ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

God predestined that all who believe will be saved, and that these ones who believe will bear the fruit of good works. He did not predestine every good work that we would or could do, but fail to do. You have gutted volition out of your theology. There is no longer reward, punishment, accountability, responsibility, life, creativity, freedom, love, relationship, etc. Predestining that believers ought to bring forth good works is a far cry from making us sock puppets causing some believers to be good stewards and other believers to be mediocre...for the glory of God? There would be no good reason why God would not save all, equally sanctify all, equally have every believer bring abundant works for His glory, etc. The exhortations and commands in Scripture are meant to be obeyed, not passively dismissed as irrelevant since we cannot do more or less than God predestined, including sin?!

God did predestine individuals to salvation. Apparently we disagree as to what this means. God desires and intends for all men to come to Him in repentant faith. The fact that all men are not saved (love desires the highest good of God and His creation) shows that man is able to reject the grace and ministry of the Spirit. The weak link is not God's will, but man's selfish will. There is no good reason for a person not to be saved. Those who reject Him are without excuse, since He has done everything He can for their salvation (Rom. 1). God did not elect person x, but non-elect person y apart from their responses to His conviction and convincing. Things were not settled before they were born. It was settled that IF they believe, they would be part of God's elect with all of its privileges and promises. It was settled that IF any individual rejects His love and offer of eternal life, that they would perish as justice from a holy God. The passion of the Christ shows the awefulness of sin and the great love of God. He died for everyone, not just the elect. This objective provision (grounds) must be subjectively appropriated (conditions). This is His predestined plan. Your unilateral, causative, coerced idea of relationship/salvation is foreign to Scripture.

I have said all I can say without blowing a gasket. The fact that you directly or indirectly attribute evil to a holy God due to a distorted hyper-sovereignty view tells me that you are likely impervious to biblical truth in this area. If the Holy Spirit has not been able to illuminate this to you over the years, surely I cannot. How stubborn and dull can a believer's mind be? There is no shortage of heresies in the body of Christ. :doh:

 

[Hilston]

God predestined that all who believe will be saved, and that these ones who believe will bear the fruit of good works.

That's not predestination, GR, and you know it. That's equivocation. It's like saying, "I predestinate that anyone who gets in the car with me will go to Chili's." It's a ridiculous and inane misuse of the word.

He did not predestine every good work that we would or could do, but fail to do.

That's not what Paul says. Read Eph 2:10. He foreordained the good works the Body of Christ would do.

You have gutted volition out of your theology.

Far from it, GR. You're still debating a straw man. But it's understandable that you would prefer an imaginary opponent, since your theology crumbles under the scrutiny of a real one.

There is no longer reward, punishment, accountability, responsibility, life, creativity, freedom, love, relationship, etc.

Again, it's a straw man argument, GR. You make these bald pronouncements and you either have no idea what you're talking about or you're deliberately misrepresenting my view. Either one is bad.

... Predestining that believers ought to bring forth good works is a far cry from making us sock puppets causing some believers to be good stewards and other believers to be mediocre...for the glory of God?

Straw man, GR. Are you so desperate that you can no longer engage the actual terms of the discussion?

... There would be no good reason why God would not save all, equally sanctify all, equally have every believer bring abundant works for His glory, etc.

"Hath God said ...?" Sound familiar, GR? Your Luciferian humanism is showing again.

... The exhortations and commands in Scripture are meant to be obeyed, not passively dismissed as irrelevant since we cannot do more or less than God predestined, including sin?!

Straw man again, GR. This is the equivalent of a 4-year-old plugging his ears and screaming. Your desperation has taken the form of lobbing completely non sequitur accusations, all based on Open-View assumption that have nothing to do with the actual theological terms of this discussion.

God did predestine individuals to salvation. Apparently we disagree as to what this means.

Yeah, it's obvious. Your meaning is inane.

... God desires and intends for all men to come to Him in repentant faith.

You obviously don't know what "intends" means either. You do violence to language, GR.

... The fact that all men are not saved (love desires the highest good of God and His creation) shows that man is able to reject the grace and ministry of the Spirit. The weak link is not God's will, but man's selfish will.

On your view, it's both. God is powerless to save anyone. Man is powerless to save himself. On the Settled View, not a single chosen person is lost. God's love is completely effectual. There are no weak links. That's why the Settled Viewer has grounds to trust Him. The Open Theist does not.

... There is no good reason for a person not to be saved.

Lucifer would be so pround, GR. Job's wife said something similar ("There's no good reason for you to suffer like this, Job. Why don't you curse God and die"). I'm sure there are those who would say the same thing to Joseph, David and Paul, all of whom recognized the good purposes in their afflictions.

... Those who reject Him are without excuse, since He has done everything He can for their salvation (Rom. 1).

"Everything He can" except actually save them. That they must do themselves. On your view, Christ's death was not sufficient.

... Things were not settled before they were born. It was settled that IF they believe, they would be part of God's elect with all of its privileges and promises.

That's not 'settled', GR. You don't know what that word means either.

... It was settled that IF any individual rejects His love and offer of eternal life, that they would perish as justice from a holy God.

It's amazing. You take three concepts that are non-contingent and declarative by their very nature, "predestination", "intention" and "settled", and you twist them to be contingent. Unbelievable.

... The passion of the Christ shows the awefulness of sin and the great love of God. He died for everyone, not just the elect.

That's not great love. That's cheap and insufficient love. Christ's loving sacrifice was sufficient to actually save those for whom He died. Not one drop of His blood was wasted.

... Your unilateral, causative, coerced idea of relationship/salvation is foreign to Scripture.

Again, GR, you've disqualified yourself from saying anything regarding what is or isn't foreign to scripture. You need to study more, remember, and you're not prepared to do so, remember?

The fact that you directly or indirectly attribute evil to a holy God due to a distorted hyper-sovereignty view tells me that you are likely impervious to biblical truth in this area.

I'm not the one contradicting scripture, GR. Did you just skip right over all those verses I provided in my previous post? Have you pulled your head out of the sand yet?

... If the Holy Spirit has not been able to illuminate this to you over the years, surely I cannot.

Do you realize how ludicrous you sound, especially given the fact that I've provided numerous and detailed examples of how your theology contradicts scripture, and you've not only failed to answer a single one (because you're not persuaded by "prooftexts"), but you've admitted to needing to study more and you're "not prepared to do so."

How stubborn and dull can a believer's mind be?

You tell me. I've given you an abundance of scriptures that challenge your demi-theology. Let's see your answer to them. Explain the plural pronouns, GR.

... There is no shortage of heresies in the body of Christ.

On that I agree. Paul said that heresies must exist so that the documented ones (those who are predestined) may be manifested in the church (1Co 11:19). Your inability to answer the above scriptures seems to be manifesting something else in your case.

 

[sentientsynth]

John 3:16 is a universal gospel in a nutshell.

Congrats on your conversion to Universalism.

 

[sentientsynth]

. There would be no good reason why God would not save all, equally sanctify all, equally have every believer bring abundant works for His glory, etc.

Here you have it again, folks. The typical Open Theist mantra. If it doesn't jive with their fleshly mind, forget about it.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

... who meets that condition is up to the individuals, and so salvation is also their decision. Thus, it is both God's decision and man's decision.

But in this view, the conditions of salvation are God's decision, but salvation itself is man's decision.

Lee: [Paul] is clearly saying God has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes.

God_Is_Truth: God can decide to have mercy on all those who choose Him and harden all those who do not.

But the examples, why such examples here to illustrate such a point? If what you say is what was meant, then the appropriate examples would be different conditions for whom he has mercy on, and whom he hardens.

But Paul is not making the point that God in fact specifically chooses one individual for eternal life and chooses another for damnation.

1 Timothy 2
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

I agree, and thus I would hope that all will be saved, "God has bound all men over to obedience so that he may have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32)

So God is not merely establishing conditions for salvation here.

Lee: Here God is choosing in issues of salvation, and illustrating it with choices he made before people were born...

God_Is_Truth: Paul's own conclusion (v.30-31) show he is speaking of the previous division that existed concerning Jews and Gentiles and not specific individuals irrespective of groups.

But the Jewish people not coming for the most part Paul says is God's decision. How can this be possible according to the Open View?

Isaiah may well be speaking about the present state of godlessness in his time.Though there were many people who were physically Israel, only a few (remnant) were following God. Thus, under that covenant only the few would be saved.

But Paul applies this from Isaiah's time up until his day, how could this be known, and also that Gentiles would then be mostly the ones turning to God?

Why would this be an issue specifically for open theism and not any other?

But if another view has a difficulty here, that does not exempt OVT from addressing it.

Romans 9-11 is about the election of national Israel for service and bringing forth the Messiah.

Then you will need to address my reponse to this, in which I argue that Romans 9 is about salvation.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Congrats on your conversion to Universalism.

Talk to logosX, not me. God's love is not limited. His plan of redemption is not limited to the elite. God impartially loves everyone, the whole world. He died for all men. He would be pleased if all men were snatched from Satan and returned to the Father's heart. The Great Commission is not just a manhunt for those with 'elect' stamped on their foreheads. Does your theology lead to passivity (logically it should)?

God's perfect, objective provision must be subjectively appropriated. God alone initiates and provides salvation (grounds...we cannot die for our own sins). The manward side is that we must receive Him to have life (conditions...God does not believe or rebel for us...Jn. 1:12, 3:16, 36; Rom. 1).

A literal payment commercial transaction theory (Anselm) of the atonement, widely held by Christians, logically leads to universalism. I concur with Moral Government Theory, so do not have this pitfall.

The reason you wrongly conclude that God's impartial love for the world is limited and His atonement is only intended for a small elite group is a deductive TULIP idea that is based on an unbiblical view of hyper-sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control). God's will is not the only factor in the universe, by His sovereign choice. A reconciled love relationship is not coerced/caused/unilateral.

Boo Calvinism. Shame on it for distorting God's love and holiness.

 

[godrulz]

Here you have it again, folks. The typical Open Theist mantra. If it doesn't jive with their fleshly mind, forget about it.

It is contrary to God's self-revelation in Scripture. You impugn the character of God and dare to tell me my defense is a mantra? There is no good reason why God would not save all men if He could. Your view makes His love arbitrary and limited. He damns my sister and mother, but saves myself and my cousin, for His good pleasure? Don't bother preaching the gospel to everyone as commanded. We are lying to people to call them to repentant faith knowing God may or may not actually regenerate them if they respond in brokenness. If they are not elect it must be a display of emotion. We are cruel deceivers at best. No wonder many Calvinists passively let the masses go to hell with a smile on their face...all for God's glory and the good of the frozen chosen?!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Here you have it again, folks. The typical Open Theist mantra. If it doesn't jive with their fleshly mind, forget about it.

What are the capabilities of the "fleshly mind"?

Can the "fleshly mind" do things that are not of God's decretive will?

No, you say?

Then why accuse it of something that God designed for His glory? Who are you to mock God's handiwork?

P.S. (from threads abroad)
When the Bible says... (in 2nd Samuel 24:1)... "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel,".
What was God mad about?

 

[sentientsynth]

Then why accuse it of something that God designed for His glory?

Because I was foreordained to.

Duh.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

But in this view, the conditions of salvation are God's decision, but salvation itself is man's decision.

Not at all. God is the only one who can save anybody. What's more accurate is that the decision to accept salvation by meeting God's condition (faith) belongs to man.

But the examples, why such examples here to illustrate such a point? If what you say is what was meant, then the appropriate examples would be different conditions for whom he has mercy on, and whom he hardens.

The point was that Israel herself was not exempt from such conditions. She broke her covenant and so God decided to now harden her rather than show mercy.

But the Jewish people not coming for the most part Paul says is God's decision. How can this be possible according to the Open View?

I disagree if I understand you correctly. It was not God's will that Israel reject Him. He rejected Israel because she rejected Him (though he will one day come back to her).

But Paul applies this from Isaiah's time up until his day, how could this be known, and also that Gentiles would then be mostly the ones turning to God?

He's not applying it like that. He isn't saying Isaiah foretold of this time, but that what was true during Isaiah's time is now true in his own time.

But if another view has a difficulty here, that does not exempt OVT from addressing it.

It means you are just as obligated to answer it as any other christian and that open theism has no greater burden to do so. Thus, it should be for another thread and discussion unrelated to open theism.

 

[sentientsynth]

Your view makes His love arbitrary and limited.

You mean like a husband's love for his wife? That's right. That's exactly my view.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because I was foreordained to.

Duh.

:chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You mean like a husband's love for his wife? That's right. That's exactly my view.

If God ordains which husbands love their wives and which do not, that's arbitrary.

 

[drbrumley]

Funny that Paul instructs ALL husbands and not just those foreoradained. Just a thought!

 

[godrulz]

Because I was foreordained to.

Duh.

R U serious, Mr. Sockpuppet?

 

[godrulz]

You mean like a husband's love for his wife? That's right. That's exactly my view.

God loves His bride and people in a special way. This is not arbitrary. Loving our spouses does not negate the commands to love our neighbours, enemies, the lost, our family, our pets, etc.

Love seeks the highest good of another. God is love. Condemning people to eternal punishment in eternity past before the person or their responsible choices are made is highly arbitrary and not parallel at all.

Eenie-meanie-minnie-moe is not how God decides who goes to heaven or hell? What is the explicit biblical criteria? Faith vs unbelief (Jn. 1:12; 3:16, 36; Rom. 1:16; I Jn. 5:11-13). Faith is within our mental and volitional capacity in response to God's influence (persuasive vs causative/coerced).

 

[sentientsynth]

R U serious, Mr. Sockpuppet?

Deadly serious.

And it's Meatpuppet, not Sockpuppet. Get it right.

 

[Bob Hill]

Rob wrote,

Bob,

The future changes when God changes His mind. God knows what the future will hold from that moment on. I, for one, have always maintained that God is able to change His mind. But the o.v. seems to ignore that it is God plan and decree which is being changed. The future must be known beforehand to be changed from one outcome to another.

From my position God knew you and loved you before you existed. You weren't an evolutionary accident thrust into God's creation by nature. You are His purpose and He desired you despite the evils which have been done throughout history. I find great joy in knowing that. If God foresaw you dying at the age of 40 and allowed you through His action to live to the age of 140 then it is a gift based upon foreknowledge. It is also according to His will and not yours.

Rob

Rob,

What I mean, is when God changes His mind on something He was going to do, that is the Open View perspective. If God stated He knew something, our God could not be wrong. If God knew the whole future, it could not change from what He knew in one jot. That would mean all time is frozen. There would be no choices. The Bible contradicts that in many places, but not once does it say that God declares the future where He does not determine it, cause it to happen, or do it.

God doesn’t know the future unless He acts on things or people to make it happen. God could, and does predict the future, because He can make what He predicts happen.

For example, notice how God handles something that He counsels. Isa 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.

It’s not that “Time is a creation of God, therefore it does not control Him.” that matters. God has always existed and always will. Time is onerous to us because we have to sleep, work, punch a clock-all kinds of things that time frustrates. I’m 73. Time and its consequences of aging are a bummer, but God doesn’t get old. My biggest hang-up was - I thought at one time that God was outside of time.

If any of these things could be proved from Scripture, I would be happy to change. I believed them, unknowing that they were from Greek philosophy, at one time, but the Bible doesn’t corroborate what I once believed.

There are many Scripture passages that say that God changes His mind, answers prayer or repents. Many Christians don’t sympathize with Calvinism at all but believe that a solution to the problem of God’s repentance in over twenty passages in the Bible is found in what Paul Tillich borrowed from Greek philosophy: “The eternal now, that God is not in time.” I have been studying this topic for over 40 years and have not found one place that says God is outside of time or even alludes to that idea. Instead, the Bible shows God working with us in time.

I’m a Biblicist. Show me from God’s word that God is outside of time. When a Christian philosopher maintained that God was outside of time, the only thing he could tell me was his reference to “Paul Tillich’s phrase, “The eternal now, that God is not in time.”

Once more. I have heard this from many sources, but there is no Scripture which states this.

What they sometimes refer to are the following passages: 2 Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus (literally) before age times. Tit 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised (literally) before age times.

Walvoord & Zuck wrote at 1 Co 2:7, “The message which Paul proclaimed was God’s secret wisdom, known only by God’s revelation (Matt. 11:25). At the heart of this wisdom is the plan of salvation intended for our glory (Eph. 1:4).” The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton, Ill: Scripture Press, 1985. But they gave no Scripture that established their idea.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz, you do need to respond to my argument that Romans 9 is about salvation (a reference summary may be found here).

Lee: Paul is making one overall argument here [in Rom. 9], is he not? So then what would that be?

I hold that Paul is saying salvation (this passage is indeed about salvation) is by God’s decision

God_Is_Truth: God is the only one who can save anybody. What's more accurate is that the decision to accept salvation by meeting God's condition (faith) belongs to man.

And then salvation has a critical hinge at man’s decision, but Romans 9 points out quite a different conclusion.

Lee: But the examples, why such examples here to illustrate such a point? If what you say is what was meant, then the appropriate examples would be different conditions for whom he has mercy on, and whom he hardens.

God_Is_Truth: The point was that Israel herself was not exempt from such conditions. She broke her covenant and so God decided to now harden her rather than show mercy.

But Paul says she rebelled because God decided she would:

Romans 9:28-29 “For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality." It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."

How is God leaving them descendants, if what he actually does is rubber-stamp decisions to repent? How could God not leave them descendants if they choose to repent, and still remain true to his word to pardon those who repent (Isa. 55:7)?

Lee: But the Jewish people not coming for the most part Paul says is God's decision.

God_Is_Truth: It was not God's will that Israel reject Him. He rejected Israel because she rejected Him (though he will one day come back to her).

Romans 11:30-32 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

So this is God choosing when people disobey, and which group, whether Jew or Gentile, by and large, will come.

Isaiah 6:10 “Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

God_Is_Truth: He isn't saying Isaiah foretold of this time, but that what was true during Isaiah's time is now true in his own time.

This I think we will not find in a commentary, and we see a different interpretation actually, in the text:

Romans 11:8 … as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

It means you are just as obligated to answer it as any other christian and that open theism has no greater burden to do so.

You may know I hope that all can be saved, so “All Israel will be saved” encourages me in that hope. However, the Open View must explain how Paul can know this years, hundreds and thousands of years in advance.

A critical difficulty is not one to be sent elsewhere, especially in a thread about the acceptance or rejection of Open View theology.

Bob Hill: Show me from God’s word that God is outside of time.

Here are some references and thoughts from me, on this.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Hilston]

Combined post to godrulz, Knight and drbrumley:

To godrulz:

God's love is not limited.

No, it's not. But it is special and discrete, like a man's love for his wife. It is a sacrificial love which actually accomplishes that for which it was intended. It is not the ineffectual, sloppy, pathetic and beggarly love of the God of Open Theism. If godrulz would take his head out of the sand and recognize the particular, discrete and individual election that is taught throughout scripture, he would not be hung up on this.

His plan of redemption is not limited to the elite.

No, not limited, but special, particular and discrete. Once again, an understanding of individual election would help godrulz immensely. But, according to his own words, he's not prepared to study it.

... God impartially loves everyone, the whole world. He died for all men. He would be pleased if all men were snatched from Satan and returned to the Father's heart.

That's not what scripture says (which you're admittedly not prepared to study). It says that God has mercy upon whom He will have mercy. It says that He has formed pots of honor and pots of dishonor and the pots have no grounds for complaint.

Does your theology lead to passivity (logically it should)?

This shows how Open Theists are completely retarded when it comes to understanding their opponents. How many times do they have to be clubbed over the head with the fact that determinism is not just an end, but the means to the end as well. No, godrulz, logic does not lead the determinist to passivity. Logic leads the determinist to actively pursue and to rejoice in the conversion of the unregenerated elect.

God's perfect, objective provision must be subjectively appropriated.

In other words, man must save himself. One can never say, "Jesus saved me," because all Jesus really did was provide the "grounds" for salvation. The actual effectual saving is done by the individual for himself. On the Open View, Jesus could say, "No, we did it together! [high five with Jesus]" The Open View makes people into co-saviors, which undermines the teachings of the entire canon of scripture.

... God alone initiates and provides salvation (grounds...we cannot die for our own sins). The manward side is that we must receive Him to have life (conidtions...God does not believe or rebel for us...Jn. 1:12, 3:16, 36; Rom. 1).

Did you miss Jn 1:13? ("nor of the will of the flesh ..."). Those who received him did not do so of their own wills, godrulz. Their conversion were subsequent to be born of above. Did you miss the whole first part of Jn. 3, which teaches that Nicodemus was already born again when he came to Jesus by night (v. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee [Nicodemus], Ye [Israel] must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou [Nicodemus] hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one [incuding Nicodemus] that is born of the Spirit.

A literal payment commercial transaction theory (Anselm) of the atonement, widely held by Christians, logically leads to universalism.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus paid for the sins of those individuals given to Him by the Father, no more, no less. Not merely "grounds," but actual redemptive payment.

The reason you wrongly conclude that God's impartial love for the world is limited and His atonement is only intended for a small elite group is a deductive TULIP idea that is based on an unbiblical view of hyper-sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control).

You keep forgetting, GR, you're the one who ignores the teaching of scripture to maintain your deductive theology and preconceptions.

God's will is not the only factor in the universe, by His sovereign choice. A reconciled love relationship is not coerced/caused/unilateral.

Straw man, GR.

It is contrary to God's self-revelation in Scripture.

You disqualified yourself from discussing Scripture when you refused to address individual election taught throughout.

... You impugn the character of God and dare to tell me my defense is a mantra?

You're not qualified to discuss the character of God, GR, when you flat-out ignore His teaching on individual election.

... There is no good reason why God would not save all men if He could.

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Ro 9:20)

... Your view makes His love arbitrary and limited.

Arbitrary, yes. Limited, no, but special and discrete. On the Open View, God's love is no different for a saved person than an unsaved person, which means it is meaningless and ineffective.

He damns my sister and mother, but saves myself and my cousin, for His good pleasure?

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Ro 9:20)

Don't bother preaching the gospel to everyone as commanded.

Do you preach the gospel to everyone, godrulz?

... We are lying to people to call them to repentant faith knowing God may or may not actually regenerate them if they respond in brokenness.

This is a perfect example of the error of ignoring the difference between God's prescriptive will (which commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel) and God's decretive will (which saves precisely and discretely those for whom Christ died). Salvation is not an offer, but a command.

... If they are not elect it must be a display of emotion. We are cruel deceivers at best.

Not when evangelism is done biblically.

God loves His bride and people in a special way. This is not arbitrary. Loving our spouses does not negate the commands to love our neighbours, enemies, the lost, our family, our pets, etc.

Just as God's specific saving love for His elect does not negate His general grace and love for creation. The difference between godrulz's demitheology and the Settled View is that the Sand God's love doesn't really accomplish anything, whereas the Rock can actually be trusted to save each and every individual for whom Christ died.

Love seeks the highest good of another. God is love.

It's all lip-service when that love doesn't actually do anything.

... Condemning people to eternal punishment in eternity past before the person or their responsible choices are made is highly arbitrary and not parallel at all.

It is completely arbitrary, as is sacrificial love. That's the whole purpose of the Potter-Pot metaphor. Pots don't mar themselves. Pots don't talk back to the Potter. The Potter is completely arbitrary in His decision to make the pot for honor or for dishonor. The pot has nothing to say about it, nor can he; he's a pot.

Eenie-meanie-minnie-moe is not how God decides who goes to heaven or hell? What is the explicit biblical criteria?

God's choosing is the "criteria." Not by the will of man, not by the will of flesh, but by the will of God.

... Faith is within our mental and volitional capacity in response to God's influence (persuasive vs causative/coerced).

No, faith is a gift that God gives to elect individuals, GR. The individual can't believe until he has been given the gift of faith. Regeneration precedes belief. Until you recognize that election is individual, as taught throughout scripture, you will keep plugging your ears and humming in abject denial of and contradiction with the texts that you've been shown. Will you ever deal with them, or will you continue in your denial?

To Knight:

What are the capabilities of the "fleshly mind"?

Can the "fleshly mind" do things that are not of God's decretive will?

No, no one can. That's what Paul means when he rhetorically asks in behalf of the gainsayer: "For who hath resisted his will?" (Ro 9:19). The answer is: No one has resisted God's decretive will.

No, you say?

Then why accuse it of something that God designed for His glory?

This sounds familar. Where have I heard this before? "Why doth he yet find fault?" (Ro 9:19). Why did Paul ask this rhetorical question? Because he knew that his descriptions of God as individually and arbitrarily choosing the elect would be met with that very question: "If it is God who decides whom will receive mercy and whom will be hardened (Ro 9:18) for His own purposes and glory (Ro 9:17), then why accuse us of something designed for His glory?" You're a living example of the mindset that Paul chides, and answers: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Ro 9:20)

Who are you to mock God's handiwork?

Yeah, who does Paul think he is? How dare he suggest that one's salvation "is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy"? (Ro 9:16).

P.S. (from threads abroad)
When the Bible says... (in 2nd Samuel 24:1)... "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel,".
What was God mad about?

He was mad about Israel disobeying His prescriptive will, all according to God's decrees, obviously. I thought we went over this.

If God ordains which husbands love their wives and which do not, that's arbitrary.

Yes, and that's God's prerogative as the Potter. Just as God ordained that He would show mercy and compassion to some and not to others. Who are you to talk back to your Potter? Shall the thing formed say to HIm that formed it, "Why have you made me this way?" Answer: No, absolutely not, because you're a pot.

To drbrumley:

Funny that Paul instructs ALL husbands and not just those foreoradained. Just a thought!

It's a good thought, too, because it demonstrates the difference between God's decretive will (e.g. some husbands love their wives and some do not) and God prescriptive will (e.g. all husbands are commanded to love their wives).

All according to God's decrees, obviously,
Jim