 |
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/11/2004 6:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Lee: ...if God is only providing a way of salvation, trying to win everyone, and taking whoever might come, how can this be true?
Tom: Because the way of salvation God provides is available only to the weak, humble, and broken hearted. He sovereignly chose to live with such people and not with others.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/12/2004 2:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Jeff: … man may be so intransigent that election is necessary for there to be a redeemed people (or at least a significant number of them). If the latter case is true, there is no necessary contradiction between the OV and election. Wouldn't you agree?
I agree! But Paul makes God's choice of the weak be characteristic of God's election in general. Thus it is not an expedient, Paul says it is quite deliberate, "so that no one may boast before him."
quote:
Jee: Are you meaning to imply that those who believe in libertarian free will might think they could boast before Him?
No, the strong and capable could, though, if God chose them because they were strong or capable.
quote:
Tom: … the way of salvation God provides is available only to the weak, humble, and broken hearted. He sovereignly chose to live with such people and not with others.
Yes, I agree!
"If you have sound nerves and intelligence and health and popularity and a good upbringing, you are likely to be quite satisfied with your character as it is. 'Why drag God into it?' you may ask. A certain level of good conduct comes fairly easily to you. You are not one of those wretched creatures who are always being tripped up by sex, or dipsomania, or nervousness, or bad temper. Everyone says you are a nice chap and (between ourselves) you agree with them. … Often people who have all these natural kinds of goodness cannot be brought to recognise their need for Christ at all until, one day, the natural goodness lets them down and their self-satisfaction is shattered. In other words, it is hard for those who are 'rich' in this sense to enter the Kingdom."
"It is very different for the ... little, low, timid, warped, thin-blooded, lonely people, or the passionate, sensual, unbalanced people. If they make any attempt at goodness at all, they learn, in double quick time, that they need help. It is Christ or nothing for them. It is taking up the cross and following--or else despair. They are the lost sheep; He came specially to find them. They are (in one very real and terrible sense) the 'poor': He blessed them.'" (C.S. Lewis)
Ezekiel 34:16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
But then the choice the weak people have is the free one, and the rich and the strong are given little choice at all. Even the weak people may not have chosen very much, either, if "God chose the weak," implying more than just a provision of salvation that would meet their needs, and that would be attractive to them…
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 8/12/2004 2:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: … man may be so intransigent that election is necessary for there to be a redeemed people (or at least a significant number of them). If the latter case is true, there is no necessary contradiction between the OV and election. Wouldn't you agree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree! But Paul makes God's choice of the weak be characteristic of God's election in general. Thus it is not an expedient, Paul says it is quite deliberate, "so that no one may boast before him."
Of course it's deliberate. I don't see your point. If deliberate election is done "in time," it doesn't contradict OV. Thus, we could still have election, solution to the problem of evil, and OV. Your view, on other hand, can't solve the problem of evil - because it makes people's suffering and damnation the actualized intent of God, with no explanation as to why a benevolent God would do such a thing.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/13/2004 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Jeff: … man may be so intransigent that election is necessary for there to be a redeemed people (or at least a significant number of them). If the latter case is true, there is no necessary contradiction between the OV and election. Wouldn't you agree?
Lee: I agree! But Paul makes God's choice of the weak be characteristic of God's election in general. Thus it is not an expedient, Paul says it is quite deliberate, "so that no one may boast before him."
Jeff: Of course it's deliberate. I don't see your point. If deliberate election is done "in time," it doesn't contradict OV. Thus, we could still have election, solution to the problem of evil, and OV.
Well, if this is really the situation, then we are speaking of Calvinistic election, with God choosing, not man choosing. I agree again! But this is not OV free will, and this does not fit with the view that "love must be free to be real love."
quote:
Jeff: Your view, on other hand, can't solve the problem of evil - because it makes people's suffering and damnation the actualized intent of God, with no explanation as to why a benevolent God would do such a thing.
I hope that God will choose the sleek and the strong, too! After they have been made weak. And he bears suffering, too…
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 8/14/2004 4:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
Lee: I agree! But Paul makes God's choice of the weak be characteristic of God's election in general. Thus it is not an expedient, Paul says it is quite deliberate, "so that no one may boast before him."
Jeff: Of course it's deliberate. I don't see your point. If deliberate election is done "in time," it doesn't contradict OV. Thus, we could still have election, solution to the problem of evil, and OV.
LEE: Well, if this is really the situation, then we are speaking of Calvinistic election, with God choosing, not man choosing. I agree again! But this is not OV free will, and this does not fit with the view that "love must be free to be real love."
It is not Armenian free-will. OV, in it's minimal sense, means that humans HAVE free-will. It doesn't necessarily mean that salvation requires a proper act of the will. Moreover, God can be the chooser IN TIME, in which case it would NOT be Calvinistic election.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: Your view, on other hand, can't solve the problem of evil - because it makes people's suffering and damnation the actualized intent of God, with no explanation as to why a benevolent God would do such a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that God will choose the sleek and the strong, too! After they have been made weak. And he bears suffering, too…
But hoping is not an explanation. And as I argued on another post, sufferings that are not for righteousness sake and have no known profit in this life seem to be futile and tragic. The OV can explain these consistently with God's benevolence - Calvinism cannot. Therefore, as I see it, even if the "sleek" are ultimately saved, only an OV can give a satisfactory explanation of it.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/14/2004 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Lee: Well, if this is really the situation, then we are speaking of Calvinistic election, with God choosing, not man choosing. I agree again! But this is not OV free will, and this does not fit with the view that "love must be free to be real love."
Jeff: OV, in it's minimal sense, means that humans HAVE free-will. It doesn't necessarily mean that salvation requires a proper act of the will. Moreover, God can be the chooser IN TIME, in which case it would NOT be Calvinistic election.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "in time," I was thinking you meant that God decided to save some regardless of their choice (i.e. "just in time"), if the situation became such that none were coming.
Now I think maybe you mean God chose people at some point in time, which is not Calvinistic election, but it's close enough! If it's not peoples' decisions, but God's, in the final analysis.
quote:
Jeff: Your view, on other hand, can't solve the problem of evil - because it makes people's suffering and damnation the actualized intent of God, with no explanation as to why a benevolent God would do such a thing.
Lee: I hope that God will choose the sleek and the strong, too! After they have been made weak.
Jeff: But hoping is not an explanation. And as I argued on another post, sufferings that are not for righteousness sake and have no known profit in this life seem to be futile and tragic. The OV can explain these consistently with God's benevolence - Calvinism cannot. Therefore, as I see it, even if the "sleek" are ultimately saved, only an OV can give a satisfactory explanation of it.
I have reasons for my hope! This is not just out of thin air:
Deuteronomy 32:36 The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free.
And I don't understand how the OV squares God's benevolence with meaningless suffering. If the sleek and strong have suffering that does them good, then I think that does square with God's benevolence, though…
James 1:10 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower.
But when flowers pass away, you get fruit…
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 | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 8/14/2004 2:10 PM (GMT -6) | | I do not understand at all what Lee was trying to prove by this verse. Is it that God had to know the "weak" people? If so, not really. God could simply choose individuals he found along the way that he could see would respond to him. Generally, I have found that the low are those who traditionally respond to salvation. Not a hard thing for God to know.
Lee: we all have hope. Our hope isn't built in how we view God saves, but in the fact that he does save and saves even if either of are wrong in this area. Open theists are saved regardless of whether or not you are right. We are saved because we called upon the name of the Lord, not because we have the full correct view of how God saves. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/15/2004 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee: Well, if this is really the situation, then we are speaking of Calvinistic election, with God choosing, not man choosing. I agree again! But this is not OV free will, and this does not fit with the view that "love must be free to be real love."
Jeff: OV, in it's minimal sense, means that humans HAVE free-will. It doesn't necessarily mean that salvation requires a proper act of the will. Moreover, God can be the chooser IN TIME, in which case it would NOT be Calvinistic election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "in time," I was thinking you meant that God decided to save some regardless of their choice (i.e. "just in time"), if the situation became such that none were coming.
Now I think maybe you mean God chose people at some point in time, which is not Calvinistic election, but it's close enough! If it's not peoples' decisions, but God's, in the final analysis.
The difference is important. The Calvinistic view says EVERYTHING that happens is the working out of God's nature. An OV approach to election (God choosing) in time would still mean that God is against sin and senseless suffering ABSOLUTELY - not just conditionally as the Calvinists claim.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: Your view, on other hand, can't solve the problem of evil - because it makes people's suffering and damnation the actualized intent of God, with no explanation as to why a benevolent God would do such a thing.
Lee: I hope that God will choose the sleek and the strong, too! After they have been made weak.
Jeff: But hoping is not an explanation. And as I argued on another post, sufferings that are not for righteousness sake and have no known profit in this life seem to be futile and tragic. The OV can explain these consistently with God's benevolence - Calvinism cannot. Therefore, as I see it, even if the "sleek" are ultimately saved, only an OV can give a satisfactory explanation of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have reasons for my hope! This is not just out of thin air:
Deuteronomy 32:36 The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free.
And I don't understand how the OV squares God's benevolence with meaningless suffering. If the sleek and strong have suffering that does them good, then I think that does square with God's benevolence, though…
James 1:10 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower.
But when flowers pass away, you get fruit…
The verses you quote imply that God is against suffering and sin. But that is COMPLETELY explicable in terms of OV, but only "hopefully" explicable in terms of calvinistic universalism. And by the fact that we're not to "add to scripture," even for benevolent hopefulness, I would think that the OV wins that contest.
The scripture says that no man has given FIRST unto God that it should be recompensed to him. So if God owes no man anything (and Calvinists would agree with that, wouldn't they?), and God is INSTRINSICALLY and ABSOLUTELY opposed to evil and it's consequences, the OV DOES square "God's benevolence with meaningless suffering." In my view, God forebears them for doxological reasons AND logically inevitable reasons - not because He intended them from eternity past.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/15/2004 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
FIH: Generally, I have found that the low are those who traditionally respond to salvation. Not a hard thing for God to know.
I'm not saying God had to know who they were in advance (that's a different topic). I agree that weak people are the ones who respond to the gospel. But that's not God choosing them! "God chose the weak" means a selection of them rather than the strong, Paul is not just saying "it turns out the weak people respond more."
quote:
FIH: Our hope isn't built in how we view God saves, but in the fact that he does save and saves even if either of us are wrong in this area.
I agree! We don't have to know rope-making to be able to be hauled up by a rope. But I'm asking about rope-making. How is it that God chose the weak, if the OV tells us that God chooses people by setting up the conditions for entry, and then taking whoever might come? If the strong people came, if mostly strong people came (isn't that possible?), would we have to then say God chose the strong? And not the weak?
But if God has a real purpose for the weak to come (and he does! "that no one would boast"), and not the strong, by and large, then the strong, again, don't have a really free choice.
quote:
Lee: … maybe you mean God chose people at some point in time, which is not Calvinistic election, but it's close enough! If it's not peoples' decisions, but God's, in the final analysis.
Jeff: The Calvinistic view says EVERYTHING that happens is the working out of God's nature. An OV approach to election (God choosing) in time would still mean that God is against sin and senseless suffering ABSOLUTELY - not just conditionally as the Calvinists claim.
This is a different topic, though! If God chooses people, and it's not their choice, then that's basically Calvinistic election, whether or not all that happens is under God's control. I don't believe everything expresses God's nature, nor do I believe that God is not completely opposed to evil, I don't know anybody who holds that. We can start another thread if you want to discuss that issue, though…
quote:
Jeff: … the OV DOES square "God's benevolence with meaningless suffering." In my view, God forebears them for doxological reasons AND logically inevitable reasons - not because He intended them from eternity past.
I think meaningful suffering is more benevolent than meaningless suffering, though. But again, that is another topic.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/15/2004 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: How is it that God chose the weak, if the OV tells us that God chooses people by setting up the conditions for entry, and then taking whoever might come?
Tom: The OV doesn't claim that God is as passive as you appear to make it out. He doesn't JUST set up the rules and sit by waiting for whosoever will to find their way in. He's a little more involved than that, in bringing them, though we may reject him.
Lee: If the strong people came, if mostly strong people came (isn't that possible?), would we have to then say God chose the strong? And not the weak?
Tom: "Srong" (self-righteous) people by definition don't come. Not coming is what it means to BE strong in this sense.
Lee: But if God has a real purpose for the weak to come (and he does! "that no one would boast"), and not the strong, by and large, then the strong, again, don't have a really free choice.
Tom: How is possible to convolute something so simple, Lee? You have amazing skills in this regard. God has "real purposes" for everybody, even the strong and self-righteous. He wants them to respond to his grace extended. He purpose for the strong is not that they remain self-righteous and perish. His purpose is that they repent.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/15/2004 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee: … maybe you mean God chose people at some point in time, which is not Calvinistic election, but it's close enough! If it's not peoples' decisions, but God's, in the final analysis.
Jeff: The Calvinistic view says EVERYTHING that happens is the working out of God's nature. An OV approach to election (God choosing) in time would still mean that God is against sin and senseless suffering ABSOLUTELY - not just conditionally as the Calvinists claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a different topic, though! If God chooses people, and it's not their choice, then that's basically Calvinistic election, whether or not all that happens is under God's control. I don't believe everything expresses God's nature, nor do I believe that God is not completely opposed to evil, I don't know anybody who holds that. We can start another thread if you want to discuss that issue, though…
The point I'm making is that EVEN if God chooses, but in time, the OV passages are still true and OV is unaffected. And how can all occurrences be removed from God's nature if He has eternally decreed them and providentially brings them about? That is unintelligible to me.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: … the OV DOES square "God's benevolence with meaningless suffering." In my view, God forebears them for doxological reasons AND logically inevitable reasons - not because He intended them from eternity past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think meaningful suffering is more benevolent than meaningless suffering, though. But again, that is another topic.
I agree, but I don't see any scriptural evidence for it, and it is unnecessary to explain God's benevolence. I'm not really trying to start another topic. I'm trying to tie together the fact that OV doesn't rule out election (God choosing mercifully) IN TIME, and, therefore, OV is left standing as the most perspicuous and parsimonious explanation of scripture.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 8/15/2004 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lee: God generally uses the weak, but, as Tom says, that doesn't mean God won't use the strong as well. God plans that all are saved. God reserves the right to "use" certain people in certain situations. But all have choice as to whether they will be used by God. You are again assuming that God has selected people and they have no choice. They do...if certain "weak" people won't be used, God will use others. But saying that he will use weak people, only highlights that specific choice. It does not preclude God using strong people as well. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/16/2004 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Lee: How is it that God chose the weak, if the OV tells us that God chooses people by setting up the conditions for entry, and then taking whoever might come?
Tom: The OV doesn't claim that God is as passive as you appear to make it out. He doesn't JUST set up the rules and sit by waiting for whosoever will to find their way in. He's a little more involved than that, in bringing them, though we may reject him.
I agree, that was a misrepresentation of the OV. Humbly pie, oh my...
quote:
Lee: … then the strong, again, don't have a really free choice.
Tom: God has "real purposes" for everybody, even the strong and self-righteous. He wants them to respond to his grace extended. His purpose for the strong is not that they remain self-righteous and perish. His purpose is that they repent.
Yes, but they don't have a really free choice, if "God chose the weak" means God's purpose was to exclude the strong, by and large. I think it does mean that…
quote:
Jeff: EVEN if God chooses, but in time, the OV passages are still true and OV is unaffected.
Not if God chooses the weak, and excludes the strong, though. I don’t think that fits with OV.
quote:
FIH: You are again assuming that God has selected people and they have no choice. They do...if certain "weak" people won't be used, God will use others.
Paul is saying something different, though! He doesn't say "God prefers the weak," Paul says he chose them, and that his purpose is succeeding, "that no one may boast." If God's purpose here fails, in choosing the weak, then someone can boast. But that is not possible...
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2004 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: God has "real purposes" for everybody, even the strong and self-righteous. He wants them to respond to his grace extended. His purpose for the strong is not that they remain self-righteous and perish. His purpose is that they repent.
Lee: Yes, but they don't have a really free choice...
Tom: Sounds to me like you just said, "Yes, but really no." If it's "Yes the strong may repent and come into God's purposes," then how is it also "No, they don't really have free choice to do so"?
Lee: ...if "God chose the weak" means God's purpose was to exclude the strong, by and large. I think it does mean that...
Tom: I wouldn't say that. The self-righteous and stubborn have a choice. They are what they are by choice and God's grace is available to them now. They can choose their way in cooperation with God's grace from where they are now to where they ought to be one choice from now. They can't do more than that, but they can do that. We're always a choice away from where God wants us to be one choice from now, and God doesn't want us to be one choice from now what we cannot be one choice from now. Think about it.
So God's choice to live with the weak is not a choice to exclude the strong from choosing their way to weakness in response to grace. It's just God's mode of operation. He dwells with the meek and humble. But that doesn't mean he wants the proud to remain proud, isn't working to bring them to a realization of this, or that they aren't free to choose their way out of where and who they are to where and who God calls them to be in Christ. If the strong are excluded, it's because they choose exclude themselves.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/18/2004 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
quote:
Tom: His purpose for the strong is not that they remain self-righteous and perish. His purpose is that they repent.
Lee: Yes, but they don't have a really free choice...
Tom: Sounds to me like you just said, "Yes, but really no." If it's "Yes the strong may repent and come into God's purposes," then how is it also "No, they don't really have free choice to do so"?
They will repent, I believe! After they become weak, for the most part…
Deuteronomy 32:36 The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone …
quote:
Lee: ...if "God chose the weak" means God's purpose was to exclude the strong, by and large. I think it does mean that...
Tom: I wouldn't say that. The self-righteous and stubborn have a choice. … If the strong are excluded, it's because they choose exclude themselves.
But if mostly strong people happen to come, then people could boast before him:
1 Corinthians 1:28-29 He chose the lowly things of this world … so that no one may boast before him.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/18/2004 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But if mostly strong people happen to come, then people could boast before him:
Tom: You're amazing dude! Once again: The strong DON'T come. Not coming is by definition what it means to be strong (self-righteous). So why do you keep exploring the 'what if?' of the self-righteous coming in their self-righteousness to Christ?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:29 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 |
|
|