Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  Would "anti-grace" be better know as condemnation or God's wrath?

  D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:
  I dont think so, as that's poured out AFTER death. I'm specifically talking about while alive, and the sun still shines
• 

  ellderwho

  LT,

  We've got to get Undis back into this. IMHO theres to much word play that does not contain Gods word.

  LT, you present the reprobate, the passed over, and the elect?? Where in scripture is this taught?(the passed over)

  E.

  Edited: When are we not considered children of wrath? beginning, end, middle of Gods time line?
• 

  LittleToe

  EW:

  We've got to get Undis back into this.

  Like you, he's been ominously silent recently.

  IMHO theres to much word play that does not contain Gods word.

  Why use direct references when we all know what concepts we're talking about. If there's an issue, we'll back it up with scripture. You've still not answered my question, btw.

  you present the reprobate, the passed over, and the elect?? Where in scripture is this taught?(the passed over)

  The Elect are "Predestined".
  The Reprobate are "passed over".

  Two groups, not three.
  Where in the scriptures does it say that the reprobate are "Predestined", or even "Fore Ordained", for that matter?
  If it were categorically stated there would be no Arminians.
• 

  LittleToe

  EW:

  When are we not considered children of wrath? beginning, end, middle of Gods time line?

  God is eternal, and hence it isn't appropriate to use the term "time-line" in that context. It is WE who dwell in time. In connection with being children of wrath, surely we are until such time as we are regenerated? Before that we are as spiritually dead as everyone else.

  And yet, in Eternity, we have been Predestined from before the world was (Eph.1:4, 5), just as the lamb was slain (Rev.13:8). That is the formation of "the plan", as considered in the Lapsarian Controversy.

  It's actual outworking occurs "in time", so your question needs to be applied there, if you're going to use the term "time-line".
• 

  ellderwho

  LT, Do you feel that some are predestined to reprobation?

  Yes I do.

  You've still not answered my question, btw.

  You've never answered mine.

  What is the difference between foreordained and predestined?

  --------------------?

  Where in the scriptures does it say that the reprobate are "Predestined", or even "Fore Ordained", for that matter?

  What was the reason God raised Pharoah?

  Are we not all reprobate proir to the Father putting us into the Sons hand?

  Ro. 3:9, What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
  
  10
  as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
  
  
  11
  THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
  THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
  12
  ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
  THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
  THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
  
  It seems to me that your position rests upon an understanding of mankinds "time line"

  Ephesians 2:3
  Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
  

  Why use direct references when we all know what concepts we're talking about. If there's an issue, we'll back it up with scripture.

  Then please indulge us who are not aware of the " lapsarian controversy",. "Infralapsarian perspective""The supralapsarian perspective, as these relate directly to scripture. References please.

  IMHO you step out from scripture to define your position with the above take on words, hence word play.

  Can we stay in scripture? lest I become an ominously silent spector.(btw been very busy)

  E.
• 

  LittleToe

  EW:The work has already been done a few centuries ago. I don't see why I should take credit for looking up prooftexts that I'm only going to repeat.
  May I direct you to chapter three on the following page:
  http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html

  I would be in agreement with the Westminster divines, wherein you can read some further expansion on the subject here:
  http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm08_west.html

  "The Westminster Divines did not understand the meaning of the terms predestination and foreordination to be identical, and therefore never used these words as synonymous (LT's comment - I accept that most modern dictionaries state them to by synonymous, but believe this to be misleading, as likely would the Divines).

  "By predestination they meant a positive decree determining to confer everlasting life; and this they regarded as the basis of the whole doctrine of free grace

  "By foreordination, on the other hand, they meant a decree of order, or arrangement, determining that the guilty should be condemned to everlasting death; and this they regarded as the basis of judicial procedure, according to which God "ordains men to dishonour and wrath for their sin," and having respect to man's own character and conduct.

  "While predestination could never with propriety be applied to the lost, the term foreordination might be applied to the saved, since they also are the subjects of judicial procedure."

  I would personally further take it to the Greek, because two words are used, not one:

  • Predestinate is pro-horizo - a marking out of certain bounds.
  • Foreordained is pro-ginosko - a foreknowledge.

  It was foreknown (in the eternal plan, before the founding of the world) that all would be vessels of wrath.
  It was predestined that there would be a prescribed number saved.

  Sure you could take logic into account here and say that the number of those "passed over" is identifiable (x-y=z), but you asked for this to be limited to scripture, and so have made a rod for your own back.
  NOWHERE in scripture does it say that the lost are predestined. It's a term used exclusively for the Elect. All you have is a human interpretation of an example Paul gave. And so we all engage in wordplay...

  What was the reason God raised Pharoah?

  Romans 9 tells us that it was to show His power. You're like the wind whipping round the eaves. Let's take a point at a time, shall we?

  btw been very busy

  Me too, hence the lack of commentary on Romans
• 

  ellderwho

  LT, a very interesting read, it seems to me that parts of the assembly were jostling for positions of infulence, which is troublesome for me.

  Proceedings Of The
  Westminster Assembly

  The majority of the commissioners to the Westminster Assembly were Presbyterian and wanted to see a Presbyterian system set forth in the documents produced by that body. They were convinced that Presbyterianism was of God, and not an invention of man. Others at the Assembly were Independents and had as their goal to oppose the adoption of Presbyterianism in every manner possible. To this end they attempted to obtain every concession the majority would grant, and use every means to delay the adoption of Presbyterianism in England.

  While I agree it is a important document, it is not inspired.

  Sure you could take logic into account here and say that the number of those "passed over" is identifiable (x-y=z), but you asked for this to be limited to scripture, and so have made a rod for your own back.
  NOWHERE in scripture does it say that the lost are predestined. It's a term used exclusively for the Elect. All you have is a human interpretation of an example Paul gave. And so we all engage in wordplay...

  Of the greek nice point. If none of mankind is worthy what is the end result? Or what does scripture say? Is it all really just "human interpretation"?

  This is why I asked you what about Pharoah, why is this of topic to you? Was it not Gods fore-knowledge to raise him for a purpose?

  LT quotes "By foreordination, on the other hand, they meant a decree of order, or arrangement,"

  I think Ro.9 leaves you little room. "tough to get around"

  btw wheres undis, Alanf ?
• 

  LittleToe

  EW:Good morning

  LT, a very interesting read, it seems to me that parts of the assembly were jostling for positions of infulence, which is troublesome for me.

  Let's stick to concepts, not personalities, huh? If we were to go by personalities we'd ignore all of Paul's writings entirely. We can't do that, however, as his writings are the source of our discussion.

  While I agree it is a important document, it is not inspired.

  Agreed, but let us not ignore it, just because of that. Those men made some astute arguments, which we are only repeating.
  Interesting is that the chairman (I forget his proper title) was Supra, but nonetheless the document shows very Infra leanings, with the wording being precise to allow comfort for both camps. Charity in everything.

  Of the greek nice point.

  Thank you. I think it stands up well.

  If none of mankind is worthy what is the end result? Or what does scripture say? Is it all really just "human interpretation"?

  I'm not sure what you're getting at here. None of mankind is worthy, period. You presented plenty of scriptures on this point yourself.

  This is why I asked you what about Pharoah, why is this off topic to you?

  I have a very clear and concise understanding of which parts go with what, and how that ties in with the whole flavour of the argument (as you will see when I EVENTUALLY get round to putting my thoughs down about Romans). The Pharoah bit doesn't line up with the precise point you are making, to my mind. It fuzzies some clear distinctions and nuances of Paul's argument. I will address this, though.

  Was it not Gods fore-knowledge to raise him for a purpose?

  I already conceded that it was "to show his power". This can be seen in Romans and Exodus.

  I think Ro.9 leaves you little room. "tough to get around"

  We'll see

  btw wheres undis, Alanf ?

  I haven't a clue. I imagine that Alan saw his position was intractible and left the table without bothering to surrender. But then he was checkmate in four.
  Undis hasn't been around generally, but may be lurking. He's had plenty of food for thought, on this thread, as he commented on.

  There's plenty of mileage to go, in this thread. I'm glad, because it's a worthy subject.
• 

  ellderwho

  LT, good morning,

  If we were to go by personalities we'd ignore all of Paul's writings entirely.

  Not sure of your point.

  with the wording being precise to allow comfort for both camps. Charity in everything.

  Can we keep this document as opinion? Due to its origins?

  Was it not Gods fore-knowledge to raise him for a purpose?

  I already conceded that it was "to show his power". This can be seen in Romans and Exodus.

  I think Im making a point with Pharoah, in that his future was set! Dare I say foreordainded?

  The "Pharoah bit" fits nicely in said verses, determining Gods will and decrees.

  I dont see how you slice Pharoahs outcome, out of context. With the following:

  It fuzzies some clear distinctions and nuances of Paul's argument.

  ???

  E.