Saved Or Predestined ???

[Tong2020]

Really? Because I prefer to believe all scripture fits together instead of pitting on verse against another. If God says he desires all to be saved, I don't have to explain that away because another verse say he wills that he will lose none. Both are true, but it's also true that many will fall away, because God allows us to be free agents to a point.

Are you trying to say that God's will is always done? Because that's not biblical.

Yes, of course scriptures fits together sir. No one is saying otherwise. If a verse such as that which says that God desires that all be saved and another, even many, says that only some, and so not every human being that had ever existed and will yet be born, will be saved, the Christian reader must be diligent to look into that. So, it is not explaining away a verse, but getting to understand what a verse meant to say.

And while you say that you don't have to explain away a verse, you actually do it here. That since the obvious truth is that all are not saved, you explain away the verse that says God desires all to be saved, by resorting to the very powerful and idolatrous "free will" of man.

Verses such as that saying that God desires all to be saved, when the truth and fact is that not all are saved, only could be a figure of speech, that expresses something of God, what could otherwise not be expressed in any other way using the language of men, so that the reader could relate and understand this thing about God. This is seen throughout the scriptures, as when God is said to be sorry for having made man, or when God made Saul king.

Yes God allowed us to be free agents to a certain point. And God by that, had effectively shown what man is. That left to himself, he freely dives into the ocean of death, rather than freely remain to live with God. Adam and Eve did just that, bringing themselves into slavery to sin and under the reign of death, even Adam's posterity. And God had shown Adam's posterity, left to themselves, even if they wanted to, are not able to get out of such slavery. Their "free will" could not get them out of slavery. They are helpless in and of themselves.

Tong
R0380

 

[Tong2020]

What do you mean by being dead? I'm dead to sin, but I still sin? Somebody is dead in thier sins, but they can still be saved?
I still don't know what this is supposed to explain.
Of course belief is a condition for being born again. Jesus said it is. "That whosever believes in him shall have eternal life."
First belief then salvation.

As I pointed out in my other posts, you must not get out of a metaphor if you use it to speak of the salvation of God. If the salvation of God is explained or described in a particular metaphor, you must understand it within the metaphor, else you will be making mistakes, as you do here. In the metaphor of being born again, belief is nowhere implied nor hinted, much less, spoken of.

You asked "What do you mean by being dead? I'm dead to sin, but I still sin? Somebody is dead in thier sins, but they can still be saved?" On the first Q, it refers to the state of not having life or that which enables the man to relate to God, and that which keeps him separated from God. On the second Q, as I already answered and you just keep asking it, that you are dead to sin in the sense that you are in Jesus Christ, even while you still fall into sin because you are still in the "body of death" where sin still dwells. Some would even point to people, who in their judgment are righteous in their ways, who are not in Christ. But the fact that they are not in Christ tells us that, such judgment is incorrect. These people, while they do things which in the eyes of man are righteous and good, could not be said to be dead to sin, because they are not in Christ. On the third Q, in fact, all who are being saved are saved from their dead state. Being dead, they shall be born again, being re-created to be the new man in Christ Jesus.

Tong
R0381

 

[Renniks]

You argued saying and I quote:

"We are condemned to physical death because of the world now being under the curse."

And in the next post, you supported that by quoting Genesis 3:17-19, speaking of the ground as cursed so that it became the cause of man's physical death.

So, I just pointed out, that even that concerning the ground as cursed, God said in His heart, after the flood, concerning this, "I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake". Don't you understand what God meant by that?

Tong
R0377

Not sure why this matters since the curse is still in effect.

 

[Renniks]

I am not saying you divorce the slave metaphor with the rest of scriptures. What I am saying is that you must not mix the slave metaphor with other metaphors.

You said "but we have to accept the payment." And see? Since you get out of the metaphor, you have this erroneous understanding and reasoning. When a slave is redeemed, he don't have the choice to accept or not.

Tong
R0378

So, you are again picking one scripture over another. But, ok, let's stick with that passage from Romans. What does Paul say right there?

16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Your whole argument just fell on its face. Obvously, Paul is talking about us offering ourselves to someone to be their slave, so we are choosing who we are going to be slaves to, therefore we do indeed have to either accept Christ's offer or Satan's offer.

 

[Renniks]

Well, that's what it is you think I am implying. But my saying to you over and over in my past posts that such is a strawman you make, clearly tells you that your thoughts are wrong. And why you keep bringing that up and making it appear that it is what I am saying leads to me to think that it is indeed an intentional strawman, if not, a misrepresentation, which is unbecoming of a Christian and I don't expect coming from you.

Tong
R379

If you are implying something else spell it out. I figure if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a calvinist.

 

[Renniks]

And while you say that you don't have to explain away a verse, you actually do it here. That since the obvious truth is that all are not saved, you explain away the verse that says God desires all to be saved, by resorting to the very powerful and idolatrous "free will" of man.

Wait, now believing in free will is idolatry? You can't both confirm free will and denounce free will in the same post, like you just did, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Renniks]

Verses such as that saying that God desires all to be saved, when the truth and fact is that not all are saved, only could be a figure of speech, that expresses something of God, what could otherwise not be expressed in any other way using the language of men, so that the reader could relate and understand this thing about God. This is seen throughout the scriptures, as when God is said to be sorry for having made man, or when God made Saul king.

Hogwash. You are again explaining away clear scripture to fit your interpretation.
You would tell God what feelings he's allowed to have, even. It's not a figure of speech, it's Truth. Again, you can't accept that God's will is not always done on the Earth. Why do you think Jesus prayed "Your will be done on Earth as it is in heaven." Obviously, it's not always done on Earth. Men reject God's free offer, not because God destined them to reject it, but because he gave all that freedom.

 

[Tong2020]

Not sure why this matters since the curse is still in effect.

Genesis 8: 21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”

When did God cursed the ground, so that in the passage it says "again"?

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.

That's right, the first time was in that passage. And after the flood, when God said "I will never again curse the ground", that is indicative that the curse is no longer, so that, as it reads in verse 22, there is seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, that speaks a blessing and not curse. God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. It's brings us back to Adam in Genesis 1, the day God created man.

Tong
R0382

 

[Renniks]

As I pointed out in my other posts, you must not get out of a metaphor if you use it to speak of the salvation of God. If the salvation of God is explained or described in a particular metaphor, you must understand it within the metaphor, else you will be making mistakes, as you do here. In the metaphor of being born again, belief is nowhere implied nor hinted, much less, spoken of.

This is absurd, IMO. You can not read one verse to understand a concept. And if you read the whole passage, you find out that being born again comes on one condition.

 

[Renniks]

Genesis 8: 21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”

When did God cursed the ground, so that in the passage it says "again"?

Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.

That's right, the first time was in that passage. And after the flood, when God said "I will never again curse the ground", that is indicative that the curse is no longer, so that, as it reads in verse 22, there is seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, that speaks a blessing and not curse. God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. It's brings us back to Adam in Genesis 1, the day God created man.

Tong
R0382

The curse is not over. Look around you.

 

[Tong2020]

So, you are again picking one scripture over another. But, ok, let's stick with that passage from Romans. What does Paul say right there?

16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Your whole argument just fell on its face. Obvously, Paul is talking about us offering ourselves to someone to be their slave, so we are choosing who we are going to be slaves to, therefore we do indeed have to either accept Christ's offer or Satan's offer.

Not picking one scriptures sir. I am taking reference to a figure that scriptures used to tell us about man's situation and God's salvation. Is anything wrong with that? I could take reference to another figure if you like. But if I do, I'm afraid you might mix the two and just further complicate the conversation.

How had my whole argument fell there sir? Not at all. Firstly, Paul was talking to the Christians and not to the spiritually dead. I already told you the Christian is not yet made perfect and still in the body of death. When one is converted, he is not magically transformed to the image of Jesus Christ. They are yet to be transformed. And what you read there is part of that process.

Now, right after verse 16, we have Paul saying this in verse 17:

17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

What was Paul thanking God for? Paul was thanking God for their obedience. Paul, to thank God for that, only means Paul was praising God, giving the credit to God, for their obedience. What can you say about that?

Tong
R0383

 

[Tong2020]

If you are implying something else spell it out. I figure if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a calvinist.

If you think my statements implies anything, you can ask me if I was implying what comes to your mind.

Tong
R384

 

[Tong2020]

Wait, now believing in free will is idolatry? You can't both confirm free will and denounce free will in the same post, like you just did, if you want to be taken seriously.

Not that one believes that man has "free will" is idolatry. But when man begins to make "free will" as something that limits God's sovereignty over mankind or something that seems to have God not do what He wills to do unto him without his permission or his allowing God, I'd say that is idolatrous.

And how did I denounce free will in my post there sir?

Tong
R0385

 

[Tong2020]

Hogwash. You are again explaining away clear scripture to fit your interpretation.
You would tell God what feelings he's allowed to have, even. It's not a figure of speech, it's Truth. Again, you can't accept that God's will is not always done on the Earth. Why do you think Jesus prayed "Your will be done on Earth as it is in heaven." Obviously, it's not always done on Earth. Men reject God's free offer, not because God destined them to reject it, but because he gave all that freedom.

Not at all sir. If you understood what I said there you would not say what you say here. I am not explaining away but is simply explaining. For instance, the scriptures wherein we have God himself saying of men "I am sorry that I have made them". If that was not a figure of speech that expresses that of God, which otherwise could not be expressed in any other way using the language of men so that we could relate and understand this thing about God, then that would contradict scriptures which says that God is omniscient, perfect, cannot not lie.

You said "You would tell God what feelings he's allowed to have, even." Not at all sir.

You said "Again, you can't accept that God's will is not always done on the Earth." And again I say, not as you say there sir.

You asked "Why do you think Jesus prayed "Your will be done on Earth as it is in heaven." Obviously, it's not always done on Earth." What will are you referring to? If God wills that one don't wake up to live another day tomorrow, is that the will you are referring to? Or are you referring to the commandments of God to man? Please clarify.

You said "Men reject God's free offer, not because God destined them to reject it, but because he gave all that freedom." God did not offer His one and only Son to man to be their sacrificial lamb. Jesus Christ is the lamb of God, not the lamb of man. Regarding freedom, you seem to forget what happens to one's freedom when he becomes a slave or when he is in slavery.

Tong
R0386

 

[Renniks]

17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

What was Paul thanking God for? Paul was thanking God for their obedience. Paul, to thank God for that, only means Paul was praising God, giving the credit to God, for their obedience. What can you say about that?

I can say thanks for further confirmation of what I already said. It's quite obvious that Paul is not saying God simply chooses some and passes by others, but that obedience brings about salvation. They obeyed from the heart. The heart that you claim can not choose God. Your whole argument is built on false assumptions not borne out by the very passage you are claiming to get them from.

 

[Tong2020]

This is absurd, IMO. You can not read one verse to understand a concept. And if you read the whole passage, you find out that being born again comes on one condition.

I never said anything to that effect sir.

Regarding the matter of being born again, since you just repeat saying what you say here, I think we just leave it at that, and agree to disagree on that. That you believe that it is man's choice and so is man's will to be born again or not. That I, on the other hand believe that it is God's choice and so is His will.

Tong
R0387

 

[Renniks]

If you think my statements implies anything, you can ask me if I was implying what comes to your mind.

Tong
R384

It doesn't matter what you claim to imply if your theology leads to certain logical conclusions.

 

[Tong2020]

The curse is not over. Look around you.

We are talking about the ground not anything else sir. Read Genesis 8:21-22. I quoted it there in my post.

Tong
R0388

 

[Renniks]

Not that one believes that man has "free will" is idolatry. But when man begins to make "free will" as something that limits God's sovereignty over mankind or something that seems to have God not do what He wills to do unto him without his permission or his allowing God, I'd say that is idolatrous.

And how did I denounce free will in my post there sir?

Tong
R0385

Lol, then you don't mean free will. You mean doing what God already chose for you to do.
If it's not libertarian free will it's just an illusion. You are sounding more calvinist by the post now. Does God's will always happen or not? I say no way... that's not the biblical narrative.

 

[Renniks]

God did not offer His one and only Son to man to be their sacrificial lamb. Jesus Christ is the lamb of God, not the lamb of man.

He is the sacrificial lamb, slain for our sins. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but Jesus said he was raised up to draw all men to himself. He was not just the sacrifice for some sins but everyones.