Struggling reading through romans 8 & 9 and Calvinism.
- Thread starter smmartin0507
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
VARob said:
You "explained" them so they mean the opposite of what they say.
Calvinism baffles me. It seems to contradict Jesus' interaction with mankind. I don't know where it is, but didn't Jesus ask, in effect:- "Why won't you listen to and heed my words?" If He were God's son, wouldn't He know?! It was because ordained them not to obey.
Philosophy? Sure, let's talk maths and philosophy.
The video has nothing to do with free will and everything to do with game theory which is a practice in choice optimization.
The presenter also changes the scope of his question when he states "the Oracle is almost always right" and then by the end of the video declares that the Oracle might have approximately 50% chance of being correct. The presenter treats the Oracle's guess as though it would be a static probability (ergo no consideration for Bayesian statistics), and changes the nature of the question from a one time guess to something like a game that could be continually tried.
The video is fine as some kind of high school introduction to statistical thinking. But is this a video on free will? No. Not at all. Not in the slightest.
You get an "F" on decision theory. And an "F" on prophecy. Well.....at least you are consistent.
John 10:25-28
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Seems pretty straightforward.
Frankly the question of the validity of so-called "Calvinistic-election" is made moot (as far as we are concerned) due to the fact that we are not equipped to recognize the "future elect" in our midst. Therefore the command is to preach to every living creature.
All that we see is what we may perceive as choice.
God's election is His business not ours.
This semmingly inscrutable paradox must not divide us.
The choice is genuine.
God really does want everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), He really does want all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9). He requires about the least thing He could from us: faith in Jesus Christ. We are to preach to everyone so they have the opportunity to hear, and once they hear, it's up to them as to whether they want to believe it or not.
Are you sure you read that correctly Grandpa?
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
They follow me hence, no one can pluck them out of my hand.
Jocund the court jester missed the punchline. Nothing unusual in that. Here you go buddy.
To be clear....the "future elect" meaning those yet to receive Christ by hearing the word and believing. This is our perspective.
From God's perspective they have been chosen from before the foundation of the world.
Eph 1:4
according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love,
Can we bury the hatchet and have an actual conversation? Logic for logic? Can we drop the ad hominem appeals to pathos and ethos? I think the content of your post here genuinely touches on a good point. Can we talk about this logically?
Your argument here is that because we cannot subjectively know who is elect or not means that the objective truth is irrelevant to our pursuits / not our business.
From an epistemological perspective, that can be a useful consideration for our interactions with the world. We really don't know who is elect and who is not, even if it were the case that there are objectively (metaphysically) those that are elect from the dawn of time and those that will never be elect (e.g. wheat and tares).
If you would now apply this same logic to Israel, you will see that we can't know who is actually Israel and who is not.
1) It is possible for someone not to know whether or not they are actually Israel
2) It is possible for someone to be a Saul to Paul Israel (currently antiChrist but set to become realized in Christ)
3) It is possible that someone appears to be Israel by claim but are not actually Israel (e.g. synagogue of Satan)
4) It is possible that someone is Israel and is Christian
But, out of these four possibilities, we do not have the capability to know the objective truth of the matter. We can't objectively know whether or not the current residents of middle eastern land are or are not Israel. We normally can't objectively know who can be saved, or who will be part of a spiritual people.
What does this lack of knowledge then leave us with? We should still abstain from the appearance of evil by not condoning antiChrists to continue being antiChrist. We should still be preaching to every creature including those that claim to be Israel. And we shouldn't anticipate that those making a man's claim to be Israel would actually be Israel objectively.
Do you disagree with the concept that your epistemological consideration for election would not also apply to spiritual identities such as Israel?
Is there any concept in those 4 verses that is too difficult to understand?
Not sure why or how anyone could read it incorrectly.
I am not really interested in metaphysics of philosophy. Because they are irrelevant as far as we are concerned.
And I will leave pathos and ethos to the slithering politicians and prosperity gospel preachers.
Furthermore, Paul indicates that preaching the gospel has little if nothing to do with "logic". Or any other artifact of human wisdom.
1Co 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.