Does Calvinism limit God?

[godrulz]

Hermeneutics: the art and science of Bible interpretation.

literal method= grammatical, historical, contextual, theological principles...

e.g. The book of Acts says that you and all your household will be saved... this is a specific historical promise...it was not meant to be generalized to a universal principle for all times...as evidenced by many Christians having unsaved loved ones who die outside of Christ.

There is one correct interpretation (what it meant to the original audience) and many applications by way of principle (what it means to us today).

Most commentaries would concur that the two verses in question are specific comments for the situation at hand. i.e. context is the key...

We can make a general application by way of principle to God's ways with men, but it becomes proof texting to use those verses to support a preconceived theological system (Calvinism). Those are not common verses to support Calvinism and are very specific to Jesus and Pharaoh in context.

The way God dealt with Moses, for example, is not the exact way He will deal in our lives (burning bush, etc...though He deals truthfully, is faithful, wise, loving, etc.)...Do not argue from the specific to the general (this is a common logical fallacy) unless the context mandates this (which it does not).

In other words, we need to look at all relevant verses and examples to formulate our beliefs. I would suggest there are 2 motifs in Scripture. God predestines some things (the Calvinistic verses would support this and I agree with them), but some things are genuinely open to our input (other verses that show uncertainty about the future or contingencies/conditional prophecy, etc.). The Open View takes all these verses at face value. Calvinism takes the predestination verses literally, while allegorizing the other ones.

Which is the better hermeneutic (both literal, or one set literal and the other set figurative where not warranted)?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

If there are specific details in history that God lets run their course without intervention (to preserve genuine freedom, responsibility, accountability)...

This is the problem with your view. It's focused on the "preservation of man's will", as if it deserves some sort of respect from God. He doesn't allow things to "run their course" for the sake of preserving our freedom! How ludicris and prideful! Who are we to dictate and limit the actions and will of God? We're mere humans - dust - and in God's eyes, accounted as nothing in His sight (Dan 4:35)!

God ordains things not to preserve our "freedom" and will, but to preserve His will and purposes and glory. He could care less if His actions infringe our "rights" or not! And when they do, there is nothing you can say in rebuttal against God!

He is not also the all-controlling God of Calvinism who never has His will thwarted.

That's not "Calvinism", that's biblical:

Job 42:1-2
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that thou can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

Is 14:24,27
The Lord of Hosts has sworn: "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand....For the Lord of Hosts has purposed, and who will make it void? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?"

Is 46:9-11
"Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My council shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my council from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.' "

Is 55:11
"So shall my Word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but is shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the things for which I sent it."

Daniel 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What are you doing?"

The logical conclusion is that God is ultimately responsible for evil, since He allows it or does not stop it at all times. He could, but He does not intervene all the time. The problem is not with God, His ability, His sovereignty, etc. It is simply the type of creation that God sovereignly chose to make where genuine moral freedom exists and the inherent possibility of accidents, good, evil are genuine, and not illusions.

Ummmm.... no one believes that God does evil. So saying that my beliefs argue that point is false. God does not do evil, but He does ordain men and angels and Satan himself to do evil. He uses these means for one cause and one cause only; to promote His glory in all the earth. How can a person know of love unless they see hate? How can the world and all of the cosmos learn of the glory and love of God unless they've seen the destruction and damnation of sin and hatred? In all things, may God be glorified.

The verses about Jesus and Pharaoh are specific to those situations, and should not be argued as generalizations for every situation or choice in history (logical fallacy...goes beyond what other passages would teach).

The Lord directing our steps does not have to mean every minute detail or every choice. He is responsive, creative, and omnicompetent and able to bring His purposes to pass despite an array of subordinate choices that may even hinder His plan at the moment.

These attempts to water down the scripture for what it truely says is dishonorable. How can you limit that passage of scripture in Exodus to mean only for Pharaoh? Why are they limited just to those situations? God can do it for them, but not you, or anyone else; only in specific situations is He allowed to do those things? Please....

Proverbs 16:9 is not limited in it's description either. We can plan anything we desire, but what truely happens is the direction of God's plan to begin with. We can plan our ways, in all ways we desire, but God directs our footsteps. That is in all areas of our life that we plan out. From what time we go to bed to where we choose to go at what time on a Friday night; all of it is directed by God.

 

[godrulz]

Certainly God can and does what He pleases. The things He purposes will come to pass because of His ability. The wrong assumption is that He purposes every detail and choice in the universe. He does not do things to just arbitrarily maintain our freedom, but it is glorious that He gives genuine freedom to other moral agents. This is not a threat to His sovereignty, but a testament to His great love and power...to remain King of kings and Lord of lords despite the limited choices (good and bad) that we contribute to His universe. Again, God chose this type of creation and it has consequences. It brings grief to the heart of God, but the alternative would be a dictatorship and robotic creatures. The possibility of evil due to this type of creation does not mean that it was His will and intention from the beginning. When evil became a factor in the universe, He responded with a plan of redemption. There is a warfare going on. The victory is assured, but will only be fully achieved at the end of the age. In the mean time there is rebellion and loss contrary to the rule of God (thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven...God's will is not always being done now).

cf. WW II D-Day and VE-Day...victory assured and achieved, but casualties in between...the Kingdom is NOW, but not yet (eschatology).

In simple terms, God created everything VERY good. THEN He was grieved that He made man and was going to wipe him out. This is a change in the heart of God in response to changing circumstances that were predictable, but not certain or predestined (Genesis).

 

[John Reformed]

Dear Godrulz,

Your god continues to get smaller and smaller...

John

 

[godrulz]

I affirm that God is omnicompetent, sovereign, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient (knows all that is knowable), and omnipresent. He does not have to control every moral and mundane choice in the universe, because of His greatness and awesomeness. A lesser god would have to predestine everything to bring His purposes to pass at the expense of love, relationship, and freedom. God is providentially responsive, not meticulously controlling. Which is truly the smaller view of God?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

don't feel bad godrulz, they believe they were predestined to say those things

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

I affirm that God is omnicompetent, sovereign, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient (knows all that is knowable), and omnipresent. He does not have to control every moral and mundane choice in the universe, because of His greatness and awesomeness. A lesser god would have to predestine everything to bring His purposes to pass at the expense of love, relationship, and freedom. God is providentially responsive, not meticulously controlling. Which is truly the smaller view of God?

It is my understanding that Open Theism questions God's ability to know, with absolute certainty, that which has, is and will occur ". It follows that the succesful accomplishment of His eternal plan is contingent (possible, or liable, but not certain, to occur and subject to failure. You claim to believe that God is omniscient, but deny His knowledge of future occurances.

Consider: Omniscience is from the Latin omnis = “all” combined with scientia = “knowledge” the combination meaning to know all or to have perfect knowledge. God’s omniscience is His knowledge of all things including actual and possible, past, present, and future (foreknowledge). God is all knowing, and His knowledge is in no way restricted by temporal considerations. He knows and sees the past, the present, and the future with equal clarity and absolute certainty. To Him, all is the present. God knows all things perfectly (Ps. 147:5; Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20), sees and hears everything (Ex 3:7; 2 Chr 16:9; Ps 34:15; 102:19, 20; Pr 5:21; 15:3; Jer. 16:16), knows from all eternity the entire plan of the ages and the part of every man in that plan (Isa. 46:9-11; 48:3-7; Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:3-12).God has perfect knowledge of each individual person and of all his ways (Ps. 33:13-15; 139:1-16; Pr. 5:21), his words (Ps. 139:4; Matt. 12:35-37), his thoughts (1 Chr 28:9; Ps. 94:11; 139:1-2; Matt. 9:4), his afflictions and trials (Gen. 21:17-19; 1 Cor. 10:13; Rev. 2:9-10, 13) and his future actions and final state (Gen. 18:19; Ex. 3:19; Isa. 44:28-45:5; Matt. 25:31-34, 41; Acts 27:22-25). God’s omniscience means that nothing anyone does escapes the knowledge of God and that one day we will be called to give an account at the bar of God for God will deal with each according to the truth of his life (Ro 2:2, 3, 6; 14:10-12). For more information on the various judgments, see The Doctrine of the Judgments. God's omniscience gives us confidence in prayer knowing that He will not lose our prayers and that He always knows the best answer, even knowing our needs before we ask (Matt. 6:31-34; Isa. 65:24).

 

[John Reformed]

False Teaching

False Teaching

Open theism leaves the traditional or classical teaching of many of God's attributes. It also may be called Free-Will Theism, Openness of God, or Neo-Theism. It has recently been developed and popularized by Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, who have come out with a number of books on the subject. It has spurred much controversy within evangelical circles.

Below are only a few points where open theists differ from classical theism:

God does not have absolute foreknowledge. He chooses to know some things in the future and not others. The future is "partly open," hence, Open Theism. This abandons the classical view of God's omniscience.
God's love is His foremost attribute. While traditional theist would not argue that God is love, in this system it is elevated at the expense of other attributes, most namely God's wrath and justice.
God is constrained by time. He "experiences the temporal world in a temporal way"1. This abandons the classical teaching of omnitemporality.
God is profoundly influenced by man and by the world. They stop short of being process theologians, and indeed would argue against that theology, but abandon the classical view of divine immutability.
Open theists believe that there is prophecy in the bible which goes unfulfilled, that God's plans can be thwarted. Indeed, "God's will does not guarantee the outcome that He desires."2. This goes against the classical teachings of God's omnipotence and sovereignty.
1. Pinnock, Clark; Rice, Richard; Sanders, John; Hasker, William, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downer's Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 22.
2. Ibid., 54.
http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Open_Theism/

 

[Swordsman]

Re: False Teaching

Re: False Teaching

Originally posted by John Reformed

Open theism leaves the traditional or classical teaching of many of God's attributes. It also may be called Free-Will Theism, Openness of God, or Neo-Theism.

or it may be called secular humanism too. Their view is "ultimately, it depends on us." That is not Christianity.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

A lesser god would have to predestine everything to bring His purposes to pass at the expense of love, relationship, and freedom.

That's the problem with your thinking process. Somehow, and for some unknown reason, you and many other Open Theists believe that God needs our love, relationship, and for us to have freedom, as if His self-existance flows around these things. In the above stated quote from you, you are literally saying that if God does not love us, have a relationship with us, or give us freedom, then He is not an Almighty God. In other words, everything about God depends on anything about us. This type of, as Swordman put it, secular humanism is at the core of Open Theism and the free will theology, and it is why I hate it with all my heart. It robs the glory that rightly belongs to God and hands it to men.

 

[godrulz]

Re: Re: False Teaching

Re: Re: False Teaching

Originally posted by Swordsman

or it may be called secular humanism too. Their view is "ultimately, it depends on us." That is not Christianity.

Open Theism, properly understood, is theocentric. The emphasis on its distinctives is the openness of God's chosen creation, not on supposed deficiencies in His being, character, or attributes.

God chose to create the world in a way that allows for genuine freedom in other moral agents besides Himself. This flows from His love and wisdom and results in characteristics that differ from other possible worlds God could have created, but chose not to.

The opponents of Open Theism often do not understand or misrepresent its teachings. They tend to simply assume that Calvinism is true, rather than wrestle with all relevant passages or philosophical insights. e.g. 'eternal now' is a specultive theory, not an explicit revelation in the Bible.

e.g. the certain foreknowledge of future, contingent choices is problematic from a logical, Scriptural point of view. This is not a deficiency in God's knowledge, since He knows reality as it actually is.

We do not dispute that God knows the past and present perfectly. The verses used to support this are not disputed by either camp. The conditional prophecies or verses where God changes His mind are properly understood at face value by Open Theists. Calvinists make them figurative and use mental gymnastics to water down the revelation of God in history.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

That's the problem with your thinking process. Somehow, and for some unknown reason, you and many other Open Theists believe that God needs our love, relationship, and for us to have freedom, as if His self-existance flows around these things. In the above stated quote from you, you are literally saying that if God does not love us, have a relationship with us, or give us freedom, then He is not an Almighty God. In other words, everything about God depends on anything about us. This type of, as Swordman put it, secular humanism is at the core of Open Theism and the free will theology, and it is why I hate it with all my heart. It robs the glory that rightly belongs to God and hands it to men.

God is self-sufficient and did not need to create us for completeness. You are putting words in our mouths. He does not NEED our love, relationship, or freedom. He DESIRES it and freely created a creation that upholds the best values in the universe: love, relationship, freedom, wisdom, etc. He could have made a fatalistically determined universe, but He did not. We need to understand His character and attributes as well as the nature of the type of creation He chose to make. This is based on revelation more than reason. Neither view needs to be seen as robbing God of His glory or exalting man unnecessarily. It is to the glory of God that He made things the way they are, even at the expense of His perfect joy. The Fall introduced grief into the heart of God. This was not His will nor desire. In love and power, He will redeem a people, even though many will perish. To think that God desires His precious creation to be separate from Him distorts His character, but is the conclusion that Calvinists come to to maintain an extreme view on God's will and sovereignty. This is why I dislike some aspects of Calvinism: it distorts the character and revelation of God making Him, not man and Satan, culpable for evil and sin (it is His will because He allows it???= weak argument).

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

This is why I dislike some aspects of Calvinism: it distorts the character and revelation of God making Him, not man and Satan, culpable for evil and sin (it is His will because He allows it???= weak argument).

Your statement betrays your ignorance of Reformed theology. Being that the Bible holds man responsible for his sins, calvinists accept it as God's revealed truth. Though we cannot reconcile God's sovereingnty with man's responsibility, we do believe both doctrines to be true.

The Westminster Confession of Faith

CHAPTER VI. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.

I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.



Where many go wrong is in demanding that the doctrines of God be made to conform with the finite wisdom of men.

John

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

God is self-sufficient and did not need to create us for completeness. You are putting words in our mouths.

You said it yourself Godrulz:

A lesser god would have to predestine everything to bring His purposes to pass at the expense of love, relationship, and freedom.

You stated that for God to predestine is purposes and will at the expense of love for us, a relationship with us, and our freedom, would make Him a lesser God. You define God's attributes by how He reacts to men. To you, God would not really be a God of glory if He ever infringed our rights. You put man's worth and rights above God's glory and will.

He does not NEED our love, relationship, or freedom. He DESIRES it and freely created a creation that upholds the best values in the universe: love, relationship, freedom, wisdom, etc.

First of all, why did He desire a relationship with us? I'll go ahead and answer it for it. It wasn't to "preserve" love or "relationships", nor did it have anything to do with man. The basis for everything is God's glory. He created us to glorify Himself; self-exaltation. It wasn't that God was lonely, or "desired" a relationship with us; it's that He desired to glorify Himself in all the universe.

And secondly, why do you believe that those "values" are the best in the universe? Are you God's secretary, declaring what is best in the world? Somehow, you left out God's glory, which is, biblically speaking, the only reason anything and everything exist. Nothing is here for the sake of "wisdom", or "relationship", or "freedom". Everything is here for the glorification of God.

It is to the glory of God that He made things the way they are, even at the expense of His perfect joy.

God's perfect joy is no less perfect than it was before we were created. We cannot deter the attributes of God, nor can we edify any of them. Again, you are declaring, by this statement, that God is dependant upon us. See what a "man-centered" theology will do to your thinking process? It will destroy it! And it does not glorify God!

The Fall introduced grief into the heart of God. This was not His will nor desire.

Really? Are you sure about that? If the Fall was not God's will, then explain this verse:

Revelation 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb SLAIN from the foundation of the world.

In love and power, He will redeem a people, even though many will perish. To think that God desires His precious creation to be separate from Him distorts His character, but is the conclusion that Calvinists come to to maintain an extreme view on God's will and sovereignty. This is why I dislike some aspects of Calvinism: it distorts the character and revelation of God making Him, not man and Satan, culpable for evil and sin (it is His will because He allows it???= weak argument).

You don't like my view, or "Calvinism", because it tramples on men's rights, or as you would say, men's God given rights. Calvinism puts men on the level of trash, way beneath God, and to you, that's irrational.

To bring about God's glory, He creates and destroys. God alone does these things. At the expense of our comfort, freedom, and "rights", God does as He pleases. And there is nothing we can say against Him because of that! Nothing! No one can prevent Him from doing as He pleases. Our "relationship", or "freedom" is not such a high priority on His list as much as His Glory is. The purpose in all He does is to self-exhalt Himself. All we can do is humbly acknowledge Him as God and glorify His name in all the earth forever, if He so allows us to do as such!

 

[godrulz]

The Lamb was not literally slain from the foundation of the world. This happened in space-time history in about 29 A.D.

The plan of salvation was formulated as a possibility from the beginning of creation (due to the possibility of man rebelling due to free will). The plan was not implemented until after the Fall (Gen. 3), and did not become actual until thousands of years later.

The reason Calvinism cannot reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is that its understanding of what sovereignty is is flawed. Open Theism reconciles man's freedom (gift from God), responsibility, and accountability by understanding that predestination would negate these things. Thus, God predestines some things, but not every moral choice related to salvation/eternal destiny. Decree/unconditional election is a wrong assumption. As well, sovereignty does not have to be defined as meticulous control. God is sovereign through providential control, allowing for some of creation to be open, rather than closed. This reconciles sovereignty with free will, upholding all (not just some) of the revelation in Scripture. Sovereignty and free will are not mutually exclusive, unless defined inaccurately. It is not a mystery, but a lack of understanding that creates confusion.

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by godrulz

The Lamb was not literally slain from the foundation of the world. This happened in space-time history in about 29 A.D.

The plan of salvation was formulated as a possibility from the beginning of creation (due to the possibility of man rebelling due to free will). The plan was not implemented until after the Fall (Gen. 3), and did not become actual until thousands of years later.

The reason Calvinism cannot reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is that its understanding of what sovereignty is is flawed. Open Theism reconciles man's freedom (gift from God), responsibility, and accountability by understanding that predestination would negate these things. Thus, God predestines some things, but not every moral choice related to salvation/eternal destiny. Decree/unconditional election is a wrong assumption. As well, sovereignty does not have to be defined as meticulous control. God is sovereign through providential control, allowing for some of creation to be open, rather than closed. This reconciles sovereignty with free will, upholding all (not just some) of the revelation in Scripture. Sovereignty and free will are not mutually exclusive, unless defined inaccurately. It is not a mystery, but a lack of understanding that creates confusion.

God’s revealed will is made known in His Word, but His secret will is His own hidden counsels. God’s revealed will is the definer of our duty and the standard of our responsibility. The primary and basic reason why I should follow a certain course or do a certain thing is because it is God’s will that I should, His will being clearly defined for me in His Word. That I should not follow a certain course, that I must refrain from doing certain things, is because they are contrary to God’s revealed will. But suppose I disobey God’s Word, then do I not cross His will? And if so, how can it still be true that God’s will is always done and His counsel accomplished at all times? Such questions should make evident the necessity for the distinction here advocated. God’s revealed will is frequently crost, but His secret will is never thwarted. That it is legitimate for us to make such a distinction concerning God’s will is clear from Scripture. Take these two passages: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification" (1 Thess. 4:3); "For who hath resisted His will?" (Rom. 9:19). Would any thoughtful reader declare that God’s "will" has precisely the same meaning in both of these passages? We surely hope not. The first passage refers to God’s revealed will, the latter to His secret will. The first passage concerns our duty, the latter declares that God’s secret purpose is immutable and must come to pass notwithstanding the creature’s insubordination. God’s revealed will is never done perfectly or fully by any of us, but His secret will never fails of accomplishment even in the minutest particular. His secret will mainly concerns future events; His revealed will, our present duty: the one has to do with His irresistible purpose, the other with His manifested pleasure: the one is wrought upon us and accomplished through us, the other is to be done by us.

The secret will of God is His eternal, unchanging purpose concerning all things which He hath made, to be brought about by certain means to their appointed ends: of this God expressly declares "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 46:10). This is the absolute, efficacious will of God, always effected, always fulfilled. The revealed will of God contains not His purpose and decree but our duty,—not what He will do according to His eternal counsel, but what we should do if we would please Him, and this is expressed in the precepts and promises of His Word. Whatever God has determined within Himself, whether to do Himself, or to do by others, or to suffer to be done, whilst it is in His own breast, and is not made known by any event in providence, or by precept, or by prophecy, is His secret will. Such are the deep things of God, the thoughts of His heart, the counsels of His mind, which are impenetrable to all creatures. But when these are made known they become His revealed will: such is almost the whole of the book of Revelation, wherein God has made known to us "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1:1—"must" because He has eternally purposed that they should). (Pink)

 

[godrulz]

I concur that there are many things that God predestines and thus will bring to pass, regardless of other moral agents.

God's moral will does tell us what we are to do to live a godly, abundant, and eternal life.

Many things He predestines to come to pass are general. It is an assumption to think that every specific detail is predestined, since God can bring things to pass regardless of minor possible variations.

Secret will is a concept. There are things that God does not reveal, but many things He does.

While some of the future is predestined (First and Second Coming of Christ, etc.), there are also aspects that are undetermined or open. Who will win the lottery or Superbowl in 10 years is an example. If and when I brush my teeth is another. Whether I fornicate or not is located in my will, not God's will. Theology should square with revelation and reality.

A missionaries' infant child being sodomized by thugs has nothing to do with God's revealed or secret will. It is genuine evil that breaks the heart of God. Justice will eventually take place.

Theodicy deals with the problem of evil. The warfare model is consistent with the revelation in Scripture, the ministry of Christ, and modern reality. The blueprint model makes God indirectly culpable, contrary to the moral law of God and His character.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

The Lamb was not literally slain from the foundation of the world. This happened in space-time history in about 29 A.D.

That's the most retarded answer I've ever heard in my life. You deny scripture for the sake of your theology?!?! :kookoo:

The plan of salvation was formulated as a possibility from the beginning of creation (due to the possibility of man rebelling due to free will). The plan was not implemented until after the Fall (Gen. 3), and did not become actual until thousands of years later.

So God was guessing that maybe He would have to sacrifice His Son. I can see that now:

"Ok Son, get ready. I might have to put you in. I'm going to create man, and who knows what they're going to do. If they rebel, we may have to go to plan B, and you're going to have to do some dirty work for Me. ..... Uh oh. Looks like they rebelled. Ok, calm down everyone! Calm down! I have a backup plan. Ok Christ, you're in!" Then God smacks Jesus on the butt as He prepares to be brought forth into the world to save us.

:darwinsm: HAHAHA! That's a nice story, but I don't think it's biblical. Try again, Godrulz.

While some of the future is predestined (First and Second Coming of Christ, etc.), there are also aspects that are undetermined or open. Who will win the lottery or Superbowl in 10 years is an example. If and when I brush my teeth is another. Whether I fornicate or not is located in my will, not God's will. Theology should square with revelation and reality.

In squaring "theology" with your concept of reality, you are putting God into a man-made, limited box. God is bound by our will and our reality. This, in turn, distorts your theology, and thus the reason you're going around spreading false doctrines about "free will" and "open theism".

Scripture goes beyond what we can conceive. God's reality is way beyond what we could ever conceive of on earth.

Isaiah 55:8
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.

A missionaries' infant child being sodomized by thugs has nothing to do with God's revealed or secret will. It is genuine evil that breaks the heart of God. Justice will eventually take place.

Lessons are learned through trials and heart-ache. Just ask Job. Declaring that such an event is not the will of God is foolish. He uses evil acts to show us His glory, as He did with Job, Pharaoh, Jonah, Joseph the slave, Moses, David, Saul, Peter, Paul, Stephen, Jesus, and on and on and on....

 

[godrulz]

God is redemptive despite evil. He does not set up or cause evil (this is blasphemous) for His glory. He is holy and just with no darkness in Him. When and if evil occurs, He attempts to bring some good, such as character development from trials. There is a vast difference between 'using' evil after the fact, and it being God's will originally. There is no need to attribute the origin of evil to God. Evil is evil. God is good. The marvel is that despite genuine evil, God is able to mitigate some things for His glory and our good. You cannot reverse the rape and death of your child. To ascribe this to God is grievous. His justice will eventually prevail, but it was never His intent to cause or allow it to display His glory?! The fact that He allowed it shows that we live in a complex universe that has more factors than the will of God in it. Accidents can happen because we can drink, drive, and speed. This originates from our will, not God's. We are in His image and have independent thoughts, actions, and emotions that are not controlled by God. This enhances, not diminishes His glory. If He was a feeble god, this would be a threat. He is omnicompetent, so we do not have to fret that free will choices will overthrow His kingdom.

The Lamb was not slain literally in the Garden of Eden. Why is this a 'retarded' answer? This is not disputable. Your irreverent spin on God's response to the Fall in Genesis 3 shows a lack of rudimentary understanding of God's interaction with creation as revealed in the Word. God was not surprised that man sinned, yet He was grieved and changed His mind about His 'very good' creation, to the point He was prepared to destroy it. This is a revelation of the heart and ways of God, not some charade for our anthropomorphic understanding.

Is. 55 is not about doctrinal absurdities (an excuse to support weak arguments). It shows that God's ways in salvation are righteous and not like mere mortals. God's thoughts are higher than ours, but that does not make error true or His thoughts irrational. His universe and character is one of order and beauty.

 

[John Reformed]

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Egads! God ordained that the most evil act that ever occured? Please explain.

John