Posted on 06/16/2002 1:42:58 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
Thank you, but do you think this wording might be better?:
So you have two choices, ftD:
[1] God has the perogative to elect (make) some in man's race for a noble purpose and elect (make) others for a common purpose.
[2] God allowed each man to say whether he would allow God the perogative to make him for a noble purpose or for a common purpose.
Then you must also consider the ones who, through no fault of their own, have no say, ie: the unborn who died in the womb, and various incompetents.
Are all who "have no say" (unable to "make a choice") consigned to hell?
Or, will even one of them be in heaven?
How many innocents drew their last breath of water in the flood? Scripture says they were "destroyed". Did Noah tell the whole world that they should come with him into the ark? God gave him the dimensions before he started building, by that building he condemned the world. There was no provision for anyone but Noah and his family, there was no law among men to disobey at that time so how did they deserve destruction never having been given an opportunity to be saved?
Same sand..same players, same conditions..
On one side are the ones that think Dad is REALLY in charge...and on the others those that like to pretend he is to make him feel good...
Thanks for the welcome..I have a new OS..and I am trying to figure it out some:>) New toy for the sand box:>))
Well, if you want the two schools of thought approach, There is what Scripture teaches: that man can make a choice and then there is what Calvinism teaches.
drstevej, in post #12, put it the way you did (where God tells man): "Okay, have it your way -- you decide if you will allow me to save you." Notice: drstevej wrote: "[2] The Clay is the only one who decides what the Potter must do with the clay, the Potter says -- have it your way." I responded: "Of course those who embrace that school of thought will have to answer God's question (through Paul) here: "Does not the potter *have the right* to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? ...who are you, O man to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this?" [Romans 9: 11-24]
See my previous post about this nonsense about the potter and clay analogy.
That passage is referring to the nation of Israel, not individual salvation.
But what Calvinist will give up his favorite proof text for the truth?
So you have two choices, ftD: [1] God elected (made) some in man's race for a noble purpose and elected (made) others for a common purpose. [2] God allowed each man to say whether he would allow God to make him for a noble purpose or for a common purpose. Then you must also consider the ones who, through no fault of their own, have no say, ie: the unborn who died in the womb, and various incompetents. Are all who "have no say" (unable to "make a choice") consigned to hell? Or, will some of them be in heaven
No, the choice we have is found in Rom 5:18, a verse that the Calvinists seem to have forgotten existed while they are wrenching out of context Rom.9
Therefore as by the offense of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of lifeNow, look at that while are men are born dead in their sins (Rom.3:23), due to the first Adam (the 'T' that the Calvinists are always getting all excited about) due to the Second Adam all men are now made savable!
Thus, God is free to save all infants and retarded because they fall under the Blood of the Second Adam, whose Grace far exceeds the condemnation of the first Adam.(Rom.5:15)
So you and Calvin can take your horrible dictum somewhere else.
It is as unscriptural as the rest of your horrid system
Yes, God is God and scripture teaches that all men are made savable by the Blood of Christ, (Rom.5:18)
Your system is so horrible and unthinkable that even other Calvinists have rejected it, opting to view all infants as part of the elect.
How far will you go in your rejection of God's attributes!
I do not know what you are referring to.
God decided not to keep a monopoly on power but to give some away to the creature. In making responsible creaturely agents, God willed not to exercise domination and control over the world but to establish an order of real significance and genuine autonomy. Wishing to interact with significant creatures rather than to dominate the world, God willed a dynamic history that would flow from the decisions of finite persons. One could say that, in creating such a world, God accepted certain limitations on the divine power. In effect, God rejected sovereignty in the form of domination and control, at least in this creation. Open sovereignty would make possible what was wanted.
That is known only to God.
It is probable when the child is old enough to understand the nature of evil, which is pretty late.
That 7 year old boy that was murdered by his mother did not understand what she was doing to him (or why). He thought he was being punished for being 'bad'.
I would say that boy was still a 'child' in the eyes of God.
Now, if anything reflects the Total Depravity of Calvinism and its concept of Election and Reprobation its view of unelect children being condemned sums it up as neatly as it can be.
Anyone one who would think that the God of the Bible could do such a thing is simply demented.
It is the most wicked blasphmey against the nature of God I can think of. You see the Christ of the Bible loving the children and warning that anyone who messed with children it would be better to have a millstone around their neck and dropped into the deepest ocean.
Oh, I forgot, this be one of those two will things, where the Fathers will and the Sons go against each other!
Yea, the Father gives life to children just to throw them into hell! And for what reason-why His Glory Ofcourse!
What minds could even conceive of such wickedness!
If there were a single reason to hate Calvinism no other reason would be needed then that someone could imagine God doing such a thing!
Ok, and now what?
I still do not understand what point you are trying to make.
Could it be Hugh's the author of The True Image?
So then a mother of say a 7 year old has no assurence huh? But like Andre Yates if mom had just drown them early they would be assured of salvation? Perhaps abortion is a good thing then dec .No need to wait kill um early so you have lots of babies in heaven..
Does your construct allow that one child might be morally cupable at 7 and another not untill 12 ...now is that fair? Is it fair that God didn't tell you ther cut off age ?
Have you lost all reading ability? I said that likely that child of 7 was saved, as are probably even older children.
God knows what age they become accountable.
Because people misuse God's mercy doesn't mean it is any less God's mercy.
Now, I know in your wicked Calvinist heart you would like to think that those children are nonelect and burning in hell right now-right?
And I would not get so uppity since many Calvinists teach that all children who die are the elect, so a Calvinist could kill his children and say 'well, at least I know they are the elect'
You Calvinists have truely crossed over the line with his line of thinking and it shows just how demented and wicked your thinking is!
Does your construct allow that one child might be morally cupable at 7 and another not untill 12 ...now is that fair? Is it fair that God didn't tell you ther cut off age ?
It is fair that I know God is merciful and wants none to perish and that children are in heaven because of God's love not in hell because God happened to choose some and not others.
But I forgot, sending people to hell brings God glory, so send those non-elect to hell! Praise God!
Please do not ever use the word fair again, the Calvinist system has no concept of fairness or love.
Take your depraved, wicked system somewhere else. Even many Calvinists do not accept your view on elect/non-elect babies.
Man in this scenario is the sovereign as in option two. #2 and ## ade functional equivalent positions.
No, it's the formerly Arminian now Open Theist, Clark Pinnock.
Becky
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.