The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter

[Feeding the Abscess]

Does 'double predestination' actually exist? Because if I were a cynic, I'd say that is way too close to 'double penetration' and anoint Sola as the greatest troll in the history of RPF, and one of the better ones I've seen in my 18 years on the internet.

[Sola_Fide]

Okay. So you are ready now to complete drop the foreknowledge is AAAAAA reason freewill doesn't exist? Because you can't have it both ways. If foreknowledge in any way shape or form then it equally applies before or after the fall.

Yes, foreknowledge applies equally before and after the fall, so whatever kind of will Adam had before the fall (the Bible doesn't say) whatever happened went 100% according to God's plan just as it does after the fall.

Wrong. You are highly disrespectful in not answering my questions and then demanding that I answer yours. But to answer your question man had a bent towards sin after the fall but the ability to respond to God. "When the knew God they worshiped Him not as God and were not thankful so God gave them up to a reprobate mind." Man is not born with a reprobate mind even after the fall according to the Bible.

Man has "a bent towards sin after the fall but can still respond"??? That is not what the Bible says at all.

Romans 8:7

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

You are saying that fallen men can do something good like respond to God, but the Bible says that fallen men can't do anything good. Who do you think is right?

[Sola_Fide]

And even that doesn't mean he has no free will. Man could choose, for example, which sin to indulge in or how to indulge in it.

If man can only sin (which is correct) then man's will is not free. Man's will is a slave to sin.

Jesus said:

John 8:34 NASB

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

[jmdrake]

Yes, foreknowledge applies equally before and after the fall, so whatever kind of will Adam had before the fall (the Bible doesn't say) whatever happened went 100% according to God's plan just as it does after the fall.

So did God put into Eve's mind the plan to disobey Him and eat the fruit? Yes or no?

Man has "a bent towards sin after the fall but can still respond"??? That is not what the Bible says at all.

What part of "When they knew God they worshiped Him not as God and were not thankful so God gave the over to a reprobate mind" do you not understand? Clearly that describes a condition of man that got worse. If man was born "totally depraved" then he couldn't get worse. You don't believe the Bible?

[jmdrake]

If man can only sin (which is correct) then man's will is not free. Man's will is a slave to sin.

Jesus said:

John 8:34 NASB

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Did Adam and Eve commit sin because they were slaves to sin, or did they become slaves to sin by committing sin?

[jmdrake]

Well, in Isaiah 10 God sort of does claim credit for leading Assyria to attack Israel. He predestined it. You could possibly get out of this by claiming that the initial attack wasn't "sin" because God commanded it, and it was only the pride that followed that was sinful. I'm going to check the text right after I finish this post and see if that's even potentially workable. But its hard to deny that he predestined it.

And Zbignew Brezinski claims credit for leading the Soviet Union into attacking Afghanistan. Your point is? There is a difference between God orchestrating certain world events and micromanaging every single thing that happens to the point where God becomes the author of sin. And make no mistake about it. The double predestination theory makes God the author of sin. Nobody who subscribes to the double predestination theory wants to admit that fact so that's why there are so many self contradictions.

[Sola_Fide]

Did Adam and Eve commit sin because they were slaves to sin, or did they become slaves to sin by committing sin?

The Bible doesn't say what kind of will Adam had. The point is that the Bible says what kind of will men have now. We are fallen, dead in sin, and slaves of sin.

[Sola_Fide]

And Zbignew Brezinski claims credit for leading the Soviet Union into attacking Afghanistan. Your point is? There is a difference between God orchestrating certain world events and micromanaging every single thing that happens to the point where God becomes the author of sin. And make no mistake about it. The double predestination theory makes God the author of sin. Nobody who subscribes to the double predestination theory wants to admit that fact so that's why there are so many self contradictions.

Jmdrake....here's a question for you.

God is the author of sin (in the sense that He has a purpose for it in that it will glorify His justice).

So what?

[Sola_Fide]

So did God put into Eve's mind the plan to disobey Him and eat the fruit? Yes or no?

Yes. God purposes everything that comes to pass, including the sin of men. The sin of men glorifies the justice of God. This is explained in Romans chapter 9.

What part of "When they knew God they worshiped Him not as God and were not thankful so God gave the over to a reprobate mind" do you not understand? Clearly that describes a condition of man that got worse. If man was born "totally depraved" then he couldn't get worse. You don't believe the Bible?

You are inserting your false theology into the verse. When you read the chapter of Romans 1, and then you get into chapters 2,3,4 you find the point being made that all men are alike condemned by God's law. No one seeks for God and no man does good.

[jmdrake]

Yes. God purposes everything that comes to pass, including the sin of men. The sin of men glorifies the justice of God. This is explained in Romans chapter 9.

So now you're saying God is the author of sin and you are flatly contradicting your earlier statement. Please read your own words.

Men want to sin. Men have wills. Men want to do the sin they do. Men aren't forced to sin, its in our nature. And it is God who is the judge of man who brings down His wrath on the sin of men in this life and in the next.

Either God "purposes men to sin" or He doesn't. You can't say "Men aren't forced to sin" and then turn around and say "God purposes men to sin." And that's why conversations with you are so insufferable. You flip flop on theology more than Mitt Romney flip flops on politics.

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake....here's a question for you.

God is the author of sin (in the sense that He has a purpose for it in that it will glorify His justice).

So what?

1) It means that you have contradicted yourself again.

2) What "glory" is there in that other than in your own twisted mind?

3) The belief that God is the author of sin flatly contradicts the Bible.

[ClydeCoulter]

The part where you say God makes us sin. Men are not puppets. They want to do the sin they do. Men have wills.

If man can only sin (which is correct) then man's will is not free. Man's will is a slave to sin.

Jesus said:

smh

[moostraks]

Thank you for your post. By the way, my frustration wasn't directed at you, or anyone in particular. I have a great deal of respect for those who bother posting at all here, and am attentive to what is being written.
The reason that I hangout here, in particular, is because Americans, and by extension, America, claim to be a Christian nation. I've studied scriptures, I've had (too many) theology classes, I've studied other faiths, animism, and mythology. I recall a priest struggling to explain transubstantiation in catechism class (a million years ago), and the best he could do was: (paraphrasing) "it depends on what the definition of is, is." Mentioning the RCC is like spreading chum in the water here, so I do so with trepidation.

I have no difficulty stating that Christianity is a pacifist religion, without exception, violence is never moral. I see people twist the bible to justify whatever is practical and expedient. Yes, we are all fallible....what I have a problem with is when we say sin is not sin, or sin is sometimes not sin, based on circumstances...God's law, corrupted by temporal conditions. We have no chance individually, or as a nation, to "get right" when we deliberately disobey God's two commandments and then say "it's ok". We GLORIFY war. GLORIFY it. We say it's HONORABLE. We call murderers HEROES. It won't change until we call it what it actually is....EVIL. But when we say evil is "sometimes" moral...then we have NO MORAL motivation to end it. Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.", but how can we comply if we deny what sin is?

There is kindness and compassion in the world, there is real morality in the world, but it is very rare coming from professed "Christians".
If Christians stood up and acknowledged what is going on, maybe we could end this. But, you know, Romans 13 and all...

If one strives to follow those two commandments, does any of this other metaphysical dung being thrown around this board even matter?

This is why I relate to the peace churches because of their message against wars and violence. The FOX news Christians (as I now think of warmongering Christians) are no different than their so called enemy the extremists they are always going on about needing to eradicate.

Does this other stuff matter? Yeah. It does because double predestination cuts to the very heart of how many "Christians" view others outside of their belief system. When you elevate yourself because of a self proclaimed superior genetic status claiming yourself to be elect, and then anyone who disagrees with you is then told they were made genetically inferior to be tortured forever (and not just that but tortured for the purpose of showing the superiority of the elect), you are warping the message of Peace and Love, and made any person outside of your tribe subhuman. It is this superiority complex that gives people the type of entitlement to commit acts such as having wiped out Native Americans because they worshipped differently, treated slaves from Africa as inferior animals to do ones bidding, or believe that one should turn the ME into a sheet of glass.

So some of us bother to argue this metaphysical dung because we understand that it is our responsibility to speak up and hope that those who are preaching an unloving philosophy can see the detriment of such positions and to hopefully curtail others from accepting the unloving beliefs as being an accurate representation of a loving Creator.

[moostraks]

Yes, foreknowledge applies equally before and after the fall, so whatever kind of will Adam had before the fall (the Bible doesn't say) whatever happened went 100% according to God's plan just as it does after the fall.




Man has "a bent towards sin after the fall but can still respond"??? That is not what the Bible says at all.



You are saying that fallen men can do something good like respond to God, but the Bible says that fallen men can't do anything good. Who do you think is right?

These verses has been given to you a number of times, but I will repost them here, again.

Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

[moostraks]

Bryan should pay SF to post here.

I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too?

Almost 2000 views and 343 replies in a day and half.

And the best part about it is that Jesus is being glorified.

You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.

[otherone]

So some of us bother to argue this metaphysical dung because we understand that it is our responsibility to speak up and hope that those who are preaching an unloving philosophy can see the detriment of such positions and to hopefully curtail others from accepting the unloving beliefs as being an accurate representation of a loving Creator.

IMO. an unloving philosophy is only harmful if it leads to an unloving action. I wish Christians would spare the metaphysical fisticuffs against one another and turn that zealotry against those who murder with "Christs blessing". Two commandments; follow them and whether you believe God zips around in a time machine, or the bad people are nephalim, or the world is only 5000 years old all become moot.

[ClydeCoulter]

I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too?


You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.

He's competing with naked girls with guns :P

[jmdrake]

I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too?


You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.

It's funny but people have forgotten the original meaning of the word "troll" when it comes to the internet. A "troll" isn't some ugly person who sits under a bridge. A "troll" is someone who is "trolling for a response", kind of a like a "trolling" motor on a fishing boat. I remember back in the days of USENET there was an epic troll where this one sick woman cross posted a thread claiming "God must have a really big penis to rape Mary" to multiple Christian and atheist forums along with soc.culture.african.american (a forum I read a lot at the time) for the sole purpose of getting people arguing with each other. (Why did she post this to the AA forum? No other reason than she enjoyed trolling that forum.) Not surprisingly there was soon a ridiculously high number of responses. By SF's "logic" God was "glorified."

[moostraks]

IMO. an unloving philosophy is only harmful if it leads to an unloving action. I wish Christians would spare the metaphysical fisticuffs against one another and turn that zealotry against those who murder with "Christs blessing". Two commandments; follow them and whether you believe God zips around in a time machine, or the bad people are nephalim, or the world is only 5000 years old all become moot.

In theory, but it is like trying to deal with Hannity folks who claim they are libertarians and the actions speak louder than words. If all those who claimed to be libertarian understood and applied the NAP that would be awesome. If all those who claimed to be Christians would really behave as though they loved their neighbor that would be unbelievably wonderful. Yet, approach either of those two groups you will find a number of members who believe that are applying the principles properly even when their actions show differently.

One of the main reasons why I am seriously thinking it is time to withdraw contributing anything to the forum is because of how it negatively effects my faith and causes a ripple effect. I feel for others who like myself have struggled with faith after dealing with the S_Fs of religion. Yet, by being drawn into a discussion, I fuel the fire. But by not responding, it is just like not calling out fake liberty positions.

You cannot advocate for liberty when your core principles are wrong. If your mistakes aren't addressed by others then the message of liberty looks just like fascism. You cannot advocate Love when your core principles are wrong. If the mistakes are not addressed then eventually no one knows the difference between love and hate.

Many of these metaphysical discussions from your pov might seem frivolous but those participating likely realize why it is so important and that is why they become so heated. Usually, the fluff discussions are just pushing a person's own boundaries and they are the conversations that don't get heated.

[moostraks]

He's competing with naked girls with guns :P

Lol! Yep...

It's funny but people have forgotten the original meaning of the word "troll" when it comes to the internet. A "troll" isn't some ugly person who sits under a bridge. A "troll" is someone who is "trolling for a response", kind of a like a "trolling" motor on a fishing boat. I remember back in the days of USENET there was an epic troll where this one sick woman cross posted a thread claiming "God must have a really big penis to rape Mary" to multiple Christian and atheist forums along with soc.culture.african.american (a forum I read a lot at the time) for the sole purpose of getting people arguing with each other. (Why did she post this to the AA forum? No other reason than she enjoyed trolling that forum.) Not surprisingly there was soon a ridiculously high number of responses. By SF's "logic" God was "glorified."

yep, tossing the bait in the water and fishing for responses to bite that hook. It is discouraging to see the threads that have been bumped and know someone is chumming the waters. This thread is just a reiteration of previous threads in shorthand, including insults and the potter's verse. Same song different day.

[acptulsa]

By SF's "logic" God was "glorified."

One of the main reasons why I am seriously thinking it is time to withdraw contributing anything to the forum is because of how it negatively effects my faith and causes a ripple effect. I feel for others who like myself have struggled with faith after dealing with the S_Fs of religion. Yet, by being drawn into a discussion, I fuel the fire. But by not responding, it is just like not calling out fake liberty positions.

Oh, maybe God was glorified. Maybe.

But if any spectator popped up who was inclined to avoid organized religion like the plague for fear of encountering dogmatism, stubbornness, selective hearing, argumentativeness, the heightened arrogance of unearned and undeserved rank, the tactic of avoiding questions one has no answer for by smirking and pretending they aren't worth asking, hypocrisy, and the supreme irritation of watching people claiming to be glorifying a historical figure by standing for everything He stood against, they are now three or four times less likely to go to church.

And if anyone popped up who was thinking of trying church out, I sincerely doubt they still are. I just wish he'd name his denomination out of courtesy to sane and innocent other denominations, so their attendance won't suffer for sins beyond their control.

[otherone]

Many of these metaphysical discussions from your pov might seem frivolous but those participating likely realize why it is so important and that is why they become so heated.

From my unenlightened pov, these discussions appear more hubris than apologetic.

[otherone]

But if any spectator popped up who was inclined to avoid organized religion like the plague for fear of encountering dogmatism, stubbornness, selective hearing, argumentativeness, the heightened arrogance of unearned and undeserved rank, the tactic of avoiding questions one has no answer for by smirking and pretending they aren't worth asking, hypocrisy, and the supreme irritation of watching people claiming to be glorifying a historical figure by standing for everything He stood against, they are now three or four times less likely to go to church.

"Knowlier" than Thou

[moostraks]

Oh, maybe God was glorified. Maybe.

But if any spectators popped up who was inclined to avoid organized religion like the plague for fear of encountering dogmatism, stubbornness, selective hearing, argumentativeness, the heightened arrogance of unearned and undeserved rank, the tactic of avoiding questions one has no answer for by smirking and pretending they aren't worth asking, hypocrisy, and the supreme irritation of watching people claiming to be glorifying a historical figure by standing for everything He stood against, they are now three or four times less likely to go to church.

And if anyone popped up who was thinking of trying church out, I sincerely doubt they still are. I just wish he'd name his denomination out of courtesy to sane and innocent other denominations, so their attendance won't suffer for sins beyond their control.

Pretty sure he has previously claimed Baptist at one point. The arguments are Reformed in their essence. Reminds me of a number of churches down South.

From my unenlightened pov, these discussions appear more hubris than apologetic.

This is what they descend into usually. To live in a vacuum with one's belief has its own pitfalls. Some of us don't attend brick and mortars due to their corruption so these conversations provide opportunities for growth. Unfortunately, it seems that some prefer the theatrics and fireworks and think that is beneficial to the forum as opposed to the non-argumentative threads. Thus we have folks crowing about thread views and post counts instead of quality of material provided.

Calling them the Tower of Babel was spot on for these threads. People talk past each other. The only thing gained in the end is harsh feelings toward others and more isolation for the individual.

[acptulsa]

BRADY: I do not think about things... things that I do not think about.

DRUMMOND: Do you ever think about things that you do think about?

Hubris is the right word. If you don't worship exactly the same way I worship, then God isn't big enough for the both of us.

Libeling and slandering God, and calling it glorification.

[erowe1]

???
It isn't different from the rest of Christian dogma? Then why single it out?

Sorry. I must have read your question too fast.

But yes, that's what I meant. The remark I made about transubstantiation is the same thing I would say about many other similar dogmas. Salvation doesn't require belief in things that require lectures in order to be understood well enough to believe.

[erowe1]

He's competing with naked girls with guns :P

Where?

I'm asking for a friend.

[otherone]

Sorry. I must have read your question too fast.

But yes, that's what I meant. The remark I made about transubstantiation is the same thing I would say about many other similar dogmas. Salvation doesn't require belief in things that require lectures in order to be understood well enough to believe.

No problem.
Why is it important to understand the mechanics of transubstantiation? Why must we understand something in order to believe? How can a bush burn, or a snake speak, or a sea part, or someone rise from the dead? I don't understand how any of these things could occur. With all due respect, it seems that your comment was an unsolicited shot at a particular church?

[Sola_Fide]

Either God "purposes men to sin" or He doesn't. You can't say "Men aren't forced to sin" and then turn around and say "God purposes men to sin." And that's why conversations with you are so insufferable. You flip flop on theology more than Mitt Romney flip flops on politics.

Hehe....another one of your "contradictions" now huh?

Did God purpose the sin that led to the cross? Yes. Did God purpose the Assyrians to judge Israel militarily? Yes.

Did God make the men do their sin? NO. Men have wills. They want to do the sin they do.

That is the difference between predestination and pure fatalistic determinism: man's will.

[Sola_Fide]

I am thinking with S_F back, it might be time to kick the dust off my moccasins with the forums. Maybe you guys can get nang back too?


You always were so proud of your page views and response count. It is a shame you don't take into consideration the fact the count is so high is because people feel obligated to respond to the mean spirited posts you make and attempt to pass off as Biblical. No, He is not glorified by discussions that inflate the egos of select persons at the expense of snuffing out the Light in others.

Respectfully, I disagree. This thread has been very civil with good discussions. So, people must be viewing it for some other reason. There's no drama here.