Omniscience means fatalism.

[Arthur Brain]

Again, the errors I have described earlier continue to be made.

The desire of God here, has respect solely to what ought to be done by man, not to what is to be done. It relates to the commands of God, His precepts.

So the Lord has revealed that He desires truth in the inward parts of man, Psalm 51:6, and that He desires mercy, and not sacrifice, that is, God desires (commands) that the Israelites show mercy to their brethren in need, and not simply attend to the ceremonial aspects of their religion, Hos. 6:6.

By such statements, we are to understand that God delights in requiring these things from man. Whether or not man shall perform them depends solely on whether God has decreed (volitionally willed) them to be done.

Moving the goal posts to this or that newfound verse is no replacement for actually engaging my earlier detailed response. That you do not desire to take the effort to read it because it is "wordy" does not mean you have not been responded to, GM. It means you prefer to continue to make strident and curt assertions or opinions absent any substantive rebuttals. The discussion is just one-sided at present.

I think I have proper answers for all the verses you care to toss out, and can certainly do my own homework to better inform myself if I do not, but I am not obliged to do the heavy-lifting without some evidence you are willing to do the same. These are sacred topics of importance and they deserve our very best, thorough efforts such that we do not lead others to error in our personal desire for brevity.

If you would rather not engage at the same level, why continue to mention me or implicitly lump me in your frequent anti-Calvinist opinions? After all, I suspect no one doubts where you stand on the topic. My only wish is that you make an honest attempt to substantively explain why you do so that we may all be edified.

AMR

AMR, is it not true that under Calvinism, any loved ones I may have, if not part of the "elect" are destined for eternal suffering under your belief system?

Never mind the convoluted stuff such as infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism and supralapsarianism et al, isn't that the core of Calvinism? That there's only a subset of people out of formed creation that are going to be chosen and the rest rot in essence?

 

[Rosenritter]

Again, the errors I have described earlier continue to be made.

The desire of God here, has respect solely to what ought to be done by man, not to what is to be done. It relates to the commands of God, His precepts.

So the Lord has revealed that He desires truth in the inward parts of man, Psalm 51:6, and that He desires mercy, and not sacrifice, that is, God desires (commands) that the Israelites show mercy to their brethren in need, and not simply attend to the ceremonial aspects of their religion, Hos. 6:6.

By such statements, we are to understand that God delights in requiring these things from man. Whether or not man shall perform them depends solely on whether God has decreed (volitionally willed) them to be done.

So God desires to require mercy (and not sacrifice) from his people, but he did not actually desire it enough to make it happen.

That was a close one!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR, is it not true that under Calvinism, any loved ones I may have, if not part of the "elect" are destined for eternal suffering under your belief system?

Never mind the convoluted stuff such as infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism and supralapsarianism et al, isn't that the core of Calvinism? That there's only a subset of people out of formed creation that are going to be chosen and the rest rot in essence?

Election is Scriptural, so we cannot avoid or deny the term. There are only two kinds of people in the world, the believers and the non-believers. The believers are the elect of God, no matter what view one holds about how exactly election works itself out. Those that do not call upon the name of the Lord will be damned to eternal punishment. These are the reprobate (2 Peter 2:9).

What makes you think my previous discussion with you on the matter has changed? A refresher...

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813451&viewfull=1#post4813451
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813460&viewfull=1#post4813460
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813465&viewfull=1#post4813465
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813748&viewfull=1#post4813748

It is a core teaching of Scripture which makes it plain that only those so granted faith by God will be saved. This is true for the Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike.

Who are the one's so granted faith? All those that call upon the name of the Lord. It matters not whether we speak of the elect or the non-elect, for we do not know whom they may be. So why try to operate as if we know the secret will of God? We know our duty. Do it. Not a single person can claim he could not do his duty because he felt some compulsion by God, some coercion of his own volitional will. This is manifest nonsense dealing with hypotheticals in some vain attempt to be able to claim some mitigation for one's non-belief.

What we do know is our duty: call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Do that, versus trying to argue, "Well I could not do that, since I was reprobated." How exactly could anyone actually know what is the determinate will of God concerning one's eternal destiny? No one knows the unrevealed will of God (Deut. 29:29). Fortunately, God has revealed all that we need to know and do when it comes to matters concerning our eternal destiny.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Again, the errors I have described earlier continue to be made.

The desire of God here, has respect solely to what ought to be done by man, not to what is to be done. It relates to the commands of God, His precepts.

So the Lord has revealed that He desires truth in the inward parts of man, Psalm 51:6, and that He desires mercy, and not sacrifice, that is, God desires (commands) that the Israelites show mercy to their brethren in need, and not simply attend to the ceremonial aspects of their religion, Hos. 6:6.

By such statements, we are to understand that God delights in requiring these things from man. Whether or not man shall perform them depends solely on whether God has decreed (volitionally willed) them to be done.

Moving the goal posts to this or that newfound verse is no replacement for actually engaging my earlier detailed response. That you do not desire to take the effort to read it because it is "wordy" does not mean you have not been responded to, GM. It means you prefer to continue to make strident and curt assertions or opinions absent any substantive rebuttals. The discussion is just one-sided at present.

I think I have proper answers for all the verses you care to toss out, and can certainly do my own homework to better inform myself if I do not, but I am not obliged to do the heavy-lifting without some evidence you are willing to do the same. These are sacred topics of importance and they deserve our very best, thorough efforts such that we do not lead others to error in our personal desire for brevity.

If you would rather not engage at the same level, why continue to mention me or implicitly lump me in your frequent anti-Calvinist opinions? After all, I suspect no one doubts where you stand on the topic. My only wish is that you make an honest attempt to substantively explain why you do so that we may all be edified.

AMR

I disagree with MOST of what you posted here. I'll bet that's not a BIG surprise to you. You have a very FANCIFUL way of writing, I'll give you that. No doubt, you're well educated, as well. However, being well educated doesn't help much when you're wrong. No offense intended. I believe you happen to be entrenched by false doctrine.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I hope you will take this in a positive way, AMR, but I'm not going to follow your links when we can just as easily discuss things in this thread.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

By far, Calvinism is at the top of the list, one of the worst false doctrines that inhabit Christiandom.

 

[blackbirdking]

"Could" verses 'did' are two different concepts, though. I have a gun and 'could' have used one poorly, but that doesn't mean if someone is dead by my gun, that I'm the culprit. I'm not sure if this answers you sufficiently, because I'm not altogether catching what your are saying about culpability. Maybe you mean that God is responsible, unlike an Almanac? I'm not quite catching what you mean.-Lon

Exodus 21:29 teaches that knowledge gives responsibility; responsibility gives accountability.

Was God negligent when the Serpent entered the Garden? :think:

No, He was negligent in creation; knowledge gave Him accountability.
Without the creation of damned men, there would be no damned men.

... If I create cars, and some of them kill people, you wouldn't suggest I created them 'to' kill people would you? ... -Lon

This is about omniscience; if you create cars knowing which ones will kill people, not only would I suggest that you created them to kill people, you will definitely be held accountable. You could have prevented them from killing by use of your knowledge. Not only would you have created killers, you wouldn't have used your knowledge to prevent them; you would be twice guilty.

Car manufacturers are very accountable for the cars they make and a very deciding factor is knowledge. Why?

I'd think the only way an owner of a bull could have actually had prior knowledge, is if the bull had gored and/or killed before. Killing the bull would likely always be the rule in Israel. How could they ever get to level 2 of having to stone the owner? The bull would already be dead, right?-Lon

So I wonder why it was written? It wouldn't have been necessary.

There are a number of ifs that don't and didn't happen in the real world. One of those is 'very good' unless I'm missing something (if you could please elaborate, thanks). -Lon

Genesis 1:31 is an "if" that didn't happen? Ok.

You mean because He knew the man would be gored? First, as I said, the first rule takes care of the second. The man would have to have stopped the killing of the bull, so he'd already be on thin ice, so to speak. If the scriptures were followed, A takes care of B from ever happening, if you follow. Next, God gave the remedy, so regardless of knowledge, it is man's duty to follow instructions at that point.

I know somehow this leads to definite foreknowledge being problematic, but I'm not quite grasping the point. Appreciate your input. -Lon

God has knowledge, He also has responsibility and accountability.

According to you:
(God's creation of man while knowing that man is damned, is agreeable to God.)
Logical conclusion:
God's creation of man while knowing that man is damned is agreeable to God; therefore, sin is agreeable to God because when it is finished, it brings forth that which is agreeable to God, man's damnation. Because the completion of sin is agreeable to God, morality is a figment of the imagination.

Why is man damned? Everything man does is agreeable to God.

The OP is right; man is fated and anything He can do is irrelevant.

...

An man living in this universe would be fated at every moment of his life. ,...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

Election is Scriptural, so we cannot avoid or deny the term. There are only two kinds of people in the world, the believers and the non-believers. The believers are the elect of God, no matter what view one holds about how exactly election works itself out. Those that do not call upon the name of the Lord will be damned to eternal punishment. These are the reprobate (2 Peter 2:9).

What makes you think my previous discussion with you on the matter has changed? A refresher...

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813451&viewfull=1#post4813451
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813460&viewfull=1#post4813460
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813465&viewfull=1#post4813465
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813748&viewfull=1#post4813748

It is a core teaching of Scripture which makes it plain that only those so granted faith by God will be saved. This is true for the Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike.

Who are the one's so granted faith? All those that call upon the name of the Lord. It matters not whether we speak of the elect or the non-elect, for we do not know whom they may be. So why try to operate as if we know the secret will of God? We know our duty. Do it. Not a single person can claim he could not do his duty because he felt some compulsion by God, some coercion of his own volitional will. This is manifest nonsense dealing with hypotheticals in some vain attempt to be able to claim some mitigation for one's non-belief.

What we do know is our duty: call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Do that, versus trying to argue, "Well I could not do that, since I was reprobated." How exactly could anyone actually know what is the determinate will of God concerning one's eternal destiny? No one knows the unrevealed will of God (Deut. 29:29). Fortunately, God has revealed all that we need to know and do when it comes to matters concerning our eternal destiny.

AMR

And here is the true devilish terror of that doctrine as it creates a stumbling block to those that need the Light: if that were to believed, there is no point in trying to seek the Lord, to change your life, and repent, because the only way to salvation is if you were lucky enough to have a lottery ticket. But those with that that lottery ticket, no amount of evil they could commit (let alone negligence) would somehow prevent them from eternal life, for God will somehow change their heart and deeds in time, even on the nanosecond of their death if necessary.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Election is Scriptural, so we cannot avoid or deny the term. There are only two kinds of people in the world, the believers and the non-believers. The believers are the elect of God, no matter what view one holds about how exactly election works itself out. Those that do not call upon the name of the Lord will be damned to eternal punishment. These are the reprobate (2 Peter 2:9).

What makes you think my previous discussion with you on the matter has changed? A refresher...

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813451&viewfull=1#post4813451
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813460&viewfull=1#post4813460
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813465&viewfull=1#post4813465
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4813748&viewfull=1#post4813748

It is a core teaching of Scripture which makes it plain that only those so granted faith by God will be saved. This is true for the Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike.

Who are the one's so granted faith? All those that call upon the name of the Lord. It matters not whether we speak of the elect or the non-elect, for we do not know whom they may be. So why try to operate as if we know the secret will of God? We know our duty. Do it. Not a single person can claim he could not do his duty because he felt some compulsion by God, some coercion of his own volitional will. This is manifest nonsense dealing with hypotheticals in some vain attempt to be able to claim some mitigation for one's non-belief.

What we do know is our duty: call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Do that, versus trying to argue, "Well I could not do that, since I was reprobated." How exactly could anyone actually know what is the determinate will of God concerning one's eternal destiny? No one knows the unrevealed will of God (Deut. 29:29). Fortunately, God has revealed all that we need to know and do when it comes to matters concerning our eternal destiny.

AMR

Oh, I didn't think it would have changed and in predictably convoluted and loveless fashion you've confirmed the insidious doctrine of Calvinism. My loved ones are either destined to suffer torment through predestination or they're destined to be spared through being the elect, all through design by a supposedly "loving" God who invented creation and fallible beings with all this in plan from the outset.

The description of love in Corinthians alone dismisses your beliefs out of hand. "Deformed doctrine" would be a better descriptor...

:rain:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I hope you will take this in a positive way, AMR, but I'm not going to follow your links when we can just as easily discuss things in this thread.

We have just as easily discussed this same topic, as my links clearly demonstrate. Must every new thread be a repeat of that which has come before?

I am not very keen on being redundant with those that I have specifically taken the time to lay out my views per their previous requests. You have asked the same before and I have responded. I need not be obliged to repeat myself so often to the exact same persons, especially when the time they take to actually tell me that they will not review these same responses is better spent doing exactly that. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Arthur Brain]

So God desires to require mercy (and not sacrifice) from his people, but he did not actually desire it enough to make it happen.

That was a close one!

Bizarre. I just watched "The Matrix" last night...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So God desires to require mercy (and not sacrifice) from his people, but he did not actually desire it enough to make it happen.

God commands mercy be shown as the passage indicated, not the pretense of sacrifice that was in evidence in the Hosea passage.

That command for showing mercy is a precept of God for humanity: do this.

For example, God desires all men to repent. Not all do so. Clearly "desire" here is not God's volition, else all would indeed repent, for God has no unfulfilled desires:

"But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23:13)

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35)

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:10, 11)

Obviously from the teachings of Scripture, what God volitionally wills, that is, God's desire qua desire, cannot not happen.

Your dripping sarcasm is unworthy of the topic at hand and brings scandal upon that which we hold dear.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

We have just as easily discussed this same topic, as my links clearly demonstrate. Must every new thread be a repeat of that which has come before?

I am not very keen on being redundant with those that I have specifically taken the time to lay out my views per their previous requests. You have asked the same before and I have responded. I need not be obliged to repeat myself so often to the exact same persons, especially when the time they take to actually tell me that they will not review these same responses is better spent doing exactly that. :AMR:

AMR

There is value in being require to repeat and rephrase what has previously been said. If the previous answers were so forced or unwieldy that they become cumbersome to repeat, that might be a healthy indication that there might be a better explanation.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

We have just as easily discussed this same topic, as my links clearly demonstrate. Must every new thread be a repeat of that which has come before?

I am not very keen on being redundant with those that I have specifically taken the time to lay out my views per their previous requests. You have asked the same before and I have responded. I need not be obliged to repeat myself so often to the exact same persons, especially when the time they take to actually tell me that they will not review these same responses is better spent doing exactly that. :AMR:

AMR

A little 'pretentious' don't ya think? Yesterday or so you gave me a link to a 'discussion' we had
3 years ago. How is ANYBODY supposed to remember a discussion from last week, let alone one from years ago? If you don't have a desire to 'communicate' with 'Old GM' feel free to cut off all ties. Believe me, I won't mind. If somebody asks me a question that's been asked before, I'd simply repeat myself and not have them follow links from years ago. What's that all about? :think:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

There is value in being require to repeat and rephrase what has previously been said. If the previous answers were so forced or unwieldy that they become cumbersome to repeat, that might be a healthy indication that there might be a better explanation.

You're correct.

 

[Rosenritter]

God commands mercy be shown as the passage indicated, not the pretense of sacrifice that was in evidence in the Hosea passage.

That command for showing mercy is a precept of God for humanity: do this.

For example, God desires all men to repent. Not all do so. Clearly "desire" here is not God's volition, else all would indeed repent, for God has no unfulfilled desires:

No, Ask Mr. Religion, look what you did there please? You approached that problem as if "for God has no unfulfilled desires" was fact and gospel, when in actual fact that was the thing which you were seeking to prove. That is a classic example of circular logic.

When you are forced to resort to circular logic to prove your faith, that should ring huge alarm bells that something is dreadfully wrong.

As for dripping sarcasm, I'm trying to avoid raging over someone who is constantly throwing stumbling blocks under the feet of little children. Jesus said such deserved the millstone. You're doing the enemy's work for him, and so far direct words of scripture, absurdities when your premises are drawn to their logical conclusions, and captured examples of circular logic seem to have no effect on you.

How do I reach your heart and mind? Yes, I care about those that need Christ that your preached doctrine would turn away, but there's care for you too here. Thus the frustration: if I didn't care, then I wouldn't care.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

As I have stated before (No link to follow) Calvinists tend to be somewhat arrogant, well-educated, articulate, intelligent, and a wee bit egocentric. I'm not knocking AMR specifically, its just been my observation over the past number of years.

 

[Rosenritter]

As I have stated before (No link to follow) Calvinists tend to be somewhat arrogant, well-educated, articulate, intelligent, and a wee bit egocentric. I'm not knocking AMR specifically, its just been my observation over the past number of years.

It seems to me that Calvinists may tend to be more well-educated because one has to be educated in order to learn Calvinism in the first place. It isn't something discovered by the plough-boy as he reads the scriptures in his hand, it's the type of thing you learn when instructed by people in authority or classes or seminars.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No, Ask Mr. Religion, look what you did there please? You approached that problem as if "for God has no unfulfilled desires" was fact and gospel, when in actual fact that was the thing which you were seeking to prove. That is a classic example of circular logic.

When you are forced to resort to circular logic to prove your faith, that should ring huge alarm bells that something is dreadfully wrong.

As for dripping sarcasm, I'm trying to avoid raging over someone who is constantly throwing stumbling blocks under the feet of little children. Jesus said such deserved the millstone. You're doing the enemy's work for him, and so far direct words of scripture, absurdities when your premises are drawn to their logical conclusions, and captured examples of circular logic seem to have no effect on you.

How do I reach your heart and mind? Yes, I care about those that need Christ that your preached doctrine would turn away, but there's care for you too here. Thus the frustration: if I didn't care, then I wouldn't care.

Good post, friend.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It seems to me that Calvinists may tend to be more well-educated because one has to be educated in order to learn Calvinism in the first place. It isn't something discovered by the plough-boy as he reads the scriptures in his hand, it's the type of thing you learn when instructed by people in authority or classes or seminars.

You have good insight and discernment.