Did Jesus teach TULIP

[Roger Thornhill]

Not sure what you want me to do with your definition Roger.
"A group".....aka "1 group" is singular, which is what you need to get your corporate view to work.

If this 1 group is what Romans 8:29-30 is referring to , (if your corporate view is correct) you'd need pronouns like this........

What He foreknew, this He also predestined. Moreover what He predestined this He also called

This language would suggest the singular corporate unit (a group) is predestined and called, but that's not the language Paul uses.

Paul uses "whom" and "these", which indicates he's referring to the multiple individuals who belong to the group.

To prove your view you would need something like this:


30 of these whom he foreordained,
the one he called he also justified
and the one whom he justified
he also glorified.

Notice the "whom" and "these" don't help you here. You need singular forms like I showed you at Romans 12:2 to go along with the plural "people" for a single in a plurality.

 

[preacher4truth]

Apparently some of these guys on here look at God as akin to the man behind the curtain on The Wizard of Oz, eccentric, impotent, absent-minded, and contemptible. And...they allegedly worship him.

 

[CookedGoose]

30 of these whom he foreordained,
the one he called he also justified
and the one whom he justified
he also glorified.

30 is more than 1 and "these" is more than 1.
Thanks for proving my point.
Romans 8:29-30 is not referring to the 1 singular group.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

30 is more than 1 and "these" is more than 1.
Thanks for proving my point.
Romans 8:29-30 is not referring to the 1 singular group.

Lol! That's funny!

So if that fits your theory then what's in the verse does not ?

BTW "30" is the verse number ???

 

[CookedGoose]

Lol! That's funny!

So if that fits your theory then what's in the verse does not ?

BTW "30" is the verse number ???

I'm sorry Roger, you're right.
You're responses have become so boring I stopped reading them.
My mistake.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I'm sorry Roger, you're right.
You're responses have become so boring I stopped reading them.
My mistake.

I notice this one did you in:

King James VersionIsaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[CookedGoose]

I notice this one did you in:

King James VersionIsaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

How so?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

How so?

Don't feel bad. Even the ones trying to help you can't explain how to recover Calvinism from it.

King James VersionIsaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

As you well know, this verse is explaining how God declares what will happen. The things not done are future events.

He says He will do them.

He does not say as Calvinists do that He's already seen what will happpen because the future is determined.

 

[CookedGoose]

He does not say as Calvinists do that He's already seen what will happpen because the future is determined.

You've already claimed God has infallible foreknowledge, so why are you arguing now that He doesn't?
If the future isn't determined, means it's "open", so why do you deny you're an open theist?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You've already claimed God has infallible foreknowledge, so why are you arguing now that He doesn't?
If the future isn't determined, means it's "open", so why do you deny you're an open theist?

He has infallible forknowledge of what He has declared will happen.

King James VersionIsaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

It's what He has DECLARED.

He did not say He has declared everything.

You seem to be obsessed with labeling people and things. You are creating a God that suits your own intellect. What you describe is not in the Bible. It's your philosophy.

 

[CookedGoose]

He has infallible forknowledge of what He has declared will happen.

But has no foreknowledge of anything else?
That's open theism Roger.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

But has no foreknowledge of anything else?
That's open theism Roger.

Did not say that silly goose ?

 

[CookedGoose]

He has infallible forknowledge of what He has declared will happen.

He did not say He has declared everything.

Um... Hello Roger?

But has no foreknowledge of anything else?
That's open theism Roger.

Did not say that silly goose ?

Clearly you did.
So you're "modified molinism" requires open theism, and you are an open theist, yet you deny open theism.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Um... Hello Roger?


Clearly you did.
So you're "modified molinism" requires open theism, and you are an open theist, yet you deny open theism.

We define foreknowledge differently. You are binary and I am analog.

And you continue to ignore what God says:

King James VersionIsaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[CookedGoose]

We define foreknowledge differently.

I don't think so Roger. You use BDAG's definition, "know beforehand" "choose beforehand".
God's foreknowledge is infallible

Your theory doesn't work with infallible foreknowledge, that's how we know it fake.

You are binary and I am analog.

It would be more accurate to say you're just wrong.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I don't think so Roger. You use BDAG's definition, "know beforehand" "choose beforehand".
God's foreknowledge is infallible

Knowing beforehand and choosing beforehand are fine concepts. But you extend them with the word "infallible."

Is God infallible? Yes! But you apply it a way that is not biblical.

When God destroyed Sodom was he all powerful? Yes! Did He use all His power? Not even close or nothing in the universe would be left!

He is in control of His abilities, including His ability to see the future.

Why not listen to Him and not your philosophy?

King James VersionIsaiah 46:11
Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Your theory doesn't work with infallible foreknowledge, that's how we know it fake.

Yes it does. Here is what infallible means:

1: incapable of error : UNERRING
an infallible memory

 

[CookedGoose]

Is God infallible? Yes! But you apply it a way that is not biblical.

When God destroyed Sodom was he all powerful? Yes! Did He use all His power? Not even close or nothing in the universe would be left!

He is in control of His abilities, including His ability to see the future.

So you're saying He's INTENTIONALLY wrong from time to time.
Still doesn't work, He can't be infallible and intentionally wrong at the same time.
Oxymoron.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

So you're saying He's INTENTIONALLY wrong from time to time.

No, I did not say that at all. You are trying to pigeon-hole my view into your philosophical model.

My model is what God says in the Bible.

King James VersionIsaiah 46:11
Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Still doesn't work, He can't be infallible and intentionally wrong at the same time.

It's you who are wrong because you contradict Him!

Oxymoron.

 

[CookedGoose]

He is in control of His abilities, including His ability to see the future.

So you're saying He's INTENTIONALLY wrong from time to time.

1: incapable of error :

Infallible foreknowledge would be "incapable of error".
Yet you're saying He intentionally limits His own foreknowledge.
Obviously not possible Roger, otherwise it wouldn't be infallible.

You need to come up with a better argument, getting boring.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Infallible foreknowledge would be "incapable of error".

Yes it would but that's not the only way.

He tells us how He does it. He makes it happen.

Listen to Him.

Yet you're saying He intentionally limits His own foreknowledge.

It's my current working model and it's also consistent with scripture.

It's also consistent with Him promising life and death based on if we love him.

Obviously not possible Roger, otherwise it wouldn't be infallible.

You are redefining the word infallible and BTW you just made it up.

Argue from what He says not what you say.

You need to come up with a better argument, getting boring.

It's just fine. You know why?

You can't deal with the scriptures that says He does his will.