God does love everybody

[David Sklansky]

"I don't remember all the details concerning predestination that udon't went into but the Bible teaches the doctrine unequivocally so why would I assume it's wrong?"

1. If it is true in the way udon'tknowmickey means it, rather than a cute way of saying that God can see the future, what's the point of talking about it, or anything else for that matter? If there is even a slight chance in your mind the precept is wrong, or that you have misunderstood it, why not go under the assumption you have, since there is no reason not to?

2. If the Bible teaches it unequivacably, how come the great majority of studious Christians don't agree with you? (Notice that your answer presumably cannot be the same as your answer as to why atheists don't believe in God or why Muslims don't believe in Jesus.)

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote something similar a while ago. My father actually believes something similar to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet disputed my claim that it was better to live as if there were no God even if there happened to be one.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. what's the point of talking about it


[/ QUOTE ]

I said in a previous post that this is a very difficult doctrine. I don't necessarily agree with the way it is usally expressed. Also, I don't bring up the topic. But I do try to answer questions if asked.

[ QUOTE ]

2. If the Bible teaches it unequivacably


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe anyone who accepts the Bible as God's word will accept that it teaches predestination. The concept is contained in both the Old and New Testaments. Arminians accept it and Catholic giants like Augustine and Aquinas taught it as did Luther. The battle is over the details of what it means, and it isn't necessary to presenting the Gospel. My position is that God is sovereign and man is responible and I can't make these two ideas fit together logically. My failure.

[spaminator101]

Actually I have thought a lot about this. I really don't know. This one is very hard for me.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
WWII - What do you want? Are you suggesting the German plan to eradicate Jews from the world is not a religious motivation.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it, the persecution of the Jews was not a motivation behind the War itself. It was German internal political policy. The invasion of Poland and the anexation of austria were not I believe intended to facilitate the elimination of Jews, or as part of the process of rendering the world 'Judenrein'.
Equally the allied response to the German military invasion, was a response the military expansion, rather than a response to Germany's anti-semitic internal politics.

[scalf]

..tewaga...g*d shining on everyone..


or : "for g*d so loved the world...."

it just is


gl

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe anyone who accepts the Bible as God's word will accept that it teaches predestination. The concept is contained in both the Old and New Testaments. Arminians accept it and Catholic giants like Augustine and Aquinas taught it as did Luther. The battle is over the details of what it means, and it isn't necessary to presenting the Gospel. My position is that God is sovereign and man is responible and I can't make these two ideas fit together logically. My failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is the details that are vitally important. By one interpretation of predestination, that is that those predestined to perdition are only so because of God's foreknowledge of their free response to the gospel, all men can know that God really loves each and every one of them and wishes them to be saved.

Whereas a differing interpretation, the Calvinist one, means that men are asked to believe the preposterous notion that God created certain men for the sole purpose of damning them, and thus men can have no confidence of the love of God for them. Which of course leads more people to reject the gospel, the insidious fruit of individual non-authoritative interpretation of scripture.

[David Sklansky]

"But it is the details that are vitally important. By one interpretation of predestination, that is that those predestined to perdition are only so because of God's foreknowledge of their free response to the gospel, all men can know that God really loves each and every one of them and wishes them to be saved.

Whereas a differing interpretation, the Calvinist one, means that men are asked to believe the preposterous notion that God created certain men for the sole purpose of damning them, and thus men can have no confidence of the love of God for them. Which of course leads more people to reject the gospel, the insidious fruit of individual non-authoritative interpretation"

Although it may not be my place to get involved, it sure seems that you did a nearly perfect job of backing Not Ready into an inescapable corner. His only way out of it is to say that regardless of the consequences, the Calvinist interpretation is not an interpretation at all, but rather crystal clear reading, while other so called interpretations are obvious bending of the words to avoid difficulties.

[BluffTHIS!]

Fortunately I stand on the shoulders of theological giants who stand themselves on the solid foundation of the true church and true doctrine, whereas so many of these others stand on the shoulders of theological midgets who stand in the quicksand of individual interpretation that produced the plethora of conflicting protestant denominations. Thus I, being only a midget myself, can stand a little taller in my theological understanding.

[spaminator101]

excuse me but predestination was massly beleived before Arminianism was even thought up.