Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[MrG]

Ok, Running a stop sign is transgression of the law, there for all transgression of the law is running a stop sin. Got it.

Im thinking about this over and over in my head and I see the problem.

Sin and Transgression are general terms that can be manifested in various different ways. Various things can be a sin, and various things can be a transgression, even if you dont accept that one is the other.

So its a general term is a general term in a sense.

So its like me saying all crime breaks the law, so therefore all breaking of the law is crime. In real life this is not 100% true but its closer to what I am saying to what you are as you are changing one side of the equation to being a specific thing and then playing it off against a general thing and then using it to make it sound like thats what I am saying.

This far from the case, I am saying that sin is transgression and transgression is sin.

I am not saying sin is adultery so adultery is all sin. I think you are merely making a strawman out my position, which still very much stands.

[mfbukowski]

Your logic is flawed. Sin, based upon the scriptural definition, is a transgression of the law. Therefore Sin is a subset of transgression of the law. But that leaves open the possibility that there are some transgressions of the law that are not sins. All sin is transgression, but that doesn't require that all transgressions are sins.

Yup again. One can kill in self defense- the law says "do not kill" but self defense is not a sin. There are exceptions to everything.

God himself commanded that people - whole races- be killed.

Arguably a miracle is a "transgression of the law" of nature. When these guys get locked into literalism, there is no end to the holes in their arguments- all you have to do is point out linguistic distinctions. As always it's in the definitions.

Edited August 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[MrG]

Im thinking about this over and over in my head and I see the problem.

Sin and Transgression are general terms that can be manifested in various different ways. Various things can be a sin, and various things can be a transgression, even if you dont accept that one is the other.

So its a general term is a general term in a sense.

So its like me saying all crime breaks the law, so therefore all breaking of the law is crime. In real life this is not 100% true but its closer to what I am saying to what you are as you are changing one side of the equation to being a specific thing and then playing it off against a general thing and then using it to make it sound like thats what I am saying.

This far from the case, I am saying that sin is transgression and transgression is sin.

I am not saying sin is adultery so adultery is all sin. I think you are merely making a strawman out my position, which still very much stands.

Also Romans 5:12 does say Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Are you just saying Eve transgressed and did not sin or both of them?

[mfbukowski]

Im thinking about this over and over in my head and I see the problem.

Sin and Transgression are general terms that can be manifested in various different ways. Various things can be a sin, and various things can be a transgression, even if you dont accept that one is the other.

So its a general term is a general term in a sense.

So its like me saying all crime breaks the law, so therefore all breaking of the law is crime. In real life this is not 100% true but its closer to what I am saying to what you are as you are changing one side of the equation to being a specific thing and then playing it off against a general thing and then using it to make it sound like thats what I am saying.

This far from the case, I am saying that sin is transgression and transgression is sin.

I am not saying sin is adultery so adultery is all sin. I think you are merely making a strawman out my position, which still very much stands.

What precisely is a "general term" and how does it differ from any other kind?

[MrG]

What precisely is a "general term" and how does it differ from any other kind?

As in a term that can encompass many things.

Crime can be lots of different crimes. To say you commited a crime can have many different outworkings

Theft is one crime.

[mfbukowski]

As in a term that can encompass many things.

Crime can be lots of different crimes. To say you commited a crime can have many different outworkings

Theft is one crime.

I see, yes, as "God" can cover many persons. Like a committee or council, or a family for that matter. Perhaps you are referring to collective nouns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun

Yet certainly not all transgressions of the law are sins, as I have detailed above. I am not even sure what kind of laws are being mentioned here to be transgressed.

[MrG]

I see, yes, as "God" can cover many persons. Like a committee or council, or a family for that matter. Perhaps you are referring to collective nouns.

http://en.wikipedia....Collective_noun

Yet certainly not all transgressions of the law are sins, as I have detailed above. I am not even sure what kind of laws are being mentioned here to be transgressed.

Im getting lost myself, I think its time for bed (UK) talk soon all.

(edit) also yes thanks for that, collective nouns sounds like the word I was after.

Edited August 12, 2013 by MrG

[mfbukowski]

Im getting lost myself, I think its time for bed (UK) talk soon all.

It's not tiredness, it's the belief that language can actually be precise in such abstract matters, and the belief that literalism makes things clear.

It does not- it simply makes one confused, just as you are now experiencing confusion.

[MrG]

It's not tiredness, it's the belief that language can actually be precise in such abstract matters, and the belief that literalism makes things clear.

It does not- it simply makes one confused, just as you are now experiencing confusion.

No im pretty sure im tired, but thanks!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As far as I understand it, God doesn't save everyone because He has to show justice (by damning a WHOLE bunch of people) so that the few who get saved recognize how merciful He is being to them.

It also appears, from what's been explained to me, that who get's saved/doesn't get saved is random-the saved people don't deserve it anymore than the unsaved ones, they just got lucky.

And according to Calvinism (if I'm understanding it correctly), the purpose of salvation is to bring more glory to God. Everything is all about Him.

What I still don't understand is why a God of love is o.k. sending billions of people to suffer beyond our imaginations for all of eternity--especially since He could have saved each one of them since it's ultimately His decision--just to make Himself more glorious.

Interesting. I will hope to get some validation from our friends. I think you are right and this seems to be the same things I have been told. But I just want to make sure before going on. You know the whole " let them tell us what they believe" instead of us telling them what we think they believe.

[Calm]

Not at all. Rather, the nature of love is a desire to share that love because the joy increases.

I told my husband while we were engaged that I didn't want him to love me because he needed me, but that he would love me because he wanted me.

There is a big difference and I can see this as applying to God as well...he wasn't lonely and had a wonderful, perfect existence but knew that life would still be even better, more perfect with someone to love in it.

However, I am not sure about the unchanging part.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Also Romans 5:12 does say Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Are you just saying Eve transgressed and did not sin or both of them?

Is it your position that little kids or babies are born sinners damned to hell? I should put it this way does being born = being damned to hell expect for those that God elects to save? The next part is that if a baby does die at say 1 day old and they are not the elect are they going to hell? Edited August 12, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Vance]

Also Romans 5:12 does say Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Are you just saying Eve transgressed and did not sin or both of them?

Eve transgressed, Adam transgressed, and by their transgression ("by one man") sin entered the world. That is what the scriptures say, no more, no less. No where (at least not in the KJV) does is call partaking of the fruit a sin, but there is no question that it was a transgression. Sin did not enter the world before they partook of the fruit, but entered the world because of (and therefore after???) their partaking of the fruit.

[urroner]

Several years ago, a Calvinist defended his belief that little babies who died immediately after drawing a single breath, were also damned to Hell simply because they were human and, he used Romans 5:12, therefore that child was a sinner, because the verse said "...for that all have sinned..." He went on to say that when the Bible uses the word "all," it means "all" or IOW everybody who has lived...period. The Bible said so.

So I asked him when did that baby sin before it died. Did it sin during the process of being born? Did it sin simply because it drew that single breath before it died? What law of God did it transgress? The only way he basically responded, IIRC, was to by using the tautology of "All means all, it means everybody who has ever lived."

So, I decided to look up at the use of the word "all" in the scriptures and found the word in the following scriptures:

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,

So all Judæa came out to see John the Baptist. Interesting. Did that include everybody, even all the sick and all the children who lived in Judæa....everybody. I don't think so, but I could be wrong.)

Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

So not only did

all

from Judæa come out to come unto him, but they

all

confessed their sins and

all

were baptized of him.

Acts 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

So Paul knew

all

the Jews. That's a lot of people to know, especially those he never met.

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

So when Luke said he had "

perfect understanding of all things from the very first

," is he saying that he had a

perfect understanding

of quantum dynamics or even a

perfect understanding

of God? Knowing

all things

is pretty tough, but to know it

all perfectly

is even harder.

So when the Bible says "all," does it mean "everybody?"

He did say that in that particular case it meant "everybody." I asked him for evidence that it meant what he said it meant. The only proof he offered was to say that the context was proof enough. IOW, his only proof was his own interpretation of it.

[Bernard Gui]

As it has been explained to me...God needs people to punish so the saved will give him praise.

This is the part I do not understand. It is not logical. Why do some have to be destroyed so that

others will give praise?

[urroner]

This is the part I do not understand. It is not logical. Why do some have to be destroyed so that

others will give praise?

What other reason could there be for God wanting to damn so many to Hell, in spite of what He says in Ezekiel 18:23

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

And then again in verse 32

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

I wonder what God is trying to tell us?

[urroner]

Wait, He says it again in Ezekiel 33:11

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I'm still confused.

[danielwoods]

So, God was/is always lonely?

Why did He wait forever before He started the creation? What changed Him? If He was always an "extravert", why did He wait forever before He created us?

Did he always have this "pleasure"? If so, why did he wait forever before he did the creation thing?

Why not just put that in their will to start with? Can't he make a free willed person that will choose him 100% of the time? Is his power limited to creating free willed people that ALWAYS fail him in some way?

IF NO ONE can please God, it seems OBVIOUS that the reason is God doesn't have the power to create a free willed individual that will choose him 100% of the time. So, God, apparently, IS limited to what he can do.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that he waited forever before creating us, nor do I think it's relevant.

As to why can't God make a free willed person that will choose him 100% of the time? Seems to me that doing as you described, is not creating free will, but a controlled will or a robot.

Creating a robot doesn't create a free will based love relationship.

[Calm]

a Calvinist defended his belief that little babies who died immediately after drawing a single breath

OTOH, we've also known a strong Calvinist who was willing to say that he hoped that the Lord somehow had offered his grace to infants who died in such a way or any other in their youth so that they would be saved, but he understood that there was no way to know for sure even in the case of his own child who had died as an infant and he accepted that as a harsh truth for him to bear though he also had hope by leaving in the hands of the Lord to judge who he would save and who he would damn.

I think one has to admire the faith of those who hold this belief even when it is painful for them to do so as opposed to those who are confident that they and their loved ones are saved so they don't have to worry about their salvation.

I still would like to know how one gains such assurances especially given examples like the daughter of Matt Slick....who I would assume everyone would have prior to her deconversion assume she was saved due to her deep devotion and involvement as a youth, but now she has rejected that faith....is she saved, was she saved, if not, why would someone be so confident that she was, etc.

I have known a few (very few thank goodness) individuals who have claimed they are saved and yet at least externally it does not appear that the Lord is working in their life to purify them...in fact they seem worse sinners than they were before they claimed to be saved.

[Calm]

As to why can't God make a free willed person that will choose him 100% of the time? Seems to me that doing as you described, is not creating free will, but a controlled will or a robot.

So wouldn't creating a free willed person that will not choose him 100% of the time be the same thing? Do you believe in total depravity as the two strong Calvinists have discussed or is this an issue you differ with them on. I can't remember if you've mentioned this one or not, sorry.

[danielwoods]

I told my husband while we were engaged that I didn't want him to love me because he needed me, but that he would love me because he wanted me.

There is a big difference and I can see this as applying to God as well...he wasn't lonely and had a wonderful, perfect existence but knew that life would still be even better, more perfect with someone to love in it.

However, I am not sure about the unchanging part.

Thanks. A breath of fresh air (reading your post).

Yes. There are many analogies in the Bible that describe our relationship to God as being similar to a marriage relationship.

[danielwoods]

So wouldn't creating a free willed person that will not choose him 100% of the time be the same thing? Do you believe in total depravity as the two strong Calvinists have discussed or is this an issue you differ with them on. I can't remember if you've mentioned this one or not, sorry.

Creating a free willed person that *will* not choose or *will* choose something, is antithetical to actually creating a *free* willed person. If God's goal was to share his love (that he already had among the trinity), then if it was not based on freedom it wouldn't be what he wanted, or satisfactory. Essentially creating a robot to love you doesn't really satisfy the desire or goal he was seeking.

As far as total depravity. Without referencing any specific scriptures, I agree with them generally, although I would describe the process a bit differently. To me, God works in us to draw us to himself, without us knowing he's doing that.

[bluebell]

Interesting. I will hope to get some validation from our friends. I think you are right and this seems to be the same things I have been told. But I just want to make sure before going on. You know the whole " let them tell us what they believe" instead of us telling them what we think they believe.

I completely agree. Even after all the explaining, I could still be getting these doctrines wrong.

[cdowis]

"How did evil exist if all of Creation was sustained by the mind of God?" Rachael Slick, a Christian turned atheist.

This is why I think that a created being by ex nihlo precludes free will. Free agency assumes the existence of a choice -- evil vs good. Her question is that if everything was created by God, where did it that choice for evil come into existence. Anger, hatred,lust, greed would also be part of the creation process ex nihlo.

Bottom line -- the concept of creation ex nihlo requires that God would be the creator of evil.

Edited August 13, 2013 by cdowis

[Vance]

Not sure where you're getting the idea that he waited forever before creating us, nor do I think it's relevant.

More of the simple logic stuff. If God has existed forever/eternity/infinite time, and if we have not, then God waited forever before He created us. He certainly did not create us near the beginning of "infinite" because there is no beginning of infinite.

As to why can't God make a free willed person that will choose him 100% of the time? Seems to me that doing as you described, is not creating free will, but a controlled will or a robot.

So God is incapable of creating a "free willed person" who will obey Him 100%. It looks like we have found another thing impossible for God to do.

Creating a robot doesn't create a free will based love relationship.

On this we can agree. And when you start with nothing, a robot is what you end up with. Creatio ex nihilo is a false doctrine. Edited August 13, 2013 by Vance