Rom 9:10-13
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
NASB

The above passage is an actually an historical example to which Paul appeals reinforces his earlier argument in 8:26ff.

And,

1 Tim 2:3
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NASB

But what God desires and what he decrees are two different things entirely.
His eternal decree of election makes certain that his people, in due time, will come to saving knowledge of Christ through the means which he has also ordained. His moral desires that all people be saved, does not actually raise anyone from their spiritual tombs -- only his effectual call does that -- in the same way Jesus called Lazarus out of his tomb!

And furthermore, only God's sheep are capable of hearing that call! All others do not and cannot hear Christ's voice. A careful reading of John 10 will confirm this truth.

Boxcar

Sorry but Mr Perfect denies rape in the bible. I can't let that go so easily. There is even a set of rules for raping a virgin. The only down side is no divorce ever. Sometimes the tribal customs of an ancient culture taken literally as a code to live by today are a disgrace to the concept of love and compassion. And revenge by God and Moses taken literally as some form of external JUSTICE is absolutely insane. Most bible stories are of an inner realm or psychological state that has a very different perspective. Believing there is justice in murdering children fot thier fathers sins is taking a plunge into human anthropomorphic projections and totally missing the mark. My understanding is there is a great deal in the bible, if taken correctly opens many doors. But there are also generations of mistranslated and distorted garbage written by others who knew not the larger body of real knowledge left for the truth seeker by Jewish (and then Christian) Bodhisattvas.

The fact that Mr Perfect claims authority and tries to glorify his own ego and give us stilted and poorly written pretentious biblical phrases that are painful to read is a "tell" to his unfortunate state of mind.
So yes, I claim there are positive sounds and vibrations and one must not succumb to negative emotions, but I must vent a bit and point this out. I have mentioned this before. It is a admirable goal to turn the other cheek, but sometimes letting "sleeping" people walk over you and others crowing about their perfection is not too cool.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.....

Mr. Perfect is insufferable and quite wrong........

Numbers 31:7-18

[B]17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who hath known a man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


And is it not written.....

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Thus the men of Israel that took all the women of Midian captive, and their little ones, as well, paid all the dead fathers of the Midian women, fifty shekels. And behold thus it was written. Have you not heard?. :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachan...ilization.html

....Neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran outlines the fascinating functions of "mirror" neurons. Only recently discovered, these neurons allow us to learn complex social behaviors, some of which formed the foundations of human civilization as we know it.

Neurologist V.S. Ramachandran looks deep into the brain’s most basic mechanisms. By working with those who have very specific mental disabilities caused by brain injury or stroke, he can map functions of the mind to physical structures of the brain.

"There is no real independent self, aloof from other human beings, inspecting the world, inspecting other people. You are, in fact, connected not just via Facebook and Internet, you’re actually quite literally connected by your neurons."

.................................................. ....

I do not agree with much of the brain then spirit implications, but there is no reason to believe that is what he is talking about only. He does shine a light on built-in connections among humanity.
Whether through evolution or a "helping hand"

Right, so like I said, God can do whatever he wants no matter the consequences. If that's how you choose to rationalize things then so be it, but it's no different than radical Muslims who rationalize killing people because God told Muhammad that it was ok. The ONLY difference, is that you each believe in a different God.

There's nothing consistent or continuous about the bible. It's a hodge podge of contradictions.

If you were able to use the bible to present a clear and consistent argument, I'd at least appreciate that. Despite my thinking that it's folly to follow a book written so long ago, I could at least appreciate the consistency of your argument. Instead though, you choose to follow some parts and not others. If you're going to argue that the bible is THE book, then you should follow all of it including the animal sacrifices, unshaven beards, beating kids that curse their parents, etc.

This is my final comment in this thread because as I mentioned in my first point, I don't care to go round and round on this when you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. The conclusion I've reached is that no, you're not prepared to present an argument that any rational person could listen to.

Why would it be unfair since the bible teaches that all men are sinners and, therefore, worthy of condemnation? God could have condemned the entire human race, and there would have been no unrighteousness in Him for doing that. But then...if he had done that, how would have mankind learned about the highest form of love possible -- unconditional love? This is the kind of Love that is bestowed upon the unworthy at the terrible expense Jesus paid at the Cross on their behalf. Therefore, the beloved of God did not get a free pass on God's Justice while, the rest of the world must pay for its own sins and bear God's righteous wrath. So, how is it unfair?

Moreover, salvation is not dependent of what you do, I do or anyone else; for even one sin is enough to condemn a person for all eternity -- and all of us have committed far more than that! Salvation is dependent on what someone else has done for God's people! And that someone is Christ.

Boxcar

Have you never heard that rank has it privileges? You still don't get it. It's not a question of God doing what he wants, nearly as much as doing what he must that would be consistent with his holy character. Sin must be punished.. See my #3000 to Thaskalos!

Yeah, I know. All skeptics, since the dawn of time, have sung the same ol' tune and have danced the same boring routine. :sleeping:

And if you knew how to read you would understand that the Old Covenant is defunct and has been replaced by the New Covenant, and this took place about 2,000 years ago.

Nor are you prepared to refute anything I've written. But it was nice meeting a new "face" (of sorts). :D

Boxcar

That would include you as well Boxcar.

According to Calvin, if God did not preordain your soul before birth to be one of the "Elected" ones, all of your bible study, your belief that you've been born again, your good living, ...all of that are for nought.

If per chance you are not among the Elected prior to birth, meet me at the River Styx and tell me how fair you then think God's judgment was.

Absolutely right! If God did nor predordain...Big if. But you see the difference between me and you is that I know nothing I can do can save me. But earlier you implied that it would be unfair for God to elect in eternity before anyone did anything. Well, no matter what anyone does, his or her doing isn't going save them. My bible studies, my teaching, my church attendance, my good living, whatever....doesn't mean diddly squat unless I've been born again and all that I do is for the glory of God through faith in his Son Jesus Christ. What does scripture say? "Without faith it's impossible to please God." And even that faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9)!

Here's the rock bottom line to this ancient debate between Calvinists and Arminians or between Whateverists -- whatever extra-biblical label a Christian may want to pin on himself. A true Christian knows two things, and a true Christian will always, always testify to these two things:

1. He was entirely unworthy to be saved, therefore having an acute sense of his utter sinfulness before a Holy God.

2. But nonetheless God saved Him by his grace I repeat: God actually saved him through Christ's redemptive work on the Cross.

Now, a lot of Christians don't understand completely how that works out in light of scripture. They have a very tough time reconciling soteriological truth with application, i.e. how that truth was applied to them in the real world -- in their actual life. But regardless of the confusion that exists among many in the church, all true Christians in their heart of hearts believe the two above points.

The only difference between a "Calvinist" and a Christian who denies Calvinism is that the former has a little better grasp of the 5 key Doctrines of Grace. But this doesn't mean that a "Calvinist" completely understands the Doctrines either because there is strong tension between God's Sovereignty and Man's Moral Accountability. And I'm okay with that. I'm not called of God to explain everything in scripture. I'm only called to have the faith of Abraham -- to believe what God says in his word.

Boxcar

Assuming what you've said above is true, a belief in Christ and love of God cannot save you if you have been preordained before birth to damnation.

Good luck boxcar, may the wind be behind your sails.

Of course, they can. Faith and repentance are gifts of God. Christians do exercise real faith and real repentance by God's grace. It's not God doing the believing and the repenting. And I think I'd be able to make a pretty strong case from scripture that is God's love within the hearts of his elect that constrains them to believe and repent. Remember, in John 5 Jesus told the Pharisees that they don't believe because they didn't have the love of God within them.

Another way of looking at this is from the flip side of the argument. Many Christians believe that man has "free will", in the libertarian sense. Yet, in the real world, how many times have you heard people say, I can't believe this, or I can't believe that or I can't believe something else? I couldn't begin to tell how many times people I've witnessed to have told me "I CAN'T". Well, if a person cannot believe something, then just how free is his will? But when people say this, they unwittingly agree with what scripture teaches about man's moral inability!

But then you might ask, why can't people believe? The answer is that man's mind is held captive to do Satan's will, as I pointed out in my Exodus series. In addition to this man's will, is under the strong influences of the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 Jn 2:16), and these three, we are told, "are not of the Father". They're not godly desires. And it's our desires that primarily drive our choices. Man's will, therefore, is anything but free. It's in bondage to Satan and to these three other ungodly influences. And all these influences combine to make it impossible for anyone to understand spiritual truth, let alone to respond positively to it. How is it possible to respond positively to something that cannot be understood? Is it any wonder that scripture describes the spiritual condition of man as "blind" and "dead"?

Since all this is the case, then a person must come under the strong and powerful influences of a very different kind in order to come to saving knowledge. And these influences must exert greater power over a person's mind, emotions and conscience in order for that person to respond positively to the gospel. And those influences are God's love and the new heart (which is the very seat of all man's faculties) which He promised to give his people under the New Covenant.

When we consider the Doctrines of Grace, we are indeed jumping into the very deep end of the pool of God's word. So, this stuff is not easy to understand, but it is taught in the bible and it is there for us to try to digest the best we can. Another difference between a "Calvinist" and non-Calvinist is that the former tries to honestly mold his understanding around what scripture teaches, instead of trying to cram scripture to fit into his finite understanding.

Boxcar

It seems that all of this clearly depends on how a Christian defines original sin. How do you know that Luther and Calvinists, who define original sin very differently than the Catholics are not the ones back fitting? Other than that is what YOU believe? Basically you are in major contradiction to the original form of Christianity and ........

As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, numbering around 1.2 billion,

"human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, Catholics believe, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520)".

Btw, it looks like there about 10 million or so Calvinists today. Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit has predetermined you over Catholics to supply us with the correct biblical interpretation?

I favor the Catholics in this fight. But of course I interpret ALL of this as an inner psychological discussion that has degenerated into a outer metaphysical debate that is besides the point.

In my view. Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel was on the money

http://www.enterthebible.org/media/i...d_and_Adam.jpg

Who reaches out, and who is a bit laid back?

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/sistine...aintings-6.jpg

One allegory (metaphor) is worth a thousand words of convoluted shenanigans

Let's see now, if I am following you correctly:

All mens minds are held captive by Satan. We do not have free will because of Satan's chains.

But God has given elected ones the gift of repentance and faith, so even without free will, they will somehow repent and come to love God.
They will be the true Sons of God.

If you are not one of the elected ones, God will not have given you those gifts and you will be damned.

Interesting way of thinking boxcar.
Effectively, God is deciding who will love him and who won't. He's pulling the strings. So I would guess that you believe that because you love God, and have repented, you must be among the "elected?"

Michelangelo was an artistic genius. Absolutely brilliant.

There's hope for me yet. My mother, who was ultimately excommunicated from the Catholic Church for marrying a Protestant, had me Baptised Catholic in infancy.

I had the good fortune of being raised in a home with parents of different faiths and neither of them pushed their beliefs on me (nor did they attend Church.)

And one of the correct interpreters of scripture?

Q.E.D. No sense in acting or debating.

More on the inner and psychological interpretation of parable from The New Man Maurice Nicoll......


"Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. "(Luke vi, 20.)

In Matthew it is said: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven", and no one can believe that the literally poor are without pride, if one takes the term only in this sense. How then are we really to understand this term "poor in spirit"? In literal translation it is not "poor in spirit "but "beggars in spirit". What does it mean to be a beggar in spirit? Let us clear away all ideas that it means to be literally a beggar or literally poor. There is another word in the Gospels translated as poor, which means literally to be poor, as in the case of the story of the widow's mite, where the widow is a woman who is actually poor and gives more than others.

But the word used here has a still lower meaning. It refers to one who crouches and trembles, as an eastern beggar asking for money at the street−corners, and so has a more powerful psychological meaning. In Luke where, as was said, only four Beatitudes are given, four woes, as they are called, are given in a directly opposite correspondence. The corresponding woe to the brief formulation "Blessed are ye poor" is "But woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation. " Now since Matthew says "poor in spirit" the meaning of rich, in Luke, cannot be anything else but "rich in spirit"—that is, it must mean a man who does not beg in his spirit, but feels rich in himself and no beggar at all. And he receives his consolation.

A man who ascribes everything to himself, who is rich in his own self−complacency and self−esteem, who follows his self−love, his vanity and his sense of being better than others, is rich in spirit. A triumph over a rival, a better position, a reward, a clever deal, are his consolations. But if a man feels in his inmost being that he knows nothing and is nothing and deserves nothing, if he longs to understand more and to be different, if he feels that he is really nothing and longs to be something, if in fact in his mind, his spirit, his understanding, he feels his own ignorance, his own nothingness, then he is "poor in spirit". He is empty***, and so can be filled. He knows his ignorance and so can hear the teaching of the Kingdom. But if he is full of himself, how can he hear anything? He hears himself all the time. He hears all the endless voices of his restless complaining vanity, of his satisfied or unsatisfied self−love. When Christ attacked the Pharisees, he was attacking this richness of spirit, and of them he said that they had their reward. When he told the rich prince to sell all that he had, he was speaking not of literal possessions, but of that side of a man which makes him believe that by possessions, mental, social and material, he is better than others. And what makes a man especially feel rich in himself is the gratified self−love, the gratified vanity, the merit offered by life. Indeed, the delight of the gratified self−love is stronger than anything else in life and we only have to notice it in ourselves to see that this is true. In this state of equilibrium, due to the self−love, which indeed is so easily upset and makes everyone so easily offended, why should we seek anything else or how should it occur to us that we are nothing and have no real basis in ourselves and actually possess nothing, in view of the higher level of the Kingdom?


***Empty in the same sense as

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"