S
sandusky
Guest
Didn’t say that, did I?
- Status
P
Pax
Guest
Sandusky,
I realize that classic Calvinism doesn’t teach that the elect “know” who they are, but you have to admit that the offerings on this thread by you and moondweller would lead people to think otherwise. Moreover, some variations of Calvinists do believe that they “know” that they are of the elect.
Mikeledes argument and points are not contrived and you should think about them. Paul speaks of the elect. Paul also speaks of those that are justified but fall away. That is the point that we have been making all along.
P.S. Enjoy the ice skating.
I realize that classic Calvinism doesn’t teach that the elect “know” who they are, but you have to admit that the offerings on this thread by you and moondweller would lead people to think otherwise. Moreover, some variations of Calvinists do believe that they “know” that they are of the elect.
Mikeledes argument and points are not contrived and you should think about them. Paul speaks of the elect. Paul also speaks of those that are justified but fall away. That is the point that we have been making all along.
P.S. Enjoy the ice skating.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
The concept is clearly taught in Romans 11 and 1 Cor. 10.Where in the Scripture does one find any mention of "predestination to grace only?"
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
LOL, not so fast there. You “stopped reading” because you cant handle Mike’s use of 1 Cor 8:11. It is no accident you only responded to the first sentence, made a mountain of a molehill and “refused” to read the rest of the post.However, that is not a statement of Calvinism, but an inaccurate contrivance of your making on how you perceive Calvinism; therefore, since your thesis is contrived, I have concluded that your argument is also contrived, and have stopped reading it at this point.
Try again, if you must.
It is times like these when Calvinism is really exposed for when passages like these are put in their way they either go off on a tangent, ignore, or obfuscate until people forget what the original question was. This is not in any way a personal attack, it is simply the Reformed school of thought and apologetics.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
FALSE!!!
This is a classical line used by Calvinists when Calvinists feel cornered, classical Calvinism most certainly did teach the elect know who they themself are and have full assurane, as did Calvin and Luther. They pride themself on their assurance in EXPLICIT contrast to what they deem Papist oppression and gloom of not knowing if they will be in Heaven and living life with an unsettled conscience. Sola Fide was HUGELY concerned about assurance, it was literally what put them at peace.
NOBODY would be Calvinist unless they assumed they were elect. If they did not assume they were elect they could not go and worship on Sunday because an unregenerate has no buisiness or ability to worship, so it would be hypocritical to worship without considering yourself elect. It is a package deal.
**Westminster Confession
**
Chapter XVIII
Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish):** yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed**.
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;%between% but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation … …
M
moondweller
Guest
To my knowledge no one actually knows who composed the creed. So how would you know what those unknown men meant by “communion of the saints?”
And this “disrespect” I attribute to Him is what?
When was this?
It’s not an absurd assertion at all. So you believe in the eternal estate some will have mothers and fathers while others won’t? Or, if you’re going to draw a parallel, just mothers (I notice Catholicism doesn’t exalt Joseph to a royal position alongside Jesus). Remember, not all have/had believing parents. Tough luck for them, right?
What evidence do you have?Apparently no evidence that you will accept.
That idea is read into the text, it is impossible to get it out of it. No name was needed, the text makes it quite clear Jesus was speaking to a specific individual, “a disciple” (most believe it to be John, as do I). You’re presenting a doctrine based on a personal spiritualization of the text. Hence, nothing more than a personal opinion. She is not called the mother of the church anywhere in the Epistles. You’d at least think John would mention it, right?
He has not yet fulfilled what the angel said to Mary at the Annunciation (Lk. 1:32-33). He ascended and now shares His Father’s throne in heaven and functions there as the believer’s High Priest and Advocate. The Kingdom to which He was born to rule is earthly and yet future. The eternal Son did not need to be born into humanity in order to rule heaven. Heaven was always His. But read what the angel said to Mary:Luke 1:32-33 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."This is not a heavenly kingdom - it’s earthly. David’s kingdom is earthly. And NONE of the prophecies that describe that kindom mention a “queen mother” who will reign in that age.
Yet you provide nothing to support your assertion.
Really, quanophore, how does this passage prove Mary’s present reign in heaven?
P
Pax
Guest
I stand corrected…apparently some Calvinists that I highly respect steered me wrong on this one.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I think 2nd Corinthians is worth quoting at this point:
3You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9**If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
**http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/images/smilies/cool.gif
The law could not save, only the indwelling of the Spirit can. That is the essence of Catholic understanding of Justification, which is precisely what St Paul says.7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9**If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
**http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/images/smilies/cool.gif
R
ryanoneil
Guest
I’ve already agreed to this. (except it being the only example)
2 Tim 2:10
Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory.
11
This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him;
12
if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.
13
If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.
Paul says even the “chosen” can “deny” Jesus.
Would you consider these the same people chosen in (Rom 8:30)?
If so, these verses don’t use the same golden chain of redemption. It is not “only” about glory.
Don’t worry about it. I misunderstand what people are saying all the time.
I was asking if you believed the good and faithfull servant was chosen and justified at the point God put him in charge (Luke 12:41-46).
If not, why did God choose him?
Peace
P
Pax
Guest
I’ve already agreed to this. (except it being the only example)
2 Tim 2:10
Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory.
11
This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him;
12
if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.
13
If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.
Paul says even the “chosen” can “deny” Jesus.
Would you consider these the same people chosen in (Rom 8:30)?
If so, these verses don’t use the same golden chain of redemption. It is not “only” about glory.
Don’t worry about it. I misunderstand what people are saying all the time.
I was asking if you believed the good and faithfull servant was chosen and justified at the point God put him in charge (Luke 12:41-46).
If not, why did God choose him?
Peace
P
Philthy
Guest
I have to say Sandusky, that all your talk regarding predestination is confusing. Perhaps you could begin by explaining what, exactly, it means to be “predestined”. The way you seem to present it is that everyone who is to be saved and glorified has no other possible fate from their human existence. Is that correct? Yor N please. Here is an exchange we had back in may on the Re: Faith alone thread (post 556)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3746621#post3746621
Your position was that John 6:39-44 refers to all the saved as being among the elect:
Sandman:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3746621#post3746621
Your position was that John 6:39-44 refers to all the saved as being among the elect:
So it is clear in your mind: those that are to be saved will be “protected” by God and this protection irrevocably results in salvation and, ultimately, glorification. But this brings confusion regarding the existence of free will in man and the justice of God’s judgement (ignoring for the moment all the Scripture which appears to contradict your position). If the only difference between the predestined and the reprobate is God’s “protection” being given to the elect and withheld from the reprobate, how is that just and how is that compatible with free will. On this latter point you responded with…
**Sandusky [/quote said:]Christ says that those given to Him by the Father “will come to Me,” and He says nothing about their doing so against their will. Men are not robots; they act according to the desires of their heart which direct their will.
Here - to me - it seems you indicate that Man’s will allows him to independently make decisions which have actual, eternal consequences. This, according to your statement, is a function of the “desires of their heart” which exerts influence on their will. But how can anyone reconcile this stance with your stance above with God “protecting” the elect. If God unilaterally “protects” the desires of their hearts which direct their wills, then how can we not view them as robots? I could only conclude that in order for your “protection” stance and your “man has free will stance” tosimultaneously exist that somehow the desires of the heart are not unilaterally directed by God. So I asked you point blank:
Philthy:
Does God direct the desires of men’s hearts which direct their wills? Yes or No, please.
And you responded with…
Sandusky:
You didnt even bother to explain why. It seems that this thread is right back at this same point again. Why dont you answer what appears to be a very simple question. Either you believe that God directs the desires of men’s hearts (ie "It’s ALL God), or you believe He doesnt, or perhaps you believe that He only does so for the elect. You should welcome this opportunity to reconcile a relatively straight forward question and share the truth - if not for myself (whom you may have deemed reprobate), then perhaps for the lurkers.
S
sandusky
Guest
Below is each NT verse that speaks to predestination.**Acts 4:27-28
27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
1 Corinthians 2:7
7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Ephesians 1:3-5
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Ephesians 1:11
11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,**Though they don’t contain the word ”predestination,” I’ve included Eph 1:3, 4 among those verses speaking to predestination on the basis of Roman 8:29 and the foreknowledge of God—those chosen in Eph 1:3, 4 have been chosen on the basis of the foreknowledge of God.
I submit that everything God foreknows and predestines, comes to pass without fail as He decrees it.
The verses in blue are all of the verses in the NT that speak to predestination and salvation.
There is nothing among those verses stating “predestination to grace only”—absolutely nothing.
Your contention that a believer can “fall from grace,” is found in only one verse: Gal 5:4. That is with respect to “circumcision.” Paul’s point in the passage is that the one who puts faith in circumcision to save him instead of faith in Christ to save him will perish (remember, Paul circumcised Timothy). If we assume that some among the Galatians had recieved circumcision that is not enough to condemn them. What condemns them, says Paul, is to continue in the belief that either circumcision alone can save them, or, the belief that circumcision and Christ is what truly saves them, for as Paul says in v6, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love; therefore, Paul is not precluding repentance from having been circumcised in either of those two beliefs, and returning to faith alone in Christ alone.
As Paul says in v10, “I have confidence toward you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view…”
His confidence toward those is “in the Lord."**Philippians 1:6
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.**”Will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” It is the Lord who saves.
(continued below)
27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
1 Corinthians 2:7
7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
Romans 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Ephesians 1:3-5
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Ephesians 1:11
11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,**Though they don’t contain the word ”predestination,” I’ve included Eph 1:3, 4 among those verses speaking to predestination on the basis of Roman 8:29 and the foreknowledge of God—those chosen in Eph 1:3, 4 have been chosen on the basis of the foreknowledge of God.
I submit that everything God foreknows and predestines, comes to pass without fail as He decrees it.
The verses in blue are all of the verses in the NT that speak to predestination and salvation.
There is nothing among those verses stating “predestination to grace only”—absolutely nothing.
Your contention that a believer can “fall from grace,” is found in only one verse: Gal 5:4. That is with respect to “circumcision.” Paul’s point in the passage is that the one who puts faith in circumcision to save him instead of faith in Christ to save him will perish (remember, Paul circumcised Timothy). If we assume that some among the Galatians had recieved circumcision that is not enough to condemn them. What condemns them, says Paul, is to continue in the belief that either circumcision alone can save them, or, the belief that circumcision and Christ is what truly saves them, for as Paul says in v6, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love; therefore, Paul is not precluding repentance from having been circumcised in either of those two beliefs, and returning to faith alone in Christ alone.
As Paul says in v10, “I have confidence toward you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view…”
His confidence toward those is “in the Lord."**Philippians 1:6
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.**”Will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” It is the Lord who saves.
(continued below)
S
sandusky
Guest
(continued from post #989)
.
The same is true with respect to Heb 6:8ff when one continues in the context:**Hebrews 6:9-12
9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. **And as the context of that passage continues the ultimate reason the writer is convinced is brought out:**Hebrews 6:13-20
13 For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,
14 saying, “I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you.”
15 And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise.
16 For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute.
17 In the same way God, desiring EVEN MORE to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.**He is convinced because it’s God who saves according to the oath of His promises.
(continued below)
.
The same is true with respect to Heb 6:8ff when one continues in the context:**Hebrews 6:9-12
9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. **And as the context of that passage continues the ultimate reason the writer is convinced is brought out:**Hebrews 6:13-20
13 For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,
14 saying, “I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you.”
15 And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise.
16 For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute.
17 In the same way God, desiring EVEN MORE to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.**He is convinced because it’s God who saves according to the oath of His promises.
(continued below)
S
sandusky
Guest
(continued from post #990)
.
1 Cor 8:9-13 sounds knotty when taken out of its immediate context, as mikeledes has done.
So instead of starting in the middle, let’s start at the beginning:**1 Corinthians 8:1-8
1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;
3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.**Eating foods sacrificed to idols was associated with worship of the idol. However, as with circumcision in Gal 5, eating food sacrificed to idols is not a big deal to the mature believer, because he knows that there is no such thing as an idol.
Continuing:**5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.**Paul says in eating “idol food” the conscience of the weak one, the one with less knowledge, is defiled, moluno, it is dirtied—he may feel guilt and shame.
Here’s an important point: the defiling is in the middle voice in the Greek. IOW, it is something the weaker brother does to himself! It is not a sin against God, as Paul has pointed that eating food sacrificed to idols is not a sin (cf v8 below); he sins against his own conscience; he does not sin against God.
Continuing:**8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.**Paul’s point here is that food is spiritually neutral, eating or not eating food neither brings one closer to God nor does it push one away from God, but, in this context, for the weaker, less knowledgeable brother, it is a sin against his own conscience.
Continuing:**1 Cor 8:9-13
9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?**IOW, the one with less knowledge may eat the “idol food” to please the stronger brother even though he’s not completely comfortable doing so.
Continuing:**11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.**Here’s the kicker; namely, it’s the stronger, more knowledgeable brother who has sinned against God, and not the weaker brother who has sinned against God, but against his conscience.
Continuing:**13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.**Notice as well, that the terms used in the opening of the passage have to do with weakness through lack of knowledge, stumbling through lack of knowledge, dirtying one’s conscience through lack of knowledge, which leads to a sin againsts the conscience, and not to a sin against God.
Which is why the NASB, rightly IMO, translates the word appolumi as ruined in v11, and not perish.
Taking a contemporary example. Someone has recently come to faith, and heard in the past that going to the movies is a sin. When he’s asked by some stronger, more knowledgeable brothers to go to the movies with them, he balks because of what he’d heard earlier concerning going to the movies.
The more knowledgeable brothers assure him that there is nothing wrong with going to the movies and continue to ask him instead of agreeing with him, and helping him to better understand later. He’s not completely persuaded by what they say, nevertheless, in spite of his lack of assurance he goes with them, and regrets his choice.
The ones guilty of sinning against God are the stronger, more knowledgeable brothers—not the weaker less knowledgeable brother who has sinned against his own conscience.
The same is true of your out-of-context use of Rev 2:20.
Scripture speaks of predestination with respect to salvation in one sense only—to Glory.
.
1 Cor 8:9-13 sounds knotty when taken out of its immediate context, as mikeledes has done.
So instead of starting in the middle, let’s start at the beginning:**1 Corinthians 8:1-8
1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;
3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.**Eating foods sacrificed to idols was associated with worship of the idol. However, as with circumcision in Gal 5, eating food sacrificed to idols is not a big deal to the mature believer, because he knows that there is no such thing as an idol.
Continuing:**5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.**Paul says in eating “idol food” the conscience of the weak one, the one with less knowledge, is defiled, moluno, it is dirtied—he may feel guilt and shame.
Here’s an important point: the defiling is in the middle voice in the Greek. IOW, it is something the weaker brother does to himself! It is not a sin against God, as Paul has pointed that eating food sacrificed to idols is not a sin (cf v8 below); he sins against his own conscience; he does not sin against God.
Continuing:**8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.**Paul’s point here is that food is spiritually neutral, eating or not eating food neither brings one closer to God nor does it push one away from God, but, in this context, for the weaker, less knowledgeable brother, it is a sin against his own conscience.
Continuing:**1 Cor 8:9-13
9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?**IOW, the one with less knowledge may eat the “idol food” to please the stronger brother even though he’s not completely comfortable doing so.
Continuing:**11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.**Here’s the kicker; namely, it’s the stronger, more knowledgeable brother who has sinned against God, and not the weaker brother who has sinned against God, but against his conscience.
Continuing:**13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.**Notice as well, that the terms used in the opening of the passage have to do with weakness through lack of knowledge, stumbling through lack of knowledge, dirtying one’s conscience through lack of knowledge, which leads to a sin againsts the conscience, and not to a sin against God.
Which is why the NASB, rightly IMO, translates the word appolumi as ruined in v11, and not perish.
Taking a contemporary example. Someone has recently come to faith, and heard in the past that going to the movies is a sin. When he’s asked by some stronger, more knowledgeable brothers to go to the movies with them, he balks because of what he’d heard earlier concerning going to the movies.
The more knowledgeable brothers assure him that there is nothing wrong with going to the movies and continue to ask him instead of agreeing with him, and helping him to better understand later. He’s not completely persuaded by what they say, nevertheless, in spite of his lack of assurance he goes with them, and regrets his choice.
The ones guilty of sinning against God are the stronger, more knowledgeable brothers—not the weaker less knowledgeable brother who has sinned against his own conscience.
The same is true of your out-of-context use of Rev 2:20.
Scripture speaks of predestination with respect to salvation in one sense only—to Glory.
S
sandusky
Guest
I’ll see your assertion with an assertion: “no it’s not,” and I’ll raise you one.
S
sandusky
Guest
It says they may. It doesn’t say they will, or that they must.
S
sandusky
Guest
Then where is predestination to grace only? I’m still waiting.
The thread is getting close to closing; if there’s still room to post, I’ll do so later, or tomorrow. If it closes, and is not continued, then I won’t.
Nevertheless, you pull the verse out of context, and go to your Tradition with neither support nor explanation for understanding of the verse.
You illustrate what I’ve been saying all along about your not understanding the context, and going immediately to your Tradition.Don’t worry about it. I misunderstand what people are saying all the time.
I was asking if you believed the good and faithfull servant was chosen and justified at the point God put him in charge (Luke 12:41-46).
If not, why did God choose him?
Peace
If you re-read the passage more carefully, you’ll find two different slaves being discussed, not one; one faithful and good (vv42-44, 48), and one evil and wicked (vv45-47).
R
ryanoneil
Guest
It was nice talking with you, incase there is no Part 3
OK, providing Jesus is talking about multiple people, I’ll assume you don’t believe the evil and wicked servant was justified.
Either way, God chose him as his servant. Why is he called a servant of God?
It says hope (not the certainty)
Though this next one doesn’t contain the word “predestination” I have to assume that God forknew and willed that these people were reconciled at the time Paul was speaking.
And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him, provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister. (Col 1:21-23)
the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones,to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory. (Col 1:26-27)
This doesn’t follow the same chain of redemption in (Rom 8:29)
And it say hope not certainty. Predestination to grace and hopefully glory.
While your at it, you might include a third servant. How can verse 47 and 48 be talking about the same person?If you re-read the passage more carefully, you’ll find two different slaves being discussed, not one; one faithful and good (vv42-44, 48), and one evil and wicked (vv45-47).
OK, providing Jesus is talking about multiple people, I’ll assume you don’t believe the evil and wicked servant was justified.
Either way, God chose him as his servant. Why is he called a servant of God?
May the eyes of (your) hearts be enlightened, that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, (Eph 1:18)
It says hope (not the certainty)
Though this next one doesn’t contain the word “predestination” I have to assume that God forknew and willed that these people were reconciled at the time Paul was speaking.
And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him, provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister. (Col 1:21-23)
the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones,to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory. (Col 1:26-27)
This doesn’t follow the same chain of redemption in (Rom 8:29)
And it say hope not certainty. Predestination to grace and hopefully glory.
- Status