precisely because they don’t know the future?
“Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Isa 41:21-24 ESV)”
Really?DR said:
Like Who?
Eph 1:4-5 (NIV)
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will
This says pretty much the same thing Paul says in
Rom 8:29-30 (NIV)
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Who God foreknows will accept Jesus, He predestines them to be like His son. In other words, He had a plan of action for those that DID confess Jesus as their savior, NOT to predestine ANYONE to be saved.
I didn't say it did. Please read my posts if you're going to respond to them.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
So He knows if an infant that dies would eventually be in Christ (given a longer lifespan)? Does it make a difference if the child would or would not accept Christ later in life (assuming the child lived)? Then does God not choose by not allowing the child the choice?
Word based mystic
New member
God the Father who is Spirit has all knowledge and is not bound by time.
The Word/firstborn of all creation/Son/Physical manifestation in the material universe has limited his own foreknowledge.
He has access to the Fathers Knowledge but limits His knowing
In order to facilitate true interactive loving relations to all His created Children.
This allows Him to (desire that all men should be saved
and desire that None should perish.
He/word/Christ/Creator limits His foreknowledge until judgement days.
Thus a true interactive joy filled response to all that believe/receive/repent.
Thus a true passionate love response towards a bride that (Chooses) to marry the Bridegroom.
not a robotic programming on initially creating each Created child.
What Bridegroom would desire a robot that He created and programmed to love himself.
Ok everybody now bow, now worship, now love me.
sounds like forced slavery or programmed puppetry.
The Word/firstborn of all creation/Son/Physical manifestation in the material universe has limited his own foreknowledge.
He has access to the Fathers Knowledge but limits His knowing
In order to facilitate true interactive loving relations to all His created Children.
This allows Him to (desire that all men should be saved
and desire that None should perish.
He/word/Christ/Creator limits His foreknowledge until judgement days.
Thus a true interactive joy filled response to all that believe/receive/repent.
Thus a true passionate love response towards a bride that (Chooses) to marry the Bridegroom.
not a robotic programming on initially creating each Created child.
What Bridegroom would desire a robot that He created and programmed to love himself.
Ok everybody now bow, now worship, now love me.
sounds like forced slavery or programmed puppetry.
The questions aren't irrelevant. You made a statement that God foreknows everything. I am asking you to prove it by answering those questions. So what are the answers. Remember you said it: 'EVERYTHING'. So I await your answers.
Originally Posted by DR
one: openness conforms to everyday experience. Determinists must explain away everyday experience and the notion that we have a different perspective from God on this is not an answer. It does not explain anything. In fact it only engenders despair because of the obvious implication that there is something wrong with us in that our experiences of reality are fundamentally flawed. It also engenders mistrust in both ourselves and our environment for the same reason and finally for the same reason it deprives us of moral reasons for the choices we make, rendering life meaningless and purpose of no effect.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Where did I try to 'interpret theological truths from our own experience'? You are the one making the assumptions. I made a statement: A conforms to B. Your counter-argument amounts to 'The act of deriving C from B is a false methodology, therefore A doesn't conform to B'. Look, either A conforms to B or it doesn't. Your long-winded attempt at a refutation at this does everything except disprove it. This is a fact: openness theology conforms to everyday experience because everyday experience informs us that our actions are determinative of future events. This is a simple fact. It's how human beings work. Your job is not to show that my appeal to the fact is wrong, after all I am appealing to that fact, you can't deny that, it is my argument. Your job is to show that the fact has an alternative explanation that is satisfying. I invite you to show it.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
How so? If God decides to take a child in infancy, isn't that a form of predestination against which many argue? By doing so, doesn't He determine their fate for them? Likewise, if He foresees that a child will not choose Him if left to live after a certain age and He doesn't take that child - isn't that a form of predestination?
That's a pretty big IF. What makes you think God takes anybody? The life we live post Adam is corrupted and NOT immune to the effects of sin.
Everyone dies and I do not believe God decides when and where someone will die. That He knows is a different matter all together.