The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls.

[wretched]

17 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Now, if I am correct in my understanding of your position herein, then we do have a point of disagreement on this matter.  My disagreement would be primarily rooted in my understanding of Psalm 139:13-16, wherein David proclaimed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.  I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.  My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."  To me verses 15-16 seem to speak concerning the formulation of David as a baby within his mother's womb, extending from the time of conception unto the time of birthing.  Even so, to me David's reference in verse 14 unto God's possessing his reins in relation to his mother's womb seems to indicate that God was directly, personally, creatively involved in David's originating formation as a human individual.  Furthermore, to me David's reference unto being "fearfully and wonderfully made" in connection with his declaration that God's works are wonderful seems to indicate that he viewed God as the One who directly, personally, creatively formed him as a human individual.

Indeed, if my understanding of Psalm 139:13-16 is correct, then all of the following phrases in that context would be directly attributable unto God Himself -- "possessed my reins," "covered me in my mother's womb," "fearfully and wonderfully made [me]," "made in secret," "curiously wrought," "all my members . . . which in continuance were fashioned."

So then, I would ask -- Based upon your response above, what is your view point concerning the truth of Psalm 139:13-16?

(Note: It is my understanding concerning the original article of this thread that Brother John Young would agree with me concerning the position that the Lord God is indeed directly, personally, creatively involved in the originating formation of each human individual.  However, it is my understanding that in order to avoid your concern over thereby making God to be the Author of sinfulness, he would contend that each human individual is originally formed by God in a spiritually neutral condition, being neither sinful nor righteous in the nature of the soul -- although he does appear to allow that the body is already bound under sin's corruption from conception through genetic progression from Adam.  Brother Young, I would certainly request that your correct me herein, if I am misunderstanding.)

Well posted sir (as usual). BTW you are spot on with the 3/3 references.

However, I do have some mild contention on this quoted point in particular.

I think I have established many times over my Bible belief (tempered with common sense) that all signs, wonders, miracles, visions, dreams, hand picked servant selections, callings from God to preach are all discontinued temporarily since Pentecost and until the Tribulation. The Scriptures to which have all been laid out many times in previous threads. 

God certainly has in the past hand picked from the womb (before the womb is included) certain people to serve Him for special missions or situations, all of which are clearly detailed in His OT and His Gospels (including the Psa 139 reference)

However, this practice on God's part did not extend to the general public then and it extends to noone during the last 2K years IMO. I firmly believe He previously hand picked some for His service and Glory for not only the mission He had for them at hand but also for the purpose of recording them in His Word. His mission of redemption is complete as is His Written Word for man.

In addition, the Spirit is poured out over all flesh. There are no more "special" servants of God or even men of God IMBO. Everyone saved has been given their written orders of how to serve Him. Whether you want to be a pastor or a janitor matters not. What matters for all of us is that we leave the world behind and follow Him by spreading the Gospel, baptizing and making disciples.

I think we all tend to think of ourselves with far more importance to God than we actually have. We (meaning everyone alive today) are born of parents without any preference from God. We can be saved if we have a God fearing heart and hear the Gospel under the Spirit's conviction. Then we can either live in the world by modifying our lives or leave all and follow Him (the only hope for eternal rewards). Some can be pastors, teachers, etc... but none are hand picked. I also believe that all born of parents are born with the fear of and faith in God as Jesus indicated and that all by in large unlearn it after puberty (unless raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord via the parents of course).

To say at this time in history that God is hand forming all people in the womb as sinners is to also admit then that He is hand forming the vast majority of people in the womb to be condemned which makes no Bible or logical sense IMO.

I go so far as to say even bishops/pastors are not hand formed by God in the womb and then later called of God apart from the general calling of the Great Commission to follow Him. Church offices after salvation are a desire and not a special "calling" of God. Otherwise, there would be no Scripture telling us that if a man "desire" the office of bishop, he desires a good work. Nor would there be any qualifications for which other "men" would need to screen candidates with. If God called a man, it is a done deal, any qualifications would be moot and already covered and this calling would be without man's consent or approval as all OT examples were.

After all, I see no mention of men's approvals via written qualifications for God's prophets or Apostles who truly were hand picked of God for His purposes and Glory and to be recorded in His Word. I bring up church offices as the example du joir of why I feel that neither NT Scripture (post Pentecost) nor common sense supports that God is hand picking some for salvation or anything "special" afterwards and hand condemning most. It all leads to and/or supports the calvin heresy IMO.

Did God intercede, manipulate, orchestrate certain lives and events in times past - absolutely but everytime these manipulations were followed by His reasons for them in the OT and Gospels.

Does He do it now- absolutely not (We have the Word and the Spirit)

Will He do it again- absolutely during the trib and specifically with His 144K plus the big 2

 

 

[John81]

3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I agree.

My belief on this isn't tied to my emotions, nor do my questions represent any emotion on my part. My questions represent the emotions on the grieving parent's part. That's all. I'm in no way bound to this by emotion.

I only asked the question(s), because I sincerely wanted to know what one could say to grieving parents under such circumstances. I realize that's probably asking a lot, because a conversation with grieving parents could go in many different directions. While I know that trusting God is ample enough for whatever may happen, it's not enough for most people. In the real world, leaving grieving parents with "just trust God" will most likely cause confusion and resentment. I'm not saying that's right on their part; I'm just stating how people are. So, I was just wondering if there was anything else that could be said.

It was. I know you well enough brother.

As stated above, God doesn't always give clear answers and assurances regarding every point where someone may believe or feel better about a particular matter. Even with regards to Job, God never answered His questions, didn't reveal to Job the behind the scene (spiritual) things going on. God simply pointed out He is God and there are none who can rightly question Him.

People die every day which, if we are honest, we are unable to give a clear "they are certainly in heaven with Jesus right now" statement. Sadly, many do give such statements even when it's as obvious as possible to us that the deceased are nowhere near heaven.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, wretched said:

Well posted sir (as usual).

Brother Wretched,

I thank you for the compliment.

1 hour ago, wretched said:

BTW you are spot on with the 3/3 references.

Just to confirm my understanding, would you then mean by the "2/3" reference that in your position all human individuals after Adam and Eve come into the world without a spirit at all?  Thus would you hold that being spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" and being "alienated from the life of God" would mean that the spirit is non-existent?  Would you then hold that it is only at the moment of regeneration wherein an individual acquires a spirit?  Finally, would you hold that the new regenerate spirit is a regenerate HUMAN spirit, or would you hold that the new regenerate spirit is God the Holy Spirit Himself?  (Note: in the last question I am not asking concerning the power of regeneration, which certainly is administered through God the Holy Spirit.  Rather, I am asking concerning the nature of the regenerate spirit itself.)

1 hour ago, wretched said:

However, I do have some mild contention on this quoted point in particular.

. . . .

Did God intercede, manipulate, orchestrate certain lives and events in times past - absolutely but every time these manipulations were followed by His reasons for them in the OT and Gospels.

Does He do it now- absolutely not (We have the Word and the Spirit)

Will He do it again- absolutely during the trib and specifically with His 144K plus the big 2

So then, if I am understanding your explanation above in its fullness, you would apply the declarations by David in Psalm 139:13-16 unto David himself alone, and would not apply them as a principle of truth unto and concerning all human individuals in all times and places.  Am I understanding this correctly? 

If I am understanding correctly, then you and I would not be in agreement over Psalm 139:13-16.  However, this understanding of your position concerning Psalm 139:13-16 would grant me a better understanding as to the doctrinal context and path by which you have come unto other points in your system of belief on this matter.  As such, I thank you for your explanation.

_________________________________________________

Unto all, I wish to present another "preface" posting at this point.

I believe thus far that I am discerning four different positions in this thread concerning the originating condition of human individuals.  (Note: If I am wrong on one of these, I would ask the contributor unto which I have applied the position to correct me and thus also to correct the "public record."

1.  Brother Young -- Human individuals at the level of the soul do NOT come into this world already possessing a sin nature, already "dead in trespasses and sins," already bound under sin's mastery, and already condemned before God; but they are directly created by God with a spiritually neutral soul, thus being in a position of spiritual innocence before God AND being in a condition of spiritual innocence in the soul. 

2.  Brother McWhorter -- Human individuals do come into this world already possessing a sin nature, already "dead in trespasses and sins," and already bound under sin's mastery; but they are NOT already condemned before God because the Lord God does not hold them accountable for these things at the first, such that they exist in a condition of spiritual sinfulness, but are held by God at first in a position of spiritual innocence.

3.  Brother Wretched -- Human individuals do come into this world already possessing a sin nature, already "dead in trespasses and sins," and already bound under sin's mastery, which all occurs strictly by the means of natural processes through their sinful lineage from Adam; but since this all occurs by natural processes, God Himself is NOT directly involved in the process and thus does NOT in any manner cause any individual's sinfulness.

4.  Brother Markle -- Human individuals do come into this world already possessing a sin nature, already "dead in trespasses and sins," already bound under sin's mastery, and already condemned before God in both spiritual condition and spiritual position, such that their ONLY hope of eternal life with God is through God's plan of salvation by faith in Christ -- while also granting from the Biblical record that there appears to be some means by which at least some babies acquire this eternal life with God.

Well then, am I understanding these different views correctly, especially at their main points of difference?

[No Nicolaitans]

52 minutes ago, John81 said:

As stated above, God doesn't always give clear answers and assurances regarding every point where someone may believe or feel better about a particular matter. Even with regards to Job, God never answered His questions, didn't reveal to Job the behind the scene (spiritual) things going on. God simply pointed out He is God and there are none who can rightly question Him.

People die every day which, if we are honest, we are unable to give a clear "they are certainly in heaven with Jesus right now" statement. Sadly, many do give such statements even when it's as obvious as possible to us that the deceased are nowhere near heaven.

I agree.

However, the section of scripture that I quoted from Job wasn't Job seeking answers. It was Job stating facts.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's easy to give an answer (on a forum such as this) that doesn't address a real-life situation. Here, we can say things like...

1. It was just God's will.
2. We just have to trust God.
3. God knows best.
4. Etc...

But when you're face-to-face with someone who lost their child, when they have tears streaming down their face, when they are on the edge of despair and their world has crashed around them, when they are in desperate need of comfort and hope...with what you believe; in that, scripture doesn't answer this, what would you tell them to help them during their time of grief?

I'm not arguing who's right or wrong. I'm just wondering what one (with the belief that scripture doesn't answer this) could say to someone who has lost a child. If all one would say is, "You just need to trust God"...then, okay...I accept that.

However, I know from personal experience (that has nothing to do with babies dying) that such answers aren't wanted, aren't helpful, aren't appreciated, and leaves the hurting with more hurt. I'm just trying to see if anyone can offer an answer that can help someone and help us to "bear one another's burdens".

40 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  Brother McWhorter -- Human individuals do come into this world already possessing a sin nature, already "dead in trespasses and sins," and already bound under sin's mastery; but they are NOT already condemned before God because the Lord God does not hold them accountable for these things at the first, such that they exist in a condition of spiritual sinfulness, but are held by God at first in a position of spiritual innocence.

Yes, I think I would agree with that.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

(Ohhh, how I pray that this posting will be taken with the grace in which it is intended.)

5 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

It was. I know you well enough brother.

Brother McWhorter,

I do wish to thank you publicly for your grace in receiving my posting with the grace in which it was intended.  Thank you.

Your fellow-brother and FRIEND in the Lord,
Pastor Scott Markle

[No Nicolaitans]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

I do wish to thank you publicly for your grace in receiving my posting with the grace in which it was intended.  Thank you.

Your fellow-brother and FRIEND in the Lord,
Pastor Scott Markle

You need never worry that I may be offended in your exchanges with me...it would take a blatant personal attack.

With that said, I want to make a public apology to Pastor Markle regarding a private matter. Pastor Markle asked for my participation in the 2nd and 3rd John Bible Study Thread. I said that I would participate; however, things happened, and the study began when I needed a break from here to concentrate on other things. Please forgive me Pastor Markle.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You need never worry that I may be offended in your exchanges with me...it would take a blatant personal attack.

With that said, I want to make a public apology to Pastor Markle regarding a private matter. Pastor Markle asked for my participation in the 2nd and 3rd John Bible Study Thread. I said that I would participate; however, things happened, and the study began when I needed a break from here to concentrate on other things. Please forgive me Pastor Markle.

Forgiveness is granted.

[John81]

6 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I agree.

However, the section of scripture that I quoted from Job wasn't Job seeking answers. It was Job stating facts.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's easy to give an answer (on a forum such as this) that doesn't address a real-life situation. Here, we can say things like...

1. It was just God's will.
2. We just have to trust God.
3. God knows best.
4. Etc...

But when you're face-to-face with someone who lost their child, when they have tears streaming down their face, when they are on the edge of despair and their world has crashed around them, when they are in desperate need of comfort and hope...with what you believe; in that, scripture doesn't answer this, what would you tell them to help them during their time of grief?

I'm not arguing who's right or wrong. I'm just wondering what one (with the belief that scripture doesn't answer this) could say to someone who has lost a child. If all one would say is, "You just need to trust God"...then, okay...I accept that.

However, I know from personal experience (that has nothing to do with babies dying) that such answers aren't wanted, aren't helpful, aren't appreciated, and leaves the hurting with more hurt. I'm just trying to see if anyone can offer an answer that can help someone and help us to "bear one another's burdens".

Yes, I think I would agree with that.

I understand what you mean. Unfortunately I know many who have lost babies in the womb, stillborn, or died shortly after birth. Sadly, my Mom had stillborn twins and a little girl who only lived less than two hours.

There really are no words that bring the comfort being sought or desired. Even when they are told their child is with Jesus the pain is still there, there seems to virtually always be lingering doubt or uncertainty as to whether that's true or not, and oftentimes there develops an anger toward God for "taking their child".

Making matters worse are all those who try to preach adult, clearly lost sinners into heaven. Many people have heard pastors talk of how a known lifetime sinner had a good heart, loved God in their own way, didn't wear their religion on their sleeve, loved their family, helped folks in the Mason Lodge, or some other non-biblical reason why they are in heaven. These people who actually knew the deceased sinner know the pastor is preaching a smoke screen. After hearing these sort of things they become even more skeptical of hearing similar.

[No Nicolaitans]

6 minutes ago, John81 said:

I understand what you mean. Unfortunately I know many who have lost babies in the womb, stillborn, or died shortly after birth. Sadly, my Mom had stillborn twins and a little girl who only lived less than two hours.

There really are no words that bring the comfort being sought or desired. Even when they are told their child is with Jesus the pain is still there, there seems to virtually always be lingering doubt or uncertainty as to whether that's true or not, and oftentimes there develops an anger toward God for "taking their child".

Making matters worse are all those who try to preach adult, clearly lost sinners into heaven. Many people have heard pastors talk of how a known lifetime sinner had a good heart, loved God in their own way, didn't wear their religion on their sleeve, loved their family, helped folks in the Mason Lodge, or some other non-biblical reason why they are in heaven. These people who actually knew the deceased sinner know the pastor is preaching a smoke screen. After hearing these sort of things they become even more skeptical of hearing similar.

Yes, often just being there for them, being someone to lean on, or being an ear to listen provides much comfort.

[Salyan]

On June-04-16 at 3:13 AM, John Young said:

I do understand that this is perhaps the more modern way to spell the word but I decided to go with the more biblical spelling in case I decide to quote a verse about "Innocent blood". Thinks for the check though!

I'm curious what edition of the KJV uses such a weird spelling for 'innocence', but that's inconsequential. Please, PLEASE don't use inaccurate and archaic spellings just because they may have appeared in the Bible. Misspellings in an article such as yours can severely limit the authority of the article, as they cause the author to look uneducated or careless. For those looking to disagree with the content, it can give them an excuse to ignore the content due to this perceived lack on behalf of the author. It really diminishes your work and causes it to lose authority - and by extension, reflects on all Christian writers. (Spoken by one who herself will discount an author's authority on a subject when their spelling/grammar is incorrect.)

[John Young]

17 hours ago, Salyan said:

I'm curious what edition of the KJV uses such a weird spelling for 'innocence', but that's inconsequential. Please, PLEASE don't use inaccurate and archaic spellings just because they may have appeared in the Bible. Misspellings in an article such as yours can severely limit the authority of the article, as they cause the author to look uneducated or careless. For those looking to disagree with the content, it can give them an excuse to ignore the content due to this perceived lack on behalf of the author. It really diminishes your work and causes it to lose authority - and by extension, reflects on all Christian writers. (Spoken by one who herself will discount an author's authority on a subject when their spelling/grammar is incorrect.)

I was somewhat (unintentionally) wrong in my initial fly by post that you quoted (oops) but there is a method to my madness.... .  Its actually not an alternative spelling but rather a different more precise form of the word. "Innocent" is the pronouncement. "Innocence" is the state of being innocent. Both terms are commonly used today and it is by no means "inaccurate and archaic". I may not have used the word grammatically in the way people are used to seeing it, but the form "innocent" is what I meant to use. It is at the most an intentional "grammatical error" on my part, for a particular purpose, and not simply a misspelling.

There is no true KJV bible that uses the word "Innocence". This is important because I am dealing with scripture, and scripture uses precise words, so I need to use the scripture's words. Even if some that read my material are not used to the words it uses.  In my opinion only Adam and Eve could probably claim to have been created in true Innocence. The rest of us, I think, have to be proclaimed, innocent. My thoughts on this section are dealing with why the soul is initially innocent before God (even though, because of Adam, all creation, as a whole, is no longer in a state of innocence).

Hope that helps and clarifies any misunderstanding my previous statement may have caused.

in·no·cent

ˈinəsənt/

adjective

adjective: innocent

1. 1.

   not guilty of a crime or offense.

   "the arbitrary execution of an innocent man"

   synonyms:

   guiltless, blameless, in the clear, unimpeachable, irreproachable, above suspicion,faultless; More

   antonyms:

   guilty

   • without; lacking.

     "a street quite innocent of bookstores"

     synonyms:

     free from, without, lacking (in), clear of, ignorant of, unaware of, untouched by "she is innocent of guile"

   • without experience or knowledge of.

     "a man innocent of war's cruelties"
2. 2.

   not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.

   "an innocent bystander"
3. 3.

   free from moral wrong; not corrupted.

   "an innocent child"

   synonyms:

   virtuous, pure, moral, decent, righteous, upright, wholesome; More

   antonyms:

   sinful

   • simple; naive.

     "she is a poor, innocent young creature"

     synonyms:

     naive, ingenuous, trusting, credulous, unsuspicious, unwary, unguarded; More

     antonyms:

     worldly, seasoned

4. 4.

   not intended to cause harm or offense; harmless.

   "an innocent mistake"

   synonyms:

   harmless, benign, innocuous, safe, inoffensive "innocent fun"

   antonyms:

   harmful

noun

1. 1.

   an innocent person, in particular.

   • a pure, guileless, or naive person.

     noun: innocent; plural noun: innocents

     "she was an innocent compared with this man"

     synonyms:

     ingénue, unworldly person; More

   • a person involved by chance in a situation, especially a victim of crime or war.

     "they are prepared to kill or maim innocents in pursuit of a cause"
   • the young children killed by Herod after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 2:16).

     plural noun: Innocents; plural noun: the Innocents

Origin

Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin innocent- ‘not harming,’ from in- ‘not’ + nocere ‘to hurt.’

 

in·no·cence

ˈinəsəns/

noun

noun: innocence

1. the state, quality, or fact of being innocent of a crime or offense.

   "they must prove their innocence"

   synonyms:

   guiltlessness, blamelessness, irreproachability "he protested his innocence"

   • lack of guile or corruption; purity.

     "the healthy bloom in her cheeks gave her an aura of innocence"
   • used euphemistically to refer to a person's virginity.

     "they'd avenge assaults on her innocence by others"

     synonyms:

     virginity, chastity, chasteness, purity; More

Origin

Middle English: from Old French, from Latin innocentia, from innocent- ‘not harming’ (based on nocere‘injure’).

Edited June 22, 2016 by John Young

[John Young]

On 6/17/2016 at 11:34 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I believe thus far that I am discerning four different positions in this thread concerning the originating condition of human individuals.  (Note: If I am wrong on one of these, I would ask the contributor unto which I have applied the position to correct me and thus also to correct the "public record."

1.  Brother Young -- Human individuals at the level of the soul do NOT come into this world already possessing a sin nature, already "dead in trespasses and sins," already bound under sin's mastery, and already condemned before God; but they are directly created by God with a spiritually neutral soul, thus being in a position of spiritual innocence before God AND being in a condition of spiritual innocence in the soul. 

The parts in blue, at this time, I think that I can fully agree with. The difficulty is when we use the word "spiritual". Its an aspect and term which encompasses much more then the human spirit alone and I am still studying how it factors into the separate parts. I can state that God gives an human spirit and creates an new innocent living soul within a body of flesh with it. Additionally, John 1 describes Christ as already being the life and light "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world", even if they do not yet receive or comprehend Him as such. 

However, I am not sure as to what extent that spirit and God interact with the soul or wither or not that new soul has a "spiritual" state just yet. The soul is living and the human spirit gives life to the body but that same spirit/soul is not quickened "spiritually" until the soul receives Christ.

My position is ---- God creates living souls, with instructions written within themselves, but without sin and without righteousness of their own, into a spiritually sin cursed and physically corrupted world, and allows them to develop one way or the other. Not yet guilty but not yet quickened either. If their bodies die before the soul comes to Knowledge of Good and Evil, then the souls return back to God along with the spirit God used to create the soul. 

As far as what God does with innocent souls which have not developed into Sons, I'm not sure. But I know they will be with Him and that the Saved will be with them again.

Edited June 22, 2016 by John Young

[Salyan]

Grr... why won't this thread let me post!?

Well, now THAT it posted...

I guess I'm not supposed to reply to you today, John Young. Every time I try it disappears into cyber space. 

[Salyan]

16 hours ago, John Young said:

I was somewhat (unintentionally) wrong in my initial fly by post that you quoted (oops) but there is a method to my madness.... .  Its actually not an alternative spelling but rather a different more precise form of the word. "Innocent" is the pronouncement. "Innocence" is the state of being innocent. Both terms are commonly used today and it is by no means "inaccurate and archaic". I may not have used the word grammatically in the way people are used to seeing it, but the form "innocent" is what I meant to use. It is at the most an intentional "grammatical error" on my part, for a particular purpose, and not simply a misspelling.

There is no true KJV bible that uses the word "Innocence". This is important because I am dealing with scripture, and scripture uses precise words, so I need to use the scripture's words.

1. • virginity, chastity, chasteness, purity; More

 

Ha... I have no issue with the words 'innocent' or 'innocence'. It was the use of the word 'innocents' in place of 'innocence' I was objecting to (that word is legitimate if used to describe multiple innocent people). The grammar fiend in me just can't handle seeing grammatical errors - intentional or otherwise.

Just remember that Scripture was not originally given in English - it was translated into 1600's English. I figure it's fine to update it into 2016 English - provided an equivalent word/meaning exists. Which in this case does.  

YAY!! IT POSTED!!! 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The OP is attempting to teach the false doctrine of Pelagianism. While I certainly understand your concern that God does not create evil, but the problem is that our sin nature is passed on to us from Adam. "As in Adam all die", we are all born in Adam, in spiritual death, in sin. I understand it is hard to accept that God would allow us to be born with a sin nature, but he does. 

I just preached a message in Uganda about how we are sinners by choice and by nature. the illustration I used is when Job speaks of man drinking iniquity like water. Men willfully choose to sin because of their sin nature in the same way that a man chooses to drink water because he has thirst. Basically I explained it as we choose to drink sin like water because we are so spiritually empty and bankrupt. We crave sin because we are so destitute of Spirituality. 

I strongly oppose the doctrine being taught in the OP and it is not biblical, I think it is a knee jerk reaction to Calvinism.