Featured Calvinism and the Love of God

I had to shorten your post because mine and yours was too long, sorry about that


Look, you can beat Calvinism down all you like, and you still can't explain it away. Why? There are so many scriptures that "God is love"....and yes, that is true, but that's NOT His only attribute. More on that later on in this post. Look at these verses for instance:

Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so.

Exodus 14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.


Here are three verses that plainly state that God will harden Pharoah's heart, with the Egyptian en toto once. So we can see that God does harden hearts.

Concerning Pharaoh:

Exodus 9:14-17
14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.

15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.

16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

17 As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?


God raise Pharaoh up so that He could show what He could really do, and that no one can override His will.


Now, let's look at Joseph for a moment. Look at what happened to him. He was sold into slavery, to the Egyptians. Later on, after refusing to lay with Potipher's wife, he ended up in prison for 2-3 years. At the end of it all, he ended up right under the pharaoh. After he brought his family to Egypt to live through the famine, he stated that man did it for evil, but God did it for good. He realized that the perils he went through had a "greater good" to them.


Now, let us look at Jesus. God predestined/foreordained/predetermined, to send His Son to die for sinful man. He left the glories of heaven to take our infirmities upon Himself, and then let wicked, sinful men throttle and then slaughter Him. Is that not love right there? Yes. But, for whatever reason, no one sees the wickedness in that. Why? Because they/we reap the benefits of Jesus' throttling and subsequent slaughter. But they think it's cruel if God bypasses wicked people, but it's okay for Him, to not just allow it, but determine it, that Jesus would make Himself of no reputation, and take upon Himself the form of a servant, and die in our stead. It's okay for God to be please to bruise His Son, who never did anything amiss, who never sinned, who only healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on the water, made the deaf to hear, those who were paralyzed to walk, etc. It's okay for God to predetermine Him to die, but for a wicked sinner to be passed over, well that's just cruel right there. That was love, and everyone sees the love in that. Would you think it okay for a man to allow his son to go through what Jesus did to save people? Nope. But it's okay for God to, in essence, send His Son to the "slaughter house" and die for us.

What about when God chose Abram? He said through his seed(Jesus Christ), the nations would be blessed. What about the other nationalities at that time? Were they left out, when God chose Abram? How about the Philistines? Were they left out in the cold during the time when David, Samuel, et al were on the scene? God chose the Jews, and left everyone else out. Sure, they were a smattering of gentiles "let in", such as Rahab and Ruth, and probably others, but a VAST MAJORITY weren't in a covenant with God during the OT times. But no one wants to discuss that.

Now, God is also God of vengenance, wrath, mercy, anger, and also love. God's wrath is upon the children of disobedience. Why not harp on that a while.


Look, I am not in the Calvinist camp yet, and I may never be, but let's not harp on only one of God's attributes, okay? I am presenting you the other side of the debate, so that you can see that Calvinism can't be explained away.

 

My previous post shot holes all through the OP. Look at a "hypothetical" Cal/Non-Cal discussion:

Cal: God had Joseph sold into slavery and had him in prison for at least two years.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. Here merely allowed it to happen.

Cal: God hardened Pharaoh's hearton at least, three different occasions and said he had raised him up to show His power in him.

Non-Cal: God is a God of love and He wouldn't do that. Pharoah hardened his own heart through not listening to Moses(which is true in that Pharoah did harden his own heart, as well).

Cal: God sent an evil spirit to Saul.

Non-Cal: But God is a God of love. He wouldn't do that. That means something different than that.

Cal: God predetermined to send Jesus to die for us.

Non-Cal: As I said, God is God of love, and He showed it right there.


You are trying to say God is unjust to not call a wicked sinner, and yet, it was okay for Him to send His Son to a "slaughtering house". We know that is love because we know that God intended it for good. You can't have it both ways, and say that God passing over a wicked sinner is evil, and at the same time, say it's okay for Him to send Jesus to be slaughtered.

 

And the light shows through...:godisgood:

 

...and God sent Satan to wipe out Jobs family, health, wealth.

...and God set up the situation to have Absalom killed.

...and God set up the situation to have His Son slain.

 

This kibbitz is perhaps out of place: How do we explain that many souls have gone into eternity apparently never having heard the gospel?

Further: What of those who have followed a false gospel?

God has always had a remnant in every generation.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

What I am driving at is this. Where was the bona fide offer to all other inhabitants of the world when God chose Abram and his descendents? Where was God's bona fide offer to the Philistines, Edomites, and Babylonians as they were at war with Israel? Look, I am coming from the Non-Cal camp as one who doesn't have the answer(s)but I know THE One who does, and I am seeking His knowledge to understand, and His wisdom to rightly divide it.

I read where Jesus died for the ungodly, and also the church. I read where God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, but many more die lost then saved. I read where God has dealt to man the measure of faith, and also not all men have faith. Things like this are what I am trying to get to the core meaning.

 

What I was pointing out is that by stressing one of God's attributes, love, you are neglecting the others, as well. I am not saying you think He doesn't punish sin. God is not obligated to man no more than what He has bound Himself to, via His Word. We, as sinners, were worthy or death, but He had mercy upon us. He didn't have to beforehand(before He created the world, and us, I mean), but since He has bound Himself to His Word(because He is Truth), He will save all that come to Him in faith believing.

Okay, so that was a misquote, sorry about that. However, God knew beforehand what was going to happen. He used Joseph to preserve the Abrahamic lineage, by placing them in Egypt to have food while the drought took place.

A mischaracterization of the Calvinst camp. You are thinking through a man's perspective, and our thoughts/ways, are not His ways. Again, He doesn't desire to see any lost, yet many more will die lost than saved.

Yet, He hardened Pharaoh's heart at least three times according to Exodus 9.

Mischaracterization of the Calvinist camp.

This whole ball of wax started after the Jews wanted to be like other nations and have a king over them, and not Samuel. God told Samuel they hadn't rejected him(Samuel), but Me. Subsequently, he gave them Saul. Why not give them David to begin with?

Blatant mischaracterization of the Cal camp.

Nope.

Blatant mischaracterization of the Calvinist camp. Isaiah 53:10 states, "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him". To what context I do not know. Unless it was referring to those who would be saved via His sacrifice, and the joy of them being saved.

Never stated you believed this.

First off, God isn't the Author of sin, since He doesn't even have the capacity to sin. All I know is that God created Satan, and he rebelled. He knew he would rebel, and He made him anyways. He knew Adam and Eve would too, and He went ahead with His plan. We know that God sent the only Remedy for sin, Jesus Christ to atone for sin. And that whosever believes in Him, shall never perish, but have everlasting life. This much I know. I am searching out the "fine details" via prayer and study.

 

The non-cal claim that the cals always distort, twist, ignore, redefine, ...

It does seem that there is plenty of that claim to slather all over the toast of the non-cal argument.

God hardening isn't really God hardening.

God blinding isn't really God blinding.

God faith isn't really God faith.

and the list could go on.

Abraham wasn't chosen of God - Abraham chose God.

Joseph wasn't chosen of God - Joseph chose God.

Joshua wasn't chosen of God - Joshua chose God.

David wasn't chosen of God - David chose God.

And the list could go on.

David wasn't specifically made in his mother's womb - it was all chance and choice.

John the Baptizer didn't respond in the womb at the presence of Mary - it was all chance and choice.

Jesus didn't personally select the twelve - it must have been by chance and opportunity for two were to betray Him.

Saul wasn't personally struck down on the road to Damascus that only he understood what was spoken - it was all chance and choice.

John was the only one of them that died of old age - that was all chance and choice.

and the list could go on.

The point being, that all schemes have certain weakness and discomforting areas.


Not one scheme taught be either Joseph Arminian, John Calvin or any other scholar of the present or past has total claim on complete unbiased truth.

Even in the modern time you have personal history that sets the scene of the viewpoint.

The OP doesn't present anything that hasn't been refuted and soundly by folks with a different view.

That the author refuses to admit to that refutation is because it would mean being obliged to move to a different area to see the view differently.

 

Good luck with that Willis...we are all searching & you know what Fletcher, you are on the right path...instead of all this Calvinist / non Calvinist BS that is devisive, you are now thinking with an open mind & an open Bible. Praise God for that. :thumbs:

 

The thing I am getting at is that there are things we read that kinda make us cringe, because none of can really grasp it, because a mortal being can not fully grasp THE Eternal sovereign God. I admit that I am ignorant of a lot of biblical passages, but I go to the One who has all the answers.

 

I have always been open to teaching. My recent endeavour has proven that. But, one can't discuss scriptures with those whose mind is closed/settled, and NOT willing to at least search the opposing view at least some.

 

We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved, to contend for the faith, to hear the conclusion of the WHOLE matter, etc. God won't impart His wisdom if you set the bible on top of your head, or leave it laying somewhere. We have to dig in His Word. This is part of man's responsibilty in their salvation. He didn't save us, just to have us ignore His Word, but rather, grow via studying it out.

 

I have the feeling I am wearing "milkbone underwear" and thronged by a bunch of rabid dogs....:smilewinkgrin:

 

This from the man who wrote:

That's Hilarious!!!:laugh: When you wrote that, you voluntarily relenquished your credibility in calling out other straw-man arguments...even valid ones.

 

You're so wearisome.

You're so 'loving'.

You're so hypocritical.

You're such a legend in your own mind. The 'Calvinist slayer' of all 'Calvinist slayers'

You're such a whiner and a pot calling the kettle black.

You're so totally lacking for any concern for first impressions of visitors to this site.

You're such a victim. So persecuted, it's just awful.