 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Free will is a collosal failure | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/8/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6) |   | Christian glad to have you aboard, your posts are much appreciated.
Laika I don't understand your reasoning in the slightest bit, sorry, probably my ignorance. Satan is not put out of work because God is the one who is still running the show. God uses Satan, he's like a dog on a small leash. Satan thinks he's standing in opposition to God's will and thwarting Him, but in reality, God's will IS NOT thwarted by mere man or some decieved demon. It's about the means to God's end.
How do i draw a distinction between good and evil? First your thought about hitting your kid is a worthless example. in that analogy i am presupposing, as i believe you intended, that the child whom I hit is innocent. it's not that way with God. All evil that happens to us, WE DESERVE! Revolutionary thought huh? But God deonstrates His own love towards us in this, that while we were yet sinners (guilty, opposite of innocent) Christ died for the ungodly. We deserve to be hit by God almighty wrathful, holy, vengence. And yet we so often aren't! How great is the love that the Father has bestowed upon us! I should be the one who is damned to all eternity, i should be living in a third world country with no food, money, friends, etc. But I'm not! Because God soveriegnly chose to place me where I am. In that regards evil (as the world sees it) seems to be a large backdrop to love. However, you failed to read my last post. I said often it's that way, NOT always. You are concluding that what I am saying is that evil MUST exist for there to be love. this is an almost foolishness idea to hold to.
Regarding the child who was raped and murdered, I stress again, because you do not see, that your interpretation of how a Calvinsit would respond comes across with NO LOVE! Far be it for us not to show the love of Christ that He has shown us. Weep with those who weep, mourn with those who mourn! I'm not some cold hearted unemotional hypocritical vulcan! You cannot forget the love. IN LOVE God predestined us to be adopted sons and daughters.
To God be the Glory for the wonderful things He has done,
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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/8/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
God uses Satan, he's like a dog on a small leash.
Which is contra to how scripture portrays Satan:
1 Peter 5:8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
A lion, not a "dog on a small leash". (small leash?)
quote:
How do i draw a distinction between good and evil? First your thought about hitting your kid is a worthless example. in that analogy i am presupposing, as i believe you intended, that the child whom I hit is innocent. it's not that way with God. All evil that happens to us, WE DESERVE!
So if I hit my child, that's evil but if God hits my child (or has a shark bite their arm off), that's good. I see.
Just by virtue of being born into this world, any crap that happens to us, we deserve? There are no tragedies then.
How can we distinguish God's evil from God's love? If everything from God is good, why not dispense with the extraneous category of "evil"?
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/8/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I just simply say that because of God's infinite wisdom and infinite love and infinite power God is capable of redeeming any and all tragic situations. His sovereighnty is most evident in redeeming a situation that He did not cause. What virtue is there in God "fixing" (redeeming) something that He Himself caused? How praiseworthy is that?
For you quail hunters out there. The best dog is the dog that will hunt in rough terrain -- like with briars and stickers and stuff -- not just terrain that is easily predicted like an open field. Sorry to all you city folk who don't follow the analogy. For me the most glorious sovereignty is the revelation of God who operates in an arena of chaos -- cp Genesis 1-- chaos that He did not create yet is fully capable of redeeming, bringing new life because He is God. He is sovereign. But let's not limit God's sovereignty to power or knowledge alone for that diminishes His sovereignty
For you guys that believe God ordained sin...Take that up with James..."God is not the author of evil."
Borg...My offer stil stands on the books
Pentemento... My apologies for continuing this discussion on this thread. In retrospect I should have responded to Borg's initial response on a different thread as we have drifted from your original question. As I see it "They" interpret scrpiture God and assert that God "did" all those things that are frustrating you. As I see it there is another way of interpreting scripture that absolves of responsibility for causing evil. However, he has taken responsibility for the evil He did not cause and because He is God can redeem the most horendous of circumstances and promises heaven to boot./ Again I commend Dr Boyd's latest book to you. Send me your address and I will mail you one...I hope this will in some way compensate for my insensitivity to your frustration with my rhetoric on this thread...I just get carried away when I believe God's character is impuned by atributing all sin and evil to Him. Sorry.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/8/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika I'm glad to see that you realize that perhaps for those whom God loves there is no such thing as a tradgedy. You're coming along. And if the devil is a mere lion our God is about infintily larger than that, so yes, compared to God, Satan is nothing put a mere pawn in His game. To us however, who so easily fall into our depraved states, Satan appears to be a roaring beast, I would even say he is. But God in all His might and glory, is still ruling sovereignly over the actions of Satan. Why not worry? Why trust God? Because even evil is subject to Him, and NO ONE is able to thwart His will!
Earthly consequences of you hitting your child would be negative, if this is what you desire to call evil, so be it. But God chastens those He loves. He forces us through the fire to purify us. His "divine hit" is for our benefit. If you discipline your child for doing something wrong and hit them, with the clearest of all ends in that you are building them and refining them in the purest of all senses, then I say discipline the children. All it can do is reap a benefit of love in the end. And let's all give God thanks that He has chosen not to discipline us in this present age to the extent that He could!
John, first I would say that God doesn't need to "fix" anything He caused. It's all in perfect unity and it's not like He made a mistake. It's all working together, much like the dark colors of a painting contrasted with the light ones. They work together to make the most beautiful pictures. God's sovereignty as I see in the Bible and His glory isn't contingent how men act. The cross the most glorious of all events and yet the most hateful, evil, sinful act of all humanity wasn't contingently based on God reworking the system. It was predestined before the beginning of time. This is glory! To see God working all in His favor in the way that He wants it, setting it up so that He alone is to be praised, that He alone is the soveriegn, that He alone is the one who works out ALL things. By saying that God is in some way submitted to man's will is, to me, a squashing of His magnifcant glory.
And you're right, God is not the author of evil. Man is. I never said God was the author. I believe there can be a distinct line of defintion drawn between Author and Ordaining. For God to ordain evil doesn't imply that God is the effiecent cause of evil, or the author. Man, of his will, longed to seperate himself from God and he did so, thus ushering in sin. I MAY grant it to you that Adam and Eve had "free-will". Perhaps not in the sense by which you claim we do, but they chose to fall, thus God did not create evil. It must also be noted that God second handedly "created" evil within your view of free-will. For God granted us free will. And God therefore ordained that evil would exist, for it is impossible to have "free-will" if evil did not exist. So God in creating "free-will" ordained that evil should exist. Unless of course free-will isn't of God either. But then why would you long so hard to prove it? For it would be wrong and evil to have such that did not come from the hand of God. So let us examine this in light of what has been said. Evil DID NOT originate in a first hand sense from God, but ALL things come from God and ALL things have their being from God.
What is your definition of "free-will"? Can we have any sort of freedom apart from God's grace?
To God alone,
Borg
ps, about the books, really don't worry about it. I appreciate the offer however I think I'll decline. i've got a lot of reading to do the way it is and I wouldn't want you to spend any money in vain. I really do appreciate it though and thanks for showing me the kindness you have. I appreciate it. Let's continue to sharpen one another like Iron sharpens Iron, holding fast to God's grace.
"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 | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/8/2003 2:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Lakia I don't think you are understanding your philosophy correctly. God is no the firt hand cause of evil, WE ARE! And even more so, yes everyone is doing God's will. Hence the dilema raised in Romans 9. "Then why does God still blame us?" And not even Paul dares to answer to such a question so why should we! That fact that people do God's will by commiting evil and the fact that He still finds fault with us is beyond us. But that belongs to God's secret will. Which sounds like such a cheap answer, but it's biblical. There are things of God and doings of God that we as humans shouldn't dare to ask, to question, to bring charge against God. And this is one of them. But we also know that the Bible never teaches Self-determination is a must in order to have responsibility. And evil is a rebellion, a verb. God is not causing evil amongst Himself, a kingdom divided against itself will not stand. But in the damning and saving of elect individuals God is bring about His ultimate will, His ultimate purpose which belongs to Him and to Him alone. Perhpas you didn't read my last post clearly enough. For you do not take the words to show me where I am at fault so i will presume for the time being that you either don't know a defence or that perhpas it is truth. God wills evil, but it's already in existance. He willed the crucifxion of His own Son which was the ultimate "evil" this world has ever seen. But thank heavens He did so, lest none of us be atoned for.
What is your defintion of evil? and if you believe that your last explanation was suffiecient I ask that you develop the thought more clearly if you dont' mind. or perhaps give examples to me what you think evil is. That would be great.
g n p
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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/8/2003 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
God wills evil
contradicting what you said about God not authoring evil.
James 1:
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.
So GOOD things come from God. Sin comes from us. God does NOT cause people to sin or do evil or vote Democrat. We are carried away by our own lust, giving birth to sin. We are the causal agents of sin, not God. We need to bail God out of the pokey, take Him out of the lineup.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/8/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Here we go. Let's all focus.
Borg said
"John. First off you make claims but I see no backing, especially Biblical backing for accusing the God of Calvin to be "sinister".
John
My analogy to pornography is as follows:
Pornography provides a depiction of sexuality which is feasable and acceptable to many. However, pornography grossly misrepresents and distorts the true nature of sexuality. I believe Calvin's depiction of God, while feasable to many, is a gross distortion of God's nature.
Just as pornography is the antithesis of the beauty of sexuality, Calvinism attributes to God that which is antithetical to what has been revealed of God in Jesus. Calvinism distorts and misrepresents God in Christ. And that is pornographic. I offer each of the 4 gospels and the fully revealed God in Christ in rebuttle to Calvin's sinister "hidden," "secret" God.
Borg said
"God could have made the world the way Calvin, Augustine, Luther, etc., have viewed it."
John
Agreed. But that is the question not the answer. I believe scripture indicates He did not create such a robotic world. If He did I am only doing what He programmed me to do through Satan or otherwise. Hence the torment you are sensing from me is really coming from God and He programmed your torment too.
Borg said
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.
John
I love Laika's analogy here. In order for my wife to know how much I love her I need to go beat up another woman??? Calvin's understanding is nonsensical. The most glorious of god's attributes, Love, is rendered meaningless, obscure, and counterintuitive by Calvin.
"It is the kindness [not the brutality] of God that leads to repentance.
Borg said
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.
John
Regarding Romans 9-11 there is much difference between God using evil or hardening a previously rebellious heart and predesting a soul to hell without a chance for redemption. I again refer you to Dr Boyd's contextual interpretation of Romans 9 referenced in my prior post. Israel stumbled or was caused to stumble after God made numerous attempts to get her to repent and fullfill her purpose. What does Calvin make of God's disappointment, regret, and surprize at Israel's rebellion despite His repeated attempts bring repentance. Not only is Calvin's depiction of God's love pornographic, Calvin's portrayal of God is schizophrenic...A God who regrets, is disappointed, and is surprized by that which He, Himself, foreordained!
Borg said
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!
John
So WHERE DID YOUR INTUITION COME FROM THAT THIS IS FOOLISHNESS??? I submit your intuition on this matter came from God. This is God's intuition. Likewise,it is also "FOOLISH" to maintain that God foreordains babies to be eternally tormented in Hell. That violates the intuitive sense of justice that He has given us...Even in our fallen world.
Borg said
And why would we ever want to nix the first verse of the Bible? Your logic here fails to work upon me.
John
Hey...You started the verse nixing...Na na na na na. You give me John 3:16. I give you Gen 1:1. Get it? Tit for tat. The most fundamental principle of logic.
Borg says
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.
John
Is too...
How about "if I be lifted up I will draw ALL men unto me.
What is your definition of "world"? What is your definition of "all." are these words intuitive or will you seek to redefine them to fit Calvin's man made philosophy...Did you go to the Clinton school of grammer and relativism--"IT depends on what the definition of "is" is. ???
Borg says
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.
John
So, let me get this straight. The "messy" "letters" directed to Spirit-led believers are not as "clearly seen" or "interpreted" as the Gospels and Acts written to unenlightened nonbelievers?...Somebody help the brother. Not even Calvin would draw the distinctions between scripture you presume. I guess we just have a fundamental difference in assumptions here. The Scripture, gospels, letters and all was inspired by the same Spirit. The same spirit inspired Paul to testify of Jesus who inspired John to testify of Jesus.And He is not double-minded. However, even if I grant your assumption, "What is the point of Paul beconing the Roman "believers" to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved IF THEY ARE ALREADY SAVED?!?!? You are losing me here.
Borg said
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.
John
"I am the way, the truth..." Jesus defines Himself as SALVATION. Then within the same context declares that with the atonement "I will ALL men unto Me[Salvation]." Throw in a dash of "Whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" and that is the "atonement properly understood."
Borg says
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.
John
Calvinism does deny the unbeliever the ability to make a choice. However, "Whosoever believes on Him should not perish..." [in THE Gospels] certainly opens the door for libertarian free will. By the way THE GOSPEL goes on to say that God DID NOT send His Son into the world to condemn the world (adressed to all those those unbelelievers so capable of perception as you said). Go figure, God never intended for the atonement to be about condemnation of anyone...Especially your clear-headed unbelievers the gospel writer is addressing (again, as you say).
Borg said
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.
John
Again...Refer to my previous post. I just belive that the spirit of the Reformation did not end with Calvin, Luther, et. al. I am not the only one who disagrees with them. Many of their contemporaries did and they burned them at the stake. If hope you are not gathering green wood for me:)
Well, enough tit for tat.
My offer still stands on the books.
To God alone be the glory,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/8/2003 5:52 PM (GMT -6) | | I see where you are coming from the pornographic view of God, however it is still a mighty charge to bring against a God that could very well be working in this manner.
I am not saying go beat some other woman to show your wife how much you love her. horrible example. BUT you show your wife that you love her by treating her differently than all other women. If you treated all women the same as you treat your wife, no real love would exist.
With God hardening people, He always seems to be sure of when the people are going to be hardened. He usually calls it before hand. I would say He is doing the hardening that His glory may be seen before His objects of mercy, you wouldn't, an interpretation difference. But the reason God is depected as repenting, yadda yadda, could take on a two fold reasoning. 1) The Old Testament points to Christ. Christ was fully human with full human emotions, so why wouldn't the OT foreshadow Christ in such a way? 2) It's the words of the Gospel. Christ came to call all, so as not to exclude anyone. From this standpoint He desires that all should be saved, yet He has soveriegnly decided not to save all. But the call is to all sinners to repent. So that none can say, "Well it's not my fault, for Christ never called me." God shows His yearning for all to repent and come to Him and yet He is unwilling that all should live. Where is God ever said to be surprised? Please tell me.
How does God condeming babies to hell ever violate the meaning of Justice? If anything I would say it supports it! Babies are born sinners they deserve, just like all sinners, to die. God doesn't look at the outside, He looks at the heart. Either you are for Him or you are against Him. If you are against Him your heart is at ENMITY against Him, you CANNOT please Him! And yet it intrigues me because I NEVER said that God sends babies to hell. Would He be perfectly just in doing so? YES. Do i think He does? I don't know. He has mercy on those whom He will have mercy and compassion those whom He will have compassion. People, even Christians so often have a hard time grasping an ALL HOLY God that cannot bear the sight of sin. Why are people so transfixed on the idea that God owes us something as if the creator owes the pot anything?
I didn't start "nixing" verses. I took one away because I knew 1) You would mention it. 2) I believe if it is not backed by other verses in Scripture then you are misinterpruting it. What my definition of world? the Greek is kosmos which is translated 7 different times throughout the Gospels. The word for "all" is "pas" not always meaning everyone as in a universal sense. Why don't you tell me why I should automatically think that such words hold as you believe? Is it because we cannot picture Christ not dying for everyone because the Church seems so focused on God's love and often times puts aside any other divine attribute? please, why should I believe that says He came to die for everyone (universally)? You want to take Gen 1:1, go ahead, but I dont' really know how that can be logically interpruted any other way. The verse from John 6, good verse, but I fail to see how in light of the rest of Scripture it holds up. Therefore, since the Bible cannot and will not conflict with itself, it has to carry a different interpretation.
About the letters, no that's not what I meant, you should know that. But i believe that the interpretations have been distorted and if you want to hear, i'll tell you, i just don't have the time right now. you tell me why Paul is writing that to believers. At the outset of the book he addresses it to "all the beloved of God in Rome called to be saints" (Christians). I have my thoughts but i want to hear what you have to say.
Where does Jesus ever say "I will all men unto Me?" According to verse in John 6 those whom God draws to Christ WILL (unconditional) be saved. I think this is a great example of you prooftexting and meshing unrelated verses.
I fail to see how John 3:16 opens up any "door to libertarian freewill". God is saying whoever comes to me, but we cannot come to Him unless the Father so draws us and those that the Father draws WILL come to Him. Yea! everyone is saved. And of course Christ didn't come into the world to condemn the world. I think the majority of people already knew either conciously or subly that they were already condemned and already in need of a Savior.
And you as well my friend would have probably condemned them as heretics and had you been living at the time, you would have probably had them killed as well. But before you are so quick to judge them by their actions, realize they were humans and 200 years from now people will be looking at the Church of America and probably condemning us for some of our actions. Have a heart, and comapssion just as Christ did. They weren't perfect.
grace,
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 12/8/2003 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh no! More "tit"
I must respond with more "tat"
Borg says
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.
John
My view is that Calvin's God who foreordains eternal torment without any hope of redemption from and for all eternity is "a cold hearted jerk." Not the God of Scripture. The God I serve, the God of Scripture does not create one single baby with an eternal soul and predestine it to eternal torment without a genuine offer for salvation. I know that would be immoral and since my sense of morality did not orginate in my fallen nature I presume that intuition came from God and that our concept of justice resonates with His and is not antithetical to it.
Borg says
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.
John
Agreed..."We are to mourn with those..." How many funerals you been to lately? I have rarely, if ever, been to a funeral or a hospital bed in a cancer ward and when those who are suffering were the ones who did not interject theology into the picture. Indeed, the WHY GOD question is almost ubiquitous in situations of tragedy. IT IS THE SUFFERER WHO PLACES MATTERS OF THEOLOGY ON THE TABLE. I submit that IS THE TIME to bring appropriate theology "into the picture" as "we mourn with those who mourn." Your hesitation to render CAlvinism appropriate here is self-defeating. THEOLOGY IS YOUR VIEW OF GOD.If there were ever a time to present God in all His glory it is within the context of suffering. That is THE message of The Revelation-A God who does not foreordain evil from all eternity but a God who is fighting to overcome it. So at the bedside or by the casket, in so far as I can, I present my "THEOLOGY" of a God who, regardless of the cause of the tragedy, is fully capable, indeed, already has a plan to redeem the most horrendous and tragic of situations. I understand your hesitation to present the full implications of Calvin's God at the bedside. For Calvin's God rubs salt into the wound and provides little comfort. After all HE actually made the tragic mess in every detail and in ever case. There are just some places where Calvin's dog just will not hunt. Send him back to the pen. The "picture" is just not right for Calvin's Theology. Too many briars and stickers.
Borg said
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.
John
WHAT??? The Calvinist "KNOWS" the cause of every evil. It is Calvins GOD!!!
"The Lord gives and the Lord takes away."
BTW What other sayings of Job do you read literally for all time and circumstance? Job also said that God "hates me"(16:9). Do we take this literally (Did God hate Job?) or do interpret this in context?
Borg says
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.
John
I find more comfort in a God who through his power and wisdom redeems any chaos which comes His way. Rather that a God who must "control every molecule" to bring about His will...a God whose will is threatened by a "maverick molecule" (as R.C. Sproul says)or a rebellious man or even a rebellious nation or world...What a "wimpy God" (as Boyd says). No thye God of Scripture does not require my rebellious will or the will of Satan himself to be submitted to redeem the fallen universe. He desires my will but does not have to have it. He is quite capable of redemption completely on His own. He is dependent on nothingh but His own resourcefulness. He IS the Almighty!!!
Borg said
And who in the right mind would ever tell someone that their child who just died is in Hell?!
John
DUH???
That would be Mr. Calvin. That is the whole point of infant baptism. Die before you are sprinkled and you are toast little one. Infant Baptism was/is the assurance of salvation and the lack thereof the mark of damnation. Check out those "Institutes." "Preach it Brother Borg!"
Borg says
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?
John
I am not sure where you are going with Matthew 5. But Scripture teaches that one "becomes" God enemy (from the standpoint of destiny) on the basis of accepting or rejecting His provision of salvation in Christ as evidenced by doing or refusing to do His will. "Who is my mother and my brother... He who DOES the will of my Father..." No puppet show here. Jesus does NOT add to the text "He who the Father 'makes' or 'programs' to do the Father's will." Just keep it simple or at least treat the text responsibly.
Borg says
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,
John
You started out with such honesty. Don't disappointme now or I'm gonna take back my offer on the books. Call a spade a spade. What the heck is the difference between an "ordaining" cause and an "efficient" cause?
Let's apply your thinking to 9/11. Bin Laden created the plan to bomb the towers but since he didn't actually fly the planes he is off the hook. Hey President Bush, "Call off the dogs" (I like dog analogies. Can you tell?), Bin Ladens not culpable after all
Borg says
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!
John
Agreed.
But it is that wonderful "kindness of God that our LEADS [our respellious and hateful hearts ]to repentance." Note, the text does not say forces us irresistibly to repentance. That is a Calvinistic addition to the text. Words are significant you know.
Borg said
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!
John
ibid...
Borg says
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.
John
Well you are at least trying to be logical here. I think you have an equation. Let's see.
God's forced grace > God's grace offered and received???
God's grace withheld > God's grace rejected
How about this
God creates something then break it then fix what He broke > God creates something. I break it. God fixes it because His nature is to fix broken things eventhough He doesn't have to fix them and was not the one to break them and in fact might get cut while he is fixing them.
I submit Calvin in His quest to maintain logic even redefines the most precious of divine attributes "love" and not only cheapens Calvary and the atonement but tramples it under foot by asserting over and against scripture that Christ died only for the elect. "Christ died for the ungodly."
Your contrast is blurred. You have really hobled me by taking away those dastardly "letters" written to those unenlightened believers. But I will try to continue to play by your rules. Let's see. Why don't we go back to Matthew 5. that was your citation right?
Jesus tells us that anyoldbody can love his neighbor. Why even a tax collector can do that. But His kind of love is a love that loves His enemies. There is the real contrast. A love that attempts to make friend of an enemy. Jesus does not contrast people (God is no respector of person's), He contrasts character. A grace only dispensed to a hand picked few now that is "cheap grace." DO THE MATH. Grace for a few > Grace for all creation??? Just doesn't compute huh?
Borg saysis 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.
John
I just simply appeal to the text. "God IS love." No mention of hate in His character.
I will attempt to go with you on Calvin's(misrepresentation) of the marriage metaphor. No onw has said God loves the eternally damned (by their own choosing) as much as he loves His bride. It is within all of our experience to love at different levels and intensity. These differences fundamentally define all human relationships.
I "love" my wife. The fact that I have fond memories of my old girlfriend (eventhogh she rejected me), or even continue to like her does not make me an adulterer. I might even characterize my feelings for her now as brotherly "love." I would even be willing to give something of myself, even now, to her. Like maybe send her a birthday card. My wife knows this but does not consider me an adulterer. Ultimately though she could have had my love but she rejected it and passed the point of no return for I am married to another now. the nature of the case has changed. those are the rules of the game. My love reached a point where it became irrelevant because of her choice, not mine.
Are you a father? Consider the other prominent metaphor in scrpture-father and son. Love of one child does not necessarily negate love of another, even if a child goes astray (cp. the Parable of the Prodical Son)
God loves all his creation in a way that can be and has been tangibly demonstrated. That is all He knows how to do. His infinite love, however, has been rendered irrelevant by their own choosing. It is a moot point.
the hour is late and I am tired. Maybe Dr. Boyd, or Laika, or wstaylor will add further comment regarding your marriage metaphor.
The book offer still stands as long as you don't try to hood wink me with that ordaining cause and efficient cause, and second hand stuff.
To God alone be the glory.
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/9/2003 7:29 AM (GMT -6) | | sorry laika didn't see that post earlier, good question. however i believe you may want to reword it. You can know that something exists apart from having knowledge of it's make-up. But i think I know what you are getting at.
First, we can never know EVERYTHING about God. He is so far above us and beyond us, His ways are not our ways and His thinking is not our thinking. That in and of itself ushers in a sense of mystrey. Clearly you would not hold to such an arrogant stature that we can actually fathom the mind of God: Mystery. "...was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abondoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty..." (Luther).
Where does God ever ask us to come and question? Now I don't necesarily disagree with you, but the verse you pointed out (i must give you props for prooftexting too) doesn't invite us to question God. The thing that is being reasoned our there is that Isaiah's sins though they are like scarlet will be white as snow, etc... I see in no way how this verse proves to us that we are to question God continually. Besides, everything about God leads back to mystery. Do you really think that you are above the mind of God?
g n p
borg
ps, john i haven't had time to read your post yet.
"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 | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/9/2003 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | John, thanks for the post.
Good argument on the morality issue, though I still hold that God owes us NOTHING. He could damn everyone of us to hell and still be completley just in doing so. Salvation is of the Lord, Jonah 2. You in some way think that God would be unfair to send a hell deserving baby to hell, I dont' get the logic here. That isn't unfair as anyone's intuition would say. The fact that the Gospel is presented to us and that salvation is offered is not something we desreve, it's a soul act of grace. And if of grace, then it is unmerited. if unmerited then God is not required to give to everyone equal amounts lest Grace no longer be Grace. You act as though this baby has a right to the preaching of the gospel to the oppritunity of salvation. Well you're wrong.
How many funerals? I just went to one in May of a kid i grew up with who died of a massive heart attack at a very young age. Yes his family asked the theological questions, and funny, they relied on the sovereignty of God as the greatest comfort (Job 1:20, 21). If the family asks the questions, I would share my comforting view of God. But your analogies and stories in now way depicted the family as wrestling with the theological questions. you present a cold heart twisted pastor who didn't give a hell that this family was mourning! A cold hearted response, "sorry your kid is burning in hell, get over it and stop your whining." What a gross misrepresentation of my faith, of Calvin's faith, or the faith as depcited in the Bible. But I would by all means if a family asked me find mor ecomfort in showing that "blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted, blessed are those who are poor in spirit..." DEATH is NOT the ultimate evil! People who mourn, that is not evil. Read the Beattitudes in Luke 6? and tell me what evil is. The things that seem to be cursed are laughing, wealth, full belly, these are evils because these are the things that lead to pride and contentment that make us forget we are all in need of a savior. to me there are too many "briars" in saying that a God allows for gratitous evil. That's comforting...
Please show me in context how 20, 21 are wrong. I'm pretty sure it follows that it says in all this Job did not charge God with wrong and did not sin. Did God hate Job? Yes, when He was still in the unregnerate state. But we must look at the context of what he said that in. There is a distinction between Job's thought process and his concluding thoughts and views on God. You people think try to nail us with Job all the time and that we don't interprut it correctly, show me where I'm flawed so I can show you were you're wrong.
I don't believe Sproul or anyone would say that God is threatened if we have freewill. And the Calvinist would still hold to everything you talked about in the rest of that paragraph about God not needing anything, Acts 17.
Gee, perhaps I'm wrong, but many calvinsits differ on Baptism. Way to take one guys view and make it speak for all others. Again all you want to see and desire to see is some cold hearted calvinist. do your research on calvin. he was one of the most compassionate, meek men in the whole world. You perfer to remain ignorant to the fact that it is possible for someone to be a Calvinist while remaining loving. I dont' get that, i dont' understand that. But go ahead you can go on preaching that God wouldn't send little babies to hell, so lets do the greatest thing for all babies and kill them right now to assure all of their salvation. it might damn you, but that's ok, cause we're suppose to be servants. I mean, it's unjust of God to damn a baby, so we mine as well kill them all so that God won't be unjust. What greater thing can we do for their soul? i guess love doesn't truly have to be chosen huh?
Matthew 5 talks about God's common love for all. The will of the Father, would be the will of believing in Christ. So we are not evil until we reject Christ? Curse the missions then. Lets not offer salvation to anyone anymore so that they can stay in their ignorance, but God be praised for ignorance because it's the ignorance that leads unto salvation! unless of course we are born apart from God already having rejected God through our forefather, unless we are born caranaly which seems to be the case Biblically.
Bin Laden wanted to do no other. His will wanted to kill people. Ted Bundy in his depraved state wanted to kill and rape. Domer wanted to kill and eat people. God removed His previent grace from these people. God doesn't owe this grace to people at all. We are the effiecient cause of our own evil, of our own damnation. We, if left to ourselves we don't want to do good, we want to do evil. This is the state of the human corruptedness. This was our doing, not God's. and if you're going to try in some way to manipulate me with your offer of books forget it. i don't want them, keep them for it is better that you should have them then for you to "freely" offer only to manipulate me with.
how much of a forcing is it? If we see God's kindness truly, if we see God's love, His gory, His will, His life, His light, His salvation, if He truly reveals this unto us, He knows full well that we will want no other. He fully knows tha if we see Him for who He is, we will but fall on our feet and praise Him and despise ourselves and repent in dust and ashes for our sins and our lewedness. He knows that if He were to extent full grace to us we would have no other choice but to fall down before Him. and thanks be to God that He does reveal Himself to us so that we have no other choice. I thank God for not letting my freewill be the dictum of my life lest I pull away from Him forever. This is God's sovereignty, that He willingly and lovingly pulled back the veil and unblinded my eyes that i can do no other but worship Him.
Calvin's view of the atonement is cheap? Does your wife love you more when you love her more than every other woman, or does she love you more when you share the same kind of intimate love with everyone? I'm not disbanning the letters, if you can prove to me they are speaking universally, that Paul mistakenly wrote them to the wrong people, then please, show me. Speaking of which, lots of my questions seem to still remain unanswered by you, i dont' know why.
where does it say that Jesus' love was to make a friend out of His enemies?
Calvin's misrepresentation? Don't go with me on it, show me where it's flawed, and it's not Calvins. If i didn't know better I would say you hate calvin with a damning hate. You should be more careful on the individuals you so easily condemn. condemn the theology, but beware of condemning where it is not your buisness.
you lost me on the marriage thing. God is relentless in His love. He won't give up if you freely choose to reject Him. Love never fails. If you still loved your girlfriend with the love that you have for your wife that is adultery. The same affections for another woman, that is the definition of adultery. If you continue to pursue your ex after you have been married that is adultery. Your thoughts aren't adding up.
How do we become children of God? By following His commandments. But the love for a son is negated if the father loves another child just as much or more. there is no special connection between being the outsider or the genuine son. and no i'm not a father, i'm only a sophmore in college.
So now God's love is in submission to that of mere man's choosing. If God desires that we love Him, that we choose Him and this makes Him happy, then God is dependent on us for His happiness. Contradiction of your earlier thoughts? hmm...
don't manipulate me with the books and try to get me to back down because you have graciously offered me them. i appreciate the offer but after this post I do not believe i can accept them. thank you though.
grace and peace,
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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/9/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
do your research on calvin. he was one of the most compassionate, meek men in the whole world.
I beg to differ, borg. I did do some research on Calvin.
Here's the post from an old thread:
John Calvin's bodycount
I did a BODY COUNT on John Calvin's ROT (Reign of Terror).
The victims are listed, followed by references, (A)...(L), the URLs of which are at the bottom. Have fun!
A. Execution
1. Jacques Gruet
(A)"Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch."
(C)"Calvin cut off the head of Jacques Gruet "for having written impious letters, libertine verses, and for working to overthrow ecclesiastical ordinances."
(D)Quoting Stephan Zweig's "The Right to Heresy": "Jacques Gruet was racked and then executed merely for having called Calvin a hypocrite."
(E)"This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as 'Libertines', which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force. Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and, best known, Michael *Servetus (1553)."
(F)"Even eminent men were not safe from Calvin's control. Jacques Gruet was beheaded for blasphemy, treason, and a threat to the ministers."
(J)
2. Giovanni Valentino Gentile
(A)and(G)"Another victim of Calvin's fiery zeal was Gentile of an Italian sect in Geneva, which also numbered among its adherents Alciati and Gribaldo. More or less Unitarian in their views, they were required to sign a confession drawn up by Calvin in 1558. Gentile signed it reluctantly, but in the upshot he was condemned and imprisoned as a perjurer. He escaped only to be twice incarcerated at Berne where, in 1566, he was beheaded."
(H) & (I) Very full accounts of Gentile
3. Michael Servetus Is much needed about him? Is there any debate about his murder?
(A)
(C)"Seven years before the conference which was now to take place in Calvin's house on the proposals of the queen-mother, Michel Servet, a Frenchman, travelling through Switzerland, was arrested at Geneva, tried, condemned, and burned alive, on Calvin's accusation, for having "attacked the mystery of the Trinity," in a book which was neither written nor published in Geneva."
(E)(J)
4. Raoul Monnet
(E)
(J)page 223 "This regime was resisted by a party incorrectly described as "Libertines, which Calvin succeeded in overcoming by force.Among the opponents executed after torture were Jacques Gruet (1547), Raoul Monnet (1549), and best known, Michael Servetus (1553). By 1555, however, all resistance had ceased and Calvin was the uncontested master of the city."
5. Others
(A)"Calvin also had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545."
(A)"Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva."
(F)"A heretic who also was an anti-Trinitarian was burned at the stake." NOTE: Probably Servetus
B. Banishment (mere banishment!)
1. Castellio
(A)"Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary."
(B)
(K) Very full account of Castellio
2. Bolsec
(A)(B)(F)"Jerome Bolsec, a physician who attacked Calvin's doctrine of predestination, was banished."
(L)
3. Others
(A)"Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva."
A. http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm
B. http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_chap5.htm
C. http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/debalzac/CatherinedeMedici/chap16.html
D. http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/calvin.htm
E. http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/HERITAGF/Issuenos/chl047.shtml
F. http://www.churchlink.com.au/churchlink/worldscope/voice/calvin.html
G. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm
H. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/iv.xv.xiv.htm
I. http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.html
J. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone; Oxford University Press;
K. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/iv.xv.ix.htm (different page from H)
L. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/iv.xv.viii.htm
Not exactly meek and compassionate as you'd have us believe.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 12/9/2003 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg
It's been fun. "UNCLE." No more "tit for tat. The kids are back home. Thanks for your honesty and running me through my paces. I was Calvinist once. We call them "Hardshells" in the South. Calvinism is my heritage.Hence, I know better than to believe I could ever crack a "Hardshell. Changing your mind was not the intent of this exercise. In all honesty, I was just trying to demonstrate typical Calvinist -- Arminian dialogue to a friend in real time. You know, play "tit for tat."
Many of my very best friends are Calvinists. Now you must admit they are really friends to tolerate rhetoric as I have unleashed. I know and believe ALL of my Calvinist friends (and you too)to be loving and compassionate. I just believe their theology is misinformed and their behavior is inconsistent with their theology. Now that is the power of GRACE.
My stated positions however are rebuttles to generally held CLASSICAL doctrine as stated in the "Institutes" for example(not particular variations which come and go).
As O'Reily says "I will give you the last word."
And my offer on the books still stands. No strings attached. Your investment in this discussion has been worth it to me. Better yet name another book that you want...And I will get it for you. How about Sproul's The Myth of Chance? Just email me your address.
Maybe I'll see you some time later on the Board when the kids are out of town again.
Blessigs
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 12/9/2003 10:28 PM (GMT -6) | | john the pleasure is all mine. I have really appreciated it and the things you brought up were seriously appreciated and I enjoyed thinking and pondering them over. Thanks for the time. I hope all is good. perhaps I'll email you my address, thanks for the offer.
Lakia hahahahaha, thanks for the laugh. I only read through a few of them and honestly, it was comical. The place you got this from was obviously a Calvin hater. the poor meek, wimpy, frail man, and so much hostility against him and his views. Don't be too quick to judge. I look forward to seeing how the church of the 23rd century condemns us as the 21st century church and all your faults and mistakes can attempt to crucify you well after your death. They also present Calvin as a dicator, well if he was, then why weren't they doing communion every sunday like he wished they would? sounds like a dicator to me, huh? someone who doesn't get his was with the Lord's supper. I obviously see that you are into the ad hominims and that your ignorance seems to proceed from the very words of you mouth. But don't worry, long after you're dead, i won't hold it against you.
Ross, good question. It's hard to fully grasp a concept of love without also knowing the concept of hatred. We as humans become aware of things when we contrast it to it's opposites. We know what light is because we know what dark is. We know what up is because we know what down is. We likewise seem to know what love is because we know what hate is. This is the way in which humans preceive things, and yet i wouldn't say this is the way God does. It's hard for us to break from such a thought or a thought similar. But i believe that true love still existed when it was only the Godhead and yet the concept of hatred wasn't put into action, but a mere tangible thought. God could love everyone if He wanted to. He isn't bound by anything. Yet He chose not to. What i'm saying is that God often compares His love to that of His hatred towards His enemies. Malachi 1 is an example of this. Israel is proven God's love by how He treated Edom. In likewise fashion we learn more of God's love/ grace when it is contrasted to God's hatred/ withholding of grace upon the reprobate. does this make sense? let me know what you think. looking forward to this discussion.
grace and peace,
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 | | |
| 138 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:04 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 |
|
|