Does anyone know of....

Or that doing so FORCES them to believe. We hear that one too often as well.

Also characterized as God forcibly kidnapping people against their will.

Then we are told that is what we believe, which is simply slander.

I love how you explained it as God's love...

But liars love their lies.

And yet, those God would not let into the Promise Land and then attempted after their own children went were killed and God told them they would die and so did Moses. Those were supposedly chosen people and yet they died in disobedience. If they had a circumcised heart they would have obeyed.

Having a tough time understanding what you're trying to say here.

Okay but what about the question?

Do you know of anyone?

If we can be assured of our salvation because of predestination, can the opposite be true of our damnation?

The claim that the predestination of an individual to salvation is a true statement.

Well, it seems to amount to: people with circumcised hearts do not sin.

Though I certainly cannot agree with that sentiment...

Okay so is the opposite true?

In other words, is the claim that predestination of an individual to damnation is a true statement?

Yes, above all else it is God's love for his people that actually saves us! His love moves him, compels him, causes him to save all those upon whom he has set his affections in eternity.

This morning, I spent some devotional time in Psalm 10. This psalm describes the wicked and their victims. The wicked are portrayed with the third person personal pronoun "he". "He boasts..." (v.3), "He says to himself..." (v.6), "He lies in wait...", etc. The third person possessive pronoun is also used to describe "his arrogance" (v.2), "in all his thoughts..." (v.4), "His ways are always..." (v. 5), "His mouth is full of curses...", etc.

Conversely, the victims of the wicked are portrayed as "the weak" (v.2), "who are caught in the schemes" of the wicked (v.2), as "enemies" of the wicked (v. 5), as being the "innocent" (v.8), as being the "helpless" (v.9) etc.

Then the Lord tuned a light bulb on in my mind. It occurred to me that there could be an even deeper spiritual meaning to this Psalm than I had heretofore ever realized. After all, all the "wicked" of this world are the seed of the Evil One -- the devil! So, ultimately all wicked humans are willingly doing the bidding of their spiritual father! And his will is that all God's people (his enemies) should be oppressed, abused, persecuted, murdered, afflicted, etc.

The "whole world" lies under the power of the evil one (1Jn 5:19), and he is leading the" whole world" astray (Rev 12:9) by blinding the minds of all unbelievers (2Cor 4:4). The "whole world", therefore, is as much under bondage today to Satan as the ancient Hebrews were to the devil's OT type (Pharaoh) in the Exodus. Neither group have "free" will! Neither had the power to extricate themselves from their horrendous situation. The problem in both cases was GOD-sized, not man-sized! Hence, in this New Covenant age God's chosen "firstborn" are also helpless (Rom 5:6) and in dire need of rescuing from the kingdom of darkness (Col 1:13).

Then these two verses in the Psalm struck a huge chord with me:

Ps 10:14-15
14 But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;
you consider it to take it in hand.
The victim commits himself to you;
you are the helper of the fatherless.
15 Break the arm of the wicked and evil man;
call him to account for his wickedness
that would not be found out.
NIV

It's noteworthy, I think, that scripture often talks about the "fatherless" but never to the "motherless". Could the "fatherless" in this passage also have deeper, spiritual meaning? Again, we know from scripture that the devil is the [spiritual] father of all his people (Gen 3:15; Jn 8:44). So, when the text says that God is "the helper of the fatherless", could these "fatherless" be the elect who were predestined in eternity to not have Satan as their spiritual father because, instead, they were predestined to become sons of Abraham by faith upon their new birth?

It's also interesting that the "victim" commits himself to God; and of course he does this by saving faith.

Just some food for thought... Satan plays a much, much larger part in God's redemptive plan of history than I think many in the Church today realize. He's the quintessential super villain in the plot -- a co-star even on the world stage in God's redemptive story that also has a huge sub-plot of Good vs. Evil. And once again, we can see this truth shine through in Natural Revelation since the Number One theme in books, movies and plays is good vs. evil. This is the most recurring theme in storytelling! Good guys, v.s bad guys. Heroes vs. villains, etc. And not only do we see this in the entertainment world, but on the world's political stage as well! On this stage we see the self-proclaimed wise, elite, good guys who know how to save the world vs. know-nothing, willfully ignorant rubes who are the bad guys always impeding the progress of the worldly wise.

I actually meant just the opposite that they do sin and most Jews believe this direct disobedience cost them eternity with God.

If they had a circumcised heart they would have obeyed.

That opposite claim that folk would be assured that they are damned, will be untrue.

No one would ever accept that they are damned. Otherwise, they would alter their
belief and behavior to change from that state of damnation to a state of salvation.
Or they would seek a repentance or deeply regret their choice. That goes without saying.

It would be a rare person that knowingly chose self damnation.

The question.


The claim that the predestination of an individual to salvation is a true statement.

Is a claim based on a specific interpretation of scripture with the full emphasis on the
sovereignty of God. The axiom of Calvinism starts with the sovereignty of God.

Calvinism (the tenets) is an intellectual construction, a claim at best. This holds true
for every other interpretation of the scripture. They are all claims nevertheless and that's
why an endless debate will follow.

So agreeing with the tenets of Calvinism has nothing to do with one's own
salvation. We know how salvation is gifted to humanity because we have been
told by Paul. Salvation is not based on an intellectual set of tenants.

Therefore, knowing how salvation occurs does not correlate in anyway with a person's
own salvation.

I know of scholars of the New Testament who are atheists, agnostics, e.t.c.

The same holds true for theology and Calvinism would be well understood
by folk who do not have faith in Jesus.

You can hold a statement to be true but not actually believe in the truth
of that statement.

What does that have to do with what I posted, which totally refuted your position? How could Adam make a decision one way or another without free will? And how do you make decisions without free will?
This is completely off topic so why is it even in the post of yours?

To all these Calvinists who are pushing this "choice vs. free will" nonsense remember this verse:

Matthew 23:37
New International Version
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

There is no point in the Bible even being written if we do not have a free choice in the matter.

Your words are but philosophical gobbledygook.

Choice is not free will.

The One who gave you the choice, who decides upon the options and who will execute the consequences of the choice, He is the one who has free sovereign will.
If you obey you live, that's God's will
if you rebel you die. Dead men do not have freewill.

And you have no freewill not to choose, you must choose.

If you had freewill you could say "Ok God I will not obey You but I refuse to die."

And what if God does not give you a choice at all?

Ummmm
Hate to break it to you but you are using personalized definitions of words that nobody else does.

Effective communication requires that you use the same definitions everyone else does or at a minimum you define the terms so that others can understand what you are saying.

Ummmm
Hate to break it to you but you are using personalized definitions of words that nobody else does.

Effective communication requires that you use the same definitions everyone else does or at a minimum you define the terms so that others can understand what you are saying.

The interpretation of biblical words ought to be based on their usage within the Bible. Frequently, God has imparted to words meanings that deviate from their conventional past and current definitions.

But we are using the English language which was not used in Biblical literature.

Meaning that the metaphorical languages of Hebrew and Aramaic or the idiomatic languages of Greek or Early Latin do not have an English equivalency. Not in sentence structure, syntaxes, or definition.

So....
Definitions are an absolute must. Especially when you are going beyond the common vernacular. Unless you are using one of the many logical fallacies such as the "ever moving goal posts"

The interpretation of biblical words ought to be based on their usage within the Bible. Frequently, God has imparted to words meanings that deviate from their conventional past and current definitions.