The powerless Arminian Jesus

[Arial]

God foreknew those who would respond and those he predestined them which means He set the destination for those whom he knew. This is clearly what Paul says. Those he foreknew he did predestine and those he predestined he did glorify.

If He knew who would respond, why would it be necessary for Him to predestine them to be glorified? Wouldn't the response itself be doing that? I don't think Paul wrote in nonsensical riddles like that. You would also have something happening outside of God to which He then responds, and you have yet to illustrate that there is anything outside of God. Or that God reacts to the knowledge that He gains. Or that He gains knowledge instead of being its source.

He doesn’t lose anyone but some sadly leave him like Judas did. There are those who did not accept his call like the rich young ruler. These things must be taken into account and not just brushed aside.

You have changed the subject. The scriptures were in regard to my definition of predestination, not OSAS. You have not given your definition of predestination, which you need to do, so we can compare and weigh against what God says of Himself.

No one can but they can leave if they desire. “Will you leave also?”’He asked His disciples. And one eventually did.

You are changing the subject. The scriptures were given in regards to my definition of predestination, not OSAS. YOu must give your definition of predestination so we can compare the two views against what God says of Himself. This cannot be ignored.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

If He knew who would respond, why would it be necessary for Him to predestine them to be glorified?

Because that is what he set their destiny to be. All who receive Him would be destined for glory.

Wouldn't the response itself be doing that?

No, part of the predestination was the Cross. By dying for the sins of the whole world, Christ provided a destiny for all who would receive Him. That is why predestination is in Him. In Him, we are predestined...

For instance, He predestined us for adoption. (Romans 8:30) But it still was a choice. But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the right [the authority, the privilege] to become children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— John 1:12

From God's point of view, He knew who those would be, but the opportunity was available to all because Jesus paid for the world's sins.

I don't think Paul wrote in nonsensical riddles like that. You would also have something happening outside of God to which He then responds, and you have yet to illustrate that there is anything outside of God. Or that God reacts to the knowledge that He gains. Or that He gains knowledge instead of being its source.

That's because God cannot gain knowledge. He is knowledge and the source of all knowledge.

You have changed the subject. The scriptures were in regard to my definition of predestination, not OSAS. You have not given your definition of predestination, which you need to do, so we can compare and weigh against what God says of Himself.

Look again at the texts you quoted and you will see why I gave the responses I did.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

We became sinners because God intended for us to have the ability to become sinners.

And we can become saints because God intended for us to have the ability to become saints.

Sin already existed before ever the "Let there be---" of our creation was ever spoken. Sin is not a creation, it is missing the mark and the mark is the holiness of our Creator. If He did not intend it, the serpent would not have been in the garden.

Are you now saying that He intended sin? Sin either came about by His decree or, according to your teachings, or it was outside God's sovereignty.

These types of arguments are an appeal to emotion fallacy, and are not based on facts or understanding. Phrasing it as a question is like asking if someone has stopped beating their wife. Only far, far, worse because it strikes at the very character of God and accuses people of believing what you say about them and God here, if they do not agree with you. So I will not even attempt to write the thesis it would take that would disabuse your notion in reality---but would also not disabuse you of your notion. I will simply ask another that at least shines a light on the fallacy and intent of your question, and show that you yourself do not have a better answer to the scenario you give. If God has the power to stop the drunk stepfather, why doesn't He? Why did He permit it to happen? Would your answer be, "Because He ordained to not interfere with man's free will?"

Now this is the biggest deflection I have ever seen. I understand it, though, because it threatens your entire theology. And by the way, it is not a logical fallacy. It was not even an argument. It was a question.

The question remains whether you answer it or not and there are only two options. This incident was decreed by God or it wasn't. It is a simple binary choice but either answer destroys a portion of your theology. The fact is, you have tacitly answered it when you declared, " if He did not ordain all things, it would mean there is another equal or greater than Himself. "

That means He ordained this terrible result of sin to happen. This is why reformed theology taken too far is untenable.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Sin already existed, it is not created. Sin is missing the mark and the mark is the holiness of God, our Creator. And if it was not His intent that it would exist in the creation of our world, then something happened outside His sovereignty. It would mean that now man is pulling the strings. His plan in that view went belly up with the first human He created. The fact that the natural consequences of sin "play out" is really beside the point. God says He subjected all of creation to futility (under the sun)and for His purpose. Romans 8:20-23 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from it bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we now that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirh until now. And not only the creation, but we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

He did not learn it would exist. He knows all things because it is His plan and His purpose. He is subject to nothing, not even what appears as happenstance and circumstance to us. Sin exists in our world because He intended for it to exist. The Bible never says He foreknew it would exist. So you cannot legitimately take your definition of that word and apply it to creation or to God.

You don't hear me. You are saying the same thing I have said over and over. God knows everything in all time.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

You say that because it is yours, and it agrees with your view of God. Which one agrees with those scripture I posted of what God says about Himself was the question.

The first one.

And because you took my question to be asking only you, (understandable) but is really a generic question. A question meant to be answered by anyone, ultimately everyone, by simply looking at the facts of God presented and comparing them to the two views.

Still the first one. The second one limits God; the first one doesn't.

For you to just say definitely the first one does not suffice. You must demonstrate that it is the first one.

Again, the second one limits God and, therefore, can't be true.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

And the first event to take place was Genesis 1:1. EVERYTHING - all other events that have ever occurred, are occurring, and will ever occur in creation are predicated upon that event. God foreknew that event beforehand, and He foreknew that event AND all that would ensue eternally omniscient - before time, before any "hand" ever existed.

Yes. So foreknowledge means to know before hand.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I am going to quote both our responses from the beginning of this particular issue, so as to keep the subject on track and not lose it to a rabbit trail that becomes argument, before I address it.








I simply said saying God "can" do something does not make something else a false premise. So the question does not address the original statement: "But if God does not ordain all things something happens outside His sovereignty." and is still operating on what He "can" do as a premise instead of what He did do.

For the premise of all things to come, ever, and in this discussion, go back to Gen 1:1. That is the premise of interpretation of all the Bible. "In the beginning God-----" With the correct understanding, as far as is possible, by what He reveals of Himself, we arrive at a God centered view instead of a man centered view. And how interpretations more likely to be accurate, instead of "can do's", "could have's", "maybe's", etc. Or what we imagine about God.

The beginning of what? The creation of our world and all that is in it. It was not the beginning of God. It was God beginning some - thing, and for His purpose. All of which He knew and purposed before He created this world, in full and in detail, not because He looked into the future, but because He ordained it. It is His plan and His purpose. The very first thing He created was space and time---boundaries for all that would be put in it. Every bit of it subject to Him, none of it circumstance or happenstance but for His purpose. None of it unknown, none of it reactionary, but fully conceived and known by Him, down to every speck of sand and where it lay. For His purpose.

He planted a Garden, setting the boundaries for Adam and Eve, giving them work and giving them commands. And we see man's place in it. He intentionally created them as mortals (able to die) and as corruptible (able to be corrupted) but not corrupt. They had a will that could make choices (part of His image they bore) but it was never free, for it was never free of His will. They were commanded and obligated to trust and obey their Creator. Thus the ability to sin, which they did. Were put out of their boundaries where they tabernacled with God, and all of creation became subject to death.

That was not the creation of evil, and I posit evil is not a creation but the absence of good.

In any case, this was God's intent in creating our world and putting us in it. And the only why of all this is the end result that He gives us. A new heaven and a new earth, that already exist in God's economy, it is only us who travel to it through the perspective of time. This new heaven and new earth existed in God---for nothing exists outside of Him---before the creation of our world and God has always been working towards that through our creation. You might very well say, to put it in human terms, that this aspect of creation is only the first stage of what God is doing. The goal of His purpose is a new creation, first from within humanity, through and in Christ, and ultimately in a creation in which sin, death, evil, no longer exist. Christ destroys them---forever. IOW a creation and creature (s) who are then immortal and incorruptible. A new creation in Christ. By Him, through Him, for Him.

Not a single thing is dependant on the actions of men apart from God, because none of the actions of men are apart from God.

Thus the child died in the contractor bag because God ordained it. No, no, no, I say, and no again. God did not ordain it. It was never God's will that sin should exist. This is the darkest side of reformed theology.

 

[Arial]

Thus the child died in the contractor bag because God ordained it. No, no, no, I say, and no again. God did not ordain it. It was never God's will that sin should exist. This is the darkest side of reformed theology.

If this is the way you are going to respond to a post that had nothing to do with the post, not addressing one iota of anything that was in it, it shows that you have already conceded that you cannot defend your position, so won't even try. You take the typical turn when that is the case, in what was a discussion of ideas, and turn it into horrific accusations of the beliefs of fellow Christians, causing divisions, heedless and unconcerned for the damage you may cause by tearing down what those appointed by God have built upon His foundation; depending on human wisdom to build with instead. 1 Cor 3. Read it and let it do its sanctifying work in you.

 

[Arial]

Because that is what he set their destiny to be. All who receive Him would be destined for glory.

Receiving Christ leads to the condition of being glorified. The believer is not already glorified. That comes with the resurrection of our bodies. Do you notice how the the entire passage is written in the past tense as though it were already accomplished? Even though most believers had not yet been born when Paul wrote that, and there are still many who have not yet been born, and no doubt even more alive who have not yet been called or justified? And all of believing humanity has not yet been glorified because the resurrection of the dead has not yet happened?

That is because it was accomplished by God, who transcends time, before the foundations of our world. In time, where we are, those who believe now, have been called and they have been justified, as certain and as faithfully as God rules the heavens. Sunrise, sunset.

 

[Arial]

No, part of the predestination was the Cross. By dying for the sins of the whole world, Christ provided a destiny for all who would receive Him. That is why predestination is in Him. In Him, we are predestined...

You must demonstrate that "dying for the sins of the whole world" means dying for the sins of every individual. You must demonstrate that Paul was referring to the cross in this passage, instead of to individuals. You must demonstrate that we are predestined in Him. Just stating something as fact does not make it fact. In a discussion or debate, it is important to back up such statements.

For instance, He predestined us for adoption. (Romans 8:30) But it still was a choice. But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the right [the authority, the privilege] to become children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— John 1:12

The ones who receive and welcome Him are the ones who believe His name. That is why they receive Him. Not because they chose to believe Him. That has to be presumed but it is not actually there. Therefore---we have to go back to Gen 1 and who God is, or any other place where He declares who He is---the last chapters of Job would do just fine, to find out if this is the acceptance of a free will offering or if it is God doing what only God can do. Save.

From God's point of view, He knew who those would be, but the opportunity was available to all because Jesus paid for the world's sins.

You have given nothing to support this position, and ignored what was given to disprove it. God does not have a point of view, and if He did, we certainly could not say what it is. God Is. That is what I AM means. I AM WHO I AM. Literally, I will be who I will be. I am giving you every opportunity to make you case----pretend it was a court case---and you do not do it. We can't have an actual discussion unless you do. God doesn't learn things. Not even who will choose Him when He makes the opportunity. He has all knowledge all the time and for all eternity. He has that knowledge because it is His and His alone. If He only knows who will choose Him that would have to come from looking at all His knowledge and seeing who they were---learning. It would not come from His knowledge but into His knowledge.

That's because God cannot gain knowledge. He is knowledge and the source of all knowledge.

Nevertheless your view has Him doing that. You just haven't thought about it long enough. You have thought about your side, but not the other side to the point of where you grasp it. Do some reading on the subject from reputable Reformed writers--or youtube videos---both contemporary and historical.

Look again at the texts you quoted and you will see why I gave the responses I did.

I know why you gave the responses that you did. They are scriptures that also support OSAS but that is not all that is in them, and what was in them I referred to was the "calling" and the predestining aspect of it.

 

[Arial]

You don't hear me. You are saying the same thing I have said over and over. God knows everything in all time.

Yes I know you say that but we are not saying the same thing. You say He knows all things because He sees all things in all time. I am saying He knows all things outside of time, not inside of it. He knew it all before our portion (inside time and creation) ever even existed, and He knew it because He ordained it. For His purpose. And his purpose is not to ascertain who will accept some hypothetical offer of grace and then predestine them to glory. His purpose that He tells us, is as I have said and shown, a new creation in Christ. A new heaven and new earth in Christ.

 

[Arial]

The first one.

Show me.

Still the first one. The second one limits God; the first one doesn't.

How does the second one limit God? The first one does limit God because it puts Him in the supposed position of "that's all I can do" by sending Christ to the cross to pay for the sins of everyone but only saving a few, a situation which is caused by that very sinfulness of man in the first place. And even worse it has God offering the gracious gift of eternal life in Christ and then when it is refused, turning away what He could freely actually GIVE. Then God collecting twice on the debt, once from His precious Son whom He at least says He loves, though that would certainly not be an action of love, and again from the actual criminal.

Again, the second one limits God and, therefore, can't be true.

How does it limit God. Here is what God says, just as a reminder:

Is 40:13-14 Who has measured the Spirit of the Lord, or what man shows him his counsel? Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?

And the answer. 15.Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust. 18. To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with Him? 21-23 Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it ot been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing, and akes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.

25-25 To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling the all by name; by the greatness of his might and because he is strong in power, not one is missing.

Is 46:9b-10 I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient time things not yet done, saying :My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose---"

Is 14:24 The Lord of hosts has sworn:"As I have planned, so shall it be and as I have purposed, so shall it stand

I know we have gotten so many pages past them we need to refresh.

 

[Arial]

And we can become saints because God intended for us to have the ability to become saints.

The elect becomes saints because God intended for them to become saints. It has nothing to do with our abilities or our wisdom.

Are you now saying that He intended sin? Sin either came about by His decree or, according to your teachings, or it was outside God's sovereignty.

Yes He intended sin, but He is neither the cause of sin nor does He make anyone sin. It is the first sin of Adam that made us sinners. Sin is not caused, and it is not created. Sin is disobedience to the Creator. It is not a decree.

Now this is the biggest deflection I have ever seen. I understand it, though, because it threatens your entire theology. And by the way, it is not a logical fallacy. It was not even an argument. It was a question.

1. I said it was an appeal to emotion fallacy.
2. It was a argument posed as a question.
2. Questions quite often and intentionally contain logical fallacies.
3. It was not a deflection but directly addressed what you said, even stated in so many words, that this thread is not the place to take up the space or time to address it theologically or doctrinally.
4. It does not threaten my theology or by doctrine (learn the difference) because it in no way relates to it. People use it to attempt to undermine the doctrines of the theology a. because of ignorance of the actual doctrine and no understanding of it. b.because of its high emotional value and not caring at all who it might injure or how badly.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The elect becomes saints because God intended for them to become saints. It has nothing to do with our abilities or our wisdom.

But yet you say sinless man only have the ability to become sinners but God did not dictate that they should become sinners. Therefore the Fact that they became centers was out of the purview of God.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Yes He intended sin, but He is neither the cause of sin nor does He make anyone sin. It is the first sin of Adam that made us sinners. Sin is not caused, and it is not created. Sin is disobedience to the Creator. It is not a decree.

So, let me get this straight. Sinless man became sinners outside of the decrees of God. Outside of his sovereignty? God intended that there should be sin and yet he did not ordained that there should be sin?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The elect becomes saints because God intended for them to become saints. It has nothing to do with our abilities or our wisdom.

Yes He intended sin, but He is neither the cause of sin nor does He make anyone sin. It is the first sin of Adam that made us sinners. Sin is not caused, and it is not created. Sin is disobedience to the Creator. It is not a decree.

1. I said it was an appeal to emotion fallacy.

You need to bone up on logical fallacies. It was not a logical fallacy. I can give you the website to study them if you wish.

2. It was a argument posed as a question.

No it wasn’t. It was an honest question because I think it gets to the heart of some of the absurdity of reformed theology. Now I’m not throwing all of reform theology under the bus there only parts of it that are a bit absurd.

2. Questions quite often and intentionally contain logical fallacies.

Perhaps, but this one didn’t. I noticed you’re still deflecting.

3. It was not a deflection but directly addressed what you said, even stated in so many words, that this thread is not the place to take up the space or time to address it theologically or doctrinally.

Mega deflection.

4. It does not threaten my theology or by doctrine (learn the difference) because it in no way relates to it. People use it to attempt to undermine the doctrines of the theology a. because of ignorance of the actual doctrine and no understanding of it. b.because of its high emotional value and not caring at all who it might injure or how badly.

Continue deflection. It is sad that reformed the Theology would even allow such a thought that God would ordain such a thing. Unless of course reformed theology does admit that there are things that are outside of God’s decrees and ordinations.

 

[Arial]

No it wasn’t. It was an honest question because I think it gets to the heart of some of the absurdity of reformed theology.

And I pointed out that it didn't. @makesends addressed the fallacy in post #453. I simply stated I was not going to as it derailed the topic.

You need to bone up on logical fallacies. It was not a logical fallacy. I can give you the website to study them if you wish.

It was a logical fallacy---appeal to emotion. It gave no information, only opinion, used the most horrific scenario to to do so, meant to influence the reader. I would guess from experience that I probably know as much about logical fallacies and critical thinking as you, if not more, given you constant use of the first and your lack of the second. But don't start with the ad hominem. Stick to the conversation.

. I noticed you’re still deflecting.

What am I deflecting from? You are deflecting from the entire conversation and are doing exactly what I was diligently trying to avoid.Do you like this sort of thing?

Mega deflection.

Ad hominem.

Continue deflection. It is sad that reformed the Theology would even allow such a thought that God would ordain such a thing. Unless of course reformed theology does admit that there are things that are outside of God’s decrees and ordinations.

Deflection from what? Not the post I'm responding to that's for sure. And Reformed theology does not base its theology or the doctrines that come from it, on whether or not it might cause thoughts that are evil lobbed against it. It bases it on the word of God and who God says He is. Maybe you should actually study, different writings and different Reformed theologians and in depth on the subject before you start teaching about it and against it. And calling your opinions its teachings.And check what they say against the scriptures---not your opinions or your presuppositional interpretations. Take a close look at decrees and ordinations in the theology.

And instead of responding to this post which would carry on this off topic and fruitless conversation, do what you have not done. Give us your definition of predestination.

 

[Arial]

So, let me get this straight. Sinless man became sinners outside of the decrees of God. Outside of his sovereignty? God intended that there should be sin and yet he did not ordained that there should be sin?

God did not decree that they would sin. He made them so they could and intended for His purpose that they would. God is the one with a purpose here----not man and man is not His supreme purpose. We are not the center of any universe. We are creatures.

And no, man sinning is not outside of His sovereignty. And He did not ordain that there would be sin. Sin is not an entity or a creation. I will say it again---it is falling short of the mark and the mark is the holiness of God. We are to be holy because He is holy. If we are not even in the smallest of ways, we have fallen short.

 

[Arial]

But yet you say sinless man only have the ability to become sinners but God did not dictate that they should become sinners. Therefore the Fact that they became centers was out of the purview of God.

Take a break or a deep breath and rewrite that so it makes sense.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

If this is the way you are going to respond to a post that had nothing to do with the post, not addressing one iota of anything that was in it, it shows that you have already conceded that you cannot defend your position, so won't even try. You take the typical turn when that is the case, in what was a discussion of ideas, and turn it into horrific accusations of the beliefs of fellow Christians, causing divisions, heedless and unconcerned for the damage you may cause by tearing down what those appointed by God have built upon His foundation; depending on human wisdom to build with instead. 1 Cor 3. Read it and let it do its sanctifying work in you.

It would be best if you faced the reality of sin. This child is one tiny fruit of sin in this world. If sin is not some abstract theological construct that we can keep at arm's length. If one claims that God ordains everything, then He ordained that that child should die in that way. If He does not ordain everything, then we can look for another cause of sin and explore why God let sin happen when he knew it would. This is where understanding the things of God becomes deeper in significance significant.

I can't simply dismiss the reality of sin while making claims that tacitly make God an ordainer of all suffering and sin.