Reconciliation Cancels Out the Doctrine of Predestination

[Robert Pate]

Except you hold that reconciled is both true now, and something that you have to accept, and that the mean Pate god can take it away, and throw you into hell.

Not if you accept the reconciliation that God is offering to you in Jesus Christ.

To reject the reconciliation is to reject what God has done for you in Christ.

 

[NickCharles]

There are 2 ways of foreknowing something.

1. I can look at an empty plot of land and visualise a house on it, and having money, I can know that a certain house will be built on it.



2. The second form of predestination is the "spooky" kind where you can tell the future, and accurately predict the lottery numbers.



Which kind of "foreknowing" are we speaking about?

Actually, it's the Jeremiah 1:5 kind of foreknowning.

 

[Robert Pate]

There are 2 ways of foreknowing something.
1. I can look at an empty plot of land and visualise a house on it, and having money, I can know that a certain house will be built on it.

2. The second form of predestination is the "spooky" kind where you can tell the future, and accurately predict the lottery numbers.

Which kind of "foreknowing" are we speaking about?

The first kind.

God foreknows that those who are "In Christ" will be conformed to the image of his Son. Romans 8:29.

 

[NickCharles]

Not if you accept the reconciliation that God is offering to you in Jesus Christ.



To reject the reconciliation is to reject what God has done for you in Christ.

You can't reject it. If you reject it, then it can't be true that God reconciled Himself to the whole world, in any real sense.

 

[Robert Pate]

Again, if everyone is reconciled, then everyone is a friend of God.

Then that means that there will not be a judgment?

The word of God all fits together. If you mess with one part of it, you have messed with the whole thing.

 

[NickCharles]

Then that means that there will not be a judgment?
.

If you are consistent, then no. That's why your view logically leads too universalism.

Now, if world means people from every tongue, tribe and nation, then there's no conflict.

Yes, it all fits together. But it must fit logically. Your view is illogical because of contradictions.

 

[Robert Pate]

If you are consistent, then no. That's why your view logically leads too universalism.

Now, if world means people from every tongue, tribe and nation, then there's no conflict.

Yes, it all fits together. But it must fit logically. Your view is illogical because of contradictions.

Only in your twisted mind.

I do not teach contradictions. I teach what the Bible says, but because you don't have the Holy Spirit, that is the teacher and revealer of truth, what I am saving doesn't make sense to you.

 

[NickCharles]

Only in your twisted mind.



I do not teach contradictions. I teach what the Bible says, but because you don't have the Holy Spirit, that is the teacher and revealer of truth, what I am saving doesn't make sense to you.

You do teach contradictions. You think we can be reconciled and not reconciled at the same time.

 

[iouae]

Actually, it's the Jeremiah 1:5 kind of foreknowning.

If God wanted a prophet, and made it happen, then that is the first type of predestination. That leaves room for God to decide to do other things in future, and thus change the course of the future.

If God had foreknown Jeremiah and everything else that would happen in the future, that would be the spooky kind, since that would mean there is only one possible future and its all planned out. That would leave God with nothing to do except watch back to the future reruns since He could not change anything.

 

[NickCharles]

If God wanted a prophet, and made it happen, then that is the first type of predestination. That leaves room for God to decide to do other things in future, and thus change the course of the future.



If God had foreknown Jeremiah and everything else that would happen in the future, that would be the spooky kind, since that would mean there is only one possible future and its all planned out. That would leave God with nothing to do except watch back to the future reruns since He could not change anything.

God said He foreknew Jeremiah. He didn't say He foreknew things about Him.

 

[iouae]

God said He foreknew Jeremiah. He didn't say He foreknew things about Him.

Sorry if I am being slow - that means it has to be the first type of predestination. If it was the second type, then God would know everything about Jeremiah. Do you agree?

 

[NickCharles]

Sorry if I am being slow - that means it has to be the first type of predestination. If it was the second type, then God would know everything about Jeremiah. Do you agree?

There's nothing that God doesn't know. But foreknowing isn't about information. It's about relationships.

 

[beloved57]

The scripture speaks for its self.

Any fool should be able to understand it.

Thats not the issue, the issue is you speaking falsely for the scripture ! You are a false witness !

 

[beloved57]

There's nothing that God doesn't know. But foreknowing isn't about information. It's about relationships.

Correct ! Foreknow is the same as He foreloved them !

 

[iouae]

There's nothing that God doesn't know. But foreknowing isn't about information. It's about relationships.

Please explain to me how foreKNOWing is not about KNOWledge or information.

I am happy that relationships fall into the universal set of knowledge.

 

[NickCharles]

Please explain to me how foreKNOWing is not about KNOWledge or information.



I am happy that relationships fall into the universal set of knowledge.

In the same way that I know my wife. It's not the same thing as having knowledge about her. It's personal and relational.

 

[beloved57]

I have no trouble with it.

You are the one that is trying to refute what the Bible says.

The word "Reconcile" messes up your Calvinist doctrine.

If God has already reconciled the world unto himself by Jesus Christ, the no one needs to be predestinated.

Invalid comments!

 

[iouae]

In the same way that I know my wife. It's not the same thing as having knowledge about her. It's personal and relational.

Let us suppose you are Christ wooing His virgins. This is relational, this is personal. Suppose a virgin, or future "bride" says "No", does Christ respect that "No"? Does He have the freedom to go and woo another? Or does He have the advantage over all us pathetic men who live in fear of being rebuffed in that He only woos those He KNOWS will say "yes"?

 

[NickCharles]

Let us suppose you are Christ wooing His virgins. This is relational, this is personal. Suppose a virgin, or future "bride" says "No", does Christ respect that "No"? Does He have the freedom to go and woo another? Or does He have the advantage over all us pathetic men who live in fear of being rebuffed in that He only woos those He KNOWS will say "yes"?

He doesn't woo. So I cannot answer that.

 

[iouae]

He doesn't woo. So I cannot answer that.

God would like all to be saved according to 1 Tim 2:4

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved , and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

That is what I mean by "wooing". He is calling all to be saved.
Yet we know that some will end up in hell.

Who's fault is that - God who originally created them uncallable , knowing they would reject him....
...or their own fault for rebuffing Him.

If the first, then the scripture should read "Who will have some men to be saved", not so?