fb

New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

Forums Fiction General Writing Discussions New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #142547
    R.M. Archer
    @r-m-archer

    OH! Very important note. The verses listed on the document are only those specific verses that directly/indirectly support total sovereignty, but the expectation is still for them to be read in context. The intention of the document is to make it easy to locate such verses, not to pull them out of context. I meant to mention that when I shared the list, but I managed to forget. XP

    Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

    #142550
    Noah Cochran
    @noah-cochran

    If I create a story and characters and I cause one character to steal from another, or cause one to murder another, is it sin for me to cause those characters to sin? No, because I created the thing stolen, I created the characters’ lives, and therefore I have authority to manage those creations as I know will shape the story to its proper end.

    No offense, but that analogy isn’t even slightly relevant. xD You are making up a fictional  story, humanity is a real  story. The bible calls God Holy and Sanctified, those words mean completely without sin, separate from sin. If God is not under the moral law and can sin, then why would it say that He is holy and sanctified? The bible says God hates sin and that He commands us not to commit sin, but then you say that he causes us to sin on a daily basis? That would make God a liar and hypocrite which He cannot be.

    When fate doctrine such as this is taught, it can take away the will of people to even try to do good (not always, but sometimes). I mean, if I believe everything I did today was already predetermined by God, then I would do whatever I thought would make me happiest, because it’s going to happen anyway right? This is a side note that is not needed to prove my point, but it’s something to consider.

    Now let me make two things clear: One, God can cause evil, not wickedness evil, but destructive evil (like wiping out an entire country if it please Him). That is not sin, the Lord gives, the Lord takes away. But if he were to cause me to murder my neighbor because I hated the fellow, that would be wicked evilness, and God would not longer be Holy or Sanctified. Secondly, God does work providence, which means he can supernaturally intervene at anytime, and force someone to do something, or not to do something. We cannot always know when He does this, but I believe He does it often. Providence is not Predestination, the two are different. If I didn’t make way clear, just ask. 🙂

    Now to your list of verses. I read over several and…yeah, none of them are talking about anything like absolute predestination. I’ll mention a few. Romans  9 is talking about the predestination of the elect to heaven.  Philippians 2:13 is clearly talking about the spirit of God convicting us to do good works and serve him (I really can’t see where you got absolutism from this one xD). 1 Kings 18:37 (and possibly Rev. 17:17 as well, the context in Rev. is very important and I didn’t read the surrounding voices) and many of the other OT verses are talking about God supernaturally intervening and using humans as he pleases (like the verse where it says he hardens pharaohs heart), this does not even slightly infer that fate and absolutism exists. Also, known of these verses even use the verse predestination (except Romans 9 where it is talking about predestination to heaven, the kind of predestination I believe in). Matt. 10:29 means that God is with his children, and He knows everything that happens (see the context of persecution and hairs on the head in verses 28&30). God knows all and can intervene and change any event, and yet are actions are not fate, they are not predetermined.

    As for perseverance(P), that is the way I thought you were define it, so we’re on the same page. I’ll cover both that and irresistible grace at the same time since you’re taking them down pretty much the same path. I can’t find anywhere in the bible that says the elect and called/born again will seek to please God and believe in His word their whole lives (which is essentially what you’re saying between your definitions of IG and P). In regard to P, we in fact see quite the opposite. Examples of people who are obviously born again believers and yet they quit believing or quit following the statutes of God (Solomon for example). We know the elect will be born again, and we know that the spirit will prompt them to good works and to believe, otherwise, they might never believe their whole lives. Frankly, your reasoning for how the African man is following and believing the bible is just not adequate, or even partly adequate. Yes, he will feel the spirit inside of him, but no, he will not be a true believer without hearing the gospel preached and reading the bible and  believing (because he doesn’t have to belief, he might harden his heart, no where in the bible does it say that all the born again will believe, it just says that believing is evidence that they are born again, just because the human eye doesn’t pick up the evidence doesn’t mean something hasn’t happened, in fact, the mindset of “I won’t believe that they are born again unless I see evidence of belief, is quite arrogant. If we see absolutely no evidence of good works or belief the person’s entire life does that mean that they weren’t the elect? Probably, but we are not omnipresent, and to pretend we can see all the good and bad works in someone’s life is conceited thought).

    Believers still absolutely struggle with sin and fail time and time again to listen to the Spirit’s prompting.

    Born again elect, and born again elect believers are two different things (unless of course you are saying the spirit/new man in them believes, but I’m assuming you mean they believers are people who believe in the bible and God outwardly). Born again elect are anyone that God has born again, and these people are often ignorant or stubborn unbelievers. Born again outward believers are people that have had access to the gospel and now believe in what God has done for them, and what He will do for them. Christian  outward believers are those who believe in the the gospel, and try to follow God’s statutes. I bring this up because just the fact that someone believes doesn’t mean they are trying to do good and follow God’s moral law. This is obvious everywhere in the so called “christian” world today.

    Hope I’m being coherent enough. xD

    #142552
    R.M. Archer
    @r-m-archer

    If God is not under the moral law and can sin, then why would it say that He is holy and sanctified?

    It’s not sin outside of the moral law. That’s the point. Moral law is what defines sin as sin. If God is outside of that moral law, then His behavior—in line with His character, as it must be—is not sin even if it is sin under the moral law outlined for man. Because God has authority over the moral law and all creation. It is not sin for God to destroy something He created, nor to change the ownership of something He created, nor to alter the purpose of something He created, because they are all His creation. The same is not true of mankind, who does not have authority over creation. That is why it is sin for us to kill someone, but not sin for God to cause someone to be killed.

    When fate doctrine such as this is taught, it can take away the will of people to even try to do good (not always, but sometimes). I mean, if I believe everything I did today was already predetermined by God, then I would do whatever I thought would make me happiest, because it’s going to happen anyway right? This is a side note that is not needed to prove my point, but it’s something to consider.

    This is where the whole two tiers of reality thing comes in, which I think I alluded to in my initial summary of my beliefs on predestination. (If not, apologies.) God is in ultimate control from the heavenly perspective, but we still have agency and responsibility from the human perspective. To use the book analogy again, a character, while directed by the author, still has agency—or else it’s a boring story—and still bears responsibility (or should) for the consequences of their behavior. While God is not confined to moral law, we are. Our sin has consequences. Consequences known and pre-ordained by God, but unknown to us. Which I guess is the thing. We can’t know what God has or hasn’t planned, short of prophecy, and thus we still have a responsibility to live according to His will and grace as best as we know it (as it is described in the Bible). To behave against His will because “Oh well, it’s all planned anyway” is to presume to know His thoughts and to presume that they go against His prescribed will for us. It would be sin in and of itself, because it tries to place us in the mind of God and usurp His authority.

    But if he were to cause me to murder my neighbor because I hated the fellow, that would be wicked evilness, and God would not longer be Holy or Sanctified.

    How is this no more “giving and taking away”? God created you and created that other fellow and gave both of you life. If He chooses to use you to take away that life He created, is that any less His life to take?

    1 Kings 18:37 (and possibly Rev. 17:17 as well, the context in Rev. is very important and I didn’t read the surrounding voices) and many of the other OT verses are talking about God supernaturally intervening and using humans as he pleases (like the verse where it says he hardens pharaohs heart), this does not even slightly infer that fate and absolutism exists.

    There’s an ongoing pattern throughout the Old Testament of God shaping the behavior of men to fulfill His plan. He orchestrated all of that through the actions of men. If God can and does “supernaturally intervene” and shape men’s actions to His pleasure, why would we take a pattern of this and still assume it’s only a “sometimes” thing? Or, another question, how do you think men alone, so many men with sinful hearts and no intimate knowledge of God’s plan, would be able to form with their actions such a flawlessly direct narrative that constantly points to God’s character and coming salvation? Only a master Author could possibly arrange so many moving pieces to achieve the ending He had in mind in exactly the way intended.

    Also, known of these verses even use the verse predestination

    I wasn’t aware there was a requirement for them to use the explicit term.

    Matt. 10:29 means that God is with his children, and He knows everything that happens (see the context of persecution and hairs on the head in verses 28&30).

    You’re correct. But it says that even “small” things like the death of a sparrow are not “apart from His will.” Will is a direct, influencing action. Will makes things happen, it doesn’t just watch as they occur.

    Romans 9 is talking about the predestination of the elect to heaven.

    And God’s will as the authority over our own, which enables this. (vs. 16-19, particularly).

    Philippians 2:13 is clearly talking about the spirit of God convicting us to do good works and serve him (I really can’t see where you got absolutism from this one xD)

    “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” Yes, that refers to the Spirit in us. But again with His “willing” and “doing”? I can see two different angles for reading this one, though, one with God as the only active party and one with “you” as an additional active party, and they do color the verse slightly differently. If God is the one “willing” and “doing” exclusively, then the verse can be limited to the movement of the Holy Spirit within us. If we are the ones “willing” and “doing” but God is the one “working,” then it much more clearly supports God’s influence over our will.

    Born again elect, and born again elect believers are two different things (unless of course you are saying the spirit/new man in them believes, but I’m assuming you mean they believers are people who believe in the bible and God outwardly). Born again elect are anyone that God has born again, and these people are often ignorant or stubborn unbelievers. Born again outward believers are people that have had access to the gospel and now believe in what God has done for them, and what He will do for them. Christian outward believers are those who believe in the the gospel, and try to follow God’s statutes. I bring this up because just the fact that someone believes doesn’t mean they are trying to do good and follow God’s moral law. This is obvious everywhere in the so called “christian” world today.

    I’m gonna be honest… this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    God has elected those to be born again. We’re on the same page there. His Spirit is placed inside them when this election comes to effect with their salvation when they believe. I think this might be where we’re disagreeing? The Holy Spirit then sparks a desire in them to follow after Christ and live according to His commands, and equips them to do so.

    Being born again is part of salvation, not something separate. If someone stubbornly doesn’t believe, they’re not born again. They’re still dead in sin. The Spirit hasn’t opened their eyes to the truth or made them alive to receive it.

    I’m also not sure where the difference is between your “born again outward believers” and “Christian outward believers”? If they truly believe the gospel then they must be born again, because we cannot believe without the Spirit enabling us and giving us a desire to do so, and only the elect are called through the Spirit.

    Romans 8:29-30 lays it out pretty plainly, I think. He not only called us according to His purpose, but “predestined [us] to be conformed to the image of His Son,” and those whom He predestined He called and justified. And we know that justification comes with salvation and repentance.

    Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

    #143414
    Cathy
    @this-is-not-an-alien

    Dang I’m really late..

    Ack sorry it’s taken a bit for me to get back here XD. Where was I –ah yes the Pit of Despair. Lol jk. Ok church hierarchy and Mary coming up, I’m gonna focus on Mary since we all kinda agree (at least @noah-cochran agrees with me (: ) that we need ministers to be overseers and elders and bishops are a logical conclusion the rest of the Catholic hierarchy pretty much continues that logical conclusion on the worldwide scale requiring a little more hierarchy to keep it universal and the pope is the biggy there but I’m gonna start with Mary and her “Immaculate Conception”
    *disclaimer* I’m not going to try to convince you, arguments are at best informative and that’s how I’m gonna use them *disclaimer end*
    Now to start the basics we believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus–Both God and Man, therefore she is Mother of God; we do not divorce His Humanity from His Divinity.
    We believe she is the “New Eve” as Jesus is the “New Adam”
    So without further ago, the first Scriptural reference to Mary’s Immaculate Conception is in the “Hail Mary” which Catholics regularly pray that finds its basis in Luke 1:26-38 where the angel Gabriel appears to her and says “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (just wanna note how “greatly troubled” she was with the saying not the fact that an angel just appeared to her and angels are notably pretty dang terrifying when they do that!)
    Now “full of grace” here the word is Kecharitomene and isn’t found anywhere else, and it acts as a title like a name and we all know what kinda trouble comes to anybody who gets a new name from God ;). But “Full of Grace” implies full receptivity to grace and full receptivity necessitates human perfection made so entirely by God’s intervention. Interestingly enough it also acts as the superlative (Greek doesn’t have superlatives) to Hannah which simply means “Grace” it’s also a noun not a verb so that cuts out “be filled with grace” as a sweet little greeting that she was greatly troubled by. So the angel hails her by a new name “Full of Grace” the superlative for Grace and that’s one indication she is indeed perfect.
    There’s also Revelation 12 that we interpret the “woman” as Mary but Scriptures has so many layers of symbolism and interpretation too, it’s an interesting read for this. Next we go all the way back to Genesis 3:15, remembering that we see Mary as the New Eve “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head (/seed, decendences etc) and you shall bruise his heel.” He tells the snake all that and so we interpret His Words to be “The Woman (=remember how Jesus always called Mary “Woman” which btw was a term of respect that was even kinda awkward to use to your mother but not unheard of) will crush the devil’s heel” but this sounds utterly stupid if the Son of Man is the one who crushes the Serpent, but it actually doesn’t at a second glance with the understanding that Mary is perfect and therefore can have perfect enmity with Satan because he holds no control over her through sin and by virtue of her perfection she crushes the devil’s plans by her receptivity to grace.
    “Finally” (bc I’m lazy and this is already a super long post but you can get like 6 DVDs more if you search The Bible and the Virgin Mary-Journey Through Scriptures, demonstrated by Matthew Leonard) it was just fitting for Mary to be perfect because she carried Perfection Itself in her being. As Catholics we believe that baptism takes away not just Original Sin but all previous sin and if this can be done by water and the Spirit how much more so His Presence in human flesh without any constraints of time. So it’s just very fitting and beautiful for us, the Virgin’s Immaculate Conception.
    Anyway back to Church hierarchy *thunks head on desk* yeah I’ll get back to that this is already gonna be super long…


    @r-m-archer

    WE HAVE A CALVINIST!!!!
    Lol, hello fellow ENFP! *bowls over with hug*

    Medjugorje. Wow okay where do I begin? I’ve never been there myself, but if God intends for me to go He will make sure of it Just bear in mind that the Vatican hasn’t recognised these apparition reports as authentic (i’m not sure what the official consensus is, I could be wrong) but they have recognised Medjugorje as a pilgrimage site. Some of the visionaries allegedly still see her and some allegedly don’t. —-So I personally think there is something incredible there. Still my advice is to question everything no matter what

    Wow that sounds really interesting! And yeh, always always be careful of supernatural events. But is it just me, or is this becoming more common lately, I mean, I met a survivor of the Rwanda Massacre who wrote some books about visionaries she lived near at Kibeho and about a boy who allegedly met Jesus and it seems like it’s just getting more common or something which I’m not sure is a good omen XDD.
    But yeah, be wary but also really neat!!

    Why celibacy, when deacons are described as married men in 1 Timothy 3?

    Good question! Now I actually had to look this up a while ago one time and priest celibacy is not actually indisputable Church canon; it’s a particular discipline priests and those who choose to consecrate themselves to God as virgins and religious in that particular manner do that. There are some exceptions within the priesthood but as St Paul said somewhere or other for several chapters “married life is good, but to remain free to serve God is better for those who are called to it”. Additionally, all the Apostles–which we believe modeled bishops and the priesthood as a whole–were all single by the end of it. Peter was married but after we followed Jesus his wife is referred to as his sister in the original language, indicating a lack of sexual intercourse afterward plus “anyone who has left mother and father and wife and children for My Sake” and Peter proclaiming they’d all done that. So it’s a dedication, a discipline Catholic holy orders (priesthood, convent life etc) take to offer themselves entirely to God and His service in this very specific way.

    That seems like a Pharisaical addition to the law. The Passover, as biblically instructed, was the responsibility of the heads of households.

    Lol, see golden calf and the Levities hacking everybody who fell into paganism and God saying “ok, you guys [non-Levities] just get away from My offerings and holy places and anybody who’s not a Levite will be put to death if they come near, now it’s the Levites’ jobs to do this offering”

    Cathy wrote: But the point is, the entire universe cried out at Christ’s Death That’s really cool!

    IKR!!! I’m a total geek for that stuff!!

    Because the New Covenant is a spiritual fulfillment of the Old Covenant. We don’t circumcise anymore because we now experience circumcision of the heart in a spiritual sense. Jesus as the “new manna” is no less miraculous and supernatural; He fills and satisfies us like the manna filled and satisfied the Israelites in the desert. Now, it is interesting that there are so many references to a consumption of Christ and I think that bears further study (what would that mean in a spiritual sense?), but I still think it’s a metaphor. One that ought to be taken seriously according to its character as metaphor rather than simile—implying it was to be a very close comparison—but still metaphor. We’re also told we don’t live on bread alone, but on the Word of God (interestingly enough, Jesus was the Word, which wouldn’t have been nearly so meaningful when that passage was first introduced in Deuteronomy), which is evidently a spiritual satisfaction rather than physical. There are similar metaphors equating Jesus with water, but we understand them to be metaphor. What makes the bread different?

    Alright I see you point there, tho I still think it’s literal. The spiritual sense that we believe for the references to the consumption of Christ is that His Life lives in our souls and that in eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood we are given His Nature inasfar as we receive Him in a very real sense, in a very spiritual sense and the whole nine yards I guess.
    As for the metaphors equating Jesus with water we do believe God the Holy Spirit does in fact become present in a very real sense during the sacrament of baptism to purify us of Original Sin, so I mean, it can vary on the different verses you’re thinking of but we don’t see those as just metaphors either. But that said the bread and wine have more of the focus usually for all the various arguments above that I will not retype lol.
    But the bread is given God’s Nature in the Eucharist while the water is given as the washing of the Holy Spirit in what we Catholics also take in a very real sense so there’s not as much difference as you think there for us. They’re both sacraments and both bring about a very real spiritual change and involve God’s Presence. 🙂

    To be completely fair, this is something that I have struggled with more than once. And I solidly believe in predestination. So I understand the struggle here. But here’s the thing. Without sin, we can’t understand grace. Without separation from God, we can’t understand salvation. Without fear and hate, we can’t understand love and peace. Without injustice, justice is meaningless. The contrast of a fallen world with a glorious God is necessary to our understanding of His character. And we still have to come to an understanding of God in our own way. He chooses us, not the other way around, but He does reveal Himself in ways that He knows will connect with us personally. He designed us; He knows how to reach us. And those unique personal experiences with Him are part of what build and strengthen our relationship with Him. But again, they have to have something to contrast with.

    Eh fair. Disagree with predestination still but I can definitely agree with without sin we can’t understand grace or mercy, and pain I think deepens our capacity for love if we allow it to.

    Yes. Because our character is developed due to our salvation, not for our salvation. Our character grows as we strive to be more like Christ, until we come to full spiritual maturity (or as near as we can get before Heaven). Kind of getting into what you asked about “why aren’t we all sent to either Heaven or Hell right away?” again… God created Earth on purpose. He created Earth and made mankind stewards over it. That stewardship is now the responsibility of His Church, and we must have Christ-like character in order to be faithful stewards of that calling. His Kingdom is not limited to Heaven; His will is to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. His Kingdom is a spiritual reality overlapping with a physical world.

    Ok, that makes sense, interesting read 🙂

    Lol, it wasn’t a typo. Seems pretty fitting. I approve. XD

    Lol thanks!

    I wondered if the title was on purpose, it seemed like something you would do.

    What have I done to you? You are already so acclimated to me you don’t even flinch! How am I even supposed to surpass the bar of my insanity, I don’t think we’ve even known each other for more than a month or two and you’re already completely immune!! This is a new record guys!!!
    Lol yeah, I am pretty predictable 😂

    First of all, what are you’re thoughts on the verses and points I made? How would you explain them?

    Heheh *hides huge pile of notes just from all of Romans connecting with the whole of the Bible and…researchs lotta researchs on all those verses very invested now…*
    Uh, just a sec! *will probably be weeks, or months, or years or minutes…*

    I’m a little confused…xD A rapid dog does not have the conscious soul like a human, I can say that much.

    My point is the primary different between the conscious soul of a human and the soul of an animal is freewill, we can even go back and forth on intelligence the way animals are so smart and have so much personality. But we can’t really hold animals responsible for misbehavior generally because they don’t have the freewill to go against instinct, so an animal can’t be condemned to hell. I don’t see there level of intelligence as a real factor there as much as appreciation for the depravity of evil and we know different people have different levels of understanding there, but they still couldn’t be held any more accountable than an animal for their bad actions unless they had the capacity to choose those actions. So if someone’s predestined to be evil then how can they be held accountable for being evil, especially if animals can’t be held accountable for their evil deeds?

    There is sin because not all are elected, and even the elected and born again ones are still sinners, but now they are sinners that can also bear fruits of the spirit (duel natured creature). As for why God doesn’t just send his elect to heaven and his non-elect to hell, their are two equally important answers: One, for His glory. — And it is a hate from humans, so I’m not sure that applies to anything here.

    Lol there’s probably no way where gonna reach an agreement here but I see your logic. Still don’t agree with it but at least we now know both sides of the argument.

    I have another question for you Cathy, as I we rap up some of our other major subjects. Why do you believe in baptism by sprinkling? In fact, using the word “baptism” and “sprinkling” in the same sentence is kinda a paradox. Baptism means to immerse, and is a symbol of Jesus going into the ground in death and coming out again in victory over death and sin. In addition to this, all the examples found in the bible are by immersion, so why biblically unprecedented sprinkling?

    Why’s the manner of baptism important?
    *shrug* I guess we started the baptism by sprinkling because we baptize babies and it was safer that way. I bet there’s probably some Vatican council on it somewhere (I mean, honestly, there was a council on whether or not it was sinful to drink coffee lol) I’ll just look it up *one brief search later* Council of Ravenna in A.D. 1311 I haven’t taken the time to actually look it up lol but here’s a very quick link  

    As for the Peter = Pope controversy verse, here is the full verse: “And I say also unto thee, That though art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He is saying that Peter is Peter, but He, Jesus, is the foundation of the church. In Matt. 16:20, a couple verse later in the same context, it says: “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” Why would Jesus say that if the context was talking about Peter’s great responsibility? It wouldn’t. Jesus says that because He was talking about himself.

    I guess, but wasn’t the even bigger context that being when Peter announced ‘You are the Christ”? I always figured He was talking about that 🙂
    You know something…when I invent a time machine I’m gonna go back and ask Jesus, that might make this whole argument easier 😏 Lol…sorry…XD. I bet we’ll be exchanging I told you sos in Heaven forever…

    Let me clarify before you take my words in the opposite direction I intended. xD Belief and good works are indeed evidence (or reflection as you used) that we are born again, that we are the elect, that we are bound for the ultimate end of heaven. Now, before I get to the KoH, let me clarify my points, because I articulated them atrociously. What do good works and believing do for us in this life? They allow us to feel the presence and blessings of God (enjoy His grace), and they glorify Him. Do you agree with me there Archer? As for the KoH, I must admit, it is hard to draw exact lines on what it is. I will say this though, if you are in the KoH, you are enjoying the grace and closeness of God, and you cannot be sinning (one very common way to be in the KoH or press into as some would say is to be in church service, without sin of course). I kinda mixed up two different concepts, so I probably shouldn’t have even brought up the KoH.

    Oh that sounds like the Catholic “being in a state of grace”, except “plus” the prior sins have been confessed and forgiven too so it’s not just “not doing anything sinful right now coz I don’t have any inclination” which was probably what you were saying anyway XD.

    Okay, so I’m gonna kinda concede a point here. Other than Jesus being the one to lead the Lord’s Supper and Foot Washing (which are two ordiances that are explicitly prescribed to be done by all Christians), there are not other places that clearly say ministers should oversee those ordiances. However, we do read that all things should be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), and that ministers are to be overseers (Acts 20:28), and taking both of those things together, I believe that elders/bishops should be the ones administering those ordiances. Can it be done without them in an orderly and decent way? Possibly, but I still believe that to keep things running properly and ideally, ministers should be the ones to do it. @rusted-knight is welcome to bring other verse if he finds any.

    I agree with @noah-cochran, the more I’ve looked at it the more you see examples of it in effect rather than commands to do so because the Apostles frequently address their epistles to elders, pastors, bishops (depending on the translation, sigh, I’ve beginning to get your point there too Noah!). The Catholic hierarchy of priests and bishops is just a little more complex than most Christian elders and leaders because we really focus on trying to have united beliefs in every part of the world and still have care and ability to adjust to the needs of individuals in every parish, all that without compromising any matters of Faith and morals by giving in to peer pressure.

    Two questions about absolute predestination: First, if I sin, and God predestined that it would happen, He is then causing me to sin, so thus He would be sinning (even if I am still responsible, God sinned as well). How do you explain that? Secondly, I find no verses stating that absolutism is true. We find predestination in the context of sending his elect to heaven one day, but that is it. What verse would you use in support of this belief of absolutism?

    *My little Catholic butt that don’t believe in no predestination gleefully reading over here*😇

    Don't let the voices in your head drive you insane;only some of them can drive; most are underage

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Pin It on Pinterest