ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
God_Is_Truth
New member
do you believe that scripture will tell us logically contradictory things? in other words, will God ever contradict himself?
there is a difference between a logical contradiction and something that can't be understood with logic. the first one violates the rules of logic directly. the other one just has no logical statement that fits it. all of those things fit the latter category and not the first. they do not contradict logic, but logic can't fully explain them either.
can you see the difference now between a logical contradiction and something that is just not understood or cannot be explained by logic?
but the problem here is that those 2 teachings are mutally exclusive (at least as calvinism understands them). they directly contradict each other. so if you wish to hold them both in your theology, you have God giving contradictory teachings. God has contradicted himself. do you believe God will contradict himself?
i agree, but that does not allow us to hold contradictory concepts as true. the sky cannot be all blue and all red at the same time. we'd look like fools if we went around stating that. why? because it's contradictory. they cannot both be true. that's logic. it doesn't have anything to do with understanding the concept fully. the two are simply mutually exclusive and cannot exist together. one of them must be false by definition.
and that is where theology must lie. it cannot contain things that are contradictory because contradictory things do not exist. if God were to tell us that the sky is all blue and all red at the same time, one of those things would be false. God would be mistaken. does God make mistakes Z Man?
Z Man
New member
You assume that if God was completely sovereign, as I believe the Bible to define His sovereignty, yet He hold us accountable for our actions, that He is contridicting Himself. You said it yourself:
"but the problem here is that those 2 teachings are mutally exclusive (at least as calvinism understands them). they directly contradict each other."
I do not believe them to be 'mutually exclusive'. Why must they be in your view? The Bible is clear with evidence that these two truths co-exist:
- Jesus wept over Jerusalem because the things of the kingdom were "hidden from [their] eyes", yet He clearly tells us that it was God who hid these things from their eyes (Luke 19:41-42; Luke 10:21)
- Jesus felt compassion over those who were sick, yet it is God who is finally and decisivly in control of sickness (Matthew 14:14; Exodus 4:11; 1 Samuel 2:6)
- 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)
Rolf Ernst
New member
God's sovereignty is not contradictory to the fact that men are accountable--not at all.
What would truly be contradictory: God decreeing that men, like himself, have free will and yet not be accountable for their motivations in the choices they make.
God created man in His image, one aspect of it being volition. True volition without free acts is contradictory. Therefore, when God created man, He decreed not only man's likeness to His image in respect to volition, but decreed ALSO, all the acts which man, of His free will, would do. Thereby, God, having decreed all the acts which men would of their own will engage in, forever secured by His decree the freedom of man's will.
The only exception to the freedom of man's will is the fact (clearly shown by multiple examples in Scripture) that man's will has no power to over ride--triumph over--God's will. When they are contradictory with one another, God's will ALWAYS triumphs. It does so by God's restraint upon man so that what man would, of his own nature do that was not in accord with God's purpose was erased from existence to the extent that the man, of his own free will, would not be inclined to it.
That is no hindrance to man's free will because God decreed that man, of his own will, would not choose to do that which God did not purpose
God decreed those acts which man, of His own nature and free will WOULD do that did not militate against God's own purpose. Those acts which man of his own free will would do that would conflict with God's purpose, God restrains. This is not theory. there are many examples of it in Scripture.
There is an aspect of will that cannot be ignored when considering man's will and God's will. Motivation is always involved. It is very possible that two could will the same event, but with contradictory motives, or purposes. God's will and motivations are always holy, just and good. Man can will the same events with evil motives, and he is accountable for those evil motivations. Scripture is replete with examples of everything said above.
What would truly be contradictory: God decreeing that men, like himself, have free will and yet not be accountable for their motivations in the choices they make.
God created man in His image, one aspect of it being volition. True volition without free acts is contradictory. Therefore, when God created man, He decreed not only man's likeness to His image in respect to volition, but decreed ALSO, all the acts which man, of His free will, would do. Thereby, God, having decreed all the acts which men would of their own will engage in, forever secured by His decree the freedom of man's will.
The only exception to the freedom of man's will is the fact (clearly shown by multiple examples in Scripture) that man's will has no power to over ride--triumph over--God's will. When they are contradictory with one another, God's will ALWAYS triumphs. It does so by God's restraint upon man so that what man would, of his own nature do that was not in accord with God's purpose was erased from existence to the extent that the man, of his own free will, would not be inclined to it.
That is no hindrance to man's free will because God decreed that man, of his own will, would not choose to do that which God did not purpose
God decreed those acts which man, of His own nature and free will WOULD do that did not militate against God's own purpose. Those acts which man of his own free will would do that would conflict with God's purpose, God restrains. This is not theory. there are many examples of it in Scripture.
There is an aspect of will that cannot be ignored when considering man's will and God's will. Motivation is always involved. It is very possible that two could will the same event, but with contradictory motives, or purposes. God's will and motivations are always holy, just and good. Man can will the same events with evil motives, and he is accountable for those evil motivations. Scripture is replete with examples of everything said above.
Last edited:
God_Is_Truth
New member
you seem to not realize why we would not be responsible if God predestined everything (and i mean everything).
do you believe that the puppet should be held responsible for what the puppeteer made him do?
if a person grabs another persons hands and forces him to strike someone else, should the person whose hands were used to strike the person be held responsible?
both of those should get a resounding NO from you if you have any understanding of justice whatsoever.
and for the same reason that both of those receive a NO, so we should not be held responsible if God has predestined everything. it would make him the ulitmate puppeteer and ultimately unjust.
If I thought you knew what the word "semantics" means, I would take this as a compliment. Clete, we're talking about the Word of God. What could be more important than semantics? Are you aware that most of the details of biblical doctrine depend on semantic clarity and distinctions? Have you ever looked up the word? Of course the differences are semantic! And if it is semantically different, then it is substantively different as well. You know what -- forget it. It's all wasted on you, Clete. The things you say, the insults you lob -- obviously you're just a nasty and odious person.
Nice knowing you, Clete.
Yep. It would be. But I don't think you really give a rip.
I don't care what you think anymore, Clete.
You apparently don't know or care what Calvinism actually teaches, otherwise you wouldn't be asking these questions. Clearly you do not know or care what I believe, or what labels apply, otherwise you would respect the discussion, rather than toss lame insults. It is no longer of any concern to me what is "terrific and perfectly fine with you."
There's nothing substantive in anything I write, Clete. Nothing I say is in good faith, but blatant perfidy. I make it up as I go along just to be difficult. Obviously I'm a disingenuous person and I haven't said a substantive word in anything I've written. That's what previous experience tells you, right? It's all just semantics with me, Clete.
Did that make you feel validated? I'd sure hate for you to feel guilty for mistaking a genuine effort at discussion for disingenuous sematics.
Since you don't know my system, and you never really made an effort to understand it, or the label you wish to falsely assign to it, perhaps you'll never know. Not to mention the fact that you've missed the entire point. See ya. Wouldn't want to be ya.
Yeah, just keep doing that.
Z Man
New member
You seem to not realize that Scripture teaches we are responsible, although God does predestine everything. God ordained David to sin, and yet, he was held responsible for it. And even though God wanted Pharaoh to let his people go, God hardened his heart so that he wouldn't listen. Because God hardened his heart and he became stubborn, God plagued Egypt. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they did not know the hidden things of God, yet God is the one who hid it from them. Jesus had compassion on the sick, although God is the one who is in control of sickness. God opposes those who show hatred toward His people, the Israelites, yet God turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate His people. God opposes adultery, but ordained that Absalom should lie with his father's wives.
Do you object to Scripture teaching? It sure sounds like you do to me...
Our motives are always evil, yet God's are always holy and just. Joseph's brothers meant harm to Joseph, but God meant it for good. God ordained the whole thing, yet the brothers were still responsible for thier sins.
Romans 9:19-20
Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?
Your objection is the same, and the answer will always be the same:
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Hilston - In answer to your last post, thanks for being so detailed and thorough, although I do not appreciate your tenor. I say why not try to work things out instead of promulgating so much personal offense. I understand what you have said. Yet, so much of how you respond is incongruent and adversarial to what I am saying.
I sought to help keep you from "ripping" what I say from it's own purposeful CONNECTED context. I do not require you to read a doctrinal thesis or several crucial reference works I happen to appreciate in order to be in good standing to discuss bible issues with little ol me, I only ask that you not disintegrate the context of what I say by consistently being too microscopic. Even I myself can not follow my own train of thought by reading your supposed responses to them. You are not congruent or corresponding, but you are "creative".
I thought you were sincerely thankful for me kindly reminding you to respond to my two posts I posted to you a while back.
I was not being rude or offensive about it, as you said it was just a friendly reminder about them. But what had been your treatment of this issue up until I reminded you about them? You did not even write me just to even acknowledge their existence, instead you let about a hundred posts go by, while we even started another debate in your other thread, and I even referenced one of those posts to you there too! Yet through all that you NEVER once said word one to me about them, and instead you chatted where and posted to others there. Now, I had not taken any offense to this, actually, I had no idea if you had even ever seen them. So here I make a kind notice to you about them, and of all things you try to pervert that issue, my good intention towards you, into me being in the wrong as though it is rather more of an offense between us.
Seeking mutual understanding and respecting contextual integrity is a good thing to do verses so much broken fragmentation. You most often do not answer the line of reasoning that developed, instead, you just quote a tiny subsection and thus tear up the context, it's like you want to forget about what was actually presented to you, you only want enough text so you can easier attack that much, and I will not willingly let anyone do that, to me, or even to you.
As to the TULIP bit, ok, it is fair to defend on the basis of systematic theology. Consider one single doctrine, classic divine immutability. God does not change in any way. Can you consider a biblical faith in God that rejects that doctrine, but one that holds that God's character and attributes are unchanging? If you can not do that much, then it's like you've admitted that being objective is not part of your strategy. Even Christianity is falsifiable, it has no problem allowing someone to test its accuracy and truth claims.
BTW, I believe that once you read my posts, although you may specifically have follow-up questions or doubts or disagreements, I think you will find many answers to the questions you keep saying I have not been responsive too.
Constantly chopping and disintegrating the context.
Making contentious mountains out of molehills, fostering personal offense, instead of mutual understanding and bunches of good things.
Instead of that, I'll be happy to see plan B.
If you must scrutinize every single minutia, of course you are free to do that, but I hope you can value taking a step back and taking in the entire overview. I want us to understand each other, to respect each other, and if learning and growing can happen, then blessings may abound. I pray you may learn to see things a little differently.
I sought to help keep you from "ripping" what I say from it's own purposeful CONNECTED context. I do not require you to read a doctrinal thesis or several crucial reference works I happen to appreciate in order to be in good standing to discuss bible issues with little ol me, I only ask that you not disintegrate the context of what I say by consistently being too microscopic. Even I myself can not follow my own train of thought by reading your supposed responses to them. You are not congruent or corresponding, but you are "creative".
I thought you were sincerely thankful for me kindly reminding you to respond to my two posts I posted to you a while back.
I was not being rude or offensive about it, as you said it was just a friendly reminder about them. But what had been your treatment of this issue up until I reminded you about them? You did not even write me just to even acknowledge their existence, instead you let about a hundred posts go by, while we even started another debate in your other thread, and I even referenced one of those posts to you there too! Yet through all that you NEVER once said word one to me about them, and instead you chatted where and posted to others there. Now, I had not taken any offense to this, actually, I had no idea if you had even ever seen them. So here I make a kind notice to you about them, and of all things you try to pervert that issue, my good intention towards you, into me being in the wrong as though it is rather more of an offense between us.
Seeking mutual understanding and respecting contextual integrity is a good thing to do verses so much broken fragmentation. You most often do not answer the line of reasoning that developed, instead, you just quote a tiny subsection and thus tear up the context, it's like you want to forget about what was actually presented to you, you only want enough text so you can easier attack that much, and I will not willingly let anyone do that, to me, or even to you.
As to the TULIP bit, ok, it is fair to defend on the basis of systematic theology. Consider one single doctrine, classic divine immutability. God does not change in any way. Can you consider a biblical faith in God that rejects that doctrine, but one that holds that God's character and attributes are unchanging? If you can not do that much, then it's like you've admitted that being objective is not part of your strategy. Even Christianity is falsifiable, it has no problem allowing someone to test its accuracy and truth claims.
BTW, I believe that once you read my posts, although you may specifically have follow-up questions or doubts or disagreements, I think you will find many answers to the questions you keep saying I have not been responsive too.
Constantly chopping and disintegrating the context.
Making contentious mountains out of molehills, fostering personal offense, instead of mutual understanding and bunches of good things.
Instead of that, I'll be happy to see plan B.
If you must scrutinize every single minutia, of course you are free to do that, but I hope you can value taking a step back and taking in the entire overview. I want us to understand each other, to respect each other, and if learning and growing can happen, then blessings may abound. I pray you may learn to see things a little differently.
1Way,
It puzzles when the personal assumptions come out and people start saying to one another "You're this" or "you're that" and they don't even know the other person. They don't know their heart; they don't know their motive or intentions, yet they speak as if they do. You say I'm difficult. I don't try to be. It's not deliberate, and that makes the accusation all the more annoying. I reflected on our exchanges to consider why you would view me as "difficult." It occurred to me that you make demands and hold your responses hostage until you get your way. I did appreciate your reminder. I even went and copy/pasted your posts and saved them as further reminder to myself. But the more I pondered our exchanges, the more these demands stacked up. So I mentioned them all. Can't we just have a pleasant dialogue without the accusations and speculations about motive and attitude?
As to these recent exchanges, they are quick and easy to respond to, and do not require a whole lot of time. I can't say the same for your posts. I will get to them as soon as I can.
It puzzles when the personal assumptions come out and people start saying to one another "You're this" or "you're that" and they don't even know the other person. They don't know their heart; they don't know their motive or intentions, yet they speak as if they do. You say I'm difficult. I don't try to be. It's not deliberate, and that makes the accusation all the more annoying. I reflected on our exchanges to consider why you would view me as "difficult." It occurred to me that you make demands and hold your responses hostage until you get your way. I did appreciate your reminder. I even went and copy/pasted your posts and saved them as further reminder to myself. But the more I pondered our exchanges, the more these demands stacked up. So I mentioned them all. Can't we just have a pleasant dialogue without the accusations and speculations about motive and attitude?
As to these recent exchanges, they are quick and easy to respond to, and do not require a whole lot of time. I can't say the same for your posts. I will get to them as soon as I can.
Sure I can consider it. That is my view. I reject the doctrine that God does not change in any way, and I believe that God's character and attributes are unchanging. That is biblical. That is my view.
Perhaps you misunderstand my method. I don't forget the context when I quote and respond. I am giving you markers to indicate where my response falls in the flow of your post. No one else has a problem with this, and I will do my best, henceforth, to include sufficient context in quoted excerpts.
What makes you think that I don't do that? I read the posts quickly to get a general sense of them. I then look at individual points and arguments and respond to them. After I compose my reply, I do one of two things. I set it aside and go back to it later (go to bed and re-read my reply in the morning). Or I post it right away and re-read it onsite to make sure it says what I want it to say. As to what I think is or is not pertinent, anyone is free to call my attention to certain points I may have missed or set aside. I always oblige such a request whenever possible as time allows.
See what I mean? You assume I have a problem, rather than considering that we've merely misunderstood one another. You don't give the benefit of the doubt. Your first assumption is that it's my problem and not a mutual one. Whatever.
Last edited:
I think all Clete was saying is that you may using different terms to describe the same thing as Calvinists.
I really don't know what you found so nasty and insulting about his post, but no one could miss the nasty, insulting, odious tone in your reply.
- Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 1 Peter 3:8-9
And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Matthew 7:3
Jim,
Get off your ridiculous high horse a reread my post! I was not being insulting. I simply answered what I assumed was a genuine question when you asked if you should be more specific than you were.
You and I have had plenty enough history for you to be able to tell when I'm being insulting, I generally leave little question in anyone's mind about it.
You first assume wrongly that I'm trying to insult you which gets your underwear all tied up in knots, you then turn right around and throw insults around yourself, only yours are real insults! Whether or not you think the verses Turbo quoted apply or not, this makes your last post hypocritical at best and at worst totally off the wall and irrational!
Further, I know perfectly well what semantic means. I may have graduated from public school but I am not the stupid dullard you like to pretend most everybody on this site is. I also know that speaking about something in different semantic terms does not require or even imply a significant or substantive difference in that which is being discussed, even if the subject is semantic in nature.
Also, as I have pointed out to you and others many times before, a duck can believe that he is an eagle all day long, but the moment he utters a sound his true identity is revealed. So whether you choose to believe it or not, you have a Calvinist sounding quack if I've ever heard one! You insist that you are not a Calvinist and as I said before that's perfectly fine with me, but until you give me a good reason to do otherwise, I will continue to call those who quack, ducks. It does no one any favors to do otherwise. If you have 5 points for each of three houses then as far as I'm concerned, until I get a look at those points, all you are is a Calvinist three times over.
Now, if you would like to grant my request to see the 15 points of Hilstonism (or whatever you like to call it) then I will happily pretend that your last response to me didn't happen and we can continue. And for future reference, you can rest assured that if I wish to insult you I will be sure to word my remarks in such a way as to leave no doubt in your mind as to my intent.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Get off your ridiculous high horse a reread my post! I was not being insulting. I simply answered what I assumed was a genuine question when you asked if you should be more specific than you were.
You and I have had plenty enough history for you to be able to tell when I'm being insulting, I generally leave little question in anyone's mind about it.
You first assume wrongly that I'm trying to insult you which gets your underwear all tied up in knots, you then turn right around and throw insults around yourself, only yours are real insults! Whether or not you think the verses Turbo quoted apply or not, this makes your last post hypocritical at best and at worst totally off the wall and irrational!
Further, I know perfectly well what semantic means. I may have graduated from public school but I am not the stupid dullard you like to pretend most everybody on this site is. I also know that speaking about something in different semantic terms does not require or even imply a significant or substantive difference in that which is being discussed, even if the subject is semantic in nature.
Also, as I have pointed out to you and others many times before, a duck can believe that he is an eagle all day long, but the moment he utters a sound his true identity is revealed. So whether you choose to believe it or not, you have a Calvinist sounding quack if I've ever heard one! You insist that you are not a Calvinist and as I said before that's perfectly fine with me, but until you give me a good reason to do otherwise, I will continue to call those who quack, ducks. It does no one any favors to do otherwise. If you have 5 points for each of three houses then as far as I'm concerned, until I get a look at those points, all you are is a Calvinist three times over.
Now, if you would like to grant my request to see the 15 points of Hilstonism (or whatever you like to call it) then I will happily pretend that your last response to me didn't happen and we can continue. And for future reference, you can rest assured that if I wish to insult you I will be sure to word my remarks in such a way as to leave no doubt in your mind as to my intent.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man,
no, i realize that part
it's that part that's unscriptural.
you really believe God ordains sin!? :shocked:
that is sad, really sad.
to hold US responsible for what GOD made us do is unjust by definition. or do you reject the definition of unjust? :think:
:bang: no, God hardened his heart AFTER he wouldn't let them go and AFTER he'd hardened his heart on his own already.
no, that would make God even more unjust than you've already made him out to be :doh:
where does the bible say that?
rather, it does say that Jesus wept over them because they were not willing to come to him LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
do you really believe that God is really going to long after something OFTEN when he has predestined the exact opposite?!
please tell me you think God is not so crazy as to long often for what he has predestined not to come about :nono:
and what scripture shows that God is in control of ALL sickness?
i explained this to you already. it is not a problem for the open view.
you are the one who has to turn doznes of verses that show God as either changing his mind, repenting, doing what he said he wouldn't etc. into anthropomorphisms. as well as taking any verse that says that Jesus died for all of us or wants all of us to be saved and denying the obvious literal meaning.
don't you mean our "predestined motives"? don't you also mean Josephs brothers were "predestined to mean it for harm" and don't you also mean that the brothers were "predestined to be responsible for their sins"?
you did say yourself "everything is predestined".
Paul is not making that point. i am not objecting that way and his follow up has nothing to do with what you are trying to make it.
how about you try and really answer the question? do you even really understand Paul's point? do you think Paul was feeling lazy then and just didn't want to explain what he meant? or could there be some other meaning.....
GIT
no, i realize that part
it's that part that's unscriptural.
you really believe God ordains sin!? :shocked:
that is sad, really sad.
to hold US responsible for what GOD made us do is unjust by definition. or do you reject the definition of unjust? :think:
:bang: no, God hardened his heart AFTER he wouldn't let them go and AFTER he'd hardened his heart on his own already.
no, that would make God even more unjust than you've already made him out to be :doh:
where does the bible say that?
rather, it does say that Jesus wept over them because they were not willing to come to him LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
do you really believe that God is really going to long after something OFTEN when he has predestined the exact opposite?!
please tell me you think God is not so crazy as to long often for what he has predestined not to come about :nono:
and what scripture shows that God is in control of ALL sickness?
i explained this to you already. it is not a problem for the open view.
you are the one who has to turn doznes of verses that show God as either changing his mind, repenting, doing what he said he wouldn't etc. into anthropomorphisms. as well as taking any verse that says that Jesus died for all of us or wants all of us to be saved and denying the obvious literal meaning.
don't you mean our "predestined motives"? don't you also mean Josephs brothers were "predestined to mean it for harm" and don't you also mean that the brothers were "predestined to be responsible for their sins"?
you did say yourself "everything is predestined".
Paul is not making that point. i am not objecting that way and his follow up has nothing to do with what you are trying to make it.
how about you try and really answer the question? do you even really understand Paul's point? do you think Paul was feeling lazy then and just didn't want to explain what he meant? or could there be some other meaning.....
GIT
Thanks for adding that. But if we're talking about presuppositions, I have to ask: Why do you believe that the future holds at least some contingency or uncertainty?
I don't think it takes much searching to come to either conclusion. It all depends on what your presuppositions are. One set of presupps lead to a partially open view of the future, the other leads to a perfectly predetermined and unalterable view of the future.
There is; what is the foundation for your assumption that the future is partially open?
Was God responding to evil when He planned for His son to be murdered? Was God responding to evil when He taunted Satan and allowed him to murder Job's family? Is God responding to evil in His plans to have to the two witnesses murdered in Rev. 11?
Is there, in your view, such a thing as non-absolute evil? For example, for the nation of Israel, it was a capital crime to pick up sticks on the Sabbath. But under the teachings of Paul, observing the Sabbath is forbidden. What kind of evil is this in your view, 1Way?
I unequivocally disagree. God could not create and sustain a universe that had contingency and uncertainty anymore than an author could author a book without knowing every detail of the plot, from beginning to middle to end.
Of course not. The verses that are figurative are viewed by OVers as non-figurative. That's the point. When God says, "Now I know Abraham fears God," do you really think He didn't know this about Abraham already? When God says, "Adam, where are you?" do you really think God didn't know where Adam was? When God asks, "Did you eat of the tree that you should not have eaten from?" do you really think God didn't already know?
Which part do I not understand? Please answer this, because I really want to completely and clearly understand the Open View.
Since you ask: The bible uses numbers literally and symbolically. The number 40 occurs often in scripture. Does the Open View acknowledge the symbolisms conveyed by numbers? If so, what is the Open View's position of the number 40?
Calvinists:
I humbly request any of the Calvinists out there to respond to the following which I posted earlier in this thread. ZMan? Rolf? Hilston?
If no one is interested, I won't bring it up again. Just thought I'd give it one more try.
As a summary here is a list of the questions I pose for Calvinists:
How does God allowing evil to glorify himself fit in with God as Christ suffering humiliation to save others?
Does evil glorify God? If so why not allow it to continue eternally?
How can you trust God unless you know he will not do evil to you?
Is it conceivable that breaking his promises to you could glorify him? If not why not?
If you do not trust him how can you be saved?
Who does God want to glorify himself to? If you say "Himself" what does that mean? If you say to men, why should be care what we think?
Titan, your friendly neighborhood Lurker.
I humbly request any of the Calvinists out there to respond to the following which I posted earlier in this thread. ZMan? Rolf? Hilston?
If no one is interested, I won't bring it up again. Just thought I'd give it one more try.
As a summary here is a list of the questions I pose for Calvinists:
How does God allowing evil to glorify himself fit in with God as Christ suffering humiliation to save others?
Does evil glorify God? If so why not allow it to continue eternally?
How can you trust God unless you know he will not do evil to you?
Is it conceivable that breaking his promises to you could glorify him? If not why not?
If you do not trust him how can you be saved?
Who does God want to glorify himself to? If you say "Himself" what does that mean? If you say to men, why should be care what we think?
Titan, your friendly neighborhood Lurker.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Titan--Thanks for the sincerity in your questions. Concering your first question,
"how does God allowing evil to glorify Himself fit in with God as Christ suffering humiliation to save others?"
First, allow me to preface the question to more fully express exactly what has taken place because (1) God decreed man's free will, AND
therefore, as a consequence, their exercise of it in acts flowing from free will. (2) God did so because He purposed to create man in His own image, a large element of which is volition. (3) Decreeing our free will elevated us above the rest of creation to partake of an attribute like unto God Himself. That is a wonderful ennobling of His creature, man. (4) God decreed this ennoblement from everlasting, AND all the acts which men, of their own free will, would choose to do. Therefore God's decree forever secured for man his Godlike attribute of volition. (5) His decree concerning the acts of their free will in NO WAY violated the freedom of their will OR made them in anyway robotic because God knew what they of their own free will would do and decreed those very acts, thereby ensuring for man the closest possible likeness to God and His power in His own attribute of volition. God has indeed been gracious to us by making man in His own image.
Therefore, when you ask, "how can God allowing evil to glorify Himself...", we must factor in not only the event of evil, but God's gift to man of the Godlike attribute of volition.
First, therefore, it was to God's glory that He had graciously endowed man with volition.
Second, without evil there would not have been such a manifestation of God's grace and love toward fallen creatures.
Third, the existence of evil serves as the black backdrop against which God's grace to fallen men shines most brightly. The more undeserving the subjects of His grace, the more abundantly the glory of His grace is seen. The apostle was very conscious of this: "that we should be to the praise of the glory of His grace..."
fourth, the humiliation of Christ more greatly shows the wonder of God's grace to us through Him. God's grace is known not only by the unworthiness of us, to whom it is shown, but by the wonder of the immense worthiness of Him who endured humiliation.
This is extremely brief--only the beginning of showing how the humiliation of Christ manifested the glory of God, but it should secure the clear proof of it. I don't like to make long posts. I will answer other aspects of your question later. Thanks again.
"how does God allowing evil to glorify Himself fit in with God as Christ suffering humiliation to save others?"
First, allow me to preface the question to more fully express exactly what has taken place because (1) God decreed man's free will, AND
therefore, as a consequence, their exercise of it in acts flowing from free will. (2) God did so because He purposed to create man in His own image, a large element of which is volition. (3) Decreeing our free will elevated us above the rest of creation to partake of an attribute like unto God Himself. That is a wonderful ennobling of His creature, man. (4) God decreed this ennoblement from everlasting, AND all the acts which men, of their own free will, would choose to do. Therefore God's decree forever secured for man his Godlike attribute of volition. (5) His decree concerning the acts of their free will in NO WAY violated the freedom of their will OR made them in anyway robotic because God knew what they of their own free will would do and decreed those very acts, thereby ensuring for man the closest possible likeness to God and His power in His own attribute of volition. God has indeed been gracious to us by making man in His own image.
Therefore, when you ask, "how can God allowing evil to glorify Himself...", we must factor in not only the event of evil, but God's gift to man of the Godlike attribute of volition.
First, therefore, it was to God's glory that He had graciously endowed man with volition.
Second, without evil there would not have been such a manifestation of God's grace and love toward fallen creatures.
Third, the existence of evil serves as the black backdrop against which God's grace to fallen men shines most brightly. The more undeserving the subjects of His grace, the more abundantly the glory of His grace is seen. The apostle was very conscious of this: "that we should be to the praise of the glory of His grace..."
fourth, the humiliation of Christ more greatly shows the wonder of God's grace to us through Him. God's grace is known not only by the unworthiness of us, to whom it is shown, but by the wonder of the immense worthiness of Him who endured humiliation.
This is extremely brief--only the beginning of showing how the humiliation of Christ manifested the glory of God, but it should secure the clear proof of it. I don't like to make long posts. I will answer other aspects of your question later. Thanks again.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
response to post 770
Jim - Ok, and thanks for the responses. So you both appreciate and don't appreciate my single polite request that you at least acknowledge that you know about those two long ago posts. Just a friendly rub, I am happy to see you respond the way you have, water under the bridge, the river view looks great from here.
Concerning classic immutability, you deny it and affirm biblical mutability instead. Talk about the best news I've heard in a long time! I see that the 5 points of Calvinism are now weakened to the point of disintegration, you would beg to differ, and so our mutual understanding has grown.
Contextual awareness and brevity
I grant your point, that it is reasonable to do exactly as you said. I still maintain that not only do you overdue micro-sizing the text bits, which is really only a byproduct of a bigger problem, and that is that you do not answer according to the wider context, sometimes you do not even answer the immediate meaning (correspondingly/commensurately) from the tiny bit that you quote. And although this should not really matter, what matters is the truth of a matter, I am certainly not the only person who thinks they know that you have this problem. Although I admit that things may have changed with you over time, but I remember full well that others agreed with me that you have/had a big problem with violating/neglecting/completely ignoring the context that was respectfully presented to you. But I agree with you about not getting bogged down in these blaming issues, let the chips fall where they may, and as best as possible, just deal with the discussion at hand.
I much appreciate your efforts to respect and respond to the wider context offered. I see that and am glad.
Why I think you are ripping the context, because your responses are typically no better than say three quarters corresponding, sometimes better, sometimes worse, which I think may be an improvement from past performance, yet that much incongruity can become very disturbing in otherwise productive discussions. But in all truth and grace and well wishes, I am going by my gut here.
Fortunately, I have not felt compelled to go back and reference the worst such occurrences to try to prove this point, because overall, you've been responding with a somewhat reasonable degree of correspondence. However, one point excepting. You ask me about how I view God's implication with evil, and I've answered this, at least by way of bible references, and you've repeatedly acted like I have not answered. There you have not listened and responded to me well at all. But considering the large range of discussion we have been covering, I see such occasional oversights or mistakes as pleasant trivialities, I'm just glad for all the good things we can and do share.
As to my first/automatic assumption being in the negative with you. Same back at you. May we both continue to grow in a primary initial response of grace and respect. Thanks kindly for your overall contextually apparent presentation of dignity towards me. I hope I got that context right. (?)
In the way truth and life
Jim - Ok, and thanks for the responses. So you both appreciate and don't appreciate my single polite request that you at least acknowledge that you know about those two long ago posts.
Just a friendly rub, I am happy to see you respond the way you have, water under the bridge, the river view looks great from here. Concerning classic immutability, you deny it and affirm biblical mutability instead. Talk about the best news I've heard in a long time! I see that the 5 points of Calvinism are now weakened to the point of disintegration, you would beg to differ, and so our mutual understanding has grown.
Contextual awareness and brevity
I grant your point, that it is reasonable to do exactly as you said. I still maintain that not only do you overdue micro-sizing the text bits, which is really only a byproduct of a bigger problem, and that is that you do not answer according to the wider context, sometimes you do not even answer the immediate meaning (correspondingly/commensurately) from the tiny bit that you quote. And although this should not really matter, what matters is the truth of a matter, I am certainly not the only person who thinks they know that you have this problem. Although I admit that things may have changed with you over time, but I remember full well that others agreed with me that you have/had a big problem with violating/neglecting/completely ignoring the context that was respectfully presented to you. But I agree with you about not getting bogged down in these blaming issues, let the chips fall where they may, and as best as possible, just deal with the discussion at hand.
I much appreciate your efforts to respect and respond to the wider context offered. I see that and am glad.
Why I think you are ripping the context, because your responses are typically no better than say three quarters corresponding, sometimes better, sometimes worse, which I think may be an improvement from past performance, yet that much incongruity can become very disturbing in otherwise productive discussions. But in all truth and grace and well wishes, I am going by my gut here.
Fortunately, I have not felt compelled to go back and reference the worst such occurrences to try to prove this point, because overall, you've been responding with a somewhat reasonable degree of correspondence. However, one point excepting. You ask me about how I view God's implication with evil, and I've answered this, at least by way of bible references, and you've repeatedly acted like I have not answered. There you have not listened and responded to me well at all. But considering the large range of discussion we have been covering, I see such occasional oversights or mistakes as pleasant trivialities, I'm just glad for all the good things we can and do share.
As to my first/automatic assumption being in the negative with you. Same back at you. May we both continue to grow in a primary initial response of grace and respect. Thanks kindly for your overall contextually apparent presentation of dignity towards me. I hope I got that context right. (?)
In the way truth and life
Rolf Ernst
New member
Titan, post 776, page 50--You ask, "does evil glorify god?"
It is not that evil glorifies God, but that God gets glory to Himself through the way He deals with it.
You ask, "if so, why not let it continue eternally?"
It will continue eternally. God will forever manifest His glory by displaying His wrath against sin. Don't forget that the greater part of humanity are on the broad road that leads to destruction. The only deliverance from evil is the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore those who enter eternity without Him will never be shed of the wickedness of their nature.
In this life some flee to Christ for deliverance from the evil of what they are in themselves, and they have the benefit of God's work to conform them to the image of His own Son, but those who esteem themselves highly, thinking they have no need of Christ, will enter eternity without Him, an eternity wherein even the common grace of God--whereby He upon earth tempered the evil bent of man's nature-- will no longer be available. Forever they will be bound up in the cords of the wickedness of their own nature. Forever without the merciful tempering of their nature which had kept them from sinking to the depths of the most wicked of men, they are forever given up to the full extent of evil in the Adamic nature. They will be what they REALLY are in themselves to the fullest extent, and God will forever manifest His glory by showing His wrath against evil.
What did you expect Him to do? Be nonjudgemental??
Men will either learn to hate and flee from evil in this life through Christ, or else they will spend eternity with the bitterness of it. The "way of the transgressor is hard."
It is not that evil glorifies God, but that God gets glory to Himself through the way He deals with it.
You ask, "if so, why not let it continue eternally?"
It will continue eternally. God will forever manifest His glory by displaying His wrath against sin. Don't forget that the greater part of humanity are on the broad road that leads to destruction. The only deliverance from evil is the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore those who enter eternity without Him will never be shed of the wickedness of their nature.
In this life some flee to Christ for deliverance from the evil of what they are in themselves, and they have the benefit of God's work to conform them to the image of His own Son, but those who esteem themselves highly, thinking they have no need of Christ, will enter eternity without Him, an eternity wherein even the common grace of God--whereby He upon earth tempered the evil bent of man's nature-- will no longer be available. Forever they will be bound up in the cords of the wickedness of their own nature. Forever without the merciful tempering of their nature which had kept them from sinking to the depths of the most wicked of men, they are forever given up to the full extent of evil in the Adamic nature. They will be what they REALLY are in themselves to the fullest extent, and God will forever manifest His glory by showing His wrath against evil.
What did you expect Him to do? Be nonjudgemental??
Men will either learn to hate and flee from evil in this life through Christ, or else they will spend eternity with the bitterness of it. The "way of the transgressor is hard."
Last edited:
Z Man
New member
2 Samuel 24:1
Once again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He caused David to harm them by taking a census. "Go and count the people of Israel and Judah," the LORD told him.
Why do you, a mere man, reply against God and call Him unjust for doing as He so pleases?
That doesn't even make sense. Why would God have to harden a hardened heart? And besides, the Scriptures clearly tell us that God said He was going to harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses even entered Egypt; before Pharoah was even asked to let the Israelites go!
Exodus 4:21-23
And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. THEN you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn." ' "
God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then asked him to let the Israelites go. According to you, that makes God unjust. You object to the TRUTH of Scripture, not my doctrine...
How have I made God out to be unjust when all I've done is quote Scriptures? Does not Exodus 4 tell us that God said He'd hardened Pharaoh's heart, THEN ask him to let His people go?
GIT,
Obviously, you did not read any of my prior post. Or, maybe you did, but when I cited Scriptural references to back up my position, you obviously did not investigate them yourself, or you wouldn't of asked me "where does the bible say that".
Luke 19:41-42
Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
But earlier, Jesus tells us that God is the one who hid it from their eyes:
Luke 10:21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.
Again, you did not read my posts:and what scripture shows that God is in control of ALL sickness?
Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?
Job 2:7-10
So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!" But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Job accredited God for his sickness and tormoil, yet, "in all this Job did not sin with his lips".
Oh, it most certainly is a problem! I don't know if it is a problem to the OV'ers in general, but it most definitly goes against what you believe. Remember, you said:
"to hold US responsible for what GOD made us do is unjust by definition."
God held the Egyptians responsible for not letting His people go and for hating them, thus the reasons for the plagues. Yet, it was God who "turned thier heart to hate His people".
Psalms 105:23, 25
Israel also came into Egypt ... He turned their heart to hate His people, To deal craftily with His servants.
We've been over this before GIT. A man heart plans his own way, but it's God who directs his steps. Joseph's brothers planned evil against their brother, yet God directed their steps to bring about good.
I have simply been saying the exact same thing that Romans 9:18 says:
- That I believe God hardens whomever He wishes, and has mercy on whomever He wishes.
As v.16 says, I believe He does this, not on the account of what we have done, whether good or bad, but solely on the account of His sovereign free choice.
You object:
- If God predestined us to do it, then He would be unjust to hold us responsible. Why does He still find fault if no one has resisted His will?
Scriptures answer:
- Who are you, a mere man, to reply against God? You are nothing but clay in the hands of a Mighty Potter who has the right to do whatever He wishes with you, whether it be to create you for the day of destruction, or to display His riches of mercy upon you through His grace.
GIT,
you, nor any of the other OV'ers on this board, have yet to deal with any of the following passages of Scripture fairly. I have presented them time and time again, yet, each time you seem to 'miss' them. You keep objecting that God would be unjust for 'predestining' someone to do something, then hold them accountable for it. AHEM... then how do you explain these passages of Scripture:
- Jesus wept over Jerusalem because the things of the kingdom were "hidden from [their] eyes", yet He clearly tells us that it was God who hid these things from their eyes (Luke 19:41-42; Luke 10:21)
- Jesus felt compassion over those who were sick, yet it is God who is finally and decisivly in control of sickness (Matthew 14:14; Exodus 4:11; 1 Samuel 2:6)
- 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)