Does Calvinism limit God?

[Z Man]

Re: This is encouraging!

Re: This is encouraging!

Originally posted by 1Way
God created man with the ability to love and hate God...

While I agree with everything you just posted, this one sentence stuck out.

I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you on this topic, however, I do believe that men are incapable of loving God unless (and the keyword here is unless) God changes their hearts. I'm not saying that that God creates men to hate Him, and that there are some who, no matter what, can ever love God, I just believe that the oppurtunity to embrace and love God can only be found if God presents His grace before us, and regenerates our hearts. Our hearts and minds think nothing but evil continually. Paul stated that to be fleshly minded is an enmity against God and that no one in the flesh can please God; NO ONE!

It's not that man are trying to love God, and God is refusing to allow us to love Him; it's just that man chooses not to love Christ! They choose to sin and hate God! Our nature is corrupted and sinful, and we are enslaved by sin. Christ must set us free from that bondage, from the bondage of our natural will, before any man can ever hope to love Christ of their own free will.

 

[godrulz]

Lucifer and Adam genuinely could love or hate God. There was nothing back of their will that needed dealing with to allow them to love or hate. Moral choices are seated in the will, not a 'sinful nature'. Sin as a substance rather than a wrong moral choice is a wrong assumption that is leading to a wrong conclusion (negating genuine free will given by God...we also need God's influence and persuasion of truth to move ourselves to surrender to His love and grace).

 

[1Way]

Z Man - I am honored and grateful, shocked and humbled. I take back most things I said and some things I thought about you. (grin)

You said

I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you on this topic, however, I do believe that men are incapable of loving God unless (and the keyword here is unless) God changes their hearts.

I agree that God is excellent at changing the heart, and that man's own natural ability requires God's assistance. My short and quick, is that God has exposed Himself to, and departed knowledge of Himself to everyone. The grace and power of God is indeed enabling, but everyone has equal opportunity, 1) even the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen, and He is the light of the world, 2) the true light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

God does not leave man alone and incapable, man is created with profound knowledge of God and His attributes, and I think that God's grace qualifies is being amongst that experience. The decision is left up to every individual to freely accept or reject God. I agree with you that the effects of the fall are tragic and universal, but so is the offer of redemption, that by one man's sin, death entered, and by one man's righteous act, redemption to the world. (from memory)

This is tremendous! No wonder you felt so frustrated, I was trying to establish our differences and you were not substantially "that" different. I hope you accept my humble gratitude about all this, and my standing corrected about our vast differences, it seems that our similarities are greater than what appeared at first glance. You offered me subtle graces by way of simple continuations of our discussion at key moments, and despite our sharp opposition and frustrations, I saw and accepted them toward good hopes. Thanks for even the unspoken caring and thoughtfulness. I'll have to check back tomorrow to see if I was dreaming, I am burning the candle late again. (chuckles)

Blessings

 

[godrulz]

Once again a kinder and gentler 1Way. I knew it was in you. Maybe you share my Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde syndrome or the meds are kicking in (just kidding)? I appreciate your clear posts on this topic. It is possible to honor and edify in our differences.

 

[1Way]

"kinder gentler ..." :sozo2: :shut:

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by 1Way

"kinder gentler ..." :sozo2: :shut:

How dare he call you dirty names!

 

[1Way]

posted by godrulz:
"Once again a kinder and gentler 1Way."

1Way posts:
:sozo2: :shut:

Poly says:
How dare he call you dirty names!

:1Way: is just :darwinsm: !

That was good and funny, yet ,,, excellent.

 

[1Way]

So, godrulz, hows those 2 fountain of truth treasure hunts coming along? Got any gold yet? You never said if you have access to a half decent bible study program. Remember, this effects my hopes of getting those two lists available for TOL's public use. If you wont do it, or just need help in doing it, then let me know. Please.

 

[godrulz]

I have limited time and expertise (computers). I think you are better suited for this.

 

[1Way]

10-4 :thumb:

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--discussing Scripture with you is very tiring. You are full of opinions about what Reformed people believe, but almost without fail you terribly misrepresent statements we Reformed people have made.
You fail to properly receive what others say. You gather conclusions from their statements which are not at all warranted, then you slay that strawman which you yourself have built. You make statements about Biblical doctrine for which you have no scriptural evidence. I do not remember you ever buttressing your argument with Scripture. Your posts are so riddled with inaccuracies that I often do not consider them worthy of answering. If you would simply refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions on the basis of what others say, it would be much more bearable. Why can't you just deal with what others say rather than trying to make something out of their words which they did not at all mean??

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--discussing Scripture with you is very tiring. You are full of opinions about what Reformed people believe, but almost without fail you terribly misrepresent statements we Reformed people have made.
You fail to properly receive what others say. You gather conclusions from their statements which are not at all warranted, then you slay that strawman which you yourself have built. You make statements about Biblical doctrine for which you have no scriptural evidence. I do not remember you ever buttressing your argument with Scripture. Your posts are so riddled with inaccuracies that I often do not consider them worthy of answering. If you would simply refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions on the basis of what others say, it would be much more bearable. Why can't you just deal with what others say rather than trying to make something out of their words which they did not at all mean??

Exactly...

 

[godrulz]

We are all guilty of this at times.

 

[jobeth]

Originally posted by 1Way

Jobeth, I lost your number months ago during some bizzar phone troubles. Maybe email me and go from there, sorry.

So now that you have my number, why haven't you called me? I need to talk to you.

Do you know what mm's are? Moral Morons.duh, what is evil, what is good, God's will is for both, right? ah, yep, God does evil and good both and His good nature somehow makes the evil that God does, into "good godly ungodliness" and of course there the ever popular "righteous unrighteousness" and the "down home down right divine evil, sin and iniquity", and last but not least, don't forget about dear old "unjust justice" and "upright and morally good immorality".

Just because words for things like "evil" and "unrighteousness" and "immorality" and "unicorns" and "vampires" and "hobbits" and "elves" occur in conversation and have definitions in dictionaries and have stories told about them in novels, does not exclude the possibility that they do not exist in actuality.

A thing can have a definition and not actually exist in the real world both at the same time.

The so-called "evil" of Christ being murdered for crimes He was not guilty of, was not an "unnecessary" evil, but rather, it was a "necessary" evil which was foreordained by God and served a "good" purpose, namely the Complete and Perfect Atonement for all the sin and evil in the world.

Having an Omnicausal God logically requires and necessitates an Unlimited Atonement because if God actually controls everything, then He ought to pay the penalty for all the sin and evil in the world, which, by the way, He did do in Christ.

Which leads me to ask an important question:
The open view denies that God is sole Creator of everything. And it denies that God foreknows the future. Does the open view deny an Unlimited Atonement too?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--discussing Scripture with you is very tiring. You are full of opinions about what Reformed people believe, but almost without fail you terribly misrepresent statements we Reformed people have made.
You fail to properly receive what others say. You gather conclusions from their statements which are not at all warranted, then you slay that strawman which you yourself have built. You make statements about Biblical doctrine for which you have no scriptural evidence. I do not remember you ever buttressing your argument with Scripture. Your posts are so riddled with inaccuracies that I often do not consider them worthy of answering. If you would simply refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions on the basis of what others say, it would be much more bearable. Why can't you just deal with what others say rather than trying to make something out of their words which they did not at all mean??

Another poster on TOL sees 1Way in the same light as I do. Hmmm...:think:

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by jobeth

Having an Omnicausal God logically requires and necessitates an Unlimited Atonement because if God actually controls everything, then He ought to pay the penalty for all the sin and evil in the world, which, by the way, He did do in Christ.

Which leads me to ask an important question:
The open view denies that God is sole Creator of everything. And it denies that God foreknows the future. Does the open view deny an Unlimited Atonement too?

Actually, an omnicausal God would cause everyone to be saved, because this would be for the highest good and glory of the Loving God. The reality is that not everyone is saved. The atonement is not a literal payment (commercial transaction theory) or everyone would be saved automatically (no further obligation on our part if the debt is literally paid).

Open Theists are in the Arminian camp. Limited atonement is a Calvinistic idea (tuLip; U= unconditional election/L= limited atonement). Open Theists would generally believe in an unlimited atonement...i.e. Jesus died for all men, not just the elect. The reason that not all are saved is not related to limited atonement or only choosing the elect (Calvinism), but is related to man rejecting the provision/atonement by his free moral agency. Hence, man is accountable/responsible for his destiny. God has done everything He can wisely and justly do. The ball is in our court (He draws, we respond).

Perhaps we are using unlimited atonement differently. My use is the standard use in the Calvin/Arminius debate.

Jobeth, what camp are you in again (for clarification)?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz
Actually, an omnicausal God would cause everyone to be saved, because this would be for the highest good and glory of the Loving God.

How do you know that?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

How do you know that?

Love would want all men to be saved from sin and enjoy God forever. Love is the highest good of God and man (in that order). Selfishness is seeking one's good at the expense of love/best of another.

It would be unloving and unjust to create man for the purpose of displaying wrath or watching their torment for sport.

This is self-evident and consistent with the revelation of the character of God and truth of love and holiness.

The problems God faced in the atonement are not personal. He wants to freely forgive, but cannot wisely do so to uphold the moral law of the universe. He does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices. He is loving and does not need His inner disposition changed. The problems are governmental. He is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.

 

[1Way]

Jobeth – This is what I like about you, you are the genuine article, I can count on you meaning what you say. This is what I don’t like about you, you say weird and contradictory things, even things that contradict God and His word.

You said

The so-called "evil" of Christ being murdered for crimes He was not guilty of, was not an "unnecessary" evil, but rather, it was a "necessary" evil which was foreordained by God and served a "good" purpose, namely the Complete and Perfect Atonement for all the sin and evil in the world.

You are a trip,

Evil does not exist
Evil does exist (in the form of necessary evil)

So is this evil good or evil? Make up your mind and stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Secondly, God refutes your view that God was implicated in any unjust evil because of Christ’s sacrifice.

Romans 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

also

John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

So God’s involvement in Jesus willingly sacrificing His life for ours, was purely a righteous, just and agape. God is not implicated in murder, He says the opposite, that He lovingly sacrificed Himself for us, and, after it happened, He said that was a completely righteous and just thing that God did. Here is what I think you fail to understand. God never holds someone else responsible for someone else’s actions. Just as you and I do all the time, if someone did something especially good or bad, we attribute that to them, not someone else! It is great wickedness to put good for evil and visa versa. I’m tired of repeating these verses, they are still there refuting your ungodly ideas.

As to

Having an Omnicausal God logically requires and necessitates an Unlimited Atonement because if God actually controls everything, then He ought to pay the penalty for all the sin and evil in the world, which, by the way, He did do in Christ.

I agree if you grant an omnicausal God. But I disagree with that God for judging against sin and evil and for teaching that sin and evil go against God and His ways. If all God’s doing is good and righteous and holy, then everyone should be as good and godly and righteous and holy as He is. But you are not consistent on that note either.

You said

Which leads me to ask an important question:
The open view denies that God is sole Creator of everything. And it denies that God foreknows the future. Does the open view deny an Unlimited Atonement too?

Jobeth, you are so twisted and wrong it is pathetic. We do not deny that God is the sole creator of this created world, all of it, your statement is too broad and unclear. God even created in such a way that evil is possible from free will moral agents. But His is not implicated in any evil because it is always the person who does the evil that is guilty, not someone else.

We do not deny that God foreknows the future, that is also inaccurate. God does a great deal of foreknowing the future, He just does not do it according to the Greek classical pagan understanding, and like your understanding.

You disqualify yourself as a reasonable knowledgable person when you do so much violence to your understandings.

No, we do not deny the unlimited atonement, and your reasonless reason for asking such a question is as reasonless as it plainly is.

I responded to you about how to contact me, no need to pretend like I did not, you have my response, so if you want to talk to me, I’m still waiting.

 

[1Way]

Right Z Man, I’m quite sure that the problem as stated from Rolf is with me, not his over the top presentations. Thus you agreed with a huge multi post refutation slash correction, except for one concept, and now I’m a bad thinker/communicator. And we “apparently” have no lasting problems about that single concept, so for you to suggest my inability to respectfully dialogue these issues, is a stretch of anyone’s imagination. Or were you insincere when you conceded virtually every point I made save the one that was apparently only a slight disagreement?

Playing history revisionism will get you no where quite efficiently. So Rolf is mistaken, give him a break, were all human. The grace should be more than sufficient.