 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/21/2004 6:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | I'm currenty in a calvinist forum debating universal love, I am all for it, and cited 10 references including II Pet 3:0 and I Tim 2:4 to support it, everyone claims I am not exegeting the passage ,and if I was I would arrive that God desires the elect to be saved, not all men. I can't find an exegesis of these passages. Can anyone here help? I really am disgusted by the efects calvinism has on people, not the people themselves, and want to do my part to see that peole change. Any help is apperciated, thanks.
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 4/22/2004 2:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Matthew 23:37
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."
God wanted to gather them, they were unwilling.
This ties in with 2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."
God is not willing they perish, yet they refuse to repent.
1 Timothy 4:10
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
Two groups here, believers and non-believers, God is the Savior of both groups.
Ezekial 18:
23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
Rather then taking pleasure in their death, God wants to take pleasure in their turning to Him
24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die.
27 "Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life.
28 "Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."
Because God doesn't take pleasure in their death, He tells them to repent
Ezekial 33:11
"Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'"
God asks them why they will die. If it was God's choice that they die, why would He ask THEM why they'll die?
JOhn 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
John 6:40
"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
John 11:25
"Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies""
"He who believes", "everyone who believes", "whoever believes", those who turn from their evil ways, those who are willing
| | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/22/2004 11:31 AM (GMT -6) | |
This is my latest posting in a calvinist messag board,
still working on 1 tim and 2 pet, any comments, help, suggestions would be great, thanks
Jon
Yet your statement implies that you feel it's a concern in posting here. Not exactly a good foot to get off on. And the challenge was for a formal debate btw, not a general thread of conversation. But that's ok, because from what you include here, I don't think you should try to debate BC. Your argumentation needs work first. (I'm not trying to be mean, it's honest constructive criticism. I don't think *I* would want to debate BC.
- Well for one , I need to point out some of my life observations and experiences. This is nothing against anyone in here whatsoever (as every individual is self determining). But unless I am crazy, I've seen a striking similarity and conncection in calvinists. They often seen to be very hot headed, very argumentative, and sometimes down right un loving. In fact I've seen this so much, that it leads me to believe that it comes naturally with being a calvinist (sort of inherent in calvinism) In the same way I find politicians tending towards corruption, celebreties tending towards superficiality, I see calvinist debaters tending towards rude argumentation.
This is not an attack, just my observation, and yes fear of debating anything here. If you come at this topic with I'm not going to budge, I've arrived at pure truth and that's that, well it will be useless. I for one will try my hardest to genuinely be open to change and learn, and shave and mold my view of God, in whatever way seems truthful. And no I'm not a formal debater ( I would stink at it) but I'm convinced where truth is being told, it will not die out but will effect something or someone. I just listened to a ressurection debate between an athiest and christian phillosopher, and well honestly the athiest genuinely won the debate by a landslide, do I agree with him? No, but he was more clear, concise, and persuasive.
Am I the man to defend (what I veiw as the truth of liberetarian freedom, universal love, open future, conditional election) ..definetely not. There are pastors, authors, writers, phillosophers way better equipped then I am to defend this position. I only ask that my mistakes (which are sure to come) are not treated as mistakes in a belief system, but mistakes in my ability to defend and define a belief system (which I hold to).
Like much of your post, I'm not quite sure of how to parse this. I don't want to assume anything about your position, but your writing style makes it difficult to be sure of what you are communicating. Such as here, are you saying the traditional calvinist view is that God <em>does</em> love everyone equally? I <em>think</em> you are trying to say that even though you say that, your view differs from the "traditional calvinist view" even though they may sound similar. Yet these are vastly different things, which makes it hard to respond.
- I tried to say that if I was a father I would naturally have a more intense love for my own children than others. I think this is the same with God, that those who have returned His love are in return in a sense loved MORE than those that reject His love and grace. Nonetheless, I think that scripture clearly teaches that God's desire is still for all to be His children, and to repent and escape eternal agony. So the question was not defined enough in my opinion. Again I never said that God is happy or pleased wit h what every creature is doing, and that His love genuinely does turn to wrath and hardening with those that continually reject His will and His grace. God told us to love our enemies. From this concept I would say that while God's wrath is currently on those who do evil and who reject Him, there is still the desire for them to repent.
Only from the moment they were born? Is this just poor phrasing, or are you a believer in process theology? Or maybe it's just somewhere in between, that God knows you before you're born, but doesn't love you till you actually are?
- let's not get into semantics, poor wording, my bad.
2 Pet 3:9 -
Who is you in this verse? I assume from your context you believe it to be the whole world. So, given that, and that the /reason/ God is patient is that he doesn't want <em>any</em> of <em>you</em> to perish, are you then a universalist? The verse is part of a letter, addressed to the elect. The you in the verse, refers to the elect. God is patient, waiting for the full number of those he has predestined to salvation according to his plan.
- 2 Peter 3
The Day of the Lord
1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
- In this verse Paul is writing to a chuch. The concern is about the day of the Lord , and it's coming, time etc.. I would argue that the meaning you put on this very much distorts the power of the passage. I would argue that it puts a very ambiguous non sensical meaning to the words. You want to say "that God is patient, not wanting any to perish out of the group who's salvation is absolutely inevitable. I think that you put much confusion and lack of meaning to these verses. Again..as so many arminians have pointed out (and calvinists have not answered).. why would God express patience and longsuffering and a desire for none to persish while all the while speaking of an elect group of people who can't POSSIBLY perish. GOd in this view, seems to be fickle, whimsical, arbitrary, and ambiguous. Why doesn't he just apply all his irresistable grace to those supposed elect ones NOW, why wait, and then pretend to be patient and longsuffering, all the while planning on monergistically regenerating each and everyone of these elect, that the verse is supposedly talking about? This is duplicious, ambigious, and confusing, and I would argue distorts the meaning to this passage. Of course this all hangs on your view of what election is. If you view election as the cause of something (namely salvation) and non election as the cause of your damnation, then well you MUST impose that view on this passage, and I can see why you do, but however it is inconsistent. If this verse is taken in it's context, and the context of other verses like 1 Tim 2:4, you can arrive at something like this. See if this isn't slightly less confusing, contradictory, and ambiguous. God desires the salvation of all men. Here was a chuch composed of men (of whom God desired their salvation) now obviously not all were believers... In that light, God is not slow or slack in his promise, not willing that any should persh but that all should come to repentence. I woud argue that this concept or (heart of GOd) is CLEARLY shown throughout the entire Bible (ie. that God desires repentence, that it DELIGHTS Him, and that rejection sorrows Him and at times angers or furiates Him. Now is this picture of God consistent with calvinism? Far from it. Some inconsistent calvinists (seeking to be true with scripture) have maintained that GOd truly does desire all men's repentence, and is not delighted by the destruction of the wicked, but then still monergistically regenerates some and not others, all the while somehow desiring all their regeneration and repentence. Hmmm ..weird stuff.
- John 3:16
God gave his son, that those who believe in him would have eternal life. Given that scripture clearly teaches faith as a gift from God, and mans inability to believe apart from God's regeneration, this verse does not support your position either.
- John 3:16 - For God so loved the world (find me one reference where this means elect) that He gave His one and only son, that WHOSOEVER (look it up, Greek word, completely un exclusive, self explanatory WHOSOEVER) believes in Him (requiring an act or a response to the salvation offer) might not perish but have everlasting life.
- Yes faith is a gift from God, we also say babies are a gift from God. In fact every good thingm every good decision, every action, every morally upright thing is a gift from God. Now when someone commits something wrong (ie. chooses to be a coward and not save the little kid about to be run over) we do not say well "he wasn't given the gift of the correct choice in that matter, do we? We say he is MORALLY responsible for not making the right choice. Why is he moraly responsible. Because he had perfect ability and capability to make the correct choice. Faith is a blessing, as is every morally upright thing in this universe. Yet we all have the real genuine ability to do good things, to make good choices, ..is it because we're just so good? , no it's because of the image of God in our beign, it's because of God that we can help eachother and do good things. It's because God is holding everything in existence. God does not pick and choose who he gives the ability to make good choices to, if he did, we COULD NOT blame the person for making a bad choice. Why is anyone in hel, because they were unable to make the choice to escape it??? Hell is only just, if the person chose it, if they genuinely rejected God, and made a bad choice. What is a bad choice, without a good choice? Why is he morally responsible? What is moral responsibility? The ability to do OTHER than what you did. Calvinism does not teach this, and therefore in my mind, taints God's justice and love. Yes faith would not be possible were it not for God's enabling power, but it seems to me that the billions of times people are commanded to believe (implying ability to do so) that God is not secretly behind the scenes giving some the ability to do so, and others not. To me, these verses should imply that whatever enabling power of God is in fact inherent in the command to believe, that this enabling power is available to all men, thus making them truly responsible for rejecting it.
John 12:32, 1John 2:2, 1tim 2:3-6
I will draw all people to myself...and he did. He drew jews and gentiles, people from every tribe tongue and nation. cf Luke 14
in timothy, this is even spelled out for you one verse earlier: made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, ...
- I'm gonna let a beloved Calvinist answer this one for me. Charles Spurgeon (who many calvinists love to cite) did a sermon on 1 Tim, and in it he admitted in plain language that he HAD to uphold consistency with the scripture over consistency with his belief system. I charge you to do the same. Here's what he said:
Below is something that Spurgeon taught on how some hypers distort 1 Tim. 2:4:
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. `All men,' they say,-'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said `some men' if he had meant some men. `All men,' say they; `that is, some of all sorts of men'; as if the Lord could not have said `All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written `all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the `alls' according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to the truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, `Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.' Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, `Who will have all men to be saved,' his observation are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, `God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'
Hrm. Interesting. So, did God love pharoh in a 'saving way' when he hardened his heart? Did he love the nations israel wiped out? What about Ahab and Jezebel when he had both killed? What about Jacob and Esau? Scripture specifically tells us God hated Esau. Perhaps a good start on this would be defining 'saving love' as opposed to ... I guess whatever other love God might have.
Very out of context examples. Pharoh's hardening as with all of God's hardening is conditional. God did not take this nice guy who was going to let the Isrealites go and then harden him against his will. If you look in the OT account, it says Pharoh hardened his heart many times before it says God hardened Pharoh's heart. So again..God's hardening is strenghtening a will in it's own resolve. God says ..alright you're gonna do this again and again and again, well ok. It is never a hardening against a wil, but is hardening along with the set determination of a wil, which Pharoh's was obviously NOT to let the Israelites go. And again I never said at this current moment that God is feeling great about everyone and has warm feelings. His wrath is probably upon many. Those who at the present are continually rejecting His will. However, what I've argued, and I believe scripture clearly teaches throughtout, is that God delights in the wicked repentence, that He wants them to repent, that He DESIRES it, and takes no delight in their destruction, but is rather an outcome of His justice which He cannot compromise. As for the citing of Romans 9, again out of context, and actually coinciding with what I'm saying. The reference goes back to Malachi, and the "hate" is the same kind of hatred we see when we're told to "hate" our mother and father, and family and all, compared to God. It is a comparative hatred. God's favor was on Jacob while his dis favor was on Esau. This same reference is seen in Malachi, but is often given outlandish new meaning in Romans 9. And again, this is conditional dis favor, conditional love, and contindiaonal wrath. It's not like Esau was this great guy who didn't want to sell his birthright, who wanted to please God, and God then accoriding to soveriegn mysterious purposes reversed his will. God's dis favor of Esau and the Edomites (which is what the passage is talking about two nations, not the salvation and damantaion of two individuals) was conditioned upon Esaus behaviour, on his choices and actions. And if we remember, Esau and jacob made up, and there was genuine remorese, and reconcilliation between them. This is not some eternal unconditional decree of God )ie. I have chosen to love Jacob, and to Hate Esua) It is as the context in Malachi says and suggests, a conditional response favor and disfavor of two nation according to their choices and actions. And btw, I weclome wholeheartedly going through Romans 9 starting with Paul's chain or argument in the surrounding context. My dad (who's been a calvinist teacher and preacher for 30 years) changed his interpretation of Romans 9 just recently, and now no longer holds it as a calvinist proof text.
Interesting. So, because you have chosen to define what love is in a certain way, you feel you now have the right to define for God what love is, and hold him to that standard? That if he fails to meet that standard that he is no longer God? Do you not feel that such a position is rather self contradictory? If God can be held to a standard other than himself, he cannot truly be God either.
- Did I say I have chosen to define what love is? What were my words?
For me (someone made in the image of God ) to truly love those that persecute me, love my enemies, love my neighbour, and desire the salvation and very BEST for everyone I see..for me to experience a love more intense and grand than that of God's (the calvinist idea of god) would disprove God's existence. If I can love MORE than God, than that leads me to question the god that I've surpassed.
- In the same way that I believe that the law of God (morality / ethics) is written on our heart because of the image of God, I also believe that love is written on our hearts because of the image of God. I never said I've chosen to define it as something, I said that the image of God in mankind shows me. I firmly believe that the nature of love , is indiscriminate, and non self seeking, and always seeks the good of others. God said this in his word, so does the calvinist idea of god go against MY idea of love or God's idea of love. I think the latter. And I seek as hard as I can to make my view of love coincide with God's view of love, there should be no seperation between the two. So with that said, a god who supposedly doesn't love everyone in a saving way (truly desiring their escape from ETERNAL AGONY) does not love at all. According to what love is (and we see a rather good depcition of it in the Bible) that IS NOT love. To give little gifts, little mercies throughout someone's life, all the while KNOWING they are destined for hell, and never doing anything about it (because in the calvinsit view, salvation is an overrdiing of someon's will, which God could very well to do everyone) is NOT love, but is in fact the opposite. John Wesley told George Whitefiled that "your god is much like my satan."
So again, it is NOT love to give nice little things, but never the ultimately important thing that really matters, that is the ability to escape hell. That is NOT love, and how anyone can deny that , I do not know.
Do you have a source/context for that last quote btw? And in light of its content and some of your other comments, perhaps you'd like to share with us unenlightened folks what it is you believe now that you've come out of your childish belief in calvinism to this wonderful new place. It would make it easier to understand where you're coming from in what you are saying, and less likely to misread your statements.
- Yes, I do. Sorry for not noting it, that was dumb of me. The quote comes from Greg Boyd. It is in response to Bruce Ware's accusation of the logical implicaitons which arise from open theism. In response Greg answered him throuughly, and then turned the logic around to point out the hypocricy in pointing out another's inconsistincies, when your own view holds so many, and in fact has done much damage. And to make some things clear, I don't think I'm enlightened, and I don't think you're un enlightened. I use to be a calvinist , and try to be sympathetic, because I remember thinking like that. It is an air tight system, but if one chain of logic can be shown to be even slightly inconsistent, then it all basically falls down because it's so interdependent. Yes it can be very convincing, I do not blame anyone for holding to it, it's not some childish belief that I've grown out of, and I never said that. I do think it is a subtley destructive worldview, and I believe creates many false dichotomies, and also a kind of struggle between the heart and mind, which was never meant to be. The hardest part (for me) is that the calvinst ususally views "hard truths" or "ugly doctrines" as a good thing, and take pride in the fact that they're humble enough to accept it. In fact many many calvinist I've read and talked to admit it can be very ugly and demeaning, and that it's just your pride that doesn't accept it. I can take this charge, and consider it thoughtfully, but I think I've come to the conclusion through self anylization, scripture, and prayer that my passion for refuting calvinism does not stem from my pride, but from my desire to uphold the pure charachter of God, which I think Calvinsim taints. Am I saying that every calvinist taints God's charachter? No. I'm saying the view they hold to, when taken consistently does taint God's charachter.
However, thankfully I have yet to see a practicing calvinist. One who truly lives as if their choices and everyhting around them has been predestined, one who lives as if God's desire is not to save every person, one who lives as if people are totally inable to obey the command of the gospel. In the same way I don't believe there are any practicing athiests, I do not believe there are any practicing calvinists. They may hold to it intelectually, but I would argue that it is impossible to live your life accoriding to it, without going insane.
Jon
_________________
After all, to many Arminians and open theists, the Calvinism Ware defends seems to deny the glory of God, the universal love of God, the wisdom of God, the urgency of prayer, the genuineness of God’s interactions with us, human moral responsibility, the need for missions, and many other things | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2004 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's two different sorts of websites:
A Patristic view of the subject...(called "THE RIVER OF FIRE")
www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
And a really neat commentary on Bible passages containing the phrase "respecter of persons" in Scripture. (I'm looking for it -- it began with Peter's speech in Acts 10:34 "And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" and included many other passages with the same statement. The THRUST was the equal footing and equal responsibility we all have before God.)
I think you will find BOTH of them meaningful, and related to the issue before you. But they are different. Maybe you will find that useful.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2004 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Acts 10 (NASB)
Gentiles Hear Good News
34 (1) Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that (2) God is not one to show partiality,
35 but (3) in every nation the man who (4) fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|