 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Free will is a collosal failure | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/2/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | [quote]Originally posted by Pentemento
Maybe free will, in theory, isn't a failure, but it has been proven that we can't be trusted with it. Proven and proven beyond a doubt.
John -- I note you are married--I trust happily. To use an analogy,think of the pros and cons of marriage or better yet having children. Imagine trying to contain your love for your spouse or your children without giving any expression to it.I think free will works this way with God. The context of free will which is required if genuine love is to be given and received is required with commensurate risk and benefit. Despite the odds of divorce wayward children most leap headlong into the risk of maariage and childrearing with little thought of the cosequences precisely because of the power of love.
I (and scripture) agree with you that "Maybe free will, in theory, isn't a failure, but it has been proven that we can't be trusted with it. Proven and proven beyond a doubt." But scripture goes one step further It states that "God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were yet sinners (cp" couldn't be trusted") Christ died for us. God knew this as a possibility and deemed His personal pain and suffering worth it to enter the battle to ransom our soul for eternity.
Scripture approached honestly acknowledges that God is right there with you. He has emphatically noted that this free will thing does not seem to be going as planned. He feels your pain even now. He has been there and continues to feel your pain every time a soul rejects Him and decides to go into eternity without Him, every time rebellion is chosen over obedience. The only other option is to conclude that nonexistence is better than existence with the possibility of love.
I submit that your own intuition verifies that while this present existence with all its pain and suffering does not appear worth it, an experience of eternal and genuine love is very appealing and indeed trumps nonexistence as an option. If things could just be that way then everything would be OK. That my friend is Heaven and that is what God has promised those who love Him.
A vision of Heaven will overcome a mountain of suffering. This is the testimony of C.S. Lewis and look what it did for John on Patmos. Meditate, study, pray, envision Heaven. Make your vision of Heaven real and personal and the scripture indicates your attitude toward suffering will change. That is what Paul did. Indeed Jesus endured the coss FOR THE JOY set before Him. Now that is not "pie in the sky bye and bye." That is faith and requires much more work, effort, concentraion, etc. than bitterness and depression which so naturally and commonly follows expereinces of pain and suffering. God promises to give you this faith.
Praying for you
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
streetpreacher
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 12/2/2003 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi streetpreacher,
MGT has greatly changed my life, though I must admit that just because one's theology may be 100% logically tight doesn't necessarily mean they exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. For true Christian character to be developed in us, I think it takes much more than simply admitting that we have a free will and are 100% responsible for our sins. To live a truly holy life takes thorough repentance as often as necessary and absolute dependance on the gracious power of the Holy Spirit to form us into the image of Christ.
It seems to me that some who say they believe in MGT overemphasize our natural ability to keep the law, to the point where their basic message is "repent and keep the law," instead of, "repent, and believe the gospel." I have even known of some who claimed to believe as Finney did who said they did not need Christ. No doubt the great revivalist would be turning over in his grave if he knew some were using his theology to advance a legalistic scheme.
I also agree with you that the Atonement is a very crucial doctrine that absolutely must be fully worked out if one is ever to have a consistent theology. In the past year or so since I have frequented this forum, we have discussed the doctrine of the atonement only a few times, as I recall. You might try a search of the site. I can't ever get the search engine to work for me, but maybe you can.
God bless,
John
Let me post to you what I've updated in my Profile Bio:
"More recently, I believe God is leading me to pick back up the moral government view of theology. I had become disillusioned after being a member of a now defunct internet discussion group that centered on MGT. The leading participants were for the most part cold rationalists that loved to insult and demean fellow Christians. I am ashamed to admit that I myself was guilty of this behavior, as I had become quite the legalist (which I later blamed on MGT). Much emphasis was placed on the human will, but little if any was placed on the Holy Spirit. Great emphasis was placed on perfectly keeping God’s law, but little was placed on God’s love.
I became such a cold-hearted hypocrite, that eventually I couldn’t live with myself any longer and walked away from it all. At first, I leaned towards Classical Arminianism, but because of the beliefs in inherited Original Sin and substitutionary atonement, I was logically forced to gravitate towards Calvinism. As I have shared above, this couldn’t last and I am now re-examining the theology I once spurned.
I believe that God has shared with me that the problem was not with Moral Government Theology, but instead with a misapplication of it by myself and others. When anyone begins to downplay or replace the role of the Holy Spirit with cold rationalism and over-emphasis on the human will, they rob God of His power to work in their lives. This results in legalism. Unfortunately, this is what MGT has come to mean to many of its’ critics, but it is not the message of Finney, Pratney, Olson and Otis, among others. Many people are drawn to the right message for the wrong reasons, and they usually ending up casting aspersions, drawing suspicion and bringing reproach on the truth. This is true, not only of MGT, but of Christianity in general. It is not fair to label MGT heretical based on those who distort it’s message anymore than it is to label Christianity a farce because of hypocrites within the church. This is “guilt by association” which we all know is a fallacious argument."
God spoke this to me (to those who can't handle such language... BOO!) 2 days before I read your post to me. The first day after, He led me to read an article that said almost the exact same thing (not in the MGT sense). I was floored. I then read your post and to me it was just another confirmation of what God has been speaking to my heart. Wow... I'm so amazed at how big God is... and how small I am.
Today Lucifer is probably surveying the church just as Bonaparte did China. One can almost behold the fear in his eyes as he thinks of the Church's unmeasured potential and growls, "Let the Church sleep! If she wakes, she will shake the world." Is not the Church the sleeping giant of today?.... - Leonard Ravenhill | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/3/2003 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
[quote]Originally posted by Pentemento
Maybe free will, in theory, isn't a failure, but it has been proven that we can't be trusted with it. Proven and proven beyond a doubt.
John -- I note you are married--I trust happily.
Hi johnmd,
I stand corrected.
John
Yes, I am VERY happily married, but I think you actually meant to respond to Pentemento. God bless.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/5/2003 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by borg
"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure" George Whitefield to John Wesley
borg
[OF COURSE Whitfield was right. But do you agree that God worketh in ALL menn to will and to do his good pleasure? /quote]
To God alone be the glory
Jphn | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/6/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by borg
Yes???
So does it pleasure God to send someone to Hell?
Does it pleasure God to predestine someone to Hell?
Does it pleasure God to hold someone accountable and send them to Hell for the things (or the nature) He predestined them to do?
Is there a hint of this attitude toward in what has been revealed to us about Jesus. After all He IS the icon of the invisible God... "Click" on Jesus and the "secrets" of the "program" of God are unlocked. To bad Calvin didn't have a computer. Then he would have known that when one double clicks the Power Point icon one indeed gets the Power Point program and not a pornograhic web site. Do you follow? Just trying to be clear. When I click on the the Jesus revealed in the gospels, that unconditionally loving God who commands me to love my enemies looks nothing like the sinister (pornographic) God of John Calvin et al. who tells me He is glorified by eternally tormenting someone who had no chance of redemption by God's own choosing. I emphasize the pornographic analogy because just as pornography is an empty and deceitful portrayal of "love" so is Calvin's God who so distorts the concept of love as to render it meaningless and unintelligible.
To God alone be the glory
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/6/2003 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | | BTW Isaiah 46 interpretted in context is the living God's declaration over and against dead idols. There is nothing within the context which indicates that God's pleasure is to damn anyone to Hell. Rather, the context of the passage indicates that God can indeed do whatever He wants to do. The question remains however, what is it that God wants to do. What does bring God pleasure. Indeed He tells us what brings Him pleasure at the end of the same passage..and it is "salvation" (Is 46:13). To answer the question of what pleasures God in more detail I suggest that we look to the gospels where this salvation is more fully described and offered TO ALL.
I agree that not only should we not "reduce the Divinely-effacious atonement to a mere fiction," we should not reduce the "Divinely-effacious atonement" and what "pleasures God" to that which is arbitrary (i.e., a schizophenic deity that reveals love which is intuitive to man in Jesus vs. Calvin's secret God who is glorified in the predestined eternal torment of those HE in fact damned without any hope of redemption.
To God alone be the glory
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/6/2003 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Repost to Pentemento
Mistakingly posted earlier to John Earp
"Maybe free will, in theory, isn't a failure, but it has been proven that we can't be trusted with it. Proven and proven beyond a doubt."
Pentemento
Pentemento -- I note you are married--I trust happily. To use an analogy,think of the pros and cons of marriage or better yet having children. Imagine trying to contain your love for your spouse or your children without giving any expression to it.I think free will works this way with God. The context of free will which is required if genuine love is to be given and received is required with commensurate risk and benefit. Despite the odds of divorce wayward children most leap headlong into the risk of maariage and childrearing with little thought of the cosequences precisely because of the power of love.
I (and scripture) agree with you that "Maybe free will, in theory, isn't a failure, but it has been proven that we can't be trusted with it. Proven and proven beyond a doubt." But scripture goes one step further It states that "God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were yet sinners (cp" couldn't be trusted") Christ died for us. God knew this as a possibility and deemed His personal pain and suffering worth it to enter the battle to ransom our soul for eternity.
Scripture approached honestly acknowledges that God is right there with you. He has emphatically noted that this free will thing does not seem to be going as planned. He feels your pain even now. He has been there and continues to feel your pain every time a soul rejects Him and decides to go into eternity without Him, every time rebellion is chosen over obedience. The only other option is to conclude that nonexistence is better than existence with the possibility of love.
I submit that your own intuition verifies that while this present existence with all its pain and suffering does not appear worth it, an experience of eternal and genuine love is very appealing and indeed trumps nonexistence as an option. If things could just be that way then everything would be OK. That my friend is Heaven and that is what God has promised those who love Him.
A vision of Heaven will overcome a mountain of suffering. This is the testimony of C.S. Lewis and look what it did for John on Patmos. Meditate, study, pray, envision Heaven. Make your vision of Heaven real and personal and the scripture indicates your attitude toward suffering will change. That is what Paul did. Indeed Jesus endured the coss FOR THE JOY set before Him. Now that is not "pie in the sky bye and bye." That is faith and requires much more work, effort, concentraion, etc. than bitterness and depression which so naturally and commonly follows expereinces of pain and suffering. God promises to give you this faith.
Praying for you
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/6/2003 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Pentamento
I just finished Dr Boyd's latest book, IS GOD TO BLAME. In it he states in the last chapter more clearly what I attempted to communicate in the last post.
Blessings
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/6/2003 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Well thanks for the response John. I appreciate it greatly. But yes, I see a more glorious and Biblically accurate portrayal of God choosing whom He wills to save. I see Christ as the greatest manifestation of God to man as well. He said to His disciples that one would betray Him; was this predestined? Yet He said, "But woe to whom who does it." Did Judas have the free-will not to betray Christ? If he had chosen not to, would all the other 11 have the "free-will" to also not do it?
You see, it's not like God is sending people to hell who don't deserve it. We are all sinners, we all deserve death, we all deserve hell. But how great the love of the Father that He has lavished on us that we should be called sons and daughters of God? How has God loved you (oh Israel)? Look at your brother Esau, Edom. God has not brought upon you the devestations that He has brought upon Edom. (Malachi 1). For Just as the Son of Man came to serve and not be serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many, (matt 20). And this is love, NOT that WE loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son... (1 John 4). And He shall save HIS people from their sin (Matt 1). Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated (Rom 9). The Lord's soul detests and hates the workers of iniquity, Ps 9&11. What if God choosing to show His mercy to the objects of wrath endured with much long suffering the objects MADE for destruction? (Rom 9). For it is by grace you have been saved through faith and this is NOT of YOURSELVES it is a gift of God (Eph 2). You have heard it said, Love your brother and hate your enemy. But i say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven. For He causes the sun to rise on the just and the unjust and His rain to fall on the good and the bad (matt 5) cf Rom 1 and how God's invisible attributes are cleary being seen and the wrath of God is being poured out on mankind. For ALL that the Father draws to me WILL come to me and I WILL raise him up on the last day. No one can come to Me unless the Father so draws Him, and I will by no means cast Him out, John 6:37, 44. But I come to lay my life down for the sheep John 10:15. ...Just as Christ died for the Church (eph 4?). I know that you can do all things and none can stay your hand Job 42 and Dan 5. God will do all that He pleases Eph 1:11.
What is God's cheif end in His creation? To be glorified. How does He recieve this glory? By damning and saving according to His sovereign will. Does this depict a loving God? Yes, for whatever God chooses to do is loving. If He had never provided a way of salvation to few and damned everyone of us to hell to for all of eternity, I would still think God was being loving, for God is love, and He is holy, and He is light. He does as He chooses and who are we as men, to talk back to God? Does not the potter have the right to do whatever He so chooses? You say, "yes" that He chose to give us free-will and to die for everyone. Then I would ask of you to please submit verses to me that show we have this ability to choose God of our free-will and, out of the Gospels and Acts, where God every promised or even said that He would die for everyone, save John 3:16.
I look forward to carrying on this discussion.
By Grace Alone,
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/6/2003 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg
I should know better than to check this Board this late. Oh well. Here we go. I will make a few cursory comments at this late hour.
I believe God's "chief end in creation" is to share His triune love and hence he is glorified. I do not believe God's glory or His love is an arbitrary "because I said so." What God revealed in Christ IS love. We perceive God as love and God as light because His nature as fully revealed in this regard is intuitive and understandable when we consider Jesus. Calvin's secret God is sinister and counterintuitive and renders the very concept of "love" meaningless to man's sensibilities. If you don't believe this go and kill a child and try to convince a jury that you did it from a motive of love. Theology done in the abstract has dangerous implications.
If you take John 3:16 out of the mix I guess there goes the cornerstone for arguing that God wishes to save all. Any other verses we should omit? How about whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Why not omit "In the beginning God created..." then we want have to deal with any of the scripture.
Certainly we all agree that no one comes to Father lest he first is drawn by the Spirit. Yet that same Jesus and the same gospel writer in the same Gospel of John said "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me. It is context not proof text which wins the day. There is clearly another operative variable here. The atonement draws all. Jesus said so. Consider what Paul said..."I was chosen from my mother's womb." Yet Paul also says, "I was obedient to the heavenly calling." Was the Spirit disingenuous here by inspiring these words. Does obedience imply a real choice? To my dad it did. My very real choice as a child to be disobedient resulted in a very real "butt whooping" as it were. Scripture taken in context and not offered as proof text verifies the very real operative of libertarian free will.
Calvinistic spin on these texts reminds me of Bill Clinton and his denial of well... You know...when he appealed to a direct question regarding his participation in well You know... and stated, "Well, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
I think we violte the intent of Scripture and render the very concept of revelation counterintuitive when we define an action of God as love (like damning from and for all eternity someone to hell without any chance of redemption) that is utterly inconsistent with what IS completely revealed of God in Jesus. Now that is love. Not some pornographic God who renders the very concept of love nonsensical.
I refer you to Dr Boyd's IS GOD TO BLAME for a contextual commentary on Romans 9 which I believe you have proof texted. I also commend to you the writings of N.T. Wright on Romans (ROMANS AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD -- I believe). he has a tape series presented at Reagents College a couple of years ago which summarizes this material. Hint: Romans is about Israel. Any conclusion drawn from Romans 9 or any other chapter for that matter that does not acknowledge its relationship to Israel is a hermanuetic violation. I believe chapter 9 of Dr Boyd's book is posted on another thread. I believe you can find it on one of the pages at the following address: http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2513
Chapter 10 of his book gives a contextual interpretation, to many of the other texts you sited. Maybe Dr. Boyd could "cut and paste" chapter 10. Ah go ahead and buy the book. If you disagree with it, winter is here and you can always do with it what Calvin did to those who disagreed with him. Forgive my lak of "cooth," my frontal lobe inhibitions aren't working too well at this late hour
For a thorough rebuttle to each of the texts you sited, though not for the faint of heart Calvinist, I commend to you Dave Hunt's WHAT LOVE IS THIS.
To God alone be the glory,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
wstaylor
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/7/2003 12:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Though I've been watching with interest the dialog between Johnmd and Pentemento, Borg's reply (see below) to Johnmd made it apropos to enter the dialog. I have noted that Borg has cited a couple of instances in the New Testament that have often be construed as examples of, or evidence for Divine Sovereignty. That is, the absolute control of the Divine Will over all of history. In a word, determinism. For all sentient life, determinism states that all action by humans can be predicated by a sufficent electro-chemical source.
I often wonder if the proponents of Divine Sovereignty have really defined to themselves in a coherent way the logical implicaltios of the deterministic assumption. And it is here that I want to make my loudest bleat about the critical importance of defining ones terms, and doing so in a manner that precludes fuzzy abstractions. No meaningful dialog can result where fundamental definitions hang in doubt. That last statement shows up a similar more fundamental requirement for rational discussion.
It must be asertained at the outset what constitutes evidence, what constitues proof, and how to tell the difference between the two. For example, citing Biblical passages that favor one interpretation or viewpoint, does not by itself constitute proof of the premise. There are a number of similar considerations that should be investigated prior to meaningful dialog. In particular it must be understood what first truths of consciousness are and what bearing they have on the discernment of proof vs evidence. As far as I can tell, judging from the published posts, that exercise remains yet in the future.
The relevance of this discipline is shown in examining the first few sentences of Borg's reply to Johnmd. In them (see below) he *assumes* that Christ's declaration that one of the disciples would betray is an example of Divine Sovereignty (the rest of his post contends for D.S.). I contend that there are *no* clear references anywhere in the Scripture that Judas was divinely appointed to betray the Messiah.
Now, I think, I have provided an opportunity to demonstrate the principles mentioned above.
Originally posted by borg
Well thanks for the response John. I appreciate it greatly. But yes, I see a more glorious and Biblically accurate portrayal of God choosing whom He wills to save. I see Christ as the greatest manifestation of God to man as well. He said to His disciples that one would betray Him; was this predestined? Yet He said, "But woe to whom who does it." Did Judas have the free-will not to betray Christ? If he had chosen not to, would all the other 11 have the "free-will" to also not do it?
w§tày£Ö® | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/7/2003 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks again for responding John. First off you make claims but I see no backing, especially Biblical backing for accusing the God of Calvin to be "sinister". Face it, God could have made the world the way Calvin, Augustine, Luther, etc., have viewed it. Do you really wish to bring condemn such a God, seeming how He very well could be doing that which you so quickly condemn?
Second off why are you people bent on the fact that Calvinists seem to not grasp the love of God? We understand that God IS love, and we understand that God IS holy. But we say that God's love is more clearly shown to His objects of mercy in relation to how He treats the objects of wrath. Look at Romans 11. God caused Israel to stumble, so that the Gentiles could be grafted in, so that the Jews woudl become jealous of the love in which God imparted to the Gentiles, thus turning their hearts back again. Praise be to God that the Jews stumbled over Christ, for from that issued my salvation. How great a debt do we owe to the Jews? God DOES ordain sin and evil acts, in order that His love may be seen more clearly. I point you to Acts 4 and Gen 50. And why would I go and kill a child and tell the Jury I was doing it out of love? Foolishness! It is not mine to give and take away breath, that right belongs solely to God the sovereign of all creation (Job 1:20,21 Acts 17: (38?)). And I'm guessing a worldly court such as you have set up with attempt to charge God with wrongdoing. But so what? Their eyes are blinded and minds depraved so they can not see the glory of God in all His doings, for all His works are wonderous!
And why would we ever want to nix the first verse of the Bible? Your logic here fails to work upon me. The reason I said "save John 3:16" is because, and as you so eagerly put it, we must not prooftext. I understand why people think John 3:16 is some great verse by "which the entire Calvinist theology crumbles" (Meyer) but it is not. If we can get a clear Biblical picture of what Christ's atonement really accomplished, then let us appeal to ALL of scripture, especailly that of the Gospels, for the work of Christ on behalf of sinners is clearly seen throughout the Gospels and Acts whereas the letters are written to believers and interpretations can get messy. Show me in the Gospels where it says that Christ came to die and make a way for everyone. You pointed out a verse in Romans, well good! But that's Romans. It's not directed to non-believers.
Where in the world did Christ ever say that the atonement was to draw all people unto salvation? You are quick to accuse me with prooftexting when you yourself negelect to show from a Biblical standpoint not only where I am wrong, but where you are right.
A Calvinist does not deny the ability to make choices. And obedience is a choice, and one that we cannot make, until God so sovereignly chooses at His good pleasure to release us from the slavery of the devil (2 Thess 2) and make us slaves of righteousness. Now that I have been quickened by the Holy Spirit, I can "choose" to do good or evil, before in my fallen depraved state, all i could "choose" was to do evil.
I also submit to you that perhaps you shouldn't write Calvinism off as merely prooftexting. It's a serious theology and the fact that the ideas have been around since the time of Augustine (well actually Paul and Jesus:)), it deserves some crediable arguments. To think that some of the greatest thinkers in the history of the church like Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Augustine, Hodge, Spurgeon, Pink ;), all these faithful men who desired to remain biblical in some manner, according to you, got it wrong by merely "prooftexting" is absurd. Bash their arguments, their beliefs, their theologies, but please, use something better then the idea that they are merely not taking the Bible as a whole.
Furthermore, many of the verses remained unanswered. I do not have the money to buy Boyd's book, especially with Christmas around the corner. But regardless of that fact, why don't YOU believe these verses hold up as they do? Or if you like, recite Boyd to me and I'll hear you through. Though I believe he is mistaken. And I want to read Hunt's book, but i have not the money nor the time at the present.
I leave you with two questions, what does the Bible say love is? And what do you believe Grace is?
by grace alone,
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/7/2003 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg
I appreciate you towing the Calvinist line and further appreciate your honesty. I know very few Calvinist willing to follow the logical implications of the Calvinist line and boldly state "God ordains sin." Again, your honesty is as commendable as your theology is deplorable.
I have yet to here the most brazen Calvinist Pastor, Theologian, etc. (and I know many) council from that perspective.
For example..."Mrs Jones, I see your little 14 year old girl lying in the casket over there and I have heard the acoount of the brutal rape...But take comfort...Eventhough we don't understand why God did that...Why, He ordained that brutal rape and murder...And by the way Mam i know you have prayed for your daughter's salvation...And as her pastor I did try to share the gospel with her just last, but she rejected the salvation that was offered to her...But, here again, Mrs. Jones take comfort for her rejection was really just an illusion. God decided before your daughter was ever created that HE would predistine her to eternal torment in everlasting Hell so that folk like you and me could more fully appreciate His grace in choosing us to go to heaven. Of course our ability to appreciate is even predetermined by God...But that's another "proram," I mean subject. You see this great Theologian, John Calvin, let me in on a little secret about God...I am not sure who told him the secret. Anyway, He says that all that stuff in the Bible about Jesus being the image of the invisible God does not tell the full story about God... No, much more important than what is actually written about Jesus in the Gospels is this intricate explanation which reveals what God is reaaly like. You see God, while telling us to love our enemies--and by the way holding us accountable if we don't--actually preprograms his enemies, like your daughter over there and burns them eternally. Now the Reverend Calvin took this to heart and followed suit and burned his enemies too..."The servant is not greater than the master you know"...Anyway...Do you feel better now...Now that you "understand" that there is a "hidden" God which Jesus did not tell us about don't you feel better. Does the "peace of God that passes all understanding" fill your heart and soul knowing that God foreordained your daughter to burn in hell eternally? She never really had a chance...
Well This pornographic portrayal of God could go on and on...But you get the point...Again I appreciate your honesty. The primary reason I can appreciate your honesty but reject your theology is that, as you see, It just doesn't work. As we say in the country, "The dog just ain't gonna hunt." So the fact that I have never heard anything close to this line of reasoning presented at a multitude of funerals, Catholic, Presbiterian, or even Primitive ("Hard Shell")Baptist indicates something with this line of human reasoniong is amiss (I am a physician and have been to lots of funerals). The proponents of the doctrine fear to state it where it should count the most. Theology in the abstract is useless.
Be all that as it is, there are those, and I appreciate that you are one of them who would just be honest enough to confront a mother who had lost a child, or a loving wife of a husband burning in eternal torment and declare to them that was all God's doing. So to answer your question...
"What does the Bible say love is?" Well, for starters the scripture declares "God is love." Of course we have still begged the question if we stop there for we have have not answered the question Why is God love? Fortunately, scripture does not leave us in the dark here and removes the concept and definition of "love" out of the abstract and the arbitrary into the real stating that "God demonstrated His love [this love that He IS] for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." God "demonstrates" so that we can perceive. So scripture indicates that love IS (for man) a tangible experience--an experience that can be perceived. Scripture augments the abstract concept stating "greater love hath no man than he lay his life down..." So LOVE is not some abstract concept devoid of appeal to man's intuition. Nor does scripture give supporting concrete examples such as Calvary to lend support to Calvin's sinister God who would have us also believe that in addition to Calvary, God's love also involves (in some way) predestining little babies who have not been baptized to eternal burning torment so that God can be "glorified."
I submit to you that the reason that you are Protestant and not catholic (I am making an assumption here) is because you do not bow to tradition exclusively--else let us all bow and kiss the Pope's ring and honor the Papal decrees which forbid this discussion at all. No, I will just bet that you participate in the spirit of the Reformation and declare with me that all knowledge of God did not and does not stop with the Pope. I just submit that it did not and does not stop with Calvin, Augustin, Luther, et. al...I do admit that the fact that Calvin burned those at the stake who disagreed with him makes me especially subspicious of his opinions.
Oh...What is grace?...Grace is simply God looking at a rebellious man like me and a rebellious world like ours and offering mercy and redemption that I did not and do not deserve at His own expense and sacrifice.
Now that is love and grace demonstrated and perceived...And that is the God revealed in scripture that I humbly bow and worship.
By the way...I not only appreciate your honesty. I appreciate your time in responding.
Post or email me your address and I will mail you both Dr. Boyd's book and Dave Hunt's book.
Merry Christmas and To God alone be the glory.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/7/2003 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Well John I appreciate your response, however your sarcasm and "pornographic" view of Calvinism is a bit unsetteling. You while condemning Calvinsim so easily forget that even WE, yes even we, see a God of great compassion, a God of great grace. The words of His gospel are still true: That God comforts those who mourn, that He came to save the broken hearted, that He is peace, that He is love. However, you view God as a cold-hearted jerk. This is not the God I serve. The Bible depcits very clearly that we are to mourn with those who mourn and laugh with those who laugh. If some mother just lost her daughter and she was burying her, that would not be the time to bring theology into the picture. True God chose to take her, true God ordained that she should suffer, but why? Well we don't know the cause of every evil, but we can still hold to the promises that God works all for the good of those who love Him. That the Lord gives and the Lord takes away and yet His name is to be blessed. I find more comfort and more peace in a God who is still running the show, still holding the world in the palm of His hand, still sovereign, then some God who allows a mere man to stand in opposition of His will and to cause His people a needless tear! I would tell the mother that YES God had a plan with it. But in our depraved sense we cannot see clearly to what that plan is, we cannot see the whole painting, but God will NEVER cause one of His little ones to shed a needless tear. He is still there, still running the show. And who in the right mind would ever tell someone that their child who just died is in Hell?! It is not up to us to say where anyone has gone, that right belongs to God and to God alone. I will never swear by my life that someone has gone to heaven, because it comes down to whom God wills to show mercy. If God chose to save that girl then amen, if not, let God be God and grace be grace. He knows how to run the show a lot better than us mere fallible folk. By the way, what does say about God's love to His enemies? I strongly suggest you look at a Biblical interpretation of that, especially Matthew 5. And "No greater love has this, then that a man lays His life down for his FRIENDS." Who are Christ's freinds? An easy enough reading of scripture will clearly tell us those who follow His commands. So now we have the preplexing idea of, "Does God therefore show more love to the saved than the unsaved in laying down His life?" Is there partiality there?
I do not know where you get this notion that perhaps all Calvinists don't say God ordains evil. while He is not the effiecient cause of it, He does ordain it, but only because we in our depraved states would will to do no other. We don't want to do good, we hate good, we hate the light, we are at enmeity against God! The thoughts and inclinations of our hearts are evil, continually, our hearts are above all wicked and decietful, and we are enslaved to do the devils will until Christ so chooses to free us. And this is love NOT that WE loved God but that HE LOVED us! This is what love is, it doesn't even involve us does it? For we still don't know how to love God as we ought, most days we hate Him!
Your view of grace comes off sounding almost cheap. is it true grace or love for that matter if all is grace and all is love? If i said that everyone was my best friend, the term bestfriend would no longer carry any meaning. If the Church is Christ's bride and yet He loves those outside the Church just as much, if not more, then Christ is guilty of audultery! Far be it. Away with such a thought. God does not love everyone, but those He does is often reflected through His hatred for the sinners, not always, but often.
Grace and Peace through Christ Alone,
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Clay
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 12/8/2003 12:19 AM (GMT -6) | | johnmd
Okay, I'm new, yeah, but I'm another Calvinist willing to follow the logical implications of my belief (for what it's worth). In regard to the issue of the mother with the dead child, I don't think that example really works. You seem to be trying to apply some double standard of what is considered right and just to her situation. I'm not a pastor, but if I were, I would not be encouraging my flock to continue to seek solace and refuge in the things of this world (her daughter). The love of a mother, is beyond value, yet in comparison to God, it is nothing but refuse. We cannot hold both to the things of this world, and the things of God. Pornographic? I don't really think so. Are you saying that it is supposed to make us feel better, giving us a false and temporary feeling of satisfaction? Because I don't think that is at all what it does. Trusting that God has a plan that we cannot understand, is very difficult, and very contrary to our nature as human beings. Trusting God is not an easy task. And it absolutely does need to be put into practice in the places where it really does mean something. Namely, with the lost, the hurting, the dying, the mourning. I totally agree with that.
Will we never understand that it (it being everything) is not about us, it is not about us feeling great about the condition of the world. Frankly this world is a cold hard place sometimes, often. Does that mean that we comfort ourselves by telling ourselves that it was just some fallen human that did it, God was standing off to the side at a safe disstance from our sin. Ick. That's not what the gospel teaches. Christ was made sin in our place so that we can go to God when we are hurting and confused. God is impervious to sin because Christ allowed Himself to be penetrated by our sin. THAT IS LOVE. 1 John 3:16 "We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us." We know what love is. We just don't (as Christians) know how to make it translate into our lives.
Try this example..."Mrs Jones, I see your little 14 year old girl lying in the casket over ther and I have heard the account of the brutal rape...but take comfort...it's not her fault, I think...in fact I'm not actually sure why it happened...that's just the way this fallen world works I guess...I know that you were praying for her salvation, she did reject Christ the other day when I shared the gospel with her, but maybe she was going to accept Christ later...it's too bad that someone else decided to exercise their free will and end her life...again, I don't really know why any of this happened...hopefully, we can make the best of it, it's too bad that God doesn't have some plan that He's working for all our good, and for His glory...that would sure make this easier to deal with, but it's just not the case...sorry...
I also appreciate your candor in the matter, but I also have to reject your theology because, as you can see, it just doesn't work. I don't live in the country, I wish I did, and I don't know what "we say here" about the dog. But I do know what we say about God: "To God alone be the glory." That means in ALL things, including in the hard times. Does that mean that we always understand? No. Do we need to? No. Does God understand? Absolutely. When we find all of our satisfaction in Christ, and Christ alone, then the struggles of this world, though still difficult, are not without purpose. They exist, I exist, to spread the glory of God to all the earth. What a God, who is not only loving, kind and merciful, but just, holy and righteous. Truly, all praise, glory and honor to God through Christ Jesus our Lord.
I pray that you and I may BOTH search after truth with humility and faith. Grace and peace to you.
by grace alone,
Christian
!kyrie eleison!
...then again, Yeshua...
*I CAN'T CONTEND WITH YOU* | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/8/2003 1:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Clay
johnmd
Okay, I'm new, yeah, but I'm another Calvinist willing to follow the logical implications of my belief (for what it's worth). In regard to the issue of the mother with the dead child, I don't think that example really works. You seem to be trying to apply some double standard of what is considered right and just to her situation.
Please explain this "double standard". Is all evil part of God's great plan or not?
quote:
Does that mean that we comfort ourselves by telling ourselves that it was just some fallen human that did it, God was standing off to the side at a safe disstance from our sin. Ick.
"Ick"? It'd be non-icky if God was there, actively involved in causing the evil? Do you feel better thinking evil comes from God rather than just a mere mortal?
You think that by waving "comfort" in front of that mother, she'll feel better about her daughter in the casket?
"Yes, mother, the Father may have caused your daughter to be raped and murdered, it was a part of His Great Plan, but see how He comforts you." Like that's supposed to help?
Is that the double standard you're talking about? We want comfort from our Father but aren't willing for the evil He sends with it as well?
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Clay
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 12/8/2003 2:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika-
The double standard refers to the fact that we cannot apply all of the "rules" that we use as humans, to God. We cannot say that God is not just, for God is the standard from which we get our definition of justice; we cannot say that God is not loving, because it is from God that we derive out defninition of love, etc. Many people try to claim that God condemning people to hell for their sins is unjust, or unloving; on the contrary, that is precisely what justice and love are. And yes, all evil IS part of God's great plan. Easy on the sarcasam there Laika, it most assuredly is a GREAT plan.
I use the word "ick" to express some moral disgust, and yes it would be "non-icky" (nice improvization) if God was there activly involved in causing the *evil*. Yes, I do feel better thinking that *evil* comes from God rather than just a mere mortal. Mere mortals do not have that GREAT plan, that I just referred to, God does. I would not, however call it *evil* though. I know that it is just a stupid syntactic distinction, but a very important stupid syntactic distinction. God does not commit evil, humans do. I do not deny the reality of evil. I do deny that evil springs from within God. We see it as evil, though it is truly designed for good (both ours, and to the glory of God Himself). So, yeah, I do find a great deal of comfort in the thought that no matter what "ick" stuff is going on in the world, our Sovereign Lord not only is in control, but is working all things for our good, and His glory. It is about God. It's not about me. It's not about my comfort, really. It's about God being glorified through all things. What unfathomable grace and merciy that God should allow me to rest in His sovereign plan; that I should find comfort in His hand. All the more praise to our Father in heaven.
By grace alone,
Christian
!kyrie eleison!
...then again, Yeshua...
*I CAN'T CONTEND WITH YOU* | | Back to Top | | |
| 138 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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 |
|
|