Only if the believer becomes an apostate/falls away/unbeliever. Your mythical believing unbeliever does not exist. Most Open Theists (except TOL/Plot ones) deny OSAS because they are consistent free will theists, not determinists like Calvinists (POTS).:banana:
toldailytopic: Did God choose an eternity ago who would, and who wouldn't, be saved?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Only if the believer becomes an apostate/falls away/unbeliever. Your mythical believing unbeliever does not exist. Most Open Theists (except TOL/Plot ones) deny OSAS because they are consistent free will theists, not determinists like Calvinists (POTS).:banana:
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
Nonsense. You have no Biblical basis to support this false assertion. You are making it up out of nowhere. An apostate is NEVER defined as someone who is/was saved in the Bible - NEVER. YOU are intentionally deceiving others with your lies.
Get saved wolf.
There are murderers and adulterers in the Body. Corinth is a case in point. There are Christians, even pastors, with broken marriages and sitting in jail for murder. OSAS deals with unbelief vs faith, a unique sin that alone severs the relationship. There are NOT apostates in the Body because they are godless, condemned, unbelievers by definition. You are forced to say they were never saved or that they are saved despite their rejection of the person and work of Christ. The third alternative is that they were saved, but are no longer saved because of apostasy (which you can see with your circ gospel, but have a blindspot to Paul's conditional eternal security teaching even for the uncirc gospel, so-called).
You are misrepresenting my view, a straw man, as usual.
These are questions that puzzle me:
If God knew each individual that would receive salvation before he created Adam ... then what is the purpose of having a judgment day in any shape or form?
Wouldn't everything already be decided and just fall into place in God's plan?
When the process of bringing forth all of the combination s ofgenetic humanity was completed, then the fields would be harvested and that would be the sum of the consequences and decisions?
Now, I think it is interesting to ponder this idea.
After God created mankind with the potential to reproduce - God may have been able to look into the genetic pool of possibilities and predetermined the heart of that individual ... when his/her time came. Therefore, God would know at conception whether that particular individual would be one of his chosen.
After all, God seemed to know that Jeremiah would be a trustworthy prophet... and chose him as he even was developing within the secrecy of the womb.
Yet - there is another possibility - maybe there are genetic combination s (of humans) that are more 'iffy' due to their weaker character ... yet God does not immediately dismiss them as hopelessly lost... but rather each is given their chance - under the sun.
It sort of reminds me of what happened between Cain and Abel. God found Abel and his choice of an offering more acceptable than Cain and his ... but God also told Cain this (Gen. 3:7
"If you do well, shalt not you be accepted?"
IOW, Cain still had a choice and a chance.
If God knew each individual that would receive salvation before he created Adam ... then what is the purpose of having a judgment day in any shape or form?
Wouldn't everything already be decided and just fall into place in God's plan?
When the process of bringing forth all of the combination s ofgenetic humanity was completed, then the fields would be harvested and that would be the sum of the consequences and decisions?
Now, I think it is interesting to ponder this idea.
After God created mankind with the potential to reproduce - God may have been able to look into the genetic pool of possibilities and predetermined the heart of that individual ... when his/her time came. Therefore, God would know at conception whether that particular individual would be one of his chosen.
After all, God seemed to know that Jeremiah would be a trustworthy prophet... and chose him as he even was developing within the secrecy of the womb.
Yet - there is another possibility - maybe there are genetic combination s (of humans) that are more 'iffy' due to their weaker character ... yet God does not immediately dismiss them as hopelessly lost... but rather each is given their chance - under the sun.
It sort of reminds me of what happened between Cain and Abel. God found Abel and his choice of an offering more acceptable than Cain and his ... but God also told Cain this (Gen. 3:7
"If you do well, shalt not you be accepted?"
IOW, Cain still had a choice and a chance.
Last edited:
You cannot fall away from fake, just from truth. Heb. 6:4-6 and Greek word study of apostasy (cf. Heb. 3; 10, etc.).
elohiym
Well-known member
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
If you expect that to happen, you are more patient than God.
Feel free to give us an objective interpretation.
elohiym
Well-known member
1Jo 3:15 ...no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
At every turn, you contradict the word of God.
elohiym,
Actually the term "free" will is redundant. But it's the term that most use today. Actually "will" is sufficient. Will is the freedom to do otherwise.
In the quote I gave, God gives us a choice: "IF" you do this, I will do this. "IF you don't...
Do you agree that if there are two "IF's" which end with different outcomes, then you have choice to do one or the other?
God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX
elohiym
Well-known member
Choice doesn't imply free will.
Do you agree with the English language definition of free will that I provided? Yes or no.
Take it up with sozo. It is possible for a believer to kill a deer or a human and repent of the latter. Are you saying there is no provision for sin in His blood? I agree with I Cor. 6:9-11 and Revelation that says that murderers will not inherit the kingdom.
It is odd that sozo probably considers you a believer for the very thing that he accuses me of being an unbeliever over?!
We need a theological, precise definition, not just an English one that you find convenient. He is right that free will is redundant, since inability to chose between alternatives is determinism, not will.
Nick M,
Perhaps I misunderstand you and you me? I agree that God CAN sin. He's not a programmed robot that CAN'T DO OTHERWISE. What I'm arguing is that He can't sin and remain sinless JUST BECAUSE HE'S GOD!
It takes to faith to trust Someone who can't do otherwise.
God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX
The impeccability of Christ is related. Do you also agree that Jesus could have sinned, but did not? If yes, you will be cast into hell by sozo, etc.
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
God is less than those born of God?
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
You are already going to hell for being exposed as a wolf who just today denied the Gospel publicly. Your opinions are worthless.
Be consistent. As Judge, Jury, Executioner, you need to either retract my damnation or consign Tom to the pit with me. Show your true colors, godplayer.:drum:
elohiym
Well-known member
Then why don't you offer a "theological precise definition" instead of wasting thread space and our time?
elohiym
Well-known member
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
Unlike you, many are confused about some things, but when they hear the truth, they change their mind. You have heard the truth tens of thousands of times, and you still reject it. Tom is mistaken about this, even though he proclaims the Gospel as well as anyone on this site. You've never affirmed the Gospel.
- Status