ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Clete,
Thanks for the wave! Now if I only had my surfboard...
At last!
At first?! Well Matthew 20:16 in reply, then!
Augustine thought that! God might have meant "overthrow one way or another," and the very same word is used in Psalm 105:25 of God turning ("overthrowing") hearts to hate, why not then, to repentance?
If he meant what he said, what are you meaning when you say he changed his mind, then? I agree that God changed his response, and that he did not change his overall plan...
I don't think the demons left willingly, though:
Matthew 12:29 Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
That's the chief demon being unwilling! And I think that applies to the under-demons, too, Jesus forced them out:
Matthew 8:31 The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."
I think that discussion is appropriate here, though! As we do seem to be discussing this further:
Yes, but that's not present tense super-conquering! In "all these things," not just in the easy ones to overcome or knock down.
Then this wipes out the above promises for God's children? I agree that unbelievers are out there among the wolves, some of them are wolves themselves. But how can we not fear, if evil can do us real harm? By "harm" I mean damage that does not result completely in ultimate good.
1 Peter 3:14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened."
He does more than mitigate it, though, Jesus came to destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8), not just reduce it.
But not closing a border is not necessarily an expression of God's love. It might or might not be. But I'm saying God's love causes love in response. And again, I think people tend to view the end of the process, when people can love freely, and not consider how those people got to be that way, because they were loved, at first.
I expect this is not saying "don't make emotions primary," though! For then we would have "emotions that we must not trust are as strong as death, they are unyielding as the grave" which I don't think is the point here, or in this book, when love is mentioned.
Not all at once! Not immediately, the examples that you mentioned do not rule out love's eventual success, I would say.
This one!
Isaiah 27:6-9 In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit. Has the Lord struck her as he struck down those who struck her? Has she been killed as those were killed who killed her? By warfare and exile you contend with her-- with his fierce blast he drives her out, as on a day the east wind blows. By this, then, will Jacob's guilt be atoned for, and this will be the full fruitage of the removal of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces, no Asherah poles or incense altars will be left standing.
God's love, victorious!
Romans 11:26-27 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
And Paul includes the rebellious, reprobate Israelites of his day in this promise:
Romans 11:28-29 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved....
God's love, victorious...
Yes, then doesn't God's love fail? If this is the end of the matter? He tried with love ... but he failed...
Blessings,
Lee
Thanks for the wave! Now if I only had my surfboard...
At last!
At first?! Well Matthew 20:16 in reply, then!
Augustine thought that! God might have meant "overthrow one way or another," and the very same word is used in Psalm 105:25 of God turning ("overthrowing") hearts to hate, why not then, to repentance?
If he meant what he said, what are you meaning when you say he changed his mind, then? I agree that God changed his response, and that he did not change his overall plan...
I don't think the demons left willingly, though:
Matthew 12:29 Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
That's the chief demon being unwilling! And I think that applies to the under-demons, too, Jesus forced them out:
Matthew 8:31 The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."
I think that discussion is appropriate here, though! As we do seem to be discussing this further:
Yes, but that's not present tense super-conquering! In "all these things," not just in the easy ones to overcome or knock down.
Then this wipes out the above promises for God's children? I agree that unbelievers are out there among the wolves, some of them are wolves themselves. But how can we not fear, if evil can do us real harm? By "harm" I mean damage that does not result completely in ultimate good.
1 Peter 3:14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened."
He does more than mitigate it, though, Jesus came to destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8), not just reduce it.
But not closing a border is not necessarily an expression of God's love. It might or might not be. But I'm saying God's love causes love in response. And again, I think people tend to view the end of the process, when people can love freely, and not consider how those people got to be that way, because they were loved, at first.
I expect this is not saying "don't make emotions primary," though! For then we would have "emotions that we must not trust are as strong as death, they are unyielding as the grave" which I don't think is the point here, or in this book, when love is mentioned.
Not all at once! Not immediately, the examples that you mentioned do not rule out love's eventual success, I would say.
This one!
Isaiah 27:6-9 In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom and fill all the world with fruit. Has the Lord struck her as he struck down those who struck her? Has she been killed as those were killed who killed her? By warfare and exile you contend with her-- with his fierce blast he drives her out, as on a day the east wind blows. By this, then, will Jacob's guilt be atoned for, and this will be the full fruitage of the removal of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces, no Asherah poles or incense altars will be left standing.
God's love, victorious!
Romans 11:26-27 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
And Paul includes the rebellious, reprobate Israelites of his day in this promise:
Romans 11:28-29 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved....
God's love, victorious...
Yes, then doesn't God's love fail? If this is the end of the matter? He tried with love ... but he failed...
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
Rolf Ernst
New member
Servant101--Sooo. You believe then that God guards one portion of His word but not other portions? Remember--ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.
The Psalmist said, "Forever, oh LORD, your word is settled in heaven."
Here there is no restriction regarding any text above another, and it is the inspiration of His word that gives every text its sanctity, every text equally sacrosanct as well as any other.
The Psalmist said, "Forever, oh LORD, your word is settled in heaven."
Here there is no restriction regarding any text above another, and it is the inspiration of His word that gives every text its sanctity, every text equally sacrosanct as well as any other.
okay, I am a newbie here, so please be gentle (lol)...
Actually I have been visiting the site for a couple of months, and have been watching this thread and thinking about it. Now I am probably going to upset both sides, but to be honest, I see both sides of the issue. The problem is that if you read the Scriptures, there are indications of both sides in the Scriptures. They very clearly indicate that man has free will, but you find several Scriptures that very clearly indicate predestination.
So, what is right? Most of what I have been reading here really comes down to some very serious splitting of hairs (and I know all about that having been involved in debates on the Rapture). Now, there is nothing wrong with splitting hairs, but some times we let our feelings get hurt, and I have seen some of that here. And we are all brothers and sisters in Christ., and we will all spend eternity together (hopefully), so we need to not get too bent out of shape.
However, I think that there is something that I would like all of you to think about (and if you disagree, that is fine, because I don't know everything). The problem I see in most of the threads that I have seen is that we are applying our logic and our understanding to God. Just like AiryStottle's deciding that the Trinity is a false doctrine because it does not make sense to him. God stands seperate from His universe. By that I mean that He is not limited by time and the universe as we are. He makes that clear in Isaiah 55 when He tells us that "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
The Lord stands outside looking in, but He is also an intimate part of everything.
That he can create the universe and all of time and still give us all free will, while still knowing what will happen shoud not be a surprise to any parent. Put your child in a room with a jar of cookies and tell the child to leave the cookies alone because dinner will be in a little while, and we all know what that child is going to do. Well, God is the same way with us. Maybe a better analogy would be that the universe, from beginning to end is a table like a map or a game, that you can see all of it. And God is standing looking down on that table able to see everything that is going on, from beginning to end. He still allows history and free will to play out, but because He is not bound by the thing we call time, he knows what is going to happen, while allowing people to make their decisions.
Now before you dismiss such an idea out of hand, Jesus supported such an idea when talking to the Pharisees and priests in Matthew 22:32-"'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive to Him, then He is not bound by time, and would be able to know what the future is, while still allowing people to make their own decisions.
Could God have stopped 9/11, of course. Did He cause it, no, as Knight and Clete and others have noted, God does not do such things. Did He allow it to happen? Yes, because He knows what He is doing, and will use it to His glory, even though we may not understand until the Day of Judgement. Did He cause the woman's cancer? No, it was the sin in the world that caused the imperfections in our bodies that bring about cancer and other illnesses. Did He cause the tsunami? Yes and no, in that He put the forces in play and because He knows everything, but I do not believe that He decided that He would just kill a couple hundred thousand people for fun.
One last thought (hopefully the last), God knew when He created Satan, that he would fall, but created Satan knowing that Satan would make his own decision, just like Adam and Eve would. But He is God and can do whatever He pleases. Like the potter in Jeremiah, and as Paul points out in Romans 9, some are created for noble purposes, and some for base. If He wants to create things that He knows will be destined for Hell when all is said and done, then He has the right to do it.
Knight, I know I went over the guidelines, and I will try not to do it again, but I thought that if I am going to do this, I am going to do it all in one fell swoop.
Peace.
Actually I have been visiting the site for a couple of months, and have been watching this thread and thinking about it. Now I am probably going to upset both sides, but to be honest, I see both sides of the issue. The problem is that if you read the Scriptures, there are indications of both sides in the Scriptures. They very clearly indicate that man has free will, but you find several Scriptures that very clearly indicate predestination.
So, what is right? Most of what I have been reading here really comes down to some very serious splitting of hairs (and I know all about that having been involved in debates on the Rapture). Now, there is nothing wrong with splitting hairs, but some times we let our feelings get hurt, and I have seen some of that here. And we are all brothers and sisters in Christ., and we will all spend eternity together (hopefully), so we need to not get too bent out of shape.
However, I think that there is something that I would like all of you to think about (and if you disagree, that is fine, because I don't know everything). The problem I see in most of the threads that I have seen is that we are applying our logic and our understanding to God. Just like AiryStottle's deciding that the Trinity is a false doctrine because it does not make sense to him. God stands seperate from His universe. By that I mean that He is not limited by time and the universe as we are. He makes that clear in Isaiah 55 when He tells us that "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
The Lord stands outside looking in, but He is also an intimate part of everything.
That he can create the universe and all of time and still give us all free will, while still knowing what will happen shoud not be a surprise to any parent. Put your child in a room with a jar of cookies and tell the child to leave the cookies alone because dinner will be in a little while, and we all know what that child is going to do. Well, God is the same way with us. Maybe a better analogy would be that the universe, from beginning to end is a table like a map or a game, that you can see all of it. And God is standing looking down on that table able to see everything that is going on, from beginning to end. He still allows history and free will to play out, but because He is not bound by the thing we call time, he knows what is going to happen, while allowing people to make their decisions.
Now before you dismiss such an idea out of hand, Jesus supported such an idea when talking to the Pharisees and priests in Matthew 22:32-"'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive to Him, then He is not bound by time, and would be able to know what the future is, while still allowing people to make their own decisions.
Could God have stopped 9/11, of course. Did He cause it, no, as Knight and Clete and others have noted, God does not do such things. Did He allow it to happen? Yes, because He knows what He is doing, and will use it to His glory, even though we may not understand until the Day of Judgement. Did He cause the woman's cancer? No, it was the sin in the world that caused the imperfections in our bodies that bring about cancer and other illnesses. Did He cause the tsunami? Yes and no, in that He put the forces in play and because He knows everything, but I do not believe that He decided that He would just kill a couple hundred thousand people for fun.
One last thought (hopefully the last), God knew when He created Satan, that he would fall, but created Satan knowing that Satan would make his own decision, just like Adam and Eve would. But He is God and can do whatever He pleases. Like the potter in Jeremiah, and as Paul points out in Romans 9, some are created for noble purposes, and some for base. If He wants to create things that He knows will be destined for Hell when all is said and done, then He has the right to do it.
Knight, I know I went over the guidelines, and I will try not to do it again, but I thought that if I am going to do this, I am going to do it all in one fell swoop.
Peace.
Witness02,
I'm curious to know what you think you said that would have "upset both sides"? Sounds to me like you came pretty squarely down on the side of Calvinism. You seem to say at the beginning that the Bible teaches both but then completely argue the Calvinist side. This is perfectly okay with me, by the way. I'd prefer you be on one side or the other because the Bible simply cannot teach both. If the future is set in place by either predestination or foreknowledge, we do not have free will.
That's all I wanted to say for know, I'll respond fully to your post later.
Restng in Him,
Clete
P.S. Very good post and welcome to TOL! :thumb:
I'm curious to know what you think you said that would have "upset both sides"? Sounds to me like you came pretty squarely down on the side of Calvinism. You seem to say at the beginning that the Bible teaches both but then completely argue the Calvinist side. This is perfectly okay with me, by the way. I'd prefer you be on one side or the other because the Bible simply cannot teach both. If the future is set in place by either predestination or foreknowledge, we do not have free will.
That's all I wanted to say for know, I'll respond fully to your post later.
Restng in Him,
Clete
P.S. Very good post and welcome to TOL! :thumb:
Yet another verse which is not talking about predestination in any sense whatsoever.
Really!? I didn't know that!
Augustine was wrong.
Because the only reason to even think that might be the case is to support predestination and the idea that prophecy is prewritten history in spite of the fact that Jer. 18 explicitly says that it is not.
Take the Bible for what it seems to be saying unless given strongly compelling reason to do otherwise. When in doubt, read the passage in question to a third grader (home schooled preferably) and ask him what the passage means. 99% of the time he'll get it right. The Bible is not that difficult to understand and we should avoid jumping through theological hoops whenever possible.
The book of Jonah couldn't be any more straight forward than it is. God said for Jonah to go warn Nineveh that He was about to destroy them because of their evil. Nineveh repented and so God did too. This upset Jonah terribly because he hated the Ninevites and so he went and sulked and had a big "Woe is me, God didn't kill the Ninevites because they repented and its all my fault!" pity party. Thank goodness Jonah isn't God, that's all I can say!
Stop making this difficult. Isn't it perfectly obvious what I meant? God said that He was going to destroy the city in 40 days and He wasn't lying; He meant every word of His threat. God does not make idle threats. He stayed His hand, however, in response to their repentance. (READ JER. 18 - ALL OF IT.)
They didn't want to leave if that's what you mean but they did do the leaving. In effect they made a choice between doing as they were told or facing the consequences of doing otherwise, which they would have liked even less than having to leave. The point is God didn't predestine that they would leave, He simply gave them an order and they followed it.
Well even if Jesus did "force them out", the point is that He has the authority to wield such power. Someone who is sovereign holds sway over a great deal of power. A king commands his armies and they obey. If one king's army is stronger than another king's army, it could be than the stronger king will be sovereign over the other before long. So make no mistake, God is a powerful God and He is quite able to force people to do what He wants them to do. The point is, however, that He doesn't have to in order to be sovereign. He can delegate power and authority to whomever He wishes. In fact, it is the fact that He can delegate all power and authority that defines Him as THE Sovereign. Anyone who has any power or authority of any kind, has it because God delegated it to him.
Yes, I noticed when I reread the post that I went into it right after saying I wasn't going to.
Now this will be a tangent but what is it that you would consider "present tense super-conquering", if not what I described in my previous post?
What harm are you talking about? How can you deny that real harm comes to Christians all the time? Every single day practically since this whole Christianity thing got started, people have found their fun in killing Christians and their families. What sort of "real harm" do you think God is protecting us from?
Right! Isn't this what I said in my previous post?
Are you suggesting that evil doesn't happen any more? I know you can't be, but that's what this statement would seem to suggest given the context in which you offer it.
The world is still a very evil place but it could and would be a whole lot worse if the Holy Spirit didn't mitigate the evil a man. It wouldn't take long at all for us to degrade into that state which was present prior to the flood.
You missed the point. I simply used the word "because" in the same sense that the Bible uses it in the passage you quoted. In other words it doesn't have to be read to mean a direct causal relationship between God loving us and we loving Him. You are reading that into the text. In fact, we can know for a fact that it does not mean that because of the definition of the word "love". Love must, by definition, be volitional.
And so what's you point? That we can't choose to love someone, is that it? That's nuts! You ignore the whole meaning of the word love.
YOU would say? Are you kidding or what?
Do you think the whole generation of people who died in the wilderness are going to get another chance?
Do you think Saul with get an opportunity to fix his failed kingship of Israel?
How about the Israelites that God sucked alive down into Hell because they sided with their representatives in defiance against Moses? Do you think that there is hope for them or was God's love toward them to no avail?
If you are saying that God will be victorious in the end then of course I agree but that does not mean that there aren't those whom God would have saved but didn't because they would have none of Him.
It seems to me that you are attempting to apply things that are generally true in such a way that makes them universally true, which is an error. For example, in the passage you quoted above where it says, "all Israel will be saved", is does not mean that every single last individual in Israel will be saved. It's a figure of speech called hyperbole; it doesn't even have to mean that most of Israel will be saved, only that much of it will be.
Now you're getting it. If God's love never failed, you'd end up with universalism in about two shakes of a lamb's tail. When it comes to individuals, God's love is rejected more often than not.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. No time for editing! Sorry if my grammar isn't great!
Last edited:
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Welcome from me, too! I agree with what you said here, though if God set the forces in motion, then how can we say he did not really cause this to happen? Certainly God did not do this for a bad reason, I believe God knows that outcome, and is in control, and has a purpose for good. And that he bears suffering...
I was just kidding! I meant "At last! No, at first? Well then the 'at first' will be 'at last' and the 'at last' will be 'at first,'" meaning you might change your position, after all! I guess that was a little convoluted, tho.
We've discussed Jer. 18 before! But why does supporting predestination spoil this interpretation? I could just as well say "the only reason to even think this prophecy failed is to support an open future and the idea that prophecy is not prewritten history in spite of the fact that Isa. 46:10 explicitly says that it is."
So we need to see if "overthrow by repentance" is a valid interpretation here! Why is Ps. 105:25 not a good example of a use of this word in reference to God changing hearts? Indicating that a similar interpretation in Jonah is possibly appropriate, as well.
But Jonah said "Didn't I say this would happen?" (Jon. 4:2). So how did God repent, if Jonah saw that his mission was one of mercy? If Jonah had thought God really was about to destroy them, that that was his primary purpose, Jonah would have been on the first boat to Nineveh.
Yes, but the threat was conditional, was it not? Jonah thought it was, and the Ninevites hoped it was, and they were right! I agree that the threat was not an idle one, yet if there was no condition in the threat, how can God not have been lying, if he knew he might change his plan, and didn't say it that way?
Here is my understanding of Jeremiah 18, if you would want to discuss this further, let's revive or start a new Jeremiah 18 thread...
"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it." (Jer. 18:7-8)
"Planned" could mean "devised", as in verse 11, "I am fashioning calamity."
JER 18:11 Thus says the Lord, "Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds."
Also, if "devising a plan" is taken literally in verse 11 (you have to be consistent!) then don't you have to say that God is still forming his plan? i.e. that in the illustration God gives, he really isn't changing his plan, rather he is still in the planning process. But then taking verse 8 literally means you have to say God *did* have a plan. So you get an inconsistency by being consistently literal here! So I think you have to read "planned" as "devised" in verse 8, and note that "fashioning calamity" is parallel with "devising a plan" in verse 11, and I think that explains the meaning, that God is "taking off his belt," getting ready to punish them, that is part of his plan, but the actual planned outcome is not mentioned.
I think God does show his actual plan in the very next chapter, too:
JER 19:1-2 This is what the Lord says: "Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate."
I think these references to a finished pot, and shattering it at the Potsherd Gate, are intentional, and refer to the analogy in chapter 18. They show that the pot may be viewed as already finished, God's plan *is* actually settled, even while Jeremiah is warning them. Also, the whole analogy of the potter forming and then reforming the clay suggests that the potter is in control all the way through, that there was nothing in the clay, per se, that caused the potter to stop shaping it one way, and start shaping it differently.
RO 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
I think "cast out" or "drive out" is a bit stronger than this, though.
Luke 9:1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases...
The diseases didn't choose between two disagreeable options! Nor, I think, did the demons have a choice.
He does have to be in complete control to be called absolutely sovereign, though, I would say.
Yes, I agree! And so we just disagree on who has real authority delegated to them, and what are the bounds of this delegated authority. I believe only believers have such delegated authority, which must be exercised within God's will. That's a lot of freedom, though!
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Luke 10:19 I have given you authority...
Not having to wait until God makes it up to us, and judges sinful people! "In" all these things, we are super-conquering, now, not "after them," and not "in spite of them."
Any pain that will not do us good, completely, for those who love him, for those whom he called.
Luke 10:19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.
No, I'm saying it will all be destroyed, that the devil will accomplish none of his purpose. How else can his work be destroyed, really destroyed?
I see what you mean, now, you're saying God's love is necessary, but not sufficient. Then I would refer to Paul saying "love never fails"...
Yes, unbelievers can't choose to love God or others, in the sense of God's agape love, that seems clear:
1 John 4:7-8 Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God...
1 John 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us...
Jude 1:5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
Jude 1:11 They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Ezekiel 16:53 However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them...
Romans 11:29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
But that's not "all"! And there's ways to say "most" in Greek.
Romans 11:26-27 The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
God will not turn away "much of their unrighteousness," or take away most of their sins...
Yes, but then how is it that love never fails?
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. Your grammar's fine! And your grampa, too...
Welcome from me, too! I agree with what you said here, though if God set the forces in motion, then how can we say he did not really cause this to happen? Certainly God did not do this for a bad reason, I believe God knows that outcome, and is in control, and has a purpose for good. And that he bears suffering...
I was just kidding! I meant "At last! No, at first? Well then the 'at first' will be 'at last' and the 'at last' will be 'at first,'" meaning you might change your position, after all! I guess that was a little convoluted, tho.
We've discussed Jer. 18 before! But why does supporting predestination spoil this interpretation? I could just as well say "the only reason to even think this prophecy failed is to support an open future and the idea that prophecy is not prewritten history in spite of the fact that Isa. 46:10 explicitly says that it is."
So we need to see if "overthrow by repentance" is a valid interpretation here! Why is Ps. 105:25 not a good example of a use of this word in reference to God changing hearts? Indicating that a similar interpretation in Jonah is possibly appropriate, as well.
But Jonah said "Didn't I say this would happen?" (Jon. 4:2). So how did God repent, if Jonah saw that his mission was one of mercy? If Jonah had thought God really was about to destroy them, that that was his primary purpose, Jonah would have been on the first boat to Nineveh.
Yes, but the threat was conditional, was it not? Jonah thought it was, and the Ninevites hoped it was, and they were right! I agree that the threat was not an idle one, yet if there was no condition in the threat, how can God not have been lying, if he knew he might change his plan, and didn't say it that way?
Here is my understanding of Jeremiah 18, if you would want to discuss this further, let's revive or start a new Jeremiah 18 thread...
"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it." (Jer. 18:7-8)
"Planned" could mean "devised", as in verse 11, "I am fashioning calamity."
JER 18:11 Thus says the Lord, "Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds."
Also, if "devising a plan" is taken literally in verse 11 (you have to be consistent!) then don't you have to say that God is still forming his plan? i.e. that in the illustration God gives, he really isn't changing his plan, rather he is still in the planning process. But then taking verse 8 literally means you have to say God *did* have a plan. So you get an inconsistency by being consistently literal here! So I think you have to read "planned" as "devised" in verse 8, and note that "fashioning calamity" is parallel with "devising a plan" in verse 11, and I think that explains the meaning, that God is "taking off his belt," getting ready to punish them, that is part of his plan, but the actual planned outcome is not mentioned.
I think God does show his actual plan in the very next chapter, too:
JER 19:1-2 This is what the Lord says: "Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate."
I think these references to a finished pot, and shattering it at the Potsherd Gate, are intentional, and refer to the analogy in chapter 18. They show that the pot may be viewed as already finished, God's plan *is* actually settled, even while Jeremiah is warning them. Also, the whole analogy of the potter forming and then reforming the clay suggests that the potter is in control all the way through, that there was nothing in the clay, per se, that caused the potter to stop shaping it one way, and start shaping it differently.
RO 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
I think "cast out" or "drive out" is a bit stronger than this, though.
Luke 9:1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases...
The diseases didn't choose between two disagreeable options! Nor, I think, did the demons have a choice.
He does have to be in complete control to be called absolutely sovereign, though, I would say.
Yes, I agree! And so we just disagree on who has real authority delegated to them, and what are the bounds of this delegated authority. I believe only believers have such delegated authority, which must be exercised within God's will. That's a lot of freedom, though!
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Luke 10:19 I have given you authority...
Not having to wait until God makes it up to us, and judges sinful people! "In" all these things, we are super-conquering, now, not "after them," and not "in spite of them."
Any pain that will not do us good, completely, for those who love him, for those whom he called.
Luke 10:19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.
No, I'm saying it will all be destroyed, that the devil will accomplish none of his purpose. How else can his work be destroyed, really destroyed?
I see what you mean, now, you're saying God's love is necessary, but not sufficient. Then I would refer to Paul saying "love never fails"...
Yes, unbelievers can't choose to love God or others, in the sense of God's agape love, that seems clear:
1 John 4:7-8 Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God...
1 John 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us...
Jude 1:5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
Jude 1:11 They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Ezekiel 16:53 However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them...
Romans 11:29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
But that's not "all"! And there's ways to say "most" in Greek.
Romans 11:26-27 The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
God will not turn away "much of their unrighteousness," or take away most of their sins...
Yes, but then how is it that love never fails?
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. Your grammar's fine! And your grampa, too...
Clete and Lee, thanks for the welcome and the kind words.
Clete, I guess that I do lean towards a Calvinistic bent, but I don't know that I fully explained my way of understanding. As I said, God stands outside of the time continuim that we are a part of. I believe that He knows the future, but I also believe that He allows us to make our own choices, and He knows what the options are and what they will lead to. And knowing us better than we know ourselves, He knows the choices that we are going to make. That does not mean He is totally controlling our lives, the way I understand Calvinism, but rather He accomplishes His will by convincing us to do what He wants us to do.
I'll be honest, there are times when I am totally conflicted, because the way I read the Scriptures, I can see both sides of the arguement. While I have read several Open View books, I have yet to read a good explanation of the passages in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 where it explicitly states predestination, or Revelation 13:8, which states that the names were written in the book of life since the creation of the world.
While you see Jeremiah 18 as a pro OV text, I see it as a chapter that tells me that God chooses what He wants to do with each one of us. As Paul points out in Romans 9:21, using the same analogy that Jeremiah does in tell us that God has the right to do what He wants, however He wants. Like Steven Curtis Chapman says, "God is God, and I am not". Yet, I still think that He allows me to make decisions. That He called me to serve Him, but allowed me, like He did Jeremiah to make the decision as to what we wanted to do.
While I understand you wanting me to take one side or the other, like I said, I see both sides in the Scriptures, and find it hard to take either side.
I am looking forward to reading your response.
Peace,
Clete, I guess that I do lean towards a Calvinistic bent, but I don't know that I fully explained my way of understanding. As I said, God stands outside of the time continuim that we are a part of. I believe that He knows the future, but I also believe that He allows us to make our own choices, and He knows what the options are and what they will lead to. And knowing us better than we know ourselves, He knows the choices that we are going to make. That does not mean He is totally controlling our lives, the way I understand Calvinism, but rather He accomplishes His will by convincing us to do what He wants us to do.
I'll be honest, there are times when I am totally conflicted, because the way I read the Scriptures, I can see both sides of the arguement. While I have read several Open View books, I have yet to read a good explanation of the passages in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 where it explicitly states predestination, or Revelation 13:8, which states that the names were written in the book of life since the creation of the world.
While you see Jeremiah 18 as a pro OV text, I see it as a chapter that tells me that God chooses what He wants to do with each one of us. As Paul points out in Romans 9:21, using the same analogy that Jeremiah does in tell us that God has the right to do what He wants, however He wants. Like Steven Curtis Chapman says, "God is God, and I am not". Yet, I still think that He allows me to make decisions. That He called me to serve Him, but allowed me, like He did Jeremiah to make the decision as to what we wanted to do.
While I understand you wanting me to take one side or the other, like I said, I see both sides in the Scriptures, and find it hard to take either side.
I am looking forward to reading your response.
Peace,
Most Christians call this an antinomy. Two conflicting, seemingly irresolvable idea that are both true despite the conflict. I simply call it a contradiction.
It's good that you are conflicted though, don't let the feeling die! It is always by focusing on the difficulties than one finds breakthrough into the truth. That's why I hate the word antinomy. Christians most often use it to make themselves feel better about not having been able to figure out the problem. The word has almost an arrogant feel to it, it seems to me; like those who are willing to accept antinomy are more spiritually mature or something. Whether that is the case or not, the word is a lot easier to live with than the word contradiction and I think that's why Christians (especially theologians who have spent their whole lifetimes studying the Bible) like to use the word antinomy. Who wants to think that they've spent all that time and money studying a self-contradictory theology?
It is my position that one must be able to do, or to do otherwise in order to be free and that therefore if God either knows the future or has predestined it then are ability to do otherwise does not exist and so neither does our freedom. Do you see any problem with this line of thought from a logical point of view?
When the Bible speaks of predestination it is speaking of corporate predestination not individual predestination. Those who are in the Body of Christ are predestined to be glorified by God.
It is similar to getting onto an airplane. The owner of the plane did not predestine that you would get on the plane but he did predetermine (predestine) the plains destination (destiny) and if you get on board, you are destined for that same location.
Notice the constant use of the phrase "in Him" whenever Paul speaks about predestination.
Both the passage in Jeremiah and Romans 9 (Romans 9 is the strongest chapter in the Bible AGAINST Calvinism) are talking about nations, and Israel in particular.
I'll explain in more detail when I have more time (I gotta go to work!)
You would be right!
No I like it with you right on the fence for now. Too much emotional investment on either side will have the effect of entrenching you there perhaps in error.
It is an extremely important issue that may not have anything to do with whether you personally go to Heaven or Hell but, it drastically effects the way you live your Christian life and so may very well effect whether someone in your circle of influence go to Heaven or Hell and so we do need to get you off that fence sooner or later but for now just leave it in the undecided column and we'll see if I can't give you satisfactory answers to your questions.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
My Calvinist friends...comments?
Is. 65:12 "I will destine you for the sword, and you will all bend down for the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me."
This sounds like God's will and plans were resisted and denied.
Mt. 23:37 "O Jerusalem...you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children (will/desire)...BUT YOU WERE NOT WILLING."
Lk. 7:30 "But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves...."
The warfare motif in the ministry of Jesus is not fake, but factual. The blueprint, meticulous control, determinism model is an incorrect understanding of the sovereignty of God and how He governs.
Inanimate creation is governed by the law of cause and effect.
Animate creation is governed by the law of instinct.
Moral creation (man) is governed by the law of love and free moral agency (choices).
God's will and plan can be resisted as evidenced by the masses in hell. He does not want anyone to perish, yet many perish.
A complicated system of decrees and wills and TULIP distorts the great love and justice of God. He damns many arbitrarily that He could save (in Calvin's election view). Loopholes are created rather than taking Scripture at face value.
Is. 65:12 "I will destine you for the sword, and you will all bend down for the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me."
This sounds like God's will and plans were resisted and denied.
Mt. 23:37 "O Jerusalem...you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children (will/desire)...BUT YOU WERE NOT WILLING."
Lk. 7:30 "But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves...."
The warfare motif in the ministry of Jesus is not fake, but factual. The blueprint, meticulous control, determinism model is an incorrect understanding of the sovereignty of God and how He governs.
Inanimate creation is governed by the law of cause and effect.
Animate creation is governed by the law of instinct.
Moral creation (man) is governed by the law of love and free moral agency (choices).
God's will and plan can be resisted as evidenced by the masses in hell. He does not want anyone to perish, yet many perish.
A complicated system of decrees and wills and TULIP distorts the great love and justice of God. He damns many arbitrarily that He could save (in Calvin's election view). Loopholes are created rather than taking Scripture at face value.
God is the Moral Governor of the universe. We are ruled in a moral government of God. We are in His moral, personal, and spiritual image. We are not like the rest of His creation. We alone can have a love relationship in spirit and truth.
I think I read the insight about different levels of creation and government in 'The truth shall make you free'- Gordon C. Olson (retired engineer turned theologian). Finney probably also expanded on this self-evident concept. We are not robotons, but free moral agents accountable to the most valuable, wise, loving Ruler. Worship Him! He alone is worthy!
(hence, God Rules! not me)
Witness02,
I promised to go into more detail with respect to Romans 9. The following is a respost of something I wrote earlier in this thread. Let me know if it is helpful or if you have any questions.
ROMANS 9 IS JERIMIAH 18
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 Paul 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
I promised to go into more detail with respect to Romans 9. The following is a respost of something I wrote earlier in this thread. Let me know if it is helpful or if you have any questions.
ROMANS 9 IS JERIMIAH 18
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 18:1 The 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 Paul 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
Last edited:
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Godrulz,
Yes, but not ultimately!
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Then is there hope for these rebellious Israelites?
Romans 11:10-11 "May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!
Yes, but will God's love for them fail?
But not Scriptural!
Psalm 91:8-10 You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked. If you make the Most High your dwelling--even the Lord, who is my refuge--then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.
Well, after people are able to love freely. Before then, there is less freedom:
Galatians 4:1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
Well, this is getting outside Calvinism per se, and into the question of whether people can repent after judgment, after death.
Rev. 21:6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life."
“It is done” (past tense, after all the judgments have been pronounced), “I will give” (future tense). And people in hell are thirsty, for sure.
And there's another alternative! But that's another topic...
Blessings,
Lee
Yes, but not ultimately!
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Then is there hope for these rebellious Israelites?
Romans 11:10-11 "May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!
Yes, but will God's love for them fail?
But not Scriptural!
Psalm 91:8-10 You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked. If you make the Most High your dwelling--even the Lord, who is my refuge--then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.
Well, after people are able to love freely. Before then, there is less freedom:
Galatians 4:1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
Well, this is getting outside Calvinism per se, and into the question of whether people can repent after judgment, after death.
Rev. 21:6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life."
“It is done” (past tense, after all the judgments have been pronounced), “I will give” (future tense). And people in hell are thirsty, for sure.
And there's another alternative! But that's another topic...
Blessings,
Lee
Rolf Ernst
New member
Clete--concerning your question in post 1516--Grace is always unmerited favor. Covenanted grace is grace which God dispenses according to the terms agreed upon between the Father and the Son in eternity, before the world was, concerning God's elect.
Common grace is grace given to mankind in general without regard to that special convenant struck between Father and Son.
Common grace explains all of God's goodness to the nonelect--everything they receive other than immediate judgement and casting into a Christless eternity; things such as wonderful gifts of ability, rain for their fields, prosperity, lives lived with relative moral rectitude despite their irreverance toward God Himself as He, by His common grace, restrains them from wickedness which would have otherwise ensnared them according to their own nature.
Common grace is grace given to mankind in general without regard to that special convenant struck between Father and Son.
Common grace explains all of God's goodness to the nonelect--everything they receive other than immediate judgement and casting into a Christless eternity; things such as wonderful gifts of ability, rain for their fields, prosperity, lives lived with relative moral rectitude despite their irreverance toward God Himself as He, by His common grace, restrains them from wickedness which would have otherwise ensnared them according to their own nature.
Last edited:
Rolf Ernst
New member
Clete--In post 1516 you ask "which is it, given or applied?"
When I speak of God's gifts "given and applied," it is BOTH "given and applied."
God purposed in eternity to give the gifts, and in time--at the time of His choosing (the time He had chosen in eternity), He applies those gifts. Given according to His purpose in eternity, and applied at the time He had earlier purposed.
When I speak of God's gifts "given and applied," it is BOTH "given and applied."
God purposed in eternity to give the gifts, and in time--at the time of His choosing (the time He had chosen in eternity), He applies those gifts. Given according to His purpose in eternity, and applied at the time He had earlier purposed.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Rolf,
Maybe I'm nit picking, and I hope I am not recovering water that already passed under the bridge. Please consider this as an attempt to clarify a fine point.
I wonder if it could be that God does not consider it (general) grace that rain happens for example. (Q1) Is it really God's "favor" that He would create this world for man (to live in), and then provide a world where man can actually live, or isn't that more like a neutral favor-less issue that conforms to His righteous judgment that God's creation of man is a "good" thing? I'm not saying that God had to create man and allow him to live as He has, but considering that God considers the creation of man as being a "good" thing, therefore the fact that God has carefully provided amazing and consistent life support features (hydration, oxygen, night and day, gravity, delicate lunar pull on the oceans, just enough sunlight, sufficient ozone layer, animals don't kill off all humans for dinner, etc. etc. etc.) is more an issue of God's goodness and not a special favor or grace. But I admit that His grace is good and so there is some overlap. But I think it would be wrong of God to create creation, say that the creation of man is good, and then just let this good thing die off simply because God neglected to favor us with water or oxygen or dry land to live on, etc.
Should we thank God each and every hour for allowing us to have oxygen in the air because God is paying us an unmerited favor by not chocking us all to death? (chuckles, the drama is unintentional and beside the point, consider if it's an issue of favoring us, or just being consistent with His desire for creation to actually live)
I agree with you in that God has a special plan for God's "elect people", which is Israel. (Q2) Do you agree that not all who will be saved is of Israel? As far as election is concerned, it is primarily God's choice that someone or some people have a special task or responsibility etc. Israel was an elect nation called apart of the world and was given the law of God to live by and was expected to be His nation to lead the world to God, but today any single individual in the dispensation of mystery and grace can become an elect member of the body of Christ if the individual becomes saved. So I believe there are different foundational meanings when the bible speaks about the elect and grace.
Good to see you again!
Maybe I'm nit picking, and I hope I am not recovering water that already passed under the bridge. Please consider this as an attempt to clarify a fine point.
I wonder if it could be that God does not consider it (general) grace that rain happens for example. (Q1) Is it really God's "favor" that He would create this world for man (to live in), and then provide a world where man can actually live, or isn't that more like a neutral favor-less issue that conforms to His righteous judgment that God's creation of man is a "good" thing? I'm not saying that God had to create man and allow him to live as He has, but considering that God considers the creation of man as being a "good" thing, therefore the fact that God has carefully provided amazing and consistent life support features (hydration, oxygen, night and day, gravity, delicate lunar pull on the oceans, just enough sunlight, sufficient ozone layer, animals don't kill off all humans for dinner, etc. etc. etc.) is more an issue of God's goodness and not a special favor or grace. But I admit that His grace is good and so there is some overlap. But I think it would be wrong of God to create creation, say that the creation of man is good, and then just let this good thing die off simply because God neglected to favor us with water or oxygen or dry land to live on, etc.
Should we thank God each and every hour for allowing us to have oxygen in the air because God is paying us an unmerited favor by not chocking us all to death? (chuckles, the drama is unintentional and beside the point, consider if it's an issue of favoring us, or just being consistent with His desire for creation to actually live)
I agree with you in that God has a special plan for God's "elect people", which is Israel. (Q2) Do you agree that not all who will be saved is of Israel? As far as election is concerned, it is primarily God's choice that someone or some people have a special task or responsibility etc. Israel was an elect nation called apart of the world and was given the law of God to live by and was expected to be His nation to lead the world to God, but today any single individual in the dispensation of mystery and grace can become an elect member of the body of Christ if the individual becomes saved. So I believe there are different foundational meanings when the bible speaks about the elect and grace.
Good to see you again!
Rolf Ernst
New member
quote:All rights pertaining to His GIFTS belong only to Him. Therefore men have no right to complain against Him for leaving them to the wickedness of their own nature.
The above is Clete's quotation of a portion of one of my earlier posts, and immediately below is Clete's response to that thought. After Clete completes his thought, I add to it my response to his statement. I apologize to the possible and reasonable confusion from the way I threw these together
CLETE SAYS,
I agree with this statement completely, as it is written. The problem is that you believe that the only reason they are wicked in the first place is because God predestined that they would be. You say, along with Z Man, that they chose to be evil and are therefore responsible for their own wickedness but then in the very next breath you admit that their choices to be evil were just as predestined as were their evil natures.
The only way this statement can coexist with the idea that God is just, is if the men left to their own wickedness had true libertarian free will. If they, by their own volition, chose to be evil and reject God's offer of rescue then God has and will allow evil people to be evil. He will not force anyone to love Him because He cannot do so. (Which, by the way, is the whole point.)
The Calvinist idea of God's sovereignty can be killed with one single word and with it the entire Calvinist theological construct. That word is the single most important word in all of creation as well as the rest of existence. It is the word upon which everything Christian rests; without which, life itself becomes utterly meaningless. That word is, of course…
LOVE
Love is the key issue because love, by definition, must be volitional. Without freedom, love cannot exist. Thus without an ability to do, or to do otherwise I cannot love anyone including God. Therefore, the Calvinist idea of God's sovereignty (total control of every single event including every thought and emotion) simply cannot be true. To say otherwise is to deny the existence of love, which is to deny God Himself, for "God is love". God simply cannot have given His creation the ability to love Him without taking the risk that they would hate Him. Thus is the nature of love.
Resting in Him,
Clete
ROLF NOW COMMENTS
Clete:In responding to my post above, you say that you agree completely, but your doctrine is a direct contradiction to it, but first, you misrepresent the Reformed faith in that you say we teach that God predestined Adam to sin.
God ordained man's free will. Adam, of his free will, rebelled against God. That is altogether different from God simply predestinating Adam to sin. Adam acted according to his free will. God DID NOT FORCE him to rebel. That is only a misrepresentation Arminians like to make of the Reformed position. God had created Adam upright and left him to the operations of his own will. Since Adam had free will, Adam--not God--was accountable for the use he made of it.
The above is Clete's quotation of a portion of one of my earlier posts, and immediately below is Clete's response to that thought. After Clete completes his thought, I add to it my response to his statement. I apologize to the possible and reasonable confusion from the way I threw these together
CLETE SAYS,
I agree with this statement completely, as it is written. The problem is that you believe that the only reason they are wicked in the first place is because God predestined that they would be. You say, along with Z Man, that they chose to be evil and are therefore responsible for their own wickedness but then in the very next breath you admit that their choices to be evil were just as predestined as were their evil natures.
The only way this statement can coexist with the idea that God is just, is if the men left to their own wickedness had true libertarian free will. If they, by their own volition, chose to be evil and reject God's offer of rescue then God has and will allow evil people to be evil. He will not force anyone to love Him because He cannot do so. (Which, by the way, is the whole point.)
The Calvinist idea of God's sovereignty can be killed with one single word and with it the entire Calvinist theological construct. That word is the single most important word in all of creation as well as the rest of existence. It is the word upon which everything Christian rests; without which, life itself becomes utterly meaningless. That word is, of course…
LOVE
Love is the key issue because love, by definition, must be volitional. Without freedom, love cannot exist. Thus without an ability to do, or to do otherwise I cannot love anyone including God. Therefore, the Calvinist idea of God's sovereignty (total control of every single event including every thought and emotion) simply cannot be true. To say otherwise is to deny the existence of love, which is to deny God Himself, for "God is love". God simply cannot have given His creation the ability to love Him without taking the risk that they would hate Him. Thus is the nature of love.
Resting in Him,
Clete
ROLF NOW COMMENTS
Clete:In responding to my post above, you say that you agree completely, but your doctrine is a direct contradiction to it, but first, you misrepresent the Reformed faith in that you say we teach that God predestined Adam to sin.
God ordained man's free will. Adam, of his free will, rebelled against God. That is altogether different from God simply predestinating Adam to sin. Adam acted according to his free will. God DID NOT FORCE him to rebel. That is only a misrepresentation Arminians like to make of the Reformed position. God had created Adam upright and left him to the operations of his own will. Since Adam had free will, Adam--not God--was accountable for the use he made of it.
Last edited:
servent101
New member
Rolf
Again this is what I wrote
Again this is what I wrote