Oh, no doubt, simple it was. It is not too much for others to handle. It's just too disagreeable. Big difference. But my point was that God would not take you out before you took out someone any more than God would have taken out a Lutheran who decided to fornicate 1,000 times a day, as Luther said. You may wish it, and believed that God would not let you commit crime, but that just doesn't fit the reality on the ground.
[Who is "we?" The "elect?"] No, "we" are Bible-believing Christians who believe that the Great Commission was directed to us also
There were 11 remaining disciples, not of all whom believed, at the the Great Commission. Jesus gave it to them (presumably the believing ones) and they gave it to those whom they made their successors.
It seems to me that the "Bible-believeing Christians" believe something that's not in the Bible, namely that the Great Commission applied to every Tom, Dick and Harry who decided to preach.
And, none of us knows who the whole group of the elect are, but we CAN know about our individual selves
That is very reassuring FK. /sar/
But Paul tells us who "Israel" is, which includes Gentiles, as it was taught to him directly by Christ
No, the Bible says Paul and Barnabas went to the Gentiles because the Jews repudiated the word of God and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, so they turned to the Gentiles. [cf Act 13:46]
Jesus never taught that Israel included Gentiles to any of His disciples. It was a dire necessity for the Church to survive that led to the idea that the Gentiles are in the "club."
Besides, the word Gentile simply means "non-bliever." In the OT, even the non-believing Jews are referred to as goyim (Gentiles). Looked at it this way, all of humanity is potentially "Israel."
The elect are predestined to be saved (remember the different uses of the word "saved" within time?) which IS AS GOOD AS BEING saved
Then, how come Paul says "Let no one in any way deceive you" [2 Thes 2:3] and "[T]he Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons." [1 Tim 4]?
How can anyone "let" himself be deceived if he is predestined to be deceived? Is this not as good as being deceived? And how would you know either way?
And who will do the deceiving according to Paul? Well, it seems to me he pulls the OT card and says—God! "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false" [2 Thes 2:11]! Deluding influence is "different" from deception—how?
From the OT, we have "a spirit" [angel?] deceiving. Here is how it goes [my emphases]:
21 "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
22"The LORD said to him, 'How?' [sic] And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'
23"Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." [1 King 22:20-23]
I would be curious to hear what the Church has to say about St. Paul saying that God put deceiving spirits in the mouths of those He doesn't like, or is this one of those Pauline statements we never talk about?
Kosta: His purpose is to eternally torture those who had been condemned before they existed? What "God" is that? Baal?
Whenever I hear complaining like this I am forced to ask if you would prefer a God who treated us as we deserved to be treated?
How can you "deserve" to be treated either way if you are predestined to be pardoned or condemned before you even existed and "deserved" anything???
Given the Apostolic view of free will and non interference, what exactly do you say was God's intervention? That Jesus showed up and whatever happened, happened?
No, the Christians believe God intercedes on our behalf and rewards those whose will is in harmony with His wiill and their intentions are pure. We don't believe He forces us to commit acts by predestination and has already pronounced our sentence based on none of our doing.
God's intervention was one of extreme humility, that He became Incarnate and suffered and died so that He can offer Himself as ransom for our freedom (the NT is clear about that). In doing so, He freed mankind to come to God, if they so choose. He paid for us with Himself, so that we can be free. If we show ingratitude, that's our loss, and not because He wants to see us perish.
That's not much of an intervention
Well, that's between you and Him.
Of course God planned the Flood, He said so in no uncertain terms and planned for its aftermath
Of course He did, but it doesn't match the Reformed God formula because the Book says He was "sorry" for having made man. Did He not make man and predestined him to be wicked? So, why was He "sorry?" or "surprised?"
Nah, but one of my favorite Bible stories was when Elijah had fun toying with that god. :) That was hilarious
Sure, but nothing like Jacob wresting with God all night long and "winning!" That was hilarious too. In fact, all those legends are quite hilarious.
That wasn't the claim. The claim was that God would not let His elect sin SUCH THAT salvation would be lost. The claim is that we can reasonably infer this from scripture, as I have posted. No one says that the elect stop sinning after they are saved.
There were 11 remaining disciples, not of all whom believed, at the the Great Commission. Jesus gave it to them (presumably the believing ones) and they gave it to those whom they made their successors.
I think Jesus knew what would happen a scant few weeks later. The command was to all of them, as well as all of us. Again, the Apostolic view makes no sense. On the one hand, you say that God wants all to be saved. But on the other hand you say that only a tiny minority of people (clergy) are directed by God to carry the message. Many more would be reached and saved if the attitude was that Jesus was speaking to the laity as well.
It seems to me that the "Bible-believeing Christians" believe something that's not in the Bible, namely that the Great Commission applied to every Tom, Dick and Harry who decided to preach.
No, I've not seen any of us post anything like that. Bible-believing Christians believe that the Great Commission applies to everyone with true faith. That leaves out some who decide to preach.
Jesus never taught that Israel included Gentiles to any of His disciples. It was a dire necessity for the Church to survive that led to the idea that the Gentiles are in the "club."
Then either God erred or God needed Paul's help. I mean, if the Church had folded, would God have said "Oh well"? This is why it is so dangerous to presume that man is autonomous, as many Christians do. Man is always built up AT THE EXPENSE of God.
FK: "The elect are predestined to be saved (remember the different uses of the word "saved" within time?) which IS AS GOOD AS BEING saved."
Then, how come Paul says "Let no one in any way deceive you" [2 Thes 2:3] and "[T]he Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons." [1 Tim 4]?
Being deceived in no way means that one loses his salvation. I still sin so from time to time I am deceived. During the end times, many will "fall away from the faith", but that does not refer to individual believers. Rather, it refers to non-believers who are otherwise "good" people. We all know them. They appear to be moral people, appear to be "in the faith", who act similarly to us, but they do not in fact have faith. They are the ones who will turn to "deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons". Otherwise, God is a liar and His seal means nothing.
How can anyone "let" himself be deceived if he is predestined to be deceived? Is this not as good as being deceived? And how would you know either way?
It is an outward calling/teaching to instill proper attitude. "Watch out so that you don't sin", etc. These are all over the place. By following these we conform ourselves to the image of Christ. In no way do these mean that God is not in control.
And who will do the deceiving according to Paul? Well, it seems to me he pulls the OT card and says—God! "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false" [2 Thes 2:11]! Deluding influence is "different" from deception—how?
Paul is just saying that God will leave them to themselves. For instance:
Rom 1:26-27 : 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
We are all born into total depravity, so by observation we can see that God provides "some" measure of protection to all men, or all lost people would act in a totally depraved manner. If that protection is withdrawn, permanently or temporarily, then any sort of horrible thing can happen. Without God, men are incapable of seeing the light, so if God turns away then men WILL believe what is false.
FK: "Whenever I hear complaining like this I am forced to ask if you would prefer a God who treated us as we deserved to be treated?"
How can you "deserve" to be treated either way if you are predestined to be pardoned or condemned before you even existed and "deserved" anything???
All men are sinners and deserve hell. Period. God has predestined to save some, but not all, despite what they deserve.
No, the Christians believe God intercedes on our behalf and rewards those whose will is in harmony with His will and their intentions are pure. We don't believe He forces us to commit acts by predestination and has already pronounced our sentence based on none of our doing.
In what form does this intercession take without interference? I mean, if I and a non-believer were up for the same job, and God decided to reward me, then the other guy (who was more qualified) was interfered with. Or, does God never do something like this, thus making prayers of supplication moot? Or, does God just not interfere with salvation, but He interferes with everything else?
FK: "Of course God planned the Flood, He said so in no uncertain terms and planned for its aftermath."
Of course He did, but it doesn't match the Reformed God formula because the Book says He was "sorry" for having made man. Did He not make man and predestined him to be wicked? So, why was He "sorry?" or "surprised?"
We don't interpret that verse the way you do because it has God admitting a mistake. We don't think God makes mistakes, therefore the verse cannot mean what you assert it means. He meant "sorry" in the sense of "it's a shame that happened". It was nevertheless part of His plan. I'm sure He was "sorry" about the crucifixion too, but that was also a part of His plan.