Election

[Reformedguy]

The two prongs of the fork are either God needs glory outside of himself, thus he created the elect and the reprobate, or, if he didn't need it, he simply wanted to do so.

Self-sufficiency, part of the Aesity of God, means he cannot "need" anything outside of himself. This leaves that God wanted to show the fullness of his capacity by Election/reprobation, which in my mind, runs contrary to his character.


Doug

What do you mean by "fullness of His capacity"?

 

[guest1]

The two prongs of the fork are either God needs glory outside of himself, thus he created the elect and the reprobate, or, if he didn't need it, he simply wanted to do so.

Self-sufficiency, part of the Aesity of God, means he cannot "need" anything outside of himself. This leaves that God wanted to show the fullness of his capacity by Election/reprobation, which in my mind, runs contrary to his character.


Doug

I know we see things differently but option 2 above is my POV. And I'm not convinced God has any wants/needs outside of His Triune nature. I believe creation was an expression of His Glory and He allowed both man and angels to have a genuine free will to choose to worship and obey Him without any restraint.

And I believe the whole A/C debate in my humble opinion is a matter of perspective. Plus we cannot know the why's and how's of Gods choosing some over others as He never explains those things in scripture and its left to our speculation which is where the differences in opinions come from in the first place. It makes for good debate I guess but we do not have any absolute reasons given on this side of the grave. And once we are with Him in eternity it will not matter much anyways as we will no longer have any remembrance of the past down here as God will wipe away all of those things in the new heavens and earth. It will be water under the bridge at that point and no need for those things to be known. Thats my 2 cents on it fwiw.

hope this helps !!!

 

[cadwell]

Jude 1:4
"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." -

1 Peter 2:8
"and 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.' They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."

Do I personally like those verses ? No

But who am I to answer back to God ?

By presenting His truth in a way that suits a false doctrine, you are, in a way, answering back to God.

His word above says these sinful acts were predetermined by Him, designated for condemnation and to stumble/disobey the word.

Not at all. Their particular acts are NEVER said to be predetermined, only the condemnation for said acts. Your idea is being read into the text. I know you dont like the Jude 1:4, and you must really hate the rest of the passage, having left it out. Verse 5, what is the first thing Jude brings up??? He wants the reader to remember the OT, thats the "long ago" he is referring to in verse 4. After being taken out of Egypt they were given a list of acts that lead to blessings, and acts that lead to curses (Deut 28). From that initial group, those who believed were allowed into the promised land, and those who didnt died before they entered. Thats the example Jude uses against his contemporaries who "pervert the grace of our God". He is talking about particular people, who are committing acts with CONSEQUENCES that have already been predetermined.

Peter is speaking more in general, but making the same point as Jude, albeit in an opposite manner. It was expressly written that those who disobey will "stumble" (see above), but there is nothing to suggest that the disobedience he speaks of is what is destined. Notice how after briefly mentioning disobedient stumblers, the majority of that chapter is filled with exhortation to good works. So he is not saying that those who stumble and disobey were destined to do so. He is saying that those who disobey are destined to stumble.

But guess what Scripture says it, I believe it and leave my emotions out of it because Gods ways and thoughts are so much higher than mine as scripture says as the heavens are above the earth. Since God is Righteous and Holy that makes His Judgments the same. So who am I to question God and His ways ?

But since you do not like these verses you make emotional excuses and deny the TRUTH in them for your doctrine.

I do not like those verses but its not about what I like or don't like its about truth. And I accept ALL of Gods truth in His word whether or not I personally agree with it. Its called being objective and not bias but open-minded. I don't have to understand Gods predestination and who He chooses to save that is up to Him and in so many places declares that is what He did before creation. This is His Creation governed by His rules and ways not mans. He is in control. Man hates Gods control over His creation.

hope this helps !!!

OMG look at me!!! I'm sooo good, I accepts alll Gods WOrdsS. Yay me!!!! I'm so OpenDMinDed wooo HOOO!

But seriously, what does any of this add to the conversation?

 

[TibiasDad]

What do you mean by "fullness of His capacity"?

All of his attributes!

 

[guest1]

By presenting His truth in a way that suits a false doctrine, you are, in a way, answering back to God.

Not at all. Their particular acts are NEVER said to be predetermined, only the condemnation for said acts. Your idea is being read into the text. I know you dont like the Jude 1:4, and you must really hate the rest of the passage, having left it out. Verse 5, what is the first thing Jude brings up??? He wants the reader to remember the OT, thats the "long ago" he is referring to in verse 4. After being taken out of Egypt they were given a list of acts that lead to blessings, and acts that lead to curses (Deut 28). From that initial group, those who believed were allowed into the promised land, and those who didnt died before they entered. Thats the example Jude uses against his contemporaries who "pervert the grace of our God". He is talking about particular people, who are committing acts with CONSEQUENCES that have already been predetermined.

Peter is speaking more in general, but making the same point as Jude, albeit in an opposite manner. It was expressly written that those who disobey will "stumble" (see above), but there is nothing to suggest that the disobedience he speaks of is what is destined. Notice how after briefly mentioning disobedient stumblers, the majority of that chapter is filled with exhortation to good works. So he is not saying that those who stumble and disobey were destined to do so. He is saying that those who disobey are destined to stumble.

OMG look at me!!! I'm sooo good, I accepts alll Gods WOrdsS. Yay me!!!! I'm so OpenDMinDed wooo HOOO!

But seriously, what does any of this add to the conversation?

ad hominem duly noted but thanks for the drive by and your OPINION.

 

[brightfame52]

The two prongs of the fork are either God needs glory outside of himself, thus he created the elect and the reprobate, or, if he didn't need it, he simply wanted to do so.

Self-sufficiency, part of the Aesity of God, means he cannot "need" anything outside of himself. This leaves that God wanted to show the fullness of his capacity by Election/reprobation, which in my mind, runs contrary to his character.


Doug

You bring up God needing somthing, that is a God dishonoring thought. God does things because He will, Because He can do as He wants. He chooses to display His Majesty by creating some men for mercy and grace and salvation, and the rest for judgment and justice for their sins whether we like it or not. Rom 9:22-23!

 

[PeanutGallery]

Has God determined to grant belief??

To whom has God granted belief? Then we can check the context.

 

[PeanutGallery]

God saves whosoever He wills, then causes them to believe. A lost man cant believe !

That's not what it states:
1Cor 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.

 

[TibiasDad]

Plus we cannot know the why's and how's of Gods choosing some over others as He never explains those things in scripture and its left to our speculation which is where the differences in opinions come from in the first place.

But this is the crux of the OP. Carbon has stated the the "why" is to glorify himself!


Doug

 

[Theo1689]

This leaves that God wanted to show the fullness of his capacity by Election/reprobation, which in my mind, runs contrary to his character.

Then maybe your understanding of His character is flawed.

 

[Theo1689]

My first, and primary objection to this line of argument is this: Can a God that who wants to create such a creation do so and maintain his Aseity?

One of my pet peeves in this forum is that too many people simply ask rhetorical "questions", instead of actually presenting valid ARGUMENTS for a particular view. Then we're left to guess what the point is, and more often than not, we have no clue what the point is, and it simply wastes everyone's time.

It's like asking, "How can the golf courses possibly be open if the sun is out?!"
Nonsensical.

The question:

"Can a God that who wants to create such a creation do so and maintain his Aseity?"

("a God that who wants to"?!?!?)

The question is nonsensical.
Of course He can.
Why wouldn't He be able to?
You see, there is some "hidden" opinion here, someone unknown assumption by the poster, which causes the allegedly problem. But since he doesn't want to be open and honest about it, any chance of productive discussion is worthless.

Okay, the poster (for whatever reason he refuses to share) doesn't think God can do this and maintain his Aseity.
Okay, that's his problem, not ours.

If he can, what does this say about the character of one who would want to create just to demonstrate his "glorious perfections"?

Again, a nonsensical question.
Why do people want to waste everyone's time asking nonsensical questions?

It says His character is omnipotence.
It says His character includes power, wrath, justice, holiness, basically all the attributes proclaimed in the Bible.

So what's the problem?
Oh, there isn't one?

Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

 

[brightfame52]

That's not what it states:
1Cor 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.

And He saves a person and causes them to believe. Alost person cant believe, theyre lost and blind and dead.

 

[brightfame52]

But this is the crux of the OP. Carbon has stated the the "why" is to glorify himself!


Doug

Whats wrong with that ? He made all things for that Purpose Prov 16:4

4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

lol, You dont like that About God do you sir ?

 

[ReverendRV]

The two prongs of the fork are either God needs glory outside of himself, thus he created the elect and the reprobate, or, if he didn't need it, he simply wanted to do so.

Self-sufficiency, part of the Aesity of God, means he cannot "need" anything outside of himself. This leaves that God wanted to show the fullness of his capacity by Election/reprobation, which in my mind, runs contrary to his character.


Doug

Thanks, I thought it was something like that...

As a Wesleyan, you believe in the Aseity of God; and believe God receives Glory from his Creation, so to me it's kind of a Non-question. It's like asking a Calvinist why they believe something to be true that you also believe to be true. God Created, he receives Glory from Creation; and his Aseity is maintained. So including Aseity into the discussion is like a 'Swerve'; something that isn't even needed in a discussion about God's Decree...

If God's Aseity does have to be involved in the discussion as you described it, then your description has to be consistent for us All; and would altogether disprove the existence of an Self-Sufficient God...

 

[Reformedguy]

To whom has God granted belief? Then we can check the context.

To those that genuinely believe. Answering a question with a question duly noted.

 

[cadwell]

ad hominem duly noted but thanks for the drive by and your OPINION.

This may surprise you, but asking a question about yourself can sometimes lead to an answer.....about yourself. Really arbitrary use of the term "ad hominem".

Thanks for ignoring the rest of the post. The non answer is also duly noted.

 

[PeanutGallery]

To those that genuinely believe.

By genuine, you mean freewill?

Answering a question with a question duly noted.

It's allowed

 

[PeanutGallery]

And He saves a person and causes them to believe. Alost person cant believe, theyre lost and blind and dead.

Provide scripture which states God causes them to believe.

 

[Reformedguy]

By genuine, you mean freewill?


It's allowed

No. Lol kind of a nonsensical question.
Who said it wasn't? Its usually employed by those who would rather not answer a question asked of them.

 

[brightfame52]

Provide scripture which states God causes them to believe.

I already have !