ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi Clete,



Then God is not absolutely sovereign! That's my point here. Your view here needs to explain how God can be called absolutely sovereign now, when evil happens outside of God's control, and causes harm he didn't want to happen.

He is sovereign because people have been given the authority to live their own lives by God. They are not in a position of authority over God, thus they are not absolutely sovereign. God does have authority over them and every thing else and so He is absolutely sovereign. Again, sovereignty is not about control, it is about authority.

Which is one reason I believe God does control evil! If there's a lion in town, wouldn't you rather it be under complete control? How is it better, if it's not?

There have been people killed by wild animals that tray into town Lee; old woman trampled by Moose and the like. Are you seriously suggesting (of course you are) that God was in complete control of that animal and caused it to trample someone's grandmother while she was walking her groceries to the car?

I agree! But "highest authority" does not mean "absolute sovereignty" (let's keep the suffix on this word! Absolute Sovereign is different) in the way I think it was being described.

That's just it, the way you were thinking is erroneous. "highest authority" is the very definition of the word 'sovereign'. And if you are at the absolute tip top of the heap, then you are the absolute sovereign.
And no it is not different without the suffix. That's the reason I use it that way. It communicates the idea more clearly; it is a position of authority not an act of control.

I think Open Theists want to say this about God, but I don't think they can do this, and remain consistent.

You would be right if we held to the same definition of the word that you do, which we do not.

But that's not what this verse says! Being loved by God is a necessary and sufficient condition, for us to love. God's love, in and of itself, causes love.

That is not what the verse means. God's love gives us the opportunity to love Him. His love would necessarily have to come first because without it we would no longer exist. And so in a very real sense the reason I am able to love God is because He first loved me. Not because His love CAUSES me to love Him but because it affords me the ability to do so.

It's pejorative, too! No, I wouldn't put it that way, it's not "He loved Big Brother" against his will, like in George Orwell's story. But does free will even play a part in human love?

If it does not then it is not love. It can't be because of the definition of the word "love".

There's indications to the contrary, in Scripture:

Song of Solomon 2:7 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and by the does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

So don't love even in this human way by your own choice! Don't we even have this in our language expressions? "Falling in love," "A match made in heaven," "They were meant for each other."

We are not talking about biological infatuation or lustful sorts of love but real love, the sort of love that is an act of the will not the whim of one's emotional state of mind.

The truth is what we need, for sure! I think the problem here is that people tend to view the end of the process, when people can indeed love freely, and forget about how they got that way! They didn't get that way by generating love on their own, they got that way, I believe, because someone loved them, because God did.

The point in asking my question was to point out that what we believe is of no consequence to the truth. What is true will remain true whether we believe it or not.
We either have free will or we do not. If I believe that we do have free will and we actually don't, my belief to the contrary doesn't change the facts.
The point is that saying things like "I believe..." when trying to determine the truth, weakens the strength of your argument. Saying such things here doesn't do much damage because we are both believers but I recommend dropping such things from your vernacular when talking with skeptics because you will likely be met with "why should I care what you believe, I'm only interested in what you can prove!". Beliefs can be blown off really easily by those who don't share those same beliefs. The truth however cannot be rationally denied.

Well, so then show me how my interpretation is wrong! If "love is as strong as death," human love, then what about God's love?

In short it is wrong because you are applying the verse in ways in which it was not intended. You have totally ripped the verse completely out of its intended context and used it to support your pretext of predestination. The verse not talking about predestination not does it have any proper application to it. You are reading gigantic amounts of information into that text that very simply is not there.

Your interpretation is reminiscent of Benny Hinn's interpreting "by His stripes we are healed" to mean that all Christians should be free of disease and illness. Or the Seventh Day Adventist using the ten commandments to insist that we should meet for church on Saturday. Or Oral Roberts using the "speak to that mountain..." passage as proof that one's words have power to speak whatever reality you want into being.
It's called proof texting and it doesn't work because you cannot work from a specific verse and work out the overview, you have to go the other way around. You must first have a clear grasp of the overview and then the details become easy.

Indeed, I agree with what Open Theists (and Arminians and others) say about the love of God for everyone. Don't know about the measurement, but I'm just trying to hug the truth! Prov. 3:18...

I can tell that you are sincere in your quest for the truth but I'm curious how you can find anything in Open Theism compatible with Calvinism. They seem to me to be complete opposites.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

mockery gains you no ground. my position here however is not even one of necessity. here is greg boyd's thoughts on the verse, with which i agree.

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=463

We can get big, theological ministers to debate for us all day. You, Greg Boyd, and I, John Piper. However, I was more interested in your thoughts, which were very amusing (there's a time before God creates us in which we still exist... ). But since you resorted to hiding behind the hyretical man known as Greg Boyd, I guess you leave me no choice than to come forth and show how ludicris his claims are against the holiness and sovereignty and majestic glory that God bestows upon lowly, filthy, unrighteous, sinful man.

• We thus have reason to believe that Jeremiah was free to accept or reject the divine appointment announced in this verse. We know about God’s prenatal intentions for his life only because he, unlike many others, did obey the calling of God.

In the first part of Greg Boyd's summary concerning Jeremiah 1:5, he basically says that Jeremiah could have made God out to be a liar by living a life totally unlike the one God said He had already ordained Jeremiah to live. Who is able to thwart the will of God? Do you really suppose man is able to do such a thing? Job didn't, and made it very clear that no man could thwart His purposes. Why do you support a man (Greg Boyd) who goes to great lengths in reducing the greatness of God's diety to nothing more than having no more power than man?

In the last part of his summary, Boyd essentially states that the Bible only tells us success stories of God's 'predictions'. All the other ones that did not happen as God had ordained must not of made it in the Bible.

Either way, to declare that man is able to bring to nothing God's plans is blasphemy. Who are we that He is even mindful of us, let alone that we are able to bring God to His knees in confusion and surprise, wondering why His plans didn't go according to His great counsel!

how would God become a liar?

If Jeremiah had the ability to reject God's plan for him and NOT become a prophet, then God would have been a liar. It's that simple.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man
If Jeremiah had the ability to reject God's plan for him and NOT become a prophet, then God would have been a liar. It's that simple.

God said that He would detroy Ninevah in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) and then He "did not do it" (Jonah 3:10).

Does this make God a liar?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

God said that He would detroy Ninevah in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) and then He "did not do it" (Jonah 3:10).

Does this make God a liar?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I've debated this same passage of Scripture back in May, in the thread 'An open challenge to all closed thesits...'. Anyways, my response is contained here in Post #348 of that thread.

Now let me ask you a question: If God intended on destroying Ninevah, why send Jonah?

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

By the way, I'm curious to know how you would define "inductive Bible study"? Could you give me an example of it?

I ask because I had a similar conversation with someone at the church I went to in Glenpool and it turned out that he was actually not talking about inductive Bible study at all. I'm not suggesting that the same is happening here, I'm just curious, that's all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man If God intended on destroying Ninevah, why send Jonah?

On the chance that they would repent.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

By the way, I'm curious to know how you would define "inductive Bible study"? Could you give me an example of it?

I ask because I had a similar conversation with someone at the church I went to in Glenpool and it turned out that he was actually not talking about inductive Bible study at all. I'm not suggesting that the same is happening here, I'm just curious, that's all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Inductive Bible study is basing certain theological conclusions solely on what is taught to us through Scriptures. For example, I read several passages that state God is holy. Therefor, I conclude that God must be holy.

Deductive Bible study would be me declaring God is holy, then searching the Scriptures to prove that conclusion.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

On the chance that they would repent.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But you said 'God said that He would detroy Ninevah in 40 days'. If He really planned to destroy them, why did He send Jonah to mess up His own plans?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

I've debated this same passage of Scripture back in May, in the thread 'An open challenge to all closed thesits...'. Anyways, my response is contained here in Post #348 of that thread.

Your response, even if it had merit (which it does not), misses the point.

God said (prophecied) that He would detroy Nineveh in 40 days and that did not happen. Does that make God a liar?

Yes or no?

I don't care about the why just yet, it doesn't matter. The point is that this is the EXACT SAME form of argument that you just used with GIT to say that if Jeremiah had rebelled against God and not become the prophet that God wanted him to become that God would therefore be a liar. It's the exact same argument. How is it that you justify calling God a liar in one circumstance that didn't even actually happen but refuse to do so in similar circumstance that did actually happen?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

But you said 'God said that He would detroy Ninevah in 40 days'. If He really planned to destroy them, why did He send Jonah to mess up His own plans?

Because He didn't want to do it. Just like you don't want to disown your children if they become homos or murderers. Had Nineveh not repented, however, He very definately would have detroyed them just as He said He would.

But as I pointed out in my last post, this is beside the point. The point is that God said that one thing would happen and something else actually happened. This does not make God a liar, which you obviously agree with. Thus your argument on this point with GIT is invalid because it is the exact same argument.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Z Man

I've debated this same passage of Scripture back in May, in the thread 'An open challenge to all closed thesits...'. Anyways, my response is contained here in Post #348 of that thread.

Now let me ask you a question: If God intended on destroying Ninevah, why send Jonah?

Am I mistaken or God did end up destroying Ninevah later on?

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by deardelmar

Am I mistaken or God did end up destroying Ninevah later on?

Yes, but not after forty days like He originally said He would.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

We can get big, theological ministers to debate for us all day. You, Greg Boyd, and I, John Piper. However, I was more interested in your thoughts, which were very amusing (there's a time before God creates us in which we still exist... ).

i didn't say there was a time before God creates us in which we still exist.

But since you resorted to hiding behind the hyretical man known as Greg Boyd, I guess you leave me no choice than to come forth and show how ludicris his claims are against the holiness and sovereignty and majestic glory that God bestows upon lowly, filthy, unrighteous, sinful man.

oh this should be good :chuckle:

In the first part of Greg Boyd's summary concerning Jeremiah 1:5, he basically says that Jeremiah could have made God out to be a liar by living a life totally unlike the one God said He had already ordained Jeremiah to live.

doing contrary to the will of God does not make God a liar. it shows that we are free to disobey him and that God's plans for us aren't always fulfilled (because he has given us choice, not because we have some sort of power over him).

Who is able to thwart the will of God? Do you really suppose man is able to do such a thing? Job didn't, and made it very clear that no man could thwart His purposes.

Luke 7:30
But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Luke 7:30 says you are wrong Z Man. God may have a purpose for people (like Jeremiah), but it can be rejected. what i believce Job was getting at was that if God wants, he is able to accomplish anything he desires. however, since we have free will (which you conveniently deny, although it takes it to deny it which is ironic), God's purposes are not always fulfilled so long as they depend on us. however, the purposes that depend on him will be fulfilled because he is faithful.

Why do you support a man (Greg Boyd) who goes to great lengths in reducing the greatness of God's diety to nothing more than having no more power than man?

if i thought that's what he did then i woulnd't. however, that's a straw man argument which is inaccurate.

In the last part of his summary, Boyd essentially states that the Bible only tells us success stories of God's 'predictions'. All the other ones that did not happen as God had ordained must not of made it in the Bible.

you lost me on this one.

Either way, to declare that man is able to bring to nothing God's plans is blasphemy.

that's ironic coming from someone who believes that the most evil acts in history were divinely ordained by God.

oh, and you'd better rip Luke 7:30 out of your bible as well since it says the purpose of God for the pharisees was rejected.

Who are we that He is even mindful of us, let alone that we are able to bring God to His knees in confusion and surprise, wondering why His plans didn't go according to His great counsel!

i never claimed we were deserving of anything except destruction and wrath. i am just arguing what scripture tells us, namely that the purposes of God for some people may be rejected.

If Jeremiah had the ability to reject God's plan for him and NOT become a prophet, then God would have been a liar. It's that simple.

no, it's not that simple, God would not have been a liar. God's purpose for Jeremiah would simply have been rejected, like that of the pharisees.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Turbo

Yes, but not after forty days like He originally said He would.

Sounds to me like he was trying to give them every possible chance.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

Now let me ask you a question: If God intended on destroying Ninevah, why send Jonah?

While Nineveh persisted in wickedness, God purposed judgment. He sent Jonah to preach and call them to repentance. He wanted to extend mercy rather than judgment, but could not wisely do so if they did not repent. He sent Jonah to demonstrate His love and mercy. If they would have rejected his message, He would have destroyed them. The future was open and the prophecies were conditional on their response. You have difficulty with this due to your faulty assumption that God's plan, purposes, and will cannot be resisted or thwarted. A study would show that it can be resisted or denied at times. Sovereignty is not meticulous control, but providential control despite genuine free moral agency as a gift and responsibility from God.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Your response, even if it had merit (which it does not), misses the point.

God said (prophecied) that He would detroy Nineveh in 40 days and that did not happen. Does that make God a liar?

Yes or no?

Yes. (see below)

How is it that you justify calling God a liar in one circumstance that didn't even actually happen but refuse to do so in similar circumstance that did actually happen?

In Jeremiah 1:5, God ordained that Jeremiah would be a prophet - He said He had ordained him a prophet before he was even born! And it happened, just as God said He would do.

In Jonah, you believe God ORDAINED, in the same manner as in Jeremiah, the destruction of Ninevah. But the Scriptures never relay that information to us. You just ASSUME that, given Jonah's message to the city in Jn 3:4. If God did ordain the destruction of Ninevah in the same manner as He did in Jeremiah, and the city was not destroyed, then God is inconsistent and a liar.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Originally posted by Z Man

But you said 'God said that He would detroy Ninevah in 40 days'. If He really planned to destroy them, why did He send Jonah to mess up His own plans?

Because He didn't want to do it.

Exactly! And He didn't. So my point is proven; God always gets His way, despite what men wish, or will.

Just like you don't want to disown your children if they become homos or murderers. Had Nineveh not repented, however, He very definately would have detroyed them just as He said He would.

God would not of sent Jonah if He had known it would not of produced repentance from the city. If God truly ordained the destruction of the city - if that was what His will was for them - then He would of never sent Jonah.

In fact, that's the very reason why Jonah fled from God. He knew that if he went to proclaim the message of God to the Ninevites, they would repent. And since Jonah hated the city, he did not wish to see them repent (Jonah 3:10; 4:1-2).

But as I pointed out in my last post, this is beside the point. The point is that God said that one thing would happen and something else actually happened. This does not make God a liar...

Actually, God never said that Ninevah was without a doubt going to be destroyed. He never once said that He had predestined/ordained/prophesied their destruction. He only gave them a warning. If, as you say, God did say one thing would happen, and yet another thing happened, then YES, God is a liar.

A warning and a command are two totally different things. There is no Scriptural evidence that points to God ordaining the destruction of Ninevah in the same manner that He ordained the sanctification and the becoming of a prophet for Jeremiah. Your assumptions lead you to false conclusions.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

Your foolishness knows no bounds. It boggles my mind that you can say some of the crazy things you say.

But if you want to be evil, be very evil, I always say!

Here's another opportunity for you...

Jos 3:10 And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God [is] among you, and [that] he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

This is another prophecy that did not come to pass as stated. And this one states very emphatically what God will do "WITHOUT FAIL" and yet it didn't happen. Please explain how according to your test that God is not a liar.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I have more, if you're interested!

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i didn't say there was a time before God creates us in which we still exist.

Whatever...

• Originally posted by God Is Truth
  
  'before i formed you in the womb' is what it says. not before you existed in the womb. surely there could be a period in the womb where God has yet to begin forming him?

doing contrary to the will of God does not make God a liar. it shows that we are free to disobey him and that God's plans for us aren't always fulfilled (because he has given us choice, not because we have some sort of power over him).

If God said He had sanctified Jeremiah and was going to make him a prophet, but never did, then God is a liar.

If I tell you that I will come over and fix your car, but never do, then I lied. If I tell you that I will not eat anything for lunch so that I would have room to eat dinner with you, but eat lunch anyways, and never make it to dinner with you, I lied. If I tell you I will do anything, but don't do it, I LIED!

Luke 7:30
But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Luke 7:30 says you are wrong Z Man. God may have a purpose for people (like Jeremiah), but it can be rejected.

Purpose and ordain are two totally different terms. God said He had sanctified and ordained that Jeremiah would be a prophet. Nothing could change that. If Jeremiah never became a prophet, then God would of been a liar.

God's purposes for our lives is to live happily in Him. Not everyone does so. Those who do not know God reject His 'purposes' for them everyday.

Luke 7:30 shows us that there MUST be two wills of God, since there are also numerous verses in Scripture that teach us NO ONE can thwart God's will and purposes for our lives. I expounded on Luke 7:30 and the others that seem to contridict in Post #882 of the thread 'Does Calvinism Limit God?'.

what i believce Job was getting at was that if God wants, he is able to accomplish anything he desires. however, since we have free will (which you conveniently deny, although it takes it to deny it which is ironic), God's purposes are not always fulfilled so long as they depend on us. however, the purposes that depend on him will be fulfilled because he is faithful.

Close. You're close to agreeing with me about the truth of God possessing two wills - will of decree and will of command. See above link.

Originally posted by Z Man

If Jeremiah had the ability to reject God's plan for him and NOT become a prophet, then God would have been a liar. It's that simple.

no, it's not that simple, God would not have been a liar. God's purpose for Jeremiah would simply have been rejected, like that of the pharisees.

It was not only God's purpose that Jeremiah be a prophet - HE ORDAINED IT.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Your foolishness knows no bounds. It boggles my mind that you can say some of the crazy things you say.

But if you want to be evil, be very evil, I always say!

Resorting to 'ad hominem', eh? Always the desperate move of an argueless man...

Here's another opportunity for you...

Jos 3:10 And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God [is] among you, and [that] he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

This is another prophecy that did not come to pass as stated. And this one states very emphatically what God will do "WITHOUT FAIL" and yet it didn't happen. Please explain how according to your test that God is not a liar.

Geez man. Shooting the gun are we? We haven't completely come to a conclusion based upon Jonah yet. Why the rush? Out of support for your view, perhaps? Time to move on so you can avoid the 'heat'?

P.S. I have more, if you're interested!

Of course you do. Anyone who believes that the Bible is better studied deductively will always have support for their fanatical views, no matter how 'un-Scriptural' they truly are, given the overall context (which one will see if they study inductively).

God bless,

:zman: