Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If by this you mean that election refers to a "corporate election", for want of a better term, then I agree. Predestination throughout the bible has to do with groups of people and with things that God Himself will do.
This is the typical thing that Arminians and others that believe similar things say all the time but it simply does not work. More importantly, it isn't biblical. It stems from the very same error that Calvinism is based on. Biblically speaking the common understanding of omniscience is an overstatement of the truth. God knows what is knowable that He wants to know. Anything beyond that is extrabiblical and the notion of exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge is logically incompatible with anyone's ability to choose. A proposition that I am prepared to prove, if you are interested.
If so, then we have no free will, we cannot do other than what God knows we will do. If we cannot do otherwise, then we do not choose. If we do not choose, we are not moral culpable. If we are not morally culpable for our actions, then any reward or punishment of those actions is unjust. God is not unjust, therefore we are morally culpable for our actions, therefore we can choose to do or to do otherwise, therefore God does not infallibly know our actions in advance.
No one has suggested that His knowledge is the cause, only that it would logically preclude the ability to choose. If there is no choice, then the action is not moral in nature.
As I said, an overstatement of what the bible teaches.
Which it does not do with specificity outside of those things that God Himself will do.
The bible states that God knows the end from the beginning but that does not require God knowing every detail of every action that every person has, is or will ever do. God is perfectly well competent enough to work through, with, around and in spite of those people involved to bring certain events to pass. More importantly, the statement is not a blanket statement, it is a generality. This is evidenced by the fact that there are several episodes in the bible where God did not get what He wanted or expected and others where God makes prophecies that do not come to pass.
As stated, I see no problem here. Faith is the cause of election, not the other way around.
I see this conforming to the image of Christ as being an ongoing process that begins during this life and is culminated when we find ourselves present with the Lord but what you've said here is not incorrect.
I agree completely! The only problem for you is that if God has exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge, you have no free will.
I think you might be shocked to learn just how much Arminianism has in common with Calvinism. Their theology proper (their doctrines concerning God's attributes) are more the same than different. In fact, as one's theology proper is the foundation of the rest of any doctrinal system, it is Calvinism that is the more logically consistent of the two systems. I say they are both wrong because they both believe in attributes of God that are not found in scripture but that were imported into the church by Augustine from Aristotle and Plato.
It's an easy enough error to make.
To my knowledge, I have never done such a thing.
This did not make sense to me.
I agree with that but if you quack and waddle, I am going to presume you're a duck until there is reasonable evidence to the contrary. You don't get to decide what words of the English language are valid for me to use. If you put forward Arminian doctrine then it is not unreasonable for me to assume that you're an Arminian (or Calvinist or Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or whatever). Labels are just regular English words and like every other word, they have a range of meaning. Not everyone who calls themselves a Baptist believe the identical set of doctrines. Same goes for every other theological label you care to name. But unless you think you've invented a totally brand new theological system that only you hold to then there is going to be a label that more suits you than not and there isn't any good reason for me (or anyone else, including you) not to use it.
.
The very best example of this is in the classic Movie of "Gaslight" which if you have never seen it is worthy to be looked into.
You can clarify, can you not?
Is it my place to look at the sky and determine what color I see?
And I demonstrated how that collection of beliefs are contradictory. If God has infallible foreknowledge you cannot choose to do otherwise. If you cannot do otherwise, then you do not choose, you simply do. It's called the principle of alternative possibilities. If there is no possible alternative, then no choice exists. No choice = no freedom.
No one has suggested otherwise.
Nope is right! I don't know you and I DO NOT CARE what you do or don't call yourself. What I care about is meaningful discussion and I will not permit you to remove perfectly good English words from my use for fear of calling a rose a tulip. If I presume that you're a tulip and you're a rose, then correct me but I will not be told what words I'm allowed to use in your presence.
Is the title of that movie what people are tacitly referring to when they accuse people of "gaslighting"?The very best example of this is in the classic Movie of "Gaslight" which if you have never seen it is worthy to be looked into.
It is a dangerous practice but you do owe it to yourself to watch it
Gaslight (1944) - Videos - IMDb
Gaslight (1944)
CrimeDramaMystery
Ten years after her aunt was murdered in their London home, a woman returns from Italy in the 1880s to resume residence with her new husband. His obsessive interest in the home rises from a secret that may require driving his wife insane.
A couple of
Summaries
- Ten years after her aunt was murdered in their London home, a woman returns from Italy in the 1880s to resume residence with her new husband. His obsessive interest in the home rises from a secret that may require driving his wife insane.
- After the death of her famous opera-singing aunt, Paula Alquist (Ingrid Bergman) is sent to study in Italy to become a great opera singer as well. While there, she falls in love with the charming Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer). The two return to London, and Paula begins to notice strange goings-on: missing pictures, strange footsteps in the night, and gaslights that dim without being touched. As she fights to retain her sanity, her new husband's intentions come into question.—Jwelch5742
You can find it online if you have no other access.....
So what's the problem then? I've never suggested that it was my right to forever hereafter bind you to some label I happen to use in reference to the doctrines you claim for yourself. On the contrary, I've said more than once that if I say something that is inaccurate then correct me. That's how two way conversations work! Heaven forbid that you figure out which label most accurately describes what you believe and just tell people what that label is whenever they've made an incorrect assessment for themselves! But, then again, avoiding confusion and these kinds of tedious exchanges by doing so, certainly couldn't possible justify the acceptance of a label that was even .1% off from being perfectly accurate, right?
That's very interesting. I'll have to watch the movie now.
Not knowing your preferences for movies if you are a fan of the Alfred Hitchcock style
