Official Predestination and Calvinism Post

[spaminator101]

So i can clear up all the misconceptions and questions about predestination and calvinism. If you have a question about something just post it here and I'll try my best to answer it.

[udontknowmickey]

As sort of a bump,

You might want to define your terms and lay out what you mean by "predestination"

[spaminator101]

In response to what youdontknowmickey said, I mean predestination as in the choosing of God before the foundations of the world who would be saved.

[sexdrugsmoney]

I'll put out a few questions for you, and I promise they are asked 'in good faith' and not to covertly attack the doctrine of predestination.

1) If I am saved (if), how and why did God choose me and not someone else?

2) If God chose people to be saved before the foundation of the world, then why didn't God have the foresight to see stuff like the 'rebellion in heaven', and 'eating off the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden'?

Cheers,
SDM

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
1) If I am saved (if), how and why did God choose me and not someone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way I can reply to this is to say that God knows things that He does not reveal to us in scripture. There are somethings that He knows would be better if we did not know.


[ QUOTE ]
2) If God chose people to be saved before the foundation of the world, then why didn't God have the foresight to see stuff like the 'rebellion in heaven', and 'eating off the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden'?


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, God did know that these things would happen. Now youdontknowmickey will disagree with me on this one but God gave man some free will. Man was able to sin. I beleive He created Angels the same way.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) If I am saved (if), how and why did God choose me and not someone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way I can reply to this is to say that God knows things that He does not reveal to us in scripture. There are somethings that He knows would be better if we did not know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plausable, human's do get distracted easily, and God does seem to function on a 'need-to-know' basis.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) If God chose people to be saved before the foundation of the world, then why didn't God have the foresight to see stuff like the 'rebellion in heaven', and 'eating off the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden'?


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I believe God did know that these things would happen. Now youdontknowmickey will disagree with me on this one but God gave man some free will. Man was able to sin. I beleive He created Angels the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I'm not so sure about this answer, to me it doesn't make sense.

It seems the 'war in heaven' may have been a result of God's naivity, in not being able to see a rebellion happening from someone so close to him. (Lucifer - his 'right-hand man', "the light bearer")

Similarly, Genesis 6 talks about "The sons of God" leaving their posts in heaven to become mortal and have sex with human women, thus creating the Nephilim - a hybrid breed of man and fallen angel who are abnormally strong and have an above average height. (ie- Possibly Goliath was a Nephilim)

The psudephigraphical Book of Enoch claims that a certain number of angels in positions of authoriity made a pact with each other to 'fall' to take women, and once they did so, they started teaching humans things such as astrology, numerology, artistry etc.

If this book was true, it would shed some light on some on of the things in the ancient world that scientists have a hard time dealing with today.

The great pyramid at Giza and Stonehenge for example are 'wonders' and experiments to recreate their contruction today using ropes and manpower have failed.

If a hybrid race did exist called the Nephilim who were abnormally stronger than humans (Goliath) and their father's were able to teach this techniques far beyond the years of prehistoric human learning, it would account for this.

Ofcourse the Bible has gaps regarding these Nephilim, but generally it seemed God was displeased that some of his angels would leave heaven to become human, and after this God announces "my spirit will not always be with man, he will now only live to 120". (where before 700-900 was the average apparently)

It is also thought that the flood largely came about as God saw too many Nephilim and knowledge he didn't want humans to have and decided to 'cleanse' the world, all but Noah and the animals he wished to keep on earth from beyoned that point. (sorry dinosaurs, no soup for you)

Yet after the flood a couple of references to Nephilim being alive are still made (David-Goliath, and in Jeremiah I believe) which may have mean't a handful of angels were still able to leave heaven and opt for a life on earth. (perhaps David's story is God symbollically telling angels who continued this practice that they will recieve no assistance from him, and that the world was for humans, not them?)

Obviously today, there are no Nephilim (outside the NBA /images/graemlins/wink.gif)
so if this practice ever occurred it clearly was stopped around the time of Christ, probably sometime before Maccabean times.

But these examples do put a dent in the "God has total foresight" argument. Perhaps when God obtained his position of power, Lucifer was a candidate for Godhood and harboured resentment, and thought the naivity of the newly appointed (!) God would make him an easy target.

Ofcourse this opens up speculation to nature of heaven, origin of God, whether any other Gods exist etc etc.

Some Christians will say this is blasphemous of heretical, yet the Catholic church in times past used to consider anybody that went against the geocentric belief of earth to be a heretic.

I don't believe we are the only intelligent life (perhaps in this universe, but certainly other dimensions must exist which could be mirrors of Earth, each with a different appointed God and a different history and futue?) created, and believe it's somewhat arrogant to believe we are.

Likewise, I don't rule out (though I don't necessarily believe) that other God's could exist and be in charge of different jurisdictions. (1 Universe per God for example)

Perhaps Polytheism was but one of the things the fallen angels told humans about, that the place they came from had not one God but many?

If this was so, it is natural our God was pissed at this, because it served to be nothing but a distraction and an insult that subjects in his rightful jurisdiction were opting to worship any other gods that either:

a) Were 100% fake (didn't exist outside the imagination)
b) Were partially fake (partially existed outside the imagination/possibly based on a real 'god' in another jurisdiction that our God may know of)
c) Were real (existed either as a fallen entity like Satan, or was a real god but in another jurisdiction and thus had no power in earth or interest as he/she/it had their own dimension/universe/planet/creation etc)

All of this may be true, some of it may be true, none of it may be true ... seldom are things 'certain' in this life.

But as I have said before, if God reported everything to man, the Bible would exceed the size of all the tax legislations of the world combined and nobody would be able to read it all. (and if they did, it would only create more ways for people to reject god in favour of other gods/powers and reduce the aspect of faith - which you have to believe God enjoys observing)

So there you go, food for thought.

If you have any scripture that you'd like to quote during our conversation, I'm all for that. (I don't read the Bible as much as I should, so quoted scripture is an easy way for me to get some in without effort /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

Cheers,
SDM

[spaminator101]

I am going to take your posts in parts as it is a little too much for me to take in at one time.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe we are the only intelligent life (perhaps in this universe, but certainly other dimensions must exist which could be mirrors of Earth, each with a different appointed God and a different history and futue?) created, and believe it's somewhat arrogant to believe we are.



[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I. I beleive that it is possible that there is inteligent life out there. I do not think that they have the same qualities of humans but i do think they may be out there

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, Genesis 6 talks about "The sons of God" leaving their posts in heaven to become mortal and have sex with human women, thus creating the Nephilim - a hybrid breed of man and fallen angel who are abnormally strong and have an above average height. (ie- Possibly Goliath was a Nephilim)

[/ QUOTE ]

Personaly I beleive that when talking about the sons of God the Bible is talking about Man not angels.

There could possibly be a genetic trait that has died out that caused them to be this way.

[udontknowmickey]

sexdrugsmoney -

If you're willing to do a little reading (with a lot of Scripture interspersed) I would highly suggest checking out James Spurgeon's blog at The Howling Coyote (http://howlingcoyote.blogspot.com/). He touches upon many of the issues you touch on regarding election and predestination, and answers them in a fairly biblical and consistant (Scriptural) manner. The validity of preaching, free will in angels, the like. You can probably just start in the archives and see which blog titles you like.

Hope it helps a little.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
sexdrugsmoney -

If you're willing to do a little reading (with a lot of Scripture interspersed) I would highly suggest checking out James Spurgeon's blog at The Howling Coyote (http://howlingcoyote.blogspot.com/). He touches upon many of the issues you touch on regarding election and predestination, and answers them in a fairly biblical and consistant (Scriptural) manner. The validity of preaching, free will in angels, the like. You can probably just start in the archives and see which blog titles you like.

Hope it helps a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any relation to Charles Spurgeon?

[BluffTHIS!]

1) Since protestantism presupposes that the Catholic Church veared from the "early Christian church" around 350 A.D. or so, can you show that the early christians prior to that approximate date believed in calvinist interpretations of scripture?

2) What was Calvin's authority for his biblical interpretations?

3) Is every individual passage of the bible literally true?

4) Were certain individuals predestined to perdition? That is, did they never truly have the free will to repsond to God's grace and be saved by virtue of Christ's redemption?

[udontknowmickey]

none whatsoever other than both holding a high view of predestination

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Since protestantism presupposes that the Catholic Church veared from the "early Christian church" around 350 A.D. or so, can you show that the early christians prior to that approximate date believed in calvinist interpretations of scripture?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, setting aside what protestants presupposed (I'm not sure that figure is accurate), the reformers believed that predestination was taught by Christ and the Apostles (as well as the prophets for that matter), so the question of if we can find an early church figure who believed in it is irrelevant if it is actually taught in Scripture.

That being said, Calvin pointed to Augustine a great deal in his support for predestination. Here is probably the clearest example: Augustine (http://members.aol.com/Graceordained/augpred.html). Note this isn't within your specified range, but it's the one i can remember off the top of my head.

[ QUOTE ]

2) What was Calvin's authority for his biblical interpretations?


[/ QUOTE ]

The same authority that Martin Luther claimed, and the same authority that protestans of the church today (try to) claim: Scripture is our only infallible rule. To put it concisely, Scripture interprets Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Is every individual passage of the bible literally true?


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean by "literal." If you mean that every verse means exactly what the words specifically mean, then no. Jesus saying "I am the vine" does not literally mean he has leaves and the like. If you mean each verse is interpreted in accordance to it's genre and surrounding text (as well as with the Bible as a whole) then yes. Notready had a good post on this earlier. I don't know how to find it though.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Were certain individuals predestined to perdition? That is, did they never truly have the free will to repsond to God's grace and be saved by virtue of Christ's redemption?


[/ QUOTE ]

Since I deny free will completely, my answer may be different from spam's, but I believe predestination to perdition is painfully obvious from a simple reading of Romans 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=47;)

[BluffTHIS!]

Well if scripture alone (sola scriptura) is the only standard, then whose interpretation should be followed? The great number of protestant denominations would seem to indicate that lacking an authoritative interpreter, that even more doctrinal disagreements leading to further splits are inevitable. And if the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation of disciples of Christ and the apostles can't be counted upon to have the majority correct view, then how can Calvin or Luther? And regarding the passage in Romans, there is more than one interpretation. Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities), but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

Well if scripture alone (sola scriptura) is the only standard, then whose interpretation should be followed?
The great number of protestant denominations would seem to indicate that lacking an authoritative interpreter, that even more doctrinal disagreements leading to further splits are inevitable. And if the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation of disciples of Christ and the apostles can't be counted upon to have the majority correct view, then how can Calvin or Luther? And regarding the passage in Romans, there is more than one interpretation. Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities), but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.


[/ QUOTE ]

My roommate was Catholic last year, so we had many a late night debating. If you would like to walk down this path I can do so through email, or in another thread, but this one is about predestination (and I actually told spam I wouldn't really post much on it too, so now I feel kinda bad). Start up another thread, number your points and I'll address them one by one. Or you can email me mcsheu@gmail.NOSPAMcom with them. I'd love to address them.

[BluffTHIS!]

The points I made in my previous post are interrelated. You can't discuss a doctrine without also discussing how passages of scripture supposedly supporting that doctrine are authoritatively interpreted.

[spaminator101]

I don't really mind you doing that as I don't stay up very late, so I don't get to respond until Morning when I am often over whelmed with other things.

As you know the only point i disagreed with was with # because i beleive that we have some free will, as i mentioned earlier with sex,drugs,money.

[spaminator101]

Hey, on a side note sexdrugsmoney. Are you a christian. Some times it seems like you are and then sometimes it doesn't.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, on a side note sexdrugsmoney. Are you a christian. Some times it seems like you are and then sometimes it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to see myself through your eyes.

Can you please give me examples of the 'sometimes it doesn't seem like I'ma Christian?'

Cheers,
SDM

PS - I'm planning on further discussion with you regarding the Nephilim at a later date but work has swamped me at the moment. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you please give me examples of the 'sometimes it doesn't seem like I'ma Christian?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok lets just say that there aren't many of them. But however heres one.

[ QUOTE ]
Aspiring grinder

[/ QUOTE ]

from your profile this just rings an evil bell in my brain.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok lets just say that there aren't many of them. But however heres one.

[ QUOTE ]
Aspiring grinder

[/ QUOTE ]

from your profile this just rings an evil bell in my brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with being a grinder?

Cheers,
SDM

[spaminator101]

I don't know it just sounds extremely sexually related to me. I really don't care and your probably implying something else anyway.

[David Sklansky]

You needed to read "aspiring ginder" to realize this? What about his NAME?

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
What about his NAME?

[/ QUOTE ]

that might have had something to do with it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Spaminator I have a question for you. If someone believes that they are a bad person and thus someone who is "predestined" to perdition, that is had no free choice to accept the call of the gospel and thus will be damned anyway, would there be any obligation for them to follow the commandments or might they just as well eat, drink and be merry?

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone believes that they are a bad person and thus someone who is "predestined" to perdition

[/ QUOTE ]

We are all bad people. We are all totaly derpaved.

If you weren't saved there would be no reason to follow the commandments. However if you knew that Christianity was true as you imply this particular person was then I don't see how they could not come to Christ. I don't see how God would let someone know that Christianity was true without beleiving in Him. That would just be irrational.

[David Sklansky]

Poor BluffThis. Has to know how to be a world class tightrope walker.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how God would let someone know that Christianity was true without beleiving in Him. That would just be irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why would God create someone in the first place with no intention of revealing the truth to them, or providing an alternate path of salvation such as adherence to the natural law? To do so, that is create someone for the sole purpose of damning them, is what does not seem rational.

To bring up my favorite hypothetical example, all the inhabitants of places that no Christian ever visited until like the 1600s in the remote inner regions of New Guinea, or the American Indians prior at least to early Norse visits, those people were just screwed weren't they? That is, since they had no possibility of hearing the gospel and being saved, they were created soley to be damned isn't that right? And you can't even argue that they serve as an example of God's plan to the saved, since Christians never met them.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Poor BluffThis. Has to know how to be a world class tightrope walker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I now play only no limit holdem and pot limit omaha that has been a very necessary skill to acquire. But spiritually, I am constantly thankful to God that he provides a safety net below as long as I am willing to repent and begin again.

[spaminator101]

Wow, you do have a point. I don't have very much experience witha arguing considering i'm only in 8th grade so im gonna need some help from them 2.

[sexdrugsmoney]

Dislcaimer: The following post is very deep in it's research. Most Christians and Atheists on the internet are 'copy and paste' merchants who who rely on interpreting scripture on a 'surface' level citing the "it's the word of God!" argument. I however in my quest for the truth dig deeper and do not believe things are so simple. The 'word of God' is a translation, thus correct interpretation of it requires a few translations. Anybody who wants to come along for this ride, then digest this post with a full attention span. Cheers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, Genesis 6 talks about "The sons of God" leaving their posts in heaven to become mortal and have sex with human women, thus creating the Nephilim - a hybrid breed of man and fallen angel who are abnormally strong and have an above average height. (ie- Possibly Goliath was a Nephilim)

[/ QUOTE ]

Personaly I beleive that when talking about the sons of God the Bible is talking about Man not angels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's look at the commentary of Matthew Henry on Genesis 6 from Biblegateway.com:

[ QUOTE ]

The wickedness of the world which provoked God's wrath.

The most remarkable thing concerning the old world, is the destroying of it by the deluge, or flood. We are told of the abounding iniquity of that wicked world: God's just wrath, and his holy resolution to punish it. In all ages there has been a peculiar curse of God upon marriages between professors of true religion and its avowed enemies. The evil example of the ungodly party corrupts or greatly hurts the other. Family religion is put an end to, and the children are trained up

according to the worldly maxims of that parent who is without the fear of God. If we profess to be the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, we must not marry without his consent. He will never give his blessing, if we prefer beauty, wit, wealth, or worldly honours, to faith and holiness. The Spirit of God strove with men, by sending Enoch, Noah, and perhaps others, to preach to them; by waiting to be gracious, notwithstanding their rebellions; and by exciting alarm and convictions in their

consciences. But the Lord declared that his Spirit should not thus strive with men always; he would leave them to be hardened in sin, and ripened for destruction. This he determined on, because man was flesh: not only frail and feeble, but carnal and depraved; having misused the noble powers of his soul to gratify his corrupt inclinations. God sees all the wickedness that is among the children of men; it cannot be hid from him now; and if it be not repented of, it shall be made known by him

shortly. The wickedness of a people is great indeed, when noted sinners are men renowned among them. Very much sin was committed in all places, by all sorts of people. Any one might see that the wickedness of man was great: but God saw that every imagination, or purpose, of the thoughts of man's heart, was only evil continually. This was the bitter root, the corrupt spring. The heart was deceitful and desperately wicked; the principles were corrupt; the habits and dispositions evil. Their

designs and devices were wicked. They did evil deliberately, contriving how to do mischief. There was no good among them. God saw man's wickedness as one injured and wronged by it. He saw it as a tender father sees the folly and stubbornness of a rebellious and disobedient child, which grieves him, and makes him wish he had been childless. The words here used are remarkable; they are used after the manner of men, and do not mean that God can change, or be unhappy. Does God thus hate our sin?

And shall not we be grieved to the heart for it? Oh that we may look on Him whom we have grieved, and mourn! God repented that he had made man; but we never find him repent that he redeemed man. God resolves to destroy man: the original word is very striking, to ?I will wipe off man from the earth, to ? as dirt or filth is wiped off from a place which should be clean, and is thrown to the dunghill, the proper place for it. God speaks of man as his own creature, when he resolves upon his

punishment. Those forfeit their lives who do not answer the end of their living. God speaks of resolution concerning men, after his Spirit had been long striving with them in vain. None are punished by the justice of God, but those who hate to be reformed by the grace of God. (Ge 6:8-11)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, no talk of "angels" here, and if you see my emphasis added in bold you will see the commentary advocates your view that the Bible is talking about Man and not angels.

Case Closed? Hardly.

The term 'sons of God' is used here in Genesis 6 in both the KJV (King James Version) and ESV (English Standard Version) and we don't know exactly what it means yet. (Suspend belief in the Matthew Henry commentary for a moment - men can err)

Therefore we should see other times 'sons of God' is used in hebrew.

Only two books of the Olt Testament - Genesis 6 and in the Book of Job. (Exact verses = Gen 6:2, Gen 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7)

The Book of Job is part of the Old Testament in all Christian canons I know of (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic etc), and is also part of the Jewish Tanakh. (canon)

Let's look at a few translations to try to discern the meaning of these 'sons of god' shall we?

I'll be using Biblegateway.com (as they house many translations for free) for all quotes unless specified.

Let's look at the book of Job:

[ QUOTE ]

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan(b) also came among them.
7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

[/ QUOTE ]

The (b) is a footnote, and says "Hebrew the Adversary"

Ok, according to biblegateway.com there is a commentary on the bible which appears to be from a chap called Matthew Henry and ofcourse we should utilize this in our quest to know more about these 'sons of god'.

ESV Commentary on Job 1:6-7:

[ QUOTE ]

The piety and prosperity of Job.

Job was prosperous, and yet pious. Though it is hard and rare, it is not impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. By God's grace the temptations of worldly wealth may be overcome. The account of Job's piety and prosperity comes before the history of his great afflictions, showing that neither will secure from troubles. While Job beheld the harmony and comforts of his sons with satisfaction, his knowledge of the human heart made him fearful for them. He sent and

sanctified them, reminding them to examine themselves, to confess their sins, to seek forgiveness; and as one who hoped for acceptance with God through the promised Saviour, he offered a burnt-offering for each. We perceive his care for their souls, his knowledge of the sinful state of man, his entire dependence on God's mercy in the way he had appointed. (Job 1:6-12)

Satan obtains leave to try Job.

Job's afflictions began from the malice of Satan, by the Lord's permission, for wise and holy purposes. There is an evil spirit, the enemy of God, and of all righteousness, who is continually seeking to distress, to lead astray, and, if possible, to destroy those who love God. How far his influence may extend, we cannot say; but probably much unsteadiness and unhappiness in Christians may be ascribed to him. While we are on this earth we are within his reach. Hence it concerns us to

be sober and vigilant, 1Pe 5:8. See how Satan censures Job. This is the common way of slanderers, to suggest that which they have no reason to think is true. But as there is nothing we should dread more than really being hypocrites, so there is nothing we need dread less than being called and counted so without cause. It is not wrong to look at the eternal recompence in our obedience; but it is wrong to aim at worldly advantages in our religion. God's

people are taken under his special protection; they, and all that belong to them. The blessing of the Lord makes rich; Satan himself owns it. God suffered Job to be tried, as he suffered Peter to be sifted. It is our comfort that God has the devil in a chain, Re 20:1. He has no power to lead men to sin, but what they give him themselves; nor any power to afflict men, but what is given him from above. All this is here described to us after the manner of

men. The Scripture speaks thus to teach us that God directs the affairs of the world. (Job 1:13-19)

[/ QUOTE ]

The commentary unfortunately does not shed any light on this issue of:

a) the 'sons of God'
b) This 'day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD'

Ok, one more verse from the Book of Job, 38:7 (ESV) but as always, context is important, so I'll be quoting 38:4-7:

[ QUOTE ]

4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The term 'sons of God' here is used with 'the foundation of the earth'.

This would imply the 'sons of God' were around before humanity, but lets us consult the ESV commentary on this issue:

[ QUOTE ]

God calls upon Job to answer.

Job had silenced, but had not convinced his friends. Elihu had silenced Job, but had not brought him to admit his guilt before God. It pleased the Lord to interpose. The Lord, in this discourse, humbles Job, and brings him to repent of his passionate expressions concerning God's providential dealings with him; and this he does, by calling upon Job to compare God's being from everlasting to everlasting, with his own time; God's knowledge of all things, with his own ignorance; and

God's almighty power, with his own weakness. Our darkening the counsels of God's wisdom with our folly, is a great provocation to God. Humble faith and sincere obedience see farthest and best into the will of the Lord. (Job 38:4-11)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again the Matthew Henry commentary is of no help regarding this issue, and clearly we will need to step outside the ESV and look at a few other tranlations in order to shed some light on this issue.

Job 38:7 (New International Version - NIV)

[ QUOTE ]

7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?

[/ QUOTE ]

We see a footnote here [a] = Hebrew the sons of God

Job 1:6 (NIV)

[ QUOTE ]

6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan (b) also came with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Footnotes for [a] and (b)

[a] = Hebrew the sons of God
(b) = Satan means accuser .

Genesis 6:2 (NIV)

[ QUOTE ]

2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm ... they use 'sons of God' here but in Job they said 'angels' but had 'sons of God' as a footnote.

Rather inconsistent and strange translating it would seem.

Gensis 6:4 (NIV)

[ QUOTE ]

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, the literal hebrew tranlation 'sons of God' and not 'angels' like in Job.

Enough with the NIV, next stop is the Good News Bible:

Genesis 6:1-4: (Good News Bible - GNB)

[ QUOTE ]

1 When mankind had spread all over the world, and girls were being born,
2 some of the heavenly beings(y) saw that these girls were beautiful, so they took the ones they liked.
3 Then the LORD said, "I will not allow people to live for ever; they are mortal. From now on they will live no longer than 120 years."
4 In those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. They were the great heroes and famous men of long ago.

[/ QUOTE ](Typed by hand)

This is very different from the ESV, KJV, & NIV.

But let's not forget the footnote:

(y) = heavenly beings; or sons of the gods; or sons of God.

Let's go to Job 1:6 (GNB)

[ QUOTE ]

6 When the day came for the heavenly beings(b) to appear before the LORD, Satan(c) was there among them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Footnotes:

(b) = HEAVENLY BEINGS: Supernatural beings who serve God in heaven.
(c) = SATAN: A supernatural being whose name indicates he was regarded as man's opponent.

Now, the Good News Bible doesn't mention in hebrew Satan means 'accuser' like the NIV says, but it gives us an idea he was man's opponent and this would fall in line with the hebrew 'accuser'.

Job 38:7 (GNB)

[ QUOTE ]

7 In the dawn of that day the stars sang together, and the heavenly beings(q) shouted for joy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Footnote:

(q) = HEAVENLY BEINGS: See 1.6

So the Good New Bible has now said all that it appears it wished to say on that matter, one more translation:

The following scripture and subsequent commentary are all taken from a site called "CHABAD.ORG" which provides the Tanach from Judaica Press and Rabbi Rashi's commentary. (you can read it here (http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8171&showrashi=true)

I don't know what text they are using for the Tanach but I assume it is the Masoretic text and I treat the approach to Rashi's commentary like I treated the approach to Matthew Henry's. (grain of salt/men can err)

Genesis 6:2-4

[ QUOTE ]

2. That the sons of the nobles saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose.
3. And the Lord said, "Let My spirit not quarrel forever concerning man, because he is also flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."
4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the nobles would come to the daughters of man, and they would bear for them; they are the mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rashi's commentary (the hebrew used by chabad.org is in unicode and thus will not appear in this post properly which is why I have 'whited' it below, to see the letters properly visit chabad.org here (http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8171&showrashi=true) )

[ QUOTE ]

2 the sons of the nobles <font color="white">Heb. &amp;#1489;&amp;#1468;&amp;#1464;&amp;#1504;&amp;#1461;&amp;#1497; &amp;#1492;&amp;#1464;&amp;#1488;&amp;#1457;&amp;#1500;&amp;#1465;&amp;#1492;&amp; #1460;&amp;#1497;&amp;#1501;</font>, the sons of the princes (Targumim) and the judges (Gen. Rabbah 26:5). Another explanation: <font color="white">&amp;#1489;&amp;#1468;&amp;#1464;&amp;#1504;&amp;#1461;&amp;#1497; &amp;#1492;&amp;#1464;&amp;#1488;&amp;#1457;&amp;#1500;&amp;#1465;&amp;#1492;&amp; #1460;&amp;#1497;&amp;#1501</font>; are the princes who go as messengers of the Omnipresent. They too mingled with them (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22). Every <font color="white">&amp;#1488;&amp;#1457;&amp;#1500;&amp;#1465;&amp;#1492;&amp;#1460;&amp;#1497;&amp; #1501</font>; in Scripture is an expression of authority, and the following proves it (Exod. 4:16):“And you shall be to him as a lord <font color="white"> (&amp;#1500;&amp;#1461;&amp;#1488;&amp;#1500;&amp;#1465;&amp;#1492;&amp;#1460; &amp;#1497;&amp;#1501;)</font>” ; (ibid. 7:1):“See, I have made you a lord (<font color="white">&amp;#1488;&amp;#1462;&amp;#1500;&amp;#1465;&amp;#1492;&amp;#1460;&amp;#1497;&amp; #1501;</font>).”

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

4 The Nephilim [They were called <font color="white">&amp;#1504;&amp;#1456;&amp;#1508;&amp;#1460;&amp;#1497;&amp;#1500;&amp;#1460;&amp; #1497;&amp;#1501;</font> because they fell <font color="white"> (&amp;#1504;&amp;#1464;&amp;#1508;&amp;#1456;&amp;#1500;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1468; )</font> and caused the world to fall <font color="white">(&amp;#1492;&amp;#1460;&amp;#1508;&amp;#1468;&amp;#1460;&amp;#1497;&amp;#1500; &amp;#1493;&amp;#1468;)</font> (Gen. Rabbah 26:7), and in the Hebrew language it means giants (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch.22). and Targum Jonathan.
mighty men to rebel against the Omnipresent. — [Yelammednu, Batei Midrashoth, p. 148]
the men of renown <font color="white">Heb. &amp;#1488;&amp;#1463;&amp;#1504;&amp;#1456;&amp;#1513;&amp;#1473;&amp;#1461;&amp; #1497; &amp;#1492;&amp;#1463;&amp;#1513;&amp;#1473;&amp;#1461;&amp;#1501;</font> Those who were called by name: Irad, Mechuiael, Methushael, who were so named because of their destruction, for they were wiped out <font color="white">(&amp;#1502;&amp;#1456;&amp;#1495;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1468;&amp;#1497;&amp;#1464; &amp;#1488;&amp;#1461;&amp;#1500; from &amp;#1504;&amp;#1460;&amp;#1502;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1465;&amp;#1495;&amp;#1493;&amp; #1468;) and uprooted (&amp;#1502;&amp;#1456;&amp;#1514;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1468;&amp;#1513;&amp;#1473; &amp;#1464;&amp;#1488;&amp;#1461;&amp;#1500; from &amp;#1492;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1468;&amp;#1514;&amp;#1468;&amp;#1464;&amp;#1513;&amp; #1473;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1468;). </font>Another explanation: men of desolation <font color="white">(&amp;#1513;&amp;#1473;&amp;#1460;&amp;#1502;&amp;#1464;&amp;#1502;&amp;#1493; &amp;#1465;&amp;#1503;)</font>, who made the world desolate. — [from Gen. Rabbah 26:7]


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now the waters are getting deeper and muddier. We're exploring the hebrew a little, and midrashic interpretations are used by the Rabbi.

Now to Christians, midrashic interpretationsa/exegesis are not binding and in some cases can show big differences how a Christian and Jew will interpret an OT passage due to extra sources such as the Talmud for the Jew, and the New Testament for the Christian.

So Rabbi Rashi's exegesis draws from midrashic exegesis, let that be known.

Job 1:6

[ QUOTE ]

6. Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary, too, came among them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rashi's commentary

[ QUOTE ]

Now the day came about That day which was Rosh Hashanah, (known as a day of sounding the shofar, and the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded the Adversary to bring the merit and the guilt of all creatures. This is the meaning of “from going to and fro on the earth.”)
and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord to contend with Him, because the expression of standing refers only to judgment, as it is stated (Isa. 3:13): “The Lord stands to plead.”
and the Adversary, too, came among them to accuse the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rabbi Rashi in his commentary here says 'the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord', so clearly Rabbi Rashi does not believe the 'sons of God' were not men on earth.

Job 38:7

[ QUOTE ]

7. When the morning stars sing together, and all the angels of God shout?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rashi's commentary

[ QUOTE ]

When… sing together from the beginning the stars of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears Rashi covers only the first part of the verse involving morning the stars here.

Ok, now we've seen these verses from 3 Bibles (ESV, NIV, GNB) and seen the Jewish Tanach from Judaica Press (Chabad.org), and we've seen two commentaries:

a) Matthew Henry
b) Rabbi Rashi

I don't put alot of the commentaries of either of these two, for a couple of reasons:

1) Commentaries/exegesis are man's added input. Men can err, take it with a grain of salt.
2) Both are coming from some kind of 'tradtion'. Henry = Christian, Rashi = Jewish.

You can read more about both commentators here:

Matthew Henry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Henry)
Rabbi Rashi here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi)

Lastly, let's look at a bit of hebrew:

The 'sons of god' (ben 'elohiym in hebrew) is used as mentioned before, in only 5 verses of the Old Testament, and they are all the same:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs357.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs341.gif

http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs355.gif http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs351.gif http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs344.gif http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs354.gif http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/hs340.gif

So if that hebrew was used in Gensis 6:2 &amp; 4 and is the same hebrew used in Job 1:6 and 38:7, it would appear, that angels did leave heaven to enter human women and the children were abnormally large (giants) known as the Nephilim.

Who knows?

[spaminator101]

Man, thats some deep stuff. I didn't take time to read all of it but i think i got the bulk of it. Its agreed: who knows?

[hurlyburly]

So the fact that I don't believe in any gods or dragons or magical swords and whatnot probably means that I am predestined for hell anyway?

[hurlyburly]

Why would they have to meet christians if they're souls were already covered? I think you are taking his response too literally. By "know" he's talking about that thing where he speaks to your heart, whatever. Not "know of".

[udontknowmickey]

Very cool post. It looks like you made heavy useage of Bible gateway (and my favorite translation, the ESV). Props for that.

I'm curious as to why you rejected the NT references, because it seems like they shed a great deal of light on this matter.

We see Jesus saying "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9). If you check the footnote it points to the preface for the translation of the term huioi:

[ QUOTE ]

In addition, the English word “sons” (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because of its meaning as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome.

[/ QUOTE ]

We also have the term "sons of God" in Romans:

Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.


Finally we have Galations 3:26-8 which sheds even more light:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Here the term "sons of God" is equivalent to "Abraham's seed"

Though we do know that the OT and the NT are written in different languages and thus the words do not have exactly the same meaning, I'm not sure we can discard the entire NT testimony regarding this term. Now, I'll admit I have no training in greek, so this is PURE GUESSWORK:

But, looking up the septuagint (the earliest translation of the OT from Hebrew to Greek), we see a word that looks much like the one translated in Matthew for sons. We can look up each of these words in www.blueletterbible.org. (http://www.blueletterbible.org.) One of the words used in the septuagint translation (we dont' know which) looks very similar to the word that is translated "sons" in the NT. I don't know how much support this is for that concept though.

Either way though, I see no reason why we can completely say one way or another, and have since forgotten your point about this. But it was an interesting endevor none the less. Thanks

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to why you rejected the NT references, because it seems like they shed a great deal of light on this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't see how they do, in fact unless one is versed in Koine Greek (NT) and can understand the "Hebraicisms" of the greek of the Old Testament in the Septuagint trying to capture the Jewish flavour of writing, I would say it makes it incredibly difficult, take a look:

http://tinypic.com/dfzhj4.jpg

That's the 5 places in the OT (Septuagint version) compared to the 4 verses you gave me from the NT.

I'm not a biblical scholar as I said before, nor do I know any hebrew or koine greek.

It's fairly simple to find the phrase 'sons of god' in the OT in hebrew in it's 5 places and see that they are all the same, and then consult different translations done by qualified translators who know these languages and have councils (yet even then they can err) than to try and tie a phrase from the OT to the NT using a greek dialect translation of the hebrew.

This requires years of study, I admire your zeal, but it's not that easy.

So that's why I rejected the New Testament references, but also because they were irrelevant to my original question to spaminator101, which was:

[ QUOTE ]

SDM: If God chose people to be saved before the foundation of the world, then why didn't God have the foresight to see stuff like the 'rebellion in heaven', and 'eating off the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden'?

Spam: First of all, God did know that these things would happen. Now youdontknowmickey will disagree with me on this one but God gave man some free will. Man was able to sin. I beleive He created Angels the same way.

SDM: (waxes lyrical in a post made at 09/04/05 10:24 PM - look it up)

[/ QUOTE ]

So my point about this ties into predestination and the evidence for it.

I know you and spam quote Romans alot in your defence of predestination, but here's a question:

Q. If predestination is true, then was Lucifer predestined to fall from grace, and the sons of God (angels) in Genesis 6 also predestined to leave heaven and create Nephilim with earthly women?

Or does predestination only apply to humans?

Cheers,
SDM

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

So my point about this ties into predestination and the evidence for it.

I know you and spam quote Romans alot in your defence of predestination, but here's a question:

Q. If predestination is true, then was Lucifer predestined to fall from grace, and the sons of God (angels) in Genesis 6 also predestined to leave heaven and create Nephilim with earthly women?

Or does predestination only apply to humans?

Cheers,
SDM


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the questions, now I remember. Thanks for summarizing them.

To answer your questions

1) If predestination (aka God's sovereign control over everything, not some foreknowledge of free choices like some define it) is true, then yes, absolutely I would affirm that God sovereignly created Satan, caused him to fall from grace, caused the sons of God to marry the daughters of women (I am heisitant to do too much speculation on the identities of any of these, but I will affirm that God is sovereign over all of them). Since I do believe that predestination is completely true then I also affirm that God is sovereign over angels, and that includes Satan. (and if you want I can quote Scripture after Scripture emphasizing that God is sovereign over all things, even hurricanes, earthquakes,tsunamis, world trade bombinggs, and the like, ok maybe not an explicit scripture on bombings but these are by implication)

2. Predestination is not only over humans. God cannot foreordain the ends without ordaining the means, and in order to control the means, he must control everything that can impact the means... which means ... everything.

It's alot easier to call it God's absolute sovereignty, mostly because people get mixed up with predestination (as those in the other thread currently are, with two (or 3?) different definitions of the word itself. With God's sovereignty, it's pretty clear that it's talking about God's complete and active control of something. I affirm God's sovereignty extends to everything.

As a side note:

[ QUOTE ]


This requires years of study, I admire your zeal, but it's not that easy.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question as to why you ignored the NT witness wasn't a criticism for poor scholarship or anything, just an honest question. I do acknowledge with you that learning languages (especially old Biblical ones!) is incredibly difficult (I took two quarters of Biblical Hebrew and all I can do is translate a few names... ). Once again, mad props for your own research and eagerness to dive into Scripture.

On another note, imo the Good News Bible and other paraphrases like it (the Message, New Living Translation) serve as good commentaries on a text, but poor translations.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So my point about this ties into predestination and the evidence for it.

I know you and spam quote Romans alot in your defence of predestination, but here's a question:

Q. If predestination is true, then was Lucifer predestined to fall from grace, and the sons of God (angels) in Genesis 6 also predestined to leave heaven and create Nephilim with earthly women?

Or does predestination only apply to humans?

Cheers,
SDM


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the questions, now I remember. Thanks for summarizing them.

To answer your questions

1) If predestination (aka God's sovereign control over everything, not some foreknowledge of free choices like some define it) is true, then yes, absolutely I would affirm that God sovereignly created Satan, caused him to fall from grace, caused the sons of God to marry the daughters of women (I am heisitant to do too much speculation on the identities of any of these, but I will affirm that God is sovereign over all of them). Since I do believe that predestination is completely true then I also affirm that God is sovereign over angels, and that includes Satan. (and if you want I can quote Scripture after Scripture emphasizing that God is sovereign over all things, even hurricanes, earthquakes,tsunamis, world trade bombinggs, and the like, ok maybe not an explicit scripture on bombings but these are by implication)

[/ QUOTE ]

2. Predestination is not only over humans. God cannot foreordain the ends without ordaining the means, and in order to control the means, he must control everything that can impact the means... which means ... everything.

It's alot easier to call it God's absolute sovereignty, mostly because people get mixed up with predestination (as those in the other thread currently are, with two (or 3?) different definitions of the word itself. With God's sovereignty, it's pretty clear that it's talking about God's complete and active control of something. I affirm God's sovereignty extends to everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I just want to stop and clairfy things here for a moment.

Let's say God is sovereign over everything for a minute, so we are both on the same page there.

The question I have with predestination is that is EVERYTHING planned? (It seems like it is)

Example: 10 people on earth, 5 God pretermines to salvation, 5 God pretermines to Hell. The 5 going to heaven, can they do anything to send them to hell? Likewise, the 5 going to hell, can they do anything to go to heaven?

Example 2: Lukaas is diagnosed with 'syndrome Yy' (a fictional terminal illness for the purposes of this scneario) at age 52. The doctor tells him it is untreatable and that he will die within 3 months. Syndrome Yy is quite a popular terminal illness that millions die from each year, no cure has been found yet.

Did God pre-plan for Lukaas to get 'Syndrome Yy' when he was 52, before Lukaas was born?

[ QUOTE ]

As a side note:

[ QUOTE ]


This requires years of study, I admire your zeal, but it's not that easy.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question as to why you ignored the NT witness wasn't a criticism for poor scholarship or anything, just an honest question. I do acknowledge with you that learning languages (especially old Biblical ones!) is incredibly difficult (I took two quarters of Biblical Hebrew and all I can do is translate a few names... ). Once again, mad props for your own research and eagerness to dive into Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it wasn't, I just know that sometimes Christians can make mistakes when interpreting scripture using only one Bible translation.

I'm not saying you were doing this (though with youthful zeal I know it can be tempting) but I know some preachers do this and I now understand why the Catholic Church didn't want the public to have Bible's, or people to preach from it without 'authority'.

I'm not saying I agree with the Catholic Church here (as they have been the most dogmatic of all) or that their 'authority' is any closer to the truth than any other Christian sect, but I understand why they had this, dogmaticism in anything is not wise, and the teachers should always be questioned IMHO. (especially with this difficult and speculative subject)

[ QUOTE ]

On another note, imo the Good News Bible and other paraphrases like it (the Message, New Living Translation) serve as good commentaries on a text, but poor translations.

[/ QUOTE ]

The translation technique used by The Good News Bible translators was that of 'dynamic equivilance', so it's not mean't be a literal word for word translation, rather it attempts to capture the feel of the message as the original language did, but uses modern English.

For a book one puts so much faith in, it's wise to have a few translations to dig 'deeper' into some meanings in the quest for the truth.

A good book on the subject is Paul D. Wegner's "The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible" (ISBN 0801021693)

It's pretty cheap too $14.99 for hardcover and a wealth of information.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]



Ok, I just want to stop and clairfy things here for a moment.

Let's say God is sovereign over everything for a minute, so we are both on the same page there.

The question I have with predestination is that is EVERYTHING planned? (It seems like it is)

Example: 10 people on earth, 5 God pretermines to salvation, 5 God pretermines to Hell. The 5 going to heaven, can they do anything to send them to hell? Likewise, the 5 going to hell, can they do anything to go to heaven?


[/ QUOTE ]
You're confusing God's complete sovereignty with fatalism here. What fatalism says is that no matter what you do, you're going to end up doing this. Fatalism determines the ends, but not the means.

But fatalism is too weak to describe God's sovereignty, because I affirm (and I can quote Scripture) that God controls both the means and the ends. Thus if He has foreordained that those 5 men end up in heaven, that means while they live, God will work in their lives to come to repentance for their sins, faith in Christ, and fruits of that faith. Opposite things for the 5 ordained for destruction.

[ QUOTE ]

Example 2: Lukaas is diagnosed with 'syndrome Yy' (a fictional terminal illness for the purposes of this scneario) at age 52. The doctor tells him it is untreatable and that he will die within 3 months. Syndrome Yy is quite a popular terminal illness that millions die from each year, no cure has been found yet.

Did God pre-plan for Lukaas to get 'Syndrome Yy' when he was 52, before Lukaas was born?


[/ QUOTE ]

In short, yup

[ QUOTE ]

sometimes Christians can make mistakes when interpreting scripture using only one Bible translation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying you were doing this (though with youthful zeal I know it can be tempting) but I know some preachers do this and I now understand why the Catholic Church didn't want the public to have Bible's, or people to preach from it without 'authority'.

I'm not saying I agree with the Catholic Church here (as they have been the most dogmatic of all) or that their 'authority' is any closer to the truth than any other Christian sect, but I understand why they had this, dogmaticism in anything is not wise, and the teachers should always be questioned IMHO. (especially with this difficult and speculative subject)


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, though I will make note that oftentimes there is no need to reinvent the wheel everytime we look at the text (though sometimes that is needed, especially with subjects that are a bit more ambiguous) There's that students creed out there, but it's just as applicable to what I said: Ecc 12:12

"Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh."

[ QUOTE ]


The translation technique used by The Good News Bible translators was that of 'dynamic equivilance', so it's not mean't be a literal word for word translation, rather it attempts to capture the feel of the message as the original language did, but uses modern English.

For a book one puts so much faith in, it's wise to have a few translations to dig 'deeper' into some meanings in the quest for the truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with you that it is necessary to dig a little deeper, I was just making an observation that when were looking for the "feel" of a text, it becomes more subjective (though all of translation is interpretation to an extent) than a word for word, thus I usually reference "thought for thought" translations as commentaries.

[ QUOTE ]

A good book on the subject is Paul D. Wegner's "The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible" (ISBN 0801021693)

It's pretty cheap too $14.99 for hardcover and a wealth of information.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty interesting. I'll put it on my list of books to get. Lord willing I'll get to it soon.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Ok, I just want to stop and clairfy things here for a moment.

Let's say God is sovereign over everything for a minute, so we are both on the same page there.

The question I have with predestination is that is EVERYTHING planned? (It seems like it is)

Example: 10 people on earth, 5 God pretermines to salvation, 5 God pretermines to Hell. The 5 going to heaven, can they do anything to send them to hell? Likewise, the 5 going to hell, can they do anything to go to heaven?


[/ QUOTE ]
You're confusing God's complete sovereignty with fatalism here. What fatalism says is that no matter what you do, you're going to end up doing this. Fatalism determines the ends, but not the means.

But fatalism is too weak to describe God's sovereignty, because I affirm (and I can quote Scripture) that God controls both the means and the ends. Thus if He has foreordained that those 5 men end up in heaven, that means while they live, God will work in their lives to come to repentance for their sins, faith in Christ, and fruits of that faith. Opposite things for the 5 ordained for destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on, I don't understand.

God (to angels) "Billy, Jimmy, Timmy, Sally, Harry ... go forth and give them scripture, knowledge, faith for I have predestined these five to be saved."

Angels "Aye, Aye captain!"

God (to angels) "Joe, Jim, Kim, Tim, Tom ... go forth and give them the evils of murderous rage, satanism, and heroin addiction for I have predestined these five to go to hell and be damned"

Angels: "Aye, Aye captain"

Is this how it works?

Cheers,
SDM

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


Hang on, I don't understand.

God (to angels) "Billy, Jimmy, Timmy, Sally, Harry ... go forth and give them scripture, knowledge, faith for I have predestined these five to be saved."

Angels "Aye, Aye captain!"

God (to angels) "Joe, Jim, Kim, Tim, Tom ... go forth and give them the evils of murderous rage, satanism, and heroin addiction for I have predestined these five to go to hell and be damned"

Angels: "Aye, Aye captain"

Is this how it works?

Cheers,
SDM


[/ QUOTE ]

God doesn't need to go through angels. In fact, it is Him controling the angels, and it is him controling the human response to the angels. Thus it's more like:

"I have predestined these five to destruction so that my five will worship me all the greater, I will bring about in their lives sins of gluttony, adultery, addition, and more"

*check, *check *check

[spaminator101]

Not neccesarily you can come to Christianity at any time. No one except God knows who is predestined.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Hang on, I don't understand.

God (to angels) "Billy, Jimmy, Timmy, Sally, Harry ... go forth and give them scripture, knowledge, faith for I have predestined these five to be saved."

Angels "Aye, Aye captain!"

God (to angels) "Joe, Jim, Kim, Tim, Tom ... go forth and give them the evils of murderous rage, satanism, and heroin addiction for I have predestined these five to go to hell and be damned"

Angels: "Aye, Aye captain"

Is this how it works?

Cheers,
SDM


[/ QUOTE ]

God doesn't need to go through angels. In fact, it is Him controling the angels, and it is him controling the human response to the angels. Thus it's more like:

"I have predestined these five to destruction so that my five will worship me all the greater, I will bring about in their lives sins of gluttony, adultery, addition, and more"

*check, *check *check

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 5 pre-dammed can't undamn themselves by accepting the gospel?

They are programmed before birth to 'reject reject reject' to counter the others who are programmed to 'accept accept accept'?

The only difference being the acceptors inherit heaven forever and the rejectors inherit hell forever, despite neither actually do anything of their own free will to contribute to the path they are destined to walk?

Cheers,
SDM