ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[1Way]

Z Man - You lied when you said that the only thing you did was post scripture. You made two other points. You made it seem as though Clete was asking for more translations, although it is not wrong to change the line of reasoning especially if you actually respond to the line of reasoning. But, you misrepresented Clete somewhat by suggesting he wanted more translations. No big deal.

But then you said that your summary, was congruent with all those translations you provided! And it was not. Furthermore, now that I know it was your summary of the scriptures, evidentally you had presented it to Clete as though it was scripture! Certainly you presented it to me as though it was an accurate translation, I even had to ask which translation it was!

So you made two statements, one dubious question and one specific claim, yet you have the untruthful audacity to say that you did not do that, you only quoted scripture. Can't you even begin to imagine how destructive that is to your personal reputation?

I would have dropped the thing immediately if you would not have lied about not doing anything but quoting scripture, I was arguing against your own comment! Yet you say you did not make any comments.

We open theists agree with the entire bible, let alone your passage in question. Here is the passage.

Ro 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

This is the infamous Potter and the Clay, a reference to Jer 18:1-10.

1. God wants to make a vessel fit for honor, that was His plans that He prepared beforehand for glory
2. But God could not make a vessel for honor since the clay presented a problem in His hands. Did God make the mare, or did man? If God, then He failed to be able to make a vessel fit for honor because He just could not do it? That does not work at all. The mar was because of man, the text says that the clay is national Israel.
3. So God started all over again, and made Israel into another vessel that was apparently less honorable, but still can show God's power known.
4. God plans good things
5. Man can mess up those plans
6. God is righteous and just to repent and alter His plans and then make them into another vessel
7. So God is not the one directing everything, He is a great personal responder and repent-er.

Jer 18:7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy [it], 8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
9 "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

So yes, God has the power and right to designate nations fit for honor or otherwise, that is His righteous prerogative and shows God's plan as including some contingency and uncertainty over yet future things that man does.

 

[1Way]

Z Man - I trust God Is Truth will answer well, but here's my two cents.

After God already responded to a kingdom or a nation's response to God, God has the right to commit them to either honor or otherwise depending upon their response of good or evil toward God.

In short

Tell me, what does this mean,

"Why does He still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

it means exactly what it says, but without any of your incongruent Calvinistic (God controls everything) presuppositions. The NT reference of Jer18 explains the process that goes on PRIOR to God forming the vessels. Letting scripture explain scripture makes it so much easier to remain scriptureally accurate.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

GIT,
What about my beliefs make God unjust?

if you say that God predestines, controls, directs, decrees and wills EVERYTHING (including our sin, actions, deeds etc.), then we CANNOT be held accountable for anything we do. ANY punishment we receive is not a result of justice but solely of God's will. and in fact, to punish us at all for something (anything really) that God makes us do (since he decrees it all) is unjust by definition. justice is getting what you deserve. unjust is getting something you didn't deserve (punishment).

you have said numerous times that God controls/decrees/wills everything. based on that, any punishment on us makes God unjust.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

Tell me, what does this mean,

"Why does He still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

this statement is something a person who has been hardened by God would say. they were hardened because of their unbelief. the question arises because God had done something to them that was not beneficial (a hardening).

the response by Paul (who are you O man) is meant to bring them down off their high pedestal of pride. their pride got them thinking that God couldn't (or maybe wouldn't) ever do something to them, they were his creation and special people (Israel)! but because of their unbelief and his sovereign right, God is fully justified in giving them a hardening. and that is exactly Paul's point.

to explain what i mean a little better:

the person was resisting God's will because they had been hardened by God and as such the question arose "why does he still find fault, for who has resisted his will". but Paul realizes that this question comes not from honest inquiry, but from an arrogant, proud viewpoint.

it is one of "God can't do anything to me, i'm a part of israel! the chosen people! how dare he do anything to me! that's not fair!" seeing this, Paul explains God's sovereign right to harden someone if they do not believe in him, regardless of whether they are israel or not. he first makes the person remember just what they are--a created thing, not the creator. then he explains why God is fully justified in hardening those who do not belive--it's his sovereign right. he's God and we are not.

Paul could hardly be said to be making a point about unconditional election in light of the rest of romans and other books he wrote.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man - I trust God Is Truth will answer well, but here's my two cents.

After God already responded to a kingdom or a nation's response to God, God has the right to commit them to either honor or otherwise depending upon their response of good or evil toward God.

In short it means exactly what it says, but without any of your incongruent Calvinistic (God controls everything) presuppositions. The NT reference of Jer18 explains the process that goes on PRIOR to God forming the vessels. Letting scripture explain scripture makes it so much easier to remain scriptureally accurate.

:thumb:

 

[Hilston]

Knight writes: Jim... I get what your saying.... but frankly.... I feel your unnecessarily clouding the debate.

I'm not debating. I was making an observation -- even a concession. You say you get what I'm saying. That's cool. But you can't agree without accusing me of "clouding the debate"?

Knight writes: How much time do you think we will waste determining who is a Calvinist and who isn't? And who is a Hilstonist? And what in the world is a Hilstonist? etc etc etc.

Apparently you don't get it. Whatever.

 

[1Way]

A like minded faith, even as we approach things somewhat differently, is a great joy in the Lord, a joy that is hard to experience otherwise, a joy that I would trade for nothing. Your post GIT makes a great match to mine, only yours is a bit more :up: LOL
:thumb:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by 1Way

A like minded faith, even as we approach things somewhat differently, is a great joy in the Lord, a joy that is hard to experience otherwise, a joy that I would trade for nothing. Your post GIT makes a great match to mine, only yours is a bit more :up: LOL
:thumb:

thanks! i edited it for clarity so it should read better now.

God bless

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

if you say that God predestines, controls, directs, decrees and wills EVERYTHING (including our sin, actions, deeds etc.), then we CANNOT be held accountable for anything we do.

Who doesn't sin? How can you say you aren't accountable when you are the very person who sins? In your heart is nothing but evil continually. Yes, God ordains that you sin, but your responsible for it! Did you even read my last few posts:

Originally posted by Z Man

It's not 'strange', 'contridictory', or 'illogical' to understand the Biblical truth that God ordains everything, yet cannot be held accountable for sinning. We take the responsibility for committing the sin, not God.

Willing that sin exist in this world is not sinning. God does not commit sin by willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his 'positive agency.'

You believe that if God ordains our sins, then He would be most unjust, correct? Then I would like to see you deal with these Scriptures:

- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

- He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

ANY punishment we receive is not a result of justice but solely of God's will. and in fact, to punish us at all for something (anything really) that God makes us do (since he decrees it all) is unjust by definition. justice is getting what you deserve. unjust is getting something you didn't deserve (punishment).

Do you hear yourself at all?!?! Do you not see that you are objecting exactly the way Paul wrote about in Romans 9:19? You are literally objecting the same exact thing!!! You believe that if we do what God has willed us to do the whole time, then we are not to blame. Your objection:

"Why does God find fault if no one resists His will?"

Pauls answer:

"Who are you, a mere man, to talk back against God and question Him?"

this statement is something a person who has been hardened by God would say. they were hardened because of their unbelief. the question arises because God had done something to them that was not beneficial (a hardening).

the response by Paul (who are you O man) is meant to bring them down off their high pedestal of pride. their pride got them thinking that God couldn't (or maybe wouldn't) ever do something to them, they were his creation and special people (Israel)! but because of their unbelief and his sovereign right, God is fully justified in giving them a hardening. and that is exactly Paul's point.

to explain what i mean a little better:

the person was resisting God's will because they had been hardened by God and as such the question arose "why does he still find fault, for who has resisted his will". but Paul realizes that this question comes not from honest inquiry, but from an arrogant, proud viewpoint.

it is one of "God can't do anything to me, i'm a part of israel! the chosen people! how dare he do anything to me! that's not fair!" seeing this, Paul explains God's sovereign right to harden someone if they do not believe in him, regardless of whether they are israel or not. he first makes the person remember just what they are--a created thing, not the creator. then he explains why God is fully justified in hardening those who do not belive--it's his sovereign right. he's God and we are not.

Paul could hardly be said to be making a point about unconditional election in light of the rest of romans and other books he wrote.

Your argument for the interpretation of Romans 9:19 is that the person who would ask such a thing was hardened because of thier unbelief; am I correct?

But, let me ask, where in the preceding verses do we read that God only hardens those who do not believe??? In fact, we read that Paul argues the exact opposit!


Romans 9:11-16
(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.


God doesn't show compassion and mercy on those who believe, and then only harden those who do wrong or do not believe; NO! God has the free sovereign choice to have compassion on whomever He wishes, and to harden whomever He wishes. His sovereign choice has nothing to do with our stubbornness or unbelief or good works. That's why Paul brought up the Esau and Jacob thing; to show that they indeed weren't even born yet, but God had already said He hated Easu and loved Jacob.

The objection in v.19 was raised because of what Paul had been arguing for in v.6-18; that God "has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Thus, the objection, "You will say to me THEN, "Why does He find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

Because Paul had been preaching that God is sovereign and decrees as He wishes, despite what we do (v.16), many people objected the exact same way you are to me;

If God decrees everything, then He cannot hold us accountable for our sins. Why would He still find fault with us if no one has resisted His will? "Indeed", Paul replies, "you are a mere man in the hands of an Almighty Creator. How dare you question God?"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston
Apparently you don't get it. Whatever.

I get it... I get it!!!

I just find it to be irrelevant.

I guess I could be wrong. :noid:

 

[1Way]

Knight, 9000 posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, you rock!

(chuckle, you child of the "rock" of offense, you child of the sure "foundation" and "corner stone", you house upon the "rock" you) THAT, is a lot of posts!

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Yes, God ordains that you sin, but your responsible for it

did you not read MY post at all?! if God ordains it, we cannot be held responsible. that makes God unjust! it's like a puppeteer punishing his puppet for what the puppeteer made the puppet do. surely the puppet isn't guilty!

You believe that if God ordains our sins, then He would be most unjust, correct?

well first off it would make God go against his own character, ordaining something he detests which makes no sense at all either. but the real problem is if he punishes us and claims it to be justice when he really controlled, decreed and ordained it all. that is the problem.

God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

- He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

no problem with these verses. but i would like to note that the Son was not murdered, he gave up his life willingly and all men are called, not just a few.

Do you hear yourself at all?!?! Do you not see that you are objecting exactly the way Paul wrote about in Romans 9:19? You are literally objecting the same exact thing!!! You believe that if we do what God has willed us to do the whole time, then we are not to blame. Your objection:

"Why does God find fault if no one resists His will?"

Pauls answer:

"Who are you, a mere man, to talk back against God and question Him?"

that's NOT what Paul was saying though! you just think that's what he's saying.

Your argument for the interpretation of Romans 9:19 is that the person who would ask such a thing was hardened because of thier unbelief; am I correct?

a hardened israelite yes.

But, let me ask, where in the preceding verses do we read that God only hardens those who do not believe??? In fact, we read that Paul argues the exact opposit!

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Romans 9
3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

israel is who was hardened because of unbelief and that is why Paul wishes he was cut off if that would somehow lead them to belief and repentence again. Paul however realizes that Israel feels that God has rejected his people which Paul addresses a little later

Romans 11:1
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

that verse makes no sense if he has been talking about unconditional election in Romans 9. in Romans 9 he is sad for his people who have been hardened due to unbelief, he answers an objection that God somehow is not allowed to harden his people (Israel) by quoting verses that support God's sovereignty (another reason Paul quoted so much of the OT there was because he is referring to Israel. makes little sense if he is talking about unconditional election to jews and gentiles) and right to harden who he wishes to harden and have mercy on who he wants to have mercy (the gentiles in this case).

Thus, the objection, "You will say to me THEN, "Why does He find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

the objection comes right after Paul explains that God can harden who he wants and have mercy on who he wants. no one can make him do otherwise. the objection is raised in reference to the hardening. "If God hardens me (ignores the problem of why one was hardened), why am i held responsible?" that's what the person is asking. but the problem is that they totally ignore WHY they were hardened and Paul knows this as well which is WHY he answers like he does. he answers to get them to look at themselves and to humble them. that way they will see the reason they were hardened (unbelief) and may repent.

If God decrees everything, then He cannot hold us accountable for our sins. Why would He still find fault with us if no one has resisted His will? "Indeed", Paul replies, "you are a mere man in the hands of an Almighty Creator. How dare you question God?"

i am not questioning God. i sure hope you don't believe that. i am questioning your understanding and view of God as described in the bible. it's your theology that makes me sick, not God.

God bless.

GIT

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

did you not read MY post at all?! if God ordains [sin], we cannot be held responsible. that makes God unjust!

Yes, I read your post, but no where did you even prove your point through Scripture. The best you can do is constantly state how 'illogical' and 'contridictory' my beliefs are. I could care less how you 'feel' about my beliefs; prove me wrong through Scripture.

well first off [ordaining something God destests] would make Him go against his own character, which makes no sense at all....

THEN DEAL WITH THESE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURES, BECAUSE THEY FLY IN THE FACE OF YOUR 'LOGICAL' CONCLUSIONS:

- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

- He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

no problem with these verses.

No problem?!?!?! Whatever! They are a problem, since you just said:

"...[ordaining something God destests] would make Him go against his own character, which makes no sense at all....

If God ordains [sin], we cannot be held responsible. that makes God unjust!"

But the Scriptures tell us that:

- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

- He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

i would like to note that the Son was not murdered, he gave up his life willingly

Jesus didn't commit suicide; He was murdered.

Your argument for the interpretation of Romans 9:19 is that the person who would ask such a thing was hardened because of thier unbelief; am I correct?

a hardened israelite yes.

But, let me ask, where in the preceding verses do we read that God only hardens those who do not believe??? In fact, we read that Paul argues the exact opposit!

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Romans 9
3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

Where does it say that they were hardened because they did not believe? BTW, Romans 11:25 is NOT a pre-ceding verse. It doesn't support your claim anyways, that the unsaved Jews were hardened because of their unbelief...

in Romans 9 [Paul] is sad for his people who have been hardened due to unbelief, he answers an objection that God somehow is not allowed to harden his people (Israel) by quoting verses that support God's sovereignty (another reason Paul quoted so much of the OT there was because he is referring to Israel. makes little sense if he is talking about unconditional election to jews and gentiles) and right to harden who he wishes to harden and have mercy on who he wants to have mercy (the gentiles in this case).



the objection comes right after Paul explains that God can harden who he wants and have mercy on who he wants. no one can make him do otherwise. the objection is raised in reference to the hardening. "If God hardens me (ignores the problem of why one was hardened), why am i held responsible?" that's what the person is asking. but the problem is that they totally ignore WHY they were hardened and Paul knows this as well which is WHY he answers like he does. he answers to get them to look at themselves and to humble them. that way they will see the reason they were hardened (unbelief) and may repent.

They were hardened because God willed them to be! Paul tried to prove that the Jews were not saved on anything they had done or because they were descendants of Abraham; some where hardened/not saved and others were shown mercy/were saved based upon God's sovereign choice!

"So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."

Paul said this right after arguing that God does not save on the account of who the Jews were born from, or what 'good' they have done:

"But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed."

V.11 tells us that God chooses not based on our works, but solely on the basis of His purpose according to election. As if the evidence of the promise made to Sarah wasn't enough, Paul cites one that was made to Rebeccah. Her children weren't even born yet when God declared that He had chosen who He loved and hated already. Paul cited this to prove that God chooses according to his own plan, not according to our good or bad works.

Thus, God did not harden the Israelites because of their unbelief. Paul was debating the exact opposite! "It is not of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy!" Paul knew the objection would rise (THE SAME EXACT OBJECTION YOU RAISE TOWARD ME), "Why does God blame people for sinning? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?" Paul knew that because he was stating that God did according to His will and hardened whoever He pleased and showed mercy to whomever He pleased, not based upon our works or will, but solely on His, according to His purpose in election, people would object and ask "Then why does God still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

I don't have to tell you this. You know it already....

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Knight--concerning your question "does God decree everything?"

Yes, He does. That does not mean, however, that man is without
a free will, because man's free will is one of the things decreed.

Even though God's decree encompasses everything that happens-- the free will acts of men included-- that does not mean that man's free will is hindered thereby, because God from everlasting KNEW what every man would, of his own free will, do, and He decreed those free will acts of men which He chose to decree and restrained all others so that men, of their free will, would not do them.

An example of this is seen when Abram and Sarah are in a strange land and Abram represents Sarah as his sister. Later the king would give himself credit for not touching Sarah. He knows that of his own free will he chose not to touch her. He is sincere in that confidence, but God lets him know that the credit doesn't belong to him (the king), but that God had restrained him. God knew from everlasting what the king, from his own nature, would do. God chose not to decree that and wiped it out so thoroughly that the king was pleased with himself for not choosing, of his own free will, to abuse Sarah; not realizing the extent to which God had been good to him by restraining him from the evil that he WOULD have done of His own nature. God restrained him, but God did so in such a gracious way that the king felt no bonds or shackles.

God still works today as He did with the king, but it is little realized today. Like the king, men assume that they, in their estate, are fine. They are upstanding, well-respected citizens. Just as Abimelech did not feel any bonds or shackles about himself in regard to Sarai, so these respected men of the community, graciously restrained by God from many evils, have no personal inclination to them; but the Bible is still true: "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked--who can know it?"

It is common for men to pride THEMSELVES (just as Abimelech was priding himself) for being decent people; but the Bible says that to every man God gives a measure of grace. It says also that it is God who makes us to differ one from another. In other words, it is not WE who make ourselves to differ, but God. In ourselves we are all the fallen sons of Adam and we all alike and equally have the Adamic nature, the same nature which drove Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Jeffry Dahmer, and compiled the catalog of sins in Romans chapter one; but God's common grace, purposed from everlasting, is working--restraining evil even in the hearts of those who despise "that God of CHRISTIANS!!"

If they don't waken out of their smug self-complacency, if they fail to realize in time the dreadful state they are in as a consequence of their own nature, if they never feel their desperate need of Christ to be delivered from the beast within them, they will one day be cast off into eternity without Him. Then all grace will be gone. Like Nebuchadnezzar, who was cast out into the pasture and made to realize that he in himself was so much less than what he had thought, they will, now bereft of ALL God's restraining common grace, find that in themselves they were all along as wicked as any other: "The heart of the sons of men is FULL of evil and MADNESS is in their hearts while they live and after that--they go to the dead.

A governor on your car will limit what it does in regard to speed. God is, and has the right to be governor of the universe. His refusal to decree certain things is his right as creator and governor but, as we have seen, when he graciously restrains, He does so in such a manner that bonds and shackles are not at all felt; rather, the outcome is a sense of self-respect.

Sometimes men take themselves and their community's regard for them so seriously that they never awaken to the true nature of what they are in themselves. They think they do quite well without Christ.
Nevertheless, there is no man whom God restrains so strongly that he never catches some sight of what he can be in himself.

God graciously sent His law for men to weigh themselves against, and no man who closely considers it can fail to realize that he has fallen far short; but when complacency has set in, it can be a benefit to him if God gives him up to walk in his own ways so that he might realize and flee to Christ for deliverance from what he really is in himself, as He did for Soloman at one time.

Some say that if God decreed all things that come to pass, then man has no free will; but they fail to take into account that what God decreed, He decreed in the venue of man's free will. They say that if the die was cast before they even came into the world, they have no true freedom--but God cast the die in eternity before the world was; and He cast it according to what He knew the free will of every creature would be.

Therefore men have their free will EXCEPT in those instances in which their free will would conflict with God's purpose. At those times, "he frustrates the devices of the people so that their hands cannot carry out their plans." And those free will acts which involved sin which yet He allowed because He purposed good through them (such as the crucifixtion of Christ) and because HIS purpose in them was holy and just and good, God is not chargeable with the evil motives in the hearts of the wicked as they war against Him. They acted "in the lusts of their hearts" not because God coerced them (as many love to think) but because they were willfully walking contrary to the Lord who suffered them in their disobedience and THEY are accountable because God was pleased to leave them to their own ways, and they chose evil. THEY are guilty--NOT GOD. They acted out their free will. They were able to do so because God was NOT coercing them, and THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE. With freedom comes responsibility. No one will be excused by prating, "well, I stayed out late because God MADE me stay out late!"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Knight--concerning your question "does God decree everything?"

Yes, He does. That does not mean, however, that man is without
a free will, because man's free will is one of the things decreed.

Even though God's decree encompasses everything that happens-- the free will acts of men included-- that does not mean that man's free will is hindered thereby, because God from everlasting KNEW what every man would, of his own free will, do, and He decreed those free will acts of men which He chose to decree and restrained all others so that men, of their free will, would not do them.

Rolf.... much better post. Thank you!

Tell me....
How do you define... "man's freewill"? What does that term mean to you?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Knight--We are made in God's image--"Let us make man in our image." and volition is certainly one aspect of that image which He graciously was pleased to give us.

He created us in His image according to His sincere desire that we be so gifted, and He cares for us and the blessings He gave us by creating us in His own image, but every aspect of our being was marred by the fall. Yet He did not crush us. Still gracious, He maintained His purposed of redeeming us from all our defilements. Hating sin, He purposed to eradicate all signs of it in us--to conform us completely to the image of His own dear Son. That is what we should be striving for now.

Until that day, all the free will acts which He decreed that we should engage in is SECURED by Him. His ordaining our freedom for our enjoyment is one of the strongest arguments for men not being oppressed by the rule of other men. EVERY man has as much right to be free from the oppression of other men as any other man.

Of course, the strongest of all reasons for our freedoms is that we are ALL accountable to God--every man just as much as any other man. The fact that a man may not believe in the God of abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not deprive him of that right to freedom. He is still just as personally accountable to God as any other man and therefore merits freedom, regardless of what he does with it--except, of course, for civil criminality; otherwise His freedom is between Him and God, and we have no right to interject ourselves between him and God or in anyway coerce him from his own FREEWILL choice in that matter.

These last thoughts about freedom may seem off the present topic of man's will-- but not so, because we are to serve Him with ALL our will. He gave it to us partly for the purpose of our being accountable to Him. Lack of free will is equal to lack of accountability, and lack of freedom by a tyrannical government is just as restrictive of man's rightful liberty as is the attempt of someone to sway or coerce a man from his TRUE freewill persuasion in religious matters.

Therefore, the only time He crushes the purpose willed by us is when it would conflict with His; but nevertheless, His purpose is to work His will in the venue of man ALSO having the free will which He gave us. No point in repeating verses which I am sure you are aware of. Having Himself given man free will, we can be certain that He is gracious toward us and properly regards the free will which He Himself was pleased to give us as He purposefully moves among us. God is GRACIOUS.

When He purposes judgment upon either a person or a nation of people, He lifts His gracious hand of restraint from them which was earlier protecting them from their baser nature--Which WE ALL HAVE EQUALLY ALIKE. If anyone thinks that in themselves they are better than another--if a community and its law records publicly testify that the man IS a better citizen, he should be very watchful against pride and remember--"what I am, I am by the grace of God--" because just as anyone else, He is still a son of Adam. If he thinks his "purer" will is from something in himself, he is robbing God of the glory which is rightfully His. "Wherefore, let a man take heed, lest he fall." And sometimes in Scripture God does give men up to walk in their own ways not because of a long train of wickedness in deeds against society, but because of the wickedness of their pride. "pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction."

For whatever reason God removes His gracious restraint, those who are unleashed walk according to their own will, they are accountable, and all the guilt is theirs. Whatever God's purpose was in removing His restraint, His purpose was according to His eternal counsel--the counsel of Him who is holy, just and perfect in ALL His ways.

Thanks, Knight. you have made me feel like I am working freely without being under the pressure of some attack on my convictions.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
We would not supposed to be able to tell, Clete! That’s the meaning of the word “secretly”! The question is, if the Open View God wants all people to be saved, why wouldn’t God do this? What logical or scriptural reason precludes Him taking any secret action?

Originally posted by Hilston
It matters because the consistency of the Open View seems to be at stake. If the Open View God wants all people to be saved, wouldn’t the Open View expect God to do whatever He can, within the Open View limitations, to better His odds? I’m trying to work within those limitations to understand your view.

Jim,

This single thread is taking more time for me to keep up with than I have. So I’ve tried to be as focused as possible with regards to responding to your post. Please don’t interpret my lack of response to some of what you said as my having ignored it. It’s just that in the interest of time, I am trying to keep the main thing, the main thing.

I had earlier said that such intervention from God would not fit within my belief system. I think I should recant that statement. The truth is that I do not know whether God intervenes in the way you suggest, He may or He may not. However, any inconsistency found within the Open View because of an opinion one way or the other on this question would, I believe, be unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.

But even if that isn’t true, how exactly is it that the Open View’s consistency is at stake in regards to this question?
You’ve said that we can’t tell whether God intervenes or not so how can you meaningfully say that He does or doesn’t? So what if He does? So what if He doesn’t? How does that have anything to do with whether or not a belief that that future is open can be held with consistency?

I think your answer is that God is constrained by His nature to take whatever action is possible to maximize the number of people who are saved. The problem with that is that neither you nor I are qualified to say what that action is.

So this is the way I understand your thinking to be…

1. If the Open View’s understanding of reality is true then God would intervene within the bounds of that reality to stop or minimize as much as possible such events as 9-11.

2. God did not stop 9-11, therefore…

3. God does not intervene, therefore…

4. The Open View makes no sense.

First of all there is obviously not nearly enough connective tissue between these 4 points in order for them to be a valid syllogism, but putting that much aside for now, let’s just look at the first premise.

Why would such an assumption be necessary for the Open View to be internally consistent? Isn’t there any number of possible variables that we cannot possibly know or understand that might influence God’s decision not to intervene in such cases as a general rule, if in fact He does not?
I suppose, all this boils down to my being still unclear as to why this is an important issue or even how it could be if we can’t even tell whether God intervenes or not.

Resting in Him
Clete

P.S. Jim, I am not at all happy with the way this post has turned out. It basically took all this to end up asking you one meaningful question which may end up having you do little more than repeating yourself. I’ve edited it a couple of times and I’m still not happy with it but I didn’t want to keep you waiting any longer and I’m not confident that any further tinkering with it would have yielded anything better. It would seem that I’m just not at the top of my game this evening.

 

[Clete]

I asked Z Man…
"When you say God is sovereign, what does that mean exactly?"

Z Man answered...

Originally posted by Z Man
That nothing happens apart from His control. In the words of Charles Spurgeon:

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes – that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens – that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence – the fall of . . . leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.

Okay. Good answer. I don't agree with it, but precisely what I expected from a Calvinist and precisely what I believed when I was a Calvinist! This is the typical theological meaning of the word when most Christians and all Calvinist use it.

When I use the word 'sovereign' in relation to God it is in simply the normal sense of the word rather than the theological sense. That is, I believe that God is sovereign in that there is no higher authority in the universe. There is no appeal above God. God is sovereign in the same sense that the king of a particular nation is sovereign over that nation. If there is a criminal in this kings nation who ignores the will of the king, that does not make the criminal the new sovereign king of the nation. Likewise, the king does not lose his sovereignty over the nation if he delegates to a subject the authority to perform some desired function in whatever autonomous way the subject wishes. The king of such a nation would not however be totally sovereign over his nation because just as his subjects authority flows from him, his authority flows from God who is the true sovereign over all creation, thus God is the King of kings and Lord or lords.

In response to the question, “What is justice?” Z Man offered…

Justice

• The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

• The rendering to every one his due or right; just treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.

Alright, a reasonably good answer, good enough to give us something to work with at least.
I particularly like the “merited reward or punishment” part!
I think that we can use that as a common definition assuming that “merited” means that one has earned their just reward via their own actions that they themselves chose to do by their own volitional will.


“What does it mean for God to have predestined something?”

Well, predestine means "to foreordain or elect by divine will or decree". Thus, for God to have predestined something means that He foreordained/elected by His divine will/decree that specific 'something'.

Okay, now this answer won’t do at all. It’s a bit like saying predestination means that something has been predestined.
Perhaps it’s a bad question. Let me try something else.
Is there anything at all that happens that God did not predestine to happen. Is there any possibility that anything could happen that God did not predestine?
Your definition of sovereignty seems to answer this already but I don’t want to assume anything.


“What does it mean to have a free will?”

It means to have a will, or an ability to choose or decide upon a course of action, without no limitation or restriction from any outside 'force'. To do whatever one pleases.

I think I agree with you on this definition.
The way I would put it is that we are free to do or to do otherwise.

Please forgive me, but I don't know what you mean by 'mutually exclusive'. I do not wish to assume your understanding of it, only to say something wrong and totally off subject or whatever...

Is your understanding of both the sovereignty of God and predestination in anyway compatible with your understanding of a person having a free will? Does the existence of one require the nonexistence of the other?
If not, why?

Whatever helps you my friend. :thumb:

I appreciate you taking the time to do this. It is helpful to me and I hope for it to be helpful to you as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Sorry I took so long to respond. I haven’t even had time to read what’s happened in the thread! I hope we aren’t going over to much old ground here. I’ll try to respond quicker next time.

 

[titan]

Knight,

I agree with most of the points you have made in this topic. And the things I do disagree with are minor points. For example, your very first statement...

I gotta vent

Since you have freewill, you must choose to vent.


As you have pointed out, the primary argument of OVers and Arminians against predetermination is the goodness of God.

God IS good. This is not merely a definition but a statement of fact. There is an absolute moral standard. God abides by this standard. He does not capriciously change the rules from time to time. And yet evil exists.

When I read a passage in the Bible where God appears to do evil, I presume that I am missing relevant information available to God, that if I but knew it would explain the morality of God's action.

Much of the justification for evil's existence appears to be God's gift of free will to his creatures. There may be other reasons why God allows evil to occur as well. What I utterly reject is the Calvinist notion that God allows evil in order to glorify Himself. First the Bible seems to imply that God is not much on self-glorification. With the incarnation, God as Jesus came down and humiliated himself for our sake. His glorification came from his self-sacrifice not from seeking glory for its own sake. Secondly, evil by and large does not appear to glorify God but rather the reverse. In the end God will be glorified and evil will be abolished. If evil glorified God, why not continue it indefinitely?

It all comes down to trusting God. The definition of Christianity is belief in Jesus/God. This belief is not mere acknowledgement of His existence but trusting in Him. When we trust God we accept that he will take care of us and we acknowledge his reign in our lives. To do this we must believe that God will not cheat us or capriciously destroy us. Belief in the actual and not merely definitional goodness of God is required to trust Him. It is thus foundational to Christianity.


Titan

 

[Hilston]

Knight writesI get it... I get it!!!

I just find it to be irrelevant.

How's this for relevance:

I have an obligation to teach my children. It would be relevant to have an accurate view of the various theologies that I teach them.

I have an obligation before God to mark those who teach contrary to the Gospel. It would be relevant to have an accurate view of other theologies so I properly judge them.

Furthermore, I understand that differing theologies do not spring out of a vaccuum, but have philosophical underpinnings that could assist me in my own formulation of thought. At the very least, I gain an appreciation for how theologies develop and change. Without an accurate view of other theologies, these lessons are lost or distorted.

But so what. I'm still wrong and you're still right, so who cares.