Maybe god is trapped in the closet along with R. Kelly, John Travolta and Tom Cruise?

(May 4, 2012 at 11:15 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You have merely restated your claim that predestination and election are explicitly found in the Word.

I did quite a bit more than that in most of my preceding posts (which you perhaps missed). You entered the conversation and simply asserted that predestination and election are not "clearly and explicitly" attested in scriptures, as if the force of your assertion alone was enough to settle the matter. And then you referenced three passages from the Bible that had nothing to do with either predestination or election (as if those who are predestined and elected do not make any choices). If you want to challenge my view, then please take into account my prior exegetical arguments, that is, address and interact with them.

(May 4, 2012 at 11:15 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I pointed out parts of scripture that suggest a different exegesis, as follows. God sets before us the paths of life and of death. He then asks us to choose our path. This suggests a real choice, not a forced one.

Ignoring the fact that nobody, much less me, affirmed a notion of "forced" choices, nor denied that people make choices, nor denied that God calls us to make choices, at the end of the day these passages which you referenced had nothing to do with either the predestining or electing activity of God—which you admit, arguing as you do that they have to do with the choices mankind is given to make. The former takes place in eternity, prior to creation and independent of the choices people make, while the latter takes place in time, during the lifetime of the ones given a choice to make (in accordance with God's purposes in predestination and election).

(May 4, 2012 at 11:15 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Your stated position is that much of humanity has been created solely for condemnation and for no other purpose than eternal torment.

Please quote me where I argued that they were created "solely" and "for no other purpose" than condemnation to eternal torment in hell. You said this is my stated position, so please provide such statements.

(May 4, 2012 at 11:15 am)ChadWooters Wrote: And, according to your exegesis, they have no choice in the matter.

Please demonstrate where and how my exegesis says that they are condemned to hell apart from their choices.

(May 4, 2012 at 11:15 am)ChadWooters Wrote: As such, your position contradicts ... [snip rest]

We have no reason to believe that you have even correctly identified my position in the first place, much less understood it and its implications, and largely because you do not provide a solitary shred of evidence supporting your claims (i.e., quoting and interacting with statements I made). Worse yet, we actually have reason to believe that you have not correctly identified my position, since in some cases I have stated the exact opposite of what you claimed.

---

---

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Firstly, I explicitly said to forget whether or not my fictional story were possible ...

It is not as if I failed to observe that, Tegh. I was assuming for the sake of argument that it was possible—regardless of whether or not it actually is—in order to draw out from you how any of that dialogue corresponds to the view that I have been defending. The dialogue qua dialogue was not the issue; the propositional contents of the dialogue were.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

Ryft Wrote:My view has a clause in that sentence which is conveniently missing from your caricature.

Then tell me what it is. I am not trying to purposely misrepresent your views. You are wasting time if you know the answer yet leave me to guess what it is.

You do not have to "guess" what it is, because I have indeed told you what it is—and in more than one post. Moreover, I am accustomed to unbelievers who claim to know the Bible better than most Christians, so I assumed—perhaps wrongly—that you knew what clause was missing from the passage you had referenced there. Specifically, "I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers" (Matt. 7:23, NET; "you workers of lawlessness," ESV; "ye that work iniquity," KJV; "you evildoers," NIV; "you who practice lawlessness," NKJV; "you who break God's laws," NLT). They are condemned for their manifold sins, as I have repeatedly said (as does that passage). It was an important and relevant clause that was conspicuously missing.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: God is evil because he condemns people to an eternity of suffering who do not deserve it. He condemns because of actions and desires (or the lack of desires) that they could not help. Of course, I have to show why they do not deserve it. That is found in the rest of this post.

And we will turn to that in a moment. But first I would like to repudiate the notion that God condemns anyone for desires they lack. For example, he condemns them because their desires are opposed to God, his authority and the things of God, not because they lack a desire for such. But this will be explored as we proceed.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: If you say that God condemns the non-elect because they sin ... [which includes rejecting him] ... then he not condemning by a condition in which they had any control over. They had no choice but to sin and reject him.

And this is where the straw man caricature enters the picture, leaving my actual view behind. To say that they had no choice but to sin is to express a view that is not only different from but in fact contrary to mine. They do have a choice, and they happily make it. As that Cervinka quote eloquently put it (and which you even cited here), the unbeliever has the mental and physical capacity to understand and obey what God requires. "He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God." That is why he stands condemned, for "he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do."

"He could obey God's law if he desired to do so," but what he desires is to reject God and his requirements. "He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God," but his love is for anything but God, whom he finds offensive. God does not command him to repent knowing that he is incapable of it. That would be capricious. God commands him to repent knowing that he is fully capable of it, and condemns him because he willingly refuses to. Ergo, the unbeliever deserves it because he does have a choice, and makes it—willingly out of his own cognitive, affective, and conative faculties.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: The reason they are like this is because God [did not unconditionally elect] them. ... Why are they like this? Because God did not choose them, die for them, and save them. If he had, then they would have responded to his calling and accepted him.

That is not why they are like this. The fact that God did not unconditionally elect them is why they are not other than what they are. God does not condemn them because they are non-elect; he condemns them because they are sinners who want nothing to do with God or the things of God. He could have elected them (had it met his purpose to do so) and subsequently changed them to become other than what they are, but he did not do so. He left them where they are and as they are, a product of their own sinful desires and choices which they happily enjoy.

I suppose you could suggest that somehow they deserve to be elected and changed by God, and thus God is unfair in not doing so, but that would simply be a denial of unconditional election (there is no condition they could meet and thus be deserving of it) and a denial of divine grace (which by definition is unmerited, or cannot be deserved), an invalid question-begging move that would leave my view unchallenged. If we are to explore the implications of my view, then it will not do to simply beg the question against it. You must accept for the sake of argument what my view states and work out the implications from it.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: They are not at fault. God condemns the non-elect because of their multitude of sins ...

It is strange to hear you say that God condemns them for their multitude of sins (one of which is their rejection of God), and yet also say that they are not at fault. That is a glaring inconsistency which can only be resolved if it is suggested that the non-elect commit all manner of sins but do not want to; in other words, they do not want to sin but helplessly do so anyway. It seems to me that this must be the position you are taking, because if they sin willfully (deliberately, intentionally)—if they want to sin and do so, as my view affirms—then they certainly are at fault. Therefore you must be suggesting that they want to stop sinning (but are not able to).

But where would this notion that they want to stop sinning be coming from? That is not found in my view—in fact, that directly contradicts it, as the statements I have been making quite clearly express. You should recall (for you quoted it here) that I said it was only the regenerated who are no longer comfortable in and with their sin, who hate their sin and yearn to stop sinning (and it is only the elect who end up regenerated or "born again"). So to suggest that the non-elect could be uncomfortable in and with their sin, could hate their sin and want to stop sinning, is a suggestion that merely begs the question against my view and thus leaves it unchallenged.

Again, the view I am defending is that it is only the regenerated who do not want to sin (and only the elect who end up regenerated). There is never a time when the unregenerated do not want to sin, whether elect or non-elect. And of course if they want to sin and do so, as my view affirms, then they certainly are at fault or morally culpable.

(Election and regeneration are not the same thing. Not all of the elect are regenerated, but all the regenerated are of the elect. In the ordo salutis, election precedes regeneration.)

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I am not saying that you do believe that. ... I am saying that, given your view, that is what really is true, whether you realize it or not.

I have been studying this biblical theology for quite a number of years, by which I mean to say that you would be hard pressed to find an implication of this theology that is not part of my beliefs. In other words, if it is a valid implication of this theology, then it is a safe bet that it is something that I believe. (But a "valid implication," I said, not the sort of question-begging conclusions seen above.)

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: In the first quote, you explicitly state that the elect are called and regenerated. They then turn to Christ in repentance. They hate sin. They are also are continually sanctified by God. They are also no longer under condemnation; their sins were paid by Christ. They are having a pretty good time.

You were doing great right up to that last sentence. Nowhere in anything I have written was it said that they are having a pretty good time. That actually contravenes my view, as can be seen in the very material you quoted ("... they hate their sin and yearn to stop sinning ...").

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: In the second quote, the non-elect are not having as much fun.

Again, not something that can be found in anything I have written—and likewise contravenes my view, as can be seen in the very material you quoted ("... left to continue enjoying their sin ..."). Given that you are not trying to misrepresent my view, I am at a loss to explain your curious pattern of doing so.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Twice you use the word left, as in they were "left unregenerated" and "left to continue enjoying their sin." Left by whom? God! He left them unregenerated, he left them under condemnation, he left them to continue enjoying their sin, he left them to increase their sins, he left them to despise him, he left them in rebellion and ingratitude, he left them to bear their own sins.

Yes. And?

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: In the third quote you then say that it is still the non-elect's fault that they go to hell because of their "multitude of sins." So you still think God is faultless in all of this?

Correct, the non-elect are morally culpable for their sins, not God. He did not force them to sin; indeed, he did not have to. That is one thing sinners need no help with.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I will show next that they are not at fault for their multitude of sins and rejection of God.

If you truly do not wish to misrepresent my view, then you need to stop setting "rejection of God" apart from sin. They are morally culpable for their manifold sins, including their rejection of God, itself a sin.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: A person's destiny is dependent on God's "intent."

Correct, including his intent to condemn the non-elect in themselves and save the elect in Christ.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: You then completely contradict yourself however, methinks ... They are not "willingly" choosing to sin because God purposely intended to leave them unregenerated.

Yes, God left the non-elect unregenerated. And the unregenerated, whether elect or non-elect, willingly choose to sin. There is no contradiction here.

The only way a contradiction might arise is if the non-elect sin but do not want to (and thus God is on the hook for not electing them). Only then could it be said that they do not really sin willingly, because they could stop sinning like they want to if only God had elected and regenerated them. But the very premise by which the contradiction is drawn out, that the non-elect sin but do not want to, is question-begging and thus the whole thing invalidates itself.

The view I am defending holds that the non-elect willingly choose to sin. They want to sin and do so. And God leaves them as they are and as they want to be, for which they remain condemned. If you want to say that they deserve the divine grace of unconditional election, then you will have to find a way to make that work with what "grace" and "unconditional" happen to mean (i.e., not deserved). Good luck.

(May 5, 2012 at 4:13 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: The non-elect do not willingly choose to sin ... anymore than the elect choose to love God and hate sin. (The elect, after all, have no choice in the matter either, since God will always succeed in calling his elect).

The elect do not choose to love God and hate sin? Where is that found in anything I have written? I mean, besides nowhere, since that directly contradicts my view. Trying to draw out the implications of my view from premises that actually contradict my view is a fool's errand.

From what I can tell god only exists because somebody told that to the person telling me.

God is an inanimate object, inanimate objects cannot produce sensation. God cannot love.

(May 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm)jess_essential Wrote: God is an inanimate object, inanimate objects cannot produce sensation. God cannot love.

I tell you what though, he makes one hell of a paperweight.

(May 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm)DeeTee Wrote: I am done withthis thread. The equation is simple. If you want to meet God you have to humble yourselves, follow His rules and do things His way which means you must repent of your sins and follow Jesus. If you don't, then they only time you will see God is when you meet Him at the judgement or run into a true believer. (and the latter is doubtful as your unbelief will probably blind you from realizing whom you encountered).

As soon a he lets me know, I'm game. Up until now it's people like you telling me what god wants. He's mysteriously silent.

This thread is now going to the goats.

(May 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm)jess_essential Wrote: God is an inanimate object, inanimate objects cannot produce sensation. God cannot love.

Ah but you can't prove hes inanimate because hes all-powerful, invisible and non-corporeal. For all you know he could be a billion lightyears away playing marbles with galaxies like at the end of Men In Black, occasionally checking back to communicate with the mentally ill...

:-)

This thread got so much more entertaining when all the believers started throttling each other over interpretations of minute detail.

Even more so when you see them side by side asserting their version is the truth, and know the way to God™ is correct in their view.



Let me know when someone comes up with a translation that doesn't make God out to be the eternal asshole. Is there a greek translation for the concept of omniasshole?

(May 8, 2012 at 7:52 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: This thread got so much more entertaining when all the believers started throttling each other over interpretations of minute detail.

Even more so when you see them side by side asserting their version is the truth, and know the way to God™ is correct in their view.



Let me know when someone comes up with a translation that doesn't make God out to be the eternal asshole. Is there a greek translation for the concept of omniasshole?

All of us agree that salvation comes through faith in Christ, one view equal to all.