User Tag List

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3101112131415 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 219

Thread: Are babies going to populate "hell"?

  1. #181
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,519 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501711
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    That admittedly does look somewhat confusing. It might be that the "even as" is not fully literal, speaking of us approaching the oneness that God Above and God Below shared, and/or it might be hint to an overlay/integration of the Holy Spirit with ourselves. If Jesus was fully filled with the Holy Spirit and that is something he ultimately desired for us that might make sense. Do you have any other ideas for that passage? I'm all ears, I'm interesting in hearing some other ideas here.
    It might be best to start a new thread for that discussion.
    God will not give His glory to another or will He?
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  2. #182
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,506
    Thanks
    819
    Thanked 1,533 Times in 1,204 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    192036
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    It might be best to start a new thread for that discussion.
    God will not give His glory to another or will He?
    Back to topic, the question was whether Jesus was innately sinful, as a counter to the concept of "original sin" (that all men are innately sinful) which was because of the claim that infants and children are sinless and perfect, and that therefore God would send all babies to heaven.

    Aside from distractions, infants are not perfect, they are just as of yet untried. Every infant that has grown up has proven that they are sinful, the exception being God, and for reason being that He was God with the holy character of God. We can get into why later but that is another thread. Put an infant in "heaven" for twenty years and they wouldn't be an infant anymore, they'd be a sinful twenty-year old in a spirit realm. You'd be fooling yourself that "this one will be different" compared to the trillions of contrary proofs existing.

    So what do we make of this? Trust what God has given us, in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. We don't need to try to make up something "better" when God who is far much wiser already has this covered.

  3. #183
    Over 6000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,162
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 1,008 Times in 736 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    300287
    Hi and check Rom 9:11 !!

    dan p

  4. #184
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,519 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501711
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Back to topic, the question was whether Jesus was innately sinful, as a counter to the concept of "original sin" (that all men are innately sinful) which was because of the claim that infants and children are sinless and perfect, and that therefore God would send all babies to heaven.
    That sounds a lot like trying to use an exception to prove a rule when it hasn't been established whether the rule is true or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Aside from distractions, infants are not perfect, they are just as of yet untried. Every infant that has grown up has proven that they are sinful, the exception being God, and for reason being that He was God with the holy character of God. We can get into why later but that is another thread. Put an infant in "heaven" for twenty years and they wouldn't be an infant anymore, they'd be a sinful twenty-year old in a spirit realm. You'd be fooling yourself that "this one will be different" compared to the trillions of contrary proofs existing.

    So what do we make of this? Trust what God has given us, in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. We don't need to try to make up something "better" when God who is far much wiser already has this covered.
    There is a difference between being "sinful" and being "wicked", both in this life and in the Judgment.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  5. #185
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,506
    Thanks
    819
    Thanked 1,533 Times in 1,204 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    192036
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    That sounds a lot like trying to use an exception to prove a rule when it hasn't been established whether the rule is true or not.


    There is a difference between being "sinful" and being "wicked", both in this life and in the Judgment.
    Jeremiah 17:9-10 KJV
    (9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    (10) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

    Not a baby salvation passage directly, but it does indicate the standard God has set up: he has his method to search the heart.
    Last edited by Rosenritter; September 14th, 2018 at 07:24 PM.

  6. #186
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Gen. 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
    The plain meaning of the Hebrew word reduced to struggle here is Strong's H7533 - ratsats, meaning to crush, oppress
    • (Qal)
    • to crush, get crushed, be crushed

    • to crush, oppress (fig)

    • crushed (participle passive)

    • (Niphal) to be crushed, be broken
    • (Piel)
    • to crush in pieces

    • to grievously oppress (fig)

    • (Poel) to oppress (fig)
    • (Hiphil) to crush
    • (Hithpoel) to crush each other...the actual form of the verb used in this verse that show that they were BOTH being murderous

    And when she asked the LORD why are they trying to crush each other and fighting so hard HE replied with the news that they were fighting over who was to be the first born, not knowing the elder would serve the younger. If this is not the gist of HIS answer to Rebecca's inquiry then HE did not answer her at all but ignored her plight of murderous twins to talk about the future.
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

  7. #187
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,506
    Thanks
    819
    Thanked 1,533 Times in 1,204 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    192036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    The plain meaning of the Hebrew word reduced to struggle here is Strong's H7533 - ratsats, meaning to crush, oppress
    • (Qal)
    • to crush, get crushed, be crushed

    • to crush, oppress (fig)

    • crushed (participle passive)

    • (Niphal) to be crushed, be broken
    • (Piel)
    • to crush in pieces

    • to grievously oppress (fig)

    • (Poel) to oppress (fig)
    • (Hiphil) to crush
    • (Hithpoel) to crush each other...the actual form of the verb used in this verse that show that they were BOTH being murderous

    And when she asked the LORD why are they trying to crush each other and fighting so hard HE replied with the news that they were fighting over who was to be the first born, not knowing the elder would serve the younger. If this is not the gist of HIS answer to Rebecca's inquiry then HE did not answer her at all but ignored her plight of murderous twins to talk about the future.
    I'm not saying infants are holy but I don't think that's the meaning of the passage. Unborn children kick and punch and headbutt naturally, and they can also interact with each other, and the struggling of two children is going to be more than double of a single child. It would also make sense that God chose to use this as an opportunity to explain that these would be two nations in conflict one another. They didn't have to be trying to kill each other. How would a child that young even comprehend what is at the other end of its hand or foot?

  8. #188
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,249
    Thanks
    14,375
    Thanked 36,762 Times in 18,356 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147800
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Hi and check Rom 9:11 !!

    dan p
    Shucks....I'd missed this one. Thanks Dan.

    Not having done any good or evil. It really does matter.

  9. #189
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    573
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 133 Times in 118 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    21702
    It's clear those not born again aren't getting into the kingdom of God (Jn.3:3-8). Were aborted babies born again before they died? No. So they will have to be born again postmortem before they can enter the kingdom of God. That would be postmortem salvation.

    Will Love Omnipotent force the aborted to be born again postmortem? Will He give them no choice in the matter? Is He a Calvinist? If dead babies get an automatic entry into heaven, should a loving parent let their child reach the age of accountability & possibly go to hell forever? Or would it be more loving to send the child to heaven?

  10. #190
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I'm not saying infants are holy but I don't think that's the meaning of the passage. Unborn children kick and punch and headbutt naturally, and they can also interact with each other, and the struggling of two children is going to be more than double of a single child. It would also make sense that God chose to use this as an opportunity to explain that these would be two nations in conflict one another. They didn't have to be trying to kill each other. How would a child that young even comprehend what is at the other end of its hand or foot?
    The Hebrew says crush, it is only the English that claims to crush means to jostle or wrestle. As well, YHWH's answer to Rebecca claims (in essence) that she was in so much distress because there were two sons who would sire mighty nations but the older would not rule the younger...that is, HE related the jostle in her womb to the nature of their law on the rights to inherit the family headship, ie the rights of primogeniture, ie the state of being the firstborn child; the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son. This implied that they knew what was going on and were trying to establish their ascendancy in the womb, a fight, not a natural (it was not natural to Rebecca) jostling.

    So even if to crush means to jostle, how does YHWH's answer make any sense IF they were newly created, tabula rasa, as orthodoxy suggests? I know that after 4000 years of interpreting all of scripture in favour of our being created on earth tabula rasa has given every verse its orthodox interpretation but ...does it make sense on the face of the words or only in the light of the orthodox bias against our pre-conception existence when these twins learned of their future and fought to achieve supremacy.

    To read without bias is not to only accept the interpretation you've been taught but the ability to see the way each option could be true from the pov of their premise, ie, the ability to hold in the mind two conflicting ideas as possible at the same time.
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

  11. #191
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,506
    Thanks
    819
    Thanked 1,533 Times in 1,204 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    192036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    The Hebrew says crush, it is only the English that claims to crush means to jostle or wrestle. As well, YHWH's answer to Rebecca claims (in essence) that she was in so much distress because there were two sons who would sire mighty nations but the older would not rule the younger...that is, HE related the jostle in her womb to the nature of their law on the rights to inherit the family headship, ie the rights of primogeniture, ie the state of being the firstborn child; the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son. This implied that they knew what was going on and were trying to establish their ascendancy in the womb, a fight, not a natural (it was not natural to Rebecca) jostling.

    So even if to crush means to jostle, how does YHWH's answer make any sense IF they were newly created, tabula rasa, as orthodoxy suggests? I know that after 4000 years of interpreting all of scripture in favour of our being created on earth tabula rasa has given every verse its orthodox interpretation but ...does it make sense on the face of the words or only in the light of the orthodox bias against our pre-conception existence when these twins learned of their future and fought to achieve supremacy.

    To read without bias is not to only accept the interpretation you've been taught but the ability to see the way each option could be true from the pov of their premise, ie, the ability to hold in the mind two conflicting ideas as possible at the same time.
    ... because God can guide events around these children and the children themselves to accomplish what he says will happen. They may be clean slates with little more than base personality inclinations, but God has sufficient power to accomplish his prophecies.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (September 25th, 2018)

  13. #192
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    Shucks....I'd missed this one. Thanks Dan.

    Not having done any good or evil. It really does matter.
    Hi guys,

    this is my hermeneutic of Rom 9:11 that is the verse Origin used to support his contention that we are not created on earth but were all created pre-earth in spirit only, before the creation of the physical universe.

    It is long as good theology is (ie, not just an available sound bite) and brings together a number of streams of thought into mutual support for PCE (pre-conception existence) theology, especially in the light of Rom 9:11 which seems to contradict our pre-earth election by, due to, our moral decisions.

    So, please consider:

    Romans 8:29 - For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

    GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21, 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love. James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain; He never knew them.
    Revelation 20:15, And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.

    Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?

    1. Merit based Election before Creation?
    The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour: 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... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

    2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
    Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.
    First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

    Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.

    Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

    Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

    First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

    Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD’S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better.

    Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.

    Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

    Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

    This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life" love. [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly.] GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

    Now, according to pre-conception theology, the "before life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM. Our personal choice by our free will is the reason why HE loved some (who put their faith in HIS claims and HIS Son) "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest (who rejected HIS claims as the lies of a false god, sinning the unforgivable sin).

    Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church, the sinful good seed). Yes, and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the other evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

    Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?

    2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate preconception theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do. May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do in this life.

    Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-existence.

    The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. His purpose for us necessitates a free will choice to join that purpose or it is a tape recorder type of agreement and meaningless. Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a pre-conception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performedthat work.

    The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels... Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), ie, they do not have what is usually called “racial solidarity”. This means that they have to make all their own choices. No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices. In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them?

    If HIS choice was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion, would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven, (or: predestined for Hell)? And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever? This situation does not look too good, does it?

    Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was holy and just. Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.

    Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice, works, being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too? May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility is the presupposition that Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's definition of elective works in

    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. Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say that the works of 2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines works the same in both verses. And just how does he define works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her. The children are Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil (works).

    But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, [the Hebrew literally means "trying to crush each other to pieces" according to Strong's], at least one, if not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil works, since it is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was being evil.

    Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction, the children were being evil before birth, and must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or we have to admit that the Pauline definition of works does not exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election. In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election, he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having done any good or evil (works on the post-birth side of the womb) that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb).

    Thus I contend see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

  14. #193
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,461
    Thanks
    24,234
    Thanked 6,854 Times in 4,308 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Hi guys,

    this is my hermeneutic of Rom 9:11 that is the verse Origin used to support his contention that we are not created on earth but were all created pre-earth in spirit only, before the creation of the physical universe.

    It is long as good theology is (ie, not just an available sound bite) and brings together a number of streams of thought into mutual support for PCE (pre-conception existence) theology, especially in the light of Rom 9:11 which seems to contradict our pre-earth election by, due to, our moral decisions.

    So, please consider:

    Romans 8:29 - For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

    GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21, 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love. James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain; He never knew them.
    Revelation 20:15, And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.

    Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?

    1. Merit based Election before Creation?
    The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour: 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... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

    2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
    Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.
    First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

    Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.

    Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

    Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

    First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

    Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD’S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better.

    Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.

    Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

    Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

    This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life" love. [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly.] GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

    Now, according to pre-conception theology, the "before life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM. Our personal choice by our free will is the reason why HE loved some (who put their faith in HIS claims and HIS Son) "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest (who rejected HIS claims as the lies of a false god, sinning the unforgivable sin).

    Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church, the sinful good seed). Yes, and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the other evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

    Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?

    2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate preconception theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do. May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do in this life.

    Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-existence.

    The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. His purpose for us necessitates a free will choice to join that purpose or it is a tape recorder type of agreement and meaningless. Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a pre-conception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performedthat work.

    The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels... Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), ie, they do not have what is usually called “racial solidarity”. This means that they have to make all their own choices. No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices. In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them?

    If HIS choice was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion, would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven, (or: predestined for Hell)? And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever? This situation does not look too good, does it?

    Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was holy and just. Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.

    Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice, works, being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too? May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility is the presupposition that Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's definition of elective works in

    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. Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say that the works of 2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines works the same in both verses. And just how does he define works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her. The children are Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil (works).

    But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, [the Hebrew literally means "trying to crush each other to pieces" according to Strong's], at least one, if not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil works, since it is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was being evil.

    Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction, the children were being evil before birth, and must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or we have to admit that the Pauline definition of works does not exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election. In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election, he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having done any good or evil (works on the post-birth side of the womb) that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb).

    Thus I contend see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.
    Conception is not birth.

    The Bible never says God knew someone before they were conceived.

    Therefore, they could not have existed prior to their conception.

    Science tells us that life begins at conception, which agrees with the Bible, that the baby in the womb is a human being, a person.

    Not one iota of the scripture you gave in your entire post indicates that someone exists prior to their conception, only that God can know the person even in the womb.

  15. #194
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,506
    Thanks
    819
    Thanked 1,533 Times in 1,204 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    192036
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Hi guys,

    this is my hermeneutic of Rom 9:11 that is the verse Origin used to support his contention that we are not created on earth but were all created pre-earth in spirit only, before the creation of the physical universe.

    It is long as good theology is (ie, not just an available sound bite) and brings together a number of streams of thought into mutual support for PCE (pre-conception existence) theology, especially in the light of Rom 9:11 which seems to contradict our pre-earth election by, due to, our moral decisions.

    So, please consider:

    Romans 8:29 - For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

    GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21, 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love. James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain; He never knew them.
    Revelation 20:15, And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.
    Spoiler

    Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?

    1. Merit based Election before Creation?
    The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour: 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... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

    2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
    Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.
    First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

    Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.

    Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

    Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

    First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

    Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD’S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better.

    Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.

    Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

    Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

    This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life" love. [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly.] GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

    Now, according to pre-conception theology, the "before life" love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (in Sheol, before physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM. Our personal choice by our free will is the reason why HE loved some (who put their faith in HIS claims and HIS Son) "before this life" and why HE did not love the rest (who rejected HIS claims as the lies of a false god, sinning the unforgivable sin).

    Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly gracious (election) to them (His fallen church, the sinful good seed). Yes, and He predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and HE predestined the other evil ones for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

    Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?

    2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate preconception theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do. May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do in this life.

    Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-existence.

    The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. His purpose for us necessitates a free will choice to join that purpose or it is a tape recorder type of agreement and meaningless. Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a pre-conception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performedthat work.

    The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels... Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), ie, they do not have what is usually called “racial solidarity”. This means that they have to make all their own choices. No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices. In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them?

    If HIS choice was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion, would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven, (or: predestined for Hell)? And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever? This situation does not look too good, does it?

    Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was holy and just. Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.

    Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice, works, being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too? May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility is the presupposition that Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's definition of elective works in

    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. Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say that the works of 2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines works the same in both verses. And just how does he define works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her. The children are Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil (works).

    But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, [the Hebrew literally means "trying to crush each other to pieces" according to Strong's], at least one, if not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil works, since it is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was being evil.

    Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction, the children were being evil before birth, and must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or we have to admit that the Pauline definition of works does not exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election. In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election, he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having done any good or evil (works on the post-birth side of the womb) that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb).

    Thus I contend see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.
    That isn't a required assumption; God can foreknow that his saints would be conformed to the image of his Son, without needing to know the identity of any particular person or individual. If they will become saints, it will be by being conformed to that image. If they will not be conformed to that image, they are in enmity against God and cannot be saved. The Calvinist predestination mindset seems to rely on taking that which is spoken in the general sense of a group or classification and supposing that it designates and distinguishes all specific individuals.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 25th, 2018)

  17. #195
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Not one iota of the scripture you gave in your entire post indicates that someone exists prior to their conception, only that God can know the person even in the womb.
    Not in that post because that was not the focus of that post but I bet we can find an iota somewhere IF I am not being commanded to prove each verse refers to our pre-conception because no verse PROVES any doctrine (or there would be no contradictions in our theologies) and I only want to have the same rules as everyone else: Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Is that an iota?

    Also, where do the people come from that are sown into the world by the Son of Man and the devil, Matt 13:36-39, since sown cannot mean create since the devil does it also! Surely we have an iota by now??

    How can the wicked RETURN to Sheol if they have never been there? Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall RETURN to Sheol ...Kiel - Delitzsch(#16): Yea, back to Hades must the wicked RETURN... In this verse, we can see a little of the 'created on earth' bias of the KJV translators against the preconception view, rendering return as turned. It is important to see this because, once we recognise the fact that almost every translator has a bias against pre-conception theology, we must realise that we will often have to look very thoroughly at their translations of the Scriptures, if we are going to see past it. From the other translations of this verse, we see that these persons, at their death, return to Hades, a place they have obviously been in before. Of course we accept return to mean return or to go back to where you once had been...

    I think maybe we can get up to an iota if we continue to explore return.1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now RETURNED unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    Well, to return, one must have been there before, at least, according to the normal use of the word. Therefore, in this verse, it would be normal to infer that the sheep that had gone astray, were, at one time part of the Shepherd's flock but had strayed away from HIS care. Since I am sure that the Shepherd was not negligent, the straying away from HIS care must involve some rebellion.

    Therefore, it is normally obvious that Peter is writing to some apostatized (gone astray) Christians (people of the flock). It is also normally apparent that what he was writing is intended for every new convert in every age since.

    Therefore, it seems normal that the Holy Spirit would have us believe that all of the Church has personally apostatized from Christ prior to their conversion in this life. Since we are conceived as sinners, it is easy to see that we apostatized from Christ before our conception and that is why we are sinners at our conception / birth.

    I think that Peter bore added witness to this fact in 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ...which ...hath BEGOTTEN US AGAIN unto a lively hope...

    Just when was the first time you were begotten by GOD? And when did you get unbegotten? Well, unless you are one of those earthly backslidden types, the only time such an un-begetting or rebellion could have taken place is prior to your conception. And since Peter is writing to the whole Church rather than to just the backslidden types, he must be referring to a pre-conception rebellion and the straying of HIS elect since that time, which straying or rebellion ends only upon conversion to obedience unto holiness to that Shepherd, that is, upon being born in Christ (begotten) again.
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us