King of the North and King of the South.

[Athanasius]

I have been explaining it, though you apparently haven't heard it. One claims he hasn't heard enough, and another claims he's heard it too much! oy very

lol, you've been stating not explaining.

I'll try to explain to you personally. Rom 9 indicates that God predetermined a certain number of select children who will prevail and do His  original will.

Rom 9.6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring...
12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Jesus indicates the same...

John 8.42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

The question isn't whether God predestines, but (1) how does predestination function, i.e., groups, individuals, and so forth, and (2) where is it taught in Scripture that "God predetermined a certain number of select children" and "Some people inherit Adam's characteristic of wanting to repent and return to God, and so become children of God. Other children inherit Satan's characteristic of remaining aloof from God and stray from the path of God's word."

You're conflating all these questions with each other. It's no wonder you're exhausted!

Look at the broader context of Romans 9; Paul isn't discussing individual predestination or personal salvation but is outlining the broader salvific activity of God as it relates to Israel, Gentiles, and so forth. In John 8, Jesus simply isn't laying out a soteriological framework, no more than He's suggesting Peter is a damned child of Satan in Matthew 16. Neither offers support to the view that God selected X number of children for salvation, but sin resulted in very many more babies than God intended and those babies are left to instantiate some Satanic ideal outside of God's graces

[Redeemed]

Athan nailed it straight in. You still haven't shown what you've claimed with scriptures in context by the way.
And if you can't do it then your statements are akin to dust in the wind.

[RabbiKnife]

Cue “Kansas” here.

[Redeemed]

Didn't think of it at the time but now the song is stuck in my head.

Good thing I really like it, eh? 

[RabbiKnife]

 

[RandyPNW]

The question isn't whether God predestines, but (1) how does predestination function, i.e., groups, individuals, and so forth, and (2) where is it taught in Scripture that "God predetermined a certain number of select children" and "Some people inherit Adam's characteristic of wanting to repent and return to God, and so become children of God. Other children inherit Satan's characteristic of remaining aloof from God and stray from the path of God's word."

I've answered most questions, but your complaints consist of: all assertion, and no explanation, and all conflation, and no distinction. So I'll leave it at that.

Not everything I believe that is based on the Bible is clearly spelled out theologically in the Bible. For example, when God says He will fill the world with people, He doesn't tell us the exact number of people. When He says He has numbered all of His people, He doesn't tell us which ones.

And when He tells us His word is true, He doesn't have to tell us it will require that the promised number of people He foreknew in the world must come to pass. He just expects us to draw that conclusion.

Psalm 147.4 He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.

Isa 40.   
25 “To whom will you compare me?
    Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
    Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
    and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
    not one of them is missing.

Jer 23. 4 I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the Lord.

Rom 8.29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Look at the broader context of Romans 9; Paul isn't discussing individual predestination or personal salvation but is outlining the broader salvific activity of God as it relates to Israel, Gentiles, and so forth. In John 8, Jesus simply isn't laying out a soteriological framework, no more than He's suggesting Peter is a damned child of Satan in Matthew 16. Neither offers support to the view that God selected X number of children for salvation, but sin resulted in very many more babies than God intended and those babies are left to instantiate some Satanic ideal outside of God's graces

I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective. 

[IMINXTC]

I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective.

What you seem to offer is a speculation smorgasbord where one can simply create his own variety of the faith without the need for established scriptural evidence, as opposed to bits and pieces of texts taken completely out of context.


Bible delving. Lone wolf theology.

[Athanasius]

I've answered most questions, but your complaints consist of: all assertion, and no explanation, and all conflation, and no distinction. So I'll leave it at that.

Yes, because the theology you're presenting exists only at the surface as far as I can tell. You fall back on 'speculation' when pushed, given the framework you're suggesting I don't think speculation is the thing to fall back on.

Not everything I believe that is based on the Bible is clearly spelled out theologically in the Bible. For example, when God says He will fill the world with people, He doesn't tell us the exact number of people. When He says He has numbered all of His people, He doesn't tell us which ones.

What question are you trying to answer? What's unsatisfactory about the idea that God fills the world with people and He's counted/counting all of them. What question does this kind of answer not address? Are you trying to determine an exact number of elect, or something?

I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective.

I've never claimed that you didn't have a rationale behind your beliefs. I've claimed that your beliefs, even if speculative, aren't properly grounded in Scripture.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, because the theology you're presenting exists only at the surface as far as I can tell. You fall back on 'speculation' when pushed, given the framework you're suggesting I don't think speculation is the thing to fall back on.

When pushed?? I've *always* referred to these arguments as "speculative!"

Not everything I believe that is based on the Bible is clearly spelled out theologically in the Bible. For example, when God says He will fill the world with people, He doesn't tell us the exact number of people. When He says He has numbered all of His people, He doesn't tell us which ones.

What question are you trying to answer? What's unsatisfactory about the idea that God fills the world with people and He's counted/counting all of them. What question does this kind of answer not address? Are you trying to determine an exact number of elect, or something?

You have expressed a lot of dissatisfaction with assertions I've made. But the assertions must be made before providing evidence for my speculations. A major tenet of my theory is that God has a set number of "elect." And when you claim this is without merit I have to try to prove it from Scriptures, which is what I was doing.

I've never claimed that you didn't have a rationale behind your beliefs. I've claimed that your beliefs, even if speculative, aren't properly grounded in Scripture.

Again, this is all speculative. I'm sharing what I think--not what I know. You can judge for yourself, as to whether my conclusions are grounded or not. I have no problem with that. I share in order to get feedback as well as to try to help others answer the same questions I've had. And I've spent many years asking these questions--they interest me.

[RandyPNW]

I have reasons for everything I believe, but I don't claim to know it all. As I said, some of what I'm doing here is speculation. If you don't think there's any rationale to it, then we simply have a difference of perspective.

What you seem to offer is a speculation smorgasbord where one can simply create his own variety of the faith without the need for established scriptural evidence, as opposed to bits and pieces of texts taken completely out of context.


Bible delving. Lone wolf theology.

Instead of  criticizing, try theorizing. We don't always have to state things as if their required dogma!

[IMINXTC]

But isn't it our purpose and priority here to confirm the integrity of the Bible and affirm what it actually says?

"... Rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Tm2:15b

[RandyPNW]

But isn't it our purpose and priority here to confirm the integrity of the Bible and affirm what it actually says?

"... Rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Tm2:15b

Yes, I can see your concern here, if that's how you were looking at it. I pointedly said that I was indulging in a little speculation. So I don't want you to think I'm being dogmatic on these matters, which is simply doing a little theorizing to explain some questions I've long had in my life.

These are real issues I've had to face with both family and friends. Some are saved, some will be saved, and some never will be saved. I'm trying to figure out how to view them from God's point of view.

But yes, I believe the Holy Spirit can be very clear when He wants to be. Scriptures are explicit in matters of essential doctrine. We agree on that, I should think?

[Athanasius]

When pushed?? I've *always* referred to these arguments as "speculative!"

Sure, but responsible theological speculation is informed by Scripture. By when pushed, I mean the request to provide the Scriptural foundations for the speculation such that those foundations could reasonably be read in such a way so as to support speculation in the given direction. So, for example, it's not unreasonable to suggest that God might have a certain number of elect in mind that He predestined, foreordained, etc. What isn't as reasonable is the idea that there are babies born that God didn't plan for and so they are left on their own. That's the sort of speculation that isn't informed by Scripture as far as I can tell, and that raises serious questions about the character of God (well, for any view of God that doesn't have Him intensely hating humanity.)

You have expressed a lot of dissatisfaction with assertions I've made. But the assertions must be made before providing evidence for my speculations. A major tenet of my theory is that God has a set number of "elect." And when you claim this is without merit I have to try to prove it from Scriptures, which is what I was doing.

As far as God saving a certain number of elect individuals, isn't that just standard Calvinism?

Again, this is all speculative. I'm sharing what I think--not what I know. You can judge for yourself, as to whether my conclusions are grounded or not. I have no problem with that. I share in order to get feedback as well as to try to help others answer the same questions I've had. And I've spent many years asking these questions--they interest me.

Right, which is something that's interesting to me. You've mentioned a few times now that this is something you've thought about for 50 or so years, but where's the info dump, for lack of a better term? What's the big, grand, outline?

[RandyPNW]

Sure, but responsible theological speculation is informed by Scripture. By when pushed, I mean the request to provide the Scriptural foundations for the speculation such that those foundations could reasonably be read in such a way so as to support speculation in the given direction. So, for example, it's not unreasonable to suggest that God might have a certain number of elect in mind that He predestined, foreordained, etc. What isn't as reasonable is the idea that there are babies born that God didn't plan for and so they are left on their own. That's the sort of speculation that isn't informed by Scripture as far as I can tell, and that raises serious questions about the character of God (well, for any view of God that doesn't have Him intensely hating humanity.)

I think it's reasonable to assume that what God's word says must be done, and that what God doesn't say does not belong to Him? I know it leaves an uncomfortable feeling, and I feel it too. But I learned a long time ago to defer to God things that are within His domain. The best we can do is try to figure them out.

A major tenet of my theory is that God has a set number of "elect." And when you claim this is without merit I have to try to prove it from Scriptures, which is what I was doing.

As far as God saving a certain number of elect individuals, isn't that just standard Calvinism?
[/QUOTE]

I consider  myself a Calvinist. I try to dig a little deeper for explanations to things that Calvinism hasn't helped me with. This isn't just trying to come up with a consistent theology or intellectual explanation--rather, it's a matter of looking at real life around me, meeting people, and trying to explain their hardness of heart, or not, with respect to God's word.

Right, which is something that's interesting to me. You've mentioned a few times now that this is something you've thought about for 50 or so years, but where's the info dump, for lack of a better term? What's the big, grand, outline?

Not like that. I grew up a nominal Christian, and got more serious about Christianity in my later teens. As I evolved from repetitious liturgies and perfunctory performances, I came to feel that God has a compassionate answer for everything.

And yet, people I knew didn't respond to the call to Eternal Life. And that intrigued me, and disappointed me greatly. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought in idealistic terms, and believed we could all just "love one another." We could build "one world." But every generation ultimately ends up in wars, and we find ourselves trying to explain Why?

I developed my beliefs as I contemplated biblical theology listening to Walter Martin on his radio program, "The Bible Answerman." Before that I was a determined opponent of Calvinist types of beliefs, even though the denomination I was raised up in was Lutheran and originated modern Predestination.

It turned me off to think people believed some were predestinated to damnation. I don't believe precisely that now, even though I'm somewhat Calvinistic. I believe that when people are not the product of God's original word, by no fault of God, people reproduce and produce children who are not the product of God's word. And they show this by their indifference to God's word, or by their open hostility to God's word. They incline towards wanting complete independence from God, cooperating with God only when they wish to do so.

After listening to Walter Martin, I converted to Predestination in the Lutheran/Calvinist mold. And I read Luther's "Bondage of the Will," and felt that Erasmus was more correct than Luther--even though I didn't really like Erasmus.

Anyway, I just sort of filled in the blanks in my own mind as I went along. Nobody really wants to talk about these things. When I find someone wiling to discuss them, I'm pleased about that!

You've heard pretty much all I really say on the subject, rolled out a little at a time. I believe God's word determined the set number of people on the planet to be "saved." Man disobeyed God's word, determining to have an independent way of life, making choices apart from consulting with the Lord, apart from partnering with the Lord.

And the result has affected human spirituality, which is passed on to future generations in a corrupted state of nature, just like DNA is passed on and passes on the same characteristics. The fallen, independent bent of Adam has been passed on to all future humans born out of this mix of independence and Man's original created nature.

I would've developed a better way of sharing this, more concisely and with more precision, if more people were interested and if they weren't often so hostile to it. Perhaps if others were more courageous about addressing it, they would've helped me to improve it, correct it, or disprove it entirely? Thanks for weighing in yourself.

[Athanasius]

I think it's reasonable to assume that what God's word says must be done, and that what God doesn't say does not belong to Him? I know it leaves an uncomfortable feeling, and I feel it too. But I learned a long time ago to defer to God things that are within His domain. The best we can do is try to figure them out.

And so, you can only speculate? I don't follow. If that is what you're saying, then that's not a reply to what I said.

I consider  myself a Calvinist. I try to dig a little deeper for explanations to things that Calvinism hasn't helped me with. This isn't just trying to come up with a consistent theology or intellectual explanation--rather, it's a matter of looking at real life around me, meeting people, and trying to explain their hardness of heart, or not, with respect to God's word.

Okay, but aren't you just repeating Calvinism's answer?

Not like that. I grew up a nominal Christian, and got more serious about Christianity in my later teens. As I evolved from repetitious liturgies and perfunctory performances, I came to feel that God has a compassionate answer for everything.

And yet, people I knew didn't respond to the call to Eternal Life. And that intrigued me, and disappointed me greatly. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought in idealistic terms, and believed we could all just "love one another." We could build "one world." But every generation ultimately ends up in wars, and we find ourselves trying to explain Why?

I developed my beliefs as I contemplated biblical theology listening to Walter Martin on his radio program, "The Bible Answerman." Before that I was a determined opponent of Calvinist types of beliefs, even though the denomination I was raised up in was Lutheran and originated modern Predestination.

It turned me off to think people believed some were predestinated to damnation. I don't believe precisely that now, even though I'm somewhat Calvinistic. I believe that when people are not the product of God's original word, by no fault of God, people reproduce and produce children who are not the product of God's word. And they show this by their indifference to God's word, or by their open hostility to God's word. They incline towards wanting complete independence from God, cooperating with God only when they wish to do so.

After listening to Walter Martin, I converted to Predestination in the Lutheran/Calvinist mold. And I read Luther's "Bondage of the Will," and felt that Erasmus was more correct than Luther--even though I didn't really like Erasmus.

Anyway, I just sort of filled in the blanks in my own mind as I went along. Nobody really wants to talk about these things. When I find someone wiling to discuss them, I'm pleased about that!

You've heard pretty much all I really say on the subject, rolled out a little at a time. I believe God's word determined the set number of people on the planet to be "saved." Man disobeyed God's word, determining to have an independent way of life, making choices apart from consulting with the Lord, apart from partnering with the Lord.

And the result has affected human spirituality, which is passed on to future generations in a corrupted state of nature, just like DNA is passed on and passes on the same characteristics. The fallen, independent bent of Adam has been passed on to all future humans born out of this mix of independence and Man's original created nature.

I would've developed a better way of sharing this, more concisely and with more precision, if more people were interested and if they weren't often so hostile to it. Perhaps if others were more courageous about addressing it, they would've helped me to improve it, correct it, or disprove it entirely? Thanks for weighing in yourself.

Right. I think a few more discussions would have done you some good in terms of developing this view. Have you used our various discussions as an opportunity to improve your view?