What's calvinism?

[Clete]

Z Man,

My response to your post will not be as complex as I had expected. You've basically made the same mistake that every Calvinist makes with Romans 9. That mistake being to ignore its context and to make Paul talk about predestination when that's not the topic being discussed. Paul did not suddenly change the subject from the cutting off of Israel to predestination.
Paul is not speaking of individuals in Romans 9 he is speaking of nations. God had cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles. Paul was explaining that God had the authority and the right to do so. He explains this by quoting from Jeremiah 18. Jeremiah 18 was a good chapter to quote from because it was making the exact same point. As I've said about a half dozen times on this thread alone, Rom.9 and Jer. 18 are basically the same chapter.
Also, it is clear that Pharaoh did harden his own heart. It even says so in Exodus 9:34 and elsewhere. Of course it also says that God hardened his heart. So they were both involved, but it's not as if God sprinkled some hardening agent into Pharaoh’s heart. There wasn't anything magical or mystical going on, God simply performed undeniable miracles that shoved the truth right into Pharaoh’s face. God knew Pharaoh well enough to know that he would shove back, which he did. The harder God shoved the truth down Pharaoh’s throat, the harder his heart became, but by his own will. There is nothing in either the Exodus story or in Rom. 9 that compels one to believe that God did anything more than manipulate Pharaoh into sinning all the more and that Pharaoh did this of his own free will.

Originally posted by Z Man
The hardening of God does not make fault impossible, it makes fault certain.

Now here is the mystery – which is why the opinions of man don’t count for much – people who are hardened against God are really guilty. They have real fault. They are really blameworthy. They really deserve to be judged. And God decided who would be in that condition. If you demand an explanation for HOW this can be – that God decides who is hardened and yet they have real guilt and real fault – there are pointers in the Bible. But they will not satisfy the natural, fallen human mind.

I simply assert what I see in the Word: God hardens whom he wills, and man is accountable. God’s hardening does not take away guilt, it renders it certain. God hardens unconditionally and those who are hardened are truly guilty and truly at fault in their hard and rebellious hearts. Their own consciences will justly condemn them. If they perish, they will perish for real sin and real guilt. How God freely hardens and yet preserves human accountability we are not explicitly told.

It is the same mystery as how the first sin entered the universe. How does a sinful disposition arise in a good heart? The Bible does not tell us. To call the mystery "free will" – ultimate human self-determination – is only to put another name on it. Why would a perfectly good, ultimately self-determining creature (if there were such being) ever do evil? Ultimate human self-determination no more explains the mystery of the origin of evil than unconditional election explains the guilt of the hardened sinner. All it does is give the mystery a different name.

This is simply double talk.
Predeterminism and justice are mutually exclusive. This cannot be said of self-determination and evil. Indeed, evil cannot exist apart from self-determination nor can good for that matter. Love cannot exist at all if there is no alternative because love must be volitional. Put another way, Love must be (by definition) self-determined. So, love, hate, justice, mercy, and even faith are all rendered meaningless if self-determination isn't real.

The real question is: Which is the more Biblical name of the mystery, "Ultimate human self-determination," or "Unconditional election"? Romans 9:18 is plain in its context to all who will see: "God has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." The mystery remains, but the revelation is clear.

Oh yeah, it would be crystal clear if determinism was what was being discussed when this was said. As it is, Rom. 9 is among the most powerful arguments against Calvinism in the whole Bible. Paul is basically saying the if God decides to cut off a nation in response to their own unrighteousness that they have nothing to say about it. Or to put it another way, if God wants to change His mind for some good reason He can and will.

For killing people?!?

NO! Not for killing people Himself but for making (predestining) other people to murder, and then punishing them for it.

Your whole spill about how God did the children of Sodom a favor! That was totally made up and so unbiblical!!! Show me Scriptural proof that says God destroyed Sodom to do a favor for the children that lived there. That's not why He destroyed the city, and you know it. He didn't care if children lived there or not, Sodom was ordained to be destroyed along with all of it's inhabitants. The only being He was doing a favor for was Himself and His purposes.

I didn’t say that doing a favor for the children was WHY He destroyed Sodom. I just say that His having destroyed Sodom had the effect of doing the kids there a favor from an eternal perspective. Thus even God’s harsh wrath has a silver lining of mercy.

I can say "perhaps" or "maybe" or "might of" because I'm not God. I'm only human. My knowledge of the future IS limited, unlike God. If the opportunity arises and presents itself to me, I'm going to take it. If it's meant to be by God, it will happen. If not, it won't happen, and God will lead the way to where I'm suppose to be…
… I don't the know the outcome of what may become of my friend, but God does. However, it would be idiotic of me to conclude that I too know what God's purpose is for my friends life and do nothing as he paddles frantically to stay afloat in the water. It would be wise of me to take the oppurtunity to reach in and pull him out, since the opportunity presents itself.

Exactly! So you must think and live your life in the exact manner in which you would if Calvinism were not so. Everything about every aspect of your existence testifies to the falsehood of fatalistic predeterminism.

We go through tests not to prove anything to God, or to make things certain to Him as if He didn't already know the outcome, but we go through trials and tribulations so that God can show us things and teach and prove to us what we need to know.

This is not always the case…
Gen 22:12 And He (God) said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.

This is another one of those passages that must mean anything but what it says or else Calvinism breaks down the middle and crumble to a million pieces.

Now, if I wasn't there, and my friend fell in, and no one was there to help him, then obviously God had ordained that that was the time for him to go. But since I was there, my reason for being there serves a purpose, and that purpose could very well be to save him. If for some reason I was unsuccessful at rescuing my friend, maybe God's purpose for me being there was to witness my friends death and learn from the experience of not being able to help. Who knows. There are so many possible variables and outcomes. But whatever happens always happens for a reason. God knows which outcome is best to bring about His ultimate purpose.

The variable you ignore is that perhaps it just happened. Maybe it was just an accident.
You already said that it would be foolish for you to assume that it was God’s plan to have the man die if you are there to save him, why is it necessary to think otherwise just because he’s there alone.

2Sa 1:6 And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.

Luk 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

1Sa 6:9 And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemesh, [then] he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that [it is] not his hand [that] smote us: it [was] a chance [that] happened to us.

The fact that things happen by chance is not foreign to Scripture but it certainly is foreign to Calvinism.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed

Good morning Clete,

I don't see where Pascal is being optomistic. His intent is to put forth his idea that the pursuit of happiness is the ultimate motivator of mankind. To me, this appears self-evident.

Take an athlete for example. "Pain is gain" is their credo. They endure great physical discomfort if they percieve it to be a necessary means to achieving their goal. Politicians; businessmen, scientists; artists etc. all motivated people are willing to do what it takes to win the prize. Why? Because they value a trophy, money, power and influence, acclaim? I don't think so. What good, in themselves, do these things bring? No...they strive to attain the desires of their hearts because they believe, having succeeded, they will be made happy.

Think of our pursuit of the imperishable prize.

1Cor 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

Are we motivated by the fear of Hell or by our love for Christ? It is the love of Christ that restrains us from sin.

Hbr 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Well, it wasn't my intention to totally discount his observation, it is quite valid from many perspectives.
Also, it wasn't so much physical pain I was referring to but emotional and psychological pain. And I do believe that pain avoidance is the biggest motivational influence in the normal human life. Those who excel in life learn to overcome it to varying degrees but as long as we live in this fallen creation it will never be completely overcome.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Out of nine English versions that I have checked only one translates the word as "heart" in this verse. I would assume that the context constrains them to use the word "mind" for clarities sake. However, the Hebrew word is translated in many other places in the Bible as "heart" and so I do not object to the use of it here.

I mentioned the Septuagint translation. We're talking about something the Hebrews translated around 200 BC. Probably a pretty good translation to go by, wouldn't you think?

The simple fact is that it doesn't change the meaning of the verse at all.

Correct. It only changes your meaning of it.

Your heart in this context is not the pump in your chest but it is in fact your mind.

Proof of this? Or is this just an opinion?

And even if you want to strain at gnats on this issue and insist that it is in some way significantly different some how, it still doesn't change my argument. How could God predestine something that "never came up on His heart" as Young's translation puts it?

I think you and I both agree that God contemplates all different ways us humans can rebel against Him. He knows our morality, our sin nature, and each of our weaknesses. But to sit there and say God is ignorant of how and when His people rebel just doesn't line up. Whenever Israel rebelled, God certainly didn't like it, and yes, it never entered the intentions of God's heart. But that is not the same thing as God was just completely shocked that his people would ever do such a thing.

Let me ask you something. After Adam and Eve took the fruit from the tree in the Garden of Eden, and they went and hid themselves, then God was walking in the Garden looking for them calling Where art thou? Do you think God didn't know where and why they were hiding?

Now matter how many word games you play, there is simply no way to keep both the clear meaning of the passage and a Calvinistic world view intact. This verse must mean anything except what it says or else Calvinism cannot be true.
As for me, I'll stick with the text, thank you very much.

Fine. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You're entitled to whatever meaning you can think of. Perhaps it was predestined you would lean to the OV way of life.

(thankfully, it is only by the grace of God that I am not)

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Well, it wasn't my intention to totally discount his observation, it is quite valid from many perspectives.
Also, it wasn't so much physical pain I was referring to but emotional and psychological pain. And I do believe that pain avoidance is the biggest motivational influence in the normal human life. Those who excel in life learn to overcome it to varying degrees but as long as we live in this fallen creation it will never be completely overcome.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hi Clete,

I only used physical pain as an example. People avoid pain of all kinds (especially emotional and pschological) because it negatively impacts whatever happiness they do have.

Of course, as christians we are commanded to rejoice in our pain (trials) ,because we know that it is God at work in us, refining us as a silversmith refines silver. He works all things, including pain and suffering, to our ultimate good.

The knowlege that eternal happiness (the joy set before us) is the end result of everything we experience, gives us the strength to perservere to the end.

At any rate...I find this topic a refreshing change from the norm.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed

Hi Clete,

I only used physical pain as an example. People avoid pain of all kinds (especially emotional and pschological) because it negatively impacts whatever happiness they do have.

Of course, as christians we are commanded to rejoice in our pain (trials) ,because we know that it is God at work in us, refining us as a silversmith refines silver. He works all things, including pain and suffering, to our ultimate good.

The knowlege that eternal happiness (the joy set before us) is the end result of everything we experience, gives us the strength to perservere to the end.

At any rate...I find this topic a refreshing change from the norm.

Agreed! :thumb:

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

My response to your post will not be as complex as I had expected. You've basically made the same mistake that every Calvinist makes with Romans 9. That mistake being to ignore its context and to make Paul talk about predestination when that's not the topic being discussed. Paul did not suddenly change the subject from the cutting off of Israel to predestination.

Paul is not speaking of individuals in Romans 9 he is speaking of nations. God had cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles. Paul was explaining that God had the authority and the right to do so. He explains this by quoting from Jeremiah 18. Jeremiah 18 was a good chapter to quote from because it was making the exact same point. As I've said about a half dozen times on this thread alone, Rom.9 and Jer. 18 are basically the same chapter.

Since this thread is titled "What is Calvinism", and since Romans 9 does a great job of obviously and clearly stating that God is absolutely sovereign, I'm going to go through the first part of Romans 9 with a fine tooth comb. Let's see for ourselves what the context of Romans 9 really is, shall we:


Romans 9:1-5
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.


Here is Paul's introduction into this chapter. He begins by stating that he is in great sorrow. What for? What is he sorrowful about? He tells us in v.3 that it is because he wished that he were "accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites". What exactly does that mean? Well, it means that Paul was literally saying that if he could be cursed from the Messiah so that they (the Israelites) could be blessed, he'd do it in a heartbeat. He then proceeds to explain, in v.4 and v.5 of how the Israelites are a blessed people, who Christ Himself came from. Yet, even with all that the Israelites had going for them, they were still lost, or otherwise Paul would have never stated that he wished he were accursed from them. So, Paul continues:


6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.


Paul answers the question that arises from the first five verses; the question, "If the Israelites are the blessed people of God, from whom Christ came Himself, why in the world would you, Paul, wish to be accursed so that they could be blessed by Christ? Do the promises of God towards His people have no effect?" Paul states that "not all are Israel who are of Israel". That's a funny thing to say. Is Paul talking about nations here? What he said is like saying, "Not all Americans are truely Americans." Well, that makes no sense. And obviously, Paul is not talking about the nation of Israel itself. Of course he isn't because he says so in v.8, that the promise of God to Abraham was not according to the "fleshly" decendants of Abraham directly, but of those promised by God. In other words, "From the outset, not all Israelites of the flesh were Israelites of the spirit. It wasn't Abraham's sperm that gave identity here, but God's promise. Remember how it was put: "Your family will be defined by Isaac"? That means that Israelite identity was never racially determined by sexual transmission, but it was God-determined by promise" (The Message).

So Paul's not talking about the nation of Israel here; he's talking about the children of the promise. They are the ones who make up the true nation of Israel. They may not be physically a citizen of Israel, but that's not who God made His promises to that Paul spoke of in v.4-v.5. God made those promises to... to who? The children of promise. But who are the children of promise? Let's find out:


9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." 10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."


In these passages, Paul tells us that God made promises to both Sarah and Rebecca concerning their children. To Sarah, that she would have a son, although she was barren. Her son would thus impregnant Rebecca, whom God also made a promise. The one made to Rebecca was while she was still pregnant. God told her that the older shall serve the younger because God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had done anything good or bad! Why would God ever dictate such a thing? Paul tells us in v.11. Basically, "what God did in this case made it perfectly plain that his purpose is not a hit-or-miss thing dependent on what we do or don't do, but a sure thing determined by his decision, flowing steadily from his initiative" (The Message).

God told Rebecca that her firstborn would basically have to take a "backseat" to His purposes and perfect will, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand". His interest wasn't in the nationality of Israel and respecting their customs concerning the firstborn; His interest was in preserving His purposes according to "election", or predestination. It's very clear that Paul is not talking about nations, but rather, about God's purposes in predestination and election - how His will concerning those things overrides whatever will we try to carry out. That's why Esau was going to serve Jacob. Not because Esau did anything wrong, but because God said so.

Thus, although Esau was an Israelite, he was not one of the children of promise. He was not included in the promise God made concerning His people. God's promises were not to the physical nation of Israel and the indwelling citizens; God's promises were for those whom He has elected. Jacob and Esau both were Israelites, but Jacob was a child of the promise, unlike Esau.

Well, that raises another question. Does election make God unfair? I mean, how can God just choose and pick who He wishes? How can He hate Esau when he did nothing wrong? Paul addresses that issue next:


14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.


If God elects people as the "children of promise", or to salvation, does that mean God is unrighteous and unfair? Certainly not, Paul declares! Then Paul brings to the reader's attention God's statement in Exodus to Moses, how He will have mercy on whom He wishes. In v.16, Paul says that therefore, since God will have mercy on whom He wishes, it's not up to us. It's not our will or our actions of good deeds or evil ones, that dictate if we receive mercy or not from God. Paul says that it's not our will at all, but of God's will. He's the one who shows mercy according to His purpose and will. Then Paul procedes to show an example of what he is talking about by quoting from Exodus again, concerning Pharaoh. God explicitly stated that Pharoah was created for one purpose and one purpose only; "that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Everything that is done is done to glorify God. He is all about self-exhalting Himself, and thus will harden and have mercy on whomever HE WILLS, not according to our will. Pharoah didn't let the Israelites go because God didn't want him too. Plain and simple.

Ok, so if God does do things according to His will, why does He still blame us for doing wrong things? Why was Pharaoh in the wrong if it was God's will for him to be hardened? Paul addresses this issue next:


19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?


Paul's question in v.19 is in objection to his statement in v.18. If no one has resisted the will of God, since He hardens and has mercy on whom He wills, then why does He still find fault? But Paul answers the question to the objection in v.20. He literally puts the reader in check. "Who are you to question God, you mortal man? Can the clay talk back to the potter? Isn't it obvious that the potter has the power to create from the same lump of clay one vase for an honorable thing, and another for destruction and dishonor?" Paul continues:


22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


This is Paul's attempt to answer the mystery of how God can control everything in complete sovereignty, yet still hold us accountable. Paul suggests that if God wants to create some for destruction and some for honor, in order to make known His glory which He prepared beforehand, then He has every right too.

"If God needs one style of pottery especially designed to show his angry displeasure and another style carefully crafted to show his glorious goodness, isn't that all right?" (The Message).


As one can clearly see, if taken into context, one cannot help but come to understand that God does indeed have complete sovereignty over His creation. We are not granted compassion according to our deeds or will, but we are hardened or granted mercy depending on God's will for His purposes. Paul was not quoting from Jeremiah in v.21-24; he was merely answering the objection to the statement that God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

That, my friend, is simply the truth of Romans 9. You may not like it, but God doesn't care much for your comfort regarding His Word. It still stands that He elects and predestines according to His will, not ours. And there is nothing we can say or do to stay His hand or declare Him unfair and unrighteous. We are nothing but mere clay in the hands of our Almighty Potter. He will make what He wishes to make; some for destruction, and others for honor.


Sorry this is really long, but I find that understanding Scripture in it's context is of utmost importance. We can not toss out or ignore the parts we disagree with or do not feel comfortable with. We must study and understand every aspect of Scripture, whether it tickles our ears or not. In Romans 9, we clearly just saw how Paul was speaking of the children of the promise, and how God chooses them (i.e. Jacob and Esau, Pharoah) according to His will, not ours.

Since I did create such a long post, forgive me Clete for not addressing the rest of your post. I believe that this will be enough food to chew on for now. If there is anything in particular that you wish for me to address concerning your previous post, let me know and I'll get back to you ASAP. Thanks, and I truely pray that you take into consideration what God's Word says concerning predestination and of God's absolute sovereignty. God bless.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

Your wrong. The proof is that when God said "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." He was clearly speaking of two nations and not the two boys.

There are at least three reasons.
1. God does not hate unborn babies!

2. Jacob (the man) never served Esau (the man).

3. When Paul wrote this in Rom. 9 he was quoting Genesis 25:23...
"And the Lord said to her:
"Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.""

God elected the nation of Israel for a task, which they failed at miserably so He cut them off and has now turned to another group, the Body of Christ, in which there is now no Jew or Gentile. The whole point of Rom. 9 is to explain that God has turned away from a nation with laws and cut them off and that He has the right to do so based upon the Scripture.
This is proven, and the fact that Paul was speaking of the nation of Israel is further proven, by the fact that Paul quoted from Jer. 18. The potter and the clay story is originally found in Jer. 18.
And in that story you read this...

Jer. 18:5 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 repent 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 repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

There can be no doubt. Paul is definitely speaking of Israel and the fact that God has cut them off and turned instead to the Gentiles through him (Paul). It's just as clear as it can possibly be if you simply take the time to make yourself familiar with the Old Testament passages that Paul makes reference to in Rom. 9. I'll say it again. Romans chapter 9 is the same as Jeremiah 18! They are making the exact same point.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man
Since I did create such a long post, forgive me Clete for not addressing the rest of your post. I believe that this will be enough food to chew on for now. If there is anything in particular that you wish for me to address concerning your previous post, let me know and I'll get back to you ASAP. Thanks, and I truely pray that you take into consideration what God's Word says concerning predestination and of God's absolute sovereignty. God bless.

Your post was fine! This thread has touched on just about ever objection to Open Theism that I can think of so I've had my hand's full responding to them all, so your narrowing the focus to Rom. 9 is terrific. I think that almost the entire argument can be addressed via Rom. 9. Calvinists definitely consider it to be there heavy Biblical artillery in the fight for individual fatalistic determinism and interestingly it happens to be among the more important chapters for establishing free-will for the OVers.
I just wish I had more time to really sit down and spend the time it would take to write out a really thorough argument but the time just isn't there. My previous post gives you the gist of it though, and perhaps as we go, I'll cover more ground in detail.

God bless,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Your wrong.

What I presented in my last post was 100% Scriptural. I did not profess a matter of my opinion - rather, I merely stated Scripture. Thus, I cannot be wrong, unless the Word of God be errant. If, however, I had just rambled on about how I supposed Romans 9 was to be read, basing everything on my opinion, of course I could be wrong. But I did not do such a thing.

How can quoting Scripture be wrong?

God elected the nation of Israel for a task, which they failed at miserably so He cut them off and has now turned to another group, the Body of Christ, in which there is now no Jew or Gentile. The whole point of Rom. 9 is to explain that God has turned away from a nation with laws and cut them off and that He has the right to do so based upon the Scripture.

Where in Romans 9 is this ever stated? That's not so! I've clearly shown what Rom 9 says. Paul was sorrowful that his own brethren, of whom were favored by God, were accursed from Christ. Paul goes on to state that just because the Jews were accursed from Christ does not mean that the blessings of God that were spoken of in Scripture were to no avail. Why? Because, Paul said, "not all Israel were of Israel". That verse is key. That's where the line between discussing about nations and those elected to salvation, aka the children of promise, is drawn. Pauls example of this was the way God chose Jacob over Esau in order to fulfill His purposes. Even though Esau was an Israelite, he was not included into the "children of promise". Because that was to raise an objection of saying that God is unfair, Paul goes into a whole spill about how God is absolutely sovereign, and there is nothing we can do about it. it's not our will, but His that decides who receives mercy and who will remain hardened.

This is proven, and the fact that Paul was speaking of the nation of Israel is further proven, by the fact that Paul quoted from Jer. 18. The potter and the clay story is originally found in Jer. 18.

Paul wasn't quoting from Jeremiah 18!

In Rom9, v.18, Paul stated that God has mercy or hardens the hearts of whomever He pleases. Then, in v.19, Paul addresses the question that would arise from such a statement that he made in v.18. Mainly that if we all do according to His will, why does He still find fault? In the verses following, Paul tries to answer that question. He basically states that we are mere men, the clay in the hands of an Almight Potter who will make whatever He wishes, whether it be "vessels for honor", or "vessels for dishonor". To assume that Paul is addressing an issue with nations and the cutting off of Israel in Rom 9:v.21-24 is to totally take that portion of Scripture out of it's context. Verses 21-24 can only be taken into context by understanding that he was addressing the question to the objected statement of v.18 and v.19.

There can be no doubt. Paul is definitely speaking of Israel and the fact that God has cut them off and turned instead to the Gentiles through him (Paul). It's just as clear as it can possibly be if you simply take the time to make yourself familiar with the Old Testament passages that Paul makes reference to in Rom. 9. I'll say it again. Romans chapter 9 is the same as Jeremiah 18! They are making the exact same point.

You have a point, if you leave out v.18 and v.19.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

What I presented in my last post was 100% Scriptural. I did not profess a matter of my opinion - rather, I merely stated Scripture. Thus, I cannot be wrong, unless the Word of God be errant. If, however, I had just rambled on about how I supposed Romans 9 was to be read, basing everything on my opinion, of course I could be wrong. But I did not do such a thing.

How can quoting Scripture be wrong?

Come on now Z Man, your post was six times longer than Roman 9! You posted a lot more than just quoting Scripture. The fact is that the majority of our post was an interpretation of Romans 9.

Where in Romans 9 is this ever stated? That's not so! I've clearly shown what Rom 9 says. Paul was sorrowful that his own brethren, of whom were favored by God, were accursed from Christ. Paul goes on to state that just because the Jews were accursed from Christ does not mean that the blessings of God that were spoken of in Scripture were to no avail. Why? Because, Paul said, "not all Israel were of Israel". That verse is key. That's where the line between discussing about nations and those elected to salvation, aka the children of promise, is drawn. Paul’s example of this was the way God chose Jacob over Esau in order to fulfill His purposes. Even though Esau was an Israelite, he was not included into the "children of promise". Because that was to raise an objection of saying that God is unfair, Paul goes into a whole spill about how God is absolutely sovereign, and there is nothing we can do about it. it's not our will, but His that decides who receives mercy and who will remain hardened.

Context entails a lot more than just the chapter your reading but also the book that the chapter is in as well as the bigger picture of not only Paul's ministry but the overall plot of the Bible and where you are in that plot.
In this case you have two things that make it clear what Paul is talking about. First of all, his audience would have been familiar with who Paul was and his ministry and message. They would have known that he was preaching something quite different than had been preached before. That being salvation by grace through faith only. His audience would have known that prior to this new revelation of Paul's that you came to God through Israel or not at all. So because of this context Paul's point here would have been obvious. And if that had left any doubt then Paul would have washed that doubt away when he quoted from Jeremiah 18, which specifically talks about why such a change could and would take place.

Paul wasn't quoting from Jeremiah 18!

In Rom9, v.18, Paul stated that God has mercy or hardens the hearts of whomever He pleases. Then, in v.19, Paul addresses the question that would arise from such a statement that he made in v.18. Mainly that if we all do according to His will, why does He still find fault? In the verses following, Paul tries to answer that question. He basically states that we are mere men, the clay in the hands of an Almighty Potter who will make whatever He wishes, whether it be "vessels for honor", or "vessels for dishonor". To assume that Paul is addressing an issue with nations and the cutting off of Israel in Rom 9:v.21-24 is to totally take that portion of Scripture out of it's context. Verses 21-24 can only be taken into context by understanding that he was addressing the question to the objected statement of v.18 and v.19.

Rom 9:9 For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."
10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

The highlighted quotations are from Genesis and Malachi...
Gen. 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Read Gen. 25:23 again and take special notice of the clear indication that God is not talking about the two boys but rather the peoples who will be their descendants. "Two nations are in thy womb,"

Mal 1:2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

And yes, a casual surface reading of Malachi chapter 1 makes it perfectly plain that again God is talking about the nations that came from the two men not the men themselves.


Rom. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

This quotation is from Exodus 33...

12 Then Moses said to the Lord, "See, You say to me, 'Bring up this people.' But You have not let me know whom You will send with me. Yet You have said, 'I know you by name, and you have also found grace in My sight.' 13 Now therefore, I pray, if I have found grace in Your sight, show me now Your way, that I may know You and that I may find grace in Your sight. And consider that this nation is Your people."
14 And He said, "My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest."
15 Then he said to Him, "If Your Presence does not go with us, do not bring us up from here. 16 For how then will it be known that Your people and I have found grace in Your sight, except You go with us? So we shall be separate, Your people and I, from all the people who are upon the face of the earth."
17 So the Lord said to Moses, "I will also do this thing that you have spoken; for you have found grace in My sight, and I know you by name."
18 And he said, "Please, show me Your glory."
19 Then He said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

Notice the context here is Moses wanting the clear endorsement of God before all the world that these are His People (His nation). Moses isn't wanting to have his own authority bolstered but wants to make certain that it is clear that he and this nation of people where going out on their own with no friends or allies other than God Himself. It is the nation of Israel that is being talked about in this passage that Paul quotes from which is appropriate since Paul was speaking of the very same nation.


Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

This too is talking about a nation and not simply a King (Pharaoh).

Exd 9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that [there is] none like me in all the earth. 15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. 16 And in very deed for this [cause] have I raised thee up, for to shew [in] thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

God declared war on Egypt, not just Pharaoh. He addresses the king of Egypt because he is their leader which is the normal practice but it wasn't just Pharaoh himself that caught the brunt of God wrath but all of the nation of Israel.


Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

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 repent 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 repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

There can be no doubt that Paul was in fact quoting from these Old Testament sources. And if this isn't enough to convince you that Paul isn't speaking of two unborn children but is instead speaking of the nation of Israel vs. the Gentiles then the last four verses of the chapter should make it even more obvious than it should already be....

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."*

Do you get what he's saying? He is making the point simply that one no longer has to go through Israel and its system of laws to be in covenant relationship with God. Israel thought that it was the following of laws themselves that made you righteous, they were wrong. Following the law wasn't optional, but it was meaningless if not done by faith. Now Paul is saying that the law is gone, God nailed it to the Cross and we are now left without Jew or Gentile and with a salvation that is by faith only.

And so we see that the whole of Romans 9 (including verses 18 and 19) has to do with the nation of Israel being cut off, making way for the Gospel of grace. There isn't anything else that it could be talking about that is in harmony with the text of Rom. 9 and the quotations from the Old Testament AND God's righteous and just character. The Calvinist interpretation of Rom. 9 turns God into an arbitrary God who would then be unjust by definition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Eternal yes, course. Immutable, NO definately not!
God's character and personality do not change but that is not the same as being immutable. There are nothing in the Bible that says otherwise.

First, God is immutable in His essence. His nature and being are infinite, and so, subject to no mutations. There never was a time when He was not; there never will come a time when He shall cease to be. God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved. All that He is today, He has ever been, and ever will be. "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible. He is perpetually the same. He only can say, "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14). He is altogether uninfluenced by the flight of time. There is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity. Therefore His power can never diminish nor His glory ever fade. A.W. Pink

Quite the reverse. Eternity is an unlimited amount of time. It is not that there is no time at all, that would be the opposite of eternity. Eternity is where time is limitless or never ending.

A calendar or a clock (or any conceivable instrument of measurement of time) must have a point at which to begin calculating its progress. By definition “eternity” precludes such a beginning point . In fact, God Himself, Created a starting time when He said in Holy Writ “In the beginning..”! In the beginning of what? In the beginning of creation!

Physical space is part of the creation or a consequence of it as you put it but time is the consequence of a thinking mind. As long as God has been able to think and experience duration and sequence then there has been time.

That is why I said that God created both! He created them as part of His plan for us mortals.

Of what personal consequence could time be to an infinite Being prior to Creation? God doesn’t need be woken up to catch a bus.

Your understanding of both time and eternity are tinted by your theology. Your foundation is faulty and therefore so are your conclusions. The "incompatibility" as you call it should serve as evidence that this is so.

Unlike some others, my comprehension is limited to Scripture and reason. Anything I say that is purely from reason is subject to debate.

Sorry, saying it doesn't make it so. Your understanding of time is determined by your theology. If you take your theology out of it and simply think about what time actually is then no such problem arises. Actually, I don't think that this particular problem arrises logically in either case but even if it did, I have no problem with God being constrained by the limits of reality.

Well… I have a BIG problem with God being constrained by anything but His own nature. It amazes me that any Christian would settle for the teeny tiny god of open theism. Go figger….

Quite true. Again, I have no trouble with God being within the confines of reality. God cannot do the undoable and He cannot know the unknowable.

Who says that the future is unknowable except for the tiny godders ?

Would you rather ignore reality? Is that what you are saying?
Does acknowledging that God cannot make a sphere with sharp corners or two sided triangles in someway diminish God? Or is it a simple statement of reality?

God is not absurd. Neither should we be.

I have a parable for you. Perhaps it will be familiar....

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.

3 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
6 I will lay it waste;
It shall not be pruned or dug,
But there shall come up briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it."

7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Be carefull. godrulz has already warned me about using parables as didactic teaching.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed
First, God is immutable in His essence. His nature and being are infinite, and so, subject to no mutations. There never was a time when He was not; there never will come a time when He shall cease to be. God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved. All that He is today, He has ever been, and ever will be. "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible. He is perpetually the same. He only can say, "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14). He is altogether uninfluenced by the flight of time. There is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity. Therefore His power can never diminish nor His glory ever fade. A.W. Pink

In response I would like to post a exert from
Augustine on The Absolute Foreknowledge of God by Bob Hill

Immutability of God

God is perfect.
The perfect does not change.
God does not change.



PLATO
Plato, Plato V, Republic I, Book II, p. 191, trans. by Paul Shorey
A dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus
“Is it not true that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition...that the healthiest and strongest is the least altered....And is it not the soul that is bravest and most intelligent that would be least disturbed and altered by any external affection...those things which are well made an in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. That is so. It is universally true then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art admits least alteration by something else. So it seems. But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state...Then does he (God) change himself for the better and to something fairer, or for the worse and to something uglier than himself? It must necessarily, said he, be for the worse if he is changed.”

In this dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus, Plato presents his classical presentation of the Immutability of God. This concept was proposed by Plato and later adopted by Augustine through the writings of the Neo-Platonists. This view of perfection is called the static view of perfection.

We would disagree with Plato that perfection must be static. If God were to respond perfectly to each situation as the event occurs then God could be perfect and dynamic. As an illustration consider a football coach. If the coach was determining the plays of both teams, then the coach could easily cause his team to win. Such a coach would not be brilliant or admired. However if a coach were able to respond perfectly to the changing strategy of the opposition, then such a coach would have to change his game plans as the opposition changed their strategy. This coach would be practicing dynamic perfection. Such a coach is more worthy of our admiration.



Augustine

The historical influence of Plato on Augustine is easily documented in The Confessions of St. Augustine. He visited Simplicianus and mentioned that he had read “certain books of the Platonists.” Simplicianus “much rejoiced over me(Augustine), for that I had not fallen upon any other philosphers’ writings, which use to be full of fallacies and vain deceits, after the rudiments of this world : whereas in the Platonists, God and his word are everywhere implied.” St. Augustine’s Confessions transl. by William Watts 1631,The Loeb Classical Library, The MacMillan Company, New York, May 1912, Vol. 1, p. 409)

In the tradition of Neoplatonic mysticism Augustine turned inward to reach the good. This act of introspection is described on page 86: “ I entered and beheld with the eye of my soul, above my mind, the Light Unchangeable.” From Augustine’s Platonic background he had been taught that God was immutable or unchangeable, so this was his conception of God in his conversion. Again Augustine “ I found the unchangeable and true Eternity of Truth, above my changeable mind.”

So also in City of God we find Augustine praising the Platonic philosophers and admitted that the concept of the immutability of God was taken from them.

Augustine, The City of God, trans. by Marcus Dods, The Modern Library, Random House, New York,1950

p. 250-25l

These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme.....He who is clever judges better than he who is slow, he who is skilled than he who is unskillful, he who is practiced than he who is unpracticed; and the same person judges better after he has gained experience than he did before. But that which is capable of more and less is mutable; whence able men, who have thought deeply on these things, have gathered that the first form is not to be found in those things whose form is changeable.

p. 256-257

Then, as to Plato’s saying that the philosopher is a lover of God, nothing shines forth more conspicuously in those sacred writings. But the most striking thing in this connection, and that which most of all inclines me almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorant of those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words of God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was the name of that God who was commanding him to go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: “I am who am; and though shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me unto you;” as though compared with Him that truly is, because He is unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable are not-a truth which Plato vehemently held, and most diligently commended. And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that book where it is said, “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Who is sent me unto you.”

Augustine freely admits the concept of Immutability is a Platonic idea. He references these philosophers by which he means the Platonic philosophers and he mentions Plato. He then attempts to draw an analogy between the these philosophic concepts and God’s Word. We admit that this connection alone does not invalidate the concept. However what is the Biblical evidence?

Augustine cites Exodus 3:14 “ And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” The exact meaning of the Divine Name is not certain. However what is certain is that there is no reference to immutability. The meaning probably is a reference to the eternal existence or prescience of God. Citing verses with obscure meanings is hardly proof of a major doctrinal concept.

Notice also that Augustine uses philosophical reasoning as proof of his doctrine of Immutability. Reasoning is a dependable tool only with a Biblical foundation. This foundation is Platonic.

In other chapters on repentance Augustine attempts to prove Immutability with Scripture that say God does not change. We have examined these verses in detail already. These verses refer to specific attributes of God like His character and eternal essence but not His knowledge. Augustine forced the Platonic concept of God into this doctrine: that nothing about God changes, not even His knowledge.

A calendar or a clock (or any conceivable instrument of measurement of time) must have a point at which to begin calculating its progress. By definition “eternity” precludes such a beginning point . In fact, God Himself, Created a starting time when He said in Holy Writ “In the beginning..”! In the beginning of what? In the beginning of creation!

The measurement f time is not time itself. I never suggested that God had a watch on his wrist or anything like that. Hours, minutes, seconds, days, weeks, years, etc are all measurements of time but they are not time itself just because the measurement of time has a beginning doesn't mean that time itself has one. In fact we know that time does not have an independent beginning because it does not exist in and of itself. It is not a created thing it is simply an idea or concept.
A similar thing that doesn't really exist outside of a thinking mind that considers it is quality. Have you ever pondered the question, "What is quality?" If you have a shirt that is a "high quality" shirt, what's different about it? Is it the fabric that makes the shirt high quality? If so, then what is it about the fabric that is high quality?
I won't glaze you eyes over by taking that any further, if the subject interests you at all, there a whole book on it called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". I only bring it up to point out that quality is not a substance or a thing that exists on its own. Without a mind to conceive of it, quality does not exist at all. Time is exactly the same way. It is simply a frame of reference that thinking minds use to reference duration and sequence, that's it and that's all.

Of what personal consequence could time be to an infinite Being prior to Creation? God doesn’t need be woken up to catch a bus.

Irrelevant. Whether God has a schedule to keep has no bearing on whether or not time is a created thing.

Unlike some others, my comprehension is limited to Scripture and reason. Anything I say that is purely from reason is subject to debate.

This is not so.
There is Bermuda grass in my front yard.
This is a statement purely from reason. I assure you that the Bible says nothing about whether or not I was going to go with Fescue or Bermuda, but I did in fact choose Bermuda and this is beyond dispute and is simply not up for debate.
My point being that your first sentence is good. The qualification of the second is an overstatement. If your premise is sound and so is your reasoning then your conclusion with be correct. One major proof that the Bible is true is that it never is in conflict with independently verifiable reality.

Well… I have a BIG problem with God being constrained by anything but His own nature. It amazes me that any Christian would settle for the teeny tiny god of open theism. Go figger….

I find this statement incredibly insulting and presumptuous. You are after all debating this issue and could very easily be on the wrong side in which case you just directly insulted the Creator and Sovereign God of the Universe. I'll than you to keep your little petty cut downs to yourself.
And whether you have a problem with it or not, God is constrained by reality. God is real and so reality could be said to be part of God’s nature. He is not a magician and cannot do things which are undoable like going to places that do not exist or making rocks that He can't move etc.

Who says that the future is unknowable except for the tiny godders?

I have already quoted Scripture that indicates as much, which you ignore or rationalize away.
Further our reason tells us that God cannot know the unknowable because it is a logical absurdity.
So both Scripture and reason tells us that God does not know the future acts of people who's will is genuinely free.

God is not absurd. Neither should we be.

Then why aren't you an Open Theist?

Be carefull. godrulz has already warned me about using parables as didactic teaching.

Amazing how easily you disregard the Scripture in favor of your theology. Godrulz is well intentioned but frankly he's the only person I ever heard use the word "didactic" and it seems to me too convenient a way to ignore clear teaching.
Besides what else could the parable mean? God Himself inspired it's being written the way it was written. Don't you think God could have found the right words to use had He not wanted to give the impression that He expected one thing and got another? Wouldn't He have had to tell a totally different story? Because after all, isn't that the point being made, that God expected one thing and got something He didn't want?
It's truly amazing how adept Calvinist are at blowing off Scriptures that absolutely must mean anything other than what they say or else Calvinism falls apart. What is this now, 3, or is it up to 4 passages now that I've brought up that fit this category?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[John Reformed]

I don't have the time right now to reply to your lengthy reply. But for now, I do have the time to explain didactic: It describes direct teaching.

For instance some areas of scripyure are not meant to be taken literally. Parables, poetry etc.

For instance the bible says: Rth 2:12 The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.

This is not to be taken literally.

 

[smaller]

What's Calvinism?

The advocacy of a limited sovereign god.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by John Reformed

I don't have the time right now to reply to your lengthy reply. But for now, I do have the time to explain didactic: It describes direct teaching.

For instance some areas of scripyure are not meant to be taken literally. Parables, poetry etc.

For instance the bible says: Rth 2:12 The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.

This is not to be taken literally.

I know what didactic means, I just hadn't ever come across anyone who ever used the word more than once a year besides Godrulz.

Which part are we not to take literally? The part about God having wings, or the whole thing?
I for one think that this verse mean precisely what it says. It isn't saying that God has wings, that it a figure of speech, the meaning of which is obvious. The point being made by the passage is clear and it means what it says. Boaz was saying to Ruth, 'God bless you for the good things that you've done..' and he meant exactly that. What's there to not take literally except the obvious figure of speech which refers to being under God's protective wings?
I understand that one can read too much into certain passages of scripture but as long as an effort is made to stay on the same page as the author, then the Bible means what it says.
The passage I quoted about God having expected one thing and getting another cannot be explained away by calling it a figure of speech. Figures of speech have meaning that further illustrate or clarify a particular point that the speaker wishes to make. If this passage does not mean what it says concerning God's expectations not being met, then what does this very lengthy figure of speech mean?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lost anomaly]

Originally posted by lee_merrill
No it's not, though! Not if God has a good purpose for what he predestines. Since we agree that the motive determines guilt, then he is not guilty, or unjust. That is my point.

Blessings,
Lee

This brought a question to mind for any Calvinsit to answer (Sorry to those of you who aren't but it's just easier to get answer from those who since they believe in it) do you believe that everything is predestined to the minutest of things. For example the number of hairs on my head would be minute wouldn't you say? That's probably not best of examples but you get the idea don't you?

 

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by lost anomaly

This brought a question to mind for any Calvinsit to answer (Sorry to those of you who aren't but it's just easier to get answer from those who since they believe in it) do you believe that everything is predestined to the minutest of things. For example the number of hairs on my head would be minute wouldn't you say? That's probably not best of examples but you get the idea don't you?

Dear lost anomaly,

Thanks for the softball

Mat 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath.

ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The following is from an article by Lorraine Boetner

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This represents the purpose of the Triune God as absolute and unconditional, independent of the whole finite creation, and originating solely in the eternal counsel of His will. He appoints the course of nature and directs the course of history down to the minutest details. His decrees therefore are eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise and sovereign. They are represented in the Bible as being the basis of the divine foreknowledge of all future events, and not conditioned by that foreknowledge or by anything originating in the events themselves.

Every thinking person readily sees that some sovereignty rules his life. He was not asked whether or not he would have existence, when or what or where he would be born, whether in the twentieth century or before the Flood, whether male or female, whether white or black, whether in the United States, or China, or Africa. All of those things were sovereignly decided for him before he had any existence. It has been recognized by Christians in all ages that God is the Creator and Ruler of the world, and that as such He is the ultimate source of all power that is found in the world. Hence nothing can come to pass apart from His sovereign will. Otherwise He would not be truly GOD. And when we dwell on this truth we find that it involves considerations which establish the Calvinistic and disprove the Arminian position.

You call yourself "lost anomaly". As Professor Owen has remarked, there is no greater anomaly in nature than a bird that can not fly. --Darwin

God knows where you are and where you are bound. My advise would be to seek him for all you are worth and keep knocking on His door .

Your Friend,
John

 

[Clete]

Did you guys give up on me or what?

This time last week, I could hardly keep up! Now everybody just vanished! What gives?

 

[lost anomaly]

I haven't given up at least...just school has decided to eat up all my time. I have another question but I can't get into taht right now.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by lost anomaly

I haven't given up at least...just school has decided to eat up all my time. I have another question but I can't get into taht right now.

You mean there is something more important than TOL! :shocked: