Hebrews 6

[Eleanor]

If they were never saved, they, by definition, wouldn't be apostates.

Look up the definition of "apostasy."

 

[JIM]

Note that he only "tasted" it, for less than 48 hours.

"Eating" it would be subject to the grave until the end of time, as dead mankind is.

Oh my. You really do not believe that Jesus paid the price for your sins. How unfortunate.

 

[JIM]

Warnings are one of the ways God preserves the elect, who heed the warnings. . .while the non-elect ignore them.

Preserved from what? According to the soteriology you seem to profess, you didn't choose to become an elect and by the same argument you can 't choose to become an unelect. So again, preserve from what?

 

[JIM]

Look up the definition of "apostasy."

I think you are the one who needs to do that.

 

[makesends]

Off topic? I responded directly to the OP, the post #1.

I was saying that my comment was off-topic. It was commentary on your method, not on the subject at hand.

 

[makesends]

Warnings are one of the ways God preserves the elect, who heed the warnings. . .while the non-elect ignore them.

Exactly. @JIM you are once again making the classic mistake of the self determinist, who thinks that if God ordains all things whatsoever come to pass, that all effects to come are therefore automatic and there is no need for anyone to exert themselves. There are at least 3 things logically wrong with that mistake: 1) If the believer does not heed the warnings, he was not ordained to heed the warnings and has no reason to call himself a believer. 2) The way God accomplishes most things of which we are aware, is by use of means, to include our efforts and our heeding of warnings. 3) Like #2, the fact that God will complete everything whatsoever he has planned and begun, means only that it is sure to come to pass --not that it is automatic.

 

[JIM]

Exactly. @JIM you are once again making the classic mistake of the self determinist, who thinks that if God ordains all things whatsoever come to pass, that all effects to come are therefore automatic and there is no need for anyone to exert themselves. There are at least 3 things logically wrong with that mistake: 1) If the believer does not heed the warnings, he was not ordained to heed the warnings and has no reason to call himself a believer. 2) The way God accomplishes most things of which we are aware, is by use of means, to include our efforts and our heeding of warnings. 3) Like #2, the fact that God will complete everything whatsoever he has planned and begun, means only that it is sure to come to pass --not that it is automatic.

If God ordains it, it happens. However, there are many things, in fact nearly all things, that happen which have not been ordained by God. That God allowed it to happen does not mean He ordained it to happen. Not understanding that is the downfall of the determinist.

Ordain is, it seems, one of those words that Calvinists like to use in speaking of God, but do not even appear in the NT in speaking about God and almost never in the OT.

 

[JIM]

Warnings are one of the ways God preserves the elect, who heed the warnings. . .while the non-elect ignore them.

Given your version of the elect, that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[makesends]

If God ordains it, it happens. However, there are many things, in fact nearly all things, that happen which have not been ordained by God. That God allowed it to happen does not mean He ordained it to happen. Not understanding that is the downfall of the determinist.

Ordain is, it seems, one of those words that Calvinists like to use in speaking of God, but do not even appear in the NT in speaking about God and almost never in the OT.

Does the word, "planned", work better for you? How about, "decreed"?

The word, "Trinity", isn't in there either. I think a little honesty is in order here.

You have no scripture to back up the illogical notion that anything can happen that God did not intentionally plan to happen. And no, the one taken out of its immediate context, "nor did it enter my mind that they should do that", does not do the job.

 

[JIM]

Does the word, "planned", work better for you? How about, "decreed"?

The word, "Trinity", isn't in there either. I think a little honesty is in order here.

You have no scripture to back up the illogical notion that anything can happen that God did not intentionally plan to happen. And no, the one taken out of its immediate context, "nor did it enter my mind that they should do that", does not do the job.

Do you think God intentionally planned that Adam sin. Did God cause Adam to sin?

 

[makesends]

Given your version of the elect, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Seems to me significant that you don't say, "It makes no sense to me", here.

It would also move the discussion along, if you would demonstrate how it is nonsensical. Where does it depart from good sense?

 

[makesends]

Do you think God intentionally planned that Adam sin. Did God cause Adam to sin?

God intentionally planned that Adam sin.

Would you have preferred that we remain in Eden always at risk of sinning, or that Christ die for our sins, so that we will live forever sinless in Heaven with Him? If Adam had not sinned, Christ would not have redeemed us.

Acts 2:23 says that Christ was delivered up by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge. This was no plan gone wrong. I think it is rather an insult to claim that an accident can happen to what God has made.

 

[JIM]

God intentionally planned that Adam sin.

Would you have preferred that we remain in Eden always at risk of sinning, or that Christ die for our sins, so that we will live forever sinless in Heaven with Him? If Adam had not sinned, Christ would not have redeemed us.

Acts 2:23 says that Christ was delivered up by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge. This was no plan gone wrong. I think it is rather an insult to claim that an accident can happen to what God has made.

Do you understand the difference between God planning that Adam sinned and God planning for Adam sinning?

 

[makesends]

Do you understand the difference between God planning that Adam sinned and God planning for Adam sinning?

The difference is in your mind and your use of terminology. If God planned it, it came to pass. If it came to pass, it was not on its own and not by mistake. All things were made by him --is "things" only physical substance?

 

[Mr GLee]

Do you understand the difference between God planning that Adam sinned and God planning for Adam sinning?

I would offer rather than planning they sin. " I obey you, do not listen to me listen to the other guy

He established the letter of the law death giving them a loving commandment not to violate the living abiding word of God They did violate it by hearing the voice of a stranger not seen denying prophecy.(sola scriptura )

Their lifeless spiritless bodies returned to the dust and the temporal spirit given subject to the loving letter of law returned to the father of all spirit life

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Free will . . . . .right out the window blowing in the dust .

 

[JIM]

The difference is in your mind and your use of terminology. If God planned it, it came to pass. If it came to pass, it was not on its own and not by mistake. All things were made by him --is "things" only physical substance?

OK, I understand your thinking. I am done with any discussions with you.

 

[makesends]

If God ordains it, it happens. However, there are many things, in fact nearly all things, that happen which have not been ordained by God. That God allowed it to happen does not mean He ordained it to happen. Not understanding that is the downfall of the determinist.

Ordain is, it seems, one of those words that Calvinists like to use in speaking of God, but do not even appear in the NT in speaking about God and almost never in the OT.

Can you demonstrate how anything can come to pass without God having caused it either directly or through means?

 

[makesends]

Do you think God intentionally planned that Adam sin. Did God cause Adam to sin?

God caused that Adam sin. Can you show how it is possible that Adam sin apart from the fact that God caused that he sin? You will have to show that God did nothing that resulted in Adam sinning.

 

[JIM]

Can you demonstrate how anything can come to pass without God having caused it either directly or through means?

Of course. It is called free will. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was a command, a negative command but nevertheless a command. In creating Adam, God created him with the ability to choose for himself whether or not to obey any such commands. Adam chose to not obey. God obviously didn't cause Adam to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree either directly or through any means. Giving Adam the ability and the opportunity to choose for himself whether or not to obey is not causation of the choice. It is the very opposite of causation. The works of the creator-God is a very deep and wide subject all on its own. But very briefly there are things which God causes and things which God permits. Permitting is not causing -- period.

 

[JIM]

God caused that Adam sin. Can you show how it is possible that Adam sin apart from the fact that God caused that he sin? You will have to show that God did nothing that resulted in Adam sinning.

That God presented Adam with a free choice did not cause Adam to sin. It permitted Adam to sin. You seem to think that the commands that God has imposed were simply arbitrary commands given as tests of obedience. That is not true. Some might have been tests of a sort, but most commands were necessary for mankind to live together one with another. We can see the calamitous results all around the world when man does not live as God has instructed. The instructions given were/are in contradistinction to instinct. The functioning of mankind through free will stands in stark contrast with the rest of the animal kingdom that functions on the basis of instinct. Your theology in refusing to accept the truth of free will behavior to obey imposes even more restrictive means on mankind than that of the instinctive behavior of the animal kingdom.