toldailytopic: Are some people born predestined to go to hell?

[Town Heretic]

You commit the same error here. The issues aren't mutually accepted as non-salvific, hence "your own distinct viewpoint of Christian relativism."

I don't think I've committed an error at either point. I believe your church has recognized the Protestant (in most cases) as belonging to the same faith. And the issues we were discussing are definitely not salvific in nature.

Asserting that they are isn't doing anyone any good, and is no different from Trad telling you that the Rosary is necessary though you clearly disagree. It was odd to me that you rebuked him for undermining your beliefs and then blatantly undermined his own. I guess you don't see it yet. :idunno:

My aim wasn't rebuke, only an expression of disappointment. Nor was I considering his part undermining my beliefs simply by differing. My beginning and end was to note that we have to allow that much of what divides us doesn't have a determining value when it comes to our salvation and that Trad was riding, in that tone and application, the same high horse that once had me shaking head as an outsider to every faith. It doesn't serve an ecumenical spirit nor an evangelical one. It's proud and pointless to my mind.

That's as plain as I can put it. I'm going out of the argument business for a while. Take care.

:e4e:

 

[Vaquero45]

See below.


That's what I was going to say.

Ah, maybe that's why I didn't get it.

 

[Vaquero45]

I never said free will doesn't exist. However, I did say that predestination exists.

Why do you think that is? Have you never opened your mind to Scripture in a way that reveals fundamental truths such as free will and predestination exist in unison?
They are two sides of the same coin. It is essentially dualism at it's very essence and core.

I have seen people attempt to explain compatibilism many many times, never clearly, it's always a nebulous sleight of hand. I do not intend to open my mind so wide that logic no longer applies, and calling it a "fundamental truth" doesn't make it so.

 

[bybee]

I have seen people attempt to explain compatibilism many many times, never clearly, it's always a nebulous sleight of hand. I do not intend to open my mind so wide that logic no longer applies, and calling it a "fundamental truth" doesn't make it so.

I feel that scripture alludes to both predestination and freewill.
Yet, I believe it is not in keeping with a loving God to actually predestine any of His created beings to Hell and eternal torment.
Humankind suffers from judgmentalism. Imagine if some of us get the idea we are intrinsically better than others of us because we are predistined for salvation and they are not?

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Where do you believe Scripture teaches that, specifically?

Why must it be all or nothing?

Why? Why must it be all or nothing? I suppose I agree with you to the extent that once you become a part of the body of Christ, which is predestined for many things, then you, personally, become predestined.

People choose freely by their will, but their will has been predetermined. Therefore, the ultimate fate of an individual is both by their own will and by predestination.

It is a duality.

 

[bybee]

People choose freely by their will, but their will has been predetermined. Therefore, the ultimate fate of an individual is both by their own will and by predestination.

It is a duality.

So, one may have her cake and eat it too?

 

[zippy2006]

I believe your church has recognized the Protestant (in most cases) as belonging to the same faith.

Certainly :up:

And the issues we were discussing are definitely not salvific in nature.

My point was that Trad certainly thinks they are to some extent. Your point broadened to faiths with "your faith," hence my point about the Muslim and the Christian.

My aim wasn't rebuke, only an expression of disappointment. Nor was I considering his part undermining my beliefs simply by differing. My beginning and end was to note that we have to allow that much of what divides us doesn't have a determining value when it comes to our salvation and that Trad was riding, in that tone and application, the same high horse that once had me shaking head as an outsider to every faith. It doesn't serve an ecumenical spirit nor an evangelical one. It's proud and pointless to my mind.

I agree that oftentimes it will turn out to be ecumenically deficient. It's certainly a subject that needs to be handled carefully.

That's as plain as I can put it. I'm going out of the argument business for a while. Take care.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I have seen people attempt to explain compatibilism many many times, never clearly, it's always a nebulous sleight of hand. I do not intend to open my mind so wide that logic no longer applies, and calling it a "fundamental truth" doesn't make it so.

The view that omniscience/predestination (not omnipotence, thanks ideogenous and LH) and free will are compatible is different from philosophical compatibilism, which posits that hard determinism and free will are compatible.

I would like to re-read Boethius, but there is an Arminian formulation that is quite straightforward:

1. God is outside of time as its creator
2. At point A, 10:00, Joe is sitting on his couch
3. At point B, 11:00, Joe freely decides to go for a drive
4. At point A, God knows what Joe will do at point B.

How?

This particular explanation says that God, being outside of time, is "present" to all moments in time--He knows everything which happens at each moment in the entire spectrum of time. He is present to each moment in a way that is analogous to how we are present to the moment right now.

So if I am sitting with Joe at point B, and I observe him leaving in his car, I have knowledge that Joe has gone for a drive at point B. My knowledge does not exclude Joe's free will. God, being present to points A and B simultaneously, observes what Joe will freely choose at point B and therefore knows.

It is notable that a Calvinist would strongly disagree with this Arminian formulation. This is much better fleshed out in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, written around 524.

:e4e:

 

[HisServant]

So...infants who die go to hell?

Yes... as a race, hell is where we all are headed.

In God's eyes, every descendent of Adam bears his curse, because his sin changed our very nature.

 

[surrender]

Yes... as a race, hell is where we all are headed.

In God's eyes, every descendent of Adam bears his curse, because his sin changed our very nature.

Have you had an infant/baby of your own die?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes... as a race, hell is where we all are headed.

In God's eyes, every descendent of Adam bears his curse, because his sin changed our very nature.

So....God predestines all infants, aborted babies, miscarriages etc to hell? Which would effectively be billions. What do you believe hell to be exactly?

If it's a place of torment then why on earth would a loving God create people and such a place to begin with?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The view that omniscience/predestination (not omnipotence, thanks ideogenous and LH) and free will are compatible is different from philosophical compatibilism, which posits that hard determinism and free will are compatible.

I would like to re-read Boethius, but there is an Arminian formulation that is quite straightforward:

1. God is outside of time as its creator
2. At point A, 10:00, Joe is sitting on his couch
3. At point B, 11:00, Joe freely decides to go for a drive
4. At point A, God knows what Joe will do at point B.

How?

This particular explanation says that God, being outside of time, is "present" to all moments in time--He knows everything which happens at each moment in the entire spectrum of time. He is present to each moment in a way that is analogous to how we are present to the moment right now.

So if I am sitting with Joe at point B, and I observe him leaving in his car, I have knowledge that Joe has gone for a drive at point B. My knowledge does not exclude Joe's free will. God, being present to points A and B simultaneously, observes what Joe will freely choose at point B and therefore knows.

It is notable that a Calvinist would strongly disagree with this Arminian formulation. This is much better fleshed out in Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, written around 524.

:e4e:

I really don't get why some folk have major difficulty with an omniscient God knowing the future. Unless there's any interference upon the will of another, then knowing what happens in advance plays no part in the choice any given person will make. It's as simple as that.

 

[beloved57]

hiss

In God's eyes, every descendent of Adam bears his curse

Thats a lie. Adam was not cursed, the ground was cursed, but not Adam !

 

[Vaquero45]

I feel that scripture alludes to both predestination and freewill.
Yet, I believe it is not in keeping with a loving God to actually predestine any of His created beings to Hell and eternal torment.
Humankind suffers from judgmentalism. Imagine if some of us get the idea we are intrinsically better than others of us because we are predistined for salvation and they are not?

You are correct that it talks of predestination and I should make clear, (I actually thought about saying this earlier and should have) I totally agree that predestination is part of specific revelation in the Bible. I believe certain things were predestined for Israel and the body of Christ for example. When referring to salvation I believe it is corporate not individual.

And I agree the rest of your post also. See our own posters "beloved57" and "colossians" for examples of your question at the end. Arrogance on roller-skates.

 

[Nang]

hiss



Thats a lie. Adam was not cursed, the ground was cursed, but not Adam !

So Jesus Christ became a curse (Galatians 3:13) for the sake of dirt?

I don't think so . . .

Jesus Christ removed the curse from His chosen elect that had been imposed by God ("imputation of guilt") upon Adam and all his offspring.

Nang

 

[Lighthouse]

Ah, maybe that's why I didn't get it.

Probably.:chuckle:

Because omnipotence has no bearing on free will.

 

[beloved57]

nang

So Jesus Christ became a curse (Galatians 3:13) for the sake of dirt?

No, that is why Adam was not cursed, because Christ was cursed in His Behalf. You think God in Justice cursed Adam and Christ at the same time ?

 

[Nang]

nang



No, that is why Adam was not cursed, because Christ was cursed in His Behalf. You think God in Justice cursed Adam and Christ at the same time ?

Adam WAS cursed by God with a sentence of death that was ruled and imposed according to Adam's violation of God's Law, and all of Adam's natural seed inherit that same curse, for all his offspring prove to also be violators and covenant-breakers just like their biological father.

The only rescue from the accursedness of the first Adam, is through faith in the last "Adam" Jesus Christ who assumed that curse and paid the sentence of death in the stead of all His spiritual offspring (the church). (Galatians 3:13)

Nang