 |
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/1/2001 6:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | I FIXED IT 
referring to my above previous screwed up posting. I'm so proud of myself. (If you knew how techno-challenged I am, you'd understand why)
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/3/2001 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If God always gets his way, then you have to admit that the damned are there because it was "God's way." You simply can't hold God saves as many as possible if you believe God always gets his way
That is true, I have to step up and say straight and plain that if people are in hell, that is because it is God's will. But I also say that they may not stay there, we only know for sure that the Antichrist, the false prophet and the devil are in hell forever, and those who have committed the unpardonable sin. Thus I would maintain that God may "have mercy on them all," in a much larger sense than this is usually taken by traditional Christian doctrine, and who can tell the extent of God's mercy?
quote:
"God created people free, for he wants their choice to follow him to come from their own heart, not from a pre-scripted blueprint."
I'm still reading and thinking about this, but here is one thought in reply: if this is true, how can we stay out of Pelagianism?
"God had endowed His creature with a capacity or ability for action, and it was for him to use it. It was because this was essentially his point of view that Pelagius could regard man’s powers as sufficient to the attainment of sanctity. 'Nay, do what we will, we cannot rid ourselves of their sufficiency: 'whether we will, or whether we will not, we have the capacity of not sinning.' 'I say,' he says, 'that man is able to be without sin, and that he is able to keep the commandments of God;' and this sufficiently direct statement of human ability is in reality the hinge of his whole system." (Benjamin Warfield, from "St. Augustin's Anti-Pelagian Works"). But Paul's statement about this area is that "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died needlessly!" (Gal. 2:21).
"No doubt the Pelagians spoke constantly of 'grace,' but they meant by this the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ’s holy example. Anything further than this external help they utterly denied; and they denied that this external help itself was absolutely necessary, affirming that it only rendered it easier for man to do otherwise he had plenary ability for doing. Christ could forgive us the sins we had committed; He could teach us the true way; He could set us a holy example; and He could exhort us to its imitation. But He could not touch us to enable us to will the good, without destroying the absolute equilibrium of the will between good and evil; and to destroy this was to destroy its freedom, which was the crowning good of our divinely created nature." (Benjamin Warfield).
Can we truly have a will that is free, but is not able to keep the law of God? if our will is injured by the fall, then it is not truly free, and if our will is uninjured by the fall, then why can we not keep the law of God by simply exercising our will?
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/3/2001 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: my problem with such a view of the fall, is that it takes an either/or position. Either the will is totally stained and cannot choose good, or it is totally neutral and unaffected by the will. I believe it is neither. The will is affected by the fall and is prone to sin, but a person can still not choose to sin. As far as Pelagianism, we all went around with that one a while back (I believe it is in the archives somewhere). I am not a person who worries whether I am labeled a Pelagian (although I do believe most people don't understand what he taught). A good book on sin is David Smith's With Willful Intent. Regardless, I would check out the archives for the Pelagianism discussion. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/3/2001 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee: Can we truly have a will that is free, but is not able to keep the law of God? if our will is injured by the fall, then it is not truly free, and if our will is uninjured by the fall, then why can we not keep the law of God by simply exercising our will?
Doc: To say injured is not to say destroyed. To say we cannot live for God without God's help is not to say we must live for God because of God's help. To say faith is a condition for salvation is not to say faith is the causeof salvation. Thus, to say salvation is a gift is not to deny that we must accept this gift (and this only by God's gracious work in our hearts).
Doc
Doc
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/4/2001 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate the chance to discuss this with you all, this is important to me, to understand this better!
Here is some more extensive thoughts on the excerpt from your book, Dr. Boyd, not that I have the training to speak about this myself, but I do have some questions and thoughts, for whatever they may be worth...
quote:
If we were not free to disobey God, a command would be unnecessary.
I sometimes think of God's commands as prophecies, as when a mother will say to her child, "you are going to clean up your room, and you are going to do it now!" Future-tense imperatives, the commandment has many aspects, it is not unnecessary simply because it is certain.
quote:
I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..."(Deut 30:12-19).
In a similar vein, I would say that not only are God's commands prophecies (for his children), they are also all promises:
"Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! " (Eze. 18:31).
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you." (Eze. 36:26).
Thus I would say here that the command to "choose life!" is to be taken as a promise ("It is God who is at work within you, both to will and to work," Phil. 2:13), for we cannot choose life, in the sense of choosing to obey, on our own (Rom. 7:19).
"The African bishops [said] that 'we are aided by the grace of God, through Christ, not only to know, but to do what is right, in each single act, so that without grace we are unable to have, think, speak, or do anything pertaining to piety.' " (Benjamin Warfield)
quote:
God obviously longs for them to choose life, but it is ultimately up to them to decide. They are free.
I would disagree here, though:
JN 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin."
PS 51:12 "... grant me a willing spirit."
"In order that we may see, we are seen; that we may love, we are loved. Cry out, 'My God, let Thy mercy go before me' (Psalm 59:10). That you may be, that you may feel, that you may hear, that you may consent, His mercy goes before you. It goes before you in all things. We owe therefore to Him that we are, that we are alive, that we understand: that we are men, that we live well, that we understand aright, we owe to Him. Nothing is ours except the sin that we have. For what have we that we did not receive?' (1 Cor. 4:7)" (St. Augustine)
quote:
God created people free, for he wants their choice to follow him to come from their own heart, not from a pre-scripted blueprint. And this means that, with regard to any individual, God may not get his way.
Scripture seems to say, though, that even if people are disobedient, that even their disobedience is part of a blueprint: "the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose" (Rom. 9:17), "God has bound all men over to disobedience, so that..." (Rom 11:32). Even these rebellious choices, though they are not "God's way" for men, are in God's plan.
quote:
"How long shall your evil schemes lodge within you?" (Jer. 4:14). But the people obstinately refused. In all these instances we see that evil originates not in God’s plan, but in "the heart" of people resisting God’s plan. As Jeremiah says, the evil is lodged within us.
Yes, it is, but it is also part of God's plan (though certainly God is not the source of the evil itself).
ISA 63:17 Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?
JER 24:7 I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.
The returning to God, it seems, has its source in God's decision to "give them a heart to know me." Thus the people who remained with evil in their heart were kept there, by God's decision to not give this gift to them.
quote:
How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
He knew, though, that they would not be willing:
DA 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."
His sorrow was for their sin, but not from a sense of disappointment, due to an unfulfilled plan.
quote:
The Bible is explicit in stating that people can and do thwart God’s will.
It seems to me, though, that there are alternative ways to view these verses that were mentioned, a way that is consistent with the view that God's will cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2, Prov. 21:30):
ISA 14:24-27 The Lord Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will stand. I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down. His yoke will be taken from my people, and his burden removed from their shoulders." This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?
I tried to find the comments on these and similar verses in the other forum, but I can't seem to find them there. I did find a comment on Job 1:22 ("The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised."), to which I would respond by saying that the Lord did say that Job's statement was correct: "In all this, Job did not sin in what he said." (Job 2:10), not just in his heart intent, but in his words.
But if you could point me to the place where these other verses are addressed, or resummarize for me, that would be appreciated.
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/04/2001 2:11:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 8/4/2001 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe that this is the page on the site that Doc was talking about.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=493
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/5/2001 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Thank you! I will start reading...
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/5/2001 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | For those of you who skipped over that gem of a quote from POW (albeit a 1,243 carat gem) you really missed out. Here are some very interesting points I found it it:
There are some interesting arguments for Free-Will here based upon "reason" and "deliberation". Humans are assumed to guide nature by virtue of our freedom. Spiritual warfare is articulated very well. ALL evil and destruction is a result of sin. There is a RICH doctrine of Creatio Continua at work here which I find to be very helpful in discussing the involvement of God in the world after creation…Greg would like the acknwledgement of God being good by nature…the stuff on foreknowledge is even quite interesting, here’s a quote that puzzles me:
quote:
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.
The last phrase is particularly intriguing. It almost seems to suggest that "all" refers to only those items in the class called providence, which are incidentally NOT those things in the power of our free will, and this "all" is what is "revealed to His eyes alone." Though this reading is not supported by what follows regarding foreknowledge, it intrigues me that these categories were so close to the convictions of Open thiesm today regarding the status of "all" for God in the paragraph above.
Thanks POW! cool stuff.
Modes
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 08/05/2001 10:59:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/5/2001 7:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is the section Modes quoted, with ALL in CAPS like *THIS*.
quote:
But if Providence is God's will, according to true reasoning all things that come into being through Providence must necessarily be both most fair and most excellent, and such that they cannot be surpassed. For the same person must of necessity be creator of and provider for what exists: for it is not meet nor fitting that the creator of what exists and the provider should be separate persons. For in that case they would both assuredly be deficient, the one in creating, the other in providing. God therefore is both Creator and Provider, and His creative and preserving and providing power is simply His good-will. For whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven and in earth, and no one resisted His will. He willed that *ALL* things should be and they were. He wills the universe to be framed and it is framed, and all that He wills comes to pass.
That He provides, and that He provides excellently, one can most readily perceive thus. God alone is good and wise by nature. Since then He is good, He provides: for he who does not provide is not good. For even men and creatures without reason provide for their own offspring according to their nature, and he who does not provide is blamed. Again, since He is wise, He takes the best care over what exists.
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.
MODES comment was:
"There are some interesting arguments for Free-Will here based upon "reason" and "deliberation". Humans are assumed to guide nature by virtue of our freedom. Spiritual warfare is articulated very well. ALL evil and destruction is a result of sin. There is a RICH doctrine of Creatio Continua at work here which I find to be very helpful in discussing the involvement of God in the world after creation…Greg would like the acknwledgement of God being good by nature…the stuff on foreknowledge is even quite interesting, here’s a quote that puzzles me:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last phrase is particularly intriguing. It almost seems to suggest that "all" refers to only those items in the class called providence, which are incidentally NOT those things in the power of our free will, and this "all" is what is "revealed to His eyes alone." Though this reading is not supported by what follows regarding foreknowledge, it intrigues me that these categories were so close to the convictions of Open thiesm today regarding the status of "all" for God in the paragraph above.
Tha................uff.
Modes"
WHAT SAY Y'ALL?
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/5/2001 8:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: could you show me how you can justify interpreting the passage about Jesus wishing to "gather your children together," with the prophecy from Daniel? They really have nothing to do with each other. In the one passage Jesus is talking in the past tense, ("how I have longed...but you were not willing...), meaning, it would seem, that as God, Jesus has wished for them to come to him but they have refused. It's a statement about the past. Yet you are applying a prophecy from Daniel (I assume about the destruction of the temple) that happens many years after Jesus' statement. Jesus was talking about how he wished to do something, the prophecy in Daniel is talking about something ahead. I do not see the connection at all. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/5/2001 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here is the section Modes quoted, with ALL in CAPS like *THIS*.
quote:
But if Providence is God's will, according to true reasoning all things that come into being through Providence must necessarily be both most fair and most excellent, and such that they cannot be surpassed. For the same person must of necessity be creator of and provider for what exists: for it is not meet nor fitting that the creator of what exists and the provider should be separate persons. For in that case they would both assuredly be deficient, the one in creating, the other in providing. God therefore is both Creator and Provider, and His creative and preserving and providing power is simply His good-will. For whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven and in earth, and no one resisted His will. He willed that *ALL* things should be and they were. He wills the universe to be framed and it is framed, and all that He wills comes to pass.
That He provides, and that He provides excellently, one can most readily perceive thus. God alone is good and wise by nature. Since then He is good, He provides: for he who does not provide is not good. For even men and creatures without reason provide for their own offspring according to their nature, and he who does not provide is blamed. Again, since He is wise, He takes the best care over what exists.
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.
MODES comment was:
"There are some interesting arguments for Free-Will here based upon "reason" and "deliberation". Humans are assumed to guide nature by virtue of our freedom. Spiritual warfare is articulated very well. ALL evil and destruction is a result of sin. There is a RICH doctrine of Creatio Continua at work here which I find to be very helpful in discussing the involvement of God in the world after creation…Greg would like the acknwledgement of God being good by nature…the stuff on foreknowledge is even quite interesting, here’s a quote that puzzles me:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last phrase is particularly intriguing. It almost seems to suggest that "all" refers to only those items in the class called providence, which are incidentally NOT those things in the power of our free will, and this "all" is what is "revealed to His eyes alone." Though this reading is not supported by what follows regarding foreknowledge, it intrigues me that these categories were so close to the convictions of Open thiesm today regarding the status of "all" for God in the paragraph above.
Tha................uff.
Modes"
WHAT SAY Y'ALL?
PotOnWheel
I know I may seem doumb in asking, but where is all this coming from...that I may go back and read it in its completeness...John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/6/2001 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Harold, the first page of this thread contains an extended post by POW which includes chapter headings to identify the sources for the excerpts contained therein. So simply click on the #"1" fro this page and scroll down to POW's stuff.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/6/2001 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/6/2001 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lee: could you show me how you can justify interpreting the passage about Jesus wishing to "gather your children together," with the prophecy from Daniel?
Sorry that wasn't clear, I meant that Jesus knew because of the Daniel prophecy, that Jerusalem would not come to him ("will be cut off and have nothing"), yet his desire was still to have them come to him. Thus he was not disappointed in the sense of a plan being thwarted, but he did still weep for Jerusalem.
Here now are some thoughts, after reading the comments on the predestination verses...
quote:
He thus takes unilateral control over a small portion of the immediate future and determines that it shall come about in a certain way ...We are inclined to believe that the chessmaster must have somehow foreknown how the game was going to go. But in point of fact it may be the case that we could have arrived at this same point via many different routes, and a supremely intelligent chessmaster would have seen this.
PS 145:15 The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food at the proper time.
But this is a lot of control, not a small amount of control, here. And if God controls our daily bread to this extent (it seems that not just the provision, but also the time of it is planned), he may very well also have similar concern for those areas that are more important.
quote:
The Bible is full of examples of God having plans which, to his great disappointment, do not come to pass, for they require the cooperation of free moral agents (e.g. Jer. 3:6–7, 19–20; 2 Pet. 3:9–10).
JER 3:7 "I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not."
JER 3:19 "I thought you would call me 'Father' and not turn away from following me."
"I thought" here is actually "I said" in the Hebrew:
JER 3:7 "I said that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not."
JER 3:19 "I said you would call me 'Father' and not turn away from following me."
I expect that God finds evil incredible, in a sense, though he is certainly aware of its extent and its consequences. Jesus' response to Judas in the garden at the moment of his betrayal shows what I am trying to say here: "friend, what have you come for?" (though this may not be the proper translation here).
Also, it seems possible that God sees both Israel's disobedience, and he also sees his overarching plan, that they will eventually return:
JER 3:14 "I will choose you--one from a town and two from a clan--and bring you to Zion."
In the midst of these verses, God says "they will return." So maybe this is a possible interpretation:
JER 3:7 "I said that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not [yet]."
quote:
Note that the text simply says that “as many as were destined for eternal life became believers.” Other than suggesting it was prior to their believing, the verse does not tell us when these people were destined.
1TI 1:16 "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life..."
Here Paul says God was showing him patience that is specifically for believers, before he was saved. So God knew already that he was chosen, and apparently also that he would respond to God's call, even when he was persecuting the church. So it would seem that the "from birth" of Gal. 1:15 is referring to Paul's call, that God's choice of him extends back to that point, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to choose a moment after birth, given that a specific "setting apart" did occur then.
quote:
He predestined this group of people "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Note that what is loved ahead of time in both Romans 8:29 and 11:2 is a corporate body, not particular individuals.
But this doesn't seem to be quite consistent, though, to require that if God calls a group of people, the response is sure, but if God calls an individual, then the verse must mean the call is conditional. How can the call for the group be assured, where the call to each individual member is not? Can they not all refuse?
quote:
If we refrain from read into the text a preconceived idea of what 'set apart' and 'called' entail, but rather simply allow Scripture to define these terms, I believe we will see that this setting apart and calling does not rule out the free will of the agent.
JN 18:9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."
If God gives a person to Jesus ("sets them apart" seems to apply to this call), then Jesus seems to have said that their salvation is assured, they cannot be lost.
God bless you,
Lee
P.S. I could not find most of the verses I had offered as texts that seem to say that God's plan cannot be thwarted addressed in the responses in the URL that was pointed out to me, so any further followup on them would be appreciated. Here they are, for reference:
JOB 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."
PR 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.
ISA 46:10 I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
ISA 46:11 What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/06/2001 7:49:29 PM
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/06/2001 7:50:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/6/2001 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: a book that does an excellant job of defending and articulating the concept of corporate election is "The New Chosen People," by William Klein. Its hard to find, but I think it does a better job than Shark's (though I still think Shanks is good).
I still do not see your point. While Jesus knew that Jerusalem would fall away, the verses have nothing to do with election and therefore you are applying them to a subject that they are not addressing. And again, Jesus is talking about something that has happened, not something that is going to happen. Jesus is expressing a genuine emotion about something. He weeps because he has been rejected, when he only wished that his people would accept and follow him, not about whether or not certain people are elect. Again, the prophecy in Daniel is about something that is going to happen, whereas the passages in John are about something that will happen.
One of the good things about Klein's book is he shows through the scriptures that being called by God to a certain job, does not nessaccarily mean you are called to salvation, that these things are two distinct callings. I hope you can pick up the book. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/6/2001 10:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
Good dialogue here. Your bringing forth great questions. I hope others jump in and address some of these, as my board time is a bit limited latedly (basically to sleepless nights!) I really need to try to hit the hay again, so for the present I'll simply respond to your verses on Job.
JOB 1:18 (?) "in none of this did Job sin." (After he said "the Lord gives and the Lord takes).
JOB 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."
Two points:
1) If, as I believe, God's "plan" includes creating free agents who can resist God's will, if they choose, then his plan is never thwarted. He could do anything he wants, of course. But, for various reasons (not least of which is interpersonal interaction, I don't see that he choose to create the kind of world where he DOES all things. (I'd have a similar assessment of Isa 46:10-11. Whatever God determines he's going to do, he does. But I don'tsee that he's determined to DO everything )
2) If Job's theology is right, in the sense of being "accurate," then you have to accept as accurate not only "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away", but all the similar things Job says throughout this book. Consider the following sample:
"[God] mocks at the calamity of the
innocent.
The earth is given into the hand of the
wicked;
He covers the eyes of its judges –
If it is not he, who then is it? (Job 9:23-24, cf. 21:17-26, 30-32; 24:1-12)
Do you really think the author of this epic poem was condoning this theology? It's coming out of the mouth of a despairing man whose held to an omni-causal theology.
"Why are times not kept by the
Almighty?
And why do those who know him
never see his days?" (Job 24:1)
"From the city the dying groan,
And the throat of the wounded cries
for help;
Yet God pays no attention to their
prayer." (Job 24:12)
Is this true? Do you want to affirm this theology?
Job’s depiction of God is even harsher when he considers the injustice of his own state. For example, Job cries out to the Lord,
"Your hands fashioned and made me;
And now you turn and destroy me" (10:8). (same as, "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" -- but now spoken with despairing, sarcastic, bite).
"Bold as a lion you hunt me;
And repeat your exploits against me…
Let me alone; that I might find a little
comfort"(10:9, 20)
"You have turned cruel to me;
and with the might of your hand you
persecute me"(30:21).
And to his "friends" Job claims,
"…God has worn me out;
he has made desolate all my
company.
And he has shrivelled me up…
He has torn me in his wrath, and
hated me;
He has gnashed his teeth at me;
my adversary sharpens his eyes
against me." (16:7-9, cf. 11-17)
Is God really the "adversary"? No. But if Job's presupposition about God being omni-causal is true, it follows. Job is a very consistent determinist.
When God enters the scene and gives his monologue, he rebukes BOTH Job and his friends. And he doesn't condone either of their theologies. He rather appeals to the complexity of the world and Leviathan and Behemoth -- cosmic creatures of chaos and evil believed to exist by all ancient Mesopotamians. (Job 37-41). Hence Job himself REPENTS of his folly and confesses he didn't know what he was talking about (Job 42:3, 6).
Now even after all this railing God says that Job spoke "right" about him (42:7). But the Hebrew word translated "right" (kunl) is not the normal word for "correct" or "true". This is met. Kunl has more the connotation of "having a foundation" or "established." It can mean "sound", but in this context, in my opinion, the Lord was admiring Job's gut honesty, in contrast to his friends self-serving cliche theology. This is also why the author says Job didn't SIN in the first chapter. The author does not say that Job's opinion "the Lord gives..." was CORRECT.
Enough for now. Think about it. I 've got to go back to bed.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness Lee.
Doc
PR 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.
ISA 46:10 I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
ISA 46:11 What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/06/2001 7:49:29 PM
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/06/2001 7:50:44 PM
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/07/2001 03:14:23 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/7/2001 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your replies, I appreciate the chance to discuss this with you all. Here are some further thoughts...
quote:
... a book that does an excellant job of defending and articulating the concept of corporate election ,,,
Actually, I believe in corporate election, it just seems that individual election needs to be also assured, for corporate election to be assured, that's all I meant there. Thanks for the book reference, though, I would be interested in reading more.
quote:
While Jesus knew that Jerusalem would fall away, the verses have nothing to do with election
That very well may be, I just meant that Jesus' sadness was not disappointment at a thwarted plan (i.e. if he had planned for them to come to him at that time, and they did not). His sadness was expressing grief at an outcome that was actually previously predicted, just as "Jesus was troubled in spirit, and said ... 'one of you will betray me.'" Though he knew this would happen, he was still troubled in spirit.
quote:
If Job's theology is right, in the sense of being "accurate," then you have to accept as accurate not only "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away", but all the similar things Job says throughout this book.
But it seems that is not needed with this passage, since "In all this" seems to refer specifically to just what Job had said up to that point, and in those two statements that we have, it seems that Scripture says "Job did not sin in what he said," i.e. that this is accurate truth.
quote:
If, as I believe, God's "plan" includes creating free agents who can resist God's will, if they choose, then his plan is never thwarted.
Eek! no, I wouldn't say in that sense. The passages seem to put more definiteness in describing God's purpose than just a scheme of relationships, many of these Scriptures are connected with specific prophecies about the future...
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/07/2001 11:30:18 AM
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/07/2001 11:31:20 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/7/2001 8:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: since, I have already shown that the verses in Daniel could not have been about Jesus's regret over Jerusalem not coming to him, perhaps you could show me where the prophecy is about the verses we are discussing. It would seem to me that you are making the verse a fulfillment of some prophecy nobody knows about, by simply quoting a prophecy from Daniel to justify prior belief. But the verses in John about Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem have no corresponding verses from the OT to show that they are prophetic. In fact, the verses themselves do not lend themselves to such an interpretation. Jesus is expressing sadness over Jerusalem not coming to him. Which means such an event happened before the sadness, because Jesus said, how often I have longed...which means it wasn't just one event, but many times they have rejected him. So it could not have been one event prophecised, but it was something that was throughout their history. And how could Jesus feel sadness for something that he planned? (oh, Jesus was troubled in his spirit because one would betrayed him, but since I don't believe it had to happen that way it did, nor that it had to be Judas, the emotions Jesus felt are genuine, because, from my view, Judas actually had a choice). Anyway, I would be interested in a corresponding prophetic verses. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/8/2001 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But the verses in John about Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem have no corresponding verses from the OT to show that they are prophetic.
I agree! The part that I mentioned as being prophesied was that Jerusalem would not come to Jesus.
quote:
So it could not have been one event prophecised, but it was something that was throughout their history.
Jesus certainly could have been referring to Israel's turning away throughout their history, I hadn't thought of it that way. But I think the point I made is still a possible interpretation, that the fact that Jesus wept over Jerusalem does not imply that his plan had been frustrated, the prophecy shows, it seems, that Jesus would have known that they would not come to him. The specific time period of the lifetime of the Messiah seems to be referenced in Dan. 9:26, at the end of which time:
"the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."
Jesus actually seems to refer to this prophecy:
MT 23:38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.
quote:
And how could Jesus feel sadness for something that he planned?
This is reasonable to me, though, it seems:
HOS 11:8 "How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel?"
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 8/9/2001 12:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee said
quote:
But I think the point I made is still a possible interpretation, that the fact that Jesus wept over Jerusalem does not imply that his plan had been frustrated, the prophecy shows, it seems, that Jesus would have known that they would not come to him. The specific time period of the lifetime of the Messiah seems to be referenced in Dan. 9:26, at the end of which time:
"the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."
Jesus actually seems to refer to this prophecy:
MT 23:38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.
It seems as though Christ did not want to bother with Israel after 3 years of almost fruitless ministry and constant rejection. He seems to be the one in the parable of Luke 13:6-9 who is calling for the Father to cut down the fig tree because it just seems to do nothing but "use up the ground".
quote:
He also spoke this parable: "A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 "Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?' 8 "But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize [it.] 9 'And IF it bears fruit, [well.] But IF NOT, after that you can cut it down.' "
This parable may have some conection with what God commanded in Lev 19:23-25, but I'm not sure yet. It seems that the keeper of the vineyard in this parable is the Father. When the man (the Son) asked for the fig tree [Israel (Jer 24:1-8; Hos 9:10; Joel 1:7; )] to be cut down the Father advised that it be let alone another year so He could "dig around it and fertilize [it.]" I believe that the digging and fertilizing in this parable is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
If this is what the parable means, then it cannot be said that Israel's rejection of Christ and His kingdom was a certainty to God at that time. I believe that Christ asked the Father to forgive Israel for crucifying Him (Luke 23:34) in ignorance (Acts 3:17) so that He could give them another chance to accept Him as the king of the promised kingdom during the activity of the Spirit in the ministry of the "the little flock" (Luke 12:32; Acts 3:19-26). Israel went on to not bear fruit by repenting of their sins (Luke 13:9b; Acts 3:19-20) and rejected the last of the three members of the Trinity when they rejected the Spirit's witness in Stephen's preaching in Acts 7 (specificly Acts 7:55-56) and were cut off sometime around that time (Rom 11:11-12,15,20).
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 08/09/2001 05:52:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/9/2001 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | The times of these events seem to be connected, though:
DA 9:26 "After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing."
So it seems to say, as far as I can tell, that when Jesus died, the nation of Israel would not have acknowledged him by then.
This does not preclude them coming to God at a later time, but it does seem to say that they would not come to Jesus before he entered Jerusalem, thus he certainly expected this to happen, though he was grieved by it.
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/09/2001 8:32:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:39 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 |
|
|