Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Seeker, thanks for sharing. I believe that all is out of God because of scriptures like.
Romans 11:32 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, and personally I don't see how they don't reveal that all is out of God.
.
I believe that God allowed these things to happen for His purposes in the development of man into His image. My moral fibre does not cry out NO! I believe that God who is the author and taker of life has every right to allow things to happen according to whatever He has purposed. It may be horrible for some, but I don't have a problem with seeing that all is out of God. I guess we will have to disagree on this one
Again, I believe that we are able to make choices but I believe that all utimately originates from God.
Not sure what you are sharing here as this relates to the subject.
Again, I believe that God allows us to have the ability to make choices but I don't believe that the choices are entirely free.
I believe that there are many things that we are unable to affect or change in our lives, related to circumstances beyond our control. There are things that we are able to control but is is the result of absolute free will? I believe that something is the cause of our actions.
.
I believe that there are specific causes for diseases but I also believe that all is ultimately out of God as referenced in the scriptures shared earlier. God in His omniscience understands the nature of disease, and if all originates from God, I am left with the understanding that even disease is out of God.
I believe that God allows us and may intend for us to suffer illness for a number of reasons. For example, we may through the experience come to realize that He is the Healer and Deliverer, and our trust and dependence on Him is developed or strengthened. Our faith may be strengthened also. And these are good for our development, I believe. On one level, it is bad for us, but on another level it can work for our good. Jesus healed the blind man so that the works of God could be manifested. People would see and believe. The illness may have been sent through satan but God's power was ultimately manifested.
I certainly believe that God is our Healer and I believe that God is in the business of building our faith. I believe that the difference between the doctor and God analogy is that I believe that God is bringing something good out of our suffering, illness, trials, tribulations,ect. The doctor may only want to get more money!! We are being made into God's image and there are certain qualities that I believe can only be developed through adversity.
I believe that God wants the best for His children and I also believe that this involves the experience of evil, suffering, illness, ect. I believe that ultimately, God's purpose for evil is good. That doesn't mean that evil is good, but that God uses evil for our good. Guess we will have to disagree on this. Thanks again and God bless.
This has been an interesting thread to follow. I know there are several Univeralists on this thread who believe predestination/predeterminism. I'm curious if you've thought about what reason God may have in causing so many people to believe in eternal hell.
Perhaps I'm overreaching, but I'm curious what thoughts you may have on this.
God allows is far more palatable to me than God does it. And by God allowing us to experience things good and bad, we have choice. There is no such thing as free choice. Free choice, if you think about it means you are free to make up choices. Choices are governed by external circumstances, we use our free-will to make these choices, God allows that (remember I am not talking salvation here)
The Open Theism version of free-will is far more radical in that you need to not only choose salvation, you must use your free-will to seek it out in the first place and then use it to keep it if you find it. This is the age old debate of OSAS.
This has been an interesting thread to follow. I know there are several Univeralists on this thread who believe predestination/predeterminism. I'm curious if you've thought about what reason God may have in causing so many people to believe in eternal hell.
Perhaps I'm overreaching, but I'm curious what thoughts you may have on this.
Kind regards,
bradm
The only thing concerning predestination I adhere to is that all men shall be saved. That is not Calvinism anyway, they only believe in a few.
The belief in a literal hell IMO is coupled with the "elect" part of Calvinism making them somehow seem special.
The hell teachings of Jesus were true but what most fail to see they were directed at the scribes and Pharisees and not sinners in the sense that those who knew nothing. I have done a contextual study on my blog of these hell teachings.
As to why folk believe in hell, it is ingrained in at a young age starting with kiddies bibles. Few people really make time to do a study and those that do may choose a curriculum of a bible school and if they are biased, that bias is what is taught and learned. When you enter textual criticism, then only do you start to understand what it was all about coupled with the historical setting Jesus was talking in.
Give folk enough hell teachings and they will start dreaming/having visions about it and write books about it. In effect folk want their worst fears reinforced hence these books are best sellers. Bad news sells, look at your newspapers.
Hell teachings appeal to emotion and fear, Unconditional Love appeals to logic.
In essence, what we have today differs little from the religion of the Jews in Jesus' day. Law is mixed with Grace and the two cannot be mixed, hence the confusion of 37000 denominations, each believing they have the truth.
In the UR camp you have folk coming out of both Arminianism and Calvinism thus it is fair to assume, UR is somewhere in between the two. Both camps adhere to ET. In UR some see a correctional afterlife cleansing similar to Purgatory of the RCC and other no hell whatsoever, I am of the latter. UR is closely linked to the Father's Love message which I espouse, but folk still hold to traditions even after discovering the Father's Love, however they do tend to speak less of hell.
UR is not a replacement theology. Many folk who come to the realisation still need to go through a process of entering deeper into the Father's Love. To me UR is but another name for a journey of constant revelation and learning. The sooner you let go of man-made doctrines, the deeper meanings one gets from scripture. I can use my intellect and knowledge to discuss but revelation for me is usually a one-one process with the Father. I do however also learn by sharing with others.
I agree. If our will is limited, I don't see that we have free will because ultimately God works all for His purpose. Also didn't God predestinate the twins, Jacob and Esau for the role that each one was to have? Could they have changed their situation? God bless.
I don't know why anyone would have a problem with our will not having an impact on God. If we understand and believe God to be fully Loving, and have faith in him - then we are already free, and should have no problem with the idea that nothing we do positive/negative will effect God's ultimate plan.
In a way yes. Do you not change as you mature? The bible is a road-map to the truth. If you take everything literal and accept that taughtology says the bible is inerrant et al. then what is literal and what is not? I keep sharing that our upbringing in whatever church form a bias as to how scripture is interpreted. It starts with kiddies bibles. Folk regurgitate what the were taught w/o really understanding the deeper meanings, not saying I have all the answers but the whole life experience is a journey of revelation. Much like an onion. Multiple layers, peel a layer away, it remains and onion but one layer closer to the core.
Folk forget too soon, Paul was a Pharisee first. He did not get an instant download of truth. The gospels actually came after Paul's writings. It is fair to assume that there was an OT bias in Paul's teachings more so than other writings. There are many truths Paul shared and the approach of Calvin, is centric around Romans 9 and Job. I actually find Calvin more reprehensible than the RCC doctrines.
Inspiration I do not deny, yet Paul had a bias. Another thing that is often ignored, who was he talking to, what was the backdrop? What may he have orated that we do not know about? None of the NT texts have thus sayeth the Lord. Paul gets a vision/revelation and then needs to articulate it into words that his intended audience can understand in light of their circumstances.
I too can take one chapter from the bible and formulate a philosophy around it, dang easy and I will have followers that will hang on my every word. Calvin is dead. Paul is dead. What we have at best is a record of testimonies of how they saw things. I have heard the folk say that Paul's writings are only for the very mature but that is collywob. Just like the gospels, they were not first hand accounts, minutes of meeting, Matthew was not there when Mary conceived.
I mentioned earlier, our wills coexist. All you have done (I suspect) is taken Romans 9 and Job and maybe a few verses from Colossians and upon that based your entire faith while ignoring all texts that show the part we have to play.
Like a Frying Pan said:
Ironic isn't it.
One question:
If the Calvin doctrine of predetermination is true, why bother teaching?
The pat answer is, "we do not know who the other predestined folk are" hence shooting predestination in the foot and again making your Absolute Sovereign God rely on what you may or may not do.
I have had these discussions many times and all they do is go around in circles. The free-will I speak of has nothing to do with salvation or circumstances outside my control like who my parents were where and when I was born. Those are all strawmen arguments. Yes I had no say in those things and neither when or how I will die. Speaking of death, some folk have even suggested suicide and murder are predestined/predetermined aka sent of God and that is ironic as that make God schizophrenic as He can thus break His own commandment "thou shalt not kill." Guess we need to add "Except Me"
Blessings
Are you saying that we cannot take Romans 9 at face value because Paul was not relaying inspired teachings but rather his own biases? Are we now to question every NT writer's inspiration? We must weed out when they were speaking for God and when they were letting their own personal convictions come into play?
Is not ALL scriptures given by inspiration of God? (2 Tim. 3:16). Romans 9, like other doctrinal sections of Scripture, is God's Word to us. We do not look at God, who says we cannot come to Him unless He draws us but yet clearly holds responsible those who don't, and shake our finger at Him and say "Why do you still find fault?" Do we sit in judgment of the Judge?
And you suppose wrong about the basis of my belief in the total Sovereignty of God.
Romans 3--none seek Him; there is none good, no NOT one.
Romans 8--predestination. "whom HE PREDESTINED, these He also CALLED; whom HE CALLED, these HE also justified; and whom HE justified; these He also glorified."
Ephesians 2--we, who were DEAD in sin, are MADE ALIVE by Him--it is a gift and not of works. The dead does not will itself to be alive.
Colossians 1--HE and HE alone reconciles those who are alienated and enemies because of their wicked works.
John 1 and 3--the unsaved must be born again. By whose will? Not "of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD."
John 6--"all the THE FATHER GIVES ME will come to Me" (vs. 37). "NO ONE CAN COME TO ME unless the Father who sent Me draws him . . . everyone who has HEARD AND LEARNED FROM THE FATHER comes to Me" (vss. 44, 45).
John 10--"But you do not believe, because you are NOT OF MY SHEEP . . . . I GIVE them eternal life . . . . My Father, WHO HAS GIVEN THEM TO ME, is greater than all" (vss. 26-29).
1 John 4:10--"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that HE loved us."
1 John 4:19--"We love Him because HE FIRST loved us."
1 John 5:--We are born OF GOD and we are OF GOD through no work of our own.
We do not have free will to come to Him--He gives us the free gift of faith and THEN we come to Him. Who resists His will? (Rom. 9).
Are you saying that we cannot take Romans 9 at face value because Paul was not relaying inspired teachings but rather his own biases? Are we now to question every NT writer's inspiration? We must weed out when they were speaking for God and when they were letting their own personal convictions come into play?
If you do then you need to reconcile how God is no respector of persons. Peter saw it, maybe Paul did not. He was referencing the OT as the NT did not exist. Did he know that his letters would form part of scriptures? Dunno. I do not believe it crossed his mind. See all we have is the letters. We do not know much of what he taught orally.
Quote:
Is not ALL scriptures given by inspiration of God? (2 Tim. 3:16). Romans 9, like other doctrinal sections of Scripture, is God's Word to us. We do not look at God, who says we cannot come to Him unless He draws us but yet clearly holds responsible those who don't, and shake our finger at Him and say "Why do you still find fault?" Do we sit in judgment of the Judge?
And which scriptures were these? NT or OT? If I am inspired and share and one is blessed by what I share, is that not also inspiration? Not all agree with everything Paul shared likewise not all will agree with me. It is not for me to question why I share what I do.
Quote:
And you suppose wrong about the basis of my belief in the total Sovereignty of God.
I apologise then.
Quote:
Romans 3--none seek Him; there is none good, no NOT one.
Romans 8--predestination. "whom HE PREDESTINED, these He also CALLED; whom HE CALLED, these HE also justified; and whom HE justified; these He also glorified."
Ephesians 2--we, who were DEAD in sin, are MADE ALIVE by Him--it is a gift and not of works. The dead does not will itself to be alive.
Colossians 1--HE and HE alone reconciles those who are alienated and enemies because of their wicked works.
John 1 and 3--the unsaved must be born again. By whose will? Not "of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD."
John 6--"all the THE FATHER GIVES ME will come to Me" (vs. 37). "NO ONE CAN COME TO ME unless the Father who sent Me draws him . . . everyone who has HEARD AND LEARNED FROM THE FATHER comes to Me" (vss. 44, 45).
John 10--"But you do not believe, because you are NOT OF MY SHEEP . . . . I GIVE them eternal life . . . . My Father, WHO HAS GIVEN THEM TO ME, is greater than all" (vss. 26-29).
1 John 4:10--"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that HE loved us."
1 John 4:19--"We love Him because HE FIRST loved us."
1 John 5:--We are born OF GOD and we are OF GOD through no work of our own.
We do not have free will to come to Him--He gives us the free gift of faith and THEN we come to Him. Who resists His will? (Rom. 9).
Preterist
All of this I agree with. I may see bits a little different yet in essence we are on the same page. I did say, free-will has nothing too do with salvation, in that our choice is infinitesimally small, we merely accept the gift. In fact there is only one option once you have a real John 6:44 experience.
However, I do see free-will after the fact in that we make choices freely as dictated by circumstances outside our control. To deny this is ludicrous.
Free-fall is a term for skydiving. Does that mean the skydiver is free to fly? No. He is however in that space of time free to do acrobatics etc. until logic dictates he must pull the ripcord to open the parachute. Like wise, free-will is a noun phrase.
There is no such thing as free-choice. That would imply that we make up our choices freely. Free will is about choosing within external circumstances you have no control over.
I am sure you can give many examples opposing and likewise I can give many supporting.
If you do then you need to reconcile how God is no respector of persons.
Blessings
SeekerSA--Yes, we can go back and forth on this issue, but the fact will always remain that two opposing views cannot both be right. Either one is right and the other is wrong or both are wrong and something else right. Both sides must remain open-minded!
I do want to address Acts 10:34. The context is the opening of the Gospel to the Gentiles. God no longer shows partiality to Jews over Gentiles! Those who were once "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" were "brought near by the blood of Christ." This is spoken to those who are both Jews and Gentiles and who have all been "made alive" by God (Eph. 2). In other words, both contexts deal with those already in Christ. Peter, in speaking of God's being no respecter of persons, is dealing with SAVED Jews and SAVED Gentiles. They have been brought near!
Notice that when the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles, "those of the circumcision WHO BELIEVED were astonished . . . because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also" (Acts 10:45). I firmly do not believe that this verse can be rightly used to teach what you are implying. In its context, it teaches something far different. God is no longer showing partiality by relating only to the Jews. He is fulfilling His promise to Abraham that He would make of him the father of many nations--the spiritual "father" of those WHO WOULD BELIEVE from ALL nations. In other words, God would draw out from all nations those whom He will give to Christ--not just from the Jews.
SeekerSA--Yes, we can go back and forth on this issue, but the fact will always remain that two opposing views cannot both be right. Either one is right and the other is wrong or both are wrong and something else right. Both sides must remain open-minded!
I do want to address Acts 10:34. The context is the opening of the Gospel to the Gentiles. God no longer shows partiality to Jews over Gentiles! Those who were once "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" were "brought near by the blood of Christ." This is spoken to those who are both Jews and Gentiles and who have all been "made alive" by God (Eph. 2). In other words, both contexts deal with those already in Christ. Peter, in speaking of God's being no respecter of persons, is dealing with SAVED Jews and SAVED Gentiles. They have been brought near!
Notice that when the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles, "those of the circumcision WHO BELIEVED were astonished . . . because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also" (Acts 10:45). I firmly do not believe that this verse can be rightly used to teach what you are implying. In its context, it teaches something far different. God is no longer showing partiality by relating only to the Jews. He is fulfilling His promise to Abraham that He would make of him the father of many nations--the spiritual "father" of those WHO WOULD BELIEVE from ALL nations. In other words, God would draw out from all nations those whom He will give to Christ--not just from the Jews.
Preterist
Hi most of what you share I agree, James also touches on respecter yet in the confines of the assembly or is that the message?
Jas 2:1 My brothers, do not have the faith of our Lord Christ, the Lord of glory, with respecter of faces.
Jas 2:2 For if there comes a gold-fingered man in fancy clothing into your assembly, and if there also comes in a poor man in shabby clothing,
Jas 2:3 and if you have respect to him who has the fancy clothing and say to him, You sit here in a good place, and say to the poor, You stand there, or sit here under my footstool;
Jas 2:4 Did you not make a difference among yourselves and became judges with evil thoughts?
Jas 2:5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He has promised to those who love Him?
Jas 2:6 But you dishonored the poor one. Do not rich men oppress you and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jas 2:7 Do they not blaspheme that worthy Name by which you are called?
Jas 2:8 If you fulfill the royal Law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.
It seems to line up with Acts too.
If we see God as partial, then what is the point of sharing the gospel? Not saying you are, but I oppose exclusivism and even in CU circles there are folk that hold onto it too that I also oppose as IMO, it does not reflect IMO the nature of God I understand. I kinda look at me and say if He can save me He can save anyone. I cannot go along with any suggestion that makes me special or predestined over other folk.
The only part of being predestined that I can accept is I was called out in this age to see and fulfil a purpose for my life. In that part I play, I do see my will playing a part of the equation.
I see my will and God's will cooperating/coexisting to accomplish His will. His will for my life and for the world in which my part is a nanogram in the big scheme of things.
Blessings
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe that God who is the author and taker of life has every right to allow things to happen according to whatever He has purposed. It may be horrible for some, but I don't have a problem with seeing that all is out of God. 
