The 5 points of Calvinism

[Nikkol]

I'm going through a lot of your questions now... for many of them, your question is based on one particular verse. However, to really understand the "argument" many of those "one verses" need to be expanded to reading the whole book. It gives a better understanding of what is meant by those particular verses.........still working on the answers

Edited:
As a matter of fact, most of what you wrote should actually be "book studies" to have a better understanding.....

[jasmine nsi]

Ive been reading and watching this thread since it begin.

I believe that "we" things harder than what they should.

The word of God provides us with ample scripture regarding how God has chose us. We did not choose Him. No where does it say that GOD chose ALL? The word of God lets us know that MANY are called, but few are chosen.

We all know that Christ died for ALL men, yet ALL men will not be saved. and why is that? Yes, to an extent its because they never received Christ, but it is also that God never chose them.

I will be honest, It would have been me some time ago to argue the validity of the 5 points of calvinism. However, I realized that some people just won't be saved. Some people don't care that Jesus died for them, they could have heard the gospel repeatedly but it does not move them, and to me thats strikingly odd. It reminds me of God hardening Pharaoh's heart.

I have come to know and see that Even a sinner at one point in his life is astonished or amazed that Jesus the Son of God died for there sins. Even if they do not accept Jesus at that moment or in the near future, it still was as if, a light popped on.

The more I read the bible and study stories that no one wants to talk about or preach on. I find some amazing things out about our Father.

[krazeeboi]

Jasmine, I totally understand because I've been there. But then when it was shown that salvation is of the Lord and is totally an act of mercy on His part, I see that He is infinitely merciful if He chooses just to save ONE undeserving sinner, because we ALL deserve a lakeside condo in eternity (did you catch that? LOL). It really is a hard pill to swallow and doesn't mesh well AT ALL with our unbiblical "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" salvation appeals of today.

[krazeeboi]

Also, many of the questions posed by Ybrown (or a source, if she got it from elsewhere) would actually imply universalism as opposed to arminianism.

[ybrown]

krazeeboi said:

Also, many of the questions posed by Ybrown (or a source, if she got it from elsewhere) would actually imply universalism as opposed to arminianism.

My questions (which remain unanswered, though it seems Nikkol's last post was in reference to answering them) are based on questions that arise from my own spirit, my study of the Bible and God's nature, as well as questions raised by pastors and theologians.

I'm puzzled, though. Universalism is the position that eventually all human beings will be saved, regardless of whether or not faith in Christ is professed in this life. I don't understand how you can make the universalism statement, especially in light of me saying several times (even more than once in some posts):

ybrown said:

…Jesus IS the propitiation for ALL sins of EVERYONE. The reason why everyone will not be saved

[/color][/size]is because some will choose to not accept the FREE gift of salvation, not because Jesus didn't die for them. Salvation is free and available to ANY and EVERY one.

and

…The end being that everyone will not be saved. [/quote]

as well as

ybrown said:

Scripture tells us every man will not be saved! We are in agreement on that, but that does not negate the fact that Christ died for them.

I've expressed the same sentiment even more times than I care to list, but its kinda' frustrating when someone makes a statement like that and it's clear he's not making it based on something that was either said, implied, or expressed.

And no, I'm not an arminianist. I know it's tempting to want to put everyone in a theological camp, but when you do, you run the risk of putting them under the wrong tent.

If you must label me, label me a Biblist. I'm trying to get it right and sometimes I may not, but it's my duty to work on it because I love him too much.

The Bible is abundantly clear for whom Jesus died.

1 John 2:2 tells us “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” 2 Peter 2:1 tells us that Jesus even bought the false prophets who are doomed, “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves.”

Jesus’ death is most definitely available to anyone and everyone who will believe in Him. Jesus did not just die for those who will be saved.

Error is the result of taking a truth too far or the result of taking a truth at the exclusion of other truths. Scripture says that you’re doing the latter whereas you rightly acknowledge God’s sovereignty, but you incorrectly exclude man’s free will in the salvation equation.

There’s nothing tempting about a piece of old, molded cake, so the enemy would never poison it because he knows no one will eat it. Now he knows the best way to kill someone is to poison a nice fresh piece.

The enemy knows how to poison the message of the Gospel. All he has to do is put poison on something that people will eat. That way, he knows somebody’s going to die. Your contention that man plays no part whatsoever in his salvation and that man doesn’t have free will to even choose salvation, reminds me of the beautiful piece of chocolate cake.

I believe, and scripture supports me in saying that somebody’s going to die from your cake.

[Nikkol]

YBROWN: Yes, I am looking over the questions that you asked... just takes time to answer. ;D

I think that the reason why KRAZEE may see you as a universalist is moreso because of the things that surround the points that you pointed out from previous posts. It seemed as though although you were saying that you know that all men will not be saved, every scripture and discussion seemed to be saying the exact thing that you are saying that you aren't saying. THis may be of course that people read things differently. I would say that if you re-read them with a "different set of eyes", you may also be able to see how a person reading the posts could believe that you were moreso on the side of universalist.... hope that makes sense ;D

Now for me personally, now that I have begun to see salvation as "totally" a "Lord thing", it has really gave me a deeper appreciation of salvation. I knew that it was God that saved me; however, it was difficult (now this is me personally) to be able to decipher between me "choosing God" and God "choosing me". I guess it was almost as though part of me felt that I on my own, chose God because of what I had learned...... but now, salvation took on a whole deeper meaning in that I KNOW that I didn't deserve it (salvation) and the fact that he saved me is nothing short of a miracle. He didn't "have" to save me. He didn't "have" to turn my heart to Him. He didn't "have to show me grace and mercy. He didn't "have" to do ANYTHING.... and so the fact that He did in spite of who I am...... that's enough to really praise God.

I think that that is what it boils down to. We will never know EVERYTHING about God. However, we do know that He has chosen to save us..... we may not always agree with his ways or thoughts... yet we know that His ways and thoughts are above ours anyway.....hope that makes sense.

[ybrown]

electladynb said:

YBROWN: Yes, I am looking over the questions that you asked... just takes time to answer. ;D

I think that the reason why KRAZEE may see you as a universalist is moreso because of the things that surround the points that you pointed out from previous posts. It seemed as though although you were saying that you know that all men will not be saved, every scripture and discussion seemed to be saying the exact thing that you are saying that you aren't saying. THis may be of course that people read things differently. I would say that if you re-read them with a "different set of eyes", you may also be able to see how a person reading the posts could believe that you were moreso on the side of universalist.... hope that makes sense ;D

ACTUALLY THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!

In every post I made the point clear that : EVERY ONE WILL NOT GET SAVED!!

Then you say the overall theme of my posts was that everyone would be saved?

I provided tens of scripture to show the error in your theory and then you say,

"every scripture and discussion seemed to be saying the exact thing that you are saying that you aren't saying."

Huh??

Show me one, just one scripture that I presented that said that ALL MEN WILL BE SAVED. Is there such scripture that remotely expresses that idea? NO. So how can "every scripture(that I presented) seem to say.." the exact thing that you are saying that you aren't saying?"

Nikkol I know you're also a Calvinist who wants to defend another Calvinist, but you're not being honest here, especially in light of everything that I've posted. It seems you need to, "re-read them (my posts) with a "different set of eyes," because its obvious that neither you nor KB are reading my posts!

One poster even asked:

lanl said:

I am just catching up on this topic, however before I respond I just want to ask 2 simple questions:

YBrown are you saying that ALL men are Saved whether they believe or not?

Nikkol / KB are you all saying that God has predestined those whom will go to hell and those whom will be saved?

In which I responded:

ybrown said:

Nope.

Neither of you have yet to provide an answer to that or any other good questions posed by myself or anyone else to you (general, Calvinists). That non-answer thing seemed to happen a lot in this thread.

Still, you don't think my very simple answer to that very simple question was not clear enough?

Then the poster came back with:

lanl said:

Thanks YB for answering that, I must agree with you if that is the case.

Please help my understanding, because I don't see where the others are getting the notion that Jesus came only to save a select few..................

What about the scripture that John 3:16
That God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

More good questions that have yet to be answered. Those answers don't require days to come up with. That's basic and foundational to your theory on salvation! If it's biblically based and is rooted in the overall message from God's Word, it should have been answered immediately because of the simplistic nature of it.

You asked for scripture to support the fact that the bible states who Christ died for, I gave you tons. I ask for scripture that unequivocally support limited atonement and it has yet to be presented.

The scriptures that were provided a few posts ago do not unequivocally support limited atonement. They were:

Romans 9:11 - (bible commentary) is NOT talking about children in the natural sense, for it is of nations that the apostle speaks, as the following verses show, as well as the history to which he refers. This supports what I said in another thread that nations rise and fall by God's will only. The children in this scripture is the men or nations.

Romans 9:16 - (bible commentary) is God saying: My benefits and blessings are merely from my own good will: nor can any people, much less a rebellious people, challenge them as their due in justice or equity. And therefore I now spare the Jews; not because either you, who intercede for them or they themselves have any claim upon my favour, but of my own free and sovereign grace I choose to show them mercy and compassion.

I will give my salvation in my own way and on my own terms. He that believeth on my Son Jesus shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be d**ned. This is God's ultimate design; this purpose he will never change; and this he has fully declared in the everlasting Gospel. This is the grand DECREE of reprobation and election.

This supports what I said earlier that limited atonement proponents misinterpret God's "How" (the manner in which men will get saved), with "Who" (who gets saved). Again its clear...the "he that believeth" and "he that believeth not," denotes a decision on man's part in terms of salvation. God's mercy meets our faith. Scripture plainly tells us that's how we're saved.

Romans 9:22 - (bible commentary) The apostle refers here to the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and to which he applies Jeremiah's parable of the potter, and, from them, to the then state of the Jews.

Pharaoh and the Egyptians were vessels of wrath-persons deeply guilty before God; and by their obstinate refusal of his grace, and abuse of his goodness, they had fitted themselves for that destruction which the wrath, the vindictive justice of God, inflicted, after he had endured their obstinate rebellion with much long-suffering; which is a most absolute proof that the hardening of their hearts, and their ultimate punishment, were the consequences of their obstinate refusal of his grace and abuse of his goodness; as the history in Exodus sufficiently shows.

As the Jews of the apostle's time had sinned after the similitude of the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and abusing his goodness, after every display of his long-suffering kindness, being now fitted for destruction, they were ripe for punishment; and that power, which God was making known for their salvation, having been so long and so much abused and provoked, was now about to show itself in their destruction as a nation.

But even in this case there is not a word of their final d**nation; much less that either they or any others were, by a sovereign decree, reprobated from all eternity; and that their very sins, the proximate cause of their punishment, were the necessary effect of that decree which had from all eternity doomed them to endless torments. As such a doctrine could never come from God, so it never can be found in the words of his apostle.

Romans 9:23 is talking about how the Jews were diminished by the abundance of grace that was extended to the Gentiles. And so the grace of God was illustrated; or, so God made known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy-the apostles and primitive believers among the Jews, and the Gentile world, which received the Gospel by the preaching of the apostles and their successors.

This is talking about how God always had a plan of salvation for the Gentiles. We are the vessels in which he extended mercy.

NONE of those scripture support in the slightest, limited atonement.

I'm done.

I promised to pull out of this thread if I was tempted to post with attitude, don't worry, the CAPS and !!!! are for emphasis only.

Still I'm disappointed by the blatant disregard, even after I've spent lots of time putting careful thought, research and prayer into my posts.

Good thing I'm not doing this for the glory of myself, otherwise it wouldn't be worth it.

[krazeeboi]

Ybrown, there was at least one question asked that had a unversalist slant to it:

Why did Paul state that the Jews who reject Christ will be included in salvation?

You also asked for the explanation of scriptures which would seem to IMPLY universalism, yet you claim not to be such, so I do not know why you would need these scriptures explained to you:

Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon allmen unto justification of life."

Ephesian 3:8-9 "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

If you were a universalist, I would see why you'd need an explanation. Romans 5:8 and 1 Timothy 4:10 are a universalist's ideal scriptures.

By the way, this is the real reason why you deny the biblical and rational doctrine of limited atonement:

In your trying to understand God and rationalize why He and His Son are not disastrous phonies, you try in vain to systematize Him. All the while, you make Him out to be a deranged, tyrannical, downright evil being who isn’t worthy of love, let alone worship. This view tarnishes His sweet name. That’s not the God we serve. That's just not Him. Let Him tell you Who He is, not some murderer of Bible-believing Christians!

As I have stated, it boils down to an emotional appeal. You are basically saying, "I just can't see a God of love doing this!"

Let God be true and every man (that includes you AND me) a liar.

[krazeeboi]

ybrown said:

Romans 9:22 - (bible commentary) The apostle refers here to the case of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and to which he applies Jeremiah's parable of the potter, and, from them, to the then state of the Jews.

Pharaoh and the Egyptians were vessels of wrath-persons deeply guilty before God; and by their obstinate refusal of his grace, and abuse of his goodness, they had fitted themselves for that destruction which the wrath, the vindictive justice of God, inflicted, after he had endured their obstinate rebellion with much long-suffering; which is a most absolute proof that the hardening of their hearts, and their ultimate punishment, were the consequences of their obstinate refusal of his grace and abuse of his goodness; as the history in Exodus sufficiently shows.

As the Jews of the apostle's time had sinned after the similitude of the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and abusing his goodness, after every display of his long-suffering kindness, being now fitted for destruction, they were ripe for punishment; and that power, which God was making known for their salvation, having been so long and so much abused and provoked, was now about to show itself in their destruction as a nation.

The orange part is the crux of the matter, and it's so gross an exegesis till it's ain't even funny.

Allow me to quote the scripture again:

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" (Romans 9:22).

This scripture PLAINLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that this fitting for destruction is done on GOD's part beforehand. God purposes to show His wrath and make His power known, so he makes vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. The fitting for destruction occurs even before the vessels arrive on the scene. "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Whoever you are quoting is making a liar out of Paul.

Romans 9 is as plain as it can get. There's no need to quote 17 pages of commentary when we should simply "stop relying on logic" and accept the "plain truth of scripture."

[krazeeboi]

I also find it interesting that in one place Ybrown would ask:

Matthew 25:41 says that God prepared hell for the Devil and His angels....not man. If God's plan, which He says was made before the foundations of the earth, was to send most of mankind to hell...why did He say it was prepared for the Devil and his angels?

and I would say that this question has a universalist slant to it.

Yet you actually answer your question in another place, using reasoning (don't have a stroke, you actually used your mental faculties here) that you restricted from me:

You’re alluding to the scripture that says Christ died for His sheep, His church, and His people. You are correct in that this verse does say state that Christ died for a certain group, but it does not state that He died for them exclusive of all others. Just the statement that Christ died for the elect does not prove your point. I’ll tell you why.

According to this logic, John 11:51 and Isaiah 53:8 teach that Christ died only for Israel, and Galatians 2:20 would prove that Christ died only for the Apostle Paul, for Paul declares, "who loved me, and gave himself for me." As well, one might say that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter, for Luke 22:32 says, "I have prayed for thee."

In the same way, I can say that while Matt. 25:41 states that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, this in no way means that they will be the exclusive residents of hell. You get that?

No man is compelled to go to heaven against his will, and no man is compelled to go to hell against his will. The Spirit of God inclines the will of one, and he comes freely as a moral agent. The other chooses the way to death; and, though God is constantly using means to save him, yet he prefers the path that leads down to woe.

Let’s look even further at “Him that cometh.” Every one that comes--that is, every one that comes in a proper manner, feeling that he is a lost and ruined sinner. This invitation is wide, and full, and free. It shows the unbounded mercy of God; and it shows, also, that the reason, and the only reason, why men are not saved, is that they will not come to Christ.

Of any sinner it may be said that if he had been willing to come to Christ he might have come and been saved. As he chooses not to come, he cannot blame God because he saves ALL who are willing, no matter from what cause, and who thus are made partakers of everlasting life.

Oh, I get it; you were SMART enough to choose God, whereas the other guy wasn't. See it really boils down to why did you choose God but your neighbor didn't?

In your philosophy, God is not blameless.

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom. 9:14-15, 19-21).

[Nikkol]

ACTUALLY THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!

In every post I made the point clear that : EVERY ONE WILL NOT GET SAVED!!

Then you say the overall theme of my posts was that everyone would be saved?

I provided tens of scripture to show the error in your theory and then you say,

"every scripture and discussion seemed to be saying the exact thing that you are saying that you aren't saying."

Huh??

I have never liked when people take one part of a sentence instead of the WHOLE sentence or in context. I actually don't recall giving a "theory", but that's a different story. SO lets take my sentence and actually break it down rather than taking a part and making an argument based accordingly (my additions will be in bold:

I think that the reason why KRAZEE may see you as a universalist main point of my paragraph was to explain what may give KRAZEE that impression is moreso because of the things that surround the points that you pointed out from previous posts. It seemed as though although you were saying that you know that all men will not be saved, every scripture and discussion seemed to be saying the exact thing that you are saying that you aren't saying. this is the part you pulled out but it was based on my previous sentence that was talking about what you said that surrounded your points. THis may be of course that people read things differently. I would say that if you re-read them with a "different set of eyes", you may also be able to see how a person reading the posts could believe that you were moreso on the side of universalist.... hope that makes sense point was simply to show how someone else is thinking. Apparently you went into a defensive mode and what I was saying was moreso to explain another person's view rather than to get on what "my theory" is. That's why I said to use a different set of eyes. I'm sorry that you took it to be be an attack on you. But that wasn't my intention. Maybe if you re-read what I said again from a "non-attack" kind of way, you will see the same.

Show me one, just one scripture that I presented that said that ALL MEN WILL BE SAVED. Is there such scripture that remotely expresses that idea? NO. So how can "every scripture(that I presented) seem to say.." the exact thing that you are saying that you aren't saying?"

Like I said, you read on attack mode and so you pulled out things that would validate that. That wasn't my main poin

Nikkol I know you're also a Calvinist who wants to defend another Calvinist, but you're not being honest here, especially in light of everything that I've posted. It seems you need to, "re-read them (my posts) with a "different set of eyes," because its obvious that neither you nor KB are reading my posts!

Actually, I have never stated that I'm a Calvinist. This has more to do with knowing that God chose me.... not because I chose him but because of His grace and mercy.... which I thought we all can agree.

Sometimes Bible commentaries are good.... but other times, they really can stretch the truth of the scripture(s)

[ybrown]

Matt. 25:41 states that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, this in no way means that they will be the exclusive residents of hell. You get that?

"Everyone will be saved" is not the only conceivable conclusion. If God had predestined over half of His creation to go to hell, wouldn't He had included them in the list along with the devil and his angels? As scripture states it is God's desire that every man accept Christ as the atoning sacrifice for their sins. That is His heart. Since this scripture deals with the original intent of hell, my purpose of putting up that scripture, along with the other 20 or so others, was to disprove your contention that God's intention and desire was to send millions there as their eternal destination even before they were born.

If you have a question please ask. When you don't you'' be tempted to come up with an incorrect conclusion, at the expense and exclusion of others.

In regards to other scriptures I posted, the purpose of posing scriptural questions to someone with a different view is to find out his/her perception, it's not to have it explained, unless that's what the poser states.

A lot of times questions are asked because the obvious answer is begging to be given. I already know how I see the scripture(s); the act of asking is to find out how you see the scripture(s).

Still I see there are no answers that were posed by me and others.

Lastly, since you were not happy with the dividing of Romans 9:22 from one of my study bibles, I will post ten (I'll make sure they're short and sweet) breakdowns of this scripture from sources such as Schofield, Strong, Geneva Study Bible, John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Matthew Henry Commentary of the Whole Bible, Wesley's Explanatory Notes, and others if possible (including something from the original Greek).

I don't even know what all of these commentaries say about Romans 9:22, but I'm willing to post them so that this scripture can be rightly divided.

I have my view and you have a totally different one, so fresh perspectives are needed to truly find out what the intent of the passage is. There's a whole doctrine riding on it so it's definitely important. If there's a commentary that you'd like to have included, please post it so that it's included with all the others. Is that okay with you?

[lanl ns]

Greetings everyone

electladynb said:

Now for me personally, now that I have begun to see salvation as "totally" a "Lord thing", it has really gave me a deeper appreciation of salvation. I knew that it was God that saved me; however, it was difficult (now this is me personally) to be able to decipher between me "choosing God" and God "choosing me".

Salvation is definitely a Lord / God thing and I agree it has nothing to do with us and Salvation is something that we definitely cannot do for ourselves.

However, what concerns me about this statement is the mere fact that we (general) can think that we are so special that God only gave this gift to a select few...... does that not breeds pride?

If the plan of Salvation was limited to a select few than what makes you (general) so special?

the only thing special is that you decided to open your heart, mind and spirit to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior............We all have the opportunity to accept Jesus as Savior even Madeline Murray O'Hare

I guess it was almost as though part of me felt that I on my own, chose God because of what I had learned...... but now, salvation took on a whole deeper meaning in that I KNOW that I didn't deserve it (salvation) and the fact that he saved me is nothing short of a miracle.

Again I agree that Salvation is nothing short of a miracle and we (general) don't deserve it.

However you had to make a decision to live for Christ or die and go to hell................

He didn't "have" to save me. He didn't "have" to turn my heart to Him. He didn't "have to show me grace and mercy. He didn't "have" to do ANYTHING.... and so the fact that He did in spite of who I am...... that's enough to really praise God.

I praise God with you on this, that is a beautiful testimony...........[/

We will never know EVERYTHING about God.

We don't know everything about God but he did not leave us helpless either,


However, we do know that He has chosen to save us..... we may not always agree with his ways or thoughts... yet we know that His ways and thoughts are above ours anyway.....hope that makes sense.

AMEN

I wrote everything in color as a response to what you have said...

Peace

[Nikkol]

Salvation is definitely a Lord / God thing and I agree it has nothing to do with us and Salvation is something that we definitely cannot do for ourselves.

However, what concerns me about this statement is the mere fact that we (general) can think that we are so special that God only gave this gift to a select few...... does that not breeds pride?

Pride? No. Remember that even in the story people were still coming at the 11th hour. They may not have "worked" as long but it doesn't negate the end. Can't (or at least I shouldn't) have pride because if it was not for the grace of God, there would be me as well.

If the plan of Salvation was limited to a select few than what makes you (general) so special?

Nothing.

the only thing special is that you decided to open your heart, mind and spirit to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior............We all have the opportunity to accept Jesus as Savior even Madeline Murray O'Hare

[/color][/quote]

That has always been something that is hard to really explain to someone. What does it mean to open your heart, mind and spirit to accept Jesus? Can we really make that decision? What made you (general) accept but someone else reject? For some it was the same information and even for some it was the same time and place, yet one says "yes" and another says "no". What was the difference? Being able to accept is definitely from God......

Again I agree that Salvation is nothing short of a miracle and we (general) don't deserve it.

However you had to make a decision to live for Christ or die and go to hell................

How does one decide? Is it really of our own or is it (the decision) based on God as well.

We don't know everything about God but he did not leave us helpless either,

That's why we have the HG ;D Thanks for the post. I hope that my response makes sense.

[Jasmine nsi]

makes sense to me.