Simple yes or no question...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that God double predestined. So what's your point? Are you preparing a complaint to drop in God's suggestion box?

 

If one is going to have a theology, might as well make sure that it is a consistent one.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Especially since it would be astraw man that Scott could then pound to his heart's content!

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that God double predestined. So what's your point? Are you preparing a complaint to drop in God's suggestion box? </font>[/QUOTE]What it means is that the sense of justice, fairness, righteousness, mercy, and love which He has given to us even as His redeemed children is faulty...

It is one thing to not understand what God is doing. It is another to have something it is claimed He did fly directly in the face of the very understanding we have been given of those qualities above.

God did create us finite, but He is not the author of confusion by creating us so that even as regenerate people we would have a sense of justice etc. diametrically different from His.

The Calvinist, single or double predestination form, is suppressing his or her own knowledge of justice and righteousness and mercy in order to accept a doctrine that denies the meanings of all three as we know them.

The predestination passages are what we are predestined FOR, not that we were predestined as persons incapable of responding freely to God yea or nay. If we could not choose to love God (whether or not we were capable of it, which is another point entirely), then we could not love Him at all. That is because love is a choice. That is why it was -- and could be -- commanded. You cannot command that which is either impossible or built in. At least not with any righteousness or justice!

 

And you're saying what you espouse is more consistent than Calvinism?

If your system of belief submits to the fact of God's foreknowledge of those who will be born, hear the gospel, and be saved then you end up with the same indictment that you make against Calvinism... that by choosing not to intervene and save someone or at least send them a witness, God indirectly chooses to send them to hell.

 

"We love him, because he first loved us." I John 4.19

The order we note here is not my choosing to Love God, but that He first chose to Love me;

It is interesting to note how we always try to bring all things to our level. It is because He loved us that He has revealed to us the truth of the Gospel by the Holy Spirit.

"I think, therefore, I am." Descartes said this, the only problem is God is not a humanist. What this idea of man choosing God is teaching is simply, God loves me because I love Him. This makes God a debtor to man. If God is a figment of our imagination, then we can make Him whatever our imagination is capable of; if however, as is true, God is real, is alive, then we must cast away our Humanistic tendencies and rest in God.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

[ October 30, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Yes, Dallas, but it is written that He so loved the WORLD, and I have noticed that the world does not love Him back!

So there is more to it than that, and it has nothing to do with Descartes.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that God double predestined. So what's your point? Are you preparing a complaint to drop in God's suggestion box? </font>[/QUOTE]What it means is that the sense of justice, fairness, righteousness, mercy, and love which He has given to us even as His redeemed children is faulty...

It is one thing to not understand what God is doing. It is another to have something it is claimed He did fly directly in the face of the very understanding we have been given of those qualities above. </font>[/QUOTE]The understanding we have been given? But it's obvious just from the debate here that we all have different understandings? Surely one or more of them is not what we were "given" but what we've assumed.

No. He's not the author of confusion. But you're forgetting two things. The enemy is a sower of confusion. And God does not reveal everything to us. In view of at least the latter, we often fill in the gaps with our imagination, and do so to our own peril. That's not God's fault.

Again, I don't speak for Calvinists, but I don't suppress anything. But I do trust that however God does things is the right way.

Let me share an unrelated example (unrelated in its nature, but not its conclusion). When I first became a Christian, I wondered why a great and loving God would create a system where you slaughter innocent animals on a daily basis. I really couldn't figure out how to justify that on the basis of the principles of the sacrificial system.

Then one day the answer dawned on me: He's God. All those animals are His to do with as He pleases. It doesn't have to make sense to me. Since when does God have to come to me for my opinion about how He should order things? Since then, I've learned the significance of the sacrificial system, but that was after I simply learned to accept it as something God can do whether I understand it or not.

That's the same answer I have for double predestination. Suppose it's true. So what? He's God. I'll start to worry about whether or not it's honorable when God comes and asks me my opinion on the matter. Until then, if that's what the Bible teaches, I'll accept that it is a good thing and I just don't understand why it's a good thing. (Again, I'm not sure it's even true, but I'm simply assuming it is true for the sake of argument.)

This is all according to your understanding of how love, righteousness and justice work. I suspect that we simply do not know what it is like to judge these things from His perspective. The book of Job exemplifies that. Think about what happened to Job and why. I believe that doesn't fit your description of love, justice and righteousness, yet that's what God did. And God had a scathing answer to Job as to why He had the right to allow satan to do those things. Do you recall what Job's response was?

 

Which I have said from day one. I am not the one arguing that 2+2=3 here. My position is consistent with Scripture. The only thing it contradicts is what you think God must do. I take his word for it. I am not in the position, as Helen is, to say that what God does is unfair or faulty. I trust that what he says is true and that it is consistent with his justice.

But I am arguing that you are trying to prove that 2+2=3. It is your math that is wrong, not mine.

The only problem is if you can prove that someone goes to hell who doesn't deserve it. So far, you haven't proven that. Aside from that, your equation is wrong.

But the problem here is yours. You have God respecting those who, for whatever reason, choose him while disrespecting those not smart enough, born in the wrong place or the wrong time, born into a bad family or an inner city, etc. It is your God who respects people, not mine. My view says that God chooses without respect to anything. Your view says that God chooses based on what is in man, namely faith. God therefore favors those "lucky enough" to be born in the right place. It is not my position that is unscriptural.

 

My understanding is that God would be just to allow all people to go hell based upon His righteous standard, but He did not. He showed mercy to His elect and Jesus suffered their just punishment and lived righteously for them.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ October 30, 2002, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Actually, God can because our inability is due to us sinning in the Garden of Eden. And our sinning in the Garden of Eden was not His fault, it was ours.

I am rather amazed how often Anti-Calvinists place themselves in the position of stating what God cannot do or what God must do, while at the same time exalting man by stating what man can do in his sinful nature. And I think that trait of theirs in very telling about their mindset.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Helen,

I liked your post because you emphasize the purity of the nature of the Godhead. We are concerned that He remains, as indeed He is, perfect love, justice, and mercy. He does not dip to the explanation of a Augustine or a Calvin. Let God be true and every man a liar. God never makes His choice on the basis of His partial love for some. John 3:16 is still true. His wish is that all would become saved.

 

Helen:
You are more than correct here. When it comes to scripture, they have to suppress totally their sense of justice. If what they called justice according to their theology; were implemented here on earth, you would hear them doing some serious squawking. They have gotten use to seeing themselves as the elite of God. (Blindness)

What would be totally, objectionable as justice here on earth, they ascribe to God. Some people will promote any theology as long as it places them a cut above. You know, God loves his elect: Which I am, but he does not love those other fellas. We are chosen. sounds like the Pharisees and Sadducees to me.

Some harsh realities…..
A quote from C.H. Spurgeon.
"I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done”!

Compare this to what the scriptures say. Calvinism is definitely the product of a certain mentality.

Luke 18:10-14
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

I guess Spurgeon didn't agree with total depravity, then? If he was thankful that he didn't do as those he considered worse had done, then he wasn't totally depraved?

That's a really interesting quote, though. Sad, but interesting. I think one of the things it shows so clearly is that we should not identify ourselves via other people, but only as followers of Christ. I'm thinking one could be embarrassed the other way...

edit: P.S. Ray -- please check your PM's

[ October 30, 2002, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

There is more to it than that, the world cannot love God, until they receive the regenerating power of God through the Holy Spirit. This has everything to do with Descartes, because his statement is the summarization of the free-will position. The sinner says, I think I am saved, therefore, I am saved. In truth, the Holy Spirit visits upon the sinner, acts upon that will, which is completely depraved and unable to choose in any semblance to love or obey God; once the Holy Spirit acts upon this will, faith is imparted.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

Notice the assertion that God prevented him from acting 'as they have done.' Not Spurgeon himself prevented this, but God alone.

The truth of the matter is as I believe has already been stated, God would have been justified in forsaking all mankind, He chose not to. If you read enough of Spurgeon you will find the same thought and idea concerning himself in those writings, it definitely is not a good thing to follow certain men, but I remember Paul admonishing a certain people to be followers of him as he was of Christ, thus Spurgeon is much safer a one to follow than many who are massing great followings in our day.

If we follow Christ, we certainly must see that all, even the election is performed in Christ, why is this hard to see? Because it leaves out my own works, it takes not into consideration for my feelings, so I must seek to establish my importance, (what, self-gratification, self-righteousness, self glory) the authority of man over the Will of God can nowhere claim to be glorifying to the Creator. The god who caters to man is not God, He has determined to fulfill His own pleasure, His own will and purposes; all these and more are fulfilled in Christ.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

 

Notice the assertion that God prevented him from acting 'as they have done.' Not Spurgeon himself prevented this, but God alone.

The truth of the matter is as I believe has already been stated, God would have been justified in forsaking all mankind, He chose not to. If you read enough of Spurgeon you will find the same thought and idea concerning himself in those writings, it definitely is not a good thing to follow certain men, but I remember Paul admonishing a certain people to be followers of him as he was of Christ, thus Spurgeon is much safer a one to follow than many who are massing great followings in our day.

If we follow Christ, we certainly must see that all, even the election is performed in Christ, why is this hard to see? Because it leaves out my own works, it takes not into consideration for my feelings, so I must seek to establish my importance, (what, self-gratification, self-righteousness, self glory) the authority of man over the Will of God can nowhere claim to be glorifying to the Creator. The god who caters to man is not God, He has determined to fulfill His own pleasure, His own will and purposes; all these and more are fulfilled in Christ.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas</font>[/QUOTE]Bro Dallas:
I have detected a certain attitude that appears to adhere to Calvinism. Yet is is denied by Calvinist as if it did not exist. Yet it is there. If this attitude sit's well with their spirit, so it is; but why such strong denial.

More C.H. Spurgeon: I have been researching Spurgeon to see if I can find reason to elevate them as they are elevated by calvinist. John Calvin I perceive to be a good and sincere preacher, yet a terrible human being. I just finished. Well, rather shall i say that he came by his calim of total depravity honestly. But in the final and an honest anslysis, i find him to be a man just like the rest of us. No more to be revered or quoted than any other man.

Note the fierceness of Mr Spurgeon here, Is he to be considered any more a man of God than, say Rev. G.

C.H. Spurgeon:
No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it "a licentious doctrine" did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven. If they knew the grace of God in truth, they would soon see that there was no preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are elect of God from the foundation of the world. There is nothing like a belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my Father's affection, which can keep me near to Him from a motive of simple gratitude. Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have an erroneous belief without by-and-by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other..

I can just see Mr. Spurgeon piously looking over a set of bifocals. I can see why calvinist are so merciless in defence of their theology. They had excellant teachers.

I spent the last hour reading letters that Calvin wrote to those that disagreed with him. He pratically set himself up as a prophet along the lines of Jerimiah, Isiah, David, and all the other great phrophers of the bible. He was great at vile name calling. He makes me look like a pauper when it comes to rudeness.

 

Have ya'll read the harsh things that the apostles Paul and Peter wrote about those who teach false doctrines? The man exalting doctrines of the Anti-Calvinists must be shown to be what they are, and the God glorifying doctrines of grace must be defended. Confrontation of the doctrinal errors of the Anti-Calvinists is inevitable for those who want to defend Biblical truth. Here are links to a couple of articles some of you might find interesting on civility and confrontation in debating theology.

www.razormouth.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=4&id=1027494400

www.razormouth.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=4&id=1027927042

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ October 31, 2002, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Actually, Helen, Spurgeon believe the Biblical doctrine of total depravity. Please read again what he said.

Also, I continue to see the typical Anti-Calvinist ploy of attacking the character of Biblical teachers like Spurgeon and Calvin since the Anti-Calvinists cannot refute the Biblical doctrines of grace that they proclaimed.

Ken
A Spurgeonite