ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Rolf Ernst]

Titan, Post #776--How can you trust God unless you know He will not do evil to you?

God does evil to no one in the sense of doing evil Himself as He exercises judgements against men. He does execute judgement on evil. In this regard, "shall there be calamity in the city and the Lord has not done it?" There are many examples in Scripture of God executing judgement through hard providences.

BUT the certainty is that He WILL execute judgement upon all those who do NOT trust Him.

The certainty that He will not do evil to those who trust Him is that to those who DO trust Him, He makes "all things work together for good the them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose."; that is, to those who trust Him.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Titan, Post 776, page 50--You ask if it is conceivable God could glorify Himself by breaking His promise?

No, because "All the promises of God are yea, and amen through Him to the glory of God." He never breaks His promise.

 

[1Way]

response to post 775

Jim - As to point 1

Because God's word is consistent and conclusive on that issue. Fundamentally, we are supposed to trust God's word because He good and righteous and loving and just and faithful and worthy to be praised. So, because God's word shows a God that does not know the entire future exhaustively, that notion is nowhere clearly taught in the bible, yet what is clearly taught is that He does not know every yet future outcome. So it is only reasonable to take what is more clear as being a congruent guide with things that are less clear.

You said

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.

Sure, while it is certainly true that perhaps many do not take a systematic and bible wide approach to their belief system, conversely, and most certainly, some do. Wouldn't you agree that one presupposition that is fair to bring to the bible, is that we should set aside our theological presuppositions prior to reading and learning from God's word. As for me, that has been my approach, to humble my own thoughts and presumptions as being at best tentative, and then read God's word as being at least supremely authoritative and right, and the work to rightly conform my faith to God's word.

I said

See, that is the foundational issue, there is nothing more foundational in terms of what an open theist must affirm than that.

Which you chopped the meaning conveyed, so that now anyone reading this discussion would have to go back and relocate (sometimes no easy task) and then re-read what I actually said, including the proper context, and then relocate this reference to what I said, and then remember my point respecting the wider context, and then read your response in order to stay abreast of our conversation. (That is a hassle that can always be precluded by you simply providing sufficient contextual relevance).

There is no more foundational issue than whether or not the future holds at least some contingency or uncertainty. To which you said

There is; what is the foundation for your assumption that the future is partially open?

Not so. What is more important that how you arrived at a truth, is if the truth is valid and accurate or not. You can arrive at the truth in a sloppy and problematic manner, but if you are right, you are still right. Don't worry about me and how I approach arriving at conclusions Jim, deal with the truth of the matter at hand first. That is the contention, nothing else.

But in order to demonstrate the importance of answering with due correspondence, here is my point-counterpoint. I've pretty much already given it, God's word, which is eternal truth, denies the closed view very efficiently. The Open View is thus apparent. Secondly, your assumption that the Open View holds the future as being partly open, is false. You can not be sort of pregnant, either you are or you are not. Please try to stay more concurrent.


For the umpteenth time now, you have greatly offended me and God with your constant presumption that God murders, and so I must cease accepting this crap. FOR THE LAST TIME, AND FOR GOODNESS SAKES JIM, STOP WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT GOD MAKES WICKEDNESS HAPPEN!!!

In the way truth and life
1Way

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by titan

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.

Hello Titan.

I see Rolf is doing a good job of explaining some issues concerning your questions. I agree with what he says, and I'm pretty sure that generally speaking, all of us whom you label as 'Calvinist' (like Hilston, I do not like the label, but unlike Hilston, I do not mind being called one for the sake of argument) would give the same response.

I don't want to echo Rolf's posts, but I would like to refer you to read two excellent articles by John Piper in which I think gives an outstanding, detailed explaination to the majority of your questions. If you are really serious about finding answers to your questions, then I urge you to read them.

For the first five questions concerning evil and the glorification of God, I propose this article,

• "Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained That Evil Be?"

For your last question about God glorifying Himself, I propose this article,

• "Is God For Us Or For Himself?"

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Titan, post 776, page 50-- You ask, "if you don't trust Him how can you be saved?" You can't. The remedy is to learn about Him, or be taught by Him, because "God has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and Godliness THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIM."

"Those who know your name will put their trust in you."; that is, those who understand the way He is, will trust Him. That is because the way He is instills confidence in Him.

Consequently, when someone misrepresents Him or His word, they are working with Satan and AGAINST anyone who might be attempting to find salvation by coming to the knowledge of Him. Maintaining error in regard to God is therefore extremely wicked, and should never be countenanced. Paul's fury against false teaching was never hidden.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Titan, Post 776--You ask, "who does He want to glorify Himself to"--

He WILL be glorified before the whole earth, all creatures.

Why should He care? The manifestation of God's glory comes through Him manifesting His attributes. His glory is in Himself, and the more His attributes are properly displayed, the more His glory is shown, and the more people will trust in--rely upon--Him. Therefore, as His determination to get to Himself that glory is more fully realized, the more fully mankind is benefitted. So His determination to receive that glory which is rightfully His is not a vain, egotistical seeking for glory like we see in men, but is, besides His proper due, the benefit of His creatures. So He seeks His glory because He cares for His creatures.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Z Man, Post #784--Thanks for joining in with me on these questions, friend. It reminds me of the verse which states that we are "laborers together" with Him and for Him. It also reminds me of how much easier a day's work in the field is when there are others along with us.

Thanks again. You have labored with great patience and persistence. the Lord bless you.

 

[Big Finn]

Why should He care? The manifestation of God's glory comes through Him manifesting His attributes. His glory is in Himself, and the more His attributes are properly displayed, the more His glory is shown, and the more people will trust in--rely upon--Him. Therefore, as His determination to get to Himself that glory which is more fully realized, the more fully mankind is benefitted. So His determination to receive that glory which is rightfully His is not a vain, egotistical seeking for glory like we see in men, but is, besides His proper due, the benefit of His creatures. So He seeks His glory because He cares for His creatures.

Ah, yes, if I really believed that God actually ordained the existence of sin, it would really make me love and and trust Him alright. Just knowing that He would bring such misery, death, and suffering into a creation that didn't know what those concepts or realities were would make me really love Him. NOT!!

And, oh, how it would make me love and trust Him to know that He created billions of people who never accepted Him just to destroy them so He could look good. Oh, what a lovely picture of God. What a trustworthy person. Oh so loving, kind, and thoughtful, not willing that any should perish. Well, except for the billions of those who He ordained to destruction from the foundations of the world that is.

Ah, yes, what a trustworthy god that is.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Big Finn

Ah, yes, if I really believed that God actually ordained the existence of sin, it would really make me love and and trust Him alright. Just knowing that He would bring such misery, death, and suffering into a creation that didn't know what those concepts or realities were would make me really love Him. NOT!!

And, oh, how it would make me love and trust Him to know that He created billions of people who never accepted Him just to destroy them so He could look good. Oh, what a lovely picture of God. What a trustworthy person. Oh so loving, kind, and thoughtful, not willing that any should perish. Well, except for the billions of those who He ordained to destruction from the foundations of the world that is.

Ah, yes, what a trustworthy god that is.

Who are you to demand anything from God, let alone blessings???

Job 2:10
Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Z Man, Post #784--Thanks for joining in with me on these questions, friend. It reminds me of the verse which states that we are "laborers together" with Him and for Him. It also reminds me of how much easier a day's work in the field is when there are others along with us.

Thanks again. You have labored with great patience and persistence. the Lord bless you.

God bless. :thumb:

 

[Big Finn]

Who are you to demand anything from God, let alone blessings???

I'm not demanding anything. I'm just taking Him at His word. He says, taste and see that the Lord is good. He proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth....

He said, ...prove me now herewith.... While the specific is related to tithing, the principle holds true for all things.

Jesus said, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I expect Him to be trustworthy and to keep His word. If He isn't, He isn't worth loving. Do you love those who would harm your family, your relatives, and your fellow man? I expect anyone who says they are faithful to keep their word. That isn't a demand, that's a reasonable expectation brought about by the words of the One making the statement.

Trust only comes from experience, and anyone who isn't trustworthy doesn't earn trust. God has long ago earned my trust, therefore I expect Him to act exactly in accordance with His own expressed definition of His character. Anything else is an unreasonable expectation. Jesus showed us God. And Jesus didn't harm, He lived only to heal, serve, bless, and save others. Jesus would never have done what you claim His Father would do, therefore I know His Father wouldn't do it either.

The proof is elementary my dear Watson, er, I mean, Z Man.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Big Finn

I expect Him to be trustworthy and to keep His word. If He isn't, He isn't worth loving. Do you love those who would harm your family, your relatives, and your fellow man? I expect anyone who says they are faithful to keep their word.

God's faithfulness and promises are not to 'keep' you and your family 'safe'. His faithfulness and promises are not to keep mankind from harm, but to display His upmost Glory within Himself. He's not concerned much about your comfort. His purpose is not to 'bless' you with a life of comfort and pleasure and ease. You are not the center of God's universe...

 

[1Way]

Big Finn - Now let me get this straight, trusting in someone should naturally involve them being ,,,

AN HONEST TRUSTWORTHY PERSON ...

(!?! That is !?! what you are saying, right !?!)


Hmmm, wow, ,,, that's a tuffy, hmmm, I don't know.

You know how it goes, if it sounds to good to be true, it's probably not true! Talk about a deep and profoundly complex issue.

Let me read some commentaries and do some word studies on the Hebrew and Aramaic primary sources till I finally find something really good for my side from a lexicon somewhere, and of course I should ask my Sunday School class about this before I make any firm comments one way or the other.

 

[Big Finn]

God's faithfulness and promises are not to 'keep' you and your family 'safe'. His faithfulness and promises are not to keep mankind from harm, but to display His upmost Glory within Himself. He's not concerned much about your comfort. His purpose is not to 'bless' you with a life of comfort and pleasure and ease. You are not the center of God's universe...

Hmmm... As I didn't say anything close to what you allege I did I have to assume you either can't comprehend what you read, or that you deliberately misrepresented what I said.

Anyway, Jesus said God notices when even a sparrow falls, and that I'm worth far more than many sparrows are to God. He even said God knows me well enough to even know how many hairs I have on my head. I'll take Jesus' word over yours every day. He knows His Father much better than you do. He's exactly like His Father so He would know. Besides, your picture of God is so perverse that you make the devil look like like a saint compared to Him. I'll stick with what I know to be true about God.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Ever notice how badly you misrepresent God???

 

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by 1Way



Big Finn - Now let me get this straight, trusting in someone should naturally involve them being ,,,

AN HONEST TRUSTWORTHY PERSON ...

(!?! That is !?! what you are saying, right !?!)


Hmmm, wow, ,,, that's a tuffy, hmmm, I don't know.

You know how it goes, if it sounds to good to be true, it's probably not true! Talk about a deep and profoundly complex issue.

Let me read some commentaries and do some word studies on the Hebrew and Aramaic primary sources till I finally find something really good for my side from a lexicon somewhere, and of course I should ask my Sunday School class about this before I make any firm comments one way or the other.

:crackup:

 

[Big Finn]

Big Finn - Now let me get this straight, trusting in someone should naturally involve them being ,,,

AN HONEST TRUSTWORTHY PERSON ...

(!?! That is !?! what you are saying, right !?!)


Hmmm, wow, ,,, that's a tuffy, hmmm, I don't know.

Well, I know it is a deep and profoundly confusing issue as to what kind of people earn our trust, but I hope you can find some help in studying the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic in which the Bible was originally written, and about 30 commentaries. If you study long and hard for a few years you will be able to find out the truth about this. It won't be easy, but with lots of effort you will be able to figure it out. I just know it.

Hey, maybe you can even get a government grant to study this!! :chuckle:

 

[1Way]

It is a crack up. I go for what I call "moral congruity", who needs a term,
it's just common sense really. That is to say that the deed and the deed
doer/causer are assessed synonymously. Now get ready, get your thinking
caps on, check out this tremendously mind boggling and difficult concept.

If you do an evil deed, you are evil for doing it.



Yet, what do we have from the Calvinistic crowd? An "absolutely good" God
who decrees/causes evil/sin to happen.

It's such a sick thing they are trying to pass off as bible truth. It gets outright
blasphemous sometimes with them. In truth, the simple is preferred. Also, :chuckle:
if the proposition makes God out into being insane, it most likely should be
rejected for not being true. As a rule of thumb anyway.

 

[Big Finn]

It is a crack up. I go for what I call "moral congruity", who needs a term, it's just common sense really.

Yup, it is common sense. It's also Biblicaly supported common sense, for Christ says a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. Any theology that says God, the ultimate good tree, is bringing forth evil fruit--sin as a whole and individual sins as specifics--is denying this basic truth that Christ stated so plainly and clearly. I see it as basically impossible to get around and not place yourself in a position of having to say, in essence, that black is white, and that evil is good. And this second phrase is something that the Bible specifically warns us about doing--calling evil good.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by 1Way

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.

I don't know what "classic immutability" actually refers to, but if you say I deny it, I believe you, and that's fine. You say that you "see that the 5 points of Calvinism are now weakened to the point of disintegration." If I represented Calvinism, that might be true. But I don't. You could say, "Hilston's theology of the atonement is now weakened to the point of disintegration," and that would be more accurate. Of course, I'd be interested in your help in understanding why that is the case.

Originally posted by 1Way
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

By the way, I should point out that, whatever "classic immutability" is, here is what Calvinism claims. I'm not saying that I agree, but I offer it for your own use.

"Our iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person reaching to him could be a medium of restoring peace. But who could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them, with their parent, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God behoved to become our Emmanuel, i.e., God with us; and in such a way, that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined; ... What, then, must it have been, when by fatal ruin he was plunged into death and hell, defiled by so many stains, made loathsome by corruption; in fine, overwhelmed with every curse? ... Who could do this unless the Son of God should become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? ... Therefore God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only-begotten Son." [Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (transl., Beveridge), Book II, pp. 401-403, emphases added]

"... although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin's womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning." [ibid. 414]

Jim

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Z Man,

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.

answer me this. what was david's sin? what wrong did he do? why did he feel bad? you must use scripture to back this up.

Why do you, a mere man, reply against God and call Him unjust for doing as He so pleases?

something is not Just because God does it. God does it because it is just. do you see the difference? do you understand what it means for God's character to be just? it means that he DOES NOT DO injustice. his character will not allow it. anything that is unjust is something that God will not do.

That doesn't even make sense. Why would God have to harden a hardened heart?

who says there can't be different levels of hardness? how do you know that there are just 2 levels: hardened and not hardened?

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." ' "

and what number on the list of plagues was the firstborn taken? TEN? oh that's right. it was the LAST ONE. thus, it's clearly shown that God foresaw (yes that's even possible in the OV) that Pharaoah would not let them go on his own and thus God was going to harden his heart as a judgement, and demand one last time that he let the people go.

by the way, you are assuming (and i'm not sure you realize it) that because pharaoh had a hardened heart that it was impossible for him to submit to God's request or repent of his ways. nowhere is this stated in scripture.

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...

i object to your interpretation of scripture that makes God violate his own holy and perfect and just character.

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?

cause it's not the scriptures that are the problem. it's what you are reading into them that is the problem (like your assumption above).

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.

do you even read your own scriptures? does it not say "BUT NOW"?? does not the word "now" mean that it is different from before? surely it does! they used to see! but NOW they do not! that passages helps you none in the least.

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.

and where did i say that God must reveal all things to us or else he is unjust?

must a CEO tell his subordinates all of his dealings? must the government tell the people all things? NO! of course not. there are always going to be things that are hidden from us and there is nothing that prevents God from hiding things from certain people either.

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.

and which of those verses says God controls ALL sicknesses? keep searching..........

Oh, it most certainly is a problem!

you wish :chuckle:

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".

no, that was not the reason they were plagued. they were plagued for what they did. what God did was itself a punishment. nowhere (that i've looked) do we see any reference to them being punished for what God did to them. i'm beginning to think you don't have the slightest idea of what injustice is and how it applies to God.

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.

you're avoiding the question.....

If God has predestined everything then we are mere puppets on strings being pulled by God. the hold us accountable for our actions would be injustice by definition.

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.

until you see that Romans 9 is about Israel you will keep interpreting it falsely.

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

fairly---i.e. according to the way Z Man interprets them.