Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Calm]

PS: I used to live for doing proofs in my math classes and I have to say that Logic was one of my favourite classes in college. Combined that with my training in psychology...well, I think you can tell where my nitpicking on this thread is coming from, I hope it is more entertaining than annoying.

[jwhitlock]

But he set up the restrictions and caused them to occur. We see this as a free act because we assume we are freely moral beings, though this is an article of faith. (since even if we are eternal beings we could be such that we are purely mechanistic and have no actual choice, only believe we have such). What if our assumptions are wrong and we had no choice?

I see this kind of argument above as being much the same as you are applying to daniel's. He believes in some fashion that God is able to create a free moral being, he doesn't understand the mechanics but accepts it on faith.

You are accepting on faith that you know enough about what a perfect being can do that you can determine logically what a perfect being can't do...at least in this instance.

I see two arguments based on different assumptions that are both internally logical and coherent, but either may be invalid if the assumptions can be demonstrated to be wrong. I don't see that being possible with either though at this time based on our imperfect knowledge of what perfection and creation means and entails.

I can, however, address specifics of my assumptions. You are correct in that ultimately we don't understand all the underlying sources, but I can try to understand what the other party really means when they talk about certain terms such as perfection and omnipotence. I do not think I have based my understanding on something they don't believe; I've questioned a number of people in some detail about what those terms mean, and the results are that they are rather absolute and without restrictions. Maybe you have other information that contradicts that; if so, I'd like to see it. My impression is that most non-LDS christians shy quickly away from anything that calls any aspect of God's perfection or omnipotence into question.

Again, if my foundational assumptions contain logical inconsistencies, I'm glad for anyone to point them out. I think it would be difficult to claim a logical inconsistency in the concept of an eternal existence of some part of us outside of God's control. You have suggested some additional attributes that are assumptions that might make it inconsistent, but if I don't apply those assumptions, I'm left with a pretty consistent set of beliefs.

On the other hand, daniel's foundational assumptions do present some contradictions that aren't easily resolved, if at all. Those contradictions are dismissed by saying, in effect, that God can do anything (using the with God nothing is impossible scripture as the rationalization). Yet it is clear that a literal interpretation of that scripture directly contradicts other scriptures.

All I really need to understand about God as a perfect and omnipotent being is whether non-LDS christians place any limitations or restrictions on God's perfection or omnipotence. If they do, then let us know. If they don't, then it's pretty clear I understand pretty well the level of perfection we're really talking about here.

[jwhitlock]

Again this seems to be based on a definition of perfection that cannot be demonstrated, but must be accepted on faith.

What if perfection is the sum of the whole, not the individual parts of it?

A perfect circle is only perfect in its completeness. Each of its parts contributes to its perfection as a circle but are not perfect circles themselves.

Then that implies that the attributes of God are imperfect in and of themselves. That raises the question of whether imperfect parts and attributes can be combined to make something perfect.

[jwhitlock]

I would agree, but I don't see how that impacts the concept that a perfect being could create something imperfect...at the very least in the sense of being incomplete.

Why couldn't God create a half circle? You may say it is a perfect half circle, but it is still incomplete if viewed in the context of a circle and not what it is itself. Couldn't we therefore say that God could therefore create the perfect example of an imperfect moral being?

When we get into completeness and wholeness, we're moving into LDS doctrine and out of orthodox christianity.

IIRC, orthodox christianity addresses specifically the concept that God cannot be divided.

[jwhitlock]

PS: I used to live for doing proofs in my math classes and I have to say that Logic was one of my favourite classes in college. Combined that with my training in psychology...well, I think you can tell where my nitpicking on this thread is coming from, I hope it is more entertaining than annoying.

I program computers for a living and so I have to at least somewhat logical in my thinking. Combine that with the philosophy courses I took in which everything was questioned, and the result is that I tend to be very focused on cause and effect in the way I approach things. If this, then that, and so on.

[3DOP]

I know I am late to the game. But one can believe in predestination, as do I, while rejecting all of the five points of Calvinism.

[Calm]

I've questioned a number of people in some detail about what those terms mean, and the results are that they are rather absolute and without restrictions. Maybe you have other information that contradicts that; if so, I'd like to see it. My impression is that most non-LDS christians shy quickly away from anything that calls any aspect of God's perfection or omnipotence into question.

Just personal experience in personal discussions so I am sorry I can't point to some treatise on it. I would agree that most nonLDS Christians have as one of the assumptions that God is omnipotent, etc. but my experience is that they either when pressed state that they accept that on faith but that they do not know what it really means (it is a mystery is how some describe it) or they say they haven't really thought about it much, will need to do some studying on it and will get back to me...if they do, the conversation still boils down in my opinion to "it is a mystery"...but most do when taken to the very end...or rather the beginning, I guess.

[jwhitlock]

It's late, and I'm done for the night. I'll catch up on the next 100 posts tomorrow sometime.

[Calm]

IIRC, orthodox christianity addresses specifically the concept that God cannot be divided.

And I would really like to know what this means....I haven't yet been satisfied with a discussion on this aspect of God.

[Calm]

It's late, and I'm done for the night. I'll catch up on the next 100 posts tomorrow sometime.

Thank goodness...I am exhausted and starving.

[Calm]

I know I am late to the game. But one can believe in predestination, as do I, while rejecting all of the five points of Calvinism.

Blast it...I will have to go find a second wind somewhere now....or perhaps I will just read what you have to say if you have more commentary and let my mind percolate over night about it.

[Calm]

I program computers for a living and so I have to at least somewhat logical in my thinking. Combine that with the philosophy courses I took in which everything was questioned, and the result is that I tend to be very focused on cause and effect in the way I approach things. If this, then that, and so on.

That helps seeing where you are coming from.

[danielwoods]

I get that there is likely some fundamental difference on what essence is such that I may not understand how you perceive it, but agree that if we can get this far, it might be a good place to stop. Now I doubt that Vance agrees, but he is approaching the discussion from a different vantage so that isn't going to bother me.

Which means to me there is really nothing to argue about, I don't have to accept your articles of faith as binding on me, you don't have to accept mine as binding on you, neither of us have to accept them as logical or naturally following from whatever such that everyone has to agree on it...we all have articles of faith on which our faith is based that we can't really explain.

I would definitely agree.

Thanks so much!

Edited to Add:

Cal, how much do I owe you? Whew! I got tired just reading through all that. Thanks for your many thoughts.

I take it as axiomatic, that if a being is created with free will, then that being has the ability to choose good or evil. If God (being perfect) creates another with free will, then the same is true. IF the assumption is that God must be responsible for the choices of that person, then that person must not have had free will in the first place.

The same principles would apply no matter if they are created from nothing, or procreated by nature, or what have you?

Edited August 9, 2013 by danielwoods

[djholmess]

This is one of the things that confuses me. Doesn't the doctrine of irresistible grace imply that humans have no choice in the matter (when it comes to salvation)?

Sorry to keep asking these questions of you when I know you aren't a five point Calvinist, so hopefully those who are will also respond.

Quite the opposite Bluebell. Calvinists believe humans make choices on the matter of God and salvation all the time-every second in fact. The problem is not that humans are not able to make choices, Calvinists believe that the biblical presentation of man is that he is so wicked (total depravity) that he is continually choosing against God every day. Irrestible grace is when God in his mercy reaches into the hearts of his elect and takes out the heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh enabling them to see his beauty and trust him.

Regarding your previous question about why God doesn't choose to save all. If you read my previous post about the 'two extra' points of calvinism I mentioned that God's ultimate purpose in all he does is to display the greatness of his glory. That includes his love, mercy grace but also justice. If we were to only see Gods loving side we would not be seeing the fullness of God. Gods purpose in creation is to display all of his attributes not just his love. And as many Calvinists have pointed out Gods love and mercy shine more brightly against the backdrop of Gods justice and wrath.

This may seem very harsh. Especially from a LDS perspective, the different views of God we hold; (and I'm simplifying here) transcendent God who has eternally been God unchanging and is of a totally different nature to man vs a God who is like us to the extent that we can become Gods as he is-we share the same nature and potential, makes it seem so. If God was like the LDS presentation then that God and Calvinism would be incompatible. It would not be just for a God who is of the same nature and potential as humanity to put his own glory above all of humanity.

At the end of the day Calvinists would point to Romans 9 where Paul anticipates an objection to his teaching on election (why God chooses to same some and not others). Talking about Gods right to show mercy to whomever he wills and to harden whomever he wills Paul anticipates the human objection

V19

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

If it is ultimately God who decides to show mercy to some and justice to others then you might think it harsh and unfair, who can resist Gods will? Paul's answer is telling.

V20

But who are you, O Man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Paul doesn't try to say to the objection something like, "oh sorry you have misunderstood me, of course God is love he wouldn't do anything like that." Rather Paul first points out the massive difference between Man and God-who is man that he thinks he can find fault in the ways God does things?

Notice then the rest of Paul's explainations for why God does things this way. God desires to show his wrath and make known his power and the ultimate purpose is to show the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy he had prepared beforehand (predestination language there) for glory.

[urroner]

As I skim this thread, I see lots of thoughts about predestination vs. foreknowledge, if God is responsible for our actions or if we are, if God set out to create a perfect circle and created a perfect half-circle on the first try, but doing so on the second try (Cal, is that anything like His setting out to create the perfect creation and creating Adam, but creating the woman on the second try?), and then there was the subthread of ex nihilism vs free will. All interesting subjects, except for the circle/half circle discussion, we all know that the Lord created the perfect circle on the first attempt, but was so tired afterward that He only could create the half-circle or woman, but that is for another discussion, one that I will formally excuse myself from since I really am trying to find some woman foolish enough to marry me.

But in all seriousness, I think the question we need to be asking ourselves has only been briefly approached in this thread and that was when somebody mentioned God not being divisible, and like Cal asked and I agree with her, when she said "What does that mean?"

I have heard many Evangelicals/Calvinists/Biblical/Fundamental/Historical Christians said that God is complete and needs nothing outside of Himself. He is completely self-contained and needs no external stimulation. He lacks nothing and needs nothing. If those concepts are true, absolutely true, then

• Why did He create anything?
  
• Did He have a need to create something external to Him?
  
• What purpose does He have to eternally subject any of His creations to indescribable pain and suffering?
  
• What purpose does He have to eternally subject any of His creations to indescribable joy and happiness?
  

I believe that because of the above questions, it has become very difficult to reason that God is totally self-contained and needs no external stimulation, rather it is seems to me that He has a reason for any of His actions and that is His need/desire to express His perfect love to His imperfect creations, which brings up another questionL

• Why would a perfect/omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent being create anything that had imperfections, so, what, in the long run, is the purpose of this mortal life? Why couldn't God just simply just have us skip this life and just create us in our final places of residence, Heaven or Hell?
  

Like jwhitlock, I do programming. There are two types of testing on the final product, those being verification and validation.. Verification is when the final product is tested against the requirements we were given to produce the product. Validation is when the product is tested against what the customer wanted. Verification is building the right thing, validation is building the thing right.

Bear with me here, if I'm given a requirement to include in the product, there are usually many, many different ways of meeting that requirement, but which of those ways is the way the customer wants. Meeting the requirements involves more that just meeting the requirements.

So, to make the customer happy, or as happy as possible, we need to learn what the customer plans to do with the finished product and that means we need to learn who the customer is and that often means we get to know the customer. Given this, and maybe I'm over-analyzing the problem, but if God is incomprehensible and His ways are impenetrable, then what is the purpose of this life?

If there is nothing we can do in this life to help determine our final destination, then this life has neither meaning nor purpose IMO.

I understand grace (I could never understand Astaire) and the need for it, because when the carpet is worn down and it comes down to brass thumbtacks, God is the customer and it would be awesome to know what He plans on doing with the final product, OIW, what is our purpose in the eternities? That is the question we need to asking ourselves.

BTW, we will "fail" the verification test, we cannot meet all the requirements, but with grace, we will pass the validation test and that's the important test.

Edited August 9, 2013 by urroner

[LordUther]

This is a very understandable question. As someone who considers himself a Calvinist I believe that all people who come to faith in Christ do so because God has drawn them first (John 6:44) so yes the argument could be raised why witness at all.

The reason is simple, more than being a calvinist I am a Bible believing Christian, the same Bible that I believe teaches this doctrine also teaches that I should share my faith with others. That means that the means God uses to draw people to Himself is His people sharing the gospel (though not always) I can be confident in my witnessing that some may well respond and I dont have to be reliant upon my own clarity of speech etc (though the clearer the better) An excellent Biblical example of this is in Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Of course there are some that take this too far and decide not to witness to people, these are hyper calvinists. I feel this is an unbiblical position.

A fair point but in all the links, websites, YouTube clips, photos etc that you've posted not once have I sen the gospel of Jesus Christ shared by you. All I have seen is you pointing out the faults of other religions, not sharing the gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is this, God has a plan, we live in sin & Jesus came to rescue us from that sin. He did that by being a sacrifice for sin. That He lived died & was resurrected that we might return to God. That's it in its entirety, everything else is secondary to that message. Not once while I was sharing the Gospel did I sit down with my investigator & point out all the defects & faults of their current belief system, all I did was share the message I had to share & invite them to find out if what I was saying was true. I did this by asking them to seek God and seek a spiritual witness from Him as to the truth of what I spake.

Now you maybe a lot more polite than the usual 'anti' ministries that I have come across, I haven't seen you going up to anyone & screaming in their face "you're going to hell!!" like I had happen to me quite regularly when I was wearing that black name badge, but I have yet to see where you're ministering for Jesus rather than ministering against another's church. If the purpose of your ministry is to be a tool for God to use to bring those that he has elected to be saved to come unto him then surely just presenting the message of the gospel would be enough for the Spirit to work on them and call them home, and away from their false beliefs. Those who aren't predestined to be saved, won't be moved by the Spirit, and will either harden their hearts or fall away further from God, surely this then becomes a wasted effort on your part. How many people walk past your tables because they feel the spirit of contention rather than the spirit of God?

[MrG]

A fair point but in all the links, websites, YouTube clips, photos etc that you've posted not once have I sen the gospel of Jesus Christ shared by you. All I have seen is you pointing out the faults of other religions, not sharing the gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is this, God has a plan, we live in sin & Jesus came to rescue us from that sin. He did that by being a sacrifice for sin. That He lived died & was resurrected that we might return to God. That's it in its entirety, everything else is secondary to that message. Not once while I was sharing the Gospel did I sit down with my investigator & point out all the defects & faults of their current belief system, all I did was share the message I had to share & invite them to find out if what I was saying was true. I did this by asking them to seek God and seek a spiritual witness from Him as to the truth of what I spake.

Now you maybe a lot more polite than the usual 'anti' ministries that I have come across, I haven't seen you going up to anyone & screaming in their face "you're going to hell!!" like I had happen to me quite regularly when I was wearing that black name badge, but I have yet to see where you're ministering for Jesus rather than ministering against another's church. If the purpose of your ministry is to be a tool for God to use to bring those that he has elected to be saved to come unto him then surely just presenting the message of the gospel would be enough for the Spirit to work on them and call them home, and away from their false beliefs. Those who aren't predestined to be saved, won't be moved by the Spirit, and will either harden their hearts or fall away further from God, surely this then becomes a wasted effort on your part. How many people walk past your tables because they feel the spirit of contention rather than the spirit of God?

A fair point but in all the links, websites, YouTube clips, photos etc that you've posted not once have I sen the gospel of Jesus Christ shared by you. All I have seen is you pointing out the faults of other religions, not sharing the gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is this, God has a plan, we live in sin & Jesus came to rescue us from that sin. He did that by being a sacrifice for sin. That He lived died & was resurrected that we might return to God. That's it in its entirety, everything else is secondary to that message. Not once while I was sharing the Gospel did I sit down with my investigator & point out all the defects & faults of their current belief system, all I did was share the message I had to share & invite them to find out if what I was saying was true. I did this by asking them to seek God and seek a spiritual witness from Him as to the truth of what I spake.

Now you maybe a lot more polite than the usual 'anti' ministries that I have come across, I haven't seen you going up to anyone & screaming in their face "you're going to hell!!" like I had happen to me quite regularly when I was wearing that black name badge, but I have yet to see where you're ministering for Jesus rather than ministering against another's church. If the purpose of your ministry is to be a tool for God to use to bring those that he has elected to be saved to come unto him then surely just presenting the message of the gospel would be enough for the Spirit to work on them and call them home, and away from their false beliefs. Those who aren't predestined to be saved, won't be moved by the Spirit, and will either harden their hearts or fall away further from God, surely this then becomes a wasted effort on your part. How many people walk past your tables because they feel the spirit of contention rather than the spirit of God?

Thanks for this, I think I would have to suggest here that you have not looked too hard, I very much state Christian belief here, here and here for starters. In fact everything we do leads to the stating of the Biblical standpoint in relation to the Mormon one. However much of my ministry is unashamedly geared towards Mormons and equipping Christians to speak to Mormons, so you will see a lot about Mormonism in there.

Lots of people may walk past us but its not because of any spirit of contention. However in my mind when witnessing to religious people already convinced of the truthfullness of their belief system you dont get very far unless you show that they need to hear what you have to say. My ministry focuses a lot more on theological issues rather than historical problems in Mormonism for the reason that we want people to come to faith in Christ rather than lose all faith to Atheism as so many ex Mormons do.

[bluebell]

Quite the opposite Bluebell. Calvinists believe humans make choices on the matter of God and salvation all the time-every second in fact. The problem is not that humans are not able to make choices, Calvinists believe that the biblical presentation of man is that he is so wicked (total depravity) that he is continually choosing against God every day.

Why is man totally depraved? Did God make him that way?

Irrestible grace is when God in his mercy reaches into the hearts of his elect and takes out the heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh enabling them to see his beauty and trust him.

Ok, thanks for explaining.

Regarding your previous question about why God doesn't choose to save all. If you read my previous post about the 'two extra' points of calvinism I mentioned that God's ultimate purpose in all he does is to display the greatness of his glory. That includes his love, mercy grace but also justice. If we were to only see Gods loving side we would not be seeing the fullness of God. Gods purpose in creation is to display all of his attributes not just his love. And as many Calvinists have pointed out Gods love and mercy shine more brightly against the backdrop of Gods justice and wrath.

So, He chooses to create mankind, and then send billions of His creations to suffer horrible things for all of eternity just to prove that He can?

This may seem very harsh.

It does.

Especially from a LDS perspective, the different views of God we hold; (and I'm simplifying here) transcendent God who has eternally been God unchanging and is of a totally different nature to man vs a God who is like us to the extent that we can become Gods as he is-we share the same nature and potential, makes it seem so. If God was like the LDS presentation then that God and Calvinism would be incompatible. It would not be just for a God who is of the same nature and potential as humanity to put his own glory above all of humanity.

I agree that our different views of God do impact how we each look at this doctrine, but I have to admit that I'm having trouble seeing how Calvinism is just under any concept of God. Maybe I'm not understanding your point of view correctly.

At the end of the day Calvinists would point to Romans 9 where Paul anticipates an objection to his teaching on election (why God chooses to same some and not others). Talking about Gods right to show mercy to whomever he wills and to harden whomever he wills Paul anticipates the human objection

V19

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

If it is ultimately God who decides to show mercy to some and justice to others then you might think it harsh and unfair, who can resist Gods will? Paul's answer is telling.

V20

But who are you, O Man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

Paul doesn't try to say to the objection something like, "oh sorry you have misunderstood me, of course God is love he wouldn't do anything like that." Rather Paul first points out the massive difference between Man and God-who is man that he thinks he can find fault in the ways God does things?

Notice then the rest of Paul's explainations for why God does things this way. God desires to show his wrath and make known his power and the ultimate purpose is to show the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy he had prepared beforehand (predestination language there) for glory.

If I interpreted that chapter the way that Calvinists do then I suppose I can understand where some of the points of Calvinism comes from.

LDS generally believe that chapter is referring to the House of Israel and how they were foreordained from before the earth was created to "receive the adoption, covenants, promises, and blessings of the gospel." Of course, the chapter, in my belief, goes on to state that not all Israel will receive such--each must seek the blessing through faith--and that the Gentiles also have equal access to seek such blessings.

[MrG]

This is a true inquiry, so please do not take offense.

1st an observation...In my years as a Latter-day Saint (34 years) I have never met, nor had conversations be they in person or on the Internet in anti-Mormon (your words) who were not Calvinist. Can you tell why this is the case. I will of course allow for the 2%'I have talked with, "not" knowing?

Now the question...Of course some above in the observation.

Anti-Mormon's often speak of the elitism of Mormonism, how God only allows the faithful to enter into his presence. This is course is not true via D&C 137 and even the causal observer can see it. How can a Calvinist claim some other belief system as being elite, when the very definition is that Calvinist's alone are the chosen?

To Mormons or even to the Baptist Church in which I was raised this is a direct conflict with John 3: 16, in short Christ died for all and all can chose him. The Bible is clear that Christ was lifted upon the cross that he might lead "all" men unto him. Just as the serpent was lifted up that "all" who will look upon it and be healed.

Edit to add...

This world also mean that you are seeking the change of all Mormons or even entire families of one you may reach but the chosen with that family. When I say "you", I speak of all Calvinist's.

This is a true inquiry, so please do not take offense.

1st an observation...In my years as a Latter-day Saint (34 years) I have never met, nor had conversations be they in person or on the Internet in anti-Mormon (your words) who were not Calvinist. Can you tell why this is the case. I will of course allow for the 2%'I have talked with, "not" knowing?

Now the question...Of course some above in the observation.

Anti-Mormon's often speak of the elitism of Mormonism, how God only allows the faithful to enter into his presence. This is course is not true via D&C 137 and even the causal observer can see it. How can a Calvinist claim some other belief system as being elite, when the very definition is that Calvinist's alone are the chosen?

To Mormons or even to the Baptist Church in which I was raised this is a direct conflict with John 3: 16, in short Christ died for all and all can chose him. The Bible is clear that Christ was lifted upon the cross that he might lead "all" men unto him. Just as the serpent was lifted up that "all" who will look upon it and be healed.

Edit to add...

This world also mean that you are seeking the change of all Mormons or even entire families of one you may reach but the chosen with that family. When I say "you", I speak of all Calvinist's.

Hi there, thats interesting about the large amount of "Anti Mormons" being calvinists. For the record its not really a term I use, I just know how often it gets used in Mormon circles and it doesnt really bother me so I was just being a bit tongue in cheek.

I do know some Christians who seek to reach out to Mormons that are not calvinist, however I think the majority are. Maybe they have more confidence that they may see some kind of a response than others will. As if you are a calvinist you can never know who will respond or not but you can have more confidence that someone will as you can believe that God will not put you somewhere around certain people for nothing.

I believe that those that are chosen are not so because of anything great or "elite" about them. Its just purely because it was Gods good pleasure to do so.

Romans 9:11-16

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;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

It was not because of anything that Jacob or Esau did that caused God to choose one and not the other but simply Gods will in election. in v16 we see its not because of will or efforts but simply God who shows mercy.

Taking a quick look at John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So the question is, who are the whosoevers, John 6 helps is with this a lot.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jesus explains that some have seen Him and do not believe by saying that all The Father gives Him will come to Him,

v44 says

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This is the I of Tulip, irresistible grace in action. John 3:16 does not negate this as it clearly states that its those that believe that are saved, Gods love of the whole world is expressed in election.

Everything exists for thr glory of God, He is free to do whatever He wants with is.

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Do you agree with this?

[MrG]

Why is man totally depraved? Did God make him that way?

Ok, thanks for explaining.

So, He chooses to create mankind, and then send billions of His creations to suffer horrible things for all of eternity just to prove that He can?

It does.

I agree that our different views of God do impact how we each look at this doctrine, but I have to admit that I'm having trouble seeing how Calvinism is just under any concept of God. Maybe I'm not understanding your point of view correctly.

If I interpreted that chapter the way that Calvinists do then I suppose I can understand where some of the points of Calvinism comes from.

LDS generally believe that chapter is referring to the House of Israel and how they were foreordained from before the earth was created to "receive the adoption, covenants, promises, and blessings of the gospel." Of course, the chapter, in my belief, goes on to state that not all Israel will receive such--each must seek the blessing through faith--and that the Gentiles also have equal access to seek such blessings.

Why is man totally depraved? Did God make him that way?

Ok, thanks for explaining.

So, He chooses to create mankind, and then send billions of His creations to suffer horrible things for all of eternity just to prove that He can?

It does.

I agree that our different views of God do impact how we each look at this doctrine, but I have to admit that I'm having trouble seeing how Calvinism is just under any concept of God. Maybe I'm not understanding your point of view correctly.

If I interpreted that chapter the way that Calvinists do then I suppose I can understand where some of the points of Calvinism comes from.

LDS generally believe that chapter is referring to the House of Israel and how they were foreordained from before the earth was created to "receive the adoption, covenants, promises, and blessings of the gospel." Of course, the chapter, in my belief, goes on to state that not all Israel will receive such--each must seek the blessing through faith--and that the Gentiles also have equal access to seek such blessings.

Romans 9:24 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

[MrG]

I dont know how I keep quoting people twice sorry about that

[LordUther]

Thanks for this, I think I would have to suggest here that you have not looked too hard, I very much state Christian belief here, here and here for starters. In fact everything we do leads to the stating of the Biblical standpoint in relation to the Mormon one. However much of my ministry is unashamedly geared towards Mormons and equipping Christians to speak to Mormons, so you will see a lot about Mormonism in there.

Lots of people may walk past us but its not because of any spirit of contention. However in my mind when witnessing to religious people already convinced of the truthfullness of their belief system you dont get very far unless you show that they need to hear what you have to say. My ministry focuses a lot more on theological issues rather than historical problems in Mormonism for the reason that we want people to come to faith in Christ rather than lose all faith to Atheism as so many ex Mormons do.

A fair point but to me it sounds like you're relying on the arm of man rather than the arm of God. Now according to your predestination doctrine, if a man has been chosen to be saved, the will of God cannot be thwarted in this. This man will saved, and that the Holy Spirit will call to them in such a way that they will be called to Church of Christ and will find atonement in His blood, why do you ned to show them anything? To quote the wiki article, it's the only source of reference I have)

"Irresistible grace," also called "efficacious grace", asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."

This seems to teach that there's no need to convince anybody of anything but that the Spirit will call to those who are chosen to be saved & they will come.

[MrG]

A fair point but to me it sounds like you're relying on the arm of man rather than the arm of God. Now according to your predestination doctrine, if a man has been chosen to be saved, the will of God cannot be thwarted in this. This man will saved, and that the Holy Spirit will call to them in such a way that they will be called to Church of Christ and will find atonement in His blood, why do you ned to show them anything? To quote the wiki article, it's the only source of reference I have)

This seems to teach that there's no need to convince anybody of anything but that the Spirit will call to those who are chosen to be saved & they will come.

A fair point but to me it sounds like you're relying on the arm of man rather than the arm of God. Now according to your predestination doctrine, if a man has been chosen to be saved, the will of God cannot be thwarted in this. This man will saved, and that the Holy Spirit will call to them in such a way that they will be called to Church of Christ and will find atonement in His blood, why do you ned to show them anything? To quote the wiki article, it's the only source of reference I have)

This seems to teach that there's no need to convince anybody of anything but that the Spirit will call to those who are chosen to be saved & they will come.

You can take it there if you want to ignore much else that the Bible says. It says reach people so therefore God must enjoy drawing people by His Spirit in response to the gospel being preached.

Acts 13:

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Here that is in action.

Gods will is not thwarted, as its God that wills things to happen, He is totally free to do as He wills with us by whatever means He wants too.

My ultimate reliance and trust is in God to do as He wills with the people I come into contact with, that does not mean however that I do not do things as well as I can as I want God to be honoured in all that I do.

[stemelbow]

Since God didn't design our choices we do have the freedom to choose.

Essentially what you are saying is God can't create a free will being out of nothing. I disagree.

I don't think what you have claimed above can be possible given the premise of your beliefs.

Your decision to type a post was already made before you were created. It must have been--given the premises of your beliefs. God afterall knew each and everything you would do and think before it happened. Your very interaction with me, if we can call it that, is not original to you, it's origin is in God's conception, given the premises of your beliefs. How so? As it is, He knew this exact interaction would take place and knew the very words you would use to interact before you were ever created.

There simply is no free will there. But, as I said, everyone is entitled to call a potato and platypus if one wants.

[LordUther]

You can take it there if you want to ignore much else that the Bible says. It says reach people so therefore God must enjoy drawing people by His Spirit in response to the gospel being preached.

Acts 13:

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Here that is in action.

Gods will is not thwarted, as its God that wills things to happen, He is totally free to do as He wills with us by whatever means He wants too.

My ultimate reliance and trust is in God to do as He wills with the people I come into contact with, that does not mean however that I do not do things as well as I can as I want God to be honoured in all that I do.

Well, first the in the context of that scripture, the Christian message was only known in a tiny corner of the world, so even by calvinist doctrine there would needs be a missionary effort, but the Gospel is widely known here in the western world, so is that ministry really necessary by your doctrine? But tbh I'm not saying that your ideas preclude ministerial work, I just don't see why they would need to point out the supposed fallacies of another's belief system. In my mind if someone has a message and by sharing that message you have to point out the flaws in another's message it shows a lack of confidence in your message. When I went out all I did was say "this is my message, this is why I believe that, this is how you can find out it's true". If I came across a Baptist, Catholic or Methodist I never said "well this is what you believe, this is why you're wrong & this is the truth".