 |
| 
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/10/2004 4:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | Looking through a temporal lens I struggle to reconcile the God of Love with the problem of evil. However, if God is love (1 John 4) and love is defined in 1 Cor 13:4-8 (4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails) Then, I can step back and see that perhaps we are being "loved" by God. Afterall, He is bearing/enduring all (including evil) things. I guess temporally He would appear to have His hands "tied" by the world He chose to create--the world where warfare exists for a time.
And, it could be true that He is patient with temporal stuff. He is working through the kindness of His agents and is not jealous of any ground temporal evil agents may (seemingly) gain. He is not bragging or arrogant that He wins through our lives (and much more through death) in time. Neither is He provoked to fix things quickly. He doesn't take into account wrongs suffered, rejoices in the Truth that we are His and He is ours, and that truly He/Love never fails...
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/10/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Exellent thought Selah. I'm thinking too that love "does not seek its own" (demand its own way). God doesn't demand his own way. Hmm. How might THAT affect our understanding of God's actions in the world?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/10/2004 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/10/2004 6:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Great thought, Selah! For me the hardest part is that God is our role model and I am far cry from loving that way. I am thankful for God's grace and PATIENCE! | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/11/2004 3:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg Boyd quote:
namely, image God according to the standard of love he himself gives us. I submit that MOST portraits of God throughout history, and yet today, bear little resemblance to I Cor. 13.
How very very odd.
I am looking forward to seeing Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of The Christ I have heard, from those who have seen it, that it is very touching and true to what happened. I've heard that the portrait of what actually happened and what Hollywood has portrayed up to this point has not been as impacting as this movie will be.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/11/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | "There are three things told us in Scripture concerning the nature of God. First, "God is spirit" (John 4:24). In the Greek there is no indefinite article, and to say "God is a spirit" is most objectionable, for it places Him in a class with others. God is "spirit" in the highest sense. Because He is "spirit" He is incorporeal, having no visible substance. Had God a tangible body, He would not be omnipresent, He would be limited to one place; because He is spirit He fills heaven and earth. Second, God is light (1 John 1:5), which is the opposite of "darkness." In Scripture "darkness" stands for sin, evil, death; and "light" for holiness, goodness, life. God is light, means that He is the sum of all excellency. Third, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). It is not simply that God "loves," but that He is Love itself. Love is not merely one of His attributes, but His very nature.
There are many today who talk about the love of God, who are total strangers to the God of love. The Divine love is commonly regarded as a species of amiable weakness, a sort of good-natured indulgence; it is reduced to a mere sickly sentiment, patterned after human emotion. Now the truth is that on this, as on everything else, our thoughts need to be formed and regulated by what is revealed thereon in Holy Scripture. That there is urgent need for this is apparent not only from the ignorance which so generally prevails, but also from the low state of spirituality which is now so sadly evident everywhere among professing Christians. How little real love there is for God. One chief reason for this is because our hearts are so little occupied with His wondrous love for His people. The better we are acquainted with His love—its character, fulness, blessedness—the more will our hearts be drawn out in love to Him.
1. The love of God is uninfluenced. By this we mean, there was nothing whatever in the objects of His love to call it into exercise, nothing in the creature to attract or prompt it. The love which one creature has for another is because of something in them; but the love of God is free, spontaneous, uncaused. The only reason why God loves any is found in His own sovereign will: "The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved thee" (Deut. 7:7,8). God has loved His people from everlasting, and therefore nothing of the creature can be the cause of what is found in God from eternity. He loves from Himself: "according to His own purpose" (2 Tim. 1:9).
"We love Him, because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). God did not love us because we loved Him, but He loved us before we had a particle of love for Him. Had God loved us in return for ours, then it would not be spontaneous on His part; but because He loved us when we were loveless, it is clear that His love was uninfluenced. It is highly important if God is to be honored and the heart of His child established, that we should be quite clear upon this precious truth. God’s love for me, and for each of "His own," was entirely unmoved by anything in them. What was there in me to attract the heart of God? Absolutely nothing. But, to the contrary, everything to repel Him, everything calculated to make Him loathe me—sinful, depraved, a mass of corruption, with "no good thing" in me.
"What was there in me that could merit esteem,
Or give the Creator delight?
‘Twas even so, Father, I ever must sing,
Because it seemed good, in Thy sight."
2. It is eternal. This of necessity. God Himself is eternal, and God is love; therefore, as God Himself had no beginning, His love had none. Granted that such a concept far transcends the grasp of our feeble minds, nevertheless, where we cannot comprehend, we can bow in adoring worship. How clear is the testimony of Jeremiah 31:3, "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee." How blessed to know that the great and holy God loved His people before heaven and earth were called into existence, that He had set His heart upon them from all eternity. Clear proof is this that His love is spontaneous, for He loved them endless ages before they had any being.
The same precious truth is set forth in Ephesians 1:4,5, "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him. In love having predestinated us." What praise should this evoke from each of His children! How tranquilizing for the heart: since God’s love toward me had no beginning, it can have no ending! Since it be true that "from everlasting to everlasting" He is God, and since God is "love," then it is equally true that "from everlasting to everlasting" He loves His people.
3. It is sovereign. This also is self-evident. God Himself is sovereign, under obligations to none, a law unto Himself, acting always according to His own imperial pleasure. Since God be sovereign, and since He be love, it necessarily follows that His love is sovereign. Because God is God, He does as He pleases; because God is love, He loves whom He pleases. Such is His own express affirmation: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:19). There was no more reason in Jacob why he should be the object of Divine love, than there was in Esau. They both had the same parents, and were born at the same time, being twins; yet God loved the one and hated the other! Why? Because it pleased Him to do so.
The sovereignty of God’s love necessarily follows from the fact that it is uninfluenced by anything in the creature. Thus, to affirm that the cause of His love lies in God Himself, is only another way of saying, He loves whom He pleases. For a moment, assume the opposite. Suppose God’s love were regulated by anything else than His will, in such a case He would love by rule, and loving by rule He would be under a law of love, and then so far from being free, God would Himself be ruled by law. "In love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to"—what? Some excellency which He foresaw in them? No; what then? "According to the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. 1:4,5).
4. It is infinite. Everything about God is infinite. His essence fills heaven and earth. His wisdom is illimitable, for He knows everything of the past, present and future. His power is unbounded, for there is nothing too hard for Him. So His love is without limit. There is a depth to it which none can fathom; there is a height to it which none can scale; there is a length and breadth to it which defies measurement, by any creature-standard. Beautifully is this intimated in Ephesians 2:4: But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us: the word "great" there is parallel with the "God so loved" of John 3:16. It tells us that the love of God is so transcendent it cannot be estimated.
No tongue can fully express the infinitude of God’s love, or any mind comprehend it: it "passeth knowledge" Eph. 3:19). The most extensive ideas that a finite mind can frame about Divine love, are infinitely below its true nature. The heaven is not so far above the earth as the goodness of God is beyond the most raised conceptions which we are able to form of it. It is an ocean which swells higher than all the mountains of opposition in such as are the objects of it. It is a fountain from which flows all necessary good to all those who are interested in it (John Brine, 1743).
5. It is immutable. As with God Himself there is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17), so His love knows neither change or diminution. The worm Jacob supplies a forceful example of this: "Jacob have I loved," declared Jehovah, and despite all his unbelief and waywardness, He never ceased to love him. John 13:1 furnishes another beautiful illustration. That very night one of the apostles would say, "Show us the Father"; another would deny Him with cursings; all of them would be scandalized by and forsake Him. Nevertheless "having loved His own which were in the world, He love them unto the end." The Divine love is subject to no vicissitudes. Divine love is "strong as death ... many waters cannot quench it" (Song of Sol. 8:6,7). Nothing can separate from it: Romans 8:35-39.
"His love no end nor measure knows,
No change can turn its course,
Eternally the same it flows
From one eternal source."
6. It is holy. God’s love is not regulated by caprice passion, or sentiment, but by principle. Just as His grace reigns not at the expense of it, but "through righteousness" (Rom. 5:21), so His love never conflicts with His holiness. "God is light" (1 John 1:5) is mentioned before "God is love" (1 John 4:8). God’s love is no mere amiable weakness, or effeminate softness. Scripture declares, "whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth" (Heb. 12:6). God will not wink at sin, even in His own people. His love is pure, unmixed with any maudlin sentimentality.
7. It is gracious. The love and favor of God are inseparable. This is clearly brought out in Romans 8:32-39. What that love is from which there can be no "separation," is easily perceived from the design and scope of the immediate context: it is that goodwill and grace of God which determined Him to give His Son for sinners. That love was the impulsive power of Christ’s incarnation: "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16). Christ died not in order to make God love us, but because He did love His people, Calvary is the supreme demonstration of Divine love. Whenever you are tempted to doubt the love of God, Christian reader, go back to Calvary.
Here then is abundant cause for trust and patience under Divine affliction. Christ was beloved of the Father, yet He was not exempted from poverty, disgrace, and persecution. He hungered and thirsted. Thus, it was not incompatible with God’s love for Christ when He permitted men to spit upon and smite Him. Then let no Christian call into question God’s love when he is brought under painful afflictions and trials. God did not enrich Christ on earth with temporal prosperity, for "He had not where to lay His head." But He did give Him the Spirit "without measure" (John 3:34). Learn then that spiritual blessings are the principal gifts of Divine love. How blessed to know that when the world hates us ,God loves us!"
-Arthur W. Pink, The Nature of God, "The Love of God"
Calvin: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol39/htm/xx.ii.htm
By Faith Alone,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/11/2004 11:18 AM (GMT -6) | | borg: God's love is...
1. Uninfluenced.
2. Eternal.
3. Sovereign.
4. Infinite.
5. Immutable.
6. Holy.
7. Gracious.
Tom: As an open theist, I would like to SHOUT "Amen!" to each of these, without reservation. Right down the line, there is nothing (zip, zilch, zero, nada) in these seven points that lands us in Calvinism. Except for your use of Paul's mention of Jacob/Essau under love's 'sovereignty' I'm amening ya all the way.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/11/2004 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Tom, I didn't write it, Arthur W. Pink did and I posted it because Boyd made the hint that many throughout history haven't held God to the declaration that He made of what love was, and I find Pink's argument good while maintaining a right view of love, and unreal! He was considered a hyper-calvinist. But gee, it seems like there is something we can finally agree on.
Grace Alone,
Borg
p.s. how would an OVist hold to the idea that God's love isn't influenced or immutable? Just on a surface examination it appears that these in some manner contradict some of what the OV has to say, but I'm wrong so let me have it.
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/11/2004 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg
Love—by definition—is a two-way street. Love requires relationship. Influence is incumbent on relationship. Influence (either positive or negative) is precisely what brings “love” out of the abstract and makes love real.
Ultimately love is a response of sorts (an attitude, an action, an emotion, etc). And a response entails an object either behaving negatively or positively. Hence, one may love “because of…” or one may love “in spite of…” Conversely, one may not love “because of…” or one may not love “in spite of…” These options define the gambit of love in man’s experience. The purest paradigm of love—how God loves (“in spite of…” )—is also, not coincidentally, found in man’s “purer” relationships such as parent-child, husband-wife, etc.
Scripture clearly states that God has chosen to love “in spite of…” (“In that while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly”). It is God, not the Open Theist, who points out the contrast. What is the point of God emphasizing the contrast to man if He is not impacted? The point is that, to the glory of God, He, and only He, can love (or empower love) when impacted negatively.
Consider the words of Jesus, “You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies” (Mt 5:43-44). Anybody can love a neighbor. But only God can love (or empower love for) an enemy. Now unless you are willing to concede that man can muster this kind of love on his own, the only other alternative is that this love set in the context of influence, impact, mutability, etc.—the kind of love that loves when impacted (negatively) by an enemy—comes from God. It is precisely the contrast (set in terms of mutability—in the negative no less) that ultimately reveals the glory of God’s love.
Without influence there can be no love. There can be manipulation. There can be abstraction without meaning. But there cannot be love.
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/11/2004 7:34 PM (GMT -6) | | John where do you develop this theory that love has to be a two way street? where is the clearest definition of love? 1 John 4:10, "In this IS love, NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD, but that He loved us and sent His Son..." Where does the Bible back the idea that love is a two way street? The fact is, and the Bible clearly teaches it, that we cannot love God because of our sin. Romans 8:6ff tells us that the mind control by the sinful flesh CANNOT please God, CANNOT submit to the laws of God, etc. The only reason we can even love God is becuase God has loved His chosen and granted them grace to love Him back. The only reason we love God is because of God. That's like saying the only reason my child loves me, is because I allow him to love me; i give him the desire to love me. But where is it ever taught that true love must require choice, risk, and in some manner the "free will" of human decision to love back?
Blessings,
Grace Alone, Word Alone, Faith Alone,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/13/2004 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Borg
Good question.
The context of my response was in regard to your comment, “It [God’s Love] is immutable. As with God Himself there is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17)…” (Sorry for my omission of the context).
So the point of reference of my comments is “immutability” (relative to love). I do not share Augustine, et al’s assumption that God is immutable (unchanging) in all respects. See my previous response to your comments in the “If God changes can we trust Him.”
With regard to “love,” the inspired authors of Scripture go to great lengths to draw the contrast between God’s “love” and man’s “love.” The contrast is, in fact, the point.
I believe the misunderstanding of my analogy to love as a “two-way street” rests on your incorporation into the analogy that love must be reciprocated. This is not the case. The (only) implication of the analogy is that love requires relationship (an object). The analogy does not have to imply that both parties are moving toward each other, only that love does not occur in a vacuum. Love requires two parties and is therefore, a two-way street. The response on behalf of the parties is optional.
The choice for God is:
(1) Create man and “make” him “love” God. While not entailing risk, this philosophical construct of “love” is never illustrated in Scripture, violates man’s God-given intuition of love, and, in fact, defies the very definition of love.
(2) Create man and “enable” him to love God. “The kindness of God ‘leads’ (but does not compel) man to repentance.” Risk is inherent in man’s God-given intuition of love.
The same reasoning applies to the contrast between “making love” and date rape. Both involve intercourse. Yet the experience is deemed moral or immoral based on the actions of the stronger party. God doesn’t “drug” man into artificial bliss (with “irresistible grace) and force him into Heaven. He coaxes man in a love relationship to taste His goodness and enables man to genuinely choose heavenly bliss. And of course genuine choice implies genuine risk. God deemed libertarian free will worth the risk because He also perceives “making love’ in mutual relationship better than forced intercourse—Like the arrogant Sheik of old who approached his concubines with the attitude “Of course none of you lowly concubines ‘deserve’ to even be in my presence, but because I have lavished you with blessing and chosen you to be in my “elect” harem, not to mention wield all the power, you must come and have intercourse with me. Here drink ‘my grace.’ You must because I compel you to ‘drink my grace.’” Now, we all need to “drink God’s grace.” The rote act of intercourse is the same whether compelled or voluntary. However, it is the method of the stronger party that determines whether or not the intercourse is moral or immoral.
Regarding 1 John 4:10, "In this IS love, NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD, but that He loved us and sent His Son..." We are given a definition of love—No doubt, the ultimate definition of love. Unless we espouse “sinless perfection” as the norm for Christians in this world, then we must recognize this as the ideal and not the norm for man’s experience—even though he has been “granted love by God’s grace.” So, it appears that even God’s grace has not achieved this kind of love in (any) man. The implication is that “love” is a spectrum. God is on one end and man somewhere along the way. Granted the extreme other end of the spectrum is hate or enmity—but is the same spectrum (i.e., relationship).
When I say (above), “Scripture clearly states that God has chosen to love ‘in spite of…,’” I am echoing your sentiments (e.g., “Divine love is "strong as death ...”). However, the only reason that man can even begin to perceive the magnitude of Divine love (“in spite of…”) is precisely because of the stark contrast repeatedly emphasized in Scripture between where man is on the spectrum of relationship and where God is. We perceive God’s (greater) love because “love in spite of…” is more glorious than “love because of…” “Love in spite of…” is more glorious than a static love that just “is.” Whatever this “love” is, all agree that man is the one God is communicating the concept to. So, since there is no concept of mechanical or static love or relationship (one-way) in man’s intuition. God communicates the reality of His love in the context of relationship (albeit unbalanced).
“The only reason we can even love God is because God has loved His chosen and granted them grace to love Him back.”
Agreed, with one caveat, God loves ALL (as per our prior discussions). And because Jesus has been “lifted up,” He “will draw ALL men…” Calvary enables ALL men to be drawn into the love which God enables. Calvary leveled the playing field for all. Through Calvary God has granted ALL the grace to “love Him back.” Hence love IS a two-way street for ALL men, and for God, because Love is—by God’s choosing—set in the context of relationship. That is why many prefer the reference “Relational Theism” instead of Open Theism. Again, this does not have to imply that God’s love has to run out or be nonexistent toward some because of there own enmity toward God. Contrast Calvin’s interpretation viz a viz Jacob (Romans 9)—God never loved Jacob, in fact He hated him (as per Calvin’s literal interpretation). Now just doing the math, it is intuitive that the God who loves most gloriously is the God who loves ALL (methodologically “chosen”) and not the God who loves just a few (numerically “chosen”). The God who loves most gloriously is the God who continues (continuation implies change which is not possible for an immutable God) to love with a love that extends through a very real impact in relationship, not the static love of Calvin’s God that requires Hell as a contrast in order to reveal the glory. The contrast which reveals the magnitude of God’s love for man is found in the context of God’s relation with man in the context of libertarian free will gone awry and not in Calvin’s context of predestination of the none elect to eternal torment which not only violates man’s God-given intuition of justice and morality, but stands against the stated intent of Jesus to “draw ALL men.”
That is the basis of the “theory” as it were.
May God add His blessing to His Word,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/13/2004 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | John thank you for that response and as I would desire to write back in full and respond to all, time does not allow it. But I would like to follow some of what was said up. With that let me begin.
The first thing that stuck out to me was your idea of Irrestible Grace and that you seemed to compare it to grace rape. No true Calvinist would hold to this view. We do not believe that God has dragged us into salvation kicking and screaming and forced His love upon us in such a way that we do not desire it. Over time God softens our hearts and gives us a heart of flesh and not of stone (Ez 38?) so that we are capable of choosing Him and not being forced. But when God gives us this heart of flesh, we have no other choice to love God because we have come in contact with the Holy. Who after starving in the desert for 40 days and then offered a plate of cow dung or a wheel barrow full of their favorite foods cooked to perfection would ever pick the dung? No one, that's just non-sense. And so it is with those whom God has laid His irrestible Grace upon. We see no other alternative but to love God. And the need for God to do this quickening for us, is because we are Totally Depraved and cannot love God on our own, Rom 8 clearly covers that.
The second thing that stuck out to me is your use of John 12 I believe it was, were Christ says He will be lifted up and will draw all men unto Himself. We woudl both agree this is future tense "will" but I think we disagree as to when that will take place. So let's get into context here. Going back to John 6 Christ says that no one can come unto Him unless the Father so draws Him (other translations of the Greek word, drag or pull). Well I think we would bother agree on that. A few verses before however in vs 37 Christ says "all that the Father gives me will come to me". Well who has the Father given to Him? As I understand it, it is the one's whom the Father has dragged to Christ. So going back to John 12 where Christ says all men will be drawn unto Him, doesn't that sound more like universalism if viewed with the verses in chapter 6? Now I could pull out the "all" argument in that when the Bible speaks of the "all" it doesn't mean universally, but I dont' know if that would be appropriate here. So what is Christ talking about, for surely we don't believe in universalism? The following verses in John 12 talk about the coming judgment when ALL will be drawn to Him and ALL will be saved or damned. I would like to hear what you think of this interpretation.
A third point that stood out to me, was your view on contrasting the love in order to more fully understand it. If i understood you right you alluded that it's ridiculous to view love in such a way as comparing it to hatred. Correct? What do you make of Malachi 1 where the Israelites are complaining about how God hasn't loved them and abondoned them and hates them? What is God's response to that? He compares the things He has done for them in CONTRAST to what He has done to Esau or Edom. He says in essence, "You want to know how I've loved you? Have I done this to you? Or this? or this? NO. But look at your brother Esau whom I have brought to destruction." And again in Romans 9 were God talks of the destruction of the vessels of wrath in order that His power might be seen among His objects of mercy. God uses the "non-chosen" (vessels of wrath/ dishonor) to show His "chosen" (vessels of glory) to display His love even more.
And the fourth point in which I would like to commment on is the idea that we in some way can love God. I have a problem saying that we do a good job at this, or even comparing it to a two-way relationship; because more often than not, I don't keep my side of the relationship. I'm like the whore of a wife who goes around and sleep with other men. I am an "adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of my husband" and I "played the harlot with the Egyptians, [my] lustful neighbors, amd multiplied [my] harlotry to make God angry" Ez 16. HA! Love God, most days I hate Him! And I prove this through my actions, thoughts, meditations, everything I do seems to contradict this "love" I'm suppose to have for God. For seldomnly do I love God, and yet, "in spite of" all this, God has not cast me aside. He may allow my "nakedness to be seen" for awhile, but He will come and cover me up, He will come and heal my wounds, He will comfort me, just so I can do it all again tomorrow. That's where I see God's love, that's where I see His glorious ability in being longsuffering towards us, His wayward children. Even if God were to come and knock me out and drag me against my whorish will into His home, I should only wake up and come to my senses and do nothing but praise Him for saving me from my life of hatred towards Him. And so to say that all it is is about love, to say that I can to some level love God back the way He ought to be loved, I have a problem with this. And God is no where entilted to love anyone, for we are all God-hating whores who cannot bear the sight of His face! For Him to love even one of us, that to me, is beyond my understanding. It is a pity that what I have done to Christ and the cross be bound by mere human words, for there is not an appropriate account in all languages to describe the hate that I have hated God with, the evil I have done against His holy name, the hypocrisy that grips at me daily. I pray you can to some amount see where I'm going with this, for it is solely by grace that my heart of stone should be replaced by a heart of flesh so I can love Him.
Sorry for the tangent.
By Grace Alone can we Stand,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/15/2004 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | John's response to "second point"
Borg
I appreciate your effort with your time constraint
I will briefly respond to your second point as requested…The wife and kids are back…
Within the context of the Gospel of John Jesus states that His intent is to condemn no one (e.g., 3:17). The cross was never intended to condemn.
I am unconvinced by Calvinistc arguments which attempt to differentiate the “world” from "all men." So I do not believe that “world” = the elect—Else John 3:17 would read “God didn’t send his son to the [“elect”] to condemn the [‘elect.’]” What would be the point of stating “God did not send His Son [to those who would not be condemned] to condemn [those who would not be condemned]”? Regardless of what world means it means the same thing both times. “Elect” is nowhere in the somatic domain of “world” in neither much less both uses of the word here. This is most significant in this case because the words are adjacent within the same context of the same verse. This rendering alone is just one example of the error which occurs when systematic theology is given presence over exegesis—esp. linguistic.
So whatever is/was meant by “lifting up” does not mean that Divine intent was or will be to draw ALL at the end and then condemn some. Certainly some will be condemned. But it is man who condemns himself by rejecting the divine offer of redemption.
The central question that determines where one “clocks in” in systematic theology is mutability. “Does man impact God in any way.” If you believe Scripture teaches man does you are functionally Arminian or Open Theist. If you believe Scripture does not teach man impacts God in any way you are Calvinist. Mutability is the linchpin.
I was Calvinistic for decades. Ultimately, for me, I grew weary of Calvinistic linguistic gymnastics that forced my mind into contortions such that "world" really means the "elect," that God “changing His mind” really does not mean that God “really” did not change His mind, that expressions of divine emotion (grief, surprise, joy, sadness, etc) do not ultimately mean what they say and are relegated to the trash bin of anthropomorphism without actually rendering a meaningful interpretation, that man is subjected to eternal torment before he is born without ever having a legitimate offer of grace to respond to, etc, etc.
Now if God is not impacted by man in any way…Preach this clearly from the pulpit and at the funeral home and at the hospital bed. While I know many Calvinists that espouse this fundamental tenet in the classroom, in debate, discussion, and books, I have never once heard the concept of immutability even remotely hinted in pragmatic ministry nor in any Pastoral Counseling text I have read. In fact the intent appears to be how can we “work around” the doctrine of immutability rather than implement the doctrine.
Relative to prayer, It appears difficult to tell Jesus that there is no need for us to pray that the Father’s will be done on earth as it is in Heaven because, “Hey Jesus. Didn’t you know that God’s will is already being done on earth as it is in heaven?” No need to pray.
Good discussion
I will try to repost responses in other threads along the way when I have time. However, they will be the standard Arminian and Moral Government responses encountered elsewhere. There is really nothing unique to Open Theism per se’ regarding your other points that haven’t been espoused ad nauseum in Calvinist-Arminian discussions over the centuries.
See you around the Board.
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/17/2004 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg said (first point)
The first thing that stuck out to me was your idea of Irrestible Grace and that you seemed to compare it to grace rape. No true Calvinist would hold to this view. We do not believe that God has dragged us into salvation kicking and screaming and forced His love upon us in such a way that we do not desire it. Over time God softens our hearts and gives us a heart of flesh and not of stone (Ez 38?) so that we are capable of choosing Him and not being forced. But when God gives us this heart of flesh, we have no other choice to love God because we have come in contact with the Holy. Who after starving in the desert for 40 days and then offered a plate of cow dung or a wheel barrow full of their favorite foods cooked to perfection would ever pick the dung? No one, that's just non-sense. And so it is with those whom God has laid His irrestible Grace upon. We see no other alternative but to love God. And the need for God to do this quickening for us, is because we are Totally Depraved and cannot love God on our own, Rom 8 clearly covers that.
John says
“Irresistible grace” was not my idea. The 4th tenet of Calvinism states that BECAUSE God has chosen the elect they WILL BE saved—not because they chose it, not because “God softened their heart over time,” not because we were starving and were given good food instead of dung. What is “just nonsense” is asserting that God declares unconditional election to the elect who cannot in any real sense resist and at the same time insist that “softening over time” is NECESSARY. If there IS in fact “no other alternative to loving God,” then all appearance of “softening,” contrast between dung vs. food, etc. is not only disingenuous but unnecessary—Unnecessary because, according to Calvin, “What God declares WILL HAPPEN. PERIOD. What you are submitting as an end (“choice”) is really only the divine means (charade of choice) to achieve the guaranteed end (salvation of the elect) according to Calvin. If grace is irresistible it is irresistible—How this irresistible grace operates is inconsequential.
So, is God’s grace irresistible or is it not? If so, I believe that (to refine my previous analogy) Calvinism (as stated by Calvin—TULIP) presents a God who from all eternity foreordains a maiden dying of thirst in the desert, foreordains her sin, foreordains her realization of depravity, and offers a “potion” of grace (that alters her mind), which she cannot reject—Not because she has been led to a genuine choice but because it IS irresistible. Then when she “submits” to that which was foreordained God embraces her for His good pleasure.
Now the parallel with “grace rape” as you have aptly called it is troublesome. Something is given that cannot be resisted that alters the mind (cp. LSD) and the recipient submits not out of choice but out of out of compulsion. So God doesn’t have to "drag us kicking and screaming." He just alters the minds of the elect to come willingly. However, either way they are coming. A drugged individual will “desire” anything you want them to.
There are two problems with trying to maintain the fasod of “choice” in the face of divine foreordination:
1) The idea that one “submits” to that which was “foreordained by God” renders both concepts unintelligible. Why “soften” that which has been “foreordained.” “Softening” is just the (arbitrary) means to accomplish that which is irresistible to begin with. Genuine submission was never the issue.
2) The most troubling issue, however, is why doesn’t God offer all the starving maidens in the desert the potion of grace? Is the contrast of my blessing with the damnation of those left to cook in the desert really necessary for me to appreciate the grace given to me? Is not the contrast of grace with my own experience in the desert enough to render testimony to the glory of God? Is there not more glory in offering grace to all vs. a select few? Furthermore, what compels me to stand and sing praise to the glory of God for withholding from others his wonderful potion of grace that was given to me? If God only does good things, where in Scripture am I told to rejoice over a soul burning in hell? After all if God is in meticulous control of all that is then we must praise God for that screaming infant burning in hell this moment because God withheld His grace for His own glory. We must praise God for that screaming maiden who was never genuinely offered His grace. Praise be to God? NO—GOD FORBID! That His grace could be so distorted as to require hell to be manifested. Make no mistake. Double predestination is the implication of Calvinism and was overtly proclaimed by Calvin’s two immediate successors in Geneva. That is your heritage.
As to your reference to Romans 8, agreed—Man cannot love God on his own. However, I submit that the mystery of Scripture is the “mystery of sin.” We are never told why we choose the dung in the face of such marvelous grace. THAT we go astray, THAT our hearts are wicked, THAT we are depraved is not the ultimate issue. “Total depravity” only begs the question further and is only a manmade construct to attempt to explain that which is counterintuitive (“choosing the dung”). However, I do concede that as far as manmade constructs go, “total depravity” (of sorts) is as good as the next manmade construct for understanding the ubiquity of sin—But that is a different discussion.
To God alone be the glory,
John
BTW, did I read elsewhere on the board that you are only a college sophomore? If so your theological acumen is pretty sharp at your stage of the game. If not your acumen is still pretty sharp.
Response to “third point” and “fourth point” to follow.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/18/2004 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | John: thank you for your excellant response (I have been silently following the exchange)> I think you point to a very real frustration for those of us who engage Calvinists: their unwillingness to look at the implications of their own doctrines, which is quite sad considering that people like Bruce Ware are so critical of open theists for the implications of our doctrines. | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/18/2004 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | people like Bruce Ware are so critical of open theists for the implications of our doctrines.
Good observation
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/18/2004 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | John, thank you for that post, it was a most thought provoking post. And I'm sorry I didn't get back to you on the last post a few days ago, but I've been busy, but such a post as your last one deserves a response, for they were very valid arguments. I pray that I can help to clear up some misgivings and perhaps shed some light on the idea of "Definite Redemption".
Pertaining to your first section on "Irrestible Grace" as the Calvinist specifies it; perhaps a better term to be given is "Definite Redemption" that Christ saved who He came to save. As you fully know, we believe in Monergism of salvation, in that it is solely God's work in justifying us. This is best seen in the example of Lazarus, when Christ calls him from the tomb John 11. In this story of Lazarus, it was Christ that commanded, not requested, invited, urged, but commanded Lazarus to come out of the grave. It is the same with us. For we take strongly the idea of the fact that we were dead in our sins and transgressions, Eph 2, that we were at enmity against God, and we couldn't submit to God's law, Rom 8, and that we were completly unable to save ourselves in any manner. For how can a dead man resist CPR?
I can see the argument arising that Lazarus had to respond to Jesus' call and come out of the tomb. But this does not destroy the argument in that the only way Lazarus responded was after he had been raised from the dead and life was flowing through his body. So it is with us, in that we cannot respond positivley to God unless His life is flowing through our blood; therefore regeneration preceds faith, for faith is the fruit of salvation.
My first question/problem to you is that if grace is not effectual, what makes it work? As R.C. Sproul is quoted saying, "Obviously it is the positive response of the sinner, who is still in the flesh. Why does one sinner respond to the offer of grace positively and the other negatively? Is the difference in response found in the power of the human will or in some added measure of grace? Does grace assist the sinner in cooperating with grace, or does the sinner cooperate by the power of the flesh alone? If latter, it is unvarnished Pelagianism. If the former, it is still Pelagianism in that grace merely facilitates regeneration and salvation." If the flesh can in some way by itself incline itself towards this grace, then where is the need of grace? What does grace have the flesh does not have? What is so "Amazing" about grace?
I think another quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith seems to fit in with this very subject, about God using irrestible grace to call in His elect. "All those whom God has predestined 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, they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."
About God foreordaining the maiden "who from all eternity foreordains a maiden dying of thirst in the desert", this is a subject I am not quite settled with. Some days I'm supra, other days I am Infra. But I do not believe that God ordained something against the human will. We wanted to fall, we wanted to sin, and God ordained that that would happen. I realize this may stir some problems of coherence into the picture, and I realize that it isn't 100% logical; but I'm not sure "free will" is the answer to this. For can one have "free will" without having evil? What I mean is did "free will" have any meaning before Adam and Eve fell? I don't think a true understanding of "free will" would have arisen until after they fell, when they realized that perhaps they did have power to the contrary, and yet by that time, they were already dead in their sins and transgressions. This also raises the question that if we did have "free will" where did the desire come to sin against God? Was it from Satan? Where did Satan and his desires come from? Was it from within ourselves? So something was created and had its being apart from God's willing it? Was it from God? For surely God gives man even his desires? There seem to still be problems surrounding all of these claims.
But after the fall, God does not ordain sin against the will of fallen man. For all we should want to do is to sin, nothing more Gen 6:5. God uses our fallen will, to bring about His good pleasure in the world. And I don't see why the idea of "irrestible grace" being bestowed on us is such a thing to frieghten away from. Under my presuppositions, I thank God that He offered me something I couldn't resist. It's not like He is tricking us into eternal life, or giving us some sort of LSD to alter our mind so He can do negative things to us; God is doing it for our good, Rom 8:28. And God has predestined us to a living inheritance "IN LOVE" Eph 1:5,6. I think that's what so many people lose sight of. They take this whole idea of election and make it so ambigious and cold-hearted, that they miss the point that God did it "In love".
I would like to tie in the idea of "grace rape" with the idea of "Divine Rape" as it has been called; aka, being raped into existence. We didn't have a choice in being born. Did we react to this out of coheresion, anger, hatred? Is it a bad thing? God can do whatever He pleases Eph 1:11, Dan 4. And if we don't have the choice to be born physically and yet this doesn't make a monster out of God, then why does it make a monster out of Him if He doesn't give us a choice to be Spiritually born?
Sorry if that was a bit incoherent and difficult, hit me up with what you need more clarification for.
Now regarding your two questions, which were excellent question, and I feel the most unworthy to respond tothem and have my words taken as the "Calvinistic" belief, so remember, this is what I believe is true, and what I believe Calvinism teaches, though i cannot speak for all.
1) The idea that one “submits” to that which was “foreordained by God” renders both concepts unintelligible. Why “soften” that which has been “foreordained.” “Softening” is just the (arbitrary) means to accomplish that which is irresistible to begin with. Genuine submission was never the issue.
I don't quite see why you call this paradox "unintelligible", and I fail to understand why you call it "arbitrary". Genuine submission is the issue, but the only way that we can genuinely submit to God is when He has given us the grace to do it, and we have the faith to accept it; which comes after regeneration. God delights in His saints submitting to Him by His own grace. Perhaps something I should have stated at the beginning is that all grace is not irrestible. I believe that saving grace is the irrestible grace. This is the grace that is given to the saved only. Common grace, as I understand it, can very well be resisted. We have examples of it every day. When God graces us with the sunshine, or the rain, or the grace not to committ a certain sin; these graces can be resisted, by our fleshly will that still lives inside of the believer. It is saving grace that is irrestible. God saves whom He wills, (Jn 17:2, Ex 33:19, Rom 9:18, Ps 65:4). And it is through being saved that "genuine" choice can be made, for our wills have once again been uplifted to a position where we can now choose between good and evil.
2) Great Question. Though I don't want to share much of my own personal opinions and let scripture speak for itself, I may have to throw in some stuff.
" 1 Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 2 Give thanks to the God of gods, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 4 To Him who alone does great wonders, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 5 To Him who made the heavens with skill, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 6 To Him who spread out the earth above the waters, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 7 To Him who made {the} great lights, For His lovingkindness is everlasting: 8 The sun to rule by day, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 9 The moon and stars to rule by night, For His lovingkindness is everlasting.
10 To Him who smote the Egyptians in their firstborn, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 11 And brought Israel out from their midst, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 12 With a strong hand and an outstretched arm, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 13 To Him who divided the Red Sea asunder, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 14 And made Israel pass through the midst of it, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 15 But He overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 16 To Him who led His people through the wilderness, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 17 To Him who smote great kings, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 18 And slew mighty kings, For His lovingkindness is everlasting: 19 Sihon, king of the Amorites, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 20 And Og, king of Bashan, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 21 And gave their land as a heritage, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 22 Even a heritage to Israel His servant, For His lovingkindness is everlasting.
23 Who remembered us in our low estate, For His lovingkindness is everlasting, 24 And has rescued us from our adversaries, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; 25 Who gives food to all flesh, For His lovingkindness is everlasting. 26 Give thanks to the God of heaven, For His lovingkindness is everlasting."
God's lovingkindness is even seen in killing the first born sons of Egypt, in smoting the Kings (with specific names), for killing Pharoah's army when they were in pursuit. In all of God's works, His lovingkindness IS seen, and despite the destruction of the wicked, we can still say "The Lord is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works" Ps 145:9.
Not only are we to praise the God of salvation and love, mercy, and grace; but we are also to praise the God of justice and wrath: for these are still two perfectly holy attributes of the Divine (Ps 50:6, Ps 119:37, Rev 19:2). Why do we praise a God who sends people to hell? 1) they sent themselves there with their corrupted wills. 2) Even if Christ should damn us all to hell with no chance of salvation, we would still owe Him our alligence, our praise, our lives, because He made us. We do not praise God solely because He does good things for us; we praise Him because He is God, and He does all things in accordance with His good pleasure, and none shall blame God as we see in Romans 9. God's grace does not REQUIRE hell, but God has chosen to glorify His grace all the more in contrast to hell, just as He endured with much longsuffering the objects of wrath prepared for destruction so that the glories of His riches may be known to His objects of mercy. Salvation is off God, grace is of God, love is of God, mercy is of God; and who are we to scream that we in some way deserve it?
We choose sin over life and peace, because God has not granted us the complete grace to always see the difference. We in our fallen nature, stubborn, prideful ways, can be eating dung and still believe that we are eating something that is good for us. I don't see a mystery there. We sin, because we fail to glorify God in all aspects, because we fail to see God's glory in everything. This is a result of sin that we brought upon ourselves in the fall.
I'll end with that, I hope it helped in some manner. Again, let me know what I can further develop or what problems you have. I might not respond right away, I have a busy week, but i'll try my best to get back to you when I have time. Thanks for the dialogue.
Blessings,
By Grace Alone,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 2/19/2004 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Borg: Choice to do what? Choose only what God has preordained us to do. Some choice. We sin because we are preordained to sin and we are saved because we are destined to be saved. I'd purchase a ticket on the train, but God has already given me a pass...
Don, however, I do like your menu! | | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:05 AM (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 |
|
|