ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[geralduk]

Originally posted by Sozo

I am going to drop in here and ask a quick question of our Calvinist "friends".

Do you believe that a person can be saved and not accept fundemental Calvinist doctrine?

One CANNOT be saved or as it is usualy meant BORNagain unless by the WORD and the SPIRIT of God.
Thus a man is not BORNagain by CALVIN or HIS doctrin but by that which is written throughout the scriptures.
A person is not saved by knowing a theological doctrin but by a TRUE God given knowldge of HIMSELF first then of HIS NEED FOR GOD who then elnightens him about CHRIST.

The UNDERSTANDING of HOW he is saved and for WHAT COMES AS HE GROWS IN GRACE and in the knowldge of God.
Too many it would apear think they are saved or BORN again because they know the doctrin but have little understanding of the truth.

Thus those precepts and principles that CALVIN taught as they are laid out in the scriptures are for the TRANSFORMATION of the PERSON by the renewal of thier mind.

I fear CALVIN teaches so far above or beyond the BORNagain thinking that because present day christian experience is so much LESS than in his day he cannot be understood.
and 'T.U.L.I.P ' is not much help eather for it is but a very bad short hand of his 'argument' that does not bring any to a knowldge of the truth.
But rather by such means has brought a wealth of confusion.
For Calvin did NOT teach 'tulip'!
Thats a 'modern' LAZY WAY of presenting truth.(which it does so badly that it has doen more harm than good)

Therefore in answer to your question.
A person can be saved and not believe CALVIN.
But he cannot be saved if he does not believe GOD.
Nor can he be TRULY saved in the BIBLICAL way unless he comes to embrace "ALL the scriptures"
AND if he takes but the PART and makes it the whole then his christian life will be stunted and he will not enter into ALL that GOD SAVED and "aprehended him for"

 

[Z Man]

GIT,

I feel like you never even answered my post. Your reply totally ripped my post in pieces, and tried to answer each individual statement, while failing to understand the context of the post as a whole.

The main idea we are debating here is the fact that you believe God is 'unjust' if He was to 'predestine' everything, yet hold us accountable. Even though I have shown numerous passages and made the point that God CANNOT be unjust, and yes, He does predestine things and still hold us accountable, you still object! It's like you don't want to see it; you don't want Scripture to permeate through your thick skull. Your clasp on your theology is held way too tightly, and I'm afraid it's causing you to miss the oppurtunity for some real spiritual growth and understanding. You don't want to learn why I believe the way I do; You just care more about safe guarding your 'God-is-just' view. Which is ironic, because I too believe God is just.

I could reply to your post, but I feel like it won't accomplish anything. We are beating a dead horse. It seems we are talking past one another. I want to stay on topic, and I want you to deal with the context of my posts fairly. I have presented Scriptures, and you will not face them and tell us how you reconcile them with your view. You said:

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

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.

To which I agree. I will not argue with you on whether or not God is just or unjust; we both agree that He is most certainly just in anything He does.

But whenever I say that God can do whatever He wishes to people, whether it be to harden their hearts, or to have them killed, or to predestine them to do things that they may mean for harm or evil (such as Joseph's brothers), you object, stating that I'm making God out to be unjust. For some reason, you believe that if God punishes us for something He made us do, He is unjust.

The definition for justice means giving to someone what they deserve. Tell me, GIT, what does men deserve from God? What obligation does God owe men? Why would He be 'unjust' for doing as He pleases to men, whether it be creating them for the day of destruction or to receive His mercies and grace? Who are we to judge God for His actions goverened by His sovereign and perfect will? Who does God have to answer to? You?

God can kill, destroy, bring to life, afflict sickness upon, cause grief among, create calamity, create darkness, create light, create peace whenever, where ever, and how ever He so pleases, and there is no created thing in the earth or in the heavens that could ever stop Him and ask Him what He is doing. He is God! He can't be unjust, no matter what He does. If He does something you don't agree with, you can't call Him unjust.

Again, you failed to tell everyone how you reconcile Scripture with your view. If you truly believe that the way I believe in God makes Him out to be unjust, explain how you do not see an 'unjust' God in the Bible from 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)


Remember, as you always say, context is everything...

 

[1Way]

Jim - From your post #770 you quoted me saying

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?

Then you said

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.

which obviously was a statement of agreement and understanding, yet now in your latest post #799 you quote me saying

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.

and then you say.

(1) I don't know what "classic immutability" actually refers to, but if you say I deny it, I believe you, and that's fine. (2) 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.

Please explain this apparent incongruity between your first statement from apparent knowledge and understanding to a lack of knowledge. Maybe you could start by commenting on your first response where you agreed with my explanation of classic immutability.

(1) It means, God does not change in any way. Classic is used in the sense of coming from the era or heritage of the Greeks, i.e. classical music, education/philosophy, etc. The founders of divine immutability, St. Augustine, learned to accept the bible only after it could be interpreted through Plato (classical immutability), i.e. God can not change in any way. And it was this thinking that ultimately birthed Calvinism and TULIP.

Biblical mutability is where God can and does change, but does not change in the most important ways, which we already agreed. So instead of just saying immutable, I clarify between the classic view, and the biblical view, the former means in any way, the latter means only in His character and ways.

(2) The foundational belief that is primary and foundational to TULIP is the idea that God can not change in any way. It both preceded TULIP (was primary to it) and the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) naturally followed (was secondary to it). This should be intuitive so I will not offer reasoning unless the need arises. And note, I am not saying that the bible was not part of this process, it was used throughout the entire process, the real contention is how it was used, or even if it was actually abused or not.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by 1Way
Jim - From your post #770 you quoted me saying

quote: 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? Then you said

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.

which obviously was a statement of agreement and understanding, ...

I was affirming and agreeing that I can "consider a biblical faith in God that rejects that doctrine [apparently "classic divine immutability" -- which you say means "God does not change in any way]. I affirmed that I believed and agreed with the latter (biblical faith in God that reject that doctrine), and not the former "classic divine immutability" -- whatever that is -- that you describe as "God does not change in any way."

Originally posted by 1Way
... yet now in your latest post #799 you quote me saying

quote:
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.and then you say.

(1) I don't know what "classic immutability" actually refers to, but if you say I deny it, I believe you, and that's fine. (2) 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.

Please explain this apparent incongruity between your first statement from apparent knowledge and understanding to a lack of knowledge.

Please re-read what I wrote. I was agreeing with the biblical view, not the "classic" view. I do not agree with the classic view, so there is no incongruity.

Originally posted by 1Way
... Maybe you could start by commenting on your first response where you agreed with my explanation of classic immutability.

Here's where the misunderstanding lies. I didn't agree with your explanation of classic immutability. I don't even know what it means. I agreed with the biblical view that you asked me to consider.

Originally posted by 1Way
(1) It means, God does not change in any way. Classic is used in the sense of coming from the era or heritage of the Greeks, i.e. classical music, education/philosophy, etc. The founders of divine immutability, St. Augustine, learned to accept the bible only after it could be interpreted through Plato (classical immutability), i.e. God can not change in any way. And it was this thinking that ultimately birthed Calvinism and TULIP.

As far as I know, neither Calvinism nor TULIP espouses the idea of "classic immutability" as you describe it. Here are some excerpts from Augustine that affirm the point that God does not change in His essential character and attributes.

From Augustine's On The Trinity, Book 1, p 40.

Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.

From Augustine's On The Trinity, Book 4, p 124.
For the essence of God, whereby He is, has altogether nothing changeable, neither in eternity, nor in truth, nor in will;

From Augustine's On The Trinity, Book 4, p 157.
And if I am asked how the incarnation itself was brought to pass, I reply that the Word of God itself was made flesh, that is, was made man, yet not turned and changed into that which was made; but so made, that there should be there not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also the rational soul of man, and that this whole should both be called God on account of God, and man on account of man.

From Augustine's On The Trinity, Book 5, p 161.
He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly BEING itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs.

From Augustine's On The Trinity, Book 6, p 201.
... so, in order that He might also give Himself as an example of returning to fallen man who on account of the uncleanness of sins and the punishment of mortality cannot see God, “He emptied Himself;” not by changing His own divinity, but by assuming our changeableness: and “taking upon Him the form of a servant” He came to us into this world,” who “was in this world,” because “the world was made by Him;” that He might be an example upwards to those who see God, an example downwards to those who admire man, an example to the sound to persevere, an example to the sick to be made whole, an example to those who are to die that they may not fear, an example to the dead that they may rise again, “that in all things He might have the pre-eminence.”

From Augustine's On The Trinity, Book 15, p 403.
And as our word becomes an articulate sound, yet is not changed into one; so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it from us to say He was changed into flesh, For both that word of ours became an articulate sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it, not by consuming itself so as to be changed into it.

Originally posted by 1Way
Biblical mutability is where God can and does change, but does not change in the most important ways, which we already agreed. So instead of just saying immutable, I clarify between the classic view, and the biblical view, the former means in any way, the latter means only in His character and ways.

Then I continue to agree with that.

Originally posted by 1Way
(2) The foundational belief that is primary and foundational to TULIP is the idea that God can not change in any way. It both preceded TULIP (was primary to it) and the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) naturally followed (was secondary to it).

Not according to what I've read. I've provided to you excerpts from Calvin, and now from Augustine, that demonstrate this is not the case. Do you have any sources that demonstrate Calvin or Augustine espoused the so-called "Classic Immutability" doctrine?

Originally posted by 1Way
... This should be intuitive so I will not offer reasoning unless the need arises. And note, I am not saying that the bible was not part of this process, it was used throughout the entire process, the real contention is how it was used, or even if it was actually abused or not.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

The main idea we are debating here is the fact that you believe God is 'unjust' if He was to 'predestine' everything, yet hold us accountable.

yes, that is the main focus of what we are debating.

Even though I have shown numerous passages and made the point that God CANNOT be unjust, and yes, He does predestine things and still hold us accountable, you still object!

we both agree that God is just and won't ever do something unjust. the scriptures teach us both of these things. they also teach us very clearly that we are held accountable for what we do and that predestining is done in some form or another (we disagree on how much).

what i'm trying to show you is the logical problem we'd have if God predestined everything and still tried to hold us accountable.

so the real problem is that (1) predestination of everything and (2) accountability for actions, are mutually exclusive things. they cannot co-exist because the one negates the other.

this is where you disagree. you believe that the predestination of everything does not negate the accountablility of everyone where as i say it does. so our disagreement lies in logic, not scriptures. IF it's proven that they do negate each other, then we must interpret scripture accordingly.

For some reason, you believe that if God punishes us for something He made us do, He is unjust.

would you punish a dog for knocking over the plant you pushed it into?

would you punish a child for grabbing a cookie when you took the child's hand and made it grab the cookie in the first place?

the answer is no to both of these. why? because it's unjust to punish a person for what you forced them to do. and that's exactly what the situation would be if God predestined everything but held us responsible for the actions.

The definition for justice means giving to someone what they deserve.

the punishment must fit the crime, yes.

Tell me, GIT, what does men deserve from God?

the wages of sin is DEATH. that is what we deserve. both physical and spiritual.

Why would He be 'unjust' for doing as He pleases to men, whether it be creating them for the day of destruction or to receive His mercies and grace?

because no crime was committed when the fate was determined.

to be condemned for something you have not done is injustice of the extreme.

is the king justified if he treats his people badly? isn't he the king? can't he do what he wants? not if he's a good king. a good king doesn't punish people for not doing wrong.

and neither would a good God. does a good God create eternal souls to torture for eternity? it'd be one thing if they weren't alive, didn't have feelings/will/heart, and were just "objects". but have you forgotten that every single person is made in God's own image? each one has a soul, an eternal soul with a heart and feelings and a will. to create something as incredible as a human being for the sole purpose of torturing them forever in a place called hell is sadistic, cruel and would get anyone quickly labeled as a madman.

by the way, your argument here is more about God's sovereign right to do what he wants to which i agree. he can do what he wants but he will not do what is contrary to his nature. all of his actions will be in line with it. thus, anything that we can label "contrary to the nature of God" is something we can be absolutely sure God will never do.

the arbitrary predestining of people to hell for things they did not do from eternity past is quite contrary to the character of God in just about every way.

Who are we to judge God for His actions goverened by His sovereign and perfect will?

his actions will always be inline with his character. he will not go against his perfect and holy character. that is what we can judge. if some action would be contrary to the character of God, God will not do it, ever.

Again, you failed to tell everyone how you reconcile Scripture with your view. If you truly believe that the way I believe in God makes Him out to be unjust, explain how you do not see an 'unjust' God in the Bible from these passages of Scripture:

i'm not going to explain those scriptures again. it would take lots of time and accomplish little. the main problem we are dealing with here is logical anyways. i see it as logically impossible for everything to be predestined and for us to be justly held responsible for our actions. you do not. that should be the focus because most everything rests upon it.

God bless.

GIT

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

what i'm trying to show you is the logical problem we'd have if God predestined everything and still tried to hold us accountable.

so the real problem is that (1) predestination of everything and (2) accountability for actions, are mutually exclusive things. they cannot co-exist because the one negates the other.

this is where you disagree. you believe that the predestination of everything does not negate the accountablility of everyone where as i say it does. so our disagreement lies in logic, not scriptures. IF it's proven that they do negate each other, then we must interpret scripture accordingly.

And this is where I believe you are making a grave error my friend! We must not interpret scripture with our logic! It just won't do!

You are putting the cart before the horse, interpreting Scripture 'deductively' instead of 'inductively'. You are conforming the Word of God around your doctrine instead of vice versa. You believe with all your heart and mind that predestination and accountability are mutually exclusive, so no matter what Scriptures I bring forth to prove otherwise, you simply do not see it. Why? Because you have blinded yourself with your own 'theology'. You won't accept Scripture for what it says nor will you base your doctrine upon it, but rather, you read Scripture and use your doctrine, built upon your logic, to interpret it. You got it totally backwards!

would you punish a dog for knocking over the plant you pushed it into?

would you punish a child for grabbing a cookie when you took the child's hand and made it grab the cookie in the first place?

the answer is no to both of these. why? because it's unjust to punish a person for what you forced them to do. and that's exactly what the situation would be if God predestined everything but held us responsible for the actions.

.
.
.


to be condemned for something you have not done is injustice of the extreme.

What did God create man for? Do you believe that God is obligated to save men UNTIL they commit a sin? What's more important: God's glory, or the life of men?

is the king justified if he treats his people badly? isn't he the king? can't he do what he wants? not if he's a good king. a good king doesn't punish people for not doing wrong.

and neither would a good God.

Job was punished, yet he didn't do wrong. Esau was hated before he was even born! Jesus, the Son of the Living God, was murdered by the will of God, yet He did nothing wrong.

Your analogy is all wrong to begin with. A earthly king is human, just like the people he governs. God is God, and we are just mere created mortals. God can do whatever He pleases with us. He can create us and destroy us in the same day. He can grant us peace or calamity, health or sickness, life or death; it's all in His will. We are like plants in His garden; He can uproot and weed out and kill and plant whenever, where ever, and whatever He wishes. It's His garden, His clay, His creation. Doing as He pleases with it is not wrong.

does a good God create eternal souls to torture for eternity?

Not for that sole purpose. His ultimate purpose in anything He does is to display His glory.

I'll ask you again, what's more important? God's glory, or the life of men?

it'd be one thing if they weren't alive, didn't have feelings/will/heart, and were just "objects". but have you forgotten that every single person is made in God's own image? each one has a soul, an eternal soul with a heart and feelings and a will.

A will that is set against everything that has anything to do with God. We hate God. Our carnal minds are enmity towards Him. The only thing our will wants is to please itself. Our will seeks to destroy us and seperate us from THE TRUTH forever. It's our own 'damn' fault! (pun intended... )

to create something as incredible as a human being for the sole purpose of torturing them forever in a place called hell is sadistic, cruel and would get anyone quickly labeled as a madman.

I agree.

[God] can do what he wants but he will not do what is contrary to his nature. all of his actions will be in line with it. thus, anything that we can label "contrary to the nature of God" is something we can be absolutely sure God will never do.

Here's a question for ya;

• What is God's ultimate purpose for existence?

His purpose would define His nature, wouldn't you agree? Thus, if we knew His purpose, we would understand what is 'in line with His nature'...

the arbitrary predestining of people to hell for things they did not do from eternity past is quite contrary to the character of God in just about every way.

Again, what is God's character? What's more important to Him; us, or Himself?

i'm not going to explain those scriptures again. it would take lots of time and accomplish little. the main problem we are dealing with here is logical anyways. i see it as logically impossible for everything to be predestined and for us to be justly held responsible for our actions. you do not. that should be the focus because most everything rests upon it.

HELLO!! MCFLY!! ANYONE HOME!!

This is what I'm talking about. You keep saying the same thing, over and over and over again:

"i see it as logically impossible for everything to be predestined and for us to be justly held responsible for our actions."

And no matter how many times I post Scripture to try and help you out with overcoming your 'logically impossible' barrier, you continue to ignore it and murmor to yourself the samething, over and over and over again. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Again, for the.......... ummmm... well, I don't know how many times I've shown it already, but here are the Scriptures again. These passages of Scripture speak of exactly what you oppose. You believe that God cannot ordain us to do something, then hold us accountable or He would be unjust. Well then, according to the Bible and GIT's doctrine, we serve an unjust God:


- 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)

 

[karstkid]

Re: Re: Re: AHHHHH calvinism makes me furious!!!

Re: Re: Re: AHHHHH calvinism makes me furious!!!

Originally posted by MST3K

Death came into the world long before Adam, huh? Where are you getting that from? Death did not exist before Adam. To say such a thing is to take away from Christ's ministry:

Romans 5:12 and 14
Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men...Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him (Jesus)who was to come.

I Cor 15:20-22
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man (notice the small "m" = ADAM) came death, by Man (notice capital "M" = Jesus) also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Death came to NON-Human living beings before Adam. Death came to human beings only after the fall and banishment from the Garden of Eden. The Holy Mountain of God as Isaiah prophesies about, is a sort of restored Garden of Eden. In the verse from Romans 5 that you quote "just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to ALL MEN." Original sin only caused death to all men not creatures. The creatures died because God did not mean for them to live forever. Parasites, like mosquitos and tapeworms were not created after the fall of man nor because of the fall of man. Is there an 8th, 9th or 10th day of creation? The tapeworms purpose is to live within the body of it's host. I cannot imagine Adam and Eve having a tapeworm parasite in bodies while they were in the Garden. All throughout scripture do various biblical authors refer to the fallen creation as being a testimony to God's handywork and to give him glory. It is funny that you should quote from the Book of Romans. Yet it is from that same book that we read this verse, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20 How can a "fallen and imperfect" creation reflect God's attributes and His Divine nature?

 

[titan]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

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.

I am somewhat surprised by your answer as it seems indistingishable from what an Arminian might say. According to you God knew what someone's free will choice would be before it happened and then decreed it to happen that way. The Arminian would say almost exactly this but probably would say God "allowed" it to happen. What do you see is the distinction between allowed and decreed in this case?

Titan

PS

I will try to respond to your posts, but as I am little more than a lurker here I may not get to all of them.

 

[titan]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

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."

For the record I do not expect God to be nonjudgemental, but I do not believe he made anyone for the sole purpose of tormenting them eternally. Nor do I believe that the Adamic nature is fully evil. Some evil is perhaps inherent in the notion of free will, but I fail to see why God would make people fully evil.


Titan

 

[titan]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

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.

Please clarify what you mean by this. Who are you condemning here? Name a few historical figures as examples if you wish. I think most people who believe error in regard to God do so honestly. While they might inadvertently aid Satan by spreading their errors. I suspect we all do that from time to time. No man is sinless but Christ and no man is all-knowing. God requires neither.(for Sozo's sake read " all men perform morally wrong acts" as he seems to dislike the particular defintion of "sin" I am employing.)

Titan

 

[titan]

Originally posted by 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.

We may agree here, but let me clarify.

God's glory is that he always does the right thing. He cares for His creatures and this is WHY he is glorified. All things he does may lead to his glory, but that does not mean he seeks glory for its own sake. If God does something that appears evil he has a good reason for doing it. That reason is not only to glorify himself, because

1) That would not be good.

AND

2) That would not be glorious.

Titan

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by 1Way
...
(2) This is an overstatement. The issue of God and evil is one of moral separation. And frankly, this is not an open view issue, this is a morality or ethics issue. I believed this exact way before I even knew OV even existed. Pretend that moral right and wrong is a teeter totter. On one side is good, and on the other side is bad/evil. In the middle at the leverage point is God's absolute standard of righteousness, perhaps the middle is neither good nor bad, it's neutral or amoral.

Below are the verses 1Way cited, followed immediately by my response to each one:

• Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
  
  Jim replies: This is a great verse by which God warns Israel about moral relativism with respect to the righteous standard He decreed for them. But is using evil to bring about good the same as calling evil good and good evil? Don't we know from the Genesis story of Joseph and his brothers that God uses evil to bring about good? Didn't God ordain those events to save Israel from famine? Isn't it true that God nowhere refers to the evil of Joseph's brothers as "good"?
  
  Am 5:15 Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
  
  Jim replies: Again, using evil to bring about good does not require a softening of one's hatred for evil, does it. We see this in the death of Lazarus. Jesus knew He would raise Lazarus from the tomb. Jesus even waited 4 full days in order to make sure there would be no doubt that Lazarus was truly dead. Yet Jesus wept. Jesus could hate the death that sin brought, hate the fact that His dear friend had to die, while at the same time, knowing that He would momentarily be raising Lazarus from the dead.
  
  Ps 5:4 For You [are] not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You.
  
  Jim replies: Can't God can use wickedness for good, and still not take pleasure in the wickedness itself?
  
  De 32:4 [He is] the Rock, His work [is] perfect; For all His ways [are] justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright [is] He.
  
  Jim replies: Note that justice and justification are closely related terms. Isn't God justified in all that He does, even when He uses evil and bad to bring about blessing and goodness?
  
  Zep 3:5 The LORD [is] righteous in her midst, He will do no unrighteousness. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He never fails, But the unjust knows no shame.
  
  Jim replies: The Lord's righteousness is not compromised if He uses evil for good, is it?
  
  Job 34:10 "Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding: Far be it from God [to do] wickedness, And [from] the Almighty to [commit] iniquity. 11 For He repays man according to his work, And makes man to find a reward according to his way. 12 Surely God will never do wickedly, Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.
  
  Jim replies: It isn't a wicked thing to use evil for good, is it? Is it a perversion of justice to use evil for good?
  
  Ps 92:15 To declare that the LORD is upright; [He is] my rock, and [there is] no unrighteousness in Him.
  
  Jim replies: Is God's righteousness compromised by using evil for good?
  
  Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
  
  Jim replies: See question immediately above.
  
  1Jo 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
  
  Jim replies: By using evil for good, would God bring darkness into Himself?
  
  2Ch 19:7 "Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do [it], for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes."
  
  Jim replies: For God to use evil for good, would that make Him iniquitous, partial or venal?
  
  Ro 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And [why] not [say], "Let us do evil that good may come"? ——as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
  
  Jim replies: The verse warns those who would presume that, just because God has used evil for good, that doing more evil would bring about more good. Doesn't this verse itself proves the case?: God uses evil for good. Otherwise, why would He be warning them not to do more evil that good may come?
  
  Mt 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
  
  Jim replies: Couldn't God use the evil fruit of evil trees for good results? Would it be evil for a good tree to make the best of the fruit produced by the evil trees? Wouldn't it be expected of a good tree to make the best of the evil fruit that comes from the evil trees?
  
  1Way wrote: Thanks goes to Obadiah from Biblical Answers for providing some of these references.

Originally posted by 1Way
I would comment on each teaching, but Jim (if I should call you that/Hilston), I trust that you would take these wonderful bible teachings to heart and find in them the truth of the matter, how good and evil are a matter of God's absolute standard of righteousness, as such they are always mutually exclusive and should never be considered inclusive.

If God uses evil to bring about good, does that compromise your statement of mutual exclusivity?

Originally posted by 1Way
A practical way of seeing this principle of the exclusiveness working out, is to imagine what can be involved to separate good from evil. And the answer is simple, it is separated by a deed of response of the one to the other. When something evil happens, you either did the deed, or you can respond to the deed. Even a so called non-response to the deed, is of itself, a response.

What if you were to respond to the evil deed by bringing about good as a result of it?

Originally posted by 1Way
If you did the deed, then you did evil, you are evil for doing evil, there is no escaping this absolute fact. If however you respond well against evil so that you oppose it, then you have done what is right with evil. So good can come from evil through a righteous response against evil, but never by doing evil. I suggest that every good that is suggest to have somehow come from evil fits this presumption of response, same for evil somehow coming from good. To date, no one has shown me how this precept is in any way in error.

Then, after all that, it appears we are in agreement.

Originally posted by 1Way
It just so happens that we open viewers have a more clear understanding of God and His ways so that such reasoning is well accepted, but if at your foundation, your morality does not even understanding that absolute right and wrong are mutually exclusive ideas, then naturally these distinctions are not going to become easily apparent.

So it is only by secondary considerations that we OV'ers seem to universally accept a very cogent understanding of absolute morality, but again, this is not remotely a direct presupposition of open theism, it's a most reasonable and I dare say accurate understanding of the very nature of good and evil.

Points 3-6 are continued in the next post...

End Quote.


I'll be happy to hear your response to point 2 on this post. I believe you still owe a response to this post part 2, post #637, but, we have quite a full plate right now, no rush for that response, rather hear from you on current stuff, or if you want, just gloss it unless you see something very important.

 

[Big Finn]

Hilston,

Here's an example for you.

You have a son, and during his teenage years he has a problem with being a smart aleck. You warn him about his behavior and being obnoxious but he just doesn't listen. You warn him again and tell him that someone is really going to take offense at him and kick his butt. He just keeps up the same old behavior so to teach him a lesson you take him out behind the house and just beat him to a pulp to teach him the lesson that someone is going to really take offense and hit him.

Do you see anything wrong with that scenario? Do you see a difference between that and waiting till he comes home from having someone else kicked his butt after you've warned him, and then reminding him of what you've been telling him all along?

One is doing evil to get good results(basically what you say God does) and the second is using evil to teach a lesson(what God actually does). You predicted behavior without causing it, and you used that behavior to teach a lesson.

I'd say that you would be pretty universally seen as a very lousy and abusive father in the first scenario. Yet that is exactly what you accuse God of doing. It's just flat out blasphemy.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

Did you read post 773 or are you now simply ignoring me?

If you're ignoring me I'd like a specific explanation as to why.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by titan

God's glory is that he always does the right thing. He cares for His creatures and this is WHY he is glorified. All things he does may lead to his glory, but that does not mean he seeks glory for its own sake.



- emphasis mine

Isaiah 48:11
For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it ... I will not give My glory to another.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

Did you read post 773 or are you now simply ignoring me?

If you're ignoring me I'd like an specific explanation as to why.

Funny... I was wondering the same thing about you Clete....


Post 708

 

[Z Man]

Knight and the rest of you OV'ers...

Knight and the rest of you OV'ers...

Hey Knight,

Where'd ya go? A while back you said you'd reply to Scriptures I presented that, according to your view, make God unjust.

Remember?

And here are the Scriptures again, so you can see that indeed, according to your view, you serve an unjust God:

- 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)


Can you or any other OV'er for that matter, explain to us all here at TOL how it is you do not see an unjust God in Scriptures when they clearly teach us He decrees people do what He opposes, then punishes them for it?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Titan--the difference between the Arminian view of man's free will and the reformed view is that the Arminians believe God accepts from man that which He would not really PREFER, but He nevertheless permits it; so they speak of His permissive will. Then they proceed tro discount the sovereign operations of God in providences which they find uncomfortable by saying, "Well, yes. 9/11 couldn't have happened without God allowing it, but it was not His directive will. He just permitted it." A certain very well known southern baptist preacher said of 9/11, in attempting to explain it, "God did not do this." That is Arminian. The reformed quote Scripture in response to it--"Shall there be evil in the city, and the LORD has not done it?"

The Reformed view is that God decreed all the acts from man's free will which pleased Him BECAUSE He purposed to manifest His glory through them. Those free will acts which God was not pleased to use to His own glory, He restrains. So there is quite a difference. The Reformed view, the reasonableness of it, and the easiness of it on the conscience of free will creatures is often seen in Scripture. His creatures are not even CONSCIOUS of God having effected their minds. As an example, consider Abimelech, king of Gerar. Abraham represents sarah as his wife. Abimelech, because of his free will choice, does not touch Sarah. God appears to him in a dream because of Sarah. The king asks God, "will you also slay an innocent nation?" He knew that of hius own will he has chosen not to touch sarah. God then ACKNOWLEDGED the integrity of Abimelech's heart in the matter, then told Abimelech that His restraint upon him was the reason that he had not chosen to touch Sarah.

You see, the king was praising himself, apparently, in his heart. He was priding himself that he had not violated Sarah. Then God appeared in a dream to let him know that rather than ascribe the credit to himself, he should realize God's gracious restraint. So in this incident we see that God's restraint upon him did not chafe him in the least; rather, it left him with a feeling of self respect, BUT he was failing to be properly grateful to God. Therefore God appeared in a dream to let him know that though he had acted from his own free will, God's gracious hand of restraint was also there.

In these days, men are ungrateful to god for His common grace restraint upon themselves. They are like Abimilech. Because of God's restraint upon them, they imagine that they in themselves are much better than what they really are.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Big Finn

Hilston,

Here's an example for you.

You have a son, and during his teenage years he has a problem with being a smart aleck. You warn him about his behavior and being obnoxious but he just doesn't listen. You warn him again and tell him that someone is really going to take offense at him and kick his butt. He just keeps up the same old behavior so to teach him a lesson you take him out behind the house and just beat him to a pulp to teach him the lesson that someone is going to really take offense and hit him.

The whole approach is wrong. I would have disciplined him long before it became a habit. To beat him to a pulp so long after the problem began would be wrong. Swats to the backside, or removal of privileges, or some other immediate consequence to his behavior would be in order, not a nebulous threat of some future possibility.

Originally posted by Big Finn Do you see anything wrong with that scenario?

See above.

Originally posted by Big Finn
Do you see a difference between that and waiting till he comes home from having someone else kicked his butt after you've warned him, and then reminding him of what you've been telling him all along?

I see something wrong with both scenarios.

Originally posted by Big Finn
... One is doing evil to get good results (basically what you say God does)

Wrong.

Originally posted by Big Finn
... and the second is using evil to teach a lesson(what God actually does).

I agree that God uses evil to teach lessons, but He also uses evil to bring His decrees to fruition, which is point of what I'm discussing (not "lessons").

Originally posted by Big Finn
You predicted behavior without causing it, and you used that behavior to teach a lesson.

Again, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about using evil to bring about decreed ends.

Originally posted by Big Finn
I'd say that you would be pretty universally seen as a very lousy and abusive father in the first scenario.

Both scenarios describe an abusive father.

Originally posted by Big Finn
Yet that is exactly what you accuse God of doing. It's just flat out blasphemy.

Wrong. You're not even close.

Jim

 

[Big Finn]

Hilston,

I'm right on the money as far as what you are teaching. In your theology God ordained(declared, willed, whatever you want to call it) misery, death, pain, and suffering upon humanity because He ordained sin just to bring glory to Himself. If that isn't an abusive Father I don't know what is.

BTW, I'd agree that my scenario was lacking in describing God's behavior for in my example the father was delinquent in both instances. However, that failing does not negate my point.