again, this sounds like alot.
Recieve is just this
he who believes is not condemned, who who does not believe is condemned already..
the one who believes is the one who recieves. as John said, even to those who believe (trust)
Yes. If one has been born again by the Holy Spirit, he has received (and not as a result of anything endemic to who he is or what he has done): 1. the Spirit of God, as a receptacle for that Spirit. 2. all the 'immediate' benefits of that indwelling by the Spirit of God, to include salvific faith and salvation itself.
John does not say that this receiving is a result of the willed act of believing, nor by being convinced. I hope you read the last time we went through this. Can you show from Scripture where John says that the receiving of the Spirit and its immediate benefits, is a result of the willed act of believing? In fact, you can't even show that the believing is a willed act at all! As you indicate below, there is a lot you have been brought up believing as simple natural fact.
Because when we look at it as we have been taught. we will only see what we have been taught. I had to learn this the hard way.. And have since changed my view on a few things
Yep. And, FWIW, both you and I will change a lot more. You and I both learned the hard way, and we have a lot more to learn.
I will say again, If you believe this, this is fine, But I reject this notion.
You have man dead in sin, being made alive still dead in sin.
that is contradictory
Not at all. Man is taken from death to life. No longer dead in sin. The Reformed view is that man, through no act of his own —that is, totally by the Grace of God— is transformed from death to life. No longer dead in sin.
Are you saying that he has to no longer be dead in sin in order to
be transformed, or in order to
become transformed from death to life?
makesends said:
But he has an 'elect only' policy.
Says the doctrine of 'Election', as taught by Scriptures, all over the place.
I disagree.
I do not see it taught anywhere
What do you think the "Doctrine of Election" is? I'm going to try to assume you're not playing games. You do agree that the Bible uses the word, "elect", or "chosen" concerning a certain group of people, no?
sad, but true.. we both can not be right
Then explain it in a way I could see it in any other way.. How else could I change what I see?
if you said that you would be misrepresenting me, because I have said time and time again, God has stopped things from happening.. he has also allowed many things.
Yes, well, when you represented what I said, as though this issue of God causing that there be evil was an end in itself, with no other considerations, you were misrepresenting what I said. A yes or no answer would not have been accurate.
Here is what you said:
Eternally-Grateful said:
So your saying God created man to curse them with a curse that would bring mankind multiple times to the point of extinction (the flood first, and second Matt 24, the end time period where Jesus has to intervene or no flesh would survive)
I'm saying that that is not what I was saying, as it implies that that was the reason he created man. I don't even begin to think that, nor does what I say reduce to that.
He created man for the purpose of 'producing' the "particular creation", the People of God, that will be seen in Heaven. All that you mentioned was part of what it takes to produce that chosen group from within humanity.
makesends said:
Go back to the beginning. Why did God create anything? For the glory of his praise.
Yes..And satan led and tried to take this glory by saying God did not create us to serve us, but to serve his own evil desires.
I don't get the relevance of that statement. What does that have to do with what we had been talking about, or with what it was responding to, or with freewill?
makesends said:
How does his creating bring that about? By making a particular creation that would be his particular People, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Children of God, the Dwelling Place of God. How does he accomplish that particular creation? By, among many other things, the creation of those who would reject him. To those he did not show mercy nor 'install' his Holy Spirit to dwell in them and raise them from death to life in Christ. Instead his intention toward them was reprobation FOR THAT PARTICULAR CREATION, AND THAT, FOR THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY. Look at Romans 9 again, verse 23, in the immediate context of verses 19 to 23, or 11-24, or the whole chapter, or the whole book, or the whole Bible.
I disagree. He made man to serve. man chose to rebel. So he devised a plan to save his creation. because he loved it.
Are you saying that he did not make man for that final end of man—to be all he will be in heaven? Or is there something else that you are saying you disagree with? Lol, this format is discouraging, trying to keep up with who said what in response to what. I gotta give you credit, I'm only responding to one or two here, you are trying to hold down 5 or 10 conversations at once!
makesends said:
That is what I said, yes. But the self-determinist does look at God's love or justice according to human love and justice.
Yes, to some degree that is inevitable. I try to take myself skeptically, however, which leads me to distrust
my notions of God's love and justice, and to discard my notions altogether if they are not reasonable nor scriptural. I find simple logic to say that if God is God, then all that follows was his plan. Regardless of the best way to describe that, it is also what I find in Scripture, and when it seems Scripture says otherwise, I look a little farther into Scripture, and every time, so far, sure enough, God still planned precisely what came about. Otherwise, he is not God. God is not like us.
makesends said:
The one insisting on self-determinism thinks it all depends on himself, to include his concepts and definitions.
Well he may, But as with everything, if we disagree with something. do not go 100 degrees out and do the same thing yourself but make it sound different.
I suppose you are referring to some incident or statement there, but don't know which or what. I'll leave it alone.
makesends said:
When he [the self-determinist] runs into a logical roadblock, at the very best he thinks, "Well, I don't know it all so I give up thinking about it —my concepts of love and justice are human only, and not the way God sees it, so I give up trying to make sense of it all. I'll stick by my concepts because they work well up to a point, and ignore the logical implications and contradictions, because I can't abide even any beginning of a notion of an unjust God."
Of course. But that is what those insisting on self-determinism do.
God is perfect justice, he is also perfect love
perfect justice says there is a payment for sin (death)
perfect love can not over rule his justice, but he can make a way. To take the penalty in the place of the guilty.
Agreed
Perfect love died for all. not some
Who made that rule?
to say he only died for some.. would IN MY VIEW (please do not take offence) be a humanistic way of thinking.. I say this, because it is not perfect love, it is limited love
It is not, if that was his plan from the beginning. You want equal love for all, but that is not what he had in mind. Grace.
In the story of the workers in the field, those who had been there all day said it was not fair that those who came late to work got paid the same amount as those who had been there all day. The owner said, you got what you bargained for—why are you upset that I do with my own money what I want, generously toward some?
Justice applies to everyone because it is perfect.
Agreed
if love does not apply to everyone. then love is not perfect it is limited.
I suppose you mean, if love does not apply equally to everyone... But, even if not, who came up with that rule?
All creation belongs to God. He can do as he will, and it may not look nice to some. "Who are you, oh man, [to tell God he is unfair]?"
God is a very particular God. His plan is specific.
