ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Z Man]

There are two different groups that are truly hated by Christians.....One is Calvinists only a select few are saved.
Then there are the Universalist where God restores and saves everyone.
I would suppose there are more but those two come to mind. :yawn:

Though I may be labeled a Calvinist, it does not mean I'm not a Christian.

Mark 9:38-40
John said to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw a man using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he isn't one of our group." "Don't stop him!" Jesus said. "Anyone who is not against us is for us."

 

[Z Man]

So Z, you go around to deaf people, blind people, people who can't speak and tell them, or say to yourself, "God in Action?"

We should be humble like Job, and as he once said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?"

If His will be that I suffer, so be it. His will and glory is more important to me than my well-being. Shouldn't we give Him our all? Why be selfish and expect God to 'bless' us with things we consider good, such as health, success, wealth, material things, etc.? What if God's plan is to bless us with suffering, to show us a deeper meaning of Himself, as He did with Job. Or to use our lives - to cause us to live a life of suffering - so that His name may be declared throughout the world, as He did in the life of Paul?

You and several others on this site place a great deal of priority on the wrong things.

 

[Z Man]

Who said anything about it being more important? :doh:

Clete,

You take the saying 'ignorance is bliss' literally. You know very well that if anyone was to say God ordains everything for His glory, thus extinguishing the need or existence of a freewill, you'd go nuts and say it's not so. You, and every other Open Theist on this site, are willing to proclaim that it's ok to say God can not have His way all of the time - to sacrifice a little of His exuberant and supreme glory - in light of a human's self-imposed right to have it their way. Thus - maybe not all of the time, but in some instances - freewill to you is more important than God's glory.

 

[godrulz]

Well, either way, I've read Boyd's stuff before, and you're not far from his own ideas.

I see Ex. 4:11 as an explanation to why people are born deaf/mute/blind, and as an answer in acquiesce with Jesus's comment in John 9. The man in John 9 did not become blind due to an accident, or from some drunk man's rage - he was born blind. Jesus makes it clear that he was born blind so that God could be glorified. Ex. 4:11 agrees with Jesus's comment. In short, God created the man blind so Jesus could come and reveal God's glory by healing him.

I'm not trying to pursuade you that Ex. 4:11 proves that anyone who becames disabled in thier lifetime due to accidents, illness, or from some other person's maltreatment, is God's fault. I believe God ordains events that may lead a person to suffer or become 'disabled', but God is not to be judged evil for doing so. I explained this idea further in my previous post.

So, if a serial killer tortures someone, God ordained this? If someone is born blind in a third world country due to lack of basic medical care, this was ordained by God? When winning lottery numbers are produced, this was ordained by God?

 

[godrulz]

Why was the man allowed to be blind in John 9, godrulz?

God choses to not intervene in every situation. We are not told why he was born blind. He may have had his eyes infected as he passed through the birth canal. This was not caused or ordained by God. It is just a possibility due to the type of fallen world he was born into. After the fact, God chose to heal this man that He would be glorified and His love and power demonstrated. This should not be extrapolated to mean that God specifically ordained or caused this blindness from all eternity. This would be reading more into the text than is merited. It would also be equally wrong to say that all infirmities are from God (Satan is the source of many or the acts of men or the conditions of a fallen world). The death of Lazarus was not ordained by God from eternity past. All will die. In this case, God chose to demonstrate His love and power by raising him from the dead. This was the exception. He could have raised anyone He chose to. There are no shortages of dead people. It would be reading too much into it to say God ordained this event from before he was born. God responded in real space-time to the circumstance. He did not have to cause the death nor desire it, yet He used the circumstance as an opportunity to glorify Himself. There is no need to filter these stories through a deterministic/decretal deductive doctrine.

 

[godrulz]

We should be humble like Job, and as he once said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?"

If His will be that I suffer, so be it. His will and glory is more important to me than my well-being. Shouldn't we give Him our all? Why be selfish and expect God to 'bless' us with things we consider good, such as health, success, wealth, material things, etc.? What if God's plan is to bless us with suffering, to show us a deeper meaning of Himself, as He did with Job. Or to use our lives - to cause us to live a life of suffering - so that His name may be declared throughout the world, as He did in the life of Paul?

You and several others on this site place a great deal of priority on the wrong things.

The Hebrew mindset was to see that everything was from God. Jews were wrong in some of their doctrinal ideas or did not have a fully developed theology (e.g. end times, triune God, church, Holy Spirit, heaven/hell, etc.). Revelation is progressive. The NT more fully reveals the warfare between God, Satan, and God's people. It does not present the Hebraic blueprint idea or Mid-Eastern view of a Monarch. We see more of God's providential, responsive control in the NT (vs meticulous). We should interpret the OT in light of the NT and Gospels (Jesus revealed the Father's ways to a greater extent).

 

[billygoat]

Love cannot exist where it is not freely given. Loving God in Calvinistic theology is not possible, because it is not freely given....

 

[billygoat]

To say He pre-ordained something, and then to say the person who did that thing is guilty for doing it is nonsense. Doubletalk....

 

[Delmar]

Clete,

You take the saying 'ignorance is bliss' literally. You know very well that if anyone was to say God ordains everything for His glory, thus extinguishing the need or existence of a freewill, you'd go nuts and say it's not so. You, and every other Open Theist on this site, are willing to proclaim that it's ok to say God can not have His way all of the time - to sacrifice a little of His exuberant and supreme glory - in light of a human's self-imposed right to have it their way. Thus - maybe not all of the time, but in some instances - freewill to you is more important than God's glory.

Not true. Every Open Theist that I have ever known is well aware that God could demand to have his way in every circumstance. We are also blessed by the fact that he simply chose not to act like the spoiled child that you and every other Determinist make him out to be!

 

[sentientsynth]

The Hebrew mindset was to see that everything was from God. Jews were wrong in some of their doctrinal ideas or did not have a fully developed theology....

Newsflash: Job was not an Hebrew. Besides, Paul held to the same doctrine.

Love cannot exist where it is not freely given.

Why not?

 

[Freak]

We are not told why he was born blind.

:dizzy: Now I know why Sozo gets so frustrated with YOU.

John 9 does tell us why he was born blind...

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

He was allowed to be blind so that the work of God might be displayed in his life!

Jesus said it, I believe it!

 

[Evee]

If things like child molesters pedophiles murders and mass murders homosexuality adultery fornication etc didn't happen then I could be a Calvinist.

 

[godrulz]

Love cannot exist where it is not freely given. Loving God in Calvinistic theology is not possible, because it is not freely given....

Exactly. Reciprocal love relationships must be freely entered into and maintained. This is not possible without significant creaturely freedom.

Calvinism also makes God's love limited and arbitrary. Some Calvinists even say that God does not love the so-called non-elect (contrary to Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8).

 

[godrulz]

To say He pre-ordained something, and then to say the person who did that thing is guilty for doing it is nonsense. Doubletalk....

Correct. The theological debate is compatibilism vs incompatibilism. The forner requires strained definitions and logic to reconcile the irreconciable. Exhaustive predestination is not compatible with genuine, significant, libertarian freedom.

 

[godrulz]

:dizzy: Now I know why Sozo gets so frustrated with YOU.

John 9 does tell us why he was born blind...

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

He was allowed to be blind so that the work of God might be displayed in his life!

Jesus said it, I believe it!

What is 'this'? The thing that glorified God was the healing at that point in space-time history, not the erroneous idea that God cursed him blind at birth. There were many blind people to chose from. He did not have to cause or predestine an innocent baby to be blind just to pull off a miracle in order to be glorified. Take off your glasses and use your coconut. Every other miracle did not have to have God causing the affliction for it to be used as an opportunity by God to be glorified and bring good. Did God cause people to be demon possessed in order for Him to be glorified by setting them free, or was He glorified by setting those who were afflicted by SATAN free?

 

[Z Man]

We should interpret the OT in light of the NT and Gospels...

Funny, I've tried that with you (John 9 with Exodus 4), but you reject it. So far, you have not impressed me with any sort of substantial evidence to make your point other than your 'feelings' on the matter.

 

[Z Man]

Not true. Every Open Theist that I have ever known is well aware that God could demand to have his way in every circumstance.

You may beleive God has the capacity to act, but when I insist, through passages from the Scriptures, that He fulfills that capacity, you guys object. Which means it doesn't matter if you believe God could have His way all the time, because you don't believe He'll ever act upon that 'reserved' right.

As soon as I say He does act upon the capacity to do as He pleases in every circumstance, you goes go nuts. Why? Because that theology kills off the idea of a freewill. Thus, you guys inevitable put freewill, or the self-imposed right of humans to do things their way, ahead of God's soveriegn glory.

 

[Z Man]

Love cannot exist where it is not freely given. Loving God in Calvinistic theology is not possible, because it is not freely given....

How so?

No wonder you are against Calvinism - you beleive in falsities against it. The kind of love Christians have towards God from a Calvinistic viewpoint is the same type of love a drunkard would have upon awaking the next morning comfortably in his own bed instead of jail or in a coffin...

 

[Z Man]

If things like child molesters pedophiles murders and mass murders homosexuality adultery fornication etc didn't happen then I could be a Calvinist.

If none of those happened, we'd be on a different planet!

Seriously, the difference between our views and yours is that we believe God is in control in all of those situations, where you believe... well... those individuals themselves are in control. I'm sorry, but I'd rather put my trust in a God who is in complete control. It would be a scary world indeed if He wasn't...

 

[Evee]

If none of those happened, we'd be on a different planet!

Seriously, the difference between our views and yours is that we believe God is in control in all of those situations, where you believe... well... those individuals themselves are in control. I'm sorry, but I'd rather put my trust in a God who is in complete control. It would be a scary world indeed if He wasn't...

The things that really bother me is things that go on here on earth.
I know God is in control but yet he lets evil like hitler and others do such detestable things.
I really have a hard time believing God provides evil.
Then maybe I just don't really understand.
If one has a child die for whatever reason, we say well he is with God.
Then if someone intentionally kills a child it is hard to understand why God allows it?
So are you saying all the things I or you have done was not our choice??