Posts by Deputy Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

Webster defines.

DESTINED

, pp. Ordained ; appointed by previous determination; devoted; fixed unalterably.

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

I never used the term "Double-Predestination", you did. If its a problem, I can agree, that the wicked are foreordained to everlasting death. The results look the same to me. I can't wait to see your point.

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 3 Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

LT

Look at the scriptures proofs for paragraph III.

ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. PRO 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

You said that we should be silent where the scriptures are silent. I agree! What did I overstate? I have tried very hard, not to use my words in this thread, when addressing this topic, but, to use scripture!

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

If God is the Potter, what is the destiny of the " vessel unto honour"? What is the destiny of the vessel unto "dishonour"?

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

Limited Atonement points towards salvation, not damnation. You might argue, through attempted use of logic that damnation is also Predestined, but is that what scripture says?

That is a good question!

Romans 9:11

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Is Esau not a " vessel unto dishonour or wrath ?" How about Pharaoh? Will they " reply against God?" Will they say to God (the Potter) "Why hast thou made me thus?"

How about in Acts 4

Act 4:26

The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

Are Herod and Pontius Pilate vessels unto "honour" or "dishonour"? How about Judas Iscariot?

...so we must leave certain statements unsaid,...

I agree, God tells us what we are not to say:

Romans 9:20

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it , Why hast thou made me thus?

I think, this is teaching us, that we are not to try to stand in judgement of God.

Romans 9:14

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

I know it's teaching me what not to say !

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

EW

Dont feel bad DDog I dont know his mind either.

1Co 2:16

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

What is interesting to me, is that the verse he gets that from is teaching that the mind of God and the mind of Christ are not the same.

I couldn't see the point in getting into the differences between the two, with him, when just two verses before says:

1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

I don't know how I missed that. Sorry.

Double-predestination (Hyper-Calvinist) declares that God predestined some to damnation. That places the onus of responsibility on God, not man. In view of the foregoing, can that be true?

Romans 9:17

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

I don't know how else to read these verses other than to say he makes one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour. Is this what you mean by "Double-predestination"

It's not Hyper-Calvinist to believe in a limited atonement is it?

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

I'm still waiting to hear what you ment about this statement:

Man DOES have responsibility. To deny that denies the founding principles of Calvin's theology

Are you saying that he didn't teach limited atonement?

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

AlanF I asked: What caused the BIG BANG? You said: According to the physicists who are the keepers of this idea, nothing caused the Big Bang, I'm still looking for something like "nothing caused the Big Bang", but I keep reading things like

Birth of the Universe:
Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. its not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus there power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.
Our physics can explain most of the evolution of the Universe after the Planck time (approximately 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang)... However, events before this time are undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang).

Cosmic Singularity:
One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding.

Quantum Vacuum:
The cosmic singularity, that was the Universe at the beginning of time, is shielded by the lack of any physical observers. But the next level of inquiry is what is the origin of the emergent properties of the Universe, the properties that become the mass of the Universe, its age, its physical constants, etc. The answer appears to be that these properties have their origin as the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum.
The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level...
With respect to the origin of the Universe, the quantum vacuum must have been the source of the laws of Nature and the properties that we observe today. How those laws and properties emerge is unknown at this time.

Quantum Fluctuations:
The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur).
For example, radioactive decay occurs when two protons and two neutrons (an alpha particle) leap out of an atomic nuclei. Since the positions of the protons and neutrons is governed by the wave function, there is a small, but finite, probability that all four will quantum tunnel outside the nucleus, and therefore escape. The probability of this happening is small, but given enough time (tens of years) it will happen.
The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics ). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence.

Planck Era
The earliest moments of Creation are where our modern physics breakdown, where `breakdown' means that our theories and laws have no ability to describe or predict the behavior of the early Universe. Our everyday notions of space and time cease to be valid...
The Universe expands from the moment of the Big Bang, but until the Universe reaches the size of the Planck scale, there is no time or space. Time remains undefined, space is compactified. String theory maintains that the Universe had 10 dimensions during the Planck era, which collapses into 4 at the end of the Planck era (think of those extra 6 dimensions as being very, very small hyperspheres inbetween the space between elementary particles, 4 big dimensions and 6 little tiny ones).
During the Planck era, the Universe can be best described as a quantum foam of 10 dimensions containing Planck length sized black holes continuously being created and annihilated with no cause or effect. In other words, try not to think about this era in normal terms.

I stand by my statement: " The scientific explanation of those things by most takes much more faith to believe in, than the bible does."

:: Living one's life based on realities that can be observed and/or produce real, observable effects is invariably better than living it based on unrealities such as Santa Clause. Many Christian claims, and ideas found in the Bible, are demonstrably unreal.

: You must mean things like how something came from nothing
"I've already shown that modern physics does not teach this, and so your comment is another straw man,..."

You mean modern physics does not teach this, this week .

"As I've already said, I personally leave open the question of ultimate origins."

Maybe there's hope for you yet.

"Then you're not much of a Christian,"

That may be true. But, how would you know? What would be your ideal of a good Christian?

"nor do you have any right to tell people about your God."

A few years ago I took an oath to protect your rights (that means your right to rant and rave like a flaming ass) and the rights of others with my life, so I don't think you will be taking the right to tell people about my God, away from anyone any time soon.

"You want to convert people to your beliefs, no?"

That is not my job, it's Gods

: and I don't think His word contains His entire mind.
"I didn't know that."

That's not the only thing about me that you didn't know. You seem to make an awful lot of assumptions.

: Would you not agree that you (personally) can't choose to believe in God?
No.

What do you think is stopping you?

D Dog

774

Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

come to the wedding.

' for i say to you that god is able to raise up children to abraham from these stones.

Deputy Dog

LT

Man DOES have responsibility. To deny that denies the founding principles of Calvin's theology.

Man has responsibility for his sin, but not his salvation, so how does that deny the founding principles of Calvin's theology. (not that I agree with Calvin on everything)

I have little difficulty with what Paul has to say, just your interpretation of it, which makes it more extreme.
Does Paul anywhere say that man has no responsibility? Instead I find him saying "God forbid", a few times, regarding this.

What texts specifically?

D Dog