Why is predestination wrong

[guanophore]

More to the points: They rejected his "advice" or counsel.  I don't know how else to say more clearly.

Well, I can’t make any sense out of that. Scripture is clear that God commands all men everywhere to repent. Is this considered from your Reformed tradition to be “advice”?

The passage in question is a call to repentance.

28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.) Luke 7:28-30

Scripture states they “refused”. So, it seems that God called them also to the baptism of repentence by John, and they turned down the call. Do you mean they did not take God’s “advice”?

And, if they were not part of the elect (which I think we would have to assume, since they did not respond to the call), how is that rejecting the purpose of God? He never purposed for them to be elected. Do you see my dilemma here?
"guanophore:

"I am not sure why you think that Catholics believe that our religious affiliation has any bearing on who God chooses.

When I say “religious affiliation”; I mean Catholic. To be Catholic is to be in the right side; not to be is to be on the wrong side of God. The Council of Trent spells this out and I believe it is part of a catechism…I know I’ve seen it before in these forums many times…kind of like getting ones nose rubbed in dog doo by some.

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

You did not answer my question. Why do you think that Catholics believe religious affiliation has anything to do with election?

Then you said "While I agree that spiritual pride and arrogance are indeed damning, Jesus only founded One Church, and only has One Body,. You wonder why I would think why I believe Catholics believe that being Catholic has bearing on who God chose?

Yes. I am wondering that. Do you dispute that Jesus only founded One Church? That He has only One Body?

Do you really believe that everyone who calls themselves a “catholic” is saved? I know you don’t!

I think in the near future, I may be lead to start a thread on the Doctrine of Election; I have been asked a couple of times about this already.

There might be one already running. You might join up with some of your Reformed brethren. Try a thread that moondweller is on. You will find yourself right at home!

 

[NonCatholic]

Well, I can’t make any sense out of that. Scripture is clear that God commands all men everywhere to repent. Is this considered from your Reformed tradition to be “advice”?

The passage in question is a call to repentance.

28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.) Luke 7:28-30

Scripture states they “refused”. So, it seems that God called them also to the baptism of repentence by John, and they turned down the call. Do you mean they did not take God’s “advice”?
The term for “purpose” is counsel or advice.
And, if they were not part of the elect (which I think we would have to assume, since they did not respond to the call), how is that rejecting the purpose of God? He never purposed for them to be elected. Do you see my dilemma here?

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

You did not answer my question. Why do you think that Catholics believe religious affiliation has anything to do with election? The Church does teach that particularly Vatican I, now with Vatican II many outside and even some within are termed “separated brethren”. Are you suggesting the Catholic teaching has changed?

Yes. I am wondering that. Do you dispute that Jesus only founded One Church? That He has only One Body? Yes, I dispute Jesus started the Catholic Church.

Do you really believe that everyone who calls themselves a “catholic” is saved? I know you don’t! I believe God has himself a remnant; but I could not prove that.

There might be one already running. You might join up with some of your Reformed brethren. Try a thread that moondweller is on. You will find yourself right at home!

 

[guanophore]

The term for "purpose" is counsel or advice.

Ok, so God advised them to have the baptism of repentance by John, and they refused. So, why would He counsel them to do something contrary to His will?

You did not answer my question. Why do you think that Catholics believe religious affiliation has anything to do with election?

The Church does teach that particularly Vatican I, now with Vatican II many outside and even some within are termed “separated brethren”. Are you suggesting the Catholic teaching has changed?

No, I am saying that being Catholic has nothing to do with being one of the elect.

Yes, I dispute Jesus started the Catholic Church.

Again you evaded my question. Did Jesus found more than One Church? Does He have more that One Body?

If Jesus did not found the Catholic Church, who did?

I know you don’t! I believe God has himself a remnant; but I could not prove that.

No need, I will happilily concede the point. So can we agree that religious affiliation has nothing to do with being one of the elect?

 

[NonCatholic]

Ok, so God advised them to have the baptism of repentance by John, and they refused. So, why would He counsel them to do something contrary to His will?

You did not answer my question. Why do you think that Catholics believe religious affiliation has anything to do with election?

No, I am saying that being Catholic has nothing to do with being one of the elect.

Again you evaded my question. Did Jesus found more than One Church? Does He have more that One Body?

If Jesus did not found the Catholic Church, who did? One church, one body…if it wasn’t Jesus, then men.

No need, I will happily concede the point. So can we agree that religious affiliation has nothing to do with being one of the elect?

Yeah!! We agree!

 

[PEPCIS]

Is it possible to resist God’s will?

No. If it were, then He would not be God.

 

[NonCatholic]

No. If it were, then He would not be God.

Thanks for the economy of words! Great post and point!

 

[PEPCIS]

People do, indeed, confuse the will of God with their own, all the time!

Just as importantly, people misinterpret what God’s will is as revealed in the Scriptures, as well as what they believe is revealed to them in their personal lives.

guanophore:

I have been waiting for you to answer this question for some time, because I would like to hear your take on this scripture:

I’m gonna interject myself here, because I know that Non and I are similar in our views.

guanophore:

Luke 7:28-30

" I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)"

Personally, I prefer the good 'ol King James version, and it is because of misinterpretations of such as this. Verse 30 is rendered differently in this version, by equating “God’s purpose” with “the counsel of God.” This is a major mistake. God’s purpose is more akin to “God’s will,” while “the counsel of God” is more appropriately referred to as the greater understanding of what God requires from man.

[SIGN]“And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8)[/SIGN]

Every Jew in Jesus’ day, ESPECIALLY THE LEARNED and THE TEACHERS, already knew this. But, apparently (according to the general tone of this text and the overall context of the Scriptures), these leaders were far from God, and certainly not what we might refer to as “saved.”

Anyone who was actively seeking to get themselves right with God are always eagerly accepted by Christ. Those who show disdain for His teachings were left to wallow in their depraved nature - no salvation was available to them.

This was no accident. As Non has already wonderfully pointed out, this was by God’s design.

guanophore:

Now, if God calls all to be saved:

1 Tim 2:2-5
3 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God doesn’t call all to be saved, and this verse doesn’t say that He does. It says that God’s original desire was for all people to stand before him faultless, but because of Adam’s sin passed upon to all men, this is impossible.

So, in order to correct this problem, God sent His Son as a sacrifice for all men. Not that all men would come to salvation, but that all men could stand before Him as equally guilty, and equally in need of a Savior.

But in order to properly understand the couple of passages that seem to say that God will have all men to be saved, is to put it into context with the multitude of Scripture which clearly speaks of how only the elect will be saved. Both of those cannot be correct, so someone is misinterpreting something.

guanophore:

Then they refused the salvation to which they were called, and they rejected His purpose for themselves.

If, on the other hand, God destined them for perdition, they why is it said that they rejected His purpose, when they fulfilled it?

You seem to find that this presents God as wrong, as if by damning them to remain in their state of damnation, that He is unrighteous in some way. Is that it?

 

[benedictus2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
*Luke 7:28-30

" I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)"*

Personally, I prefer the good 'ol King James version, and it is because of misinterpretations of such as this. Verse 30 is rendered differently in this version, by equating “God’s purpose” with “the counsel of God.” This is a major mistake. God’s purpose is more akin to “God’s will,” while “the counsel of God” is more appropriately referred to as the greater understanding of what God requires from man.

The word purpose is not a “misinterpretation”. Another Bible uses the word “plan” which denotes the same thing.

You may prefer the King James version but your preference carries no weight because it is only YOUR opinion and unless you are a Biblical and Language scholar competent enough to translate Greek and the Gospel of Luke, then YOUR personal preferences are irrelevant.

 

[benedictus2]

PEPCIS,

**Please read this post carefully and think **about it.

God doesn’t call all to be saved, and this verse doesn’t say that He does.** It says that God’s original desire was for all people to stand before him faultless,**

Follow this line of thought.

If God’s ORIGINAL desire was for all people to stand before him faultess, you are saying that somewhere along the line He changed His mind.

Care to elucidate when this happened?

but because of Adam’s sin passed upon to all men, this is impossible.

So now you are saying that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO SAVE ALL MEN because a piddly little creature called Adam sinned?

Therefore Adam is more powerful than God because He cannot undo what Adam had done?

And you call yourself a Christian? That is actually an ATHEIST’S line of thinking.

So, in order to correct this problem, God sent His Son as a sacrifice for all men. Not that all men would come to salvation, but that all men could stand before Him as equally guilty, and equally in need of a Savior.

If God wills that " **Not that all men would come to salvation,", **therefore God (who the Bible says is a loving God) created men for the sole purpose of sending them to hell.

So you have a god who quite happily creates human beings so that they will be tortured in hell for all eternity?

Do you know that you are painting a picture of god that is extremely worse than the devils? At least the devil does not create men to cast them to hell. All he does is tempt them into sin so that they will fall into hell.

Picture this: a mother and father who keeps having babies so that they can love some and the rest they can torture and burn in flames for the sheer delight of it. That is the kind of god you have in your head.

 

[PEPCIS]

You may prefer the King James version but your preference carries no weight because it is only YOUR opinion and unless you are a Biblical and Language scholar competent enough…

Well, thanks for your OPINION.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, thanks for your OPINION.

Actually it is not opinion. Unless you are a Biblical Scholar or a Language Scholar expert on Koine Greek or whateve language Luke was written in, then you cannot make a call on the correct translation of that word in Luke.

The only other option would have been if you have read the reason given by translators of KJV, NAB, NIV or Jerusalem Bible why they used the word they used. You can probably then make an informed decision.

But barring all that,. yours remain opinion, mine is not.

 

[PEPCIS]

PEPCIS, **Please read this post carefully and think **about it.

Sure.

benedictus:

Follow this line of thought.

I’ll do my best!

benedictus:

If God’s ORIGINAL desire was for all people to stand before him faultess, you are saying that somewhere along the line He changed His mind.

No. I’m saying that man (collectively through Adam) fell into sin. God’s original design is to have fellowship.

benedictus:

Care to elucidate when this happened?

Somewhere around 6,000 years ago.

benedictus:

So now you are saying that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO SAVE ALL MEN because a piddly little creature called Adam sinned?

No, I’m saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to save himself because the Bible indicates that we have inherited Adam’s sin.

benedictus:

Therefore Adam is more powerful than God because He cannot undo what Adam had done?

You have a funny view of the Bible.

benedictus:

And you call yourself a Christian? That is actually an ATHEIST’S line of thinking.

Hmmmm :scratches head: How shall I answer?

benedictus:

If God wills that “**Not that all men would come to salvation,” **therefore God (who the Bible says is a loving God) created men for the sole purpose of sending them to hell.

Strange.

benedictus:

Picture this: a mother and father who keeps having babies so that they can love some and the rest they can torture and burn in flames for the sheer delight of it. That is the kind of god you have in your head.

What makes you think you are a child of God?

 

[PEPCIS]

Actually it is not opinion.

Actually, it is.

 

[fhansen]

No. If it were, then He would not be God.

I haven’t followed this thread but God can’t will to allow created beings the option of overriding His will? Isn’t that what OS was?

 

[PEPCIS]

"Randy Carson:

Is it possible to resist God’s will?

PEPCIS:

No. If it were, then He would not be God.

I haven’t followed this thread but God can’t will

to allow created beings the option of overriding His will?

Then how is it His will? That’s a contradiction in terms. If God’s will is “overridden”, then why should He bother to project His will?

The problem with this doctrine that you espouse is that you bend Scripture to fit your preconceived notions of what YOU think God should be like, when you should be allowing the Bible to tell you who God is.

If it is God’s will that all men should be saved, then WHY DOESN’T HE ACCOMPLISH HIS WILL? Because it is not His will!!!

His original intentions were to have all men saved, but as we can see throughout the Bible, men continuously rejected His goodness and mercy.

Isn’t that what OS was?

“Original Sin”?

 

[fhansen]

Then how is it His will? That’s a contradiction in terms. If God’s will is “overridden”, then why should He bother to project His will?

 

[benedictus2]

No. I’m saying that man (collectively through Adam) fell into sin. God’s original design is to have fellowship.

When you say God had an original design, that means that later on He had a design that was not original. That means He changed his design later. Precise terminology is important my friend.

Somewhere around 6,000 years ago.

God changed His mind 6000 years ag???!!!. Wow, and you are privy to that info?!!!

No, I’m saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to save himself because the Bible indicates that we have inherited Adam’s sin.

But that is not what you said.** Here are your exact words: “It says that God’s original desire was for all people to stand before him faultless, but because of Adam’s sin passed upon to all men, this is impossible.”**
So originally God desired all men to be with Him, but that is now IMPOSSIBLE because of Adam’s sin that was passed on to us.
So my conclusion is correct that somewhow Adam thwarted God’s plan and made it IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD to have His ORIGINAL plan of having us all with Him.
You really have to be careful with what you write.

You have a funny view of the Bible.

No YOU have a funny view of the Bible. You do not even realize what you are saying with your exegesis. Just another evidence of a failure to employ rational processes.

You have a disjointed way of expressing yourself. My conclusions all derive perfectly from your post. You need to think before you post. Organize your thoughts

Strange.

I thought so too. Considering that you call yourself a Christian, I wondered why you have such a murderous god in your head.

What makes you think you are a child of God?

And how exactly does that follow from my post? Evading my conclusions because they are unpalatable?

You see, IF you would actually try thinking logically, you will realize that your interpretation of the Bible comes up with a god that is in actual fact NOT THE GOD IN THE BIBLE but is your own make believe god.

But that is a big IF

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, it is.

That’s right. Cut off the rest of my quote so that it looks like you made a point while not making any.

But just to be clear here it is again.

benedictus2:

Actually it is not opinion. Unless you are a Biblical Scholar or a Language Scholar expert on Koine Greek or whateve language Luke was written in, then you cannot make a call on the correct translation of that word in Luke.

The only other option would have been if you have read the reason given by translators of KJV, NAB, NIV or Jerusalem Bible why they used the word they used. You can probably then make an informed decision.

But barring all that,. yours remain opinion, mine is not

So, unless your learning fall into the above categories, sorry to say but… yours remain… opinion.

 

[benedictus2]

Then how is it His will? That’s a contradiction in terms. If God’s will is “overridden”, then why should He bother to project His will?

God does NOT PROJECT His will unto us. He REVEALS His Will to us.

You keep falling into this pit of lose terminologies.

Think about this.

When you sin, is it God WILLING you to sin because He is PROJECTING His will on you?

So therefore god is a murderer, adulterer, you name it he’s done it?

You know what that is called? Adam’s sin of “I didn’t do it, she made me”. What a wimp.

 

[benedictus2]

If it is God’s will that all men should be saved, then WHY DOESN’T HE ACCOMPLISH HIS WILL? **Because it is not His will!!! **

Oh No! Here you go again. It is not God’s will for all men to be saved.

So think about this again. Since there is only one God, one creator, therefore He is the one who created each and every one of us. With me so far?

If He willed for some to be saved and some not to be saved, SO HE PURPOSELY MADE PEOPLE SO HE CAN TORTURE THEM IN HELL because He is the one who created them and He is the one who willed to consign them to the dustbin of Hell.

Picture that in your head. Your god who loves you so saves you but then decides to create another your brother but God says, Nope this one I am gong to burn in hell.

Now ask yourself this. If you were god, would you do that? Would you create people just so you can torture them?

If you say yes, that means you are a psychopath.

If you say No, that means you are better than this god of yours.