Who be chosen who?

[DPMartin]

There is the standard disagreement of whether God chooses you or that you chose God. In the case of “freewill� there seems to be some delusion to the effect that constitutional freedoms are the way things are, and supersedes what the bible might say on the matter. But when you see a car knowing it’s a car knowing that everyone else knows it’s a car do you emphatically deny it’s a car? (leaving all exceptions aside on this example) so do you actually have the freedom to not believe it’s a car, granted you can lie and deny openly, but do you really have the freewill to not believe it’s a car?

(it should be noted that though Calvinism is well known for “God chooses� this is not an argument for Calvinism no more than, in the previous example that the car mentioned is a ford because fords are cars)

Of course it’s true that if one never encounters Christ then one could only speculate that He is, or flat out not believe He is who Jesus Christ says He is. How can one declare what they don’t know or don’t know to be true? Seeing that revelation is the knowledge. God choses who He would reveal Himself to, correct? Certainly no one can make Him do so, therefore one can't know Him or that He is without the revelation to know. Also, in the case of the Lord God of Israel no one calls themselves, God calls, hence God choses.
Those that are with the Lord:
Rev_17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

And the faith is of Christ.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

So, one must be called, chosen, and faithful of which one must receive the faith of Christ that is to the satisfaction of God, which one would also receive by God’s choosing.
How is it, that many think they chose God, and that freewill has anything to do with it?


One could say Adam and Eve chose, but that is an argument for your condemned state, should you not be chosen. God made the garden and what was in it by His choice. God put the man in the garden and told Him the conditions therein, by God’s choice. Hence if there was any choice made A&E made the choice for the condition all children of men are born into. You didn’t have that choice they did it for you if you believe freewill. But you have received the life they technically didn’t chose, they choose to be gods knowing good and evil, but God left them with dust to dust, ashes to ashes which the animals already had, life of the flesh in the flesh. So actually, God chose that life for them, that you received being born into the world. So one is born into the world in the condemned state (separation from God) without their or your choosing and are chosen by God to be in the Presence of God.

Sounds cold, but those who would will be called that’s for sure.

2Pe_3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Pipiripi]

There is the standard disagreement of whether God chooses you or that you chose God. In the case of “freewill� there seems to be some delusion to the effect that constitutional freedoms are the way things are, and supersedes what the bible might say on the matter. But when you see a car knowing it’s a car knowing that everyone else knows it’s a car do you emphatically deny it’s a car? (leaving all exceptions aside on this example) so do you actually have the freedom to not believe it’s a car, granted you can lie and deny openly, but do you really have the freewill to not believe it’s a car?

(it should be noted that though Calvinism is well known for “God chooses� this is not an argument for Calvinism no more than, in the previous example that the car mentioned is a ford because fords are cars)

Of course it’s true that if one never encounters Christ then one could only speculate that He is, or flat out not believe He is who Jesus Christ says He is. How can one declare what they don’t know or don’t know to be true? Seeing that revelation is the knowledge. God choses who He would reveal Himself to, correct? Certainly no one can make Him do so, therefore one can't know Him or that He is without the revelation to know. Also, in the case of the Lord God of Israel no one calls themselves, God calls, hence God choses.
Those that are with the Lord:
Rev_17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

And the faith is of Christ.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

So, one must be called, chosen, and faithful of which one must receive the faith of Christ that is to the satisfaction of God, which one would also receive by God’s choosing.
How is it, that many think they chose God, and that freewill has anything to do with it?


One could say Adam and Eve chose, but that is an argument for your condemned state, should you not be chosen. God made the garden and what was in it by His choice. God put the man in the garden and told Him the conditions therein, by God’s choice. Hence if there was any choice made A&E made the choice for the condition all children of men are born into. You didn’t have that choice they did it for you if you believe freewill. But you have received the life they technically didn’t chose, they choose to be gods knowing good and evil, but God left them with dust to dust, ashes to ashes which the animals already had, life of the flesh in the flesh. So actually, God chose that life for them, that you received being born into the world. So one is born into the world in the condemned state (separation from God) without their or your choosing and are chosen by God to be in the Presence of God.

Sounds cold, but those who would will be called that’s for sure.

2Pe_3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It is God that choose people, just like He have choose Israel. We must seen this view more farther than just thin choose. Remember this, we were in the plan of existence before God create the WORLD. My conclusion is that the whole word is choosen by God. Now because we know what good or evil is, we have to choose which side we want to be. The difference is that God call us from the darkness. Should we listen or not.

[ttruscott]

So, one must be called, chosen, and faithful of which one must receive the faith of Christ that is to the satisfaction of God, which one would also receive by God’s choosing.
How is it, that many think they chose God, and that freewill has anything to do with it?

Because our free will is an absolute necessity to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and to make us legally guilty for our sins. Otherwise GOD made us evil and then punishes us with deep and abiding suffering for being evil whether HE decides to save some others or not.

[DPMartin]

So, one must be called, chosen, and faithful of which one must receive the faith of Christ that is to the satisfaction of God, which one would also receive by God’s choosing.
How is it, that many think they chose God, and that freewill has anything to do with it?

Because our free will is an absolute necessity to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and to make us legally guilty for our sins. Otherwise GOD made us evil and then punishes us with deep and abiding suffering for being evil whether HE decides to save some others or not.

Nope; the Lord God of Israel says He creates evil, He don’t need man for that, and He made the first man in His own image and likeness in the day He made them, which after eating the fruit of the tree Adam and Eve were no longer in the image of their Creator. According to scripture Adam was: (Luk 3:38) “Adam, which was the son of God.� And they lost that Life and was left with dust to dust. So according to scripture He didn’t make man evil, nor is man’s purpose is to keep a distance from creating evil. The Almighty doesn’t need deniability.

Don’t know what is meant by PCE but it sounds completely out there in la la land from what you posted. A&E placed their faith and trust in something other than the Word of God which caused death to the Life they were originally given. (Adam, which was the son of God). which includes:(Luk_4:4) "That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

What most don’t understand is God gave man God’s place in the earth.

(Gen 1:28) "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

so the sons of man are now in man’s image:

Gen_5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:



Hence one receives the life one is born of, one receives the life of a cat from a cat. So through Adam men receive the same as Adam had after the tree. To continue, all sons of Noah receive the life Noah had, which is the ability to find grace in God’s sight, and the sons of Abraham Isaac and Jacob receive the life of the children of Israel (Jacob) of which even today they experience.

What is understood as the second Adam, Jesus Christ restores the born again to the Life originally given Adam the power to become sons of God. so through receiving the Life of Christ one is restored to what was "lost".




Also God doesn’t hold anything against men, men suffer the consequence of their own judgements of what is good and evil. God’s Judgement is Life which was expressed in the agreement at the garden, and the result of any other judgement of what is good and evil is death. Because God the Creator and Judge is the Judge of what is good for His creation and the creatures therein, no exceptions.

[ttruscott]

Nope; the Lord God of Israel says He creates evil, He don’t need man for that

I believe a few hard boiled Calvinists still push this view of reality but most Christians reject it as wrongly interpreted, useful only for their stilted theology. Since it is blasphemous those who don't care about such things of course go the way they will.

You didactic statement is rejected these two reasons...

[DPMartin]

Nope; the Lord God of Israel says He creates evil, He don’t need man for that

I believe a few hard boiled Calvinists still push this view of reality but most Christians reject it as wrongly interpreted, useful only for their stilted theology. Since it is blasphemous those who don't care about such things of course go the way they will.

You didactic statement is rejected these two reasons...

well the view is the Lord God's view according to the Lord God of Israel:

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


one doesn't have to be a Calvinist to believe and trust and stand with what the Lord says about Himself.

don't get me started on "majority of Christians" these fools call themselves inviting themselves without credentials to be where they say they are going. there religion is merely social Etiquette that's pleasing to themselves carrying their idols in their own hearts of what they think god ought to be according to what they think love is. hence their god in the image of their self image which is what they love.


that's all I got to say a-boat that

[ttruscott]

I make peace, and create evil:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

evil: ra': adversity
Short Definition: adversity

Strong's H7451 - ra`
n m
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

n f
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

Strong’s Definitions: רַע raʻ, rah; from H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displease(-ure), distress, evil

Yes, ra` can mean evil, even moral evil, but NOT when it is attributed to GOD because GOD is righteous and holy, making such a depiction a blasphemy... Your scorn for the rest us of poor Christians says it all eh, so it is duly noted and left to the dust.

[brianbbs67]

You make too many assumptions OP. First, is if no free will why do they have to be told not to eat of anything.

As to Isiaih, Tanakh, says "weal and woe" where you have placed other words as christian scribes defined. But, even if God creates and does evil where He deems it necessary, why is that a problem?

[DPMartin]

I make peace, and create evil:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

evil: ra': adversity
Short Definition: adversity

Strong's H7451 - ra`
n m
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

n f
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

Strong’s Definitions: רַע raʻ, rah; from H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displease(-ure), distress, evil

Yes, ra` can mean evil, even moral evil, but NOT when it is attributed to GOD because GOD is righteous and holy, making such a depiction a blasphemy... Your scorn for the rest us of poor Christians says it all eh, so it is duly noted and left to the dust.

well when you are commissioned to translate scripture into English with a team of other experts I'll take your opinion under advisement until then the translation I used has stood public scrutiny for over 400 year's, I believe it out weighs your efforts here. if the translators didn't mean "evil" they could have used many other words. also KJV is translated by the brits who originated English and JPS also agrees which is a Jewish publisher which should be self explanatory. and the KJV translators used all three languages where applicable including the Latin translation. which would have to be a roman catholic source.


so you know, it SOP with posters that loss arguments like this to try and change the meaning of, or the words in scripture, as a last resort.

[DPMartin]

You make too many assumptions OP. First, is if no free will why do they have to be told not to eat of anything.

According to scripture Adam was: (Luk 3:38) “Adam, which was the son of God.� And they lost that Life and was left with dust to dust.

A&E placed their faith and trust in something other than the Word of God which caused death to the Life they were originally given. (Adam, which was the son of God). which includes:(Luk_4:4) "That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

What most don’t understand is God gave man God’s place in the earth. hence animals don't answer to their Creator so they are left to do as they can according to the life received. birds fly fish swim and do whatever. not the case with man though man now has the same life in the flesh.

but man (Luk_4:4) "That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." hence every Word. so without the Word man doesn't live in God's sight. in this case there is no freewill. one is already born into condemnation when born by flesh. again other animals are not condemned because they are not occupying God's place in the earth. so freewill has nothing to do with the life you receive coming into the world, and you have that life unless you receive a Life to replace it or redeem it, which again is God's choice.

sure you have the free will to do what ever is within your reach physically, but God is within your reach unless He comes to you.

As to Isiaih, Tanakh, says "weal and woe" where you have placed other words as christian scribes defined. But, even if God creates and does evil where He deems it necessary, why is that a problem?

well when you are commissioned to translate scripture into English with a team of other experts I'll take your opinion under advisement until then the translation I used has stood public scrutiny for over 400 year's, I believe it out weighs your efforts here. if the translators didn't mean "evil" they could have used many other words. also KJV is translated by the brits who originated English and JPS also agrees which is a Jewish publisher which should be self explanatory. and the KJV translators used all three languages where applicable including the Latin translation. which would have to be a roman catholic source.

so you know, it SOP with posters that loss arguments like this to try and change the meaning of, or the words in scripture, as a last resort.