 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Character solidification and repentance | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/22/2005 6:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | Lee: I agree, being a slave to sin might still allow this freedom. But even if this is the case, I'm not should I would call this freedom, if I could only choose my jail cell.
Jeff: But it makes a difference philosophically. And that is important when determining other questions, like WHEN are people forekown, etc.
Lee: ...if we accept that suffering prior to conversion can have a benefit afterwards in a believer's life, why can't this be true of those who die unrepentant, if afterwards they can be brought to repentance?
Jeff: It might BE true. I just don't think the verses you gave are compelling enough to establish that. The verse in Rom. 8 about creation being subjected to vanity seems to imply non-human life also. Would you agree? And if so, do those vain sufferings of non-humans have any value with respect to their post-mortem existence in your opinon? If not, I don't see how we can rule out the vanity of certain sufferings for humans. E.g., do my toothaches have any value for my resurrected life?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/24/2005 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
Various folks said...
Lee: I agree, being a slave to sin might still allow this freedom. But even if this is the case, I'm not [sure] I would call this freedom, if I could only choose my jail cell.
Jeff: But it makes a difference philosophically. And that is important when determining other questions, like WHEN are people foreknown, etc.
Well, I do believe God is free! Really free. And freedom to choose your jail cell would not, I think, be called substantial freedom, even philosophically, we would surely recognize degrees of freedom, even among the philosophers.
Various folks said...
Lee: ...if we accept that suffering prior to conversion can have a benefit afterwards in a believer's life, why can't this be true of those who die unrepentant, if afterwards they can be brought to repentance?
Jeff: It might BE true. I just don't think the verses you gave are compelling enough to establish that.
Yes, that's a whole other discussion! I have various verses I refer to in discussing the possibility of repentance after death, some of which are stronger than others. Let me know if you'd like to discuss this, though!
Jeff said...
The verse in Rom. 8 about creation being subjected to vanity seems to imply non-human life also. Would you agree?
Yes, I would.
Jeff said...
And if so, do those vain sufferings of non-humans have any value with respect to their post-mortem existence in your opinon?
No, they do not, yet Paul personifies "creation" in Rom. 8, and this personification persists even beyond the time of God's children coming into their freedom, and participating in it. We'll see if the trees can clap their hands!
Jeff said...
If not, I don't see how we can rule out the vanity of certain sufferings for humans. E.g., do my toothaches have any value for my resurrected life?
Yes, I believe they do, otherwise all things do not work for good for those who love God...
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 | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/25/2005 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | I can't trace it, but it seems like every time this argument is taken up it follows the same circular path. It's exhausting. I think it ultimately comes down to Bible interpretation. We all try to figure out the techical meanings of words written in the fluid language of the marketplace.
For my part in seems like the main problem dealt with in Romans and specifically in chapter nine is the state of Jew and Gentiles before God. The Roman church at the time was dealing with this situation in a fairly unique way. Not only had Gentiles been grafted in theologically, they had replaced the Jews physically. The Jews were kicked out of Rome repeatedly, making the Gentile half of the church the "established" part. In chapter nine Paul talks about Abraham's offspring, Israel, Jacob, and Esau. I doubt that if Paul wanted to talk about Jews in a more general way he would have felt the need to spell it out any more carefully than he does in this chapter. Simply put, I think that most of the passages sited on this tread to support the idea that God punishes without (what I would call) due cause are taken out of context. When asked how Jews and Gentiles relate corporately to God, this is the place to look first. "Jacob I have loved; Esau I have hated" are actions (not attitudes) directed toward groups (not individuals). They may have application in these other areas, but that is not the main point and so those applications must be made in light of the corporate nature of the passage.
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Just the objection being made here, it would seem...
This verse is the plural; my objection is in the singular. It makes a big difference. The Pharaoh example to which this verse refers is a perfect one for showing how God's hardens one's heart after that one does bad things. God never takes the credit for killing the Hebrew babies. He never claims to have caused or determined that. In fact the story is one of God responding and remembering, not orchestrating.
Remember that kid in grade school who would grab your wrist and push your hand into your face and say, "Stop hitting yourself!" That kid is not the God of the Bible.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/25/2005 5:34:09 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/25/2005 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: Jeff said...
And if so, do those vain sufferings of non-humans have any value with respect to their post-mortem existence in your opinon?
No, they do not, yet Paul personifies "creation" in Rom. 8, and this personification persists even beyond the time of God's children coming into their freedom, and participating in it. We'll see if the trees can clap their hands!
Jeff: Then we're back to what Sahid said. God is evil first, then good. If there is any suffering experienced by unbelievers that 1) has no value with respect to their future salvation AND 2) was decreed from all eternity, Sahid's objection stands.
Lee: Well, I do believe God is free! Really free. And freedom to choose your jail cell would not, I think, be called substantial freedom, even philosophically, we would surely recognize degrees of freedom, even among the philosophers.
Jeff: I wouldn't say that. Freedom is even important in epistemology. But it is also important in Doc's argument against eternal, absolute foreknowledge.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/26/2005 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Sahid said...
"Jacob I have loved; Esau I have hated" are actions (not attitudes) directed toward groups (not individuals).
But groups consist of individuals!
Various folks said...
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Lee: Just the objection being made here, it would seem...
Sahid: This verse is the plural; my objection is in the singular.
But "who" is singular, thus the answer we read here is "no individual," as well as "no group" resists God's will.
Sahid said...
The Pharaoh example to which this verse refers is a perfect one for showing how God's hardens one's heart after that one does bad things.
God planned to harden him before sending Moses, though:
Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."
Sahid said...
God never takes the credit for killing the Hebrew babies. He never claims to have caused or determined that.
But he predicted oppression (Gen. 15:13), and could he not have stopped it? Thus there is primary responsibility for all that God sees will happen, that he does not intervene to stop.
Sahid said...
Remember that kid in grade school who would grab your wrist and push your hand into your face and say, "Stop hitting yourself!" That kid is not the God of the Bible.
I agree! God allows (I would hold that he decrees) even sinful actions, for a good purpose, which could come in no other way:
Job 1:21-22 "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised." In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
Various folks said...
Lee: Paul personifies "creation" in Rom. 8, and this personification persists even beyond the time of God's children coming into their freedom, and participating in it. We'll see if the trees can clap their hands!
Jeff: Then we're back to what Sahid said. God is evil first, then good.
Not if he has a good purpose, which he brings about, do not Open Theists hold that God allows the suffering of creation, for a good reason?
Jeff said...
Freedom is even important in epistemology. But it is also important in Doc's argument against eternal, absolute foreknowledge.
Certainly if foreknowledge prohibits freedom, then we have to give up either freedom or foreknowledge. But I would ask, does God not know his own free decisions, beforehand, how he would choose, in any completely described situation?
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 5/26/2005 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Then we're back to what Sahid said. God is evil first, then good.
Lee: Not if he has a good purpose, which he brings about, do not Open Theists hold that God allows the suffering of creation, for a good reason?
Jeff: Purpose must include means, here. If the suffering is not a MEANS to the benevolent end, your argument doesn't follow. And you have denied that ALL suffering is a means to post-mortem good. And I would say open theism doesn't imply that all suffering has post-mortem value.
Jeff said...
Freedom is even important in epistemology. But it is also important in Doc's argument against eternal, absolute foreknowledge.
Lee: Certainly if foreknowledge prohibits freedom, then we have to give up either freedom or foreknowledge. But I would ask, does God not know his own free decisions, beforehand, how he would choose, in any completely described situation?
Jeff: I would say God foreknows what He will do in a situation IF He foreknows the situation.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/27/2005 9:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscott said...
Jeff: Purpose must include means, here. If the suffering is not a MEANS to the benevolent end, your argument doesn't follow.
Yes, I agree...
jefscott said...
And you have denied that ALL suffering is a means to post-mortem good. And I would say open theism doesn't imply that all suffering has post-mortem value.
I don't remember denying that! I don't hold that I know it is all a means to good, nor do I hold that this is impossible. I tend to think it is quite possible that all suffering is for a post-mortem good.
jefscott said...
Jeff: I would say God foreknows what He will do in a situation IF He foreknows the situation.
Isn't that all possible future situations, then? So then God knows all his future, free decisions, in that sense?
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 | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/27/2005 11:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey - our theodicy is getting shaky, on both sides. We need to remember something: God is good. God is just. This is why it is not a problem that he has absolute despotism. We don't have to worry that God is going to abuse his power. "Is it not you who are unjust?" says the Lord.
God is just. Now, I believe it is easier to defend an infralapsidarian Calvinism than a supralapsidarian, so that's what I'll do. Lee, you've been doing a good job of pointing out God's sovereignty, but your Leibnizian "best of all worlds" criterion is weak. The true greatest good is the display of God's glory. This occurs not just post-mortem but right now. Otherwise one could say God is deceitful to create a universe that is ambiguous as to its purpose.
Here's my counter-criteria, in the spirit of Romans: justice on sin, mercy on those "called according to his purpose," and vindication of his glory throughout. This answers the question why God allows evil. Men are willing slaves of sin. The elect are called out of sin and given freedom and justification.
Now as to the OVT: you're playing defense here. You're trying to mitigate all the statements in the Bible that God is sovereign over all things, even the bad. So in trying to protect God's honor, the conclusion you come up with is "God is harmless". You're missing the point. God told us about Job, Isaac, Esau, Joseph, Pharaoh, Pilate, Herod, Judas, Saul, and all the rest. He didn't have to tell us. But he did so to display for us the riches of his glory, in doing as he pleases and having mercy on whom he wills.Post Edited (Nathan Straub) : 5/27/2005 11:18:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/28/2005 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | | Nathan: The true greatest good is the display of God's glory.
Jeff: I think to some people that sounds contradictory to the fact that God "seeks not [His} own." But if we keep in mind that the Father's glory comes through Christ's glory, then both are reconciled somewhat. For it pleased that Father that the fulness should dwell in Christ. All things are out of the Father, but all things are FOR the Father AND the Son. So the Father is glorified by seeking not His own, but rather glorifying His son.
I wonder if it is the relationship in the Godhead that cleared up for John how it could be quintesentially true that God is love. Before that relationship was understood, the clarity was not quite there yet, maybe. But now we can see all history, from the original promise of the seed on, as God's seeking the glorification of His Son. And by that, God the Father is glorified, Himself.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/28/2005 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Jeff said...
But I don't think a convincing case can be made for all suffering contributing to post-ressurection good.
But if God bears suffering, "Not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from your Father," then God decided on pointless suffering for himself, and could not improve on this, which I would think is unlikely.
Jeff said...
I would be interested in knowing why you see an open view with an effectual call as being problematic?
Do you mean irresistible grace? The "I" in TULIP, combined with the Open View? I'm not sure how that would be possible with the free will that is insisted on in the Open View.
Nathan said...
The true greatest good is the display of God's glory. This occurs not just post-mortem but right now.
I agree! "Glorify your Son," Jesus prayed, including the cross, looking primarily to it, though most would think of the resurrection as being the primary glory here.
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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/31/2005 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
jefscott said...
... what about the sparrow and the unbeliever? No clear verses to explain the point of their suffering.
Unless the unbeliever can be brought to repentance, unless we may hope that all these unbelievers will be saved.
And as far as creation, could it be that the transition to freedom requires the bondage, that in this case, "up" first requires "down"?
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
jefscott said...
I believed in openness and an effectual call before I ever heard of the "open view" by that name.
Glad to hear you have an "I" from my TULIP! Then maybe we will agree that there are limits to believer's freedom? I don't mind if I'm not free to wreck my own salvation...
"But ... it is a wonder, that this good cause has not been marred and spilled in my hands. But I rejoice in this, that my sweet Lord Jesus has found something ado, even a ready market for His free grace and incomparable and matchless mercy, in my wants. Only my wretchedness and my wants have qualified me for Christ, and the riches of His glorious grace. Few know the unseen and private reckonings betwixt Christ and me; yet His love, His boundless love would not bide away, nor stay at home with Himself." (Samuel Rutherford)
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 6/2/2005 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | John: I am having a very hard time grasping how you can affirm an "effectual call" and at the same time claim to believe in Open View Theism, unless you are meaning something quite different from a standard Calvinistic concept of "effectual call." I'm sincerely interested; how do you hold these two together? Is the Open View for you not related to salvation doctrines at all? Just curious.
Jeff: Maybe I'm not an open theist after all. I was thinking it meant that the future is open to some extent and that God doesn't absolutely know what will happen, therefore. In any case, that's what I mean when I call myself an open theist.
With respect to the effectual call and how I see that as consistent with open theism: scripture makes it clear that if we seek we shall find. This principle is true for believers and unbelievers. And as you have pointed out many times, Romans 1 makes it clear that all men are without excuse. Libertarian free will is what makes sense of these facts. Calvinism, as I understand it, doesn't allow for such.
This being the case, I think IF someone seeks God, he or she will find Him. But Paul tells the Romans that not even one of them had sought God - and that God was found of those who sought Him NOT. These are the ones who I think are effectually called. I count myself in that number. Whether there have ever been persons who sought God on their own, I don't know. I know of no verses that could prove it either way, unless the "no not one" passage is true of all people for all times.
Of relevance, too, is the "openness" idea that God did not foreknow or intend the Fall, much less all of it's consequences. Here, too, an open view with an effectual call is significantly different than Calvinism. In the former view, the effectual call is necessary for God/Christ to have a people (of any significant size, at least) and to accomplish His kingdom purposes - a completely benevolent view of God. In the latter, mercy is only one side of God while what, to all appearances, seems to be cruelty is the other side.
Does this address your specific question?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 6/3/2005 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...
Hi Jeff,
My understanding of the idea of an "effectual call" is that the call itself effects the salvation monergistically, with no human free will in the decision for or against salvation involved whatsoever. Part and parcel with the unconditional election and irresistible grace concept.
John,
Thanks for articulating the question of “effectual call”. I’ve been puzzled by Jeff’s definition of the term “effectual call” for awhile. His definition seems closer to a “God Shaped Vacuum” or our God given conscience that leaves us all "without excuse”.
Come on and tell us Jeff, curious minds what to know.
Blessings,
Mark
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 6/3/2005 10:44:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 6/3/2005 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's an excerpt from the Westminster Confession of Faith regarding "effectual call" :
Westminster Confession of Faith X
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
John's note: Note the clearly monergistic nature of the above-described "effectual call;" "those whom God has PREDESTINATED UNTO LIFE," "in HIS (God's) appointed and accepted time," "determining them," etc. This is even made more clear in the next sentence:
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
Hope this helps,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 6/3/2005 1:57:39 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/3/2005 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | | I've been gone a while. So...
Sahid said...
The Pharaoh example to which this verse refers is a perfect one for showing how God's hardens one's heart after that one does bad things.
God planned to harden him before sending Moses, though:
Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go."
That's not the point. I know and agree that God planned to harden Pharaoh before sending Moses. That doesn't address at all that this plan also happened after Pharaoh had commited infanticide and had treated the slaves cruelly. The hardening in this story is not a plan imposed on humans without their choice. God is responding in a "natural" way to uncaused human choices.
Sahid said...
God never takes the credit for killing the Hebrew babies. He never claims to have caused or determined that.
But he predicted oppression (Gen. 15:13), and could he not have stopped it? Thus there is primary responsibility for all that God sees will happen, that he does not intervene to stop.
That's nice but the prophecy in Gen 15 was not exact. It contradicts with the actual exodus account. Here, I'll make a prophecy: In the future Hebrews will be in lands not their own and they will be mistreated. This prophecy is accurate. I know this not because I can see or determine the future. I know this because I understand some of how the past worked and how people have proven themselves to be. God had better understanding than me. He could ballpark the length of time. He wasn't right, not exactly. But of course that's not the point. When the first base coach tells you that the pitcher will take an extra deep breath before making his pick-off move, he is not determining the future or displaying perfect foreknowledge. He just knows how things work. I really don't see the need (in the Bible or logically) to take God's foreknowledge as anything more than a divine version of the same thing.
Sahid said...
Remember that kid in grade school who would grab your wrist and push your hand into your face and say, "Stop hitting yourself!" That kid is not the God of the Bible.
I agree! God allows (I would hold that he decrees) even sinful actions, for a good purpose, which could come in no other way:
Job 1:21-22 "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised." In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
I really don't understand. If I learn humility from the kid in grade school, that doesn't make his actions less wrong. What the Lord gave and took away was his hedge of protection, not Job's health or family. Of course it is not wrong for God to do this. Job does not have any right to God's protection. It is a gift all along. What I am talking about is something like God forcing Pharaoh to kill babies. The infanticide was not part of the Genesis prophecy. It didn't "increase God's glory." It did not give rise to any good results that could not have been achieved without God killing the innocent.
I've been reading Paul Ricour's Symbolism of Evil. It deals with the ideal of defilement from involuntary action. Very interesting. He says that early on impurity and guilt were combined into what he calls defilement. But as we matured we understood that there is a difference between things like physical impurity which we can get involuntarily and things like moral guilt which cannot be obtained unwillingly. I think this progression can be seen within the Bible. The prophets divide moral action from ritual sacrifice in what was a revolutionary way. Even Jesus tries to convince the Pharisees that ritual purity is not righteousness. If we see the Bible as an account of God's people rather than a book of theology, contradictions and growth are expected and not so troublesome.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/3/2005 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid, and welcome back,
Sahid said...
God is responding in a "natural" way to uncaused human choices.
But doesn't "I raised you up for this purpose" (Ex. 9:16) imply God's intent to have him be hardened, even before he began his rule?
Sahid said...
The hardening in this story is not a plan imposed on humans without their choice. God is responding in a "natural" way to uncaused human choices.
Then Paul picked a bad analogy! When he said "Out of the same lump of clay, God makes one vessel of wrath, and another of mercy." Implying that the intent for the outcome was there, from the start. And God's intent is also carried out, "For who resists his will?"
Sahid said...
Here, I'll make a prophecy: In the future Hebrews will be in lands not their own and they will be mistreated.
But "four hundred years" referred to the time they were enslaved and mistreated, which did not start right away after they came there, and there is a special note of a remarkable fulfillment of the time interval!
Exodus 12:41 At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the Lord's divisions left Egypt.
They may well have made a note of when the slavery and mistreatment started, and counted from there. So you also have to be as accurate! Or ... maybe God really knows the future.
Sahid said...
I really don't see the need (in the Bible or logically) to take God's foreknowledge as anything more than a divine version of the same thing.
Then how can we take the predictions where God says "I swear by myself," yet these future events involve human choices? Such prophecies cannot possibly fail, there could not be a stronger way of saying "This outcome is entirely under my control."
Genesis 22:16-18 "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
Many human decisions are required here. And here:
Isaiah 45:23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.
"Swear allegiance," even! In the more literal translations (ESV, NASB). So this is not simply an obligatory physical gesture. And similarly here:
Jeremiah 44:26 But hear the word of the Lord, all Jews living in Egypt: 'I swear by my great name,' says the Lord, 'that no one from Judah living anywhere in Egypt will ever again invoke my name or swear, "As surely as the Sovereign Lord lives."'
This cannot possibly be wrong, yet human choices are involved.
Sahid said...
If I learn humility from the kid in grade school, that doesn't make his actions less wrong. What the Lord gave and took away was his hedge of protection, not Job's health or family.
Then Job saying "naked I shall return" meant he would die without God's protection? Surely "The Lord gave" meant his flock and herds as well, his servants, and his children.
Sahid said...
What I am talking about is something like God forcing Pharaoh to kill babies. The infanticide was not part of the Genesis prophecy.
But we read even of similar events in another prophecy:
Matthew 2:17-18 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."
Yet then we may also see that God can triumph, even in this, for the passage in Jeremiah continues:
Jeremiah 31:16-17 This is what the Lord says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the Lord. "They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future," declares the Lord.
Now it is possible that this next verse was not meant to apply when it was quoted in Matthew, but I think we should conclude that it does, given that Job is quite explicit in holding a similar view:
Job 2:10 He replied ... "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
And accepting trouble must include what had happened between the first and second tests, or else Job's wife was asking an inappropriate question, saying "Are you still holding onto your integrity?"
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/3/2005 7:40:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/3/2005 7:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Westminster Confession of Faith X
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
Jeff: I wouldn't say "and those only." Any who seek will find. And as for "appointed and accepted time," I would say "yes" in the dynamic providential way that I think God does other providential acts in His "accepted time" - not from eternity or even ages ago since this would imply God foreknew more than I think He does.
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
Jeff: I think we all agree that the call has nothing to do with "anything foreseen in man." As to whether man is totally passive, I don't know. But I don't normally think of beliefs being acquired by volition. I would tend to think what is more commonly a product of volition is the denial of a perceived truth. And so I would think when the gospel comes to a person, not "in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance (1 Thess. 1:5)," that person may be as passive as he/she is when they're seeing what's in front of them. They see it, alright, but no real sense of choice is going on there.
I wouldn't adhere to the language about embracing "the grace offered." I understand Paul to say that if you believe in your heart, you ARE justified. Not that you have to believe in your heart PLUS embrace something. Indeed, the reason why we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling is because it is sanctification where the role of volition is so conspicuous - even for folks like C.S. Lewis who are/were reluctant converts.
Finally, I don't rule out that there may be a voluntary role in conversion. But I don't understand how it would work, nor do I see anything in scripture that says faith is acquired by volition. Has there been a thread on this subject that I need to read?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/3/2005 10:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sahid, the potter's wheel story in scripture is about nations, not individuals:
Jeremiah 18:6"Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel."
Romans 9:21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
What's the context of Romans 9?
Paul's fellow Jews: "....my brethren, my kinsmen...who are Israelites"
"....Abraham's descendants.....through Isaac....."
Jacob and Esau, representing two nations:
Genesis 25:23The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body;
And one people shall be stronger than the other;
And the older shall serve the younger."
There is absolutely no merit for applying the potter and clay story to individuals and individual salvation. Even Pharoah represented the Egyptian nation that was to enslave Israel 400 years according to the prophecy, yet kept them 430 years instead. Does anyone think the story of Pharoah and Moses is about Pharoah's individual salvation? Or about national deliverance?
God knew Pharoahs intentions long before Moses was sent to free them:
Exodus 1: 8 Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
9 He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we.
10 "Come, let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and in the event of war, they will also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land."
11 So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses.
12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread out, so that they were in dread of the sons of Israel.
13 The Egyptians compelled the sons of Israel to labor rigorously;
14 and they made their lives bitter with hard labor in mortar and bricks and at all kinds of labor in the field, all their labors which they rigorously imposed on them.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/3/2005 10:38:13 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/3/2005 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | ThatDarnCat, you don't have to tell me. That's what I've always said on this site.
Lee said...
But doesn't "I raised you up for this purpose" (Ex. 9:16) imply God's intent to have him be hardened, even before he began his rule?
No. You really should read these verses in context.
"For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go."
a. Exodus 9:16 Or have spared you
"Raising up" is how God describes keeping Pharaoh alive. It does not describe hardening his heart. In fact v.17 expressly says Pharaoh has set himself against the Hebrews.
Lee said...
Then Paul picked a bad analogy! When he said "Out of the same lump of clay, God makes one vessel of wrath, and another of mercy." Implying that the intent for the outcome was there, from the start. And God's intent is also carried out, "For who resists his will?"
What ThatDarnCat said. You've got to read in context.
Lee said...
But "four hundred years" referred to the time they were enslaved and mistreated, which did not start right away after they came there, and there is a special note of a remarkable fulfillment of the time interval!
Exodus 12:41 At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the Lord's divisions left Egypt.
They may well have made a note of when the slavery and mistreatment started, and counted from there. So you also have to be as accurate! Or ... maybe God really knows the future.
So 400=430? I'll tell my old math teacher. Do you want to add that the mistreatment began 30 years to the day after they entered? They may well not have made a note. Maybe the plain meaning is the intended one.
about swearing by himself: Does it make it less of an inaccuracy if God had only predicted without swearing by himself? I'm not saying that God cannot accurately predict general human choices. The Genesis verse predicts the human choice that Abe's descendants would procreate. What's impressive here is God's blessing not his clairvoyance that people would have kids. The Isaiah verses may well have been foreordained. Fine with me. The Jeremiah verse sure looks like hyperbole.
about the Matt passage: We need to remember how prophecies work. The original context of the passage was the exile. Children being killed was not being predicted; it was being reported. The future hope (for the surviving descendants, not the dead children) was the prediction. Matthew then reused the passage. It was not intended as a prediction.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/4/2005 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
jefscott said...
nor do I see anything in scripture that says faith is acquired by volition.
That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that before. "Faith comes by hearing," we read, but this does not imply that we choose faith, rather, it implies the opposite, that God's word sparks the faith, as we hear it.
ThatDarnCat said...
Even Pharoah represented the Egyptian nation...
Then how is it that all but Pharaoh seemed to be saying at one point "So let them go, already!" (Ex. 10:7)? And why is "who" singular, in "who resists his will?" (Rom. 9:19)? This should be "which group resists his will?" here, instead, if groups are what Paul meant.
And where in the context do we see Pharaoh representing a group? This I think, comes from the interpretation, not the interpretation from the passage.
ThatDarnCat said...
There is absolutely no merit for applying the potter and clay story to individuals and individual salvation.
Unless God meant it that way?
Psalm 33:15 He who forms the hearts of all...
Does God not make people? Only groups? But groups are made of people...
Various folks said...
Lee: But doesn't "I raised you up for this purpose" (Ex. 9:16) imply God's intent to have him be hardened, even before he began his rule?
Sahid: "Raising up" is how God describes keeping Pharaoh alive. It does not describe hardening his heart. In fact v.17 expressly says Pharaoh has set himself against the Hebrews.
Verse 17 is after God hardened him, though! And are we to say God did not think about accomplishing a purpose for his name to be proclaimed, until he saw a Pharaoh ruling with a stubborn heart?
Sahid said...
Do you want to add that the mistreatment began 30 years to the day after they entered? They may well not have made a note. Maybe the plain meaning is the intended one.
But the mention that they left 430 years to the day indicates they thought there was a remarkable fulfillment here, surely "430 years to the day" was meaningful to them, supernatural, and not a description of an error.
Sahid said...
Does it make it less of an inaccuracy if God had only predicted without swearing by himself?
No, but it would seem to mean this was unconditional, as if to say "This depends only on me."
Matthew 5:36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
So swearing implies control, and God swearing by himself must be a superlative, in this type of statement.
Hebrews 6:17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.
How much more so, when he swears by himself?
Sahid said...
The Genesis verse predicts the human choice that Abe's descendants would procreate. What's impressive here is God's blessing not his clairvoyance that people would have kids.
Family lines do not die out?
And there is more here, his descendants would become as numerous as the stars, not simply that there would be some descendants. These descendants would also possess the cities of their enemies, how probable is this? That they would overcome all their enemies. And also they would bless all nations, is this certain, for any given family?
Sahid said...
The Isaiah verses may well have been foreordained. Fine with me.
Yes, but "swear allegiance" implies real submission, isn't this a human choice, in the Open View?
Sahid said...
The Jeremiah verse sure looks like hyperbole.
But in any case, human decisions are involved, are they not? They could not all return to the Lord, and invoke his name again.
Sahid said...
Matthew then reused the passage. It was not intended as a prediction.
But Matthew wrote that scripture was fulfilled here, what was spoke through the prophet was fulfilled.
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 | | |
| 143 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:33 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 |
|
|