 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > God's Longsuffering and the Problem of Evil | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/25/2004 4:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi Jeff and Spen,
quote:
Jeff: Galatians 3:4 says, "Have your suffered so many things in vain?" I don't know why Paul would even ask such a question if he was not conceding that there is such a thing as "vain" (i.e., pointless, futile, profitless) suffering.
I think it would be good to note here too, though, that Paul immediately follows this question with "if it really was in vain," as if to clarify this very issue, to say that suffering is not actually ever vain.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2004 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
You said:
quote:
But sanctification is a process, and Paul here seems to equate it with a command! So I tend to view God's commands here and elsewhere as goals, as destinations, "the law will be fulfilled," Jesus said, as prophecies, even, and not as expressing what God would choose at every moment. He chooses it in the sense of it being a destination, but his will is for the process of sanctification, which even involves sins:
DA 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless...
The whole passage (Dan. 11:33-35) gives a differnt angle on the meaning of "fall" in v. 35:
quote:
11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. 11:34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white,...
When the full context is seen, the "fall" spoken of seems consistent with the New Testament concept. I.e., saints are purged and made white by persevering such "falls" or tribulations. To say that by failing or disobeying God we are purged and made white seems contradictory to the whole idea of sanctification.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2004 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
Rejoicing in suffering is done because we know our reward in heaven will be great - i.e., because of hope. The final result of God's plan is undoubtedly good - even if all are not saved (unless there is eternal torment for the non-elect). So rejoicing in suffering does not contradict the idea of OV - that God would have preferred that there had never been a Fall in the first place. Thus, it does not prove that God preferred that He and Christ would suffer.
As to vain suffering, the clause, "if it really was in vain," does not prove that vain suffering does not exist. If Paul is talking about the Galatians' sufferings for Christ, then those sufferings would not be vain if they continued in the Spirit. If, on the other hand, there really is no such thing as vain suffering, that is a very weak way for Paul to try to prove that - especially since many people intuitively think there IS such a thing as vain suffering and would read the verse accordingly.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/25/2004 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | (Lee) PS 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
(Jo-Anne) Lee, if you followed this through to mean that this is a reason infants in the womb are sinful, then you would be saying that every act of conception must be sinful. Does it not make more sense to you to interpret it as meaning that David's mother was sinning at that time?
(Lee) This could mean David's mother sinned when he was conceived. But I think the reference is parallel with the first part of the verse, being born sinful, thus it refers to being sinful from the start.
(Jo-Anne) Lee, what is sin?
(Lee) Surely David isn't saying here that his birth and his conception were both sinful acts, that he wasn't involved in!? No, he's confessing, here, as well as elsewhere in this Psalm, and saying he started out sinful, being sinful inadvertently, as well as sinning later.
(Jo-Anne) Lee, I'm sorry but this is confusing. What kind of Father would pronounce a newborn infant "guilty" before they had even taken their first breath. Psalm 139 tells us that He knits us together in our mother's womb and that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made." I do not believe you can take one or two or even three verses and build a doctrine around them. You need to look at scripture, at Jesus Christ as our "picture" of the Father, at reason... This is not firmly founded in scripture, nor is it congruent with the Jesus that I know and love and it is not (IMHO) reasonable.
(Lee)RO 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one."
Lee: And this includes even the youngest infants, infants in the womb, even.
(Jo-Anne) Lee, how does a fetus or a newborn or an infant...repent of their sin? It is not God's will that any should perish, but in pronouncing these little ones guilty...he has not provided the way of escape because it is not possible for them to understand or repent. That would mean the Father was creating life that was predestined to hell.
Is this Augustine? Calvinist? Where did this thinking come from?
(Lee)[quote]Lee, how does a child in the womb sin? How about giving me just three ways a child in the womb sins
I shall try...
1. Children can turn to God in the womb, I believe (Ps. 22:10), and they can also turn away from God then, as well (Ps. 58:3).
(Jo-Anne) How? How can anyone turn from their sin if they do not know what sin is, who God is? How do they use their freewill in the womb?
(Lee) 2. Jacob and Esau were wrestling in their mother's womb. Now that might not have been sinful, but it might have been, too, Rebekah was upset by it. So it wasn't pattycake!
(Jo-Anne) This is a stretch. Two babies moving around vigorously is not a sin.
(Lee)3. People can even rebel at birth (Isa. 48:8). OK, that's not in the womb. I'm doing the best I can...
(Jo-Anne) Please tell me how?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/25/2004 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
I know too little about Calvinism to debate with you, so please take that into consideration. These are just my own honest thoughts and questions about what you are saying.
(Borg) Hey i read the original question and skipped all else in between; so you might be past this point. But you are right, God's glory is vastly more important than man's salvation! Amen.
(Jo-Anne) Borg, the glory of God is man fully alive! That means salvation, restoration... He created us to share in His triune love and when we sinned and the fall took place, His plan was already set into motion to bring us back. God's glory is shown through redemption, restoration...
(Borg) Why does God carry on this evil world? He carries it on so that the fullness of the elect might be drawn in (2 Peter 3:9).
(Jo-Anne) How could He desire that none should perish while at the same time creating multitudes of people that He knew would never accept Him? Forgive me but I have such difficulty understanding that kind of love. It is unreasonable. It is not the Jesus that I see.
(Borg) About the two wills, all Christians hold to two views. The Calvinist's idea on the two wills is that He doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and at the same time He doesn't give grace to accomplish all that He wants. The two wills stem from His will of the law and will of decree. Will of the law is that "all" turn and repent and be saved, and His will of decree doesn't allow that.
(Jo-Anne) Borg, this sounds like the Father contradicts Himself?
(Borg) You get this view in verses like 2 Sam 2:25 where Eli tells his children that God says to repent of their awful sins, and yet it says they would not heed this advice, for the Lord desired to put them to death. The word for desired their, in Hebrew, is the same as the one used in the verse about God not desiring the death of the wicked; how is that explained? It's explained through the two wills. Though God commanded that Eli's sons turn and repent, they could not, because God would not allow them; He witheld His grace from them. Other verses include ones such as John 10:25(?) where we are told that some did not believe because they were not Christ's sheep. they were not Christ's sheep because they didn't believe, but vice versa, they believed not because they weren't Christ's sheep; even though the Lord Himself often commanded that all turn from their wicked ways.
(Jo-Anne) This is confusing and God did not make it confusing. Salvation simply means accepting the penalty that was paid for our sin and "whosovever will" may come.
(Borg) The Open Theists idea of the two wills is that man's freedom trumps God's will that all should be saved; as they maintain that God desires all to be saved.
(Jo-Anne) This is not a view held by Open Theists. Open Theism is about the future - that it is partly open and partly settled. The doctrine of salvation that says that it is God's will that none should perish does not "trump" God's will. It agrees with it.
(Borg) Christ COULD NOT have died solely to make a means for salvation, that was not His intent; it was to save His people Matt 1:21, Matt 18:14; is that none should perish, but that Christ came to save all. John 6:37ff states that the Lord's will was that He lose NONE that His Father had given Him. (and taking into consideration that OVists idea on 2 Peter 3:9, though it's wrong) God wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentence.
(Jo-Anne) Again this view is not exclusive to Open Theists. Christ died as an act of war. He came to destroy the work of the devil and to restore humanity and creation to its original glory. How much more glorious could you get? None will perish that come to repentence. He did not make salvation a maze that we might or might not find our way through. The way of salvation is simple enough for a child to understand. He even gave us a picture of "the way" in Jesus Christ for those of us who need a picture book (the Word come to life).
(Borg) Even in the Open View God has two wills, unless one wants to deny the clear theological teachings within Scripture. So the question that seems to be interesting, is which one makes the most out of God and the LEAST out of humans?
(Jo-Anne) God is God. We can not change who He is. We may have trouble in our finite minds understanding who He is, but that does not make "less" of Him. And He came to restore humanity to what they were intended to be...the image of God. We were created to be like Him, to love like Him...and we chose otherwise. His glory is revealed as we are transformed by the renewing of our minds!
(Borg) God's glory is vastly more important than anyone's salvation.
(Jo-Anne) There are a lot of angels rejoicing in heaven each time a sinner comes to the Saviour. The sound of that rejoicing must be glorious. One day we'll know what that sounds like.
God Bless and BTW...I'm one of the elect too! Ever heard the prayer..."God please save the elect, then elect some more?"
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/25/2004 9:22 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by jefscott
I don't know what's in the "Seeing is Believing" book by Boyd. From the description on Greg's website, it sounds a little "out there" to me. I have no intentions of reading it. I also have problems with some of the extreme use of the parent love/risk analogy of Boyd, as I've argued above.
(Jo-Anne) Jeff, I hope you don't mind my interjecting here. I have read most of Dr Boyd's deeply theological books and have chugged through many of them (especially God at War and Satan and The Problem of Evil). I loved Most Moved Mover and Is God to Blame...BUT...Seeing is Believing is wonderful and practical and emphasizes how God speaks to us through the Holy Spirit, how He brings about transformation by renewing our minds. He, after all, created these wonderful minds. Dr Boyd's book is an inspiring book about prayer. It is hard to find believers who are actually excited about praying.
I must confess...when I first saw the book I thought it might be "out there" as you have said. But I was delightfully surprised. I come from a very traditional, conservative evangelical background and am now part of a non-denominational church. I have learned a great deal. The most important thing I have learned on this journey is how much love counts...the Father's love flowing through us to others and that theology is empty rhetoric without love. Dr Boyd's writing is inspiring in the gracious, loving manner in which he explains Open Theism. He mentions in one of his books that it is not his desire that this theodicy divide believers. I appreciate his heart. And his heart in Seeing is Believing is to see believers transformed into the image of God's son, to see them healed. I am living proof of the power of imaginative prayer. My life was transformed that way just two years ago. You could ask the pastoral team of which I am a part, my friends, my family... The book is worth reading. You may even find it a useful resource for a believer who is suffering because of some childhood experience that has wounded them. That and Is God To Blame are excellent resources for ministry.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/26/2004 1:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Moon River,
I appreciate your explanation of Greg's book. I may read after all, now. But concerning:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott
Our longsuffering is SUFFERING, so I see no reason to assume God's longsuffering does NOT imply SUFFERING also. But isn't suffering antithetical to being "pleased?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
long-suf·fer·ing (lôngsfr-ng, lng-)
adj.
Patiently enduring wrongs or difficulties.
Hi Jeff,
It is my understanding that longsuffering means endurance, not suffering.
The acme of Christ's longsuffering/endurance was his suffering and endurance of the cross. Even the idea of "patiently enduring wrongs" implies a choice to "suffer" what it is not natural to suffer. It is more natural to run and hide or strike back when you are being wronged. The excercise of the will is required in such patient endurance precisely because we are going against what is natural for us - and that involves at least some suffering, however small.
When God says He is longsuffering, it is not because he is patient with the ungodly as we are with a baby; on the contrary, He is forebearing to people who are knowingly defiant (like Pharoah) to Him and are His enemies. This kind of longsuffering truly implies a certain amount of suffering - the amount of suffering required to restrain Himself from immediate punishment. That's why Romans says it will ultimately result in the showing of His wrath. The parent love/risk model doesn't explain this, in my opinion.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/26/2004 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Jo-anne, thank you for your response. And I urge you all the more to use the Bible to back all that you say concerning God and how He interacts with humans. You said, "God's glory is man fully alive." Where is this found in the Bible? God is glorified in His objects of wrath, dead people; the riches of His mercy are made known to His objects of mercy when judgment is brought upon the objects of wrath; Rom 9, Mal 1. God also desires to kill people as seen in 2 Sam 2:25 and many times when God hardened the hearts of the foriegn nations so that Israel might destroy them. God's glory is NOT only seen in man being fully alive.
Regarding yoru second question: "How could He desire that none should perish while at the same time creating multitudes of people that He knew would never accept Him? Forgive me but I have such difficulty understanding that kind of love. It is unreasonable. It is not the Jesus that I see."--- This seems to catch you as well. For when God creates any humanbeing, He fully knows that there is a chance they will accept Him and a chance that they will not; presupposing OT. How is this loving of God? The purpose of God is not to share His 'love' but to make His glory known. Whatever we do in word or deed, should ALL be done for the glory of God, 1 Cor 10:31. Is God's glory seen in His objects of wrath? Yes. It's about God's glory, not us.
The two wills is seen in every foreknowldege view there is. If the Bible says, "The Lord wills that none (unconditionally) should perish" there are still some perishing, so there is something that is trumping that will. God is not contradicting Himself.
Where has God told us that it's not confusing? His ways are higher than our ways, He brings the wisdom of the wise to naught. You have to contend that the Word says God desired to put them to death. This argument isn't between me and you, but between you and the Holy Word of God. How is it that it "pleased the Lord to crush Him" Is 53, when that 'crushing' of Him was going to lead ultimatley to men sinning against God? The death of Christ, being as it was, necesitated sin; lest the Son of God should not die.
"This is not a view held by Open Theists. Open Theism is about the future - that it is partly open and partly settled. The doctrine of salvation that says that it is God's will that none should perish does not "trump" God's will. It agrees with it." the Open View NEEDS to say that libertarian freewill trumps God's 'ultimate' plan. I don't see how that can be denied. Help me here. If God desires all to be saved, and yet desires all to have freewill, which one wins in the end? Free will.
Where does the Bible say that Christ dying on the cross was an act of war? Interesting thought, could you develop it a bit more. I thought Christ died to save people, to redeem His sheep, to save His church.
"God is God. We can not change who He is. We may have trouble in our finite minds understanding who He is, but that does not make "less" of Him. And He came to restore humanity to what they were intended to be...the image of God. We were created to be like Him, to love like Him...and we chose otherwise. His glory is revealed as we are transformed by the renewing of our minds!" AMEN!
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 | | |
|
WormBowedB4TerribleGod
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 43
| Posted 4/26/2004 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
The two wills is seen in every foreknowldege view there is.
"Two wills" is seen NO WHERE in scripture, else you'd demonstrate where it's displayed but you haven't and can't.
Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."
God wanted to gather them, they were unwilling.
God's singular will, thwarted by free will agents.
Plain as day, not "hidden" at all.
1 Samuel 8:
6 "But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
8 Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day--in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also."
Did God have a "secret" will that they reject Him as King? That they forsake Him? That they serve other gods?
No, they rejected God's singular will for them, that they serve Him and have Him as their king.
Nothing "hidden" about God's will here, either.
Who are you, oh worm, to question the living God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/26/2004 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Worm, thank you for asking me to use scripture, but apperently you didn't read my previous posts. A prime example is 2 Sam 2:25 where God commanded Eli to tell his sons to repent, and yet they would not heed the word of the Lord because God desired to put them death.
Another prime example is the story of Jesus. God hates sin, and yet in order to get His Son crucified He had to ordain sin, or as OVists would say, allow sin. And yet the commandments of the Lord were not invalidated. Thou shall not murder was still one of the commands from the Lord.
Than you have Peter saying in Acts 2 that everyone should repent and believe; yet we get from 2 Tim 2:24ff that it is up to God whether or not He allows repentance; and examples such as Romans 11 where God gave them up to a Spirit of stupor, where God gave them ears not to hear and eyes not to see.
You also have some in John 10:25(?) where Christ says "You don't believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep" and yet you would still maintain that Jesus wanted everyone to believe, everyone to be saved.
Revelation 17 is a spot where the two wills of God seem to conflict as well, as well as the example of Pharaoh in Exodus 4 and following. I direct you to John Piper's article on the Two Wills of God, very good article.
Even given your presuppositions, you HAVE to concede that there are two wills. One will is that God desires ALL (unconditionally) to be saved, the other will says that God wills that man have free will. Doesn't it seem the will of freedom has overuled the will of His desire that all should be saved? How do you work around that?
And they aren't two seperate wills that seem to be waging war against one another. It's all part of one will, but seems to be distinct in areas. I don't know if it helps to know at all, but there are two different Greek words for the will of God, one more signifying wishing or wanting, and the other which seems to be will of decree. Any Greek scholars want to help me out?
It is seen Biblically, and it is something that we have to contend with.
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 | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 4/26/2004 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
I went looking for a verse that says X did Y and Y was not God's will, and couldn't find one, though. There are verses that speak of "X did God's will," with an implied contrast. But I think the contrasting statement is "X did God's will inadvertently, with a bad motive, unintentionally."
Howabout Jeremiah 3:7, 3:19 where God thought the people would "get the evil out of their system" and come back and he admits he was wrong about that. God himself says "I thought X would happen and Not X happened". Why would God say it if it weren't true?
Howabout Genesis 6:6 where God see the evilness of the earth and regrets making it? If God was getting his way, why was he sorry he made us? God obviously didn't want the corruption to occur, otherwise why would he be grieved in his heart?
Seems to me like God can be frustrated and not get his way. It's practically the first event in the Bible: God says "Don't do this" and Adam and Eve did it.
How in the world can you say God always gets his way unless it's God's will that God's will be violated over and over? Does God will his own grief, regret, and frustration? To what end?
P.S. I realize the above verses are poster children for OVT and that us OVers throw them around alot so it may seem like a cliché... I just want to hear a better response than "oh it's an anthropomorphism for our benefit". If God says "I thought X would happen and it didn't" and that was not actually true, then God is a liar or else the Bible is a false document. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/26/2004 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Phil, perhaps we should ask first off, why you don't think anthropomorphisms are the right answer, second, yes God's wills His on regret. Look at the cross.
Is 46:10: "Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY GOOD PLEASURE...'"
Dan 4:35: "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He DOES ACCORDING to His WILL in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have you done?'"
If God wants (X) to happen, (X) WILL happen; regardless.
Blessings,
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 | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/26/2004 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Moon River,
I appreciate your explanation of Greg's book. I may read after all, now. But concerning:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott
Our longsuffering is SUFFERING, so I see no reason to assume God's longsuffering does NOT imply SUFFERING also. But isn't suffering antithetical to being "pleased?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
long-suf·fer·ing (lôngsfr-ng, lng-)
adj.
Patiently enduring wrongs or difficulties.
Hi Jeff,
It is my understanding that longsuffering means endurance, not suffering.
The acme of Christ's longsuffering/endurance was his suffering and endurance of the cross. Even the idea of "patiently enduring wrongs" implies a choice to "suffer" what it is not natural to suffer. It is more natural to run and hide or strike back when you are being wronged. The excercise of the will is required in such patient endurance precisely because we are going against what is natural for us - and that involves at least some suffering, however small.
When God says He is longsuffering, it is not because he is patient with the ungodly as we are with a baby; on the contrary, He is forebearing to people who are knowingly defiant (like Pharoah) to Him and are His enemies. This kind of longsuffering truly implies a certain amount of suffering - the amount of suffering required to restrain Himself from immediate punishment. That's why Romans says it will ultimately result in the showing of His wrath. The parent love/risk model doesn't explain this, in my opinion.
You're right Jeff. Longsuffering as patient endurance still implies a kind of suffering. There is a lot of needless suffering in this world.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/26/2004 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by borg
Jo-anne, thank you for your response. And I urge you all the more to use the Bible to back all that you say concerning God and how He interacts with humans. You said, "God's glory is man fully alive." Where is this found in the Bible?
(Jo-Anne) I confess. It is a wonderful quote and I cannot recall the origin of it but I believe it with all my heart. Scripture tells us that we are transformed from glory to glory (if you need the reference I can find it for you but with your biblical knowledge you are probably well aware of the reference). That, to my Holy Spirit inspired mind, means that as we are transformed by the renewing of our minds...from "glory to glory" that this glorifies the Father.
(Borg) God is glorified in His objects of wrath, dead people; the riches of His mercy are made known to His objects of mercy when judgment is brought upon the objects of wrath; Rom 9, Mal 1. God also desires to kill people as seen in 2 Sam 2:25 and many times when God hardened the hearts of the foriegn nations so that Israel might destroy them.
(Jo-Anne) Yikes! God is love and the greatest commandment in the New Testament instructs us to love others as we love ourselves and in this we have fulfilled the entire law. God commended us to do all we do and say all we say in love. Borg, I would ask you to consider the character of the Father you are describing? What does your picture of God look like? I'm sincere here. I really want to know because I don't think He looks at all like the Father that I know and love - and yet you and I are brother and sister in Christ...both saved, "elect"
(Borg) The two wills is seen in every foreknowldege view there is. If the Bible says, "The Lord wills that none (unconditionally) should perish" there are still some perishing, so there is something that is trumping that will. God is not contradicting Himself.
(Jo-Anne) I still maintain that God's will is not trumped. (Obviously, you as a Calvinist don't believe that either). He has only one will but we have freewill. His will is that none should perish, but I agree with you that He took a risk in creating us with freewill. He knew that we would not all choose Him. (Contrary to what you believe though...he did not know from the foundation of the world who would choose and who would not).
(Borg) I don't see how that can be denied. Help me here. If God desires all to be saved, and yet desires all to have freewill, which one wins in the end?
(Jo-Anne) We know who wins in the end.
(Borg) Where does the Bible say that Christ dying on the cross was an act of war? Interesting thought, could you develop it a bit more. I thought Christ died to save people, to redeem His sheep, to save His church.
(Jo-Anne) I say that the cross was an act of war because at the cross ,in principle, satan was defeated. "Where O grave is your victory?" "Where O death is your sting?" Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. A victory was won at Calvary and "It is finished." was the battle cry. He did come to save, to redeem and to save His church. He also came to heal and restore...people and creation. Revelation tells us that even creation will be restored to its original glory.
Borg...here's a thought, a question for you? How do you not see that the glory of God is man fully alive when we were created in His image? It is only after the fall that His glory was not reflected in us. The image was marred and He is transforming us now...from glory to glory. His glory is revealed as that takes place. His glory is also revealed in creation, even though it is marred by the fall.
"God is God. We can not change who He is. We may have trouble in our finite minds understanding who He is, but that does not make "less" of Him. And He came to restore humanity to what they were intended to be...the image of God. We were created to be like Him, to love like Him...and we chose otherwise. His glory is revealed as we are transformed by the renewing of our minds!"
(Borg) AMEN!
(Jo-Anne) Yes! We agree on something! Actually Borg, I appreciate your insights and your passion for God and for scripture.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
Grace Alone,
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/26/2004 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone!
Lots of posts! My gumdess. I can't address every point made in reply, I shall have to pick and choose some...
quote:
DA 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless...
Jeff: The whole passage (Dan. 11:33-35) gives a different angle on the meaning of "fall" in v. 35 ... saints are purged and made white by persevering such "falls" or tribulations. To say that by failing or disobeying God we are purged and made white seems contradictory to the whole idea of sanctification.
But "fall" here can't mean "fall by the sword," I think.
EZE 16:63 Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign Lord.
That's purer! They gained humility through their sin, even that did them good.
quote:
Thus, it does not prove that God preferred that He and Christ would suffer.
PS 40:8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.
And this was speaking of Jesus' incarnation, including the crucifixion, it was "in his heart."
MK 8:33 "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
And here, "the things of God" is a direct reference to the cross, for himself, and for every follower, that is God's way, it is not his second choice.
quote:
Lee: Surely David isn't saying here that his birth and his conception were both sinful acts, that he wasn't involved in!? No, he's confessing, here...
Jo-Anne: What kind of Father would pronounce a newborn infant "guilty" before they had even taken their first breath.
All people have a sinful nature from the start, though, I think that is implied in Ps. 51:5. How do you understand this verse?
quote:
RO 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one."
Lee: And this includes even the youngest infants, infants in the womb, even.
(Jo-Anne) Lee, how does a fetus or a newborn or an infant...repent of their sin?
By turning to God, I believe they can do this:
PS 71:6 From birth I have relied on you; you brought me forth from my mother's womb.
quote:
How can anyone turn from their sin if they do not know what sin is, who God is? How do they use their freewill in the womb?
I think even infants can know who God is:
LK 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb.
I don't believe in freewill for unbelievers, though! So God has to do this. But I believe he can.
PS 138:8 The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me.
quote:
Borg: Christ says "You don't believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep"
But God may choose them, too:
RO 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.
quote:
... there are two different Greek words for the will of God, one more signifying wishing or wanting, and the other which seems to be will of decree.
I know a little Greek! But I'm not a scholar. There are two words for "will", thelema, and boule, thelema can mean desire or will, and boule can mean counsel or will. So they overlap, the context and the judgment of the translator has to decide in each case. It is thelema that can vary, here are two instances of "thelema":
Lu 22:42 not my will, but yours be done.
1Jo 2:17 And the world is passing, and its lust, but he that does the will of God abides for eternity.
The first, I think, is clearly God's will of decree, the second, some would argue that this is more properly God's desire, I would agree, though I would add that I think that the contrasting statement is not "those who do what is not God's will". I went looking for such a verse in the Bible, and couldn't find one that says "X did Y and Y was not God's will." So I think the contrasting statement is "X did God's will unwillingly, inadvertently, without a good intent."
Now for Phil's comment on this!
quote:
How about Jeremiah 3:7, 3:19 where God thought the people would "get the evil out of their system" and come back and he admits he was wrong about that. God himself says "I thought X would happen and Not X happened". Why would God say it if it weren't true?
This is different though. This is not "X did Y and Y was not God's will." That's what I am looking for. "I thought X would happen" is a different topic. Glad to discuss that one, too, if you wish...
quote:
How about Genesis 6:6 where God see the evilness of the earth and regrets making it? If God was getting his way, why was he sorry he made us? God obviously didn't want the corruption to occur, otherwise why would he be grieved in his heart?
God was grieved, that is true, but I don't think that implies it was therefore not his will. Here is a verse right next door to a mention of Noah:
2PE 2:6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly...
And God still has a plan for Sodom, even:
EZE 16:53 However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters.
Not just another try, but a plan to restore them. So I think the judgment was part of his plan, too.
quote:
God says "Don't do this" and Adam and Eve did it.
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience.
So I believe that Adam's sin was part of God's plan.
quote:
How in the world can you say God always gets his way unless it's God's will that God's will be violated over and over? Does God will his own grief, regret, and frustration?
I think the two-wills view, or the free-will versus God's will view, both imply that God experiences some measure of frustration, and even must compromise, that he has no choice before him where he can get all of what he wants. And I don't want to step up to that...
I agree with Borg's comment about God willing what grieves him, in saying that God willed the cross. I also don't believe that God is ever frustrated, or that he has regrets:
ISA 53:10 But the Lord was pleased to crush Him...
So God's desires were in concert with his will, even in the worst sinful deed ever done, though it was most painful, too. He has no regrets about the cross.
GAL 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/26/2004 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jo-Anne:
Quick primer on what Calvinism is:
You are free to do what you want, but your desires are determined by God. Thus the Calvinist claims that you have free will, but what you choose is determined by God.
Another basic way of summarizing Calvinism is what is known of as "the TULIP," which stands for
Total Depravity (Due to the Fall, apart from grace, people are totally unable to do anything but sin).
Unconditional Election (God sovereignly chose before the foundation of the world who He would save and who would be allowed to go to perdition).
Limited Atonement. Christ only died for the Elect. (Some Calvin scholars dispute that Calvin himself taught the "L" of the TULIP, but it does seem to make the most sense given the other four points that Calvin did teach, namely, T.U.I.P.).
Irresistible Grace. When God chooses a person (U, above), he applies the merits of the Atoning Death of Christ to them irresistably, and this "effectual call" causes them to come to be regenerated, repent, and place faith in Christ (in that order).
Perseverance of the Saints. As the election and calling are irresistible, and man is in and of himself a pawn in God's hands forced to do God's bidding in every circumstance, it necessarily follows that all the elect will persevere in eternal life, and cannot "lose their salvation."
One basic assumption in Calvin's system is that nothing happens that is not God's will. If people end up in hell, that is God's will. If they are saved, that is God's will in their case. But in Calvinism, God's will can never be thwarted.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/26/2004 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi Jo-Anne:
Quick primer on what Calvinism is:
You are free to do what you want, but your desires are determined by God. Thus the Calvinist claims that you have free will, but what you choose is determined by God.
Another basic way of summarizing Calvinism is what is known of as "the TULIP," which stands for
Total Depravity (Due to the Fall, apart from grace, people are totally unable to do anything but sin).
Unconditional Election (God sovereignly chose before the foundation of the world who He would save and who would be allowed to go to perdition).
Limited Atonement. Christ only died for the Elect. (Some Calvin scholars dispute that Calvin himself taught the "L" of the TULIP, but it does seem to make the most sense given the other four points that Calvin did teach, namely, T.U.I.P.).
Irresistible Grace. When God chooses a person (U, above), he applies the merits of the Atoning Death of Christ to them irresistably, and this "effectual call" causes them to come to be regenerated, repent, and place faith in Christ (in that order).
Perseverance of the Saints. As the election and calling are irresistible, and man is in and of himself a pawn in God's hands forced to do God's bidding in every circumstance, it necessarily follows that all the elect will persevere in eternal life, and cannot "lose their salvation."
One basic assumption in Calvin's system is that nothing happens that is not God's will. If people end up in hell, that is God's will. If they are saved, that is God's will in their case. But in Calvinism, God's will can never be thwarted.
Hi John,
Thank you for the much needed primer! I'll copy and paste it somewhere so that I can refer to it. I'm beginning to understand just a little, but I don't understand this view of the Father at all. Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father and this is not the Jesus that I see, that I think I know and love.
T - Total depravity. The image of God was marred by the fall, but even unbelievers are able to do some wonderful things and believers are able to committ grievous sin. Perhaps I just do not understand this.
U - God choosing whom He would save. How can this be reconciled with the Father who leaves 99 sheep to look for one that is lost? How does this line up with a Father who wills that none should perish? I do not understand how a Father who is love and looks just like Jesus could create people knowing they would go to hell.
L - Doesn't John 3:16 say "For God so loved the world?" He loved us so much that He died for us while we were yet sinners. This seems arrogant and only the "elect" would claim this. It seems like a spiritual elitism and not at all in keeping with the character of the Father?
I - Grace cannot truly be irresistable if we have freewill. Love that is coerced is not love at all. How can love be "forced" on someone, even unknowingly? If we truly had no choice, then Adam and Eve had no choice but to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - and why would God tell them not to if He knew they would? This seems to me to be a God that is playing mind games with people.
P - Perhaps the only letter that I agree with. I do not believe we can lose our salvation. Where did the term "elect" come from anyway?
Thanks again John. I appreciate your patience in helping me understand this and I realize that I may need some further help, correction in my interpretation of this "primer"
God Bless!
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/26/2004 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jo-Anne,
You're very welcome. By the way, those of us in the "free will tradition" (Arminians, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Eastern Orthodox, Open Theists, and others) typically have disagreed most sharply with U., L., I, & P, and have redefined "T" to mean "Universal depravity" (that is, all mankind are sinners, but all are not directly under the wrath of God due to Adam's sin until they ratify Adam's choice in their own life).
Personally, I also disagree with the traditional understanding of Total Depravity, insofar as the Calvinist tends to define it as "total moral inability." If true, it is not clear how one can be either worthy of blame or praise for one's deeds.
As to "lose your salvation," I disagree with the idea that it can be lost (like your keys or your wallet, for example). I do affirm, with classical Arminians and most Open Theists, that a true believer can indeed willfully turn away from Christ and end up in hell, but to my understanding this is not an accidental but a willful thing.
The term, "elect" comes from the Bible. Arminians have typically opted for what is known of as "class election," by which they mean God has elected a GROUP, but has not chosen all the individuals who make up that group (Just as not all individuals within the "group" of Israel were faithful to the covenant, and thus forfeited their elect status). Not unlike when a professor schedules a class, including everything pertaining to the course of study including the fact that some students will choose to take his class, but does not predetermine each and every individual who will take the class.
For a great study on the doctrine of election from a free will standpoint by a former Calvinist seminary professor who came to disbelieve nearly all the TULIP, I highly recommend Dr. Robert Shank's Elect in the Son, along with his companion volume, Life in the Son. They are fairly inexpensive (I think I got mine for 10 or 12 bucks (American) at Amazon.com.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/26/2004 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp,
quote:
If my daughter does something that I tell her not to do, I have not "allowed" her to do it at all; she has simply disobeyed my will.
I submit that the whole "permits/allows" idea is unfounded Scripturally or logically. Thus, there is no reason to look for a secret, hidden, or permissive will of God.
Good point. I should have said "tolerated" instead of "allowed."
Lee,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------DA 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless...
Jeff: The whole passage (Dan. 11:33-35) gives a different angle on the meaning of "fall" in v. 35 ... saints are purged and made white by persevering such "falls" or tribulations. To say that by failing or disobeying God we are purged and made white seems contradictory to the whole idea of sanctification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But "fall" here can't mean "fall by the sword," I think.
Well, can you explain why it's not referring to those tribulations? Can you explain to me how sinning purifies you?
quote:
EZE 16:63 Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign Lord.
That's purer! They gained humility through their sin, even that did them good.
I would say that their sin was the basis of their humiliation. The obedient are truly humble. Besides, how does that prove that God willed their sin? Do you believe that God is the author of sin?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, it does not prove that God preferred that He and Christ would suffer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS 40:8 I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.
And this was speaking of Jesus' incarnation, including the crucifixion, it was "in his heart."
MK 8:33 "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
And here, "the things of God" is a direct reference to the cross, for himself, and for every follower, that is God's way, it is not his second choice.
I see nothing in those verses that proves that God's primary choice was for there to be a Fall and a subsequent Redemption. Can you be more specific about where these verses prove that?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 82 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:34 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 |
|
|