kjn

My red flag would've went up when he offered to counsel me. He should've steered you toward another female, but being related to him, I can understand assuming it was innocent.

I wouldn't be alone with him again, either on the phone, or definately not in person. I'd love to say that it's possible it could've been innocent, but having been in almost the exact same situation before, my red flags are going off just reading the above.

Thanks for posting. Any biblical advice from your experience, for me in next steps according to biblical guidelines? If you have a response, could you send me an e-mail through this website?

I have not had any contact with him since Jan 2011. At that time, I was told the exact same thing that there should not be male with female one-to-one counseling. I followed the advice to be respectful according to 1 Tim. 5, but at the time I also came across Eph 5:3-11, and was struck by "take no part in the unfruiful works of darkness, but instead expose them." I did not do that and I did not follow Matt. 18:15-17. God knows what I was responsible for at the time and I accept that judgment. And it was a lesson in relying first and foremost on God's Word and His Spirit. But now I believe that it is time to communicate to him following those biblical ways.

Again, thanks for the biblical counsel from those who posted.

Thanks again for everyone's responses. The context is important, and it's a good reminder to me to be turning first and most often to God who truly knows each of our hearts, and Who knows and sees all. It's interesting to me that most responses contained some kind of caution.

Here is more info:

I am a female & not a minor.

For about 10 years I was keeping my distance from God, after previously having been in a relationship with God, relating to Him as my Savior & Father.

In July 2010 - reconnection with God.

In Aug 2010 I saw my uncle who lives out of state. I later mentioned that I had been looking for a counselor and shared some of my concerns about finding biblically based counseling. He offered to counsel me over the phone and by recording cassette tapes. There were several exchanges. He has leadership positions in his church. People in my family, including his wife, knew about the counseling.

So the "boyfriend" comment was made during one of those phone conversations about those past 10 years. And I had not in any of those conversations talked about my own romantic relationships.

I had other red flag moments about his words, but that comment was the only one that seems most "factual" in just the comment itself. Other comments were more "fuzzy."

In Jan 2011, there was one of those "fuzzy" statements, but a red flag gut feeling. I asked 2 different women for advice. And followed the advice to not have any more one-to-one male with female counseling. And followed the advice to be respectful and to say that any further interaction needed to include another person.

There is more, but I will write it when I am not struggling to stay awake.

I appreciate any and all prayers to God for wisdom for my next step in this situation.

Thanks for your replies. I appreciate people's "gut reactions," (or wherever the reactions came from), because I wasn't completely sure what to think about my own reactions.

Additional question: what do you see that the Bible has to say about what my response should be? And anyone who's dealt with this type of thing have any wisdom in how to best honor Jesus, my Gentle Caregiver (Shepherd) in this circumstance?

Hello,

It would be nice to get responses from guys as well, because I have already asked a few ladies.

My married uncle said to me something like, "How do you think the last few years would have been different if you'd had a boyfriend like me?"

What are your reactions/opinions about that statement?

Thanks to all.

I do not know what you're driving at.

Actually it's been so long that I forgot!

I think my point was that God is no longer in the business of creation. In Genesis God placed the cycles of life in motion, then said, "Go forth...."

Even so, isn't He still the ultimate source of any human that comes into existence?

Conclusion:

(4) Since not all are saved, not all are drawn.

Therefore we can safely show from the Scriptures that God does NOT draw all men.

John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

May I ask - what is deemed unfair about NOT being 'elect'?

I guess to answer that OR the original question: "Is predestination fair? " you'd have to ask: what IS fairness?

As for me, if God does what He wants, then what does fairness have to do with anything whether you're elect or not? Ps 135 The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.

For me, I don't think that the issue is fairness, since God does whatever pleases Him. If fairness is not the issue, then come these questions:

why do I want to have anything to do with the God who set it up so that there is an unending hell? I realize that hell is being away from God, but why be with the God who set it up for His created beings to be in torment forever?

What does a human matter if there is a hell? And what does a human matter if your eternal destiny is predetermined. According to some, your destiny is either: hell, or heaven with the one who predetermined everyone's destiny, who set up hell and did NOT elect some.

Kjn,

Lucifer was created prefect, God did not create, evil, only the potential for evil, He gave Him FREE WILL, to act or act otherwise, he wanted the angels to CHOOSE to love him, because without choice, love is rendered meaningless. Lucifer decieded he could be better than God, so sinned, so hell was created as a place of quartine Lucifer and his angels on the day of judgement. He gave Adam and Eve the same choice, follow me, or don't they choose to reject God and be there own gods, therefore, anyone on the day of judgement who stands on his own rightousness is justly condemned to Hell.

God could have let every single person go to hell without offering a solution and he still would have been Just. But GOD loved US, DIED for US, so ANYONE willing to bow the knee will be accepted and seen as Holy through the Shed blood of Christ.

My view on election is something like this: Every person has the choice to accept or reject this free gift of grace. God in his Sovernignty looks through the corridors of time so to speak, sees a person and what that person would do given the choice of Salvation. To those who accept this Gift, they are CHOSEN for salvation. Another way is this, the Holy Spirit reveals the Truth to someone and gives them the oppurtinity to accept or decline. Without free will to accept or reject, we would be nothing more than robots or chatty cathy dolls, pull the string we say "I LOVE YOU" God does not want that, we wants us to CHOOSE to love him.

God does not see us as "disposable", but what is he to do when someone willfully rejects God and says "I don't want to have anything to do with YOU!" If he drug that person to heaven against there will, heaven would be hell for that person and true believers would recieve a counterfiet heaven.

Annihaltion doesn't work either because he would be taking a peice of his creation, created in his image, whom he gave the choice of rejecting him, and putting them out of existance.

The Only solution for Sin that is not laid at the foot of the Cross is quartine in Hell. It may be sad, but it is that person's choice and God is simple honoring their choice to be separated from him.

God Bless,

ArtistforHim <><

As created beings, on what basis do we have choice? God, by creating, set us up to do and be whatever it is that we do and are.

And if God only created the potential for evil, then where did evil come from? Is He still not the one responsible for it? Who put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil into the garden?

And IF there is a hell, and if God is the creator and set up 'the way things are", then what keeps a person from concluding that He wanted hell to be? Yes, Jesus warned against it, but hell will be forever. What does warning do if some of your creation still exists there forever?

quote: God does not see us as "disposable", but what is he to do when someone willfully rejects God and says "I don't want to have anything to do with YOU!" If he drug that person to heaven against there will, heaven would be hell for that person and true believers would recieve a counterfiet heaven.

Basically you're either going to exist forever in hell, or you're going to exist forever with the God who set up the way it is, so that there IS hell. And I can't help a reaction that wishes that I didn't exist at all. but my reaction doesn't matter, because that's the way He set it up and that's the way it will be.

Thanks for your responses and Bible references and perspectives.

So, as I think about the word "appointed" used in Acts 13:48, it raises the question: Can something or someone be appointed by someone to something, but the appointed thing doesn't actually occur? Can this happen if God is the one doing the appointing? And now I see that Acts 13:48 doesn't name the appointer, just points out the the appointees.

RE Act 13:48 (KJV) And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained (other versions 'appointed') to eternal life believed.

Strong's concordance gives these definitions for the Greek word 'tasso'

1) to put in order, to station

a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint

1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one

b) to appoint, ordain, order

1) to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority

2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon

These are other references (KJV) where the Greek word tasso is used.

Mat 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Luk 7:8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it].

Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

1Cr 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and [that] they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him (Paul) a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

In all of these cases, it appears that whatever was appointed was carried out. But in Acts 28:23, if Paul had been sick or otherwise deterred, the day had already been appointed, but could've been cancelled or delayed. Appointments can sometimes be made without being carried out.

Eph. 1:5 says Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...

The Greek for the KJV ''predestinated" is pro-orizo.

pro means 'pre-'

orizo means (according to Strong's)

1) to define

a) to mark out the boundaries or limits (of any place or thing)

b) to determine, appoint

1) that which has been determined, acc. to appointment, decree

2) to ordain, determine, appoint

Is the meaning that it's a rigid appointment, or is it that there are boundaries set up? How rigid is the choosing, the predestinating, the appointing? And of course it raises more questions of the appointer and whatever the appointment is. But it just gets me to wondering.

Cajunboy noted::::Hi Kin, you might want to save this as a new "Topic" for another time, as it changes the text of where this topic "Free Will" is headed or intended.

Blessings

sorry

Rhonda wrote:

KJN,

I'm sorry, everything seemed to have gotten moved to "Another Take on Free Will" and I don't remember seeing this. Artist for Christ answered your questions yesterday, and I agree completely with this person.

In response to your direct question about how God could let people go to hell, there is no one who seeks God. The Bible DOES specify that we all intrinsically have knowledge of Him. We can see intelligent design in creaction, accourding t Romans 1. And we have a conscience, according to Romans 2 -- a law to keep. We would easily surmise that if there is a law, there must be a Lawgiver. If we are drawn to that Intelligent Designer and Lawgiver, it is by God, and we are among the chosen. If we are not drawn -- if we are uninterested -- that is not entirely God's fault. As I stated in the other thread, we act on the information we have. God IS in the background working on those He's called, but we don't know His information. (I like Simon and Garfunkel. They have a song called "Slip Sliding Away". In the song, Paul Simon says, 'God only knows, God makes His plan. The information is unavailable to the mortal man. We work our job, collect our pay, believe we are gliding along, when in fact we're slip sliding away". The part I always want to quote is "God only knows...unavailable to the mortal man." It isn't God KEEPING people from hell -- it is God CHOOSING to save some of us. We are still responsible for not seeking Him out. He's given enough evidence to pique our interest,. Does that make any sense?

Romans 3:11 "There is none who seeks for God" and yet you say 'We are still responsible for not seeking Him out.'

"If we are not drawn -- if we are uninterested -- that is not entirely God's fault." It doesn't matter whose fault, because if you are chosen, you're chosen. If you're not, you're not and you're in hell forever. it's not about blame, it's about what it says to the created.

Yes, I can't get around the fact that He chose Jacob, but not Esau, who was the oldest. But He did not MAKE Esau rebel. Esau knew all about God, he had the same information Jacob did -- he did nothing with it -- God didn't call him. I'm saying that God acts in the lives of those He's called. I don't ask, "Why didn't he choose such and such or so and so, I ask why He chose me? I'm a nobody, who has had an extremely poor track record. I fight addictions, I eventually give them over to Him, He handles them, I get distracted and complacent -- and yet He chose ME!! My love for Him in this is incredible!! I want Him to use me because there other who need to hear the whole gospel. Many have heard the 4 rules of the gospel (we sin, need a Savior, Jesus died for us, belief brings life" so often that it has no impact -- and they never take it personally in their own lives. Even atheists have heard what one must do to be saved -- it's everywhere. But it's not sinking in because the impact has been lost. It is not lost on me, and so I want to be hout there speaking it.

I hope this answers your question here.

Rhonda

Kjn,

Do you realize that Hell was NEVER intended originally for People, it was created for the devil and his demons. Man was never meant to go there. But Mankind sinned against a Holy God. Sin MUST be punished,A Holy God cannot abide sin in his presence. Sin can't be swept under the rug and be ignored. Every single persons deserves to go to hell, But God loves us so much that he provided a way. He sent his Son, The Second Person of the Trinity, to DIE for us horrible sinners. The very one who Made us came and lived among us, lived the perfect life we could never live, and died the death we could never die. Then, to give us hope, all those who trust in him, he arose promising that one day we to will rise, uncorroptable. All this is a Free Gift to all who will recieve it. Though, for a Gift to be usefull, it must be accepted and opened, if one rejects a gift, it is no good.

A God that does not punish sin is not holy, if sin is not punished, Justice is not carried out. Someone Like Hitler can do all the things he did and then die in the arms of his lover with no consequences.

a Just God demands a Hell. No one in Hell can cry "FOUL, I don't belong here!" Everyone who choses hell, that right choses hell by rejecting to live by God's Commands, deciding to live the way they chose, will belong there, God is totally Soverign and Just and will not sentence anyone to hell that doesn't deserve it. There are also degrees of punishment in hell, the everyday pagan won't get the same punishment as Hitler or his ilk.

Is God Love? YES, without a doubt, he didn't have to die on that Cross to set People free, but he did it out of Love.

But we can't forget he is also Just, and he will Judge sin rightly.

God Bless,

ArtistforChrist <><

Did not God create Lucifer and all the angels? He set it up so that there is a hell that is unending, and some beings that He created will eternally be there. The created seem to be "disposable" to hell. It's torment forever. That's why the topic of choice is so relevant. If before the foundations of the world, He chose the select humans to be adopted as sons, did He not send the others to hell? He can do whatever He wants, and He does. The love of Jesus dying or any other statement or demonstration of God's love doesn't negate the statement that there is a hell where created beings will be forever in agony and torment. Do I want to escape hell? I don't want to be there, but neither do I want to be with the God who set it up. And our existence continues forever. and what I want or feel doesn't matter anyway if it's already predetermined. That's my initial response.

I am not a greek scholar, don't have the gift of interpretation, but English is a natural to the ol plow man.

TO predestinate is to call, being chosen in fact, allows you to see the sons of men as flour, because soon we will all go our way, whether we live in obedience unto righteousness or sin unto death.

See this; Isaiah 51

Thanks for your responses and Bible references and perspectives.

So, as I think about the word "appointed" used in Acts 13:48, it raises the question: Can something or someone be appointed by someone to something, but the appointed thing doesn't actually occur? Can this happen if God is the one doing the appointing? And now I see that Acts 13:48 doesn't name the appointer, just points out the the appointees.

RE Act 13:48 (KJV) And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained (other versions 'appointed') to eternal life believed.

Strong's concordance gives these definitions for the Greek word 'tasso'

1) to put in order, to station

a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint

1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one

b) to appoint, ordain, order

1) to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority

2) to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon

These are other references (KJV) where the Greek word tasso is used.

Mat 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Luk 7:8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it].

Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

1Cr 16:15 I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and [that] they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him (Paul) a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

In all of these cases, it appears that whatever was appointed was carried out. But in Acts 28:23, if Paul had been sick or otherwise deterred, the day had already been appointed, but could've been cancelled or delayed. Appointments can sometimes be made without being carried out.

Eph. 1:5 says Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...

The Greek for the KJV ''predestinated" is pro-orizo.

pro means 'pre-'

orizo means (according to Strong's)

1) to define

a) to mark out the boundaries or limits (of any place or thing)

b) to determine, appoint

1) that which has been determined, acc. to appointment, decree

2) to ordain, determine, appoint

Is the meaning that it's a rigid appointment, or is it that there are boundaries set up? How rigid is the choosing, the predestinating, the appointing? And of course it raises more questions of the appointer and whatever the appointment is. But it just gets me to wondering.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Regardless of what people think will happen with belief in predestination,

Again, mutually exclusive. Predestination of believers does not need the Word, does not need to hear and surely does not require faith. If it did, it is not degreed, it is not predestination. You couch all your explanation in the will of man, yet think you are predestined to do so. Impossible.

It might be better to study the real meaing of predestination. What it means to have something ordained from the beginning. A act by decree, not choice. They are polar opposites.

And what is your understanding of the words translated into English as predestined? (Eph. 1)

As I said earlier, this is a hard pill to swallow, but what I've been told is that man is naturally depraved. God does not make ANYBODY depraved -- we are already in that condition. What God does is miraculously saves those He wills from their depravity, with a grace beyond measure. I've quit asking about others, "Why not them?" and have asked, "Why me?" Little old me, You decided to save. There are others who are more deserving, who could do more for you, who have stronger wills and self-control. Why me? I love Him SO PROFOUNDLY for choosing me!!

None of us knows who is saved, and who is unsaved. NOBODY is saved without hearing the gospel of salvation: that Jesus died as our substitute to pay the penalty for our death curse, and that He rose again to break the power of sin and death, and that, those who believe, He is "in them" and they are "in Him" and His Spirit is in them transforming them. Since we don't know who "the called" are -- it is our DUTY and PRIVILEGE to tell everybody the gospel message -- and leave the rest up the God. He is sovereign. He is in control. I want to love the God of the Bible, and that includes some things I do not necessarily like hearing. Neither did anybody else. In John 6 when He told His apostles this (not the 12, but all who followed Him)"Remember I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." Their reaction to that: "From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." (John 6:65-66).

It is not easy to hear. Gut reaction: "OK, Rhonda, you don't like hearing this. Do you have a biblical basis to say it is wrong?" "No, the Bible DOES say it." "Then, Rhonda, are you going to believe it, or reject it simply because you don't like it." "God, I would never reject You. You love me more than any other person could. I don't understand it, and You must have Your reasons out there somewhere, which I may never know, but I DO know that all things work together for good to those who love God; to those who are "The Called", according to YOUR purpose." I DO believe that, and so, yes, I will trust You without all of the answers. When I say I trust Your Word no matter what, that means I trust Your Word no matter what."

I guess it is my hope that all would ask themselves the same questions: Do you not believe because you don't want to, or because the Bible says something else -- without conradicting itself. Would it still be possible for you to love God, even without understanding everything about Him? Has He proven His promises and Word to be true? If He lied about this to make is more conventient for me to believe, what else did He lie about? That is the direction my questioning is going right now.

You love God profoundly because He chose you? Is it any wonder then, that the non-chosen don't claim to love Him? Is it any wonder then, that those who believe their ancestors died without exposure to knowing the Way of salvation, that they wouldn't want to be with the God who set it up that hell is the destiny of their ancestors. Hell forever, unending.

"Is it possible to love God without understanding?" What is love? God is love. God set it up so that people do go to hell. That is love. I don't know that I want to be near that. He defines love and love set it up that there is a hell where people are perpetually tormented, gnashing their teeth, wishing for the slightest drop of water. It goes on and on and on. God set it up. That's love. OK, I can't pretend that I want to be near that love.

L - The doctrine of limited atonement is most people's biggest problem with Calvinism, I think. It creates a paradox of God's will and logically implies the doctrine of reprobation. If God is "willing that none should perish" yet predetermines them to a fate of perpetual death by not including them in the covenant with His Son, then we're faced with a problem: either God's love for mankind isn't as passionate as most Christians have been led to believe; or God does not have the power and/or authority to effect His perfect will and Calvinists are, in reality, the ones diminishing His divine sovereignty; or we create an unnecessary paradox of will vs. will. Not only is this doctrine problematic from a philosophical viewpoint, it is counterintuitive for so many who read the gospels.

Spurgeon expresses the trouble I have with universal atonement fairly well in A Defense of Calvinism:

To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

I believe the verse you quoted is:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Peter is talking to believers. This qualifies the scope of the 'all'.

But if God is not wishing that anyone at all should perish, is he eternally miserable because so many are going to hell and he was impotent to stop it (being limited by man's free will)? Or, is he going to wait for everyone to repent no matter how long it takes? Or, maybe he failed since we know that not everyone will be saved.

My understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 is similar to Matthew 18:12-14. Christ died for his sheep, and God is not willing that these should perish.

Matthew 18:12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

-Neopatriarch

So you're saying you do believe in limited atonement?

Ga 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Please take note of all the times the verses use the terms - will, would. And in Gal. 5:17 the direct statement that says the we are ABLE to do the things we would/will to do.

LT

Maybe I'm misunderstanding , but doesn't "ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal. 5:17) mean that you are NOT able to do the things that you would/will?

Hell was not created for man but for the devil and his angels.

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

So are the devil and his angels the only ones going to hell?

Who was Jesus talking to in Matt. 25:41 above?

LT

Matt. 25:32 (NLT) "All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people..."

Matt. 25:41 "...the king will turn to those on the left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

So, yes Jesus is talking to people who are cursed, who did not feed Him, give Him a drink, didn't invite Him in, didn't give clothing, didn't visit him, or Jesus' brothers and sisters.

So, hell is created for the devil and his angels, and people will also end up there.

Also have been wondering about "Mt 22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen."

in the parable, people are invited, but refuse to come to the feast. "the guests I invited aren't worthy of the honor."

People are invited in off the street, and one is sent out because he doesn't have the right clothes... sent to outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth. (I suppose if everyone else's clothes were acceptable for a wedding, one could assume that possibly he had the chance to get the right clothes. ) So, the many who were originally invited refused to come, and, out of the ones invited off the street, one wasn't dressed properly for a wedding. So, the non-chosen are not chosen because: they ignored, rejected, insulted, or killed the messengers, or didn't have the proper clothes. So, according to this parable, there is invitation, there is the response of the invited, and the concluding statement is that many are invited, but few 'are chosen'. And they're chosen actually based on their own response to the invitation (except I'm not sure about the guy with the non-wedding clothes).

There is still the question of what motivates the people to reject the invitation. If the choice of adoption is already made before the foundations of the world, (Eph. 1:4-5) aren't the non-adopted already essentially predestined to reject the invitation even if it is extended to them?

thank you LT, for responding with questions to make us research it for ourselves.

God is not willing that ANY should perish, but because of our corruption, some will choose hell. God knows who will and who won't, as He has omniscience. That has nothing to do with the fact that we have a will to choose Christ or deny Him. God just happens to know who will and who won't. As we don't have that foreknowledge, we ought to choose when the opportunity presents itself.

if I am 'choosing when the opportunity presents itself', what and who am I choosing? it appears that I'm choosing the One who instituted hell. I guess my interest is less about the 'doctrine' of free will/election itself than about the implications of the 'doctrine'... the implications of who God is and the motivation to associate with that God.

Actually, regardless of the deciding factor(s) for the eternal destiny of an individual, it appears to me from the Bible that there is an eternal torment and that some beings will go there.

Regardless of whether I'm choosing, chosen, or both, my honest reaction is a negative, scared, saddened perspective of the God who instituted 'the way it is.' How do you deal with this realistically without being glib, without denying the horror of the existence of hell and the God who instituted it?

Ok, I know I digressed...., don't have time on this computer to move my post.

I have to be honest and say that it does not make me grateful to simply say 'at least I'm in the kingdom of God.' It does matter to me that hell is torment that is unending. It does matter to me that if God chose some and not others, then it means that God created people and then sends/allows some to go to hell. If God is love, then love instituted hell and apparently controls who goes there. How does that make me want to be associated with Him? That is why this question of 'election or free will' is of interest to me.

Hi eric,

Almost right. We are ALL ALREADY damned to eternal fire. If God chooses to save some of us, is He unjust. Like the Governor of a State pardoning a lifer in prison. Is he unjust to the other prisoners to choose just two prisoners.

The natural man has no choice to not sin. He cannot but help to sin.

We are chosen to salvation. Even faith is a gift from God. It is all Jesus Christ.

LT