DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Biblical Pre-Conception Existence Theology (PCE)
*****************************************************
#Post#: 7952--------------------------------------------------
Misfits the Second:
By: guest58 Date: September 16, 2019, 3:02 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!!
#Post#: 7955--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest8 Date: September 16, 2019, 9:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=622.msg7952#msg7952
date=1568664148]
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!!
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]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[/shadow]
#Post#: 7959--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest58 Date: September 17, 2019, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7955#msg7955
date=1568688228]
[shadow=blue,left]Well TEd, you certainly like to write or maybe
copy and paste. [/shadow][/quote] [font=verdana]I write and I
often cut and paste[/font] from previous p[font=verdana]ostings
to be efficient.[/font]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7955#msg7955
date=1568688228][shadow=blue,left]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.
[/shadow][/quote]
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?
#Post#: 7961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest8 Date: September 17, 2019, 10:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=622.msg7959#msg7959
date=1568745760]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7955#msg7955
date=1568688228]
[shadow=blue,left]Well TEd, you certainly like to write or maybe
copy and paste. [/shadow][/quote] [font=verdana]I write and I
often cut and paste[/font] from previous p[font=verdana]ostings
to be efficient.[/font]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7955#msg7955
date=1568688228][shadow=blue,left]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.
[/shadow][/quote]
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?
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]
Sooooo, he does not know everybody? WHo made you...your cells...
Blade[/shadow]
#Post#: 7981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest58 Date: September 18, 2019, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7961#msg7961
date=1568779129][shadow=blue,left]Sooooo, he does not know
everybody? WHo made you...your cells...
Blade[/shadow][/quote]
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.
#Post#: 7982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest8 Date: September 18, 2019, 7:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=622.msg7981#msg7981
date=1568828475]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7961#msg7961
date=1568779129][shadow=blue,left]Sooooo, he does not know
everybody? WHo made you...your cells...
Blade[/shadow][/quote]
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.
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]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[/shadow]
#Post#: 7999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest58 Date: September 19, 2019, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7982#msg7982
date=1568851910]
Your assumption are false and have no basis with which to rely
on.
Blade
[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 8004--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest8 Date: September 19, 2019, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=622.msg7999#msg7999
date=1568913368]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg7982#msg7982
date=1568851910]
Your assumption are false and have no basis with which to rely
on.
Blade
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]
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[/shadow]
#Post#: 8025--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest58 Date: September 20, 2019, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg8004#msg8004
date=1568937968]
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=622.msg7999#msg7999
date=1568913368]
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.
[/quote]
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...[/quote][font=verdana] Your continued
misrepresentation of my[/font] beliefs [font=verdana]when I've
corrected you so many times is edging into defamation.[/font]
[font=verdana]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 [/font]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!
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg8004#msg8004
date=1568937968]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.
[/quote] 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.
#Post#: 8031--------------------------------------------------
Re: Misfits the Second:
By: guest8 Date: September 20, 2019, 6:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=622.msg8025#msg8025
date=1569001644]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg8004#msg8004
date=1568937968]
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=622.msg7999#msg7999
date=1568913368]
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.
[/quote]
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...[/quote][font=verdana] Your continued
misrepresentation of my[/font] beliefs [font=verdana]when I've
corrected you so many times is edging into defamation.[/font]
[font=verdana]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 [/font]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!
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=622.msg8004#msg8004
date=1568937968]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.
[/quote] 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.
[/quote]
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
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page