ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
toldailytopic: How does God judge the mentally handicapped when they die?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
:first: POTD
ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
BabyChristian
New member
Are you talking about liberals? 
You know, this subject is not that hard to understand by just reading what the bible says.
Billions of people around the world are followers of false religious systems simply because they are too lazy to seek out the truth on their own, and have allowed themselves to let someone else do their thinking for them. This is why Calvinism, like the RCC, has done such a huge amount of damage in the presentation of the Gospel message. They have formulated their ideas from a false premise, and created a monster. If you don't think it's possible for ALL reformers to be wrong, just look at the fruit of Joseph Smith. Just because you may be closer to the truth, it's still not the truth, and it only means that it's going to be more difficult to have your mind changed.
Did you read my post? If so, how can you not see the difference in your understanding of predestined and mine. You may not agree, but you have to at least see the difference.
Calvinism reminds me of Pavlov's dog. You see a word in the Bible and you automatically begin to pour a meaning into it, that the writer never intended, and you appear to have no chance of seeing it any other way, then the way you've been conditioned.
:sozo: Elect
Are you salivating yet?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding. :AMR:
Then you are either a poor reader or, as you stated, "don't need to read...". Either way you prove my point immediately above.
Quite true. Think about it, and it will come to you.
AMR
Last edited:
ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
No, Joseph Smith created his cult, just like John Calvin created his. And while we agree that Smith and his followers do not believe in God, I don't see any evidence that Calvin's followers believe in Him either. They certainly have a different gospel.
I've already addressed some of these verses, and destroyed your (Calvin's) mistakes. If you can't even see your error in just one of the verses I addressed, I'm not going to waste my time on you correcting all of them.
No one has claimed that it is not God that saves man. This is another false premise of yours (Calvins), and another reason why you "choose" to remain blind to the truth. No one questions man's total depravity, but you question the power of God made known in the Gospel where His righteousness is revealed.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ghost,
If this is your view, then you do not understand the meaning of foreknow/foreknew from Scripture. Briefly, when the word is used, it is in the intimate sense, just as in Adam knew Eve. See, for example, Amos 3:2; Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15; Hebrews 12:5-6; Jeremiah 1:5; Matt. 7:22-23; I Corinthians 8:3; II Timothy 2:19; Romans 8:28.
Murray sums it up succinctly:
.“It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition. This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed.
If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’.
Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1).There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6).
When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” Src: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, volume I, pp. 316-318.
If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’.
Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1).There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6).
When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” Src: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, volume I, pp. 316-318.
Similarly, Hodge observes that
"as to know is often to approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon….The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of this general idea of preferring. The people which he foreknew, i.e., loved or selected, Rom. 11:2; Who verily was foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i.e., fixed upon, chosen before the foundation of the world. I Peter 1:20; II Tim. 2:19; John 10:14,15; see also Acts 2:23; I Peter 1:2.
The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc. Src: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284.
The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc. Src: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284.
Moreover, faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, since foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48). Indeed, even if one adopts the Arminian view of foreseen faith, this faith foreseen by God is the faith God Himself creates (e.g., John 3:3-8; 6:44;45,65; Eph. 2:8; Philippians 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:2). Thus, even the Arminian will claim that God's eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom God foresees as believing. Which leads to my next point.
All readers should note: From the above, this is clearly not a Calvinism issue nor an Arminian issue, for both camps fully agree that God knows specifically each and every person who will be re-born. Instead the differences between both camps lie with the basis of God's knowledge: whether God knows what will happen because He ordains it certain or whether God knows what will happen because His creatures render it certain--all of which is a topic for other threads to discuss and not relevant here.
But what is relevant is that Ghost's (a.k.a., Sozo, Mystery, madman, outlaw) view is that of the open theist. In the past Ghost has skirted around fully appropriating the openist label for himself, but he might as well come clean and own it now, given his view that God does not know beforehand who will or will not "be in Christ".
From an openist's position, Ghost's post above probably resonates. Unfortunately, the position is built upon faulty assumptions of the attributes of God, in particular for this situation, God's omnscience. Not surprisingly, all aberrant theological views will inevitably lead back to the root error of lack of proper understanding of theology proper (the study of the doctrine of God's nature from Scripture).
There are only two important questions in life, "Who is God?" and "Who is Jesus Christ?" Get them wrong, and you will potentially go off worshiping an intellectual idol of your own making at your temporal and/or eternal peril.
AMR
ThePresbyteers
New member
This message is deleted and closed.
Last edited:
AMR hopes that he can win arguments by wearing everyone out with his "copy & paste" tactics.
I've already addressed and defeated Murray's and Hodge's false premise.
Romans 8:29-30
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Who are the ones that God foreknew?
Go back one verse: Rom 8:28
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
It is those who love God and are called according to His purpose.
As Paul just pointed out in Ephesians, God's predetermined purpose for those in Christ is that we are holy and blameless before Him. Nothing can separate us from Him, and all things will work together for good for those of us who are in Him. God did not foreknow who will be in Christ and who will not be in Christ, but God did foreknow that all those who are in Christ will be conformed to His image. God has called ALL those who were predestined to be conformed to His Son, and ALL of these have been justified and glorified. This is God's promise, and it cannot be thwarted by anyone or anything."The called" are those whom God invited to receive all that God had predetermined, predestined, and foreordained, to His purpose.
Your friends make the error of throwing out the context, and attempt to build a doctrine apart from it. Trying to make the text say that God foreknew who they would be ignores the context.
You have a stagnant, uncreative, god who cannot create anything new throughout all of eternity, because in His mind all things are already a reality. Your god cannot enjoy eternity with His creation, because all of it has already been realized in his mind eternally.
I've already addressed and defeated Murray's and Hodge's false premise.
Romans 8:29-30
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Who are the ones that God foreknew?
Go back one verse: Rom 8:28
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
It is those who love God and are called according to His purpose.
As Paul just pointed out in Ephesians, God's predetermined purpose for those in Christ is that we are holy and blameless before Him. Nothing can separate us from Him, and all things will work together for good for those of us who are in Him. God did not foreknow who will be in Christ and who will not be in Christ, but God did foreknow that all those who are in Christ will be conformed to His image. God has called ALL those who were predestined to be conformed to His Son, and ALL of these have been justified and glorified. This is God's promise, and it cannot be thwarted by anyone or anything."The called" are those whom God invited to receive all that God had predetermined, predestined, and foreordained, to His purpose.
Your friends make the error of throwing out the context, and attempt to build a doctrine apart from it. Trying to make the text say that God foreknew who they would be ignores the context.
You have a stagnant, uncreative, god who cannot create anything new throughout all of eternity, because in His mind all things are already a reality. Your god cannot enjoy eternity with His creation, because all of it has already been realized in his mind eternally.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Using the typical trigger phrases in hope of deflecting attention drawn to your faulty view while toadying to the crowd is cute, but won't do for serious discussions. :squint:
Own the open theist implications of the statement, Ghost. Ignoring it and my previous comments to the point won't make it go away.
Er, no. You have failed to deal with the clear meaning of foreknow/foreknew, its intimacy and particularization to specific persons. Boldface, yellow highlighting, etc., of Scripture is no substitute for proper exegesis of the same. Yours is but Olestra® exegesis; it almost tastes like the real thing.
AMR
Last edited:
Whether I'm an open theist or not, God foreknowing who will or will not be saved has nothing to do with the text. You (Calvinists) use the text to support your claim that God chooses who will be saved and who will not be saved, in that he predestines their eternal destination.
The Bible does not teach this, as I showed in my original post.
unknown
New member
Wouldn't it depend on why they are handicapped? Is it the will of God they should be handicapped, that others might show love and mercy? Did they become handicapped later in life? What was life like before becoming handicapped (if not born that way)?
I say, when a body dies the soul receives a new body to continue in it's (the soul's) development. Physical death means nothing. We are not our body. Religion has changed the meanings of heaven and hell and judgment and many other things.
I say, the Creator has not lost control of the creation, religion says He has.
The odd thing about asking a question like this is that the question isn't being asked by those to whom the question applies. If someone had the presence of mind to ask the question, then we wouldn't say that the question applies, would we? There is the body of a mentally handicapped person. Who knows if there's a mind inside? The intersubjective relationship isn't present.
But for all that, is there no mind there? The phenomena/object (body) I see. The numenal/subject (person/mind) I do not see.
But for all that, is it absent? No. Just as there is no light without the sun, there is no human without mind/soul.
The human intellect is active, with or without the body. God judges justly. By what standards? Beats me. But they're good ones.
But for all that, is there no mind there? The phenomena/object (body) I see. The numenal/subject (person/mind) I do not see.
But for all that, is it absent? No. Just as there is no light without the sun, there is no human without mind/soul.
The human intellect is active, with or without the body. God judges justly. By what standards? Beats me. But they're good ones.
Let me guess. Your argument is that those predestined to die in infancy are elect, i.e. those who are not elect do not die in infancy.Evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding. :squint:
Then you are either a poor reader or, as you stated, "don't need to read...". Either way you prove my point immediately above.
Quite true. Think about it, and it will come to you.
AMR
andyc
New member
I believe that all who die in infancy die in innocence, and therefore go straight to heaven. The thing is, I can't understand how some people can have such hatred of the thought that God does not want to save everyone, but there's no problem for them accepting that God doesn't want to heal everyone. If God heals a child with leukemia, glory to God, but if doesn't, what then?
Even non Calvinists have their little pet sovereignty theories. Maybe its the fact that salvation is out of our hands, but healing is our responsibility?
Jesus didn't tell us to save the lost, but he did tell us to heal the sick.
Even non Calvinists have their little pet sovereignty theories. Maybe its the fact that salvation is out of our hands, but healing is our responsibility?
Jesus didn't tell us to save the lost, but he did tell us to heal the sick.
- Status