+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 96
Latest: sneakydove
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7902
Total Topics: 513
Most Online Today: 206
Most Online Ever: 771
(July 30, 2019, 01:13:39 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 190
Total: 191

Author Topic: Misfits the Second:  (Read 808 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Misfits the Second:
« on: September 16, 2019, 03:02:28 pm »
     Misfits, the second
 
John 3:4 Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb?
I would not stand on this one very long. In fact, I would not stand on it at all, but it is kind of amusing. If Nicodemus entered into his mother's womb the first time, he must have existed before that time. He certainly would have existed prior to his second entry right?
 
Now I do not believe for one moment that Nicodemus had any knowledge of the pre-conception state, nor do I believe that he meant to imply what the words do, but at the same time I think I know what John was implying by putting in these words in this particular way.[30] (You must remember that John often writes with his tongue in his pre-existent cheek!)
 
Romans 5:8 While we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
At the time Christ died for you, were you yet a sinner? According to pre-conception theology you were, without any twisting, reinterpretations or theological wonders. Seems that Paul might have thought so too. Of course, there is the traditional interpretation, for the young at heart!
 
Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

 
GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as per Revelation 20:15 ...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 
This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator (#28) stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.
 
Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD before life love some and not the rest?
 
The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour: Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth...

 
Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not before life love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

 
Others have suggested that GOD before life loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this:
 
 The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin[31] and HIS before life decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings occur for the rest.
 
First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE before life loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.
 
Secondly, the truth regarding the elects' end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.
 
Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation:
 
In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.
 
 
Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.
 
First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.
 
Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential.
 
In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD’S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].
 
Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation - perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.
 
Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.
 
Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge being particular can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: we must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

 
This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular before life love. Whom GOD elects / foreknows is based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we can not find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?
 
Now, according to pre-conception theology, the before life love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (for or against  HIM) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM.
 
Herein is the reason why HE loved some before this life and why HE did not love the rest. Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly,[32] and others only if HE was infallibly[33] gracious to them. Yes, and He predestined these who put their faith, their unproven hope in HIM to be conformed to the image of HIS Son if they should ever sin, and HE predestined the other evil ones who rejected HIM as a false god and a liar for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

 
 Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?[34]
 


2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate preconception theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do.[35]

 
May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do in this life.
 
Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose that this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-existence.
 
The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a preconception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performed that work.
 
The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), ie, they do not have what is usually called “racial solidarity”. This means that they have to make all their own choices.[36]No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices.

 
In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them? If it was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion,[37] would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven?[38]
 
And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever?[39] This situation does not look too good, does it?
 
Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was holy and just.
Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.
 
Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice / works being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too?
 
May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility is the presupposition that Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's definition of elective works in
 
Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth. Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say that the works of2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines works the same in both verses. And just how does he define works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her. The children are Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil (works).

 
But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, at least one, if not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil works.[40]
 
Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction and must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or we have to admit that the Pauline definition[41] of works does not exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.
 
In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election, he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having done any good or evil (works on the post-birth side of the womb) that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb). Thus we can see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.[42]

 
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. What does the word “likewise” mean in this verse? To my way of seeing things, it is a very important addition.

 
 For instance, the verse could just have easily read, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself took part of the same. When it reads so well without the word “likewise”, one can not help but wonder why the word was included?
 
Well, once again preconception theology has a sensible answer. It was put in because Jesus pre-existed His incarnation, and His taking of flesh is likewise to ours because our taking of flesh is also an incarnation rather than a creation.

 
Furthermore, any description to the effect that we are made at or after our conception must be interpreted in light of Hebrews 2:6,7,9,17 What is man, that THOU are mindful of him? Or the son of man, that THOU visitest him? THOU madest him a little lower than the angels;... But we see Jesus, who was (also) made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death... Wherefore, in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren...

 
Thus Scripture testifies that pre-existent PERsons are made when they begin life. Actually, it is not the person who is made, it is their earthly life. It is created then.
                                               
Hebrews 11:13 These (the children of Abraham) all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims (NIV - aliens and strangers) (everywhere) on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country (home planet). 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country (place) from whence they came out (ie, if it was their home planet) they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly (home): wherefore GOD is not ashamed to be called their GOD: for HE hath prepared for them a city(eternal home planet). So, all of Abraham's children were strangers and pilgrims on planet Earth, and they were all seeking a country, an home country.

 
Furthermore, this home country was not that country (place) from which they had come, for if it was, they could have simply returned there to be at home. No, their home country was much more heavenly.
 
Well, pre-existence theology says that GOD's elect are aliens and pilgrims (just passing through) on planet Earth. It also says that GOD's fallen elect all came here from another place, but not a place to which they would like to return, not a place which they would call home. No indeed, for the home country that the elect originally left was Paradise, and that's the place that they're trying to get back to.
 
Conclusion:
Well, there is really not too much more that I can show you[43] to help you see the truthfulness of this doctrine.[44] To my mind, it has a great deal of scriptural support.[45] Moreover, it is much more reasonable than any other.[46] And, it is really not new, for some people have believed in it in all ages of history.


 
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Notes for Misfits, second part
 
30 - John always was good at getting the most out of his words, as any commentator will tell you, and here we see him doing the same with Nicodemus' words too. If you ever find yourself in the presence of this heavenly reporter, it might be wise to not run off at the mouth, but if you don't believe me, just ask Nicodemus or Caiaphas.
 
Remember John 11:50-51 Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.
 
Of course John quoted him word for word, and was even willing to allow that Caiaphas' words were “inspired by GOD,” as a high priest's counsel and prophetic warnings should be and as he no doubt claimed, yet I do not think that what they each meant by “die for the people” could have been further apart. I am sure that Caiaphas would accuse John of twisting his words and taking him completely out of context or even worse, whereas John was merely exercising his sense of humour.
 
31 - That is, his decision to follow (stay spiritually married to or in unity with) GOD's help meet for him.
 
32 - We must remember the angels. Not every foreknown creature needs HIS saving grace.
 
33 - Infallible only because they are the elect.


34 - In other words, give up your flat Earth theology already!

 
35 - Hence, the need to shoot their interpretation to ribbons.
 
36 - In reality, so does everybody else.
 
37 - Hey, maybe that is the reason for it. Some found out that they were not elect. No wonder they decided to oppose GOD. They certainly had nothing to lose except their everlasting torments.
 
38 - Or predestined for Hell.
 
39 - If you put forth that they were not elected on the basis of their foreseen rebellion, then isn't that the same as election on the basis of works?
 
40 - It is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was being evil.
 
41 - This is a good example of one of those Scriptures that Paul put in his writings (to bear witness to the secret theology he knew, but was forbidden to speak about), knowing that it would not be understood correctly until the time of the general revelation.
 
42 - Who let that elephant in here anyway?
 
43 - That is, other than all the chapters I cut out of this manuscript because I didn't want to make it too long. If you add them to all the pages I cut out of New Revelation, this book is only about half as long as it used to be. (Nobody wants to work hard anymore!) I have more proof to look at than you probably have time to look.
 
44 - Like if you can't see it yet, about the only thing left to do is anoint your eyes with some dirty old spittle! Now, don't jump on me too fast. It's standard procedure for curing those who are born blind. (See John 9:1-7.)
 
Did you know that it was extremely repulsive to any Jew for a person to spit on the ground? (Just about as repulsive as eating blood!) But even though it (He) was so repulsive to them, it sure did work miracles of sight when He did it and His instructions were followed in faith for a miracle.
 
 So here's to some mud and spit from GOD in your eyes! And if you would like to have the whole cure, all you have to do is go wash the mud and spit off in the pool named “Sent” (Siloam in the Hebrew.) And of course #1, there is no cure for those who prefer the blindness that they were born with. And of course #2, to be sent like Jesus or John the Baptist, one must also pre-exist one's conception.
 
“Ah, religion can sure be a drag sometimes. Always trying to get you to change. Always trying to get you to stand up against evil that you can't even see! And this ‘sent’ business! Who ever heard of that being a cure for blindness?”
 
45 - Like, there is no better (more believable) witness than the GOD of the Bible, and there isn't much doubt as to where the GOD of the Bible stands on this one!
 
46 - Especially so if you disregard my notes!!


 
 
 
Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma: +1025/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2019, 09:43:48 pm »
     Misfits, the second
 
John 3:4 Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb?
I would not stand on this one very long. In fact, I would not stand on it at all, but it is kind of amusing. If Nicodemus entered into his mother's womb the first time, he must have existed before that time. He certainly would have existed prior to his second entry right?
 
Now I do not believe for one moment that Nicodemus had any knowledge of the pre-conception state, nor do I believe that he meant to imply what the words do, but at the same time I think I know what John was implying by putting in these words in this particular way.[30] (You must remember that John often writes with his tongue in his pre-existent cheek!)
 
Romans 5:8 While we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
At the time Christ died for you, were you yet a sinner? According to pre-conception theology you were, without any twisting, reinterpretations or theological wonders. Seems that Paul might have thought so too. Of course, there is the traditional interpretation, for the young at heart!
 
Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

 
GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as per Revelation 20:15 ...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 
This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator (#28) stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.
 
Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD before life love some and not the rest?
 
The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other; and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on HIS unmerited favour: Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth...

 
Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy. Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not before life love some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in their life.

 
Others have suggested that GOD before life loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this:
 
 The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge - appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin[31] and HIS before life decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings occur for the rest.
 
First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE before life loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution - wrath) holiness and omnipotence.
 
Secondly, the truth regarding the elects' end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.
 
Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation:
 
In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.
 
 
Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.
 
First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.
 
Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential.
 
In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD’S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].
 
Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation - perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.
 
Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.
 
Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge being particular can not be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: we must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

 
This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular before life love. Whom GOD elects / foreknows is based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we can not find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?
 
Now, according to pre-conception theology, the before life love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced choice of the creature (for or against  HIM) and on HIS infinite love, which means that HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to glorify HIM.
 
Herein is the reason why HE loved some before this life and why HE did not love the rest. Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not. Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some willingly,[32] and others only if HE was infallibly[33] gracious to them. Yes, and He predestined these who put their faith, their unproven hope in HIM to be conformed to the image of HIS Son if they should ever sin, and HE predestined the other evil ones who rejected HIM as a false god and a liar for the Day of Judgement and established them for the correction of the fallen elect.

 
 Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?[34]
 


2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I believe that it does not invalidate preconception theology, and I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it do.[35]

 
May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation to our election, they are referring to only our works after we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they would do in this life.
 
Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our pre-life works were also to be included in the works that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose that this isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any such argument must admit to our pre-existence.
 
The second thing I would like to point out is that we were called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the possibility of glorifying GOD. Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is the same as saying, Being called in accord with a preconception work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performed that work.
 
The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels. Angels are a lot different than men (at least, that is what many believe), ie, they do not have what is usually called “racial solidarity”. This means that they have to make all their own choices.[36]No one else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable for someone else's evil choices.

 
In other words, Adam's choices do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them? If it was not on the basis of their individual choices, then they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least. But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion,[37] would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to remain in heaven?[38]
 
And what reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever?[39] This situation does not look too good, does it?
 
Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was holy and just.
Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their election.
 
Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their choice / works being a part of the basis of their election, why can that not be a part of the basis of ours too?
 
May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility is the presupposition that Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's definition of elective works in
 
Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth. Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say that the works of2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines works the same in both verses. And just how does he define works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And the children struggled together within her. The children are Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil (works).

 
But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, at least one, if not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil works.[40]
 
Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction and must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or we have to admit that the Pauline definition[41] of works does not exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.
 
In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election, he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having done any good or evil (works on the post-birth side of the womb) that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb). Thus we can see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our election.[42]

 
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. What does the word “likewise” mean in this verse? To my way of seeing things, it is a very important addition.

 
 For instance, the verse could just have easily read, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself took part of the same. When it reads so well without the word “likewise”, one can not help but wonder why the word was included?
 
Well, once again preconception theology has a sensible answer. It was put in because Jesus pre-existed His incarnation, and His taking of flesh is likewise to ours because our taking of flesh is also an incarnation rather than a creation.

 
Furthermore, any description to the effect that we are made at or after our conception must be interpreted in light of Hebrews 2:6,7,9,17 What is man, that THOU are mindful of him? Or the son of man, that THOU visitest him? THOU madest him a little lower than the angels;... But we see Jesus, who was (also) made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death... Wherefore, in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren...

 
Thus Scripture testifies that pre-existent PERsons are made when they begin life. Actually, it is not the person who is made, it is their earthly life. It is created then.
                                               
Hebrews 11:13 These (the children of Abraham) all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims (NIV - aliens and strangers) (everywhere) on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country (home planet). 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country (place) from whence they came out (ie, if it was their home planet) they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly (home): wherefore GOD is not ashamed to be called their GOD: for HE hath prepared for them a city(eternal home planet). So, all of Abraham's children were strangers and pilgrims on planet Earth, and they were all seeking a country, an home country.

 
Furthermore, this home country was not that country (place) from which they had come, for if it was, they could have simply returned there to be at home. No, their home country was much more heavenly.
 
Well, pre-existence theology says that GOD's elect are aliens and pilgrims (just passing through) on planet Earth. It also says that GOD's fallen elect all came here from another place, but not a place to which they would like to return, not a place which they would call home. No indeed, for the home country that the elect originally left was Paradise, and that's the place that they're trying to get back to.
 
Conclusion:
Well, there is really not too much more that I can show you[43] to help you see the truthfulness of this doctrine.[44] To my mind, it has a great deal of scriptural support.[45] Moreover, it is much more reasonable than any other.[46] And, it is really not new, for some people have believed in it in all ages of history.


 
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Notes for Misfits, second part
 
30 - John always was good at getting the most out of his words, as any commentator will tell you, and here we see him doing the same with Nicodemus' words too. If you ever find yourself in the presence of this heavenly reporter, it might be wise to not run off at the mouth, but if you don't believe me, just ask Nicodemus or Caiaphas.
 
Remember John 11:50-51 Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation.
 
Of course John quoted him word for word, and was even willing to allow that Caiaphas' words were “inspired by GOD,” as a high priest's counsel and prophetic warnings should be and as he no doubt claimed, yet I do not think that what they each meant by “die for the people” could have been further apart. I am sure that Caiaphas would accuse John of twisting his words and taking him completely out of context or even worse, whereas John was merely exercising his sense of humour.
 
31 - That is, his decision to follow (stay spiritually married to or in unity with) GOD's help meet for him.
 
32 - We must remember the angels. Not every foreknown creature needs HIS saving grace.
 
33 - Infallible only because they are the elect.


34 - In other words, give up your flat Earth theology already!

 
35 - Hence, the need to shoot their interpretation to ribbons.
 
36 - In reality, so does everybody else.
 
37 - Hey, maybe that is the reason for it. Some found out that they were not elect. No wonder they decided to oppose GOD. They certainly had nothing to lose except their everlasting torments.
 
38 - Or predestined for Hell.
 
39 - If you put forth that they were not elected on the basis of their foreseen rebellion, then isn't that the same as election on the basis of works?
 
40 - It is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was being evil.
 
41 - This is a good example of one of those Scriptures that Paul put in his writings (to bear witness to the secret theology he knew, but was forbidden to speak about), knowing that it would not be understood correctly until the time of the general revelation.
 
42 - Who let that elephant in here anyway?
 
43 - That is, other than all the chapters I cut out of this manuscript because I didn't want to make it too long. If you add them to all the pages I cut out of New Revelation, this book is only about half as long as it used to be. (Nobody wants to work hard anymore!) I have more proof to look at than you probably have time to look.
 
44 - Like if you can't see it yet, about the only thing left to do is anoint your eyes with some dirty old spittle! Now, don't jump on me too fast. It's standard procedure for curing those who are born blind. (See John 9:1-7.)
 
Did you know that it was extremely repulsive to any Jew for a person to spit on the ground? (Just about as repulsive as eating blood!) But even though it (He) was so repulsive to them, it sure did work miracles of sight when He did it and His instructions were followed in faith for a miracle.
 
 So here's to some mud and spit from GOD in your eyes! And if you would like to have the whole cure, all you have to do is go wash the mud and spit off in the pool named “Sent” (Siloam in the Hebrew.) And of course #1, there is no cure for those who prefer the blindness that they were born with. And of course #2, to be sent like Jesus or John the Baptist, one must also pre-exist one's conception.
 
“Ah, religion can sure be a drag sometimes. Always trying to get you to change. Always trying to get you to stand up against evil that you can't even see! And this ‘sent’ business! Who ever heard of that being a cure for blindness?”
 
45 - Like, there is no better (more believable) witness than the GOD of the Bible, and there isn't much doubt as to where the GOD of the Bible stands on this one!
 
46 - Especially so if you disregard my notes!!

Well TEd, you certainly like to write or maybe copy and paste.   

Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow," ,,,, You do a lot of assuming so let me relieve you so of that assumptions.
To read it literally, GOD says  "For whom he did foreknow," ,   He did not stutter.

Somewhere in the eons of time prior to creation, God made a decision to predestinate something. We find out that decision was to predestinate (elect) some men. By logic, in order to Predestinate many of  multitude(S), God would know all people the He would create on earth. Through His sovereignty He decided He would elect some and others He would not.

You say he does not know those who he does not elect. I differ with you here. HE knows you, HE made you. He gave you you first Breath.

He also knew that Man (Adam) would fall and forever be in sin. Under no circumstances would/could any man remove himself from sin unless His heart was reborn through the actions of GOD himself.

I heard an analogy the other day and it goes like this....

A man falls in the water and He is going down for the last time. His head is under the water, Only the fingers on one hand are above the water.
A lifejacket would save his life but it would have to land at his fingertips in order for him to grab ahold of it, thus saving His life. God throws him this lifejacket and it indeed does land right at his fingertips. Now it is up to this drowning man to grab that lifejacket saving his live.

Thus it is  man through his own free will that decides to receive the salvation offered by God's Grace.

The opposite post, The man has drowned and is dead. God reaches down and drags him out of the water and regenerates this man heart and brings him out of the sinful nature to a path that leads to righteousness.

I will say this,,,, For those that believe that Man has the ability to grab that lifejacket and save themselves from their sins, They are destined for HELL!

Romans 8:30..(KJV).."Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

I might add: those whom God elects receive His Mercy. For those that do not receive His Mercy, receive Justice.

NO MAN receives in-justice.

Bladerunner


1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2019, 01:42:40 pm »

Well TEd, you certainly like to write or maybe copy and paste.   
I write and I often cut and paste from previous postings to be efficient.

 
Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow," ,,,, You do a lot of assuming so let me relieve you so of that assumptions.
To read it literally, GOD says  "For whom he did foreknow," ,   He did not stutter.

Somewhere in the eons of time prior to creation, God made a decision to predestinate something. We find out that decision was to predestinate (elect) some men. By logic, in order to Predestinate many of  multitude(S), God would know all people the He would create on earth. Through His sovereignty He decided He would elect some and others He would not.

You say he does not know those who he does not elect. I differ with you here. HE knows you, HE made you. He gave you you first Breath.

  You misread:
Romans 8:29 claims that those HE foreknew were predestined to be conformed to Chirst. Since some are damned instead of being conformed to Chirst, logic says they must not have been foreknown. This interpretation rests quite clearly on Christ's own words referring to HIS relationship with the false miracle workers and foolish virgins:
Matt 7:22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’
Never: 3763. oudepote:
Definition: never
Usage: never.

Matthew 25:12 But he replied, 'Truly I tell you, I do not know you.'
I did not include these references because I took it for granted they were well known as having important theological implications.

Jesus claims there are people He NEVER knew even though He created them and their lives so there must be a difference between those He never knew or does not not know and the others whom HE foreknows… as I already explained.


I merely contend that those He foreknew for predestination are the elect and those whom He does not know, actually those He never knew, are the damned, condemned already for their (already) unbelief in the name of HIS Son: Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him (His foreknown elect) is not condemned, but whoever does not believe (those not known non-elect) stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Perhaps you will share with me your interpretation of what I NEVER KNEW THEE! and I do not know thee! might mean and how do they not contradict the idea that He must know everyone from their creation?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 01:58:57 pm by Ted T. »
Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma: +1025/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2019, 10:58:49 pm »

Well TEd, you certainly like to write or maybe copy and paste.   
I write and I often cut and paste from previous postings to be efficient.

 
Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow," ,,,, You do a lot of assuming so let me relieve you so of that assumptions.
To read it literally, GOD says  "For whom he did foreknow," ,   He did not stutter.

Somewhere in the eons of time prior to creation, God made a decision to predestinate something. We find out that decision was to predestinate (elect) some men. By logic, in order to Predestinate many of  multitude(S), God would know all people the He would create on earth. Through His sovereignty He decided He would elect some and others He would not.

You say he does not know those who he does not elect. I differ with you here. HE knows you, HE made you. He gave you you first Breath.

  You misread:
Romans 8:29 claims that those HE foreknew were predestined to be conformed to Chirst. Since some are damned instead of being conformed to Chirst, logic says they must not have been foreknown. This interpretation rests quite clearly on Christ's own words referring to HIS relationship with the false miracle workers and foolish virgins:
Matt 7:22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’
Never: 3763. oudepote:
Definition: never
Usage: never.

Matthew 25:12 But he replied, 'Truly I tell you, I do not know you.'
I did not include these references because I took it for granted they were well known as having important theological implications.

Jesus claims there are people He NEVER knew even though He created them and their lives so there must be a difference between those He never knew or does not not know and the others whom HE foreknows… as I already explained.


I merely contend that those He foreknew for predestination are the elect and those whom He does not know, actually those He never knew, are the damned, condemned already for their (already) unbelief in the name of HIS Son: Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him (His foreknown elect) is not condemned, but whoever does not believe (those not known non-elect) stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Perhaps you will share with me your interpretation of what I NEVER KNEW THEE! and I do not know thee! might mean and how do they not contradict the idea that He must know everyone from their creation?

Sooooo, he does not know everybody? WHo made you...your cells...

Blade
1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2019, 12:41:15 pm »
Sooooo, he does not know everybody? WHo made you...your cells...
Blade

Ok, so you are not ready to express your own understanding of how He must know everyone yet He claims He does NOT know everyone... I assume we are in agreement that He is not a liar so I suggest that He must be using a metaphor somewhere in this topic of knowing.

KNOWING in Genesis 4:1 ESV  Now Adam KNEW Eve his wife, [NLT Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife...]   is obviously a metaphor, introducing the idea of intimate relations, the idea of a loving relationship, into the meaning of the word, to know. In Genesis 3:22  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, KNOWING good and evil. which uses the same word,  3045. yada: to know, the word is used to describe what is known without any hint of a loving intimate relationship...two uses for one word.


It is the difference of knowing as intimate loving a approval and a mere knowing about that is highlighted in my topic.

I suggest that when GOD is speaking of HIS foreknowledge of us HE is referring to an intimate and loving approval of us but when He claims to not know someone, He is claiming that there has never been an  intimate loving relationship between them, ie, He only knows about them with no love for them.

So whether HE created me, my spirit, and my body (which is not me)  is not the issue; it is whether we have a loving and intimate relationship with HIM.


I contend that this relationship started BEFORE we are born on earth because of some verses and things Peter told us...

Return means to go back to where you once were… 
1 Peter 2:25  For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now RETURNED unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.  Well, to return, one must have been there before, at least, according to the normal use of the word. Therefore, in this verse, it would be normal to infer that the sheep that had gone astray, were, at one time part of the Shepherd's flock but had strayed away from HIS care. Since I am sure that the Shepherd was not negligent, the straying away from HIS care must involve some rebellion. Therefore, it is normally obvious that Peter is writing to some apostatized (gone astray) Christians (people of the flock). It is also normally apparent that what he was writing is intended for every new convert in every age since we went astray.

Therefore, it seems normal that the Holy Spirit would have us believe that all of the Church has personally apostatized from Christ, from their intimate relationship with Him, prior to their conversion back to Him in this life. Since we are conceived as sinners, it is easy to see that we must have apostatized from Christ before our conception and that is why we are sinners at our birth.

I think that Peter bore added witness to this fact in 1 Peter 1:3  Blessed be the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ...which ...hath begotten us again unto a lively hope...  Just when was the first time you were begotten by GOD? And when did you get unbegotten? Well, unless you are one of those earthly backslidden types, the only time such an un-begetting or rebellion could have taken place is prior to your conception since by that time you were already on the outs with Him. And since Peter is writing to the whole Church rather than to just the backslidden types, he must be referring to a pre-conception rebellion and the straying of HIS elect since the time of their election, which straying or rebellion ends only upon conversion to obedience unto holiness to that Shepherd, that is, upon being born in Christ (begotten) again on earth.
Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma: +1025/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2019, 07:11:50 pm »
Sooooo, he does not know everybody? WHo made you...your cells...
Blade

Ok, so you are not ready to express your own understanding of how He must know everyone yet He claims He does NOT know everyone... I assume we are in agreement that He is not a liar so I suggest that He must be using a metaphor somewhere in this topic of knowing.

KNOWING in Genesis 4:1 ESV  Now Adam KNEW Eve his wife, [NLT Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife...]   is obviously a metaphor, introducing the idea of intimate relations, the idea of a loving relationship, into the meaning of the word, to know. In Genesis 3:22  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, KNOWING good and evil. which uses the same word,  3045. yada: to know, the word is used to describe what is known without any hint of a loving intimate relationship...two uses for one word.


It is the difference of knowing as intimate loving a approval and a mere knowing about that is highlighted in my topic.

I suggest that when GOD is speaking of HIS foreknowledge of us HE is referring to an intimate and loving approval of us but when He claims to not know someone, He is claiming that there has never been an  intimate loving relationship between them, ie, He only knows about them with no love for them.

So whether HE created me, my spirit, and my body (which is not me)  is not the issue; it is whether we have a loving and intimate relationship with HIM.


I contend that this relationship started BEFORE we are born on earth because of some verses and things Peter told us...

Return means to go back to where you once were… 
1 Peter 2:25  For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now RETURNED unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.  Well, to return, one must have been there before, at least, according to the normal use of the word. Therefore, in this verse, it would be normal to infer that the sheep that had gone astray, were, at one time part of the Shepherd's flock but had strayed away from HIS care. Since I am sure that the Shepherd was not negligent, the straying away from HIS care must involve some rebellion. Therefore, it is normally obvious that Peter is writing to some apostatized (gone astray) Christians (people of the flock). It is also normally apparent that what he was writing is intended for every new convert in every age since we went astray.

Therefore, it seems normal that the Holy Spirit would have us believe that all of the Church has personally apostatized from Christ, from their intimate relationship with Him, prior to their conversion back to Him in this life. Since we are conceived as sinners, it is easy to see that we must have apostatized from Christ before our conception and that is why we are sinners at our birth.

I think that Peter bore added witness to this fact in 1 Peter 1:3  Blessed be the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ...which ...hath begotten us again unto a lively hope...  Just when was the first time you were begotten by GOD? And when did you get unbegotten? Well, unless you are one of those earthly backslidden types, the only time such an un-begetting or rebellion could have taken place is prior to your conception since by that time you were already on the outs with Him. And since Peter is writing to the whole Church rather than to just the backslidden types, he must be referring to a pre-conception rebellion and the straying of HIS elect since the time of their election, which straying or rebellion ends only upon conversion to obedience unto holiness to that Shepherd, that is, upon being born in Christ (begotten) again on earth.

Yes, GOD knows us all, He gives us our first breath for only His breath is the breath of life.   In Rome 9:11-12..(KJV)..Jesus elects whom He wants not according to their works but according to His glory and sovereignty.

Notice He told the mother the elder (Esau) should serve the younger. How does Jesus know this.

Because He knows everyone.

There are many verses showing that GOD knows everyone that He has intereacted with. Were all of them GOOD? NO, Abraham was into pagan rituals,

I could go on...Your going down the wrong path. GOD has the power to know everybody. Knowing them does not necessarily mean an "intimate " knowledge as your are trying to allude to thereby eliminating GOD from one side of the equation.

Your assumption are false and have no basis with which to rely on.

Blade


1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2019, 12:16:08 pm »
Your assumption are false and have no basis with which to rely on.
Blade


Rejecting the obvious difference between foreknowing and to know about just so you can reject the implications of PCE would seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face...a leap too far.
Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma: +1025/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2019, 07:06:08 pm »
Your assumption are false and have no basis with which to rely on.
Blade


Rejecting the obvious difference between foreknowing and to know about just so you can reject the implications of PCE would seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face...a leap too far.

ok, Ted,,,you seem to think that GOD had intimate knowledge of only those that HE elected and NO knowledge about those that were not elected...

NOW who is rejecting information I have given you (i.e. Jacob and Esau)....
One was elected and one was not. Yet, GOD knew all about Esau and what His life would be... Why do you think God hated Him.   

The problem with PCE is it is a fathom theology. One might look at it through Star Trek eyes.

One final word.... The Bible is true all the way through it... If one discrepancy.. the rest of the Bible is suspect and cannot be held to any higher level.  As to your arguments about what God's foreknowledge means, we should look at it in the same way. Jacob and Esau is just that discrepancy.

Blade
1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2019, 12:47:24 pm »
Rejecting the obvious difference between foreknowing and to know about just so you can reject the implications of PCE would seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face...a leap too far.

ok, Ted,,,you seem to think that GOD had intimate knowledge of only those that HE elected and NO knowledge about those that were not elected...
Your continued misrepresentation of my beliefs when I've corrected you so many times is edging into defamation.

I contend HE has total and perfect knowledge about the non-elect! I contend that HE does NOT have and never did have a loving relationship with them! Intimate does not mean full or complete so a lack of intimacy does NOT demand a lack of full knowledge of someone. Emotional intimacy involves feelings of liking or loving one or more people NOT a full and complete knowledge which can be had without intimacy!!! Of course HE had a full and complete knowledge of the non-elect - HE JUST DOES NOT LOVE THEM!

NOW who is rejecting information I have given you (i.e. Jacob and Esau)....
One was elected and one was not. Yet, GOD knew all about Esau and what His life would be... Why do you think God hated Him.
  You waste our time supposedly trying to teach me what I have told you is my position since this started!  Of course HE knew Jacob; he was elect! And GOD's prior knowing of HIM is called foreknowledge because it includes that GOD had a fondness and intimacy with him.

Of course HE knew Esau ! but HIS prior full knowledge of Esau is NOT called foreknowledge because there was no fondness nor intimacy between them, only hate as Esau was non-elect for rejecting HIM.




Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma: +1025/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2019, 06:15:26 pm »
Rejecting the obvious difference between foreknowing and to know about just so you can reject the implications of PCE would seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face...a leap too far.

ok, Ted,,,you seem to think that GOD had intimate knowledge of only those that HE elected and NO knowledge about those that were not elected...
Your continued misrepresentation of my beliefs when I've corrected you so many times is edging into defamation.

I contend HE has total and perfect knowledge about the non-elect! I contend that HE does NOT have and never did have a loving relationship with them! Intimate does not mean full or complete so a lack of intimacy does NOT demand a lack of full knowledge of someone. Emotional intimacy involves feelings of liking or loving one or more people NOT a full and complete knowledge which can be had without intimacy!!! Of course HE had a full and complete knowledge of the non-elect - HE JUST DOES NOT LOVE THEM!

NOW who is rejecting information I have given you (i.e. Jacob and Esau)....
One was elected and one was not. Yet, GOD knew all about Esau and what His life would be... Why do you think God hated Him.
  You waste our time supposedly trying to teach me what I have told you is my position since this started!  Of course HE knew Jacob; he was elect! And GOD's prior knowing of HIM is called foreknowledge because it includes that GOD had a fondness and intimacy with him.

Of course HE knew Esau ! but HIS prior full knowledge of Esau is NOT called foreknowledge because there was no fondness nor intimacy between them, only hate as Esau was non-elect for rejecting HIM.


The Bible does not say that so how can you know how GOD thinks. You seemed to know that the elect were with his love and the non-elect were without his love.

Here, is what we know from the Bible:

In the far reaches of time Before, God made a decision; A decision to predestinate something.  We now know that something was man.

How Jesus determined who to predestinate and who NOT to predestinate is unknown by all except HIM.

We do not KNOW!, We do not KNOW! the HOW and WHYs. We just know there are those that are elected (predestined) and there are those that are now.

Those who are Elected (predestined) received His Mercy.

Those who are NOT Elected (predestined) receive Justice!


Blade






1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2019, 12:12:54 pm »
Quote
How Jesus determined who to predestinate and who NOT to predestinate is unknown by all except HIM.

We do not KNOW!, We do not KNOW! the HOW and WHYs. We just know there are those that are elected (predestined) and there are those that are now.

Yes WE DO KNOW! HE has led some to an understanding of whom HE chose and why... Insulting me will not make that go away.
Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Bladerunner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Karma: +1025/-0
  • My Friend
  • Location: Tennessee, USA
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2019, 08:12:43 pm »
Quote
How Jesus determined who to predestinate and who NOT to predestinate is unknown by all except HIM.

We do not KNOW!, We do not KNOW! the HOW and WHYs. We just know there are those that are elected (predestined) and there are those that are now.

es WE DO KNOW! HE has led some to an understanding of whom HE chose and why... Insulting me will not make that go away.

An understanding.....How do one understand GOD. Rem, He has already told us we cannot understand HIM...To do that I guess you must have something special going on with HIM.

Blade


« Last Edit: September 21, 2019, 08:14:29 pm by Bladerunner »
1 Cor 15:3-4.."For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 17:11.."These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Misfits the Second:
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2019, 03:09:26 pm »
Quote
How Jesus determined who to predestinate and who NOT to predestinate is unknown by all except HIM.

We do not KNOW!, We do not KNOW! the HOW and WHYs. We just know there are those that are elected (predestined) and there are those that are now.

Yes WE DO KNOW! HE has led some to an understanding of whom HE chose and why... Insulting me will not make that go away.

An understanding.....How do one understand GOD. Rem, He has already told us we cannot understand HIM...To do that I guess you must have something special going on with HIM.
Blade


So, does the fulfillment of Hebrews 8:11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. come all at once as a world ranging miracle or in one small place and slowly growing into a realization of the truth by ALL?

Anyway, I guess we can know GOD after all...


1 John 2:27 And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His true and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught.
 
Philippians 3:15 All of us who are mature should embrace this point of view. And if you think differently about some issue, God will reveal this to you as well.

Nope, pretty ordinary...
Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Like Like x 1 View List

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
984 Views
Last post September 20, 2019, 06:36:04 pm
by Bladerunner

+-Recent Topics

Red Flag Gun Legislation - They Want Your Guns by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 10:31:48 pm

Does your doctrine/theology limit God? by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 10:26:00 pm

ROMANS 3:21 BUT NOW, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 10:14:18 pm

R U Ready To Leave?! by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:53:47 pm

Re: Politics Today by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:50:54 pm

WILL THE BODY OF CHRIST COME BACK WITH CHRIST AT HIS COMING? by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:41:20 pm

Re: Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:27:38 pm

Politics Today by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:26:34 pm

Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:23:33 pm

The Iran War 2019 by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:22:36 pm

PJ'S FLAT EARTH LIVE STREAMS ON YOUTUBE !!! by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:21:12 pm

Christianity Today Magazine - October 2019 by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:16:31 pm

Deep State Exposed - Project Veritas and More by Bladerunner
October 16, 2019, 09:07:39 pm

A Journey Thru Genesis by Olde Tymer
October 16, 2019, 07:38:35 am

Christ's Ways by Olde Tymer
October 15, 2019, 07:54:38 am

Your Favorite Music, Images and Memes by Bladerunner
October 14, 2019, 10:07:31 pm

Should Christians Celebrate Halloween? | Is Halloween a Pagan Holiday? by Bladerunner
October 14, 2019, 08:06:40 pm

Late Term Abortion Law by Bladerunner
October 11, 2019, 08:42:28 pm