Definite Atonement

[Arial]

Historically speaking, there was not a sniff of Calvinism until Augustine, except for the Gnostics and their ilk, of which Augustine had previously been a member.

You don't really know that. You only have whatever is put into historical accounts. In any case it is irrelevant. The apostles, especially Paul, taught it. He even apparently had come up against opposition to it when in Romans he preempted the question. "What shall we say then? Is God unfair?" by asking it himself. I tend to believe the reason less is taught about than is---and it is taught no matter to what degree---is that the understanding of who God is, especially among the Jews, did not even cause the idea of man choosing to arise. For some reason that is never written in the NT texts, the word never used in regards to salvation, never even suggested though it would have been easy enough to do, and one would think would have been done. We see no such thing as altar calls in the scriptures, or anything remotely resembling them. They simply preached the gospel and whoever believed what they were hearing, believed it. And those who didn't, didn't. Is that not what we see in the Gospels themselves with Jesus?

The Epistles, especially John’s writings, were opposed to the Gnostic teachings, which included predestination of some to life and others to death.

The gnostic teachings may have had some form of what you say but it is not the same thing that Paul taught concerning predestination or the reformers. And where we see the apostles dealing with false doctrine many of which were early forms of gnosticism, never do they ever mention election and predestination as being one of the false teachings. Certainly they would have.

 

[Arial]

No it means that there in no power more powerful than his.

It means He is all powerful.

His sovereignty is what allows him to do what ever he pleases.

His sovereignty is what makes everyone and everything subject to Him. It is what makes Him King over all, Governor over all, Judge over all.

An is this not a possibility for a Sovereign God to do?

No it is not something that is possible for a Sovereign God to do. If He did He would be abrogating His sovereignty therein violating His own being. The Creator would be subjected to His creation.

Thank you for the acknowledgment!

It wasn't an acknowledgement as you well know. It was repeating what you said in order to accentuate the oxymoron.

There are varying definitions of what constitutes being free.

Don't make me laugh. That is no different than the unitarian arguing that worship isn't always worship.

I am only arguing that freedom is with regard to my choices are not necessitated by anything outside of myself. I am not saying there are not bindings that influence me in one direction or another, but that these influences, tendencies, and inclinations do not necessitate that I do what they say at every turn. We don’t always lie when tempted, even as unregenerate beings. (That is an effect of prevenient grace.)

They always are. Both inside and outside. The will is not a free floating entity that makes choices independently of anything. If one thing doesn't cause a particular action it is something else that causes not taking the action. And necessitates is not the correct word. If we are tempted to lie but do not lie it is because the pressure to not lie was greater than the temptation to lie. That changes nothing. It even goes beyond the actual subject here. And we are talking about unregenerate beings, and why they cannot choose Christ unless they are first regenerated.The only thing keeping them from doing that is themselves.

My choice is my choice, not the choice that God said would be my choice. It is my choice alone.

That sounds as though it would be something one would pat themselves on the back for. In the words of old Sinata song, "I did it my way." Kind of reminds me of way back in the Garden of Eden.

If left in a vacuum, you would be right, but we are not in a vacuum! God providentially and graciously mitigates the effects of sin so that it does not have total control of us, else we would be far worse than we are, and would probably have destroyed ourselves by now.

Mitigates the effects of sin? Out sin is against Him---which is why we sin against one another. And what in the world does that have to do with what it is responding to. Which was this:

He still has a will, and that will still freely chooses what it most desires, but it is enslaved by sin as you say. How then will it desire Christ? It is much too sinful to do so. How will what is unholy come near the God who is holy and will not allow a sinful man to even touch the holy relics in the OT? Or the mountain where His presence is?

We do it by Grace! We can do it because only God allows it.

Only those in Christ may come into the presence of God, and that, because they wear His robes of righteousness. They have been cleansed of all unholiness by His blood shed on the cross. And not before they have been cleansed. Not by their choice. My question was not about how do the redeemed come before God, but how can the unredeemed do so? I highlighted it in red above.

 

[GeneZ]

The phrase Limited Atonement was used to make the acronym TULIP. Unfortunately that has caused many an Arminianist of one flavor or another to recoil in horror. And is used on this gut reaction alone, to turn many away from even examining the doctrines any further. The problem they fail to recognize is that they are the ones that actually have limited atonement, whereas Reformed theology teaches not an atonement that is limited, but one that is definite. The atonement of those who claim free will as the agent of our attaining salvation is severely limited to those who choose Christ with this said free will. In order to not make that limited they say Jesus paid for the sins of everyone whether they choose Christ or not. The illogic of that should be obvious but for some reason it is not to those who believe it. They have an atonement that is not only limited, but largely ineffectual, and a terrible case of double jeopardy. Oddly they also cry against the doctrines of predestination and election by saying that would make God unjust.

So what does definite atonement mean and where can we find support for it in the scriptures?

It means that the atonement Jesus made did exactly what God intended it to do. It gave some people to Jesus but did not give all people to Jesus. John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
John 6:39 ANd this is the will of Him who sent Me, That I shall lose none of all those He has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

And how else is God going to give these people to Jesus and Jesus die for them, unless He knows them before the foundation of the world, elects them to salvation, predestines them to have faith in Christ, and calls them. "MY sheep hear my voice and follow me." "A stranger they will not follow." and gives them the faith they need. "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.

The Bible tells us in Romans 9 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purposes of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls---she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

And just in case there be any question as to what Paul is saying and why he asks and answers the anticipated response, "Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

So definite atonement means that God was and is always serving His purposes, and He purposed to save some, but not all. And Jesus, went to the cross to do the work of redeeming them, exactly as God purposed. The atonement He made was great enough in scope to cover all peoples in all nations, but it was not intended to do so. As shown by the fact that the Bible also tells us that many more enter the wide gate that leads to destruction than those who enter the narrow gate to eternal life.

It is never good to talk back to God or tell Him what He can and cannot do or what He will or will not do.

If it were Limited Atonement?

Why then is it when the unbeliever faces judgment? Not one sin will be mentioned when evaluating him?
Limited atonement would most definitely have been condemned him for his sins in that case.

What will be used by God to condemn the unbeliever if not for sin?
God will all the works/deeds the unbeliever had done. (Revelation 20:12)

I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books ​

were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead ​

were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. "​

What will condemn the unbeliever when his works are searched?
There will be the absence of only one work that shall not be found.

This is the one work shall not be found in the book of works of the unbeliever...

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”​

We are not saved by works (plurality)
Works plurality = a system of required deeds to fulfill.

But, to be saved by one work alone.

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”​

​

Works = religious thinking. We are not saved by works.

The one work God approves of = faith.

Satan gets us distracted with the battles of men...

The Arminianist vs Calvinist.

But they are not the issue. The Word of God is, when its rightly understood.

 

[TibiasDad]

Previously addressed.

The free will of the Bible is not enslavement.

Free will is never violated when one chooses what one prefers.

Free will is not defined by what we choose, but how we choose. Freedom of choice is a matter of its nature not its result.

Freedom is defined simply as is it my choice that determines the certainty of the outcome or someone else’s! It is either my choice alone, or God’s choice that I cannot alter or do differently.


Doug

 

[Arial]

Free will is not defined by what we choose, but how we choose. Freedom of choice is a matter of its nature not its result.

Freedom is defined simply as is it my choice that determines the certainty of the outcome or someone else’s! It is either my choice alone, or God’s choice that I cannot alter or do differently.


Doug

Try listening.

 

[TibiasDad]

You don't really know that. You only have whatever is put into historical accounts.

Ah, I see, you’re relying on unicorn information! There might have been….
I argue from what we know historically. The Gnostics were the only one who taught predestination and it wasn’t taught in the church until Augustine. And if it was, its proponents were not stated to be noteworthy or their beliefs or writings would be referenced by others even if their writings were lost. None of the second century leaders who knew and were taught by the apostles expressed any such belief.

Doug

 

[Arial]

Ah, I see, you’re relying on unicorn information! There might have been….
I argue from what we know historically. The Gnostics were the only one who taught predestination and it wasn’t taught in the church until Augustine. And if it was, its proponents were not stated to be noteworthy or their beliefs or writings would be referenced by others even if their writings were lost. None of the second century leaders who knew and were taught by the apostles expressed any such belief.

Doug

It is disingenuous to pull one sentence out of an entire post that when standing alone that way does not convey the heart of what was being said in the post. And comment on only that, leaving the point unaddressed. And not only that, the sentence you chose is the very one I said was irrelevant and then took the topic back to relevance. Is that possibly because what I said afterwards completely makes your above statement a useless thing to say? And what I did say, you have no means of addressing? Rather than rewrite the whole thing again I will just repost it and eagerly await our response.

You don't really know that. You only have whatever is put into historical accounts. In any case it is irrelevant. The apostles, especially Paul, taught it. He even apparently had come up against opposition to it when in Romans he preempted the question. "What shall we say then? Is God unfair?" by asking it himself. I tend to believe the reason less is taught about than is---and it is taught no matter to what degree---is that the understanding of who God is, especially among the Jews, did not even cause the idea of man choosing to arise. For some reason that is never written in the NT texts, the word never used in regards to salvation, never even suggested though it would have been easy enough to do, and one would think would have been done. We see no such thing as altar calls in the scriptures, or anything remotely resembling them. They simply preached the gospel and whoever believed what they were hearing, believed it. And those who didn't, didn't. Is that not what we see in the Gospels themselves with Jesus?
The gnostic teachings may have had some form of what you say but it is not the same thing that Paul taught concerning predestination or the reformers. And where we see the apostles dealing with false doctrine many of which were early forms of gnosticism, never do they ever mention election and predestination as being one of the false teachings. Certainly they would have.

I am also still waiting to hear your response to what I asked you to respectfully address that you ignored in post #236. I ask this, and again above, because it seems a common thing in these types of exchanges that some reach a point of only having a counter remark to certain things, and none for other things when they are unexpectedly brought to their attention. And these other things that took them by surprise? no attempt is made to confront them and find the answer from their pov. So they just stick with the same arguments they began with. Or change the subject entirely.

 

[makesends]

It is disingenuous to pull one sentence out of an entire post that when standing alone that way does not convey the heart of what was being said in the post. And comment on only that, leaving the point unaddressed. And not only that, the sentence you chose is the very one I said was irrelevant and then took the topic back to relevance. Is that possibly because what I said afterwards completely makes your above statement a useless thing to say? And what I did say, you have no means of addressing? Rather than rewrite the whole thing again I will just repost it and eagerly await our response.

I am also still waiting to hear your response to what I asked you to respectfully address that you ignored in post #236. I ask this, and again above, because it seems a common thing in these types of exchanges that some reach a point of only having a counter remark to certain things, and none for other things when they are unexpectedly brought to their attention. And these other things that took them by surprise? no attempt is made to confront them and find the answer from their pov. So they just stick with the same arguments they began with. Or change the subject entirely.

It is a common phenomenon, just saying —i.e. far be it from me to support @TibiasDad and his methods. I do it, you do it, all God's chilluns do it. And I think it is from either laziness or just being in a hurry. We read till we see something easy to answer, do so, and go our way. And to be honest, answering some people that way is just as useful as to answer, yet again, the same questions we've addressed a hundred times before.

 

[Arial]

It is a common phenomenon, just saying —i.e. far be it from me to support @TibiasDad and his methods. I do it, you do it, all God's chilluns do it. And I think it is from either laziness or just being in a hurry. We read till we see something easy to answer, do so, and go our way. And to be honest, answering some people that way is just as useful as to answer, yet again, the same questions we've addressed a hundred times before.

I very seldom do that and when I do it is because everything has already been addressed that the poster put forth, usually multiple times,without ever having the "hard" issues dealt with at all. And sometimes, yes, it is just being cryptic with no desire to actually get involved in an ongoing conversation that I am already worn out from, or my interest is in only one particular element of a conversation that I am not already involved in.

To each his own, no problem. But as for myself, I find dealing with all the arguments that are put forth as support for the other person's view being done, is the respectful thing to do. People put effort and thought into what they post, or they should, and to ignore it, and bring the furtherance of a productive conversation to a halt is dismissive imo. I don't appreciate it and so I put forth the effort to not do it.

 

[makesends]

I very seldom do that and when I do it is because everything has already been addressed that the poster put forth, usually multiple times,without ever having the "hard" issues dealt with at all. And sometimes, yes, it is just being cryptic with no desire to actually get involved in an ongoing conversation that I am already worn out from, or my interest is in only one particular element of a conversation that I am not already involved in.

To each his own, no problem. But as for myself, I find dealing with all the arguments that are put forth as support for the other person's view being done, is the respectful thing to do. People put effort and thought into what they post, or they should, and to ignore it, and bring the furtherance of a productive conversation to a halt is dismissive imo. I don't appreciate it and so I put forth the effort to not do it.

Yes, I agree with all of that. And the 'dismissive' is sometimes from disrespect. And I hate it that it becomes even habitual. I don't want to say that somebody answering my assertion is right, so I answer back, but not with any real degree of content, but just easy logic.

I do wish I had the time and patience to answer with a book, and it would be robotic to save a bunch of article-long answers that get used over and over, but to condense the book/article is not the work of a bot. And it takes a lot of time.

But, once again, we have wandered off-topic.

 

[Eleanor]

Free will is not defined by what we choose, but how we choose. Freedom of choice is a matter of its nature not its result.

Freedom is defined simply as is it my choice that determines the certainty of the outcome or someone else’s!

That is not the historical issue in free will.
The issue is the ability (power) to choose (execute a choice).

 

[GeneZ]

Grace when imparted by God makes a person who once was a slave to his flesh, then able to have free will.
Free, as long as grace is being applied.

That is why it says we were saved 'by grace.'
For, without God's grace the unregenerate soul could have the power to believe in Christ..

We are not forever to be without free will if we continue to desire to grow by grace and truth.
Getting to the point of where we will be strong in Christ is determined by how well we cling unto the mast during the storm
of the years while waiting in patience to reach maturity.

Not only will we have free will restored by God... by have now a relaxed state of mind granted with peace.

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is *capacity* for life ​

and prosperity/'inner peace (eirene)." Romans 8:6​

​

False doctrine is a never ending mudslide on the road to maturity....

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is *capacity* for life ​

and prosperity/'inner peace (eirene)." Romans 8:6​

​

Unless we repent (change our thinking) we will forever be without real inner peace and having a capacity for life.
Always having an endless need to prove ourselves correct and others wrong, as our means to justify our stand.

In Christ...

 

[TibiasDad]

It is disingenuous to pull one sentence out of an entire post that when standing alone that way does not convey the heart of what was being said in the post. And comment on only that, leaving the point unaddressed.

That sentence is the premise of all that follows in your argument. If the premise is faulty, the rest of the argument becomes increasingly so. And terms like “disingenuous” are not capable of being employed with any sense of accuracy, for none of us have the insight of another’s motives. But I assured you, the Lord as my witness, that I am very genuine in my writings.

And not only that, the sentence you chose is the very one I said was irrelevant and then took the topic back to relevance.

If it is irrelevant why did you write it? Is not the history of predestination in religious thought relevant to the question of its validity?

Is that possibly because what I said afterwards completely makes your above statement a useless thing to say?

Everything I have to say is said with reason and evidence; it matters, and that you dismiss it as irrelevant is showing to me.

And what I did say, you have no means of addressing? Rather than rewrite the whole thing again I will just repost it and eagerly await our response.

I am also still waiting to hear your response to what I asked you to respectfully address that you ignored in post #236. I ask this, and again above, because it seems a common thing in these types of exchanges that some reach a point of only having a counter remark to certain things, and none for other things when they are unexpectedly brought to their attention. And these other things that took them by surprise? no attempt is made to confront them and find the answer from their pov. So they just stick with the same arguments they began with. Or change the subject entirely.

Here you go…

All these things He knows, which is everything, every thought, every action, every result of everything from eternity past to forever, even on our tiny planet He created, all that is in it and moment by moment, every word spoken etc. etc. are all at once for Him.

Yes he is omniscient! How he is omniscient, only God knows.

Time and space are only our boundary that He placed us in.

Yes he is transcendent! But not uninvolved with his creation. That would be deism, I am not a Deist!

And all these things He knows He decreed that they would come to pass just as they come to pass in our time and with us.

Is this how you would say God is omniscient?

That He decreed them to come to pass does not mean that He made anyone will to do any specific thing.

There is no logical way God can decree necessity of me doing X without making me necessarily doing it. There is nothing else capable of making the certainty certain!

It means He didn't stop it as He uses all of it to fulfill His purposes and His plan of redemption and for His creation.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here; what didn’t he stop?

He governs it.

To govern is not to decree.

For instance, if I chose to shoot someone with the intent to kill, but God didn’t want that person killed, I may pull the trigger of my own accord and planning, but God can “govern” the path of the bullet, or other factors so as to cause the shot to not accomplish my intent.

God didn’t have to predestine me to not shoot to make sure this person lived.

Nothing that is done moves His purposes off track in the slightest.

It doesn’t in my argument either.

Don't forget that a war is taking place in the spiritual realm that He lets us glimpse into should we see the book of Revelation as a picture book rather than a puzzle book, that is playing out on and for God's creation of the earth and all that is in it including us, and through us to a great degree.

This is irrelevant to the question at hand.

And if you don't believe that, step back a moment and look at the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

I believe in spiritual warfare and the book of Revelation.

A clear picture of God decreeing all that comes to pass while doing no violence to the will of man

I think your definition of clear is different from mine.

Until you can falsify my argument that my willing is necessarily part of “whatsoever comes to pass”, and that “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;…” —meaning that my willing is predetermined by God—then all of your largely empty rhetoric has accomplished nothing and will continue to do so.

This is my objection (though not my only one) to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, particularly the notion that the freedom of the creature is not violated and/or that God is not culpable for the certainty of the sin predestined to occur.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

That is not the historical issue in free will.
The issue is the ability (power) to choose (execute a choice).

Obviously I must be able to execute a choice. My definition is more fundamental to my objection. Predestination doesn’t directly affect my power or lack thereof to choose, at least not according to your arguments, though it does practically because God’s choice is makes my choice certain. You argument says that our sinfulness makes us unable to choose because we can’t understand “the things of God”, not because of predestination.

Arminian belief is that Prevenient Grace, tempers the power of the sinful nature in man so that, with the aid and power of the Holy Spirit, we can grasp the truth of the gospel and be able to decide to believe and trust in its message to us.

Doug

 

[makesends]

Obviously I must be able to execute a choice. My definition is more fundamental to my objection. Predestination doesn’t directly affect my power or lack thereof to choose, at least not according to your arguments, though it does practically because God’s choice is makes my choice certain. You argument says that our sinfulness makes us unable to choose because we can’t understand “the things of God”, not because of predestination.

Except by the sustaining by the Creator, you could not breathe, nor even exist, let alone choose. By his creating, all things come to pass, to include your choice. And your choice is thus not even real, but for his determination. The believer may think he, now regenerated, has been enabled to make good choices, yet he is ignoring, or not cognizant of, the constant work of the Holy Spirit within him, compelling him. God himself is the good within us.

 

[Arial]

That sentence is the premise of all that follows in your argument. If the premise is faulty, the rest of the argument becomes increasingly so. And terms like “disingenuous” are not capable of being employed with any sense of accuracy, for none of us have the insight of another’s motives. But I assured you, the Lord as my witness, that I am very genuine in my writings.

You have applied my use of the word disingenuous to the wrong thing. And once again continued to move the discussion away from what it is about without bothering to address what it was about. The issue in all that I say is a central issue. Definite atonement which has long since been removed as the issue. Do you suppose you might present something that relates to definite atonement? If not, we can just end the conversation.

If it is irrelevant why did you write it? Is not the history of predestination in religious thought relevant to the question of its validity?

Because I was responding to the irrelevant comment you made about the ECF and predestination as though that proved something, and showed you why it was irrelevant. Which was that the NT writings teach predestination unto salvation and therefore there must be definite atonement.

Everything I have to say is said with reason and evidence; it matters, and that you dismiss it as irrelevant is showing to me.

Irrelevant to the discussion TD. What do the ECF have to do with it? Is what they say how we measure truth or is what the Bible says?

Yes he is omniscient! How he is omniscient, only God knows.

It would of necessity (correctly applied use of the word) would have to be all at once for He does not need to learn anything if He is omnipresent and omniscient.

Yes he is transcendent! But not uninvolved with his creation. That would be deism, I am not a Deist!

I never once said He is not involved with His creation.

Is this how you would say God is omniscient?

Obviously. That is one aspect of it. It is multifaceted and a mystery to the human mind.

There is no logical way God can decree necessity of me doing X without making me necessarily doing it. There is nothing else capable of making the certainty certain!

If you take the misapplied use of "necessity" out of the equation, you may discover a whole other concept. He decreed that you do what He knows you will do without interfering with it----unless He has other plans---in which case He decrees that you won't do it. It is still you doing it or not doing what you most desire to do. Providence is always at work in the world.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here; what didn’t he stop?

He does not stop anything He does not want to stop. What He wants to stop He stops. That too is His decree.

To govern is not to decree.

For instance, if I chose to shoot someone with the intent to kill, but God didn’t want that person killed, I may pull the trigger of my own accord and planning, but God can “govern” the path of the bullet, or other factors so as to cause the shot to not accomplish my intent.

God didn’t have to predestine me to not shoot to make sure this person lived.

To govern is to decree in a sense. And the example you give here is called providence. Stop confusing terms. You were neither predestined to want to shoot the person or predestined to not shoot them. God decreed that the person live, no matter what your intentions are. You are still defining Reformed theology as determinism.

It doesn’t in my argument either.

What is your argument? It has completely gotten lost, as has mine, in this conversation.

This is irrelevant to the question at hand.

It is the big picture so it is not irrelevant. And my point in bringing it up was so that hopefully, if the big picture is taken into consideration it might shine more light on what is happening at the human, earthly level and why it is happening. In other words, the perspective from God's view as to what is going on in the spiritual realm that is vividly given in portions of Revelation. Rather than only our perspective and from that trying to puzzle out and explain the hidden things of God.

I think your definition of clear is different from mine.

No doubt or you would have seen the comparison of the will of God in sending Jesus to the cross while not forcing anyone to nail Him to it, and their being entirely responsible for their motives and actions, and freely of their own will, nailing Him to that cross, is a perfect illustration how God decrees whatever He decrees but without doing violence to the human will.

 

[Eleanor]

Obviously I must be able to execute a choice. My definition is more fundamental to my objection. Predestination doesn’t directly affect my power or lack thereof to choose, at least not according to your arguments, though it does practically because God’s choice is makes my choice certain. You argument says that our sinfulness makes us unable to choose because we can’t understand “the things of God”, not because of predestination.

Arminian belief is that Prevenient Grace, tempers the power of the sinful nature in man so that, with the aid and power of the Holy Spirit, we can grasp the truth of the gospel and be able to decide to believe and trust in its message to us.

Doug

I am addressing only what is the historical, as distinct from your personal, issue of free will, which historical issue is simply the ability (power) to choose (execute a choice).

 

[TibiasDad]

I am addressing only what is the historical, as distinct from your personal, issue of free will, which historical issue is simply the ability (power) to choose (execute a choice).

And I think the historical question is a decoy from the real issue in relation to God’s predetermining the Elect and non-elect. That is the real point of contention in the debate; If I am predestined one way or the other, then my choosing is irrelevant whether I’m capable of choosing or not.


Doug

 

[GeneZ]

And I think the historical question is a decoy from the real issue in relation to God’s predetermining the Elect and non-elect. That is the real point of contention in the debate; If I am predestined one way or the other, then my choosing is irrelevant whether I’m capable of choosing or not.


Doug

God's elect were not elected to be saved.
They were elected to become the Church with God knowing they would believe.

What they were elected (chosen) for by God, was to be born in the Church age, so they would end up becoming the Bride of Christ..

Such great believers as Job, Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah and other OT believers? They were not predestined and elected to become
the Bride of Christ - the Church. Yet, they too were elected onto becoming OT believers.

Contrary to the "I" in TULIP, God does not force our will to believe. God forces our flesh to shut up as to allow our soul to make its choice.
Grace forces our flesh to be out of the sphere of influence over the soul, as our soul is made free to choose by grace. That freedom does
not guarantee a soul will choose to believe!

Without grace? The flesh would always dominate over the soul. No grace? No one could believe.

Without grace all would be doomed by the depravity of their flesh. A depravity that we all inherited from Adam.

 

[Arial]

God's elect were not elected to be saved.
They were elected to become the Church with God knowing they would believe.

What they were elected (chosen) for by God, was to be born in the Church age, so they would end up becoming the Bride of Christ..

Such great believers as Job, Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah and other OT believers? They were not predestined and elected to become
the Bride of Christ - the Church. Yet, they too were elected onto becoming OT believers.

Contrary to the "I" in TULIP, God does not force our will to believe. God forces our flesh to shut up as to allow our soul to make its choice.
Grace forces our flesh to be out of the sphere of influence over the soul, as our soul is made free to choose by grace. That freedom does
not guarantee a soul will choose to believe!

Without grace? The flesh would always dominate over the soul. No grace? No one could believe.

Without grace all would be doomed by the depravity of their flesh. A depravity that we all inherited from Adam.

Do you have anything to support any of this?