ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Yorzhik]

Hilston wrote:
Did I hear you right? Are you saying God wanted Jesus to suffer and die?

-and-

Are you then saying that God wanted Jesus to be murdered?

Yes, indirectly. What God REALLY wanted was a way to allow men to have a relationship with Him. The only way to accomplish that was to pay for their sins with the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus was willing.

Hilston wrote:
You seem to disagree with 1Way here. He claims that God never uses evil to accomplish good.

I don't think we disagree. God uses evil; He used the evil of the Joseph's brothers to save the Israelites. He used the evil of the Israelites to accomplish the sacrifice that pays the penalty for our sins.

Hilston wrote:
On my view, God doesn't violate free will. It is impossible to violate free will, by definition.

-and-

Hilston previously wrote:They chose what they wanted to do, and God put it in their hearts to want that.

To force a "want" in someone's heart is the very essence of violating their free will.

Yorzhik quote McMahon:
When calvinists present their take on Pharaoh - that God hardened his heart to make him do evil - I always ask them: if Pharaoh was totally depraved and incapable of doing good, how is it that God had to harden his heart to compel him to do evil? Wouldn't Pharaoh do evil all by himself?

Hilston replied:
Thomas McMahon, like just about every Arminian and Open Theist I've encountered, has either never read, or cannot remember, or deliberately mischaracterizes what total depravity means.

I'm probably in the same boat as Tim. Even so, I don't agree that a TD person is unable to do good. Is that what Tim is missing here? Could you tell us how TD works?

Hilston wrote:
God uses evil for good??? Is McMahon an Open Theist? This flip-flopping is baffling.

It's no flip-flop. But maybe this will help; if someone hits you, then you have the right to force them into court. If there is an evil king, God has the right to force them or coerce them to their undoing. They strike at God, and God then has the right to strike back. If that means God wants them to fight in a single battle that culminates in a single time and place, but they don't want to go, God has the right to force them into that single time and place to accomplish their demise. It is similar to you having someone who wronged you dragged into the town square to be judged. Neither you, nor God, is violating free will in either case.

 

[Z Man]

Just sticking my two cents worth in here:

Originally posted by Yorzhik

If someone hits you, then you have the right to force them into court. If there is an evil king, God has the right to force them or coerce them to their undoing. They strike at God, and God then has the right to strike back.

Then? Only then?

I hope that's not what you meant...

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Just sticking my two cents worth in here:

Then? Only then?

I hope that's not what you meant...

What are you saying Z Man? Are you suggesting that God could do something unjust and call it good by virtue of the fact that God is the one who did the unjust act? Is that what you are saying?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Welcome back! TOL hasn't been the same without ya!

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

What are you saying Z Man? Are you suggesting that God could do something unjust and call it good by virtue of the fact that God is the one who did the unjust act? Is that what you are saying?

Where'd you get that from? Yorzhik said:

• "If there is an evil king, God has the right to force them or coerce them to their undoing. They strike at God, and God THEN has the right to strike back."

My point was to raise the question, "Who does Yorzhik think he is?" How can he determine God's rights?

I am by no means declaring that God does things that are 'unjust' and then calls them good. I simply state that everything God wishes to do IS good. You, however, turn around and label some of His actions 'unjust'.

No man can tell God what He can and cannot do. Whatever He wishes to do is good. Call it whatever you like, but whether you think it's unjust or not doesn't change the fact that He will do whatever He pleases, apart from what you desire in most cases...

P.S. Welcome back! TOL hasn't been the same without ya!

Thanks. It's good to be back. :thumb:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:wave: Z Man.

 

[Yorzhik]

Whatever He wishes to do is good

And that would be the foundation upon which ye err.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

Yorzhik has it right depending upon what you mean exactly.

My question to you wasn't whether God's actions are good or not, we know, of course, that they are. The question is WHY are they good, or how do we know that they are good. By what standard do we determine the goodness of any action including the actions of God Himself? Are they good by fiat, in that they are good by virtue of the fact that God said so or that God did them, or are they good by some absolute definition of what "good" is?
While you were gone (and perhaps even before that) Hilston and I were in a discussion on the same topic and I suppose that this is the question that got this whole thread started in the first place. I believe that I established the answer by posting part of the discussion between Zakath and Bob Enyart in Battle Royale VII. Posts which I never got any response too, by the way, except for Hilston making the comment that I (actually Bob Enyart) don't even come close to solving anything but without any explanation as to why.
I really would like to continue the discussion with you and whomever else would like to put their two cents in. In order to facilitate that more effectively I have started a new thread so that the material can be more easily accessed by everyone who wishes to participate.

Is God Really Good?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Knight

:wave: Z Man.

:wave: Sup Knight.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

And that would be the foundation upon which ye err.

Explain.

 

[Yorzhik]

Explain

That God can do evil and that evil is good because God did it.

 

[Yorzhik]

BTW, Romans 9 is about choosing for service (not salvation), and that can be either individual or corporate.

 

[Clete]

The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is painfully clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles and that God is justified in having done so.
It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summations of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief…

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he’s just been saying…

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

Now that by itself is enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to the potter and the clay story. This story is a reference to a passage in Jeremiah let’s take a look at it so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made reference to it. Perhaps that will shed additional light on the point he was making.

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Hmm! :think:
Imagine that! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder he referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point, they both use the same analogy for the same reasons, for all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that Romans 9 applies the principle described in Jeremiah 18 directly to the nation of Israel.
Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn’t start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole thing is on one issue and one issue only. That being God’s absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that He promised if that nation does evil in His sight. It’s no more complicated than that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[natewood3]

Clete,

You are right if you mean that Romans 9 is not a treatise on predestination or election. However, I would not agree if you mean that it is not about individual salvation. Paul's grief is over his INDIVIDUAL brethren that are perishing, when they are supposed to be the ones promised the blessings of God. It now seems that they are cut off from Christ and the Gentiles are receiving the blessings promised to Israel. However, Paul makes it very clear:

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

The word and promises of God have not failed because salvation was NEVER promised to every individual Jew. Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is not promised based on ethnicity or race; salvation is ultimately based upon God. THAT is why Paul brings in election, to show WHY the word of God has not failed for Israel.

You are right about one thing though: Paul uses the PRINCIPLE from the OT passages he quotes.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by natewood3

Clete,

You are right if you mean that Romans 9 is not a treatise on predestination or election. However, I would not agree if you mean that it is not about individual salvation. Paul's grief is over his INDIVIDUAL brethren that are perishing, when they are supposed to be the ones promised the blessings of God. It now seems that they are cut off from Christ and the Gentiles are receiving the blessings promised to Israel. However, Paul makes it very clear:

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Rom 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

The word and promises of God have not failed because salvation was NEVER promised to every individual Jew. Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is not promised based on ethnicity or race; salvation is ultimately based upon God. THAT is why Paul brings in election, to show WHY the word of God has not failed for Israel.

You are right about one thing though: Paul uses the PRINCIPLE from the OT passages he quotes.

I am right about a lot more that that!
The whole passage is about Israel from beginning to end. It is not about individuals. Even the portion you quote is not about individuals. It talks specifically about Israel (a nation of indiviuals) and children (plural) and offspring (plural). The point is that you (an individual) want to be counted as part of the offspring (group) that is done through faith not through the law (which is the whole theme of the whole book of Romans and Paul's entire ministry,.but that is not the point of this particualr passage, at best it is a side point. The theme of the passage itself is Israel having been cut off and why that happened, thus the referrence to Jeremiah 18.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

natewood3, neither has every individual Jew been counted in service to God, many (most?) where working directly against God.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel. It is painfully clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles and that God is justified in having done so.
It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summations of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief…


And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he’s just been saying…


Now that by itself is enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to the potter and the clay story. This story is a reference to a passage in Jeremiah let’s take a look at it so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made reference to it. Perhaps that will shed additional light on the point he was making.



Hmm! :think:
Imagine that! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder he referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point, they both use the same analogy for the same reasons, for all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that Romans 9 applies the principle described in Jeremiah 18 directly to the nation of Israel.
Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn’t start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole thing is on one issue and one issue only. That being God’s absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that He promised if that nation does evil in His sight. It’s no more complicated than that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:first: POTD

 

[Clete]

Wow! Thank you Knight!

It's been quite a while since I got POTD! I started to think I was slipping.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

That God can do evil and that evil is good because God did it.

Where did I ever state that God does evil and that it is good solely because God did it???

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Where did I ever state that God does evil and that it is good solely because God did it???

HERE and HERE just to name two.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

HERE and HERE just to name two.

I seriously think that we are talking past one another. You gravely misunderstood both of those posts, obviously. No where did I state that God does evil.

Let me ask you a question Clete; list some things that God CANNOT do. Or better yet, list some 'evil actions' that He CANNOT 'predestine' us to do.