Chosen by God - A study in Election

[Bbrdrd]

Good grief man, what you call illogical, contradictory and paradoxical here in three dimensional space can be easily resolved in higher dimensional spaces.

Perhaps you have never heard of this, but God inhabits the highest degree of dimensional space......AND HE HAS THE GREATEST DEGREES OF FREEDOM, beyond His creation. What He does is right because He is free to do it. What He does is just because He is free to do it. He shows mercy upon whom He will show mercy and compassion upon whom He will show compassion because He is free to do it.

Now that is a bunch of human guesswork and philosophy that I will grant you. But to think that God is somehow constrained to the notions of justice and righteousness of mere men is sheer folly........in my opinion. But I think the Bible backs me up on this idea very strongly.

Non-contradiction isn't simply a restriction of "dimensional spaces." Something cannot be true and false at the same time. It may not be a restriction on God's capabilities, but to say God can violate non-contradiction is tantamount to saying God could lie.

 

[cv5]

Non-contradiction isn't simply a restriction of "dimensional spaces." Something cannot be true and false at the same time. It may not be a restriction on God's capabilities, but to say God can violate non-contradiction is tantamount to saying God could lie.

Wrong. Paradoxes and conflicts can indeed be resolved in higher dimensional space, and three-dimensional space is unquestionably restricted. Something to think about when accusing God of injustice because He can and does make choices.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Wrong. Paradoxes and conflicts can indeed be resolved in higher dimensional space, and three-dimensional space is unquestionably restricted. Something to think about when accusing God of injustice because He can and does make choices.

Yes, but God willing and not willing something isn't a restriction of time or space. It is a fundamental contradiction and is the same as saying God could lie. The only possible resolutions are to restrict God's power, restrict His omniscience, or make the choice conditional. Otherwise you have God willing something and simultaneously willing the opposite, contradicting Himself and creating a lie.

 

[cv5]

Simply because they don't own the full implications of their system doesn't make it any more valid. Even Calvin recognized that there is no such thing as a single predestination writing of it in the institutes under the chapter "OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION. ", it's only those who see how monstrous that system makes God that try to distance themselves from it.

Single predestination predicated on the difference being God's choice is a logical absurdity. A violation of non-contradiction.

Wrong. Allowing the great theologian RC Sproul to explain to you exactly what is and what is not double predestination.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Wrong. Allowing the great theologian RC Sproul to explain to you exactly what is and what is not double predestination.

Vain human philosophy amounting to nothing.

 

[cv5]

Yes, but God willing and not willing something isn't a restriction of time or space. It is a fundamental contradiction and is the same as saying God could lie. The only possible resolutions are to restrict God's power, restrict His omniscience, or make the choice conditional. Otherwise you have God willing something and simultaneously willing the opposite, contradicting Himself and creating a lie.

This supposed contradiction is synthetic. Likely due to ignorance of what the Scriptures are actually saying. God is not willing that any should perish. Any of the elect. And they definitely will NOT perish because THAT is Gods Will.

So simple even the GEICO caveman could understand it.

Disclaimer: I am in no way here and now declaring doctrine in any way shape or form. Do your own due diligence and Bible study, and come to your own conclusions.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Wrong. Allowing the great theologian RC Sproul to explain to you exactly what is and what is not double predestination.

Sproul's discussion actually affirms a double predestination, and it doesn't escape the monstrous notion of my accusation because his escape is saying that God is not actively willing the sin.

My accusation rests entirely upon the fact that according to Calvinists the only thing separating the damned from the saved is the choice. Sin is a non-issue. It doesn't matter, so long as God chooses someone they are saved. No matter how sinful they act or how terrible they are. So what does it matter if God wills them to sin or not when sin doesn't even enter the equation of salvation, only God's choice? For double predestination God must will the particular damnation of individuals purely based on His own capriciousness.

It is that aspect that robs God of His justice and makes the doctrine monstrous, not as if God forces some to sin. Because again, sin is a non-issue in God's sovereign choice.

 

[Bbrdrd]

This supposed contradiction is synthetic. Likely due to ignorance of what the Scriptures are actually saying. God is not willing that any should perish. Any of the elect. And they definitely will NOT perish because THAT is Gods Will.

So simple even the GEICO caveman could understand it.

Disclaimer: I am in no way here and now declaring doctrine in any way shape or form. Do your own due diligence and Bible study, and come to your own conclusions.

See, this is exactly the sort of hypocrasy we see from proof-texting soteriology. In some instances the plain text is not good enough so we must supply things like "of the elect" to words like "any" and "all" and "world." Yet ambiguous words like "foreknew" and "predestine" are taken in the sense of particular election as if that is the sole meaning.

And then in your particular case as you are being called on the carpet you cover your bases by claiming you're not declaring doctrine while forwarding doctrinal statements. Have some integrity, man.

 

[cv5]

Vain human philosophy amounting to nothing.

I merely posted an explanation of the fallacy of double predestination insofar as the reformed view is concerned as a refutation to the erroneous views that you had earlier posted. In other words that is not what the so called Calvinists believe, teach or preach, it's what YOU think they believe, teach and preach.

If you have come to the conclusion that predestination is vain human philosophy that's fine with me.

 

[cv5]

Sproul's discussion actually affirms a double predestination, and it doesn't escape the monstrous notion of my accusation because his escape is saying that God is not actively willing the sin.

My accusation rests entirely upon the fact that according to Calvinists the only thing separating the damned from the saved is the choice. Sin is a non-issue. It doesn't matter, so long as God chooses someone they are saved. No matter how sinful they act or how terrible they are. So what does it matter if God wills them to sin or not when sin doesn't even enter the equation of salvation, only God's choice? For double predestination God must will the particular damnation of individuals purely based on His own capriciousness.

It is that aspect that robs God of His justice and makes the doctrine monstrous, not as if God forces some to sin. Because again, sin is a non-issue in God's sovereign choice.

That may be what you think he said, but that is not what R. C. Sproul actually said.

 

[Bbrdrd]

That may be what you think he said, but that is not what R. C. Sproul actually said.

I didn't watch the video, I read a lecture by him on his position. You can find it https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ in which he affirms the notion of double predestination as God particularly willing the damnation of individuals. The separation is that God actively initiates and does all of the work of salvation among those he elects while leaving the damned to their own devices.

So the only thing separating the damned from the saved is God's choice. All the rest is just trappings and sin becomes pretty much entirely irrelevant.

 

[cv5]

See, this is exactly the sort of hypocrasy we see from proof-texting soteriology. In some instances the plain text is not good enough so we must supply things like "of the elect" to words like "any" and "all" and "world." Yet ambiguous words like "foreknew" and "predestine" are taken in the sense of particular election as if that is the sole meaning.

And then in your particular case as you are being called on the carpet you cover your bases by claiming you're not declaring doctrine while forwarding doctrinal statements. Have some integrity, man.

Wrong. The plaintext IS good enough for me. I have received it and I believe it.

I would like to know from you is: why is anybody going to hell?

You may be confused about this matter but I assure you that I am not in the least bit confused about it all. It's all there in black and white plain as day.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Wrong. The plaintext IS good enough for me. I have received it and I believe it.

I would like to know from you is: why is anybody going to hell?

You may be confused about this matter but I assure you that I am not in the least bit confused about it all. It's all there in black and white plain as day.

Those who are going to hell are going to hell because they are wicked. Not simply sinful, but wicked. God chose the righteous for Himself and damns the wicked.

I am not confused at all on the matter, it is no great mystery and only becomes a mystery when theologians pretend that God is somehow blind to the fact that there are some who are truly unredeemably evil and some who have simply lost their way and need a Shepherd to guide them.

 

[cv5]

I didn't watch the video, I read a lecture by him on his position. You can find it https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ in which he affirms the notion of double predestination as God particularly willing the damnation of individuals. The separation is that God actively initiates and does all of the work of salvation among those he elects while leaving the damned to their own devices.

So the only thing separating the damned from the saved is God's choice. All the rest is just trappings and sin becomes pretty much entirely irrelevant.

Alright. You go ahead and chuck into the trash can what R.C. is ACTUALLY saying and writing, and believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with that.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Alright. You go ahead and chuck into the trash can what R.C. is ACTUALLY saying and writing, and believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with that.

You mean like "Thus, “single” predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. "

 

[Bbrdrd]

Alright. You go ahead and chuck into the trash can what R.C. is ACTUALLY saying and writing, and believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with that.

A rather simple question, what precisely do you think Sproul is saying that I'm missing? In what manner do you think Sproul addresses my criticism?

Sproul claims the decree of reprobation is a "negative" decree, but that doesn't change that the only difference between the two groups with regard to salvation is God's decree so whether that is positive or negative it is still just as monstrous because of its capriciousness.

 

[cv5]

Those who are going to hell are going to hell because they are wicked. Not simply sinful, but wicked. God chose the righteous for Himself and damns the wicked.

I am not confused at all on the matter, it is no great mystery and only becomes a mystery when theologians pretend that God is somehow blind to the fact that there are some who are truly unredeemably evil and some who have simply lost their way and need a Shepherd to guide them.

AHA! Finally the wobbly soteriology comes out in the wash!

Iconoclast, Can you help this gentle person? It's time for my bed and he/she is in grievous need of a Bible study. Evidently this person believes that salvation is based on works, merit, human righteousness and good deeds as a precursory condition to salvation.

 

[cv5]

A rather simple question, what precisely do you think Sproul is saying that I'm missing? In what manner do you think Sproul addresses my criticism?

Sproul claims the decree of reprobation is a "negative" decree, but that doesn't change that the only difference between the two groups with regard to salvation is God's decree so whether that is positive or negative it is still just as monstrous because of its capriciousness.

So God is capricious and monstrous because salvation is His choice and not yours?
Not a good place to be my friend not a good place to be.......

 

[Bbrdrd]

AHA! Finally the wobbly soteriology comes out in the wash!

Iconoclast, Can you help this gentle person? It's time for my bed and he/she is in grievous need of a Bible study. Evidently this person believes that salvation is based on works, merit, human righteousness and good deeds as a precursory condition to salvation.

Funny that you call saying salvation is based on actual justice "wobbly soteriology." In no way do I believe it is based on works, merit, or good deeds. But if you think you somehow do God a service by turning His justice into a random choice based on nothing other than whim with no real separation between those chosen for salvation and those chosen for damnation you really don't.

 

[Bbrdrd]

So God is capricious and monstrous because salvation is His choice and not yours?
Not a good place to be my friend not a good place to be.......

That's kind of where you went wrong in your discussion with me. My objection to Calvinist soteriology is almost always the qualifier. I am not opposed to the doctrine of election but that God does not have some condition by which He is selecting those whom He saves.